09-09-09 SEC V Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) DR Joseph Zernik's Affidavit and Appendices in Opposition To Settlement Then Pending Before The Court S

Digitally signed by
Dr Z Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Joseph Zernik, PhD Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; arthlink.net, c=US
Location: La
Verne, California
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Date: 2010.02.15
17:34:40 -08'00'
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
09-09-09 SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) Dr Joseph

Zernik’s Affidavit and Appendices in opposition to settlement then
pending before the court.
On August 3, 2009, Complaint (Dkt #1) in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) was filed,
pursuant to cause of action of Securities Fraud – 15 USC §77. Litigation in this matter continues to this date.
Concomitantly with the filing of the complaint, the parties noticed the court of their intent to file a proposed
Consent Judgment in the case – in the sum of ~$30 millions.
The August 25, 2009 Order (Dkt #13) stated:

This Court has the obligation, within carefully prescribed
limits, to determine whether the proposed Consent Judgment settling
this case is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest.
Both parties filed papers in support of their proposed Consent Judgment.
On September 9, 2009, Dr Zernik submitted, as an affidavit letter to chambers, copied to the parties,
objection to the proposed settlement. Such affidavit was submitted following instructions from
chambers regarding the procedure permitted for such affidavit.
The September 15, 2009 Memorandum Opinion (Dkt #22) rejected the proposed settlement, then
pending, and ordered the parties to set schedules for trial in February 2010.
The core arguments in the September 9, 2009 Affidavit by Dr Zernik in opposition to the then proposed
settlement can be summed as follows:
• Conduct of Bank of America Corporation following the takeover of Countrywide Financial
Corporation demonstrated adamant refusal to comply with the law.
• Conduct of SEC and other US banking regulators in recent years demonstrated adamant refusal
to enforce the law, and cover up of the alleged and opined criminality in banking operations.
• SEC and Bank of America Corporation never arrived in court as adversarial parties, and therefore,
neither the settlement, nor an attempt to litigate the complaint were likely to be effectual.
Following records include:
1) Table of Contents - ii - iv
2) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Transmittal Letter for the Affidavit –1
3) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Affidavit – 2 - 25
4) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Appendices for the Affidavit – 26 – 545
i
z Page 2/4 February 15, 2010
Table of Contents
No Letter Title Page

Designation No
09-09-09 Transmittal Letter for Affidavit 1
09-09-09 Affidavit 2
1) Appendix A 09-08-27 Confer letter in re: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – Filing a letter 26
with the Hon Jed Rakoff in re: Settlement
2) Appendix B 09-09-02 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – requests to replace or withdraw 32
Prof Grundfest’s Affidavit (Dkt #10)
3) Appendix C Rapid Communication 57
BEYOND VOTING MACHINES – CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
Public-policy concerns based on review of a court’s central computer
system
4) Appendix D 125. How do we know that 00/00/00 means voiding/disposing of minute 62
order?
5) Appendix E Rapid Communication 63
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CMS’S) AND THE COURTS:
LONG-TERM CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS, AND
ACUTE PROBLEMS IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT.
6) Appendix F Table I. Minute Orders, Other Orders & Notices in Paper and 90
Electronic Court Files.
7) Appendix G Fraud Expert Robert Meister’s Opinion Letters in re: (1) Record which 102
was fraudulently represented by Nivie Samaan as a September 7, 2004
Prequalification Letter by Victor Parks, (2) Record that was fraudulently
represented by Countrywide and Nivie Samaan as Uniform Residential
Loan Applications (1003) of Nivie Samaan, as issued by Loan Broker
Victor Parks.
8) Appendix H Countrywide Record : Uniform Residential Loan Application (1003) of 119
Nivie Samaan. Produced in response to legal subpoena in Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
9) Appendix I Zernik’s Record: Notice of Samaan’s fraudulent loan applications, the 122
history of their underwriting by Countrywide, and fraudulent claims made
regarding such underwriting by Countrywide and by Samaan. Filed in
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Los
Angeles.
10) Appendix J Countrywide Record : October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter on Samaan’s 285
loan applications. Produced in response to legal subpoena in Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
11) Appendix K October 18-20, 2004 Email Correspondence between Realtor Michael 287
Libow and Victor Parks regarding alleged fax fraud scheme by Samaan,
Parks, and Countrywide. Records produced by Realtor Michael Libow in
response to legal subpoena in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
12) Appendix L Zernik’s Record: Notice of Countrywide’s fraudulent record, which was 289
purported to be a real estate purchase contract, and was shown to be the
product of the fax scheme fraud by Samaan/ Parks, and Countrywide.
The purchase contract was produced by Countrywide in response to
subpoena in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and the Notice was filed in
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).
13) Appendix M Opinion Letter by Fraud Expert Robert Meister in re: Record fraudulently 318
represented by Countrywide in court as an October 14, 2004 Underwriting
Letter.
14) Appendix N Zernik’s Record: Notice of Key fraudulent Countrywide record which 339
was an October 26, 2004 invalid Underwriting Letter, and was
fraudulently represented by Countrywide and Samaan in court as a valid
October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter.
15) Appendix O Zernik’s Record: October 18, 2007 Complaint filed with FBI Los 370
Angeles: BEYOND FINANCIAL RECKLESSNESS –
COUNTRYWIDE AND CORRUPTION OF THE COURTS IN LA.
16) Appendix P Opinion Letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, Fraud Expert James 371
Wedick, in re: Fraud in conveyance of title on Zernik’s property by
Attorney David Pasternak on behalf of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
17) Appendix Q March 25, 2008 The Daily Recorder reporting Los Angeles County 391
designated by FBI as the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and
mortgage fraud.
18) Appendix R Zernik’s Record: May 15, 2008 Complaint Filed with White Collar Crime 394
Squadron, Los Angeles FBI, regarding real estate and other financial fraud
by Countrywide, Samaan, and others, under the caption of Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400).
19) Appendix S August-September2008 Inquiries by US Congress on FBI and US 396
Department of Justice, and Responses by Kenneth Melson, Director, US
Dept of Justice and Kenneth Kaiser, Assistant Director, FBI, regarding
complaints by Zernik of racketeering by judges of the Los Angeles
Superior Court.
20) Appendix T 09-07-31 Zernik’s Meet & Confer with Atty McCormick for LA 406
Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe in re: Caption of Fine v Sheriff
(09-71692), and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), where Zernik alleged
the McCormick falsely appeared for Judge David Yaffe and the Los
Angeles Superior Court, while not Counsel of Record, and as such
filed fraudulent records on their behalf.
21) Appendix U 09-08-01 Zernik’s Request for investigation by Terry Nafisi, Clerk of 408
the US District Court, LA, in RE: Concerns regarding docketing,
maintenance of
Court records, and conduct of clerical staff, U.S. District Court, Los
Angeles, in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor
(2:08-cv-01550).
22) Appendix V 09-08-22 Zernik’s Request for an opinion letter by fraud expert, decorated 416
FBI veteran James Wedick in Re: Fraud in the Clerks Offices of the
courts.
23) Appendix W 09-08-27 Email notice by John Amberg, Bryan Cave, LLP, who 423
falsely appeared on behalf of Countrywide and Bank of America,
while not Counsel of Record, relative to Countrywide and Bank of
America Corporation communications

24) Appendix X 09-08-29 Zernik’s Request for access to court records, to inspect and to 424
copy in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829), and related questions about Rules
of the Court at U.S. District Court, Southern District of NY
25) Appendix Y 09-08-30 Zernik’s Letter to Counsel in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – 434
requesting copies of litigation records
and actions to prevent delays in Dr Zernik’s letter to the Hon Jed
Rakoff in re:
settlement proposal
26) Appendix Z 09-08-31 Zernik’s Cover email for response to message from Att John 438
Amberg, Bryan Cave, LLP
27) Appendix AA 09-09-02 In re: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Zernik’s demands for Clerk 439
of the Los Angeles Superior Court, John A Clarke’s compliance with the
law
28) Appendix BB 09-09-02 Zernik’s Correspondence with Atty Samuel Bezek, SEC, 444
and Prof Grundfest, Stanford University,
in re: Dr Zernik’s complaints to SEC re: CFC and/or BAC
29) Appendix CC 09-09-02 AA above repeated in error. 493
30) Appendix DD 09-09-02 Zernik’s Correspondence with General Tommy Franks, former 498
member of the Bank of America Audit Committee, in re: Integrity in
Operations of Bank of America, or lack thereof, and refusal of General
Franks to make any statement on the records regarding integrity of
operations at Bank of America Corporation.
31) Appendix EE 09-09-04 Zernik’s request to access court records of the US District 500
Court, Los Angeles, to inspect and to copy
32) Appendix FF 09-09-04 Further correspondence between Zernik and General 512
Tommy Franks, former member of the Audit Committee in re:
Integrity of Operations at Bank of America Corporation
33) Appendix GG 09-09-04 In re: Zernik v Melson et al (1:2009cv00805) – Zernik’s 522
demand for mitigation of damages by the US District Court, DC Clerk
of the Court: (1) Mark invalid court records as such, or (2) Remove a
false docket from public
view, no later than September 17, 2009
34) Appendix HH 09-09-05 Zernik’s request for individual members of U.S. Congress to 525
issue welcome statements to
international visitors/study groups/observers for Los Angeles County
California.
35) Appendix II 09-09-07 Zernik’s request for peer review by Stanford Law Faculty of 538
Affidavit of Pro Joseph Grundfest
36) Appendix JJ 09-09-08 Zernik’s demand for Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court, 540
John A Clarke to stop alleged collusion with Countrywide and Bank of
America Corporation in the fabrication in re: A fictitious “Protective
Order” and in its use for alleged obstruction and perversion of justice.
1 / 545
2 / 545
3 / 545
4 / 545
5 / 545
6 / 545
7 / 545
8 / 545
9 / 545
10 / 545
11 / 545
12 / 545
13 / 545
14 / 545
15 / 545
16 / 545
17 / 545
18 / 545
19 / 545
20 / 545
21 / 545
22 / 545
23 / 545
24 / 545
25 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
09-08-27 Confer letter in re: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829 ) –

Filing a letter with the Hon Jed Rakoff in re: Settlement
TO:
1) SEC (by email)
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Joseph O. Boryshansky
Phone:(212) 336-0113
Fax: (212) 336-1348
Email: boryshanskyj@sec.gov
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Maureen F. Lewis
Phone:(212)-336-0125
Fax: (212)-336-1317
Email: lewism@sec.gov
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by David Rosenfeld
Phone:212-336-0153
2) BAC (by email)

Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Shawn Joseph Chen
Phone:(202)-974-1552
Fax: (202)-974-1999
Email: schen@cgsh.com
Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Lewis J. Liman
Phone:212-225-2000
Fax: 212-225-3499
Email: lliman@cgsh.com
CC:
1) FBI 1 (by fax)
Fax: 12022782478@efaxsend.com
2) US Department of Justice (US DOJ) 2 (by email)
Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
3) Basel Committee 3
4) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights 4
5) Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in the U.S.5
1
FBI - Added to the list since allegations are stated pertaining to FBI’s cover-up of criminality at
CFC/BAC.
2
US DOJ - Added to the list since allegations are stated pertaining to DOJ’s cover-up of criminality at
CFC/BAC.
3
The Committee should be interested in being informed regarding the state of integrity, or lack
thereof, in the U.S. financial system, and enforcement, or lack thereof, by the U.S. Government – even
at a time of crisis such as we witness now.
The Committee is asked to consider sending a delegation to the U.S. including banking, human rights,
and court administration experts. There is a need for all involved inside the U.S. to hear the
perspective of an objective, friendly, outside body regarding events now taking place in the U.S.,
which are of historic proportions. In addition, conditions in the U.S. are rapidly shifting, and the
international community, needs to better understand such facts, in order to conduct its business in an
informed and effective way.
4
The comments below detail severe violations of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California, largely related to widespread corruption of the
courts. Details are provided regarding the involvement of Countrywide in corruption of the courts.
26 / 545
z Page 2/6 August 27, 2009
Please take notice:
A. Proposed schedule for exchange of comments prior to submitting letter to court.

Dr Zernik proposes the schedule listed below for exchange of comments with the
parties on his planned letter to the Court of the Honorable Judge Rakoff. The reason
Dr Zernik is soliciting such comments is that the claims made in such letter are of
high public policy significance, and he would like to ensure that the parties
mentioned had a chance to correct him, in case of errors:
1) Zernik will fax to parties his DRAFT letter to the Hon Jed Rakoff no later than
9:00am EST of business on Monday, August 31, 2009.
2) Parties will fax to Zernik (801-998-0917) comments or objections, if any, no
later than 5:00pm EST, on Friday, September 4, 2009.
3) Zernik will fax parties and the court his FINAL letter no later than 9:00am
Tuesday, September 8, 2009.
Please respond by Friday, August 28, 2009, 5:00 pm, if you would be interested in
engaging in the proposed exchange.
B. Requests were forwarded on August 25, 2009 to BAC to take action in re:
Putting an end to material violations of the law
On August 25, 2009 Requests were forwarded (attached) to Officers and
Directors, the Audit Committee, and the Independent Auditor of BAC – in re: “Doing
the right thing…” 6
The note concerned alleged criminality perpetrated against Dr Zernik by
Countrywide, which was initiated in 2004, and which continued to this date – under
BAC control - as deceitful court proceedings7 at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Bryan Cave, LLP, a large international law-firm continued to appear at the LA
Superior Court, claiming to be counsel of record for BoA, which it was not. It also
falsely self-designated as “Non Party” for the past 2 years – while the court
interchangeably designated it “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Real Party in
Interest” and other designations, with no legal foundation at all. Such alleged
criminality directly involved Angelo Mozilo – CEO and also Sandor Samuels –
5
The People’s Bank of China is standing to be the single biggest loser from the recklessness of U.S.
Financial institutions such as Countrywide, due to the size of deposits in dollar denominations.
Therefore, the People’s Republic of China has direct interest in the integrity of the U.S. banking
system, and in effective enforcement of the law. On the other hand, the People’s Republic of China is
the partner whose cooperation the U.S. government needs more than any other, in shoring the current
crisis –through adjustment of exchange rates. According to media, the Chinese government
expressed its concerns during the visit in May 2009 of Treasury Secretary Geithner, regarding banking
regulation in the U.S., its efficacy, and reliability of U.S. government data and control systems. All
parties to the case must realize that it is being watched and would be assessed as indicative of the
U.S. government resolve to assert its authority in the current financial crisis.
6
The quote is from CEO Kenneth Lewis preface to the BAC Code of Ethics posted online.
7
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
27 / 545
formerly Chief Legal Officer of Countrywide, who today serves as Associate General
Counsel of BAC. Dr Zernik himself never even had any business with Countrywide.
The August 25, 2009 Requests included the following:
1. That BAC would prohibit any further appearances by Bryan Cave, LLP, at the
LA Superior Court purporting to be Counsel of Record for BAC, since such
conduct contradicted BAC’s published Code of Ethics, and BAC’s published
Outside Counsel Procedures. The next such appearance was listed online
as scheduled for September 23, 2009. Accordingly Dr Zernik requested an
early notice by September 8, 2009, regarding BAC action in this regard.
2. That BAC would notice Dr Zernik in writing,8 who was authorized and
assigned to represent BAC in matters pertaining to Dr Zernik.
3. That BAC would have the Audit Committee review the CFC involvement in
the matter, claimed to have been material violation of the law: It directly
involved Mozilo and Samuels and the CFC Legal Department. It is alleged to
have involved the production of hundreds of pages of false banking records,
a full set of false declarations and the fabrication of loan underwriting
histories. Such efforts were all for the cause of perpetrating real estate fraud
on Dr Joseph Zernik, who had no business with CFC whatsoever.
In previous complaints filed with the BAC Audit Committee pursuant to
Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), it was proposed that such review by focused on
review of a list of six (6) records that were repeatedly filed in court in Los
Angeles, even after the July 1, 2008 take over by BAC. Such records are
considered the core of the fraud by Countrywide/BAC against Dr Zernik.
That list is again attached to this notice.
C. The Court of the Hon Jed Rakoff permitted Dr Zernik to provide input in re: the
SEC/BAC proposed settlement agreement.
Yesterday, August 26, 2009, the court of the Hon Jed Rakoff, permitted Dr Zernik to
submit comments in re: Proposed settlement agreement in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-
06829 ), in a letter form.
Dr Zernik believes that he would be able to provide the court with substantial
insights into the history of enforcement, or lack thereof, by U.S. agencies such as
SEC, FBI, US DOJ, and other, when complaints were filed with such agencies
providing detailed evidence of criminality at Countrywide. Furthermore, such
agencies refused to provide any protection to Dr Zernik against such ongoing
criminality either.
Following the take over of Countrywide by BAC, there was no indication of an
attempt by BAC to bring its Countrywide subsidiary into compliance with the law.
Instead, patterns of alleged criminal conduct that were typical of Countrywide, are
now observed at BAC.
8
In over a year since BAC took over Countrywide, several senior staff at the office of BAC General
Counsel informed Dr Zernik that Bryan Cave, LLP was NOT authorized to appear, but BAC failed to
respond to numerous requests to provide written notice who its Counsel of Record was.
28 / 545
The Honorable Jed Rakoff expressed his concern regarding the lack of
transparency in the settlement agreement. Dr Zernik would like to focus attention on
another presumed agreement that remains entirely concealed:
BAC agreed to acquire Countrywide on January 11, 2008, in the context of markets
turmoil, after the publication of the fact that Countrywide attorneys filed in a
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Court three (3) “recreated letters” as evidence. 9 And while
media elaborated on the financial aspects of the transaction, there was no mention
of the evident – that BAC had to be concerned about assuming criminal liabilities in
the process of acquiring Countrywide.
Already in February 2009, Dr Zernik provided his opinion to a former Commissioner
of the SEC, that in their short-sighted conduct, U.S. officials most likely made
promises or representations to senior BAC Officers that amounted to indemnity for
future criminality. The former Commissioner dismissed such notion as unreal.
However, Dr Zernik believes that the April 23, 2009 New York Attorney General
Andrew Cuomo letter to U.S. Senate provides support to such notion. Regardless
if such provisions are within or without the realm of the law, it appears that U.S.
agencies such as SEC, FBI, and US DOJ conduct their business with BAC under
such terms.
It is only under such understanding that one can rationalize the conduct of BAC in
allowing itself to be found liable of Securities Fraud on December 6, 2008 in a New
York Court. Media then expressed astonishment. It is also only under such
understanding that one can rationalize the conduct of BAC in allowing Bryan Cave,
LLP to continue its conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of activity that
included since July 1,2008 alone numerous alleged predicated acts.10
It is only under such understanding that one can rationalize the alleged fraud
perpetrated by FBI Assistant Director – Kenneth Kaiser, and US DOJ Director –
Kenneth Melson, in September 8, 2009 responses to inquiries by the
Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Senator and Honorable Diane Watson,
Congresswoman, on behalf of Dr Zernik.
Finally, It is only in the context of such understanding that one may comprehend the
proposed settlement now before the Court.
It is proposed that the existence of such confidential agreements regarding
indemnity from future criminality cannot be allowed to remain a mystery. The nature
of the relationship between the two parties cannot be defined, and the settlement
cannot be approved absent full and complete disclosure on such matters.
Needless to say, such presumed understanding may have entirely undermined
enforcement by SEC at BAC, and also provided permission to BAC to abuse the
9
It is estimated that in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), Countrywide, and separately BAC in the period
since July 1, 2008, each filed in court at least 100 fold more false records than in the case of S D Hill
(01-22574), in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Pittsburgh, PA.
10
Comments to be submitted to the Honorable Jed Rakoff will provide detailed evidence of a false
OSC Contempt filed by Bryan Cave, where the purported contempt by Dr Zernik consisted of – calling
the office of General Counsel of BAC, and obtaining evidence that Bryan Cave, LLP, and Judge Terry
Friedman were engaged in alleged perversion of justice – since Bryan Cave, LLP was not authorized
to appear in court in the first place. Such perversion must also be deemed retaliation, harassment, and
intimidation, obstruction, and it also included the production of numerous false court records.
29 / 545
civil rights of Los Angeles resident Joseph Zernik under the color of law, in collusion
with the local court.
It is in the context of such agreements that one should also read the August 21,
2008 email notice received by Dr Zernik from decorated veteran FBI agent James
Wedick, explaining the refusal of FBI to provide Dr Zernik equal protection under the
law.
D. The presumed conduct of U.S. officials relative to BAC – as seen in the Merrill
Lynch and the Countrywide mergers, should be reviewed – since it is likely to be in
violation of the law, and contrary to the public policy interests of the U.S.
The conduct of such U.S. Officials in the context of the Merrill Lynch and
Countrywide mergers with BAC must be reviewed by the courts. Such presumed
conduct would likely be found in violation of the law. Moreover, it would undermine
the rule of law.
Moreover, the combination of the waiver on deposits at BAC, combined with such
presumed understanding that resulted in conduct by BAC that is likely to be found
as amounting to criminality, generated intolerable risk to the U.S. financial systems.
The spectacle of the largest U.S. banking institution found twice in the course of one
year as participating in Securities Fraud, which is believed to stem from such
understanding, is not likely to instill confidence in U.S. financial markets among
investors at home or abroad.
E, Background
SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829 ) the August 3, 2009 Complaint was filed under
Cause of action 15 USC §77 Securities Fraud. According the WSJ August 11,
2009, Bank of America agreed to pay the sum of $33 m to settle charges that it
failed to disclose that Merrill Lynch & Co. had agreed to pay up to $5.8 billion in
bonuses just before its merger with Bank of America. As part of the settlement,
Bank of America didn't admit or deny wrongdoing.
"I would be less than candid if I didn't express my continued misgivings about
this settlement at this stage," said Rakoff, according to the Journal.
Rakoff said the agreement lacked transparency, and "would leave uncertain the
truth of the very serious allegations made" by the SEC. Rakoff also wanted to find
out whether the settlement funds would come from money lent to the bank by the
government, added the paper.
In the August 25, 2009 Order Judge Rakoff stated:
This Court has the obligation, within carefully prescribed
limits, to determine whether the proposed Consent Judgment settling
this case is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. To
that end, the Court heard argument on August 10, 2009 and, having
insufficient information to make an informed assessment, directed the
parties to make initial written submissions on August 24, 2009
responding to certain areas of the Court's concern, to be followed by
further written submissions on September 9, 2009.
30 / 545
E. Concerns regarding additional, ongoing, Securities Fraud that should be

considered at the time of settlement or sentencing
In his letter to the Honorable Jed Rakoff, Dr Zernik will point out that his first notice to
CEO Lewis and CFO Price of the alleged criminality by Countrywide, was in
February 4, 2008 certified notices, where Dr Zernik requested that they look into
the matter as part of their due diligence. A February 12, 2008 letter from the office
of CEO Lewis provides indisputable confirmation of that notice. Numerous other
notices followed. And yet, both CEO Lewis and CFO Price repeatedly signed
Certificates pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) in periodic reports to SEC, which
entirely ignored the fact that they themselves were involved in permitting at that time
the continued alleged racketeering in the Los Angeles Court.
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles, California
31 / 545
09-09-02 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – requests to replace or withdraw Prof Grundfest’s

Affidavit (Dkt #10)
Executive Summary
The collapse of Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) in January 2008, signaled a turning point in
the current financial crisis. It allowed the public world-wide first clue to allow any estimate of the
scope of the escalating financial disaster. On the other hand, it demonstrated the failure of U.S.
banking regulation, and also involved actions by senior Bush administration officials to usher, some
say to coerce, the merger of CFC with Bank of America Corporation (BAC). Similar events recurred
in the collapse of Merrill Lynch, which led to an April 2008 letter by NY Attorney General Andrew
Cuomo. 1 In response to that letter – some media called for criminal indictment of senior U.S. and
BAC Officers, including FRB Chair Henry Ben Bernanke, and BAC Chair Kenneth Lewis. Evidence
from various court actions and a year long study by the U.S. Trustee, documented conditions at CFC
in the years preceding its collapse, which included non-functional external and internal audit structure,
headed by Chair Mozilo, underwriting department that disregarded the law, large data processing
systems that were crippled, and a Legal Department, headed by Chief Legal Officer Samuels, which
was routinely engaged in undermining the integrity of court actions across the U.S.2 , 3 Disregarding
such mounting evidence of alleged racketeering at CFC, involving its most senior officers, including
those holding direct reporting duties to SEC, law enforcement and banking regulators, routinely
refused to investigate complaints. Given the nature of operations at CFC, the insistence of senior U.S.
officers on merging it into BAC, instead of letting it be liquidated, with no indication of any attempt at
enforcement before or after the merger, remains inexplicable, or worse. Concerns regarding
ineffective banking regulation in the U.S., which poses risks to financial markets at home and abroad,
were repeatedly raised, e.g. during the recent visit by U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner to Beijing.
In proceedings of SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829), filed on August 3, 2009 at the U.S. District Court,
NY, SEC appeared to engage in enforcement action against BAC. The parties came before the Court
for approval of a proposed settlement. To assist the Court in reviewing whether the proposed
settlement was “fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest”, Prof Joseph Grundfest,
Stanford Law School, former Commissioner of SEC, produced an Affidavit (Dkt #10), filed by BAC
August 24, 2009. The affidavit supported approval of the settlement. Dr Joseph Zernik, a Los
Angeles County, California resident, asked and received Court permission to provide his input as well.
Dr Zernik filed complaints with FBI, SEC, Thrift Supervision, and Federal Trade Commission,
starting January 2007, providing credible documenting of alleged large scale fraud by CFC against
U.S. Government, which in early 2007 he estimated at hundreds of billions, and which involved CFC
officers holding direct reporting duties. He filed further complaints with the Audit Committee of BAC
after the merger, regarding alleged violations of the law that involved Mr Kenneth Lewis, Mr Joe
Price, and Mr Timothy Mayopoulos – all holders of direct reporting duties. Furthermore, in February
1
April 23, 2008 letter of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Senate
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
2
1) Borrower Sharon D Hill ( ), U.S. Court, Pittsburgh, PA, and related actions by U.S. Trustee.
2) Borrower William A Parsley () U.S. Court, Houston TX, Memorandum Opinion of the Honorable
Jeff Bohm (Dkt #248), and related year-long study by U.S. Trustee.
3) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) LA Superior Court
4) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) U.S. District Court LA, CA
5) Zernik v U.S. Dist Court ((08-72714) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
6) Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
3
Many of the court records in (2), above, were copied under index in:
http://inproperinla.com/
32 / 545
z Page 2/18 September 2, 2009
2009 Dr Zernik and Prof Grundfest engaged in discussion of the refusal of SEC to engage in
enforcement in re: BAC and its subsidiary CFC, and records were forwarded to Prof Grundfest, as
credible evidence of material violations by officers holding reporting duties. Prof Grundfest later
stated that he forwarded the records to the Head of Enforcement at SEC. SEC again refused to
investigate complaints against CFC and BAC. 4
Dr Zernik forwarded instant letter to Prof Grundfest, BAC, and SEC, requesting that the Affidavit
(Dkt #10) either be rewritten or entirely withdrawn. Dr Zernik stated that the Affidavit in its current
form, in the docket as it appear online in Pacer, 5, 6 is false and deliberately misleading in itself, and
also provides legitimacy to proceedings which so far fail to demonstrate the essential elements of a
valid, effectual U.S. Court Action. Such Affidavit lends support to one in chain of events where
certain senior U.S. officers and some members of the U.S. and California judiciary, with CFC
and BAC officers, conduct U.S. banking in a manner that is contrary to public policy interest -
recklessly setting up the grounds for a new, bigger financial calamity, which may leave the U.S.
entirely crippled.
This letter was also forwarded as requests to:
1) Stanford Faculty – to assess the academic integrity of Prof Grundfest’s Affidavit, and its
potential harm to U.S. financial markets and law enforcement.
2) General Tommy Frank, and Admiral Joseph Frueher – to issue “Farewell Addresses” to the
public at large, in relationship with their departure from the Audit Committee of BAC.
3) Basel Committee and U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights – to send a delegation,
including banking regulators, Human Rights experts, and court administrators, to observe
conduct of U.S. and State agencies in the current financial crisis. It is proposed that such
observation start in Los Angeles County, defined by FBI as “the epicenter of the epidemic”.
DISCLAIMER:
1. I am forwarding this writing in its current state, to allow parties and Prof Grundfest
sufficient time to decide on response. Albeit, I deem this writing only as a DRAFT,
and never had sufficient time to review it with the necessary care.
2. Any opinions expressed in this writing that are of legal nature, are the opinion of a
layperson only, with no formal legal education at all.
3. To indicate the INCOMPLETE state of instant record, and the fact that it was NOT
intended to be relied upon, I left it unsigned on its last page.
4. I added a digital certificate at the top, only to indicate that no changes were allowed
without authorization.
August 30, 2009
1) Counsel for SEC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

4
February 2009 - Correspondence Zernik-Grundfest-Bezek:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf
5
date Letter to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, NYC, requesting access to records:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-31-cover-emai+-zernik-requests-explanation-from-bryan-cave-llp-s.pdf
6
date Letter to SEC, BAC, requesting records and actions in re: Docket of SEC v BAC.
33 / 545

Phone:(212) 336-0113
Phone:(212)-336-0125
Phone:212-336-0153
(by email and by fax)
2) Counsel for BAC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

Phone:(202)-974-1552
Phone:212-225-2000
3) Prof Joseph Grundfest

Stanford Law School
grundfest@stanford.edu
(by email)
Timely response requested by Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm
Attorneys for SEC & BAC, and Prof Grundfest:7

I write to request that you let me know as soon as possible, but no later than
Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm, what your intent would be in regards to
requests in this letter. I would like to be able to complete my letter over the
Labor Day weekend, possibly still be able to forward to you drafts and get some
comments, and submit it to Court by Sept 9, 2009.
A. General:
1. The scholarship and professional experience of Prof Joseph Grundfest were
fully appreciated and recognized, not only from the writing in instant action,
but also from my personal acquaintance and discussion of related matters
with Prof Grundfest beforehand.
No objections were raised as to the opinion per se, provided by Prof Joseph
Grundfest (Dkt #10), neither was Dr Zernik qualified to challenge Prof
Grundfest’s opinion and scholarship on the specific technical issues of
settlement dynamics, motivations, and decision-making processes by parties
to settlements.
2. Prof Grundfest neglected to define the question he was addressing in his
affidavit opinion, or for that matter, to clearly state who posed such question
7
Recipients of the letters on paper, can find an online copy at index : http://inproperinla.com/
where correspondence in chronologically archived. The online copy makes referral to footnotes links
much easier.
34 / 545
to him. Regardless, as a Stanford Law Professor, and as a Former

Commissioner of SEC, we must assume that he was readily familiar with
review standards applicable to such settlements, which were stated by the
Honorable Jed Rakoff – to establish whether the proposed settlement was
“fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest”.
3. Therefore, Prof Grundfest’s affidavit is seen as inordinately narrow in it
construction, focusing on theoretical questions related to settlement
dynamics, while on the other hand claiming to have reviewed publicly
available records related to SEC enforcement in re: BAC.
4. I have first hand knowledge, based on my discussions with Prof Grundfest in
February 2009, that he was fully aware of a large volume of credible
evidence, derived from various court actions, 8 indicating material violations
of the law by officers of CFC and later BAC, holding direct reporting duties.
Some of the violations, particularly in the Legal Department of CFC, should
be deemed racketeering per RICO 18 USC §1961-8 upon review by court.
5. Prof Grundfest was fully aware of multiple complaints filed with SEC, which
SEC inexplicably failed to respond to at all.
6. Prof Grundfest was fully aware of repeat conduct in various California and
U.S. courts, where CFC, BAC, SEC, or FBI were named Defendants or Real
Parties in Interest, which fell outside the realm of normative court
proceedings.
7. Prof Grundfest was fully aware of my claims that following collusion with
certain members of the judiciary in alleged criminalities, CFC was effectively
vested in immunities, of “indemnities for future criminalities”, and that
following the merger, BAC started engaging in such alleged collusion as well,
and therefore, gained the same status. Prof Grundfest at the time
considered such interpretation as contrary to the law, and therefore unlikely.
However, the letter of NY Att General Andrew Cuomo two months later, fully
supported such interpretation of current events.
8. In view of the ongoing crisis, Prof Grundfest’s affidavit was construed on a
basis that was too narrow failing to educate the Court regarding the context
in which the proposed settlement emerged – evidence of non-compliance by
BAC, and deliberate refusal by SEC to engage in effective enforcement.
9. Prof Grundfest made the following representation in his affidavit (p3, ¶4):
“… significant public policy concerns [were] raised by this Court in
connection with its review of the pending settlement in this
proceeding…”.
The essence of my request was that Prof Grundfest clearly defined the intent
of his affidavit, so that his opinion address the significant public policy
concerns inherent in current matter.
10. Prof Grundfest also made the following representation (p19, ¶44):
“…Bank of America is a highly regulated entity.”
8
February 2009 – correspondence Zernik-Grundfest-Bezek:
35 / 545
Such statement appeared of questionable validity. Prof Grundfest should

educate the Court regarding the foundation of such statement – including the
regulations, compliance - or lack thereof, and enforcement - or lack thereof.
5. Recent events in LA County, California, were of historic proportions,
including, but not limited to:
a. The ongoing false confinement of the estimated 10,000, Rampart-
FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons) 9 a full decade after they were
confirmed to be falsely convicted and falsely sentenced. They
were almost exclusively Black and Latinos – the case dwarfs
Guantanamo Bay by comparison.
b. The unprecedented alleged widespread corruption of government
and business in Los Angeles California, which was tolerated and
patronized by FBI and USDOJ for at least two decades.10
c. The losses to the U.S. treasury related to the collapse of LA –
based Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC).
d. The alleged criminality at CFC, which was most noticed at the
conduct of the Legal Department and litigation practices of CFC.11
e. The close working relationships between CFC and the judiciary in
LA County in perpetrating alleged criminalities. 12
f. The frequent of alleged real-estate frauds by the LA Superior
Court, in a county which was defined by FBI as the “epicenter of
the epidemic”.
g. The central role of computerized case management systems, such
as “Sustain”, in enabling alleged criminality at the LA Superior
Court. Installation of such system was accompanied by: (1)
Elimination of public access to public records that were - the
Registers of Actions (California equivalents of dockets), the Book
of Judgments/Electronic Index of Judgments, and Calendars of the
Courts; 13 (2) Development of a “Local Custom” of “Waiving” the
9
of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons), a full decade after investigations
demonstrated that they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-
imprisonments-s.pdf
10
August-September 2008 Correspondence between U.S. Congress and FBI, USDOJ, related to my
request that a Special Counsel be appointed, pursuant to 28 CFR §600, under a short-term, limited
mandate – to establish public access to the electronic (computerized) public records of the
courts in LA, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications (1978). In
parallel, I suggested that “Truth & Reconciliation Commissions” be established.
http://inproperinla.com/08-09-08-congresswoman-watson-senator-feinstein-inquiries-resposes-kaiser-
fbi-melson-usdoj.pdf
11
In that respect, Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal Officer of CFC was the “top figure”, and the fact that
he was not forced to retire, and instead was informed to be Associate General Counsel of BAC, must
be one of the most worrisome details in U.S. government sponsored merger of CFC and BAC.
12
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA Superior Court; Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at
the U.S. District Court, LA.
13
Correspondence with Counsel of the LA Superior Court, and denial of access to court records:
36 / 545
due process right for notice and service of court orders. With that –
the LA Justice system regressed to earlier time in history, with
frequent summons, judgments, statute of frauds frauds - all of
medieval infamy.
h. The secret payments taken by all ~450 judges of the LA Superior
Court for over a decade, which were ruled in October 2008 14 as
“not permitted”, and were labeled by media “Bribes”.
i. The alleged fraud by the LA Superior Court, that was publicly
represented as an effectual court action –in Sturgeon v LA County
(BC351286), at the LA Superior Court, where the legality of such
payments was reviewed.15
j. Retaliation against attorney Richard Fine, 70 yo, former U.S.
Prosecutor, civil rights activist, who was instrumental and vocal in
denouncing the “not permitted” payments, and alleged collusion in
criminalities by the LA Superior Court and the LA County Sheriff
Department, that allowed Attorney Fine’s ongoing jailing, with no
effectual judgment as its legal foundation, under strange and
unusual conditions.16, 17
14
California Court of Appeals, 4th District ruling that payments secretly taken by ALL LA Superior
Court judges, were “not permitted”.
http://inproperinla.com/08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf
15
The alleged frauds in representation of sturgeon v LA County, were detailed in August 12, 2009 ex
parte application for a leave to file, and motion for Mistrial, filed under such caption, and copied under
Index of http://inproperinla.com/
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-ex-parte-application-orders-for-access-leave-to-file.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-i.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part1.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4ai.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4aii.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4b.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-17-denial-zernik-exparte-leave-to-file.PDF
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-24-requests-elated-to-august-17-2009-minute-order-s.pdf
16
August 23, 2009 Letter to veteran FBI agent, fraud expert James Wedick, requesting opinion on
alleged fraud in March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine, which was stamped FILED
with the date of March 4, 2009 by the LA Superior Court, was part of habeas corpus petition stamped
March 19 or 20, 2009 (tampered with), and bears certification by Judge Yaffe, which is dated March
24, 2009.
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-23-request-wedick-opinion-letter-on-fraud-in-judment-record-att-fine-
draft-s.pdf
37 / 545
k. The commonality of sham court actions in both U.S. and state

courts across the U.S. - where counsel, and often judges as well,
know that the proceedings failed to amount to valid, effectual court
action, and yet continue the show as if it were true litigation.18
l. The strange conduct of certain U.S. officers, who in the face of the
collapse of institution(s) that were allegedly engaged in various
criminalities, insisted on securing continuity of such alleged
criminalities by coercing their mergers into BAC, and the
subsequent changes in the conduct of BAC.
6. One key feature that was common as enabling alleged criminalities both in
banking institutions and in courts, was the alleged fraudulent use of large
computer systems. Prof Grundfest was not interested or considered himself
unqualified to review the data on such issue, but it was probably the single
most important finding in Dr Zernik’s records, involving EDGE – the
underwriting monitoring system at CFC, SUSTAIN - the case management
system at the LA Superior Court, and the duality of PACER vs CM/ECF in
the U.S. Courts.
7. Regarding PACER and CM/ECF: The U.S. Courts recently completed a
major project of dual (or triple if paper dockets are counted) dockets,
separate and unequal, where the court could segregate the parties at will.
The single most important difference between the systems was that in Pacer,
all digital signatures were deliberately stripped, and therefore, none of the
records was authenticated. 19 There was no reason that could be even
remotely related to the furtherance of justice that could justify such the
construction of such dual docketing systems at the courts. In parallel – U.S.
Courts seem to refuse to recognize Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc, as
part of the law of the land.20, 21, 22
8. I am the first to admit that I was unqualified for handling any of this.
However it became evident to me a while ago, that this was probably a
17
July 31, 2009 Letter of meet and confer to attorneys of LA Superior Court and LA County Sheriff
Department, in re: Marina v LA County (BS109420) and the false judgment for jailing of Att Richard
Fine:
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-la-sheriff-department-fontana-s.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-la-sup-ct-yaffe-mccormick-s.pdf
18
August 1, 2009 Request for investigation by Clerk of the U.S. Court, Los Angeles, of alleged
tampering with court records, and fraud in the conduct of litigation under Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-
cv-01550), and Fine v Sheriff of LA County (2: )
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-01-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-reques-for-investigation-s.pdf
19
Example of NEF as it appears in CM/ECF, as authentication of court records through digital
signatures, such NEFs and also any digital signatures in the docketing sheet were eliminated from
Pacer:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-nef-w-digital-sig-louisiana.pdf
20
Letter to Clerk of the U.S. Court, NY, following denial of access to court records:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-29-zernik-request-to-ny-clerk-access-to-instpect-and-to…-s.pdf
21
Correspondence with office of the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, and denial of
access to court records:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-19-denial-of-accessto-court-records-at-us-district-court-s.pdf
22
Request filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, for access to court records:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor_09-07-28-req-nefs-s.pdf
38 / 545
“karmic” event in my life, and that I fell into this trap, allegedly set up by
Judge Jacqueline Connor, the Legal Department of CFC and others for a
purpose – to document it, and to use my unusual mix of eclectic skills to
expose certain parts of it, which nobody else would.
A. Specifics:
11. Matters of Form:
a) The paper was adequately faced by Prof Grundfest. However, the
manner in which the paper was filed in court by BAC was inadequate.
The record as it appeared in the docket failed to clearly indicate on its
face who its filer was - Counsel for Defendant BAC.
b) Similarly, it was not readily apparent from the writing itself whether or
not it was solicited by Defendant BAC, by SEC, or by both, and the
exact nature of the solicitation, if any, was not disclosed.
The Affidavit (Dkt #10) stated in one place (p3 ¶4):
Bank of America Corporation (“Defendant” or “Bank of
America”) has agreed to reimburse expenses, if any,
incurred in conjunction with my participation in this
proceeding.
The same paragraph (p3 ¶4) started by stating:
Because of the significant public policy concerns raised by this Court in
connection with its review of the pending settlement in this proceeding,
and because of the implication of those concerns for the Commission’s
and respondents’ ability to settle disputes over alleged violations of
federal securities law, I am providing my services in this matter on a pro
bono basis.
9. The specific Intent of the Affidavit of Joseph A Grundfest was never defined,
and more importantly - who defined such Intent: Prof Grundfest, or Counsel
for BAC/SEC or both.
From the qualification section, one could conclude that Prof Grundfest relied
on the totality of his scholarship and experiences in law, business and
government, and provided a comprehensive opinion regarding the Court’s
quest, within the defined limits –
“…within carefully prescribed limits, to determine whether the
proposed Consent Judgment settling this case is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the public interest.”
Prof Grundfest, in the Affidavit stated (p3, ¶4):

The National Law Journal listed me as among the 100 most
influential attorneys in the United States in 1997, 2000 and 2006,
and Directorship Magazine has listed me as among the 100 most
influential leaders in the field of corporate governance for the
last two years.
And further in the Affidavit he stated (p2, ¶2):
39 / 545
I have personal knowledge of the procedures involved in settling

SEC enforcement actions. As a Commissioner, I participated in
the review and approval of hundreds of settled administrative
and injunctive enforcement proceedings.
Prof Grundfest was no doubt uniquely qualified to provide the court with
opinion on the issues at hand.
10. The “Summary Opinion” provided overview of the procedures and dynamics
of settlements between SEC and corporations under its regulatory
jurisdiction. In addition, it provided a statement that indicated that Prof
Grundfest researched publicly available information pertaining to
enforcement by SEC in re: BAC.
Prof Grundfest, in the Affidavit stated (p3,¶6):
Publicly available information, including filings with the

Commission, establishes that there is substantial risk to the
Commission that it would not prevail if this matter were
litigated to judgment because a court or a fact-finder could
readily conclude that Bank of America did not violate the federal
securities laws. More precisely, as explained in Part IV,
Defendant has a powerful claim that it engaged in no
misrepresentation or omission. Defendant has a further powerful
claim that any misrepresentation or omission, even if one was
found to exist, was immaterial and hence not actionable.
11. Such affidavit would have perfectly fitted the bill under normal
circumstances, where the Settlement was reached as part of standard
business practices of SEC, and where BAC was “highly regulated” (see
below). However, such were not at all the circumstances in the case at
hand.
12. Some of the fundamental questions that were not addressed at all, but
should not be ignored in such case:
a. Did Plaintiff and Defendant, separately and together, convey an intent to
fulfill their legal obligations relative to regulations of the SEC and their
enforcement?
b. Did they come with clean hands?
c. Was the SEC regulatory system considered as functional at all at this time?
d. Were there any reasons to believe that the court action by SEC, as well as
the Proposed Settlement did not represent good faith enforcement actions,
but instead were merely a show piece?
The litigation addressed the issue of bonuses, which surely was a public
pleaser and a headline grabber, but the evidence as a whole indicated that
SEC routinely failed and refused to enforce the fundamentals of the law at
CFC, and now at BAC.
e. Was instant litigation in and of itself a valid effectual litigation?
Dr Zernik identified sham court actions as a frequent occurrence in U.S. and
State Courts. Prof Grundfest, was uniquely qualified to assess such
questions as well. Even with limited access to court records, Dr Zernik
40 / 545
claimed that at present, the proceedings in the court under caption SEC v
BAC (1:09-cv-06829) were not deemed part of an effectual legal action.
13. The same agencies and the same U.S. officers have already run a U.S.
financial institution outside the realm of the law once before – at CFC, with
well-documented results. The U.S. officers and agencies which by now set
the grounds for a repeat of such circumstances at BAC were likely to cause
colossal harm to the U.S.
14. Prof Grundfest stated (p19, ¶44):
“First, Bank of America is a highly regulated entity.”
Assessment of that statement had to be an important part of the opinion, but
was missing in the current affidavit. It was also where the current opinion
was deficient, due to its deliberately narrow approach.
Furthermore, the proposed Settlement itself, was inseparable from the
current financial crisis, since it pertained to circumstances that would not
have come into being unless for the current crisis.
A. Prof Grundfest and Dr Zernik discussed the matters in February 2009 23
15. Around February 2009, Dr Zernik discussed with Prof Grundfest credible
evidence regarding material violations of the law at CFC prior t July 1, 2008,
by officers holding direct reporting duties, and refusal of SEC to enforce the
law. Such officers included first and foremost SANDOR SAMUELS – then-
CFC Chief Legal Officer, now- associate General Counsel of BAC, and
ANGELO MOZILO- CEO President of CFC. 24
23
February 2009 – Correspondence Zernik-Grundfest-Bezek
24
Such allegations, evidence, including copies of complaints filed with the Audit Committee of BAC can be viewed
as documents (Dkt #256-260) in the case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) in U.S. Bankruptcy court in Houston,
TX, and are copied also under index at: http://inproperinla.com/
As documents with individual links under:
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-02-doc-256-0-NOTICE #1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-02-doc-256-notice1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-258-notice#3.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-1-notice#3-exh-a-1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-00-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
41 / 545
16. Around February 2009, Dr Zernik discussed with Prof Grundfest credible
evidence regarding material violations of the law at BAC after July 1, 2008,
by officers holding direct reporting duties, and refusal of SEC to enforce the
law. Such officers included KENNETH LEWIS – CEO/President, JOE PRICE
- CFO, and TIMOTHY MAYOPOULOS – former General Counsel. 25
A. Examples of alleged violations of the law that were the basis for complaints
that CFC and BAC would not respond to, and SEC would not investigate.
17. EXAMPLE NO 1: Alleged obstruction & perversion of justice, retaliation,
harassment, and intimidation of a witness, informant, and victim, and various
other alleged criminalities through false engagement of outside counsel –
Bryan Cave. 26
On Friday, August 28, 2009, at a time that Dr Zernik was communicating with
attorneys for SEC and BAC regarding instant matter, Dr Zernik received the
following email, unsolicited, from Att John Amberg, of the large international
law firm of Bryan Cave, LLP: 27
At 04:50 PM 8/28/2009, you wrote:
Dr. Zernik,
Please direct all of your communications for Bank of America or Countrywide to me
or Jenna Moldawsky of this law firm, rather than to employees. We are not
authorized to accept service.
John Amberg
John W. Amberg
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 576-2280
18. On August 30, 2008, Dr Zernik responded with a detailed message to Mr
Amberg, 28 and also to the law-firm headquarters in St Louis, MO, asking the
25
Same as #1 above.
26
August 31, 2009 – Request for clarifications by Bryan Cave, LLP.
27
August 28, 2009 email message from Att Amberg:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-28-email-notice-from-amberg-bryan-cave-re-countrywide-bac-s.pdf
28
42 / 545
firm to stop conduct that it had engaged in since July 2007. For all practical
purposes it was a repeat of the dishonest conduct by CFC relative to
employment of outside counsel, which was rebuked in the Texas court in
March 2008, 29 and which CFC promised not to repeat. The dishonest
conduct by Bryan Cave, LLP, was procured by CFC only days after Dr Zernik
sent several communications to Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo,
regarding alleged criminalities that were perpetrated by the Legal
Department, under the guidance of Sandor Samuels. 30, 31 With that, Dr
Zernik established the direct involvement of such senior officers who held
direct reporting duty to SEC, and plausible deniability was lost.
19. Direct involvement of Sandor Samuels in alleged criminalities was further
established in January 2008, when he filed Notice of Interested Person in
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA Superior Court. 32
20. The essence of the scheme, as Dr Zernik understood it limited access to
records was and is as follows:
a. Bryan Cave was procured in a roundabout way, and NOT as
counsel of record. Its mission was to engage in obstruction and
perversion of justice – the kind of conduct that is explicitly listed as
prohibited by the BAC Outside Counsel Procedures, 33 and BAC
Code of Ethics 34– “doing the right thing…”
b. Most likely, procurement of Bryan Cave, LLP services also
included, as was the case in Texas, 35 a “no communications
clause”, which prohibited it from ever communicating with CFC or
BAC.
c. Under such terms, Bryan Cave, LLP, then started appearing in
court, purporting to be authorized by CFC, and later, by BAC.
d. When Dr Zernik called the Legal Department of BAC after the July
1, 2008 merger, he was repeatedly informed by senior staff of the
BAC Legal Department that Bryan Cave, LLP, was NOT
authorized to appear on BAC’s behalf in court, or represent them
in any matter pertaining to Dr Zernik.
29
March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion by the Honorable Jeff Bohm:
http://inproperinla.com/08-03-05-coutnrywide-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke-s.pdf
30
June 25, 2007 Letter to Angelo Mozilo
http://inproperinla.com/07-06-25-countrywide-first-email-mozilo-samuels-s.pdf
31
June 22, 2007 Letter to Sandor Samuels
http://inproperinla.com/07-06-22-letter-hand-delivered-to-bet-tzedek-for-samuels-s.pdf
32
January 11, 2008 Notice of Interested Person by Sandor Samuels, then Chief Legal Officer of CFC:
http://inproperinla.com/08-01-11-samuels-notice-of-intersted-party-s.pdf
33
Outside Counsel Procedures of BAC:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-08-12-11-boa-outside-counsel-procedures-s.pdf
34
BAC Code of Ethics:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-00_09-08-22-bac_code-of-ethics-cover-text-a.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-00_09-01-02-revised-bac-code-of-ethics-s.pdf
35
March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion by the Honorable Jeff Bohm:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-countrywide-08-03-05-case-of-borrower-parsley-outside-counsel-
scheme-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke--s.pdf
43 / 545
e. However, BAC never made any effort to stop such appearances,

even after multiple notices to officers of BAC, such as Lewis, Price,
Mayopoulos, and the Audit Committee.
f. Given that Bryan Cave, LLP, was NOT counsel of record, Mr
Samuels, Mr Mozilo, Mr Lewis, Mr Mayopoulos, Mr Price, and the
Audit Committee, probably decided that there was no reporting
requirement pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) regarding any
of the actions of Bryan Cave, LLP in violation of the law.
g. Bryan Cave, LLP, listed CFC, and BAC as “Non-Party”, in
appearances for over 2 years at the LA Superior Court. The Court
designated CFC and BAC interchangeably as “Plaintiff”,
“Defendant”, “Real Party in Interest”, “Intervenor”, and more, all
with no legal foundation. Such conduct of court proceedings in
and of itself is alleged as evidence of various criminalities.
h. Given their self-designation as “Non-Party”, CFC, and later BAC -
with the import of Sandor Samuels as Associate General Counsel,
probably determined that there was no reporting requirement
regarding such court action as litigation either.
i. Bryan Cave, LLP, was left free to engage in alleged obstruction
and perversion of justice, as long as it was not directly traceable to
Mr Sandor Samuels and Mr Angelo Mozilo.
21. Superimposed on this basic generic CFC scheme, was a secondary scheme
related to a fictitious “Protective Order” in the case of Dr Zernik:
a. Bryan Cave claimed that Dr Zernik was subject to an effectual
Protective Order from 2007 by Judge Jacqueline Connor.36
b. Such purported Protective Order was falsely claimed to prohibit Dr
Zernik from communicating with anybody except Bryan Cave, LLP,
regarding CFC, and BAC.
c. In the two year that Bryan Cave, LLP and CFC repeatedly made
such false claims in court, Bryan Cave, LLP, never produced such
mysterious Protective Order that directed all communications to
Bryan Cave, LLP.
d. Moreover, the prohibition on communications with BAC, was a ex
post facto construction by Bryan Cave, LLP and Judge Terry
Friedman, based on the argument that BAC was an affiliate of
36
Judge Jacqueline Connor was best remembered for derailing the First Rampart Trial (2000). Dr
Zernik claimed that investigation of his allegations regarding conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) carried particular public policy significance, because it documented in
great detail alleged racketeering by Judge Connor. Judge Connor’s conduct in the First Rampart Trial
could be claimed as the direct cause for the continued false confinement in Los Angeles of thousands
of Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons), a full decade after investigations demonstrated that
they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced. Therefore, clarifying the nature of Judge Connor
conduct would facilitate resolution in the case of the Rampar-FIPs.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-
imprisonments-s.pdf
44 / 545
CFC, and that therefore, the provisions of the non-existent

Protective Order from 2007, applied to BAC, following the
acquisition of CFC by BAC in July 2008.
e. Based on the two schemes described above, Bryan Cave, LLP,
engaged in various acts of obstruction, perversion, intimidation,
harassment, and retaliation against Dr Zernik in the past 2 years,
including, but not limited to two void, not voidable, judgments by
Judge Terry Friedman for Contempt, a quasi-criminal record.
f. The second of the two contempt charges stemmed from Dr
Zernik’s conduct that consisted of calling the office of BAC General
Counsel, and establishing repeatedly that Bryan Cave, LLP, was
NOT authorized to appear in court on behalf of BAC.
22. Regarding the law-firm of BRYAN CAVE, LLP, one must note that Dr Zernik
repeatedly notified the St Louis headquarter and Don Lent, Chair of the Firm,
of conduct of Att Amberg and Att Moldawsky in Los Angeles offices. In one
such instance Dr Zernik was notified that the risk assessment committee of
Bryan Cave, LLP, was fully informed of the case. 37
23. One must also note that Bryan Cave, LLP, was considered as close to the
“establishment” as you could get. Wikipedia stated the following:
Its partners include former US Senators Jack Danforth and Alan Dixon,
former New York Mayor Ed Koch, former Indiana Attorney General Jeff
Modisett, and former Tennessee Attorney General Charles Burson, who also
served as former Counsel to Vice-President Al Gore. 38
It was noted with special concern that Mr Jeff Modisett, former Indiana
Attorney General, was the Managing Partner of the Los Angeles Office, and
was fully aware of the conduct of Att Amberg and Moldawsky.
24. The other large law firm that was directly involved in various types of alleged
criminality with the judges of the LA Superior Court was SHEPPARD,
MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP. Attorney MOHAMMAD
KESHAVARZI, an Associate, operated under the supervision of Partner
PHILIP DAVIS. Involvement of Sheppard Mullin raised special concerns
since Judge CHARLES “TIM” MCCOY, former partner at Sheppard Mullin,
was Presiding Judge of the LA Superior Court during part of the period. He
was personally informed of alleged criminalities by Judge Jacqueline
Connor, but refused to take any action.
25. Att Keshavarzi and Judge Connor together perpetrated various frauds such
as described below:
26. EXAMPLE NO 2: Alleged obstruction and perversion of justice through
production of false banking records in alleged collusion with Sheppard
37
Response from the St Louis office of Bryan Cave, LLP, stating that the risk assessment committee
was fully aware of Dr Zernik’s case.
http://inproperinla.com/08-05-19-van-cleve-response-risk-management-a.pdf
38
Information about Bryan Cave, LLP, derived from Wikipedia entry:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-09-08-31-bryan-cave-wikipedia-the-free-
encyclopedia.pdf
45 / 545
Mullin, LLP, and Judge Jacqueline Connor: November 2006: Ex Parte Sur
Reply in Motion to expunge lis pendens,
In such proceeding, two days before a noticed hearing, Att Mohammad
Keshavarzi, of the law firm of Sheppard Mullin, with ruling in his favor by
Judge Jacqueline Connor, entered for the first time new evidence for such
motion – false and deliberately misleading banking records procured from
Countrywide’s Branch Manager Maria McLaurin. Dr Zernik’s counsel entered
an evidentiary objection. Not only was the admission of evidence untimely,
the record itself had no valid authentication, and was also an unsigned bank
letter. Judge Connor overruled, but never issued evidentiary rulings, as
usual.
The CFC invalid October 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter,39 was
misrepresented as an October 14, 2004 underwriting letter, and a whole set
of false claims was fabricated around such banking document false
representation. It was repeatedly entered in court as evidence after that
date.
The false representation was since then confirmed by a fraud expert. 40
Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels, were repeatedly asked to either
authenticate or repudiate the false representations, starting June 2007, but
refused to respond at all, to this very day. Similarly - the BAC Audit
Committee, Kenneth Lewis, Joe Price, and Timothy Mayopoulos, were asked
to either authenticate or repudiate the false representation by Maria
McLaurin. So far BAC refused to respond either.
27. EXAMPLE #3: September 15, 2004 Real Estate Purchasing Agreement,41
a. Copy produced by CFC in legal subpoena –
Purportedly faxed from Washington State by Victor Parks to CFC
San Rafael on October 25, 2004, 5:03 pm.
Truly faxed from Nivie Samaan in LA to her husband Jae Arre
Lloyd in LA on October 25, 2005, 5:03 pm (per fax log). CFC loan
file included no evidence to authenticate the record. However, it
was speculated that it was transmitted at some later time by Jae
Arre Lloyd, a convicted felon and “Loan Originator” for CFC to
Maria McLaurin, Branch Manager, as a PDF attachment.
b. Copy produced by Mara Escrow –
Was designated by Mara Escrow counsel – “the clean copy”. All
fax header imprints were stripped away from the record, and in
addition some hand signatures were moved around. Most likely
was a scanner + Photoshop type job. No authentication was
provided for such record either.
39
October 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter was falsely represented as an October 14, 2004 or mid-
October, 2004 Underwriting Letter. It came with no signature and no valid authentication:
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-underwriting-letter.pdf
40
Fraud expert opinion regarding dating of Underwriting Letter for CFC:
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-opinion-letter-countrywide-underwriting-letter-oct-26-s.pdf
41
By the time I completed discovery there were some 5 or 6 independent specimen of the record,
none of them an authenticated record, and almost all misrepresented.
46 / 545
Based on Dr Zernik’s experience in LA County – none of the financial

institutions involved complied with UETA 42 regarding electronic
transactions and transmission of banking records. Moreover, it is alleged
the ALL of them engaged in various schemes of falsifying the
authentication of fax communications, even when they had available to
them the most sophisticated devices to ensure automatic authentication.
a. CFC – engaged in the most elaborate scheme – where anonymous
fax header imprints, listing date and time, but not sender, were
imprinted in an entirely different time and place, while the
transmission of the records was most likely as PDF attachments to
emails. The email cover sheet, was then eliminated from the loan file.
Such practice was also contrary to the stated policy of CFC. 43
b. Mara Escrow – a subsidiary of Old Republic Title Insurance. The
escrow officer, Gail Hershkowitz, eventually provided Sheppard Mullin
a declaration that inferred that the contract record, which she kept on
escrow file, was false (which was a true statement), and the false
contract record produced by CFC was authentic (which was a false
statement).
c. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage –
Produced the same ”clean”, unauthenticated copy as Mara Escrow,
and it was likely that such “clean” copy originated from Coldwell-
Banker.
Financial institutions that were not publicly traded and engaged in
alleged falsification of fax transmissions:
d. USC Credit Union – only a few months after the consummation of the
fraud by Att David Pasternak, Dr Zernik realized that the Credit Union,
where he held a mortgage, had to collude in the fraud as well.
When Dr Zernik demanded records to establish the authorization to
execute transactions in his account without his knowledge, it was
claimed that transactions were initially executed based on a phone
call, with no written documentation at all. Later, some papers were
produced, but none with fax header imprints. Various versions were
recounted regarding the authentication of the records. Regardless, no
record of a valid Judgment or a Writ of Execution was ever produced,
since none existed.
28. An opinion by Prof Grundfest, which would address the refusal of SEC to
investigate alleged material violations of the law, as seen in the employment
of false outside counsel in the case of Borrower Parsley and in the case of
Dr Zernik, and also as seen in the production of false banking records as
seen in the case of Borrower Parsley, the case of Borrower Hill, in the case
of Dr Zernik, and as evidenced in a study by the United States trustee, would
provide essential services relative to public policy concerns.
42
UETA- uniform electronic transactions act:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-ueta_final.pdf
43
Fax machine operations – policy and practice manual of CFC:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-countrywide-06-09-01-fax-use-policy-and-practice-manual.pdf
47 / 545
29. An opinion by Prof Grundfest which would address the refusal of CFC, and
later BAC, to respond in any way to complaints of alleged production fraud
banking records in the case of Dr Zernik would also provide essential service
relative to public policy concerns.
A. The Mergers – secret agreements – and current Proposed Settlement
30. BAC is unique in its significance among U.S. financial institutions, not only by
size, but also relative to its role in the current crisis. BAC acquired as part of
the unfolding of the crisis both Merrill Lynch and Countrywide (CFC). Both of
these acquisitions were transacted under unusual circumstances, involved
conduct by U.S. officer that possibly amounted to coercing officers of BAC to
act contrary to their better judgment, and to engage in violations of the law.
31. Concerns were raised regarding compliance with the law by both U.S. and
BAC senior officers relative to at least the former acquisition. A letter by NY
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Senate earlier this year,44 led some
media to call for indictment of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve! 45 In
conjunction with the latter transaction, BAC was awarded a waiver on the
deposits limit - a key provision for limiting the risks to U.S. markets as a
whole by default of any single institution. Combined with the other indicators
of what took place at BAC since the merger, it appeared as a deliberate
attempt to set up the grounds for another catastrophic financial institution
failure.
32. It was safe to bet that in conjunction with both acquisitions, agreements or
understandings were reached between senior corporate officers and senior
U.S. officers under the Bush administration in its final days, which were not
in publicly accessible then, and are not publicly accessible now. Such
agreements or understandings were never duly reviewed in compliance with
corporate governance, were never reviewed by U.S. Congress, and were
likely to have included provisions that were not within the authority of such
U.S. officers to offer, or within the authority of BAC officers to accept in
compliance with the law.
33. For example, as described below, it is likely that in the course of acquisition
of CFC, BAC and its officers acquired not only substantial financial liabilities,
but also legal liabilities of both civil and criminal nature. It was unreasonable
to assume that officers of BAC that agreed to the transaction, even under
duress, did not demand, and were not provided some assurances in this
regard.
34. It were such agreements that were believed to be the reason for entire
refusal of all law enforcement agencies, such as SEC, and also the Audit
Committee of BAC to respond to complaints regarding violations of the law in
any way. Such agreement were also likely to be the perceived permission
for Sandor Samuels, now at BAC, and Bryan Cave, LLP, to continue to this
date the deception regarding outside counsel engagement. Needless to say-
44
April 23, 2009 Andrew Cuomo letter to U.S. Senate:
45
Responses to the AG Andrew Cuomo letter:
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-24-
Mish's%20Global%20Economic%20Trend%20Analysis_%20Let%20the%20Criminal%20Indictments%20Begin_%20Paulson,%
20Bernanke,%20Lewis.pdf
48 / 545
with that – alleged corruption was introduced by U.S. officers into BAC
operations.
35. It were such agreements that were believed to be the reason for the lack of
evidence that BAC engaged in any attempt to enforce the law at CFC
following the merger.
A. The proposed settlement now before the court was most likely merely a
distraction, relative to the refusal of SEC to enforce the law at BAC
36. Therefore, conduct of Plaintiff and Defendant, which resulted in the
settlement now before the court, cannot be understood or assessed without
discovery of such confidential agreements. The potential existence of such
confidential agreements was discussed with Prof Grundfest in February
2009, as the only plausible explanation of a range of fact in the matter, which
otherwise remain inexplicable. An opinion by Prof Grundfest that would
address such concerns and lead to discovery of such agreements would also
provide a uniquely valued service to public policy concerns, and also for
stability of U.S. financial markets.
A. Alternative view – refusal to investigate was the result of collusion with the
judiciary in alleged criminalities
37. An alternative, but similar explanation, was offered by decorated veteran FBI
agent James Wedick, in an email note, in August 2008, soon after he
finished discussion of the matter with FBI Los Angeles Special Agent
Connolly. 46 The explanation that was provided there, was that investigation
of the case would have inevitably resulted in addressing alleged judicial
corruption, and therefore, FBI would not investigate crime, which both James
Wedick and Special Agent Connolly, per that email, agreed had taken place.
38. In practice, the two explanations converge into the same effect: Following
the merger of CFC and BAC, BAC engaged in alleged criminalities in
collusion with the judges of the LA Superior Court, therefore, BAC attain the
status of immunity.
A. Immunities, or indemnities for future criminalities – as practiced in California
today.
39. In the discussion in February 2009, Dr Zernik suggested to Prof Grundfest
that there was no way to comprehend the conduct of officers of BAC, unless
as based on assurances that had been obtained that amounted to what Dr
Zernik designated: Pardons for past criminalities and indemnities for future
criminalities.
40. Prof Grundfest was disturbed by the concept, and dismissed it as impossible
– since it was on its face in violation of the law. Dr Zernik was in no position
to challenge Prof Grundfest’s analysis of the legalities involved. However, Dr
Zernik pointed out to Prof Grundfest already in February 2009 the legal
practices in the U.S. today among corporations and government, as seen in
example (a) below. Dr Zernik was not aware of Example (b), which took
place around the same time.
46
August 21, 2008 Email note from decorated FBI veteran and Fraud Expert James Wedick:
http://inproperinla.com/08-08-21-refusal-to-investigate-fbi-wedick-letter-s.pdf
49 / 545
a. December 7, 2007 – Indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow, a

subsidiary of Old Republic Title Insurance.
On December 7, 2007, Dr Zernik participated, in order to record his
protest, in two ex parte appearances noticed by Att DAVID
PASTERNAK, a close friend of Sandor Samuels – then Chief Legal
Officer of CFC. Att Pasternak acted as a purported Court Officer in a
purported action of the LA Superior Court, where Dr Zernik was
named Defendant. On December 7, 2007 Att Pasternak, filed an
application for an indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow, for alleged
future criminality – to collude with him in the fraudulent conveyance of
title. Judge Patricia Collins never found any problem with that (but she
secretly voided her actions later, with no notice to parties). 47,48, 49,
50 51 52
, ,
b. February 20, 2009 – Pardons for past alleged criminalities and
indemnity for future alleged criminalities for all ~450 judges of LA
Superior Court were signed into law by the Governor of California.
47
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), complaint filed October 25, 2005, at the LA Superior Court, but
filing fees never paid in full. CFC, now BAC routinely appear in such litigation as “Non Party” for the
third years now, most times represented by a large international law firm – Bryan Cave, LLP, albeit –
such appearances, at least part of the time were without any authorization, but with full agreement of
the clients.[1] The Court designated CFC, and now BAC “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Cross
Defendant”, “Real parties in Interest”, all with no foundation at all.[2] The court made representation
that were deliberately deceptive regarding entry of Judgment on August 9, 2007, for “specific
performance of real estate purchase agreement”, but court file to this date marks the judgment as
“pending”. [3], [4] The Court forced me to displace under the threat of force based on an order, which
on its face is of questionable nature at best. [5]. Att Pasternak purported to conduct conveyance of title
on my home on behalf of the Court, which was opined by decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick as
“fraud”. [6] I, the owner, never received a penny from the proceeds of the purported sale, in December
2007, to this date. [3] Director of the U.S. Department of Justice, Kenneth Melson, in response to
inquiry by Congress stated that it was “Foreclosure” and that I was complaining about being
“improperly fined”.[7] Sandor Samuels, today Associate General Counsel of BAC filed Notice of
Interested person in the case in January 2008 [ ]. Judge Terry Friedman, another friend of Mr
Samuels, is holding the “file” for over a year and a half, with no Assignment Order at all. [8] The clerk
of the Court
48
Dr Zernik’s declaration regarding events of Dec 7,2007
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-07-doc-41-plaintiff-declaration%20in%20re-dec-7-07-ex-parte-
proceedings-by-pasternak.pdf
49
Att David Pasternak’s ex parte application for an Indemnity Agreement for alleged future
criminalities.
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-07-pasternak-ex-parte-appl-order-indemnity-gag-grant-deed-tax-
records.pdf
50
December 7, 2007 Reporter’s transcript from ex parte appearance of Att David Pasternak before
Judge Hart-Cole:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-transcripts-07-12-07-att-pasternak-ex-
parte-judge-hart-cole-gag-orders-indemnity-fraudulent-grant-deed.pdf
51
Judge Collins, as it was received from Court Reporter.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-transcripts-07-12-07-att-pasternak-ex-
parte-judge-collins-as-received-from-court-reporter.pdf
52
Judge Collins, as it appeared in Reporters’ Transcript prepared by Clerk of the LA Sup Ct.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-transcripts-07-12-07-att-pasternik-ex-
parte-judge-collings-as-it-appeared-in-reporters'-transcript-produced-by-clerk-of-la-sup-ct-to-ct-of-
appeals.pdf
50 / 545
The California Constitution prohibited ex post facto laws. California

