Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.10.22
15:17:15 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – Ex Parte Complaint filed with Supervising Judge
GERALD ROSENBERG regarding fraud by the court, including, but not limited to
denial of access to court file records.
07-10-10 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: Harassment and Hostile Environment at the Court,
including, but not limited to events of August 31, 2007 at the Court of Judge
GERALD ROSENBERG

In August 2007, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR and others were in the midst of perpetrating what was later
opined by Fraud Expert, FBI-veteran, who was decorated by US Congress, US Attorney General, and FBI
Director as “fraud being committed”.

Inherent to the fraud was conduct of litigation while denying Defendant notice and service of minutes, orders,
and judgments, and denial of access to both paper and electronic court file records.

On August 31, 2007 Defendant therefore appeared ex parte before Supervising Judge GERALD
ROSENBERG in Complaint pertaining to conduct of the Court, including, but not limited to the denial of
access to court file records.

The October 10, 2007 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: Harassment and Hostile Environment at the Court
described the conduct of the August 31, 2007 ex parte proceeding at the court of Supervising Judge GERALD
ROSENBERG, which followed the filing of the complaint. The Declaration was part of a complaint filed
against GERALD ROSENBERG to then Presiding Judge J STEPHEN CZULEGER.

STEPHEN CZULEGER forwarded the complaint to Assistant Supervising Judge CHARLES MCCOY, who
in turn forwarded it to Supervising Judge GERALD ROSERNBERG, who in turn found it “without a shred of
credible evidence”.

In parts, which are pertinent to the conduct of the August 31, 2007 appearance at the Court of Judge
ROSENBERG, the October 10, 2007 Declaration states:
41. …A bit later the supervising judge came in and Ruth presented to him the envelope. He opened it and started
reading, and he was visibly upset. The main issue was access to Court File.
42. He angrily said to me he will show me that it was easily accessible. He called a few places, but seemed to have
no luck. After that he said to me: “now I will show you hands on management” still in an angry tone. And he left
the Courtroom, apparently searching for the file. Eventually, he came back, with only 3 out of 6 volumes. He
was visibly even angrier than before when he came back.
43. He tossed the volumes on the table in the well in front of bench, and told me to mark the pages I wanted to
copy, then the Clerk’s room will arrange the copying. I told him that I wanted to copy it all. He said fine. Then
said that my understanding is that the copies will not be done on the spot, and I wanted to be able to compare
the original and the copies at the time I pick up the copies.
44. He got even more upset with me. He said something to the effect that I was implying that they were going to
cheat. I said that it was standard procedure, if later I had to declare that this was a full and complete copy. He
then agreed, but was visibly very upset. Then before he was going to leave the room, he tossed at me my
complaint and said that now, that he got me the court file, I could take my complaint back.
45. I refused to take it. I said that it was the copy that I filed with the court. And he said something like: are you trying
to tell me that there is more there than just getting you to copy the file. And I said: yes, there are a number of
issues. He then got more and more upset, and said I had to take it back, and I repeated my position.
46. Immediately, the two armed guards in the courtroom approached me, and tried to force me to take the
complaint back. I was fearful. I did not know these two particular guards. I also did not even notice them as
z Page 2/2 October 22, 2010

individuals, it was just persons trying to force me to do something against my will. I was not going to yield. But I
immediately raised my hand to my head. I was very fearful that somehow they will fake an incidence of violence
on my part and shoot me. I slowly retreated from the courtroom, with my hands all the time still up to my head.
47. I was walking to the Clerk’s Office to ask them to copy the file. I was still with my hands up on my head. And the
two sheriffs were still around me all the time, trying to plant the complaint on my body, but I was no longer afraid,
since there were people around us.
48. At the clerk’s office (Room 102) they left that brown envelope on the counter, next to me, and left the room. I
finished my business, and then left that room as well. I left the brown envelope behind me. Within seconds,
Darlene was running behind me, asking me to take the envelope. I told her that it was not mine, that it belonged
to Dept A.

Attached:

1. 07-08-31 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – Ex Parte Complaint filed with Supervising Judge GERALD
ROSENBERG regarding fraud by the court, including, but not limited to denial of access to court file
records.
2. 07-10-10 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: Harassment and Hostile Environment at the Court,
including, but not limited to events of August 31, 2007 at the Court of Judge GERALD
ROSENBERG
1. August 31, 2007 Ex Parte Complaint filed at the court
of Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg.
 1 Joseph Zernik
In Pro Per
2 320 S. Peck Avenue
Beverly Hills, California 90212
3 310-435-9107
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, ) Case No. SC087400
) Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable
12 Plaintiff, )
) Jacqueline Connor
13 v. )
)
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES ) DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK’S COMPLAINT
1 through 20, inclusive, ) TO SUPERVISING JUDGE.
15 )
)
16 Defendants. )
_____________________________________ )
17 )
JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, DATE: AUGUST 31, 2007
)
18 ) TIME: 11:30 A.M.
Cross-Complainant, PLACE: DEPARTMENT WE-A
)
19 ) SUPERVISING JUDGE FOR SANTA
v.
) MONICA COURT
20 )
COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
)
21 BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW, an )
individual, )
22 )
Cross-Defendants. )
23 )
)
24 _____________________________________ )
25
26
27
I JOSEPH ZERNIK, HEREBY DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:
28

