09-05-01 Zernik V Melson Et Al (1:09-cv-00805) in The US District Court, Washington DC: (DKT #1-1) Complaint

Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 120
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUlt11!/k-

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA fILED
JOSEPH H ZERNIK MAY - , 2009
P.O BOX 52' i"8~3 fdDn-J/~L !!;,vJ) ~
Clerk U.S. District and
LA VERNE, CA 91750 Ba~kruptcy Courts
TEL: 310435 9107
FAX: 801 998-0917
EMAIL: jz12345rti1earthlink.net
Case: 1:09-cv-00805
VS. / I Assigned To: Leon, Richard J.
KENNETH MELSf>N, U~ DEPT OF JUSTICE, Assign. Date : 5/1/2009
KENNETH KAISER, F~~ SAMUEL BEZEK, / Description: Admin. Agency Review
SEC/KENNETH LEWIS', TIMOTHY
MAYOPOULOS{BANK~FAMERICA
CORPORATION (BAC), BACjAUDIT
COMMIyTEE(DON LENTS{PETER VAN·
CLEVE/BRYAN CAVE, LLP/ ~
cki.~()Y- !Y1rJn1YYrn V\ / -I
PLTF ALLEGES SEVERE ABUSE OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, AND REFUSAL OF U.S. OFFICERS TO PERFORM
THEIR DUTIES. PLTF WAS FORCED OUT OF HIS HOME UNDER THE THREAT OF FORCE AND HAD HIS
PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PRIVATE USE WITH NO COMPENSATION AT ALL UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.
VETERAN FBI AGENT, DECORATED BY U.S. CONGRESS, BY FBI DIRECTOR, AND BY U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL OPINED: "..FRUADS BEING COMMITTED...." PLTF ALSO HAD THREE (3) GAG ORDERS
IMPOSED, THROUGH EX PARTE PROCEDURES TO BENEFIT LARGE CORPORATIONS, AND ALLEGEDLY
FRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS OF CONTEMPT AND SERIOUS SANCTIONS EXCEEDING $30,000 IMPOSED.
PLAINTIFF WAS ALSO FALSELY THREATENED WITH JAIL, IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA, WHERE
MANY ARE FALSELY IMPRISONED: THE RAMPART-FIP's - ESTIMATED AT 10,000 OR MORE PER PBS
'FRONTLINE' BROADCAST (2001), MOSTY BLACK AND LATINO. THEY WERE LEFT FALSELY
IMPRISONED A DECADE AFTER THE MASSIVE RAMPART CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION (1998-2000)
ENDED - ALBEIT - WITH NO REPORT EVER BEING WRITTEN ... ATTORNEY RICHARD FINE - A FORMER
U.S. ATTORNEY LED THE FIGHT AGAINST PAYMENTS TO ALL LA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AT $45,000
PER YEAR, PER JUDGE, THAT WOULD BE NAMED BY A LAYPERSON "BRIBES," AND WERE RULED IN
OCTOBER 2008 "NOT PERMITTED." HE IS NOW INDEFINITELY JAILED FOR CONTEMPT, UNDER
CONDITIONS THAT ARE REPORTED TO BE UNREASONABLE.
FOR TWO YEARS FBI AND USDO] REFUSE TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES AND GUARANTEE PLTF'S EQUAL
PROTECTION AGAINST SEVERE ABUSE OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW. MOREOVER,
WITH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF LONG TERM, WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION, USDOJ SECTION OF
PUBLIC INTEGRITY SHOWS NO INDICTMENTS AND NO PROSECTUTIONS IN LA IN THE PAST 25 YEARS!
UNDERLYING MATTER IS ALLEGED RICO AND FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT BY
COUNTRYWIDE, NOW WHOLLY OWNED BY BAC. FRAUDS ALLEGED IN MY CASE BY COUNTRYWIDE
ARE REPEATS OF THOSE REBUKED BY THE HON. U.S. JUDGE BOHM IN TEXAS MARCH 2008, AND IN
PITTBURGH PENN COUT IN JAN 2008. IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES BY THE HONORABLE SENATOR
FEINSTEIN & CONGRESSWOMAN WATSON IN MY CASE - FBI & USDOJ PROVIDED FALSE AND
DELIBERATELY MISLEADING RESPOPNSES TO U.S. CONGRESS.
DAMAGES SOUGHT IN SUM TO BE DETERMINED, AND ALSO AWARD PER CIVIL RICO AND FALSE
CLAIMS ACT.
,
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
POBOX 526
LA VERNE, CA 91750
).~
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik
1 Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik,
2 POB 526 LV, CA 91750 email=jz12345@earthlink.net.
Tel: (310) 4359107 c=US
Date: 2009.05.01 03:12:56 -OTOO'
3 Fax: (801) 998 0917
4 jzI2345@earthlink.net
Plaintiff in pro se
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
7
8 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9 JOSEPH ZERNIK, CASE NO. - - - - - -

10 also standing for: TO COMPEL U.S. OFFICERS TO
Att. Richard Fine -political prisoner, LA, PERFORM THEIR DUTIES PER 28 USC
11
The 10,000 Rampart-FIPs, LA, and §1361; TO ENFORCE EQAUL
12 The 10 million residents of LA County, PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
whose civil rights are continuously CIVIL RIGHTS & INTERNATIONAL
13 LAW HUMAN RIGHTS FOR PLAINTIFF
abused under the color oflaw, and
AND OTHERS IN LA COUNTY;
14 U.S. Elected Officials & U.S. Voters,
routinely deceived and defrauded by ALSO: COMPLAINT PRUSUANT TO
15
Defendants u.s. Officers re: Sub- FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND CIVIL RICO
16 Prime Heist & the Bailout AGAINST COUNTRYWIDE -
Plaintiffs SUBSIDIARY OF BANK OF AMERICA
17 CORPORATION.
vs.
18 1) KENNETH MELSON & U.S. DEPT
19 OF JUSTICE (USDOJ), KENNETH VERIFIED COMPLAINT
20 KAISER & FBI; 2) SAMUEL BEZEK
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
& SEC; 3) KENNETH D LEWIS,
RELIEF REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF
21 TIMOTHY J MAYOPOULOS, BAC
AUDIT COMMITTEE & BANK OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
AND HUMAN RIGHTS PURSUNT TO
22 AMERICA CORPORATION (BAC);
INTERNTIONAL LAW; FOR
23 4) DON G LENTS, PETER D VAN MANDAMUS, AND FOR DAMAGES
CLEVE, & BRYAN CAVE, LLP
24 (BCLLP); ROES 1-20,
25 Defendants DATE: MAY 1,2009
Copies of this complaint are also filed with:
26 a) Office ofTARP IG Att Barofsky; REQUESTS FOR INCORPORATION BY
27 b) Office ofTARP Oversight Panel, and REFERENCE AND JUDICIAL NOTICE
28 c) Israeli Embassy in Washington DC INCLUDED IN COMPLAINT
-1-
ZERNIK V MELSON, ET AL, VERIFIED COMPLAINT
2 VERIFIED COMPLAINT
3 I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
I. TOC 2
5
II. Background & Scope 3
6
Ill. Chronology of Events 21
7
List of Six "Key Records" that Audit Committee of Bank of America Corporation
8
has repeatedly been requested to either authenticate or repudiate
9
38
10
IV. Verified Request for Lenience by a Pro Se Filer 40
11
V. Requests for Incorporation by reference 41
12
VI. Request for Judicial Notice 60
13
VII. Standing 61
14
VIII. Jurisdiction & Venue 61
15
IX. Parties 62
16
A. Plaintiffs 62
17
B. Defendants 63
18
X. General Allegations 69
19
Xl. Detailed Allegations 73
20
XII. Plaintiff Enters His Complaint 94
21
XIII. Prayer for Relief 96
22
XIV. List of Exhibits 114
23
XV. Statement of Verification 116
24
XVI. Proposed Orders 117
25
XVII Exhibits 120
26
27
28
-2-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT
II.
BACKGROUND & SCOPE OF COMPLAINT-
2
ALLEGATIONS OF LONG-TERM, WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION OF THE
3 JUDICIARY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND FAILURE OF FBI AND USDOJ TO
PROTECT CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THAT REGION OF THE U.S.A.
4
5 1) PLAINTIFF, Joseph H Zernik files herein his Verified Complaint:
6 A. This case stems from my alleged abuse at the hands of judges of LA Superior
7 Court in the case of Samaan v Zernik, and refusal of FBI and USDOJ, named
8 defendants in this case, to take action to protect my Civil and Human Rights.
9 2) This case stems from events related to my abuse by judges of the LA Superior Court,
10 which started in 2005, and continue even today, and refusal of FBI and USDOJ to take
11 action even today, in the face of overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption at the LA
12 Superior Court, both in my case and also in other cases listed below. The basic claim is that
13 Samaan v Zernik never was a true case of the LA Superior Court in the first place, but a case
14 of the "Enterprise Track" operated in that court. None of the judges held assignment order, I
15 was denied and still am denied access to the records of that case, fraud expert provided
16 opinion that the grant deed issued on my home as the outcome of that affair was fraud and
17 recommended that investigation be instituted.
18 3) I was forced to abandon my home under the threat of force, my home was taken with
19 no compensation at all, I sustained losses exceeding $2.0 millions, I allege that two
20 judgments for contempt issued at the request of Countrywide/Bank of America were also
21 part of my abuse and fraud by these parties on me, as were sanctions exceeding $30,000.
22 4) I also had three gag orders issued against me, in an attempt to restrict my speech, all
23 to benefit large corporation.
24 5) There is no way that review of procedures of the LA Superior Court in my case can
25 find them part of any legitimate legal proceedings consistent with the Civil Rights
26 guaranteed to me by the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
27 6) Regardless of the overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption of the LA

28 Superior court in my case, FBI and USDO] refused to take any action.
-3-
7) At present, I may also be fugitive from the law in Los Angeles County, California,
2 where there may be a warrant for my arrest, for failure to appear in Court.
3 8) That underlying violations were of traffic code, related to the enormous stress I
4 endured in 2007, but at the end I lost my driving license through a dubious phone procedure
5 related to vehicle registration.
6 9) I was caught driving without a valid license, while on suspension, which I then learnt
7 was a criminal misdemeanor.
8 10) In preparation for appearance in court in that regard I consulted 3 different offices in
9 Los Angeles. All three had no Minute Orders and no Registers of Actions of cases they
10 handled in court, reflecting same conditions as are the underlying conditions allowing the
11 alleged corruption in the civil courts. Two of the offices insisted that my concern and
12 insistence on such formalities were irrelevant - the practice of law was an art, and the papers
13 I was asking about were insignificant. The third office insisted that there was no such thing
14 as computerized case management system in the criminal courts in Los Angeles, and for all I
15 know that attorney truly believed so.
16 11) I therefore decided not to subject myself to further abuse by dubious tribunals and
17 failed to appear in court.
18 III
19 B. Payments that were "not permitted", but were taken by ALL LA Superior Court
20 judges for years, and would be called "Bribes" by a layperson, are also an
21 integral part of this complaint.
22 12) In October 2008, the California Court of Appeal, San Diego, issued its ruling that
23 payments by Los Angeles County to Los Angeles Superior Court judges, amounts of
24 approximately $45,000 per year per judge were "not permitted".
25 13) During the years that judges were offered and accepted such payments, such judges
26 never disclosed these payments to parties in cases they heard, which included LA County as
27 a party. Reviews of such cases for some years, as reported in various media showed that
28 such judges never issued judgment by court against LA County in such cases.
-4-
14) In layperson language these payments would be named "Bribes".

2 15) The judges of the LA Superior Court then filed for review of the case by the
3 California Supreme Court. But that California Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
4 16) Upon information and belief, it took some four or five days from the announcement
5 that the California Supreme Court would not hear that case, until a bill was passed and
6 signed into law by the Governor of California, and addressed these payments in a manner
7 that is deemed in violation of the U.S. Law, and violation of the Civil Rights and Human
8 Rights of all who reside in LA County.
9 17) In view of such evidence of widespread corruption of the judiciary in Los Angeles
10 County for years, the failure of enforcement by Defendants who are FBI and USDa] in the
11 past quarter century, based on reports of the Public Integrity Section of the USDa] is
12 striking.
13 C. Abuse of Att Richard Fine, now indefinitely jailed in LA County on contempt,
14 after leading the efforts to expose such alleged corruption of the LA Superior
15 Court related to the payments by LA County, is an integral part of this
16 complaint.
17 18) As described below, Att Richard Fine is now indefinitely jailed in Los Angeles County,
18 review of his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and a subsequent Ex Parte application are
19 unreasonably delayed.
20 19) The failure of Defendants who are FBI and USDO] to provide protection for Att Richard
21 Fine, and allowing his continued abuse is an integral part of this complaint, and a direct affront to the
22 Civil and Human Rights of all who reside in LA County.
23 D. Rampart scandal (1998-2000) and the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned

24 persons), mostly black and latinos, wrongfully incarcerated in Los Angeles
25 County a decade after the investigation ended- but no report was issued, are
26 integral part of the matter underlying this complaint
27 20) On the Rampart scandal, which is an integral part of the subject matter underlying this
28 complaint, legal authorities in Los Angeles County, wrote about ten years ago:
-5-
"... judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they
did not commit How could so many participants in the criminal justice
2 system have failed either to recognize or to instigate any meaningful scrutiny
of such appalling and repeated perversions of justice?"
3 " . we felt a particular obligation to ensure that no aspect of the Los Angeles
criminal justice system, including the lawyers and judges, escaped scrutiny."
4 Prof David W. Burcham, then Dean, and Prof Catherine L. Fisk,
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, Rampart symposium, 2000
5
"Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of the
6
heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the
7 most repressive dictators and police states. "
"... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."
8 Erwin Chemerinsky, today Dean of Irvine Law School, University
of California, 57 Guild Prac. 121, 2000
9
21) I believes that at the time of writing these statements, the authors believed that the
10
wrongs inflicted upon the victims were being addressed and remedied, albeit - they were
11
astonished that the conduct of the LA Superior Court judges went unnoticed, and that the
12
judges were not held accountable.
13
22) In fact, only a small fraction of those who were falsely imprisoned as part of the
14
Rampart scandal were released. The vast majority of the Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned
15
persons), mostly black and latinos, are still wrongfully incarcerated in LA County. Their
16
exact number is still unknown, partly because the LAPD never wrote a final report of the
17
massive investigation, with no reason at all, and partly as one of a range of aberrations and
18
abuses of rights resulting from the LA Superior Court's elimination of the public records
19
that are the Books of Court around 1985 - a fundamental abuse of the civil and common law
20
rights of all 10 million residents of the County. That conduct is also an integral part of
21
instant complaint. I use here the estimate of 10,000, which is a low, conservative estimate
22
based on some published and unpublished sources.
23
23) In opening with such statements I also make it clear that this complaint addresses
24
issues that are large scale human and civil rights abuses - disgrace of historic proportions!
25
E. Allegations of extensive wrongdoing at the LA Superior Court related to an
26
alleged fraud in operation of the case management systems, denial of public
27
access to court records, and an "Enterprise Track" in the court are also an
28
-6-
integral part of instant complaint.

2 24) While I suspected that my case was part of a fraud routine by the judges of the LA
3 Superior Court, I had a hard time producing the evidence of the pattern - since the court
4 denies access to public records. I identified the case of Galdjie v Darwish a while ago as a
5 high probability candidate, but the court would not allow me access to the file.
6 25) In February 2009 I managed to meet Defendant Darwish, and she provided the
7 necessary documentation. In fact, the case of Darwish is much more astonishing than mine.
8 What is amazing is that after being dragged in the courts from 1998 to 2006, including two
9 full appeals from invalid judgments at the California Court of Appeal, 2 nd District, and
10 having lost a 6-unit rental property in Santa Monica, she never suspected wrongdoing by the
11 judges themselves at the time I met her.
12 26) Partly because she appeared not to believe my interpretation of her own court history,
13 I asked her to repeat what I did - to sent requests to the Clerk/Executive Officer of the LA
14 Superior Court, with adequate payments, and ask for certificates:
15 a. That her case was a valid case of the Superior Court of California,
16 b. That Judge John Segal, who issued the judgment in her case, was duly assigned judge
17 of the Superior Court of California in that case, and
18 c. That his judgment was a valid effectual judgment of the Superior Court of California.
19 Just as in my case, there has not been any response at all from the Clerk/Executive Officer.
20 F. The conduct of Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation in my case -
21 Samaan v Zernik in the LA Superior Court, and refusal of FBI and USDOJ, as
22 well as SEC, to protect me from such abuse, reflection of the Sub-Prime Heist
23 and the Bailout, are also an integral part of the matter underlying this complaint
24 27) This complaint also addresses a range of the highest priority public policy issues
25 related to the sub-prime heist and the bailout. The connection between the two subjects,
26 which initially appears tenuous at best, is that Los Angeles County, allowed by Defendants
27 who are U.S. officers and agencies to deteriorate into lawlessness, was also the birthplace
28 and cradle of the heist. Per FBI reports prior to 2007, Los Angeles County was "the
-7-
epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and mortgage frauds".

2 28) This complaint also includes allegations related to the conduct of Countrywide and
3 Bank of America related to the sub-prime heist and bailout. Such allegations involve
4 conduct that involved not only financial recklessness, but also corruption of the courts and
5 the practice of the law.
6 29) On the subject of litigation practices of Countrywide, today wholly owned
7 subsidiary of Defendant BAC, and their use of outside counsel, such s Defendant Bryan
8 Cave, LLP, legal authorities wrote in 2008:
9 Countrywide and their outside counsel "have shown a disregard for the
professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and Judicial
10 system".
Judge Jeff Bohm, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Houston, Texas, March
II 2008 Memorandum Opinion
12 30) In January 2008 Countrywide counsel also finally admitted in a Pittsburgh,
13 Pennsylvania court that Countrywide entered as evidence "recreated letters". In fact it was
14 the publication of that story about Countrywide's legal practices, not its financial
15 performance that led to the final crash of Countrywide share price and rumors of bankruptcy,
16 accompanied by tremors in financial markets, that led within 24-48 hours to the initial
17 announcement of the merger-acquisition by Defendant BAC.
18 31) Instant complaint alleges that Defendants BAC, its officers, and its Audit Committee
19 allow Countrywide, now wholly owned by them, to continue with such practices in my abuse
20 at the LA Superior Court, even today, using almost exactly the same wrongful conduct that
21
was rebuked in Houston Texas and in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Courts in 2008.
22 32) The complaint also alleges that Defendants who are U.S. officers and agencies
23 wantonly allowed Countrywide and others to engage in such abuse. I discovered the fraud
24 against me by Countrywide and others in December 2006, exactly a year before the main
25 part of it was consummated. But no matter how convincing my evidence was, this complaint
26 alleges that Defendants who are U.S. officers and agencies refused to protect my rights, and
27 allowed me to be forced out of my own home under the threat of force, to have my property
28 taken for private use with no compensation at all, to have two fraudulent judgments of
-8-
contempt issued against me, to have sanctions exceeding $30,000 fraudulently set upon me
2 by Countrywide, by BAC, and by Bryan Cave, LLP (BBLLP). To make it absolutely clear
3 in the face of fraudulent statement by a U.S. officer - I have never been involved in any
4 bankruptcy, foreclosure or mortgage default. It was fraud under the guise of real estate
5 litigation.
6 33) That part of the claim, unbelievable as it was, that my case - Samaan v Zemik
7 (SC087400) was part of what I called, for lack of better term "the Enterprise Track", recently
8 received solid support:
9 34) First - in news report regarding the recent litigation involving Sharon Stone, where
10 the case was entirely missing from court records.
11 35) Second - in the case of Galdjie v Darwish, as described below.
12 G. Allegations of cover up and false statement to the public-at-Iarge and to elected
13 officials by FBI and USDOJ, relative to my case, and also relative to
14 investigation of the sub-prime heist are integral part of this complaint
15 36) This complaint alleges the cover-up of such conduct by U.S. Officers and agencies is
16 part ofa much larger scale fraud on the U.S. tax payer and on U.S. elected officials by such
17 U.S. officers and agencies. For a year, they have been falsely claiming in various media that
18 they have been vigorously investigating wrongdoing by Countrywide and others. In fact
19 they have been running a cover-up operation.
20 37) The role of U.S. Officers, by LA Superior Court judges, and by Bank of America,
21 including its Audit Committee is highly disturbing. The Audit Committee of BAC lists
22 among its members General Tommy Franks and Admiral Joseph Frueher.
23 38) However, the conduct ofBCLLP, the law-firm who executed much of the
24 wrongdoing on behalf of first Countrywide, and in the past year - BAC, is no less disturbing.
25 As described below under "Parties", former partners in BCLLP are The Establishment itself.
26 How could a law firm of such caliber get involved in such conduct in the LA Courts?
27 39) It was not only one judge and one court. First it was a group ofjudges of the LA
28 Superior Court that were associated with the conduct ofBCLLP, and such conduct later
-9-
1 extended to the California Court of Appeal, 2 nd District, based in Los Angeles, and also to
2 the u.s. District Court, Los Angeles, where I went to seek protection of my civil rights from
3 abuse under the color of law by State of California officials.
4 40) Such allegations may sound like "conspiratorial theories", however, I detailed the
5 fraud by Countrywide against the U.S. government, and provided credible evidence -
6 Countrywide banking records, in written complaints filed with the FBI offices in Los
7 Angeles starting January 2007, when the Subprime heist was yet to be recognized.
8 41) It is wrongdoing that the FBI now has failed to discover through its U.S .. wide
9 vigorous investigation over a full year.
10 H. Abuse of my rights at the U.S. District Court in Zernik v Connor et al is also an
11 integral part of this complaint
12 42) The timing of this complaint was in part dictated by the entry ofjudgment - void as
13 it may be - in Zernik v Connor et al in the u.S. District Court in Los Angeles. A few days
14 ago 1 sent an email to many in Congress and also to the TARP Oversight Panel and TARP
15 IG, describing my experience at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, where I filed on March
16 05,.2008 complaint on abuse of civil rights. It was discussed in the context of the core issue
17 of abuse of rights through the misuse of computers in the courts, which is central to this
18 complaint:
19 A. CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND THE COURTS:
20 1) U.S. District Court LA - Pacer:

The failure to recognize case management systems as Rules of Court results
21 in restriction of access to the courts and first amendment rights, as shown
below in examples from the operation of Pacer at the U.S. District Court, Los
22 Angeles in Zernik v Connor et al. I was waiting for several months for the
dismissal of thiS non-action. Judgment was entered a couple of days ago I
23 do not plan on appealing, but I believe that upon review it must be deemed a
"void not voidable" judgment for reasons directly related the matter under
24
discussion - rules of court.
25
2) U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit:
26 I had some experience also with docketing at the 9th Circuit, which I found
deficient, but the experience was minimal, and insufficient for reaching
27 conclusions.
28 3) LA Superior Court:
-10-
1 I will separately write a short review of my findings regarding conditions at the

State Court - LA Superior Court, which are incomparably worse, and require
2 urgent Federal intervention.
3 4) California Court of Appeal (particularly 2nd District):

Core issues require urgent Federal intervention, and are directly related to
4 the ties between this Court and the LA Superior Court.
5
B. THOSE I HOPE WOULD PROVIDE INPUT
6
7 1) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky & Prof Joseph Grundfest -
Legal authorities and civic leaders, who are California residents. I greatly
8 appreciate their wisdom, and I hope that they would contribute to this debate
in a manner that they see fit. As noted below, the Rules of Court are Just the
9 surface manifestation of the much deeper, continuous crisis of the LA Justice
System, which appears to be coming to its periodic boil at this time.
10
2) TARP-IG Barofsky, and TARP-Oversight Panel Members - Att Damon
11 Silvers & Prof Elizabeth Warren -
Surely they recognized that LA County was key in the development of the
12
sub-prime scandal. Even before the scandal reached that level, FBI reports
defined LA County as "the epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and
13
mortgage frauds that are a high national priority to fight". Likewise, LA
14 County is key to understanding the causes of the scandal, and for setting
corrective measures and safeguards to prevent its recurrence. The direct link
15 of the subject at hand to the sub prime scandal is also reflected by the fact
that Countrywide was involved in court events that generated the experiences
16 described below. The way its appearances were or were not listed in the
dockets is a key issue as well. More alarming is the fact that as a direct
17 outcome of the tax payer sponsored merger-bailout, it appears that Bank of
America is acquiring court practices that are in violation of the law, and is
18 gaining its primary training in this regard on location - at the LA Superior
Court!
19
3) U.S. Congress - Judiciary Committees
20
Eventually the matter should come before the judiciary committees. The
21 proposals listed below, your input, and the input of others, we hope
demonstrate to Congress the need for action, and also the proposed actions
22 to take.
23 C. WORKING HYPOTHESIS IN RE SUB-PRIME SCANDAL & BAILOUT:
24 Genesis of the scandal
25 The sub-prime scandal in its essence reflects criminal conduct.

