Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik

DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou,

email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2010.05.12 14:46:06 +03'00'

ORIGINAL1=ILEO
FEB 06 2008
Digitally signed by
Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD S UPERIOR CO .,
2
Defendant
in pro per
U R""
~-. • 'A
JosephZernik
ON: ~n=Joseph
Zernlk,
2415 Saint George Street ) . ~L.. email=jz1234S@eart
3 Los Feliz CA 90027 hUnk.net, c=US
Date: 2008.02.06
4 13:29:07 -08'00'

5
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS A GELES
10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, ) Case No. SC087400
) NO VALID ASSIGNMENT ON FILE SINCE
12 Plaintiff, ) SEPT 10,2007/ '?
13 v. ) -r
)
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES 1 )
through 20, inclusive, )
15 ) DEFENDANT & CROSS-
Defendants. ) COMPLAINANT'S ZERNIK OPPOSITION
16 ) TO COU TRYWIDE'S MOTION FOR AN
17 -
_ -------------) ORDER TO SET SANCTIONS EXCEEDING
JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, ) $16,000.
18 )
Cross-Complainant, )
19 )
v.
)
20
COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL )
21 BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIB OW, an )
individual, )
22 )
)
23 Cross-Defendants. ) DATE: FRI FEB 8, 2008
24 ) TIME: 8:30 AM
PLACE: DEPARTMENT WE- ~
25
26
27
28
OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S
MOTIO FOR SANCTIONS
 TO ALL PARTIES A D COUNSELS OF RECORD:
2 Below is Zernik's Opposition to Motion by Countrywide 1 for an order to set
3 sanctions against Zernik.
4 DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT ZERNIK IN
5 SUPPORT OF IDS OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTIO FOR AN
ORDER TO SET SANCTIONS.
6
I, Joseph Zernik, Defendant & Cross-Complainant, declare as follows:
7
8 I. MOZILO AND SAMUEL'S CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO AUTHENTICATE OR
REPUDIATE COUNTRYWIDE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE KEY TO THE FRAUD BY
9 SAMAAN, KESHAVARZI AND OTHERS IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK
10
Samaan v Zernik in its essence is real estate fraud under the guise of legal proceedings.
11
Such fraud is entirely based on documents produced by Countrywide. Mozilo and Samuels
12
have been requested numerous times to authenticate or repudiate the authenticity of key
13
documents in this litigation, that are key to the fraud. Mozilo and Samuels have continuously
14
refused to answer any questions regarding such documents.
15
II. MOZILO AND SAMUELS MUST ANSWER SUCH QUESTIONS PURSUANT TO
16 THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTIES AS OFFICERS IN A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AND
17
A PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATION
Mozilo serves as President and Chair of the Board, and also as Chair of the Internal
18
19 Audit Committee, Samuels serves as Chief Legal Counsel. As such, they ho ld special duties
to safeguard the integrity of operations of Countrywide, based on various regulations of the
20
Federal Reserve, Office of Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission.
21
Such regulations, and Mozilo and Samuels duties and obligations derived from them, are not
22
tied to any time frames in Samaan v Zernik, such discovery cut off date, in any way at all.
23
Mozilo and Samuels are abdication any notion of compliance with such regulations by
24
refusing to respond regarding the integrity of Countrywide's banking documents.
25

26
27
I Hereinafter Countrywide designates CFC, Inc, and/or any and all of its affiliates and/or