Notice of Errata
Case No. SC087400

-1-
 1 1) I was advised yesterday by Court information desk to file complaint with the Supervising
2 Judge. His Clerk demanded a written complaint. This is my best effort at such under duress.
3 2) In Samaan v Zernik, certain occurrences repeatedly violated Defendant’s right for due
4 process.
5
UNDERLYING THE CIVIL CASE IS SUBSTANTIAL FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY
6
7 3) Zernik holds that Plaintiff’s case reflected following:

8 - Fraudulent Inducement – to induce Zernik to enter real estate contract.

9
- Fraud and Deceit against Zernik – Samaan never filed valid loan applications ,
10 whereas the contract required that she work “diligently and in good faith to obtain
11
delegated loans”, but that was concealed from Zernik
12
- Fraud and Deceit - against Zernik – Samaan never disclosed to Zernik that her loan
13
application was suspended starting October 14, 2004, and until after the cancellation
14
of escrow. She or her agents reported the opposite
15
16 - Bank Fraud – in cooperation with Countrywide Branch Manager, facilitated by her

17 husband JR Lloyd, and his cousin Victor Parks, they attempted to issue mortgage

18 loans based on entirely fraudulent Uniform Loan Applications (1003).

19 - Wire Fraud – Against Zernik and against Financial Institution – Countrywide-

20 Samaan routinely operated during the transaction an anonymous fax machine, from
21 which she communicated with Zernik and Countrywide, impersonating Loan Broker
22 Parks.
23
- Fraudulent Claims – in November 2006, Samaan’s counsel first came up with a
24
fiction, which had no trace of valid documentation from the period of the transaction
25
in 2004, that some missing initials of Zernik prevented Samaan from obtaining her
26
loans.
27
- Statute of Frauds - Samaan failed to produce during the whole litigation the contract of
28

Notice of Errata
-1- Case No. SC087400

-2-
 1 the subject transaction. Finally, she entered an offending document in Reply to Opposition to

2 Summary Judgment. Zernik objected to this document, but was apparently overruled – no

3 clear evidentiary rulings were issued.

4 THE LITIGATION WAS PLAGUED BY ERRORS IN ADJUDICATION AND BY

5 ILLLICIT INVOLVEMENT OF COUNTRYWIDE.
6
4. The case shows a series of ERRORS IN ADJUDICATION, unilateral in nature, which
7
had fatal effect on the defense.
8
9 5. This case shows involvement of NON PARTY: COUNTRYWIDE, which I deem in

10 violation of my rights for due process. Such unusual intervention was allowed by Judge

11 Connor, but the file records were made murky, to a degree covering up the extent of such

12 intervention.

13 6. Such violations included an Ex Parte Application by Countrywide against me for a

14 Protective Order, presumably as part of Discovery Motions, at a time that Discovery
15 Motions were no longer allowed. Countrywide was listed in court document on that day
16 as “Plaintiff”, albeit it came to protest that I claim that Countrywide was in collusion
17 with Plaintiff’s fraud against me. That hearing procedure was fraught with gross
18 violations of due process. One example: Judge Connor returned moving papers to
19 Countrywide for re-writing, but “forgot” to set at time for Countrywide to re-file
20 Moving paper for a continuation hearing. At the same time date was set for Opposition
21 papers. I was left with a few hours late at night to write Opposition Papers, since
22 Countrywide “served” me the moving papers by email, arriving around 9pm the night
23 before my deadline.
24 7. I therefore served Judge Connor with Motion pursuant to CCF170.3.
25
8. Judge Connor instantaneously ruled from the bench that it was in effect CCP170.6, and
26
therefore untimely.
27
28 ///

Notice of Errata
-2- Case No. SC087400

-3-
 1 THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC POLICY INTEREST IN THE
2 MISMANAGEMENT OF THIS CASE
3 9. The case is already followed by some major media outlets, since it may be an
4 unrecognized, but critical aspect of the currently unfolding Sub-Prime crisis. Zernik
5 believes that he is a mere collateral casualty. The problem is that his case may reveal
6 documents and issues that Countrywide is determined to suppress. But the ability of
7 Countrywide to manipulate the court system to such a degree is not known by the public
8 at large, and is indeed difficult to comprehend.
9
MY FILLING FOR OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE
10
OFFENDING FILINGS THAT WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY ME, BUT
11
APPROVED BY JUDGE CONNOR
12
13 10. Defense also suffered from a series of unusual events that amounted to at least 3

14 attorneys deceiving me and attempting to assist Samaan instead. Two of them,

15 Cummings and Schorr did so specifically relative to eliminating any mention of the

16 frauds listed above from any court filings.