While Enron was about accounting and auditing practices and the exploitation
26 of Deregulation, the sub-prime scandal, dwarfing Enron in its costs and long
term impact, is about the practice of law, the collapse of the LA County justice
27
system over a decade ago, and the neglect of U.S. Government and U.S.
28 agencies in the past decade to address the issue. Legal practices that were
-11-
brewed in LA County provided the blueprints for "streamlining" of courts and

regulators everywhere. Beyond financial recklessness, Countrywide
2 facilitated corruption of the courts in LA.
3 Accordingly, in charting the course of correction:
4 1. Procedures used in the aftermath of the Enron scandal to establish

corrective measures should be subjected to outcome evaluation, and
5 accordingly either emulated or rejected.
6
2. Restoring the integrity of LA County justice system, is a prerequisite for
7 restoring trust -- both at home and abroad -- in the integrity of financial
institutions, financial markets, corporate reporting, real estate markets, and
8 their derivatives.
9 D. MANIFESTATIONS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE LA JUSTICE

SYSTEM:
10
1. Ongoing wrongful incarceration of the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs 10 years after
11 the false convictions and false sentencing were discovered.
12 2. The disbarment of Att Richard Fine.
13
3. Indefinite wrongful incarceration of Attorney Richard Fine - a political
14 prisoner in LA County, California. He is nearing the end of his second month
in jail, part of extreme campaign of retaliation, harassment, and intimidation
15 against a former U.S. Attorney, who exposed judicial corruption.
http://inproperinla.com/09-0 3-04-fu II-disclosu re-network-att-ric hard-fi ne-jailed-
16 in-attempt-to-disgualify-Ia-judge.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-21-richard-fi ne-i nmate-informatlon-center-
17 %20booking-details. pdf
18 4. Ruling in October 2008 that all judges of LA Superior Court took payments
of $45,000 per year that were "not permitted" - "BRIBES" in lay person's
19 language.
http://inproperinla.com/08-1 0-1 O-appe lIate-ru ling-j udges-of-sup-cou rt-Ia-
20 received-illegal-payments-s.pdf
21
5. Inadequate response to the discovery of the "bribes" - through actions that
22 are in violation of the law, and failure to even suggest the reversal of any of
the biased judgments.
23
6, Failure of the U S Overseer of Civil Rights to accomplish his mission, and
24 apparent refusal of the LAPD to comply with provisions of the Consent
Decree in U.S Government v City of LA, LAPD, et al. (2:2000cv11769).
25
7. Denial of First Amendment and Common Law rights to access court
26 records to inspect and to copy for the past 25 years.
27
8. Opinion letter of veteran FBI agent James Wedick, decorated by U.S.
28 Congress, FBI Director, and U.S. Attorney General - Real estate "frauds are
-12-
being committed" by the LA Superior Court in collusion with Countrywide,

now BAC, on the one hand, and large law firms - Bryan Cave, LLP and
2 Sheppard Mullin, and the former President of the LA Bar Association - David
Pasternak.
3 http://inpropennla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opimon-s.pdf
http://inpropennla.com/07-12-17-
4 wedick.memo.notarized.deeds.zernik.2009.02.05-s.pdf
5 9 Alleged operation of an Enterprise Track by the LA Superior Court - noted
6 again in recent days through the case of Sharon Stone.
http.//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-Ia-sup-ct-index-of-all-cases-stone-sharon-
7 april-24-2009-case-sealed.pdf
8 E. OPERATION OF PACER AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTS, LOS

ANGELES
9
1. General
10 Below are examples of abuse of Pacer by U S. District Court, Los Angeles,
Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. The case Zernik v Connor et al
11 2:2008cv01550 can serve as a text book of such manipulations. The docket
shows Magistrate Carla Woehrle and her clerk indefatigably employing first
12 beginner's, then advanced techniques for compromising docketing in Pacer.
13
My typical response was to document the conduct by filing notice of it. In one
14 instance - I also filed a complaint with the FBI, and notice of the complaint to
FBI into the Pacer docket.
15
2. Why was it necessary?
16 Zernik v Connor et al 2:2008cv01550, complaint for abuse of civil rights
under the color of law, was filed on March 5, 2008. Litigation was
17 abandoned by me (Plaintiff - Joseph Zernik) as an abusive, sham,
proceedings at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles around August 2008, and
18 complaint was finally dismissed by Judge Virginia Phillips only a few days
ago.
19
In reading the sequence of dishonest manipulations of the Pacer docket at
20
the U.S. District Court, LA, the question must come up:
21
Why was it necessary?
22
Pro se Plaintiff is an orthodontist.
23 Pitted against him were some 10 judges of the LA Superior Court,
Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo, Sandor Samuels, Bryan Cave, LLP - a giant
24 law firm, Buchalter Nemer, David Pasternak - former President of the LA
County Bar Association, etc.
25
The reason is that Plaintiff caught the judges of the LA Superior Court in real
26 estate fraud - racketeering from the bench. There was no question that the
U.S. District Court would protect the judges, who were in a precarious
27
position:
28
-13-
The case was of the Enterprise Track, so none of them had an assignment
order, and none of them had any judicial authority, and none of them had any
2 immunity! In short - they were caught engaged in alleged criminal conduct
with no immunity at all.
3
For such reasons, it was insufficient that the U.S. District Court would dismiss
4 the complaint, it was essential that Plaintiff would not be able to file any
evidence. It was extremely undesirable for such records to be permanently on
5
Pacer. Surely the Judges of the LA Superior Court wished that the U.S.
6 District Court could offer them the Sharon Stone option ....
7 3. Is this the only case of this kind?

If the question is regarding real estate frauds by the LA Superior Court
8 judiciary, the question is surely notl We have identifIed at least one case that
IS a perfect match - Galdjie v Darwish ( SC052737). The LA Superior Court
9 refused to allow me to inspect the records, but I finally located the Defendant,
and had a chance to review her records. John Segal and David Pasternak
10 are in key positions in that case as well.
11 I separately conducted a search in the office of registrar/recorder, and

retrieved from there copies of numerous grant deeds by David Pasternak with
12 features similar to the one that James Wedick opined was a fraud.
13
If the question is regarding the conduct of Magistrate Woehrle seen in this
14 case, the answer is that it is not unique either Attorney Richard Fine is now
indefinitely incarcerated, after he was instrumental in exposing the bribes
15 taken by ALL judges of the LA Superior Court. Conditions in LA County are
such, that media do not report on his case. He was allowed no visitors for a
16 while, and not even pencil and paper. He therefore had to dictate by phone a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus The Petition was referred to Magistrate
17 Woehrle as well. Those more experienced than me say that the delay in
adjudicating the petition is unusual.
18 http·//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dlst-ct-Ia-fi ne-v-Ia-county-sheriff-doc-1-
habeas-corpus-petition.pdf
19 http://inproper!n la.com/OO-OO-OO-u s-dist-ct-Ia-fine-v-Ia-cou nty-sheriff-doc-1-
p2-habeas-corpus-petition. pdf
20
http://inproperinla com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-fl ne-v-Ia-cou nty-sheriff-doc-1-
21 p3-habeas-corpus-petition.pdf
http://lnproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-fi ne-v-Ia-cou nty-sheriff-doc-1-
22 p4-habeas-corpus-petition. pdf
23 Prior to that, retaliation of the LA Superior Court judges involved disbarment

of Attorney Richard Fine, a former U.S. Attorney, about 70 years old, on
24 charges of "Moral Turpitude", where moral turpitude was filing complaints
against LA Superior Court judges.
25
Att Fine challenged the disbarment in U.S. District Court, and the case was
26 referred to - Magistrate Woehrle.
27
What is most noticeable in all cases is the abuse of "Clerical Errors" The
28 "Filed" stamp on Attorney Richard Fine's Habeas Corpus is clearly
-14-
adulterated by hand. In addition, it appears that "Clerical Errors" have been

used to conceal the recusals of judges in the case of Attorney Fine
2 2.09-cv-01914
2:08-cv-02906
3
4. The general sequence of abuses in docketing was as follows:
4
1. At the beginning of litigation I filed a request for electronic filing, and
5 specifically expressed my concern that demanding costly and time
consuming paper filing from pro se only, and subjecting him to arbitrary
6
conduct of the clerks, was unreasonable. Request was denied The U.S.
7 Distnct Court in Los Angeles, would not allow pro se litigant to filed
electronically, while the U S. District Court in DC would allow such filing,
8 provided that the pro se litigant took the necessary class and passed it. I
hold that the rule of the Los Angeles court is in violation of constitutional
9 rights Furthermore, I am of the opinion that it was used as a tool to abuse a
pro se litigant (see below).
10
2. Manipulations of the docket started in Pacer started on day 1. The clerk
11 refused to sign valid summons that I presented to him, and insisted on
creating his own (which later I found was defective) - all in violation of rules of
12 court.
http://inproperinla com/08-03-05-us-d ist-ct-Ia-doc-no 1-summons-as-issued-
13
by-clerk. pdf
14
When I tried to correct the defect - again the clerk refused to sign the valid
15 summons.
16 3. The clerk then docketed the defective summons under the complaint, so
that it would hardly be noticed. In other U S. courts it is my impression that
17 the summons are docketed in the second slot. Regardless - the docketing of
Summons in Pacer should be consistent, and set by rule, given the central
18 significance of that paper in the litigation, and not be subject to manipulation.
19 4. Later, Minute Orders of Magistrate Woehrle were Inexplicably delayed
between filing and entry. Such delays were most harmful to me, since
20 Woehrle also interpreted the rules that the court was barred from emailing
21 notices to me, as it did to all other parties Therefore, delayed entry + mailing,
created a significant handicap. I believe that anytime that Minute Order is not
22 entered upon filing in Pacer, the judge should be required to justify the delay.
23 5 Conversely - all other parties filed their papers electronically, but I was
required to appear in person in the clerks office, where they would keep me
24 typically for 30-60 minutes. And after that - you may notice that some of my
papers, but none of any other party, were delayed in entry at times over a
25 month.
26 6. Later - my papers were artificially delayed in entry, presumably by adding
some attachment, for no reason at all. I filed my protest on that in a case
27
involving a critical ex parte application for leave to file first amended
28 complaint. The effect could have easily been killing the litigation by claiming
-15-
that the Magistrate was not aware of the ex parte, and blaming plaintiff for a
last minute filing (but in this case it was a stillborn litigation anyway). Simple
2 review of the sequence of the ordinal numbers of the records in this case
shows that some dishonest manipulation was underway.
3
The U.S. District Court and Pacer should be given credit for this!
4
This writer considers the ordinal numbering of records the quintessential
5 feature of a "Register of Actions" - as is clearly implied in the name. Pacer is
unique in its honesty on this account.
6
a, Ventura County- documents can be entered and removed.
7 b. LA Superior Court - no numbering at all - free for all
c. Cal Court of Appeal - the online "Docket" has no numbering, but it is not
8 the real docket either, the court uses the double books system.
9 7. Later - my papers including evidence that was undesirable, were hidden

under unrelated tags of other papers ( See Doc #52,#56, & #58).
10
8. When I protested this latest dishonesty - Magistrate Woehrle issued the
11 June 6, 2008 Minute Order (Doc #63), where she reinvented docketing - any
documents that I would file on the same day, would have the same face
12 page, regardless of their content. Preventing such abusive ad-hoc creative
rules, is the reason that the case management system must be formalized as
13
Rules of Court.
14 http.//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-63-08-06-
06-min ute-order-docketing-etc. pdf
15
9. To mark the 4th of July, 2008, I sent a request to about 30 members of
16 U.S. Congress, to "Open the Book of Judgments of LA County... Bring LA
back into the fold of the U.S. Constitution ..." I consider the denial of public
17 access to the court's public records for the past quarter century, which started
concomitantly with the installation of the case management systems at the LA
18 Superior Court (but failing to treat them as Rules of Court) as the key to the
regression of the LA justice system to some patterns of conduct of earlier
19 centuries. I believe that the most cost effective approach to the problem is
through restoration of First Amendment and Common Law rights affirmed by
20
the U S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications. Inc.
21
I have made numerous requests to that effect to the US Department of
22 Justice under the previous administration, but was routinely denied.
Nevertheless, I believe that such decision must be reversed, since such U.S
23 officers had and have no administrative discretion in this matter.
24 The paper was about 150 page compilation reflecting conditions of the public
records in LA County. Coming from LA, the face page was decorated with
25 images of Jefferson, palm trees, and the ocean waves. I tried to file it as a
record in Zernlk v Connor et ai, since it addressed some related core issues.
26 Magistrate Woehrle ruled to deny its filing, and ordered me to notice her
ruling.
27
28
-16-
This was, In fact, in my opinion the only one out of some 20 discrepancy
notices that was processed in compliance with the law (Doc #81)'
2 http.!/inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-la-zern ik-v-con nor-doc-81-
docketed-discrepancy-notice-for-reguest-for-congressional-action.pdf
3
10. I first filed a motion for reconsideration, Then eagerly complied with the
4 order to notice the ruling denying filing.
5 11. However, Magistrate Woehrle was obviously unhappy with the notice of
6 ruling ... that is why she preferred the perverted discrepancy procedures. The
true valid procedure makes permanent record of the ruling. She wanted none
7 of that.
8 Plaintiff's Notice of Ruling of the Denial of Filing on the July 4th message:
"Open the Book of Judgment of LA County... Bring back LA into the fold
9 of the U.S. Constitution ..." was docketed in Pacer. However, the record
was docketed with no Pacer header security imprint (Doc #87-1).
10 http·llinproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zern ik-v-con nor-doc-87-1-
mlssing-pacer-security-header-imprint-08-08-08 pdf
11
12. At that point, I considered that manipulation of Pacer operations to be on
12 the criminal side, and reported it to FBI, with copy for the docket.
13
13. The Notice of Complaint to FBI of obstruction of justice through Pacer
14 (Doc #88), was initially targeted for discrepancy, but later recovered and
docketed. That reversal of ruling, in and of itself, is a perverted procedure as
15 well. The bottom line was that all papers were deemed in discrepancy and
disappeared with no record at all. Later, Magistrate Woehrle could pick and
16 choose and recover some of them.
http://inproperin la. com/OO-OO-OO-u s-dist-ct-Ia-zern ik-v-con nor-doc-88-1-
17 piaintiff-co mplaint-to-fbi-on-pe rversion -i n-pacer. pdf
18 14. Under the notice to FBI, another record was hidden, which remains
unknown ... there is no way to identify it at all:
19
This was a volume of some 500 pages describing the various frauds in the
20 conduct of David Pasternak, including real estate fraud on behalf of the court,
21 per James Wedick opinion letter.
22 Here is the volume missing from Pacer:

http·llinproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zern ik-v-con nor-exh-vol-v-
23 pasternak08-06-02. pdf
24 15, I deemed the denial of my right, as Plaintiff, to file papers in court, as

abuse of my constitutional rights, and accordingly I filed several protests and
25 requests (Doc #85) for honest docketing (denied -Doc #86).
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-la-zernik-v-connor-doc-85-ex-
26 parte-reg-honest-docketing. pdf
http //inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-la-zernlk-v-connor-doc-86-minute-
27
order-deny-reg-for-honest-docketing. pdf
28
-17-
16. Eventually, I filed statement of disqualification for a cause of Magistrate

Woehrle (Doc #89), where the abuse of First Amendment rights was the
2 primary cause
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-89-ex-
3 disgualification-for-a-cause-magistrate-woehrle.pdf
4 17, Please notice on the face page, that the Statement of Disqualification for
a Cause was also initially targeted for "Discrepancy", but was later recovered.
5
6 18. Although I abandoned this process in summer 2008, while my opposition
to motion to dismiss was due, no ruling was made in this case for some 8
7 months When I realized that the dismissal is imminent, I filed Doc #105
"Notice of Allegedly Perverted Discrepancy Notices", so that there would be
8 in the docket some record of the numerous papers that disappeared with no
record at all.
9 http://inproperin la com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zern Ik-v-con nor-doc-1 05-09-04-
09-notlce-of-perverted-discrepancy-notices-missing-proposed-order. pdf
10
19) Regarding the docketing of the latter (Doc #105), it did not escape its own
11 manipulation - please notice the difference between the paper as docketed,
where the Proposed Order, which I deliberately included as an attachment,
12 was removed:
13 http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-1 05-09-04-
09-notice-of-perverted-discrepancy-notices-mlssing-proposed-order pdf
14
For comparison, I posted online the paper as filed in court, with the Proposed
15 Order included:
http://inproperinla com/.OHeadlng-1 03-us-dlst-ct-la-perverted-use-of-
16 discrapancy-notices-with-proposed-order pdf
17 One can argue that proposed orders should not be included with the
document, but the rule must be consistent. The other parties who were filing
18 electronically included proposed orders in their papers as attachment. I was
not permitted to do so.
19
The issue was of significance to me in this particular paper, since I was trying
20 to press Magistrate Woehrle to rule on the matter - my request for
21 incorporation of her perverted discrepancy notices. And obviously, she was
not fond of the idea.
22
The Proposed Order was deliberately bound into the paper, in front of the
23 POS. The clerk had to take the paper apart and remove these pages.
24 F. PROPOSED TAKE HOME LESSONS:
25 1 The rules of operating such system must be handled pursuant to the Rule
Making Enabling Act.
26
2. Such systems should have been presented for public comment and
27 challenge prior to their Introduction into use, just like rules published on
28 paper.
-18-
3. Once such system is introduced, individual judges must not hold the
2 authority to change the rules of operation of the system at will, the same way
that they are not allowed to change the Rules of Court at will.
3
4. Rules of Court setting the way of docketing proposed orders in Pacer must
4 put this issue to rest. My opinion is that Proposed orders must be part of the
docket.
5
6 5. Rules of Court must also explicitly say under what conditions a clerk is
allowed to remove pages from litigant paper in the process of scanning it Into
7 Pacer.
8 F. PROPOSALS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS:
9 1, Enforcement of the Rule Making Enabling Act relative to case

management systems:
10 The one-page proposal linked below, was submitted to the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees committee with the hope of generating debate.
11 http://inproperinla.com/. 0Head Ing-201-conclusions-computers&courts-
concerns&leglstlative-proposal-s.pdf
12
2. Restoration of First Amendment and common Law rights of the 10 millions
13
residents of LA County,
14 Residents of LA County have been denied such rights for the past quarter
century. We believe that such a simple measure would bring about a major
15 positive change in the justice system of LA County, including release of the
Rampart FIPs.
16 http://inproperinla.com/08-1 0-1 O-reply-modified-reg uest-for-special-counsel-
fbi-&-doj-as-filed-s.pdf
17
18 43) The reasons that I copied such a lengthy email in full are the following:
19
a. I am going to file the complaint in the u.s. District Court in Washington DC today.
Again, I am in pro se, and I hope and believe that I would be treated fairly at the
20
21
Honorable u.s. District Court of Washington DC. I hope and believe that the abuse I
was subjected to was specific to the LA Courts. However, given abuse and disregard
22
23
for my civil rights pursuant to the u.s. Constitution and its Amendments which I have
24
endured in other State and u.s. courts in Los Angeles County, I also notice this
complaint as demanding the safeguard of my Human Rights pursuant to International
25
Law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am also an Israeli citizen/,
26
and I am filing this complaint with the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC with a
27
request for monitoring of conduct of the U.S. court actions in my regard following
28
-19-
extensive abuses of my rights at the Los Angeles County courts that are fully
2 documented.
3 b. Review of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Attorney Richard Fine -
4 whom I consider a political prisoner in Los Angeles County, at the U.S. District
5 Court in Los Angeles is long overdue. The case was referred to Magistrate Woehrle.
6 The Pacer records already show various signs of abuse and dishonest manipulations.
7 The delays in hearing both the Petition and an Ex Parte application subsequently
8 filed by Att Richard Fine, and his treatment at the jail are unreasonable!
9 It is my opinion that review of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Attorney
10 Richard Fine must be removed from the court of Magistrate Woehrle, based on the
11 evidence I provided above for her dishonest conduct in my case. The common feature
12 of the two cases is that the subject matter involved evidence of misconduct by LA
13 Superior Court judges. Human rights monitors should also carefully observe any
14 abuse of Attorney Richard Fine at the U.S. District Court and/or at the County Jail in
15 Los Angeles.
16 I. Hurdles faced in filing this complaint
17 44) With such outrageous claims, I believe that the authenticity of my unusual claims is
18 in the details, and therefore this complaint is more detailed than normally expected.
19 45) I also recognize that I am clearly unqualified to file such complaint. I am in pro se
20 not by choice.
21 46) However, in the past year I realized and accepted that it could be part of my fate to
22 have fallen into this trap - an alleged fraud by judges of the LA Superior Court and others,
23 to uncover the underlying alleged criminal conduct, and provide assistance to many others
24 who have been abused, falsely imprisoned for years, or deceived in real-estate and litigations
25 in the LA Superior Court.
26 47) Most of them may not even know who their abusers are ...
27 48) In part I hope that this complaint will call awareness to the subject matter, so that
28 those who are better qualified can take it over.
-20-
III
2 III
3 III.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATED TO MY ABUSE AND TAKING OF MY
4
PROPERTY WITH NO COMPENSATION AT ALL, ISSUANCE OF ALLEGED
5 FRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS FOR CONTEMPT AND SERIOUS SANCTIONS AT
THE REQUEST OF COUNTRYWIDEIBANK OF AMERICA
6
7 III
8 1. Plan A initiated (Sept-Oct 2004)
9 Nivie Samaanfalsely enters real estate purchase contract on my home &.files.fi7Ise mortgage
10 applications with Cozmtry}l'ide
II a) Assent to Contract
12 49) In August 2004 r had my residence listed for sale for ~$1.8 millions.
13 50) I had no business whatsoever with Countrywide, and I did not even recognize the name.
14 51) Nivie Samaan, a resident of Los Angeles County was at that time employed as a
15 cosmetics saleswoman in a department store.
16 52) I am informed and believe that unbeknown to me at that time, her fiance, lae Arre
17 Lloyd (formerly Timothy Lloyd Morrow), was a convicted felon, and had been involved in
18 the disappearance of the medical benefits funds of Skyline Funding, a real estate and
financial firm based in the San Fernando Valley.
19
53) Her fiance was also acting at that time as a "Loan Originator" for Countrywide.
20
54) Unbeknown to me, her fiance also operated at that time an unlicensed, unregistered
21 branch of Pacific Mortgage Consultants (PMC), a loan brokerage firm, in the Los Angeles
22 area.
23 55) On September 4, 2004 Nivie Samaan presented me, through my realtor, with an offer to
purchase my home. In such offer, she falsely represented herself to me as a realtor who
24
"c1ose[s] a few properties a year".
25
56) In fact, she had no experience whatsoever in real estate transactions, as she later
26
admitted in deposition.
27 57)Given the fact that she was a realtor representing herself, I refused to entertain her offer,
28 absent a third party, arm's length pre-qualification.
-21-
58) On September 7,2004, through my realtor, she presented me with a Prequalification

2 Letter. It was represented as written, verified, and faxed by Victor Parks, loan broker for
Pacific Mortgage Consultants (PMC).
3
59) Fraud expert opinion is that the signature on the letter was not that of Victor Parks, loan
4
broker, as it was falsely represented.
5
60) It is my opinion that the preponderance of the evidence shows that such letter was never
6 faxed by Victor Parks either.
7 61) Instead, it is my opinion, that such letter was the first example of the wire/fax schemes
8 in these transactions, where Samaan routinely impersonated her loan broker, Victor Parks,
in fax communications with me and with others.
9
62) It is my opinion that the facts above, as well as the underwriting history of Samaan's
10
loans make it abundantly clear that Nivie Samaan, a cosmetic saleswoman, was far from
11 qualified for the purchase of my home at ~$1.8m.
12 63) On September 15,2004, I assented to a real estate Purchase Contract under deceptive
13 representations, by endorsing and dating Samaan's 2nd Counter Offer.
14 64) On September 16, 2004, Samaan initialed and dated the same, acknowledging
acceptance of a fully executed the Purchase Contract.
15
b) Samaan's Loan Applications (1003)
16
65) In such Purchase Contract, Samaan was required to act "honestly and diligently to
17
obtain designated loans".
18 66) In early October 2004, unbeknown to me in 2004, Samaan filed Uniform Residential
19 Loan Applications (1003s) for U.S. government-backed loans, with CHL, San Rafael
20 Wholesale Branch.
67) Such applications were for loans that were entirely different from those designated in
21
the contract.
22
68) In such loan applications, Samaan also represented herself as President and Sole Owner
23
of a corporation named "Spellbound Enterprise"
24 69) I later found out through a web search that such corporation was founded in 2004, the
25 very same year, and was retailing through the web crystal balls, Tarot cards, anointment
26 oils, divining objects, and other consumer goods for followers of the psychic and the occult.
It was advertised as the "Supernatural Superstore".
27
28
-22-
70) In such loan applications Samaan stated her income as derived solely from her position
2 as President and Sole Owner of Spellbound, and earning $400,000 a year.

71) In deposition, Samaan admitted that her income at that time was from her employment
3
as a cosmetics saleswoman in a department store. In deposition she never claimed any
4
income at all from Spellbound Enterprise.
5 72) In other Countrywide papers Samaan was listed as earning $4,000,000 per year.
6 73) In such loan applications Samaan listed herself as a Single Woman.
7 74) However, by the time that she filed the loan applications, she had stated in written
8 communications with me that she had married her fiance, Jae Arre Lloyd.
75) Fraud expert opinion is that the loan broker's signatures on the 1003s, which were
9
represented as those of Victor Parks, were not Victor Parks signatures.
10
76) In deposition in 2006, Samaan herself admitted that loan broker Parks, whose name and
11 signatures appear on the loan applications had nothing to do with it, and that she and her
12 husband alone completed the loan applications.
13 III
14
2. Plan A fails (Oct 2004)
15
False data noted by Countrywide's San Rqfael 5,"enior Undenvriter Diane Frazier.
16
a) -Oct 4,2004 - 1003s arrive at San Rafael.
17
77) On or around October 4, 2004 the Loan Applications arrived in Countrywide.
18
78) At that time they were stamped "Received" with the respective date.
19
79) The exact date of these stamps on the 1003s cannot be read today, since the stamps
20 were defaced.
21 b) Oct 6,2004 - false employment data noted
22 80) On or around October 6,2004, Diane Frazier, Countrywide's San Rafael Senior
23 Underwriter, duly assigned to the underwriting of Samaan' s 1003 s, detected the false
24 employment data.
81) Frazier detected the false data using web-based Yellow Pages reverse look-up, exactly
25
as noted in Countrywide's "Employment Re-verification" instructions.
26
82) She inserted a printout of the screen of the reverse look up, dated October 6,2004, into
27 the loan file.
28
-23-
83) Frazier also detected that Samaan listed "$0.00" as loan fees, where in fact her loan fees
2 per "Program Rules" were supposed to be 0.75% - or over $10,000.
84) Allowing waiver of such fees would have been contrary to the interests of
3
Countrywide's share-holders.
4
85) Allowing Samaan waiver of such loan fees would also raise concerns regarding
5 compliance with Fair Housing and Fair Credit laws.
6 86) Allowing Samaan waiver of such loan fees would also raise concerns regarding
7 compliance with "sound banking principles" per Regulation B of the FRB.
8 87) Frazier also noted other violations of "Program Rules": Samaan listed her loan
applications as "Reduced Documentation", but the loan amount that she requested under
9
such terms, by far exceeded that which was allowed per program rules.
10
88) Furthermore, Samaan never filed a copy of the Purchase Contract with her loan
11 applications. Instead, Samaan filed an unverified letter titled "Supplemental Escrow
12 Instructions" .
13 89) For all of these reasons, Frazier refused to issue any underwriting recommendation on
14 these 1003s.
90) Frazier instead demanded new loan applications with correct loan fees listed, a
15
reasonable explanation for employment data, and a true copy of the purchase contract - not
16
an escrow letter.
17 91) Unbeknown to Frazier at that time, the contract terms in the unverified letter titled
18 "Supplemental Escrow Instructions" were different from the true terms listed in the
19 Purchase Contract.
92) Unbeknown to Frazier at that time, had Samaan filed a true copy of the Purchase
20
Contract, her loan applications would have been summarily denied, since Samaan listed in
21
the Purchase Contract her commission as part of the down payment for the property, which
22 is explicitly prohibited.
23 c) Samaan fails to comply
24 93) There is no evidence that Samaan ever complied with such underwriting conditions set
25 forth by Diane Frazier.
26 d) Oct 12,2004 - 1003s re-scanned and re-stamped
27 94) On or about October 12,2004 the old loan applications were scanned a second time.
95) The old "Date Received" stamps from early October were defaced.
28
-24-
96) New "Date Received" stamps were imprinted.

2 97) The new stamps were dated "October 12,2004".
98) Such banking records were and are represented as "new loan applications".
3
99) Countrywide could never provide any explanation whatsoever for the double
4
"Received" stamps on Samaan' s 1003 s, and the defaced stamps either.
5 100) Given that compliance with Regulation B of the FRB is largely hinged upon
6 compliance with time frames and "Pipeline Reports" raise concern regarding compliance
7 in general.
8 e) Oct 14,2004 - 1003s are suspended
9 101) The 1003s were not changed at all.

102) Therefore, Samaan still had the loan fees listed as "$0.00", while the correct loan fees
10
were 0.75%, or over $10,000.
11
103) No disclosures could be completed and presented to the applicant.
12 104) No disclosures could be signed by the applicant within 3 days, as required by law.
13 105) Prior to the end of 3 days, on or about October 14, 2004, Diane Frazier, duly assigned
14 Senior Branch Underwriter, issued an Underwriting Letter, verified by her hand signature,
15 suspending Samaan's loan applications (l003).