Code prohibited indemnity agreements for future violations of the law.
Neither stopped the Governor from signing on February 20, 2009 into
law the Sbx-2-11 which provided pardons for LA Superior Court
judges for any criminalities related to the past taking of “not permitted”
payments, moreover, it included indemnities for any future taking of
“not permitted” payments. 53 It was included in the much larger budget
bill through the efforts of a lobbyist retained by the judges, with no
referral to committee, and in violation of the rules of the California
legislature. Moreover, it was intended to undo a ruling of the California
Court of Appeals, 4th District, which ruled on October 10. 2008 54 that
determined that payments of ~$45,000 per judge per year, taken
secretly for over a decade by all ~450 judges of the LA Superior Court
were “not permitted” on Constitutional grounds. Media called them
“Bribes”.
41. Dr Zernik’s experiences– where regulatory agencies refuse to perform their

duties and investigate CFC or BAC
In February 2009, Prof Grundfest was intrigued by my ability to file with FBI
office in LA in mid January 2007 a complaint backed up by credible
evidence, which claimed that CFC was involved in various types of
criminalities, including large scale mortgage frauds against the U.S.
government. Furthermore, by March 2007, I filed an Addendum with FBI in
LA, with rough estimates that the scope of liabilities to U.S. government from
the fraud in lending by CFC would be in the range of hundreds of billions. At
that point, Special Agent Vallese, from the White Collar Crime Squad,
headed by Steven Goldman, told me that there was no interest in my
complaint, and please not to file anymore papers.
42. Dr Zernik also informed Prof Grundfest in February 2009 how he had filed
written complains in the previous 2 years with other U.S. regulatory and law
enforcement agencies as well, but all without exception refused to even
investigate the matter. In contrast, banking and corporate regulators,
including in particular SEC – failed to prevent the current crisis from
happening, failed to detect It ahead of time, and saw no reason for
indictments even today.
43. Dr Zernik also informed Prof Grundfest of his experience regarding FOIA
requests to bank regulators – he could never retrieve even his own written
complaints from such agencies, and Dr Zernik suspected that such
complaints regarding CFC, and now BAC, are routinely destroyed.
44. In that context, Dr Zernik also informed Prof Grundfest that his impression
from a phone conversation with Att Samuels Bezek at SEC, was the same –
that none of Dr Zernik’s complaints were ever logged, and that such
53
Documentation of processing the SBX-2-11 bill:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-02-20-sbx-2-11-
budge-bill.pdf
54
October 10, 2008 ruling of California court of appeals, 4th District:
http://inproperinla.com/08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf
51 / 545
complaints were possibly eliminated. Att Bezek objected to Dr Zernik’s

interpretation of the conversation. However, Att Bezek never explicitly denied
that none of Dr Zernik’s complaints were ever logged, and that such
complaints were eliminated. 55
45. FBI refuses to perform its duties, while making public statements about
investigations that must be deemed deliberately aimless.
The contrast is especially stark when it comes to performance of the FBI. I
filed with FBI initial complaints in January to March 2007, with evidence and
claims of criminality by officers of CFC. By June/July 2007, I had solid
credible evidence of criminality by both Sandor Samuels – then Chief Legal
Officer, and Angelo Mozilo – then CEO/Chair. The claims of wrongful
conduct focused on the one hand on alleged corruption of underwriting in the
San Rafael Branch of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, with special focus on
operation of data processing and underwriting monitoring systems - EDGE,
and on the other hand on the conduct of the Legal Department of CFC, in
particular relative to conduct of the Chief Legal Officer – Sandor Samuels.
As such, he also held direct reporting duties to SEC.
In the two and a half years that passed, Dr Zernik’s assessment were
supported, at least in part, by events that unfolded. However, Dr Zernik was
not aware of any corrective action taken by either U.S. agencies, CFC, or
BAC to address such material deficiencies.
As part of the dialog, Dr Zernik also forwarded to Prof Grundfest some
papers, which should mostly deemed as public records, or at least were
based on and quoted public records- court records from California state and
U.S. District Courts.
46. The crisis was directly related to CFC litigation practices.
The claim that a key to understanding the current financial crisis was in law
and litigation practices (compared to the focus on accountancy in the Enron
crisis), could be claimed to be born out by market behavior.
a. December 27, 2007 – Recreated Letters filed by CFC as evidence in PA
court.
The final collapse of CFC was not related to, or attributed to, performance of
some loan portfolio. It was the direct result of the publication 56 of the fact
that CFC attorneys filed in a PA Court evidence including three (3)
“recreated letters”.57 The news was published January 8, 2008, led to
tremors in markets, and led U.S. officers to chaperon the negotiations that
led to the January 11, 2008 joint announcement of the acquisition of CFC by
BAC.
55
Email dialogue with Att Bezek, SEC, relative to phone conversation, and the disposition of Dr
Zernik’s previous complaints to SEC in re: CFC and BAC:
56
Gretchen Morgenson, NYT, January 9, 2008,
57
U.S. Bankruptcy Courts Borrower Sharon Dianne Hill, Pittsburgh, PA (01-22574)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-pits-hill-07-12-27-three%20recreated%20letters-transcript-and-news-item-bdinder.pdf
52 / 545
b. March 5, 2008 – Memorandum Opinion rebuking CFC legal practices,

and U.S. Trustee study documenting abuse across the U.S.
Deficiencies and non-compliance related to the Legal Department of CFC
were also highlighted two months later in a 72-page memorandum opinion
entered by the Honorable Jeff Bohm. 58 Such opinion was described by
media as “rebuke”, and was based in part of a year long study by the United
States Trustee across the U.S., which showed a pattern of abuse of the legal
process by CFC legal department, which led Judge Bohm to state that CFC
and its outside counsel
'have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal
profession and judicial system'. (p8),
Hearings were also held in U.S. Congress59 regarding questions and
concerns that the current crisis was fueled at least in part through
wrongdoing in the courts.
47. The current crisis is likely to transform U.S. social fabric
A separate claim, supporting the need to carefully examine instant Proposed
Settlement- Some of the most conspicuous misrepresentations in the current
crisis were by Mr Samuels, to the effect that conduct of CFC was aimed to
widen the base of home-owning middle-class in U.S. 60 I believe that some of
the data may already be publicly available, and projections must also have
been generated regarding the expected outcome of the current crisis on U.S.
social structure – in significant changes in asset distribution and undermining
of the home-owning middle-class that evolved over many decades.
48. The current crisis undermined confidence in the U.S. currency, and therefore
– shackles the U.S. government
The current crisis also undermined confidence in the U.S. financial
institutions and in the U.S. currency. Based on concerns of that kind, the
President of the People’s Bank of China floated earlier this year a proposal
for the creation of a new international currency, aimed to replace the dollar.
In addition, the current crisis undermined the U.S. government ability to
control its currency, which some would claim amounted to loss of
sovereignty. A number of high level U.S. delegations visited Beijing in the
past few years, the latest, in May 2009, was led by Treasury Secretary
Geithner. In all instances the Chinese government declined to cooperate
with U.S. requests to devalue the dollar. Media reported that in the May visit,
questions related to U.S. financial institution stability, and the competency of
U.S. banking regulatory agencies were at the center of Chinese concerns.
49. Recent changes in the Board at BAC fell short of instilling confidence.
A look at changes in the corporate Board at BAC in recent months, shows
fast turnover of members of the Board. The Audit Committee, for example,
was considerably shrunk. Public figures like General TOMMY FRANK and
Admiral JOSEPH FRUEHER departed. The latter is particularly noted, since
58
Borrower William Alan Parsley, Houston, TX (05-90374), Dkt #248:
59
missing reference
60
missing reference
53 / 545
he was former ambassador to China, and therefore was probably an asset in

increasing Chinese confidence in the U.S. financial systems. The addition to
the Audit Committee to replace those who departed was Don Powell.
50. Concerns abound regarding the credibility of financial data at BAC following
the acquisitions, and recent periodic reports by BAC resorted to the use of
“Taxonomies” in accounting, in sharp departure from previously established
accounting practices. President Obama’s administration, on its part, soon
after inauguration floated the idea of resorting to “Stress Tests” in assessing
the stability of U.S. financial institutions. The proposal, in and of itself had to
be seen as an admission of inadequacy of financial data available to the
President which may be derived in part from periodic reports by corporations.
With that – again – there was departure from established practices, and
credibility was undermined. Obviously, the credibility of U.S. banking
regulators is constantly doubted.
51. In addition – Dr Zernik’s experience demonstrated denial of access to the
courts, in matters pertaining to violations of the law by judges and by CFC or
BAC.
In addition, in papers and discussions with Prof Grundfest, Dr Zernik
described his personal experience, related to claims of wrongdoing by CFC
and BAC, which could be summed up as a alleged denial of access to the
courts. As part of the context of any banking regulatory system one must
consider the judicial system in which it was embedded. Conditions in the
U.S. at present are such that one was denied access to the courts when
attempting to address grievances related to alleged criminalities by CFC and
BAC, which regulators and law enforcement refused to investigate. 61
Prof Grundfest was uniquely qualified to assess current conditions relative to
the ability of an individual wrong by BAC or CFC to address such grievances
in U.S. courts.
52. A Dark Image – hypothetical narrative for events described above:

Following was a hypothetical narrative, aimed at clarifying where one had to
follow the money…
An alleged “cult of criminality” or the alleged LA judiciary racket (“LA-JR”) is
well established in the LA Superior Court. In its current manifestation is
dated back to 1985 – and installation of the first computerized case
management system “Sustain”, which was alleged as the enabling tool of the
racket.
The alleged “cult of criminality” among the judiciary engaged in various
criminalities in the courts, including alleged real estate frauds, and also false
imprisonments on a large scale.
Using FBI to their advantage, the LA-JR gained control of Countrywide.
61
1) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) U.S. District Court LA, CA
2) Zernik v U.S. Dist Court ((08-72714) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
3) Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
54 / 545
Such large banking institutions from then on was able to engage in various
alleged criminalities under immunity, but had to pay protection fees on a
regular basis to a large group of patrons. Such allocations were in part the
reason for the collapse of the institution, but also the reason that accounting
was deliberately made incomprehensible.
With the pending collapse of their protégé in January 2008, the LA-JR was
not willing to lose such asset. Therefore – the merger with BAC.
Directors and Officers of BAC, who could not tolerate the new circumstances
simply left. Elimination of the deposit limit was undertaken in order to ensure
that the LA-JR never had to go through this one again… Next time around,
BAC would be too big to fail… and the LA-JR would then own the U.S.
Treasury itself…
What was Prof Grundfest’s role going to be in such narrative? Potential new
Chair of the SEC?
Please notify me by Monday, August 31, 2009 5:00 pm, of your intent in this regard.
_____________________
Joseph H Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
CC:
1) BAC Audit Committee:
D. Paul Jones,
Thomas J. May, Chair
Donald E. Powell
C/O Corporate Secretary
Bank of America Corporation,
101 South Tryon Street,
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
"ATTENTION: THOMAS MAY"<ir@nstar.com>
"ATTENTION: BAC AUDIT COMMITTEE "< joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com >
2) BAC Executive Committee

Kenneth D. Lewis
CEO/Chairman/President
Signer of SEC reports and certificates per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
Charles K. Gifford,
Walter E. Massey, Chair
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
"ATTENTION: BAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE "<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>
3) BAC - Signers of SEC Reports and/or

55 / 545
Holders of Reporting Duties per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)

Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Chief Accounting Officer
Signer of SEC reports
Joe L. Price
Chief Financial Officer
By Fax and By Certified Mail
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon St
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
"ATTENTION: Edward O’Keefe, Neil A Cotty, and Joe L Price"<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
4) BAC Independent Auditor

PriceWaterhouse
Independent Auditors for BAC
214 N Tryon St, Ste 3600
Charlotte, NC 28202-2366
(by fax)
5) Basel Committee
[redacted-jz]
(by email)
6) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights

[redacted-jz]
(by email)
7) Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in the U.S.

[redacted-jz]
(by email)
8) FBI
(by fax)
9) US Department of Justice (US DOJ)

(by email)
56 / 545
Rapid Communication
BEYOND VOTING MACHINES – CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Public-policy concerns based on review of a court’s central computer system
Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles
Voting machines focused the computing community’s attention on its critical duty in the
safeguard of democratic institutions in the transition to a digital society. Here we review,
possibly for the first time ever, a Case Management System (CMS), which is the
cornerstone of any court today. Sustain, the Los Angeles Superior Court’s CMS, introduced
in the early 1980’s, and based on dBase or one of its derivatives, today reveals a system that
combined with human neglect and abuse, contributes to the production of contradictory,
false and misleading records, that are deliberately hidden from the public, under the claim of
“privileged” status 1. Circumstantial evidence also strongly suggests that such records from
Sustain are directly available to the California Court of Appeal without the knowledge or
notice to the parties involved 2. Our analysis is based on limited records since Sustain
records are typically not accessible to the public (in what appears as defiance of CRC 2.500
et seq), and mostly explored internal inconsistencies and incompleteness of the records
among various paper and electronic sources:
1) Minute Orders - are written by the judge after each proceeding – in open court or
chamber, and the clerk is required to have them mailed to each party and entered into the
court file; with Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing and Entry, bearing his/her hand signature, all
on same day as the proceeding.
2) Case History - a report, which in Los Angeles Superior Court also serves as Register of
Actions - the definitive formal concise record of all transactions in a given court case, and
together with Indexes of All Cases – one of the two primary documents that allow oversight
of the integrity of the courts.
Our findings can be summarized as follows:
a. Inherently Invalid Data Entries - Case History report listed documents as filed on dates
that were at times years prior to the date of filing of the claims - the start point of the
case (Fig 1). Such obviously invalid data entirely undermined the validity and
reliability of the record as a whole. Additional data provided conclusive evidence that
-1-
57 / 545
entries in this record were critically modified later than the date which appeared as
intended to convey the date of entry of such data.
b. Routine back-dating of minute orders to date of the proceedings - Minute orders that
were retrieved from memory, invariably showed different dates as the “Date Minutes
Entered” compared to copies of respective records that were retrieved from paper file.
The copies from the paper file were back-dated and without exception were precisely
dated on the date of the proceedings, as required (Fig 4a). The records from electronic
memory, showed that the true entry date was at times months later (Fig 4b). Such
findings undermine the validity of any dates recorded in this system, and the validity and
reliability of the system as central depository of the court’s litigation records.
c. Reversing orders with no notice to parties in a case - Certain minute orders that in paper
court file carried valid values for entry (Fig 2a), carried invalid dates , such as
“00/00/00” or “33/33/33”, in the copies retrieved from memory (Fig 2b), which were
otherwise identical in their text. Such invalid entry date invalidates a legal record, and
indeed, it appears that such invalidation was intentional, since 00/00/00 is listed as the
day the records are to be disposed (Fig 1), indeed - the common feature of the
invalidated records was that they were unusual, and if valid, would have likely raised
concerns upon review. But the paper file does not include any evidence that such
invalidation, if indeed intentional, was ever noticed to the parties in the case. Possibly,
this specific field was programmed to accept dates as data, and also as an invalidation
command, the latter – formulated in a date format, in order to reduce memory
requirements.
d. Contradictory recordings of critical data - In one extreme case, the electronic record
alone includes recording of a Demurrer - a decisive action, which can nip a litigation in
the bud - as both “Granted”, “Overruled” (Denied), and vacated (Fig 3). Again, there is
room for concern that such ambiguity was introduced to camouflage a decision (here –
overruling of the demurrer) that if clearly recorded, would have raised concerns
regarding integrity of the proceedings.
e. Partial recordings, discriminating against the paper/public record - Certain minute orders
that appeared in copies retrieved from memory were altogether missing from
counterparts retrieved from paper files. The opposite appears to never happen. Such
discrimination against paper – which in this case is also the only public record – was
apparently intentional – beyond the one sidedness of the omissions, certain court
-2-
58 / 545
proceedings were marked in electronic records as “Proceedings not recorded” and then
indeed were missing from the paper file.
f. Critical legal records that fail to comply with any standard at all - In one extreme case, a
judge who was requested to disqualify for a cause (- served with a Statement of
Prejudice) responded with a combination of a Strike and Answer (a combination that is
not allowed per Judge’s Bench Guide of the California Judicial Council), later than the
10 days allowed by law (CCP §170.3), back-dated it 11 days - to day 1, then added an
improvised judge’s certificate of mailing for self (not allowed), addressed to one party
only (not allowed), unsigned (unverified), never mailed out at all, and yet entered into
the electronic record, but not the paper/public record.
The operation of such CMS’s as Sustain puts at peril any notion of Due Process - a basic
right, presumably guaranteed by the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The next generation of such systems must distill and mimic the essence of some older court
traditions. On his own, neither a Clerk, nor a Judge, could mail the minutes out. The Judge
could rule, order, adjudicate, but had to rely on the Clerk, who had the sole authority to
incorporate such pronouncements into the formal records and thus make them actions. 3 No
such segregation of authorities appears to have been implemented in Sustain. A new
generation of such systems, introduced under public comment and challenge (pursuant to the
Rule-Making Enabling Act, which was entirely defied in setting up Sustain, on more aspect
than one) must help enforce the safeguard of court records that are coherent, consistent and
transparent, in all respects, including exact timing of "birth" (at the bench or in chambers)
true time and form at “entry” (by the Clerk), with adequate due notice and service to parties,
after which further read/write actions by any party must not be allowed. This is not the case
with Sustain.--and other systems currently in use 4. Contemporary encryption, protection,
transaction–handling, and security methods, can provably implement such procedures at
very low cost [at least if 99.9999 ...% security is acceptable]. Supported by re-indoctrination
of court personnel regarding their duties to the public at large – a CMS could be a guardian
of Due Process. Yet, full transparency of Public Records is possibly the most cost/effective
long-term security measure. Sustain must be an extreme – a data entry and a legal deposit
system with what appears like effectively no quality assurance measures whatsoever.
Sustain, the CMS reviewed in here, allows the generation and propagation of court records
of quality that is far removed from any standard that would reasonably support Due Process
of the Law.
-3-
59 / 545
WORD COUNT: 1224
NOTES:
1
This short communication is not intended as a legal review. ‘The basis for open
court records is a common law right “to inspect and copy public records and
documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)’. Recently reviewed in: Public Access
to Electronic Court Records and Competing Privacy Interests, Susan Larson,
Judgelink June 6, 2008. <http://a2j.kentlaw.edu/Insights/2001/E-Records/>
2
The result could be an absurd where Appellant/Petitioner’s brief is based on one
record, and the review is based on another, materially different record, that the
appellant/petitioner was never even privy to, and 100% of trial court decisions are
upheld.
3
CCP § 167 provides: "Any act required or permitted to be performed by the clerk of a court may
be performed by a judge thereof." A judge can perform all acts performed by a clerk, but
neither a clerk nor a judge is allowed to execute proof of service for self.
4
Some exposure to C|C – the California Court of Appeal CMS, and Pacer – the
Federal CMS. Pacer is by far superior, albeit, they all reflect a combination where
the operators are equally important. As a rule of thumb, any CMS which presents
a Register of Actions to the public that is different than that used by the court
should be held suspect, and same for any CMS that presents a “Docket”, or
Register of Actions where entries are not enumerated. Pacer’s transparency is
admirable, e.g. operators are required to enter initials with their comments. The
open record and visible and identifiable signature are critical for instilling
recognition of accountability. Notice and Service are largely automated through
email, an example how technology improved Due Process, but Pacer at present
harshly discriminates against the Pro Se party, exposing him/her to multiple levels
of human bias in filing and entry that the licensed attorney, much better equipped
for such encounters is entirely spared.
KEY WORDS:
Amendment, 14th
Amendment, 5th
-4-
60 / 545
Answer
California Code of Civil Procedure §170.3
California Rules of Courts 2.500 et seq
Case History
Case Management System
Clerk
Clerk’s Certification of Mailing and Notice of Entry
CMS
Computers
Constitution, United States
Disqualification for a Cause
Indexes of All Cases
Judge
Los Angeles Superior Court
Minute Order
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
Notice
Public Record
Quality Assurance
Register of Actions
Rulemaking Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 - 2077
Security
Service
Signature
Strike
Sustain
Voting Machines
END
-5-
61 / 545
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”

Cal Code Jud Ethics 3B(2)
“The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts”
Anonymous
125. How do we know that 00/00/00 means voiding/disposing of minute

order?
This question is critical for understanding the records in Sustain, since the Dates Minutes Entered appears as 00/00/00 on
the last page of specific minute orders in Sustain, but does not appear on the counterparts in paper court file. The conclusion
that such notation in Sustain means 00/00/00 that the respective minute order was disposed, or voided, although no notice or
service was provided to parties, was based on the reasons listed below.
In a visit to the Santa Monica Courthouse on Nov 14, 2008, I met with H. James McGlynn, Administrator II, assistant to Mr
James Manczarek, the top administrator of the Santa Monica Courthouse. I asked him regarding the meaning of the
00/00/00 as the date minutes entered on specific minute orders. He answered that I should just ignore such notations, since
the are just “computer glitch”. When I asked him if I may see a Sustain manual to verify that his answer was correct. His
answer was “Mr Zernik, you asked that question before, and you know that you are not allowed to see that”.
The fact that the Los Angeles Superior Court allows itself to run a register of actions and minute orders with secret notations
that would not bee understandable by most readers, and that officials of the court try to mislead litigants in the reading of the
records, in and of itself makes such records fraudulent.
1) Review of the electronic copies of the minute order, we see numerous minute orders that were aborted or deleted
(and it begs questions why). But almost all of them show 00/00/00 either as the date of the event or the date minutes
entered. And it is obvious that these were not meant to be valid minute orders.
2) The minute orders that appear in paper court file, but were voided by changing the date minutes entered to 00/00/00
are not any kind of minute orders. They are divided into two groups, with some overlap:
a. Minute Order where a judge ruled in blatant violation of the law: For example:
i. On Nov 5, 2007 , Judge Segal granted Samaan a 4-day notice hearing on motion to appoint a
receiver. What kind of receiver? Not any kind that is allowed by law. Therefore, he secretly
voided that decision.
ii. On Dec 26, 2007, Judge Rosenberg denied any and all my Due Process requests, but he
immediately voided his own decision, secretly.
iii. On Jan 30, 2008, Judge Friedman denied my request for the $750,000 that were purportedly the
proceeds from the sale of my home. And he denied it with prejudice, and threatened sanctions if I
ask for it again. But then he immediately voided his decision. Secretly.
b. Minute Orders where the case would be pegged to the Master Calendar:
i. Judge Goodman’s Oct 3, 2007 Recusal – voided.
ii. Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Dec 7, 2007 Recusal per CCP §170.6 – voided.
iii. Judge Friedman March 19, 2008 response to disqualification – voided.
c. On page 1 of Case History, upper right corner – until there is a judgment in the case, the Date of Disposal is
00/00/00.
d. On Feb 5, 2007, Judge Connor was going to issue Att Cummings a minute order continuing the hearing,
since I was late for the hearing. But once I arrived she writes – since defendant arrives, I am vacating the
minute order and writing a new one. And indeed we find a 2/05/07 Minute Order with 00/00/00 for date.
62 / 545
Rapid Communication
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CMS’S) AND THE COURTS:

LONG-TERM CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS, AND ACUTE
PROBLEMS IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT.
Part II – Registers of Actions and Indexes of All Cases – Critical
Safeguards that are Public Records
Joseph Zernik
This report presents findings, based on limited access to “Sustain”- Los Angeles
County’s Superior Court Case Management System (CMS), the California Court of
Appeals Case Management System, and the U.S. Circuit Courts Case Management
System (Pacer). Such systems are the governing system in the courts today, since the
key documents in court administration, in court review, and in safeguard of the conduct
of the courts – Registers of Actions, and Indexes of All Cases, are nowhere on paper any
longer.
We hold that these instruments are critical for the integrity of our democratic system,
and that traditions that were developed over hundreds of years to ensure the safeguard
of the system were hastily discarded in the transition to digital court management,
with no public scrutiny.
Our study is based on limited access to these system. Moreover, it is compromised by
the bias introduced by one of the authors, who is an interested party. However, he
obtained unusual insights into these systems that are still of critical significance in
drawing attention to systems that have so far escaped public scrutiny. We could not
find a single reference in the computers/public policy area to this question.
-1-
63 / 545
When it comes to the Federal Court, Pacer clearly holds a Docket – or Register of
Actions each case. The system can be seen as a model – it is transparent – easily
accessible, and provides additional valuable reports such as the Related Transactions.
Pacer allows the litigants who are counsels to post their papers directly online. That
feature alone, is held by this writer as a unique guarantee of justice, and the
establishing of new rights and freedoms in conjunction with the transition to digital
technology, when other courts acted otherwise. The significance of Pacer in
establishing Federal Courts as a standard will surely will be appreciated with the
passage of time.
The key
Sustain is the governing system in that court today, since its introduction was
associated with the elimination of the paper Registers of Actions and Indexes of All
Cases. CMS’s in most counties and most states of the U.S.A. today assume similar
central position in the Court House, but CMS’s somehow managed to largely escape
public scrutiny and public awareness. In the case of Sustain, the public at large, as well
as litigants and counsels have minimal, if any access to the system. Therefore, the
current report presents unique collection of records. The current report focuses on
Sustain’s recording of dates and signatures, particularly – dates and signatures as
pertaining to Minute Orders and to the Certificate of Mailing by the Clerk/Notice of
Entry of Order, which is a part of the Minute Order which carries authentication. The
processing of Minute Orders is seemingly one of the most routine and mundane court
procedures.
Our results indicate that the records of Minute Orders found in the paper Court File are
routinely back-dated, misstating the date that the orders were in fact issued. It may
also be deemed, upon legal review, as misidentification and misrepresentation of legal
records. Neither the paper Court File, nor Sustain, the computerized records, retain
-2-
64 / 545
adequate records of Minute Orders and Certificates of their Mailing. It appears that the
widest variation from standard procedures appear in proceedings of unusual nature,
but that correlation needs to be better documented. It appears that many of these
deficiencies could not exist if features supporting them were not provided in the
software. The availability of such features or routine use of such features in a Case
Management System is unreasonable, and it may require action for the safeguard of
Due Process. It remains to be found if such features were originally built into the
system, or system integrity deteriorated over the years in the absence of safeguards for
its integrity.
New technological instruments and new respective legal procedures should be

developed and implemented in order to restore public confidence in large computer
systems that are pervasive in large corporation or in the public service today.
1) Records Analyzed
a. “Minute Orders” – written by a Judge, Processed by a Clerk (Fig 2a,
2b), are an integral part of “Trial Court Litigation Records”, and are
issued through Sustain.
Minute Orders must by law be issued after each proceeding, whether in open court or
in chambers, on the very same day (i.e. post stamped at most one business day later).
Minute Orders are an integral part of the permanent records of the litigation – “Trial
Court Litigation Records”.
Any action by the Court, and any paper added to Court File must be noticed to the
parties. In the case of Minute Orders, the mailing of the Minute Orders to parties
satisfies the requirement of “Service of Notice” – a key concept in Due Process. Absent
mailing of the Minute Orders or comparable notice judges could act secretly in
-3-
65 / 545
chambers, without the knowledge of the parties. Certificate of mailing is also part of
the permanent record.
The court is required to keep such in permanent record for a specific number of years as
“Public Records” that are available for viewing by the public at large. That requirement
is critical for transparency of the justice system - a critical safeguard for its integrity,
and is one of the United States Constitutional rights established in the Amendments to
the Constitution (5th and 14th).
b. Notice must be served on parties when Minute Orders are issued, and
Proof of Service must be added to the permanent record – both
executed by the Clerk, and implemented in Sustain.
Whether Notice is served on parties by a judge, or by one party filing papers in court on
the other parties, the service (typically by mail) must be certified by a person other than
the party, or in the case of the court – other than the judge. Such certification satisfies
the requirement for “Proof of Service”.
Proof of Service, or certifying the mailing in case of service of notice of a Minute Order
or any other order by a Judge, is done by the Clerk. The requirement for Clerk’s
certification of mailing, and similarly the requirement for Clerk’s certification on any
paper by a judge or by a party that is entered into the Court File, is an integral part of
the safeguards of the integrity of the Court Files and the justice system. It also
generated a system of checks and balances between the judicial and the ministerial
(clerical) arms of the courts.
c. Minute Orders are Part of Litigation Records – in paper Court File

and also in Sustain – electronic Court File (Fig 2a, 2b).
Minute Orders become part of Litigation Records in LASC – both the paper Court File
and the electronic Court File – i.e., Sustain. A copy of the Minute Order, signed by the
-4-
66 / 545
Clerk (see below) is entered into the paper court file, and the Minute Order itself is also
stored with other litigation records in Sustain, and copies can be printed by the clerk’s
office upon demand.
2) Analysis Methods
a. This study is biased
The secondary author is personally involved in this case, and therefore it was evident
from the start that it would not be reasonable if he conducted the analysis of the system
alone. However, the unique combination of records and finding of facts was also the
outcome of the coincidental combination of skills and events that came together in this
case, presenting this unusual opportunity to present evidence to the computer science
community and the public at large. Therefore, we felt that it was our responsibility to
try to present the data for peer-reviewed publication, albeit, with minimal claims
relative to the findings.
b. Identification of Data Variations among the Sources

The comparison of the data from the different sources reveals numerous instances
where data varied in a meaningful way between the Minute Orders from the various
sources. Even in the few examples shown below, one can see data variations that
would clearly be sufficient to define the system as inappropriate for the purpose it was
presumably intended – easily accessible by the Court, long term, secure and accurate
record of litigation data.
c. No Legal Analysis for Compliance was Undertaken

No attempt was made to perform legal analysis and formulate opinions regarding
compliance with the law. However, some of the results strongly indicate that there is a
need for legal analysis of compliance in this system.
-5-
67 / 545
3) Results
a. Minute Orders as part of the records in Sustain – No Authenticated

Records Stored (Fig 2b, 3b, 4b, 7b).
In LASC, Minute Orders are issued through Sustain. The text that was entered by the
Judge into the Minute Order is stored in memory as part of the final copy of the Minute
Order. A permanent record of the Minute Orders that were mailed out to parties in the
case is held in Sustain, and can be printed by the Clerk’s office upon demand.
Separately, the text that was entered by the judge is typically also entered as part of the
description of the proceeding (“Events”) of the day - in another Sustain record - “Case
History” (Fig 1 a). At times, the Clerk’s Office in LASC provided copies of “Case
History” report from Sustain is response to requests for the “Register of Actions” – the
permanent record that is the concise formal definitive representation of a court action
(at times also named “Docket”).
All such records are “Trial Court Litigation Records”. The clerks of the court are
charged with their safeguard. They are also “Public Records”, and they must be readily
available for inspection and copying by the public at large.
b. Implementation of Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing in Sustain.

In order to complete the Minute Order mailing procedure in Sustain, a Clerk has to log
in as well, and issue a Certificate of Mailing by Clerk (the Proof of Service). The text of
the standard mailing certificate is added at the end of the text of the Minute Order that
was already entered by the judge. Copies are printed mail-ready for window envelopes
- parties’ names, counsels of record, and mailing addresses are already stored in the
system.
-6-
68 / 545
c. Authentication of the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing and the Record in
Sustain
On the paper copies that are printed, space is provided for a “wet” signature of the
clerk. Paper copies of Minute Orders from paper Court File, or such that were received
by mail by a party, bear the hand-signature of the Clerk.
However, when copies of Minute Orders are printed out from Sustain by the Clerk’s
Office at a later time, they would still include no hand signature or image of the hand
signature of the Clerk. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no permanent, complete
record of the authenticated Minute Orders in Sustain.
d. Minute Orders – as part of the records in paper Court File (Fig 2a)
After mailing, the Clerk also enters a copy of the Minute Order printed by Sustain –
bearing his/her “wet” signature on the Certificate of Mailing - into the paper Court File.
Therefore, one could conclude that the system was designed with the notion that the
paper Court File would be the definitive record of the litigation. However, the “Register
of Action” that used to be a paper record prior to the introduction of Sustain was
eliminated. One may then conclude that the intention was that the definitive records
would include the paper Court File and the electronic Register of Actions – i.e. Case
History report in Sustain.
All papers entered into in the paper Court File bear a stamp certifying the filing and
entry, and a hand signature by a Clerk:
FILED
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
MAR 28, 2007
JOHN CLARKE, CLERK
<Signature>
BY VIVIAN JAIME, DEPUTY
-7-
69 / 545
The date in the stamp above is an impression of a pre-set stamp, and the signature is a
“wet” hand-signature of the clerk named under the signature line..
However, none of the copies of the Minute Orders derived from the paper Court File
shown here (Fig 2a, 3a, 4a, 7a), or any of the others that were inspected bears the
FILED stamp like the rest of the records in the paper Court File. The reason may be
that the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing by Clerk includes language that may substitute for
the “FILED” stamp and Clerk’s signature. In fact even the title states: “Notice of
Entry of Order.”
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the

above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
11-1-05 upon each party or counsel named below by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in Santa Monica, California, one copy of the original
entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
for each, addressed as shown below, with the postage
fully prepaid.
Date:
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
By: ___________________
T. McDonald
JAY R. STEIN
1801 Century Park East
Suite 2400
Los Angeles California, 90067-2326
However, whereas the language used above may be sufficient for a truthful certificate of
mailing, it is not adequate or truthful for a Notice of Entry of Order. This certificate
states:
“I served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of 11-1-

05 upon each party or counsel named below…”
-8-
70 / 545
Named below in this case was only one party, out of two. This is not an unusual finding
in this case. While one party never got notice, other parties did receive notice from the
court. There were exceptions – for example the July 12, 2007 Minute Order, where a
judge certified mailing of own order, and mailed it only to one party again, but the one
party that was normally excluded from notice (Fig 6).
California Rules of Court state:
Chapter 3. Service and Filing

Rule 1.21. Service
a) Service on a party or attorney
Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must
be made on the party’s attorney if the party is represented.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(b) “Serve and file”
As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different
method for filing or service, a requirement to “serve and file” a document
means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each
party separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any
other person or entity when required by statute, rule, or court order, and that
the document and a proof of service of the document must be filed with the
court.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(c) “Proof of service”
As used in these rules, “proof of service” means a declaration stating that
service has been made as provided in (a) and (b). If the proof of service
names attorneys for separately represented parties, it must also state which
party or parties each of the attorneys served is representing.
(Subd (c) adopted effective January 1, 2007.)
Rule 1.21 amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1,
2007.
The Rule is clear – “each party” - not each party in an exclusive list made up at will.
And it is explicit in the requirement to file the Proof s of Service with the court as well.
Therefore, the Minute Orders produced through Sustain are inadequate. The system
deliberately had the Defendant not entered, and therefore, his name typically never
appeared in the mailing list. Fig 1a – opening pages of Case History in Sustain, was
printed out on Aug 1, 2007, as noted in the footer. At the top of page 1, the header
provides space for Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) names, counsels’ names, address and
-9-
71 / 545
phone number. Of four parties listed in this case by Aug 1, 2007, only one is listed. The
three unlisted parties are still unlisted in a printout date April 30, 2008. Therefore,
Sustain, a system that was presumably designed to implement the law and assist in the
administration of justice, has become and instrument for abuse of Due Process rights of
litigants.
Recording in Sustain of documents that are incorporated into the Court File is through
a “Document Filed” notation. For each paper document filed in Court File, there is
matching data entry in Sustain, e.g.:
08/09/07 Document Filed MEMO

Order
Court
GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF NIVIE SAMAAN
However, none of the Minute Orders, generated through Sustain, then entered into the
paper Court File, is recorded in Sustain as a paper document that was incorporated into
the paper court file.
Therefore, if “Case History” report in Sustain is serving as the “Register of Actions”, it is

missing any adequate record of any of the Minute Orders - significant part of Litigation
Records, and the Minute Orders are never stamped as “FILED” into the paper Court
File either.
e. Minute Orders - time stamps

i) Paper Court File (Fig 2a, 3a, 4a, 7a): Two notations of date appear on
each and every page of a Minute Order. The first is at the top left corner, and is marked
as in the following example:
DATE: 10/03/07
The second date notation appears in a box at the lower right corner, for example:
MINUTES ENTERED
09/10/07
-10-
72 / 545
COUNTY CLERK
The latter date notation, associated with the words “entered”, and “county clerk”
resembles to a degree the stamp “FILED”, described above, which also includes the
date. However, the box in the lower right corner of each page of the Minute Order
includes no signature. Therefore, it could neither serve for authentication of the filing
or entering of the record into the Court File, nor for the date of such action.
ii. Electronic Court File (Fig 2b, 3b, 4b, 7b)

The same format of double date notation at upper left and lower right corners of each
page is also found in all copies of the Minute Orders derived from the permanent record
in Sustain.
The text of the Minute Order is most times also recorded under “Event” in the Case
History report in Sustain, but it does not appear there as an explicit order, and there is
no authenticated recording there of the date of mailing or entry into the Court File
either.(Fig 1 a, p 3-4).
f. Electronic Court File - Case History Report in Sustain

The first few page of the report are copied in Fig 1a. This report was provided by the
Clerk’s Office in response to a request for “Register of Action”. The Court at times
also described this report as the “Docket”. But other times, the Court claimed that the
“Case Summary” report (Fig 1c), which is part of the online, freely accessible
Courtnet system is the “Docket”. However, disclaimers (Fig 1d) that are posted by the
Court itself on the web warn against the use of that document, and declare that it is not
an official court document.
We analyzed the printout of a Case History report of about 200 pages, which was
made available from one single case (SC087400), since the LASC severely limits public
access to Sustain data, held by the court as – “privileged – for the Court only”.
-11-
73 / 545
Data in the report were compared with photocopies of the Minute Orders:
i. As entered and retained in the paper Court File of the litigation, and/or
ii. As seen in batch printout at purchased from the Clerk’s office, and
iii. Minute Orders received by a party by mail. Only few Minute Orders were
indeed receive by mail in this case. In many of the Minute Orders there is a
note: “Notice waived”, no Certificate of Mailing by the Clerk appears in
such Minute Orders, and no copies were received by mail by a party.
Anecdotal information from other cases indicates that such situation is not
uncommon at the LASC.
g. Variations in Date notations between Minute Orders from paper

Court File and as printed from Sustain.
i. The Date Minute Orders were Entered is almost without exception

later in copies originating from Sustain compared to date noted in
copies incorporated into the paper Court File (Fig 2a vs 2b, 7a vs
7b, 8a vs 8b).
Examination of the dates notations in copies of Minute Orders originating from the
paper Court File, reveals that in all cases with no exceptions, the date listed as date
minutes entered in the box at the lower right corner of the Minute Order is identical
with the date of the proceedings listed at top left. And the same date appears again, a
third time in the Clerk’s Certification of Mailing by the Clerk, as the date of mailing, and
a fourth time, as part of the authentication of the Clerk’s Certification of Mailing. Such
records may generate the impression of perfect compliance with the law – all Minute
Orders are produced on same date as the hearing, mailed out on the same date, and
filed in the paper Court File on the same date.
-12-
74 / 545
However, the picture is entirely different upon examination of Minute Orders derived
from batch printouts from Sustain. In such Minute Orders, there is hardly ever
unanimity between the date listed at top left and the date listed at bottom right- the
date listed as date minutes were entered is always a later date, and it can be as much as
almost 3 months later than the date listed as date minutes entered in the copy of the
Minute Order that is incorporated into the paper Court File.
The most plausible explanation for this variance is that the date in the batch printouts
is the date of the Audit File – or true date of entry, whereas the date on the printout of
the Minute Order that is incorporated into the court file is simply user-defined. This
explanation also explains the great reluctance of the Court to mail out any Minute
Orders, since the postal stamp will provide evidence for the variance.
Indeed, in one of the cases when the Minute Order was mailed out (Fig 8, a, b, c), the
records show the following:
• Minute Order from paper Court File (Fig 8a)

Copy of the Minute Order derived from the paper Court File lists Date of Proceeding:
08/21/07, minutes entered 08/21/07, date of service by mail: 08/21/07, and date of
Clerk’s Certificate of mailing: 08/21/07, with “wet” hand signature of the Clerk.
• Minute Order mailed to Party (Fig 8b)

Copy of the Minute Order received by mail by party lists exactly the same data for dates:
date of proceeding: 08/21/07, minutes entered 08/21/07, date of service by mail:
08/21/07, and date of clerk’s certificate of mailing: 08/21/07, with “wet” hand
signature of the Clerk.
-13-
75 / 545
• Postal Stamp on Envelope in which Minute Order was mailed (Fig 8c)
The postal stamp on the Minute Order shows a date of 08/28/07.
• Minute Order printed later from Sustain (Fig 8d)

Date of proceeding: 08/21/07, date of service by mail: 08/21/07, and date of clerk’s
certificate of mailing: 08/21/07. This copy bears no “wet” hand signature of the Clerk,
and on page 3, the date in the box for Minutes Entered is 8/28/07.
Therefore, one may reasonably conclude that already at the time of data entry, the user
is establishing double records with two very different values under the field of Minutes
Entered.
Needless to say, dates of filing and entry of documents are critical in any litigation, and
therefore deliberately generating incorrect records should not be allowed, and should
not be acceptable in programming for the Court. Lack of Notice, or delayed notice is
always detrimental to party in litigation. However, in some of the instances listed in
the figures, the harm is greater, since the number of days allowed to elapse between the
date the notice is given and the date of appeal is only 10 days, therefore, failure to issue
the Minute Order on time could cause irreparable harm to a party.
ii. “Minutes Entered” date in Sustain, but not in paper Court File may
assume invalid values of 00/00/00 or 33/33/33, therefore
invalidating the record. (Fig 3a vs 3b, Fig 4a vs 4b)
We believe that any Minute Order that shows a date of entry such as 00/00/00 or
33/33/33 is an invalid court record, for the simple reason that it has an invalid date of
entry. In addition, one may notice that on page 1 of Case History (Fig 1a) at the upper
right corner, it states clearly regarding the case as a whole –
# Children :
Filed : 10/25/05
-14-
76 / 545
Age : 645
Disposed : 00/00/00
It is not clear if it must be entered at the time of issuing the Minute Order, or at a later
time. But the data shows that the time between entry and invalidations was as short as
less than a week in one case.
Obviously, parties in a litigation must be informed if the records were changed in such
drastic way. There is no evidence of notice of the invalidations, neither is there any
evidence of an attempt to notice the invalidation.
iii. Back-dating of visible records, and invisible to the public recording

of the true dates, are common throughout the System (Fig 1a vs
1b)
Fig 1a shows the opening pages of Case History in Sustain. That page include some
unusual notes entered as “Document Filed” listings. For example, in litigation in
Trial Court, the term or party designation “Real Party in Interest” is hardly ever
used. But the note on page 1 (Box added) states:
07/24/04 Document Filed

Opposition
Real Parties in Interest
( BY COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS)
As noted above, the same page, at the upper right corner provides the date complaint
was filed in this case – 10/25/05. Therefore, this note is listed at a date that is prior to
the creation of this file in Sustain. As such, this listing shows a failure in the logic of
the programming.
Moreover, for each and every entry in this program there is a matching “Audit File”
including the login time stamp and User ID respective to that data entry. Such data is
-15-
77 / 545
never shared with the public. Fig 1b is the Audit File data associated with this peculiar
listing:
On page 1 – at the bottom of the page the listing appears of the note copied above.
On page 2 – at the top of the page – the end line of that note.
On page 3 – in the middle of the page – Audit File data:
AUDIT
Date Time Function User ID User Name
7/24/07 8:36am Add 6815 Jaime, Vivian
Obviously, the date when the note was entered was 7/24/07, and the date of 7/24/04
was a user defined date. It is likely that the same is true for the dates as seen on the
Minute Orders, that the date shown in printouts that were incorporated into the paper
file was the user defined date, and the date that was recorded always on the last page of
the Minute Order, in the Minutes Entered box, is the Audit File data for that entry.
iv. Back-dating allowed entering of Minute Order at a Time that the

User should have been without Authority to Enter Data in that File
(Fig 7 a, b).
Fig 7a, b show Minute Order of Sept 10, 2007. That Minute Order in Court File notes
Minutes Entered 09/10/07. The Minute Order from Sustain notes: Minutes Entered
09/11/07. However, the judge in this case was disqualified on Sept 10, 2007.
Therefore, the judge had no authority to enter that data file on Sept 11, 2007.
Unfortunately, that failure of the CMS to establish authorities properly allowed entering
of a false and deliberately misleading data in this case. The hearing that is recorded
never took place, as demonstrated by transcript of the same date.
It is not clear to what degree the system defines authorities clearly enough, since there
are several other instances of posting that would have been blocked had authorities
been defined adequately.
-16-
78 / 545
v. Variations in the Wording among Records of Same Order (Fig 5 a,
b, c)
The July 6, 2007 Minute Order includes some variations in wording that may initially
look like an innocent error to the naïve reader. In Sustain’s “Case History” report,
which is hardly ever seen by litigants or counsels, the following note was added at the
end of that Minute Order (2nd page in the figure, page 58 of Case History):
“Proceedings not recorded”
We take this note at face value – that the proceeding was “off the record”. There are
additional findings relative to this proceeding that support that reading of the text. That
proceeding was conducted in a manner that was extremely unlikely for any “on the
record” proceeding. The writings left from this proceeding, as well as the proceeding of
July 23, 2007, which was its sequel, appear to have been intentionally ambiguated.
There is no evidence that any party was notified in advance of the intention to conduct
proceedings off the record on that date. There is no evidence that parties were notified
after the fact that proceedings were off the record either. Moreover, there is no
evidence that any attempt was made to notify parties of the unusual nature of the
proceedings either. Needless to say, most reasonable parties would avoid participation
in any proceedings that are “off the record”.
vi. Variations in the Wording of the Standard Certification of Mailing

(Fig 9a,b)
The Minute Order of July 12, 2007 is unusual, since it presents an improvised
Certificate of Mailing by a Judge, albeit, unauthenticated. In contrast with other errors,
which could be ascribed to lower level staff errors, it is unlikely that this record was
generated by staff, albeit – it needs to be examined in more detail. In addition – this
record is not the kind that could be generated through omission or simple neglect. First
the normal Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing had to be eliminated, and then, a new
certificate had to be composed. Furthermore, there had to be a reason to go through
such effort.
-17-
79 / 545
Fig 9b presents the Minute Order as seen in the permanent record in Sustain, where it
is dated July 23, 2007, or 11 days after the date of the proceeding, which in this case
was disqualification of a judge – therefore – the time of mailing was critical. A judge
who does not serve a response within 10 days is disqualified.
The unusual nature of the proceeding may also be related to the fact that the Clerk did
not sign this particular record, since the law ascribes to the Clerk a particular function
in cases like this (California Code of Civil Procedure §170.3). It is possible that the clerk
refused to sign this particular certificate.
The paper file fails to present any copy of this particular minute Order, and Party’s
records show no Minute Order like this particular one was received by mail either.
vii. Records missing Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing by present in paper

Court File
Many of the Minute Orders present in the paper court file in this case are missing the
Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing. Indeed they are missing altogether from the party’s
record. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that indeed they were never mailed out in
the first place.
When asking attorneys practicing in Los Angeles, it turns out that this is indeed the
local custom. The Los Angeles Superior Court does not mail out the Minute Orders to
the counsels. Instead, the requirement is waived on a regular basis. Why would any
counsel in his right mind waive such right? And why would a court of law establish it as
a local custom not to mail out its minute orders?
viii. Records missing altogether from the paper Court File
-18-
80 / 545
h. Correlations between the Nature of the Proceedings and Variations
in Data Among Sources
The data shown above are not sufficient to demonstrate conclusively the assertion that the
more unusual the nature of the proceeding, the more likely it was that the records would
show variations in dates or in wording among sources. Most of the examples listed in the
figures, are associated with procedures that are not the most common in litigation. For
example – the July 6, 2007 record, where there is a variation in wording between the Minute
Order and Case History, and the note: “Proceedings not Recorded” added in Case History.
That proceeding was an ex parte procedure, scheduled at an irregular time, for the purpose
of setting a gag order on an individual at the request of a large corporation.
Ascribing motivations would require a much more thorough study of the system.
We may add, that the findings presented here are just a very small selection that is focusing
almost entirely on the issue of determination of dates, since it was believed to be the easiest
finding to present, and for readers to understand. Most people have a sense that back-dating
documents is inherently wrong, and back-dating court documents is not something that
sounds like a sound practice in a court of Justice.
But the findings of the analysis of the data as a whole strongly suggests that many more
proceedings in this case were of the type that the judiciary considered “off the record”, but
never notified the parties of that fact. Again, this type of data is more complex in nature,
and it was excluded from this report.
3. Conclusion and Recommendations
a. Any change in CMS should be deemed change in Rules of Court,

and accordingly approached.
-19-
81 / 545
The Rule Enabling Act (part of U.S. Code) demands publication of any new rules and
reasonable opportunity for public challenge. The introduction of Sustain was
unquestionably a major departure from prior Rules of Court, but there is no indication
that the Rules of Court were accordingly updated. Sustain is for example never
mentioned in the Rules of Court of LA County. Not even once.
No new case management system should be allowed before giving public notice and an
opportunity for comment.
However, when it comes to computer systems, public comment is incapacitated absent

detailed information regarding system specifications. Therefore, rules must be
developed regarding the method of presentation of such systems for public comment
(similar to rules that evolved in the past regarding presentation of building plans for
public comment). In such posting for public comment, the logic of the programming
code may need to be reduced to a set of assertions in natural language. Moreover, in
consultation with experts from the field of mathematics and logic, standardized
presentations may be developed, and methods of certification, to ensure that such
presentations in natural language are true and correct reflection of the code. Such
certification is comparable to a certification on a building plan by an engineer or an
architect, stating that the drawing indeed represents a true and correct representation
of the detailed plans that may be not be fully included in the item presented for public
view. In addition, it may be necessary to certify that the logic of the system is consistent
with the legal code that is implemented in it. Mathematical and logical methods such as
“formal verification” and “simulation verification” are in existence that may be utilized
for this purpose. But none of it has been done in the past, when large computer
systems were introduced in public agencies, and at present, when such systems are
being replaced with second or third generation, there is no indication that there is any
intention to do so either.
-20-
82 / 545
b. State of the Art Security and Signage Measures Must be
Implemented.
Based on the little that Plaintiff has learnt about Sustain, it is reasonable to assume that
it was modified over the years, and that such modifications were not uniform in all
locations of the Court. Any ad hoc changes in a CMS are a major risk to its integrity,
and rules must be developed to safeguard the systems against such changes in the code.
The system as it is operated now implements User ID’s and passwords. But such are
hidden from public view in the Audit Files. That is out of compliance with the of the law
relative to implementation of electronic and digital signatures. Such laws as the U.S. E-
sign Act of 2002 and the California regulations regarding electronic signatures
mandate that wherever such signatures were traditionally open to public view – and
they definitely were open to public view in traditional Books of Court - they must be
made accessible for public inspection also in their digital permutation.
c. New methods and procedures should be developed for

public review and comment on logic machines.
The problem inherent in CMS’s is to a degree similar to that of Electronic Voting

Machines – extremely high value is placed from public-policy perspective on
verification of such processes, which are some of the foundations of democratic society,
and long-term safeguard of their integrity. The two systems differ however, in that
CMS’s reflect a more complex logic, and require networked implementation and
ongoing data input by various users with different authorities, more comparable to a
production monitoring system.
Beyond that – the major difference is that introduction of Electronic Voting Machines
was to a large degree interrupted, due to public awareness and public protest of the lack
of verification. CMS’s were introduced at a time when such awareness was hardly
-21-
83 / 545
existent. Therefore, they provide in a way a reflection of a branch of government (the
Judiciary in this case) operating based on its own rules, with minimum oversight, if
any.
d. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based

systems
It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were
discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration should be
given to strengthening the ministerial arm of the court, as a counter balance to the
judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions. The authorities of the
judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully prescribed and segregated, to
generate appropriate checks and balances.
e. CMS’s Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor

the Quality and Integrity of the Courts
The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems must not
allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing. Without accurate
docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the system can become a
valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The contribution of the ministerial
staff in this process needs to be emphasized, and their personal accountability for each
act of docketing, which must bear a personal digital signature that is easily visible, and
easily associated with an individual.
f. The best safeguard for integrity in operations of CMS’s is in

transparency through public access to electronic Court File
records.
The single factor that may contribute more than anything else to safeguard of the
integrity of the operation of CMS’s is public scrutiny through public access. Therefore,
-22-
84 / 545
the fact that Sustain gained a “privileged” status in Los Angeles Count, is alarming in
and of itself, probably at the source of the problem. CMS must be treated like Court
Files that they are – the public has the right to view these public records.
Word Count: 5915
-23-
85 / 545
Please notice:
Figures are provided here in a more complete fashion to support rigorous review.
Prior to publication the size of the figures will be drastically reduced.
LIST OF FIGURES:
1. OPENING PAGES OF CASE HISTORY REPORT/SUSTAIN

This is the formal record of litigations, but it is hardly ever seen by
attorneys practicing in LA County, since the Court holds that “Sustain
data are privileged – for the Court only”. Instead, most rely on
records such as “Case Summary” described in 1c.
Note that the all three entries on page 1, are back-dated prior to the time of
initiation of litigation. The bottom note on Page 1 of Case History is back-
dated July 24, 2004 – prior to filing of claims and prior to relevant
events ever taking place. In fact it was entered on 7/24/04, as seen in 1b.
a. Copy from printout of the visible data in the electronic Court File (Sustain)
Case History report.
Filing Date – 07/24/07
b. The electronic Court File (Sustain) Audit File of same note. The audit data
is normally invisible, and is never provided to the public -
Filing Date – 07/24/07
Note on page 3-4 the typical sequence of opening and closing an “Event”
typically starting with “Document Filed”, proceeding through an
“Event” where the Minute Order is recorded, and ending with “Event
Complete”.
c. Copy of opening sequence of the “Case Summary” report in Courtnet,

which is easily accessible to the public on the web, but is disclaimed on the
same web pages, as not a formal document of the Court.
d. Disclaimer regarding “Case Summary”
2. BACK-DATING OF COURT ORDERS

Nov 1, 2005 Minute Order – re-assignment of a case to a judge
following peremptory challenge.
a. Copy of the Minute Order from paper Court File:

Date of Entry - 11/1/05.
b. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File – Sustain:

-24-
86 / 545
Date of Entry - 01/30/06.
3. INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS WITH NO NOTICE.

Oct 3, 2007 Minute Order – recusal by a judge -

Date of Entry - 10/3/07
b. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File - in Sustain:

Date of Entry - 00/00/00 – record invalidated
(also see note on page 1 of the Electronic Court File regarding date of
00/00/00 - Fig 1, above)
4. INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS WITH NO NOTICE.

Jan 30, 2008 Minute Order – Ex-parte request by an individual
for the Court to release funds held by the Court.

Date of Entry - 1/30/08 -– Denied with prejudice
b. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File - Sustain

Date of Entry - 00/00/00 - Record invalidated
(also see note on page 1 of the Electronic Court File regarding date of
00/00/00 - Fig 1, above)
5. NOTING A PROCEEDING AS “OFF THE RECORD”

July 6, 2007 Minute Order - Ex parte request by a large
corporation for a gag order on an individual.
a. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File (batch print job):
Date of Entry - 07/06/09 - Motion denied, no clerk certificate.
b. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File (Case History):
Date of Entry – date of entry not marked in Case History – notice
comment “Proceeding not recorded”
c. Copy of the Minute Order from paper Court File:
Date of Entry – no copy of the Minute Order in paper Court File
-25-
87 / 545
6. MINUTE ORDER WITH A DEFECTIVE CERTIFICATE OF
MAILING - BY A JUDGE.
July 12, 2007 Minute Order – Disqualification of a judge for a
cause.
a. Copy of the Minute Order from the paper Court File - this Minute
Order is unsigned in the paper file, and it contains at its end
what appears as an unauthenticated Certificate of Mailing by a
Judge – an un-allowed type of certificate
b. Copy of the Minute Order in electronic Court File – in Sustain
i. Missing the typical Certificate of Mailing by Clerk,

ii. Includes at its end an improvised certificate of mailing by
the judge for self – an invalid certificate of mailing
iii.Mailing listed to one party only – and no evidence that it
took place at all.
iv. Back-date, true date of entry is July 23, 2007. By law it
had to be served within 10 days, otherwise, the judge is
deemed disqualified.
7. FICTITIOUS MINUTE ORDER

Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order – Disqualification of a judge for a
cause – but a hearing on Motion for Sanctions that never took
place was recorded.
a. Copy of the Minute Order from the paper Court File:

Date of Entry – 09/10/07 - unsigned
b. Copy of the Minute Order from the electronic Court File:

Date of Entry – 09/11/07 – when Judge was already disqualified.
8. BACK-DATING CONFIRMED BY POSTAL STAMP.

Aug 21, 2007 Minute Order – ex parte for ”entry of judgment” -
a. Copy of the Minute Order from the paper Court File:

Minutes Entered – 08/21/07 – with hand signature of clerk
b. Copy of the Minute Order from the electronic Court File:

Minutes Entered – 08/28/07 – with no signature
-26-
88 / 545
c. Copy of the Minute Order as receive by mail by Party:
Minutes Entered – 08/21/07 – with hand signature of clerk
d. Copy of the Envelope that the Minute Order was mailed in:
Postal Stamp – 08/28/07
-27-
89 / 545
Anonymous
Table I. Minute Orders, Other Orders & Notices in Paper and Electronic Court Files.
Start (*) in column 7 indicates a minute order or other record that is particularly dishonest of fraudulent.
The main claim in this table is about a fact that is simple to prove – that the court routinely engages in back-dating its own records, by days,
weeks, months, and sometimes years.
Another claim is that the judges, without exception engaged in the habit of secretly voiding/invalidating/disposing orders from
chambers, which in paper court file appeared as valid orders, such records appear with a “Date Minutes Entered” of 00/00/00 or 33/33/33.
Otherwise, Judge Connor routinely produced false and deliberately misleading records by invalid piggy-back registration of proceedings,
where only one is truly registered court action, the other ones- off the record.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No Judge Actions - Sustain Events Event Paper File Electronic File
Date Page # and Page # and Event Date
Event Date on First and on Last Page
Paper Notice of Case Assignment to Individual Calendar Court,

1)
on paper only, no comparable record in Sustain.
10/25/05 01 - - - - -
2) Neidorf Plaintiff’s Peremptory Challenge of Judge Neidorff 11/01/05 04 11/01/05 2 11/01/05 1 011/1/05
*
3) Lefkowitz Re-assignment to Connor by Lefkowitz – back-dated 3 months. 11/01/05 02 11/01/05 5 11/01/05 6 01/30/06
1) Demurrer per Statute of Frauds: Overruled, Granted, Voided. *

4) Connor? 2) Initial status Conference – Off the record 1/30/06 06 01/30/06 7 01/30/06 9 00/00/00
3) OSC RE; Contempt for POS – Off the record
5) Connor? Voided 00/00/00 - - - - 10 00/00/00 *

90 / 545
6) Connor? Voided 00/00/00 - - - - 11 04/06/06
7) Connor Status Conference 04/6/06 09 04/06/06 = - 12 06/13/06 *
8) Connor 06/13/06 10 06/13/06 13 06/13/06 13 09/19/06
9) Connor 09/19/06 - 09/19/06 14 10/17/06 14 10/17/06
Paper Stipulation to Continue Hearing Date for Defendant’s
10) Connor
Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
10/17/06 13 10/17/06 - - - -
11) Connor Present Stipulation as above 10/17/06 17 10/17/06 15 10/31/06 15 10/31/06
12) Connor Old cont date of hearing on lis pendens- shell only 10/31/06 - 10/31/06 16 11/07/06 16 11/07/06
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Sur Reply for entry of Evidence - Fraudulent
13) Connor
Countrywide records- Granted
11/7/06 18 11/07/06 17 11/0906 17 11/0906
1) Further Status Conference –Motion Denied

14) Connor 2) Trial Setting Conference – Off the Record 11/9/06 19 11/09/06 18 11/09/07 21 01/16/06
3) Defendant’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens – Off the record
15) Connor Defendant’s Motion to be Relieve as Counsel – shell only 01/16/07 - - 22 1/16/07 22 1/16/07
Ex parte application of Att Cummings for short-notice hearing of *

motion to be relieved as counsel - Granted and Voided*
16) Connor - Incomplete Event, yet minute order issued. 01/16/07 - - 23 00/00/00 23 00/00/00*
- *In copy 11/14/08 date was restored, but event still
incomplete
17) Connor Voided 00/00/00 - - 24 02/05/07 24 02/05/07
18) Connor Defendant’s Motion to be relieved as Counsel 02/5/07 24 02/05/07 25 02/05/07 26 03/06/07
19) Connor Further Status Conference. Schorr 1st appearance. 03/6/07 25 03/06/07 27 03/28/07 27 03/28/07
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on July 5, 2007, less
20) Connor than 30 days before trial - Granted 03/28/07 26 03/28/07 28 04/03/07 28 04/03/07
Trial advanced July 13 to Aug 10, 2007.
91 / 545
Paper Order granting permit for hearing summary judgment
21) Connor motion on July 5. No POS. A signed order by Connor that 3/28/07 28 3/28/07 - - - -
appears valid.
Defendant’s ex parte application for the appointment of a
22) Connor
discovery referee: Denied.
04/03/07 30 04/03/07 29 04/06/07 29 04/16/07
Motion to compel Zernik deposition and continue trial date:
23) Connor Granted. Depo – April 20, 2007, later canceled by Keshavarzi, 04/16/07 30 04/16/07 30 04/19/07 30 04/19/07
Trial continued to Sep 7, 2007.
Paper Order to compel Zernik Deposition on April 20, 2007. No
24) 04-16/07 32 04/17/07
POS. A signed order by Connor that appears valid.
1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents -

Continued
25) Connor 2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel inspection of land and property – 04/19/07 34 04//19/07 31 04/26/07 31 04/26/07
Off the record
1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents – *

Granted with Sanctions of $1,700.00
2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel inspection of land and property –
Off the record, with sanctions of $870
26) Connor No sanctions listed in title, but sanction of $2,570 are 04/26/07 35 04/26/07 32 4/26/07 35 05/01/07
imposed, with no adequate order.
Judge Connor never signed an order for sanctions, yet Attorney
Keshavarzi made fraudulent notice of such, enabled by denial of
access to records to Defendant.
Further Status Conference: Mediator Scholtes, MSJ Aug 2, Final
27) Connor
Status Conference –Aug 30, 2007, Trial – Sept 7, 2007.
05/01/50 39 05/01/07 36 05/01/07 36 05/14/07
Plaintiff’s Paper Notice of order to compel and sanctions. Not
28) signed by Connor, Not stamped Filed. Based on Tentative 05/01/07 40 05/01/07 - - - -
ruling. Deemed fraudulent.
Defendant’s ex parte application for shortened notice hearing for *
29) Connor
reconsideration: Denied, Voided.
05/14/07 44 05/14/07 37 05/14/07 37 00/00/00
92 / 545
Defendant’s ex parte to extend discovery cut off: Shell only,
30) Connor
Voided
00/00/00 - - - - 38 05/22/07
31) Connor Defendant’s ex parte to extend discovery cut off, Denied 05/22/07 45 05/22/07 - - 39 05/23/07 *
32) Connor Blank - 05/23/07 - - 40 07/06/07
Defendant’s notice of Ruling on denial of Discovery Cut Off
33) Connor
Date.
05/22/07 46 05/23/07 - - - -
34) Post mediation Status Conference 05/23/07 50
Überparty Countrywide’s ex parte off the record, off the calendar *

for a gag order, proceeding not recorded. (no minute order in
paper court file: Denied? Continued?
Court ruled on its own, with no motion by either party or court, to
hear another motion on same matter on 7/23/08, again off the Missing in
35) Connor record, without service to defendant of the new moving papers of 7/6/07 - Paper - - 41 07/09/07
such motion prior to his deadline for opposition. Countrywide lists Court File
itself as “Non-Party”, the Court lists it as “Plaintiff”.
No minute order of this proceeding exists in the paper court file.
Electronic Court File, Register of Actions states: “Proceedings
not recorded”. Uniquely abusive.
Paper Proposed Order of July 6, 20007 – Denied
36) Connor
Crossed out in red across face of the proposed order.
07/06/07 51 07/06/07 - - - -
Paper Proposed Order of July 6, 2007 – Denied

37) Crossed out in red across face of the proposed order. Separate 07/06/07 53 07/06/07 - - - -
copy than previous.
93 / 545
Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of sanctions: Denied & *
Granted.- Fictitious
Fictitious minute order, including fictitious listing of scheduling
Missing in
in Case History. No transcript exists of this hearing, which is
38) Connor
claimed to have been held “telephonically”. Zernik never
7/9/07 - paper 42 070/9/07 44 07/12/07
court file
talked with Connor by phone. Two contradictory adjudications
were entered, Denied, and Granted – typical for frauds by
Connor.
1) Plaintiff’s Motion to compel deposition – Granted, to take *
place prior to July 20.
2) Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted – off the
record
3) Judge Connor’s response to Disqualification for a Cause – off
the record.
39) Connor
Disqualification per CCP §170.3, served July 12, 2007: Strike &
7/12/07 55 07/12/07 45 7/12/07 54 07/23/07
Answer.
Fraudulent back-dated minute order –
Judge Connor first fraudulently ruled upon it in open court on July
12, 2007: Struck as untimely peremptory challenge per CCP
§170.6.
Plaintiff’s Notice of Order – Deposition set for July 20, 2007, and
40) Connor
disqualification “denied”. Fraudulent.
07/12/07 65 07/19/07 - - - -
Paper Order denying Peremptory Challenge and Striking

41) Connor Statement of Disqualification. Also Verified Answer. 07/12/07 72 ? - - - -
Stamped July 12, 2007.
1) Defendant’s motion to expunge lis pendens - denied *
42) Connor 2) Überparty (Countrywide) motion for protective (gag) order – 7/23/07 79 07/23/07 55 7/23/07 58 07/24/07
off the record – no adjudication listed (p74)
Paper Überparty (Countrywide) Joint stipulation and proposed

43)
order for protective gag order against Zernik – unsigned.
07/23/07 87 07/23/07 - - - -
94 / 545
1) Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a discovery referee –
Granted in part;
2) Defendant ex parte application to compel production and
sanctions – Off the record, no adjudication listed,
44) Connor
3) Defendant’s ex parte application for leave to amend,
07/24/07 90 07/24/07 59 7/24/07 60 07/27/07
alternatively – for short notice for hearing on leave to amend –
Off the record, no adjudication listed in Register of Actions
45) Connor 07/27/07 - 07/27/07 - - 61 08/01/07

46) Connor Duplicate print of above. 07/27/07 - 07/27/07 63 7/27/07 64 08/01/07
Defendant’s Exparte proceeding to continue hearing of Plaintiff’s
47) Segal
motion for summary judgment – no adjudication listed.
08/1/07 - 08/01/07 - - 65 08/02/07
Defendant’s Exparte proceeding to continue hearing of Plaintiff’s *
motion for summary judgment – Denied listed in Minute Order.
48) Segal
No adjudication listed in Register of Actions, only
08/2/07 92 08/02/07 - - 66 08/09/07
“Completed”.
*
Paper Judgment
49)
No mention of entering, no herein, no forthwith.
08/09/07 94 08/09/07 - - - -
Motion for Summary Judgment – Shell only

50) Connor 08/9/07 - - - 67 08/09/07
1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment –“Granted in *
part”
51) Connor
2) Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend – Off the record
8/9/07 95 08/09/07 71 08/09/07 78 08/14/07
No adjudication listed in Register of Actions.
Paper Notice of Order: Denial of Leave to Amend.
52) Connor Based on Tentative Ruling, fraudulent. 08/09/07 103 08/10/07 - - - -
Shows that no minute order was available.
Paper Notice of Order: Motion for Summary Judgment.