17 11. A couple of months prior to Summary Judgment Hearings I decided to increase security
18 measures, since I believed my papers were going to be tampered with.
19 12. Indeed, Opposition papers approved by me with my hand signature and my digital
20 signature were not filed in court.
21
13. Instead, the office of Att Schorr filed other documents bearing none of my digital
22
signatures, and bearing hand signatures that were not supplied by me.
23
24 14. I was working to monitor security and investigate such potential tampering on a regular

25 basis. However, from March to early August, I was prevented access to the file, even

26 when Judge Segal ordered it a few days prior to Summary Judgment.

27 15. I was finally allowed to see parts of the file including my Opposition papers, and I
28 immediately submitted to Andrea Segal, Court Research Attorney a verified statement

Notice of Errata
-3- Case No. SC087400

-4-
 1 that such filings were offending filings, and not my own.
2 16. I also went ex parte to ask for continuation of hearing date in Summary Judgment and for
3 elimination of these offending papers. Such were denied by Judge Connor.
4
17. On the hearing date I again objected to such offending papers, since the signatures were
5
not my own. I also had in my possession, which I explained to the court, a verified
6
statement by Att Schorr, in effect admitting my claims.
7
8 18. I also plan of filing a police complaint regarding this event this weekend.

9 19. Judge Connor from the bench ruled that the signatures were my own and the filings
10 were my own, and proceeded with the hearings.
11
20. Absurdly, as part of the fraud, I showed in that hearing that the Prequalilification Letter
12
provided by Samaan had a signature that was represented to me as that of Parks, but had
13
no similarity to Parks’ signature in Court Declarations. Judge Connor dismissed such
14
claims as “Red Herring”, saying that such determination could not be made without an
15 expert witness.
16
21. On August 30, 2007, I submitted the enclosed filing for Status Conference.
17
18 22. In it, as a layperson, I speculate that Judge Connor effectively violated CCP 128.7,

19 deliberately and knowingly.

20 ENTERY OF JUDGMENT IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS MANIPULATIVE OR

21 WORSE.
22
23. Most recently, Judge Connor appeared to delay on Entering of Judgment in this case.
23
Apparently plaintiff was not privy to her plans, and filed for an Ex Parte Hearing to Enter
24
Judgment on August 14, 2007. In that hearing, Judge Connor, as reported to me
25
continued the hearing on such motion to August 21, 2007.
26
24. On August 21, 2007, as reported to me, she informed the counsels that she was going to
27
enter Judgment on the very same day.
28

Notice of Errata
-4- Case No. SC087400

-5-
 1 25. In Status Conference on August 30, 2007, Judge Connor informed me that Judgment was
2 entered on August 9, 2007.
3 26. The effect of such manipulation needs no further explanation.
4
27. In parallel Judge Connor scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, 2007, hearing on order to
5
execute judgment.
6
7 I AM DENIED SUFFICIENT ACCESS TO THE FILE

8 28. I am also prevented access to the file, on a routine basis.

9
I AM ALSO DENIED ACCESS TO TRANSCRIPTS
10
29. I am also denied transcript of the Hearing of Summary Judgment on August 9, 2007. At
11
the end of that hearing I offered the reporter to pay immediately. She refused. I ordered
12
the transcripts anyway. I paid later but to date never received such transcripts.
13
14 30. I am informed by Att Hoffman that Court Reporter Kelly Call recorded the hearing on

15 August 21, 2007. I ordered and paid for such, but never got the transcript.

16 31. I must obtain also transcript of Status Conference Hearing on August 30, 2007, taken by
17 Kelly Call. I left messages, but never got a response so far
18
26. In all cases I repeatedly requested that I also get a digital copy on diskette or CD.
19
I AM EFFECTIVELY DENIED ACCESS TO MINUTE ORDERS WITH DEVASTATING
20
EFFECT.
21
22 27. From March to early August, I was effectively denied access to Minute Orders.

23 28. After one time in early August, I again was denied access.
24
29. Study of the Minute Order of August 21, 2007, reveals the devastating effect of such.
25
28. I was told that I was waiving notice every time I appear in court in response to an explicit
26
question by the judge. I never did so The judge never asked me to waive notice either.
27
28 29. In filing on August 30, 2007, I explicitly informed the court in writing that I did not

Notice of Errata
-5- Case No. SC087400

-6-
 1 waive notice.
2 30. Yet again, I am deprived access to the Minute Order of August 30, 2007, under the claim
3 that I waived notice.
4
COURT ONLINE RECORDS ARE NOT THE DEFINITIVE RECORDS, BUT BOTH
5
ONLINE RECORDS AND THE RECODS IN DEPARTMENT I ARE FRUAGHT
6
WITH DEVASTATING ERRORS.
7
8 31. My request in status conference to address such was simply ignored. The devastating

9 effect can be studies in:

