Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik

DN: cn=Joseph Zernik,

email=jz12345@earthlink.net,
c=US
Date: 2008.07.11 11:52:55 -07'00'

Joseph Zernik DMD PhD

2415 Saint George St, Los Feliz CA 90027 Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

June 11, 2008

Att Mohammad Keshavarzi

Sheppard Mullin et al
Att Robert Shulkin
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Att David Pasternak
Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton
Att John Amberg
Bryan Cave, LLP
RE: NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING ACTIVITY IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)

TO THE COURT PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE-

DEFENDANT ZERNIK’S NOTICE TO COURT AND TO PARTIES TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING
ACTIVITY IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400): This note is written in response to Att Keshavarzi’s notice of ex parte
application on Monday, July 14m 2008, in Department J, West District of Superior Court, before Judge Terry Friedman.

1) Motions for Mistrial still never adjudicated

I have filed a number of motions for mistrial in this case. The court has no authority to proceed with your applications prior
to adjudication of the mistrial. The grounds for the mistrial were various frauds and misconduct, including, but not limited
to: fraud by the judiciary, fraud by Samaan and her Counsel, Mohammad Keshavarzi, fraud by Countrywide, fraud by
Receiver Pasternak, and extreme abuse of due process that did not allow Defendant to effectively participate in litigation.
Until mistrial motion is resolved, the court must not proceed with other proceedings.

2) Judge Friedman is with no authority at all like all other judges in Samaan v Zernik
As you know, Judge Friedman, like all judges before him, presided and ruled in Samaan v Zernik with no Assignment
Order, and therefore with no authority at all and also with no immunity at all. There were two noted exceptions:
a. Judge Connor – she had a fraudulent Reassignment Order issued in the name of Judge Linda Lefkowitz on Jan
30, 2006, back-dated to Nov 1, 2005. On Jan 30, 2006, Judge Lefkowitz was neither Supervising Judge, nor
Master of Calendar, which she had been on Nov 1, 2005.
b. Judge Goodman – had a transfer notice issued after the fact – where no transfer took place. The case was
moved from one department to another in same district.
Judge Friedman also failed to comply with the law (CCP §170.3) regarding disqualifications, and had none of his Answers
to Disqualification Statements adjudicated. Therefore, he never regained his authority – if he ever had any, starting Jan
11, 2008 – his first disqualification. Furthermore, in his last disqualification, Judge Friedman engaged in dishonest conduct
that may be deemed misconduct: After issuing a minute order, including as usual the combination of Strike and Answer,
which per California Judge’s Bench Guide is an un-allowed filing by a judge in response to disqualification, he failed as
usual to have it adjudicated. But this time around, later his minute order was also secretly voided!
In short - any way you may look at it, Judge Friedman is with no authority at all.
Until the issue of authority of any and all of the judges in Samaan v Zernik is resolved, and whether the case is at all on the
Books of Court (see below) there is no way to proceed in litigation.
The insistence of the LA Superior Court on disobeying the law on disqualification, and with it the refusal of the judges of
the LA Superior Court to set aside or vacate any of the orders or acts of a disqualified judge, no matter how wrong, again
disobeying the law, must raise concerns regarding the integrity of this court as a whole.

3) LA Superior Court – fraud and racketeering based in its computer system - Sustain
z Page 2/5 July 11, 2008

As we now know, Defendant made major headways in the last couple of months in analyzing the fraud perpetrated by the
Los Angeles Superior Court on U.S. Citizens of LA County through its Case Management System – Sustain.
Unbelievably such fraud has been going on for the last 25-30 years. In fact, upon review it is likely to be deemed
racketeering.
Central to this racketeering enterprise were real estate frauds, similar to the one being perpetrated by the Court,
Countrywide and Att Mohammad Keshavarzi against Defendant Zernik, which were very lucrative due to the high yield.
Fraud in Sustain had several facets:
a. Adulteration, fabrication, and voiding of Minute Orders on regular basis
b. Fraudulent registry of actions in the litigation
c. Eliminating the paper Books of Court, including but not limited to: Book of Judgments, Index of All Cases,
Registers of Actions concomitantly with installation of Sustain
d. Hiding the Books of Court and other Sustain records under the false pretense that “Sustain is privileged – for
the court only”
All of these actions had the same effect - parties in litigations in LA Superior Court would not be able to know what the
court entered as records in the “electronic” file, which for the Court’s purpose is the definitive file.