106) Such suspension allowed Samaan 10 days to fix the loan applications.
16
107) If left uncorrected, the loan applications (l003) were to be terminated at the end of 10
17
days (October 25,2004, sine October 24,2004 was a Sunday).
18 108) There is no evidence that Samaan complied with the conditions set forth in the
19 October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter.
20 109) The loan files produced by Countrywide in fact show that Samaan never filed new
loan applications (1003) listing the correct loan fees and correct closing costs.
21
110) Samaan also never corrected the false employment data in her loan applications.
22
Ill) Samaan also never filed any true copy of the Purchase Contract until an unknown date
23
later than end of business on October 25,2004.
24 f) Concerns in re compliance at CHL and CFC
25 112) In October 2004 I had no knowledge of the nature of Samaan' s loan applications.
26 113) In October 2004, needless to say, I had no knowledge of the nature of Samaan's
27 1003s underwriting.
28
-25-
114) In mid December 2006 I saw for the first time any records ofSamaan's loan
2 applications and underwriting, in subpoena production that I inspected in my counsel's
office.
3
115) As is apparent from the records produced by Countrywide in subpoena, the loan
4
applications were never terminated on October 25, 2004, as stipulated by the duly assigned
5
Senior Branch Underwriter, Diane Frazier.
6 116) Instead, "Edge" the underwriting monitoring system falsely allowed Maria McLaurin
7 to assume underwriting privileges for such loan applications.
8 117) Such computer system must not permit such unauthorized underwriting actions.
118) In October 25-29, 2004, McLaurin even communicated with Demetrio Gadi, CFC
9
Corporate Underwriting Supervisor, regarding her unauthorized underwriting actions.
10
119) Mr Gadi on the one hand stated his disagreement with such unauthorized underwriting
11 actions by a Branch Manager in lieu of a duly assigned Underwriter.
12 120) Mr Gadi also instructed McLaurin to stop such unauthorized underwriting actions.
13 121) On the other hand, on or about October 29,2004, Mr Gadi failed to outright reject
14 McLaurin's unauthorized underwriting actions, and in fact, did not prevent them from
continuing, when he must have been cognizant that the 1003s were to be terminated on
15
October 25, 2004.
16
122) On or about October 29,2004 and November 3,2004, McLaurin also issued
17 Underwriting Letters from "Edge", with no authority at all.
18 123) McLaurin verified such unauthorized Underwriting Letters with her hand signatures,
19 but with no signature by a duly assigned authorized Branch Underwriter.
124) Such actions were in contradiction of Mr Gadi' s instructions.
20
125) The loan files fail to include any valid Underwriting Decision within the time frames
21
defined in regulations.
22 126) Up till January 2005, Maria McLaurin proceeded with unauthorized underwriting
23 actions relative to Samaan's 1003.
24 127) In January 2005 such unauthorized loan applications (2005) were even presented for
25 funding by Countrywide Bank, FSB.

128) In January 2005, Countrywide Bank FSB summarily issued a "Denial Letter" on
26
Samaan's unauthorized loan applications.
27
28
-26-
129) Such underwriting conduct in the San Rafael Branch ofCHL must be raise concern
2 regarding compliance with both banking regulations and also federal and California state
Fair Housing and Fair Credit Acts.
3
130) The facts regarding Samaan's 1003s were fully known by both CHL management and
4
the CFC Legal Division since mid 2006, and by Sandor Samuels and by Angelo Mozilo
5
since at least early 2007.
6 131) There is no evidence of corrective action ever being taken, or any reporting to
7 authorities.
8 132) Instead, Sandor Samuels, Angelo Mozilo, and various others engaged in cover- up
attempts.
9
133) In parallel, CHL and CFC continued to inflict greater and greater harms on me.
10
134) I am informed and believe that in early 2005 Diane Frazier lost her job as Senior
11 Underwriter a CHL San Rafael.
12 135) To the best of my knowledge, to this date, Maria McLaurin is Branch Manager at
13 CHL, San Rafael
14 III
15 3. Samaan fails to perform (Oct 2004)

16 rVire(fclX schemed detected, and Zernik cancels escrow.
17
a) Oct 18-21. 2004 - Samaan refuses to perform per Contract
18
136) First week of October 2004 - In the meanwhile, Samaan failed to remove her loan and
19 appraisal contingencies in a timely, as required by the Purchase Contract. She would not
20 explain why. Instead, she repeatedly claimed that the loan applications would be approved
21 in a matter of days.
137) On or about October 18, 2004, I issued to Samaan Notice to Buyer to Perform.
22
138) On or about October 18, 2004, Samaan falsely informed me through my realtor that
23
her loan applications were conditionally approved by the lender!
24 139) In fact on that date the 1003s were already suspended, with termination scheduled for
25 October 25, 2004.
26 140) However, there is no indication that Samaan made any effort to file new loan
27 applications and meet the conditions set forth in the October 14, 2004 Underwriting
Condition/Decision Letter, issued by the duly assigned underwriter, Diane Frazier.
28
-27-
141) In such daily written communications between October 14, 2004 and October 18,
2 2004, Samaan never asked me, or my realtor for any additional records to facilitate her loan
applications.
3
142) On the contrary, she expressed her confidence that the approval was pending.
4
b) Oct 18, 2004 - fax/wire scheme is detected by my realtor
5
143) Also on or about October 18,2004, while faxing the Notice to Samaan's loan broker,
6 Victor Parks, my realtor detected the fax/wire scheme, whereby Samaan was impersonating
7 her loan broker in fax communications.
8 144) On or about on October 18, 19 & 20, 2004. my realtor sent requests for clarifications,
9 but no explanation was received.

145) On or about October 20, 2004 Samaan responded in writing to the Notice to Buyer to
10
Perform.
11
146) In her response, she informed me of her refusal to perform per the Purchase Contract
12 and fully remove the contingencies, but she also refused to follow the other option provided
13 - to cancel escrow.
14 147) Close of escrow was scheduled for November 1, 2004 but under such circumstances I
could not secure my subsequent housing, without assuming an unreasonable risk of
15
financial losses, since Samaan failed to remove her contingencies.
16
148) Samaan also failed to request continuance of escrow closing date.
17
c) Oct 21,2004 - I issue instructions to cancel escrow
18
149) On October 21, 2004, given her refusal to perform, given the alleged faxlwire scheme,
19 and given that I lost my planned subsequent housing in the process, I issued instructions to
20 cancel Escrow.
21
22 III
23 4. Plan B (2005-6)
24 Samaan initiates what [ later learned was a standard litigation scheme -false allegations (~l
25 "verbal mod[fication afreal estate contract" and claimsf(Jr "specific performance or
26 dama;.:es ".
27 a) Oct 2005 - Samaan files a complaint
28
-28-
150) In October 2005, Samaan initiated Plan B - alleged litigation scheme by filing a
2 complaint at the LA Superior Court.
151) It is my opinion that she would never have filed such an absurd complaint had she not
3
have some advance assurances that she would have full support from Countrywide and
4
others.
5
152) Initially, the complaint was based on the claims of verbal modifications of a real estate
6 contract.
7 153) Samaan failed to file a real estate contract with her complaint or to clearly state the
8 terms of the contract.
154) The basic scheme does not require any claims related to the underwriting process.
9
b) Later I found evidence of a standard court scheme
10
155) I found at least one other case that appears as an almost perfect match- Galdjie v
11
Darwish (SC052737), with some of the same participants as well.
12 156) Barbara Darwish lost a 6 unit rental building through such a scheme.
13 157) She was also trapped in the courts for some eight (8) years starting 1998.
14 158) However, even when I first talked with her in 2009, she thought that her primary error
15 was that she did not spend enough money on attorneys!

159) It is my opinion that such a scheme is unlikely to work well in most courts, where the
16
complaint is likely to be dismissed based on the Real Estate Codes - which prohibit verbal
17
modification of real estate contracts andlor the Statute of Frauds - which requires a contract
18 or clearly stated contract terms as part of the complaint.
19 160) It is my opinion that such is and was a well-established real estate scheme in the Los
20 Angeles courts.
161) It is my opinion, based on reading, that the origins of the basic real estate scheme
21
described here are medieval ...
22
III
23
5. Plan B Fails (July-Aug 2006)
24
Samaan·s use afthe standard litigation schemefails.
25
a) July 2006 Samaan's deposition
26
162) In July 2006, in deposition, Samaan admitted much of the scheme in her offer- that
27
she had no experience in real estate in 2004, that she owned no stock funds as the claimed
28 in writing.
-29-
163) In July 2006, in deposition, Samaan admitted much of the scheme in her loan
2 applications - that her income was as a cosmetic saleswoman in a department store.
164) In July 2006, in deposition, Samaan also admitted that loan broker Parks, was entirely
3
out of the loop.
4
165) In fact she also admitted lack of funds to materialize the purchase.
5
166) It was and it is my opinion that Samaan performed poorly in deposition, and that she
6 and others realized that.
7 b) Claims of "verbal modifications" were not credible in this case
8 167) My realtor entirely denied engaging in such unauthorized conduct as verbal
9 modifications of a real estate contract.

168) Such modifications were and are explicitly prohibited by the California Real Estate
10
Code.
11
169) Samaan communicated exclusively with my realtor prior to cancellation. Therefore, for
12 two realtors to engage in such verbal modifications was entirely incredible.
13 170) My counsel and I claimed that given that Samaan held a real estate license (albeit never
14 used it prior to September 2004), the claim of "verbal modifications of a real estate
15 contract" was entirely incredible.

171) By late 2006, in my opinion, Samaan and others realized that the scheme did not work
16
very well in this case.
17
c) Aug 2006 - I initiate Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
18
172) Starting August 2006, following Samaan's deposition in July 2006, I got impatient and
19 demanded that my counsel file a Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, hoping to get the whole
20 litigation dismissed that way.
21 173) At that time, Samaan replaced her counsel and engaged Att Mohammad Keshavarzi
from Sheppard Mullin, a major U.S. law firm.
22
174) Att Keshavarzi requested continuance of the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, given his
23
unfamiliarity with the case.
24
III
25
6. Countrywide's 1st Subpoenas (Aug 2006)
26
a) Aug 2006 - concerns in re: subpoena production
27
175) By August 2006, Countrywide responded to my subpoena by producing some 400
28
pages of records of Samaan' s loan applications and their underwriting process.
-30-
176) The subpoena production omitted almost any record prior to October 12,2004.
2 177) The subpoena production omitted all email correspondence related to Samaan's
1003s.
3
178) As I later found out email correspondence existed between Samaan's husband and
4
Maria McLaurin, Branch Manager.
5
179) In verified statements, McLaurin claimed that she had no involvement in underwriting
6 of Sarnaan's 1003s.
7 180) The subpoena production included false blank "Conversation Logs".
st
8 b) Fax/wire schemes in the 1 Subpoena production
9 181) The subpoena production also included numerous papers from Samaan that were
products of "anonymous" fax transmissions.
10
182) The fax headers of these records did not include any phone/fax number or 10 of the
11
sender.
12 183) A naYve reader may assume that such transmission came from Victor Parks.
13 184) However, the evidence shows that such transmissions originated with Samaan.
14 185) Samaan would fax such papers to Jae Arre Lloyd, thereby generating header imprints
15 with data and time, but no TO at all.

186) The evidence shows Jae Arre Lloyd transmitted papers that appeared as fax
16
transmissions to Maria McLaurin as PDF attachments to email notes.
17
187) Such papers had no fax cover sheets included either.
18 188) Therefore there was and there is no way to ascertain when such papers arrived at
19 countrywide, and when they were inserted into the loan files.
20 189) The evidence shows that fax transmissions were used to generate false underwriting
history after the fact.
21
190) Such practices raise concerns regarding Countrywide's compliance with its own
22
Manuals of "Practice and Policy" regarding the operation of fax machines.
23
191) Such practices raise concern regarding Countrywide's compliance with UETA-
24 relative to documentation of electronic transactions in banking.
25 192) Such practices raise concerns regarding Countrywide's compliance with "sound
26 banking principles" per Regulation B of the Federal Reserve.

Such practices raise concerns regarding fax/wire schemes in communications with a
27
financial institution, albeit, in this case - in full collusion with the financial institution itself.
28
-31-
III
2
7. Plan C: New Countrywide Schemes (Nov-Dec, 2006)
3
Upon request Countrywide generates new schemes
4
5 a) Nov 3-6, 2006 - New claims upon request
6 193) On or about November 3-6, 2006 Mohammad Keshavarzi - Sheppard Mullin

Attorney, Jae Arre Lloyd - Samaan's husband, and Maria McLaurin - CHL Branch Manger
7
communicated by email and by fax.
8
194) Such communications provide evidence of their urgent search for new claim schemes
9 just days prior to the hearing on the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.
10 195) On or about November 7, 2006, the new claim schemes were presented in court in an
11 Ex Parte Sur Reply by Samaan to my Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
12
196) In such Sur Reply Keshavarzi entered for Samaan entirely new evidence.
197) New evidence included an Underwriting Letter, a letter by Maria McLaurin, and a
13
verified statement by Victor Parks.
14
198) Such Underwriting Letter was an entirely new, and was missing from the subpoena
15 production that was supposed to include all underwriting letters pertaining to Samaan's
16 1003s.
17 199) The Underwriting Letter was machine-stamped as printed on October 26,2004.

200) Copies of the Underwriting Letter discovered later, were also stamped as faxed on
18
October 26, 2004.
19
201) The Underwriting letter was unverified.
20 202) The Underwriting letter was not adequately unauthenticated.
21 203) McLaurin's letter, deemed by my counsel in his objection "Hearsay" and a
22 declaration by Parks, claimed that the letter was faxed and received on October 14, 2004, or
23 mid-October 2004. But Samaan had already admitted in July 2006 that Parks had nothing
to do with these 1003s.
24
204) Fraud expert's opinion supports that which is obvious - it was printed and faxed on
25
October 26, 2004.
26 205) The new scheme was hinged on this "evidence" and entailed the following:
27 a. That Samaan's loan applications were first received on October 12,2004;
28
-32-
b. That Samaan' s loan applications were almost immediately suspended on October

2 14, 2004, purportedly 2 days after arrival;
c. That Samaan's loan applications were suspended purportedly because of a missing
3
signature or initial of mine on the Purchase Contract.
4
206) As a reminder - Samaan had never filed a Purchase Contract by October 14, 2004,
5
and had she filed one, her applications would have been summarily denied.
6 207) However, in a series of declarations over a period of almost a year, Maria McLaurin
7 provided additional false statements to support such a scheme.
8 208) Regardless of my counsel's objections to the admission of such invalid evidence in

the ex parte Sur Reply, it was entered, albeit with no evidentiary rulings.
9
209) This false evidence was repeatedly used as evidence in court, most recently around
10
October-November 2008! This alleged scheme continues to this date!
11 210) Based on such evidence my Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens was denied on October
12 9,2006.
13 III
III
14
15 8. Dealing with Countrywide's Legal Department (Nov-Dec 2006)
16 Countr)Mide is repeatedly asked to stop the schemes, but instead initiates a campaign (~f
17 alleged illlimidation, harassment. and retaliation against me.
18 a) Dec 2006 - Review of Countrywide records in my counsel's office
19 211) In November 2006 for the first time I got suspicious that something was inherently
wrong in this litigation. From October 2005 and until that time I was barely involved in the
20
litigation. I attended part of Samaan's deposition, but that was about it.
21
212) In Mid-December 2006 I decided to review the discovery records in my counsel's
22 office. That was the first time that I saw the name Countrywide. I had no business with
23 Countrywide whatsoever until that time.
24 213) Within less than 30 minutes I realized some of the basic frauds involved in the case.
25 b) Dec 2006 - Jan 2007 - attempting to sort the problem with the Legal
26 Department.
27
28
-33-
214) Later in December 2006, I called Maria McLaurin in San Rafael. As an explanation,
2 she stated that the subpoena production was prepared by her in close collaboration with the
Legal Department of Countrywide.
3
215) I also called the Legal Department in Calabasas.
4
216) It became evident to me within a couple of weeks that this was not a chance error, but
5
that the scheme was carefully coordinated by the attorneys in the Legal Department of
6 Countrywide and Maria McLaurin, San Rafael Branch Manager.
7 217) They refused to retract any of the alleged false records and statements.
8 c) Jan-Feb 2007 - 3 repeats of the false and misleading productions
9 218) In January 2007, I issued a new subpoena for production of records, and demanded
that some of the obvious deficiencies in the 1st production be corrected.
10
219) In February 2007, the Legal Department repeated the exact same false production as
11
was issued in August 2006, on behalf of CFC, CHL, and CBF, as productions #2, 3 & 4.
12
13 III
14 9. Locating Diane Frazier & first, not last death threat (March 2007)
15 ''You don 'f kn()"w who yOl{ are dealing l,jlith ....,
16 220) By mid February 2007, I was in pro se.
17 221) By mid March 2007 I managed to locate Diane Frazier, the Senior Underwriter.
222) In a lengthy and involved phone call, she confirmed my understanding of the true
18
underwriting history, and provided substantial new information.
19
223) Frazier was happy to talk with me. It was a strange phone call, since we both knew so
20 much about each other, but had never talked before.
21 224) It is my opinion that she was in fear. She repeatedly tried to warn me that I was not
22 prepared for what lied ahead, and what I was getting into.
23 225) She repeatedly stated:

"You don't know who you are dealing with", and
24
"Nobody can touch Maria McLaurin"
25
226) When I tried to call her again, to coordinate time to serve her subpoena for deposition,
26
a man answered the phone and issue a death threat:
27
"If you ever call this number again, I will come down to LA and gun you down"
28
-34-
He also explained that Frazier was prohibited by Countrywide from discussing anything
2 related to this matter. As a reminder, Frazier was by then two years out of her
3 Countrywide job.
4 III
5 10. Meet & Confer (March 2007)
6 Atf Shat::: & Boock claim that are no Pipeline Reports. no Internal Audit reports, no Kyternal
7 Audit reports, 110 Security Alerts, no IIJl{[~ing Reports re~arding Samaan 's 1003s with the
8 double "Dale Received" stamps.
9 227) In March 2007, soon after my conversation with Diane Frazier, Meet & Confer was
10 conducted with Attorney Todd Boock and Attorney Sanford Shatz from Countrywide's
Legal Department.
11
228) The contrast was eerie. They stated the exact opposite of what Diane Frazier stated as
12
the true history of the loan applications.
13
229) They also denied that any Pipeline Reports, Internal Audit Reports, External Audit
14 Reports, Security Alert Reports, Imaging Reports related to Samaan's 1003s with the
15 double "Received" stamps existed.
16 230) At the same time, they had no explanation at all for the double "Received" stamps, and
why the first one was defaced.
17
231) It is my opinion that they knowingly and deliberately deceived me in that conference, in
18
part, since they did not realize the degree to which I was familiar by then with the details of
19 Countrywide's underwriting procedures and the underwriting of Samaan' s 1003.
20 Alternatively - they knew that they could get away with it.
21 III
22 11. Initial approach to Mozilo & Samuels (June 2007)

23 Direct requests j(W Samuels (then President (~l"the !louse (~lJustice" - Bet Tiedek) and
A1ozilo to help in preventingfi-aud b.v Countrywide - in response they initiate the campaign
24 b.v Bryan Cave. LLP
25 a) May-June 2007 -letters and emails to Mozilo & Samuels
26 232) By May-June 2007, since I realized that the Legal Department of Countrywide was
27 directly involved in the schemes. I decided to seek direct help from the top officers -
28 Mozilo and Samuels.
-35-
233) Both Mozilo and Samuels advertised on the web at that time their commitments to fight
2 frauds, and both invited anybody who had fraud issue to contact them.
234) Furthermore, it was my understanding then, and it is my understanding now, that such
3
officers of public corporations have duties to the conduct their business in compliance with
4
the law.
5
235) I therefore approached Mozilo and Samuels directly, sending them letters and email
6 notes (albeit - I only guessed their email addresses, and I never received any response).
7 236) I asked them to either authenticate or repudiate the Countrywide records such as the
8 unverified, unauthenticated underwriting letter that was entered in the Ex Parte Sur Reply
of November 7, 2006 as the basis for the new false claims.
9
237) To this date, over two years later, neither Countrywide, nor its officers, not its counsel,
10
nor those pretending to be its counsel, ever answered any of these questions.
II b) Harassment Campaign by Bryan Cave, LLP (BCL) is launched.
12 238) Instead - on or about July 6, 2007, Countrywide initiated a harassment campaign
13 against me that started in a procedure that still defied belief - ex parte appearance in a
14 "dark courtroom" for a gag order against me.
15 239) In fact, in January 2008, Countrywide appeared in court and asked for "Declaratory
Relief' - that it did not have to answer any of my questions regarding alleged frauds.
16
III
17
12. Bailout-Merger and beyond (February 2008 to present)
18
Direct request... for help from General Counsel Mayopoulos, President Lewi..., and the
19
Audit Committee, and hartlssment by Bryan Cave, LLP continues", yet now they rejilse to
20
answer who their c1ient(\) is/was/are/were.
21
a) Upon Bailout-Merger with BAC, I tried to approach BAC officers and the Legal
22
Department
23
240) In February 2008, after the announcement of the take-over, I sent registered certified
24 mail to Ken Lewis and other members of the Board of Directors.
25 241) In February 2008, I received a nice response from the office of Lewis, stating that the
26 merger promises to produce better services to consumers ...
27 242) I happen to hold deposit accounts with BAC.

243) During this period Bryan Cave, LLP continued to harass me.
28
-36-
244) In October-November 2008 I started to suspect that there is also a dishonest scheme
2 relative to the engagement of Bryan Cave, LLP by BAC.
245) In November December 2008, and again in January February 2009, I therefore called
3
the office ofBAC General Counsel. I reached senior staff of that department including but
4
not limited to Phil Wertz, Carolyn Johnson, and others.
5
246) In all these phone conversations, without exception, I was instructed that Bryan Cave,
6 LLP was not authorized to appear on behalf of BAC.
7 247) I was instructed that Todd Boock was the only counsel authorized to represent BAC in
8 my case.
b. The evidence is clear: To this date, BAC, CFC, Bryan Cave, LLP and Todd Boock
9
are engaged in some variation of the scheme rebuked by this Honorable Court in
10
March 2008.
11 248) Todd Book claims that I am prohibited from communications with him per some
12 undisclosed court order, and that I must communicate only with Bryan Cave, LLP.
13 249) Bryan Cave, LLP, in turn, went to court and claimed that I harass BAC, and issued
14 judgment of Contempt against me, claiming I was prohibited from any communications
with BAC or any of its employees, and violated such order when I figured out that they
15
were never authorized to appear for BAC in court!
16
c. I also filed complaints with the Audit Committee
17 250) More recently, in early 2009, I also purchase a single share ofBAC, to establish my
18 share-holder status.
19 251) The price I paid was about $5.00, far below the price of around $50.00 about a year
ago. The loss to share holders have sustained in the past year is in the hundreds of billions
20
of dollars.
21
252) In recent months I filed a complaints with the Audit Committee of BAC and asked their
22 response on the same and related questions regarding the schemes against me by
23 Countrywide.
24 253) I cannot get the Audit Committee to even acknowledge receipt of a complaint per
25 Sarbanes Oxley Act of2002.
III
26
27 13. Epilogue
254) Through such conduct Countrywide caused my financial devastation.
28
-37-
1 255) I was forced to abandon my home under the threat of force.

2 256) My home was taken for private use with no compensation at all.
257) My losses exceed $2 millions.
3
258) Grant Deeds were issued and filed, which per fraud expert are fraudulent conveyance of
4
title.
5
259) I am still under harassment and intimidation today.
6 260) In recent months I repeatedly requested response from Bank of America
7 Corporation/Countrywide regarding 6 Key Records, which I allege are the core of the
8 frauds by CFC and now BAC, listed in Exhibit. CFC, BAC, their officer, counsel, and
more recently the Audit Committee of BAC refuse to answer at all.
9
III
10
LIST OF SIX KEY RECORDS THAT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF BANK OF
11 AMERICA CORPORATION WAS REPEATEDLY REQUESTED TO
AUTHENTICATE OR REPUDIATE, BUT REFUSES TO RESPOND T LL
12
13 261) Below is the list as copied verbatim from letters and complaints sent to the Audit
14 Committee ofBAC:
15
"Listed below are key records of the alleged fraud by CFC/BOA against
16
JOSEPH ZERNIK in litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA
17 Superior Court:
1) Underwriting Letter misrepresented as a fax transmission
18 of mid-October 2004, from Countrywide, San Rafael to
VICTOR PARKS, State of Washington. [1]
19 INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. MOST RECENTLY FOR A
MOTION NOTICED FOR NOVEMBER 2008. ALLEGED KEY
20 FRAUD RECORD.
21 2) Real Property Purchase Contract misrepresented as a fax
transmission of October 25, 2004, 5:03pm from VICTOR
22 PARKS, State of Washington, to Countrywide, San Rafael.
[2]
23 INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. MOST RECENTLY FOR A
MOTION NOTICED FOR NOVEMBER 2008. ALLEGED KEY
24 FRAUD RECORD.
3) Set of a Jetter and declarations by CFC/ MARIA
25
MCLAURIN, Branch Manager, San Rafael, California. [3]
26 INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. KEY FRAUD RECORD.
4) Subpoena Production of Countrywide in Samaan v Zernik.
27 [4]
About 400 pages, produced by the Legal
28 Department a total of 5 times from August 2006 to
-38-
April 2007. Deemed fraud in its entirety - since it