10 a. Judge Connor ruling on motion to extend Discovery Cut Off Date to match Trial
11 Date.
12
b. Judge Connor Ruling on August 30, 2007, on date of entry of judgment.
13
JUDGE CONNOR, FOR THE SECOND TIME IN A ROW, IS APPOINTING A
14
REFEREE UNDER TERMS THAT CALL FOR ABUSE.
15
16 32. The appointment of Discovery Referee led to abuse described in my filing for Status

17 Conference of August 30, 2007.

18 33. Judge Connor yesterday again refused to set basic due process for the work of this
19 critical function, with no reasonable explanation at all.
20
I SUBMITTED TODAY 5 NOTICES OF EX PARTE HEARINGS FOR TUESDAY,
21
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007.
22
23 34. Such notices are;

24 1) to stay and set bond

25
2) to stop erroneous WAIVE NOTICE of Minute Orders
26
3) to reconsider Judge Connor RETROACTIVE dating of entry of judgment
27
28 4) to correct online records of the case

Notice of Errata
-6- Case No. SC087400

-7-
 1 5) to reconsider Judge Connor setting of rules, or lack thereof, for Referee.
2 ///
3
///
4
5 35. I AM A LAY PERSON. I DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF THE ABOVE MAY BE

6 ADDRESSED BY SUPERVISING JUDGE. I REQUEST THAT THE SUPERVISING

7 JUDGE DO WHATEVER IS WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY TO PERESERVE

8 WHATEVER REMAINED OF MY RIGHT FOR DUE PROCESS.

9 I DECLARE UNDER PENATLTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE

10 OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
11 EXECUTED ON: August 31, 2007, in Beverly Hills, California,
12
13
14 ___________________________
15 Joseph Zernik, In Pro Per
16
17
18 By: ______________________________________
19 Joseph Zernik, In Pro Per
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Notice of Errata
-7- Case No. SC087400

-8-
2. October 10, 2007 Declaration of Joseph Zernik re:
Harassment and Hostile Environment at the Court
 1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK
2 HARASSMENT AND HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IN COURT
3 I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows.
4 1. I am the defendant in Samaan v. Zernik, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.
5 SC087400. As such, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein which I know
6 to be true and correct and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify
7 with respect thereto. This declaration is submitted in connection with my reply for
8 Defendant’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.
9 2. Beyond the abuse of my civil rights through denial of Due Process, this litigation was
10 very challenging and stressful.
11 3. At one level, such stress stemmed from the concern that possibly my counsels or I were
12 not representing my position properly. For example: Samaan’s conduct in this case,
13 involved blatant fraud, which manifested itself in multiple appearances. I counted 6
14 different manifestations in the hearing of Motion for Summary Judgment, from
15 Fraudulent Inducement to Bank Fraud, Wire Fraud, and Statute of Frauds. The core of it
16 wax excised from my papers.
17 4. But regardless how much we would elaborate on it, Judge Connor seemed not to notice it.
18 Finally, when she noticed it, it was deemed “red herring”. An argument circular logic
19 and dubious validity – I consider such argument in and of itself a diversion tactic. It took
20 time before I realized that it did not matter what the facts were, what the law was, it was
21 going to be ruled against me. And it took some more time before Judge Connor realized
22 that I figured it out. After that, it got to a different level of abuse.
23 5. At that level, the underlying message was: I know that you know that I am corrupt, but
24 I can get away with it. And indeed she can!
25 6. Possibly the best example for that was the following passage from the hearing on
26 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment:
27 20… MR. ZERNIK, DO YOU WA}IT TO BE HEARD? ::
21 MR. ZERNIK: FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO ASK YOUR
28
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse.
-1-

- 74 -
 1 22 HONOR IF YOU CAN CLARIFY WHAT IS THE REASON THAT
23 ATTORNEY FOR COUNTRYWIDE IS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM
2 24 RIGHT NOW?
25 THE COURT: SHE WANTS TO BE HERE. *
3 26 MR. ZERNIK: SO SHE HAS FULL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE
27 IN THESE PROCEEDINGS?
4 28 THE COURT: YOU HAVE A PROBLEM? *
1 MR. ZERNIK: YES. I HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE I
5 2 BELIEVE SHE’S NOT A PARTY.
3 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, I HAVE TWO TENTATIVES.
4 WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS ANY OBJECTION? WHICH ONE DO
6 5 YOU WANT TO START ON?
7 7. It was a strange and very distressing feeling – dealing with a Judge who had the authority

8 to determine critical issues regarding my life, and did not even made an attempt to appear

9 as conducting the courtroom in compliance with the law.