53) Connor
Included “Conformed” stamped copy of the order.
08/09/07 109 08/13/07? - - - -
95 / 545
54) Paper Order Granting Summary Judgment 08/09/07 115 08/09/07
Plaintiff’s ex parte application for order for entry of *

55) Connor
judgment – Continued
8/14/07 118 08/14/07 - - 79 08/16/07
56) Connor Paper Notice of Ruling – entry of judgment. 08/14/07 119 08/15/07 - - - -
Defendant’s ex parte application for evidentiary rulings -
57) Connor
Continued
8/16/07 122 08/16/07 - 80 08/21/07
1) Plaintiff’s ex parte application for order for entry of *
58) Connor judgment 8/21/07 126 08/21/07 81 8/21/07 83 08/28/07
2) Defendant’s ex parte application for rulings –Off the Record
59) Connor Defendant ex parte application to continue trial – Granted. 8/28/07 127 08/28/07 - - 84 08/30/07
60) Connor Paper Order to Continue Trial 8/28/07 128 8/28/07 - - - -
Defective order appointing discovery referee, where Judge *
61) Connor Connor was to appoint an Escrow referee.. Typical fraud by 8/30/07 134 08/30/07 - - 85 09/05/07
Connor – pretense of error.
1) Defendant’s ex parte application for terms of Escrow Refere7 *
62) Connor
2) Defendant’s ex parte application for notice.
9/5/07 09/05/07 - 86 09/10/07
91 09/11/07 *
1)Motion for sanction per CCP §128.7 – Denied – Fictitious.
2) Connor
2) Disqualification for a cause – off the record.
9/10/07 09/10/07 87 9/10/07
3) Goodman 1. Peremptory 9/11/07 09/11/07 92 9/11/07 93 09/11/07 *

4) Goodman 9/17/07 09/17/07 94 9/17/07 95 09/20/07
5) Goodman 9/20/07 09/20/07 96 9/20/07 97 09/20/07
6) Goodman Prop order refer 9/20/07 09/20/07 98 9/20/07 99 00/00/00 *
7) Goodman Blank?/Voided 00/00/00 - - - 10/03/07
8) Goodman Recusal/Voided 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 00/00/00 *
9) Biderman Blank?/Voided 10/05/07 00/00/00 101
- - 104 10/05/07 *
10) Biderman Recusal 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/10/07
96 / 545
Defendant’s ex parte application for orders to enforce Due
11) Segal
Process of the law: Under Submission
10/10/07 10/10/07 - 10/10/07
109
Defendant’s ex parte application for orders to enforce Due
12) Segal
Process of the law: Under Submission
10/10/07 10/10/07 10/10/07 10/10/07
110 112
13) Segal 10./11/07 10./11/0 - 10/16/07
14) Segal 10/16/07 10/16/07 10/16/07 10/17/07
15) Segal Court’s response to Disqualification for a Cause. 10/17/07 10/17/07 10/17/07 10/22/07 *
117 119
16) Goodman Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law/Blank 10/22/07 10/22/07 - 10/23/07
Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law: Under
120
17) Segal
submission
10/23/07 10/23/07 - 10/23/07
121
18) Segal Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law: 10/26/07 10/23/07 10/26/07 10/26/07
122 124
Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law: Under
19) Segal
submission
10/26/07 10/26/07 - 10/26/07
125
20) Segal Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law: Denied 10/26/07 10/26/07 10/26/07 11/05/07
21) Segal Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions- Off Calendar – fees not piad 11/05/07 11/05/07 126
- - 12 11/05/07
Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a short-notice hearing on motion *
22) Segal
to appoint a receiver – Granted/Voided
11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 33/33/33
130 132
23) Goodman Defendant’s Motion for New Trial: Blank/Voided. 33/33/33 11/08/07 - 11/08/07 *
1) Status Conference - fossil
2) Defendant’s motion of due process rights.
24) Biderman
3) Motion fo sanctions
11/08/07 11/08/07 - 11/09/07
134
4) Motion for new trial.
97 / 545
1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of receiver: Under
Submission
25) Segal 2) Defendnntns ex parte application for shortened notice hearing 11/09/07 11/09/07 - - 11/09/07
on order to set bond – off the record 135
3) Motion to set calendar – off the record
1) Plaintiff’s 4-day notice motion to appoint a receiver- Granted

2) Defendant’s ex parte application for shortened notice hearing
to set bond – off the record
3) Defendant’s ex parte for calendar – off the record
Moving paper for motion for receiver included fraud and perjury:
26) Segal Under Tab 1, declaration stated the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by 11/09/07 11/09/07 11/09/07 11/14/07
Court was attached. In fact, another record was inserted. In 136 138
open court, moving party stated he did not recognize a valid
Judgment in this case. Accordingly, the order never referred to
any section of the code as the foundation for the authority of the
“Receiver” in this case.
27) Segal New Trial 11/14/07 11/14/07 11/20/07 11/20/07

28) Segal Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of receiver: Voided 11/20/07 - - - 00/00/00 *
29) - - 00/00/00 - - - - 11/21/07
142
98 / 545
*
1) Receiver’s ex parte application for: a) order to vacate and b) to
issue unlawful detainer. INCOMPLETE, NO REGISTRATION,
yet order signed.
2) Defendant’s ex parte for temporary stay and to set bond – no
adnudication – off the record
30) Segal The language says order was signed this date – but the order 11/21/07 12/04/07 11/21/07 12/04/07
was never served. It has strange language:”as if writ of 143 145
execution was issued, to the extent the sheriff can do so”.
order was ever found or served. N. Estrada (regular clerk was
Alma Mora) is signed on the certificate, 2 weeks back-dated. NO
REGISTRATION
Response to Disqualification for a Cause file 11/17/07.

31) Segal The Minutes are dated 12/04/07, but Mora signed 12/5/07. - 12/04/07 12/04/07 12/04/07
146 148
32) Segal Response to Disqualification and Recusal - 12/04/07 12/04/07 12/07/07
Receiver’s Exparte proceeding for Gag Orders, Financial *
Abusive Orders, Indemnity Agreement to entice escrow to
collaborate in frauds with the court – Granted
Invalid registration in Sustain.
33) Collins
This proceeding included “approval” by the court of a
12/07/07 12/07/07 12/07/07 12/07/07
fraudulent Grant Deed for the property presented by Att
Pasternak as part of his fraudulent conveyance of title.
Receiver’s Exparte proceeding for Gag Orders, Financial *

Abusive Orders, Indemnity, and Defendant’s Peremptory
Challenge- Recusal, Voided
Hart-
34)
Cole
This proceeding included an incognito appearance by Att 12/07/07 12/07/07 12/07/07 165 00/00/00
Richard Ormond (Buchalter Nemer) for Mara Escrow, where 163
both the Judge and the Attorneys present refused to reveal
his identity or the identity of his client.
99 / 545
Überparty (Countrywide) ex parte application for an order
35) Friedman setting hearing on motion for sanctions for Feb 7, 2008: 12/13/07 12/13/07 - 12/17/07
Granted. 166
Case review, order setting hearing for Jan 11, 2008 Case
36) Friedman
Conference.
12/17/07 - 12/17/07 12/26/07
167 168
Defendant’s ex parte application for Due Process of the law, *
37) Rosenberg
Voided
12/26/07 12/26/07 00/00/00
169 171
38) - Voided 00/00/00 - - - 12/13/07
39) - Blank - Voided 00/00/00 - - - 1 2 00/00/00
1 3
1) Sanctions
40) Friedman
2) Disqualification
01/11/08 01/11/08 01/11/08 01/15/08
175 178
Defendant’s Peremptory Challenge – Struck.
41) Friedman Fraudulent minute order, Disqualification for a cause, not 01/15/08 01/15/08 01/15/08 11/18/08
Peremptory Challenge. 179 180
Überparty (Countrywide) ex parte application for an order Jo

Friedman setting hearing on motion for sanctions for Feb 15, 2008: 01/18/08 01/18/08 01/29/08
se
42) 01/29/08
Granted. 181
43) Friedman Defendant’s ex parte to release funds – Denied 01/29/08 h 01/30/08 - 01/30/08
44) Defendant’s ex parte to release funds – Denied/Voided
Friedman 01/30/08 01/30/08 - - 00/00/00 *
Voided 183
Überparty (Countrywide) Motion for sanctions against
45) Friedman
Defendant per ex post facto order of 1/11- Blank
02/07/08 03/03/08 - - 02/15/08
184
Überparty (Countrywide) Motion for sanctions against
46) Friedman Defendant per ex post facto order of 1/11, and for a hearing 02/15/08 02/15/08 02/15/08 03/03/08
on order to show cause - Granted 185 188
47) Defendant’s ex parte application to continue OSC hearing
Friedman 03/03/08 03/07/08 - - 03/07/08
48) Friedman OSC Re: Contempt per unregistered ex post facto 03/07/08 03/07/08 03/7/08 189 03/19/08 *
order1/11/08 11 2008
100 / 545
Disqualification Response (for disqualification of 3/12/08) – *
49) Friedman
Answer (unadjudicated), Strike, Voided
3/19/08 03/19/08 03/19/08 00/00/00
193 194
101 / 545
Powered By Pitney Bowes Page 1 of 1
~
"tJ c
I
l!-
(JJ
e: "tJ
en (JJ
"tJ
en "tJ
c
-4
m
r- -
::0
::r
Ct
en
;.
<:
m o
:0
Ct
11/
en
..
CD
~
(")
--I
::0
~
'<
oz -<
..o
!!
'tI
s:
»-
11/ ::tJ
'<
s:
~ r-
zo @)
-- X ------------------------------------
Cut on dotted line
Instructions Online label Record

1. Adhere the shipping label to the package. A self-
adhesive label is recommended. Iftape or glue is Delivery Confirmation Number:
used, DO NOTTAPE OVER BARCODE.Be sure all 420900279101128882300388948641
edges are secure. Print Date: 08/19/08 (GMT)Ship Date: 08/19/08
2. Place the label so it does not wrap around the edge of PriorityMailPostage: $4.75
the package. ElectronicOption DeliveryConfirmationFee: NONE
3. Photocopyingor other counterfeitingof US Postage is Flat Rate Envelope: Yes
punishable by fine or imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. Section From: Forgery Finders, LLC
501. 120 N. MillCreek Rd.
NoblesvilleIN46062
4. Please use this shipping label on the ship date
selected when you requested the label. To: JOSEPH ZERNIK
2415 Saint George
5. For informationon pickup options, go to the USPS LOS ANGELESCA90027
Pickup page at
http://www.usps.com/pickup/welcome.htm.
Shipping label technology provided by Pitney Bowes, Inc.
102 8/19/2008
https://ibdswebp l-ext.pb.comlimages/USPS/HTMLFolders/HTML 15/f9c37be77-a939-4f7... / 545
August 19, 2008
Joseph Zernik DMD Phd
2415 Saint George St.
Los Feliz, CA 90027
Dear Mr. Zernik,
Enclosed is our professional opinion concerning the authenticity of the documents that
you furnished to us. We are identifying these as Case 2 and Case 3.
Weare including a copy of the submitted documents, together with the professional
opinions of Robert Meister and Scott Meister.
Additionally, we are including the CV from each of us.
We appreciate this opportunity to perform our analysis and provide you with our written
opInIOn.
If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at,
(317) 443 -1616
Sincerely,
Robert Meister, FDE

Enclosures
103 / 545
Robert A. Meister
Certified Document Examiner
120 N. Mill Creek Road, Noblesville, IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000 * Fax: 800.786.2629
Emai1:experts@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.~Otggty~if1d(m:.com
Questioned Document Examiner Letter
Questioned Siguature of Victor Parks - Case 2
Date: August 19, 2008
I have examined three (3) submitted signatures. One signature, the questioned signature of
Victor Parks, found on the PRE-QUALIFICATION LETTER dated September 7, 2004
identified herein as "Ql." Two (2) ,signatures were presented as "known signatures" of Victor
Parks. The first "known signature" found on the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
VICTOR PARKS executed on November 6, 2006 is identified herein as "Kl." The second
"known signature" found on the DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on October 27,
2006 is identified herein as "K2." These "known signatures" were used to determine the
authenticity with the "Ql" signature. For the purpose of this examination, a comparison was
made between "Ql" and the aforementioned "known signatures."
Today I have compared the "known signatures" of Victor Parks to the questioned signature of
Victor Parks "Q 1," to determine the authenticity of the questioned signature.
The signatures provided for this examination were viewed side-by-side and enlarged at multiple
scales by the use of a computer to aid the examination and comparison process. Common
features of the "known signatures" were compared to the questioned signature. Additionally,
unusual features of "Q 1" were compared to the "known signatures."
Based upon thorough analysis of these items, and from an application of accepted forensic
document examination tools, principles and techniques, it is my professional expert opinion that
a different person authored the name of Victor Parks on "Ql." The author of the known Victor
Parks signatures is not the author of the Victor Parks signature on the questioned document,
"Q I."
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Meister .'

~IW~ ",-
....
'.'
.
SWORN BEFORE ME on this 19thday of August, 2008 t :-
. '.
Robert A. Meister did appear before me. ....
I
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF HAMILTON . ,~
mary Public-' StateoflI\91ana
My Commission Expires I tJ.11J'dtJIO
104 / 545
Scott R. Meister
Certified Questioned Document Examiner
120N. MillCreekRoad,Noblesville,IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000Fax:800.786.2629
Email:scott@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.~Otggty~indgt~.com
Questioned Signatures of Victor Parks - Case 2
Date: August 15,2008
I have examined three (3) submitted signatures. One signature, the questioned signature of Victor
Parks, found on the PRE-QUALIFICATION LETTER dated September 7, 2004 identified herein as
"Ql." Two (2) signatures were presented as "known signatures" of Victor Parks. The first "known
signature" found on the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on
November 6, 2006 is identified herein as "Kl." The second "known signature" found on the
DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on October 27,2006 is identified herein as "K2."
These "known signatures" were used to determine the authenticity with the "Q 1" signature. For the
purpose of this examination, a comparison was made between "Q 1" and the aforementioned
"known signatures."
Today I have compared the "known signatures" of Victor Parks to the questioned signature of
Victor Parks "Ql," to determine the authenticity of the questioned signature.
scales by the use of a computer to aid the examination and comparison process. Common features
of the "known signatures" were compared to the questioned signature. Additionally, unusual
features of"Ql" were compared to the "known signatures."
document examination tools, principles and techniques, it is my professional expert opinion that a
different person authored the name of Victor Parks on "Ql." The author of the known Victor Parks
signatures is not the author ofthe Victor Parks signature on the questioned document, "Ql."
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law and I will prove to the Court that my opinion is
correct.
Scott R. Meister
SWORN BEFORE ME on this 15thday of August, 2008

Scott R. Meister did appear before me.
" ,
STATE OF INDIANA
-...
"
COUNTY OF HAMIL TON
otary Public - State 0tlPdiana
My CommissionExpires~ 7IJ/O.JtJ/O
105 / 545
Scott R. Meister
Certified Questioned Document Examiner
120N. MillCreekRoad,Noblesville,IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000Fax:800.786.2629
Email:scott@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.rOtgBtyrindBt!:.COm
QuestionedSignaturesof VictorParks - Case3
Dat~: August 15,2008
I have examined four (4) submitted signatures. Two signatures, questioned signatures of Victor
Parks, found on the UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION (for the amount of
1,374,400) dated September 7, 2004 identified herein as "Ql" and on the UNIFORM
RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION (for the amount of 171,800) dated September 7, 2004
identified herein as "Q2." Two (2)'signatures were presented as "known signatures" of Victor
VICTOR PARKS executed on November 6,2006 is identified herein as "Kl." The second "known
signature" found on the DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on October 27, 2006 is
identified herein as "K2." These "known signatures" were used to determine the authenticity with
the "Ql" and "Q2" signatures. For the purpose of this examination, a comparison was made
betwe,en"Ql" and "Q2" and the aforementioned "known signatures."
Today I have compared the "known signatures" of Victor Parks to the questioned signatures of
Victor Parks "Ql" and "Q2," to determine the authenticity of the questioned signatures.
scales by the use of a computer to aid the examination and comparison process. Common features
of the "known signatures" were compared to the questioned signatures. Additionally, unusual
features of"Ql" and "Q2" were compared to the "known signatures."
document examination tools, principles and techniques, it is my professional expert opinion that a
different person authored the name of Victor Parks on "Ql" and "Q2." The author of the known
Victor Parks signatures is not the author of the Victor Parks signatures on the questioned documents,
"Q 1" and "Q2."
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law and I will prove to the Court that my opinion is
correct.
~c... tr ~ . Me;ster
Scott R. Meister

Scott R. Meister did appear before me.
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF HAMILTON
Not§ry Public - State of Indi _ ,
My Commission Expires I(j ./() .)0/0

106 / 545
Robert A. Meister
120 N. Mill Creek Road, Noblesville,IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000 * Fax: 800.786.2629
Email:experts@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.~Otg(!ty~ind(!t~.com
Questioned Signature of Victor Parks - Case 3
I have examined four (4) submitted signatures. Two signatures, questioned signatures of Victor
Parks, found on the UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION (for the amount of
1,374,400) dated September 7, 2004 identified herein as "Ql" and on the UNIFORM
RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION (for the amount of 171,800) dated September 7, 2004
identified herein as "Q2." Two (2) signatures were presented as "known signatures" of Victor
VICTOR PARKS executed on November 6, 2006 is identified herein as "Kl." The second
"known signature" found on the DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on October 27,
2006 is identified herein as "K2." These "known signatures" were used to determine the
authenticity with the "Ql" and "Q2" signatures. For the purpose of this examination, a
comparison was made between "Ql" and "Q2" and the aforementioned "known signatures."
Today I have compared the "known signatures" of Victor Parks to the questioned signatures of
Victor Parks "Q 1" and "Q2," to determine the authenticity of the questioned signatures
scales by the use of a computer to aid the examination and comparison process. Common
features of the "known signatures" were compared to the questioned signatures. Additionally,
unusual features of "Q 1" and "Q2" were compared to the "known signatures."
a different person authored the name of Victor Parks on "Ql" and "Q2." The author of the
known Victor Parks signatures is not the author of the Victor Parks signatures on the questioned
documents, "Q 1" and "Q2."
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law.
2?~tred'
Robert A. Meister

Robert A. Meister did appear before me.
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF HAMILTON
107 / 545
Robert A. Meister
Forensic Document Examiner
Forgery Finders, LLC
120 N. Mill Creek Road
Noblesville, In 46062
P~one: (317) 770-1000 Fax: (800) 786-2629
Forensic Examination Provid.ed For:

Disputed documents or signatures, including wills, checks, contracts, deeds, account
ledgers, medical records, and autograph authentication.
Education
BS Civil Engineering, Bradley University, 1968

-MS Engineering Administration, Bradley University, 1975
Certificate in Electronics, DeVry Institute, 1972
Training and Apprenticeship

School of Forensic Document Examination
Training Completed between 10/2004 -
10/2006
Certification as a Forensic Document Examiner, 10/2006
Analyzed Documents from over 70 Cases in 28 States, Canada and D.C.
Instructor for Handwriting University's School of Forensic Document Examination,
2006 - 2007
American Institute of Applied Science

Certification in Questioned Documents, 9/2005
Specific Areas of Training:
Handwriting Identification and Discrimination

Signature Comparison
Techniques for Distinguishing Forged Signatures
Disguised Handwriting
Altered Numbers
Anonymous Writing
Laboratory Procedures
Ethics in Business and the Legal System
108 / 545
Robert A. Meister, FDE Page 2
Laboratory Equipment used for examination:

Precision Nikon Digital Camera
Precision Flat Bed Optical Document Scanner
AmScope Stereo Microscope ST60 5x-30x, with Digital Output Camera
Assorted lighting devices and measuring scales and rulers
Library
Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals, Roy Huber, 1999

Document Examiner Textbook, Jess E. Dines, 1998
Between the Lines, Reed Hayes, 1993
Dishonesty in Handwriting, Andrea McNichol, 1993
Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, Ordway Hilton, 1993
Red Flags on Forged Checks, Joe Lucas, 1995
Written In Crime, Reed Hayes
Forensic Handwriting Examination, Reed Hayes 2006
Attorney's Guide to Document Examination, Katherine Koppenhaver, 2002
Document Examination manuals from American Institute of Applied Science
Black's Law Dictionary
Barron's Law Dictionary
Conferences Attended & Presenter
2005 Document ExaminationTraining Conference.

2006 Document ExaminationTraining Conference
Dallas, Texas
Publications
"The Concise Technique for Forgery Detection",

Co-Authored Robert & Scott Meister
"Use of PowerPoint in Determining Document Authenticity"
"Advanced Computerized Techniques in Exhibit Preparation"
PC Video Presentation + Paper
Professional Affiliations
Registered Professional Engineer, Illinoisand Indiana
109 / 545
Scott Meister
Forensic Document Examiners, LLC
. 120 N. MillCreek Rd
Noblesvllle, IN 46062
Phone: (317) 441-4845 Fax: (317) 770-7788
www.foraervfinders.com
..
Forensic Examination Provided For:
Includes but not limited to disputed documents or signatures, including wills, checks,
contracts, deeds, account ledgers, medical records, and autograph authentication.
Education
Bachelorof Science In BusinessAdministration, May 2000

Mastersof ScienceIn Accounting,July 2001

School of ForensicDocument Examination
-
Training completed between 10/2004 10/2006
Analyzed Documentsfrom over 63 CasesIn 23 States
Instructor for HandwritingUniversity'sSchool of Forensic Document Examination
2006-2007
AmericanInstitute of AppliedScience
CertificationIn Questioned Documents, 9/2005
HandwritingIdentificationand Discrimination .. j
Techniques for DistinguishingForged Signatures
Altered Numbers
AnonymousWriting
laboratory Procedures
Ethics in Business and the legal System
110 / 545
Computer
Adobe Photoshop
Photocopier
Scanner .
Magnifyingdevices
Stereo Microscope5x-30x, with DigitalOutput Camera
LIbrary
HandwritingIdentlficatloh: Facts and Fundamentals, RoyHuber, 1999

Document ExaminerTextbook,Jess E. Dines, 1998
Between the Lines,Reed Hayes, 1993
Dishonesty In Handwriting,Andrea McNichol,1993
Written In Crime, Reed Hayes,
Conferences Attended
2006 Document ExaminationTrainingConference

Dallas, Texas
Dallas, Texas

Dallas, Texas
Publications
"The Concise Technique for Forgery Detection",

"Use of powerPoint in Determining Document Authenticity"
"Advanced Computerized Techniques in Exhibit Preparation"
.. j
111 / 545
0405:12p 50!,. 271 7845 p.2
Pc1cif'tCMortngc Con$ult)r:f:~
7',):; :.;1,i<1;pur~f\{!.~~ ur\';!1': 1/~7S
L~.,~-:-~)t~,C.~:dc'::"~;.~9J9
{&n!) t>l~~g;. !):"I)(~

(S(}O) :'7"-1~~ j:"y
V.f.:\\t(..:j';v:i'J,,-,,: :,::'
.
Nivlc Sam:1:1n
d..."7~S, Alfl'C(1Sln:..:1
~ J\n~I;J~s.C/\ 90035
RE:I'RE-QUALIFICATI0N
L>c:lf Nivi,,;
'111;1111.Y"I' I"r II~ upJ'Klr1unily hI ('In)r&:~>liI\na\ly :"UW )I"'" Our ,,!'Ii!:!: h..:oi r':"';l;wcd yn"r itlC(tmc.
cn.-dit. and source or fund!;. uod wc'n; happy 1.0Ct)nlinn that you've; been prc-qualilicd Iu pUNhl1~c a
$1.700.000 home with 80/10/10 ('jnllncin~. Thi~ pr:..q"aliticntion ill ~ubjcct to written vcrification
;uuJ lilll al'pr~w..1 I'rt\lll ~'III' undcrwdlinp.dCl1'lnm':/\I.
My team and I :m~d\-dicutcd It) giving y()UIhe hc~t ~rvjcc. ~uPI'('Irt.and product anywhere! We;un:
l:utllic.lclI{ Ih"l yuu wililind ,llIr Icvcl ,,1' service :md cmnnlill1\~nl ~L:c()nt.lln 11I>1\C!
I lut.k ftlrwuru In ",,,rkin~ with you to :t !'ucccssful closo of \,;.'icr(lw.SI'l'llld YOIIdesire IIdditklRal
inlorm:llitm. pl~;/M: 1i:t:1 frlX 111Ct)nlacl 1110:.Il: (ggg) 57S~56L>3. .
;z;c-
ViC((1r"arks
~r. 1.0:111Com;u.ltal\t
~t-
~1!:D!N'ig "3MCJ10~ :A9 lN3S
112 / 545
1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS
2 I, Victor Parks, state and declare as follows:
3
.
4
1. I am a Senior Loan Consultant with Pacific Mortgage Loan
5 Consultants. I submit this declaration in support of Nivie Samaan's Sur-Reply to
6 defendant Jospeh Zemik's ("?emik") Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. [have personal
7 knowledge of the facts set forth herein, which are known by me to be true and correct, and
8 if called as a witness, [ could and would competently testify thereto.
9
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 js a true and correct copy of the
10
Purchase Agreement that Mara Escrow me on October 22, 2004. The fax line on the top of
11 .. .
the documents shows that Mara Escrow sent it on October 22, 2004, at 3:42 p.m. This
12..
document was not signed or initialed by the defendant
13
14 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28, is a true and correct copy of a letter I
15
received nom Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., dated November 6, 2006, confInning that
16
on or around October 14,2004, Countrywide suspended the processing of Ms. Samaan's
17
loan because they had not yet received a copy of the fully executed Purchase Agreement.
18 This letter is accompanied by the actual Notice of Suspension that Countrywide sent me in
19" October 2004.
20
2111 I declare under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of California
2211that the foregoing is true and correct.

23
24 Executed on November 6, 2006 at San Diego, CaJifomia.
25
26 Cz -I( I
27 Victor Parks
28
JOB #2
PAGE 5
113 / 545
1
2 Contingencyby October 11. We bad one full week before the deadlinefor close of
3 escrow. It wouldhave only ~en a few days for the loan documentsto be prepared.
4 Based on my experienceI believethat the partiescould have closedescrowby November
1, 2004.
S
6
r declare under penaltyof pe1juryunder the Jawsof the State of California
7 that the foregoingis true and correct.
. 8
9
10 ExeCutedon October~ 2006 at S~ D1~,~ 1 California.
.11
12
13
eZ-k-z..
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.7.2_IJ.:-
23 :....
24 F.-~
.'. ,."..
i
2S ..
..
. ..
26
27
"
28 ~, ,., ..~~...
W02-\\'EST:IMMK.J\400HIJ ~].J
DECLARA nON OF. VICTOR: MRK-S- .
-'~:..:;=~':':...~. ~"""--'
.JOB #
~._"
114 / 545
SChcdul~ 01 Rul
. VI.ASSeTSAND-i.lABiLfrtE~ (cent.).
EslaIO Owfted (11addlilOnal pIDpeI\Ies are owned, use canUnuoUons~ee1)
. ..
JnSUtanee,
Property Address (OIIIorS 1/sold. PS II pend!ng solo
orRIIrenlalbeinghaldlorIncome) I
Typo01 Pres~1
PIQPSrtyMarketVaJus
1
Amount01
I Mortgages
Gross MotIgege
&Uens Rentallacome Payments I MaIntanaru:e. NBI
I
ToxBS&MJsc. Rentaflncome
'$ $ $ $
. ...
I VII. DE;TAJL:S'OF. TSAC'ApN- VIII, \)ECLARATION I
a. Purchaso prir.a S 1.718,000.00 you ....WIIt"y.S.1o ony qu..Uo"" a through pI.a.. un contlllUatlen Bo""""" Co-SotrGwor
b. AlleraUons,lmprovema,",. repairs .hoetf.roxpla""U.n. Yea No Yes No
c. Land (IIe'"lulred separately) L AnIIh.reanyoutstandill9JudgmenlsBgllnslycu? 0&1 00
II. Relil1anca (1ncI. deblB 10 ba paid oro b. HaysyouboendedaredbonJuuplv.iD1lnlhBpul7yeB"" 0&1 DO
e. EsUmeIed p..pald I10ms 6.288.33... Hnveyouhad_artylo..Qooed uponorglvenUUe0<deed Inlieu1h0le0l 0&1 00
I. Eslimated cIo&lng eos\S 21.816.00 In\he last 7 years?
g. PMI.MIP.FtmdlnoFee II. Anlyoaapanymalawsuh? O 00
h. Dlsaluol (11e.rrowerwRI pay) .. Have youdHeCII'/ orlrufll9dJybeBnoblipled on anyloanwhichruuUed In 0&1 00
I. Total costs (add llema a thR>ugh hi 1.748,116.33 IoIadouu8, lranst...oIlitlaln lIou orforeciOSUt8, orJu<lgmont'l
(Ib!a....w_4._IoIns.._"'""Oogo..w,SIlA......IIcmt
171,800.00
SUbcnllnale nanclng
k. IIonowoI's cIoslno costs paid by Seller
=:.=
Iddt8Utlt..... fK.\ orVACI..f'I.I'CIJ>tt.tnr.aM fIUQN twmtKGot\)
L Olhar Cradils(expIaIn) L Ar\I yoa pres","1yddl>quentOf In defautl on8'IY Fed.... debtorony olher o DO
Cash Doposlt 30,000.00 loan, mOltQsga,linandalobllgalJon, bond, or loan guamnl8l?
U"f....oMI alblloo d..riadh GIo,....CIII q1IOS\.Ion.
II- AnIyouobliVal8d to psy efimony. cI1IIdIupJ)OIt, orseparala maInltftance? 0&1 00
I\.IsanypollollhB d.wnpayment_ 0&1 00
l AnIyoua........urorendOtae1on
anoia? [J&I DO
--..................
....-.................................... ......-...........
m.L.anamounl
Ar\I you a U. S. cI11ztn1 GlJO DO
1,374,400.00
(oxdude PM MIP,FundingFoo finllOcocf. Ie. AnI you 0 permanent resld 011IoIJeII? 0&1 00
L Doyeu Inlandto CCl:upytho prop.rty.. yourpnmlry "'tldence? O 00
n. PM!.MIP,FIIIdIngFe. flOancad R"Y....__ri..mbe1<w.
m.HaYI you had on C>Wno/$l\lphle:oslln a PR>ponyln IJ10lasl thno. ycara? 0&1 DO
0. Loan amount (odd m &n) . 1,374,400.00 (I) What lIPo 01 propenydld)W .eskIeI\eO (PR),
....,nd home (5H), or_lIMnt P'Dparty (1P)?
p. Cash IJomllo Bonower 168.815.33 (2) Hgo,¥did you hold IiIIeto th. homHoJolt byyouraoll (S).
(Iubtlactl. k,1 &0 Im Q Jelntl)'wilhyour
spouso(SP),or jalnUyvOlh
ono1her_ (0)1
I IX.ACKNOWls,DGI\1_ENT
-AN.D.
AGMm: I
Eacll.fOlD vnd8ioli1..~spodrlCOlli,.pnWinlS
11>
Len".ian410 Lend.f. oClul>l og.nts, brake... ~
0<polonlloJ .~omoyo, omsando..Ions
~r:::~~:..~:~"iJ~O:=I~~~...:~~~cIw8~~~:uu::.~~~~:o~:':.,":.:::=:\:"rn~~..=~
rell upon .n, mll/OIIIO-IontaUon UtIli how mad. on U\IJ .ppl"'Uon.IJIIjfCf In _ penoI1Ieslnl$ldlno. bill not ImI1aIlo, fin. Dr l..pIIo_ or _ tmderlhD provIol...
.1'I1I!o18, UnilodSIOIa.Cad.. See:.101l1."~: (2)th.""'n roqu d pVl1vantto U\IJopplioallon(tho"Loon")... be d by. mortgoO.ordeed oIlnISlon 111~
=~==~='il:mronot.:,:;..:~:~r.r=.,~~.~":.t':=":=~ ~':v~~n~.:v'%r:"'~~"f:.odIn~
oppb..uan lrom 11I1)' riamId
Is n.Upprovod; m 111. Lend" andU"oonts. bro
~~
oppIcaUon. and Under. b lUl:CCSa... or olll1ln. 0111 retain tho OIIgInoIondior on e!odn>nlo r=xd 01U\IJ .pplicalion. avon Uth. L...
lnovrm. 101V1I:en:..ucee end 0I8IOn. OIlY"'"U u.11 rllr Do'tho In!annollon _In tho oppWoa1Ion. and 10..
obIIQ.l8d \0 a..ei14 andlcr supplament 1I1.lnIormoti.n PftIVIdodIn 1h!a.pplitali.n U 8I!'f cI tho tIIItorIAJlacts thai I hI._ ,..",..ontad horem ohouId d10nse prior 10 doling ., 1110
Lean; (8) In Iho mmlthat "" pa)'llllnts ... Iho Loon becomo dalinqvant.Ih_ ownOf or Icrvloor 01 \lIO Lean may, In addillon to any other nghls ond dlelth.1 II 11\I)'how
!dolingto ouchdoli_, t8j>OIt
"" nomaandoccovnlln/.rmaUon to or ""'"' "'n CtOdII rtlng rI... (II)own...hlp oIlho Loononlllota4m1n1slnllion 01tho
Loon 1..., be ,_ wlth.uchnob y be requ!rodbylaw: (10) ~r Londor nor Iloauonlo, bro""... """""_oro or OII;gn. has modo oor
rop ntaIion orworronl'l, UJI erlnlJ:lied, 10 mo rooonfing th_ propOlty or Iho tand~ton or voIuo 01111.pro""rty: and (11) my InInImbsIon 01this oppico\lon 'e!Idn>nio
=Jsa":":~Is:;=O:C=~~..~:::.::.n~=::.::r=~~~~~-:=J=~~ro~~~:~=:.:~~..~
iini1l no 8
:n~=
. tgna\U!e Data Co-Bonowal'S
Slgnatura DolO
'.~ q-~1~~x
'X. NF.ORMATION
FOR:GO~"'!Ufr .PURPOSES
.N!ONlTbRJN.G
TheloUowlnglnfonnallonlsrequestedbyOloFederaiGovemmenllorcertallltypos ollolll1arelallld t.a dwalDnglnonlerlomonllorlhol.nd comp1faftceWiihequalCr!d1t
opportutlllY,lalrhollslngandhom_mc>IIgaDediscloauralaw5. YouarenolrequlRrdlolumisllU1Js'lIIormaUon,bulare8l1COUragedlDdoso. TholawprovldoslhataLendormay
dl&c:rIminalanellheronlhebaslsollhfllnlonnallon,tIOtonvmothoryoud1oosololumlshLllyoufumishUtelnlonnaUon,plea.ap/lMdoboOlolhntcl!yandn>ce. Forraco, you
moyd1eckmoreUtanonBdoslgnsUon.l/youdonotlllmlsheUmlQIy.race.orsox.lJndOrFoderalre9u1aUona,U1JsfBnderlsrequiradlonota\helnConnallDnonlhobaslsolvisuai
obseMtGonorsumeme.llyoudOftol\Ylshtolumlshlhelnlom1aUon,peaseehodllhoboxbeJOW. (LendermuslrevlllWlMabovemaleliallollSSurelhal\heclisdoauressalis/y
ID requlremenls IoWhJch Iha Isnder Is subjectunder appilcabloslalalavrlorlhapal1Jtul8rtype olloan opplledlor.)
BORROWER [JI d.notl'lllh IOfumllhlhlslnIonnanon CO.BORROWER01 do notwtshlOrUmtsh III1Ilnfo:mallon
Elhnl~I\y: o Hbpllllk>orLoUno ~ N.IHi.panioorLo1in9 Elhnlelly: OHbpanico<LeIino ONolHbpllllloorLotlno
Raea: OAm nlt1cf!onor 0 Allan [Jeloalter Roca: (JAmm lndJano< 0 1an OBl.alter
AIuIaINallY8 AlricoftAmoI\oon AIaokDN.Uvo AIIIoonAmon;on
o NativeHawollanor
01hCtPodIIeIIIlnder
GZIWhOa ONotivoHawolionO<
OlhorPadlic ISlander
OWhiIa
Sox: GlJl'cm1IIo Sox: OFomaIo O/olal.

To beCompletedbyInlolVlaw.r
Inte omeandAddressorII1lerviewnEmployer
ThIsappl'iCOUcn
wastakellby. e PaelllcMortgageConaullanls
OFaoo-to- a
OM.1I
GZlTeJop
olnlllmal
2 ~~' I '1.
~
..,l./. OrJI Larkspur.
700LarkspurLandlng ClrcloIIrl6
CA.94939
(P)888-575-5893
IF)3100496-3256
Fonn!.Maofenn 1003 01104

flUfdio Moc farm e5 Q1104
COI1XfOllll 1003 LoonapjI3Jrm Q1104
Computer GeneratedPago3 Dr4
Handwritten 1003
J'B #3
~lGE 5
115 / 545
.' ..,";@.i;:;:f'ii+l;<":i.',i:;);,"~::,ji?':+;X;:;/~~;i'::!~~,iiWr~.:~;s~~t$tANPJ.j16.BiLiTIi;~l.
(cO"~)~::':::f5(\';~i/;:~~;:T;;t;B;1~:(:l0~;;\?j!~;i~;';~:i1:':;it);:/~;;W:;£1~S~~i
Schedule of Real Estate Owned (If addlllonelpropertiesare owned,use conlinuaUon sheet) Insurance
...................
PropertyAddress(enterS Ifsold,PS If pendingsale Typeof Presenl Amountof Gross Mortgage Maintenance, Net
or R If rentelbeingheld lor Income) Property Markel Value Mortgages& liens RentalIncome Payments Taxes & Mlsc, RentalIncome
$ $ S $ $ $
$ $
- Totals $ $ $ -----
$
List any ai/dillonal names unilo,.whlcli credit hes previously been recel"oirand Indicate appropriate creditor name(s) and account number(s}:
Alternate Name Creditor Name Account Number
'.
1',:'.:;.;;:,i,:Vli,i'iJETt.S;'OF.;'TRAN5ACtlqNi%D,\H':;,;F\,,;';:j";/M,:Z::i(;'.'i2:';;i'li{:f!:J'::g;;;VjlittiEGi;:AMt,ciNa£;H!D;;::i+;;'i:igi,';i::'J?:Pi0i,;:t:f'?il
a. Purcheseprlca $ 1,118,000.00 If youanswer"yes"to any questions u through I,ploaso U8econtinuation Borrowe Co.Borrower
sheet forexplanatfon. Ve. No Yea No
b, Alterations,Improvements,repelrs
c. land (IIacquiredseparately) a. ArethereanyoulStandlng
Judgmenls
agaln.tyou? o6lJ 00
d. Refinance (Incl.debtstobepaidofl) b. Haveyoubeendeclaredbankruptwithinthe pa.t 7years? O 00
e, Estimated prepaidlIems c. Haveyouhadproperty
forecloseduponorgivenIilleordeed Inlieuthereot O 0 0
f. Estlmeted closing costs in the last 7 yea,s?
g. PMI, MIP, Funding Fee d, Are you a party to a lawsull? O 00