included loan files that were recreated after the
2 fact, and records that are the product of wire/fax
fraud and bear false and deliberately misleading fax
3 header imprints, when in fact there is nothing in
4 this production that allows to determine where and
when such records appeared from. It was part of a
5 concerted effort by SAMMN,
McLAURIN AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF CFC TO
6 FABRICATE FALSE HISTORY FOR SAMMN's LOAN
APPLICATIONS IN 2004,
7 5) Records showing CFC and even more recently CFC/BOA
appearing in court for almost two years under the party
8
designation of "NON-PARTY", while the court
9 interchangeably designates it "DEFENDANT",
"PLAINTIFF", "INTERVENOR", "ROSS-DEFENDANT", "REAL
10 PARTY IN INTEREST", etc. [5]
Such appearances are deemed false and deliberately
11 misleading and have no basis in the law of the U.s.
or California, Therefore they place the entire
12 litigation in a real that is outside the law.
13 6) July 23, 2007 Protective/Gag Order by Judge JACQUELINE
CONNOR [6].
14 Such purported order led to two judgment of quasi-
criminal nature being entered by Judge Terry
15 Friedman against me, both at the request of CFC,
The second one - in February 2009, at the requests
16 of CFC/BOA. I have no valid court record of that
nature, and the court and CFC/ BOA so far have
17
failed to produce this record either."
18 The numbers in square brackets in the text of the letters and the
complaints to the Audit Committee referred to records, which were posted
19 online at the URLs listed below. Such lists were provided in the letters and
complaints to the BAC Audit Committee as well.
20
[1]
21 http://lnpropennla .com/04-1 0-26-countrywlde-fraudulent-underwntlng-letter-
s.pdf
22 http://lnpropenn la .com/04-10- 26-doc-44-countrywlde-fraud-underwritlng-
letter. pdf
23 http://lnproperinla .com/04-1 0- 26-opinlon-letter-countrywlde-underwriting-letter-
oct-26-s.pdf
24 [2]
http://lnpropennla .com/04-10-2S-doc-4S-countrywlde-fraud-contract-record. pdf
25 [3]
http://lnpropennla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-1-CQuntrywlde-mciaunn-false-
declarations. pdf
26 http://lnpropennla .com/06-11-09-doc-38- 2-countrywlde-mclaunn-false-
declarations. pdf
27 [4]
http://lnpropennla.com/07-02-08-countrywlde-fraudulent-subpoena-productlon-
28 c-s.pdf
-39-
[5]
http://lnpropennla.com/09-01-13-cw-motlon-sanctions-osc-contempt-5. pdf
http://lnpropennla.com/09-01-13-moldawsky-notlce-of-motlon-sanctlons-
2 contempt. pdf
http://lnpropennla.com/09-0l-13-document-l.pdf
3 http://lnpropennla.com/09-02-17-document-l.pdf
http://lnpropennla.com/09-02-17-document-2.pdf
4 http://lnpropennla.com/09-02-17-document-3.pdf
[6]
5 I have no such record. I expect CFC/SAC to produce the record.
6 The six "Key Records" as filed with SAC Audit Committee are enclosed in Exhibit 9, Exhibits filed with the
7 SAC Audit Committee on April 20, 2009 as Exhibits Volume S.
9 III
10 III
11 IV.
VERIFIED REQUEST FOR LENIENCE BY PRO SE FILER
12
I therefore request special lenience as a pro se filer:
13
A document filed pro se is "to be liberally construed," Estelle, 429 U. S., at
14 106, and "a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," ibid. (internal
15 quotation marks omitted). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(t) ("All pleadings shall be
so construed as to do substantial justice"). (Erickson v Pardus et ai, 2007)
16
17 In particular, I am unqualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask
18 the Honorable Court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I claim, and do take
19 into consideration the facts and the claims themselves, and if they can support some other
20 valid theory, assign such legal theory to them, and review them pursuant to such valid legal
21 theory (Haddock v Cal Board ofDental Examiner, 1985).
22 The Honorable Court is requested to entirely disregard my comments,
23 explanations, or legal arguments pertaining to such papers, when my writings appear to be of
24 the nature of legal theories, or legal arguments, and are deemed erroneous, or irrelevant.
25 If it pleases the Honorable Court, let the Honorable Court act of its own
26 volition whenever permitted to do so by law:
27 a. To initiate action pursuant to the Code ofConduct of u.s. Judges, Canon 3B(3):
28
-40-
1 (3) A Judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware
of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a .
2 lawyer.
3 A copy of the California State Bar Association - Rules ofProfessional Conduct
4 will be accordingly filed with the Honorable Court.
5 b. To act pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) "to do substantial justice" for
6 Plaintiffs who claim to have been inflicted substantial harms by the Los Angeles
7 justice system.
8
Respectfully submitted, May 1,2009, Washington, DC.
9
10
11
12 Joseph Zernik
pro se Plaintiff
13
III
14
III
15
16
v.
PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
17
265) I request that the Honorable Court incorporate by reference in this complaint
18
the following U.S. Court records, available online through Pacer, as well as USDa] reports,
19
also available online. The request is to incorporate by reference such records t whatever
20
state they re in the data-base referenced below. However, in places where records in their
21
current data-base were not properly scanned or were improperly tagged, s describe in pages
22
7-16 above, the records will be filed gin with the Honorable Court, so that they re properly
23
scanned and tagged.
24
266) I) Zernik v Connor et at 2:2008cv01550
25
Online: Pacer, Central District of California
26
Official U.S. Courts Site
27
28
-41-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET ALj VERIFIED COMPLAINT
I filed this complaint on March 5, 2008, on abuse of constitutional rights under the
2 color of law - 42 USC §1983.
3 267) a) Complaint, Request for a Temporary Restraining Order against Terry
4 Friedman, and Summons (Document #1).
5 Since the final push for filing the complaint were threats in open court by Terry
6 Friedman to jail Plaintiff Zernik in a hearing on March 7, 2008, for contempt and
7 sanctions, at the request of Bryan Cave, LLP, claiming to appear on behalf of CFC.
8 The Clerk of the u.S. Court refused to sign Plaintiffs valid summons, in violation
9 of the law, and issued- also in violation of the law - invalid summons. (buried at the
10 bottom of Document #1).
11 268) b) Judge Virginia Phillips March 21, 2008 Minute Order denying the
12 Requestfor TRO (Document #14)
13 269) The TRO was not adjudicated until March 21, 2008, when it was obviously moot.
14 Disregarding the dictum for judicial economy, Judge Virginia Phillips went into detail in her
15 ruling in the March 21, 2008 Minute Order. The March 21, 2008 Minute Order provides
16 evidence that Judge Phillips had knowledge of the alleged LA Judiciary Racket and the fraud
17 in the case management system relative to entry ofjudgment from outside the litigation
18 records.
19 270) c) PlaintiffZernik's request for Reconsideration ofDenial ofthe TRO
20 (Document #91) andfor a Statement on the Record by Judge Virginia Phillips on the
21 matter ofconflicts, if any (Document #92), and August 4, 2008 Minute Order denying both
22 requests (Document #97)
23 271) To remove any such doubts, requests were filed for (a) Reconsideration of the March
24 21, 2008 Minute Order (Document #91) moot as it were, and (b) for a statement on the
25 record by Judge Virginia Phillips on the matter of conflict, if any (Document #92). In her
26 August 4, 2008 Minute Order (Document #97), Judge Phillips denied both requests.
27 272) d) Allegedfraud by misrepresentation ofLA Superior Court records
28 by Defendants the Judges ofLA Superior Court
-42-
273) Such alleged fraud in papers filed in the U.S. District Court, is part of the larger
2 claim of fraud in operation of the case management systems:
3 i. Defendants the Judges ofLA Superior Court - Request for Judicial Notice
4 ofa "docket" -Document #20;
5 ii. PlaintiffZernik 's objection and request for evidentiary ruling - Document
6 #34;
7 iii. PlaintiffZernik's request for judicial notice ofan alternative record as the
8 authentic Register ofActions, and OSC Contempt against Defendants the
9 Judges ofLA Superior Court for allegedfraud against the u.s. District
10 Court - Document #39.
11 274) Defendants FBI and USDOJ refuse to investigate such ongoing abuse of the 10
12 million residents of LA County, and also refuse to take action to restore the First
13 Amendment and Common Law right of access to court records to inspect and to copy, denied
14 for over a quarter century to residents of this county.
15 275) e) Allegedfrauds in false and deliberately misleading declarations ofMaria
16 McLaurin, San Rafael Branch Manager, Countrywide Home Loan, Inc (Document #38).
17 276) In such declarations, the Branch Manager misrepresented banking records and
18 fabricated fictitious history for the underwriting of the loan applications ofNivie Samaan, a
19 fraud in its own sake. The fraudulent declarations were meant to cover up the much larger
20 fraud that was the underwriting procedures at the San Rafael Wholesale Branch. Upon
21 information and belief, Maria McLaurin serves as Branch Manager in San Rafael to this date.
22 277) This is one of six records that Defendant BAC through its Audit Committee has been
23 repeatedly requested to authenticate or repudiate. The BAC Audit Committee refuses to
24 respond or even acknowledge receipt of complaints. Before the Audit Committee such
25 requests were addressed to Defendant Mayopoulos. Earlier requests for authentication or
26 repudiation of some of the CFC fraudulent records go back as far as May-June 2007, and
27 were addressed to former CFC President - Angelo Mozilo, and former CFC Chief Legal
28 Officer - Sandor Samuels.
-43-
278) Review of the conduct of Defendant Bryan Cave, LLP, shows that they were retained
2 immediately after such requests were made, and that all along their main function was
3 obstructionist - to prevent Plaintiff Zernik from obtaining remedy of the fraud against him,
4 and to pervert justice by allowing the fraud in the LA Superior Court to continue to
5 completion.
6 f) Allegedfraudulent loan applications (l003) ofNivie Samaan, andfrauds
7 in their underwriting by Countrywide (Document #40)
8 279) This is another key fraud record (fraud expert opinion letter was produced) from CFC,
9 which first CFC, now BAC are refusing to either authenticate or repudiate. This record is
10 also primary evidence for (a) False Claims and (b) RICO against CFC and BAC in instant
II complaint.
12 280) The loan application documented in this record was fraudulent on numerous accounts,
13 and the fraud was detected early on by the San Rafael Senior Underwriter - Diane Frazier.
14 However, Maria McLaurin, the Branch Manger was staunch in her support of the fraud, and
15 eventually she assumed the underwriting of the loan application by herself. Her conduct
16 regarding the underwriting of these loan application must be deemed in violation of the law
17 upon review. The main objective of CFC in its fraud against Plaintiff Zernik at the LA
18 Superior Court, was to cover up such earlier fraud.
19 281) The efforts to prevent testimony by Diane Frazier are also key to the claims of RICO
20 in instant complaint.
21 g) PlaintiffZernik's declarations regarding court actions on December 7,
22 2007 by Attorney David Pasternak (Record #41).
23 282) Allegations of fraud by Att David Pasternak - former President of the Los Angeles
24 County Bar Association, were central to the complaints filed with the FBI and the USDOJ.
25 A volume of about 500 pages (see below) is entirely dedicated to his conduct. This record is
26 focused on his actions on December 7,2007 alone. In two successive ex parte appearances
27 on the same morning, he achieved the following:
28
-44-
1. Fraud relative to issuing a Grant Deed and its approval by the court.
2 David Pasternak signed on this Grant Deed in lieu of his Notary Public.
3 When Plaintiff Zernik requested to inspect and to copy the notary public's
4 journal entries related to these Grant Deeds, Att Pasternak responded with a
5 threat of force - that Plaintiff Zernik would be apprehended by security if
6 he even entered the building.
7 ii. Fraud relative to tax payments on the purported sale. To double rob
8 Plaintiff Zernik, Att David Pasternak asked and obtained court approval to
9 take Zernik's property, not to provide any compensation, and not to pay the
10 required taxes, which amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. These
11 taxes would eventually become Plaintiff Zernik's liability.
12 iii. Fraud relative to issuing an a priori indemnity agreement to escrow, to
13 induce its participation in fraudulent conveyance oftitle. The escrow
14 officer refused to cooperate with David Pasternak, as he himself explained
15 in court.
16 iv. Two gag orders against PlaintiffZernik, while he was representing himself
17 in pro se, to restrict protected speech.
18 h) Countrywide's fraudulent Underwriting Letter (Document #44)
19 283) This record is another one of the six documents that Plaintiff Zernik has been
20 requesting authentication or repudiation of by CFC, and later HAC. Fraud expert opinion
21 letter confirms the fraud in this banking record. This is also a key record in the RICO claims
22 against HAC.
23 i) Countrywide's fraudulent fax copy ofthe real property purchase
24 agreement (Document #45)
25 284) This is yet another one of the six key records that HAC would not authenticate and
26 would not repudiate either. This record is key to both the RICO and the False Claims claims
27 in instant complaint, since it demonstrates the alleged fax/wire fraud by a financial institution
28
-45-
1 against a financial institution that was used in retroactive construction ofNivie Samaan's
2 loan file.
3 j) Request for filing FBI report under seal (Document #49)
4 285) Already in January 2007 Plaintiff Zernik filed complaint with the FBI in Los Angeles,
5 in which he described the fraud by CFC against the u.s. government relative to the funding
6 of unworthy government backed residential loans, which later became the sub-prime scandal.
7 Defendant FBI refused all along to review any such complaints. But in 2008, under
8 pressure, FBI announced launching of a vigorous investigation of sub-prime lenders. In mid
9 2008 FBI contacted Zernik and demanded that Plaintiff Zernik submit a list of all his contact
lOin CFC that allowed him to figure out the fraud in 2007.
11 286) Of note - to this date, Defendant FBI has never filed any indictment resulting from its
12 investigation ofCFC. In contrast - PlaintiffZernik claims that the evidence in his records is
13 sufficient for indictment on RICO.
14 k) Request filed with the California Court ofAppeal 2nd District to take
15 corrective Action pursuant to the California Code ofJudicial Ethics Canon
16 3E(2) (Document #52).
17 287) After the California Court of Appeal 2nd District denied six petitions where the frauds
18 perpetrated by the LA Superior Court were described in great detail, a last request was made
19 - to take action upon being reliably informed of the conduct of the judges of the LA Superior
20 Court per California Code of Judicial Ethics. Denied as well.
21 288) This record is concealed under an unrelated tag, part of dishonest manipulations in
22 Pacer docketing.
23 I) Minute Orders from LA Superior Court Samaan v Zernik (Document #53)
24 This volume is primary evidence relative to the alleged fraud in the operation of the
25 LA Superior Court's case management system, and the fact that Samaan v Zernik,
26 like Galdj ie v Darwish, was an Enterprise Track case, or fraud by the court.
27 m) Analysis ofrecords from LA Superior Court's case management system
28 (Document #56)
-46-
289) Evidence for the fraud perpetrated for a quarter century on the residents of LA
2 County, which Defendants FBI and USDOJ refuse to investigate. The critical record is
3 hidden under an unrelated record. Part of dishonest manipulations in Pacer.
4 n) Transcripts ofSamaan v Zernik(Record #58)

5 290) A collection of the transcripts was filed as evidence in court, but was concealed under
6 unrelated tag in Pacer.
7 291) The most significant evidence in this volume is as follows:
8 I. October 11,2007 - Att Keshavarzi (for Samaan) explains to Judge Segal
9 that he met with "Referee" (but with no appointment order) O'Brien, to
10 discuss ways to force Plaintiff Zernik to comply with the execution of the
11 "entered oral judgment".
12 292)
13 II. November 9,2007 - hearing at 4-day notice for motion for appointment of
14 Att David Pasternak "Receiver" - with no section of the code establishing
15 the legal foundation of his appointment, no judgment that he was to
16 execute, and no contract for specific performance. Att Keshavarzi entered a
17 false and deliberately misleading record in this motion in lieu of judgment.
18 In the transcript he explained that he did so deliberately - since he did not
19 hold the August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court valid. He held instead valid
20 the verbal agreement between him and judge Connor regarding the nature
21 of the judgment. All that - while he was asking for the urgent appointment
22 of a receiver purportedly to execute such judgment.
23 iii. June 12, 2007 - Plaintiff Zernik served Judge Connor on that day a
24 disqualification for a cause for the first time. In pro per, with no attorney
25 willing to assist even incognito, it was written based on the model of the
26 Brandies Brief. It alleged that based on chance alone, Judge Connor's
27 "errors" in court could not possibly be errors, and were instead calculated
28 fraud and deceit. As if to prove the point, Judge Connor responded with an
-47-
error, and ruled that it was a peremptory challenge and struck it as untimely
2 on the spot. On interest, this paper was written before Plaintiff Zernik ever
3 studies the history of the Rampart scandal, where Judge Connor allegedly
4 "faked" errors to reverse jury trial.
5 293)
6 iv. July 9, 2007 - non-existent transcript. Many of the frauds in the operation
7 of the case management system become apparent only by comparison of
8 records from various sources. Here, the electronic copy includes a minute
9 order for purported "telephonically held" hearing on July 9, 2007. The
10 paper court file holds no comparable minute order. The court reporter
11 listed on the electronic minute order denies that she ever transcribe such a
12 hearing, and Plaintiff Zernik denies that he ever spoke with Judge Connor
13 by phone.
14 This minute order is part of a separate fraud by Judge Connor against
15 Plaintiff Zernik relative to imposing of sanctions.
16 v. August 9, 2007 - Summary Judgment hearing. Defendant BCLLP,
17 claiming to be counsel for CFC, now subsidiary of Defendant BAC,
18 appeared in court, as usual, self-designated "Non Party". At the opening of
19 the transcript Plaintiff Zernik protests the appearance of "non party" CFC.
20 Judge Connor responds "Does it bother you?".
21 Plaintiff Zernik responds: "It is violation of my rights".
22 Judge Connor proceeds with business as usual.
23 Most of the time in that hearing was used by Plaintiff Zernik for objection
24 and discussion of the various alleged frauds that could be discerned in the
25 CFC fax product copy of real property purchase agreement (Document
26 #45). That record was introduced by Att Keshavarzi in Reply brief to the
27 motion for summary judgment. Judge Connor included it in the evidence
28 nevertheless.
-48-
294)
2 Review of the conduct of the judges in Samaan v Zernik relative to
3 admission of evidence is critical relative to any claims of being "duped" by
4 police in the Rampart-scandal. Here - it was obvious that Judge Connor
5 was an active player in the fraud in admission of evidence.
6 vi. September 10, 2007 - On that day Judge Connor was disqualified for a
7 cause for the second time. She decided to recuse. Regardless, on
8 September 11, 2007 she again entered an allegedly fraudulent, fictitious
9 minute order of a hearing that never took place - and a ruling that there was
10 no fraud in CFC records in Samaan v Zernik. The transcript documents that
11 there was no such hearing on September 10, 2007.
12 0) Additional records and analysis ofallegedfraud in operation ofthe LA
13 Superior Court's case management system (Document #83)
14 295) This paper compares trial court litigation records from the electronic register of
15 actions and the electronic minute orders and demonstrates the many alleged frauds in listing
16 of proceedings.
17 p) Complaint filed with Defendant FBI regarding dishonest manipulations of
18 Pacer in Zernik v Connor et al (Document #88)
19 296) Some of Plaintiff's papers appeared in Pacer but were missing the blue security
20 heading at the top of the pages, which allowed to have them removed or replaced.
21 q) Volume ofrecords documenting wrongdoing by Att David Pasternak
22 (Document #88?)
23 297) Complete volume of about 500 pages was filed, as evidence of wrongdoing by Att
24 David Pasternak, former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. The paper is
25 nowhere to be found in the docket, and circumstantial evidence suggests that is the nameless
26 record that is referred to as voluminous, and is concealed under the unrelated tag in
27 Document #88.
28 298) The very same volume was filed also with:
-49-
1 1. FBI veteran agent and fraud expert James Wedick - Mr Wedick was
2 decorated by U.S. Congress, by FBI Director, and by U.S. Attorney
3 General. He examined only this volume of evidence, and subsequently
4 issued an opinion letter regarding the need to institute an immediate
5 investigation regarding "fraud that are being committed."
6 Wedick's Opinion Letter is filed in instant complaint as Document A(9) in
7 Exhibits Volume 2 Section A. The U.S. District Court LA refused to file
8 and docket the opinion letter evidence, under claim of discrepancy.
9 n. FBI Office, Los Angeles - never took any action in this regard.
10 iii. US Attorney Office, Los Angeles - mailed me the evidence back after a
11 couple of months without any comment.
12 r) Verified statement for disqualifications for a cause or Magistrate Woehrle
13 (Document #89)
14 299) The record and it handling by Judge Phillips and Magistrate Woehrle are
15 worthy of review as well.
16 s) Min ute Orders from paper court file (Document #98
17 t) Minute Orders from Electronic Court file (Document #99)
18 300) Comparison of these two volumes is probably the best evidence for the alleged
19 fraud in the operation of the case management system of the LA Superior Court. The most
20 striking alleged fraud is in some dozen minute orders that represent rulings that were
21 blatantly in violation of the law. Such orders were secretly voided or "disposed" in the
22 electronic records, but in the paper records they appear as valid minute orders.
23 t) PlaintiffZernik's "Notice ofAlleged Perverted Discrepancy Notices"
24 (Document #105)
25 30 I) Many of the papers filed by Plaintiff Zernik in Zernik v Connor et al simply
26 vanished, and never appeared in Pacer at all. This dishonest manipulation was accomplished
27 through allegedly perverted discrepancy notices. Therefore, this record was filed,
28 documenting the face pages of the records that are missing from Pacer.
-50-
302) The conduct of U.S. judge in Zernik v Connor et al is perceived as dubious at best,
2 and the conduct of U.S. Magistrate Carla Woehrle Zernik v Connor et ai, is alleged to
3 constitute willful misconduct. Magistrate Woehrle's conduct in Zernik v Connor et al is
4 directly relevant to current case, since Plaintiff Fine's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
5 filed from jail (Fine v LA County Sheriff Department), and yet to be heard after over a
6 month, was delegated to Magistrate Woehrle as well. Zernik v Connor et al and Fine v LA
7 County Sheriff Department both allege widespread corruption of the LA Superior Court
8 Judges.
9 III
10 303) 2) Fine v LA Sheriff ofLA County,· 2:09-cv-01914
11 Online: Pacer, Central District of California
12 Official U.S. Courts Site
13 304) On March 19, 2009, from jail, Plaintiff Richard Fine filed his "Petition for a Writ of
14 Habeas Corpus and Appeal" (Doc #1). Conditions in LA County are such that it was not
15 possible to confirm Plaintiff Fine's conditions at the time of filing this complaint. He was
16 reportedly denied visitors, the online record of the sheriff department indicates "N" next to
17 visitations. Numerous attempts to get through the phone numbers provided online were
18 unsuccessful.
It was also reported that at the time he filed the petition, Att Richard Fine was
20 denied the use of pencil and pen. The Habeas Corpus (Doc #1) was therefore not signed by
21 Richard Fine himself, but by John Rizzo, Los Angeles County civil rights activist and client
22 of Att Richard Fine in a key case related to events described here.
23 306) Records filed in this complaint include pertinent evidence of the events that led
24 to Attorney Richard Fine's indefinite incarceration on contempt. The treatment of Attorney
25 Richard Fine is seen as retaliation for his actions in exposing the widespread corruption of
26 the judiciary in LA County - ALL judges received payments of about $45,000 per judge per
27 year that were ruled "not permitted" in October 2008, and would be deemed by a lay person
28 "bribes".
-51-
307) With that ruling, it appears that the evidence is overwhelming of the
2 widespread corruption of the judiciary in Los Angeles County. But Defendants Melson,
3 Kaiser, USDOJ and FBI absolutely refuse to investigate any such allegations.
4 308) The docket of this case now claims March 20,2009, as the date of filing of the
5 Petition (Doc #1), but the "Filed" stamp shows obvious alteration by hand. This alteration is
6 presumably explained trough a "clerical error (Doc #3). Yet another clerical error (Doc #4)
7 is claimed relative to the assignment of the case to Judge Pregerson.
8 309) Regardless, Plaintiff Fine's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus continues to
9 be delayed, and has not been heard to this day. Similarly, an ex parte application
10 (Document #9), filed by Plaintiff Richard Fine on April 9, 2009, "For an Order for
11 Immediate Release of Petitioner from Custody Pending Decision on his Petition for
12 Writ of Habeas Corpus and Appeal", is yet to be heard.
13 III
14 3) Fine v. State Bar of California et ali 2:08-cv-02906
15 Online: Pacer
17 310) Plaintiff Richard Fine filed this complaint on May 2, 2008 per 42 USC § 1983 -
18 Civil Rights Act. The complaint seeks reversal of events that led to revoking Attorney
19 Richard Fine's license by the State Bar Association of California. The action by the
20 administrative panel of the State Bar was based on trumped up charges of "moral turpitude".
21 However, the moral turpitude claimed was the filing of complaints against LA Superior
22 Court judges as part of representation of the interests of his cl ients.
23 311) The actions of the State Bar Association are alleged as part of the retaliation,
24 harassment and intimidation campaign waged against Plaintiff Richard Fine in recent years:
25
"1. This complaint seeks to prohibit the State Bar of California (State
26 Bar) from violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution through a mechanism of using unconstitutional statutes in the
27 state's "statutory procedure to regulate attorney conduct" to quash protected
First Amendment activity and access to the courts by "involuntarily ordering
28 inactive I' and "recommending the disbarment of attorneys who have not
-52-
been sanctioned by constitutionally appointed or elected judges in "courts of

record". Hue existence of these statutes and this conduct has had the effect
2 of "chilling of what may be constitutionally protected speech", causing "others
not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or
3 expression" and reducing representation and the ability to obtain
representation In the federal and state court.
4 2. In this case, Richard A. Honn, California State Bar COll1 rt Hearing
Department judge, acting without jurisdiction beyond the expiration of a
5 statute of limitations, recommended Plaintiffs disbarment for having violated
Cal. B&P Code § 6106, the California "moral turpitude" statute for actions
6
which no court had found to be sanctionable, or for which the contempt
7 orders were voided and annulled as being unconstitutional and without
jurisdiction, or voids the result of the consent of the judge to a disqualification.
8 3. In particular, the State Bar Hearing Department judge round the filing
and pursuing of federal civil rights complaints against LA Superior; Court
9 judges and court commissioners who received money from the County of Los
Angeles while it was a party before them to be an act of "moral turpitude",
10 requiring a recommendation for Plaintiffs "disbarment" and immediate order
of "involuntary inactive enrollment". A petition and letters have been sent to
11 the U.S. Attorney General to institute a federal grand jury to investigate these
payments to the LA Superior Court judges and commissioners, the taking of
12 approximately $2 million from the Di Flores Class Action Settlement Fund to
purchase claims against judicial officers and defend an action to recover such
13
monies and the actions of the California State Bar State Bar against Plaintiff
14 as such relate to "witness intimidation" by prosecuting plaintiff. In contrast to
the State Bar's action of prosecuting Plaintiff for bringing federal civil rights
15 suits regarding the payments to LA Superior Court judges, and in response to
an article in the April 15, 2008 issue of The Final Call, under the headline "Do
16 County Payments to County Judges Amount to Bribes?", The Final Call
reported "The only reaction to the petition is to welcome an investigation".
17
18 312) Fine v State Bar of California was referred to Magistrate Carla Woehrle like
19 Fine v LA County Sheriff Department and Zernik v Connor et al. The pattern seems to defy
20 any notion of random assignment procedure at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The
21 common theme of these cases is corruption of the LA Superior Court, and they are also
22 characterized by multiple recusals of U.S. Judges.
Also in this case, just as in Fine v LA Sheriffs Department we find a "Clerical
24 Error" noted as Document #4, in the assignment process. Effectively, the entry reflects
25 transfer of the file that would be comparable to recusal ofajudge, albeit, it would not be
26 registered as a recusal.
The actions against Plaintiff Attorney Richard Fine should have been
28 investigated by Defendants FBI and USDOJ as evidence for the widespread corruption of the
-53-
justice system in LA County.