4) In implementing such changes and in denying access to records, the LA Superior Court was and is out of compliance
with the law
Using such fraud instruments, the LA Superior Court refused and continue to refuse to allow Defendant Zernik access to
his own litigation records. Furthermore, such instruments of fraud create sufficient ambiguity that facilitated the frauds by
Att Keshavarzi, who now repeatedly falsely stated that “On Aug 9, 2007 the Court entered Judgment…” Had the Book
of Judgment been open to the public to inspect and to copy, as required by law (Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589 (1978), no such fraud could be possible.
Similarly, had the Book of Judgments been open to the public to inspect and to copy, the fraudulent appointment of
Receiver Pasternak, purportedly for execution of judgment, would not have been possible.
Such actions were in defiance of the law. The Court failed to obey with the U.S. Rule Making Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. §§
2071 – 2077. The LA Superior Court made major changes to its rules without allowing reasonable opportunity for
public comment and challenge, and the LA Superior Court made rules that were not written, such as the “privileged“
status of Sustain.

5) Conduct of the Court, Att Keshavarzi, Sheppard Mullin, Countrywide, and others In Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400), upon review is likely to be deemed racketeering- litigation that was designed as fraud from inception
The Court and others engaged in a series of actions, each of them including numerous potential counts of fraud
and predicated acts per RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968, that included but were not limited to:
- Various judges presided with no authority, while misrepresenting that situation to parties in the litigation
- Various judges misrepresented to parties the actions they participated in. while making altogether different
registrations in the electronic file
- Various judges issued legal records that had no validity and no authority
- The Court staged a fake summary judgment, with the intention of never entering the judgment
- The Court then engaged in various deceptive tactics to try to confuse Defendant to believe that Judgment
was indeed entered
- The Court then appointed a referee with a defective order – since Judge Connor knew that she had no
authority to appoint a true Referee as required by law
- The court then deliberately appointed a Receiver with a fraudulent order, referring to no section of the code, to
no judgment, etc – since the Court had no authority to appoint a true Receiver
- Receiver Pasternak then took Defendant’s property with no authority at all (stole in plain language) –
through threats and intimidation using the authority of the Court
z Page 3/5 July 11, 2008

- Given that there was no valid judgment – Pasternak could not engage in valid transfer of title, and instead had to
secretly resort to fraudulent conveyance of title.
- The court engaged in various legal actions regarding Countrywide that were out of compliance with the law.
- The Court has been harassing/intimidating/retaliating against Defendant Zernik for 2.5 years now, since
Defendant Zernik is the victim/informer/witness of the conduct of a racketeering court.
-
6) Absent a Judgment that was entered – the Court had no authority at all to take Defendant’s House
The law is clear – absent entry of judgment in the Book of Judgment, the Judgment is not effectual (CCP §664). The law
is also clear – in case of Judgment by Court, the clerk must enter the judgment immediately upon filing of such judgment.

7) The Judges of the LA Superior Court Deliberately engaged in a conspiracy for stealing real property under the guise of
legal proceedings
There is no way to explain the conduct of the judiciary other than deliberate willful misconduct. Reckless racketeering by
the court itself. And the racketeering enterprise was known by the California Court of Appeal. 2nd District, which in fact
colluded with the racket by denying seven (7) Petitions by Defendant during the period the LA Superior Court was
engaging in the abuse at its worst.

8) March 21, 2008 Minute Order by the Hon Virginia Phillips raises serious concerns that she too knew of the racket and
covered it up
The minute order vindicated all actions by the LA Superior Court, but artfully skirted the word “entered” and “entry” when
referring to the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment.

9) The LA Superior Court is now refusing (June 3, 2008) to allow Defendant access to Books of Court, and refusing to
issue either certificate of entry of judgment, alternatively – of non-entry of judgment.
The true meaning of the June 3, 2008 letter by Assistant Presiding Judge McCoy is that the Court was taking the fifth –
allowing Defendant to see the records may incriminate the court and many of its judges. Regardless, that option is not
available to the Court.
The plausible explanation for all the facts listed above is that Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was targeted for fraud by the
judiciary since before its inception, and therefore was never included in the Index of All Cases. For that reason, no Re-
assignment Order could ever be issued. For that reason also the Judgment could never be entered.
However, the court could still generate the Case History in Sustain – described as the Registry of Actions.
This combination of facts and assertions allows to establish which way Sustain – the Court’s Case Management System
was corrupted to serve the needs of racketeers, possibly as far back as 30 years.

10) Defendant will appear on Monday – to witness the conduct of the racketeering ring, and serve Notice of Frauds on the
racketeers
Defendant Zernik will appear on Monday morning to file with Terry Friedman – for LA Superior Court, Mohammad
Keshavarzi - for Sheppard Mullin, David Pasternak - for Pasternak, Pasternak, and Mullin, and John Amberg – for Bryan
Cave, LLP, and for the Legal Division of Countrywide and Samuels and Mozilo Notice of Frauds in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400)

11) Frauds in Pasternak’s Motion for issuing payments

Mr Pasternak was informed prior to filing the motion of various frauds in litigation records that are the demands for pay by
Att Keshavarzi, Counsel for Plaintiff. Similar frauds are also found in almost all Keshavarzi's previous pleadings in
Samaan v Zernik (sc087400).
z Page 4/5 July 11, 2008

Pasternak opted to ignore such warnings, instead filing a motion based entirely on such fraudulent litigation records.
Furthermore, in his motion Pasternak made a false and deliberately misleading statement regarding Defendant Zernik
communications with him in this regard.