h. Dlscounl (If Borrower w/ll pay) e. Haveyoudlrecllyor IndlrecUy
beenobligaledon anyloanwhichrosulledIn O 00'
1,718,000.00 foreclosure, lransfer or //lie In lieu of foreclosure, or Judgment?
I. Total costs (add lIems a through hi (ThisWOtJd RfudelUCh toanl 8S home mortgage loans,SBAloam:. homeimprovement
J.Subordinate financing lOin., aducaltonalbool, manufactured
obligation. bond. «loan
(mobtIe)
{luatontoo.
horn.kJlnl, an)' mortgage,ftnancIei
".....81: proyIdo dotaUl.lndudIng dalo. Mme and
k, Borrowes closingcosts paid by Seiter eddroSlellender. FHAorVACI.e nwnber,lfany. and,e8sons (orthe edoo.)
I. Other C,edlls(explaln) I. Are you presenlly delinquent or In default on any Federal debt or any olhor O 0 0
30,000.00 toan, mol1gege,financialobllgetlon,bond,orloanguarantee?
Cash Deposit quo.non.
If""(os: givedotallsat dosa1badInehopreeed1no
g. Are youobligated (0 pay alimony.child 9UPP0r1,orseparate
ma1nlensnce1 O 00
h, Is any pal1 or the down paymont borrowed? O 0 0
1,374,400.00 l Areyouaco-makerorendorser ona nole1 O 0 0
NewFirst Mortgage .....................................................--..................................
New1st Mtg Closing Coste (28,115.33)
], .AreyouaU. S.clUzen? O 00
m.loan amounl 171,800.00 k. Areyoua permanenlresidentalien? O 00
(excludePMI, MIP. FundingFee financed o 00
I. DoyeuIntendtooccupythopropertyasyourprImaryresIdence?
n.PMI, MIP. FundingFoe financed Ir-Vel'- complolo quesUonm balow.
m.HayeyouhadenownershipInterestIna propertyInthe laslthreeyears? O(;!) 0 0
o. loan amounl(add m & 0) 111,800.00 (I) What type 0' property did you own.princlpal residence (PR),
sooondhome(SH), or Investment property (IP)?
p. Cash from/lo Borrower 169,915.33 (2) How did you hold tlUe to the home.sololy by yourself (S),
(subtract J. k. I & 0 Irom I) jointlywithyourspouse(SP), orlolnllywithanolherpe'son(O)?
I.' ;..,'<;.,;,;.;;frjij;;,'i.O:.:;.;.;,; i" .'Xi....; ';,,:;;':,;;\::',i:;;i IX; A,qI<NOWLEDGM!;NtANQ1U>.GRE:I;MENTrri;ilr.11i''i:j,A:::j'J@{;'3i:;i;J'N:iri;1l,:'?:;c,§1@{)l;);' l
;:t8:~e~: :~e;~~e~~~nl:~~ ~f~~:e~~~:~~::~;:~~e1;
J~e~~:r':p~~~~o~r1r~~n:~:g:~Jr::~8iJ'~Od~~s:~~.f~~~~~~I~:~~~'I:neD~U~:r:n:u=s:;.
w~~~S~f:~
PBoligentmisrepresentationofthisinformation conlalnedIn this applicationmay resultIn clvUndbllily.Includingmonetary damages, to anyperlon who may au".' any Ion due to
In criminalpenaltiesIncluding,but notlimited to. fine Dr ImprisonmentDr both under the provisIons
relianceupon any ml.reprenntatJon that I have made on this appricatfon.anr:tlar
~~~:~:'h~~;~~ (~;at: ~~::rt~~n~~'bee~:~'iJ;~~eJl~:~1

:~~~:~r~t~d(:~~:~
::1~::P:~)~:~t~~ee~~:~n~~I:
r: ~r~;:'i~II:::~O~~~:f:reth~~~:d ~b::rn~rt:
resldenUal mortgage loan:(5) theproperty wl1lbe DCcuplod as Ind~ted her~ln:(8) anyownerDr lervlcer of the Loan may verify or revertfy any InformaDoncontainedIn the
appncationfromany sourcenamed In this application. and Lendor.lis successorsoralslgns mayretainthe originalandloran electronicrecord orthisappncatlon. even Ifthe Loan
Is not approved;(7) the Lender and itl agenls. brokers.Insurers.service,., successorsandassigns may continuouslyrelyon the InformationcontainedIn Ute application.and I am
obllgaled to amend andlorsupplementthe In'ormation providedIn thl. applicationIf eny0' themeletisl faels thatI haverepresented hereinlhoutdchangeprior10dOlingof the
loan: (8) it) the evenllhat my payment. on the Loan become dennquent.the ownor or servlcerof the LoGnmay, In addlUonto .oy other rights and remedlolthat It may have
relotlng10 such dennquenC)'. reportmy name and accountInformallonto one or more consumercredit reporVngagendes; (9) ownershiportheLosnand/oradministration ofthe
Loan accountmaybe lIansferred withsuch notice 8S may be requIred by law; (10) neither lender nor Its agents. brokers.Insurers.servlcers. 8UCCesi0l1 or 851lgnshas made 8n)'
ropresentation or warranty.express or Implied.to me regardingthe propertyor the condillonor "stueof (he property; and(11) my transmissionofthisappllcatJon asan"electronic
recofd"containingmy "electronic Ilgnature: al Ihose terms are dafined In applicabferederal end/or state fawl (excluding audio and video recordings). or my facsimile
transmJnkm 0' thisappllcallon
containing
8 facsimile 0' myslgneture,shallbe as effective. enfofceableandvalidallf 8 peperversion 0' thisappRcaUonwere deliveredcontaInIng
m ori Inalwrillen sI nature.
Borr oWe(S gnaIUre
7t
Date Co-Borrowe~sSionatura Date
/ . ~' 1 'l
X.' . JIAA-( t:tr11.-vIL<..-'L- .{ -01 -0 X
2.<;/,:;:1;'ts'X';;;INFPRMATION1FO~~QOVE~NMENT;~I'iIQNir9R.I~c'4~.~iJ~~Q~E$\q~~:;,2;:iII:'i;'{i;i:!''C;r;:(fV:('';V:i'ii!;k~1.i:;:::;:::
The followingInformotlonIsrequestodbythaFede,alGovernmenlforcertaintypesof loansrelatedloa dwellingInorderto monllorthelende~scompllancawilhequelcredll
opportunity,lalrhouslngandhomemortgagedlsclosurelaws.VouarenolrequlredtolurnJshthlslnformallon,butareencouraged lodoso. ThalawprovldesthataLendermay
discriminateneltheronthebasisorthIsInformallon.noronwhetheryouchoosetofurnishII. Ifyoufurnishthelnrormallon,pleeseprovldebothelhnlcllyendraca.Forrace,you
maycheckmorethanonedeslgnallon.Ifyoudonol fumlshethnlcliY,race,orsex,underFederalregulallons,thlslenderlsrequlredlonotethelnlormeliononthebasisofvisual
observationorsumame.IfyoudonotwishtolumlshtheInformation,pleesechecktheboxbelow.(landermustravlewlhe abovematertelloessurethallhedlsclosuressatlsfy
all requirementsto whichthe lenderIs subjectunderapplicablestate lew for the pertlculartypeof loan appliedfor.)
BORROWER 0 I donol wishto lumlsh'his Information CO-BORROWER 0 I donotwishto furnIshIhl.lnrormatlon
Ethnlclty: 0 Hispanic Of lallno ~ NotHispanicor letlno Ethnlclly: 0 Hisponlcor latlno 0 NotHispanicorlaUno
Race: 0 American Indian or 0 Aslon 0 Black or Raca: 0 American Indian or 0 Asian 0 Black or
Ale.ke Notlye AllleanAmellean AlaskeNallye AlrlcanAmerican
o NativeHawaIIanor ~ While 0 NallveHawallon0' 0 White
OtherPacificIslander OtherPacificIslander
Sox: blJFamale Sex: 0 Fomale 0 Mole
To be Complotedby Interviewer NameandAddress01Intervlewe(sEmployer
This applicationwas takenby: Pacll1c Mortgage Consultants
o
o
o
Face.t0
MaR
blJTelephone '011((
Inlernel
rtj"-
tervlew 00 Larkspur landing Circle #215
Larkspur, CA 94939
(P) 888-575.6693
(F) 310-496-3256
'
Freddie Mac Fo,m 85 01104 {:@mlJuh~,f' Geller«!te:d FannieMeeForm1003 01104

CalyxForm 1003loanapp3.f'm OtlO4
HWlcllA,..i'i.t~m
m03Pago 3 of 4
JOB #3
1168 /
PAGE 545
1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS
2 I, Victor Parks, state and declare as follows:
'.
3
1. I am a Senior Loan Consultant with Pacific Mortgage Loan
4
5 Consultants. I submit this declaration in support of Nivie Samaan's Sur-Reply to
6 defendant Jospeh Zemik's ("~emi.k")Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. [have personal
7 knowledge of the facts set forth herein, which are known by me to be true and correct, and
8 if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
9
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of the
10
Purchase Agreement that Mara Escrow me on October 22, 2004. The fax line on the top of
11
the documents shows that Mara Escrow sent it on October 22, 2004, at 3:42 p.m. This
12
document was not signed or initialed by the defendant
13
14 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28, is a true and correct copy of a letter [
15
received from Countrywide Home Loans. Inc., dated November 6, 2006, conflnning that
16
on or around October 14,2004, Countrywide suspended the processing afMs. Samaan's
17
loan because they had not yet received 8 copy of the fully executed Purchase Agreement.
18
This letter is accompanied by the actual Notice of Suspensionthat Countrywide sent me in
1911October 2004.
20
21 [ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia
22 that the foregoing is true and correct.
23
24 Executed on November 6, 2006 at San Diego, California.
25
C!3KI
26
27
J~
Victor Parks
28
JOB #3
PAGE 11
117 / 545
111 Contingency by October 1I . We had one :fullweek before the deadline for,close of
. a few days for the lOandocumentsto be prepared.
2 "escrow. It wouldhave only ~en
'
3 II Based on my experienceI believethat the partiescould have closed escrowby November

4 tl 1, 2004.
S
6" r declare under penalty of perjwy under the laws of the State of California
711that the foregoing is true and correct.
'.
~
8
9
10 ExeCuted on October ~ 2006 at S~ D1t..,~
, California.
-11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
':>2_/1..~:-
23 :....
24
2S "
, "
26
27
"
28 ~\ ,,' ,-~,.'
W02-V.'ESt:I MMKJ\400H IJ ~I.I

DECLARA nON OF. \f.JCTOR: P-ARK-s- .
"~"'" -'-:.:''::::';';... -'

~OB #3
~""~'--~ ;'.'---', .~' .. ...~._..
118 / 545
119 / 545
120 / 545
121 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 50
1 Joseph Zemik
2 2415 Saint George St.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
3 Tel: (310) 4359107
4 Fax:(801)9980917
jzI2345@earthlink.net
5 Plaintiff
6 in pro per {,
~,:'
Dlglt~yslgnedby
Joseph Z.tnik
~'_: )J . ON: cn=Jollph Zem!k.
) • ·~L:~.'.".Jlln45Oearth.
~~et.;G;;l.IS
7 ~te: 2008.64.1 5
12;32;44-oTOO'
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,::; c;;
," f-~
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: -< C"'l~

r f1, j_~
c:;)
c. ::~
10 ;;:.:;~ c..P
11
JOSEPH ZERNIK No. CV-08-01550-VAP-C ~.....-J
12
Plaintiff HON Co WOEHRLE JUD E ~~:~:; "'"'j
•......... ,.
r~·-:':--·-..
13
14
JI: . \ ~. ;-~.~ =;;
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS\PREVi~U~Y
15 Defendants FILED LASC: . =l
i
16 NOTICE OF SAMAAN'S FRAUDULENT
17 LOAN APPLICATIONS, THE mSTORY
OF THEIR UNDERWRITING BY
18 COUNTR~DE,ANDFRAUDULENT
19 CLAIMS MADE REGARDING SUCH

UNDERWRITING BY COUNTRYWIDE
20 AND BY SAMAAN.
21
FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN
22 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REQUEST TO
CONTINUE, ALTERNATIVELY TO
23 CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS
24
DATE: APRIL 15,2008
25
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:
26
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the following document, previously filed in LASe in
27
28 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) -
-1-
NOTICE OF SAMAAN'S FRAUDULENT LOAN APPLICATIONS & UNDERWRITING BY COUNTRYWIDE.
122 / 545
THE
NOTI CE OF SAMA AN'S FRAU DULE NT LOAN APPL ICATI ONS,
TRYW IDE, AND
2 HISTO RY OF THEIR UNDE RWRI TING BY COUN
TING BY
FRAU DULE NT CLAIM S MADE REGA RDIN G SUCH UNDE RWRI
3 COUN TRYW IDE AND BY SAMA AN.
ffs ex parte
This document is filed in United States Court, Los Angeles in support of Plainti
4
date hearings.
application to continue hearings on Motions to Dismiss, alternatively - to consoli
5
th
Dated: Apri114 , 2008
6
7 Respectfully submitted.
8
9 JOSEP H ZERN IK
Plaint iff
10 in prope r
11
FRAU DULE NT
STAT EMEN T OF VERIF ICATI ON OF NOTI CE OF SAMA AN'S
12 AND FRUA DULE NT CLAIM S
LOAN APPL ICATI ONS, THEI R UNDE RWRI TING,
UNDE RWRI TING.
13 BY SAMA AN AND COUN TRYW IDE REGA RDIN G SAID
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zernik
14 t, I am also Appellant
(SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West Distric
15 in Zernik v Connor et
in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court: (B203063), and also Plainti ff
16 al (CV 08-01550) matter heard in the United S~tes District Court,
Los Angeles, California.
LOAN
17 I have read the foregoing NOTI CE OF SAMA AN'S FRAU DULE NT
IDE, AND
18 APPL ICATI ONS, THEI R UNDE RWRI TING BY COUN TRYW
I know the content
19 FRAU DULE NT CLAIM S RE: SAID UNDE RWRI TING and
dge as
thereo f to be true and correct. It is correct based on my own personal knowle
20 ing is true and
Defendant in pro per in said case. I make this declaration that the forego
21 correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
th
this 14 day in
22 Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California, on
23
24
25
April, 2008.
).~
Josep h Zerni k'
,--'1-4 .
L.-··..·:"
26 Plaint iff lv '
in pro per \../
27
28
-2-
WRITING BY COUNTRYWIDE.
NOTICE OF SAMAAN'S FRAUDULENT LOAN APPLICATIONS & UNDER
123 / 545
Joseph Zernik
in proper
2 2415 Saint George St
Los Angeles, California 90027
3 Tel: 310-435-9107
Fax: 801-998-0917
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, Case No. SC087400

12 No Valid Assignment On File Since Sept 10,
Plaintiff,
20071
13 v.
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES 1 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF SAMAAN'S
15 through 20, inclusive, FRAUDULENT
SEPT 27, 2004 LOAN APPLICATIONS
16 Defendants. SUBMITTED TO COUNTRYWIDE,
17 THEIR UNDERWRITING PROCESS,
JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, THEIR SUSPENSION,
18 DENIAL OF THEIR FUNDING.
Cross-Complainant,
19 &
v. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS
20 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL TO THE CONTRARY
21 BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW, an
MADE IN COURT BY
individual, SAMAAN & COUNTRYWIDE.
22
23 Cross-Defendants.
24
DATE: Feb 29, 2008
25
26
27
28
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations

Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide
124 / 545
TABL E OF CONT ENT

2
3 Cover 1
4 Table of Conte nts 2
5 I. I NTRO DUCT ION ........ ......• ........ ..... 4

R
6 II. BRIE F HIST ORY OF SAMA AN'S LOAN APPL ICAT IONS , THEI
MAD E
7 UNDE RWR ITING BY COUN TRYW IDE, AND FALS E CLAI MS
I N THIS REGA RD BY SAMA AN & COUN TRYW IDE.. ....... 5
8
Table 1. Chronological table of Samaa n/Cou ntrywi de's fraudu lent claim... ... ... .... 11
9
III. POIN TS AND AUTH ORIT IES 16
10
16
11 Table 2. Fraud ulent Inducement by Samaa n & Parks against Zernik ...
Loan
12 Table 3. Fraud and Deceit by Samaan against Zernik RE: Underwriting of
'" , . 17
Applica tions (1003)
13 . 18
Table 4. Bank Fraud by Samaa n against Countrywide and against Zernik
14 rywide . 19
Table 5. Wire Fraud by Samaan against Zernik and against Count
15 . 20
Table 6. Fraud ulent Claims by Samaa n & Countrywide against Zernik
16 Zernik 21
Table 7. Statut e of Fraud s Fraud by Samaa n & Countrywide against
17
18 ........ 23
IV. DECL ARAT ION OF JOSE PH ZERN IK
19
20 37
V. EXHI BITS
21 ........ 38
ExhA - Sept 27,200 4 _pf Lien Loan Application
22 ExhB - Sept 27,200 4 _zst
Lien Loan Application ........ 42
........ 46
23 ExhC -San Rafae l "Conversation Log" blankf orm.
........ 48
24 ExhD - Nov 3-6, 2006 Correspondence McLau rin! Lloyd! Keshavarzi
... 61
25 ExhE - Oct 4, 2004 Broke r Certification and Origination Agreement.
........ 64
26 ExhF - Oct 6, 2004 -Rever se Yellow Pages Looku p
........ 66
27 ExhG - Phase 1 Quality Assurance Documents:
28 1. 0 ct 13,200 4 Quality Verification and Documentation Questionnaire
-2-
Fraud ulent Repres entations

Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications andn & Countrywide
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa
125 / 545
2. Oct 13,200 4 Compliance Verification Forms

2 3. Oct 13,200 4 Unsigned Countrywide Home Loans Disclosures.
System) 82
3 Exh H - Oct 14,200 4 Clues Report (Computerized Underwriting Expert
91
4 Exh I - Oct 14,2004 pi Lien Underwriting Letter
'" 93
5 Exh J - Oct 25, 2004 McLaurin's Exception Request, Branch Input
st 97
6 Exh K - October 25, 2004 Ortin's Email Note RE: Exception Reque
99
7 Exh L - October 25, 2004 McLaurin/Ortin's Appraisal Review Order
file" 101
8 Exh M - Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter, unsigned, "not part ofloan
104
9 Exh N - October 29,200 4 Gadi's Exception Report
108
10 Exh 0 - Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter
111
P - Nov 3,200 4 Appraisal Review Report
11 Exh
114
12Ex h Q -Nov 3,2004 Underwriting Letter
117
Exh R- Jan 27, 2005 -Countrywide Bank's Denial Letter
13 119
Exh Q - July 2006, Samaan's Deposition .
14 149
Exh S - Oct 27,2006, Parks' Court Declaration
15 157
Exh T - Sept 7, 2006 Samaan 's Prequalification Letter
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Fraud ulent ~epres entations

126 / 545
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
3 Enclosed are copies of Sarnaan's fraudulent loan applications (Exh A - First Lien Loan
4 Application, Exh B- Second Lien Loan Application) dated Sept 27, 2004, which were
5 submitted in 2004 to Countrywide, and other Countrywide underwriting documents
6 substantiating extensive fraud in the litigation of Sarnaan v Zemik (SC087400) at the Los
7 Angeles Superior Court.
8
9 I. INTRODUCTION
10 Defendant & Cross-Complainant Zemik is filing this notice, and filed previous
11 notices in Samaan v Zemik for ease of reference relative to fraud by Countrywide and others
12 in Samaan v Zemik:
13
a. Feb 27, 2008 Notice ofSamaan-Countrywide fraudulent Loan Applications
14
b. Nov 15,2007 Notice offraudulent Real Property Purchase Contract document
15
16 c. Dec 19, 2007 Notice ofa fraudulent Underwriting Letter.
17 A three additional documents are yet to be completed to allow full review of the
18 extent offraud in litigation of Samaan v Zernik:
19
d. Fraudulent Verified Statements in Samaan v Zernik
20
e. Fraudulent Inducement perpetrated by Samaan & Parks against Zernik in Sept
21
2004
22
23 f. False Claims by Countrywide against the U.S. Government and the California
24 Government.
25
26 The frauds documented in the current filing include, but are not limited to:
27 1. Extensive fraud by Sarnaan against the U.S. Government in completing such loan
28 applications, where most of the critical information (employment, income, residence,
-4-
127 / 545
place of employment) were false and deliberately misleading.

2 2. Extensive fraud by Countrywide Legal Department - Todd Boock & Sanford Shatz,
3 Countrywide Custodian of Records - Mariela Garcia, Countrywide Branch Manager _
4 Maria McLaurin, Countrywide Chief Legal Counsel - Sandor Samuels, Countrywide
5 President and CEO - Angelo Mozilo, Nivie Samaan, Mohammad Keshavarzi
6 (Sheppard Mullin), and others against Zernik, against the Court, and the People of
7 California and the United States in Samaan v Zernik.
8
9 II. BRIEF HISTORY OF SAMAAN'S LOAN APPLICATIONS AND THEIR
10 UNDERWRITING BY COUNTRYWIDE, AND FALSE CLAIMS MADE IN
THIS REGARD BY SAMAAN & COUNTRYWIDE.
11
12 The main elements of such frauds were as follows:
13 I. Nivie Samaan, with full support through fraudulent verified statements by Maria
14 McLaurin (Countrywide Wholesale Branch Manager, San Rafael, California), Victor

Parks (Loan Broker, PMC), and Att. Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin et at)
15
made fraudulent claims based on false representation of the underwriting history of
16
17 such loan applications at Countrywide San Rafael.
18 2. The Legal Department of Countrywide, (Att Sanford Shatz and Att. Todd Boock -
19 who claimed religious observance of the Jewish holiday of Passover to avoid being
20 called for a motion to compel regarding their fraudulent subpoena productions) re-
21 engineered the underwriting history of Samaan's loan applications at Countrywide in
22 their fraudulent subpoena productions from August 2006 through April 2007,
included in the subpoena's numerous fraudulent documents, refused to provide email
23
24 correspondence related to the applications and various reports related to the
25 applications, claiming that such did not exist.
26 3. Two Countrywide top officers were fully aware of the fraud since early 2007:
27 a. Sandor Samuels, Board Chair of "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek - a prominent
28 Jewish Charity, and member of the board of numerous other Jewish organizations in
-5-

Regarding their Undenvriting by Samaan & Countrywide
128 / 545
Los Angeles, old friend of Judge Allan Goodman, and old acquaintance of Judge
2 Terry Friedman, and Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide,
3 and
4 b. Angelo Mozilo, President and CEO of Countrywide
5 Both failed to stop the ongoing fraud in the courtroom, and refused to authenticate or
6 repudiate key fraudulent Countrywide documents in Samaan v Zernik for about a
7 year.
8
9 Fraudulent claims relative to Samaan's loan applications include, but were not limited
10 to the following:
11 1. That the fraudulent Sept 27,2004 Samaan's Unifonn Residential Loan Applications
12 (l003) (Exh A, B) were the outcome of a phone interview by licensed loan broker
13 Victor Parks, and Victor Parks signed the statement to that effect on the Unifonn
14 Residential Loan Applications (1003) on Sept 27, 2004 (both 1sl and 2nd Lien Loan
15 Application, Exh A and B, respectively).
16 • In fact, Samaan stated in her deposition in 2006 (Exh L) that Parks had never been
17 involved in the preparation of her loan applications, and that she had never even
18 talked with him abont the loan applications at that time, that the loan applications
19 had been prepared by her and her husband, JR Lloyd (Parks first cousin and
20 business associate).
21 • In fact, Parks signature on the loan applications bears no resemblance to Parks
22 signatures in court declarations (Exh R).
23 2. That the fraudulent Sept 27,2004 Samaan's Uniform Residential Loan Applications
24 (l003) (Exh A, B) were valid performance of the contractual duty of Samaan to "act
25 honestly and diligently to obtain designated loan".
26 • In fact, the loan applications were replete with false and deliberately misleading
27 data regarding Samaan's employment, income, residence, and place of employment.
28 • In fact Samaan refused to list proper loan fees in the 1st lien oan application (0.75%
-6-

Regarding their Underwrifmg by Samaan & Countrywide
129 / 545
1 amounting to more than $10,000), and would therefore never sign loan disclosures
2 either.
3 • In fact, after suspension on October 14, 2007 Samaan failed to notice Zeruik of the
4 suspension.
5 • In fact, after the suspension on October 14, 2007 Samaan failed to address the
6 conditions listed in the suspension notice in a timely manner.
7 • In fact - throughout the period of Sept- Nov 2004, Samaan never filed valid loan
8 applications with Countrywide, let alone any other lender.
9 3. That Samaan's sole employment in the 4 years preceding the signing of the loan
10 applications was as President and Sole Owner of Spellbound Inc (the Supernatural
11 Superstore - selling Tarot cards, crystal balls, anointment oils, divining objects and
12 other retail goods for followers of the psychic and the occult). That Samaan's income
13 from such was $400,000 per year.
14 • In fact, in deposition in 2006 (Exh 0), Samaan stated that she was employed during
15 that period as a cosmetics saleswoman in a department store.
16 4. That Samaan was a single woman at the time she signed the applications (Sep 27,
17 2004).
18 • In fact, in deposition in 2006 (Exh 0) Samaan stated that she was married to JR
19 Lloyd at that time, and the Lloyd, unlicensed, and a spouse, was the one who
20 prepared the fraudulent loan applications.
21 5. That Samaan's loan applications conformed with the loans designated in the Purchase
22 Agreement
23 • In fact, the loan applications violated the terms of the designated loans, seeking to
24 minimize Samaan's down payment beyond that which was allowed in the Purchase
25 Contract
26 6. That Samaan's Loan Applications (l003) demonstrated that she was indeed qualified
27 in 2004 to purchase the Zernik property
28 • In fact, Samaan's loan applications demonstrate that she was not qualified at all to
-7-

130 / 545
purcha se the proper ty.

ent funds to close
2 7. Samaa n's Loan applications (l003) demonstrate that she had suffici
3 the escrow on the designated loans.
sufficient
4 • In fact, Samaa n's loan applications demonstrate that she did not have
the escrow.
5 funds owned by her, and by her alone, as requir ed by lenders, to close
on October 12,
6 8. Samaa n's Loan Applications were first submitted to Countrywide
of October
7 2004: In fact, the loan applications were first submitted in the first week
8 2004.
San Rafael
9 • In fact, the loan applications bear two "Date Received" stamps from
as well, is
10 Count rywid e's Home Loans Branch. The earlier one, from Octob er
11 . defaced. The later is dated. Octob er 12, 2004 (Exh A, Exh B).
lent
12 • In fact, loan documents produced by Countrywide show that fraudu
duly assigned
13 employment data in Samaa n's loan applications was uncovered by the
to the
14 under writer - Diane Frazie r - already on Octob er 6, 2004 (that is prior
e lookup
15 purpo rted date of receipt per Countrywide and Samaan), based on revers
16 of Samaa n's fraudu lent work phone numbe r (Exh C).
only at Zemik 's
17 9. Samaa n's loan applications were suspended on October 14,200 4,
18 fault.
s:
19 • In fact, suspension notice was issued primar ily for the following reason
#1, Exh
20 a. False work phone - traced back to Samaa n's residence (Condition
21 D- Oct 14,200 4 Under writin g Letter )
22 b. Failur e to include any fees to Countrywide in the stated closing costs
to
23 (Condition #2, Exh D - Oct 14, 2004 Under writin g Letter ) amounting
24 violation of Count rywid e's progra m rules (Exh E - Oct 14, 2004 Clues
25 Repor t).
rnia
26 c. Failur e to sign Loan Disclosures within 3 days, as manda ted by Califo
27 law (Exh F - Oct 14,2004 Hand writte n underw riting forms)
ed on October
28 10. That SamaanlParks were notified that the loan applications were approv
-8-
ulent Repres entations

Notice of SalOaa n's Fraud ulent Loan A{JplicatioDS and Fraud rywide
Regar ding their Under writlD g by Samaa n & Count
131 / 545
18,200 4.
2 • In fact, Samaa n entere d as evidence the Oct 14,2004 Underwriting Letter showing
3 the suspension of her loans on that date (Exh D).
loan applic ations
4 • In fact, Samaa n also claimed in a contradictory statem ent that the
5 were approv ed only late in the day on Octob er 25, 2004.
ent - a
6 • In fact, Samaa n entere d as evidence yet anothe r contradictory docum
suspended on
7 purpo rted Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter showing the loans as still
8 Octob er 26, 2004 (Exh J).
false statem ent
9 • In fact, Samaa n never produced any document to substa ntiate the
10 that her loan applications were approved on Octob er 18, 2004.
ents and
11 • In fact, this statem ent is contradicted by the prepon deranc e of statem
12 docum entary evidence entered by Samaan.
on Octobe r 25,200 4
13 II. That Samaa n's loan applica tions were approv ed by Countr ywide
of a Real
14 follow ing the facsim ile transmission on Octobe r 25, 2004, at 5:03pm
gton to
15 Proper ty Purcha se Contra ct by ViCtor Parks from the State of Washin
ion, and
16 Countr ywide San Rafael in the State of Califor nia (to a financial institut
17 across state lines).

ate
18 • In fact, the Octob er 25, 2004 facsimile transmission was part of an elabor
(McLaurin?).
19 wire/fax fraud by Samaa n, Lloyd, Parks, and a Count rywide insider
er 25, 2004,
20 The facsimile transmission of the purcha se contra ct document on Octob
also in
21 at 5:03pm was in fact from Samaa n in Los Angeles, to her husban d, Lloyd,
, San
22 Los Angeles, and there is no way to know when it arrive d in Countrywide
document -
23 Rafael (see under separa te cover - Notice of a fraudu lent Count rywide
24 Purch ase Contra ct).
t for
25 • In fact, on Octob er 25, 2004,M aria McLa urin filed a fraudu lent reques
Under writin g
26 approv al exception for Samaa n's loans with Demetrio Gadi (Division
on Octob er
27 Suppo rt) (Exh H), and Gadi responded with a conditional approv al only
28 29, 2004 (Exh K - Gadi's to Exception Request).
-9-

Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Allplications andn & Countrywide
Regar ding their Under writm g by Samaa
132 / 545
sal review,
1 • In fact, on Octob er 25, 2004, Maria McLa urin filed a reques t for apprai
Appraisal
2 and results of such arrive d only on Nov 2, 2004 (Exh M - Nov 2, 2004
3 Report).
underw riting
4 • In fact, Samaa n never entere d any documentary evidence from the
5 period in 2004 to suppo rt this fraudu lent claim.
by November 1,
6 12. That Samaa n's Loan Applications (1003) were ready to be funded
7 2004, closing date.
condit ions-
8 • In fact, the Nov 3,2004 Underwriting Letter (Exh M) still lists 'unmet
9 including but not limited to
supplied
10 a. Parks ' Broke r's Certification of Document, which in fact was never
11 even later (Exh M - Nov 3, 2004 Underwriting Letter).
t,
12 b. Samaa n's mothe r certification of ownership of funds in the join accoun
13 which in fact was never supplied at all.
riting in
14 • In fact, Samaa n never entere d any documentary evidence from underw
15 2004 to suppo rt this fraudu lent claim.
nd g by
16 • In fact, Samaa n's loan application (2 Lien) was presen ted for fundin
Count rywide Bank on Jan 27, 2005, and was summarily denied! (Exh
N)
17
ance with the Real
18 13. That Samaan was ready, willing, and able to close escrow in compli
19 Property Purchase Agreement on Nov 1,2008.

docum ents
20 • In fact, the loan applica tions (1003) and Countr ywide' s Underw riting
to close escrow,
21 demon strate that Samaa n was never ready, never willing, never able
even by Jan 27, 2005.
22 neither by Nov 1, 2004, nor by Nov 3, 2004, or for that matte r- not
23 //1
24 /II
25 /II
26
/II
27
/II
28
-10-

Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa n & Count rywide
133 / 545
1
TABLE #1 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF SAMAAN/COUNTRYWIDE'S
2 FRAUDULENT CLAIMS VS THE TRUE FACTS REGARDING UNDERWRITING OF
3 SAMAAN'S FRAUDULENT LOAN APPLICATIONS (1003)
4 SAMAAN/COUNTRYWIDE'S TRUE FACTS IN TIllS MATTER

FRAUDULENT CLAIMS
5 Sept 27, 2004 Sept 27, 2004
6
• Loan Applications (1003): prepared by
• Parks never participated in the applications
preparation (Samaan Deposition, 2006)
7 Parks, signed by Samaan & Parks
• Parks never signed the applications, the
signature is not his
8
• Samaan and her husband, Lloyd, unlicensed
9 and a spouse prepared the applications
(Samaan Deposition, 2006)
10 October 1-6, 2004 Oct 1-6, 2004
11 • The applications never arrived yet at • The applications arrived at Countrywide first
Countrywide. time in the first week of October, and "Date
12 • No explanation whatsoever for the Receivetf' stamp placed on them, later - this
defaced "Date Receivetf' stamps. stamp was defaced with black ink.
13 • No explanation whatsoever for the Oct 6, • By October 6, 2004, Senior Underwriter
2004 reverse yellow pages lookup Frazier discovered the fraudulent
14 employment data based on reverse yellow
pages look up of the work phone #.
15
Oct 1-12, 2004 Oct 1-12, 2004 :
16 0 N 0 underwriting documents were ever There must have a series of standard
produced by Countrywide, since the loan underwriting documents of phase I and
17 applications never arrived yet. receipt and data entry at San Rafael, and at
least one Underwriting Letter issued by
18
Countrywide San Rafael.
19 • All evidence of underwriting prior to Oct 14,
2004 was systematically destroyed, the only
20 remaining evidence is:
0 The inexplicable double "Date
21
Received" Stamps
22 0 The Oct 6, 2004 yellow pages reverse
look up.
23 October 12, 2004 October 12, 2004
24 • Samaan's loan applications arrived at • Samaan's loan applications were stamped
Countrywide San Rafael for the first time. "Date Received" and scanned at San Rafael
25 for the second time.
October 14, 2004 October 14, 2004
26 0 Samaan's applications were suspended • Samaan's applications were suspended
primarily because of missing primarily because of:
27 initials/signature of Zemik's on the Sept 0 False employment data
28 15, 2004 Purchase Contract 0 Failure to state loan fees >$10,000
-11-
Notice of Samaan's ¥raud~lentLoan~pplications and Fraudulent ~epresentations

RegardlDg theIr Underwnting by Samaan & CountrywIde
134 / 545
• Such suspension was noticed on October 0 Refusal to provide new, valid loan
14,200 4, or in mid-October, 2004, by an applications, and re-submitting the
2 Underwriting Letter, unsigned, and time same false applications a second time
stamped twice Oct 26,200 4. on Oct 12,200 4.
3
• Samaan loan applications could not possibly
4 be suspended because of missing Zemik' s
initials on the Sept 15,200 4 Purchase
5 Contract, since Samaan never submitted any
copy of that Sept 15,200 4 Purchase Contract
6
to Countrywide until Oct 22, 2004!
7 • The unsigned and time stamped Oct 26, 2004
Underwriting Letter could never be received
8 by SamaanlParks on October 14,200 4 or
mid-October 2004, it was not generated yet.
9 Oct
• The suspension was notice by a genuine gned
14,200 4 Underwriting Letter, hand-si
10
by Senior Underwriter Frazier, and allowing
11 Samaan 10 days to correct the deficiencies in
her applications.
12 Octobe r 14-18, 2004
Octobe r 14-18, 2004
13 • Samaan 's loan applications were suspended,
• SamaanlParks repeatedly inform
but she never disclosed that fact to Zemik,
14 Libow/ Zemik that the applications are on
the verge of being approved, and provide neither did she try to address the deficiencies
15 no explanation for the delay. that led to the suspension in the frrst place.
Octobe r 18, 2004 NOTIC E TO BUYE R Octobe r 18,200 4 NOTIC E TO BUYE R
16
Samaan informs Zemik that the she was • There is no documentary or other evidence
17 • from Countrywide that Samaan 's loan
re-assured verbally by Countrywide that
loan applications were approved, therefore applications were approved on Oct 18,200 4.
18
she removes the loan contingency, but • Samaan had done nothing to address the
19 refuses to remove the appraisal deficiencies, and the loans were still
contingency regardless of the fact that she suspended.
20 already had an appraisal at sales price.
21
Octobe r 18, 2004 Octobe r 18, 2004
22
NO COMM ENT AT ALL • LmOW AND ZERN IK DISCO VER THE
23 • WIRE SCHE ME, WHER EBY SAMA AN
24 WAS COMM UNICA TING WITH
-
LmOW /ZERN IK AND COUN TRYW IDE
25 AS IF SHE WERE PARK S. LmOW
ASKS PARK S BY EMAI L 3 DAYS IN A
26 ROW TO PROV IDE EXPLA NATIO N.
27 Octobe r 22, 2004 Octobe r 22, 2004
28 Parks received AM bv fax from Mara • Samaan/ParkslLloyd/Countrywide were

•
-12-
ulent Repres entatio ns

Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan A&plic ations and Fraud rywide
Regar ding their Under wri 109 by Samaa n & Count
135 / 545
Escrow a copy of the Sept 15,2004 engaged in wire/fax scheme.

Purchase Contract, and immediately faxed • Parks never received and never sent any of
2
it to Countrywide. Albeit, this copy was the faxes he falsely claims to have received
3 missing Zernik's initials on the original or faxed. None of these fax transmissions
offer and was unacceptable to was ever authenticated.
4 Countrywide.
• Samaan AM faxed to Countrywide for the
5
• Parks received a second copy of the first time ever a copy of the Sept 15,2004
Purchase Contract by fax from Mara Purchase Contract, but it was a copy missing
Escrow, sometime in the afternoon. And a critical authentication: Samaan's initials on
6 nd
immediately faxed it to Countrywide. the 2 Counter Offer, for Acknowledgment
7 of Acceptance.
8
• Samaan never mentions this deficient copy
transmission, ignores its existence altogether.
9 • Samaan received AM from Mara Escrow
another copy ofthe Sept 15, 2004 Purchase
10 Contract.
11
• For some inexplicable reason, she never
faxed it to Countrvwide.
12 October 25, 2004 October 25, 2004
• Samaan never produced any evidence that
13 • Monday morning Samaan's appraisal either she or Parks ever faxed the Purchase
review was immediately obtained, and her Contract she received from Mara Escrow to
14 loan applications were immediately Countrywide.
approved.
15 • On Monday, at 5:03pm, Samaan faxed the
• Monday morning, alternatively afternoon, Purchase Contract to her husband Lloyd, and
Samaan removed the appraisal that transmission was misrepresented as a fax
16
contingency. transmission from Parks to Countrywide.
17 • Monday afternoon, at 5:03 pm, Parks
• In fact, no evidence was ever provided when,
faxed the new copy of the Purchase if ever Samaan faxed the Purchase Contract
18 Contract he received from Mara Escrow, to Countrywide.
and that somehow led to the appraisal
19
review and loan approval earlier that day.
• No documentary evidence or any other
evidence from 2004 was ever produced to
20 demonstrate that the loan applications were
approved on Oct 25,2004.
21
• Appraisal Review Order was issued by
22 McLaurin on Oct 25, 2004, review never yet.
23
• Also on Monday, Oct 25, 2004, McLaurin
filed false Exception Request with Mr Gadi,
listing Samaan's annual income at $4m per
24 year, but no approval from Mr Gadi was
25 obtained yet.
October 26, 2004 October 26, 2004
26
27
• Samaan's loan applications were • The unsigned, Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting
approved since the previous day. Letter, which Samaan misrepresented in
Court as being of Oct 14,2004, in fact shows
28
-13-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent ~epresentations

136 / 545
that on Edge, the underwriting monitoring

system, Samaan 's loan applications were far
2 from approval on Oct 26, 2004 - they were
still suspended.
3
Octobe r 29, 2004 Octobe r 29, 2004
4
• Samaa n's loans were purportedly • Samaan 's loans were far from approval, as
5 approved and ready to be funded since shown by the conditional Exception
Oct 25, 2004. Approval by Mr Gadi, which arrived on Oct
6 29, 2004, and explicitly stated it is not an
approval,
7
• Also the Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter
8 shows that Samaan was still far from
Approval.
9 • Gadi explicitly stated that: e new loan
0 Samaan had to produc
10 applications listing the 0.75% loan
fee
11
0 A correct Clues Report had to be
12 produced.
0 Samaan 's loan applications had to be
13 reviewed and approved by an
Underwriter (vs McLaurin- a Branch
14 ManaQ'er)
15 Nov 1,2004 Nov 1,2004
Samaan 's loans were purportedly • Samaan 's loan applications were far from
16 • approval:
approved and ready to be funded since
17 Oct 25,200 4. • The appraisal review never arrived yet.
18 • The date stipulated in the Sept 15, 2004 • Other critical documents were never received
Purchase Contract as Closing of Escrow. yet.
19 According to Samaan, Parks, McLaurin, • Inexplicably - Samaan loannever filed valid loan
• tions listing the fees yet.
Samaan declarations in 2007, Samaan was applica
20 was produc ed yet.
ready, willing, able to close escrow on • No Clues Report loan
21 that date. • No underwriter had reviewe her 2004
d
and
According to Samaan, Parks, McLaurin applications yet, both the Oct 29,
• riting Letter were
22 declarations in 2007, Samaa n's loan the Nov 3, 2004 Underw
applications were approved and ready for signed by McLaurin and not by an
23 funding on that date. Underwriter, as instructed by Mr Gadi.
Nov 3,2004 Nov 3, 2004
24
• Samaan 's loan applications were far from
25 • Samaa n's loans were purportedly
approval.
approved and ready to be funded since
26 Oct 25,200 4. • The appraisal review finally arrived on this
date.
27 • The Nov 3, 2004 Underwriting Letter shows
28 that critical documents were still missine::
-14-

Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan AJ?plications and
Regar ding their Under writm g by Samaa n & Count rywide
137 / 545
• Certification of documents from Parks was

never received, with no explanation at all
2
• Certification from Samaan's mother that
3 Samaan was allowed to use the funds in their
joint ownership account never arrived, with
4 no explanation at all.
Jan 27,2005 Jan 27,2005
5
6 • Samaan's loan applications were • Samaan's 2nd lien loan application, the one
purportedly ready for funding since Oct more likely to be approved and funded, was
7 25,2004 presented to Countrywide Bank for funding
• Countrywide bank immediately issued a Jan
8 27,2004 Denial Letter.
9
• Tn March 2007 investigation by the Office of
Thrift Supervision Countrywide Bank states
10 that it would never have funded Samaan's
loans.
11
12 III
13 /II
14 III
15 /II
16 III
17 /II
18 /II
19 III
20 //I
21 III
22 //I
23 III
24 III
25 //I
26 //I
27 //I
28
-15-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AJ!plications and Fraudulent Representations

Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide
138 / 545
III. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2
TABLE #2 FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BY SAMAAN & PARKS
3 AGAINST ZERNIK
4
5
CODE SECTION/ ELEMENTS: REFERENCES:
6
DEFINITION
7 FRAUDULENT (1) Mis- (1) Samaan misrepresented the per-
INDUCEMENT representation qualification letter and numerous
8
Deceit, Civil Code § 1709, other facts from September 4 to
9 1710 Zemik's Acceptance on September
1709: FRAUDULENT 15,2004.
10 DECEIT.
I1 One who willfully deceives (2) knowledge (2) Samaan knew the pre-qualification
another with intent to induce of the falsity letter was false given the fact that she
12 him to alter his position to his had never spoken with Victor Parks
13 injury or risk is liable for any and she had not submitted documents
damage which he thereby to substantiate the pre-qualification.
14 suffers. (3) intent to (3) Samaan knew, through the course
1710. Deceit Dermed. defraud, i.e. to of dealings with Libow, that Zemik
15
DECEIT WHAT. A deceit, induce reliance required a pre-qualification letter from .
16 within the meaning of the last her before he would consider her
section is either: offer. She, therefore, intended that
17 1. The suggestion, as a fact, Zemik rely on that pre-qualification
18 of that which is not true, by letter to accept her offer.
one who does not believe it to
19 be true;
2. The assertion, as a fact, of (4) Justifiable (4) Zernik did not have the oPf0rtunity
20
that which is not true, by one Reliance to examine Samaan's financia
21 who has no reasonable condition or her subsequent loan
apRIication therefore he was justified in
ground for believing it to be re yin~ on what he, at that time,
22
true; thoug t was an impendent pre-
23 3. The suppression of a fact, qualification.
by one who is bound to
24 disclose it, or who gives (5) Resulting (5) Zemik has been tied up in
25 information of other facts Damages litigation for the past three~ears. He
which are likely to mislead has been unable to access e equi% in
26 his property or to otherwise encum er
for want of communication of his property.
27 that fact; or
4. A promise, made without
28 any intention ofperforming
it. 4'"
·.Lv·
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AJ.lplications and Fraudulent Representations

139 / 545
1 TABLE #3 FRAUD & DECEIT BY SAMAAN AGAINST ZERNIK RE:

2 UNDERWRITING OF LOAN APPLICATIONS (1003) BY COUNTRYWIDE
3
4
5
6
7
8
CODE SECTION/ . ELEMEN REFERENCES:
9 ~ ... I~ • • n'N' TS
DECEIT, CIVIL CODE § 1709, I.Misrepresen 1. Samaan never revealed to
10 1710 tation, Zemik the problems she was
- of failure to properly file for concealment having with her loan application
11 designated loans, or non- while she continued to
- of failure to obtain designated disclosure misrepresent to Zemik that his
12 loans as a result of the above. loan would be anoroved
1709: FRAUDULENT 2. knowledge 2. Samaan knew her loan was not
13 DECEIT. of falsity being approved yet she continued
14 One who willfully deceives to allow Parks to represent that it
another with intent to induce him was near annroval.
15 to alter his position to his injury 3. intent to 3. Because Samaan knew that
or risk is liable for any damage defraud or to Zemik had the right to cancel
16 which he thereby suffers. induce escrow when she did not remove
reliance her loan and appraisal
17 1710. Deceit Defined. contingencies, she misrepresented
DECEIT WHAT. A deceit, the status of her loan and her
18 within the meaning of the last financial condition so as to induce
19 section is either: Zemik not to cancel at an earlier
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of date.
20 that which is not true, by one who 4. justifiable Zemik was not privy to Samaan's
does not believe it to be true; reliance application to get a loan from
21 2. The assertion, as a fact, of that Countrywide or her discussion or
which is not true, by one who has lack thereof with her loan broker,
22 no reasonable ground for therefore Zernik had no reason or
believing it to be true; why to question the truth behind
23 3. The suppression of a fact, by her representations regarding her
one who is bound to disclose it, loan status
24
or who gives information of other 5. resulting As a result, Zemik did not cancel
25 facts which are likely to mislead - damage at an earlier date. Sine then,
for want of communication of Samaan has concocted a new story
26 that fact; or
wherein she now claims that
4. A promise, made without any
27 intention of performing Zernik did not cancel before she
removed her contingencies, which
28 is also false.
-17-

140 / 545
TABLE #4 BANK FRAUD BY SAMAAN AGAINST COUNTRYWIDE AND

2 AGAINST ZERNIK
3 BANK FRAUD: (1) Whoever (1) Samaan devised a scheme Wlder

4 (18 USCS § 1344). knowingly executes, which she would obtain a loan from
- Against Countrywide, or attempts to Countrywide, which she was not truly
5 a government-backed execute, a scheme or qualified to obtain, which was
lender. artijice- (1) to reasonably calculated to deceive
6
- also secondarily defraud a jinancial Countrywide and Zernik.
7 counted as FRAUD institution
against seller - since
8 the contract stipulated or (2) to obtain any (2) Samaan attempted to obtain a
9 that "buyer shall act ofthe moneys, funds, Government-Backed Residential Loan,
diligently and in good credits, assets, i.e., a credit, for First Lien in the
10 faith to obtain securities, or other amount of$I,343,181 and for Second
designated loans". property owned by, Lien in the amount of$174,000.
11
or under the custody
12 or control of, a
jinancial institution,
13
(3) by means oJJalse The Unifonn Residential Loan
14 or fraudulent Application was replete with false and
pretenses, fraudulent pretenses and
15
representations, or representations.
16 promises;
17
18 /II
19
20 III
21
22 /II
23
24 III
25
26 III
27
28
-18-
Notice ofSamaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations

Regarding their Underwrifmg by Samaan & Countrywide
141 / 545
TABLE #5 WIRE FRAUD ACROSS STATE LINES, AGAINST AN

2 INDIVIDUAL (ZERNIK) AND AGAINST A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
(COUNTRYWIDE)
3
4 WIRE FRAUD (l) Devise or (1) Libow's emails of October 18,19,20,
.(18 U.S.c. § 1343) intend to 2004. Machines such as the HP Laserjet
5
which provides for devise a scheme Printer/Scanner/Copier lend themselves
6 enhanced or artifice to easily to such manipulations, with forward
penalty of any defraud another and header ID easily programmable.
7 criminally person based on a
8 fraudulent activity if material
it is determined that representation;
9 the activity involved
10 electronic
communications of (2) With the intent (2) Samaan switched back and forth
11 any sort, at any to defraud; between two identities in a deliberate
phase of the event. I manner.
12
13 (3) through the use 3) Samaan used the phone network,
of interstate wire· connected to Parks in the State of
14
facilities Washington, and other parties in
15 California
16 (4) where the (4) Countrywide one of the victims, was

17 alleged victim is a an is a financial institution.
financial
18 institution, to
19 enhance
sentencing
20
21 //I
22 III
23 //I
24 //I
25 //I
26 //I
27 //I
28
-19-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent ~epresentations

142 / 545
1 TABLE #6 FRAUDULENT CLAIMS IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK

2
3
FRAUDULENT (l) Make a claim in litigation in ~1) Samaan's action is based on a
CLAIMS relationship to a contract or ailed business transaction for the
4 (CCP § 128.7) business transaction Property at 320 South Peck Drive.
andlor malicious
5 prosecution (2) Knowingly misrepresent the (2) Samaan never presented the
nature of the contract or the court with an executed contract in
6 business transaction in filings the whole course of this litigation.
with the court The reason is that such a contract
7 wOlllil rp.fntp. hp.r "I"",..,,,,
(3) For the purpose of (3) Samaan requested the court to
8 mlsleadin& the court to issue a issue judgment based on
• .l" "I"",..,,,,
9 (4) in an attempt to obtain funds (4) Such erroneous judgment
or property from defendant based on misleadi~ claims
10 through such court order would have defrau ed Defendant
of his residence and much of his
11 lifp.'~
12
/II
13
/II
14
/II
15
/II
16
III
17
/II
18
III
19
III
20
III
21
III
22
III
23
III
24
III
25
III
26
III
27
/II
28
-20-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AJ!plications and Fraudulent ~epresentations

Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & CountrywIde
143 / 545
TABLE #7 STATUTE OF FRAUDS

2
3
STATUTE OF (1) Contract must be in (l) Samaan has consistently
4 FRAUDS. writing and signed by party argued that Zemik failed to initial
5 (Civil Code § against whom enforcement is and sign the "Purchase
1624) (a) "the sought - for the sale of land. Agreement". Further, Samaan
6 following argues that Zernik's failure to
contracts are "fully execute" the "Purchase
7 invalid unless Agreement" prevented her from
they, or some note being able to obtain a loan.
8 or memorandum
thereof, are in (2) Defense by way of Statute (2) Defendant has timely raised
9
writing and of Frauds was raised in a such defense.
10 subscribed by any timely manner by Defendant
party to be charged in Demurrer.
11 or by the party's
agent: (3) an (3) Close to 2 years later, (3) But Samaan has never
12 agreement for the Plaintiff still has not presented provided to the court any fully
13 sale of real the court with the relevant signed writing purported to
property. writing. document the sale of the property
14 in writing.
Neither has she indicated that such
15 document is available, nor has she
produced such document in
16 response to.subpoena, nor
17 acknowledged its existence in
subpoena production of
18 Countrywide. Therefore, Samaan
cannot satisfy the Statute of
19 Frauds.
(4) In fact, in view of
20
Plaintiff's claims that the
21 contract was not "fully
executed", and as in the case
22 of Riley v. Capital Airlines,
Inc., the court mayfind this a
23 case ofpart performance
24
25
26 III
27 /II
28
-21-

144 / 545
Dated: Feb 29, 2008 Submitted by:

2
3 JOSEPH ZERNIK
4
5
)~.~
. ...
6
JOSEPH ZERNIK
7 Defendant and Cross Complainant
in pro per
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-22-

145 / 545
1 IV. DECLARATION OF JOSE PH ZERN IK

2
I, JOSEPH ZERN IK, hereby declare as follows.
3 s County
1. I am Defend ant & Cross-Complainant in Samaan v. Zernik, Los Angele
4 dge of the facts set
Superior Court Case No. SC087400. As such, I have personal knowle
5 s, I could and
forth herein, which I know to be true and correct and, if called as a witnes
6 ted in
would competently testify with respect thereto. This declaration is submit
7 and Fraud ulent
connection with Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications
8 rywide .
Repre sentati ons Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa n & Count
9 ber 2006
2. I first saw any of the discovery materials in Samaan v Zernik in mid Decem
10 ous in early
at the office of then my Couns el- Charles Cummings. I became suspici
11 Samaan v Zernik.
Novem ber that something is awkward or worse about the litigation of
12 law fmn
Mr Cummings, then the Managing Partner of Sullivan Workman and Dee, a
13 a year and a
dealing exclusively with Real Estate Law, had represented me for almost
14 even recognize the
half at that time. Upon my first visit to Mr Cummings office, I did not
15 to me that
name Countrywide. But within less than half an hour, it was obvious
16
underlying the case was substantial fraud activity and white collar crime.
17 to read the
3. Mr Cumm ings was trying to convince me that I simply had no clue how
18 ence that my
documents, and that there was no fraud involved. Indeed, I had no confid
19
reading of the documents was correct.
20 Depute
4. I therefore approached the California Department of Real Estate, and a
21 the basics in Real
Commissioner there spent substantial time explaining to me some of
22 Estate Code of California. He also took copies of some of my key docum
ents for review
23 most significant
by the Legal Depart ment of that that agency. They responded that the
24 ment by
finding regarding my position in Samaan v Zernik was Fraudulent Induce
25- ings never made
Samaan in Septem ber 2004. They expressed surprise that Mr Cumm
26
any defense or dispositive claims to that effect.
27
28
-23-
Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and & Fraud ulent Repre sentati ons
. Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa n Count rywide
146 / 545
some time
1 5. I also approached the FBI in Los Angeles, and again, an agent there spent
underlying the
2 with me going over the materials, and again, confirmed my suspicions that
for the first time
3 case was substantial fraud and white collar crime activity. Here I learned
in Los
4 about an "epidemic ofreal estate and mortgage fraud' with an "epicenter
Angeles". But most important was the realization from the FBI literatu
re that the in the
5
. The FBI
6 vast majority of these cases, the fraud is perpetrated by realtors or loan brokers
int against
7 agent also expressed his surprise that my attorney had never filed cross compla
8 Samaan for Fraud and Deceit.
ns
9 6. By late December 2006 I sent an email to Mr Cummings, with series of questio
to respond.
10 regarding his conduct in representing me in Samaan v Zernik. He refused
elderly
11 7. I then met with one of the surviving marquee partners of the law firm, an
n without
12 attorney, retired Mr Workman. I asked for his help in resolving the situatio
shop in West
13 getting into a dispute with the law firm. We spent about an hour in a deli
e Court case,
14 LA. He quizzed me regarding Eminent Domain, the New London Suprem
the subject of
15 the shifting compositions of the U.S. Supreme Court, but never touched
ted my
16 our meeting. When he was ready to leave, he got up and stated that he suppor
for his conduct
17 position, that an attorney owed his client an explanation in plain English
y. Mr
18 in the case. But he also stated his full confidence in Mr Cummings integrit
office, and I
19 Cummings next offered me a $25,000 waiver of fees if I agreed to leave the
20 did.
21 8. What struck my attention first in the discovery materials was:
A,.
22 a. The double "Date Received" stamps on Samaan's loan applications (Exh
23 p38. and Exh B, p42).
24 b. The fraudulent employment and income information in the same loan
a
25 applications. She represented herself to me as a realtor closing a few deals
26 year. Later it turned out that she was a cosmetician. In the Loan Applications
was
27 she was stating that the only employment she had for the previous 4 years
28
-24-
Fraud ulent Representations

Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan AJ?plications andn &
Regar ding their Underwriting by Samaa Countrywide
147 / 545
ent
as President and sole owner of a retail company, but her bank statem
2 showed biweekly payroll deposit from the dept store.
3 c. Countr ywide' s subpoe na production included blank fonns for "Conv
ersation
4 Log" from San Rafael. (Exh C, p46) is a true and correct copy of a " San
5 Rafael Conversation Log" blank form as received in Countr ywide' s
6 subpoenas in Aug 2006 and Jan-April 2007. It appear ed completely
would
7 inconsistent with the totally computerized body of the records, that they
and
8 use such ancient paper fonns. Indeed, later, I manag ed to track down
riter
9 discuss the matter by phone with Diane Frazier, the fonner Senior Underw
sloan
10 at San Rafael, who was duly assigned to the underwriting of Samaa n'
had not
11 applications. She told me that to her knowledge, these paper forms
that she
12 been used in San Rafael at least since 1989, which was the first year
13 was employed there.

er at San
14 9. In late Decem ber 2006 I also called Maria McLaurin, the Branch Manag
she prepared the
15 Rafael. I was surprised that she agreed to talk with me. She stated that
of Countrywide.
16 subpoe na produc tion in close collaboration with the Legal Depart ment
that the Legal
17 Regarding the paper fonns "Conversation Logs" she explained to me
subpoena I had
18 Depart ment detenn ined that email correspondence is not subjec t to the
19 served them.
ywide to discuss
20 10. In late Decem ber 2006 I also called the Legal Department of Countr
plan on submitting a
21 the deficiencies in their subpoe na production. I also told them that I
subpoena,
22 repeat subpoena, in hope that they respon d more truthfully. In the repeat
aph to that effect..
23 served in January 2007, I also entered an unusual introductory paragr
ings in Aug
24 But the resulting subpoe nas were identical to that obtained by Mr Cumm
was strangely
25 2006, except that I insisted on a Custodian of Records declaration, which
protocol, whereby my
26 missing from Cumm ings subpoe na production. I also established a
where the docwnents
27 subpoe na produc tions were received by a Legal Services company,
28
-25-
Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and Fraud ulent Representations
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaa n & Countrywide
148 / 545
1 were immediately scanned and saved on CD's before they even got to me, to establish
2 exactly what documents were received and in which order.
3 11. In Meet and Confer telephone conference in early 2007 with Att Shatz and Att Boock
4 of the Legal Department of Countrywide, they claimed that there simply was no
5 explanation for the double "Date Received" stamps on Samaan's loan applications. They
6 also denied that there was any report in Countrywide that could shed light on this
7 mystery. For example, I asked for any Internal Audit report on these documents,
8 establishing the identity of the person who created these stamps, the time it was done, the
9 authority by which it was done, and the reason for it. I also asked for any Imaging Report
10 that would show if these loan applications were scanned twice, once in early October and
11 once on Oct 12,2004. I also asked if there was any evidence in Edge, the underwriting
12 monitoring system, for another receipt and underwriting prior to Oct 12,2004. I also
13 asked for a Pipeline Report - to see if any applications by Samaan were noted prior to
14 Oct 12, 2004. On all of these questions Att Shatz and Boock answered that I am asking
15 for non-existent reports.
16 12. Prior to the Meet and Confer phone call, I wrote a detailed letter, signed and sent
17 under the name of my then Counsel Zachary Schorr. In it, I specifically again asked for
18 the various types of reports that Countrywide surely had to have regarding Smaan'sloan
19 applications, especially that the Legal Department had now twice reviewed in detail the
20 documents. They denied any existed. In the Meet and Confer Letter I also listed one by
21 one all the Underwriting Letters provided in the Subpoena production. It was clear to
22 me:
23 a. That they omitted at least one Underwriting Letter from the period prior to Oct
24 12,2004, and
25 b. That the unsigned, invalid Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter, which was
26 entered by Att Keshavarzi in Sur Reply to Defendant's Motion to Expunge Lis
27 Pendens in Nov 2006, was never present in any of Countrywide's 4 (four)
28 subpoena productions received by that time. That unsigned, invalid
-26-

149 / 545
the made
Underwriting Letter was supposed to be the only connection between
the loan
2 up claims from 2007 and the true facts in this matter as documented in
was
3 file. But that Underwriting Letter was from Oct 26,2004, a date that
ore,
4 useless for Samaan, since by then the escrow was surely canceled. Theref
4, and
5 they fraudulently misrepresented that letter as being dated Oct 14,200
6 having been received by Oct 15,200 4, or mid-October 2004 by Mr Parks.
d
7 Such was obviously false, since the fax header imprint stated it was receive
8 on Oct 26, 2004, and the "Edge" underwriting monitoring system at
also time
9 Countrywide, which automatically produced the Underwriting Letter,
10 stamped it on Oct 26, 2007.

ed all the
11 13. After Att Shatz and Boock repeatedly reassured me that they produc
why the Oct 26,
12 Underwriting Letters that were part ofSam aan's loan file, I asked them
tions. They
13 2004 Underwriting Letter was never included in their subpoena produc
riting Letter
14 appeared surprised, and it was clear that they had never seen that Underw
Underwriting
15 prior to that day. Their immediate response was that the Oct 26, 2004
in 2004.
16 Letter was not part of Samaa n's loan file from the underwriting period
Oct 26,200 4
17 14.1 demanded an explanation for the appearance of that extraneous
r subpoena
18 Underwriting Letter. In response, I received on April 12, 2004 yet anothe
inserted some 20
19 production (albeit - I never asked for it). In the few hundred pages were
not appear as a
20 new pages, including the Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter. But it did
. Instead, it
21 stand alone Underwriting Letter -like the rest of the Underwriting Letters
two years after the
22 appeared only as part of correspondence in Nov 3-6, 2006 (more than
23 underwriting period ) between Keshavarzi, Lloyd, and McLaurin.
documents - Nov 3-6,
24 15. Exh D (p 48) is a true and correct copy of Countrywide subpoe na
ywide.
25 2006 Co"espondence, as received by me in April 2006 from Countr
and the
26 o that Lloyd, Samaa n's husband was an acquaintance of McLaurin,
length
27 relationship between McLaurin and Samaan was not a typical arm's
dubbed
28 Bank Manag er - Borrower relationship. Prior to that- Att Keshavarzi
-27-

Notice ofSam aan's Fraudulent Loan Allplications and
150 / 545
my claims that Samaan and McLaurin were in cahoots in this fraud as

2 "conspiracy theory". After I received this correspondence, he back off that
3 dismissive argument.
4 o that on Nov 3, 2006, Lloyd is suggesting that maybe this letter could be used to
5 substantiate a claim that missing initials of Zernik caused delay in the final
6 approval ofSamaan's loans in 2004. But by Nov 6, 2006, 3 days later, a set of
7 coordinated fraudulent declarations were produced in court, claiming that the
8 missing initials caused the immediate suspension of Samaan loan applications
9 on Oct 14,2004, two days after their purported first receipt in San Rafael.
10 o That in Nov 2006 Maria McLaurin was still hesitant to become a full pledged
participant in the fraud against Zemik. She refused to sign the verified
11
statement offered by Keshavarzi, and instead supplied a letterwhich should not
12
have been admissible in court. Later, she changed her position, and submitted
13
blatantly fraudulent verified statements.
14
16.Exh A (p 38) is a true and correct copy of Samaan's Sept 27,2004 [it Lien Loan
15
Application (1003), obtained by subpoena from Countrywide, showing double "Date
16
Received" stamps, signatures of Parks that do not resemble his signature in Court
17
Declarations (Exh R, p~, and umpteen false and deliberately misleading data entries
18
(detailed in text of notice).
19
17. Exh B (p 42) is a true and correct copy of Samaan's Sept 27,2004 zst Lien Loan
20
Application (1003), showing double "Date Received" stamps, signatures of Parks that do
21
not resemble his signature in Court Declarations (Exh S, p 149), and umpteen false and
22 deliberately misleading data entries (detailed in text of notice).
23 18. Exh E (p 61) - is a true and correct copy of the document Oct 4, 2004 Broker
24 Certification and Origination Agreement from Countrywide subpoena productions.
25· Notes:
26 a. This fax document, produced by Countrywide, presumably documents
27 transmission from Parks (Washington State) to Countrywide (San Rafael,
28 Califomia). But in fact, the fax header imprint is anonymous in violation of
-28-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AlJplications and Fraudulent Representations

Regarding their Undenvritmg by Samaan & Countrywide
151 / 545
FCC regulations. The fact that such an anonymous document was received in
2 Countrywide as part of a loan file applications is in violation of both "sound
3 banking principles" as required by Regulations B of the FRB, and also in
4 violation of Countrywide's own Policy and Procedure manual regarding the
5 use of fax machines. The fax header on this document perfectly matches the
6 fax header on documents such as the Oct 25,2004 fax transmission of the Sept
7 15, 2004 Purchase Contract, which is part of the convoluted fax/wire scheme
8 of Samaan, Parks, Lloyd, and Countrywide (see Notice ofDocument: Sept 15,
9 2004 Purchase Contract) against a financial institution, and across state lines.
10 b. This document provides Samaan's certification of the documents, but fails to

provide Parks' Broker's Certification. Such Broker's Certification was in fact
11
never provided, therefore entirely invalidating the two loan applications.
12 \
c. This document is missing Parks' signature on the Broker's Certification, p 12,

13
but bears a purported Parks' signature on Origination Agreement, p 13, albeit,
14
the signature on p13 bears no resemblance to Parks' signature on either the
15
Loan applications (Exh A, p 38; B, P 42), or the Court Declarations (Exh S, p
16
149).
17
d. If one is to accept this document as a fax transmission from Parks to
18
Countrywide on Oct 4,2004, then it contradicts the claim that Samaan's loan
19
applications were first received in Countrywide only on Oct 12,2004. In fact,
20
neither in the loan files, nor in the court room was any of these fax
21
transmissions authenticated.
22
19. Exh F (p 64)- is a true and correct copy of the Countrywide underwriting document
23
from Samaan' Loan File subpoena- Oct 6, 2004 Reverse Yellow Pages Lookup of
24 Samaan's work phone (323) 655-5654 - locating it to Samaan's residence - 1227 S
25 Alfred St, Los Angeles, CA 90035. It was this finding that gave rise to the requirement
26 to explain employment information as the very first condition in the Oct 14, 2004
27 Underwriting Letter and suspension notice. This document also on its face contradicts
28 Samaan/Countrywide claims that the loan applications were first received by
-29-

152 / 545
missing Zernik 's

1 Countrywide only on Oct 12,200 4. It also contradicts the claims that
has not documentary
2 initials caused the suspension of Samaa n's loan applications, which
3 evidence from 2004 whatsoever.
ents from Samaa n's
4 20. Exh G (p 66) - are true and correct Countrywide subpoena docum
5 loan file:
a. Oct 13,200 4 - Quality Verification and Documentation Questi

onnaire, hand
6
under:
7 comple ted by Senior Underwriter Frazier, showin g derogatory notes
i. Identity theft preven tion
8
11. Emplo yment re-verification
9
signed
b. Oct 13, 2004 Compliance Verification fonns - showing missing
10
disclosures.
11
Such
c. Oct 13,200 4 Unsigned Countrywide Home Loans Disclosures.
12
since
disclos ures had to be signed within 3 days from loan application, but
13
there was no agreem ent on fees, such disclosures could not be signed.
14 from
21. Exh H (p 84) --,- is a true and correct copy of Countr ywide' s subpoe na docum ent
15 ywide' s
Samaa n's loan file - Oct 14,200 4 - Clues Repor t. Clues is Countr
16 ous derogatory
Compu terized Underw riting Expert System. This report shows numer
17
comments:
18
a. violati on of progra m rules,
19
b. multi layered risk, etc.
20 ds as
c. it also states that a realtor is prohib ited from using commi ssion procee
21 se
part of the funds to close. Samaa n constru cted the Sept 15, 2004 Purcha
22 Contra ct in a way that directly contradicted this rule. Therefore, had
Samaa n
would
23 submit ted her Purchase Contra ct with the initial loan application, that
of progra m
24 have created anothe r hurdle for her approv al- yet anothe r violati on
25 rules.
instead referring
26 This Oct 14,200 4 Clues Report, denied approval ofSam aan's loans,
in her efforts to
27 them to Divisio n Underw riting Support. On Oct 25, 2004 McLaurin,
the Oct 25,200 4
28 push forwar d fundin g of Samaa n's fraudulent loan applications, filed
-30-
Fraud ulent Repres entatio ns

Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and &
Regar ding their Under writm g by Samaa n Count rywide
153 / 545
1 Exception Report with Demetrio Gadi (Exh J, p 93), in violation of the conditions set by
2 the duly assigned Senior Underwriter Frazier - that such be done only after Samaan filed
3 valid Loan Applications (l003) listing the 0.75% loan fees. In addition, McLaurin failed
4 to submit to Gadi a Clues report, instead making up fraudulent fictitious complimentary
5 credit determinations for Samaan, and in the process also hiking her income to $4m per
6 year. Gadi unfazed, added specific restrictive conditions to Samaan's loan applications in
7 his Oct 29, 2004 Exception Report (Exh N, p 104), which did not reflect confidence in
8 the integrity of McLaurin or data she provided regarding Samaan's loan applications:
9. - He re-affirmed the requirement for valid Loan Applications (l003) listing the loan
fees of 0.75%
10
- He added a condition that a valid Clues Report be produced prior to funding
11
- He added a condition that all such documents be reviewed and approved by a Branch
12
Underwriter (rather than Branch Manager McLaurin).
13
22. Exh I (p 91)- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoena document from
14
Samaan's loan file - Oct 14, 20041s1 Lien Underwriting Letter, showing a suspension
15
notice with:
16
a. Condition #1- explanation of false employment data, and
17
b. Condition #2 - resubmission of loan applications with correct listing of loan
18
fees to Countrywide
19
23. Exh J (p 93) - is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoena document from
20
Samaan's loan file - October 25,2004 -McLaurin's Exception Request-Branch
21
Input.
22
Notes:
23 a. McLaurin's submission of this Exception Request is in direct violation of the
24 conditions set by the duly assigned Underwriter - Frazier, that Samaan submit·
25-
a valid Loan Application (1003) listing the 0.75% loan fees. Mr Gadi in his
26 Oct 29, 2004 Exception Reply reaffirmed these conditions.
27 b. Samaan's annual income figure is a blatant handwritten adulteration of a
28 digital document. As evidenced in Exh K (P--l, McLaurin submitted this
-31-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan A{)plications and Fraudulent Representations

154 / 545
,000 per
report to Mr Gadi with false statement of Samaa n's income - at $4,000
2 year. On the Exception Request itself, instant exhibit, a printout from
to
3 electronic file, the figure was adulterated by hand. Countrywide refused
ess of
4 provide an authentic printout of the Exception Request document, regardl
5 multiple requests.
, she
6 c. McLaurin failed to include with the report a printout of Clues. Instead
7 included false statements regarding Samaan's credit worthiness, that
8 diametrically contradict the determinations made in the authentic Clues

ed and
9
Report. Gadi added a condition that an authentic Clues report be produc
(Exh
reviewed by a Branch Underwriter in his Oct 29,200 4 Exception Report
10
N, p 104).
11
na document from
24. Exh K (p 97}- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
12
ion Request.
Samaa n's loan file - October 25,200 4 - Ortin's Email Note RE: Except
13
Samaa n's incom e-
This email note is supposed to correct McLau rin's false statement of
14 note by the time
at $4m per year. It is not clear whether Gadi was aware of Ortin's email
15
he produced the Oct 29, 2004 Exception Report.
16 na document from
25. Exh L (p 99)- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
17 Review Order.
Samaa n's loan file - October 25, 2004 - McLaurin/Ortin 's Appra isal
18 ion Request,
This order by McLaurin, like the submission of the Oct 25, 2004 Except
19 review was
diametrically contradicted Senior Underwriter Frazier conditions - such
20 Request, which
supposed to be ordered only after Corporate approval of the Exception
21 evidence the fact
did not arrive until Oct 29,200 4. Together, the following documents
22 fraudulent loan
that by Oct 25,200 4 McLaurin, a Bank Manager, removed Samaa n's
d their
23 applications from the duly assigned Senior Underwriter Frazier, and handle
24 underwriting herself:
25 a. Oct 25, 2004 Exception Report
26 b. Oct 25, 2004 Appraisal Review Order
27 c. Oct 29, 2004 Underwriting Letters
28 d. Nov 3,200 4 Underwriting Letters.
-32-

Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and
155 / 545
e any of her direct

1 In her fraudulent court declarations in 2007 McLaurin did not disclos
, she falsely
2 involvement in the Underwriting of Samaa n's loan applications. Instead
riting documents
3 portrayed herself as a bank manager who was in 2007 reviewing underw
ing her
4 that were produced in the normal course of business in 2004, and provid
ed that she
5 interpretation of such docwnents as a Bank Manager. She never disclos
after removing
6 herself was the unauthorized underwriter of Samaan's loan applications,
- Frazier.
7 the applications from the responsibility of the duly assigned underwriter
Appraisal Review
8 This docum ent also contradicts Samaa n's/Co untryw ide's claim that the
d on Oct 25, 2004,
9 was delayed because of Zernik 's initials, and that it was finally obtaine
and the loan
and with it also loan approval was obtained. Both the appraisal review
10
approval were far from being obtained on October 25,200 4.
11
na document
12 26. Exh M (p 101)- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
rin, and Lloyd
produced as part of Nov 3-6, 2006 Correspondence of Keshavarzi, McLau
13 loan file by
- Oct 26, 2004 -Underwriting Letter, unsigned, claimed as not part of the
14
by Keshavarzi as an
Legal Department attorneys in Meet and Confer in 2007, but entered
15 by McLaurin.
Oct 14, 2004 valid Underwwriting Letter, with a dubious support letter
16 tions were still
This Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter in fact shows that the loan applica
17 that approval
suspended on Oct 26,200 4, contradicting Samaa n's/Co untryw ide's claims
18
was issued on Oct 25,200 4.
19 na document from
27.Ex h N (p 104) - is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
20 at 10:46am by
Samaa n's loan file - October 29,200 4 Gadi's Exception Report, issued
21 rin's Oct 25,200 4
Division Underwriting Suppo rt- Demetrio Gadi's response to McLau
22 Exception Request:
ed by Oct 25,
23 a. It contradicts the false claim that loan applications were already approv
24 2004.
ed with
25 b. It shows numerous conditions added by Gadi that were never compli
26 throug hout the life of these applications.
but McLau rin's
27 c. Gadi stipulated his approval upon veracity of data provided to him,
28 input was false and deliberately misleading, therefore, as stated by Gadi:
-33-

Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and
156 / 545
IS NULL AND VOIDI

"IF ALL CONDITIONS ABOVE ARE NOT MET THIS EXCEPTION
DECISIO N ONLY AND NOT A LOAN APPRO VAl." .
THIS IS AN EXCEP TION
2
na docum ent from
28.Ex h 0 (p 108)- is a true and correct copy of Countr ywide' s subpoe
3
Samaa n's loan file - Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter, showing:
4 er
a. This Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter was signed by Branch Manag
5 and in
McLau rin instead of the duly assigned Senior Underw riter Frazier,
6 manage
violati on of the condition set by Mr Gadi, that a Branch Underw riter
7
the underw riting of Samaa n's loan applications.
8 still not
b. As of Oct 29,200 4, appraisal review ordere d on Oct 25,200 4 was
9 and
received. Such data contradicts false claims made in court declarations
was
10 briefs, that such appraisal delayed approv al of the loan applications,
ed by Oct
11 receive d on Oct 25,200 4, and that the loan applications were approv
12 25,200 4 as well.
valid Loan
13 c. As of Oct 29, 2004 Samaa n had never filed the required corrected,
not file
14 Applic ations (1003) listing the loan fees of 0.75%, and therefore could
tions
15 the disclos ures either. In fact, never in the loan file are valid loan applica
16 (l003) to be found.
d. The fraudu lent fax transmission produc t Sept 15,200 4 Purchase
Contract (see
17
under separa te cover - Notice ofDocument: Sept 15 2004 Purcha
se
18
19 Contract), falsely and misleadingly represented as the produc t of fax
to
20 transm ission on Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm, from Parks in Washin gton State
not part of
21 Countr ywide in San Rafael Califor nia (across state lines), was still
riting Letter
22 the loan file on Oct 29,200 4. Theref ore, the Oct 29,200 4 Underw
Oct 25,
is a suppor t docum ent for demonstrating that the fax transm ission on
23
ver, the fact
2004 was falsely and misleadingly misrep resente d in court. Moreo
24
n's Loan
that the Sept 15, 2004 Purchase Contract is still missin g from Samaa
25
File on Oct 29, 2004 entirely contrad ict the fraudu lent claims that Zemik
26
that it was
delaye d the delivery of the Purcha se Contra ct to Countrywide, and
27
28
-34-

157 / 545
iate
1 delivered on Oct 25, 2004, and that such delivery resulted in the immed
4.
2 obtainment of both Appraisal Review and Loan Approval on Oct 25,200
access to
3 e. The statement from Samaa n's mother regarding the ownership and
received.
4 funds in the joint account that were essential for closing, was still not
5 In fact, it was never received during the life of this loan file.
6 r. Conflicting business and residence addresses, first identified by the duly

lved. In
7 assigned Senior Underwriter Frazier on Oct 6, 2004, were still unreso
8 fact, such was never resolved during the life of this loan file.
such was
9 g. Broke r Certification ofDocuments was never received yet. In fact,
never received during the life of this loan file.
10
demonstrate
h. Wells Fargo Bank Statement was still never received, required to
11
availability of funds to close.
12
na document from
29. Exh P (p 111)- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
13
12:25pm,
Samaa n's loan file- Nov 3,2004 Appraisal Review Repor t- issued at
14
25, 2004 and also
contradicting the false claims that such appraisal was obtained on Oct
15
allowed the loan applications to be approved already on Oct 25, 2004.
16 na document from
30. Exh Q (p 114) - is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
17 showing:
Samaa n's loan file - Nov 3,2004 Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter,
18 Manager
a. This Nov 3, 2004 Underwriting Letter was again signed by Branch
19 in
McLaurin instead of the duly assigned Senior Underwriter Frazier, and
20 e
violation of the condition set by Mr Gadi, that a Branch Underwriter manag
21
the underwriting of Samaa n's loan applications.
22 b. Valid Loan Applications (1003) listing the true closing costs with
loan fees of
23 0.75% were still not received. No Loan Disclosures were signed yet either.
to
24 c. The Sept 15, 2004 Purchase Contract, fraudulently claimed as faxed
of the
25 Countrywide on Oct 25,200 4,5:03 pm was still not incorporated as part
yet
26 loan file. In fact, there is no evidence that it was received by Countrywide
27 on Nov 3, 2004!
28
-35-
Repres entatio ns
Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applic ations and Fraud ulent
rywide
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa n & Count
158 / 545
to close was
d. Statem ent from Samaa n's mother regarding owners hip of funds
2 still missing.
3 e. Broke r's Certification was still missing

4 f. Conflicting work and residence addresses were not yet resolved
not yet
5 g. Missin g Wells Fargo Statement to demonstrate funds to close was
6 received.
na docum ent from
7 31. Exh R (p 117) - is a true and correct copy of Countr ywide' s subpoe
funding by
8 Samaa n's loan file - Jan 27,200 5 - Denial Letter, showing denial of
loans were
9 Countr ywide Bank, contradicting claims by Samaan/Countrywide that
by Nov 1, 2004.
approv ed by Oct 25, 2004, and Samaa n was able, willing, ready to close
10
ywide Bank stated
In investi gation in 2007 by the Office of Thrift Supervision Countr
11
that it would never have funded Samaa n's loan applications.
12
Parks was never
32. Exh S (p 119) - July 2006, Samaa n's Deposition, showin g that
13
prepar ed the loan
involved in her loan applications, that her husban d was the one who
14
the time of the
applications, falsely signed by Parks, that Samaa n was employ ed at
15 icting false
application as a cosmet ics salesw oman in a department store, contrad
16
statements about her employment in loan applications.
17 of contrad iction regarding
33. Exh T (p 149) - Oct 27,200 6 Parks' Court Declaration - full
18 this docum ent bears
the underw riting proces s, as outlined in Table I. Parks' signatu re on
19 (Exh A)or the
no resemb lance to his signatures on the Sept 27, 2004 Loan Applications
20 any
Sept 7, 2004 Prequalification Letter (Exh. J. The latter two do not bear
21 ation file there is not
resemb lance to each other either. In the whole Samaa n Loan Applic
22 a single authen tic signature by Parks.
23
34. Exh U (p 157) - Sept 7,2004 Park's Prequalification Letter
of the state of
24 I make this declara tion under penalty of perjury pursua nt to the laws
25 California. Signed here, in Los Angeles, California, Feb 29, 2008.
26
27
28
-36-

Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications andn & Countrywide
159 / 545
1
2 ),~
3
4 JOSEPH ZERNIK
DEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT
5
in pro per
6
7
8
9
10
11 v. EXHIBITS
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-37-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Allplications and Fraudulent Representations

160 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT A
28
-38-

161 / 545
.~.
unifo rt Residential Loan Ap,tc ation
Plllpelty",l be:
PrimOII' Re>l!lena> Dsoa>ndiuy _...,.0 Investment
rolal(a+bl
Omalltl Olobomaclo
llllewiB
Sautee or Da..n PlIjIllenl. Selllemenl ChBl1l<$ en_SUbanlino1e F':"nclng (e>Illolnl

ChlcldnglSovlngs
1227 in S. Allred SIRlt

Los Angol... CA 90035
Bonowi!r
NDme 'Addrasof Empl_
SpollbDund enterprise. Inc.
133 S. Pick OIlVll. Suite 104
BwerIY HIli.. CA 90212
PlllSldcnt
IImployorll n l:I1ml1ll_lUort for Ius lIIBllIWD yon or"curran
p,.,. III. foa.wllllI'
....ployod In /IIOte tIwJ .". posillon, c....
Nmno'MdmssofEmployot
oso
lD1eSS p,- {II!d.'" CIlllII
F_IIiooFon nl003 11104

FlOlktololacvonnBS DllOe
CoIyxF.... l.a.t LoontppI.... Dll1M
Computer Generote~1 oI~
Handwritten 1003
162 / 545
I
G.........lhlyl._
Bas. EmpI. _me' S
IlaInlWlT
33.333.00
•
\1. MONTIiLV WCOME AND COMBINED HOUSING EXPENS~ INFORMAnON
$
Co-Bo.-r
S
T.tal
33,333.00
~=.':'
Rtlll
. $
_I3,390.00
'.
,
..
P'Ojl...d
..
I
0vaItime ""It Morcaaa. (P&I) Is 6,aU3

90IIusN Diller financing (P&~ 1,121l.60
00lil/iii$$i0.. H""""Nurallte 400.87
Dlvldtndlllnl.resl Rnl Es1ate T.... 1,789.58
NBlRonIBI_
Olhet __ MllI1gag: InsDnlllCO
_,"""-DlIOl
... 1tl.llIII:eh....
.... _ • .-oj ~
0lIl0r.
Tola! S . 33,333.00 S S 33,333.00 Tola! S 3,390.00 S 9,618.38
·s.11 ElIIJIlDYtd e........rj.) 1llIIY'" RqIllrod to provlde .ddlUonoI dow_IlIUon ..cIlottu..-. end fin••oW _moab.
D.sU'lbo OtMrmcolll. NoUt:a: ADma~. chnd auppan. or sep.'" mahttonlltea IDeoJDI nled not be ntVU)td Utn_
BOrrDW1Ir (8) ar eo.&otrowc:r(C} doe5 not c:hooso to i1allO It eonsldeml forrcpilytng dab 10011\,
~r-------I'--
. . VI. ·ASSETS AND LIABILiTIes .. .. ..,
This IIlem.lIllUldenyopp cablasuppoltingscll.dulesmaybecampleled . lIybybolhrnanledandulUll'llriedCOoI>oITllWOlll • as_and 1;.liIle..... ,,"n
JoInod••lhlllIhIStatemonlcanbeme.nlnglU/lyoadraillyp..._.nocomblnlld_;DIhaJWlsa...pamleSlilimanllOndSchedulB&Bl8requinld.HIhaCo-Bom'l'I.r
••ctlon was ccmpleled /lbouI a _,1hIs Slalomenl and .ujlpOltiag Wledules musl be ......ltl.d aboul thaI.pousa olso.
CGmpI_ DJolnlly G!lN.lJolnlly
~
ASS6TS Cash or Mark.t
Valuo dallls, illrJoJdIllo ...... 1>/> 1oalI•• rBVOlvlnO dla'lJ9 e.....
-plelJll... de. \he .._ _ ~ Uaecusaoy.1Ildita1O bVM _e _whidlwlUbe
".IUI_
UUruDcsandPJtdged Ass.... LlStthaaet2lofsname. address MdarmuntfU'll;wlotll outstandlng
loans, aIillIIlny, dIIId $Uppal\.
CA!IldlllOofI_ pt.I'CIlase hlld by: 5 _upon ••teol .... UlOleOl'4lOd ................... oIth. O1IlIltdPOO_·
Mara I!llcroll/ 30,000
Monthly poyment & Unllllld Blton..
UAIIlunES Mlsf'th,_ t..n to Prq
LUI chocklng,nrI UlI/np ,ceo""," "",ow NImIlllIIlcldre.. o I ~ n'oyJIlentlMOl1t/lS 5

Nama Illd IIddIesS 01-' S&I. CI CredIt UnIOn FIRST USA
PO BOX296:W
Wills FDlVD BInI< PHOENIX. A:l. 85038
P.O. 80_ 6995
POIIIand, OR 97228-6995 9,870
Accl. no. 4332370011040372 197
181,097 Nomelllld address 01 C _ 5 I'ayrnonlRVIonI 5
Acd. I\ll, 881-4098380 $
Naml and add"'ss of BanI<, 5&1. or Qed" UI1IDII FST ENlRIlNT
6735 FOREST LAWN
Will. FDlVD Bank HOLLyWOOD. CA 90OS8
P.O. BDI 6995
portland, OR 97228-6995 266/60 9,033
1ACCt.-. .. 92584OS00
_DIIIId oddlessol CDmpany SPDymDnllMOlllJ\S 5
Acct....
750.0194399 S 02,325
WASHINGTON MUlUAL BANK
_and_SD B..k. S&L, or Ctedll UOIOn
POBDX1093
NORTHRIDGE. CA 91328
Accl.... 1OO100000000082B083611 102 7,904

.... and llIdreSI.rcempany 5PaymelllJlol_
AcCl. no. 5
t/OlIl8 ond addle6S III Bonk, S5I., or \;;,edIl UOiOn em
POll 8241
SIOUX FALLS, SD 67117
iAaI. no. 642411069919 132 8,347
$
r_1IIld _ . oICOftlp;lny 5 PaymoiiVlMnlhS S
Acd. ~ ••
5 BARNEYS NY CRED CO
=r&IloB~c:"lIIYnameI 1101 V!'Jl.E'( BROOK AVE
LYNDHURST, NJ 07071
114 1,477
uri _co
no! cash value
F_ _ 5
600.000
S
Ae:t. aD. 6003355682
Nama and _ _ 01'-"1' 5 ll\'IIle.-1hI S
S_1Jaald Assets S 293,422

Accl.no.
=~ow:s~~~"'1S NwnoW\ll address or COlIlPlny S~
~Inlerutn .. 44,000
N.IWOI1lI 01 buslness(es) 0WlIlld S 600,DllO

lallDch WndaI slaIerilallt)
AuIllftl6IlIlU owned (nsalla ana yw) p
25,000
Accl.11O.
~~WrtlSep _ _1IDlICO ..
2002 Honda Accord
0Ibet AueIS (ltemile) 5

160,000 [Job Rl1aIed E>pens' (c:IIlfd ..... lIIIIDn d.... iIc.) 5
PumllwS1
J.....lry 100,000
IT'1s1 MO~fhaymonlS $ 811 ...
Tollll AsselS.. S 1,112,422 IloIWDflh'

amlnui'bl.
....
-
> :1$ 1,077.791 TOlII LIIb11llla... $ 34,831 I
IlcImM'Ol . . - MIl FCllIl '00) d\1D4
F _ I0\OI: FCIIIll 65 O,1Dt
~ FOIIII ,00) LoonIppiUlm 011l)l
Computer GenerGtec!gO
ro
• 0/ • 0 •
Co-....r _
Handwritten 1003
163 / 545
. . .. . '. ..' . . VI, .ASSETS AND LlABliJnEli (coiit.1 .

sheel) .
Schedul. of ROIl Esu•• OWn.d pIaddlllanal pIIIpeIlf.. are owned. un CXlIIlIr<lalioll
Insuroro<a.
PnIpe11y Addlass (enIl!rS Ul<lI4. PS llpendirlg sole Typeol Present
or RII IOllIal being held lor "'tom., AmollIlIor Gnlss
Pnlpotly MatfcalVQI. Mortgages & Uem RentoIlnc:orne
UortgBge
Pa)'menb
t.blnllNra. Nel
T.... &Mlsc. R.nlallnaxne
S S ~ S S S
ToIaIs S • S S S S
. lAdle.... 'pptop,1ate clOClllor _O/slond accoun'
numll.rj.):
U.' .nV .ddltlon.' "10" lIIIdo,.,bleb crodll nas plllVl.UI'V ....n NQ. . . . . . .
I ..lON-
VII. DETAIl:S" OF TRANSACT 'VlI~ !lEC~TION$' I
.. !'lRllaso prtu $ 1,718.000.00 :=::~:::llllVquesllarrs.lh",ugn~p1"•• u•• """"""",
D......... eo.ao",,,..,
b. AlIeIWIlons, imp_IllS . "pails Yet No Yo No
Co Land Ilf 1Cqllft~ ~BlII!lvl "1n-Il\'_lbD~aglllAst~ D~ DO
d. R.iIlBncB (Ind. dell" I. bit paid 011) b. -JOVbae ft_-",hoil w.lll.pa.1 7Y9'1'/ O~ 00
.. Eslillllied propa'" flBms 6.299.33 c. -JOVI1od, ..,.!Jlr ....dooed_orpv .nlllloordee dln ... _ O~ 00
J. I!sIJnaled cIosms costs 2U16.00 "' ....... 7 yurs?
S. PMUMP, F_S F.. ll.lnyou. ·plIlly"._ O~ 00
b.DIscount (1I80nowvwll pay) ., -YOU~"'ln dhdfybell llollliga ltclOll"' t""_r_'"
_
O~
........ _
00
_......... ___
...lleuolillOd_ It?
L Toto! costs (ad~ Items .1IIrovgb h) 1.745.115.33 - ._
(lNO . .... _srCllillelll orJudJllOlI
~ Sul>onlInaIa wndng
..... tllll'lll..-='=:
=.... .:=':'~~==--=.=
171.800.00
k. _ . doslns costs psJd bySdor FW..VA. . tmlllII. .,..,.U1d~"I!I.ICIion.)
L Olhm' CIedlIs("""" 1 L AlaJOV~doltquenl.,,,, -"'8II'/Fedo taIdclll.,lIl Iyolher O~ 00

~~~~~~=:-.7
Co&hDopoo lt :Ill,llDn,.n
Iv. A1wl'O"ObIlPlad.. POV8IInDIlI'. -1IVpJlOIt, .,s._16 _ _ 7 O~ 00
00
II. 1..lll'PIIlollll.'*'Mlpa)!llll1l............a O~
O~ DO
--......................................... -. -...............................-...........
L Arel'OOO ._.. end........ no~,
00
~ .... ~aU.s._ ~o
.... 1.0........1 1,374,4Dll.00
te. AlciOUapennanentresldellleJenl O~ 00
1 -PMI. Mil', Fuming Fu r_cod) Bdt.oClCCllpylha~ .. JO... pllnlorr_d.....' ~o DO
Oo,...InlI
L ."Y...• _ _.. bdaw.
n. PM!. MIP, FIIIdino Fee InIllCOd
no.""."'" 1lId ....... mI\Ip lrltoJa>l In. PIll_in lh.lasIlluto_7 O~ 00
(t)_tljpBor~dldl""~I...-(PR),
_or_
Do LDan amounl (add m & ., 1,374.400.00
--tSH J•.,bNulmonl_SllV(1P)'
p.CasllflllllllloBonower 189.116.33 (2lH""' tJd lOUl>oIitlillelo
)Ilnltfwilh _ _ .\SPI. or/llltlllY..." lllSllll(S). (0)7
... ....-.,by)'O
(.lIbltBdI.k,I&olnlmQ
.. IX. ACKNOWlEDGMENT'AN!1 AG~E.m: I
I
·X. P0RM4T10N FOR: GOVERliIjlENT MONlTOR!N.G .PURPOS~

typetof..ansrelaledl oadwBllng "'_.. monborOle_ CIlIIlp!anl:
a\'ltlbaqualc:ndl
Tbaf..""Jnglnfotmll""'.. raquestBdbvlb.FBd<lllGonmmenlfor.. .....uilo1lafllmish lJllslnformellon,bu1...~lod o... TballwpnMdlslhal'Landerm~
oPPorturdlY,talrboUlln!l.ndhom.1I1OIl9OlledlsclDSIII'I'-. VOll...nolraq PlO\lidGbo IhetlvlJcllva nd..ct. Forrace.you
llL lfyoufwmhlh tln-.,please
dl&crlmlnallneilheranlbebaslsolllllslnloroaUon,nor0ll1llllallleryoudl"...,lorumlo lIlIullllons .Olla.. aderltl\!lllll lllllollOlalb llln_..,IlI.ba sfsofvieull
IIIt1fcbad<mortlll...... c!lslgnallon. lfyoud.llIlllumJsb.llIIl/dl,... ... Ol...._rF_ _ILendermusll8Vlawlhelb6velllBl8rlBllo...... Ibal...
olloelvdanor"""ame.llro.lfonolwlshlobnlthlhelnlorrndon.lIlUoeclladtlllBlloJl
ronder" subject under.pplIcablaslalalaWf.,llI6palticu1srlype .1IoanllPllbd
for.)
_·saIlsfV
aD raqulram.llI5lOwlIIcIIlbo
CO-BORROWER oldonol_ .. ~thI B_
BORROWER Old....."'h .. flmJhUlb W_n
_A_
--
__
0J_"UlI ., 0 .... _.,..... .,
Elhnlelty: DHb,lIIllo.
0 _ _« ,Ldlo IilI H..HI''''''"'., ........ EUtnICIllI: IlIl
O_or
Race, DAIIaIl 0 -... !lbc.: _ leaN_ D-
i\Iosl:llNaIlva 0 _ _..
- 0-
0--« ~ WbIIB
O.... PadIlo_e '
OIhor_bl.1 IllBr
oUOlo Sn: of_ 0_
~-
S• .,
..... and_so r~Elrl pIojat
Toba eoraplcltd by " ' I l l _ I.~ ::a~M 1nl
ThIs .JPIiQlII.., was 1II<en Ily. P,cIIIc IItoIlOage eoMullaIl1a
700 Llrlcspur I.Indlng CItdo '275
Ii VIV ~1~' ;2~' O'"(
oF~1nhlMaw In
Larkspu', CA 94939
OMall I IPl888-S7U 593
IilJTalepbono 11n- sPh... _l'ld. .... codt)· IF) 310.496-325$
Dlnlenllll 31..275-5353
Fm.ls Ioltc Form 15 01104 Computer Generated'IDS ~ 01 ..

cqxr.... IIlO3 ......JlI'1J.. 01,0(
Handwritten 1003
164 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBITB
28
-42-
Notice of Samaan'sFraudulent Loan AJ?plications and Fraudulent Representations

Regarding their Underwriting by Samaa n & Countrywide
165 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008n Page 45 of 50
Uniform Residential loan Appucatiothis form as 'B""owa~' ·Co-8llIfower". as
This appncaUon Is designed 10 be completed by Ihe applicant(s) with thalende~s
asslslance. Appllcanls should completa or
"Borrower"
box checked) when Olhe income or ssseis 01 a parson other !han Ihs
applIcable. Co·Borrower Informallon musl also be provfded (and lhe sWroprl.ls
0 of lhe Borro~s spouse will no! ba used as a basis for loan
(Including Ills Borrowa~s spouse) win be used as a basis Tor loan qua/ilJcallon or Ihe Incoma or assels
In a communlty
resides In a community property slale. the sacurily proparty Is locsted
qualllicallon. bul his Or her lI.blllllss mu.t ba consldared becausa tha Borrower
relying on olher property located In a community property slata as e basis lor repaymenl 01 the loan.
property slate. or the Borrower Is
!;
I.. TYPE OF MORTGAGE AND TERMS OF. LOAN ..¥. ( ," .. :o.
Mortgage OVA Olher (explain): Agency Case Number lender Case Number
Apptlld lor: 0 FHA
Amount
$ 171,800
Properly will be:

Primary Residence 0 Secondary Rasldence 0 Investment
(b) Cost olfmprovements Tolal(a+b)
S $
$
CompTele Ihls line If this Is a refinanco loan.
Original Cosl Amount Extsllng Usns Purpose or Refinance Descrfbe Improvemenls 0 made 010 bs mads
Year
Acqulred
$ CostS
$
Manner In which Tills will ba held Estate will be held In:
TIlle will be held In what Name(s) Nivle Samaan
i'n.:::::-;;:;'=:;;;-"F.:;=====:-::=====~===== --L.:.A:::n:...:U:::n.::m:.:a=rr:.:.l:.:e.::d..:W.:.o:::m:::=an:.:..- -i'"'lr:easeSlmhople,d

;;::=:":
of Down Payrnanl. SeWement Charges and/or Subordinale Financing (explain)
Source (.how e.pralon dIll)
Chocking/S avIngs
.~ .. ~. .... III. BORROWER INFORMATION ." ·.Co.Borrowe;. .. ,.';'

Co·B""ows rs Name (Include Jr. or Sr. If appllca Ie)
VIS, School
1227112 S. Alfred Slreet

Mailing Addrsss.lf dlllersni Irom Presenl Addr
If residing al presenl address for '/1$'

lI,an I
Former Address (slreel. cily. stale. ZIP)
.,1,.; ,",,', ',: Borrowsr .1'; ....,IV:EMPLOYMENTINFORMATION

~ Sell Employsd Yrs. on Ihls lob Name & Address of Employer
Name & Address 01 Employer
4yr(s)
Spellboun d Enterprise , Inc. Yrs. e!I'P1oyad In lids
Yrs, employed In this line of Wodc1prolesslon
133 S. Peek Drive, Suite 104 Uns of worklproJesslon
Beverly Hills, CA 90212 20
PoslllonlTlllelType of Business Business Phone (Incl. area COde)
Po Ilon/T1ltefType. 01 Business Business Phone (incl. area code)
PresIdent 323·655·5654
employed In more than ons position, complefe the following:
If employed In CUtTOnI po.lUon for leu than two years or If cummtly
Name & Address of Employer Sell Employed Dales (from·lo)
D Name & Address of Employer o
Self Employsd Dales (from-Io)
Monlhly Income
Monlhly Income
$ S
Posillon1TllleIType of Business rUsfneSS Phone (Incl. area code) PoslllonlTltleITypa of Business rOSineSS Phone (Incl. area code)
Nama & Address of Employer D Sell Employed Dales (from-Io) Name & Addrsss 01 Employar o Self Employed DIIlllS (Irom-lo)
Monlhly Income
Monthly Income
$
$
PoslilonITftlelType of Business IBuslness Phone (Incl. erea code)
PosllJontTUlelType of Business rUSlneSS Phone (Ind. area code)
-43-
Fonnlll Mao Fann 1003 01/004

Coml31f1'l;w l,.'jeI1etla·S'~J ... 1 .. 4
BorrOW81
Freddla Mac Form 85 01/004 _
Calyx FOf'M 104» L0W12pp1Jrm Dtl().l Co-Borrower
Hl,md,~wi'i"i'I?t1 100::t
166 / 545
I V. MONTHLY INCOME AND COMBINED HousiNG EXPENSE INFORMATIOl>i , ".~ .,
t"~ :
.1
Gross Monthly Income Borrowor Co..Borrower Tolal Combined Monthly
Prosent Proposod
HousIng expense
Base Empl. Income' $ 33,333.00 $ $ 33,333.00 Renl S 3,390.00
Overllme Flrsl Mortgege (P&\) S 6,299.33
Bonuses Other Financing (P&I) 1,128.60
Commissions Hazard Insurance 400.81
Dlvldends/lnleresl Real Eslale TaKes 1,789.58
Net Rental Income Mortgage Insurance
other (belol. compl811n(J. Homeowner Assn. Dues
1&0 111.nob lSI "dosalbD
olher 1neomO." billow) Olher.
Total $ 33,333.00 $ $ 33,333.00 Total $ 3,390.00 $ 9,618.38
Selr Employed Borrowor(s) may bet required to provide additional documontatlon such as lax returns and nnanclal statemonts.
D.scrtbe Olher Income Notice: Alimony, child .uppoll. or seporate malnlenance Income need not be reveeled "tho
Borrower IB) or Co·Borrower Ie) does.not choose to hove II con.ldered forrepaylng 1111. loan.
~-------------------------I' ~~-,
I ' vi. ASSETS AND,LlABILITIE~ , . . .;' ·1
ThIs Sletemeni and anvapplicable supportlno schedules may be completedjolnlly by both married and unmarrIed Co-borrowers Irthelrassels and lIablUUes are sufficlenlly
joined so Ihet Ihe Slatement can be meenlngruilyand ralrlypresenl.d on acombined basis; olherwlse. separale Slal.ments and Schedule. are required. "'he Co-Borrower
secllon was compl.ted about a spouse. Ihls Stalem.nt and supporting schedul.s musl be compleled about thai spouse also,
Compleled 0 Jolnlly lllI Nol JolnUy
ASSETS Cash or Market L1ablllUos and Pfedgod Assets. LIst the credlto(s name, address and account number rOf all oulstandlng
.; g~: i:~: :dT.p~: :~: :nsl:"tr;towa=: :rd~p: u: :rc:th~a: se:;hi: .:; ld; by: : -i: r.$--......:V::•.::lu::·---l::::·~~~:~g.f~I~::'~I~~~~I~;~~~~~lf~~~:.c:.~~Jf~:":r.:'it,~":.;~~tW::~hfc~~~~~rt.
satisfied upon sale or real estate owned or upon refinancing of the subject property.
Mara Escrow 30,000
Monthly Payment & Unpaid Balanc.
LIABILITIES Months Loft to Pay
List checking and savings accounts botow Nam••nd .ddress of Company $ Paym.nllMonlhs S
;N~am~e~an::d;;;ad::;"d';:'res:;s;'o:;ti:!B~a;;nkr:.-isi&~L.:":o:;:r';;c:::r."'d;;:'17;u'=nl~0::"n-----1 FIRST USA
POBOX 29620
W.lls Fargo Bank PHOENIX, AZ 85038
P.O. Box 6995
Portland, OR 97228·6995
Ace!' no. 4332370061040372 197 9,870
Nam. and address Dr Company $ PaymenUMonlhs $
Ace!. no. 681-4098380 1$ 181,091
Nam. and addreSS Dr Bank. S&I.. or Credll Union FSTENTRMNT
6135 FOREST LAWN
Wells Fargo Bank HOLLYWOOD, CA 90068
P.O. Box 6995
Portland, OR 97228·6995 9,033
AccI. no, 925840600 266160
Nama and address of Company $ PavmenUMonlhs
Acct, no, 760-0194399 $ 82,326
Name and address of Bank. 5&1.. or Credll Union WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK
POBOX 1093
NORTHRIDGE, CA 91328
Acel. no. 1001000000000629063611 102 7,904

AccL no. Is Nama and address of Company $ PaymenlJMonlhs 1$
;;N::am:::...:.e::en:..d.,..a-d"'dc--re-ss-o""""'B:-a""'nk,.......S"'&.,..I..""'o"'r"er,..l.l:id"'11 U:-n:-lo.".n------l cm
7
poe 6241
SIOUX FALLS, SO 57117
Accl. no. 542418069919 132 6,347

Ace!. no. S Name and addr.ss of Company $ Paymenl/MOnlhs S
:.;S;:IO;ck,:,S::;&'"'B'"'O'"nd"'.,...,.,s(C"'o"'m:::p::an"'v"'n"'a::m"'eJ..--l;;$--------l BARNEYS NY CREO CO
numb... & d••eriptlM) 1201 VALLEV BROOK AVE
LYNDHURST, NJ 07071
AccI. no. 6003355682 114 1,411
=========__-II.- IName and address Dr Company

$ PaymenUMonlhs $
L1f. Insuranc. nel cash value $
Face amount: $ 500,000

Subtolal LIquid Assets $ 293,422
Ace!. no.
Real estal. owned (enl.r mark.1 value S $ PeymenllMonlhs $
from schedul. of real.state owned) Name and address Dr Company
Vesled Intereslln rellramenl rund S 44,000

0'
N.t worth buslne..!es) owned
(.Ilach Rnandal slal.ment)
$ 500,000
Automobiles owned (mak. and ye.r) $ Ace!. no.