2 III
3 4. U.S. Government v City of LA et al; 2:2000cv11769
4 Online: Pacer Central District of California
6 315) Complaint in this case was filed on 11103/2000, in the aftermath of the
7 Rampart scandal investigation, and at the conclusion of the First Rampart Trial. The final
8 Consent Decree was entered over half a year later (Document #123, entered June 19,
9 2001), after the reversing ofjury verdict of the First Rampart Trial by Judge Connor
10 (December 22,2000). The Consent Decree serves as the basis for the operation of the office
11 of the Overseer. Initially it was scheduled to terminate operations at the end of 5 yeas
12 (2006). However, the office concluded that the LAPD was not able to achieve the stated
13 goals of the Consent Decree, and therefore, the office was not terminated so far.
14 316) Quarterly reports are filed in this docket on a regular basis by the independent
15 monitor of the LAPD.
16 317) Of note, Los Angeles shared the distinction of having an Overseer for civil rights
17 appointed during President Bush's administration with (a) The Guantanamo Bay Detention
18 Center, and (b) the California Prison System. Review of all three cases may lead a
19 reasonable person to conclude that from the get go, the intention was never for such
20 Overseers to accomplish much. In fact, in the case of the California Prison System, where
21 the Overseer turned out to be intent on affecting a change, he was replaced.
22 318) The Consent Decree requires financial disclosures on an annual basis by certain
23 officers, mostly undercover narcotics (~132):
24 132. The LAPD shall require regular and periodic financial disclosures
by all LAPD officers and other LAPD employees who routinely handle
25 valuable contraband or cash. The LAPD shall periodically audit a
26 random sample of such disclosures to ensure their accuracy. When
necessary, the LAPD shall require the necessary waivers from such
27 officers.
28
-54-
319) The Consent Decree specifically required establishment of a computerized data base
2 accessible for the Overseer, to promote integrity of civil rights (~39):
3
4 II. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY MEASURES TO PROMOTE CIVIL
RIGHTS INTEGRITY
5 A. TEAMS /I [Computer Information System]
39. The City has taken steps to develop, and shall establish a database
6 containing relevant information about its officers, supervisors, and managers
to promote professionalism and best policing practices and to identify and
7 modify at-risk behavior (also known as an early warning system). This system
shall be a successor to, and not simply a modification of, the existing
8 computerized information processing system known as the Training
Evaluation and Management System ("TEAMS"). The new system shall be
9
known as "TEAMS II".
10
III
II
5. Borrower: William Parsley; 4:05-bk-90374
12
Online: Pacer, Texas
13
Official U.S. Courts Site
14
320) This case was voluntarily initiated by Borrower Parsley on October 13,2005.
15
This case is directly relevant to instant complaint, since in early 2007, the Honorable Jeff
16
Bohm, U.S. Judge, realized that counsel representing Countrywide in his court, was likely to
17
be misleading the court. A full year of investigations followed, and reports by the U.S.
18
Trustee regarding the conduct ofCFC in other courtrooms across the U.S.
19
321) The outcome of such comprehensive investigation of the litigation practices of
20
CFC and its legal Department, then headed by Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal Officer, was a
21
Memorandum Opinion issued March 8, 2008 (Document #248). This memo was described
22
by media as a 'rebuke" of CFC litigation practices, and it stated:
23
p8
24 [CFC and its outside-counsel] 'have shown a disregard for the professional
and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system'.
25
p52:
26 '7. Policy changes made by the parties as a result of the show cause hearing
More than nine months passed between the issuance of the FIrst Show
27 Cause Order and the closing arguments in this matter. During this time, each
of the parties attempted to respond to the issues raised by the Court and the
28 UST. Although a multitude of issues remain unresolved, the Court is pleased
-55-
ZERNIK V MELSON ET ALi VERIFIED COMPLAINT
that some steps have been taken In the right direction. After the parties read
this Memorandum Opinion, the Court hopes they will continue these
2 improvements.'
3 p53
'Changes made by Countrywide
4 Countrywide has made two changes as a result of the Show Cause
Orders.27 First, Countrywide no longer refers Fannie Mae loans to a single
5 national counsel. [Aug. 8,2007 Hr'g Tr. 157: 10-21.] Insofar as this change
means that Countrywide will be directly communicating with attorneys who
6
file pleadings on behalf of Countrywide, the Court believes that this is a
7 positive change Second, Countrywide will require that internal affidavits be
executed prior to the filing of a motion to lift stay, and will be diligent about
8 communicating with outside counsel to ensure that Countrywide provides
accurate information. [Aug. 8,2007 Hr'g Tr. 158:25-159:7.]'
9
10 6. Reports of the Office of the LA Civil Rights Overseer

11 322) Two areas where the LAPD appeared intent not to comply with the provisions of the signed
12 Consent Decree, based on media reports, were:
13 a) Annual Financial Disclosure by undercover narcotic officers (Document # )

14 323) The fact that a provision requiring annual financial disclosure by the undercover
15 narcotic officers of the LAPD is a clear indication that the drafters of the Consent Decree at
16 least entertained concerns that were similar to the allegations listed above (p 13), namely -
17 that profits from the sale of illicit drugs have fueled for more than a quarter century the
18 engine of corruption of law enforcement in LA County. Of note, the opinion of experts on
19 criminology and drug policy, is that the highest costs associated with a failed drug policy is
20 in corruption of the justice system.
21 324) News media reported in recent years that the narcotics officers threatened en-masse
22 resignation if they were forced to file financial disclosure. Moreover, media reported that the Police
23 Chief supported the position of the officers, regardless of the fact that it was part of the Consent
24 Decree signed by the LAPD.
25 b) Failure to allow the Overseer access to computerized data base records

26 (Document # ).
27 325) This problem appears as one and the same as the fraud in the operation of the court's
28 case management system, and the denial of public access to such records. It is also believed
-56-
to be the reason that none of the review panels established after 2000 in the matter of the
2 Rampart scandal ever accomplished much.
3 326) Conversely, it is claimed that it would be sufficient for Defendants who are FBI and
4 the USDOJ to enforce equal protection in LA County of First Amendment and Common
5 Law rights to access court records to inspect and to copy, to affect a major improvement in
6 the justice system in Los Angeles County.
7 327) Given the refusal of Defendant's FBI and USDOJ to perform their duties, Plaintiffs
8 hope that this honorable court will at least allow some discovery of such records. Plaintiffs
9 believe that such records are in fact a catalogue of the conduct of the alleged LA Judiciary
10 Racket. For that reason the LA Superior Court will never consent to allow public access, and
11 Defendants FBI and USDO] refuse to enforce Equal Protection relative to such basic rights
12 of the 10 millions who reside in LA County.
13 III
14 7. Annual Reports of the USDOJ Public Integrity Section
15 The annual reports of the Public Integrity Section of USDOJ (PIN) are prescribed by
16 Congress, and are posted online at:
17 328) Incorporation by reference of these reports is requested, since review of the reports
18 for the past 25 years demonstrates not a single indictment or prosecution of a California State
19 Judge in Los Angeles, in a county that holds more residents than 48 of the states and
20 territories, and in contrast with overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption of the
21 judiciary in this county.
22 329) The absolute absence of enforcement action in LA County in a quarter century
23 is consistent with the absolute refusal of Defendants who are FBI and USDO] to investigate
24 Plaintiffs' claims of corruption of the judiciary. It is also consistent with the responses of
25 U.S. Officers who are Defendant Melson and Kaiser to U.S. Congress in summer-fall 2008 ,
26 which are alleged to be fraud by U.S. Officers on U.S. Congress.
27
28
-57-
330) However, such conduct by Defendants FBI, USDOJ, Kaiser and Melson stands in
2 stark contrast with the overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption provided by

3 Plaintiffs Zernik and Fine.
4 III
5 8. Special Report of Defendant USDOJ (December 1987) regarding drug
6 sales for profit by CIA in LA County in the 1980 as part of Iran-Contra.
7 331) The report is important and directly relevant to instant case, because of its
8 unique perspective on the origins of corruption of the LA County justice system. It is also
9 the best evidence of deliberate, willful decision by U.S. officers, most likely in Washington
10 DC, to act in a manner that amounted to abuse ofthe civil rights of the residents of LA
11 County, in order to accomplish their goals that were compounded violations of the law on
12 other accounts. It was a willful decision to engage in criminal means to accomplish criminal
13 ends.
14 332) It is important to keep that report in mind, since many of the most senior
15 officers of the LA Justice system today were in their careers formative years then.
16 Moreover, absent this clear historical record, many reviewers would tend to dismiss as
17 impossible the idea that LA County law enforcement, or U.S. government agencies would
18 engage in drug sales for profit in LA County.
19 III
20 9. The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report of 2006 and responses by Police
21 Chief and the office of LA District Attorney.
22 Oneline: http://www .lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/RampartReconsidered.html
23 Official LAPD Site, includes:
24 Rampart Reconsidered - Full Report (101 pages - pdf file)
25 Rampart Reconsidered - Executive Summary (32 pages - pdf file)
26 Rampart Reconsidered - Appendices (141 pages - pdf file)
27 333) We hope that through instant court action this honorable court will
28 provide access to some of the Rampart-FIPs. We believe that the Rampart-FIPs would have
-58-
unique additional evidence regarding corruption of the LA Justice system based on their own
2 personal histories. The evidence that is the collective personal histories of the Rampart-FIPs
3 is also the most likely reason that no report was ever issued for the Rampart investigation,
4 although the LAPD was required to issue such report. The Blue Ribbon Review Panel failed
5 to find any explanation why the LAPD just dropped the investigation and never completed
6 the report.
7 334) The collective personal histories of the Rampart-FIPS is also the most likely
8 reason that LAPD, prosecutors, and the LA Superior Court formed a unified front to oppose
9 the release of the Rampart-FIPs, and affected their continued false imprisonment in the past
10 decade, as documented in the 2006 Blue Ribbon Review Panel report.
11 335) In fact, that conduct of the LA justice system in opposing the release of the
12 Rampart-FIPs is probably some of the evidence for the widespread corruption of the LA
13 justice system that would be most hardest to dispute.
14 336) There simply is no reasonable explanation for such conduct, but the justice
15 system continues in its staunch refusal to do that which is just and honest. The Blue Ribbon
16 Review Panel lists a number of times the opinions stated by various members of the justice
17 system that release of the Rampart-FIPs would cause collapse of the LA County justice
18 system. But a justice system that continues for a decade the false imprisonment of some
19 10,000 FIPs, after affecting their false conviction and sentencing in the first place, has no
20 justification for is continued existence either.

21 337) Needless to say, the conduct of Defendants Melson, Kaiser, FBI and USDOJ
22 also stands in stark contrast with their own stated policies. For example, in December 2008
23 in New York state, in conjunction with the indictment of former NY Supreme Court Justice
24 Spago, FBI released the following statement (underline added -jz):
25 "This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all
allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption
26 violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and
can tear at the fabric of a democratic society."
27
28
-59-
Respectfully submitted, May 1,2009, Washington, DC.

2
3
4
Joseph Zernik
5 pro se Plaintiff
6 1/1
7 III
8 VI.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
9
338) I request that the Honorable Court take Judicial Notice of the following records, in
10
the condition that such records are posted in the reference site. In cases where the records
11
were improperly, and dishonestly docketed in Pacer, Judicial notice is intended of such
12
conditions:
13
1) Zernik v Connor et aI. 2:2008cv01550
14
Relative to conditions of the docket, as detailed in pages 7-16 above.
15
2) Fine v LA Sheriff of LA County; 2:09-cv-01914
16
Relative to conditions of the docket, as noted above in pages 7-16, as related to the
17
delays in review of Habeas Corpus Petition and Ex Parte Application of Richard
18
Fine.
19
3) The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report of2006 and responses by Police Chief
20
and the office of LA District Attorney.
21
Relative to the continued wrongful incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs, relative to
22
the failure ofLAPD to ever issue a final report of the massive Rampart scandal
23
investigation of 1998-2000, and relative to the final recommendation of that panel
24
for "External Investigation", which was never executed.
25
4) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified as International Law.
26
Relative to basic Human Rights, particularly Articles I-XII.
27
28
-60-
5) Special Report of Defendant USDOJ (December 1987) regarding drug sales by

2 CIA in LA County in the 1980 as part of Iran-Contra.
3 It is considered one of the key events that established the discrimination against
4 that region of the U.S.A. by Federal agencies, and established the exclusion of its
5 residents from protection under Civil Rights guaranteed in the Amendments to the
6 U.S. Constitution.
7
8 Respectfully submitted, May 1, 2009, Washington, DC.
9
10
11
Joseph Zernik
12
pro se Plaintiff
13
III
14
III
15
VII.
16 STANDING
17
339) Standing relative to matters pertaining to my own abuse is self-evident.
18
340) I claim standing relative to the 10,000 Rampart FIPs and Attorey Richard Fine,
19
since in the past year I found myself the primary party concerned with the issue of false
20
imprisonments in LA County, even before the jailing of Att Fine. I initiated a petition drive
21
for their release. I also contacted public interest organizations with credible qualifications
22
who may be willing to engage in the filing of petitions for habeas corpus on behalf of the
23
Rampart FIPs once the records are made accessible.
24
341) I also claim standing relative the issue of false imprisonments in Los Angeles
25
County, since it is a clear and imminent danger for me. Like attorney Fine, I exposed
26
corruption of the judiciary, and like Fine, I had judgments of contempt fraudulently issued
27
28
-61-
against me. I was also threatened with jailing by Judge Terry Friedman in open court in
2 February 2008.
3 342) As a resident of LA County I also claim standing relative the issues of abuse of the
4 civil rights and the human rights of residents of the county, and discrimination of FBI and
5 USDOJ in enforcement of the law in that region of the U.S.A. for at least a quarter century.
6 III
7
III
VIII.
8 JURISDICTION & VENUE
9 343) Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, and 220\-02 to seek declaratory and
10 other relief.
11 344) Defendants who are U.S. Officers and FBI and USDOJ hold headquarters in
12 Washington DC, and therefore their residence is deemed in Washington DC, dictating the
]3 venue to be there.
14 Of other parties:
]5 345) Defendant resides in Los Angeles County, HAC headquarter is in north Carolina and
]6 Defendants who are its President and General Counsel on information and belief also reside
]7 there. Defendants who are Bryan Cave, LLP, Don Lents and van Cleve are believed to be
]8 are residing in St Louis Missouri.
]9 346) Federal Jurisdiction exists relative to constitutional questions of civil rights, Equal
20 Protection, and matters pertaining to federal agencies.
21 347) Federal jurisdiction exists relative to variation in jurisdiction among the parties.
22 III
23 III
24 VII.
25 PARTIES
26
A. PLAINTIFF
27 1. Joseph Zernik
348) Plaintiff Zernik is an individual and a resident of Los Angeles County.
28
-62-
349) Plaintiff holds dual citizenship, ofIsrael and of the United States of America.
2 350) Plaintiff Zernik is filing this complaint also:
3 In his capacity as Defendant in LA Superior Court (LA Sup Ct), civil actions,
4 In his capacity as Defendant in LA Sup Ct quasi-criminal & criminal actions,
5 In his capacity as an LA County Resident, denied by U.S. Government officers
6 and agencies equal protection of his civil and human rights,
7 In his capacity as a U.S. Tax Payer burdened with the cost of sub-prime scandal &
8 bailout, resulting at least in part from fraudulent claims by CFC, and
9 Tn his capacity as a Bank of America share-holder.
10 Biographical Sketch
11 351) Plaintiff was born in Jerusalem, Israel in 1955.
12 352) Plaintiff's children, not involved in this case, are:
13 353) Rachel Zernik (born 1985, Hartford, Connecticut), who completed her studies at
14 Berkeley as valedictorian in Philosophy, and is now a law student at Yale, and
15 354) Asa Zernik (born 1989, Hartford, Connecticut), who is now a student at Berkeley.
16 355) Plaintiffs higher education in Israel started with 3 years at the Hadassah/Hebrew
17 University in Jerusalem, and concluded with 3 additional years in Tel Aviv University
18 School of Dental Medicine.
19 356) In 1982 Plaintiff won a research award from the Weizmann Institute in Israel and
20 spent the summer there.
21 357) In 1983 Plaintiff came to the U.S. to continue his education at the University of
22 Connecticut, where he was granted a scholarship and a stipend, which allowed him to
23 complete by 1988 his specialty training in orthodontics and complete a PhD degree in
24 biology, where the focus was on molecular studies of alkaline phosphatase, an enzyme
25 related to bone formation.
26 358) In 1988-1991 Plaintiff stayed in academic positions first at the University of
27 Connecticut, and then was recruited by USC to move to LA.
28 359) In 1991-2002 Plaintiff served in academic positions at USC.
-63-
360) In 2002 Plaintiff left for private practice.

2 361) During his years in academia Plaintiff won multiple awards and research grants from
3 the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health and the
4 Department of Veteran Affairs.
5 362) Plaintiff was also engaged as consultant for the same U.S. Departments, relative to the
6 review of research proposals.
7 363) In 2000 Plaintiff published as co-editor with Prof Moshe Lazar (USC) a collection of
8 early middle eastern short stories by Yitzhaq Shami (1888-1949) - Hebron Stories, with
9 introduction by Prof Arnold Band (UCLA). The book received favorable review in the Los
10 Angeles Times, and also in Arabic culture/literary magazines.
11 364) Plaintiff was subsequently commissioned to publish the book also in French (2006)
12 for the official press of the Calvinist Church of Switzerland, where he added an epilogue
13 regarding the significance of the work relative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
14 365) Plaintiff was also approached by officials of the Palestinian Authority relative to the
15 publication of this book in Arabic translation. At the start of events that are the basis for this
16 complaint, in 2004, Plaintiff went on a visit to the Palestinian Authority to discuss the
17 publication of the book, which assumed by then a unique position. It is arguably the only
18 modern literary work which is recognized by both Israelis and Palestinians as part of their
19 common literary heritage from the early 20 th century.
20 Standing relative to other parties:
21 366) Plaintiff Zernik also claims standing relative to following parties: (a) Att Richard
22 Fine, (b) The 10,000 Rampart-FIPs, and (c) The 10 million residents of LA County.
23 a. Attorney Richard I Fine - an individual
24 367) Att Richard I Fine, upon information and belief is an individual residing in
25 Los Angeles County. Att Fine is indefinitely incarcerated since March 4,2009, on charges
26 of contempt. The basic claim of Plaintiff Fine is that such incarceration is the latest step in a
27 campaign of harsh retaliation, intimidation, and harassment, against him, resulting from his
28 role as a witness, informant, and victim, in relationship to his efforts to expose, on behalf of
-64-
his clients, the Marina Del Rey Homeowner's Association, the fact that ALL judges of the
2 LA Superior Court had received for some years payments of about $45,000 per judge per
3 year from LA County, in addition to their regular pay, which by California law comes from
4 the State only, in Sacramento.
5 368) The LA Superior Court judges never disclosed to parties appearing before
6 them in cases involving the County that they were accepting such secret payments. But
7 review of their conduct shows that they never issued judgment by Court against LA County
8 in years where data were available and analyzed. Such payments would be called by a
9 layperson "bribes".
10 369) A prior stage in this retaliation campaign invoved administrative proceedings
11 against Plaintiff Fine in the State Bar of California that was fraudulently based charges of
12 "Moral Turpitude", whereas the actual moral turpitude claimed was the filing of complaints
13 against LA Superior Court Judges.
14 370) Plaintiff Fine's experience reinforces the experiences described by Plaintiff
15 Zernik, where Att David Pasternak, former President of the Los Angeles Bar Association
16 was caught engaged committing frauds - per opinion letter of FBI decorated veteran agent,
17 and where Att David Pasternak issued a threat of using security people to apprehend Plaintiff
18 Zernik, in order to deter Zernik from seeking to inspect and to copy the entries related to the
19 fraudulent Grant Deeds issued by Pasternak in the Journal of the Notary Public in his office.
20 371) Further investigation may conclude that the corruption of the LA Superior
21 Court generated conditions in LA County that were not only permissive of fraud, but coercive
22 of fraud. Attorneys who would not collude with frauds by the court must expect harsh
23 retaliation, as is broadly exclaimed by the case of Plaintiff Fine, in case any attorney in LA
24 county was not familiar with the issue. Some very large law firms appear to willingly go
25 along. BCLLP even informed Plaintiff Zernik that it had referred the case to its "Risk
26 reduction committee" presumably in St Louis. But that did not lead to any decision to stop
27 the conduct alleged to be in violation of the law.
28 372) In the wake of the Enron scandal, Sarbanes-Oxley focused on the practice of
-65-
accounting and auditing, and touched on the practice of law to a much lesser degree. The
2 current complaint is in part meant to draw attention to major deficiencies in regulation of the
3 legal profession.
4 373) Plaintiff Fine claims are only against Defendants that are Melson, Kaiser, FBI
5 and USDOJ, for willfully allowing the LA Judiciary Racket to continue its operations for
6 years, and for abandoning equal protection of his civil and human rights and the civil and
7 human rights of all residents of LA County.
8 b. The 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons)
9 374) The Rampart-FIPs, upon information and belief, are residents of Los Angeles
10 County, mostly black and latino, who continue to be falsely incarcerated 10 years after the
11 eruption of the Rampart scandal (1998). The core issue in that scandal was the admission of
12 Rampart undercover narcotic officer, Rafael Perez, and later also others, that they had
13 routinely framed and fabricated evidence and testimonies in order to convict defendants in
14 the criminal courts in Los Angeles. In other cases, defendants were tortured to extract false
15 confessions.
16 375) After a massive investigation (1998-2000) that lasted some 2 years and had
17 200 investigators assigned to it, it was concluded that such persons were innocent, and that
18 their convictions and sentencing were based on false evidence. The conclusions of the initial
19 investigation were confirmed and re-affirmed by three official and one independent review
20 panel in subsequent years. The latest official report on the subject upon information and
21 belief is the Blue Ribbon Review Panel of 2006.
22 376) Today, even the exact number of the Rampart-FIPs is unclear. As made
23 evident in the 2006 report.
24 377) Plaintiffs the Rampart-FIPs main claims are against Defendants who are
25 Melson, Kaiser, FBI, and USDOJ. Such U.S. Officers and U.S. law enforcement agencies
26 abandoned the rights of Plaintiffs the Rampart-FIPs.
27 378) Majority of the Rampart-FIPs are likely to be black and Latino, and Plaintiffs
28 who are the Rampart-FIPs claim that their continued false imprisonment is at least in part
-66-
racially caused and tolerated, even ifnot in a obvious deliberate fashion. Plaintiff claims
2 that the case of the Rampart-FIPs is a disgrace of historic proportions, and hopes that under
3 the current administration, first by a President and an Attorney General who self-identify as
4 black, it would finally be reviewed and adjudicated in an equitable manner by a fair tribunal.
5 379) Several sources were used in deriving the 10,000 number that is used as an
6 estimate for the Rampart-FIPs. Easiest to refer to is the PBS Frontline broadcast from 2001
7 that provided estimates by prosecutors (at 8,000), by Defense attorneys (15,000), and by
8 other interest groups (30,000).
9 c. The 10 million Residents of Los Angeles County-
10 380) Plaintiff claims standing also relative to the 10 million residents of LA County, relative to the
11 refusal of FBI and USDO] to enforce equal protection of their Civil and Human Rights, and
12 discrimination against that region of the U.S.A.
13 III
14 B. DEFEMDANTS:
15 381)
16 1. Kenneth Melson - as an individual and as a U.S. Officer - Director, U.S. Dept of
17 Justice. His office is in Washington, DC.
18 382)
19 2. U.S. Department of Justice - a government agency, which is based in offices in
20 Washington, De.
21 383)
22 3. Kenneth Kaiser - as an individual, and as a U.S. Officer - Assistant Director,
23 FBI, his office is in Washington, De.
24 384)
25 4. FBI - a government agency, charged with law enforcement as part of the USDOJ,
26 and is based in offices in Washington, De.
27 385)
28 5. Kenneth D Lewis - an individual, and also in his capacity as President of BAe.
-67-
Kenneth Lewis, upon belief, resides in North Carolina. He serves as President ofBAC, and
2 he was directly involved in the negotiations that led in January 2008 to the initial notice of
3 intent of BAC to acquire/merge with Countrywide. He was noticed of the alleged abuse of
4 Plaintiff by BAC, and failed to take any action.

5 386)
6 6. Timothy J Mayopoulos - an individual, and as an Officer and General Counsel,
7 BAC. The conduct of Timothy Mayopoulos and the Legal Department ofBAC allows the
8 ongoing alleged abuse of Plaintiff at the hands of Bryan Cave, LLP, and the LA Superior
9 Court.
10 387)
11 7. Bank of America Corporation (HAC) Audit Committee - a group of
12 individuals who re also members of the board of Directors ofBAC, who re designated by the
13 board as such committee. The Committee and its duties re prescribed by law. Members of
14 the committee upon information and belief: a) WILLIAM BARNET, III, b) JOHN T
15 COLLINS, c) General TOMMY R FRANKS, d) WALTER E MASSEY, e) THOMAS J
16 MAY (chair), f) Admiral JOSEPH W FRUEHER,