10 8. Another blatant example from the same hearing is the following:

10 [THE COURT] I HAVE A SEPARATE STATEMENT THAT’S FILED
11 11 JULY 26TH. IT’S SIGNED BY YOU. THE SIGNATURES APPEAR
12 TO BE THE SAME SIGNATURES.
12 13 MR ZERNIK: IT’S NOT MY SIGNATURES.
14 THE COURT: I HAVE A STATEMENT. YOU ARE NOT GOING
13 15 TO HAVE THIS CONTINUED. THE MATTER IS NOT CONTINUED.
16 WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER OBJECTIONS?
14 17 MR. ZERNIK: BROUGHT [it-jz] UP IN THE EX PARTE I WAS WITH
18 OTHER COUNSEL AND I WAS DILIGENTLY LOOKING FOR COUNSEL.
15 19 I ALSO HAD A LETTER FROM COUNSEL, BUT
20 COUNSEL AGAIN REFUSED TO ACCEPT UNLESS
16 21 THERE WAS CONTINUANCE BECAUSE CONSCIENTIOUSLY THEY COULD
22 NOT APPEAR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING WITHIN SUCH A
17 23 SHORT TIME FRAME'.
24 THE COURT: HOW MANY ATTORNEYS HAVE YOU HAD? SIX? *
18 25 SEVEN? EIGHT? NINE? *
26 MR. ZERNIK: THE NUMBERS YOU JUST QUOTED I DON'T
19 27 THINK IT'S ANYWHERE CLOSE TO REALITY. THE ATTORNEYS I
28 DID HAVE INCLUDED ATTORNEYS CUMMINGS AND SCHORR.
20
21 9. I was bringing a legitimate issue, a matter of fact. That my filings were adulterated. But

22 she was fixated with the issue of no continuance. She had the option of not continuing

23 the hearing, but eliminating the filings from the record. But that too was not an option. I

24 was to have papers that were not mine, no matter what. And the truth of the facts in the

25 matter did not really matter much.

26 10. I was bringing a legitimate issue, a matter of fact. That I could not retain any legal

27 counsel because she would not agree to any continuance of the Summary Judgment (but

28 she did agree to have it heard later than permitted by law at Plaintiff’s request). But she

-2-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 75 -
 1 was responding with irrelevant lies meant to paint me as a person of bad faith – that I had
2 as many as nine attorneys appear in court for me.
3 11. In fact, Plaintiff by that time had employed three different law offices that I can readily
4 recall, and if one was to count individual attorneys appearing on her behalf, the number
5 was higher, probably close to that quoted by the Judge.
6 12. But even more distressful that the constant attempt to paint me as a person of bad faith,
7 was the strange coordination between the Judge and Keshavarzi. He too was repeating
8 that lie to attorneys that I tried to engage, with the added icing that most of them ended
9 up going to court to ask to be relieved. I then had to exonerate myself before such
10 potential counsels, which immediately put our relationship in a strange point, because it
11 was obvious to me, that if they believe Keshavarzi more than they believe me, they are
12 not the right attorney for me. Att Schorr, Att Scott, Att Hoffman and others reported to
13 me that Keshavarzi told them this story.
14 13. Strangely enough, he repeated it also by email, I am not sure how to interpret that game.
15 14. Another example of blatant disregard of the truth by Judge Connor from the Hearing on
16 the Motion for Summary Judgment is the following long sequence regarding fraud, which
17 Judge Connor insists on failing to notice:
18 28 …I ALREADY DISCUSSED TO SOME DEGREE THE ISSUE
1 OF WIRE FRAUD WIHC YOU DIDN’T LET ME FINISH. BUT I
19 2 SAID THIS ONE SHOWED ALREADY THAT THIS IS THE ONE THAT
3 WAS FAXED [AT] 3:42.
20 4 THRE’S SOME MORE OFFENDING CONDUCT THAT
5 WAS DONE IN THIS DOCUMENT. BEYOND IT, THIS DOCUMENT IS
21 6 STATED BY MR KESHAVARFI IN TODAY’S {FINDING}[HEARING] THAT IT WAS
7 SENT BY MR PARKS. I CONTEND THAT IT WAS NEVER SENT BY
22 8 MR PARKS.
9 THERE’S A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE PREMIUM
10 AND DIFFERENCE IN MATERIAL FACT BECAUSE OYU POINTED OUT
23 11 ALREADY THAT THIS IS A FULLY EXECUTED DOCUMENT, IS A KEY
12 ISSUE IN THIS CASE. AND I’M SAYING THAT ON THIS
24 13 DOCUMENT WE FILED STATUTE[S] OF FRAUDS ON THE VERY
14 BEGINNNING OF THE CASE. IT TOOK UNTIL THE VERY LAST
25 15 DOCUMENT IN THE VERY LAST FILING OF MR KESHAVARZI TO
16 SUPPLY THE COUNT WITH A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT. AND I
26 17 CONTEND THAT I ALREADY SUBMITTED TO MR KESHAVARZI THAT
18 THIS IS AN OFFENDING DOCUMENT. AND NOW IT PASSED 21 DAY
27 19 OF SAFE HARBOR AND AS QUOTE I SUBMITTED FOR FILING
20 FOR A FULL HEARING UNDER ASSUPTION OF BAD FAITH, NOT GOOOD
28
-3-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 76 -
 1 21 FAITH LIKE {IT} [you] NORMALLY WOULD DO HERE. THAT THIS DOCUMENT
22 WAS NEVER SENT BY MR PARKS, WAS NEVER[ – THE NEVER—]
2 23 THE DOCUMENT THAT HE SAID HE IMMEDIATELY SENT BECAUSE HE
Received it Friday 3:42pm and sent it
3 24 SENT IT AT {3:42}[5:03pm] ON MONDAY, IT WAS FAXED MONDAY. HOW
25 COULD IT BE IMMEDIATELY?FROM FRIDAY TO MONDAY IS NOT
4 26 IMMEDIATELY AT ALL.
27 THE COURT: IT’S NEXT BUSINESS DAY, *
5 28 MR ZERNIK. IT’S IMMEDIATELY THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS *
1 DATE. *
2 MR ZERNIK: I RECEIVED IT[and] IMMEDIATELY{ AND} TUNRED
6 3 IT AROUND AND FAXED IT. DEFINITELY NOT THREE OR FOUR
7 4 DAY[s] LATER. BEYOND THAT, THIS IS A FARUDULETN