28 subsidiaries jointly and/or severally

OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S
-2- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
 III. MOZILO AND SAMUELS: PLEASE ABIDE BY YOUR DUTIES AND
AUTHENTICATE OR REPUDIATE THE TWO COUNTRYWIDE DOCUMENTS
2 THAT ARE KEY TO THE FRAUD IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK
...oJ
Defendant is hereby filing yet another request to Countrywide, to Mozilo and to Samuels to
4 respond and authenticate or repudiate the following two documents, noticed to them personally
5 several times in the past. Copies of these two documents with explanatory notes would be
6 again provided to you upon request.
7 1) Document purported to be a valid Underwriting Letter of October 14,2004, or
8 mid-October, 2004, received by Parks (Samaan's purported Loan Broker) on
9 October 15, 2004. In fact it is an invalid underwriting Letter, unsigned, clearly date-
10 stamped and October 26,2004. This letter was never part of Countrywide's 2004 Loan
II file, as clearly stated by Countrywide in Meet and Confer. This letter never appeared in
12 subpoenas in August 2006 and Jan-Feb 2007. It was provided for the first time after
13 Meet and confer, as part of Nov 2006 correspondence between Keshavarzi (Counsel for·
14 Plaintiff), Lloyd (plaintiffs husband), and McLaurin (Countrywide's San Rafael
15 Branch Manager).
16 This unauthenticated document should never have been admitted as evidence by Judge
17 Connor.
18 Mozilo and Samuels have repeatedly refused to answer the question whether this is an
19 authentic Countrywide Underwriting Letter of Oct 14,2004 or mid-October 2004. The
20 instant motion is just one more attempt to build up their justification for failing to abide
21 by their fiduc"iary duties.
22 2) Purchase Contract that was Purportedly faxed by Parks (Washington State) to
23 Countrywide (State of California) on October 25, 2004, 5:03pm. In fact, this
24 document is part of extensive wire/fax fraud underlying this litigation and also
25 underlying most of Samaan's original loan application to Countrywide. The document
26 in question was in fact faxed on October 25,2004 at 5:02 or 5:03pm from Samaan's HP
27 Laser printer/fax/scanner to her husband, Jae Arre Lloyd, both in Los Angeles County,
28 as documented in Samaan's fax log entered by her as evidence in Samaan v Zernik.
OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S
-3- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
 When and how the Purchase Contract document was transferred to Countrywide, we
2 have no direct evidence in Samaan v Zernik. Circumstantial evidence suggest that it
3 was transferred as PDF by Jae Arre Lloyd to Maria McLaurin at an unknown time after
4 that marked on the fax.
5 Therefore, this document and others like it in Samaan's loan file are likely to
6 constitute upon review both wire/fax fraud across state lines against a financial
7 institution (Countrywide) and against an individual (Zernik).
8 The anonymous fax header imprint of this document is in violation of FCC
9 regulation. Countrywide's own Fax Policy and Procedure manuals forbid the
10 operations of anonymous fax machines, and fax documents originating from an
11 anonymous machine should never have been accepted as part of a loan file. Needless to
12 say, such unauthenticated documents should never have been admitted as evidence by
13 Judge Connor as well.
14 Mozilo and Samuels have repeatedly refused to answer the question whether this
15 is an authentic Countrywide document received by fax on October 25, 2004, 5:03pm.
16 The instant motion is just one more attempt to build up their justification for failing to
17 abide by their fiduciary duties.
18 IV. COUNTRYWIDE, MOZILO AND SAMUELS ARE NO STRANGERS TO FILING
FRAUDULENT DOCUME TS IN COURT
19
20 Newspaper printouts were included in a Request for Judicial Notice, filed under a
21 separate cover:
22 1) Jan 8, 2008, early AM: Morgenson, Pulitzer-prize winner, published in NYT Business
23 section that counsels for Countrywide admitted in Court in Y that letters filed as
24 evidence in a real property case there were in fact "recreated letters".
25 2) Jan 8, 2008, afternoon: Countrywide share lost about 30% of its value based primarily
26 on that report. Market capitalization of $1.3 billion was lost on that day alone!
27 3) Jan 8, 2008, late afternoon: Rumors of Countrywide's imminent bankruptcy filing
28 spread, requiring a denial by Countrywide.

OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S
-4- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
 1 4) Jan 8, 2007, late night: The crisis is averted by news reports of Countrywide purchase
2 by BOA at reduced price of $4.5 Billion, to take effect in 3rd quarter of 2008, pending
3 approval by regulators.

4 In Samaan v Zernik the stakes are much higher, since the scope of fraudulent documents is
5 much wider, and due to the personal involvement of Mozilo and Samuels!
6

7
v. INSTANT MOTION - AN ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT
As filed, instant motion is just an attempt to distract and provide a fictitious shield to
8
Mozilo and Samuels, who lost long ago any semblance of plausible deniability relative to the
9
fraud in Samaan v Zernik.
10
VI. INSTANT MOTION - THE ESSENCE OF CO CElT
11
This motion will no doubt be read upon review as the distilled essence of what went
12
wrong in Los Angeles Superior Court in Samaan v Zernik, and the role played by Countrywide
13
in it. Obviously, the court too felt that way: Papers related to the purported, non-existent July
14
23, 2007 Protective Order that is the fictitious foundation for the instant motion were
15
concealed in the "Volume IV Continued". Access to "Volume IV Continued" was denied, and
16
its existence concealed from Defendant even after access to other paper court file documents
17
was finally gradually allowed starting Aug 31, 2007, after many months that all access was
18
denied to court file, to minute orders and other notices.
19
VII. COUNTRYWIDE, MOZILO AND SAMUELS -
20
REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
21 Real Party in Interest - the true designation of Countrywide, Mozi10 and Samuels in
22 Samaan v Zernik is clearly stated on July 24, 2007 by Judge Connor in Sustain Case History.
23 Audit data show that the entry was made only one day after she purportedly signed the non-
24 existent Protective Order, subject of the instant motion. However, as part of numerous other
25 false and misleading records in this court file, it was entered with the misleadingly back-dated
26 to 7/24/2004, ensuring its permanent, prominent display on page 1 of Case History.
27

28

OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S
-5- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
 VIll. COU TRYWIDE - PURVEYOR OF FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE
2 Documents repeatedly produced by Countrywide's Legal Department starting Aug 2006 in
3 response to subpoenas by Zernik included fraudulent documents. Zernik noticed such upon
4 his first cursory review of the materials in early December 2006, and he called Countrywide's
5 Legal Department at that time, to ask that they avoid such documents in a repeat subpoena. A
6 notice to that effect was also included with the repeat subpoenas in January 2007. Regardless,
7 Countrywide repeatedly produced such fraudulent documents. The intent was an attempt to
8 cover up Countrywide's numerous blatant failures to comply and violations of the law
9 documented in Samaan's loan applications. The two key fraudulent documents were each