17
18 8. Bank of America Corporation (HAC)- a corporation. It's headquarter is in North
19 Carolina.
20 388)
21 9. Don G Lents - as an individual, as a partner in Bryan Cave, LLP, and as the Chair
22 of the Firm, Bryan Cave, LLP. Upon belief he resides in or around the St. Louis, Missouri.
23 He was notified of the alleged abuse of Plaintiff at the hands of Bryan Cave, LLP in
24 collusion with the LA Superior Court, but failed to respond in any way.
25 389)
26 10. Peter D Van Cleve - as an individual, and as a partner in Bryan Cave, LLP. Upon
27 belief he resides in or around the St. Louis, Missouri. He was notified a number of
28
-68-
times of the alleged abuse of Plaintiff by Bryan Cave, LLP, and he responded in a
2 manner that allowed continued abuse of Plaintiff.
3 390)
4 11. Bryan Cave, LLP - is a law-firm, and a limited partnership, with headquarters
5 in St. Louis, Missouri. Bryan Cave specializes in corporate transactions
6 and litigation representation. The firm has more than 1,2001awyers in 25 offices around the
7 world making it one of the largest law firms in the world, both by revenue and by attorney
8 headcount. Its partners include former US Senators Jack Danforth and Alan Dixon, former
9 New York Mayor Ed Koch, former Indiana Attorney General Jeff Modisett, and
10 former Tennessee Attorney General Charles Burson, who also served as former Counsel to
11 Vice-President Al Gore. The chairman of the firm is Don G. Lents, who works from the St
12 Louis office. Bryan Cave consistently ranks in Vault's Top 100 Most Prestigious firms and
13 in The AmLawl00.
14 391) Roe 1-20 - individuals, corporations, or agencies that may turn out to have colluded
15 with Defendants in the conduct that is the subject of instant complaint.
16 III
17 III
18 VIII.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19
20 392) This complaint alleges that the FBI and the DOJ allowed in the past decade the
21 continuation and escalation of severe abuse of the civil rights of the residents of LA county.
22 Such abuse was conducted by the justice system itself - by judges and police organized in a
23 manner that is indistinguishable from any other corrupt organization per RICO 18 USC
24 1961-8
25 393) Similar findings were described by the Blue Ribbon Review Panel chaired by
26 civil rights activist Att Connie Rice, in its 2006 report. That report is an eye opener. For
27 example - on page 47, it makes a statement that surely was read as subversive and
28 "controversial" by the Police Commission, which commissioned the study. It stated that the
-69-
justice system in LA tolerated "a subcult ofcriminality in its ranks". In fact, the data
2 presented now by Plaintiff Zemik, to supplement the report generated by Art Rice, indicate
3 that the "subcult of criminality" was and is the dominant cult among the judiciary n the West
4 District, and encompasses the leadership of the court.
5 394) Such statements are not made lightly. And such statements must be finally
6 made openly, repeatedly, and hopefully communicated by mass media in Washington DC-
7 since media in LA County are timid, and hardly ever report on the corruption of the court.
8 The court on the other hand developed a reputation of being retaliatory.
9 395) Plaintiff Zemik's core claims are:
10 396) 1) That he is the victim of ongoing real estate and litigation frauds that were
11 engineered and manufactured by the Legal Department of CFC and others, prior to July I,
12 2008, and that after July 1,2008, upon merger/acquisition, Defendants BAC, Lewis, and
13 Mayopoulos, allowed such frauds to proceed.
14 397) 2) That Defendant BCLLP, one of the largest law firms in the U.S., was
15 involved in a key role in enabling the CFC/BAC frauds against him. BCLLP engaged in
16 such role both under CFC - prior to July 1, 2008, and also under CFC/BAC - after July 1,
17 2008. BCLLP's role was to provide some level of distance and plausible deniability to the
18 corporations it served, and is likely to be similar to a schemed that was employed by CFC in
19 a Houston Texas court, and was rebuked in a 72 page Memorandum Opinion issued by the
20 Honorable Jeff Bohm, U.S. Judge, on March 8, 2008 (Case 4:05-bk-90374 , Document #
21 248). BCLLP and its officers - Lents' and van Cleve's at present refuse to respond to
22 questions regarding the specific identity of its clients and the nature of its engagements, if
23 any, with such clients. Plaintiffs claims that review of the conduct ofBCLLP in the past
24 two years would lead to a finding that it engaged in obstruction and perversion ofjustice.
25 Plaintiff filed complaints and requests for protections with various local, state and U.S. law
26 enforcement and regulatory agencies for starting January 2007, but Defendant who are FBI
27 and UDSOJ willfully decided to abandon his rights and allow him to become a victim of the
28 alleged LA Judiciary Racket, and therefore are also refusing to investigate any of his
-70-
complaints. Furthermore, such conduct by Defendants Melson, Kaiser, FBI, and USDOJ
2 follows the same pattern that they chose relative to Plaintiffs the Rampart-FIPs and Attorney
3 Richard I Fine. Such position, in Plaintiffs opinion, is out of compliance with the law, also
4 reflects the abandonment of the civil and human rights of all 10 millions who reside in the
5 county. Such position also defies logica, and cannot be supported by any public policy
6 reason.
7 398) 3) The frauds were initiated in 2004, and continue to this date. Such frauds
8 with BAC/CFC as their focus, are described in greater details in Exhibits Volume A and
9 Volume B to complaint filed with BAC Audit Committee on April 20, 2009. Such records
10 are copied here as Exhibit 8 (Exhibits Volume A ofthe complaint to Audit Committee),
II and Exhibit 9 (Exhibits Volume B of complaint to Audit Committee). Such complaint
12 was filed with the Audit Committee pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002). Of note - BAC
13 and its Audit Committee refuse to even acknowledge receipt of the complaints.
14 399) Plaintiff Zernik also claims that the conduct of Defendants BAC, Mayopoulos
15 and Lewis defies logic: They entered an acquisition-merger sponsored by the U.S.
16 Government, where they acquired CFC for approximately $4.5 billions in stock exchange.
17 What they got in return was an asset of net dollar value that was known to be many billions
18 in the negative, a goodwill value that was negative to the degree that BAC chose to
19 discontinue the name by April 2009, and to top it off - they acquired what appears as
20 criminal liability.
21 400) The latter is of particular concern, since it appears that Defendants BAC, Lewis
22 and Mayopoulos are entirely complacent about it. Plaintiff Zernik is concerned that what
23 appears as illogical business conduct and illogical attitude are in fact fully logical, and reflect
24 secret provisions of the bailout-merger, which had never been reported to Congress, or the
25 public for that matter. Specifically, concern is that the conduct of Defendants BAC,
26 Mayopoulos, and Lewis reflects promises made to them, which ammounted to an indeminty
27 or immunity agreement for both past and future criminal conduct by CFC, their newly
28 acquired subsidiary.
-71-
401) Obviously, such promises, if made, were invalid and out of compliance with
2 the law. However, the conduct of Defendants Kaiser, Melson, FBI, and USDOJ, are fully
3 consistent with the notion of such indemnity promises. And whether such promises were
4 valid or not, or whether they were in compliance with the law or not, the conduct of FBI and
5 USDOJ in may reflect a secret policy of these government agencies to honor such promises
6 that were invalid and out of compliance with the law.
7 402) The notion of such promises may initially apears as a far fetched "conspiracy
8 theory". However, when taking into consideration tha the same type of agencies allowed law
9 enforcemnet to engage in drug sales for profit in Los Angeles for years, and also allow the
lOLA Superior Court to develop and operate proceedings that are outside the realm of the law,
11 sucn notion becomes less far fetched. Furthermore, this case itself shows exactly this kind of
12 conduct by government, twice:
13 403) a) In proceedings on December 7.2007, the LA Superior Court offered to
14 Mara Escrow, a subsidiary of Old Republic Title Insurance an indmenity agreement for
15 future violations of the law, in order to induce it to collude with the court in its planned real
16 estate fraud. And the attorney drafting the indemnity agreement and carrying it thorugh the
17 perverted proceedings was David Pasternak - former President of the LA County Bar
18 Association.
19 404) b) Upon information and belief - on or around January 15,2009, the Governor
20 of California signed a bill that provided immunity to ALL judges of the LA Superior Court
21 regarding payments that were "not permitted" by LA County to the judges.
22 405) The most likely reason for the convoluted engagement ofBCLLP, is likely to be
23 regulators - in this particular case, SEC and Federal Trade Commission. Again, one may
24 argue that the manipulation was in violation of the law, and could not possibly be of any
25 value in BAC's stand relative to regulatory review. Here again, Plaintiff Zernik must rely on
26 his experience with these agencies in the past few years, and conclude that more likely than
27 not, they could be willingly deceived, or accept some outlandish argument by CFC and
28
-72-
BAC. After all, they acted very much along the same lines in the past few years in the face of
2 obvious violations by CFC.
3 406) Two large or very large law firms were in pivoltal roles in the perverted proceedings
4 of Samaan v Zernik at the LA Superior Court - BCLLP and Sheppard Mullin. Combined
5 with the allegations of RICO against the Legal Deaprtment of CFC/BAC, and conduct of
6 counsel for Defendant in bot Samaan v Zernik and Galdjie v Darwish, this complaint raises
7 concerns regarding the legal profession in LA County California, and the regulatory
8 frameworks now in place.
9 III
10 III
11 IX.
DETAILED ALLEGATIONS
12
13
The is claims against the specific Defendants are as follows:
14
A. Kenneth Melson (Melson) & U.S. Department Of Justice (USDOJ), Kenneth
15
Kaiser (Kaiser) & FBI-
16
This complaint requests that the U.S. District Court compel the U.S. Department of
17
Justice and the FBI to perform their duties and protect and restore the civil rights of Plaintiff,
18
Joseph Zernik, of Attorney Richard Fine, now indefinitely jailed, the Rampart-FIPs, who
19
continue to be wrongfully imprisoned a decade after the Rampart scandal investigation
20
ended, albeit - with no final report ever being written, and all residents of LA County, who
21
are denied their basic civil and human rights.
22
1. Filure to provide in L County Fir Tribunls.
23
In reltionship
24
1. Severe and escalating abuse of civil rights by LA Sup Ct, LAPD, and LA County DA
25
- under color of law- in violation of 18 USC §242, 28 U.S.c. § 1343. 42 USC §1983,
26
has been tolerated by FBI and the U.S. DOJ. For at least a decade.
27
28
-73-
Plaintiffs complain that Defendants allowed severe and protracted abuse of Plaintiffs'
2 U.S. Constitutional rights for Due Process. In addition- Zernik's rights for Free Speech,
3 and for Possession were abused, and the LA-FIP's had their rights for liberty and their
4 voting rights severely abused. All such abuse was conducted under the color of law. For
5 Zernik such abuses were orchestrated under litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at
6 the LA Sup Ct from Oct 2005 to the present. For the various LA-FIPs - such abuses were
7 perpetrated through their respective individual criminal prosecutions.
8 2. Claims made relative to the events underlying the Rampart scandal - that the
9 judges were "duped" by police's false evidence in criminal courts, are far-fetched.
10 The judges colluded with corrupt police - FBI and USDOJ tolerated such conditions
11 in LA County.
12 Plaintiff claims that the abuses perpetrated on the LA-FIPs in criminal courts, and on
13 Zernik in civil courts are mirror images of each other, and together they provide a true
14 and correct picture of the scope and depth of corruption of the LA Sup Ct. Once these
15 cases are reviewed together, and also together with the cases where LA County was party
16 to litigations in LA Sup Ct, while making illegal payments of over $40,000 per judge per
17 year, no reasonable person would accept claims that judges were victims of corrupt police
18 in the criminal courts, and never noticed the false evidence routinely presented to them
19 by police. After all- such judges eagerly accepted false evidence in the civil courts,
20 knowing well that such evidence was inadmissible the way it was presented by Att
21 Keshavarzi or Moldawsky. A reasonable person would surely conclude that corrupt
22 judge colluded with corrupt police in the perversion ofjustice in the criminal courts in
23 LA. And as the 2006 report made it clear that such conduct is likely to continue even
24 today.
25 3. The refusal of Police, DA, and FBI to investigate real estate and other frauds
26 amounts to cover up of criminal conduct by the LA Judiciary,
27 Likewise, a reasonable person would not accept any claims that the failure of police,
28 prosecutors, and FBI, to notice and investigate the conduct the judges in the civil court,
-74-
for example - relative to real estate frauds, was any type of oversight. A reasonable
2 person would conclude that the refusal of police, District Attorney, and the FBI to
3 investigate, or even review data provided to them, was straight forward collusion in the
4 conduct of the judges. And the conduct of such judges must be deemed of criminal
5 nature.
6 4. On the background of such comprehensive review, any claims for honest conduct by
7 Judge Connor, and whoever assigned her as presiding judge in the First Rampart
8 Trial, cannot be accepted at face value by any person of good faith, but FBI and
9 USDOJ allowed such trial to go on in LA and its results to stay.
l O A reasonable person reviewing the cases in the criminal and the civil court must deem all
11 Judge Connor's judicial acts in the First Rampart Trial as null and void. Her conflicts
12 were noticed even during those years. But the conflicts are stupendous once the
13 racketeering in the civil and criminal courts is elaborated
14 5. Responses by Mr Melson and Mr Kaiser, combined with the conduct of FBI and US
15 Attorney Office since early 2007, allowing my abuse by Judge Connor and others at
16 the LA Superior Court, and the absence of any enforcement in LA County in face of
17 widespread corruption of the judiciary in this county, amounts to severe abuse of
18 the civil rights and human rights of residents of this county.
19 Therefore, the responses provided by Defendant Kenneth Melson and Defendant Kenneth
20 Kaiser in their respective letter to the Honorable Diane Feinstein, Senator, dated
21 xx.xx.2008, and to the Honorable Diane Watson, Congresswoman, dated xX.xx. 2008,
22 must not be deemed any type of oversight. Instead, such letters must be seen for what
23 they were, for what they are, and for what they will always be - evidence that the U.S.
24 Government in the past decade, abandoned the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens in the
25 Bill of Rights.
26 6. Also the civil rights of all 10 million residents of LA County were abused by the LA
27 Superior Court - through denial of access to public records that are the Books of
28 Court for the past 25 years.
-75-
Not only the rights of Plaintiffs Zernik and the LA-FIPs were abused by the LA Sup Ct.
2 The abuse allowed by the U.S. Government and its officer named here as defendants
3 included also the wholesale betrayal of the rights for Due Process of the 10 million
4 people that the LA Sup Ct claims to serve. Such wholesale abuse was based on the denial
5 of public access to public records for the unbelievable period of some 25 years.
6 7. The failure of the purported investigation by FBI against Countrywide defies logic,
7 and upon review is likely to be deemed deceit upon the public, at home and abroad.
8 I allege that in evidence I provided to FBI we more than enough to indict the attorneys in
9 the Legal department of countrywide, Sandor Samuels, and Angelo Mozilo. The letter
10 from James Wedick, on the other hand, makes it clear why FBI could not find anything in
11 its investigation against Countrywide. Because the corruption in Countrywide was tied to
12 the corruption of the LA Superior Court judges, which the FBI wants to protect.
13 8. The next stage of this cover up - where Bank of America is involved in corruption,
14 while it is allowed to grow beyond limits set for banks in the past, is a recipe for
15 further disasters.
16 There is no way to justify the conduct of the FBI, USOJ, and the officers. It is not
17 supported by any public policy, and it puts the U.S. economy in even greater peril. It also
18 undermines trust in the U.S. Courts, in U.S. financial institutions, and in U.S. financial
19 markets. It is the lack of trust in such institutions and markets that is largely responsible
20 for the decline in markets. Therefore, the conduct of FBI and USDOJ are also contrary to
2\ efforts to heal the economy from its current malaise.
22 9. Attorney Fine is the victim of severe abuse, after exposing widespread corruption of
23 the judiciary in Los Angeles County, FBI and USDOJ allow it to proceed without
24 intervention.
25 Allowing the abuse of attorney Fine after he expose the widespread corruption of the
26 judiciary in L County, is yet another case where FBI and USDOJ failed to perform their
27 duties, in the very same specific particular manner that amounts to patronizing the
28 corruption of the judiciary in Los Angeles County, California.
-76-
10. FBI and USDOJ allow the ongoing wrongful imprisonment of the 10,000 Rampart-
2 FIPs is evil.
3 There simply is no justification for the FBI and USDO] in the face of the failure of the
4 LPD to write final report for the Rampart investigation. The appointment of the
5 Overseer, just in the case of the Guantanamo Bay detentions, and the case of the
6 California prisons, appears as fig leaf, nothing more.
7 11. Given the pattern of conduct seen in Los Angeles County, of false imprisonment by
8 the LA Superior Court, and concealment of records, highlighted gin recently in the
9 case of Sharon Stone, one must be concerned about cases of prisoners who are
10 entirely uncounted for in the prisons of Los Angeles Country, California.
11 FBI and USDOJ allow conditions in LA County that are unreasonable in any democratic
12 society.
13 III
14 III
15 Facts that support the allegations above against FBI and USDOJ:
16 a. I approached FBI and US Attorney Office in Los Angeles a full year before
17 Countrywide and others completed their frauds against him.
18 I approached FBI and USDO] at their Los Angeles offices with requests for
19 protection starting with his visit to the FBI offices in LA in December 2006. The
20 fraud against me was at that time still in its early stages, and the duty officer was
21 in fact helpful. I was inexperienced, and I needed professional confirmation of my
22 suspicion of real estate fraud being perpetrated against me. The duty agent indeed
23 confirmed such suspicions, reviewed some documents, and made helpful
24 suggestions.
25 b. The complaints filed by me with FBI also accurately predicted the sub-prime
26 heist, and described in details the fraud on the U.S. government by Countrywide.
27 Later, in January 2007, I also filed a complaint with FBI in the Los Angeles
28 office, detailing the fraud by CFC against me and also the fraud by Countrywide
-77-
against the U.S. government - what later evolved into the sub-prime heist. The
2 details of that complaint and even more so, the details provided in a subsequent
3 addendums to that complaint, in March 2007, in fact provided the blue print of the
4 looming sub-prime heist, which was going to feature in the headlines of

5 newspapers later that year.
6 The complaints detailed evidence of alleged criminal conduct at CFC,
7 particularly at the San Rafael Wholesale Branch of Countrywide Home Loans,
8 Inc, and separately - at the CFC Legal Department in Calabasas, California. Such
9 complaints eventually detailed the collusion of Angelo Mozilo- former President
10 of CFC, and Sandor Samuels - former Chief Legal Officer, in such alleged
11 criminal conduct.
12 Of note, at that time, both Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo had prominent
13 advertisements on the web about their commitment to fight frauds. However,
14 when I approached them with a request to help stopping the fraud against me by
15 Countrywide, the response was an assault through the courts and fraudulent and
16 obstructive employment of Bryan Cave, LLP for that purpose.
17 Already in the January 2007, and more so in the March 2007 complaint filed
18 with FBI in Los Angeles by Plaintiff Zernik predicted that Countrywide was
19 generating a high volume of potential liabilities to the U.S. government through
20 the funding of extremely unworthy, government-backed, residential loan

21 applications. The complaints detailed how such activity was in violation of Fair
22 Housing and Fair Credit laws, and also in violation of Regulation B of the FRB,
23 also inconsistent with "sound banking principles".

24 The complaints also claimed that the evidence suggested a major breakdown of
25 any semblance of internal or external controls at Countrywide, of the type that are
26 required by U.S. banking regulations. The evidence was documents that simply
27 could not come into being had there been in place any reasonable internal or
28 external controls at Countrywide.
-78-
Moreover, given the reporting requirements of such corporations, it was also

2 evident that any reports filed by CFC with government agencies are likely to be
3 false.
4 c. The complaints filed with FBI also allow to identify Countrywide's Legal
5 Department as the core ofa corrupt organization
6 Most disturbing, and also reflecting the basic flaw in the corporation - it took
7 only a few phone calls for Plaintiff to figure out, already in December 2006, that
8 the false evidence filed in court and produced in subpoena, was not the work of an
9 individual who had some nefarious interests. Instead, it became evident that it was
10 the Legal Department of Countrywide which was in charge of fabricating and
11 coordinating the frauds.
12 It was an entirely unanticipated and alarming situation: Experienced attorneys
13 for a very large corporation, willfully engaged in fabricating evidence to affect
14 real estate fraud against me, an individual, under the assumption that no matter
15 what I would do, they would be able to exhaust my legal expense funds, and win
16 the case anyway. In fact, that is the basic legal strategy of actions by BAC and
17 BCLLP even today!
18 Putting it differently - full time attorneys for Countrywide could fabricate the
19 evidence fast enough that no individual would have sufficient time and money to
20 catch up with them.
21 In my March 2007 complaint to the FBI, I even tried to guess the size of the
22 liabilities generated to the U.S. government, and I concluded with the rough
23 estimate of "hundreds of billions". Such estimates were based on assessment of
24 the business volume of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc and its Wholesale branches
25 alone, since these were perceived to be the core problem. In fact, the bailout is
26 likely to exceed the trillion mark, a burden dropped on the U.S. taxpayer. The
27 complaints claimed that such future liabilities were generated through massive
28 fraud at CFC.
-79-
d. Starting in January 2007, FBI and USDOJ have been covering up the fraud by
2 Countrywide.
3 That is where my opinion differs with that of the FBI and USDOJ and its
4 senior officers, Melson and Kaiser, both then and now. In January 2007, I was
5 told that his case was assigned to Special Agent Vallese, from the White Collar
6 Squadron. I never heard from him until March. And in March 2007, when I
7 called to hear what Vallese thought ofthe addendum, Vallese instructed me not to
8 file any more papers. FBI was not interested in the subject.
9 By the end of 2007 the issue was in the headlines, and by January 2008, the
10 FBI announced intensive investigations against the sub-prime lenders. I continued
11 to file with FBI updates regarding my findings during this period, since I still
12 hoped for protection against the fraud, which was obvious. However, FBI was
13 never interested in either the fraud againstthe U.S. government, which by early
14 2008 was clearly enormous, and neither was FBI interested in protecting me as an
15 individual against fraud by CFC.
16 Around April-May 2008, I got several phone calls from the office of Steven
17 Goldman, head of the White Collar Squadron. Typically it was either Mr Goldman
18 or his secretary, Ann Marie. They demanded a list of all of my "sources at
19 Countrywide" that allowed me to project the losses to U.S. government in early
20 2007. But they still had no interest in stopping the frauds against me or the frauds
21 against the U.S. government.
22 e. FBI and U.S. Attorney office in Los Angeles deliberately allowed Countrywide
23 and others to complete their fraud against me.
24 lt took exactly a year from my first visit to the FBI offices in LA, to the time
25 that CFC completed its fraud against me - in December 2007. And the FBI just
26 watched and allowed it to happen. I also sought help from the U.S. Attorney
27 Office in Los Angeles, and filed copies of my complaints over there. But the U.S.
28 Attorney Office, LA was no better than the FBI office.
-80-
f. In June 2008, Ifiled with both FBI and US Attorney a500-page "Volume 5"-
2 detailed evidence offrauds by Att David Pasternak.
3 In mid 2008, after the fraud was concluded, and I was robbed of my home, I
4 filed with both FBI and US Attorney Office in LA complaints against Attorney
5 David Pasternak, who was a key figure in this fraud. The volume detailing the
6 wrongdoing by David Pasternak was about 500 pages, and it included numerous
7 records that were clearly indicative of the fraud.
8 The smoking gun in that volume of records, were two copies of Grant Deeds
9 generated by David Pasternak. One was filed in court, for approval, on December
10 7,2007, and was represented as the one that Att Pasternak was going to file on
11 Zernik's home. The other one was the one that was in fact filed in the office of the
12 Registrar/Recorder of LA County on December 17, 2007. Both of them were
13 clearly fraudulent records.
14 I believed that you did not even need to be a detective to see that these were
15 fraudulent records. To start out, they were not the same ... Att Pasternak brought
16 one record for approval by the court, and then filed an altogether different record
17 in the office of Registrar Recorder.
18 The FBI kept the SOO-page volume on Pasternak, but never responded to me in
19 any way. US Attorney Office mailed "Volume 5" back to me after a few months
20 with no comment at all.
21 g. Opinion ofdecorated veteran FBI agent andfraud expert
22 In contrast, around the same time, 1 asked FBI veteran agent, James Wedick, to
23 assess exactly the same SOO-page volume of records that was provided to FBI and
24 US Attorney Office regarding the conduct of David Pasternak. Exactly the same
25 volume of records will also be provided here with this complaint as "Exhibits
26 Volume 5".
27 When I first talked with Mr Wedick on the phone, Mr Wedick was doubtful
28 that I knew what he was talking about. After all, Att David Pasternak was the
-81-
former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. And if that was not
2 enough - he was also the former President of the "House of Justice", a charity
3 organization that provided free legal services. The House of Justice was known
4 particularly in its help for fraud victims, such as real estate fraud victims ...
5 It took Mr Wedick a couple of days and he then sent back to me an opinion
6 letter that stated - that Mr Wedick recommended that an "immediate investigation
7 be instituted" to review the "frauds that were being committed". Mr Wedick's
8 letter will also filed as evidence.
9 James Wedick was one of the most decorated FBI agents alive. He was
10 decorated by the U.S. Congress, by the U.S. Attorney General, and by the FBI
11 Director. But even when I provided the FBI and the US Attorney Office in Los
12 Angeles copies ofMr Wedick's opinion letter, they simply refused to do anything!
13 In short, Defendants that are FBI and USDOJ consistently chose not to provide me
14 with Equal Protection. Instead, they watched for over a year how Countrywide
15 and others, like Pasternak, were going through their fraud routine. FBI and U.S.
16 Attorney Office in Los Angeles allowed Countrywide and others to rob me of my
17 home, and to subject me to extreme abuse of his civil and human rights.
18 h. Ifiled requests for help and protection also with the Washington DC offices of
19 the FBI and the U.S. Attorney General.
20 Subsequently, in mid 2008, I filed complaints and demands for protection also
21 with the FBI headquarters in Washington DC and with the Office of then
22 Attorney General Mukasey. Both FBI and USDOJ failed to respond at all. I then
23 sought help from the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Senator, and the Honorable
24 Diane Watson, Congresswoman. Both of them graciously and expediently issued
25 inquiries to both FBI and USDOJ. The letters from the Honorable members of
26 Congress, and the responses by Defendants Melson, for USDOJ, and Kaiser, for
27 FBI, will also be filed as evidence.
28
-82-
i. Allegations by PlaintiffZernik against Defendant Melson, USDOJ, Kaiser, and

2 FBI related to their response to U.S. Congress:
3 I. I allege that the responses provided by Defendants Kaiser and Melson on
4 behalf of FBI and USDO] to the U.S. Congress regarding his case, in summer-
5 fall 2008, were false and deliberately misleading. For example - Defendant
6 Melson and the U.S. DO] claimed that I was complaining about "foreclosure"
7 procedure. In fact, I had never been part to any foreclosure, bankruptcy, or
8 mortgage default in this life. Moreover, after witnessing the demise of
9 American families through such foreclosure procedures where they are
10 routinely defrauded by Countrywide, I feels that such remarks were doubly
11 cynical.
12 II. I further allege that the responses provided by Defendants Melson - for
13 USDO], and Kaiser- for FBI, in fact reflected a determination on the part of
14 FBI and USDO] not to investigate the frauds by CFC against Zernik, no matter
15 what. In short - to abandon my rights for equal protection, for possession, and
16 for due process, and allow me to be victim of crime by a large corporation.
17 iii. I am also a tax payer, and also a share holder at CFC/BAC. I noticed the news
18 media reports that were coming out during the very same months, claiming that
19 FBI was engaged in an intensive investigation of sub-prime lenders, to
20 determine whether there was any wrongdoing involved in this unprecedented
21 loss to the tax payer. However, so far - for almost a year and a half, to the best
22 of my knowledge, FBI and USDO] have never filed a single indictment and
23 never initiated a single criminal prosecution against any senior executive of
24 Countrywide in relationship to this scandal. I allege that even in the records
25 that I myself provided to FBI and USDO], there was sufficient credible
26 evidence to indict Sandor Samuels - Chief Legal Counsel, Angelo Mozilo-
27 President, Maria McLaurin - Branch Manager, Todd Boock and Sanford Shatz
28 - Attorneys at the Legal Department, and Daniel Whitehead - Vice President at
-83-
the Corporate President Office, on charges related to numerous criminal acts of

2 the type that are also counted as predicated acts for Racketeering.
3 iv. I allege that USDOJ and BAC are yet to disclose to the public and to elected
4 officials the true nature of the Bailout-Merger agreement ofCFC & BAC. A
5 reasonable person, upon review of the facts in this matter is likely to conclude
6 that in entering this transaction, BAC received promises of immunities that on
7 their face must be in violation of the law, and in entering this transaction BAC
8 secured full membership in the untouchable class, from then on - it is above
9 the law.
10 v. In contrast, I allege that USDOJ and FBI treat me, Richard Fine, the 10,000
11 FIPs - mostly black and latinos, and all 10 millions residents of Los Angeles
12 County, California, as exempt from rights guaranteed by U.S. Constitution and
13 its amendments - in principle - not much different than the Guantanamo Bay
14 Detainees. Such treatment of this county goes back t least 3 decades to the
15 early 1980's and drug sales for profit in LA County by CIA as part of
16 extensive unlawful conduct later termed Iran - Contra scandal.
17 vi. I allege that in fact such treatment of this county included allowing the
18 emergence of the alleged LA Judiciary Racket in its current manifestation in
19 the mid-1980's as a result of the installation of fraudulent case management

20 systems at the LA Superior Court. In fact FBI and USDOJ have been
21 patronizing the Racket, as seen in the evidence to be filed with this complaint.
22 Such treatment of this county was also seen in allowing the Rampart scandal
23 investigation to be concluded in 2000 with no report ever being produced by
24 the LPD, and in colluding with Judge Jacqueline Connor in derailing the First
25 Rampart Trial (2000), where she reversed jury verdict. Such conduct by FBI
26 and USDOJ is also evidenced in allowing the continued wrongful
27 incarceration of the 10,000 FIP's.
28
-84-
vii. I allege that Defendants FBI and USDOJ and US officers of such agencies
2 have never held the legal authority to engage in such conduct, and never held
3 the legal authority to trade my civil rights and human rights or the rights of
4 Richard Fine, or of the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs, or the rights of all LA County
5 residents -- not for weapons, not for drugs, not for cash, and not for anything
6 else.
7 viii. I allege that such conduct of U.S. agencies and officers amounts to mutinous
8 conspiracy of U.S. officers of such agencies against the elected government of
9 the U.S., against the people of the U.S., and against the U.S. Constitution that
10 they are sworn to protect.
11 III
12 B. Bank of America Corporation (HAC), and its Officers, Kenneth Lewis (Lewis) and
13 Timothy Mayopoulos (Mayopoulos) -
14 BAC acquired Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) through a
15 mergerlstock exchange, valued at the time at $4.5 billion, and it wholly owns CFC as a
16 subsidiary of BAC, starting July 1,2008. In January 2008, when I realized that BAC was
17 going to control CFC, I got hopeful that with that the end had come to my abuse at the
18 hands ofCFC. I was positive that BAC was an honorable corporation, and that it would
19 at least review my concerns honestly.
20 1. Starting February 2008 PlaintiffZernik filed notices with the
21 Directors ofRAC, hoping that BAC would stop the abuse.
22 Therefore, already in February 2008, months before the take over was
23 finalized, I filed a notice with the Directors ofBAC, informing them of his problem
24 with the frauds perpetrated against him by CFC. Indeed, I received a response letter
25 from the office ofBAC President, Defendant Lewis, which made me hopeful that
26 BAC would take care of the problem.
27 I also warned BAC about the frauds against the U.S. government that were
28 taking place at CFC. I today believe that I understands the fraudulent business
-85-
practices of Countrywide sufficiently well, to conclude that unless BAC initiated a