2002 Honda Accord 26,000 $
\<'i t:.,::, ';', '1.'"
.-'t :~ . .;!' :: I, .1
Other Assets Olemlze) 1.
Furniture 150,000 Job Related Expensa (child cere. union dues•• 'e,) 5
Jewelry 100,000
.... ,.
"I I r
Total Monthly PaYfl\snls $ 811 " .',

Total Assots a. $ 1,112,422
~etWoith.
illnlnus bl
,'."'!~-.I$
,: • ~<'!'" 'I~
1,077,791 Total L1abIllU.s b. $ 34,631
1
Fannie M... Form 1003 01104
Freddie Mac Form 65 01104
Calyx Form 1003 !.oanapp2.frm 01104
Computet·, G~ltWt~te.d Page 2 of 4 Borrower
CC)-Borrower _
HandlJllf'I';"h?tl :tOO~
167 / 545
Case .2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document
.... '.' .' . . . ' . ' .,' ·if'.ASs~TS 40 Filed 04/17/2008
ANDUASIi..rrIES·(con~)' Page 47 of 50
Schedule 01 Real Ealale Ownod (If addlllonal propellies are owned. Use conlinualion sheel) .
Propelly Address (enler 5 If sold. PS If pending sa'e Typeo' Insurance,
Presenl Amounlof Gross Mot1gaoe
or R If renlal beIng held for Income) Propet1Y Markel Value Mollgages & Liens Renlallncome Malnlenance. Nel
Paymenls Taxes & MIse. Rental Income
$ S S S $ S
TOlals S $ S S $ $
LIst any addillonal names under whIch crodll has provlously been rocolved end Indlcale a o ria
ppr p 10 credllor nama!s) and accounl number(.).
Allemale Name Credllor Name Accounl Number
, ,
I VII.· DETAILS OF TRANSACTION' " . "' .."
, ; Vill,DECLARATIONS .. '~!' I,:":" '''r'
:I
a. Pwd,sso price S 1.718.000.00 rryou answer".,es·· to any queaUoRS • through I, pJ.~sa use conlinuaUon
shuet for eXplanation. Borrowe r Co-Borrowet
b. AJloraUon•• Improvements, repairs
Yo. No Vel No
c. Lend (If acquired sepamle/y) a. Arelhere eny oulstandltlg judgmenls egaln.1 you? 0 ~ 0 0
d. Ronnanee (Incl. dabls to be peld off) b. Heve you been declared bankrupl wlthln Ihe pasl 7years7 0 [YJ 0 0
e. E.Umaled prepaid Items c. Have you hed proplll1y loredosed upon Of given Iitle or de.d in Yeu "",reol 0 @J 0 0
f. 8timeled closing co.ls In Ih. la.I 7 years?
g. PMI, MIP. Funding Fee d. Are you a party 10 alawsull? 0 ~ 0 0
h. Dlscounl (If Borrower wOl pay) 0 ~
e. Have you directly or IndirecUy been obYgaled on any loan wllich resulled In 0 0
L Tolal cos•• (add Ilems a through h) 1,118,000.00 foreclosure, Iransfer 01 lilleln Ueu 01 for.closure, or judgmenl?
J.Subordinate I,nanclng ~:='-=="~""::(==,~Il;'.':"~~,=~MI
otjgllion. band. «bin ouaronloo. II ""(e.," provida detaIs,lf\WdinD dale, name end
k. Borrower's closlog co.ls paid by Seller addtoss oJ lendef. FHA. 01 VA case runb8r. il8f1)', Dl1d ,..sons lot Ihe KJIor1.J
I. Olher Credll.(explaln) f. Are you presently dolnquonl or In derauR on any Federal dobt or any other 0 I'II 0 0
Cash Deposit 30,000.00 loan. morlge!/O, financl.lobilgeUon, bond, or loan guaranle.?
• '"(DI," oIW d6f". 01 dOlct.hd I" tho precatlng quosllon.
g. Are you obioaied '" pay alimony. chlld !UPI'M. or soparale malnfenence? 0 ~ 0 0
h. I. any part 01 II. down paymenl borrowed? 0 ~ 0 0
New First Mortgege 1,314,400.00 f. Are you a co-maker or endOtser on a nole7 0 @J 0 0
New 1st Mtg Closing Cost. (28,115.33) o' . . . . . . . o' . . . ~_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
m. Loan amounl 171,800.00

J. Are you a U. S. clllzen? [YJ 0 0 0
(exclUde PMI. MIP. Funding Fee financed)
k. Ate you a permanent resident eYen? O~ 0 0
I. 00 you Intend to occuPY' the property as your prImary r.sldenee? [YJ 0 0 0
n. PM!. MIP. FundlnO Fee financed Ir~e,.·COP'fIIDIa quoaUOnmbdow.
m. Have you had en ownership Inlerest In a property 10 Ihe la.lthree years? 0 [YJ 0 0
o. Loan amount (add m & n) 111,800.00 (1) Whallype or property did you own·prlnclpal resldenc. (PR).
second home (SH), or Investm.nl property (IP)?
p. Cash fromllo Borrower 169,915.33 (2) How did you hold WI. 10 Ihe _.olely by yoursell (5).
(sublract J. k.1 & 0 from 0 joinlly with your spouse (SP), or jolnlly wllh _.,.,son (O)?
I IX. AqKNOWLEDGMENT' AND. AGREEMENT .. .I! "I t
.. P,:
,. ).: ;' . .. !;''',.I
Each of the undersigned specUiaPy teplesants 10 Lender lind to lend.... actual Of potanUaI acrenLs. brokers, procassOlS••Uamoys. Insurers, servlcer•• succeSIOI5 and assigns
.nd ogre•• ond edcno....dg•• thet (1)lh. InIormallon provided In 1hI. appllcaUon Is IN. olld corr.d as 01 Ihe date se' IotIh opposlle my .lgnaltJre end Ihel .ny Inlenllonei or
nl!()lgent misrepresentatlDn af lhis inlormaUon contained In OJI, .appl~Uon may restM In dviJ dabWly, IndotIng mon.lary dam'Q415, to .ny per.on who ruy .uf/er any 50... due 10
tellance upon any mlsrapnt,cmlaUon lhal I have mad. on Ulis appiicaUon. andlor In crImIll8I penallles kdJcIng. but nollmlled 10, lina or Imprisonment or balh under the provisions
~~;~:.~·h~~~~(~:~: ~~:rt~:A ~~~'b.-:';:jio(:~m':~, ~::'=l:=: ~::fq:rsl~~:..;;:'~~ ~~i.CO:~~t~~n:.:"fo~~ ~-=o~r~~l=
re,ldenUal morlOioe Joan: (5) the property win be oc.eupled 8. indlcal.d het~ln; (6) anv owner or I.Meet of lhe Loan may verify or revarlfy any Information contained In the
appllcaUon from any source named In this .ppllcalion, Bnd Lender, liS successots or assigns may tetaln the ortglnalendlor ,iii" electronic record 01 this application. oven if the loan
Is not apPJDved; (7) Ute Lender and Us egen's. biobrs. insureJs, SeMC8lI, IUCceUOfS and assigns may continuously rely on lhe inform.Uon GOnIBlned In lhe appUc.lkm, and I am
obligel.d 10 amend end/or oupplemenl the ",Iormotion provided In Ihi. epplJcatlon ~ any 01 tho molerlel 'ecls thel I hove represented heroin .houId <hInge prlor /0 doting or Ih.
Loon; (0) In ItuI ..ent !hoI my peymenls on tho Loan become d.lnquent, the owner or servlcer 0I1tuI Loan mey. In odellllon 10 any other rilihb end remedies thot R m.y heve
releflng 10 such doflnquenq. report my n.me end account Inronnation 10 one or more consumer ....dIt reporUng agancles; (9) ownership allhe Loen end/or edmInlslnlllon 0I1tuI
Loan account mey be tr....r"'ed wlIh such notice os may ba requlred by law; (10) nollhor Lendor nor lis ogenls, broker•• Insure"•••_ , _ _• or elllll'l' hOI medo any
reprolenl.llon or warrenly. expros. or Impll.d, to me regerding th. property or Ihe condition or v_ oIl11e pJOpelly; Ind (11) my trensmlsslon of lIIlo applicallon o. an ".Ieclronlc
record" c:onlaJnlnq my "electronic algnelur.," as those lerms are d.,.,ed In applfcilbfe federal end/or Iiale laws (exdudlng audio end "ideo recoJdlngs). or my facslmUlt
ban.ml.-IM 0' th•• oppl/OIIl1on conlolnlnp ,. roczdmlJo 01 my den.lur_,
Ina! wrlllen lure.
.t.".,. ,.• .".cfJy-., lMIo,CIJlJW. and v.WId tu it -. pepe,v"'.'M of Ihb appJic.Ucm ~ d.JJ",.,.d conJltlnI'ng
Borrower'. ~nature Dale Co·Borrow.(. Signature Dale
X ~7 1t.1 . t:~",n-""""/t.-- '1' -.;J '1-0 ' / X

x; INFPRMATION FOR GOVERNMENT MQNlrORING PURPOSES' ,."
The foMowfng In'ormelfon Is requeeled by til.. Fed.ral Gouemmenl for cet1a1n Iype. 01 loIns reteled 10. dwemng In o,d.rlo monitor !he lender'. compQlncewllh equal credll
oppolluoily, fairhousing endhomemot1gagedlsclo!Urelaws. Youare nolrequi'edlofurnlshlhlstnlormaUon, bUtareencouraged todoso. Thelawprovldes lIIataLendermay
dl.crlminal. neltheron the baslsoflhls Informalion, noronwh.lheryou choos.lo furnish iI. lIyoufurnish lhelnform.lion, p1easeprOllldeholhethnlcllyand race. Forraee, you
maycheckmOfethanonedeslgnaOon.lfyoudonoflumlshelhnlclly.race,or.ex,uoderFedoralregulallons,lhlslenderlsTllqulredtonotelhelnfOfmallononlhebaslsofvlsuai
ob.ervalionorsurneme.llyoudonolwlshlolurnlshlhelnformatlon,pIeasechecklheboxbelow. (L.ndermuslrevlewtheabovematerlallo•••urethallhedlsdosur....,lsfy
all requllemenls 10 which the lender Is sUbjecl under applicable stale law for lIle pallicular type of loan appRed for.)
BORROWER 0 I do no! wlsh to ftKnl.h Ihi. lnIormollon CO·BORROWER 0 I do not wish 10 fUrnish "'10 IntormeUon
Elhnlclly; 0 HI.panlc or Letlno ~ Not Hlspank: or L.tino Ethnlclty: 0 I'hpenle or Latino 0 Not H1sponlc or LoOno
Race: OAmerfcanlndlenor o ....ian olllecleor Race: OAmet1canlndlanor oA.lan oBlec:kOl
Alaske NaOve Alrlcen Am.rlcan Alnka Nali.e Alrlcan Americ8n
o Native HaweUen or ~ Whll. 0 Native HawaIIan or 0 WhU.
Oilier Pacl~c IsIar1der Other PIlCM<: l.landOr
Sax: @JFameJa 0 M.1e Sex: 0 Fern. 0 Male
To be Completed by Inlervlower Inlorviewer's Name (print or type) Name and Adelt... ollnlervlewer's Employer
This application was laken by: V ctor Parks Pacific Mortgage Consultants
o Face-Io-face interview Int ( S gn 00 Larkspur landing Circle #275
OMaM Larkspur, CA 94939
~ Telephone (P) 888-615-5693
o Internet (F) 310-496-3256
Freddie "'eo Form 65 01104

COmpute...•GteI1et'dted F.nnI. Me. Form 1003 01104
Calyx Form 1003 Loenepp3.frm 01104 Ht.Uldwl'lthm W0:3pege 3 014
168 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBITC
28 -46-
Repres entatio ns
Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applic ations and Fraud ulent
rywide
Regar ding their Under wrifui g by Samaa n & Count
169 / 545
.. '. :'. . :
.'
-.'
-".-'
.' .... ...:.-_ _-..:_ _

- ...ll. .......' :~.t-.-;"-:"~;:-t'-:-'~: . , - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - ' : ' ' ' ' ' ' - - - -
": ' . '0'
_.0 ...:....:.:.:. .:..::':" .Jo.~·: ':'.1 ~

._. ~:. :·':t:·.::t::'·.::·.f:";~>:~:·s·~· ~-, -,, :,- _-- --~ -:- ~--
..
.. -·
.. '" 0
.-~ '.' .....

" •• ~ I ... : .';. ••.•
...,.----
:~;=::-:---'-:-.:...-_---------:=...:......_--_-.:.._....
-::::":-"~";'~",:'
". ... "-
-'-' ,.-.... '. . ",:.:' ".
~ :.':.: .:... '~~ ...
:.:.:.:. •• ~~. ~:.:.:. :':' '.:.~ :', i.. ; .
, • t ..... '. ' "r ...;.
- ~..
:~''=:'~'''-:': . :.
'-'...... ,,'
.:--:=:. " ' : - ; . - ' - , - . . . : . - -
_ ------:----------
--
.' .
..,....:.....:...;....--.-.;---~,--~~--~--~-
~ "
. -.' "---'I"''':~'-';
_ ...;. 't::.: ~\-:::-:Y::::::~~.···

. . .' ',.::' ', ..•:'::!....:::~ ....:.'
File St~cking Order
L.eft Side , .~;ght S!cfe..;

• -Conversotion Log • Underwriter App,rovol
• Cc?py·of CC?nditlC?n5 • Underwriter Worksheet'
• Reeommltm~t screen • Quality Verificlltion &
.' boc;ument:. Q'lec:klist .
i Lock-in' ogree/l)lmt
• Pre-c!oli~9 Employment
• Lock-in 'SCr~en Yerlfi~tlon'
~.. Copr Package
• Int~1 Cr~d.lt· ~epor~
• Copy of GFE & Reg Z .
. :. Or!gi~QI con(lIilo~
-47- • Original. LOan Pocl<age
,.
... ;-.::' ,
170 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBITD
28
-48-
Representations
Notice ofSam aan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent
rywide
Regarding their Under writin g by Samaa n & Count
171 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 50
".:I!!e ~JJ;B:Upyd" To "Marla McLaurin" <Maiia...MClaurin@CountryWide;corn>

",jr1loyil@sbctlIObl!I;n~p.
..':.....•
·..
.
",
','
"
'... .
...
..•..-. .
. .
.
11103/2006 03:21 p~
ce
bee
Siil)jeclijl'ttll.!liWs.usJlanse fromCollntryWide
Hi Maria.
Here is the suspe:l se issued by Countr ywide. J\gaill;
we just need a st:atem er:t or
9uideJ ,ine showin g that the FuLL¥, Execut ed 'Pu'rbha
se Agreem ent is reC[o.1ired ~y
C9untr ywiq~ for FinaJ, Lqa:t~, J\ppro val.
Thank you,
;J. R. Lloyd £or Victor P<l;rl<;s
~no. 21'5.53 53
Gr1.!.:~l!f
~
'Allacl\'ecJl;PDF
\
,.
-49-
172 / 545
:rmoCT 262004 10:54/S'T. :0:53/110. 6334870m p
Brancht, ODci(f~3.3 8tilkM'~ot v:Jir;;;Ql\"~>'l

1$(l"~lIQAa:Q$~;'$TE110 ...... =,;;:....:=:;.::..------....--..,-------
S;l-N1lAlr~Lla~94.~Ol: 8mlitrf'llaM'
Phol\e,. (41!i)2"'7-2101
~~qu.#iOfIS.~ItI ...... !~:.;Si:t.t'li.~pI1Qrie, i'lilrib(lra:i:!ove,.

LOail,A\Ir1II1'lor '81'1'373"5' liaa be:~!l ~;,ieY~"l: eM fiil).O',;;1."'<;l:t1DU .£o.r Nivn:SAMMlf<
~""~Jri; lCC~n. ~ ,~, .• rilt:er"lri:Cll>ly ~r~, ~" oeCUP·:tElO

~;fl>9' ~Cll:o
~ TIPO' l't,l!'P~S~. lit", .
"~~3~O;SJit~PR
~'t HtLliS Ch
~~-:; 7.2i
9'0'21'2 ~3'l'iJ I "'p<:~ ~pir~~i<iit
~'I' S~ '. Dil:f!':"
~.~ ii';st
lbltRig . iti.~,
.~·.~:a.iJ -o.JJll;U,
TII:l.;~:rb~~~sl;i.-."S-t.tS~~I:1a:P uilt..~.l.l;h\t fcfqolliil§~'sI'JiC>~tioll t!i,,~;'i.~; .• jf. "Ul>~ ~e,~"''''!

l:~.i.li irifl)J:I'l.WMbY ro~tt~12004.t£ ..e ...doi'l6t;:rec~~~ ... t by·-l;hat.Jd"M.! ~1"""",t:4o.. "I!e-,f;le
lor ,i:i"io..p;t.te..."". '1flI.n._ re".,:'ve tilie ·.iriilio~tion, ~"'ia,1t 'Z:'e'vdOew·tttli*,4;-li.!!J:,qr t.Ift-l: lter
·c1"tenllinaH'On.
omdihon eonlSil:1Cin DUll/eo"*,,,hI:S

.:,~~~~~---;-~-~-~-~:~~~.-~-~-
L'
... .
~_ ~-----~~.-:--_--:-~--~~._---------
,ci;%P;~~"!'L ~4oq·<l.·f"rl:M' .~Q~FCl9;ro'"""'_-'''5'''-.<I!l''c1"c>~
... -'"-
:c.,.
.il .~PY. ~~~-j.Dn" p~r9v.i_de • ·oeatpJ....te,¢OW_ --ptlCPg:e al"onq wleh·
:~11.'~do\i<4';'lCin~ .l,iI .. rlPiJ;41:. .
2. p~'.l.ci'l\<i to !i" "..#eCl1;lod to olio" •7,5' ~:"ot" .. tQ:r: tllb.nh."ooed

~*<l.~l,o)I.,Pt'O~:U
p . 1'de Y"l t.
-~iIT·~;iJobF:;.::~~~~:~~~'~~y-~~ .".. ,- - .-- -,
. ~,*'ocI- ·l(r"O~.c. -COd1tXAm;. •.• ~.~~-·,"i.~t-t\J¢C1.~n~
I
~
cl1.. s~n.9.'dt>.......n"",'w£l.l'.i>.""d...".1;1.01>1-. when ~iWf~1:~$/1!\!(:;~1\9~Hl!~·Il>:! ~;:.,

Cl>nd~);· (iQit<!tl;*i<!nli••.<i"c~!it..
~~~~~~l~tr~~":i~~=~f~:~~·::~t~
ak~·~ite~
- - .
.
- .. -.. . ,. -j -~---. . . ~. . . . . . . . "" ... ~_ . .,--~-
~ ~~~!i,:~ !p1l3 tj,T~,.~"W,tS)

.I'!#ityj>ll Df:;~,'.!.ne:~'
(Page ~: Qf .2 (fO,,2JI~.o.:O"'1o.dl9l)
~.~~.\\Ul
I: I
II
i;:
r' j
II': I I I
1'1 I I II
I
:
I "I"
I I
I"
I I ,I;
I I I
-50-
173 / 545
.Bclrri:i'iwWr'• . --"s;:.~=:.
.••:.:.:..'...;IU~V:.;I:::£:.--
",.", ___'
~"'f~i i:i&.. ~.~ '1n"t.:i!'t:

"':YO;tl~ J'loll~g
\:~"tll!!d yourl~.
tl.oll'l:
VheD .~lIe· foHo..in9 =oncU.tlon s a.,. ....:t(t:h... ~' :~ i)i~ "ll~ "ll'9'a~<
.... I:
t~H~r__~;~~:re~~~~;;;~t~-;±;-~::;-~------~----~-~~--"--'-
u I\li;f\l~d'hY t212p~oYlde ach'hel>y .x;: "
.. "nc.1tt
7 ~fl'.A'19Nf~1'l!A~~llI\ 'rOI!IlCll'lJ1I:~t'W~it~E
'P'rw1:du' .:i):~_ --*"J1 ...dt1;t.t;1oh~l lI!1't of eo10.1; p::wtQS
8 uoUllO:Il.T X£XCATX 9K '11IU lW. COl'XU ~ r.tQ& MD OQRllEeT

lJ· 1\S.i;riC-. tOP... ·pr r'1!\$l: K~A(U NO,",
CQDQuxr.a e· ¢I.o •• w.i..:t'h .:2nd-" at-- "51 'l'IQO .l pro'Vidi!' nQ~·.
1:0 1~-"OM\'LE1'E/$IGimD, r01lH4S'n6 I 95_01
·\tk C;;'~li,,::it '$;fO,O:ap pulsa1 fh!ld revi... tee 'fx." brvr Jell ".or""
,",!ftlI;'Jl'!lI-f~~~~t!01nQ.Yoour ~'>l""to ..count:tYWid,'" "i:\ol"".d..

~'ii-~~#J !o,~, ~ .,. 1'Jlll!rlc.• '" Irl:n<lut ~.tne"'dI'OPl"'-i·.""
cij\;f£:l'FllAiftB.
--:"~';"'----"-'-"';':--~"f'"':~~
~-.-- ...........,--'---"~-
Pate
.11\" :t~.lJi~nq.~6ridl"~.~~ .hav"l>4o.v'" _..ti"Ued and are ohe.." n.,r.. tOJ:

teter.II"_ only:
~~~t1p~ ~:~.~~J :~~~~-, -
_ _,_~~_~_-"- ,,,!,,;.:.;._~_.. __ -:--~__ ..... --..-.-._ _ ~.-,--~-, -""l"""
.. . ~ IiIlX'rBl!! "~1!l'!JlA:nOJ! t\£Gl\IlI>Pl'~_
:~~~~,~t~)~.i!'~!'7'i~~ -y.""s""..... j;nUl. ~w.r•• ~s dn:1oi:37 lIP
li.d4.y $"01< on .,cIOPO~j,t. wi o""rOW' til ~ou~ce ",,"1:~1:l.tIct

id,,;Vl,~,O"!' ~ii.#..,,~. U""".o." ",ciI"Ale ttar _.1,~Yj,n9 fh¢'d last.:2
y.~ :ipl.lI'" """ "'''l't:~J,C!]'~ ..l;iae J,<i¢at.iQD
1it,]~1(3t#! d8!l..·•.p9.8} 80' tor 'l7J2 i:hiu 8J.1Zat ,no\<
\1'li9. 2 of 2 1;O/it6/l0 01 ll): 44,52)
.~~Ii 1\ICl .~u;m ;Il:' ~

,-,~, ~
-51-
174 / 545
~MaelKesbpvcu~l· To marliullclaurtn@countrywide.com
; ..... ,.'. <~Ka~havarzl@sheppar.('jh1UII
~;.~- --',:
............................. in.com;.; .. .' cc
•.. 1 1/06/2006 03:22 PM bet
Su!>i:ect- ~iiletter'
Maria,
Attachedplease!ihdth~ d~¢laJ3ltiORanqJetter. I would really appreciate your help, as we-are onIyaskinQ

fpf'thedocurpentt~'bea.uthep~ca~lil~ ... lfYOI;thave any qiJestions please let
me know. Ifit i§ acol':lptableto
you plea$~$fgn ,and fa)(ittp 21'3-'44'3-2910. Thanksagaii1~
<:<DOe;PtlF»
Moe KEishaVilf:Zi;lBsq.
Sheppard Mlillln;Richter·&Jd;~mpton, LLP
~3~ ·S:9~tIl·t'lo~$'teef.4.~'tb ~jAlqr
/,;o~A.n9~1~siCA·~g()Y1-1~~
DireClUrie: 213'61'7..,$5414
Fax:~1~~~491~
Email: rriJ(~ha\(~l'Zi@~b~!'l'PlarqUlUUII1.90m
'J;'pi's l11e!-l$g,g¢!L$ f1~1ft py~ l'l+W f'irJl)·apam~ypqfltainiJ

;l;;fo;rmat:j,.pn t,h~t is
pd~;i.te·9~d.-·.~;t;~qI1$i"d,~~~;:\iai. :L;~.YQU :r~(:~ive4 thiB"'b rapsini ossion in error; . pleas~
oQt:ify the $~D4~'~ pr
tep1y¢-:iit~il ando,e letetb emess a,ge and any attacru nents,.
~beppa:rd.~~ll::i.:Ii. a1etliti:! :t &: 1f~pton t.~
-52-
~r2C
Q.l; ,'
175 / 545
&BGLARATTON'DP:MAR.IA McLAURIN
2 1, Maria ti4~Lauri:p.):Stateanddec;tareasfoll()ws:
3'
:4 1. Lam the bran.chman~g~tfortheS~Rafael bJanch ofCountrywiae
5 Horne Loans, Inc" the'branch thatptocessecl Ms.:Samaan'sloan (loan number 81737375).
6: ,In oratoundOcto'Qer 14, ZOo~,.Counti}Nlidesti.$peI1dedMs< Satnaan's loan because
7 CountryWiqe,qadnot y~t re.c.eived acopy.ofthefulJte~Quted pUJ:dlaseagreemC::ut.
8 'A.t:tac~ed heret.o as Exhibiit'3'Ois airue ana correct cppy,of1:heletier that Countrywide sent
9 JO Ms. Samaap.'s broker, Victor ParKS.
lQ.
13
14
15-
16-
17;,
1"$;
I
19 '
I,
20';'
21;',
I
2,2
23,
24,
25
'16
27
28
. _. -
\V92,wES"t:~Mtdl';.I\4ll!!IHI'S;;I'
...
......
)!)Ec~trQNrDrMARlAMCLAL'IUN
]
.. 1
'
176 / 545
@OQJ
SREPJ~ARD lVIUIJ.JN
5Hr.p°':.~rJ r,:UI.l~\J RleHIJ;" ~. HM..·VI(,)N ~t.~ 46th Floor I 333;'Sou1h HClpeSfreet I Lc!I·A(lll.ete". CA: 9<iO"1-144B
213~"17BDoffl!::lr 1'?13-f!2P.1300~xl wWVi.ihepp_rl1m.uihll.t:om
AT 'r 0' RN F··Y 5 A3 I. A W
FA C S LMLLE GO V lilt SHE, ET
JfallP:fl:~·.~. :n9t.p'9liliy~cl,;plc;llSQ.~1
D.avlclz~lqmat<213"62Q.l!7&OfEXt .. 45(:)7
to.: :FA:~eNo.
MarlaN.1cLalltin
',. <.... : :,.,~ . ,.,-.-...;.:.,. '. --,.- :"'..•..,,: '."~.> .
(gt~l ~;i!2~'5397
6'&nl:' MoeKes1]avarzi
get ;S'tui:.l~x,~
177 / 545
~XCBA&:t< J.a.'¢~o·~,lLI.X ~1i3"'~~%"C

OO.R'l'GAGr:<:O!!~~\t$
:~i~~~P~~ ~ 110 e.-r~ ;..V:;lC::.;'l:;;:O;.:;;a.... ~'::S

,p:.:.ARIt:=. -... ..... _
·~.~L' ~.~.J6~ 8R>Iojlf"""'~;

"'~.f(*l$t~$'7~?lr;ll .
l .... ~ 1'iC!$'il~AJlK·:r;. .~~y' ~TI'I?": ~Q>;.~:rSD

"-~nT~: RZ.QUCl<:1>
'~T,,"; "Y~~!!= """'~. 'ilji;.'
'~~!:ti~!F~, b
e.-.:..;~, 723
Lo,*~i'~"a;LQn
DIi:t~:
:ct'~; ;i=~"
~l ::-:;0 ... , ." ,;:- ,~~~ . . Q
.~~ i:'~~~:i~~~j.f:~:~~~~ ~~ti:~,~::~~~O~t9~~~:=~~~~~.~?;);1.,

wm:n". J:.ece-ive ~N: ii>.l!0Xlll6Hot., "'~ will i;C'Villw 1::11"" £j;3.1l J!9i:' ltU;l;:~
:tor in~~.eAllIeeo.
~1;l!lXlllli"'~~~<11l;
l'*I#~<'l'~'~ ~~e.; ~i>'~ ...... 1~~ ~.. ~ t,~tor,t,"~~ .."I......DO>d

.~~~q>ft~!l,..~·
::·Jinlvi1:~_,,_c:~_~~•.• N.~~~ pUI'_ClhCtl--:_OOS\t.~t cacr'Qv j.?1~~c,~!l_~~
.~.~ 'jj'~'~:'~" '",l>loo,U~""o '<.
~ll>J'-lI'lI<~l!<o~lI~'li~1 '!>e","~- ia1i4f;lio1l1", *"fL.... ~.lJi..,n:"ll" c<>JV#,to,ihb" .."" ..~ ...
'5!;~~:~=~~'~!:~'~'J!fgS~~,f~ .. ~';';"';"",,"' ~~--,.

.... ........
$~j711l ~~. ~cIci1~ ~e .""'*" ~o' bn-.t;
I1l "tii.<'I:<;fll~ ....L1l11b.i'lD'''l.
" CCi <
";.1'" ot<;ivr
"
llf~.r
S~~~~~~:t.tL-~_Di-M:tE)
tl'atJo iJ. Of!Z, 1012'6/200. ilhH; ~U
;"~.PIlCJ!iI~~a.'l'M"
• -55-
178 / 545
". ..... .... .... ... ,. ..... .- ......

~.
. .
~
IitJOO,3
'oWl!. ~1 b-t .w..• 1;.~ ~ut1cl_:yt:I\rC i~ .,)wlt c'hc- E61..lov:L09 .~O'ncU.:::1.Cin'S ~~

. .c (tk,e ,.~~ N~ '~IIO 'PPOo:('
01'" 'Y:.OUZO· eio::in.~. i.a:.t:.x~,.di:~.D1Sll '
~"t,,~C;o>i'dt1O~o.;i~""'{~b
, '~~A~:~~~I=~~~'Z-;""--}-'-n-_~----'------
~~'1~~t~~~2tA~,h~~;~~:
1I~",~~~,:,l!l1!1"raO\r fIH.,C:Q!',~;S '!!'II' ~,"l!h ~
Su.oc, __ CCl>;rQF'~ 1IO'tiI\-~
I:101l"U....- C iiiolici ia~!, ~ ·~t;;l,niJO. '£ 'F""l.d:" .note
10 t'iiCa;;;r:~~s:~i0ll.ll.4'SO,·f 8h01
'~.q::' ,••'6il.~id~ ~"J,il>~w~"""{~i;",,,J',ro''' ..,In dO"""
riw.4"Y.Il~ql' ",,~'i:.~,your·'i_ItA ~~i,d,,< J\lo,o::,,~ca 's ~~..~.,

Y"UJ!bU!U.~,,'li,
....." '. ... .~~"I ~ •. ;q,,~lo' -aP.#~t>.",
.. '
1iJj>UJ2~4
~--~-.",,-~,-----
.--~.'"
---_ .... '-~._'-~-----

.rNroJiitP.tP:si4,·
-----";,,,.---------
..
.~d~¥' .i~j",o ......_i"'• .i:t .i/tJ,..• .,rpW .1 ....~,_;rj.\Ue<i

.'.0. ."
~:(~,?~\~nl~,ij~~~~~~=""""~'~~"9
•
WF"J!)";iI!~ .~~·"'.I!P,~~,q fO!#'1'Il;;."~' 1/,;2 ~.:;1'1ll,¢

A",,~,~,!'i ~:lH!\!~"'~*'* "'~.;'\i\!il';#' ,.,.q~d~i;>'" ·:ltIll.
'l'11oi1QII 2 ·of2 (lM2,6121l01 liO.44152 1

~" ~' WL Q
-56-
179 / 545
75:0 Lindarb
$uile·ttO
San Rafael, CA 94901
~Clunt"@
AMSRICA'S WHOLESALE LEN£>ER~
-=...
r-. .
Maria McLaurin, Blanch Manager
Phone: It /{£/~
f'uFtom: (41S)?59~08?5
Pho...~: (415)257~2703
•. COmments:
Confid~rrtialitY.· • Notice: .Theif*)rtnatfQncoQ~il1eo·irl.and • ttaR~.~edltViththi$COmmUIl~tion.·fs . strictly

confjdent1~I,.isjnt~nded'Qnlyt<?r.tlJe···use·.Qfthe.·~.t~ndect.~~fen~ •. aQ~.is.the·.PJPpterty.ofClountr:ywide
Fioal1ciaICQrpo/ration'oFitsaffjllr:tte~·aT1dSUl)Sidiali~ •.. lfyoua~notth~'inter1d~Jeci~ent you are
herebynotifled fQatatlyuse·oftheinro .cohtainedin.• oruan13rtiltle<jWifhtl1ecornmunication.or
dissemlnatipn;.distribLltion,orcqPYin~ ". COil1m ". ' .. '~;p~l1iplte'db¥law'lf¥9uhave
recsivedthj~?Qmrnunicationinem;Jr.pleas~i.. . ... . no~~sem:Serbyernail or telephone and
dalE!telheorl9inalmeSS,agEl.oranY·CQW\bf·itirryqurpoS$~i6i1.· ""Phanl< YOu,
-57-
41
·M ·.•· ·.'!JI.
:-~_,_,':~W
•
180 / 545 I
.C8UI1~.~
Affi;:itl'¢;~:SWltG~~ALE'LENDER
S,AN RAFAEL CO Rii'OR",T ? Cl;NT2~

159' '!;.1t;>J?;-..ltqI.?Tll.~;;:T; St,lI'TEI lO
SAN R'ryN';E~,bALII:QR"Nl'"94901
(41'5} 257.27 00
(415) iS9':'0ll c6(n'Ax
November 6, 2006
VietOl'Patks
Pacinc MQrt~a~e Consultants
Re: Nivie:Samaan
Loati;Nuro~r SI73 7375
J:>t6.perty :ad~ss{320 'SP~k ]»t
Bevtrly Hilis,CA 96212
Mr.,Parks,
This'is to confirtntbal G(jurtwYWid~FIQn;re LQans~rQ.g~ss:etl'!tb.e,Elb~"Yr~fer~nped
tnorma:ge appiication 6n;ora:r:<lUod'<)cto,bet 14, 2004. 'the loanwas~uspe
n,~~pet)diI~g
T~e"~pt'Qf acqp)' ,of the {tiny eX~llt~pl,l1"cll!iSeagr,eel'.Q;ent. A:~ob~lsa,'~l;)lWQfthe
lettedsS\ledbyC6ImtryWtdeHom'eLo@S~ , ,
~Y:~\l,
11~ 1J1~)f~
Ma.riarvle)jaurin
~l'ancb, Map,ager.
-58-
181 / 545
......Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 50
Mrc~ ~~.~ O'RErLL~ OBA'PbCIF1C

I()RTGl\~CQil$Ol;TANfS
BI:,!l~"b .•" QPP:9Sl33 1lI_~ VICTO~~Mi<s

is(! ~x{QPl\R O.4~lIl11ft 110
SAN~N:Io,c}\.94'9&1
~:..:..:i."" "'=:;;:"' ~_~_-. ,.. _
~ Pnor\t:
p~'O~!,: . 'i:t)SJJ2$7':2:'iOl
,ax:",:-. p.:-: '.-' .', .,' '"~,,., :,' ',','
, ' , ' , . 8RJkH'Fult.
1'~:tiAV".~Ill!~thllllttt.(i 'P!"'IIIi~ us ~t: ttiQ.phOl\ e l)~'l'iib9U'e.
Wan,t\ul lber an31315 hifSbeQn rev:1'¢.ie d at the .filllOlf"'fl <] te.ru foi:Niil:rli: $A~<
L.... ~ .~ ~f1-L.Nt JfZQ~l': elitOUJ; 'y Ol:QIpalIC)'-'typt: ¢1INEROI;:ClJUEO

I;Ull1'9CEP .
~Tl'PfI:
'=~I[j~~.. J~; 'C:!-"
:9~2i~ J'11;$
~~!
.r.o~k ·cip.i:riIt ion
PIA
723
.
~Je: =:.t . Data,
Thb :llJl!I;;:ts u ·~.•n stlhtwl!:P' uriU.l the £o11o"i ng in'fo¢ft\a tion

106 .1IlP"~ ~'1"~*,,,e
il!l p'I'ovide<
e!lilicii1fl)~t~l'ti 'l>Y lQ!2$120»4. If .... do riot re"eivc itbyt;.h at da1;e<'; •..,.l. 1IlUSt:
iot. ~;P~,..;p1e't~~JlO.. llberi "10, t:eejOi ve the irlfoL"1l\lltl;on, we "nl);oV i"," t!le£ile ·6i,!):ii)t"'l\t/ file"
J!E!l:" tiilither
detc:rru!'nA.t-iOi'l ..
__'i
~~~_~~
~~~~~,
__
con4$il.'D1l COncl:b:1-cn DH<:/CO... ..rits
~~~~
_~~
:e.:P'A J'F.-i, ~·~ fpr'th.l;j ,rlhArI'!od )S~'W~ >II ;~5.

~ __ .__ __ __
~~
~~ ~ M_~~~~_
~~
~ ,~~~~_.
"c1c1~ r.p ,
f·e.,:·.~,.ny .,,,mll;'!''' ''''' 1>z~~i<!o'.~;,,;.pl;'!i€o wl'Y p,o ck
.):-1. C;Pl'dld'oo s"lll' t:r.J:pU",,"~'; 4<lo • .1,01"9 "'J.~ll
'7::1.I#",v. '~~ ;~b., eor·rwrm::ed: to ,sho,," .'.". ~ 'l:·o .~~--' ~~;:" Y}~: __. :~nt(~,,#.~~
.....~j;OJj~ 'iF...'
'> .,< .'.
X:1~.lM 4O'cU*I"ji1:'$,;;j:tU l:>!I ..a\t,&~n),abl....i.en,tlle U:U""1n'1

CCll'lCl1_t*ii~ "'~ '''''It'
~~~}ll",'ij;:~~;~.~~;_;~;~;-_ . ') __~'- __' _·_a...-- _.... '-~_..."...c
Sh7111,cOQO !J)"~~ ill!J.II')t~6 a~ " ...., to brwr, ..Ul o"cWr Aftel;'
~p'~iOri;i~ a"'.l- t~ra _,:IlVl"~/-(l')
..
$<~. l~~~ i~~: t.IATMc;t-: ul-RAT&1
If~9,jJJ oil 2 10n6/~004 lQ.H:S ll

~~~l $ri£ Fi;Y .t:o
182 / 545
\
~ "",",,:._~ ::::.!..'..:ll~'I:.:'l~t::E~.....,.
....;S:::M.::!'lMN:.:. -,- _
w.."U1 be able 1;0 tundyOU1 : loa•.wn.... ~1I~ f<!l1.""i"9. "ond:l;e!o n. :ore N~ (tk...
on youx t:10dl1.? .tn.t;lCiId:i~M'.' .'
lte"",wU 1'al'So ap~.1l-t
e":ndi,,,;o. Ccmd!.l:ion D.... "/~~IJ.."
:..;"-~ .....y~~:~-..: ..._-.~ ...;;.:_
,............ ...-.. _._
...... _...... ~---;.._:-.;.,,- .... ';":.-~-'--.:.,;--~"""-~":'-~_ .....-.-... ~ ...... -~ ... ~-
......._...-._.. -..- '
6 ~~RA;lS1U. ..~~,'tJ," 'IiF:CIl ~l~~~II1 ~!ltll! yJ\f..
1.£ ,n!"l;>fllno;l~I'Ib.Y 111(2 p~ov~~ ~,<Ix:f",o!Ii)',\Ili:>!l" • ~-J rea.,tt
,W~~~~~~Z~~~1n~'1:~~~i,~~;
.!lltill.t!!:I.\ 'gJ\,'Jip'iJ:¢7'1'l'!l.llTIlAT ~:tl; ~Ol':~:W;·'tRllE"')/O clilW:ct
'~~'l~~~#1l'l'~~;~~~~l~O • 1>l'o,,~~ opt..

'10 Il!J=l;IIlIZ.. t:~m(SJ~~gJllltW'4 ( 11~'"(!1
thA.. lI:~nu t'ox n\l;lm.itt1 n9 your· 10.... eo t:QuD"::Y"ict.i

~:t"iCi4~S "hOl••~l.. ~ntl~j;1 H. sine""""ly .~••e.bt..
yow; J>O'sinllss,
~!",--~-.~-~~~"'~~~:"!"-~-
Ii%Nlcb.Hb.ililge:r
-.
I)"'h
. , .
------. ...~--: ""':"""---:---,.. ...
'" __
- .-.......--...:- _ _-0.0.-...... _
~-~iJ·;~·~~~~-··---·-~~~~~--
_.,..
~--..
_.
'\
Tb<i .fnl.lcliiljj'i·:~n!l1~l/:!j\lt:.haY" i:i<>_i\a.t.j:.he<i a,nd an :ihown,n..r .. fox'"efe~~I',nly,
v."t:!Y',$},!lJo:~,~ ~J,><i,1,,'1i(1 ",.(:<911:.,1.;01'1.""1' \,~J;\tU
;~~~~~~~~t~~j!~~"Ig.m~{~X ~"l*n!1
"I!f' l>~ ~~!I,!\ •.".~~~"~l!'.n;8'~Vtojf ,lI-!;r'l@' ll,/1'2, "'~., ;;1'8.l1JC '
Mc"\l'i"'P~~ '~'~*fljjj>"""'",t :rlliH<!...~... ~q·4lql: 21'\cl
/'
(il'41l9;8, ~ '\It 2 ')O'I.,~WS~'o~,~O';'O~),S~1

~~g,j;I~)t;~
183 / 545
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
EXHIBITE
28 -61-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Allplications and Fraudulent Representations

184 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
.--. , Document 40-2

"--_.-.. ¥-~----.
Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 50
0,01: :lot 01 10: 24.!,.
C'C:(Hf'/@,isll)tl;;lii.: .
~I(<: "'k7,.~:' ~~~pir.~ CA _C)i,:~j3g
'" iu:'u.'pi"",.t1r..IO'7 ,'.
The< trflll,fnlixlj""R(fJlu:flmiJ.1JQU,!~/($j 111/~1!~J" . ·iJl,~("Ql.l;~1Jl~I''1o ((fi'!/i!!((~~ .-ldr(l

(('.~(J.c.~S- ~f''' ~Je1"~iJ#.r";. J!Rffi~·~k(jlli",!f!'lUiiJiia.~; .'!yl
l1r;itlp'itj'U!tli)ifYr"" :MJ'HJIt"itT<''lf'l1~tlltiJl!.'I:'W· . '. (/j:tlr().olig;lljJrl1l1t'llil~4'!'lvPT"Q '."". it.v
Il""/Ju"""wu(:i) IUlIiJw'I'!fr·l:t:TIljj·.I/JurflfJ.!·IJf'ifli{iUl.·,jg~lih!1J11~.iJlJlil!l.cqnlli!ltil;"yliliiTii!iJ/iji;,
·T4V~!"ili!n.\·i~"Q~~:(1r'jVhiJi:t1'i~'i.
"''ilrpl(rl'pS{!" "fiJ,•• 8rlikerIJIIJ/ Borr"W(!rl)""lIl1J~ntC.~I'((fjlYitiiNJ,~tiikitf;"IJ{I~I#/:(II}>jI(.fJ

.":C~(/'~!I!{JJt"!,!IJ,I,~lI,cltcelliflclJ(j(/h.~~rllii,;,'f" QiQ•.ttn!td(I·!lft~PI#~I,fll'f/'Viittilh..v
.!!ilrr'rwi'rlN'I(J·I"rtJj;i!/jilnmrfJli.'i<',' iifNt!~ .D,w:tt:<,.·i"II.·"",j~ti'J!~I;'11ftr.jll!c1(r.;jt~g'(Jildll1l!t
bu:llllitIlIllWf'AWt.iiiriiled (n thejfllk.;>ing: . '
P"J'Sl1/b..,'lii"'"i"l: S(((I""'I!~f~
W.2;ftiJ'n,.,
l,~tliVirJ,,(r1 Jt'.I·mnt:. TiX.tI?~Jitr" .. (IRSFllr", I/)4Q)
eU11IU'n.'Wp ill.>: kt:ll(rn~ XijfS P~rl?l 10'6S)
Cpr,pllrtit.rr Tax Jretllrnl:(ltl'Sl!tlrn; Jt2nj'
lfjiiikl!>ilfWg"';I("t!if(:I1iiilRlI~t;I11iltiSiI;t,MIt!ilt.'
~~itlliiJ(;llat:ks . .
Bii.,;,1<'.•.• RallJ1lI:e$h"ru (I."tJdrt¢(il1i~ St(JIL'riJt/.nl·
!te~(4! ~;;f~f:14;i/~ . .
PllrJut.:,·el::lJnif.a.Ct.';;IJ::r~lIII!titx .
fIi'IIe,ln l)rJ/t!OI'<:;;"Jplf.".(trli~l~..."nr r~"illriitl;rlt:'iJ;,*,.iiJi! ,Jj'nan.vdlli!,Llmd"TRI'V',r'!'1"Ih:

iJic.bofrq'wU-(:');lllprovli!e or!g}>uJ 9{;:1Ztttiu",.,·t/n.i1i4.fir,y,'llI:(1,p'{,:<I·v o/P".'?(ff"";I1i/.1li'ifl/;
/ti;lul/iwlrrI1K"i/ b.~:
!loti,'
-62-
185 / 545
I
/
p.e
PudHc MottWtlt\· C\ln nt~, Inc

7~myr~l!,,;Jr_~.nJl(h:\~_Cf~it,S4it;-2 u~_,d;\ 1)49:!lj
DRE. U:(n'~;;O;3784~2 ~'C7
r~''!(. -: '; u.•. __.. ,--.,:...u.:.. -'.' -:,.'.'- '.: ',,' ":,.:.'::. CO ',. . ' __ ;-t:II!;.iPi.?tJ:~':~~~t';II~_')t:!:'-':Mi~'lgMh¥-};Up:~~lJijJlf
AgruCllliht Wlllt 1'lJ<lfi~ ''lfiJnJ(itJr-, Co"'idritliW8r.~r "" Dr. 1",it!ptn~t(or:triJd<Ji' lu 4pplyI~'" r
(l(~,!IMlh'ltJ!1!tP~JNllI~:(f:~i!{!,.,'-~i'it,WitJ'"lt.:-~i~(i"t'.I;lfif-_~~_:'!",t-t'(':!lJfrrl,!",/",~u<II' 1~1~
.,I:!'l:W_Uj.·SlQ'-:III"IItII.,.mtl,~·_'r:9llirt'. "Yd~,:_;""ri"-i!-i'"1:IJ,'_'!t'5aKc,lp/lI~'Il~i~ ~~iJi:Pt'c~fjjy
. ",? . ;2IJ(J(. WI!(U't.licUhii!JJ-tiJl'II·"MtIf(lla..1(~.DrQ~r"llilt(i!rtkrti'lJll!iiJ~
..,1;pC:iilm;'~ J"OIiU'_~,.u/!li1llllif1tl'!..hip'.
J" wliliilii<11JntfJ!lJi:dtW:'
'Ii"I: ~I'i:tm ifJiI('pjlldt~ntC'iH'-'~II~UJr UIJd mlT-a.~.~"Iliii":r'I!t:H'.i
IItuJI"d, ~mtfNl(1I';'U)("i"iIU'-"I~'w!,1iW/~{#JIlS._I,'tltll~.\·.
It tiJr!~_vuu,.tm«nQUJnuti'f. -~~df1I'Vfl.--i!!¥Jrlb1l1iUm:lllld~:(JliJF_k~.i./cr.t
''kvt:4I1tlru,mtflK(ltllY#II~p.'lh,.lnH.·r/J,tpri(,I·~i(tlr~·~1/t't'-1rm'm'iJIJdr,Jif;"f.hi'_'lfa,.t'I~
'I ,,,t.
I
J,,~f:;~_ ~~~r;fUt.(,~l'f,/·n(f1)_j _ p',.tWfi!rtlll'~r~flJJ,,_-pTf)dJI_o/!J:_W M$:"t IIwl'iif~/fal~"«/~
:".,wJ,ri#J/~·rr.t"ml('. ((J{fllp",l/I~tJIlJJ~l-V!,·~'ifI;,,('1J,ifi;"II' ~DJ1fP(f/'4tfl1'''Jl4
;11111 Ii· <111i.I'
Jfl":~'$ff ~ilfc.¥o/:~litJiilJj~J,:I!i!j·r1~~ejI~" ({),i('~_:_Yu./,,:,·-'til!!I,_tr?';;"t!I{Yf~:,~~~,~,.:4t#jlsit_':~1 N,11R' Nf;h/ftil,-(hr

rnurllllpl«k llr (3) oJh.r~rvica"I:••,l" I>/' fudiiJit,' ptr/urmnturpNi.bkd by,,," In tbl' 1""1i,,.
A,rplit:unl
City. S~IlIi!. Zip
#13
-63-
186 / 545
,
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITF
28 -64-

187 / 545
Page 17 of 50
Yellow Pages search - Searched for "Spellbound Enterprise" in the "Los Angeles Greater" Yellow Pages directory on SMART... Page 1 of2
Ad. hVCftMI.
SMARTpages.com~ Sold In Marina dol Rey . IIHoma for Salo wilb a Bpat
s•• yout MIlrlnll d.1 Rey propaI!V r......p d_ Sold by Dock In V_Ill CDWlty Marinos HOIllC8 wIIl1S..cIl ....
YOlP' online Yellow Pages - and morel SM J.D. S...IDotk
I Home .I(fln~aper5on If Address flciok If DrMngOlrec~lons If Business Guides 11 ot,.GuJdes 11 lIfe.E1Ients 11 shOpprng'Guides !
Filed 04/17/2008
o Business Type.l!.Ql{B (!i Business Name City (or ZIP or Area Col1e) ~ .. Search Nearby
Find fueeJlb~~~~terprise ILos Angeles __ ~ &1 t~qT1 .. More Search Options
'.
j IpA
rAdv~rtiSQ-~~ Businesses Found: 1

Results for "Spellbound Enterprise" In the "Los Angeles, CA" service area.
~~AnTp<Jg~~
Narrow Your Search: Search only In Los Angeles. CA
Search OptlDns
- NewS"arch (Showing 1-1)
• N"ar An Address Jump to: ABC 0 E F G H IJ K L M N 0 P Q R ~ T U V W x v Z ReI/Ice Sort Order £!k Fea!llrl!d Bullnes..s
• BY ZIP COde
• By Am eqde ALLU&TINGS
- Recent Searchl!S ~pellbound Enterprise
- ~
Document 40-2
Inc. (323) 655-5654

1227 S Alfred 5.. Los Angaloa. CA e003~
I
MAl! Dill/inA D/mcllaDs ~Yrbll SalleAddres" ~

I
Narrow Your Search: Search only In Los Angeles. CA
(Showing 1-1)
• Purchase a mailing !1st from InfoUSA

[i:.J;.iit·.::~·~~~:·::~
. <. PEOPLE wlTlr ADVANCED DEGREES
~:~.\ .. ",
EARN 95% MORE ON AVERAGE·
•u.s. tlr>p"'L'I\MJ 4{ ~r
I I I I I
Home Find a Person Address Book Driving DIrections Business Guides CilY Guides life Events Shopping Guides I I
I I I I
Help Contect Us About SMARTpages.com Privacy Policy,l Job Opportunities Internet Services International Directories Site Map I I
C 2004 SBC Knowledge vent,",s LP All rigllis reseNed.
sac, Ula SBC logo, SMARTpages. SMART YelloW Page" and other producl nllmes are lrademarks or sec Knowledge Ventures. L.P. andlorlls alanales. I.ial.!l!1PlIl!.@!!gn.
Sarna of the buclness InformaHon provided by InroUSA Omaha. NebraSka.
http://www.smartpages.comldirectory/search.jhtmIJsessionid=EUKVINNSDQOC5QFI4GDA4CQ?QueryType=2&QueryString... 10/612004
188 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITG
28 -66-

Regarding their Undenvriting by Samaan & Countrywide
189 / 545
. uniform&derwriting and Transmittfsummary

. It. Bonowetiliid.PIOPei!)' liiforinatlon . .... . .
80mlwuNtme Niyle SamalP SSN . 568-57.9489
Cc>BonoworH..... SSN
flroPG/IYAddm. 320 S. P~ok Drive. Beverlv Bi!Js. CA 90212 ---------
Proporty Type Project ClllSSIRcatlon Occupancy Slotus Addltlonal p",pcrty Information
~1un1 OAIIIlCondo oEPUD 01 Co-op 6aPrinwyR.sldenoo
o2-4111ll1s
OCllIlllomInllIn
OPUD oCo-op
0l1li1 Coodo OF PIJD 02 ClHIp
Den Condo
Pllljod Name
oSecond Home
Olnve.stment Properly
_
IIunlHr ofUnlts _1-=-:=,"",,=-
Seleo Price :: 1,718,000
AppralsedVolue S 1,718,000
9
Property Rlghls
oManuladln4 Housing
61lFee~
oSlng1e WIle oMullWdo
oLeuehold
IlL M0r!Qape.lnfonnaUori
Loen TypG AmoJ1izaUon Typo I
Loan Purposo LlenPoslllon
!ill Clll\VenOonal 0 F1xofl.Rlle----McnlhJy Paymonio Ii1JPurchan E/lFnIMort_
OFHA oF"lQd.Rate-8iweekIyPaynlents OCosI><ltJt Rrinance Arnlll8l/ oIS~e F"1lWlCOlg
OVA 0811_ oUm~.d Ctsh-Oul Refinance (Fannie) s 11r~
OUSDAIRHS 6aARM(Iyp8l ...r,-,I!LI~O,-
..,5""Y _ oNo CasMlul Rertnan<e IF-l ~IIlElOc. indude balance _ t1'r:dIt Iinll)
DOIha'Capecilyl _
OHome Impnl1l1,ment OS_......;o
OCtn_lo Perm.nelll
NOle Infonnatlon ~'ortg.go Orlglnato, Buydown If SecOIId Mortgago
OrlgfnalLoonArncunt 5 1,374,400 DS.le, DYes Ov.ncr 01 fIJst MonO.D.
InlIial P&I Paymant
lnllial Nola Rat.
",5_.:6",:,2~9:;;9:.":.3",,3...
5.500 .,.
!i1lBluker
DCo""'l'OIldell/
!i1lNo
Terms _
o Flllnle Mae 0 F...tdle 14.
OSalw/Olher
loan Ttml (In mDnlhSl _ ....3..6"'0"-'''''36:;0:::.... BrcllerlCorrupondenl Nam. and Cornpony Ntrne: OrigNI Loan Amount of first MoIlOags
c c Mort e CoDSnltan 5
ilL Underwillln .Inrormellon·
Appraisal Company Name
Property Sclepses
PruenlHouslng Paymont ,,5_....
3...
,3..9""0..,.....
00 .......
B_ Co-IIll/IVII8/" Total ProPOIIed Mon!llly payments
Base Incamt 33,333.00 S 33.333.00 Bor!'!wfe!s PrimervAastdence
other In_ S FIBl MoIlsaaa P&l 6,299.33
SocondMonaaoeP&1 ID"" ~s 1.128.60
~CUIlFlow $ $ HlIDInf_ s 400.87
""bleclllftlll8llYl s 33.333.00 5 33.333.00 T.... s· 1,789.68
Totallncom.
Io\DItaaatllUllr.lnce "s _
Qualilylng Rallos Loon-to-VDluo Rallo. HOAF... ...' _
PdmlllYHllus-.vEaptnsallllcome : 28.866. 'lO LlV 80.000 'h -,q!'n'S'JIll"iil'1r-
TotaIObII!PIionsIIncoma ;1.'1
DeblolO-llousJngGap_(Fr_l
3J4jis 'lO
~...
CLlVlll.lV
HCL1V1lill.lV
90.000 II
I; ='
Le.....Ground ReI\I
P.... ery HoIlolnD EJp!nSe
OIIter Obil:ioM
:-$
"':-9"'"i08'f-:::;"'8:-.3==8-
QualJ/yIng R.ato Level 01 Pnoporty Ravlow r.~~~irtt

E!lNlIIeRIIe 5.500 % E/lExleriottlnlorior q~f
o ' \ Abo.e Nole ReID --"~; OExiariorOrdy All ()the, MllllIIIlyPaymen\S s 811410
o % BelOI" Nole Rale % 0 No A/lptal$ll ~ ~ Tolal AI Mo~ Paymlll\lS s 10.i.l9.38
OBoughl.JlownRaI~ '/0 FOIIIlNumt>er. _~ _
OOlher % BOrroMr Funds to CI....
ID 4"
RIsk Assesoment
J.- I·· .....el..
Escrow IT&!)
Rtfl\Ilred
VedI!Id_
s
s
5IlMuval UJlIIIMIlIIno ~Yes ONo
SouratolF _
OAUS
000 DLP OOther _ No. or MonIhI Res.,...5
AUS_endalon 1nI!I1I_ party ContltlrllloN ,..
DLJ Cue IDII.P AUS KeyIl
LP Doc Clan [FrHdI.) COlMlunlty LendlnglAffonlablo Housing l.uu.uve Dyes EllIIo
RepresentallYo CrlldlUlndlaal... S.......7
...2='3=-__ Hom. 8uyeJSlHollleownershlp Ecluc.llon Celtln..... In ftle DYes 1!11 No
Seller Name PACIFIC MTG. CONSULTANTS ConlJlcl Nama BECKY KUCEM

SeIer Melius 700 LARKSPUR. LANDmG om CllIl\Idl1lle sa LOAN PROC§fl§DR
LARKSPUR. CA 94939 (}7 Contact Phone IQrllIer 925·242-9000
Seller No. ......torLo•• No, _
StllI' ....... No. CollllclSIgnMUre _
MastarCommMmIlllNo. _
D.... _
ConInlet No.
FIllddIe Mec Form Ion 01104 Fannie Mn Form 100a 01104
Calya Form T'onwm...2004.1rm 01104 Page 1 of1
190 / 545
'.
... ",.
:;·:.;::.;:.:_OF.F~srOCL{)SE·w$sBEET
..... .... . . .
.
.
~~~....-.m-
., •.( ......-. '., .•.~. P.R;ICF4lXISTINGLlENs,s,''_ _
".:,::. ., ....:: U~?n:_S:;AtL:DiBTTOBEl'AlI>:
.. ,', ' .. .. " . .
$,
:~. ,"
~ .....
., ; ... "; ". " i: -:::" ~ ';;~GlPREP.AID COSts, $'...... _
. ;·:;~Z~;:AMO~ .--.-~--
,~ , ".: .' ,....: '~: -" ·SEl.LER'S CREDlT:S, _
'S,-_~_
·~1l>.1Ii~1Iu1l
:,; ·':',\/~~;.::~·:;if':,~~~~;,~:<-=:;::=: :.
• '. •• ...." f," v:,·, ••... •
';,. r . \ \• •
_ . ~'Yooi6%ofS.I..l'rl...
, ", .',: "~$~~W~~j'" ,',

'$'-._---
NEEDEJ)../ cAm Otl'J,' s'Y£'DA>A> (A)
. cdr",. «,lite)'
I.Iq\lid AII.a:i
~ "$
$ ,-. . \
...,' ? .~~l~~f.~~~~m.(S.. Be\.!'>:. .:. _
$, -""'_
s
. '.
$ '(Il) "
cD) IIllUt be ~tbi.D CA)
",
"
191 / 545
2. Does dIl:nllIllUrlhc.t1... (PURCIIASE)iowaer (1ll!JlI) lOlttllonw:h oflhcfollowillCdotamall>'

WRrlE THE SI!lLEIlI9WNER NAME BEI.OW: •
L Slbl:onlml: ~ •• ApP1OlJIl: -z.,-~
.. TdlrlPRJlIn: ~ 4. CUJES(Sumtl'd,l),"jt:~
(1)pICl!lythlllnfoSlllll1ionis OIllh..obedale BoflbolldolPrellm.)
IC Ill. DI.... do DOlmotehJ!l'Oride.. IdlqlWC _lutlonllld dooll....L IC_I... _nO, c••I1<1 th F....d lIotll...
Resolution: _
3. FlOlDtlUcJprdlll\orCU1ES:
.. Do""Gr.>DlOrWI1lllOlyDc:dIOIhoSELLERJOWNEnatil1'ccdt.bo~llt!tOO1dod1
b. WImt It !be reoonIaI dale lIte_o........1lI/0Dd title 10 Ill. pI1lpClI)' ~" ..,
Yl!$ _ _ NoL
Provldedala or"tlTD" (U1lIb1o to Pel......)
D. n....le to dClorrulu leqaisiliD. mit, indiCllocbl••r........lI••ltp.. ---'.." v
d Udccd is "'I1l1mIlOtraNrertltletollteRUctlOWDCr, ""IQisiIiDndileor_monpPB Jess Ihen61l1OnlbspriorlO lboQllJ1lllJ tnIandloll,or...61.
t."dmrrl.o...rd... U·... alltclWnoCdd.JqlOll. lItYl... forpos.iblolli",filUowLomdFlippdcllnrsillWIDP&P. Explllo.ln1lesololiDn. 1/
u....101. raol"", ..lIlDel the Fraud H.tIIn..·
Ru.,.U.n': • _
QaP!!Dn 5 MUST be mmp1d!!11rt tht Apprrtnrllnd!!!!!llsr. JuI,,, U.dU'!!l1'v, or FaadsrlCJa.

EMPLOYMKNT RB-VIlllmC\1l0N filrall NmIll emplO)'lllOlll (includillC baslacss Idc:p.............. forodC"""I'loycd ""'"'-') _ for
qIllI!iGo::oIi... MllStbovorifiod.....,. '.~dlinf.pIny_ (lIequ1rd •• aIllolllS ucopl NINA ID4 co.n' &E)
N.t "'l"lIld f.r NoD-Co.rOrml~..~ IIt ... bas b.... q,nEtI. tlDpl.,..."llilleellt.lasl.ppUcatlon.
I2Il&mm. .41<... CMO!l!\OWI!R
S.lilIlploYDlCllI phD........... co -, r 1ltJtL..i. 5.1lmp1oymen1 pIl_llIlIIlborwu .oaliralal1htw&b=
;~. ~,='=vay... (z,J-'1 ~ ,,- O-q~;?(. b~ ~:=~vayollO
e)S1ritchboo\'d.eQnl ,.... K • SWiIohbooRlCOlll
c)
Rdilal
01) Reliral
d)
0) Dlubillcy Ll '2. I "'" /"1 "..1 .) DisobUI\r fr'V
I:!l> Ollla: ~!",;LA.,.: ~J,.7- 1#~;1 -~\O .. Of I) OIhcr::---:=:=:-..;'..;... _
F.rW.1 Wop E1saer ONLY '.rW·1 W"C.EInoerONLY
iIDploya'CIOJl....ealIIiYecollladc!: Employcr'.n:preomfillvocoalatted:
NAm. Nam. _
TIll. lItt. ...,.._ _
Dlto.fCoolzct lh1oorC _
IilIlploycd lIIU lim.? Y" _ _ No__ EmployalIilUtiIIIe'lY" _ _ No_ _
n,;~EmpIoynlClllS_ D>lll Emp")'IIt<IIl SlInal: _
IIorrowv'tJo1>TdIe:
Uuoal>Io 1O ....va\lY oruploymeat, _11'Qllll Hollin. for MsiIIaooe
nenlllll•.,
lIom......cJobTllle:~.~
If_bl. to ........'" 01IJI1oyDlcot.
IIasoladon:
_.mud
_
How.o for AsslI_.
_
For SBLF.£MPIPYBD BORROWEIlS ONLY , ...SELF-1lIIm.on» BORROWERS ONLY

Il pkoao IIlIIObcr not IbIaI, ,.~ MllS1' nrI/y lit. omplo_t will> r"
1'"'11'*"-11••
Il p1>oDo lID""'"
not lisIal. 100 t.llm'llOrifJ !be oruplll)'DlC;OlIViIll r"
puty doooraeoIolioIl
IdaIIIIY,.. pIlIy doenmenI.otilOl usa!: ldaldIYr"JW\l' docIuDeIIollot> IISCII:
BaiocssNotoe _
urw u.r
.IloaoNIllIIber====
BlIIioas Nutc
PTCCblClc: ~:--- DOC _
Ilole:,::======-
Br._
Coroplolo Hoyt prior.o dollftc •
0Ilt:,,--=:====-
By._
CompII.l.3 d4rs pJlor tit dosInl
.F\mder,-_ _
Aadito> •
RiiV:I11lJ03
_ J
192 / 545
193 / 545
• l'IIIlnwwiU1ln 30day, of ~p111iWl!diadp~e. HJoan Is deIllid

· . . • . EnlndllipnlVlded to IluUlass PsJlner.
ECKED OM NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN . UM'OF 4)7
AlID,PHDIIEIII1l"BER OF CREDIT ~iJilEAU DISCLOSED ON THE IIOTlqE •
· . . . . .
Dilte:
• •• •
Date:... ---,....,
omnieots~ .... ;.
. . '
:1' '.,. .
y..~: ":'~.: ~~., .. :.
'.
" .0..
194 / 545
Amerlca's611lSa1e Lender, Itself or as agent
ISSUE DATE: 10/13/2004 Bank, N.A.

0'
for eountrJII"llfe Bank, e DivisIon Treasury
DATE: 10113/2004 Brucb t. 0000'33

BORROWER: NIVIE S2\HllAN 750 LUlnMo 8'l11SZT STE 110
$)J/ I\APAEL. CA ,.,01
CASE#:
~bone. 1415)25'-2701
LOAN lI: 81737375 8e Fax No.. IUS) 2S.-e8"
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PEeR DR
BSVERLY HILLS. CA 90212-3715
LOAN APPLICATION
DISCLOSURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AppllcaUon DIsclosure Handbook

lNJe acknowtedga receipt of the Appllcauon Disclosure Booklet and further acknDwledge the following:
Affiliated Buslnass Arrangement Disclosure Statement
lNJe have reBel the Affiliated Buslneas Arrangement DIsclosure Statemenl lJWe understand that the Lender Is referring
me/us to purchase seWement selVlces flOm providers with which It Is affiliated and may receive a fll'lanclaJ or oilier benefit
as a result of this referral.
Servlolng Transfer Disclosure
INVe acknowledge recelpl of the Servicing Transfer Disclosure and Understand Its contents, as evldenced by my/our
sfgnalure(s) below. llWe underslllnd thallhls acknowladgmenlls a requIred part of the mortgage loan appllcalion.
Hazard Insurance Requirements
llWe acknowledge receipt of the Hazard Insurance Requirements and understand tIlalllwe may obtain property Insurance
from any Insurance company that meets the Leneler's requirements,
Notice to Applicant RegaJdlng nile Company and ClOSIng Agent
lIWc Clchnowlcdgo rooclpl of the TIlle Company and C""'1ng Agent NoUoc and Golcollho following option (plca:lo aheol,
one):
B Agree to aBow llIe Lender to ordertKle.