8 15. I clearly remember how stunned I was when Judge Connor was smiling at me and stating
9 “It’s next business day, Mr Zernik. It’s immediately the following business date”.(lines
10 marked with an asterisk near the right margin).
11 16. That contract was the central document in this case. She already made one unusual
12 decision in this regard, denying the demurrer on Statute of Frauds and allowing the case
13 to go on without having Plaintiff amend her claim and present the contract. And then the
14 contract is presented as surprise in the last minute. And this is a document that I had
15 already declared to Keshavarzi as offending document. They claimed repeatedly that it
16 was faxed by Parks to Countrywide, but the evidence shows that it was not faxed by
17 Parks, and it was not faxed to Countrywide either
18 17. And beyond that, Mr Parks declared that he received it on Friday, Oct 22, 2004, 3:42pm
19 and “immediately” faxed it to Countrywide, and that Countrywide rejected it…. And then
20 later on, by Monday, October 25, 2004, he managed finally after all his efforts get
21 another document from escrow. And that later document was indeed signed. And then he
22 later faxed that later document to Countrywide, and then later the finally got the loan
23 approved, and then the appraisal was done! Bingo! All done!
24 18. But it just did not fit the facts. The document has a fax header imprint on it that it was
25 received on Friday, October 22, 2004, 3:42pm, from Mara Escrow, and that the very
26 same document was faxed to Countrywide on Monday, October 25, 2004, at 5:03pm.
27 19. So in essence, the facts show that there were no two separate fax transmissions
28 of the contract document from escrow to Samaan (claiming to be Parks as
-4-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 77 -
 1 part of wire fraud), only one. And the history of that transmission was as
2 follows:
3 a. Came from escrow to Samaan (claiming to be Parks as part of wire
4 fraud) at 3:42pm on Friday, October 22, 2004,
5 b. Went from Samaan to her husband, JR (claiming to be
6 Countrywide) on Monday, October 25, 2004, 5:03pm.
7 20. Therefore, there is no proof here that the document arrived at Countrywide at
8 5:03pm or any other time on that day or any other day.
9 21. And therefore, there is no relationship between this fax transaction and
10 Samaan’s loan approval or appraisal approval.
11 22. This claim was central to Plaintiff’s fraudulent claim – that Parks finally got one contract
12 on Friday, 3:42pm, faxed it, and it was rejected by Countrywide. Then Zernik went to
13 escrow after that, and added the initials. And then Parks got it sometime later, and by
14 Monday he faxed it to Countrywide, and then it was accepted, and then the appraisal
15 review was immediately done, and the loan was approved, and Samaan removed the
16 contingency on Monday afternoon. Bingo, all done.
17 23. Some litigants may feel that their case did not get the treatment it deserved in court
18 because the judge was somewhat slow, or not knowledgeable, or inattentive. I never had
19 any such consideration. I hold that Judge Connor is sharp as a razor. I hold that she is
20 very knowledgeable in the law, and otherwise. I hold that she was very attentive.
21 24. At that particular point I was talking without interruption for a few minutes, on a very dry
22 and technical issue of the wire fraud. But she was very focused, and when it came to the
23 point where the evidence diametrically contradicted Plaintiff’s version of events, she
24 provided in a blink the explanation: “Immediately” can still describe receiving a fax on
25 Friday 3:42pm and sending it on Monday, 5:03pm. Immediately can be used in the sense
26 of “Immediate next business day”.
27 25. It was obvious to me all along, that if a person reviewed the case, they were extremely
28 likely not only to doubt, but to conclude that that had I argued that “immediately” could
-5-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 78 -
 1 mean immediate next business day, it would be laughable argument at best, more likely
2 seen as pathetic.
3 26. Beyond that, the speed with which Judge Connor responded to this point indicated that
4 she noticed this major contradiction in advance, and prepared a response in advance. But
5 the response never even meant to be serious. It was a joke. She was sitting there, smiling
6 at me, and telling me it was “immediately next business day.”
7 27. The reason it felt as harassment was that it was clear that Judge Connor was gifted by
8 brightness, was well-educated, was granted a position of authority and privilege, and then
9 using it all of the above, combined, for ill ends, with a joy.
10 28. That is for me corrupt, by definition!
11 29. Further stress, both physical and psychological was mounted when I was left with no
12 alternative but remain in pro per. Sleep deficit and tiredness became almost constant.
13 30. I substantially gained weight, to the point that I get negative comments on a daily basis,
14 about looking tired, stressed out, and in need of rest.
15 31. In addition, there is the harassment in the courthouse it: since the first or second time I
16 showed up in court, I have sheriffs following me everywhere. I thought that would end
17 now that I am out of Department I, but it was still there yesterday, Tue, October 10, 2007.
18 32. I believe that the very first time I realized it, was from communication with an attorney