2 massive project of "cleaning up" the operations at CFC, there was no way that any
3 report that BAC provides to U.S. government and regulatory agencies regarding its
4 subsidiary Countrywide to regulatory agencies, to Congress, or to the U.S.
5 government, even today, could be reliable.
6 2. Real estate and litigation frauds by Countrywide against Zernik
7 started as early as September 2004, full two years before he even
8 heard the name for the first time.
9 The alleged frauds against me and against the U.S. government in this
10 particular case started as early as September 2004, but continue to this day. The
11 frauds by Countrywide were central to robbing me of my home, and to the abuse that
12 I have been subjected to for over 4 years by now.
13 III
14 III
15 C. Bryan Cave, LLP, Don Lents, and van Cleve.
16 a. For almost two years Bryan Cave, LLP has appeared in Court for various abusive
17 and obstructive proceedings,falsely self-designating Countrywide as ~~Non Party".
18 And it continued to do so under BAC control as well.
19 After July 1, 2008, when BAC took full control of Countrywide, BAC failed to
20 stop the frauds and harassment against me. Instead, under the management of BAC,
21 Countrywide continued to harass and intimidate me through the use of a giant law
22 firm - Bryan Cave, LLP. The use of Bryan Cave, LLP for such obstruction and
23 perversion of justice started already under Countrywide's old management.
24 Bryan Cave, LLP appeared in court for the first time on July 6, 2007. Since
25 then Bryan Cave, LLP has been appearing in court regularly, listing itself as
26 representing Countrywide, and listing Countrywide under the party designation "Non
27 Party".
28
-86-
The court, on the other hand, would designate Countrywide with different
2 party designations. It could be "Plaintiff', "Defendant", "Cross Defendant",
3 "Intervenor", "Real Parties in Interest". .. I once asked the clerk of the court how it
4 came to be, and the clerk answered truthfully - that there was no such thing as "Non-
S Party". Therefore, he selected every time whatever designation he felt like from the
6 list of legitimate party designations that were provided to him on the screen by the
7 Court's case management system.
8 III
9 III
10 D. Samuel Bezek and SEC
11 Regardless of the many complaints filed with SEC, the most recent ones with Samuel
12 Bezek directly, SEC never took any action.
13 All allegations listed above were detailed also in complaints filed with SEC regarding
14 CFC and BAC, but SEC never took any action.
15 III
16 III
17 E. False Claims by Countrywide/BAC against the U.S. Government in re: the TARP
18 (Trouble Assets Relief Program)
19 i. I alleges that the fraud against me also included very detailed evidence of
20 the frauds by CFC and BAC against the U.S. government.
21 ii. I further allege that a significant part (at the range of 5-1 0%) of the troubled
22 assets now bailed out through enormous expense of to the tax payer, were
23 in fact funded through extensive frauds at CFC against the U.S.
24 government. Therefore, such part of the claims by CFC and BAC paid for
25 by the U.S. government, are in fact false claims.
26 iii. I distinguishes here between "generic" frauds by applicants, such as inflated
27 income data, or false employment status, which could have been facilitated
28 by lax underwriting at Countrywide, versus specific frauds by Countrywide
-87-
against the u.s. government - such as use of complicated fax/wire fraud

2 scheme to retroactively construct loan files, or deliberately fraudulent
3 operation of Edge - the computerized underwriting monitoring system.
4 iv. Such frauds also represent failure to maintain internal controls and external
5 controls at Countrywide.
6 v. Such frauds also represent false reporting by CFC officers like Angelo
7 Mozilo and Sandor Samuels to regulatory agencies such as SEC or Federal
8 Trade Commission.
9 vi. Three specific examples of such fraud techniques used by Countrywide
10 are as follows:
11 1) Wire fax frauds by a financial institution against itself-
12 Countrywide was known for its advanced, elaborate fax servers system Such system was
13 central to recording the movements of papers between underwriting and the loan brokers
14 in the wholesale division, purportedly in compliance with banking and fair housing laws
15 and regulations. But careful review of the records shows that Countrywide was in fact
16 routinely bypassing the secure systems, and accepting faxes from anonymous senders -
17 for example, from the applicant/borrower, when in fact it had to be only through the loan
18 broker. Through the use of such methods, loan applications could be also retroactively
19 regenerated, when in real time they did not include the necessary records. In short - the
20 underwriting system which requires careful recording of any document departure or
21 arrival was deliberately compromised and adulterated.
22 407) 2) Fraud in the operation of EDGE- the computerized
23 underwriting monitoring system -
24 The system may appear as securing compliance with the law. In fact - the system was
25 and most like still is operated today, in a manner that facilitates frauds against the U.S.
26 government. One simple example - the system appears as if it has secure operations
27 based on rules-based authorities. E.g. only an underwriter can do underwriting. But in
28 fact, Maria McLaurin, a branch manager who was instructed in writing by the Corporate
-88-
underwriting supervisor, Demetrio Gadi, to stop engaging in underwriting, and leave the
2 loan applications underwriting to the underwriters, could continue and engage in
3 underwriting in EDGE without any problem.
4 3) Complete failure to authenticate signature:
5 holds that the Wholesale model of the Subprime division was particularly
6 susceptible to fraud. In fact, the only safeguard against fraud was the signature of the
7 Loan Broker, once on the Loan Applications, and another time - on Broker Certification
8 of Records. Signatures that are represented as the signature of Samaan' s loan broker,
9 Victor Parks, appear on a number of records. However, careful review of the loan file,
10 shows that not a single signature in the whole file is an authentic Victor Parks signature.
11 And the signatures that do appear in the file can be divided into at least two very different
12 types. Indeed, in deposition, Samaan admitted that she and her husband took care of the
13 whole process from start to end, and Victor Parks had no part in it.
14 However, Victor Parks was presumably listed as "Business Partner" with
15 Countrywide. But the underwriting records show absolutely no attempt and no procedure
16 in place for hand signature verification.
17 c) At the same time, Countrywide's management continued to report to agencies that
18 all was well with internal and external controls.
19 In fact - with the violations of the law and regulations that were taking place at
20 Countrywide on a regular basis, there could not be effective and independent internal or
21 external controls at all. Therefore, I alleges that at least part of the claims filed with the
22 Troubled Asset Relief Program must be deemed fraud by CFC and False Claims.
23 Moreover, one must doubt even today any report that comes from BAC
24 regarding financial performance at CFC, or regarding internal controls at CFC, since
25 the conduct ofBAC relative to me demonstrates that BAC continues with a policy of
26 cover-up, and has never acknowledged the true nature of the conduct ofCFC, and has
27 never made adequate efforts to enforce the law at CFC.

28 Following are two specific, simple examples demonstrating these facts:
-89-
1. Retaliation against an honest underwriter, and rewards to a

2 branch manger who masterminded frauds against both the
3 U.S. government and CFC Shareholders:
4 The simplest proof is in review of the career paths at San Rafael: Maria
5 McLaurin, Branch Manager at Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, at San Rafael,
6 was the fraud mastermind around 2004, to the tune of a few billion dollars a
7 year, even in such a small branch. Maria McLaurin is still Branch Manger in
8 San Rafael today. The documents from 2004 and up to 2007, show her
9 tirelessly toiling at frauds against the U.S. government, against the CFC share
10 holders, and against Zernik.
11 I brought that question up already in March 2007 in meet and confer. The two
12 CFC in-house attorneys present, Todd Boock, and Sanford Shatz, did not deny
13 the evidence in the documents regarding fraud attempts by McLaurin. However,
14 they claimed that since the fraud failed in that particular instance" it did not
15 count as fraud.
16 One does not need to be legal scholar, to realize that CFC attorneys were
17 construing the law a bit too liberally, and that U.S. Code counted fraud against a
18 financial institution, particularly wire fraud across state lines as fraud, whether it
19 was or was not successful in extracting the funds from the institution.
20 In contrast, the woman who was the senior branch underwriter in 2004, Diane
21 Frazier, with 19 years of service at Countrywide, lost her job in early 2005, after
22 she refused to cooperate with McLaurin in funding Samaan's fraud.
23 Regardless of the fact that she lost her job at countrywide some four years ago,
24 to this day, Diane Frazier is under Countrywide's control, and she is prohibited
25 from talking about anything related to her past employment at Countrywide.
26 In March 2007 I located Diane Frazier, and had a long and interesting
27 phone conversation with her. She seemed happy to talk, but she repeatedly
28
-90-
warned: "You don't know who you are dealing with", and also "Nobody can
2 touch Maria McLaurin".
3 When Plaintiff called a few days later a second time, she was not there,
4 and a man who answered the phone yelled at Plaintiff that Frazier knew that
5 Countrywide did not allow her to talk about these subjects, and he added "If you
6 ever call this number again, I will come down to LA and gun you down".
7 A week or two later my subpoena service people were stalking the
8 house 24 hours a day for several days, but Frazier was nowhere to be seen, and
9 the man who was in the house told the subpoena service people that FrazierO had
10 moved away.
11 A couple of months later, in their first appearance in court, on July 6,
12 2007, attorneys for Bryan Cave, LLP were trying to issue an ex parte gag order
13 against me. One of the objectives of such gag, was to prevent me from
14 communicating with Diane Frazier. The application stated that after I had talked
15 with her on the phone in March 2007, they had to handle him "firmly". I
16 assumed that "firmly" meant the death threat. It was not the last, either.
17 2) The best evidence of the failure of Countrywide, and now BAC to
18 maintain reliable, effective, independent internal or external

19 controls is in their responses and attitude regarding Samaan's
20 fraudulent loan applications (1003) with the double "Date
21 Received" stamps.
22 Any reasonable person reviewing such banking records, even if he is not the
23 chairman of the FRB, would expect that banking records that were so blatantly
24 adulterated would have some accompanying documentation to explain their
25 appearance.
26 And if one had any experience in residential mortgages, one would know that
27 the fundamental enforcement of fair housing, fair credit, and Regulation B of the
28 FRB, is through time frames, and therefore - the Pipeline report. Therefore - the
-91-
"Date Received" stamp was the key elements in compliance with regulations.
2 Conversely, an adulterated Date Received stamp was a cardinal sin, and surely
3 required some internal and external audit report.
4 Yet, in late March 2007, in Meet and Confer with two senior attorneys from
5 Countrywide's Legal Department, Todd Boock, and Sanford Shatz, they insisted
6 that there was no idea at all how the 1003s got double stamped, and why one
7 stamp was defaced. They also absolutely insisted that there was no additional
8 report referring to these 1003s.
9 Regarding the list of reports that I provided in the Meet Confer letter. They
10 responded that I was asking for something that simply did not exist. They denied
11 that the loan applications even appeared in any pipeline report. That surely could
12 be possible at Countrywide, but that would be a significant finding in and of
13 itself, regarding deficiencies in their internal controls system.
14 To top it off, Attorney Todd Book then filed a declaration under penalty of
15 perjury that Countrywide fully complied with the subpoena, within his
16 obligations to the senior executive [Thus, in the singular, I assume that the
17 Padrone was and is Sandor Samuels -jhz]. He never mentioned compliance with
18 the law, or obligations to share holders.
19 In fact, the subpoena production that Todd Boock provided me, is replete with
20 fraudulent records, and is sufficient in and of itself to provide numerous counts of
21 misrepresentation of banking records and fraud and deceit. The basic fraud was in
22 Countrywide's attempt to produce a fabricated history of the underwriting of that

23 loan application, to cover up the true violations that took place in underwriting.
24
25 F. Civil RICO claims against BAC/Countrywide, alternatively - their specific

26 predicated acts as part of wrongs against Plaintiff Zernik.
27 RICO was written in broad terms. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege four
28 elements:
-92-
1 (1) conduct
2 (2) of an enterprise
3 (3) through a pattern
4 (4) of racketeering activity. See Kenda Corp. v. Pot O'Gold Money Leagues, Inc., 329
5 F.3d 216,233 (lst Cir. 2003).
6 Each element of a RICO claim requires additional analysis: an "enterprise" is marked
7 by association and control;
8 A "pattern" requires a showing of "continuity"--continuous and related behavior that
9
amounts to, or poses a threat of, continued criminal violations; and
"Racketeering activity" involves the violation of designated federal laws. See Giulliano v.
10
Fulton, 399 F.3d 381,388 (lst Cir. 2005).
11
In addition, a civil RICO plaintiff must allege that it was injured in his business or
12
property "by reason of' a violation of RICO's substantive provisions, per. 18 USC §
13
1964(c). This "by reason of' language provides the basis for the proximate cause
14
requirement, established by the Supreme Court in Holmes and amplified in Anza Anza v.
15
Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 2006 DJDAR 6857 (June 5,2006) and Mohawk Indus., Inc. v.
16
Williams 126 S. Ct. 2016 (2006).
17
Plaintiff claims that all the above conditions are fulfilled upon review of conduct of
18
Countrywide. The specific predicated act alleged are:
19
1. Collusion in robbery per state law - relative to the taking of Plaintiff's property
20
under the threat afforce in December 2007.
21
2. Mail fraud per 18 USC §1341 - numerous letters sent on behalf of Countrywide by
22
Bryan Cave LLP, which amount to mail fraud.
23
3. Wire fraud per 18 USC §1343- relative to fax/wire fraud operated by Samaan,
24 McLaurin, and others in San Rafael branch.
25 4. Financial institution fraud 18, USC §1344 - related to the underwriting of
26 Samaan's loan applications.
27 5. Obstruction ofjustice 18 USC §1503 - subpoenas produced by Countrywide
28 which fabricated the history of Samaan' s loan applications.
-93-
6. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant 18 USC §15 13 - the
2 judgments of contempt and sanctions issued fraudulently by Countrywide against
3 Plaintiff Zernik.
4 7. Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
5 activity 18 USC §1957 - payments made by David Pasternak to Countrywide
6 through Bryan Cave, LLP.
7
8
9 XI.
PLAINTIFF ENTERS HIS COMPLAINT
10
11 PLAINTIFF Joseph Zernik hereby enter their complaints:
12 I. This is a Civil Rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive, and other appropriate relief
13 brought by Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik, a United States citizen and also an Israeli citizen,
14 appearing in pro se.
15 2. Dr Zernik brings this complaint to compel United States officers to perform their duties,
16 pursuant to 28 USC § 1361 ;
17 3. Dr Zernik files this complaint also pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human
18 Rights, part of ratified International Law.
19 4. Duties performance of which by USDOJ is to be compelled:
20 a. Protection against violations of his civil rights under First, Fourth, Fifth, and
21 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42
22 U.S.c. 1983, 1985 and 1986.
23 b. Protection against violations of his Human Rights per Articles II, VII, VIII, X, XI,
24 and XII of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
25 5. Duties performance of which by SEC is to be compelled:
26 Investigation of allegations of
27 6. Dr Zernik files this complaint also pursuant to Civil RICO 42 USC section 1964 against
28 Countrywide, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.
-94-
7. Dr Zernik files this complaint also pursuant to the False Claims Act 31 USC section
2 3729 against Countrywide, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.
3 8. Regarding RICO and False Claims Act, Plaintiff was unable to secure cooperation from
4 Defendants that are FBI and USDOJ that would have allowed him to comply with law
5 relative to the procedures of filing such complaints.
6 9. In this complaint Plaintiff Dr Zernik also claims standing on behalf of Attorney Richard
7 Fine, indefinitely jailed in Los Angeles County on charges of contempt, after he exposed
8 widespread corruption of the judges of LA Superior Court.
9 10. In this complaint Plaintiff Dr Zernik also claims standing on behalf of the 10,000
10 Rampart FIPs, left wrongfully incarcerated after the massive investigation of the Rampart-
11 scandal (1998-2000) where no final report was produced, with no explanation at all.
12 11. In this complaint Plaintiff Dr Zernik also claims standing for all 10 million residents of
13 LA County, who are denied for over a quarter of a century access to court records to inspect
14 and to copy, and also denied access to the courts and fair trial.
15 12. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and also pursuant to U.S.
16 Constitution, Art. III, § 2 and Title 28 U.S. Code § 1332 due to diversity ofjurisdictions
17 among defendants in the various States of California, North Carolina, and Missouri.
18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik respectfully asks this Court to grant him
19 such declaratory, injunctive and other relief as it deems just and proper.
20
21 Plaintiffs demand a Jury Trial in this case.
22
23 Plaintiff objects to any referral of this case to a magistrate.
24
25 Respectfully submitted on May 1, 2009 by:
26
27 FOR: Joseph H Zernik
28
-95-
2
BY: JOSEPH ZERNIK
3 pro se Plaintiff
4 III
5 III
6 XII.
CLAIMS & PRAYER FOR RELIEF
7
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS this honorable Court issue equitable relief as
8
follows:
9
A. Regarding Warrant for the Arrest of Joseph Zernik that may have been issued:
10
1. Claim: USDOJ and FBI fail to secure fair tribunals, access to the courts, and fair
11
trial in Los Angeles Conuty. Criminal defense attorneys that were consulted by
12
Plaintiff had no access to Minute Orders or Registers of Actions of the Criminal
13
Courts in cases theyu represented:
14
Injunctive relief against LA Superior Court regarding any warrant for arrest of
15
Plaintiff Joseph H Zernik that may have been issued or will be issued during the
16
review of instant complaint, andlor in the alternate -
17
B. Regarding indefinite jailing of AU Richard Fine in Los Angeles, and payments that
18
were "not allowed" to ALL judges of the LA Superior Court:
19
2. Claim: The indefinite jailing of Attorney Richard Fine is in violation of Civil
20
Rights, and USDOJ and FBI fail to provide him Equal Protection.
21
Declaratory relief, or whatever relief the Honorable Court may find fit and reasonable
22 regarding the indefinite jailing of Attorney Richard Fine in Los Angeles County,
23
andlor in the alternate-
24 3. Claim: FBI and USDOJ fail to perform their duties in allowing Att Richard
25
Fine's ongoing jailing.
26 Declaratory relief and Judgment: that USDOJ Section of Public Integrity must
27
investigate the circumstances surrounding the jailing and disbarment of Attorney
28
-96-
Richard Fine after he exposed widespread corruption of the LA Superior Court

2 judiciary, and/or in the alternate -
3 4. Claim: Bill signed by the Governor of California to address the payments to LA
4 County Judges, which were "not permitted", was in violation of the u.S.
5 constition.
6 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the Public Integrity Section of the USDOJ must
7 investigate the bill reported as signed by the Governor of California in mid January
8 2009, and addressing such payments by LA County to the LA Superior Court Judges,
9 and is claimed to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and/or in the alternate-
10 5. Claim: Cases where judgment by court was issued and LA County was a party
11 must be reviewed in view of the payments that were "not permitted".
13 investigate the cases adjudged by LA Superior Court judges through Judgments by
14 Court during the years when such judges received payments that were "not permitted"
15 and proposed expedient procedures for the review of such cases to determine whether
16 all must be deemed void, and/or in the alternate -
17 C. Regarding continued wrongful incarceration of the Rampart-FIPs a decade after the
18 end of the massive investigation - albeit with no final report ever being written:
19 6. Claim: The failure to issue a final report by the LAPD, and the fact that FBI and
20 UDOJ tolerated that, is severe abuse of the rights of the Rampart-FIPs.
22 take over all records related to the Rampart investigation from the LAPD and file a
23 final report for that investigation with the Honorable Court within a time that the
24 Honorable Court finds reasonable, and that the Public Integrity Section of the USDOJ
25 also make recommendations if additional investigation is necessary, and/ or in the
26 alternate -
27
28
-97-
7. Claim: The failure to review the cases, and release the Rampart-FIPs at the end
2 of the Rampart investigation (1998-2000) was and is a severe abuse of the rights
3 of the Rampart-FIPs.
4 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the Honorable Court will allow public interest
5 group to file with the Honorable Court Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus on behalf
6 of individuals or groups ofRampart-FIPs identified in court records.
7 8. Claim: In conjunction with Samaan v Zernik, the conduct of Jugde Connor in
8 the First Rampart Trial must be deemed suspect, and the failure of FBI and
9 USDaJ to investigate her conduct is a severe abuse of the rights of the Rampart-
10 FIPs, and failure to perform their duties.
11 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the FBI nd USDaJ must investigte the conduct
12 of Judge Connor in the First Rampart trial and file with the Honorable Court a report
13 within time deemed by the Honorable Court just and reasonable.
14 D. Regarding denial of public access to public court records that are in computerized
15 case management systems of Los Angeles County:
16 9. Claim: All residents of LA County and the public at large are denied access to
17 the public records that are the court records in LA County, in violation of Nixon
18 v Warner Communications, Inc, and the FBI and USDaJ failed to address such
19 severe violation of basic rights.
20 Declaratory relief and Judgment that all judicial records that are public records must
21 be accessible to the public to inspect and to copy pursuant to Nixon v Warner
22 Communications, which affirmed such First Amendment and Common Law rights,
23 and/or in the alternate -
24 10. Claim: Melson and Kaiser provided false and deliberately misleading responses
25 to inquiries by Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Watson regarding the case
26 ofPlaintiffZernik in Summer-Fall 2008.
27
28
-98-
Declaratory relief and Judgment that responses provided to U.S. Congress by