Choose to select the folowlng closing agent:
Address·=---..---------Cfty
Name
State ZIp _ _
Title ColllianY _ ...... _
Borrower's Certlncatlon and AuthorlzalJon

lIWe acknowledge that IIwe have read and understand the secllon entilled, "Borrower's Certillcatlon and AulhDlizatJon."
lJWe give my/our. consent to the lender to provlde my/our loan appllcallon Information 10 any InVestor and/or investor's
affIlales In conjuncUDn with Ihe sale of my/our Joan.
Notice Regarding IRS DISClOsure
lNJe acknowledge redelpt of the IRS Disclosure Nolice and understand llIe Information explained in the piece. llWe ceIlify
that the tax retums submitted to the Lender are exact duplicates of 1lI0se submitted 10 Ihe IRS. I/'Ne give mylour express
. consent to the Lender to communicate wfth the IRS conceming any cfiSCrepsncies end to give the IRS copies of 1he tax
retums whioh Vwe submitted to the Lender.
Consumer Hand~ok on AdJlI$Illble Ral8 Mortgagas
If lIWe applied for an AdJustable Rille Mortgage. f1We acknowledge that I/We have read and understand the secllon
enlllled. "What Is an ARM?" .
HUD Booklet
If f1We appUed for a purchase loan. l!we have received a copy of tM booklellitled "Buying Your Home: SeWement CDSts
and HelpfullnformaUon.·
Home Equity Loana
If I/'Ne applied for a Home equItY Una of Credit, l!we have received a copy of the brochure titled 'When Your Home is on
the line: What You Should Rnow About Home Eqully Unes of Credt,"
Lender Representallve:_--j~~::!:::::~~~~~~60-.=.,.i- _
-72-
~~
• 0 a1 73 73 7.6 0 0'0 00 2 D 82 3 •
195 / 545
LOAN#: 81737375 .#:

Lender: Amezo1ca' I WholesaJ.a Lender·, itself or a~ agent for
COl>Dtrywide BaDII, a Div.ia1on of T"easuxy aank, II.A.
prepaz"., GBllALI> .IIIGJIAlIllH
GOOD FAITH ESTIMAJE
SaJes PIlc8: 1,718,000.00
Bual.olnM1DuPt 1,374,400.00
Address: 1199 North Fairfax St. St•• 500
Alexan=1a, VA 22314
Total LoIn """"lilt
1,374,400.00
Type of Ulan: COIN UNINStlREIl
Appbnl(.): NXVIE Sl\HMIl Da.. Plapanut 10/13/2004
Praparty Addno..: 320 S PEel( Dfl

BE\lERLX HILIoS, 0. 90212-3715
Thalnlollll8U.n provIded bel.wreOects es1IlII8los "I the cluIIJlos which you lie IIk.1y '0 Incur lithe selllomenl of your loan. Theleos
IIstod .leesllnDl..... lhe.ctu.l.hllflcsmaybllm.ra"rl.os. VourlnlllsatUonmaynollnvOlvealoolOreYlllYhom I~
Tha nlllllllels lIstod beslda fIl. astIrnaIllS genolllllV CllII8;SPDnd lD II. nurnbaled Iln&s cunlelnod In th.. HUD-l s.lIIe/l1lnl $lelemonl which y<uJ wIft
be IeceMngll.wttleInenL Th. HUD-1 setllemtnIsl*monllOlllllhowyau lhalduol ~ lorll8ms paid .. ielllemanL
1n1enstra18 5.500 • T..""olloan 30 YeAX'S
1BOO ITl!MS PAyABlE IN CONNECTlONWl'nl LOAN
801 $ LoIn QlgNUon Foe 0.000 %
802 S LoIn llbcz>unl %
803 $ a no AppdIsaI --------
804 $ 0 ad CIedIl Ropoll
80S S 0 on Land81's Inspacllon
806 S . a PO MoIl1ll9.llII\lIIIlIca Applcldlon Fee
8lI7 S a 00 Assumption Fee
808 S n on WlIIIlhouse F..
809 S 5.. 00 PIO_lIng Fe.
810 $ .0 on Tax SaMca - .dd 7.0: Tax :semc:e 'rovidu
811 S 26 OP AoodCbedtFee - Paid TOt Flood Suvico '<ovi. ."
813 $ 0 DO 1Mno7lansl.,
814 S 0 DO 9uydDwn Expense
815 S 0 aD reend1llO ...y he pUd c:e broker by landor in <&1\90 of O-ft
816 S 490 ao Undorvdtltlt1 r••
817 S 225 on DoCUlUnt l'nP"'ntion-Lendee
818 S - - 8rok.., Fe.. - -
819 $ 050 aa Brok.r FQl.l AppeaLs.l
820 S Jl op 8~Qket cred.lt Report
821 $,,'" 00 Broot Pointll
822 S
823 S
ISPP !!EMS REQUIRED BY LENDER 1'1) BE PAlD IN ADVANCE
801 $ ',213.00 _J_O_ _DaysI_OS 207.10 /Day
902
903
804
$
$
$
D.OO
D•DO
d. dU
Convonfonal PMIJFIfA Upollonl M1PNA FundIng !'eo
HluaRlIn..... co PI.mtum
Flood Xn:rurMCC !re.a.
PaJclCuh$
Flnancod $ ====
905 $
11080 RESERVES DEPOSITED WI!!! lENDER
1001
1002 $
S D.OO
0.00
_Ins...... __
MorlgagelnslllDllCD
D_MonthaO $ _ _~o,..if.0o.... hnonlh
_ _O_MonthaQ!l $ O.DD_III
1003 $ 0.00 Taxos ---l!..M..th.O $ 1,189.67 IInonth
1004 $ 0.00 Taxes _ _0_1.1. .111,(11 S 0.00 lmonth
1005 S O.OD Texas _ _D_ MonIhsQ!l S 0.00 ImDnIll
1006 $ 0.00 ~Ins_ __D_MonIhaO S 0.00· /IOonlh
1007 S 0.00 J\ggrvgaleAnalya!sAdjusm-nt
11100 'TlTLECHARGES
1101 8 1,250.00 Qasklg or Eocraw Fee
1102 6 6••6 Absnd or'l1h Soan:h
1103 $ 0.00 1l8a EumInaIlon
1104 S 0,00 llleln.-lIInder
1105 $ 100, DO DoCUlllelllPrapll1!tlon
1108 S 125.DO Notay
1107 S 0.00 AIIomayJSetIJomonl Aglnt
1108 $ 3,"&.DD llUolnsur.anee
1109 S 30.DO eoueln/bpeo.. H.1l-C10rt<J
1110 S
1111 $
11g GO'IERNMEN! RECORllING • T1IANSfER CHARGes
1201 S 100.00 Iloc:llIdIng Feu
1202 $ a•DO CIIyICounIp TIllIS......
12113 $ O. GO SlalaTIIll/SIemllS
1204 $ 0.66
11300 ADDmONAL SETTLBIENT CHARGES
1301 S 0.00 Survay
1302 $ • ••• Pesllilapeollon
1303 S 6.00 Hall and Septic lank Inspection Pee
1304 $ O.D.
S 27.407.00 TOTALESllMAT&DBORROWERBETTU:MENTCItAIIGES
"S" _ to an I"mdasl~II costl. be palcI bf SelIor (Nollnclllcfed In lh& lolaI).
"POC-L" nm to IIlIIIMI dasIgnaIis a - ' pald bf tluI LandoI (Nollnduclad In the ta1loJ).
"POC-B' nllXllo ""Item M,IgnaI•• a COSI pald by tile BoIlowet (Included In tho total).
"UndOlnoqul,.., the u.. of apaIllcIJlar IllO'o4dertorlhls 1lIlllemonI1aMca. S.. 1IIaclled .... fllIdIlonallnlOnnollon.
FIWIINCONV
a~~~~
2041Dol.lSI-lld)
7~
-".",ral2
----
'23991"
I -
" D B 1 7 8 7 3 7 5 .0 0 0 D 0 2 C 4 1 0 "
196 / 545
•
',J;J
'IOI'AL ES11MATED RINDS NEEDED 'Ttl CLOSe:

S 343, 600. DO Dawnpaymllilt S
•
'TtlTALES1IMATED MOImiLY PAYMENT
6,299.33 Initial IDte~est. Only
LOAN f: 81737375
S 21,194.00 Es1Irnratad Closing Cosls S 1,789.58 Tans

S 6,213.00 Eslfma1ed P18pa!d Uoll\!lRuHIVO. S 0.00 H_rd & FIaod I_co
S Olhor S 0.00 Marlg3golllSUl3llco
$ Anancad PMIIMIPNA Funding Fee $ 8,098.91 TOTALMOImlLYPAYMENT"
$ 371,007. DO TOTAL
'lIt_ estlmates of closing ,a!>lS '''0 provlded pursuenl to 1he Real Estale S,IIl_1 PrIIcedurea Al:I (RESPAj.1I your 101/1 lIJIpllcaUan ll'
far s DmUen realdenllal mlllll/llse and Is modo In DtnmseaUan 10 p\llChose a home, oddlUonallmpoll8hl Intormstl8n CIIl .... found In the
tnID SpeclallnfonnaUon Booklel provided 10 you byyaurlender ormollgoge broker.
DISCLOSURES CONCERNING REQUIRED USEOFSETTLB1ENTSElMCE PROVIDERS

If 011 estIlI1lllsd cha'!l. shown an poge 1 I5ldenlJlllld willi D dlublo aslerlsk r'), tho lender requlru lIle us. 01 a partlcalar plOVldar ollhal aolllomoni
sGJVIco. The esUmllllld charge shawn Is bUIld on th. chllllJos of the deslgnelad provlclor. Tho I1Ila1Jonshlp balwo8n tho lendo, IlI1d tho satUomonl
IIJVlce p1D\'ldor II that fila lender has ..p.... dly UlOd the provide.....aIVI... In tho pat. Tho lond" may dacldo to cha_ a dllIorenl pmvldor. tho
HUD-l or HUD-IA sIalemonlglvan 10 you .lsaltlam9llt will disclose tho pllllllclerUSlld.
Reserves deposited with lend~ may not inolude a proration of taxes due seller or a
credit due from seller at closing. For proration caloulations please consult your olosing
agent. •
• Do.. nallnclude OpUoI\llIInIU/UllC8.
Appllcant Data Appllcanl Oal.

IlIVn BAHlWI
Applk:anl Dlll8 Applicant
-74-
P"lla2ol2
197 / 545
.,
• •
America's Wholesale Lender, Itself or as agent
for Countrywide Bank, a Division of TreaslUY
Bank,N.A.
Branch " 0000933
DATE: 10/13/2004 750 LIIlIW\O Sl1U!21 51!: 110
BORROWER: NIVIE s.~ SAN I\l\PJIl.L, CA ,.'O~
CASE I: PhODO: 14151257-270~
LOAN#; 81737375 B. Fox No.: (415) 25'-08"
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK OR
BEVERLY BILLS, CA 90212-3715
ADDENDUM TO GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE
You have the rlghtto freely sel8Clthe pelSOn or organlzallon rendering Insurance services (as an agen~ ·broker or underwriter).
except Insurance or a guarantee provided by a government agency or pllVIl!a mortgage Insulilnce.
We do not fellUlle that any particular provider or B/fiUaled group of provlders be used to provide legal servIce, title exemlnaUon
services. tills Insurance policies. or seUlement services. However, we do insist that the provider you select be approved by us.
OUr desire Is lD ensure that any providers of these services are reputable, knowledgable and possess the flnanclal strength In
support any claIm agaInst tha title 10 plOpeny you are ollellng as seC2lrtly for thls loan.
.We ale 8lfI1laled wllh LandSafelltle, a provider of title Insurance and closing services. Under federal law, we may not require
you to use the services of Its affIllaled companies. You ale lree lD select Ihe seivlce provider thai best sub your needs.
It Is Importanllhat lIUe Insurance and selllement servlces be comPleled In a timely manner. Acoordlngly. as soon llll you have
slgned a pUR:hilse agreement 01 have compleled a mortgage Ioen IIpflftcation, you should c\loose II IIUe Inwrer and clos.r.
Pleae use Ihe allaohed form \0 designate your liUe IlIS1Jfer and closer, so thaI IVB may verily epPlllval.
AppIt:anI 0.10
NIVIe SN!MIl
-75-
•
' 238'"
--'081737375000002C607'
198 / 545
.. ~
P"paroc! by; GERALD INSRAHMl

• •
Amerlca's WhollisaJe I.ender,ltself or as agent
for CountTywlde Bank, a Division of Treasury
Bank, N.A.
DATE: 10/13/2004 Branc:b .: 0000'33
BORROWER: NIVIE SAMlIlIN 750 LDllllUlO 871\1!£7 S'fE l1D
CASE#: SAIl IW'IUlL, CA SUOl
Phone. 14151257-2701
LOAN #: 81737375 8. Fa. lIo.: IUS)Z59-D866
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212-3715
SERVICING TRANSFER DISCLOSURE

NonCE TO FIRST LIEN MORTGAGE LOAN APPLICANTS: THE RIGHT TO COLLECT YOUR MORTGAGE LOAN
PAYMENTS MAY BE TRANSFERRED. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU CERTAIN RELATED RIGHTS. IF YOUR
LOAN IS MADE, SAVE THIS STATEMENT WITH YOUR LOAN DOCUMENTS. SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
AT THE END OF THIS STATEMENT ONLY IF YOU UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS.
Because you are applying for a mortgage loan covered by \he Real Estate SetUement Procedures Act (RESPA) (12
U. S. C. Secllon 2601 et seq.), you have certain rights under that Federal law. This slalement tells you about those
rights. It also teUs you what the chances are that the selVlclng for this loan may be transferred to a different loan
selVicer. "SelViclng" refers to coUecllng your princfpal, interest and escrow acccunt payments, If any. If your loan
servlcer changes, \here are certain procedures that must be followed. This statement generally explains those
procedures.
TRANSFER PRACTICES AND REQUIREMENTS
If the servicing of your Loan is assigned, sold, or transferred to a new servlcer, you must be given written' notice of
lIIat uansrer. llte presem loan servlcer must sena you nonce III woung 01 tile assignment, sme or transler or me
servicing not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer. The new loan servlcl!r must also send you
nollce within 15 days after1he effective date of the transfer. The present servlcer and the new serviller may combine
this Informallon In one noUce, so long as the notice Is sent to you 15 days before the effective dale of the transfer.
The 15 day period Is not appficable If a notice of prospective wnsfer Is provided to you at settlement. The law allows
a delay In the tlme (not more than 30 days after a transfer) for selVicelll to notify you upon the occurrence of certa'n
business emergencies.
Nollces must conlain certain infom7aJion. They must contain the effective date of the transfer of the selVicing of your
loan to the new servlcer, the name, address. and toll·free or collect call telephone number 01 the new servlcer. and
toD·free or collect call telephone numbers of a person or department for both your present servicer and your new
servJcer to answer your questions. During the 60-<lay period followIng the effective dale of the transfer of the loan
selVicing. a loan payment received by youl old servicer before its due date may not be treated by the new loan
servicer lIS late. and a late fee may not be Imposed on you.
COMPLAINT RESOLUTION
Section 6 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. Section 2605) gives you certain consumer rights, whether or not your loan servicing
Is transferred. If you send a "qualified written requesr to your servicer. your servicer must provide you with a written
acknowledgment within 20 busIness days of receipt 01 your request. A "qualified written request" Is a written
correspondence, other than noUce on a payment coupon or other payment medIUm supplied by the servlcer. which
includes your name and account number, and the information reganling your request. Not later than 60 busfness
days after receiving your request. your servlcer must make any appropriate correclfons to your account, or must
provide you wfth a written ctarifIcaIlon regarding any dispute. During this 6o-buslness day period, your servlcer may
not provide Informallon 10 a consumer reporting agency concemlng any overdue payment relaled to such period or
qualified written request. Our address for quallfl9d written requests Is:
Loan Servlolng center, Attn: Customer Service SVB-314, P.O. Box 5170 • Simi Valley, CA 93062·5170
A Business Day is any day In which the offices of the business entity are open to the public for canying on
SUbstantially all of Its business functions.
DAMAGES AND COSTS

Section 6 or Re:SF'A 81:<0 provIdes ror oamllges lint! w5111 for Im:lMduals or classe5 or IndlvklUa/3 In circumstances
whera servicers are shown to have violated the requirements of that Section.
FIlA/WI/CONY
• SorvIdnlITlllIISIorDlJd..... Slxlomonl
2019'1·US 1D7103)(d) Pogo 1 012
-76-
·23991·
II~ 11111
3737150000020197·
199 / 545
SERVICING TRANSFER ESTIMATES BY LENDER

• • LOAN 0: 81131315
1. We presently intend to assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your mortgage

loan. You will be informed about your servicer.
2. For aD the first lien mortgage loans that we make In the 12-month period after your mortgage loan is funded, we
estimate that the percentage of such loans forWllich we wHI transfer servicing Is between:
o 0%1025% 026%10600. . 051%1075% [!] 76% to 100%
This estimate does include assignments, sales or transfers to affiliates or

subsidiaries.
This is only our besl esUmale and it is not binding. Business condRlons or other circumstances may affect our
future transferring decIsions.
3. We have previously Bssigned, sold, or transferred the servioing of first-lien

mortgage loans.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MORTGAGE LOAN APPLICANT
Itwe have read this disclosure form, and understand its conlants, as ev'denc::ed bY my/our slgnalUre(s) below. ,/we
understand that thIs al1knowledgmenl's a reqUired part of the mortgage loan appUcallon.
1Iotro"'c: NIVIE SIIMI\.!\N
Bom>....
B..........
-77-
FIWIIMlONV
• ISaMctl;TnrulorDlsdastn Stolomont
2C187olJS lO1AlS) Pa;12c1Z
200 / 545
rIP..
TRUTH 'IN LENDING DISCLOSURE STA
~IIE
MENT
P'oparedl>y:GERAlDlNGRAHAM
., (THIS IS NEITHER ~ CONTRACT NOR A COMMrrMENT TO LEND)

LENDER:Amer~ca s Wholesale Lender, ~tself or as agent for
Countxywide Blink, II Division of Treasury Bank, N.A. Pl8l1mlnary l!J o Flnal
1199 NO~h Feirfax St. Ste.SOO DAlE 10/13/2004
Al.exandr~a, VA 22314
BORROWERS: NIVIE SAMAAN LOAN 81737375
CASE NO.
1yPe of Loan cow UNINSURED
NC 5/1 LIBR ARM
ADDRESS 1227 1/2 S ALFRED STREEI InterGstOnly
CIlY STATE I ZIP LOS ANGELES, CA 90035
PROPERTY 320 S PECK DR
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE ANANCE CHARGE Amount financed TOlal of PaymenlS

RATE The doUar amount the The amount of ciedit The amount you wID have
The cost of your credit credll wi. co&l you. proVIded to you or on paid alter you have made
as a yearly rate. your behalf. aI paymenla as sohewllid,
e 5.162 % s e 1,376,676.35 Se 1,351,992.00 S e 2,728,668.35
PAYUENT6CHEDULE:
NUMBElIOFPAYMENlS AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS WH£N PAYMENTS AHE DUE

e DU e b,:l~~.~~ M0N7BLY BEGINNING 12 01/2004
e 299 e 7,835.69 MONTHLY BEGINNING 12/01/2009
e 1 e 7,937.24 ILAST PAYKE:N'l' DUE 11/0112034
DSlAND FEATURE: [j[] This loan do.. nc! """0 a Demand Feab.. o 11111 loan has a Demand Falllln as 1o....1S:
VARIABLE RATE FEATURE:

IXJ1I1Is r.BIl h.... II VlIIlablo Rid. F.1Ilura Variabl. fiala DI.clo.ures have boon provldod to ~u oorhr.
SECURITY: You aro gl.ln9 II '.C1J~ly In_' In llIe proPlrty IoClllod at

320 S "'JilCK DR, BEVO;RLY HILLS, CA 90212-3715
ASSUMPTION: 50_0 buvtna lhb property 0 c:IIlltlOIusumo thal'l>lllalMlg ........ cillo under odgInqIlllDllgIg"tonna
IXJ
may 1ISSllIM, subJeel to IIfIlIo(. eond11lons. lb. remalnlng baIaneo due under adglnlll martgall" ianni.
PROPEII'TY INSURANCe: Hozanllnsun>noe. lnellollng aood Insuranco r tho proporty b In II Spadal FIoDd HaDnl Mo, Is 1llqU1rocI u ~ condlIIon ollhls
loin. You may oIlbIIn tit. Inturanc:o COVltagl I""" any Insuranee company """"pIobIo to 1M
wlt be pnIIo1dIld prior10 loan do.klll-
_"t.
CompIDte dolaIls _earning lnslmInes I'Ollldremonls
LAiI! CHARGES: Kyour PII'Im.nllo ""'IV !han 15 days lata, you wDl be ehargod 0 IlIto ohPlg. of 5.000 ",oIthl
OvonlUD paymlJll
l'Nil"A'I'IlIENT.·/I,_iMt·o>II'.....N""~; ,_
B: IZJwltnol
OO .... n.1
hay. to pay. ponally.
be Il11Illod 10 a r.lInd 01pili olll1e t1nIIme chllllo.
sao your _et dowmonts ror Dny ocIdlllonollnlollllllllon regonllng n.n-poymanl, deleult, required repoyllWllln lull b.tore scbedUlod dille,
IIIId prepayment retunds Dnd p.....lIlos.
"mans esIIInaIa
IIW" hereby IICl<nowIldgll1lldlng and rocoMng II co'"l'leto copy o/!hls cIIsdo.UlD.
BORROWERIllAlE BORROWERIllAlE
IIMIl SAlWIN
~'aI:t
-/8-
II
' 23091"
m __
"081731375000002C29S"
201 / 545
•
DEFINmON OF TRUTH-IN-LENDING TERMS
• LOAN j, 81737375
ANNUAL PERCENrAGB RATE

ThIs Is not the Note rate for which the borrower applied. The Annual Pen:entage Rata (APR) Is the cost 01 the loan in
percentage terms taking Into accounl various loan charges of which Interest Is only one suoh charge. Other chQlgss
which are used in caJcuJalkm of the Annual Percentage Rate are Private Mortgage Insurance or RiA Mortgage
Insurance PremiUm (when applicable) and Prepaid finance Chllllles (loan dlscount, orlglnatton tees. prepaid Interesl
and other credit costs). The APR Is calculated 6y spreading these charges over the ute of the loan which results in a
rale higher than the lnlarest rata shown on your MorlgagelDeed of TRlsl Nole. IIlnlerest was the only FInance Charge,
then the lnlllrest rate and the Annual Percentage Rate would be the same.
PllEl'AID mNANCE CBARGl!'S
Prepald Finance Charges are certain charges made In conneolJon wIIh the loan and which must be paid upon the
close of \he loan. These chllllles are defined by the Federal Reserve Board in RegulalionZ and the charges must be
paid by the borrower only, and nol the seller If applicable. Non-Inclusive examples of such chargll8 are: Loan
orlglnatlon fee. 'PolnlS" or Discount, Private Mortgage Insurance or FHA Mortgage Insurance. Tax SeJvlce Fee. Some
loan oharges are specifically exclUded from Ihe Prepeld Finance Chalge such as appraisal fees and oredit report fees.
Prepaid Finance Charges are totaled and than subtracted from the loan Amount (the face amount of the Deed of
TrustlMortgage Note). The net figure Is the Amount Financed es explained below.
The amount of Interest, prepaid finance charge and certain insurance premiums 6f any) which the borrower wHI be
expected to pay over ,he life of the Joan.
AMOUNT FINANCED
The Amount Financed Is the loan amount applied for less the prepaid ftnance charges. Prepaid finanCe charges can
be found on the Good Faith Estimate. For example 1/ \he borrower's note Is for $100,000 and the Prepaid Finance
Charges tOlal $5,000, the Amount Financed would be $95.000. The Amount Financed Is the figure on wlllch the
Annual Percentage Rate Is based.
TOTAL OFPAYMENTS
T11Is llgure represents \he IOtal of all payments made toward principal, interest and mortgage Insurance (if appHcable).
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
The dollar figures In \he Payment Schedule represent prIncipal. Interes~ pkls Private Mortgage Insurance 61
applicable). These ligures wm not rellecl taxes and insurance escrows or any temporary buydown paymenlS
contributed by the seller.
-79-
202 / 545
DATE: 10/13/2004
• Bank,HA
•
America's Wholesale Lender,lls8lf or as agent
for Countrywldll Bank, a DIvisIon of Treaswy
Branch I: ODOOU3
750 LtHDl\IIO S:rt\E27 9T& UD
BORROWER: NIVIE SAMAAN
SAll I'AFAEL. 0. '4901
CASE I: Phon., 14151257-2701
LOAN #: 81737375 Br Fu No.: (415)25"'0'"
PROPERlY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
nc~AnQNOFAMOUNTRNANCED
1. Loan Amount 1.374,400.00
2. Prepaid FInance Charges:
Origination Fee 0.00
Discount Points 0.00
Tax Service Fee 60.00
Processing (Underwriting) 0.00
Prepaid Interest ( .l.lL- days)
of % per annum 6,213.00
Mortgage Insurance Premium 0.00
Mortgage Insurance Impounds 0.00
Warehouse Fee 0.00
VA Funding Fee 0.00
FHAUFMIP 0.00
Buydown 0.00
undBrw~itin9 Fee 490.00
Broker Points 13,744 .00
Courier/Express Mail-Cleng 30.00
Closing/Esc:coN 1,250.00
Flood Check Fee 26.00
processing Fes 595.00
TOTAL 22,409.00
3. Amount Financed (1 minus 2) 1,351,992.00
lIWe hereby acknowledge reading and receIVIng acompleted copy of this disclosure.
-
N IVm S»WU!
-
-80-
--
'0&17373750000020120'
203 / 545
DATE:
BORROWER:
CD-BORROWER:
10/13/2004
NIVIE SAMIIAN
• America,ao/essle lender, Its8lf or as agent
for Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury
Bank, N.A.
Sranch " 0080833
750 LINDllJIO 6:rJ1EJlT Sn: u a
SAIl lU\!'AlIL. CA 94901
CASE#: Pbone, (415)257-2701
LOAN #: 81737375 Dr Fax Mool (415)25t-0866
noN SCHEDUlf::
PIofTPAVM1!NT PAlNCIPAL IH1Elll!5T BA1AIlCE pm PAYUeIIT PRlNCIPlU.1N'I!II£SI' 8A1AHCt! PUTPAWENT P_lU.1Il1I!REST BAlANCE
8e9LnnL09 Bol~nc., ~1.374.400.00 721835.69 2501.745333.951345021.611467835.69 3351.23 4U4.4&1129585.92

Intero"" line I 5.500\ 7) 7B35.69 2511.15 5U4.041342509.96 147 7835.69 3364." 4471.201126201.U
1 61'9.33 0.006299.331374400.00 74 7835.It 2521.59 5314.101331918.37 148 7B35.19 33n.n tc57.B81122B23.Il
2 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 75 7B35.0 2531.57 5304.12133745&.801497835.69 3391.1B 4444.511119432.44
3 6299.33 0.00 6199.331374400.00 7i 7835.0 2541.59 5294.101334915.21150 7835.69 3404.10 4431.091116027.84
4 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 77 7835.U 2551.65 5284.041332363.56 151 7835.69 3418.08 4417.611112609.76
562".33 0.006299.331374400.00 7B 7835.69 2561.75 5273.941329BOl.81 lS2 7835.69 3431.61 4404.081109178.15
6 6299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.00 "7835.It 2571.89 5263.881327229.9% 153 7835.69 3U5.19 U90.501105732.96
7 6291.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 80 7835.69 :1582.07 5293.621324647.85154 7835.69 345B.83 U76.86110227Q.13
8 1299.33 0.00 6299.331314400.00 81 7835.69 2592.29 5243.401322055.56 155 7B35.69 3472.52 4363.171098801.61
9 6299.33 0.00 6299.331314400.00 02 7835." 2602.55 5233.141319455.01 158 7835.69 3485.27 U49.4210953U.31
10 8299.33 0.00 1299.331374400.00 83 7835.dS 2612.86 5222.831311840.15 157 7835.69 3500.07 1335.12109J8r5.27
11 6299.33 0.00 1299.331374400.00 84 7835." 2623.20 5212.491314211.95 158 7U5.69 3513.92 4321.771081301.35
12 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 85 7835.69 2633.58 5202.111311513.37 159 7835.69 3527.03 4307.861084773.52
13 6299.33 0.006299.331374400.00 86 7835.69 2814.01 5191.181308139.31110 7835.69 3541.79 4293.901081231.73
14 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 B7 7B35.69 2854.47 5181.221306284.S! 161 7835.69 3555.81 4279.881077675.92
15 6299.33 0.008299.331374400.00 II 7035." 2&&4.98 5170.711303119.91 112 7835.69 3569.S! 4215.801074101.03
16 6299.33 0.00 6289.331374400.00 89 7835.69 2675.53 5350.161300944." 163 7835.69 3584.02 4251.671070512.01
17 G~~~.)3 11).00 Gt" .. 332,:'7i100.00 '0 'OJ:I: .. O ltGOG ..12 :a."P.S?l:,otGO • .2:G lGi ?03S.G9 ,:)IstD.C.). "&'').''010GGJ~3.DO
188299.33 0.006299.331374100.00 51 7835.69 2696.75 5138.941295561.51165 7835.69 3612.45 4223.241063311.35
19 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 92 7835.69 2707.43 5128.261292854.0B 166 7835.69 3126.75 4208.9410S96st.60
206299.53 0.00 6299.331374400.00 937835.69 2718.H 5117.551290135.94 167 7835.69 3141.11 4194.5810S8043.49
218299.33 0.006299.331374400.00 847835.02728.905106.791287407.041687835.69 3655.52 4180.171052387.97
228299.33 0.001299.331374400.00 957835.69 2739.70 5095.9912'4617.341169 7835.69 3169.99 4115.701048717.9&
23 6299.53 0.00 6299.331374400.00 "7835.69 2750.55 50B5.141281916.79 170 7035.69 3684.51 4151.181045033.47
H 6285.33 0.00 82".331374400.00 97 7815.69 2711.44 5074.251279155.35171 7835.69 3699.10 4136.591041334.37
25 6289.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 98 7835." 2772.37 5063.321271382.98 172 7835.69 3713.74 4121.951037620.63
28 8299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.00 "7B35.69 2783.34 5052.351273599.6C 173 7835.69 3728.44 4107.251033892.19
276299.33 0.00 6299.351374400.00 ~OO 7835.U 2794." 5041.331270B05.28 174 7835.19 5743.20 4092.49103014'.99
20 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 01 7835.0 2805.12 5030.271267999.86 175 7835.69 3758.02 4077.67102CJ90.97
29 8299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 102 7U5.69 2811.52 SOlt.171285183.34 171 7835.69 3772.B9 4062.801022818.08
30 6291.33 0.00 6298.331374400.00103 7835.69 2827.67 5008.0212623~.67 177 7835.19 3717.83 4047.861018830.25
31 U99.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00104 7135.69 2838.87 4996.8212n511.80 178 7835.69 3802.82 4052.871015027.43
32 6299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.00105 7155.69 2850.10 4985.591256868.70 179 7835.69 3817.87 4017.8Z1011209.56
33 82".33 0.00 62".331374400.00 106 7835.69 2861.38 4974.511253805.32180 7835.69 3832.99 9002.701007376.57
54 6289.33 0.00 1298.331374400.00~07 7835.68 287Z.71 4962.881250832.U 181 7835.69 3848.11 5"7.531003528.41
J5 6299.33 0.00 1299.331374400.00 ~Ol 7835.69 2081.08 4951.111248048.53 102 7835.69 3013.39 3972.30 999665.02
J6 8299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.001109 7835.S9 2U5.50 4940.191245153.03 183 7835.19 3878.1S 3957.01 995786.34
376299.53 0.00 62".331374400.00~10 7835.69 2906.96 4928.731242248.07 1847835.19 3891.04 3t41.65 981B92.30
38 8299.39 0.00 1299.3J137~400.00111 7835.69 2918.47 1917.221239327.60 185 7135.89 3901.45 3928.29 987982.15
39 6299.33 0.00 6299.331379400.0D~127835.69 2930.02 4905.671231397.581087835.19 3921.92 3910.77 984057.93
40 1299.33 0.00 6299.33137ttOO.OO~13 7855.69 2941.62 4894.071233455.96 IB7 7135.69 3840.41 3895.23 980117.47
41 8299.33 0.00 629,.331374400.00~U 7835.69 2953.26 4812.431230501.70 188 7835.19 3958.063879.63 976161.41
428299.33 0.006299.331374400.001157835.69 2964.95 4870.741227537.75 189 7135.69 3971.72 3813.97 972189.69
43 I2n.35 0.00 6299.331374400.0D 116 7835.69 2"6.69 4859.001224561.06 no 7835.69 3917.44 3848.25 968202.25
tt 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 iI17 7135.69 2188.47 4047.221221572.59 Itl 7835.69 4003.22 3832.47 914199.03
45 6299.35 0.00 8299.331374400.·00 18 7835.89 3000.30 4835.391218572.29'192 7135.69 4019.07 3811.62 910179.96
46 6299.33 0.00 1299.331374400.00119 7835.69 3012.17 4523.521215560.12 93 1835.69 403~.98 3800.71 9561tt.9B
47 8299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.001120 7835.69 3024.10 4811.591212536.02 154 7835.69 4050.95 3711.74 952094.03
48 6299.33 0.00 6289.331374400.00121 7155.69 3D36.07 47".62120,.99.95 95 7835.19 4066.98 3768.71 948027.05
49 6299.33 0.00 12".331374400.001122 7835.0 3048.08 4787.60U06U1.86 86 7135.69 .083.D8 3752.61 913943.97
5082".33 0.006299.331374400.001237835.03060.15 4775.541203391.71197 7835.69 4099.25 373S.Af 939814.72
51 8299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.001124 7135.65 3072.28 4763.4512005It.45 191 7135." 4115.87 3720.22 935729.25
52 6299.33 0.00 8299.33U71400.00l1ZS 7835.59 3084.43 4751.261197235.02 99 7135.69 4131.71 3703.93 931597.49
53 82".33 0.00 8299.33137UOO.00 126 7835.69 3096.63 4731.061194131.39200 7135.69 4148.12 9617.57 927441.37
54 6199.33 0.00 6299.33137UOO.00 127 7135.19 3108.89 4726.801191029.50201 7835.19 4164.54 3671.15 923284.83
$5 8299.33 0.00 6299.331374800.DO 128 7835.69 3121.20 4714.49118790B.30 202 7835.69 4181.02 3154.67 919103.81
5& 6299.33 0.00 1291.331374400.00 U9 7835.69 3133.55 4702.141184774.752037835.69 4197.57 3638.12 914506.24
57 6199.33 0.00 6291.331374400.00 130 7835.0 3145.'8 4889.731181828.79 204 7835.69 4n4.19 5621.50 910592.05
58 8299.33 0.00 6199.331374400.00131 7835.19 3158.41 4877.2811"470.38 05 7835.19 4230.87 3104.U 906481.Ie
59 62".33 0.00 6299.331374800.00 152 7835.19 3170.91 4664.7811752".97 08 7835." 4247.61 3581.08 902213.57
60 8299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.00133 7835.19 3183.41..4652.231172118.011207 7835." 4284.43 3571.26 197949.14
lntuest Rate :'.750\ 134 7835." 3196.06 4839.631168919.95208 7835.69 4281.31 3551.38 893&57.83
81 7835." 2395.36 5440.331372004.64135 7135.69 3208.72 4126.'71165711.23 209 7135.19 4291.25 3537.44 88"".58
62 7835.19 2404.84 5930.851369599.BO 138 7835.69 3221.42 4614.2711824".81 210 7835.'9 4315.27 3520.42 885054.11
6J 7835.69 2414.36 5421.331367185.84 137 7835.19 3234.17 4601.521159255.64 211 1835.19 4332.35 3503.34 180721.91
14 7835.6J 2425.91 5411.781384711.53 UI 7835.89 324i.97 4588.721156008,p 7835.6J 1212 4349.50 3481.19 '76372.18
85 7835.69 2433.51 5402.181362328.02139 7835.19 3259.81 4575.871152748.85 13 7835.69 4356.72 3'18.17 872005. H
" 7B35.6J 2.4f3.14 5392.551358184.81140 7835.69 327&F 4512.961149476.12 2It 7835.69 4584.00 3451.19 167621.74
" 7835.69 2452.11 5382.881357432.07 41 7835.69 5Zl1ilJr4550.011146190.48 215 7835.69 4401.35 383'.34 863220.39
" 7835.19 2462.52 5373.171354969.55 1C2 7835.69 5298.0 4537.001142891.75 216 7835.19 4418.78 3418.91 858101.11
69 1835.69 2472.27 5313.421352497.21 In 7835.69 3311.74 4523.951139580.01 217 7835.69 4938.27 33".42 854315.34
7D 7835.51 2482.05 5353.84135DOI5.23 44 7835.69 3324.85 8510.841136155.15 218 7U5.69 4453.83 3311.86 8499)1.51
71 7835.69 2491.88 5343.t11347523.35 US 7B35.&9 3338.01 4497.681152917.15 219 7U5.69 4471.463384.23 845440.05
Page 1012
204 / 545
....
Ptopotod br- GEllALD III:GRAHAM
DATE:
BORROWER:
co-aORROWER:
10/13/2004
NIVIE SAHAAN
• Amerlca·.Olesllle Lender, Itself or as egent
for CountrywIde Bank. 0 DIvision of Treasury
Bank. N.A.
a...nc~ I: 0000U3
750 LINDJ\IlO S7REeT 8m 110
S1o)I 1lAFAU., ClI tUOl
CASE': ebone: '4151257-2701
LOAN#: 817373" BE ,;axRo.: 14151259-0"6
AMORTlZA1l0N SCHEDULE
PNTPAYMENTPIINCIPAL INTEREST BALANCe P,ITPAYIISlITPRlIlCIPAL INl1iIIesT DAl.ANCIl YII P A _ PRIltCIPAL IIIIl!R!STIIAtAHCa
220 1835.69 4489.16 33'6.53 840950.89 294 7835.69 6013.41 1822.21 454334.76 AIIlII/lIL 6 _ 1
2211835.6t 4506.83 3328.16 836443.96295 1835.1t 6031.20 1198.41 448291.48 ya r~T IllIERZST ~
222 7835.6' 4524.11 3310.92 831519.19 296 1835.69 6061.18 1714.51 442236.30!ee91nn!n9 Iialancc' 11.374,400.00
2231835.69 45U.68 32U.Ol 821316.51291 1835.69 6085.11 1150.52 436)51.13 1 75591.96 15591.961374400.00
224 '835.1t 4560.56 3275.03 822815.85298 1835.69 6109.26 1126.43 430041.87 2 75551.96 75591.96 1374400.00
2257835.69 4518.11 3256.98 018237.14 2U 1835.69 n33.H 1102.25 423908.43 3 75591.91 15591.96 1374400.00
2267835.6' 4596.83 3238.86 '13&40.31 380 1835.69 6151.72 1671.91 411150.11 4 75591.96 15591.96 1374iOO.OO
2211835.69 4n5.03 5220.56 809025.28 )811835.69 6182.09 1653.60 411lI68.62 5 15591.96 15!n.9I 1314400.00
228 1835.69 4633.30 32D2.39 8D4351.58 302 1835.69 6206.56 1625.13 405362.06 ~ 9402'.2' 64505.89 1315021.61
2297835.69 un.64 3184.05 15914D.34 3D3 1835.65 6231.13 1604.56395130.93 1 '402'.28 53223.62 1314215.95
230 7855.69 4610.05 3U5.64 155070.25 304 7835.69 6255.'0 1515.89 392815.13 • 94028.28 11129.1212'1916.11
231 1835.69 4688.54 3141.15 1903.1.75305 7135.69 6280.56 1555.13 386594.57 9 94028.28 60160.02 1248048.53
232 1835.69 4101.10 3128.59 185614.651306 1835.69 6305.42 1530.21 380289.15 10 94028.2' !8515.17 1212531.02
2331835.69 4125.13 310'.96 180"8.92 301 1835.69 6330.3D 1505.31 31395'.71 11 94020.2' "191.13 1115299.41
2301835.69 4744.43 30n.26 176204." 30B 7'35.69 6355.44 1480.25 J61603.JJ 12 '4028.28 54903.91 1136255.16
235 1835.69 4763.21 3012.4' 111441.2' 305 1835.65 6380.59 1455.10 361222.74 13 9402'.2' 530Bl.4' ID95315.3.
236 7835.65 4782.07 3053.52 766655.21310 1835.65 6405.15 1429.84 3548U.89 14 "028.2' 51100.51 1052381.91
2311835.69 4801.00 3034." 761858.21311 1835.65 6431.21 1404.48348385.68 15 "028;2. • "016.B8 1001376.51
231 1835." 4820.0D 3015.69 151038.21 312 7835.65 6456.66 1375.03 341925.02 16 '4028.28 46831.61 960119.96
2" 1835.65 4139.0B 2n6.n 152199.13 313 1835.65 64B2.22 H53.47 535446.80 11 86021.28 41510.31 910692.05
240 7835.65 4858.24 2571.45 141340.89 314 1835.69 6501.'9 1321.81 32893'.92 I' 94028.2' 42131.84 '58801.51
241 7835.65 4871.47 2'58.22 142463.42315 1835.65 6533.60 1302.05322405.28 19 91028.2' 39618.65 904391.'8
2427035.6' 4156.17 2938.52 137566.65311 1835.69 6559.50 1276.19315"5.78 20 '4028..2' 36917.19 747340.81
243 1835.U 4516.U 291'.53 732650.49 311 1835.65 6585.47 1250.:12 30t260.31 21 '4028.28 342Dl.41 681520.0'
244 1935.65 4535.62 250D.07 121114.873181835.6' 6611.53 1224.16 302648.18 22 5402'.28 31303.32 621795.12
2451935.65 4955.15 2890.54 122159.12 315 1835.65 6637.11 1191.58 296011.01 23 9402'.28 2825•• 14 559024.98
2U 1835.65 4"4.71 2960.52 111114.553201835.69 6663.98 1171.11 289347.09 24 94028.2' 2SCn.15 490051.'5
2417835.65 4950.46 2841.23 712190.t9 321 7835.59 5690.)6 1145.33 28:1656.73, 25 ,.02.;28 21711.14 411150.11
248 7835.69 5014.232821.46 101176.26322 1835.09 6115.84 1118.85 275535.'9 26 94028.29 18206.59 341929.02
249 1835.69 5034.08 2801.61 102142.18 323 1935.69 6143.43 1092.26265196.4' 27 9402'.28 14525.60 262426.94
250 1835..69 5054.00 2181.69 697698.18324 7835.69 6710.12 1065.51 262426.34 28 9402'.28 10615.92 179053.9'
251 1835.69 5074.01 2161.68 692614.11525 1835.69 6196.92 1038.11 255525.42 n 94028.29 611'.84 91'51.54
252 1835.69 5094.09 2741.60 597520.08326 1835.65 6823.82 1011.81 248805.60 30 94029.83 2375.29 0.00
253 1835.69 5114.26 21:11.43 682405.82 321 1035.69 5850.83 584.86 241954.77
2541835.65 5134.50 2701.15 611271.323281835.65 6877.'5 957.14 235016.BZ
'----
2128668.35 1354268.35
255 7935.69 5154.82 2680.91 612116.5032' 1835.69 6'05.18 930.51 22'171.64
256 7835.65 5115.23 2660.46 666541.21330 7935.69 6532.51 903.18 221235.13
2511835.69 5155.11 2639.99 661745.56 331 1135.Ot " " . " 815.74214215.18
251 1935.09 5216.2' 2619.41 656529.28332 1835.69 6587.50 848.19 201291.68
259 1835.69 5235.93 2598.16 651292.35333 1835.69 1015.16 '20.53200276.52
260 7135.69 5251.66 2578.03 646034.69 314 1835.69 1042.53 792.76 193233.59
261 7I35.n 5278.47 2551.22 640756.22 ~35 1835.69 7010.81 764.18 1'1112.78
262 lU5.69 5299.35 2536.33 535456.96~36 1835.69 1099.'0 736.1' 179063.98
·263 7835.69 5320.34 2515.35 630136.52331 1835.69 1126.~ 108.79 171931.08
264 7855.65 5341.40 2484.29 6un5.n 338 7835.69 1155.11 690.5t 164181.97
265 1835.65 5362.54 2413.15 619432.5' 335 1835.69 1183.43 652.26 151589.5.
266 7'35.69 5383.17 2~51.82 114048.813401835.69 1211.86 623.83 1503B6.68
261 1835.69 5405.082430.61608603.13 3U 7835.6' 72tO.U 555.28143146.27
268 7835.69 5U6.4, 2405.21 603211.25 342 7035.69 1218.01 566.62 135811.20
269 7835.18 5447.96 2381.13 "1769.29343 1835.65 1297.84 531.15 128575.36
2707835.69 5058.52 2366.17 592299.17 344 7835.69 132li.13 508.56 121252.63
211 7835.69 5491.11 2344.52 586808.60 345 1835.69 1355.13 41'.96 113B9&.90
212 7835.69 5512.51 2322.71 5812'5.69346 1835.69 1584.85 450.84 106512.05
213 1835.69 5534.13 2300.96 575760.96 347 7835.69 1414.08 4%1.11 99091.97
274 7935.59 5555.54 2279.05 570204.32348 7835.69 7443.43 392.26 91654.5'
215 7835.69 5518.63 2251.01 564625.69 349 1835.59 1412.1' 362.80 84181.65
215 7835.18 5600.11 2234.98 559024.991350 7135.69 1502 ••7 333.22 76679.18
271 7835.69 5622.88 2212.81 553402.10351 1835.69 1532.17 303.52 69141.01
278 1835.69 5645.14 2150.55 541756.96 3527835.69 1561.98 213.71 61585.03
279 1835.69 5667.49 2160.20 501201'.41 3537835.69 1591.92 243.17 53953.11
2.0 7835.69 SlSt.n 2145.17 535399.55,154 1835.59 7621.97 213.72 41571.14
2.1 7835.68 5712.44 2123.25 530681.11 ~55 1835.69 7652.14 183.55 3na.00
2'2 7835.69 5'35.05 2100.6t 524952.01355 7835.69 7682.43 153.25 31036.57
283 1835.69 5751.15 2017.94515154.313511835.65 7712.84 122.85 23323.13
284 lU5.19 5780.55 2055.14 513413.76558 1835.15 7743.31 n.32 15$10.36
2.5 1835.69 5803.432032.26 507610.331359 1835.69 7114.02 l1.iT 1006.34
286 7835.69 5826.40 20D9.2' 501183.53 360 lU7.24 7806.34 30.50 0.90
281 1835.69 5BO.46 15B6.23 495534.47
218 1835.69 5812.U 1963.01 00061.85
20t 7835.69 5'95.86193'.83 4841&5." -82-
2'0 1835.65 5519.20 1915••5 478246."
291 7835.69 5842.13 1893.06 412304.16
292 1835.69 '966.15 1869.54 465338.01
2'5 1835.59 stU.17 1845.92 46034'.24
Page 2012
205 / 545
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
EXHIBITH
27
28
-83-

206 / 545
CLUES LOAN ANALYSIS REPORT
=====~=~===
===;==========================
=================;;==~========
- CLUES -
countr ywide Loan Under writin g
Exper t System
Loan Repor t
=====~=======================
============================ 1.0 DECISION
Date: Thurs day, Octob er 14, 2004 11:49 AM
Credi t Decis ion: REFER.
Loan Number: 817373 75

Credi t: Accep table (MERGE-CREDIT)
Abili ty: Quest ionab le
Produ ct Comp liance : .-NO
Docum entatio n: ~UCED ~
c---
Appra isal Eligi bility : Stand ard Full Appra isal or 2055 I&E,
with an additi onal Field Review
This loan has been referr ed by CLUES due to the follow ing reaso ns:
~ ~ flO/IDII~ ~ ~
Abili ty: of layere d risk
The inform ation provid ed indic ates a combi nation asset s, high LTV,
facto rs which may includ e insuf ficien t liquid loan progra m
credi t histo ry, and/o r high debt ratios for the
selec ted.
Comp liance - Gener al: on the Non-C onf ARM Fixed
A- minimum of 6 month s reserv es are requir ed 9).
Perio d LIBOR Inter est Only progra m. (1886
ing Mega Loan.
Reduc ed docum entati on is not allow ed on a Non-C onform
(1517 2).
The max loan amoun t is $1,000 ,000 on Non-Conf ARM Fixed Perio d LIBOR
Inter est Only loans . (5998 ).
============================= 2.0 SUMMARY =============================
Borro wer: Nivie Sarnaan
Prope rty Addre ss:' 320 S Peck Dr

Bever ly Hills , CA 90212 -3715
Loan Progra m Name: NC 5/1 LIBR ARM _Ii4~erestOnly
Conve ntiona l Loan Amount: $ 1,374 ,400

Loan Type: n/a
Loan Purpo se: Purch ase Casho ut Amount:
Loan progra m ID: 657
207 / 545
Credi t Score :
Prope rty Usage :
72.
Prima ry Res. Appra ised Value : $ 1,718 ,000
Singl e Famil y Purch ase Price : $ 1/718 ,000
Prope rty Type:
Calcu lated LTV/CL TV: $ l,718~ OOO
Value for
Term: 360
Amor tizatio n: ARM
Note/Q ual. Rate: 5.5/5. 5%
Max Qual. Rate: 5.5%
First Lien LTV: BO.OO%
Secon d Lien'L TV: 100.00 %
CLTV: 180.00 %
Calcu lation s: All Borrow ers

Total Incom e: $ 33,33 3.00
Total Oblig ations : $ 10,46 5.91
PITI: $ 9,50.9 . .91
PITI Ratio : 28.53%
Total Debt Ratio : 31.40%
Month s Reser ves: 6.82
Reser ves amoun t: $ 64,84 3.00
===================== 3.0 UNDERWRITING CONDITIONS ===;=================

The follow ing condi tions must be satisf ied:
Abili ty: NIVIE SAMAAN has been
The SAtARY incom e, $3333 3.00, from a BASE job of ry of this incom e
used to rate the abilit y. Verif y 2 years histo
using Full or Alter nate docum entati on.
Appra isal: from the date of the

If applic able, if this loan close s over 60 days ment 2055 Exter ior Only
appra isal, obtai n an Updat e of Prior Assign
verify ing that no reduc tion in value has taken place . The Updat e of
must be dated withi n 60 days of
Prior Assign ment 2055 Exter ior Only
the Note date.
Stand ard Full Appra isal or 2055 Inter ior and Exter ior requi red.
Addit ional Field review done by a CHL appro ved review appra iser will
be requi red.
Incom e and Emplo yment : n/ has been with
Verif y that the self-e mploy ed borrow er, Nivie atSamaa
least 2 years using
the same b~siness and at the same locati on
e, (ii) CPA, (iii)R egula tory Agenc y
such sourc es as (i)bus iness licens verify ing emplo yment ,
or. Civ)P rofess ional Organ izatio n. Note: When
no incom e may be disclo sed. '
Asset s: y all asset s

The borrow er curre ntly has 6.82 month s reserv es. Verif
entere d into CLUES. .
most recen t accou nt
Must be verif ied by obtain ing the two (2) month 's wer's
VOD. The asset s m~3_b e the Borro own funds .
statem ents or
Other : to fundin g.
Obtai n a signed 4506 for borrow er NIVIE SAMAAN prior
208 / 545
==================~== JIt GENERAL LOAN CONDITIONS iIl==================

Based on the credi t repor t obtain ed in CLUES, this loan must close on or
befor e Febru ary 07, 2005 and credi t docum ents must be dated within 120
days of the closin g date. For new const ructio n, it must close on or
befor e April DB, 2005 and credi t docum ents must be dated within 180
days of the closin g date.
If the borrow er is a Realt or, saies assoc iate or [real estate ] broke r,
they may not use any comm ission earned from the sale of the subje ct
prope rty towar ds the downp aymen t, clos~ ng costs or reserv es for this
transa ction .
If applic able, provid e satisf actor y docum entati on to expla in any
varia tion betwe en the loan applic ation and the credi t repor t:
* Varia tion in the applic ant(s) addre ss in the prior 2 years
ant(s) employ ment
* Varia tion in the applic ant(s) name repor ted in the in the prior 2 years
AKA Inform ation
* Varia tion in the applic
sectio n of the credi t repor t
* Any indic ation of Socia l Secur ity Number discre pancy or fraud in the
Fraud Verif icatio n Inform ation sectio n
corre ct vestin g and
Review the prelim inary title commitment to verify chmen
and clear all liens and encroa ts that would
legal descr iption ct mortg age/de ed of trust .
impai r the prope r lien positi on of the subje
se.
Obtai n a copy of the Appr aiser' s curre nt valid state licen
Obtai n a signed and dated Final Loan A?pli cation .
d area, a valid
If the prope rty is desig nated in a speci al flood hazar to closin g eviden cing
flood insura nce polic y/bin der is requir ed prior
the appro priate lende r as the loss payee .
CHL will not financ e more than 4 loans to one as borrow er. This limit
. includ es loans alread y origin ated, as well loans in the branc h
pipel ine. Excep tions to this polic y can be 'made up to an addit ional 4
loans if the follow ing param eters are met:
Purch ase or Rate and Term refina nce
Fixed rate only
One Unit prope rties only
Maximum LTV is 60% the Divis ion's
Any excep tions to this guide line MUST be appro ved by
Under writin g Suppo rt.
appra isal.
Provid e a ~opy of the appra iser's invoi ce/bi ll for the
A valid hazar d insura nce polic y is requir ed evide ncing the appropria~e
lende r as the loss payee . Satisf actor y eviden ce of hazar d insura nce
cover age must b~' obtain ed prior to closin g. Satis facto ry eviden ce can
be anyon e of the follow ing: Decla ration page insura of the polic y, polic y
payme nt or compl ete hazard nce policy .
binde r with proof of value of the
Cover age must equal the lesse r of the insura ble
unpai d balan ce of the mortg age, with replac ement
impro vemen ts or the t of damag e or loss
cost endor semen t to compe nsate for the full amoun
Note: if the co~~e te hazar d insura nce polic y is not
to impro vemen ts. a post- closin g traili ng
obtain ed prior to closin g, it must follow as
docum ent. .
209 / 545
ba~
on occup ancy, loan
Loah must meet all othJlt publi shed requir ement s on type.
type, borrow er chara cteris tics and docum entati
==============
=================== 5.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY EVALUATION =====
-- 5.1 Publi c Recor ds Analy sis -----
Stree t Addre ss: 320 S Peck Dr

Bever ly Hills 90212
Owner of Recor d: Zerni k,Jose ph H
Prope rty Type: Single Famil y
Gross Livin g Area: 2,650 sq. ft.
Lot Size: 6,400 sq. ft.
Asses sed Value : $995,2 13 Year Built : 1930
Prevo Sales Date: 05/30 /1997
Prevo Sales Price : $442,5 00
3.00
# of Bedro oms: 4 # of Bathro oms:
Sales Comp arable s from analy sis of Publi c Recor ds:

Addre ss Sales ·Prc. Sales Date Dist. Dr Sq. Ft. Lot Size
----- ----- ----- --- --~-- ----- - ------ ---- ------ ------ ------ --
$1,525 ,000 06/02/ 2004 0.0 m S 2,719 7,680
3~5 Peck Dr S 7,336
3~4 Camden Dr S $1,445 ,000 08/02/ 2004 0,1 m SE 2,539
10/29/ 2003· 0.3 m NW 2,939 7,040
2~9 Linde n Dr S $1,50 0,000
7,680
308 Bedfo rd Dr S $1,500 ,000 08/27/ 2004 0.1 m W 3,014
$1,675 ,000 06/09/ 2Q04 0.2 m N 2,607 7,680
208 Peck Dr S 7,244
502 Hillg reen Dr $1,995 ,000 06/14/ 2004 0.5 m SW 3,499
$1,400 ,000 04/27/ 2004 0.4 m SW 1,911 9,100
439 Spald ing Dr S 7,680
3J.2 Camden Dr S $1,965 ,000 02/20/ 2004 0.1 m E 3,107
01/30/ 2004 0.2 m NE 3,904 7,040
225 Rodeo Dr S $1,800 ,000
==============
============================ 6.0 ANALYSIS ===============
-- 6.1 Score s ------ ------ ------ ----
FICO SC9re s:
Borro wer Code Credi t Score s
TRW EquiF ax TransU nion Final
P 723 723 730 723
Nivie Samaan
(Borro wer codes : P=Prim ary, X=Sco re Exclud ed)
FICO Facto rs for Nivie Samaa n. Score : 723

Number of inqui res within last twelv e month s.
al or other
Relat ionsh ip of balan ce to high credi t on bank/ nation
revolv ing/op en accou nts.
Lengt h of time since most recen t payme nt inform ation.
Outst andip g balan ces on revolv ing/op en accou nts.
-- 6.2 Credi t =87-
-- 6.3 Abili ty ----- ----- ----- ----- -

Total Incom e
210 / 545
Borro wer/Jo b Incom e Type Amount Total
Nivie Samaa n
Salary $ 33,33 3.00
Sub-t otal: $ 33,33 3.00
Total Incom e: $ 33,33 3.00
Ratio s: s:
The follow ing liabi lities were includ ed in the oblig ation
Type Accou nt Name Accou nt # Payme nt Dflt
Borrow er
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- ------ ----
290636 11 $ 182.00
Nivie Samaa n rvlv WASHINGTON .. .• 000006 200.00
Nivie Samaa n rvlv FLEET CC 430550 033675 $
FIRaT USA 433237 006104 $ 194.00
Hi-vie Samaa n rv1v
$ 114.00
Nivie Samaa n rvlv BARNEYS NY .. 600335 5682 266.0.0
Nivie Samaa n inst FIRST ENTE •. 925840 600 $
Total : $ 956.00
Dflt: Defau lted payme nt code: off.

$10= Defau lt payme nt of $10 on accou nts to be paid
BAL= Defau lt payme nt of entire balan ce
5% = Defau lt payme nt of 5% of balan ce.
Month ly Housi ng Expen ses:

Item Amount Total .
MHE Prese nt:

P&I $ 6,299 .00
Rent $ ~,390 .00
HI $ 400.00
Tax $ 1,790 .00
Other Finan cing $ 1,020 .00
Expen ses
Total $ 12,89 9.00
MHE Propo sed:

P&I $ 6,299 .33
HI $ 401.00
Tax $ 1,789 .58
Secon dary Finan cing . $ 1,020 .00
------ ------ -
Total $ .91
9,509
On $1,37 4,400 .00 quali fied at 5.500% for 360 gmonth s. The MHE total
of $9509 .91 was used to calcu late the housin expen se of
28.53%
indic ated in the Summa ry Sectio n 2.0.
Quali fied at: 5.500% ; Amortization8~erm 360; P&I= $6299 .33.
Total Debt
211 / 545
Item Total
Perso nal Expen ses:

Credi t $ 956.00
MHE Propo sed:
PITI $ 9,509 .91
REO Expen ses: $ 0.00
------ ------ -
Total Debt $ 5.91
10,46
to calcu late the Total

Note: The. Total Debt of $1046 5.91 was used ry
Debt ratio of 31.40% indica ted in the Summa Sectio n 2.0.
Detai ls of Trans action :

Item Amount Total
Costs :
Subje ct: $l,71B ,qOO.O O
Exist ing
SUbo rdinat ing 2nd: $ 171,8 00.00
prepa id Escrow s: $ 6,213 .00
Closin g Costs : $ 20,54 4.00
Sub Total : $1,74 4,757 .00
Cash In:
Loan Amount: $1,37 4,400 .00
Dther Finan cing: $ 171,8 00.00
Sub Total : $ -J:546 200.00
Cash From Borro wer: $ 198,5 57.00
Reser ves calcu lation :

Type Amount Total
Li.qui d Als:>et: >:

Accou nts & Funds : $ 263,4 00.00
Sub Total : $ 263,4 00.00
Less Fees & Expen ses:

Cash to Close : $ 198,5 57.00
Sub Total : $ -198,5 57.00
$ 64,B4 3.00
Total Reser ves:
deduc ted from' the
The cash to close , in the amoun t of $198,5 57.00, was
liquid asset s.
=========================== 7.0 BOOKKEEPING ===========================

04.09 .28-FL (Sep ~7, 2004)
CLUES A*E Versi on:
Divis ion: Whole sale ~~anch Number: 00009 33-000
Input File: tmp4BD.tmp Reque st Versio n:C
Track ing Number: 022093 300000 817373 7503
Input Data: Detai l
212 / 545
Servi ce Pack Ver: 04.t. 28

Busin e~s Rules Ver: 04.10A .02 10/01/ 2004 12:01 :20
Busin ess Rules EC: Succe ss (156)
Public Recor ds EC: Succe ss (2a)
Refer ence Number: CC3796290512
Under writin g Based On: CLUES
- - -ONDERWRITER RATING- --
ABILITY POOR
CREDIT EXCELLENT
APPRAISAL N/a
UNDERWRITER COMMENTS
Under writer :
Decis ion: NO DECIS ION HAS HEEN SELECTED
Date: 10 14 2004
Loan Versi on: C
END OF REPORT~
-90-
213 / 545
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT I
28
-91-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AJ!plications and Fraudulent Representations

214 / 545
AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDeR-.