The Frauds appearing in instant motion, upon review may be attributed to one or more of the following:
a. Mohammad Keshavarzi, Sheppard Mullin et al
b. David Pasternak, Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton, LLP
c. Countrywide Legal Division, Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels
d. LA Superior Court, and/or Hon Connor, Goodman, Segal, Hart-Cole, Collins, Friedman

Following is a partial list of Frauds:

a. The motion has no validity unless evidence is provided of entry of Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to
CCP 437c.
b. Absent evidence of the entry of Judgment, this motion is one more Predicated Act of Fraud in litigation of
Samaan v Zernik\\Keshavarzi's repeated statements "As you know on Aug 9, 2007 the court entered
judgment..." are additional predicated acts of fraud in litigation and obstruction of justice.
c. Keshavarzi inserted in his demand for pay a key fraud record repeatedly misrepresented i litigation of Samaan v
Zernik as Oct 14, 2004, or mid-October 2004, Underwriting Letter. This record was entered by Keshavarzi in sur
reply to motion to expunge lis pendens, out of compliance with rules of court. This key record was never
authenticated, counsel for Defendant objected to the admission of this record as evidence. That letter is clearly
marked as being produced on Oct 26, 2004, making it obvious that statements by Samaan, Keshavarzi, and
Parks that it was received on Oct 15, 2004, or mid October 2004, were fraud.
Hon Connor as trier of facts, failed to issue evidentiary rulings, but obviously admitted it as key evidence.
Maria McLaurin than contributed additional fraudulent statements in this regard, which now may be deemed
equivalent to the Countrywide fraud technique in a Pennsylvania Court, widely reported on Jan 8, 2008 - filing as
evidence in court "recreated letters”.
d. Keshavarzi also inserted in his demand for pay another key fraud record by Countrywide - Real Property
Purchase Contract purportedly faxed by Parks to Countrywide on Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm. Keshavarzi
entered this record in reply to motion for summary judgment, out of compliance with rules of court. Defendant
objected to the admission of such record as evidence in Summary Judgment Motion, since a motion was on the
calendar of the court at that time for sanctions per CCP §128.7, for the repeated filing of such fraudulent records
in court. This record, again, was never authenticated. For this record, again, judge Connor refused to issue
evidentiary ruling, and again, she obviously used this record as a key litigation record.
e. In instant demand for pay, Keshavarzi eliminated the fax cover sheet of the latter record, and that may be
deemed a predicated act of fraud in and of itself.
f. In addition, Mr Pasternak was also made aware of the fact that Keshavarzi's accounting was fraudulent -
Keshavarzi accounted lease as lost income, but failed to account the respective lost expenses. Given that
Pasternak decided to file such motion under his name, and under his signature, he is deemed responsible for that
too.

g. Representations by the Court, by Keshavarzi, and by Countrywide that funds held by Receiver are Defendant's
funds may be also deemed Predicated Acts of misrepresentation: Pasternak's engaged in multiple fraudulent
acts in the Dec 7, 2007 Grant Deed presented in Court, as well as the Dec 17,2007 Grant Deed, recorded with
the Registrar, it is likely that multiple additional Predicated Acts be found in such records, and the transfer of title
be deemed fraudulent conveyance. Therefore, the funds may be deemed funds that the Court and Pasternak
fraudulently extracted from your client, Samaan, in return to invalid transfer of title.
h. In such case, Defendant has primary demand on these funds, for initial partial compensation for the frauds and
damages incurred by him in litigation of Samaan v Zernik.
i. Needless to say- such frauds in the Grant Deeds were required because no Judgment was entered.
z Page 5/5 July 11, 2008

j. Needless to say - appointment of David Pasternak in and of itself is an act of fraud by the LA Superior Court, by
Judge Segal, by Keshavarzi, and by Pasternak, who misrepresented the appointment as for execution of
judgment, while no executable judgment existed.
k. Needless to say - the Summary Judgment motion was in and of itself one complex series of frauds, Att
Keshavarzi's claims were self contradictory, and lack inherent logic at all. Furthermore - they lacked any base in
reality.
l. Needless to say - Judge Connor, Judge Segal, and all subsequent judges in Samaan v Zernik presided with no
authority at all. the only Re-assignment Order on file is for Judge Connor. That Order is a fraud: it is marked
entered Nov 1, 2005, but in fact was entered Jan 30, 2006. On Jan 30, 2006, Judge Lefkowitz was neither
Supervising Judge nor Master of the Calendar.

CONCLUSION:
Given that Samaan v Zernik may be inspected in the very near future by various branches of government, such haste
to distribute the funds may be deemed as obstruction of justice by Pasternak, Friedman, Keshavarzi and LA Superior
Court, once their frauds were detected and publicized.

Joseph Zernik