2 Defendants Melson, USDOJ, Kaiser, and FBI, were false and deliberately misleading,
4 11. Claim: FBI and USDOJ failed to explain why they would not appoint a Special
5 Counsel, as requested by Zernik, to affect the access of the public to the court's
6 public records, to inspect and to copy.
7 Declaratory relief and Judgment that USDOJ through its Section of Public Integrity
8 and/or through the appointment of a Special Counsel pursuant to 28 CFR section 600,
9 must secure the immediate access of the public to such public records that are court
10 public records in the LA Superior Court"s case management systems, to inspect and to
11 copy, and/or in the alternate-
12 E. Regarding Samaan v Zernik (SC087400):
13 12. Claim: All judicial act in Samaan v Zernik were void, since Samaan failed to
14 pay the adequate filing fees for her complaint, and the rules of court state that
15 under such circumstances the complain must be dismissed within 30 day. The
16 clerk of the Court refused to resond to Zernik's demands in this regard, even
17 after Zernik discovered these facts, which were concealed from him for most of
18 the period of this purported litigation.
19 Declaratory relief and Judgment that all judicial acts in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
20 starting October 25,2005, the day Samaan filed a complaint for which she failed to
21 pay the complete filing fees, must be vacated, and Samaan v Zernik be ordered a
22 Mistrial, and/or in the alternate-
23 13. Claim: The conduct of Judge Connor on January 30, 2006, her first appearance
24 in this case, already then displays misconduct by a judge, and therefore if she
25 ever had any judicial authority in this case, she must have lost it at that time.
27 starting January 30, 2006, the day of Judge Jacqueline Connor first appearance in this
28 case, where she generated trial court litigation records for Demurrer that are:
-99-
"Overruled", "Granted", and "Disposed", all at once, and ran an Initial Case
2 Conference off the record, must be vacated, and Samaan v Zernik be ordered a
3 Mistrial, and/or in the alternate -
4 14. Claim: The false ruling of Judge Connor in re: disqualification for a cause on
5 July 12,2007, constituted misconduct by ajudge. Therefore, if she ever held
6 any authorityin this case, she lost it at that time.
8 starting July 12,2007, the day that Judge Jacqueline Connor, in open court, upon
9 being served by Plaintiff Statement of Disqualification for a Cause, on the spot ruled
10 it to be an "untimely Peremptory Challenge", and therefore struck it and continued
11 with business as usual, must be vacated, and Samaan v Zernik be ordered a Mistrial,
12 and/or in the alternate-
13 15. Claim: Judge Goodman took the file ofSamaan v Zernik with no assignment
14 order, out of compliance with the law.
16 by Judge Allan Goodman must be vacated, and Samaan v Zernik be ordered a
17 Mistrial, since the file was transferred to him out of compliance with the law, and/or
18 in the alternate -
19 16. Claim: Judge John Segtal took the file of Samaan v Zernik with no assignment
20 order, out of compliance with the law.
22 by Judge John Segal must be vacated, and Samaan v Zernik be ordered a Mistrial,
23 since the file was transferred to him out of compliance with the law, and/or in the
24 alternate -
25 17. Claim: Judge Lisa Hart Cole took the court file in Samaan v Zernik with no
26 assignment order. out of compliance with the law.
27
28
-100-
Declaratory relief and Judgment that all judicial acts in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
2 by Lisa Hart-Cole must be vacated, and Samaan v Zernik be ordered a Mistrial, since
3 the file was transferred to him out of compliance with the law, and/or in the alternate -
4 18. Claim: Judge Particia Collins acted out of compliance in her actions in Samaan
5 v Zernik.
7 by Judge Patricia Collins on December 7, 2007, at the Ex Parte request of David
8 Pasternak, including but not limited to approval of a fraudulent grant deed on
9 Zernik's property, approval of a fraudulent indemnity agreement to induce Mara
10 Escrow to engage in fraudulent conveyance of title, two gag orders on Plaintiff Zernik
11 to benefit large corporations, and various other abusive measures, are void and the
12 outcome of various frauds, both extrinsic and intrinsic, and/or in the alternate-
13 19. Claim: FBI and USDOJ failed to investigate PlaintiffZernik's claims of abuse
14 of his rights by Att Pasternak related to the appearances on December 7, 2007.
15 Declaratory relief and Judgment that all events related to the two ex parte appearances
16 by David Pasternak in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) on December 7, 2007, must be
17 investigated by the Public Integrity Section of the USDOJ, and/or in the alternate-
18 20. Claim: Judge Terry Friedman took the file of Samaan v Zernik with no
19 assignment order, and is acting out of compliance with the law.
21 by Judge Terry Friedman must be vacated, and Samaan v Zernik be ordered a
22 Mistrial, since the file was transferred to him out of compliance with the law, and/or
23 in the alternate -
24 21. Claim: The Judgment by Court issued by Judge Connor was procured through
25 frauds.
26 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant
27 to CCP section 437c, by Judge Jacqueline Connor is Void, not Voidable, since it was
28 procured through extensive frauds both intrinsic and extrinsic, and/or in the alternate -
-101-
22. Claim: FBI and USDOJ failed to investigate complaints by Zernik that Connor,
2 Bryan Cave,LLP, Countrywide and others colluded in fraud to procure the
3 judgment of August 9, 2007, which amounted to severe abuse of Zernik's rights.
4 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct off Judge Jacqueline Connor, LA
5 Superior Court, Bryan Cave, LLP, Countrywide, that led to the issuance of that
6 judgment must be investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity.
7 23. Claim: FBI and USDOJ faied to investigate complaints that the conduct of
8 Connor, O'Brien, Keshavarzi relative to the purported appointment of O'Brien
9 as escrow referree involved fraud on Zernik and severe abuse of his civil rights.
10 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct off Judge Jacqueline Connor and
11 retired Judge Gregory O'Brien relative to his purported appointment as an Escrow
12 Referee, and court records that he forwarded to Plaintiff Zernik in September 2007, as
13 the legal foundation for his actions, must be investigated by the USDOJ Section of
14 Public Integrity.
15 24. Claim: The November 9, 2007 order appointing David pasternak receiver was
16 an act of fraud and severe abuse of Zernik' s rights.
17 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the November 9, 2007 Order Appointing David
18 Pasternak Receiver, by Judge John Segal is Void, not Voidable, since it was procured
19 through extensive frauds both intrinsic and extrinsic, and/or in the alternate -
20 25. Claim: The November 9,2007 order appointing David pasternak receiver was
21 an act of fraud and severe abuse of Zernik' s rights.
22 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of Judge John Segal, David
23 Pasternak, and others, relative to the issuance of the purported Order Appointing
24 David Pasternak Receiver at 4-day notice hearing, based on fraud relative to the
25 Judgment that is was purportedly based upon, and failing to denote any section of the
26 code that was and is the legal foundation for the authority of David Pasternak, or to
27 incorporate the real-estate contract that it was specifically performing, must be
28 investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in the alternate -
-102-
26. Claim: Pasternak and Friedman engaged in severe abuse of Zernik's rights in
2 relationship to the conduct of the purported "receivership".
3 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of Judge Terry Friedman, David
4 Pasternak, and others, relative to the various payments Paternak issued to parties as
5 purported Receiver, must be investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity,
7 27. Claim: Presiding Judge and Supervising judge failed to address Zernik's
8 complaints of physical harassment at the court of Judge Roseneberg when he
9 came to request access to his court file to inspect and to copy, in severe abuse of
10 his civil rights and common law rights.
11 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of then Presiding Judge Stephen
12 Czuleger and Supervising Judge Rosenberg relative to complaint filed with the
13 Presiding judge regarding physical harassment of Plaintiff Zernik in the court of
14 Supervising Judge Rosenberg when Zernik appeared to demand access to his court
15 records to inspect and to copy, must be investigated by the Public Integrity Section of
16 the USDOJ, and/or in the alternate -
17 28. Claim: Judge Roseberg apparently sealed some of the records in Samaan v
18 Zernik, out of compliance with the law and in violation of Zernik' s rights.
19 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of the Court of Supervising Judge
20 Rosenberg relative to what appears as sealing of some of the records in Samaan v
21 Zernik, must be investigated by the Public Integrity Section of USDOJ, and/or in the
22 alternate -
23 29. Claim: The refusal of the clerk of LA Superior Court to respond to the most
24 basic requsts - to certify that samaan v Zernik is a case of the court, that judge
25 friedman is duly assigned judge in the case, and that the judgement issued by
26 Judge Connor on August 9, 2007 was a valid effectual judgment of the court are
27 severe violation of Zenrik's rights.
28
-103-
Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of the LA Superior Court
2 Clerk/Executive Officer - John A Clarke - refusal to ever answer any requests and/or
3 inquiries must be investigated by the Public Integrity Section of the USDOJ, and/or in
4 the alternate -
5 30. Claim: The conduct of the clerk of the court relative to the trial court litgiation
6 records in Samaan v Zernik constitute severe abuse of Zernik' s rights.
7 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of the LA Superior Court
8 Clerk/Executive Officer - John A Clarke - relative to the creation of "Volume IV
9 Continued" and hiding its existence from Plaintiff Zernik must be investigated by the
10 Public Integrity Section of the USDOJ, and/or in the alternate-
II 31. Claim: The failure of FBI and USDOJ to investigate complaints by Zernik that
12 his rights were abused through the acts fo the clerk were failure to peform their
13 duties.
14 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of the LA Superior Court
15 Clerk/Executive Officer - John A Clarke - relative to conduct similar to the creation
16 of "Volume IV Continued" and hiding their existence from parties in other cases as
17 well, per statement made by junior clerk "Bryan" to Plaintiff Zernik, must be
18 investigated by the Public Integrity Section of the USDOJ, and/or in the alternate-
19 F. Regarding conditions at the Office of RegistrarlRecorder of Los Angeles County:
20 32. Claim: USDOJ and FBI fail to perform their duties by allowing the evident
21 corruption at the office of RegisterariRecorder that allows David pasternak to
22 file numerous Grant Deeds that are in violation of the law, and sever abuse of
23 Zernik's right.
24 Declaratory relief and Judgment that conditions that allowed the Grant Deed filed by
25 David Pasternak on December 17, 2007, in the Office of Registrar/Recorder of LA
26 County on Plaintiffs property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212 must be
27 investigated by the Public Integrity Section of USDOJ, and/or in the alternate -
28
-104-
33. Claim: USDOJ and FBI fail to perform their duties by allowing the evident
2 corruption at the office of Registerar/Recorder that allows David pasternak to
3 file numerous Grant Deeds that are in violation of the law, and sever abuse of
4 Zernik's right.
5 Declaratory relief and Judgment that conditions that allowed numerous other Grant
6 Deeds filed by David Pasternak in the Office of Registrar/Recorder of LA County in
7 other court cases, and show some of the same traits that led decorated veteran FBI
8 agent James Wedick to issue opinion of "fraud" in Plaintiff s case, must be
9 investigated by the Public Integrity Section ofUSDOJ, and/or in the alternate-
lOG. Regarding operation of "Sustain" Case Management System by the LA Superior
11 Court in Samaan v Zernik and in general:
12 34. Claim: Refusal of FBI and USODJ to take action to secure Zernik's access to his
13 own litigation records is severe abuse of his civil rights and common law rights.
14 Declaratory relief and Judgment that USDOJ must take necessary steps to ensure the
15 immediate access of Plaintiff to his own litigation records in Sustain, denied to him all
16 along this litigation, such access must be direct, and include, but not be limited to all
17 reports in Sustain, all Minute Orders in Sustain, all Audit Data, Memos, and data
18 regarding log of notices mailed, and the addressees of such notices, and/or in the
19 alternate -
20 35. Claim: Refusal of FBI and USODJ to take action to secure Zernik's and all
21 public access to his own litigation records is severe abuse of his civil rights and
22 common law rights and the rights of the public in general.
23 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of LA Superior Court relative to the
24 operation of computerized case management systems in both the civil and criminal
25 divisions, but denying both the public, parties, and counsel access to such court
26 records in the past quarter century must be investigated by the USDO] Section of
27 Public Integrity, and/or in the alternate -
28
-105-
36. Claim: the operation of Sustain is fraud on Zernik and on the public at large,
2 and the FBI and USDOJ fail to perform their duties in allowing it to continue.
4 operation of "Sustain" computerized case management system, where key minute
5 orders in Samaan v Zernik are marked as "Disposed", with Date Minutes Entered of
6 "00/00/00" or "33/33/33", while the same minute orders appear as valid minute orders
7 in court file, must be investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in
8 the alternate -
9 37. Claim: the operation of Sustain is fraud on Zernik and on the public at large,
12 operation of "Sustain" computerized case management system, where minute orders
13 are routinely entered in court file with no notice or service to parties, based on
14 "waiving" the right to service and notice by the court must be investigated by the
15 USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in the alternate -
19 operation of "Sustain" computerized case management system, where Judge
20 Jacqueline Connor entered a July 9, 2007 minute orders relative to a "telephonically
21 held" hearing of a request for reconsideration of sanctions on Plaintiff Zernik, a
22 hearing that never took place in reality, with no comparable minute order in the paper
23 court file, must be investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in
24 the alternate -
28 operation of "Sustain" computerized case management system, Judge Jacqueline
-106-
Connor and others, relative to sanctions that were fraudulently claimed to have been
2 issued by Judge Connor, but in fact were never issued a tall, must be investigated by
3 the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in the alternate -
7 operation of "Sustain" computerized case management system, Judge Jacqueline
8 Connor and Bryan Cave, LLP, Countrywide, and others, relative to proceeding of July
9 6, 2007, where Countrywide listed itself as Non Party, the court listed it as "Plaintiff',
10 and which Plaintiff claims took place in a dark courtroom, off the record and off the
11 calendar, and amounted to a request for gag order by a large corporation against an
12 individual, must be investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in
13 the alternate -
16 Declaratory relief and judgment that the conduct of LA Superior Court relative to the
17 operation of "Sustain" computerized case management system, where the public is
18 denied access to the Case History Report/Register of Actions, must be investigated by
19 the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in the alternate -
23 operation of "Sustain" computerized case management system, where the Case
24 History ReportlRegister of Actions in Samaan v Zernik, page 1 first included entries
25 that on their face were false and deliberately misleading, and then was altered with no
26 notice to parties, must be investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity,
28
-107-
43. Claim: the operation of Sustain is fraud on Zernik and on the public at large, and
2 the FBI and USDOJ fail to perform their duties in allowing it to continue.
4 operation of "Sustain" computerized case management system, where the Case
5 History Report/Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik includes numerous
6 proceedings that are listed as "piggy-back" on other proceedings, but with no
7 adjudication entered, while in open court they appeared as valid proceedings, must be
8 investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in the alternate -
9 H. Regarding conveyance of title and possession of property at 320 South Peck Drive:
10 44. Claim: The filing of grant deed by David Pasternak in office of Registrar
11 Recorder was fraud as opined by decorated veteran FBI agent James Wedick,
12 and the failure of FBI and USDOJ to take action to protect Zernik is failure to
13 perform their duties and severe abuse of his rights.
14 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the Grant Deed filed by David Pasternak on
15 December 17, 2007, in the Office of Registrar/Recorder of LA County on Plaintiff's
16 property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212 is Void, not Voidable, and the
17 product of various extrinsic and intrinsic frauds in litigation of Samaan v Zernik, as
18 noted in opinion letter of decorated veteran FBI agent James Wedick, and/or in the
19 alternate -
20 45. Claim: The filing of grant deed by David Pasternak in office of Registrar
21 Recorder was fraud as opined by decorated veteran FBI agent James Wedick,
22 and the failure of FBI and USDOJ to take action to protect Zernik is failure to
23 perform their duties and severe abuse of his rights.
24 Declaratory relief and Judgment that U.S. Marshall must secure the return of the
25 property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212 to the possession of Plaintiff
26 Joseph H Zernik, and/ or in the alternate -
27 I. Regarding conduct of the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles:
28
-108-
46. Claim: The docket in Pacer of Zernik v Connor et aI, in and of itself shows
2 abuse ofZernik's rights, and the failure of FBI and USDOJ to take action in re
3 Zenrik's complaint is failure to perform their duties and severe abuse of his
4 rights.
5 Declaratory relief and Judgment that USDOJ, through its Section of Public Integrity
6 must investigate the complaints filed by Plaintiff Zernik with FBI regarding dishonest
7 manipulations of Pacer docket in Zernik v Connor et al., and/or in the alternate -
8 47. Claim: The docket in Pacer of Zernik v Connor et aI, in and of itself shows
9 abuse of Zernik' s rights, and the failure of FBI and USDOJ to take action in re
10 Zenrik's complaint is failure to perform their duties and severe abuse of his
11 rights.
12 Declaratory relief and Judgment that USDOJ, through its Section of Public Integrity
13 must investigate the circumstances that led to the adulteration of Plaintiff Zernik' s
14 summons at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, on March 5, 2008, by pro se clerk
15 Chris, and the refusal to issue to him replacement summons when he detected the
16 adulteration, and/or in the alternate -
17 J. Regarding Galdiie v Darwish in Los Angeles Superior Court:
18 48. Claim: The conduct of John Segal, David Paternak and others in Galdjie v
19 Darwish is severe abuse of the rights of Darwish and the FBI and USDOJ fail to
20 perform their duties by not taking action in this regard.
21 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the conduct of Judge John Segal, David
22 Pasternak, and others, in real estate complaint based on claims for specific
23 performance in Galdjie v Darwish, relative to the issuance of a Judgment and Order
24 Appointing David Pasternak Receiver, while John Segal was a Municipal Court
25 judge, must be investigated by the USDOJ Section of Public Integrity, and/or in the
26 alternate -
27 K. Regarding SEC and Samuel Bezek:
28
-109-
49. Claim: SEC and Samuel Bezek fail to perform their duties by refusing to
2 investigate complaints of Zernik against Coutnrywide/BAC
3 Declaratory relief and Judgment that SEC and Samuel Bezek must immediately
4 investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Countrywide relative to Samaan v
5 Zernik (SC087400), particularly- relative to the conduct of Sandor Samuels - Chief
6 Legal Counsel, Angelo Mozilo - President, and the Legal Department of
7 Countrywide, and/or in the alternate -
8 50. Claim: SEC and Samuel Bezek fail to perform their duties by refusing to
9 investigate complaints of Zernik against CoutnrywidelBAC
10 Declaratory relief and Judgment that SEC and Samuel Bezek must immediately
11 investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Countrywide relative to the operation of
12 EDGE computerized system for the monitoring of underwriting of residential loan
13 applications in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), particularly- relative to the conduct of
14 Maria McLaurin, Branch Manager at San Rafael Wholesale Branch, and/or in the
15 alternate -
16 L. Regarding Bryan Cave, LLP, Don G Lents, and Peter van Cleve:
17 51. Claim: The conduct of Bryan Cave, LLP, Lents, and van Cleve, is severe
18 violation of Zernik' s rights, and FBI and USDOJ fail to perform their duties in
19 allowing it to proceed and refusing to protect Zernik.
20 Declaratory relief and Judgment that Bryan Cave, LLP, Don Lents, and Peter van
21 Cleve must immediately provide responses to Plaintiff Zernik regarding the demand
22 for information regarding the nature of engagements, if any, that were the basis for
23 their appearances in courts starting July 2007, the parties to such engagements,
24 clauses of "no communications" in such engagement, and "attorney in charge",
25 reflecting promises made by Countrywide in the Court of the Honorable Jeff Bohm,
26 Houston Texas, in March 2008, case of Borrower Parsley, and/or in the alternate -
27
28
-110-
52. Claim: The conduct of Bryan Cave, LLP, Lents, and van Cleve, is severe
2 violation of Zernik's rights, and FBI and USDOJ fail to perform their duties in
4 Declaratory relief and Judgment that Bryan Cave, LLP, Don Lents, and Peter van
5 Cleve must immediately provide responses to Plaintiff Zernik regarding the manner in
6 which the proceedings on July 6, 2007 were scheduled, and/or in the alternate -
10 Declaratory relief and Judgment that there never existed a valid issued, signed,
11 entered and served July 23, 2007 Protective Order, and all court actions based on such
12 purported order were in fact conduct amounting to fraud and deceit by Bryan Cave,
13 LLP, and/or in the alternate -
15 violation ofZernik's rights, and FBI and USDOJ fail to perform their duties in
17 Declaratory relief and Judgment that even if July 23, 2007 Protective Order had
18 existed, claims that it had included prohibition on the communications of Plaintiff
19 Zernik with Bank of America Corporation were acts of fraud and deceit, and/or in the
20 alternate -
24 Judgment awarding damages by Bryan Cave, LLP, Don Lents, and Peter van Cleve to
25 Plaintiff Joseph Zernik as the court sees proper and just, and lor in the alternate -
-111-
Judgment awarding punitive payments by Bryan Cave, LLP, Don Lents, and Peter
2 van Cleve to Plaintiff Joseph Zernik as the court sees proper and just, and to deter
3 such major law firm from such conduct against individuals in the future, and lor in the
4 alternate -
8 Declaratory relief and Judgment regarding opinion of the Honorable Court regarding
9 the conduct of counsel for Bryan Cave, LLP, Jenna Moldawsky and John Amberg,
10 and any action that the State Bar of California must take in that regard, and lor in the
11 alternate -
12 M. Regarding Bank of America Corporation, Kenneth Lewis, Timothy Mayopoulos,
13 and the Audit Committee of BAC:
14 58. Claim: The conduct of Countrywide, and later Bank of America, Lewis,
15 Mayopoulos and the Audit Committee of Bank of America amounted to severe
16 abuse ofZernik's rights, and also qualify as civil RICO, the failure of FBI and
17 USDOJ to take action and protect Zernik was failure to perform their duties.
18 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the Audit Committee of Bank of America must
19 immediately investigate the complaints filed with it by Plaintiff Zernik, and file
20 Report and Recommendation of its investigation with the Honorable Court within the
21 time that the Honorable Court find reasonable, andlor in the alternate-
24 abuse of Zernik' s rights, and also qualify as civil RICO, the failure of FBI and
25 USDOJ to take action and protect Zernik was failure to perform their duties.
26 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the Audit Committee of Bank of America in its
27 R&R to the Honorable Court, as described above, must explicitly address each of the
28
-112-
six "Key Records" listed by Plaintiff Zernik in his complaints filed with that
2 committee, and/or in the alternate -
5 abuse of Zernik's rights, and also qualify as civil RICO, the failure of FBI and
6 USDaJ to take action and protect Zernik was failure to perform their duties.
7 Declaratory relief and Judgment that the Audit Committee of Bank of America must
8 immediately provide the Honorable Court a reasonable explanation for their failure to
9 take action in re: complaints by Plaintiff Zernik, and failure to even acknowledge
10 receipt of such complaints, and/or in the alternate -
13 abuse of Zernik's rights, and also qualify as civil RICO, the failure of FBI and
15 Declaratory relief and Judgment after review by the Honorable Court of the
16 explanations for failure to act so far, and the Report and Recommendation of BAC
17 Audit Committee relative to complaints filed with it by Plaintiff Zernik: If such
18 Report and Recommendation are found deficient by the Honorable Court, the
19 Honorable Court order the USDaJ to conduct its own investigation of the matter,
23 abuse of Zernik' s rights, and also qualify as civil RICO, the failure of FBI and
25 Declaratory relief and Judgment that Defendant Kenneth Lewis, and separately
26 Defendant Timothy Mayopoulos must immediately file with the Honorable Court
27 statements on the record regarding any promises, written or unwritten, valid or
28 invalid, provided to them by any U.S. Government officers, with or without
-113-
necessary authority, regarding the way criminal liabilities relative to the conduct of
2 Countrywide would be handled after the Bailout-Merger with BAC, and/or in the
3 alternate -
4 N. Regarding Damages to Plaintiff Joseph Zernik:
5 63. Claim: The conduct of Countrywide, and later Bank of America, Lewis, Mayopoulos and
6 the Audit Committee of Bank of America amounted to severe abuse ofZernik's rights,
7 and also qualitY as civil RICO, the failure of FBI and USDOJ to take action and protect
8 Zernik was failure to perform their duties.
9 Judgment and Award of Damages to Plaintiff as this Court deems appropriate and just,
10 for the value of his home, taken by the court against his will, including his equity that is
11 held by the Court, for Federal and State taxes incurred by this sale against his will, which
12 Receiver Pasternak deliberately is not paying, therefore incurring Plaintiff with additional
13 penalties, for income lost in the last two years, and for other incidental damages to be
14 accounted by plaintiff, and for punitive payments as deemed reasonable, and/or in the
15 alternate -
16 64. Claim: The conduct of Countrywide, and later Bank of America, Lewis, Mayopoulos
17 and the Audit Committee of Bank of America amounted to severe abuse of Zernik's
18 rights, and also qualify as civil RICO, the failure of FBI and USDOJ to take action and
19 protect Zernik was failure to perform their duties
20 Judgment and Relief: Award plaintiff his costs of litigation.
21 65. Claim: The conduct of Countrywide, and later Bank of America, Lewis, Mayopoulos
22 and the Audit Committee of Bank of America amounted to severe abuse ofZernik's
23 rights, and also qualify as civil RICO, the failure of FBI and USDOJ to take action and
24 protect Zernik was failure to perform their AL5V f5 ffJ t4'. cLJ<l/JfItS'
dutie~
25 Judgment and Relief: Award plaintiff damages as per CIVIL RICO] A WR ~ Pl5. ,_
26 O. Regarding Other Declaratory Relief: ,y, 'lJ;l;.. L014 /1,1:- It L
27 65. Any other Declaratory relief and Judgments, as this Court deems appropriate and just,
-114-
Respectfully submitted on May 1, 2009 by:
FOR: Joseph H Zernik
BY: JOSEPH ZERNIK

pro se Plaintiff
XIII.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1. July 9, 2007 Minute Order by Judge Jacqueline Connor - for

proceedings that never took place in reality! 121
EXHIBIT 2. August 9,2007 Judgment by Court by Judge Jacqueline Connor-

ClerklExecutive Officer of the Court refuses to certify it as a valid, effectual
judgment ofthe Superior Court of California. . 125
EXHIBIT 3. September 7,2007 Records forwarded to Plaintiff Joseph Zernik by

Retired Judge Gregory O'Brien as the legal foundation for the conduct of Gregory
O'Brien as Escrow Referee to take the property of Plaintiff Joseph Zernik. The
office of Gregory O'Brien stated that such records were provided to him by Att
Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin). . 127
EXHIBIT 4. September 10, 2007 Minute Order by Jacqueline Connor - for

proceedings that never took place in reality, and which was entered with no notice
or service, after she had been disqualified for a cause. 138
-115-
EXHIBIT 5. November 9, 2007 Motion at 4-day notice by Att Mohammad

Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin), including Exhibit #1, fraudulently claimed to be
2
Judgment. 144
3
4 EXHIBIT 6.. November 9,2007 Order Appointing David Pasternak Receiver,
signed by Judge John Segal. 311
5
6 EXHIBIT 7. Grant deeds by David Pasternak one entered in court on December 7,
2007, and the other filed in office of Registrar/Recorder, and opinion letter of
7 decorated veteran FBI agent James Wedick on these grant deeds "frauds being
8 committed". 318
9 EXHIBIT 8. Volume A - Records filed as Exhibits Volume A to complaint filed

10 with the audit committee of BAC on April 20, 2009 ........ under separate cover
11
EXHIBIT 9. Volume B - Records filed as Exhibits Volume A to complaint filed
12 with the audit committee ofBAC on April 20, 2009. Includes the six "Key
Records" that the committee was asked to authenticate or repudiate.
13
........ under separate cover
14
15
16 III
17 XIV.
18 STATEMENT OF VERIFICATAION
1, Joseph H Zemik, have written and re-read the foregoing:
19
Verified Complaint filed May 1, 2009 in U.S. District Court in
20 Washington DC "to compel U.S. officer to perform his duties", etc.
21 I know the content thereof to be true and correct. It is true and correct based on my
22 own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon
23 information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
24 The exhibits provided with this complaint under Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3,
25 Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8, Exhibit 9, as listed above, are true
26 and correct copies of records in my possession.
27 I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury
28 pursuant to the laws of the United States.
-116-
Executed here in Washington, District of Columbia on this 1st day in May, 2009.
2
3
),~
4
JOSEPH ZERNIK
5 pro se Plaintiff
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-117-
1 Joseph Zernik
2 POB 526 LV, CA 91750
Tel: (310) 4359107
3 Fax: (801) 998 0917
4 jz12345@earthlink.net
Plaintiff in pro se
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
10
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
11
12
13
CASE NO. _
14 ZERNIK,
Plaintiffs
15
16 vs.
17
PROPOSED ORDERS
MELSON ET AL.
18
Defendants
19
20
1) REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION
21
BY REFERENCE AND
22 2) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
23
24
25
26
27
28
-118-
THE COURT has read Plaintifrs requests and considered Plaintifrs requests:
2
3
1) Request for Incorporation by Reference is Granted
4
5 Denied
6
2) Request for Judicial Notice is Granted
7
8 Denied
9
10 SO IT IS ORDERED!
11
12
DATED: May , 2009
13
14
Judge of the U.S. District Court
15 District of Columbia
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-119-
ZERNIK V MELSON, ET AL, VERIFIED COMPLAINT

09-05-01 Zernik V Melson Et Al (1:09-cv-00805) in The US District Court, Washington DC: (DKT #1-1) Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

09-05-01 Zernik V Melson Et Al (1:09-cv-00805) in The US District Court, Washington DC: (DKT #1-1) Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 120

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUlt11!/k-

9 JOSEPH ZERNIK, CASE NO. - - - - - -

26 guaranteed to me by the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

27 6) Regardless of the overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption of the LA

14) In layperson language these payments would be named "Bribes".

23 D. Rampart scandal (1998-2000) and the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned

integral part of instant complaint.

epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and mortgage frauds".

20 1) U.S. District Court LA - Pacer:

1 I will separately write a short review of my findings regarding conditions at the

3 4) California Court of Appeal (particularly 2nd District):

23 C. WORKING HYPOTHESIS IN RE SUB-PRIME SCANDAL & BAILOUT:

24 Genesis of the scandal

25 The sub-prime scandal in its essence reflects criminal conduct.

brewed in LA County provided the blueprints for "streamlining" of courts and

3 Accordingly, in charting the course of correction:

4 1. Procedures used in the aftermath of the Enron scandal to establish

9 D. MANIFESTATIONS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE LA JUSTICE

being committed" by the LA Superior Court in collusion with Countrywide,

8 E. OPERATION OF PACER AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTS, LOS

7 3. Is this the only case of this kind?

11 I separately conducted a search in the office of registrar/recorder, and

23 Prior to that, retaliation of the LA Superior Court judges involved disbarment

adulterated by hand. In addition, it appears that "Clerical Errors" have been

9 7. Later - my papers including evidence that was undesirable, were hidden

22 Here is the volume missing from Pacer:

24 15, I deemed the denial of my right, as Plaintiff, to file papers in court, as

16. Eventually, I filed statement of disqualification for a cause of Magistrate

24 F. PROPOSED TAKE HOME LESSONS:

8 F. PROPOSALS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS:

9 1, Enforcement of the Rule Making Enabling Act relative to case

58) On September 7,2004, through my realtor, she presented me with a Prequalification

2 as President and Sole Owner of Spellbound, and earning $400,000 a year.

26 d) Oct 12,2004 - 1003s re-scanned and re-stamped

96) New "Date Received" stamps were imprinted.

8 e) Oct 14,2004 - 1003s are suspended

9 101) The 1003s were not changed at all.

15 suspending Samaan's loan applications (l003).

25 funding by Countrywide Bank, FSB.

15 3. Samaan fails to perform (Oct 2004)

9 but no explanation was received.

15 was that she did not spend enough money on attorneys!

9 modifications of a real estate contract.

15 contract" was entirely incredible.

15 with data and time, but no TO at all.

26 banking principles" per Regulation B of the Federal Reserve.

5 a) Nov 3-6, 2006 - New claims upon request

6 193) On or about November 3-6, 2006 Mohammad Keshavarzi - Sheppard Mullin

17 199) The Underwriting Letter was machine-stamped as printed on October 26,2004.

b. That Samaan' s loan applications were almost immediately suspended on October

8 208) Regardless of my counsel's objections to the admission of such invalid evidence in

17 alleged illlimidation, harassment. and retaliation against me.

18 a) Dec 2006 - Review of Countrywide records in my counsel's office

8 c) Jan-Feb 2007 - 3 repeats of the false and misleading productions

23 225) She repeatedly stated:

22 11. Initial approach to Mozilo & Samuels (June 2007)

28 Mozilo and Samuels.

27 242) I happen to hold deposit accounts with BAC.

1 255) I was forced to abandon my home under the threat of force.

April 2007. Deemed fraud in its entirety - since it

7 SAC Audit Committee on April 20, 2009 as Exhibits Volume S.

3 A copy of the California State Bar Association - Rules ofProfessional Conduct