.t'
IlrokBr. IUCIlAEL Jl\MES O'REILL¥ DBA PACIFIC
Branch t: 0000933 BIokBt
750 LINDARO STREtI SIt 110
Conlacl: VICTOR PARKS
SAN Rl\F1IEL, CA 94901
IlrokBr
Phone: (415)257 -2701 Ph1lne: (4151444 -0448
Br Fax No.: (415)259 -0866 Iln>kBr
FUll: (4151492 -4388
SUSPENDED
DIANE FRJIZIER 10/14/20 04 3,p .1.1'1" - ?~I, j'1/£ .<n.,.. 71i.Dv

the terms listed below:
ThIs Is to Inform you that your loan submissIon was revl~wed at
_
Loanc: 81737375 Borrowe(.N"'"e:•..:S"AMAAN==".--:Nc"IV=I::E'--
Applied loan Amount 1,374,40 0.00 P~mm:NC 5/1 LIBR J\RM InterestO nly
PIJtpose: PURCHASE,OtlNER OCCUPIED, REDUCED

SlarITerm: 60 LTV: 80.00
StartRate: 5.500
~OAN AMOUNT: -=10::..3~7::-4:-,""4-:0""0 -:.0 '-:0"--
be able to approve
Subject to the specific conditio ns listed below, we will approval , no change
your loan SUbmiss ion. For all submissi ons, pend1ng final and the credit
in the borrowe r(s) financia l status or employment can occur,
documen ts and appraisa l must reMain current.
any items listed
To avoid having your submissi on closed for incomple teness, 10 days of the
below as 'Require d Prior to Approva l' must be received within
date shown above.
CondlUons at P~ 2 - ApptOVlll: 17
Roquirod CondlUon Cond1tlort

Pdo/to Status Codo CondUIon De3<iCommenb
~-~ BOlUlOliEl\ le1IRIT1'&I1 E:XPLl\NUI Oll REGARDING _

'X' ~ Acceptab
APPROVAL OPEIl
explanati on "hy business in 411 reverse J.:; on 1227 So
Alfred, L.A.
\X C2> Corp approval

APPROV1\L OPElI 138. Orm;;R COlIDUIOll 1
req'd for this enhallced prograDl wi added to ~
witb
any condition s, prov1de a complete copy package along
tf!i!J ,
APPROVAL OPEN
"'-'
e~
all condition s in triplicat e
139. 0Tlll::R CORDInOI l 2
Pricing to be oorrected to sbow .7St add to f.... for this
exception program
OTHERCOlIDInOH 4
enhanoed
APPROV1\L OPEN
erifll ~30k on depo.lt wi escrow wi source
veriUed
~
APPROVAL 91'EII 14 mER CONDInOl l S
ronde cOJDplete executed purchas@ contract, esorow instructi ons
~
ill not act as a aubstitut e
AP1'ROVAL OPEN 4. orm;;R C0I1DUIOl/ 7
g filed la:st 2
P.rovlde 03' bU:linesa license or CPA letter ver:Lfy~
~
yrs 1040' s as self e..ployed same location
OPElI • 0'I1lER CORDInOl l 8
IIF 10k stmt. '681-4098 380 for 7/12 thru 8/12 at ~180k
DOC1IHE:IlTS OPEN 006. APl'RAISA L-Aca:PTA BLE fIELD IlEVXEW (TO SlJPPORT
$--'
«««« ConcUeion informati on continues on att.ached addendum
»»»»
Total . . t..
~",'~"'.o",n...:..~",-9
Outst~&",:di _
10/14/20 04
Un_~SSII/ll~ U
DaIB
DVP'llIRVP'slRSM'. S1gnahnll
flWVNCOIfoI
• UNDElIWRIIlNG DECISIONItlONDIT101lIETre11
~(CJ7JO'ltd) .
-92-
215 / 545
i:Dan:: 81737375
•
ADDENDUM TO UNDEAWRrrlNG DECISIONlCONDmON lETTER
(PAGE2 OF2 )
Bo""""fc Namo:NIVJ:& SAlmAN
Requlnlcl Condlllon Condltfon DasetlpUan/Colrmonls

CondlOon
PriDrTo Status CodD
c_ds<Oo -ftQ',C,
$1,718,00 0 ptogralh guideline at cost to brwr, clll
.eo_p ep~1' 9ttar
DOCOHE:IlTS OPEN 064. CORl\ECI1!3l/S1GilEll 1003 tAT LOCK-m-ll ATE)
Show type of busine'"
DOCOt'lElfIS OI>EN ~ oTI!&R COIlDITlOl4 6
Acceptab le VOR coverinq prasen-c residence , .req'd for
2nd
VAL-$_)
FUlIDING OI>EN 007. A!>PRAISAL-ACCEPTABLE CBL/NEW M'PRAISAL (MIN
i f not funded by 1212 provide a drivoby ext as a recert
FlnlDIIIG OPEN 010. APPIlAISAL-Al>PRAISER TO PROVDlE CORIIEIIT LICENSE
Provide also an additiona l set. at color photos
AND COR!IECT
FUt,llING OPEn 028. BROKER CERTIFICA TIOl! TflAT ALL COPIES ARE TROE
FUNDING OPEN 077. RELOC - Copy OF FIRSt MORTGAGE NOn:
Concurren t close w1th 2nd. at $171800 , provide Dote
FOtlDIIlG OPEn 093. :rNaa€-CO~lPLETEfSIGIIEDFORM 4506 I 95-01
FtlHDnlG OPEN 140. OTHIlR COIlDITl011 3
Collect $:400 appraisa l field review feG from b~W1: in escrow
-93-
Fll.W1JCONV
• UNIlEllWlllT1NG Il5CISIO.'III(;ONOmo.~ lETIER
zcao.us (07104)
216 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
EXHIBIT J
27
28 -94-

Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide 217 / 545
WLD EXCEPTION FORM - BRANCH
~~~~"40""P" M.!.~~~:tJ:?~ 7908113-a-;S by
80/90 to 1.5M usln Core Jumbo with .750% add to fee tor Reduced Doc
Borrower Last Name Borrower SSN FIle In Branch

Borrower Fl~t Name Yes
Nlvle Samaan 568579489
Co-Borrower Last Name Co-Borrower SSN Type of Submission
Co·Borrower First Name EPS Database
Branch Information
Region Branch Contacl: Conlactext Branch Requestor
Branch Number 2703 krislln
0000933 85 Marla mclalllin
orlonlWLO/CFICCI
SP Information
BP Source Code BPName
09894 Pacific Mortgage
... . Consultanls
Loan InformaUon 1st Lien

1st Lien Loan Program 1st Uen Loan Program· DacumentaUon Type:
LDan Number.
Name: Number.
NonConf ARM L1BOR 511 657 Reduced Doc
81737375
5·2·5 InlereslOnly
LTV CLTV MI
1st Uen Loan Amount: Na15HLUen? 90.00% No
1.374,400.00 Yes 80.00%
Loan Intormallon 2nd Uen 2nd Uen Draw
2nd Uen loan .Program 2nd Uen LDan Amount:
2nd Uen Loan Number 2nd Uen Loan Program Amount:
Number. Name:
HElOC 10yrDraWl15yr 171,800.00 5171800.00
81737383 373
Repay
Propertv InformeUon
Purchase Price Appraisal Value Year Acquired
1.718.000.00 1.718,000.00 2004 ~Celculate l TV/CI,TVI
Property City Property Slate OcaJpancy Type
Property Address Owner OccuDled
320 S. Peck Drive BeverlvHlIIs CA
Property Type
loan Purpose Condo Type
SFR
Purchase
.-
Borrower Informetron
Borrower Co-Borrower
Co-Borrower Income Co-Borrower Employer
_l:>nrm'......Inr:ome Borrower Employer
.1:.~ ,"b'?:l ::> Spellbound Enterprise, Inc•
BorrowerYears on job Co-Bo~SmfEmpfoyeed Co-Borrower Years on Job
BorrowerSenE~oyed
Yes 4
BomawerPosffionTnUe Co-Borrower PoslUonITIIle
PresIdent
If less than 2 ears on the lob
If·less than 2 ears on the lab Self Employed
Employer Self Employed Employer
PosifionTnlle Years on job Posi6onlnUe

'rears 00 lob
Borrower Credit Inrormallon

_u,,_
I I I
218 / 545
Monthly Obligation Ratios Reserves

PITI 64.843.00
9509.91 956.00 2.85%
3.14%
:9aicR!lti~
Credit Score· Borrower Credit Score - CO-Borrower
723
GOod Loan
credit COmments: Borrower's Rallo's Should be 28.85/31.40, Good Reserves.
Guideline Exception
OTHER (add comments below)
Comments for Other: SUDer Jumbo
Compensating Factors
Excellent Credit, Excellent Job Stablrrty, Excellent Reserves. HIgh F1cos
Requestor COmments
US/Secondary Comments
Standard Condilions
All the Information contained In thIs request Is accurate

The loan meets all other program guldellnes and requirements
The appraIsal supports the value and marketablfily of the SUbJect. are within a reasonable distance from the SUbJect.
The appraisal comps are: 1) similar In size and design 2) recent sales and 3)
If all conditions above are not met lhls exception Is null and voidl ID be In file plior ID closing
Non delegated Milo be obtained by the branch and a copy of the certJficate
If loan Is Treasury Bank eligible. please remove from the Bank's pipeline.
Additional Condillons
Requestor COmments (old):
.
j
-96-
219 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITK
28
-97-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan A{lplications and Fraudulent Representations

220 / 545
1st Lien Amount: 1,374.400.00
• 2nd Loan Amount: 171,800.00
•
Appraisal Value: 1,718,000.00 Property Type: SFR Doc Type: Reduced Doc
Document 40-2
LTV: 80.00% CLTV: 90.00% . MI: No
*.~* •••,",••••,.,•••••• ,.*••• *.*.*,•••,••*.,.*,.,*'*.'*"""'*'*"'*"*""""""**""""""*'*""a***a,*****•••*
.
Exception Request DetaUs:
Filed 04/17/2008
: 80/90 to 1.5M using Core Jumbo with .750% add \9dee for Reduced Doc
Kristin Orton,10/25/2004 3:08:49 PM·>Borrower's'~6bme Should Be $33,333 Not $333,333
Mlcnelle petti, 1UJ2612UU4 3~U3:'4 PM~~elVea IOanlll£:ftO"aay
Demetrio Gadi, 10129/200410:29:57 AM·>File is approved with no exc;:eptlons under the Enhanced 80/90
program•
•••••,••••" ••••••••••••••*.'•••••a••••••••".•••••" ••••".,••",••••••••••••••,.*.*•••*.",.,•••".**•••",*",." ••••••
Page 50 of 50
'*
Conditions:
221 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITL
28
-99-

222 / 545
WebTrak Order Entry -
WEBTRAK ORDER ENTRY

··
t.
, .- Page 1 of 1
Thank you for your order. The case has been assigned a tracking code of41004810.
ICategory II Data I
IOrder Number 1141004810 I
IJob Type II Field 2000 I
Loan Number 18 1737375
I
INlvle Samaan
f.§.M_ \320 S. Peck Drive
I
I
IProperty City II Beverly HHls I
IProp~r:ty State IleA I
CLIENT ALERT:
Ifthe'or~er confirmed on this page was a REVIEW PRODUCT, please send the appraisal to
be reviewed to:
[1} E-mail PDF copies to: Review Order Desk.
00 . ./
[2J Print this page and use as a cover sheet to fax the appraisal to LSI @.800-668-8585.
The review process will be initiated following receipt of your appraisal report.
Please be sure to note the order number carefully on your loan file. If you wish to make
changes to the information just entered or need to cancel the order, please contact one of our
customer service representatives at your nearest office.
To enter additional orders, please press the Order Entry button on the left menu ~ar.
ReportAES·1006W
CDpyrlght@1999Appralsal Enhancement Services
-100-
http://www ousleyinc.comIWebTraklclient_module/securedJ'ages/order_entry2.asp
1 10/2512004
223 / 545
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXH IBIT M
28
-101-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent

Repre
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide sentations
224 / 545
e:ro-:.r.' KlCME'" JAMES O'llE'ILl>Y' DII'l'. PACltIc:

MOR'tGM& CWSOLIAN,TS
llranch I, 0000933 "aka<"""""'" .:.V.::IC::.T::.:O",R.:.'0,-,2",1<RK::c,::c',:::5-.:.' _
7~0 I.!NOJ\.ll.O S = l sn; un

SAN RllFIlEL, eA lt4901 -_
Phone: (415)257-2101
F*X: BltIIcw Fa·.r.
If you !l&Vt qUHllons aboulltll. ~, p1_ corrttet' us at tho< phone number 'Jli>¢'i'h
Xil)a.., n _ r 61737375 lias be"n ",,":levEl<! a" tho. fOllovinq t!lrntS f<ir NXVUo SA_I<:
~TYI>V: OI'l!fD:fl;OCCUPIIlO
~nTl't"I: ItSb'tl'Ci;O
finan.. Typo: 1'ClRCliAS£ R~k_: NIll;'
Proj)lta1y_lZO S Pl<CK OR C<>dISoo.,,, 723
Il!i'VBRXiY f1l:LLS, Ch
90212-3115 LO<.:k E:o-::pirat'ion"
::Ja:e:,
f'raI>ollt Typo: Sf'll
u.nP~: F),x:rt
1l-.-.aI
11.314.4,00.00 .
I~~
,~O. 500
""rnJoodvor""
0.00
_Aol.o
5.500
-p-
I. ?-ta.. aao. 00
DIooIi'llo·
0....0:00
~lradex """vIn : Pfopa.;....!.F\onOlty?
i~,I.H! 2.250 "$0., I(o;..ot'.~.
This lo-an has been SUSOCN.OEO urtt;;i.l tiM fallovin.g' ino£ortnation iI', :pl".ov,id4!d-~ {fe, "'11"•. &'e~e,iV"e.:
this infocmat.ion· by 10/2S1200-4 t If ""eo do. not. rece.i:v:-c i-t by th-at.: date';:· "'e- lIl\l,s:t ClOff.' tne:e- f:!le
.Ear inocu.pletenes3. Whetl wee recoe-ive. th~ ini£om:a:,t-i:oo r · we ...:ill, review ('he· (i.I.e' 50:t::" f,urth-e:--x:
determL'1ar.ion ..
1 corp- appro",,,-l req:d' for ~h.1:s; enh6rtI;M~ program vI . ')S~~dde<l to

t:~4 . Aliy cortcUt,1on" .p:-.ov;i:ue a C1aripJ.~ttt copy padlage a,l<mq with
"U CQhdJ....iol\:!I . .in ·~r,1pllc.t:..
2 ttZ·Jt:1n:'l>C'O .b-e' c01':r.ec-t..~tO- .how- .l9.\· -.do "to ['It'e' tOl: ~hl" ..nh..net!d
.xc~p.t1.on .pt'oQ'%aJlt-
PrOv.1cwcorupl.:I:.C: .•Kecu-zCdpu~ch4:i.,co-n~rllat.. fucrov .1,utt.tuet'-1on:a

vitlflot;·· .u:i;.· .... au,.l,~$.tvtt:oi:: ,
I
API'!lU$A!>"AC'"..r.PrAJlLl< !'±tL!> !tt.VrB1I' (TO !'.llP!'<l"J ' 1 .

$1#118~I1{)O: prOl1r-AJlt q\li1c!.U1J).•. 4.1:.. coct'td btV'r.. >"'i11 Q,tilc.:r ~ftex
ec.r~.6pp:rovJil (Ozdo~ad ~Q/~S:la'4j
s cdn~'!lVSIc;NED 1011:f IAr L<lC~-I1'I-Rll£1

.hOil,t~ otbusiMSS
{p",qe' 1 of :t 1.t1:6.f2004~O.44,511
"~OCCI6tQN/CoNomO'H.ETI1OR.
\'o\Il.
~I-
IIII
-o::nt.l·
-102-
225 / 545
LJ2UGX& At
(TIJ()OC~ 26 2DC, lG:~4/ST. :C:53/11O. 5334870666 P
Loon., 61737315 8otrc..... Nanw: :.:SAMAAN=='-',c....:":.:I::V:.:!:.:£=-- _
W. ",1.11. be oble 1::0 tund your loGAYl when tM following =ond1.tioCl~ are Net. (~he.e 1ulnS wtll aho appea[
on your clodnl) 1n3eruc:;ion,):
------------ .... ------------------------ .._-_ ... _------------_ ... _----------------- ... _-----
6 IMIN
APPRAISIl,!,.-ACC£Fi"l\SLE CKL/NI:W APPtU.Is.P.J, VAL-~_)
i.f not: fundod by 12/2 provide a d.rltteby e.K:: a" 0 r.o:ert
7 MPIU.ISAl.-~PAAI$r::1t To P'~O"""IDE CURR£NT LJC£fH~t

PrQI'VLd~ iiL:to an ..dd1I;Jon..l ut. of colot" p~o:;o,
Q 9MKER C£R'1":rFICATI0N TK!.'!' 1\1L copn;s Al\t Ti\CE P.1«) CQilR.£CT
9 E.&1O::- - copy OF ,.1MI' HOR:fGACE HOT!:

Concurrent: cloa8 with 2nd: At. $1'11800 " pro7ido f'lote
10 XlICCME-cOHI'I£reISIGIIED rOlll< <506 1 93-01
11, COllect 5400 appraiS'lll !1e-ld nviev ftt Ern.... br\lt 1.n •• C'xo,,",
Thank you for eubrRittlnq your loan to CouDt.:ryw1de-, I'JQerica's "holesale Len4ex I Ht slne..xc:ly 6pp,,"aeiat..
your bu:li.ae~n'.
DIAm: FRAZI£~ lO/H/200<
Date
DVI'I"RV!'/RSli Date
thft tol.lowlnq' eondir.ione have- b~tn ••ti:tC1.ed and an ,hown here. for reterenclt only;
Concl1tlon DeSc./CoauMnt.c
BO&R.OWliP. WRr!r~N ~I..AN""TION REGARDING _

Aec.pt.abl+ .xplllln4t.lon wny 01.. . 1n••• J.n 4lL reve-rse l ' on 1221 SO
AJ.treCl, ~.A.
V.rify $3011;. on 4"P03l1.C till e"croM' wi sourc. wr1tled
Provide OJ' b",~in.s:t lieens.. or: crA letter ~r!fY1n9 C.:U.ecl last. 2
yr: 1D40·. o.~ :sell cllployed .an& location
1iI" bk 3t..~ 1681-C0ge)80 for 7112 thr. DIll ot $10Bk
Accept-Able VCR cov~r.1n4 pre-,ent ruidan .... seq' Q for 2nd
(PB90 2 of 2 10/26/2001 10: 00: 52)

• utJDeJMAmNG DECI8/OtlIOONDf11ON LEmA • WID
2£2Il'·u&(OOIOI1
-103-
226 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
EXHIBITN
27
28
-104-

227 / 545
10/29/2004 10:46 AM
•
Demetrio. GadilWLD/CF/CCI To Kristin OrtonlWlD/CF/CCI@Counbywide
co Maria McLaurlnlWholesale/CF/CCI@COUNTRYWIDE
•
bee
SUbject Exception Certificate - Result: Final ApprovaVlSamaan I
JUMBO·
PRINT THIS DOCUMENT FOR THE LOAN FILE
EXCEPTION REQUEST RESULT: FINAL APPROVAL
Reason for Decline:
Terms of Counteroffer:
." •••• ' •• '1 "" " , a•• tU.U •• " , •••••• " "' " ••
Priclng Information: /
1st Mtg Risk-Based Add-on: 0.750
Applies To: Fee
2nd Mtg Risk-Based Add-on:
Applies To:
: The 'Risk-based add-ons' posted above, do not cantaln adjusl!nents for: low loan amount, escrow
waiver, non-e-Approve, 45·day and greater refinance, LTV>60 and Fico<620 (Conf only), or TAMI
Incentive. Before quoting price, where warranted, add the appropriate adjustments for these
characteristics to Wholesale Pricing Desk 'Risk-based add-ons' above.
Pricing Comments: Demetrio Gadi,10/29/2004 10:20:37 AM->Based on the current loan characteristics
noted on this form, standard add-ons must be applied as disclosed In ~ge pIus the base price must be
adjusted by 0.75 pts for Enhanced 80/90 reduced doc.
.• uu.~ "'••• a u*., U.U*.U.l.* UU" d&U&U U&***U • ........ AU •• U " ' . . lU" "
Borrower NE!me: Nivie Samean 1JUMBO· Branch Number. 0000933
Property Address: 320 S. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA
Branch Requestor: kristin ortonIWLD/CF/CCI
DatelTime Requested: 10/2512004 02:59 PM DatelTime Decision: Demetrio

Gadi,1012912004 10:29:01 AM->Flnal Approvel
••"".."., " ,••" ",,*.., , , u., ,,,,,,, u, ,, .
..
Loan Purpose: Purchase Cashoul Amount: Occupancy: Owner Occupied
AI. ..:U as .. II .. 'U. *.1 U i.a "' •• "••• , at. al U , 'a. . ' il iii. Aa'" ai itl , at •• at •• it •••• 'al .
.. -105-
228 / 545
1st Lien Amount: 1,374,400.00

• 2nd Loan Amount: 171,800.00
Appraisal Value: 1,718,000.00 Property Type: SFR Doc Type: Reduced Doc
LTV:8Q.OO% CLTV: 90.00%· MI:No

at '.,_., it •• , •• , A.'"'''' tt:&" tit' it ',' iii: .. ill U i''''Ie'' L it "'i& Ii A•• ' *
" I." U .. iii ' it 'Ii" * .. Ai U"" 'i"':II, it * .
Exception Request Details:
: 80190 to 1.5M using Core Jumbo with .750% add to fee for Reduced Doc
Krislln Orton,10/2512004 3:08:49 PM->Borrower's Income Should Be $33,333 Not $333,333
Miohelle Petti,10/26/2004 3:03:14 PM·>Recelved loan file today
Demetrio Gadi,10/29/2004 10:29:57 AM·>File is approved with no ex<;eptions under the Enhanced 80190
program.
al _.'''.Ie ,."••••• 11 .. "'" "",.,.a.' , "' •••• au , •••, Ul ••••••••• ". as ai ,.. ,.a" It,•• AU *,:to . , . , "•• , ••
Conditions:
/ ' PRIOR TO DOCUMENTS (PTD) CONDITIONS I BRANCH TO REVIEW & SIGN OFF
, / -Field review by CHL approved review appraiser to be ordered by branch supporting va(u~ of no less than
$1,718,000
Satisfy all branch underwriting conditions & all CLUES conditions
CLUES to be accurate at close based on final EPS
Quality Verification and Documentation Checklist completed and executed by underwriter
/}JtuJ- -Letter from co-owner ofWells Fargo account # 6814098380 stating relationship to borrower and that
borrower has unrestricted access to all funds
;f/t,tJ--~- Appraiser with AG or AR designation to co-sign appraisal & mark box indicating "Did Inspeot Property"
~Calrlfy REO on credit report - 5353 San Vicente Blvd
PRIOR TO FUNDING (PTF) CONDITIONS 1BRANCH TO REVIEW & SIGN OFF

../........-aorrowers to sign/date 4506--T
......~opy of first mortgage note for 2nd td file
",<..-fst & 2nd td's to close conourrent
NOTE: clear to close
: Reduced doc, purchase, 5/1 L1bor 10, Enhanced 80190, 1st td $1,374,400 & heloc $171,800; no
exception
GUIDELINE EXCEPTIONS
-106-
229 / 545
IF ALL CONDITIONS ABOVE ARE NOT MET THIS EXCEPTION IS NULL AND VOIOI
THIS IS AN EXCEPTION DECISION ONLY AND NOT A LOAN APPROVAL.
*This represents the risk-based add·cns for the loan program. All other
add-ons such as CWBC fee. escrow waiver fee, elc. will still apply, as
applicable.
Branch Enby Screen ->~
-107-
230 / 545
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 0
28
-108-
Notice of Samaan 's Fraudulent Loan AJ;lplications and Fraudulent Representations

231 / 545
&r ica 'S Who lesa J.e Len der •

Sulm issio n App rova l
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
Bmkcr. HIClIJ\El. JAMES O' REILLY
DBA PACIFIC
MORTGAGE CONSOI.TANTS
Bran ch '1
0000 933
750 LINDARO STR2ET STE 110 Broiler Contact: VICTOR PARKS
SAN RAFAEL, CA 9490 1
Sn>lIerPhol18:
~~~nel (415 )257 -270 1
If you have questions about this leiter
BrolIerFa. .: &$) &r-Y.?!f
, please coniaci us at t::;:b~e..jp~h2o~n~eLJnumber=t:=
Loan numb er 8173 7375 bas been revie wsd at ::::::ab'::'0-:-v-e-.--T,m.!r~;:
:I~~~=~'r'_-:a;:;-~-:O::;
the foUo wing tem s for IUVI
E SNfJoAN(tj~~$?"" 79'" f>
lDan P"'IP"'"' M: 5/1 Lnm
llRM :ISlte xestO nly OccoJpanll)'Typo: OWNER OCllUPIEO
Ananco Typo: E'URCIll\SB DDClIII18IllalIan Type: REDUCED
PlOperty -..: 320 S PECK DR FUskGrada: N/A
BEVERLY Hn.J. S, CA CfodllScote: 723
9021 2-37 15 Lock Exp irati on
Proporty Type: SFR
Date :
LIen Pasltlall: Firs t
LonnAmaunl
Appraised Value Set... Pdco
1,37 4,40 0.00 0.00 LTVICLTV
CWIlfylngRala 1,71 8,00 0.00 110 •.00 1 90.0 0
5tlIIIRale
10.5 00 5.50 0
R&ba18Pb Disc PIs
Ind•• 0.00 0 0.00 0
Margin
2.46 1 Tonn P"'I>8l'f1'8nt Ponel\y7
2.25 0 360
This loan is APPROVED subj No, No. of Mos. 0
ect to the satis fact ory cOM
liste d belo w. It is impo rtant Pleti on of the speci~ic cond
to subm it all prio r ~o docu ition s
to ensu re time ly issua nce ment cond ition s in a time
of your loan docu ment s. This ly mann er
expi ratio n date indi cate d appr oval is vali d base d on
on your CWBC e-Ap prov e or
appr aisa l docu ment used for 120* days fr~ the olde st credthe
this tran sact ion. Chan ges it or
9l1lp lcyme nt duri ng this peri in the borr ower (s) fina ncia
od may inva lida te this apPJ l stat us or
'oval .
"For nonconf otmi ng A-pa per

prod ucts the appr aisa l is
vali d for 60 days .
Clo.i nq cIo~ nts

w:l.ll Ile made avail able "hen
the follo winq cond ition s are
...tc.:
COnd ition Cond ition Desc/COllm
ents
---~------
----------
FXELI> I\SV:IEW (TO SUl:'POIlr $--
1 Pl\A:ISl\I.-ACCEl'TABLE ----------
$1,71 8,000 prog r.... guid eline -1 -
at cost tc.o IlNr, lord. reel 10/25
/04)
2 J\PPlI AlSlIL -lIIlDE NIlIlH FROll
APP1lJ\ISllL !lEGll1Ul:mG: _
Appr ai.aer s 11eeo lle, appr aiser
co-si qu appx aisal , IllUk I>ox wJ.tb An O,J;" AI\ desi9l1at:.ion murJt
.indi catin g "Did Xnsp ect Prop erty'
3 CO~CTED/s:rGNED 1003 (AT LOClt-:I!'l-RlI1E)
shOW type of busin eDs
Prici ng to be cone oteel to SbOlf

exce ption p:rotp:8lIl .754 adel to fe. fo: this enhan
ced
5 Pl:OV1ele cOlllPlete execu tecl
"ill not act: .es a subs titutpuxch
e
ase cont:z:act, "sc:z:ow 1Jlstx uct:!.
ons
State....nt hOlR . Maxq aret SaIll"
"" stati nq I>oxrower has
ulU:e std.ct ecl. use of joint funds full acel
in lIFB 1681 -40'8 380
7 t.ettc.er of "xpla natio n "hy CX<ld
it repo rt refle cts Bdcl.1:en of
5353
(page 1 of 2 10/29 1200 4 14:0

3150 )
• llNll£JlWRIT1NG llEClStONlCONOmO
N LETTEfI· WlD
l!e281.\lS (1l".JlM)(d)
-109-
I" 239 91"
232 / 545
l.oanill: 81737375
•
Bonllwer's Name:
•
.::SAMMN:.::.::.:::~,:_:N:.:IV!=:.:E:..._ _
San Vicente Blvd, Los Angeles as of 1/04
lie "ill be able to tund your loan when the following' conditions an met (these items will also appear
OD your clos1.n9 instructions):
Condll:ion Condition Desc/CO....ents
APPRAISAL-ACCEPIABLE CllL/NEll APPI\AXSAL (KIN VJ\La$--l

if not funded by 12/2 p=V1de .. ddveby exta. a recen.
9 APPIlAXSAL-IIPPRAISE:R TO PROVIDE: CUIUU:RT LICENSE:

Provide also an add1t.ional set of color photos
10 BRoIlER =IFJ:CAXXON THAT ALL COPIES IUIE 'IRlJE: I\lID C01UlE:CT
11 IlELOC - COPY or FIRST MORTGAGE NOTE

Concurrent close with 2nd at $171800 , provide not."
12 INCQME:-COIlPLE:TE/SJ:GHI:tl FOllll 4506 I 95-01
13 Collect $400 apprahal field review fee frCllll brwr in escrow
14 RF bl: sbJlt '6Bl-409B380 for 7/12 thru B/12 at $lBOk
Thank you for su!:=ittiIlq your loan to Countxywide, lIJllerica' s WhOlesale Lender I lie sincerely appreciate
your busUJes9.
10/29/2004
nde >:iter Dat.e
dl:---dt
'Branch Manager
- ;k
~"-::_--
.
-flMM-------
Date
DVPIRVP IIlSIl Date
The following conc:l1tions have been satisfied and ate shown here for raference only:
Cond1tion DRSc/C_nu
.;. BORROlIIER lIRJ:TTEN EXPLANATION RE:Gl\RD%llG _

Acceptable e"pl"""t10n why business in 411 ;Mve:tse is on 1227 So
Alfred, L.A.
Corp approval req'd for this enhanced p%ogram vI .75% added to

fe.. , any conditi""". p:tovide a c""'l'lete copy package alon9 with
all conditions iII t:tiplicate
Ve:tify S30k on deposit vI "8""OW wI source verified
Provide 03' bua1nen 11cono.. 0% CPA letter verlfyio9 filed last 2

yr. 1040's as self eDlPloyed same location
Aoceptable vca c""edog' present %Csldence, x..q'd fox 2nd
-110-
(fage 2 of 2 10/29/2004 14:03:51)
• UNDiIl'M'IITlNG DEC1SIONICONDl11ON l.ETTER. Wl.D
2E2llt-IJS (0!lID4)
233 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITP
28
-111-

234 / 545
• •
Urgent D~livery!
LSI File #: 41004810
Cover Sheet - Resllits Attached

rllv'!ice (Bi-monthly invoice summary mayfollow per clientprofile)
Addressee/Addressor
To:
Contact: IKristin Orton ClieJlt#: 19501
Conrpally: !Countrywide - Wholesale
1750 Undaro St., Sulle 110
ISan Rafael. CA 94901
Pllonc#: 1(415) 257-2716 I Ext:
Fax#: 1(415) 259.0864 --.:===--,
I r-I
From:
Compally:
Pllone It:
!LSI, Coraopolis
1~(8::::0~0)=:6::::fiT==-2~4~0~0 =, .....J
Fax#: 1(800) 668-8585
Date: 1111031200412:25 PMI

# o/Pages Sell I: 0
TfYDU I,ave DnJ' prDblOll!l wld,ll,. nDdpl oltllisIta, pl=e CDII/Dd Ih. DP~lItlonsdcportnl'"1 tJlllI. number
lIoID4 do... FDr 1111 othu quc:s/IDns, pl'DJ' lUk 10 speDk 100 CustOIIlD/' ReJDlJonJ ADDDunl Monogu.
File Identification
Borrower: INivie Samaan Job Type: IFleld 2000
Loan Number: 181737376
Property Addr~: ;;1~32;0~S~.;p=e~c;:k=D;n~'v=e===~=-=-=-=-=-=~=I.:IB=eve=r1Y=Hi='I=ls~---,11@ 1902121

Replew Valtte: IPlease see attached documents. I
Total Fee: I $255.00·1 Amounl Paid: I $0.00 I Balance Due: I $255.00 I
A.dditional Comments
-112-
Eastern ReglonDIOJliw
700 Cbcrrington Parln<Iy· ConIopolls, PA 1510&
ToR Frtc: 1·IOII-<rS1·2400 • FII: .-800.66I.asas
235 / 545
•
• Complete Appraisal, SummlllY Appraisal Report
One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review Report