19 that I was trying to engage for counsel. He informed me that Keshavarzi informed him
20 that I was considered by Judge Connor dangerous and potentially violent, and that she
21 had alerted the Sheriffs and asked them to watch me when I was in her courtroom. I then
22 started noticing it, and realized that it was indeed the case.
23 33. That comment by Keshavarzi raised two concerns: It was again once of those instances of
24 extrasensory communication between Keshavarzi and Judges: Connor, Goodman, and
25 O’Brien. He knew what they think and say, but based some pronouncements that were
26 never manifest to me in court or in any other writings equally available to both parties.
27
28
-6-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 79 -
 1 34. A person reviewing the situation as a whole is reasonably going to conclude, or at least
2 entertain the doubt that Keshavarzi was engaging in routine ex parte communications
3 with these three judges.
4 35. Even today, anywhere I go in the court, there is surely going to be a sheriff walking
5 behind me. When I entered department O yesterday, a sheriff entered after me and sat
6 and waited until I finished my business. Soon after I left the courtroom, he left the
7 courtroom as well.
8 36. And the same treatment followed me to the West Side court, for the first few days.
9 37. But on one of the first few days in the West Side, I was followed by a sheriff with a
10 German Sheppard. It struck me as escalation - an armed sheriff was not sufficient to
11 subdue my violent nature anymore, and there was a need for canine help!
12 38. In Santa Monica, that situation was used by staff to harass me. For example, if I asked
13 for printouts of minute orders in the clerk’s room, and they did not want to provide it,
14 then Darleen may start screaming at me, and another staff would call the sheriffs, with
15 the appearance that I disturbed the peace.
16 39. On this hostile background, one has to evaluate the incident in the Courtroom of Dept A-
17 Supervising Judge, on August 31, 2007. I passed in Department A for the first time ever
18 on the previous day, August 30, 2007. I asked Ruth, the Judicial Assistant, what the
19 procedure was for submitting complaints. She dismissed the question as trivial and said –
20 it just had to be in writing.
21 40. The next day, August 31, 2007, I brought a written complaint. The immediate response
22 was that Ruth raised her voice and started yelling that I had to immediately cover it with
23 a brown paper envelope. I said I had no clue, she never told me that the previous day.
24 She was still yelling at me - that had to immediately go to the clerk’s office and get a
25 brown paper envelope there, and only then return to her courtroom. I was already
26 apprehensive, looking around to see how the sheriffs were responding. in the room, and
27 what their response was. It was clearly a situation that had the potential to become
28 explosive.
-7-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 80 -
 1 41. I got the brown paper envelope and finally submitted the complaint. A bit later the
2 supervising judge came in and Ruth presented to him the envelope. He opened it and
3 started reading, and he was visibly upset. The main issue was access to Court File.
4 42. He angrily said to me he will show me that it was easily accessible. He called a few
5 places, but seemed to have no luck. After that he said to me: “now I will show you hand
6 on management” still in an angry tone. And he left the Courtroom, apparently searching
7 for the file. Eventually, he came back, with only 3 out of 6 volumes. He was visibly even
8 angrier than before when he came back.
9 43. He tossed the volumes on the table in the well in front of bench, and told me to mark the
10 pages I wanted to copy, then the Clerk’s room will arrange the copying. I told him that I
11 wanted to copy it all. He said fine. Then said that my understanding is that the copies
12 will not be done on the spot, and I wanted to be able to compare the original and the
13 copies at the time I pick up the copies.
14 44. He got even more upset with me. He said something to the effect that I was implying that
15 they were going to cheat. I said that it was standard procedure, if later I had to declare
16 that this was a full and complete copy. He then agreed, but was visibly very upset. Then
17 before he was going to leave the room, he tossed at me my complaint and said that now,
18 that he got me the court file, I could take my complaint back.
19 45. I refused to take it. I said that it was the copy that I filed with the court. And he said
20 something like: are you trying to tell me that there is more there than just getting you to
21 copy the file. And I said: yes, there are a number of issues. He then got more and more
22 upset, and said I had to take it back, and I repeated my position.
23 46. Immediately, the two armed guards in the courtroom approached me, and tried to force
24 me to take the complaint back. I was fearful. I did not know these two particular
25 guards. I also did not even notice them as individuals, it was just persons trying to force
26 me to do something against my will. I was not going to yield. But I immediately raised
27 my hand to my head. I was very fearful that somehow they will fake an incidence of
28
-8-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 81 -
 1 violence on my part and shoot me. I slowly retreated from the courtroom, with my hands