10 noticed separately by Defendant:

1l IX. COUNTRYWIDE, MOZILO, AND SAMUELS - COLLUDERS IN FRAUD WITH
SAMAAN, ATT KESHAVARZI, AND OTHERS
12
Even after numerous notifications of the fact that their false documents are used by Samaan
13
to defraud Zernik, Mozilo, Chair of the Internal Audit Committee, and Samuels - Chief Legal
14
Counsel, both officers of Countrywide who are charged with the safeguard of the integrity of
15
operations in a chartered Banking Institution and a Publicly Held Corporations, absolutely
16
refused to authenticate the fraudulent documents or confirm that they are fraudulent in nature.
17
x. COUNTRYWIDE'S PRIVILEGES IN TillS COURT DEFY ANY NOTION OF DUE
18 PROCESS
19 a. Sticking to the fictitious non-party status, to avoid reporting to SEC and other
20 regulatory agencies
21 b. Allowed by the court all rights of a party, and beyond ...
22 c. Designated by the court in various documents anything from Defendant to Intervenor to
23 Plaintiff - all with no legal foundation at all.
24 d. Protected from claims by Zernik by Judge Connor denial of the leave to amend claims.
25 e. Allowed by the Court to file Discovery motions at a time no such motions were
26 allowed, again, in violation of any notion of Due Process Rights. Zernik's motion for
27 Extension of Discovery Cut Off Date, April 22, 2007, was denied by Judge Connor,
28 based on false pretenses, that Sustain showed the then valid trial date to be set in

OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S
-6- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
 November 2006. In fact, as we now know, no trial date was entered in Sustain by Judge
2 Connor in Samaan v Zernik until Sept 10,2007 in the afternoon. At that time Judge
3 Connor had no authority in Samaan v Zernik, since she was disqualified that morning.
4 f. To justify allowing Countrywide filing a discovery motion when it was in fact not
5 allowed, an excuse was made up in a post -facto ruling on July 23, 2007 Minute Order-
6 the discovery cut off date was purportedly effective only on Zemik, but not on other
7 parties ... and the July 23, 2007 Minute Order itself concealed from Zernik until much
8 later ...
9 g. The initial ex parte appearance was scheduled on July 6,2007, through a procedure that
10 cannot be explained by Countrywide's counsels, and would not be allowed to any other
11 party, and is in defiance of Defendant's Due Process Rights.
12 h. The July 6,2007 proceeding was concluded through a shortened notice hearing on July
13 23,2007, where Countrywide was allowed, and did serve Defendant Zernik with its
14 moving papers later than Zernik's deadline set by the court (July 12,2007) for his
15 opposing papers, making an entire ridicule of any notion of Due Process Rights.
16 1. The main claim by Countrywide in that motion, and in instant motion as well, was
17 based on the fictitious notion that Zernik had addressed or is addressing Mozilo and
18 Samuels as part of a Discovery procedure in Samaan v Zernik, with no evidence to
19 support such notion whatsoever.
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing
21 is true and correct.
22 Executed on Feb 6, 2008, in Los Angeles, California.
23
24

25
26 Joseph Zernik
DEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT
27
in pro per
28

OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S
-7- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
 Joseph Zernik
in pro per
2 2415 8t George St
3 Los Angeles, CA 90027
Tel: (310) 435-9107
4 Fax: (801) 998-0917
PROOF OF SERVICE
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the Los Angeles County, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years
6
and not a party to t,he action; my address is: \ z. ~ S r\ .
~~ ~ O~ S~ ~ \~ 'S \
l A CA q00\
7 On 1,,\'AciO
0".
,I served the foregoing document described as:
8 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER TO SET SANCTIONS
9 These document were served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a true
copy thereof ill tIle firm's mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted in the attached
10 mailing list.
[ ] BY MAIL: I am familiar with processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it is
II
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
12 Beverly Hills, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than
13 one working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration.
[] VIA FACSIMILE: I caused all of the pages of the above entitled document to be sent to the
14
recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the facsimile number as noted in the attached
15 mailing list. This document was transmitted by facsimile and transmission reported complete
without error.
16 [X] BY PERSO AL DELIVERY: I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the
addressees noted in the attached mailing list. (except for California Att General - by OIN mail)
17 [X] BY EMAIL: Courtesy copr- Sent by email with copy to me by Joseph Zerllik in Pro Per.
18
Executed on -z...\
0 ...
f....Q \ o<{, , Los Angeles, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
19
above is true and correct.
20 MAILI G LIST:
1. Att Keshavarzi 3. Att Shulkin
21 Sheppard Mullin, LLP Coldwell Banker Law Department
333 South Hope Street 48 th Floor 11611 San Vicente Blvd 9 th Floor
22 LA, CA 90049
LA, CA 90071
23 4. Att D. Pasternak
2. California Att. General Jerry Brown 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
24 Consumer Protection Los Angeles, CA 90067
1300 "I" Street 5. A~ John Amberg for Countrywide
25 Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo
Sacramento CA 95014
26 Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
27 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386

28
Proot ot Service:
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Case o. SC087400
-1-