2 all the time still up to my head.
3 47. I was walking to the Clerk’s Office to ask them to copy the file. I was still with my
4 hands up on my head. And the two sheriffs were still around me all the time, trying to
5 plant the complaint on my body, but I was no longer afraid, since there were people
6 around us.
7 48. At the clerk’s office (Room 102) they left that brown envelope on the counter, next to
8 me, and left the room. I finished my business, and then left that room as well. I left the
9 brown envelope behind me. Within seconds, Darlene was running behind me, asking me
10 to take the envelope. I told her that it was not mine, that it belonged to Dept A.
11 49. She then went to Dept A and I assume she gave them the envelope.
12 50. I was shaken by that event. It brought it all into a focus. Everything that happened to me
13 in court in this litigation: It combined extreme dishonesty of a person in high office and a
14 position of authority, combined with willingness to break the law, even to use physical
15 force to that effect in a very crude way. Obviously it implied immunity and confidence
16 that they are above the law. Since they were part of the system, they must know. It felt
17 like something that could not happen to me in the US, but it did happen.
18 51. I was initially wavering whether to include the incident with the Supervising Judge in any
19 writing. Some smart people would have advised me that it may sound “extremist” and
20 objectionable. However, I see that type of advice in line with the position of some pricey
21 real estate attorneys that I should have never mentioned any type of fraud by Samaan in
22 court, because it may sound objectionable to the judge, or the traditional opinion that rape
23 victim should keep it secret, because one way or another, these women brought it on
24 themselves...
25 52. All of that was definitely considered when I wrote the ex parte application to restore and
26 safeguard due process rights. I hold Judge Segal in high regard, but I cannot expect a
27 relatively young judge to accept the role of an outcast in the courthouse, where he may be
28 appointed for life.
-9-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 82 -
 1 53. For that reason I phrased the first proposed order, regarding assignment due by law, as a
2 sit and wait position. But I still hold that the minimum standard of recusal in the absence
3 of valid assignment is a must.
4 54. During the very short hearing on October 10, 2007, Judge Segal started reading, and
5 immediately asked me if what I expected that he would make demands or orders
6 addressed at his supervisor, Judge Rosenberg. I answered that I never expected anything
7 like that. And that the proposed order is accordingly phrased.
8 55. Judge Segal then asked why I did not submit this as a complaint to Supervising Judge
9 Gerald Rosenberg. I said that I had indeed submitted a complaint in that regard to the
10 Supervising Judge, but was instructed to submit it in Dept O. I also added that I had been
11 physically harassed in Dept A.
12 56. I write these statements in part so inform other parties who were not present in this
13 hearing, which did not last more than a few minutes. I also ordered the transcript, and
14 will share it with other parties if they so wish.
15 57. Hopefully this approach could be reciprocal… for example, there is the ex parte
16 appearance of Keshavarzi before Judge Connor, on August 14, and August 21, 2007,
17 Both are still a mystery to me. If a person had reviewed the case as a whole, he would
18 reasonably conclude that the only rationale explanation for these two ex parte
19 appearances was a sham, acted out in collaboration between Keshavarzi and Connor, in
20 an attempt to mislead me. Any other account of what transpired there and what was the
21 logic of it, would be most welcome, but Keshavarzi did not respond to email inquiry in
22 that regard.
23 58. If a person reviewed the case as a whole, that person may also reasonably conclude that
24 the Peremptory Challenge of Keshavarzi against Judge Goodman was also a sham, acted
25 out in order to mislead.
26 59. If a person reviewed the case as a whole, and then was sitting in on the few minutes ex
27 parte on Tuesday, that person may reasonably conclude that Judge Segal’s questions
28
-10-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 83 -
 1 expressed an extreme unease with the situation and with the need to adjudicate this case,
2 since it may put him in an uncomfortable position with his colleagues.
3 60. I have the highest regard for Judge Segal, but I do not believe I can expect him to enter
4 such a conflict on my behalf. It appears that the reasonable solution under the
5 circumstances may be to have the case heard in a different District of the Court, or
6 outside the County of Los Angeles. I believe that Supervising Judge Rosenberg would be
7 fully supportive of such a move, and therefore would not allow Judge Segal to be duly
8 assigned.
9 I make this declaration under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the state of
10 California. Signed here in Beverly Hills October 10, 2007.
11
12 _________________________________________
13 JOSEPH ZERNIK
14 DEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT
15 in pro per
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-
Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Harassment and hostile environment at the courthouse

- 84 -