• 81131315
FOe No. 41004810
The PUlllose of this eppralsal review Is to ve~fv the eccura~ of the fectual data and conclusions and to determlne·the
reasonableness of the value opinIon contlllne<fin the apprel5aJ report under review. When thl! value Is determined to be
unrBBsoneble, the review appraiser Is required to develop and report his or her O\Nl1 oPlnlon Of value. The Intended use 01 this
report Is for qual\ly assurance for the lenilerlcllent end mey be used as part 01 a slate licensing Of regulalDry board ralerrel.
Proo Addtess32l1 S. Peck Drive C Beverl Hias SlaleCA Code 90212
aI 0 lion Traol7710 ...,1 2S2 los Anoeles
Assessor's Parcel No. 4328-024-023 Mao Reference 632·F3 Census 1: 1010.00
Borrower Samaan . Cum!nt OwnerZtmiok
Pro .his raised X Fee 81m Ie leasehold eel l' e Cantlo PUD B'allve
loan No. 81731375 ElIedive Dale of 0 InaIADoraisa110J2I2004 ManufaduredHouslno YES)( NO
SCOPE OF WORK: In order 10 make a delennlnallon as to the reasonableness or Ihe o~nlon 01 value, the review ~raIser
~~~'f~~il::,u~p~~el=~~~o~~~~:.::e~:1s~~":J~":;,~c;,=.J~~~::'~ul'e"=~cta~I=~~~~~ all
i:rr~~~~~la~~p':a~~~lst~~a~'~':,~~PI~r:::~ r:~~~'19 ~~r~~ry':"urus. and assumed the property cOndUon reported
II the revlew appraiser determInes the opinion of value Is unreasoneble, he or ehe is r!'<lulled 10 provide an opinion 01 value. The
review appraiser Is not required to replicate Ihe ste~ ~Ieled by the original appraiser. Those lIems In the original ap~ralsal
[jrlW~n:,h~I~~~~d~~ ~gl:s~T~ bellaves 10 be~~i~:"(~Sp~)~§II~~~:d~hde~~~I~~~~~eb:'t'If.,":.~~1.l';~~~g;d\~ry
assumplion which is identined fin Queslion 2. II Ihe review appraiser delermlneslhe opinion of value Is
unreasonabj e, he or she must p aI dala thel h"" been researched and anelyzed to produce a credible opinion of
valua In accordance with the ep n of Standard , ollha USPAP.
Section I • Complete for all assignments
1. Provide a saleJlransfer and IIsUng hislory lor !he SIIbject property lor 8 minimum of three years prior to the ef(EClive dale of the
orilinal annralsal/lf the Inrormetlon Is available to . er in the llOlTnal course o'-huslness Irom I M1i:>h1A ""ureel.
8alelRecordino Dale &lIes Price UsVAskino Price Grantor/Grantee OaleSoUtCe
No RBllorted Transfer with Ihe
..t38 months. 081 oubllc records.
Analvze saleltransfer hisiorv lor the Bubiecl oroDerIv and """,rt IIs1mDact. ifanv. on the value oDlnlon in the BonralsaJ reoort under review:
IRW, lhe eppr;saJ report conlain the appropriale p~or sale(s) and/or prior nsUng(s) 01 lhe subject property and comparable sales?
X YES NQ.exoIain. ND reDorted transfer ,oAthln the last 36 monlhs. MLS#04-086856Ind1ca1es sublectls listed fer 61 695 000
and was exoosed to lhe marital for 52 d."". Sales actrement was nel Drovlded lor review.
2. Is the dala In the aDDralssl reDcrt ledual and 2CCUlBfe7. X YES-oravide a b,lelsummRlV. NQ.exoIaln "nd comDlele Seellon II.
Ovetall dala orovided within Ihe """,11 "nnears reasonable y,;th nr/v minor data lfrscreoancies bile records and MLS
verification of data.
X YE5-Drovide e brief oumm:vv_

M
3. ~~ final oplnlon 01 markel vakJe the subjecl properly reasonable as of the effective dale of the appralsal t.rlder _1e#II
NO-e>1llaln and comm"e Sodlnn_ II .nr1 lit Fin.t ....timBle Is within slandard revle\v ouidelines
fo' value vertanee and is Iherelore ouoocrled.
. • . ..
~ . . ..
1. Is the enalvsis 01 the neiohbomODd comnlele and accuale7
~ ... ~
VES-orovlde e brief summaN. . ND-e>Illeln.
2. ~e enalysls of the slle, InclUdingriY apparer4 edV6'S8 olle condillons and the highBlt and besl use, c:amplele and aa:urale7
YES-nRll'ide a brte/ summaN. NQ.ecolain.
3. Ara1heZlJnln,,,:lassificallon descriDtion. and ccmDli2nc:e eauale? YES-DlDvide 8 bile! summarY. NQ.elQllain.
4. Is the data In Ihe Imnrovsnen19 oecUon comnlete and aOClJ'llle? YES-DlOOIlde a brtelstmmsN. NO-exnlaln.
-_Ll -
236 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITQ
28
-114-

237 / 545
.~
.L.ica' s Wholesa l.e Lender

Subm.is sion Approv al
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,INC.
KICBlIBL .J2\M6S 0' REILLY ORA PACIFIC
MORTGAGE CONSULTANTS
Branch t: 0000933 BroIcerConfBct VICTOR PARKS
750 LINDARO STREET STE 110
SlIN RA!"AEL, CA 94901 BIoker Phone:
Phone: (415)257 -2701
Fax: BrokGrFax#:
If yoU have questions about this letter,
please contact us at the
Loan number 81737375 has been reviewed -at the followin gpbone nUlllber above.
terms ~or NIVIE SAMAAN:
Loan Prograllt He Sil LIBR ABM Xute>:estOnl.y OcoIJpancy Type: OWN;;R OCCll!?IED
Doeumental!on Type: REDUCED
FInance Type: POIICRASE
ProperlY Addrll$ll,32 0 S PECK DR
RIsk Grade: N/A
CrodltS""",: 723
BEVERLr HILLS, CA
90212-31 15 Look Expirati on
ProperlY Type: SFR Date:
Usn PosllIan: First
lollllAmount AppraIsed Value Sal... Prl<:e

1,374,40 0.00 LTVICLlV
0.00 1,716,00 0.00 80.00 / 90.00
Qualllylllg Rate 6tarI Rate RllbalePIs Olso Plo
10.500 5.500 0.000 0.000
Indo. Morgin Tenn Pmpaymenl Penalty?
2.461 2.250 360
No, No. of Mos. 0
This loan is APPROVEO oubject to the satisfac tory completi
listed below. It is importan t to submit all prior to doc~enton of the specific conditio ns
to eneure timely issuance of your loan documen ts. Tbis conditio ns in a timely manner
approval is valid based on the
expirati on date indicate d on your cwec a-Approv e or 120·
days from the oldest credit or
appraisa l document used for this transact ion. Cbanges
in the borrowe r(s) financia l status or
employm ent during this period nay invalida te this approval
.
"For non-conf orming A-paper products the eppraisa l is

valid for 60 days.
Clo!)lng documentt : will be tAade available when the

foUowi... . 5J cond1t:ion s are mot:
COndition Condition Oesc/ColIIlIIents
APl'RAJ:Sl\L-ADOElIDUli FROM APPRAJ:SAL tu:GAROING I
Apprai.ez s llcanoe, appraiser witb lIG or llR de.ignati oo DlUst
<:o-.ign eppraisa l ~ mark box indicatin g "!lid In.pe..t Property
'
COM&C7EO/SIGNEO 1003 (liT LOCK-nHIl ITE:)
show type of business
3 Pricing to ba eonected to abow .75' add to fee for this enluulced

exception praqram
Provide c.eaplete execut4Kl purchase contract, esaow 1Ds'tX'Uct

wUl not set as a subst:itut e ions
5 Stat""",n t from HarlJaret S......an stl>ting borrower bes full and

unrestric ted use of joint funds in lIFB t681-4098380
Letter of explanati on wby credit report refleets address of
San Vicente Blvd, Lo. Angel"" as of 1/04 5353
(Page 1 of 2 11/03/20 04 18:04:53 )

.. UNDeRWRI11I'.'G qectSlONlCONOmON LETta\. WLll
2f2ll1-US (ll9tOl)(dj
•
-115-
' 2S&9 1'
238 / 545
~(f;;)----
• BcrroWlll'. Nam.:, -=SJlMAAN::=::==,...:;N:,:IVc:..:I:,:E:.- _
110 w11l be able to fund your loan wboo tho following

condition s ""e met (tbeee items will <11so appear
on you!: closing inetl:Ucti onsl :
COnd.l.tion Condition D<tsc/con oonts

7 APPRAISAL-ACCEl'tA!lLE CBL/NEW APFRIUSAL (MIn V1Ilo~~_)
i f not funded by 1212 provide a
driveby <txt as a reeut
APFRAISA ],-APPRAIS ER TO FROITIJ)E C1lRllElIT LICENSE
Prorid!! also an add.1tion al 8et. of color photo:;
9 BROKER CIlRTIFICA TION IlIAl' ALL COPIES ARE :mOE
J\ND CORREC:r
10 IIELOC - COl?Y OF FIRST MORTGAGE NOTE
COncurre nt olose with 2nd at ~171800 & provide note
11 INCOME-cO MPLE'tE/SI GNEll FORM ~506 I 95-01
12 Collect ~400 appraisil l £teld review fee from br..r in e.crow
13 WF bk stitt 1681-4098 380 for 7/12 thru 8/12 at
S180k
'thank you for aul:2m1.t.tinq your loan to Counuyw ide,

Alnerica. 1 s WholesalG Lende.r f tie Giace:ely approcia te
your business.
DXAllE FRAZIER
10/29/200 4
lln~l:iter Date
L!l-tUU- L~
B.ranch Hanaq&%
_ _{t~ k _
Date
DVP/RlIl'/R Sli
Date
The following concl1t1on s ha.ve bean sat.i3fied And are

shown bere for refeJ:enc:e only~
Condition ' Dellc/CDl1mlents

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ,
BORROIIER lIIUTIEll ElU'L1Il~AT :tON REGARDnlG _
AceeptllbJ .. explanati on why bucines. in 411 :tellers" is
on 1227 So
Alfred, I..A.
COrp appzov<11 zaq'd for thi. enhanced pr01Jr.... 'Ill • 'S~

od<led to
fee , any conditJ.o n., pzovide a cODlplete copy package
along with
<111 condition s in triplicat e
vodfy 830k on deposit' ll esczDW wI souzee vedfied
Pzovide 03' business license 0: CPA letter verifying

filed last: 2
yl:B 1040' s .s self eJDP10yed same loCAtion
llFFRAISIIJ.-ACCt:P'%AIlLE FIELD REVIEW (to SIlPPORT

~--J
$1,718,00 0 pl:ogram guideline at cost to brwr, (ol:de.red
10/25/04)
ACc:.6ptable VOR covQl:inq prebent ::e"idstnce , X"eq'd. fox
2nd
-116-
(Page 2 of 2 11/03/20 04 18:04:54 )
• UNOElIWRIl1NG DEClSlONICONomoo IEI'TER. WID
2£:$HlS (OMU)
239 / 545
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITR
28
-117-

240 / 545
Countrywide Bank, a division of Treasury Bank,

N.A.
ATE: 01/27/2005
225 West Hillcrest Drive
PPLICATION #: 81737383 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
YPE OF CREDIT REQUESTED: HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT Phone : (BOOI 731-40B9
E'ax : IB05) 371-6400
ROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
rVIE SAMAAN
227 1/2 S ALFRED STREET

OS ANGELES, CA 90035
NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN
ou recenlly applied 10 Countrywide Home Loons ("Countrywide") 10 assisl you with your rcal eslale financing needs. As pari of your appUCtltion
'Ocess, Countrywide submilled your applicalion 10 us,
ountrywide Bank, a division of Treasury Bank, N.A.
,r considerolion. After carefully reviewing your applicalion, we are sorry 10 advise you Ihat we cannol grant a loan 10 you at Ihis lime. If ynu would
{C a slalemenl of specific reoSons wh}' your oppllcalion was denied, please contacl one of our underwriting specialisls 01
800) 731-4089 within 60 days of Ihe dale of this leller. We will provide you wllb Ihe slatement of rcosons
ifhin 30 days afler receiving your requesl
redilor's Nome: CountrywIde Bank, a division of Treasury Bank,

N.A. '
redUor's Address: 225 W. Hillcrest Dr., MS TO-44

Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
ATTN: UNDERWRmNG OVERSIGHT
we oblained informalion from a consumer reporting agency as part of our considerotion of your application, ils name, address, ond [loll-free]
lephone number is shown below. TI,e reporting agency played no part In our decision and is unable lo'supply specific reasons why we have denied
edil 10 you. You have a rig hi under Ihe Fair Credit Reporting Acl to know lhe Information conlained in your credillile 01 UJe consumer reporting
:ency. You have a tightlo a free copy of your report from Ihe reporting agency, if you requesl it no laler than 60 days after you received Ihls notice.
,addition, if you find lbat any informalion contained in Ihe repon you received is inaccurate or incomplete, you have lbe righllo dispute Ihe maUer
IIh Ihe reporting agency. You can find out aboullhe informalion contained in your file (if one was used) by conlacting:
ame: LAND SAFE CREDIT

ddress: 1515 WALNUT GROVE AVE
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
:011 Freel Telephone Number: (800) 447-1692
,"cercly•
•nding Operations
OTICIl: 'Il,e federal Equal CrCllil OpportunilY Act prohibils credi.ors from discrirr.naling acllins! <redil applicanls on Ihe basis of race, rotor, religion, naliona!
igin, sex, manlalslalus, age (provided 'he appliconl has Ihe capacity 10 cnler inlo a binding eanlOlel); because nil or part of the applicant's income derives from nny
.blie ISSistAnce program; or becauselhe applicant has in good faith excn:iscd any righl under lbe Consumer Credil Prolection AcL The federal Dgency thai Ddministent
"lIpliancc with this law concerning lhis creditor is the
ffice of the Comptroller of the Currency, Customer Assistance Group 1301 McKinney Street,
uite 3450 Houston, Texas 77010-9050
iANNCXJIN
NoUce 01 Adlon Taken· Treasury Bank
;054-US (12103)(d)
III
2 S 9 9 1 •
-'0817S7383000001E054'
-118-
241 / 545
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT S
-119-
Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan AJ;Jplications and Fraud ulent Repres
Regar ding their Unden vritmg by Samaa n & Count rywide entations
242 / 545
310.372.1111 SOUSACDURTREPORleRS 71-4-)71-41111 310-3n.1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71~-S71-U111
Page I
SUPERIOR COURT Of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE DEPOSITION OF NIVIE SAMAAN, TAKEN ON BEHALf Of
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WEST DISTRICT
DEFEND"'.NT AND CROSS-COOPL.a.IN...NT JOSEPH ZERNIK, AT 900 SOUTH
f'IGUEROA STREET, 12TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AT
10:08 A.M., MONDAY, JULY 10, 2006, BEfORE PATRICIA E.
NAKANO, C.S.R. NO. 5624, ~ SHORTHAND REPORTER fOR THE STATE

NIVIE SAHAAN, AN INDIVIDlJ.ll,L,
OF CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO NOTICE.
PLAINTIFF,
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
VS. CASE NO. SC 081400
JOSEPH ZERNIK, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND

10 FOR PLAINTIFF:
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
11 LAW OFFICES OF JAY R. STEIN
10
DEFENOANl'S. 12 BY: JAY R. STEIN, ESQ.
11
13 1801 CENTURY PARK EAST
AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
12 14 SUITE :;!400
13 15 LOS ANGELES, CALIfORNIA 90061-2326

14
16
15
16 DEPOSITION OF NlVIE SAM}l.AN 11
17 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 18 fOR DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT JOSEPH ZERNIK:
18 HONDAY, JULY 10, 2006
19 SULLIVAN, WORKMAN , DEE, LLP
19
20 20 BY: CHARLES D. CUMMINGS, ESQ.
21 REPORTED 8Y: 21 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
PATRICIA £. NAKANO
22 12TH FLOOR
22 C.S.R. NO. 5624
JOB NO. 547246 23 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90011
23
2'
24
25 25
NlVlESAMAAN 7tn'J06 NIVIE SAMAAN 11l0J06
Jl~J72-1l11 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-S1I-0111 JI().]72·11I1 SOUSA COURTREPORttRS 7J.C-S71-OlIl
P~c-l
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: {CaNT. I I N D E X
WITNESS:
NIVIE SAMAAN
FOR CROSS-DEFENDANTS COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
BROKERAGE AND MICHAEL LIBOW: EXAMINATIoN BY: PAGE:
COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY MR. CUMMINGS
6 THE LAW DEPAATMENT
11611 SAN VICENTE BOULEVAAD

EXHIBITS
NINTH FLOOR
10
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049-6510 DEFENDANT I 5 PAGE:
IO (NOT PRESENT) 11
- NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOC1IMENT PRODUCTION 18
11
12 OF NIVIE SAKAAN, SEVEN PAGES
12 ALSO PRESENT:
13 2 - VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, BATES STAMPED 50001 16
13 JAE LLOYD THROUGH 50116, 116 PAGES
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK. (PAGE 9 TO PAGE 511 14
15
3 - PHOTOCOPY OF CHECK NO. 1074, DATED 9124/04, 59
15 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000, ONE PAGE
16
10 - LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, ONE PAGE 91
11 11 5 - LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, ONE PAGE 92
18 16 6 - LETTER, DATED OCTOBER 6, 2004, ONE PAGE 92
19
19 1 - LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2004, ONE PAGE 93
20
20 6 - LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2004, ONE PAGE 94
21 9 - LETTER, DATED OCTOBER 5. 2004, ONE PAGE 91
21 22 10 - FAX COVER ~H""T FROM MICHAEL J. LIBON, 99
22 -1 0- 23
10/15/04, WITH ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, SIX PAGES
23
11 - DOCUMENT, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2004, FROM GAIL 101
24
24 HERSHOWITZ, ONE PAGE
25 25
HlVTE SAMAAN 7/1CW6 NlVlE SAMAAN l/10iU6

243 / 545
l1O-l11-1111 SOOSACOURTREPORTERS 11 ....HI-0111 lIO-l12·II11 SOUSACOIJRTREl'OR"ffiRS nl-Sll-4Hll
LOS ANGELES. CALI FORNIII; MONDIIY, JULY la, 2006 1 EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE INFORMAL PROCEEUINGS, AND
10,08 II.H. 2 THEY'RE IN MY Of'FICE, THE OATH YOU'VE TAKEN JS THE SAME
3 OATH THAT YOU WOULD TAKE I f' YOU WERE IN COURT, AND
NIVIE SPJiAAN, 4 YOU'RE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PENALTIES IF YOU DON'T TELL
THE WITNESS HEREIN, HAVING BEEN FIRST 5 THE TRUTH AS IF YOU WERE IN COURT AND DIDN'T TELL THE
DULY ADMINISTERED THE OATH, WAS EXAMINED 6 TRUTH.
AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 7 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
A. YES.
9 ElU\I'fINI\TlON o. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A QUESTION, I DON'T
10 BY MR. CUMMINGS, 10 WANT YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. I WANT YOU TO TELL ME
II Q. CAN YOU PLEIISE STIITE /\NO SPELL YOUR FULL NI\ME 11 YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, WHY IT IS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
12 FOR THE RECORD. 12 IT. I'LL ATTEMPT TO REPHRASE IT SO THAT YOU DO
13 A. NIVIE SAMAAN, N-I-V-I-E S-A-M-A-A-N. 13 UNDERSTAND IT.
14 Q. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME INSTRUCTIONS NOW 14 1 F MY VOICE DROPS AND YOU DON'T CLEARLY HE.A.R A
15 THAT WE TRY TO FOLLoW IN II DEPOSITION. 15 QUESTION, LET ME KNOW. I 'LL EITHER RESTATE THE QUESTION
16 ONE OF THE MOST IMPORT/\NT THINGS IS THAT ONLY 16 OR ASK THE REPORTER TO READ THE QUESTION' BACK TO YOU.
17 ONE OF US SPEAK liT II TIME; /\NO, THEREFORE, IF liT /\NY 17 IF YOU ANSWER A QUESTION, I'LL ASSUME THAT YOU
18 TIME DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS I STAAT A QUESTION BEFORE 18 HEARD THE QUESTION, YOU UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION, YOU'RE
19 YOU'VE COHPLETED YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE TELL ME, /\ND I' LL 19 ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, NOT SOME OTHER QUESTION.
20 LET YOU COMPLETE YOUR ANSWER. 20 IF, AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS, YOU THINK
21 IT'S IHPORT/\NT THI\T ALL of YOUR ANSWERS BE IN 21 OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD CLARIFY OR MODIFY A PRIOR ANSWER
22 AUDIBLE WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, RATHER THAN NODS 22 YOU'VE GIVEN TO A PRIOR QUESTION. YOU JUST TELL US, AND
23 OR SHAKES OF THE HEI\D OR UTTERANCES SUCH lIS "UH-HUH" OR 23 YOU CAN GO BACK AND MODI fV YOUR ANSWER.
24 "HUH-UH." 'rHE REASON FOR THAT IS SO THAT WE HAVE A 24 1 F YOU WANT TO GET WATER OR COfFEE OR USE THE
25 CLE/IR RECORD. 25 RESTROet-i, JUST TELL US, AND WE'LL TAKE A BREAK.
NlVlE SAMAAN 7110106 N1VIESAMAAN lIJO~
lIO-]12-1111 SOUSACOURTREI'ORTER.S 714-571-0111 310-312·1111 SQUSACOURTREPORTERS 714·511.0111
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PHYSICAL OR MEDICAL THE DEPOSITION NOTICE THAT WE RECEIVED; IS THAT CORRECT?
2 CONDITION THAT YOU HAVE THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM HR. CUMMINGS: THAT IS CORRECT.
3 GIVING YOUR BEST TESTIMONY HERE TODAY? HR. STEIN, OKAY. THANK YOU.
A. NO. BY MR. CUMMINGS:
Q. /IRE YOU CURRENTLY TAKING ANY MEDICATIONS OF ANY Q. ALSO, AFTER THESE PROCEEDINGS lIRE CONCLUDED,
6 i(IND THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO RECALL AND 6 YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW YOUR DEPOSITION,
7 RECOLLECT EVENTS? 7 HAKE ANY CHANGES IN IT AND ANY CORRECTIONS THAT VOU WANT
II. NO. e TO; so TO THE EXTENT YOU DO so, I'LL HAVE THE
Q. WHAT'S YOUR DATE of BIRTH? 9 OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THOSE AT THE TRIAL OR OTHER
10 A. 11/6/66. 10 PRocEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. SO TP.Y TO GIVE YOUR BEST
11 MR. STEIN: COUNSEL, BEFORE WE GO WITH SUBSTANTIVE II TESTIMONY.
12 QUESTIONS, CAN WE PUT ON THE RECORD THE STATUS OF 12 WILL YOU PLEASE LOOK AT THE NOTICE OF
13 MR. LIBOW'S REPRESENTATION OR LACK HEREOF AT THIS 13 DEPOSITION .
14 DEPOSITION? I ' 0 LIKE IT ON THE RECORD THAT THEY CHOSE 14 HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ OVER THAT?
15 NOT TO APPEAR. 15 A. NO.
16 MR. CUMMINGS: SURE. I CALLED A FEW MINUTES AGO BY 16 Q. WOULD YOU TAKE A CHANCE TO READ OVER THAT,
11 TELEPHONE MR: SHULKIN'S OFFICE. I SPOKE TO SOMEBODY, PARTICULARLY IF YOU coULD LOOK AT WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS
1e WHosE NAME I DONIT REMEMBER, BUT WHO IDENTIFIED HERSELF, 18 EXHIBIT II, AND IF YOU COULD TELL HE IF YOU IfAVE BROUGHT
19 A WOMAN, WHO IS ONE OF HIS ASSISTANTS, WHO SAID HE WAS 19 WITH YOU ALL THE DOCUMENTS DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT A, TO
20 NOT IN. I ASKED IF HE WAS COMING TO THE DEPOSITION OF 20 THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
21 MS; SAMAAN TODAY IN THE ZERNIK/SAMAAN MATTF:R, ANn J WJ\.Ci 21 A. I HAVE DOCUMENTS WITH ME. I DON'T KNOW IF
22 INFORMED THAT NOBODY FRCH THEIR OFFICE WAS COMING, AND -1 1- 22 THOSE ARE THE DOCUMENTS OR NOT.
23 THAT'S WHY WE COMMENCED WITH THE DEPOSITION. 23 Q. IlAYBE YOUR coUNSEL CAN.
24 HR. STEIN: AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THEY DID 24 MR.. STEIN: FOR THE RECORD, WE ARE PRODUCING
25 RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE DEPOSITION IN ADVANCE PURSUANT TO 25 DOCUMENTS NOS. S001 THROUGH 50116, WHICH ARE RESPONSIVE
244 / 545
NTVIE5AMAAN 7110106 NlvtESAMAAN 7/1QA)6
,------------------ Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 50
110-372·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 7,,,,,511..u111 ltG-H2·1111 SOUMCOURTREPORTERS 71..1·571..(1111
P,&cIO
1 TO THESE: REQUESTS. IN AUIHTION, THE Pl.AINTIFF HAS Q. ARE YOU CURRENTLY MARRIED'?
2 ALREADY PRODUCED CoPI ES OF THE FI LE5 or COLDWELL BANKER A. YES.
3 AND MARA ESCROW, WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THIS Q. WHAT'S THE DATE OF YOUR MARRIAGE?
PRODUCTION. If YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN 1W<E THIS AN A. SEPTEMBER 19, 2004.
5 EXHIBIT NUMBER. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S UP TO YOU, AS YOU Q. WHERE WERE YOU MARRIED?
6 SO PLEASE. A. HAWAII.
HR. CUMMINGS: THEY' HE 8ATES STAMPED. THAT'S FINE. Q. WHAT'S THE NAME or YOUR SPOUSE?
(HR. ZERNIK ENTERS THE DEPOSITION A. JAE R. LLOYD.
9 ROOM. I Q. WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY RESIDE?
10 BY HR. CUMMINGS: 10 A. 133 SOUTH PECK DRIVE, NO. 104, BEVERLY HILLS,
11 O. MS. s.~, I'LL .1\51< YOU TO SIMPLY LOOK .'\T THIS 11 90212.
12 STACK OF DOCUMENTS THAT YOUR COUNSEL'S PRODUCED. 12 Q. DO YOU OWN THAT PROPERTY,?
13 HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS YOU BROUGHT 13 A. NO.
14 WITH YOU HERE TODAY? 14 Q. DO YOU RENT THAT PROPEP.TY?
15 A. YES. 15 A. YES.
16 O. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, OTHER THAN THE DOCUNENTS 16 Q. WHEN DID YOU MOVE INTO THAT PROPERTY?
17 YOU'VE RECEIVED OR YOUR ATTORNEY'S RECEIVED IN THIS J7 II. ARE YOU ASKING WHEN I MOVED INTO THE PROPERTY?
18 ACTION FRON MARA ESCROW COMPANY AND FROM COLDWELL 18 Q. YES.
19 BANKER, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT RELATE 19 A. SEPTEMBER OF 2004.
20 TO THIS LAWSUIT, OTHER THAN C~UNICATIONS WITH YOUR 20 Q. DID YOUR HUSBAND RENT THE PROPERTY BEFORE YOU
21 ATTORNEY? 21 MOVED IN?
22 A. NO. 22 A. YES.
23 O. NOW, HAVE YOU EVER BEING KNOWN BY ANY OTHER 23 Q. IS THAT ADDRESS ON PECK THE LOCATION WHERE YOU
24 NAME'? 24 ANU YOUR HUSBAND HAVE RESIDED SINCE YOU WERE MARRIED'?
25 A. NO. 25 A. YES,
NIVTE SAMAAN 7/10/06 NIVIE SAMAAN 71l0,w
310-312·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714.511-0111 310-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714.571-0111
PUle II
Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY? O. WHAT YEAR 010 YOU ATTEND THERE OR OBTAIN THAT'?
2 A. NO. A. I BELIEVE IT WAS '88 TO • 90.
3 Q. WHERE WERE YOU BORN? Q. DID YOU TAKE ANY OTHER FORMAL EDUCATION AFTER
4 A. CAIRO, EGYPT. THAT?
5 Q. WHEN DID YOU COME TO THE UNITED STATES? A. I OBTAINED MY REAL ESTATE LICENSE.
6 A. 1969. Q. WHEN DID YOU 00 THAT?
Q. DID YOU GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL? A. IN MARCH Of 2003,
8 A. YES. Q. WHAT COURSE OF STUDY DID YOU TAJ<E TO OBTAIN
9 Q. WHAT YEAR? 9 YOUR RE:AL ESTATE LICENSE?
10 A. 1985. 10 A. I WENT THROUGH II RE.~L ESTATE COURSE THROUGH
11 Q. WHAT HIGH SCHOOL? 11 CENTURY 21,
12 A. BYER HIGH SCHOOL IN MODESTO, CALIFORNIA. 12 Q. HOW LONG DID YOU TAKE THOSE COURSES'?
13 Q. HOW DO YOU SPELL THAT? 13 A. SIX MONTHS.
14 A. B-Y-E-R. 14 O. DID YOU PASS THE TEST THE FIRST TIME YOU TOOK
IS Q. DID YOU ATTEND COLLEGE? 15 IT'?
16 A. YES. 16 A. YES.
17 Q. WHAT'S THE FIRST COLLEGE YOU ATTENDED? 17 O. HAD YOU EVER WORKED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS
18 A. NATIONAL EDUCATION CENTER. IT'S A TRADE 18 BEFORE YOU PASSED YOUR TEST FOR A REAL ESTATE AGENT'S
19 SCHOOL. 19 LICENSE?
20 Q. WHERE IS THAT? 20 A. NO.
21 A. CITY OF COMMERCE. 21 Q. DESCRIBE YOUR HORK EXPERIENCE IN II
22 Q. WHAT COURSE OF STUDY CAN YOU TAKE THERE? -1 2- 22 CHRONOL<X,;ICAL ORDER AFTER YOU GRADUATED FROM YOUR
23 A. GENERAL, BUSINESS. 23 BUSINESS SCHOOL UNTIL YOU OBTAINED YOUR REAL ESTATE
24 Q. DID YOU OBTAIN ANY CERTIFICATE? 24 LICENSE,
25 A. AN A.A. DEGREE IN BUSINESS. 25 A. I WORKED IN AN INVESTMENT BANKING COMPANY AS AN
NIVTE SAMAAN 7/10r06 NlVlE SAMAAN 7/1006

245 / 545
r----
- -..- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 50
]10-372·1111 SOUSACOURTREPORrnRS 7/-t-57HlIJI 310-372-1111 SOUSACOURTRFPORTERS 11-.1·571-0111
Pagel] Page 14
ASSISTANT 1'0 THE PRESIUENT. I WORKED IN THREE VOCTORS' GRIFFIN?
OFFICES; ONE AS AN OFFICE MANAGER; ONE AS A BUILDING A. I DON'T RECALL. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT HY
MANAGER; AND THE OTHER AS A RECEPTIONIST, VARIOUS OFFICE NaTEs.
WORK, AND THEN I GOT INTO RETAIL AND COSMETICS. Q. CAN YOU GIVE ME YOUR BEST ESTIMATE?
Q. OKAY. AFTER YOU OBTAINED YOUR REAL ESTATE A. EITHER APRIL DR MAY OF 2004 -- 2003.
LICENSE, HAS YOUR LICENSE BEEN PLACED WITH ANY BROKER? Q. BETWEEN THE TIME TlL~T YOU FIRST WENT TO
A. YES. GILLERAN GRIFFIN AND BEFORE YOU EVER DID ANYTHING
8 Q. HAS IT BEEN PLACED WITH MORE THAN ONE BROKER? REGARDING PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS LAWSUIT, WERE YOU AN
9 A. NO. 9 AGENT ON ANY TRANSACTIONS THAT CLOSED?
10 O. WHAT BROKER HAS IT BEEN PLACED WITH? 10 A. NO.
11 A. GILLERAN GRIFFIN REALTORS. 11 Q. DID YOU WORK ON ANY TRANSACTIONS?
12 Q. WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED? 12 A. NO.
13 A. WESTWOOD. 13 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO DURING THAT TIME AS AN AGENT?
14 Q. WHAT'S THE ADDRESS? 14 A. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.
15 A. 1575 WESTWOOD BOULEVARD, SUITE 300, LOS lillGELES 15 Q. DID YOU CONTINUE TO WORK IN OTHER EMPLOYMENT?
16 90024. 16 A. YES.
17 Q. WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE RESPONSIBLE BROKER IN 17 Q. WHAT OTHER EMPLOYMENT?
18 THE OFFICE? 18 A. BARNEY'S NEW YORK.
19 A. THERE ARE TWO: THE OWNER IS T. J. GILLER.1\N i THE 19 Q. WHAT IS TIiAT?
20 MANAGER OF THE OFFICE, WHICH IS ALSO .~ BROKER, IS RANDY 20 A. A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT.
21 SPAULDING. 21 Q. WHERE IS IT LOCATED?
22 O. IS T. J. GILLERAN A MAN OR A WOMAN? 22 A. 9575 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, BEVERLY HILLS, 90212.
23 A. A MAN. 23 Q. WHAT KIND OF RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT IS IT?
24 Q. A.FTER YOU GOT YOUR REAL ESTATE LICENSE -- 24 A. IT' S A DEPARTMENT STORE.
25 EXCUSE ME -- WHEN WAS IT FIRST PLACED WITH GILLER.:W 25 Q. AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION THERE?
NIVIESAMAAN 7/10106 NlViE SAMAAN 7/101116
/------------------------------1-------------------------------------1
])0-312·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 310-372·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111
Pi/ge IS
1 A. I WAS IN COSMETICS AS A SALESPERSON. 1 BUYER AND THE SELLER?
2 Q. ARE YOU STILL THERE? 2 A. YES.
3 ". NO. 3 Q.!\ND DID YOU LEARN THlIT !\NY CHANGES TO THE
4 Q. WHEN DID YOU CEASE THAT EMPLOYMENT? 4 CONTRACT HlIVE TO BE IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE BUYER !\NO
5 ". AUGUST OF 2004. 5 THE SELLER?
6 Q.!\ND WHEN DID YOU COMMENCE YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH 6 A. YES.
7 BARNEY'S? 7 Q.!\ND DI D YOU LEARN THAT I F YOU WERE GOING TO BE
8 A. WHEN DID I BEGIN MY EMPLOYMENT WITH BARNEY I S? 8 A REAL EST"TE "GENT FOR " PARTY TO A CONTRACT -- STRIKE
9 Q. CORRECT. 9 THAT -- IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE A REAL ESTATE AGENT TO A
10 ". FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THAT. 10 SELLER TO A CONTRACT, YOU HAD TO HlIVE !\N AGREEMENT IN
11 Q. IN CONNEqION WITH YOUR EDUCATION, THE COURSE 11 WRITING?
12 OF STUDY THAT YOU TOOK TO OBTAIN YOUR REAL ESTATE 12 A. YES.
13 LICENSE, DID YOU TAKE !\NY COURSES THAT DEALT WITH 13 Q.!\ND DID YOU UNDERST!\ND THAT !\N MENT'S
14 CONTRACTS? 14 AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE SELLER TO MODIFY !\NY TERMS OF
.15 A. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? 15 !\N AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO FOR THE PURCHlISE OR S"LE OF
16 Q. IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR REAL ESTATE COURSES 16 PROPERTY HAD TO BE IN WRITING?
17 THAT YOU TOOK, DID ANY OF THOSE COURSES INVOLVE 17 MR. STEIN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT BECAUSE IT
18 CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF PROPERTY? 18 C"LLS FOR LEGAL CONCLUSION TO BE RENDERED BY HER. ON
19 ". THEY MJ\DE US FAMILIAR WITH THE PURCHASE 19 THE OTHER HAND, IF SHE CJ\N RESPOND, SHE SHALL.
20 AGREEMENT CONTRACT. 20 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
21 Q. STANDARD CALIFORNIA ASSOCIl\.TION REALTOR FORMS? 21 Q. GO AHF.An.
22 ". YES. -1 3- 22 A. CJ\N YOU REPEAT THAT.
23 Q. IN CONNECTION WITH THAT COURSE OF STUDY, DID 23 Q. SURE. WHlIT I WJ\NT TO KNOW IS IN CONNECTION
24 YOU LEARN THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE " CONTRACT FOR SALE OF 24 WITH YOUR COURSE OF STUDY, DID YOU LEARN THAT FOR THE
25 PROPERTY, THAT IT HAS TO BE IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE 25 AGENT TO BE AUTHORIZED TO MODIFY !\NY CHANGES IN A
NIVlESAMAAN 7/10106 NJVIESAMAAN 7110K16

246 / 545
- - - -Document
- - - - - -40-3
- , - - - - - Filed
- - - _ 04/17/2008
_-_. - - - - - -Page
---- 26
--of-50
-----, ...
lIO-l12-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71.4--571...Q111 lI0-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS nt..j71..{)111
Pa,;c:tl
1 CONTRACT THAT HAlJ BEEN ENTEREU INTO BY A SELLER, THE UEPOSITION?
2 SELLER HAD TO GIVE THE AGENT THAT AUTHORITY IN WRiTING? MR. CllM'MTNGS: EXHIBIT 1 [S THE NOTrCE OF
HR, STEIN: SAME OBJECTION, DEPOSITION. I'LL HARK AS EXHIBIT 2 THE DOCUMENTS THAT
THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL IF THAT WAS SCMETHING WERE PRODUCED BY THE DEPONENT AND HAVE BEEN MARKED 50001
5 THAT I LEARNED OR NOT. 5 THROUGH sOl16.
6 BY HR. CUMMINGS: MR. s1'EW: THA1' WILL BE THE COURT REPORTER'S COPY,
O. DID YOU ACT AS YOUR OWN AGENT IN THIS 7 AND 1 HAVE A COPY FOR HER RIGHT flERE.
8 TRANSACTION? MR. Clf}{tHNGS: ALL RIGHT. FINE. THANK YOU.
A. YES. {WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENTS
10 O. WAS THERE ANYBODY IN YOUR OFFICE THAT YOU 10 WERE SUBSEQUENTLY K.I\RKED BY THE REPORTER AS
11 CONSULTED WITH REGARDING THIS TRANSACTION? 11 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 FOR
12 A. IF I HAD QUESTIONS, I woULD CALL MY MANAGING 12 IDENTIFICATION AND M~E HERETO ATTACHED.;
13 BROKER AND ASK HIM. 13 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
14 O. .~D THAT PERSON'S NAME'? 14 O. WHERE DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE PROPERTY AT 320
IS A. RANDY SPAULDING, IS SOUTH PECK DRIVE IN BEVERLY HILLS BEING AVAILABLE, BEING
16 I ALSO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM 16 LISTED FOR SALE?
17 ALSO A CERTIFIED NOTARY; SO I HAVE TAKEN COURSES IN THAT 17 A. THROUGH MY HUSBAND.
18 AS WELL. IB Q. WHAT DID HE TELL YOU WHEN HE FIRST TALKED TO
19 O. HOW LONG KAVE i'OU BEEN A NOT.I\RY? 19 YOU ABOUT rT?
20 A. FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW. 20 A. HE JUST SAID HE WAS TAKING A WALK, AND HE
21 Q, so SOMETIME IN 2005 YOU GOT YOUR LICENSE-! 21 NOTICED THERE WAS A SIGN FOR A HOHE fOR SALE ON OUR
22 A. EITHER 2005 OR TOWARDS THE END OF -- YES, 2005. 22 STREET, AND WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
23 O. THANK YOU. 23 O. WHEN WAS THAT?
24 1 WILL HARK AS EXHIBIT 2 -- 24 A. I DON'T RECALL.
2S HR. STEIN; COUNSEL, IS EXHIBIT 1 THE NOTfCE OF 2S O. WHAT DI 0 YOU DO IN ORDER TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE
NlVIE SAMAAN 711lW6 NIVIESAMAAN 7Jl0AJ6
31~]72·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-j71-<Jl11 ]10-]72·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714.S71-<J11I
Pogc:19
1 PROPERTY? ACCOUNT?
2 A. I CHECKED IT OUT ON THE MLS TO SEE HOW MUCH IT A. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY HOW MUCH I HAD IN THE
WAS BEING SOLD FOR AND LOOKEO AT SOME OF THE SPECIFICS 3 ACCOUNT.
ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEN WE WENT TO AN OPEN HOUSE. Q. 00 YOU HAVE RECORDS THAT SHOW THOSE AMoUNTS?
5 Q. AT THE OPEN HOUSE, WAS THE OWNER OF THE A. YES, I BELIEVE SO.
6 PROPERTY THERE? MR. CUMMINGS; I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE WERE PRODUCED.
A. NO. I TH I NK THEY WERE REQUESTED.
8 Q. WAS A BROKER THERE? HR. STEIN: AT THE BACK, IN THE LATTER PORTION THERE
9 A. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS THE BROKER. I BELIEVE 9 WERE TWO BANK AccoUNTS LISTED.
10 IT MAY HAVE BEEN HiS ASSISTANT. 10 MR. CUMMINGS: THEN I STAND CORRECTED.
11 Q. 00 YOU RECALL WHO WAS THERE FOR THE SELLER'S 11 a. CAN YOU LooK AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE MARKED
12 REP? 12 AS PART OF THE EXHIBIT 2, 50112 THROUGH S0116.
13 A. I BELIEVE IT WAS AN ASSiSTANT. 13 ARE THOSE THE TWO ACCOUNTS, THE WASHINGTON
14 Q. 00 YOU RECALL THE NAME? 14 MUTUAL ACCOUNT THAT'S IDENTIFIED ON THE s0112 AND THE
15 A. NO. IS WELLS FARGO ACCOUNT THAT'S IDENTIFIED ON S0113 THROUGH
16 Q. WAS IT A MAN OR A WOMAN? 16 50116 FRa-l: WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE THE SOURCE OF THE
17 A. I BELIEVE IT WAS A WOMAN. 17 DOWN PAYMENT?
18 Q. WHAT WAS TO BE THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE IB A. YES.
19 DOWN PAYMENT FOR THE PROPERTY? 19 a. ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS?
20 A. MONEY FROM OUR ACCOUNT. 20 A. MY HUSBAND'S -- MY HUSBAND'S ACCOUNT WAS ALSO
21 Q. WHAT ACCOUNT? 21 AVAI LABLE FOR FUNDS.
22 A. OUR BANKING ACCOUNT. -1 4- 22 Q. WHERE WAS THAT ACCOUNT?
23 Q. WITH WHAT BANK? 23 A. WASHINGTON MUTUAL.
24 A. WELLS FARGO. 24 H'R. STEIN: JUST FOR THE RECORD, COUNSEL, THE
25 Q. AND HOW MUCH MONEY OlD YOU HAVE IN THAT 2S DOCUMENTS 50114 THROUGH 116 REFLECT TWO DIFFERENT BANK
247 / 545
NlVTE SAMAAN 7/10106 N1VTESAMAAN 711!W6
-- -_._-_._-------
3/0-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71+.;71..Q1l1

310-372.1111 SOUSA cOURT REPORTERS 71..l·j7J-Olli
Pa&-eJl
1 ACCOUNTS. A. MY MOTHER.
MR. CUMMINGS: J DON'T HAVE AN 50114. O. AND WHAT INTEREST DOES YOUR MOTHER H.I\VE
IN IT I
HR. STEIN: SORRY. 3 AND WHAT INTEREST DO yOU HAVE IN IT?
THE WITNESS: I DON'T EITHER. A. WE HAVE DIFFERENT BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS

MR. STEIN: IS EVERYBODY MISSING IT? 5 TOGETHER; SO WE BOTH HAVE HONEY IN IT. I DON' T RECALL
THE WITNESS: YES. 6 THE AMOUNTS or EACH.
MR. CUMMINGS: WHY DON'T y~ JUST GIVE IT TO HE, Q.
AND WHAT BusINESS ARE VOU IN WITH YOUR HoTHER?
I'LL GO Copy IT. IT'S NOT A BUSINESS,

A. IT'S JUST DIFFERENT
MR. STEIN: YES. HERE. COpy THIS TOO. DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE DO TOGETHER. IT'S JUST AN
10 IS THAT THE ONLY PAGE MISSING? 10 ACCOUNT WITH BOTH OF OUR NAMES.
11 MR. CUMMINGS: I BELIEVE SQ. 11 O. ACCoRDING TO 30113, THERE WAS A BALANCE of

12 (BRIEF RECESS.) 12 APPROXIMA TELY $181,000.
13 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 13 HOW MUCH OF THAT WAS YOURS, AND HOW MUCH WAS
14 O. WE CAN LOOK AT 50113. THAT'S A -- I'M SORRY. 14 YOUR MOTHER'S?
15 LET'S GO BACK TO SOl12. THAT'S A WASHINGTON MUTUAL 15 A. I DoN'T KNOW. r DON'T RECALL.
16 ACCOUNT. 16 o. 00 YOU HAVE ANY ESTIMATE AT ALL?
11 IS THAT JUST A REGULAR SAVlNGS ACCOUNT?
17 A. NO.
18 A. I DON 1 T KNOW. NY HUSBAND HANDLES THE fJ NANCES . 18 Q. WAS IT ALL YOUR MOTHER'S?
19 O. WELL, THIS WAS YOUR ACCOUNT, THOUGH, BEFORE YOU 19 A. NO.

20 GOT MARRIED. 20 Q. WAS IT ALL YOURS?
21 A. I BELIEVE THIS IS MY CHECKING ACCOUNT. 21 A. NO.
22 Q. oKAY. AND LOOKING AT EXHIBIT -- BATES STAMPED ARE THERE ANY RECORDS THAT REfLECT HOW MUCH
22 O. WAS
23 NUMBERS 50113 AND 50114, WHAT ACCOUNT IS
TH.~T? 23 YOURS AND HOW MUCH WAS YOUR MOTHER'S?
24 A. THIS IS MINE AND MY HOTHER'S ACCOUNT. 24 A. NO.

25 O. YOURS AND WHOsE? 25 Q. HOW WOULD YOO DETERMINE THAT?
NIVlESAMAAN 71l0l06 NIVlE SAMAAN 7/10106
1-
-+ . --1
)1~l7MIII SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 11 .... Sll~lll

JI().)11-1111 SOUSACOURTREPORTI::RS nM71-OII1
P<lgc2l
A. WE WOULDN'T. If ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN TO ME, Q. AND YOU STATED THERE WAS ALSO AN ACCOUNT
THAT
2 THE MONEY WOULD GO TO MY MOTHER; VICE VERSA. YOUR HUSBAND HAD AT WASHINGTON MUTUAL THAT
WAS
Q. OUT OF THAT ACCOUNT, HOW MUCH IN SEPTEMBER AND ) AVA I LABLE?
4 OCTOBER OF 2004 DID YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO
USE? A. YES.
A. AS MUCH AS I NEEDED. HR. CUMMINGS: I WANT TO SEE THOSE RECORDS, COUNSEL.
Q. ALL OF IT? HR. STEIN: I DON'T HAVE THEM HERE tODAY. I'LL
A. If SO NEEDED, YES. PROVIDE THEM TO YOU, THOUGH.
Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY AGREEMENT WITH YOUR HarRER MR. CUMMINGS: WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT YOU'LL
IN
9 WRITING TO THAT EFFECT? PROVIDE THEM WITHIN A WEEK?
10 A. NO. 10 HR. STEIN: SURE.
11 Q. WHERE DOES YOUR MOTHER LIVE? 11 MR. CUMMINGS: THANK YOU.
12 A. MODESTO, CALIFORNI A. 12 Q. WHOSE NAME WAS ON THAT ACCOUNT IN THE TIME
13 Q. AND HER NAME IS M.>.RGARET SAM.>J\N? 13 PERIOD SEPTEMBE:R , OCTOBER OF 2004?
14 A. YES. 14 A. ON WHICH ACCOUNT?
15 O. WHAT I 5 HER ADDRESS? 15 Q. THE oNE THAT YOU JUST REFERRED TO AS YOUR
16 A. 3208 JONATHAN LANE, MODESTO, CALIFORNI A 90 -- 16 HUSBAND'S ACCOUNT.
17 95355. 17 A. I BELIEVE HIS NAME WAS ON IT. 1 ' M NOT SURE.

18 Q. IS YOUR MOTHER RETIRED, OR DOES SHE WORK? 18 Q. WHEN YOU rrRST MAllE AN OFFER oN THE PROPERTY
19 A. SHE NEVER WORKED. 19 I'M JUST GOING TO REFER TO IT AS THE PECt<

DRIVE
20 Q. THE ADDRESS YOU G.n.VE HE IS THE PROPERTY THAT PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY AT 320 SOUTH PECt<
20 DRIVE. WHEN
21 SII& OWNS? 21 YOU FIRST MADE AN OFFER ON THAT PROPERTY,
DID YOU MAl<
22 A. YES. -1 5- 22
THAT OFFER IN YOUR NAME ALoNE oR ALSO IN
THE NAME OF
23 Q. LOOKING AT THE ACCOUNT fOR S01l5 AND 50116, 23 YOUR HUSBAND?
24 WHOSE ACCOUNT IS THAT? 24 A. IN MY NAME.
25 A. THIS IS MY ACCOUNT. 25 Q. DID YOU EVER MAKE AN OFFER THAT WAS JOINTLY
IN
N1V1E SAMMN 7/10106 NlVlE SAMAAN 1I1Ml6 248 / 545

,-------------_._---
310.372-1111 SOUSACQURT REPORTERS 71~-57I-0111
l10-372-lltl SOUSA coURT REPORTERS 71~_51I-0111
Pqc:26
Page2S
A. SOME OF THEM, I BELIEVE.
YOUR NAME ANI> YOUR HUSBANl)'S NAME?
Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTs RELATING TO THIS
A. NO.
ATTORNEY?
3 MATTER THAT YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED TO YOUR
Q. IS THERE ANY REASON FOR THAT?
A. I DON'T BELIEVE so.
A. NO.
Q. WHAT J WANT TO DO, JUST so THERE I S NO SURPRISEs
Q. DID YOU INTEND THE PROPERTY TO BE YOUR SEPARATE
6 DR ANYTHING, I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE TRANSACTi ON
6 PROPERTY?
END. I'M JUST
7 CHRONOLOG ICALLY fROM THE BEGINNING TO THE
A. WE WERE BOTH GOING TO LIVE IN IT TOGETHER.
8 GOING TO, BASICALLY , BE AsKING YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIoNS
NAME
Q. DID YOU INTEND TO TAKE TITLE TO IT IN YOUR
AND WE'LL
9 THAT SAY WHAT'S THE NEXT THING THAT OCCURRED,
9 ALONE?
10 GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS . I WANT TO GO THROUGH
10 A. I DON'T KNOh'.
CONVERSAT IONS YOU HAD WITH PEOPLE. 1 'M NOT ASKING YOU
II
11 Q. DID YOUR HUSBAND EVER fILL OUT A LOAN
ON
N OF THAT 12 FOR CONVERSAT IONS YOU HAD WITH YOUR ATTORNEY
12 APPLICATIO N IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITIO
TIQNS
]3 ANYTHING -- OKAY? -- OR AllY WRITTEN CCNHUNICA
13 PROPERTY?
THAT THOSE
14 BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR ATTORNEY; SO WE' LL AGREE
14 A. WKAT DO YOU MEAN?
. OKAY"'?
DRIVE 15 ARE NOT BE ING CALLED FOR BY ANY OF MY QUESTIONS
15 Q. DID HE EVER SIGN A LOAN APP FOR THE PECK
16 A. (THE WITNESS NODs HEAD UP AND DOWN.)
16 PROPERTY?
17 Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAN D THAT?
17 A. I DON ''I' BELIEVE so.
IB A. YES.
18 Q. NOW, THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE MARKED As
19 Q. OKAY. NOW, YOU WENT TO THE OPEN HOUSE, AND WAS
19 EXHIBIT 2, THIS STACK OF DOCUMENTS THAT COUNSEL
WERE THEY YOUR 20 IT ON A SUNDAY DR SATURDAY?

20 PROVIDED, DID THESE caME FROM YOU?
21 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE THAT WAS.
21 PERSONAL FILE ON THE MATTER?
22 Q. WAS ON IT A WEEKEND, THOUGH?
22 A. NO.
23 A. IT MAY HAVE; BEEN.
23 O. WHERE DID THEY COME moM?
24 Q. YOU WENT TO THE OPEN HOUSE.
24 A. MY ATTORNEY.
25 DID YOU PICK UP A FLIER ON THE PROPERTY?
25 Q. DID YOU PROVIDE THEM To YOUR ATTORNEY?
NlVlE SAMAAN 111l),1)6

NIVIE SA),{AAN 711M16
310-312-1111 SOUSA COURTRFJ>ORTERS 714.S11..()111

310-372·1111 SOUSACOURTREf>QRTERS 714-571.()111
PIIgc11
Q. DID YOU PREPARE THE OFFEP.?
I BELIEVE I ALREADY HAD A FLIER. I HAD PRINTED
A.
A. YES.
IT OUT FRetof THE HLS.
Q. DID YOU DO IT AT YOUR OFFICE?
Q. DID YOU SPEAK TO THE PERSON WHO -- HR. LIBOW'S
A. NO.
4 ASSISTANT THAT HAS AT THE OPEN HOUSE?
o. WHERE DID YOU DO IT?
A. WE MAY HAVE SPOKEN.
A. AT MY HOME.
Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT WAS SAID, IF ANYTHING?
o. DID YOU HAVE THE FORM AT HOHE'?
A. NO. I BELIEVE SHE JUST ASKED IF WE HAD ANY
A. YES.
THE PROPERTY TO
8 QUESTIONS , OR SHE JUST EXPLAINED SCHE OF
Q. WAS ON IT YOUR COOPUTER, OR WAS IT A HARD COPY?
9 US, AND THAT HAS IT.
10 A. COMPUTER.
10 .0. DID YOU WALK THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY?
11 O. OKAY. AND TAKE A LOOK AT PAGES s0002 THROUGH
11 A. YES.
12 009. woULD YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE.
12 O. AT THAT TIME DID YOU DECIDE TO MAKE AN OfFER?
13 WERE THOSE THE DOCUMENTS THAT COMPOSE YOUR
13 A. NO.
14 OFFER?
14 O. WHEN DID YOU DECIDE TO MAKE AN Of"fER?
15 A. YES.
IS A. I DON'T KNO"'. I DON'T RECALL.
BACK
16 Q. YOUR OFFER REQUESTED THAT THE SELLER CARRY
IT?
16 Q. Dr D YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND BarH WALK THROUGH
17 10 PERCENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE?
17 A. YES.
18 A. AT WHAT POINT ARE YOU REFERRING TO ON THE
18 O. DID ANYBODY ELsE ACCa-IPANY YOU?
19 DOCUHENT?
19 A. NO.
Q. PARAGRAPH 2-D ON PAGE 2, 0002.
G 20
20 Q. AftER fOU W.lU.KED THROUGH AND BEFORE SUBMITTIN
TRUST
21 OR WERE YOU GOING TO GET A SECOND DEED OF
21 THE OFFER, DID YOU DISCUSS SUBMITTIN G AN OFFER TO
22 ANYBODY ELSE -- -1 6- 22 FROM A THIRD PARTY?
23 A. YES.
23 A. NO.
FOR
24 Q. SO YOU WERE GOING TO GET A FIRST TRUST DEED
24 Q. -- WITH ANYBODY ELSE?
CORRECT?
25 1,336,000 AND A SECOND TRUST DEED FOR 167,000;
25 A. NO.
249 / 545
HlvrE SAMAAN 7f1CW6
·NJVJESAMAAN 1110t'06
,-- - - - - - - ------------.--
JI(}.Jll·llll SOUSACOURTR[:....ORTERS '1 ....571-0111 ]IO-]n_llll SOUSA COURTREPORT'ERS 71·M71-0111
PqcJO
A. 1 BELl EVE SO. Q. OJ U YOU KNOW THE PERSoN WHO WAS HIS ASSISTANT
Q. .'NO YOU WERE GOING TO DEPOSIT $161,000 AT 'THE OPEN HOUSE AEFORE THI3 TRANSACTION?
ALTOGETHER; CORRECT? A. NO.
A. YES. IMR. ZERNIK LEFT THE DEPOSITION RQCl't,)
Q. YOU SUBMITTED THAT OFFER ACTING AS 'fOUR OWN BY HR. CUMMINGS;
AGENT; CORRECT? o. IF YOU CAN LOOK AT PAGES 50013 THROUGH S0015.
A. YES. DO YOU SEE THOSE PAGES?
O. WOULD IT BE CORRECT THAT YOU UNDERsrooD THAT IN A. YES.
THIS TRANSACTION, MICHAEL LIBOW AND COLDWELL BANKER WERE Q. NOW, IS THAT SCMETHING THAT YOU RECEIVED BACK
10 NOT YOUR AGENTS OR BROKERS? 10 FROH MR. LIBOW'?
11 A. YES. II A. YES.
12 Q. AND P.lI,GE S0010 AND 50011, DID YOU PREPARE THAT 12 O. OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU SUBlHT YOUR OFFER
13 BUYER'S INSPECTION ADVISORY? 13 ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2004?
14 A. YES. 14 HR. STEIN: YOU'RE REFERRING TO S002 THROUGH 9?
15 O. DID YOU SUBMIT THAT AT THE TIME YOU SUBMITTED 15 MR. CUMMINGS: YES.
16 YOUR OfFER? 16 THE WITNESS: YES.
17 A. YES. 17 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
18 Q. NOW, DID YOU SUBtHT THAT OFFER IN PERSON TO 18 O. THEN YOU'VE GOT A RESPONSE BACK ON SEPTEMBER 10
19 MR. LIBOW? 19 BY fAX; IS THAT CORRECT?
20 A. NO. IT WAS BY fAX. 20 A. YES ..
21 O. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU CALL HR. LIBOW UP BEFORE 21 O. WAS THAT FAXED TO YOUR OFFICE OR YOUR HCHE?
22 YOU SUBMITTED IT? 22 A. TO MY HOME.
23 A. I DON'T RECALL IF I CALLED HIM BEFORE OR AfTER. 23 O. TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, WEP.E THERE ANY FAXES FRCf>t
24 O. DID YOU KNOW MR. LIBOW BEFORE THIS TRANS.z~CTION? 2' MR. LIBOH TO YOUR OFFICE IN CONNECTiON WITH THIS MATTER,
25 A. NO. 25 OR 010 THEY ALL GO TO YOUR HOME?
NlVIE SAMAAN 7110J06 NIVIE SAMAAN 1I1M>6
J10-372-1111 SOUSACQURTREPORTI:RS 11"'S11..Q111 JI()..112·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 114-511.(1)11
Poge.ll
A. I BELIEVE THEY ALL WENT TO MY HC1-fE, WHICH IS MY O. WHAT DOES IT DO AS FAR AS THE DEPOSIT?
OFFICE. A. THEY WANTED TO INCREASE THE DEPOSIT.
Q. WELL, IT'S NOT THE GILLERAN GRIFFIN OFFICE? O. WHAT DOES IT DO AS FAR AS THE LoAN TERMS'?
A. NO, IT'S NOT, BUT IT IS WHERE I WORK OUT Of. A. READING WHAT IT SAYS, IT SAYS "LOAN TO BE
O. YOU WORK OUT OF THERE FOR YOUR COSMETIC WORK? OBTAI NED AT MARKET RATES AND TERMS."
A. NO. O. NOH, DID YOU ACCEPT THAT COUNTER?
O. FOR WHAT KIND OF WORK? A. NO.
A. FOR MY REAL ESTATE WORK, IF I DID .riliY Q. DID YOU ALSO RECEIVE FROM MR. LIBOW AN ADDENDUM
TRANSACTION, BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS ON MY COMPUTER AT TO REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT THAT HAD CERTAIN
10 HOME. 19 DISCLOSURES?
11 o. OKAY. NOW-- 11 A. YES.
12 A. BUT I WOULD ALSO DO COSMETIC WORK OUTSIDE OF 12 O. AND YOU RECEIVED TKAT ON SEPTEMBER la, 2004;
13 BARNEY I S OF NEW YORK; SO I DID COSMETIC WORK, I GUESS 13 CORRECT?
14 YOU WOULD SAY, OUT OF MY HOME. 14 A. YES.
15 O. NOW, YOUR OFFER WAS FOR 1,670,000; CORRECT? 15 O. THEN' BETWEEN SUBMITTING THE OFFER TO MR. LIBQW
16 A. YES. 16 ON SEPTEMBER 4 AND RECEIVING THE RESPONSE BACK FR<JoI HIM
17 O. THEN YOU RECEIVED A COUNTER OFFER, WHICH IS 17 ON SEPTEMBER 10, DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. LIBOW?
18 ENTITLED "COUNTER OFFER NO.1. If 18 A. I DONIT RECALL. I MAY HAVE.
19 THAT'S PAGES S0014 AND -- 50014; CORRECT? 19 Q. WOULD IT BE CORRECT THAT IF YOU DID SPEAK TO
20 A. YES. 20 HIM DURING THAT TIME, YOU DON'T RECALL ANYTHING ABOUT
21 O. WHAT DOES THl\.T DO l\S FAR AS OF THE PURCHASE 21 THAT CONVERSATION?
22 PRICE? -1 7- 22 A. YE~.
23 A. IT INCREASES IT. 23 O. NOW, AS WE GO THROUGH THE DEPOSITION, I HAY ASK
24 O. TO WHAT AMOUNT? 24 YOU FOR ESTIMATES ON TIME OR OTHER ISSUES.
25 A. 1,718,000. 25 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE 01 FFERENCE BETWEEN AN
NlVlESAMAAN 7/10106 NlVlE SAMMN 1/1(IDS 250 / 545

,.--------------------- -- - - Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008
-----------,----- - --- -----
Page 30 of 50
JID.l71·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTEKS 71 ....;71..(1111 310-l72-1111 SOUSA COURT RfI'ORTERS 7I.l·j11..{l111
Pagel4
ESTIMATE ..o\NU A GUESS? NOW, 50016, WHAT IS THAT IK>CUHENT?
A. NO. A_ IT SAYS "COUNTER OPFER NO. I."
Q. LET HE GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE:, If' I ASKED YOU HOW Q. 010 YOU SIMPLY SIGN THE ONE THAT MR. UBOW HAD
MUCH MONEY WAS IN YOUR WALLET, YOU HIGHT HAVE AN SENT YOU AND SEND IT BACK?
5 ESTIMATE. IF I ASKED YoU HOW MUCH MONEY WAS IN YOUR A. I SlGNED IT, AND I MARKED WITH AN "X, II SUBJECT
6 ATTORNEY' S WALLE'l', I WOULIJ PRESUME TH.AT WQULiJ BE A 6 TO TH(o; ATTACHEU COUNTER OFFER. I SENT A COUNTER OFfER
7 GUESs_ 7 ALONu WITH IT.
WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT? Q. AND THE ATTACHED COUNTER OFFER IS SOOl1?
A. YES. A. YES.
10 Q- OKAY. AND If' I ASKED YOU HOW LONG THIS TABLE 10 Q. THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE WAS THE CHANGE IN
11 WAS, YoU COULD PROBABLY GIVE HE AN ESTIMATE, BUT IF' r 11 THE AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT AND WHEN THE DEPOSIT WOULD BE
12 ASKED YOU HOW LONG THE TABLE WAS IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM 12 HADE?
13 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OFFICE THAT YOU'VE NEVER BEEN 13 A. YES.
IN, THAT WOULD BE A GUESS; CORRECT? O. AND THE INITIAL DEPOSIT. DID YOU UNDERSTAND
15 A. YES. 15 THAT TO BE THE DEPOS]T AT THE TINE THAT YOU SUBMIT THE
16 Q. YOU'RE ENTITLED, IF YOU DON'T RECALL SOMETHING 16 OFfER?
17 SPECIFICALLY, TO STATE YOUR RESPONSE IN TERMS OF AN 17 A_ ['M SORRY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
18 ESTIMATE, BUT I AM ENTITLED TO AN ESTIMATE, I F YOU HAVE 18 Q. I'M LOOKING AT S0017. UNDER ITEM C, IT SAYS,
19 AN ESTIMATE. If YOU DON'T HAVE AN ESTIMATE AND IT WOULD 19 "ITEH 2. INITIAL DEPOSIT TO BE 15,000 WITH INCREASED
20 JUST BE A TOTAL GUESS, I DON'T WANT THAT, AND I'M NOT 20 DEPOSIT OF AN ADDITIONAL 15,000 WITHIN 14 DAYS fROM
21 REQUESTING YOU TO EVER GUESS. OKAY? BUT I WILL BE 21 ACCEPTANCE. "
22 REQUESTING YOU TO GIVE ME YOUR BEST ESTIMATE BECAUSE 22 WHEN DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE INITIAL DEPOSIT TO
23 PEOPLE DO NOT RECALL THINGS WITH 100 PERCENT CERT.1\INTY, 23 BE DUE? IS THAT WITH THE ACCEPTANCE?
24 AT LEAST HOST PEOJ;l'LE DON'T; AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NORMAL 24 A. YES, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.
25 FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE ESTIMATES. 25 O. ANQ THEN 15,000 ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT WOULD BE DUE
NIVIE SAMAAN 7/10106 N1VlE SAMAAN 7/10106
)1~)72.1111 SDUSACOURTREPORTERS 714-S71~111 310.)72·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71<4.571-01 II
Pugc.1S
14 DAYS AFTER THE ACCEPTANCE; CORRECT? WHAT STOCK WERE YOU LIQUIDATING?
A. YES. A. I DON'T KNOW. MY HUSBAND WAS DEALING WITH
IMR. ZERNIK ENTERED THE DEPOSITIoN 3 THAT.
ROOM.) 4 Q. WAS THAT STOCK THAT WAS IN ANY ACCOUNT THAT
BY MR. CUMMINGS: S WE'VE REFERENCED BEFORE?
Q. DID YoU SEND YOUR COUNTER OFFER NO. 1 TO A.
7 MR. LIBOW WITH YOUR FAX THAT CQNTAINED THE PAGES S0018 O. WAS THAT STOCK THAT WAS OWNED BY YOU?
8 THROUGH SOO2l? A. NO, I DONIT BELIEVE so.

9 A. ARE YOU ASKING IF I ATTACHED HIS COUNTER OFFER O. DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. LISOH BETWEEN THE TIME
10 AS WELL? I HAVE S19 THROUGH S21. 10 THAT YOU RECEIVED THE COUNTER OFFER NO. 1 FROM
11 Q. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M ASKING. THEY'RE ALL 11 DR. ZERNIK ON SEPTEMBER 10 UNTIL YOU SENT YOUR COUNTER
12 STAPLED TOGETHER, AND I DIDN'T STAPLE THEM. 12 OFFER NO. 1 -- OR COUNTER OFFER NO.2 BACK TO HR. LI8OW?
13 A. OKAY. 13 A. I MAY HAVE. I DOO'T RECALL.
14 Q. SO I'M JUST WONDERING -- O. WOULD IT BE CORRECT THAT IF YOU DID SPEAK TO
15 MR. STEIN: I'M THE ONE THAT STAPLED THEM. lS HIM, THAT YOU DON'T RECALL THAT --
16 THE WITNESS: YES, HE STAPLED THEM. 16 A. YES.
17 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 17 Q. -- RECALL ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID ABOUT iT?
18 Q. I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS WENT AS A PP.CKAGE 18 A. YES.
19 BECAUSE IT SAYS FOUR PAGES QN THE COVER SHEET, AND THEN 19 O. NOW, ON PAGE -- YOUR COVER SHEET, ON 50018, ON
20 THERE'S THREE PAGES ATTACHED To IT. AND I'M WONDERING 20 YOUR FAX, IT'S DATED SEPTEMBER 10, BUT I NOTE THAT ON
21 IF THIS PACKAGE FROM S0018 THRoUGH S0021 WENT BACK To 21 PAGE 50020, WHICH HAS YOUR NAME ON IT, IT'S DATED
22 MR. LIBOW. -1 8- 22 SEPTEMBER 11, 2004, AT 6:00 P.M.; CORRECT?
23 A. YES, I BELIEVE SO. 23 A. YES.
24 Q. OKAY. AND YOU MENTIONED THERE, "1 ' M 24 O. SO DID YOU SEND THIS BACK? 010 YOU SEND PAGES
25 LIQUIDATING STOCK FOR THE DOWN PAYMENT.· 25 S0018 THROUGH S0021 BACK TO MR. LIBOW ON SEPTEMBER 11,
NfVIE SAMAAN 7/10106 NIVIE SAMAAN 7/1M16

251 / 545
llG--312-1111 SOUSACOURTREPORffiRS 11~_}71"()11I

.- 31_ll-_37_'._"_"_'_O_U_SA_C_O_UR_T_REPO
_ _R_TE_R_S_'_"_.'_"_
. ._"_' _<_j-,.~,
P.. .
2004?
A. PROBABLY SO.
P~eJ1
2004, /lAU yO\) EVE" MET MICHAEL LIBOW?
A. UP TO THIS DATE IN TIME?

I I
Q. THAT WOULD BE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE? Q. YES.
A. YES. A. I roN'T BELIEVE SO.
Q. TURNING NOW TO PAGE 50022, DID YOU SEND THAT TO Q. SO WOULD IT BE CORRECT THAT ALL YOUR
MR. LIBOW ON SEPTEMBER 13? COMMUNICATIONS WITH HfC LIBOW HAJJ EITHER BEEN IN WRITING
A. YES. OR ON THE PHONE?
Q. AND YOU'RE GIVING A DEADLINE fOR THE ACCEPTANCE A. YES.
OF YOUR OFFER; CORRECT? O. HAVE YOU TOLD ME EVERYTHING YOU RECALL ABOUT
10 A. YES. ]0 ANY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH HR. LIBOW UP THROUGH AND
II O. THAT DEADLINE BEING 12:QO P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 14, J1 INCLUDING SEPTEMBER J 3, 2004?
12 2004; CORRECT? 12 A. I'M SORRY. REPEAT THAT.
13 A. YES. 13 Q. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD TOLD MR. LIBOH THAT
14 o. THEN DID YOU HAVE UP TO THIS PERIOD OF TIME 14 YOU WOULD BE LEAVING THE COUNTRY TO GET MARRIED, AND
15 WHEN yOU SENT THE FAX OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 -- DID YOU 15 YOU WANTED TO GET THIS FINALIZED BEFORE YOU LEFT.
16 HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH MR. LIBOW? 16 A. YES.
17 A. I'M SURE I DID. 11 Q. HAD YOU TOLD HIM ANYTHING ELSE?
16 Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT WAS SAID? 16 A. NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
19 A. NOT EXACTLY, BUT I'M ESTIMATING TfLb,T I TOLD HIM 19 O. HAD HE TOLD YOU ANYTHING ELSE?
20 THAT I DIDN'T WANT '1'0 BE DEALING WITH THIS WHEN I LEFT 20 A. I BELl EVE HE HAD TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD ANOTHER
21 OUT OF TOWN TO GET Ml\RRIED; SO WE DID NEED TO TAJ<E CARE 21 CLIENT THAT WAS INTERESTED ]N THE PROPERTY, AND THEY
22 OF THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 22 WERE TRYING TO DECIDE BETWEEN US, THAT THEY HAD ANOTHER
23 o. WAS THAT ON THE PHONE? 23 COUNTER OFFER OR SOMETHING.
24 A. YES. 24 O. 00 YOU RECALL ANYTHING ELSE THAT MR. LIBOW HAD
25 Q. UP TO THIS DATE -- POINT IN TIME, SEPTEMBER 13, 25 TOLD YOU OR YOU HAD TOLD MR. LIBOW UP THROUGH AND
NlVlE SAMAAN 7/1OJ06 NWIE SAMAAN 7/I01U6
1-._----------------------+------------_._----------------I
JI()..)7!·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71-C-S7I-0111 )10-112_1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS ""·S1I-0111
INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 13, 2004? Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO YOUR HUSBAND WAS DEALING WITH?
A. NO. A. VICTOR PARKS.
O. HAD YOU SPOKEN TO ANYBODY IN YOUR OFFICE -- Q. WHO IS VICTOR PARKS?
YOUR OFFICE MEANING THE GILLEiW'l GRIFFIN OFFICE -- A. THE LOAN OFFICER.
REGARDING THIS TRANS1\CTION UP THROUGH THE TIME PERIOD OF Q. WHO DoES HE WORK WITH?
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004? A. I DC~P T KNOW. BELIEVE HE WORKS FOR HIMSELF,
A. ONLY IF I WOULD HAVE HAD QUESTIONS ON WORDING Q. HAD YOU EVER DEALT WITH VICTOR PARKS ON ANY
AND HOW TO DO A COUNTER OFFER AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE MATTER PRIOR To THIS TRANSACTION?
BECAUSE I HAD NEVER WRIT'l'EN UP AN OFFER BEFORE; SO I A. HE'S RELATED TO MY HUSBAND.
10 WOULD ASK MY BROKER ABOUT -- 10 Q. WHAT'S HIS RELATIONSHIP TO YOUR HUSBAND?
11 o. 00 YOU RECALL DOING THAT? 11 A. THEY ARE COUSINS.
12 A. YES. 12 Q. WHAT BUSINESS IS YOUR HUSBAND IN?
13 o. so YOU RECALL SPE.~KING TO RANDY SPAULDING ABOUT 13 A. HE'S A MOR'J'GAGE BROKER.
14 HOW TO DO A COUNTER OFFER? 14 Q. DOES HE AND VICTOR PARK WORK IN THE SAME
15 A. UH-HUH. 15 OFFICE?
16 Q. IS THAT ·YES"? 16 A. THEY WORK ON THE SAME NETWORK.
11 A. YES. 11 Q. WHAT NETWORK IS THAT?
16 O. .a.ND DO YOU RECALL TALKING TO HIM ABOUT ANY 18 A. A COMPUTER NETWORK.
19 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION UP THROUGH AND 19 Q. I MEAN DO THEY HAVE A JOINT BUSINESS?
20 INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 13, 2004? 20 A. I BELIEVE SO, YES.
21 A. NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 21 Q. WHAT'S THE NAME OF IT?
22 O. NOW, HAD YOU SPOKEN TO ANYBODY ABOUT OBTAINING -1 9- 22 A. DELTA PACIFIC.
23 A LOAN FOR THE PROPERTY UP THROUGH AND INCLUDING 23 Q. IS DELTA PACIFIC A MORTGAGE LOAN BROKER?
24 SEPTEMBER 13, 2004? 24 A. YES.
25 A. MY HUSBAND WAS DE.lI"LING WITH THE LOAN PROCESS. 25 Q. I S IT A CORPORATI ON'?
NtVlESAMAAN 7110106 NtVlESAMAAN 7/10ttKi 252 / 545

._-------------------
310-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REI'ORTERS 71-t-:57I-0111
Page41
~-------31-0--37-2.-1-"-' _SO_U_SA_C_O_UR_T_REPO_R_TE_RS_7_"_.'_·7_'-O_'_"____ Page'l2 _.';. I
A. I BELIEVE SO. 1 Q. DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. LISOW _.
Q. WHO ARE THE OWNERS? BEFORE SENDING THE FAX TRAT' S DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2004,
A. I DON'T KNOW. 3 AND IS MARKED AS DOCUMENT NO. 50023 REGARDING THE
Q. IS YOUR HUSBAND AN OWNER? 4 SUBSTANCE OF THAT TRANSMITTAL?
A. I OON'T BELIEVE SO. A. YOU'RE ASKING IF I SPOKE TO HIM BEFORE THIS?
Q. S MR. PARKS AN OWNER? Q. YES.
A. YES.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO RUNS THE COMPANY? Q. SO WAS THAT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 13, 2004, AND
A. DONIT KNOW. 9 SEPTEMBER 16, 20041
10 Q. OTHER THAN YOUR HUSBAND AND VICTOR PARKS, HAVE 10 A. I WOULD ASSUME IT IS.
11 YOU EVER SPOKEN TO ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS ANY CONNECTION 11 Q. WAS THAT ONE CONVERSATION OR MORE THAN ONE
12 WITH DELTA PAC! nC? 12 CONVERSATION?
13 A. NO. 13 A. I DON'T RECALL.
14 Q. WHERE ARE THE OFFICES OF DELTA PACIFIC? 14 Q. WAS IT IN PERSON OR ON THE PHONE?
15 A. OON I T KNOW WHERE THE OFFICES ARE. 15 A. ON THE PHONE.
16 Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO THEIR OFFICES-? 16 Q. DO YOU RECALL THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
17 A. NO. 17 CONVERSATION?
18 Q. DID YOU SPEAK TO VICTOR PARKS REGARDING THIS 18 A. I CAN ESTIMATE WHAT WE SAID, WHICH WOULD BE
19 TRANSACTION? 19 THAT WHEN I MADE AN OFFER FOR THIS PROPERTY, I HAD TOLD
20 A. NO. 20 HIM THAT I WAS GOING TO BE LEAVING THE STATE TO BE
21 Q. ALL THAT WAS HANDLED BY YOUR HUSBAND? 21 MARRIED, AND THAT r WOULD NEED THE ACCEPTANCE DATE TO BE
22 A. ES. 22 PUSHED FORWARD ONE WEEK BECAUSE I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
23 Q. LOOKING AT PAGE S0023 AND S0024, IS THAT 23 FULFILL MY OBLIGATIONS, IF NOT.
24 SOMETHING 'fHAT YOU SEN'f 'fO MR. LIBOW ON SEPTEMBER 16? 24 O. OKAY. SO WOULD IT BE CORRECT THAT AS OF
25 A. YES. 25 SEPTEMBER 16, 2004, YOU KNEW THAT YOU COULDN'T MEET YOUR
NlVIE SAMAAN 7/10/06 NTVlE SAMAAN 7/10!U6
3J(~372·111 [ SOUSA. COURT REPORTERS 714.571-0111 310-372~1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 114-511-0111
Pugc:4.1
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE COUNTER OFFER THAT YOU HAD SENT Q. YOU SAY THAT MR. LIBOW TOLD YOU THAT DR. ZERNIK
BACK TO DR. ZERNIK UNLESS DR. ZERNIK AGREED TO AMEND THE 2 WOULD AGREE TO AMEND THE ACCEPTANCE DATE TO
ACCEPTANCE DATE TO SEPTEMBER 23, 2004? 3 SEPTEMBER 23, 2004?
A. YES. A. YES. WHEN I -- WHEN MICHAEL LISOH -- LET'S
Q. DID YOU PREPARE THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS SENT 5 JUST GO BACK FOR A MINUTE.
ON -- THAT'S PAGE S0024 AND DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2004? WHEN I HAD SENT THE CANCELED -- THE
A. DID I PREPARE IT? 7 CANCELLATION OF MY OFFER, CANCELLATION OF IT --
Q. YES Q. YOU'RE REFERRING TO DOCUMENT S0022?
A. YES A. YES, YES.
10 Q. DID YOU EVER RECEIVE A SIGNED COPY OF TH}\T FROM 10 I TOLD HIM I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET MY
11 DR. ZERNIK? 11 OBLIGATIONS. I WAS CONTACTED BY LIBQW, STATING THAT
12 A. NO. 12 THEY HAD MULTIPLE OFFERS, AND HE WOULD BE GETTING BACK
13 Q. DID MR. LIBOW TELL YOU DR. ZERNIK HAD SIGNED 13 TO ME THE NEXT DAY, AND I TOLD HIM I WASN'T SURE IF I
14 IT? 14 WOULD ACCEPT, IF I WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET MY OBLIGATIONS
15 A. NO. 15 BECAUSE I WAS LEAVING FOR A WEEK, AND I DIDN' T WANT TO
16 O. DID YOU EVER ASK MR. LISON IF DR. ZERNIK HAD 16 BE DEALING WITH THIS WHILE I WAS AWAY ON MY HONEYMOON.
17 SIGNED IT? 17 SO WHEN HE CALLED ME ON THE 15TH, I STATED TO
18 A. NO, BECAUSE HE ST.J\TED THAT HE WOULD AGREE TO 18 HIM THAT I WOULD NEED THE ACCEPTANCE DATE TO BE AMENDED
19 IT, 19 FOR ONE WEEK. AFTER I RETURNED -- YES, ONE WEEK. I WAS
20 Q. WHO STATED HE WOULD AGREE TO IT? 20 RETURNING ON THE 23RD; SO I NEEDED THE ACCEPTANCE TO
21 A. MICHAEL LIl30W. 21 START ON" THAi nATE BEr.AUSE I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET
22 Q. DID MICHAEL LIBOW TELL YOU HE HAD WRITTEN -1 ~O- 22 MY OBLIGATIONS. AND I TOLD HIM THAT, YOU KNOW', I WAS
23 AUTHORIZATION FROM DR. ZERNIK TO AGREE TO THAT? 23 GOING TO SEND HIM A WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT I WANTED TO
24 A. NO. HE NEVER TALKED ABOUT WRITTEN 24 BE SIGNED, AND HE SAID A WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS NOT
25 AUTHORIZATION 25 NECESSARY, BUT I FAXED IT ANYWAY.
NIVIE SAMAAN 7!10J06 NIVIE SAMAAN 1/1OJt)(;

253 / 545
;-- ------ _._---------
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document
_-_._ - - - - - - - - -40-3 Filed
-,----_. _ - - - 04/17/2008
--- ..
Page 33 of 50
110-J72-1111 SOUSA COURT RFJ'ORTERS 1U.. i71-011l )10.171-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71·M71.Q111
Page 45 P:l5 c46
THEN ON THE -- ON THE 16TH -- SO THIS WAS THE By MR. CUMMINGS:
MORNING BECAUSE HE F.lI.XED TO HF. THE ACCEPTANCE ON THE Q. DOES THAT HAVE DR. ZERNIK'S SIGNATURE ON IT?
EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 15TH, WHICH IS BEFORE THE HORNING A. YES.
THAT WE WERE LEAVING. WE LEFT ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, IN THE O. 'J/lS/OIl?
MORNING. TO LEAVE FOR HAWAI r. A. YES.
Q. WHERE IS THAT ACCEPTANCE? Q. NOW, YOU HAVE A FAX HERE. FIRST OF ALL, THE
A. EXCUSE ME'? PAGE YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS 50026; CORRECT?
Q. WHERE IS THAT ACCEPTANCE,? A. YES.
A. WHAT .I\.CCEPTANCE ARE YOU REfERRING TO? O. YOU HAVE A COVER SHEET FROM THE FAIRMONT IN REA
10 O. THE ONE THAT YOU JUST REFERRED TO. ]0 LAN} --
11 A. NO, NO. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER -- OF THE 1l A. YES.
12 OFFER Of THE PURCHASE Of THE PROPERTY. THAT THEY, 12 O. -- MAUl.
13 BASICALLY, SAID THEY WERE ACCEPTING MY OFFER, AND THAT ]3 THAT'S PAGE S002S,?
14 WE WERE I' A. YES.
15 O. WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU REfERRING TO? IS O. DID YOU THEN INITIAL "N.S .• " THE CONFIRMATION
16 A. THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT. 16 OF ACCEPTANCE?
17 O. CAN VOU SHOW ME wHERE TilEY PJ(ED YOU A DocUMENT 17 A. YES.
18 THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD TO BE OR. ZERNIK'S ACCEPTANCE OF 18 O. AND yOU SENT THAT BACK ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2004,
19 YOUR COUNTER OFFER. 19 TO HR. LISaH?
20 A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 20 A. YES, ONLY AfTER THE: AGREEMENT VERBALLY ON THE
21 Q. WELL, YOU -- 21 PHONE WITH MR. LIBQW THAT THE ACCEPTANCE DATE woULD BE
22 MR. STEIN: THIS DOCUMENT HERE. THIS IS WHAT HE'S 22 PUSHED BACK ONE WEEK.
23 ASKING ABOUT. 23 O· IS [T CORRECT THAT YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY
2. THE wITNESS; COUNTER OFFER 2. 2. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION AS OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2004, THAT
25 II 25 DR. ZERNIK HAD, IN fACT. AGREED TO PUSH THE ACCEPTANCE
NlVlE SAMAAN 7/10106 NlVlE SAMAAN 111MJ6
)1(~)12-1111 SOUS.ACOURTREf'OR~RS 714-571-0111 31l).)71-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 114-571.0111
P.ge4~
OATE BACK ONE WEEK? HR. STEIN; I'M GOING TO OBJECT BECAUSE IT MISSTATES
A. YES, ONLY BECAUSE WAS TOLD BY MICf!AEL LIBOW, OR HISCHARACTERIZES THE PRODUCTION THAT SHE'S PROVIDED.
WHICH IS MR. ZERNIK'S AGENT, THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A HR. CUMMINGS: I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.
PROBLEM IF I NEEDED THE DATE PUSHED BACK, THAT HIS O. LET' 5 GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE. NOW, IT SAYS
CLIENT WOULD AGREE AND ACCOMMODATE THAT. HERE ON THE ONE THAT'S SEPTEMBER 28, 2004, THAT THEY
Q. CAN YOU LOOK AT PAGES 50027 THROUGH S0038. ESTIMATE fINAL LOAN APPROVAL IN TEN BUSINESS DAYS.
TELL HE WHAT THOSE ME. GENERALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE 00 VOU SEE THAT?
ME. A. YES.
A. CORRESPONDENCE FROM VICTOR PMKS TO MICHAEL O. WERE VOU AWARE OF THAT E-MAIL ON OR ABOUT
10 LIBOW. 10 SEPTEMBER 2B, 20041
11 Q. DID YOI) RECEIVE COPIES OF EACH OF THESE -- ARE 11 A. I I H SURE: I WAS MADE AWARE OF THAT.
12 THESE ALL E-MAILS? 12 O. DID VICTOR PARKS JUST GIVE COPIES OF THESE
13 A. YES, I BELIEVE SO. 13 E-MAILS TO YOUR HUSBAND? IS THAT HOW yOU WERE MADE
14 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE COPIES OF THESE E-HAILS? 14 AWARE OF IT?
15 HR. STEIN: VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHEN YOU'RE 15 A. MY HUSBAND WAS ASSISTING WITH THE LOAN; SO THAT
16 REFERRING. 16 IS HOW I WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS.
17 BY HR. CUMMINGS: 17 O. SO WOULD IT BE CORRECT THAT YOUR DEALINGS ON
18 Q. CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE E-MAILS BEING SENT. 18 THE LOAN WERE THROUGH YOUR HUSBAND?
19 IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING YOU WERE RECEIVING 19 A. YES.
20 COP IES OF THESE E-MAI LS? 20 O. AND HE AND HR. PARKS WORKED TOGETHER, AND THEY
21 A. I WAS HADE AWARE OF THE E-HAILS. I DON'T 21 WERE DOING WHATEVER THEY DO TO OBTAIN A LOAN Cet-iMITMENT;
22 RECALL IF I RECEIVED A COpy OF EACH OF THE E-MAILS. -1 1- 22 CORRECT?
23 Q. THIS STAPLED PACKAGE, 50027 THROUGH 50038, ARE 23 A. YES.
24 THESE ALL THE E-MAILS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF BETWEEN 2. Q. AND YOU UNDERSTOOD YOU HAD TO OBTAIN A LOAN
25 VICTOR PARKS AND HR. LIBOW·? 25 CGiMITMENT THAT WOULD BE FOR AN 80 PERCENT LOAN fOR THE
254 / 545
NlVlESAMAAN 7110106 NlVlE SAMAAN 7/10.(16
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document
---- -- ----,- - - .__ Filed
40-3 - - - 04/17/2008
-- Page
------ - - -34
- -of
-- 50
----- .
310-312.1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71~·nl . OIJI 310-372.. 1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71~·57I.oJII
P;a:c<lY P:I&c5U
FIRST lJEEU OF TRUST JUW A 10 PERCENT LOAN fOR THE SECONU O. WELL, WHAT I'M. SAYING IS [JIll YOU UNlJERSTANLJ
DEED OF TRUST; CORRECT? THAT YOU WERE GOI HG TO INCRE.45E THE AMOUNT OF THE DOWN
A. IF THAT's WHAT IT SAYS .. I'M NOT A LOAN PAYMENT; INSTEAD OF PUTTING 10 PERCENT DOWN, THAT YOU
OfFICER, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT TKAT. WERE GOING TO BE PUTTING DOWN MORE MONEY TO INCREASE THE
Q. THE COUNTER OFFER WAS FOR 1, 11 e, 000 i CORRECT? PURCHASE PRICE TO 1,718, ODD?
A. If TH.l\T'S WHAT IT STATES. A. YES.
Q. LET'S HAKE SURE. LOOKING AT PAGE 50014 -- Q. SO THE AMOUNT OF THE FIRST TRUST DEED LOAN WAS
A. YES. GOING TO REMAIN AT 1,336,000; IS THAT CORRECT?
Q. -- IT'S 1,118,000; CORRECT? A. YES.
10 A. YES .. 10 Q. AND THE AMOUNT OF THE SECOND TRUST DEED LOAN
II Q. AND YOUR ORIGINAL OFFER WAS FOR A 10 PERCENT II WAS GOING TO REMAIN AT 161,000; CORRECT?
12 DOWN PAYMENT WITH AN 80 PERCENT FIRST TRUST DEED LOAN 12 A. YES.
13 AND A 10 PERCENT SECOND TRUST OEED LOAN; CORRECT? 13 Q. BUT THE DOWN PAYMENT WAS GOING TO INCREASE TO
14 A. YES. 14 COVER THE ADDITIONAL HONEY FROM -- ADDITIONAL $48,000;
15 Q. AND DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE 15 CORRECT'? THE DI FfERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE PRICE Of
16 PURCHASE PRICE WAS BEING INCREASED TO L 118,000, THAT 16 1,610,000 AND 1,118,000?
17 YOU WOULD STILL PUT DOWN 10 PERCENT DOWN, U..lWE AN 17 A. RIGHT. WELL, IT WA5 GOING TO INCREASE -- THE
18 80 PERCENT FIRST TRUST DEED LOAN AND A. 10 PERCENT SECOND 18 PURCHASE PRICE INCREASED TO COVER OUR CLOSING COST OF
19 TRUST DEED LOAN? 19 $30,OUO. THAT'S WHAT WE HAD REQUESTED.
20 A. I BELIEVE SO. 20 I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT
21 Q. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. 21 THAT'S ALL I KNOW.
22 THAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRANS.~CTION; 22 Q. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS I WANT TO KNOW YOUR
23 CORRECT'? 23 UNDERSTANDING AS TO HOW MUCH MONEY WAS GOING TO BE THE
24 A. I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE TRANSACT I ON AS 24 DOWN PA¥MENT .
25 FAR AS MONEY IS CONCERNED. 25 A. I BELIEVE ALL TOGETHER IT WAS GOING TO BE
NIVJE SAMAAN 7/1CW6 NlVIESAMAAN 7/1OJ06
310-312.-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 JIG-J72-1I11 SOUSA COURT REPORTE.RS 71-4_571.0111
P,geS2
30,000. WELL, THE INITIAL DEPOSIT. A. YES.
Q. I DON'T MEAN THE INITIAL DEPOSIT. I MEAN THE O. WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE AMOUNT or
TOT.'L CASK, THE AMOUNT Of MONEY THAT YOU WEREN I T FIRST TRUST DEED LOAN? WAS IT GOING TO 6E 80 PERCENT OF
BORROWING. I WANT TO KNOW THE AM"OUNT OF HONEY YOU WERE THAT AMOUNT OR soot OTHER AMOUNT?
NOT BORROWING. IF yOU WANT TO USE A PIECE OF PAPER TO A. I BELIEVE 80 PERCENT.
CALCULATE IT, THAT'S FINE. Q. WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE SECOND
A. I CAN'T CALCULATE IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TRUST DEED LOAN? WAS IT GOING TO BE 10 PERCENT OF
TO 00 THAT; SO I WOULD NEED TO ASK MY HUSBAND OR ASK MY
ATTORNEY. A. I DON'T KNOW.
10 O. WELL, WAS THE FIRsT TRUST DEED LOAN GOING TO BE 10 Q. WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSr.r..NDING AS TO THE AMOUNT OF
11 MORE THAN 1,336,000? 11 CASH THAT WAS GOING TO BE PAID BY YOU THROUGH ESCROW
12 A. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. I GUESS NOT. 12 THAT WAS NOT BEING OBTAINED FRai EITHER THE FIRST OR
13 o. LET'S BACK UP. I'M ASKING FOR YOUR 13 SECOND TRUST DEED LOAN?
14 UNDERSTANDING. 14 A. YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE AMOUNT, OR DID I KNOW HOW
15 A. AND I'M TELLING YOU I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 15 IT WAS GOING TO BE --
16 HR. STEIN: I'M ONLY GOING TO OBJECT BECAUSE OF WHAT 16 Q. YES, THE AH'OUNT.
17 SHE KAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF -- THAT HE'S ASKING YOU TO A. OH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE AMOUNT wAs GOING TO
18 RESPOND TO. SO TO wHAT YOU HAVE, YOU'RE TO RESPOND TO. 18 BE.
19 IF YOU DON'T HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, THEN -- 19 Q. 00 YOU KNOW HOW IT WAS GOING TO 8£ CALCULATED?
20 THE WITNESS: ALL I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF IS 20 A. NO.
21 WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. 21 Q. HOW DID YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY YOU WERE GOING
22 MR. STEIN: I DON'T WANT YOU GUESSING. -1 2- 22 TO NEED TO CLOSE ESCROW?
23 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 23 A. MY HUSBAND WAS TO -- HANDLING THAT.
24 Q. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PURCHASE 24 0.. DID YOU EVER TELL HR. LI BaH THAT YOU DI ON' T
25 PRICE WAS GOING TO BE 1, 118, 000? 25 KNOW HOW MUCH CASH YOU WOULO BE PUTTING THROUGH ESCROW
255 / 545
NIVlESAMAAN' 7/1MJ6 NlVlE SAMAAN 711M16
310-312-1111 SOUSACOURTREPOR'ffiRS 114-:571.(1111 310-372-1111 SOUSA COIIRTREPOR TERS 71.4·571-0111
Pagej) PagcH
1 TO CLOSE THE M..b"TTER? I HAll KNOWLEUGE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE
A.
A. I DIDN'T DEAL WITH HR. I.I80H ON ANY FINANCES. 2 TRANSACT] ON.
O. DID YOU EVER PUT ANYTH]NG IN WRIT]NG TO O. NOW, WHEN IT 5AYS HERE, "WE WERE TOLD THE
" MR. LISOH INDICATING YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW MUCH 4 CONTINGEN CY STAATS FROM THE 23RD," AS OF
MONEY SEPTEMBER 28,
5 WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE DEPOSITED IN CAsH 5 2004,
FROM YOU TO IS ]1' CORRECT THAT YOU HAD NEVER RECEIVED
WRITtEN
6 CLOSE ESCROW? 6 CONf'I RMAT ION?
A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. HR. STEIN: EXCUSE HE. MR. CUMMINGS, I D]ON'T
O. DID YOU EVER NOTIFY DR. ZERNIK THAT YOU DIDN'T LOOK -- THANK YOU. ASK IT AGAIN. I GOT LOST. I'M
9 KNOW HOW MUCH CASH YOU WOULD NEED IN ORDER 9
TO CLOSE SAYING WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE Z3RD.
10 ESCROW'? 10 MR. CUMMINGS: OKAY.

11 A. NO. 11 Q. DO YOU SEE PAGE g002S? DO YOU SEE THAT'?
12 Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID YOUR HUSBAND EVER sPEAK 12 A. YES.
13 TO MR. LIBOW'? Q. OKAY.

13 NOW, IT SAYS, "HELLO, MICHAEL. WE WERE
14 A. I DON'T KNoW. 14 TOLD THE CONTINGEN CY STARTS FROM THE 2:JRD."
15 O. DID YOU TELL MR. LIBOH TAAT YOUR FIANCE OR YOUR 15 DO YOU SEE THAT'?
16 HUSBAND WAS WORKING WITH VICTOR PARKS?
16 A. YES.
17 A. I OOO'T REC.Q"LL. 17 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE A COpy OE" THIS E-MAIL ON

OR
18 O. DID YOU EVER NoTIFY JOSEPH ZERNIK THAT YOUR 18 ABOUT SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
19 HUSBAND WAS WORKING WITH VICTOR PARKS TO NO.
OBTAIN THE LOAN 19 A. I PROBABLY JUST SAW IT. I DON'T KNOW IF I
20 ON THE PROPERTY'? 20 RECEIVED A COpy OF IT OR NOT.
21 A. I HAD NEVER SPOKEN OR NOTIFIED MR. WHEN YOU SAY YOU SAW IT.
ZERNIK 21 Q. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? DID
22 PERSONALL Y. 22 YOUR HUSBAND BRING HOME COPIES?
23 O. NOW, YOU SEE THE SECOND PAGE, PAGE S0028. A. MY HUSBAND WAS HANDLING THE TRANSACTI ON;
WERE 23 SO HE
24 YOU AWARE OF THAT -- OF THOSE E-MAIL5 IN
OR ABOUT 24 HAD A COPY.
2~ SEPTEMBER 28. 2004,? 25 Q. DID HE BRING THEM HOME?
NlVlESAMAAN 7/1lW6 HlvtE SA,MAAN 111MJ6
llG-Jll.IJlI SOUSACOURT REPORn.RS 71~S11..(1111 1!().)71.1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 114-511-{1111
A. I DON'T KNOW I F HE BROUGHT THEM HOME OR NOT. Q. ARE YOU ABL.E TO ACCESS GILLERAN GRIFFIN
THROUGH
o. 00 YOU RECALL'? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. YOUR NETWORK?
DO YOU
3 REC.IU.L HIH BRINGING THEM HOME AND YOU LOOKING
AT THEM? A. YES.
A. YES. MY HUSBAND WORKS OUT OF THE HOUSE AT O. THROUGH YOUR COMPUTER AT HOME'?
5 TIMES' SO THEY WERE PROBABLY AT HOME. A. YES.

Q. OKAY. SO WOULD IT BE CORRECT TO SJW THAT YOU IS YOUR HUSBAND ABLE TO ACCESS PACIFIC MORTGAGE
Q.
7 HAD ACCESS TO THE E-MAILS THAT WERE H.~KED 1 CONSULTAN TS' CCt-lPUTERS THROUGH HIS COMPUTER
S0021 AND IN YOUR
8 S0028? e APARTMENT ?
A. YES. A. YES.
10 Q. YOU S.~Y YOU HAVE !\II OFFICE, AND THIS IS IN THE 10 Q. SO IS IT CQRRECT THAT IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING,
11 APARTMENT WHERE YOU .WD YOUR HUSBAND LIVE; BASED UPON WHAT MR.
CORRECT? 11 LI BOW TOLD YOU, THAT ALL THE
12 A. 'lES. 12 CONTINGEN CIES WERE TO START FRa-! SEPtEMBER

23, 2004?
13 Q. lIND DOES YOUR HUSBAND USE THE SAME OFFICE, OR 13 A. YES.
14 00 YOU HAVE TWO OFfICES? 14 O. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAD AGREED TO.; CORRECT?
15 A. YES. HE ALSO HAS AN OFFICE .'T HIS COMPANY. 15 A. SEPTEMBER 23, 2004, YES.
16 Q. DOES HE USE AN OFFICE IN THE HOHE? 16 Q. 00 YOU SEE THE E-MAIL OF OCTOBER 5, 2004,
11 A. YES. 17 50029,?
18 Q. 00 YOU BarH USE THE SAME OFFICE? 18 A. YES.
19 A. YES. 19 Q. DO yOU SEE THAT?
20 o. 00 YOU BOTH USE THE SAME COMPUTER DR SEPARATE 20 NOW. HAD YOU HAD ANY DIRECT CONTACT WITH
21 Ct.HPUTERS ? 21 ESCROW?
22 A. SEPARATE.
-1 3- 22 A. YES.
23 Q. }\NO YOUR COMPUTER IS NETWORKED WITH GILLERAN 23 Q. WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD ANY DIRECT
24 GRIFFIN'? 24 CONTACT WITH ESCROW?
25 A. NO. 25 A. 1 DON'T RECALL THE DATE.
256 / 545
NlVlE sAMAAN 7/10106 NIVIE SAMAAN 1(UW6
--~ .._- ------------ ----------.-------.---~----r_~~~~~~~---~
310-372-1111 SOUSACOURTRFl'ORTERS 7[+-571-0111 310-372·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71-1·571.0111
PageS? Page 511
Q. WAS IT BEFORE YOU WENT TO HAWAII? 1 THE ESCROW OFFICE BY THE NEXT OAY, WHICH WAS THE 24TH.
A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 2 SO J DID NOT SPEAK TO HIM UNTIL THE NEXT DAY OF THE 24TH
Q. WHO DID YOU SPEAK TO AT MARA ESCROW? 3 AND TOLD HIM THAT I COULD HAVE THE CHECK AT ESCROW BUT
A. GAIL HERSHOWITZ. 4 THAT THERE WOULD BE A HOLD ON THE FUNDS BECAUSE I w.~s
Q. ANYBODY ELSE? 5 TRANSFERRING IT FRC1-f ANOTHER ACCOUNT I AND SO I COULD
A. I MAY HAVE SPOKEN TO ANOTHER LADY AT ONE POINT. 6 GIVE THEM THE CHECK, BUT THEY WERE TO HaLO IT FOR A
I DON' T RECALL THE N.lI.ME COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE DEPOSITING IT.
Q. AND DID YOU SPEAK TO GAIL HERSHOWITZ BEFORE YOU AND THEN AT THAT TIME I SPOKE TO -- I ALSO
RETURNED FROM HAWAII? 9 CALLED GAIL HERSHOWITZ TO LET HER KNOW THAT EXACT THING.
10 A. NO. 10 SO HE HAD TOLD ME JUST TAKE THE CHECK IN THERE, AND WHEN
11 Q. WHEN YOU GOT BACK FRCM HAWAII, WHEN IS THE 11 I SPOKE TO GAIL, I -- I TOLD HER THAT THAT WAS GOING TO
12 FIRST TIME YOU SPOKE TO GAIL HERSHOWIT2? YOU RETURNED 12 BE THE CASE AND THAT THE CHECI< COULD NOT BE DEPOSITED
13 FROM HAWAII ON SEPTEMBER 23; IS THAT CORRECT? 13 BECAUSE THE FUNDS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE If SHE DID, AND
14 /MR ZERNIK LEFT THE DEPOSITION ROOM.} 14 SHE SAID, "THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM, EVEN IF WE DID" -- IF
15 THE WITNESS: YES, IN THE LATE EVENING. 15 IT DID -- If IT DID BOUNCE, THEY JUST REDEPOSIT, BUT I
16 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 16 TOLD HER I DID NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPENi SO SHE SAID SHE
17 O· WHEN Is THE FIRST TIME YOU SPOKE TO 17 WOULD HOLD ON TO IT.
18 MS. HERSHaWITZ? 18 O. WAS THIS CONVERSATION ON THE PHONE OR IN
19 A. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE 24TH. 19 PERSON?
20 O. WHAT DID YOU SAY TO MS. HERSHOWITZ, AND WHAT 20 A_ ON THE PHONE.
21 010 SHE SAY TO YOU? 21 O. DID yOU DELIVER THE CHECK THE NEXT -- ON THE
22 A. WELL, LET ME BACK UP. I HAD A VOICE MAIL 22 24TH TO MARA ESCROW?
23 HESSAGE ON MY CELL PHONE FROM MICHAEL LIBQW THE EVENING 23 A. NO. WHAT HAPPENED WAS MICHAEL LIBOW WAS
24 THAT I RETURNED, WHICH WAS THE 23RD, .wn HE STATED THAT 24 ADAMANT THAT THE CHECK BE GIVEN TO HIS ASSISTANT AND
2S THEY NEEDED TO HAVE THE INITIAL DEPOSIT OF $15,000 AT 25 TAKEN TO HIS ASSISTANT'S HOME. SO WE DID THAT ON THE
NIVTE SAMAAN 7/1 OfOG NIVIE SAMAAN 7/1011)6
310.372·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 310.372·1111 SQUSACOURTREPOR'lERS 714·sn.olll
P.~e(,O
EVENING OF THE 24TH. MR. STEIN: CAN WE GET ONE MOP,E COPY, PLEASE? THANK
Q. WHOSE HOME WAS IT TAKEN TO? YOU.
A. HIS ASSISTANT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHOSE NAME -- I BY MR. CUMMINGS:
DID NOT TAKE THE CHECK. MY HUSBAND TOOK THE CHECK. O. IS THAT A COPY OF THE CHECK THAT YOU GAVE TO
Q. YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE ADDRESS? 5 MARA ESCROW?
A. NO. I WAS NEVER THERE. 6 A. IT WASN'T GIVEN TO MARA ESCROW. IT WAS GIVEN
MR. CUMMINGS: IS THAT CHECK IN HERE? 7 TO MICHAEL LIBOW'S ASSISTANT.
MR. STEIN: YES. I THINK, ACTUALLY, ITIS NOT IN 8 Q. AND IS IT CORRECT THAT AT THE TIME YOU WROTE
HERE. IT'S IN THE MARA ESCROW DOCUMENTS THAT THEY 9 THE CHECK, YOU KNEW THAT IF IT WAS DEPOSITED ON
10 PRODUCED. 10 SEPTEMBER 24, 2004, OR SEPTEMBER 25, 2004, THAT IT WOULD
11 THE WITNESS: I'M GOING TO USE THE RESTROOM. 11 NOT CLEAR?
12 (BRIEF RECESS.) 12 A. YES, AND I MADE THAT CLEAR.
13 HR. CUMMINGS: LET ME MARK AS EXHIBIT 3 A COPY OF A 13 O. ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2004, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN
14 CHECK, DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2004. 14 POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO GET A CASHIER'S CHECK OR CERTIFIED
15 THE WITNESS: MAY I SEE THAT? 15 CHECK fOR $15,000 AND DELIVER IT TO MR. LIBOW'S
16 MR. STEIN: YOU'RE GOING TO GET A COPY. 16 ASSISTANT?
17 FRONT AND BACK. THERE'S WRITING ON THE BACK 17 A. NO.
18 ALSO. 18 O. AND WHY IS THAT?
19 (WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT 19 A. BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE IN THE EVENING.
20 WAS SUBSEOUENTLY MARKED BY THE REPORTER AS 20 Q. WHY WEREN'T YOU ABLE TO DO IT DURING THE DAY OF
21 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 3 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND 21 SEPTEMBER 24?
22 IS HERETO ATTACHED. J -1 4- 22 A. BECAUSE I ALREADY SAID THAT THE FUNDS WERE NOT
23 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 23 AVAILABLE; SO I COULD NOT GET A CASHIER'S CHECK.
24 Q. NOW, IS THAT THE COPY OF THE CHECK THAT YOU 24 Q. YOU COULON' T GET IT fRC1-I ANY Of YOUR ACCOUNTS,
25 GAVE -- 25 YOUR HUSBAND'S ACCOUNTS?
NIVIESAMAAN 7/10106 NlVIE SAMAAN 7/1MJ6 257 / 545

1------ -------_._---- - - - - -Document
------,--40-3
- - - - - -Filed
_.-_ 04/17/2008
- ..
Page 37 of 50
JI0-372-1111 SOUSA COURT RJ:PORTERS 71+>71-0111 lIO-J12-11l1 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 7l~~57I-0111
Pa(c62
,... NO. I WAS l'RANSfEHRJNG HONEY IN'fO THIS J\CCOUNT GIVEN AT THE TIME THE OfFER I$ ACCEPTEO?
2 THAT I WANTED TO USE. THE fUNDS WOULO NOT CLEAR. THERE A. YES, THAT THERE ARE --
3 WAS A HOLD ON THE FUNDS. Q. I SN' T THAT THE STANDARD I N THE REAL ESTATE
Q. NOW, WHEN YOU WENT TO HAWAn, IS 11' CORRECT INDUSTRY? NDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
5 THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT $15.000 WAS DUE AT ACCEPTANCE? A. YES, IT IS THE STANDARD, BUT IT'S ALSO THE
11.. THE ACCEPTANCE Of THE 23RLJ. 6 STANUARlJ THAT IF VOU GIVE A UEPOSIT AND YOU'RE ASKED TO
7 O. so YOU UNDERSTOOD SI0,OJO WAS DUE ON 7 HOLD IT fOR A COUPLE OF DAYS, THAT THAT IS GR.'\NTED, AS
8 SEPTEMBER 23 -- 8 LONG AS THEY HAVE THE DEPOSIT.
9 A. NO. NOT THE 23RD. WE WERE B.l'\CK ON THE 23RD. 9 O. CAN YOU LOOK AT 50044 THROUGH S0066.
10 I DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE DUE THE 10 A. YES.
11 SECDtW WE GOT BACK I NTO TOWN. I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF 11 Q. LET'S TAKE OFF THE LAST -- S0066. LET'S
12 THAT BY MICHALE LISDH, EXCEPT fOR HIS fRANTIC MESSAGE 12 SEPARATE THAT FROM THIS OTHER PACKAGE. I WANT TO UiLK
13 THAT HE LEFT ME THAT EVENING. 13 TO YOU ABOUT THE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH --
14 Q. YOU KNEW TH.lI"T IT WAS DUE UPON ACCEPTANCEi 14 HR. STEIN: SO YOU'RE MAKING INQUIRY ABOUT 44
15 CORRECT? 15 THROUGH 65; IS THAT CORRECT?
16 A. NO, NOT NECESSARI LY . 16 MR. CUMl'1INGS; WE'LL GO <14 THP.OUGH 4 B. LET'S LOOK
17 Q. LooK AT 5002 E. 17 AT THOSE fIRST.
18 A. YES. 18 MR. STEIN: OKAY.
19 Q. IT SAYS, II INITIAL DE:PO$I T TO BE $15,OOU WITH 19 BY HR. CUMMINGS:
20 INCREASED DEPOSIT OF ADDITIONAL 1 S, 000 WITHIN 14 DAYS 20 Q. THOSE ARE: DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2004; CORRECT?
21 FROH ACCEPTANCE." 21 A. YES.
22 A. YES. 22 O. yOU GOT BACK INTO TOWN THE NIGHT OF THE 2JRO OF
23 O. IS THAT CORRECT? 23 SEPTEMBER; CORRECT?
24 A. YES. A. YES.
25 Q. ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT THE INITIAL DEPOSIT IS 25 Q. SO ON THE 24TH, DID YOU GO TO ESCROW?
NlVIE SAMAAN 1I10l0G NTvtE SAMAAN 7/IOJOO
)1~]n-1111 SOUSACOURTREf'ORrnRS , .....571-0111 110.312-1111 SOUSACOURTREPORl'ERS 114·S71-0111
Pug.:fi.l P1Igc<>4 I
I
A. NO, I DID NOT GO TO ESCROW. A. YES. THAT WAS NOT GIVEN TO MARA ESCROW. THAT
I
Q. oro YOU CONTACT ESCROW TO SEE IF THE ESCROW WAS GIVEN DIRECTLY TO MICHAEL LISQW. i
) INSTRUCTIONS H.lI..D BEEN PREPl'J~ED? Q. ON WHAT DATE?
A. I DON'T KNOW If I DID IT THAT DAY OR IN THE A. OCTOBER <1.
5 NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER THAT. Q. AND DID YOU ALSO GET THE PRELIMINARY TITLE
Q. DID YOU LEARN THAT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS HAD BEEN 6 REPORT -- THAT'S S0050 TO S0065 -- ON OCTOBER 4, 2004?
PREPARED AND WERE READY FOR YOU TO SIGN? A. IT'S OCTOBER 6, 2004.
A. I DON I T RECALL_ Q. OCTOBER --
O. WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE 50044 THROUGH 500487 A. I DON'T KNOW. I WAS NOT DEALING WITH THAT. MY
10 A. WELL, WE DEFINITELY DIDN'T RECEIVE THEM ON )a HUSBAND WAS -- AND VICTOR PARKS.
\I SEPTEMBER 22. [BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND OCTOBER 4, WHICH 11 Q. 0[0 YOU EVER REVIEW THE PRELIMINARY TITLE
12 STATES ON THE FAX DATE AT THE TOP OF THE SHEET IS WHEN 12 REPORT?
13 THIS WAS RECEIVED. 13 A. NO, I DID NOT.
14 O. WHEN DID YOU SIGN AND RETURN THEM? 14 Q. LOOKING AT 50030, DO YOU SEE THAT?
15 A. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T RECALL. 15 A. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A CORRECTION MADE.
16 Q. DID YOU DO IT RIGHT AWAY? 16 VOU WERE STATING THAT WE RECEIVED THE ESCROW
17 A. OH, I PROBABLY DID IT ON THE SAME DAY. 17 INSTRUCTIONS ON OCTOBER 4. IT'S OCTOBER 6.
18 Q. SO IT'S YOUR BEST ESTIMATE THAT YOO SIGNED AND 18 Q. I THINK YOU SAID TfL~T.
19 RETURNED THE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS TO MARA ESCROW ON 19 A. OKAY.
20 OCTOBER 6, 200n 20 YES, I' H LOOKING AT IT.
21 A. YES. 21 Q. NOW--
22 O. .AND ON OCTOBER 4, 2004, DID YOU ALSO DELIVER -1. 5- 22 HR. STEIN: 500301
23 S15,000 THROUGH A CASHIER' 5 CHECK TO KARA ESCROW? 23 BY MR. CUMMINGs:
24 A. WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING -- OCTOBER 47 24 O. WAIT. CAN YOU LOOK AT $0074 AND 50075.
25 Q. YES, S004 9. 25 A. YES.
NIVIESAMAAN 7/101tl6 NIvtE SAMAAN 711011)6

258 / 545
---
Document
__ 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 38 of 50
---------------_.-
. .. _------',----- -------
)1()..)1l.1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71~_j71~111

JIG-J12-1111 sOUSAcmJRTREPORTERS 71~_571-lJll'
Page ,,~
LI::'.NUER'S N01'IFICATION THAT THE VALUE OF THE HOME IS
O. NOW, Vll> YOU RECEIVE 50,)74 ANLJ S0015 ON
JUSTIFIED."
2 OCTOBER 1 e, 2004?
A. YES.
A. YES.
Q. AND DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DR. ZERNIK W.l\.S o. AND I S IT CORRECT THAT YOU KNEW AT THAT TIME
5 THAT BY FAILING TO REMOVE THE APPRAISAL CONTINGENCY,

5 GIVING VOU A NOTICE TO PERfORM AS FAR AS REMOVAL OF THE
6 THAT 'fHE SELLER MAY ELECT TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT"?

6 LOAN ANlJ APPRAISAL CONTINGENCIES W[THIN 24 HOURS OR HE
7 MAY ELECT TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT? A. YES.
O. THEN I WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH,

A. YES.
O. AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT ON OCTOBER lB. 2004; 9 PARAGRAPH 4.
10 IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT GAIL HERSHOWITZ TOLD

10 CORRECT?
11 YOU THAT SHE HAD NOT PREPARED ESCP.OW INSTRUCTIONS ON

11 A. YES.
12 SEPTEMBER 24, SEPTEMBER 29, ,~D OCTOBER 6, 2004?

12 O. LOOK .I\T eXHIBIT s0071 THROUGH S0080.
DID YOU SEND THOSE FOUR PAGES, 71 THROUGH 80, 13 A. YES.

13
TO MR. LIBOW BY FAX ON OCTOBER 2a, 20041 14 O. YOU'RE SURE OF THAT?

14
15 A. EITHER SHE HADN'T PREPARED THEM OR SHE WOULDN'T
IS A. YES.
Q. .WO ARE PAGES 78 .~D 79 A copy Of A LETTER THAT 16 GIVE TO IT US. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THrNGS THAT --
16
17 O. WELL, IN YOUR LETTER. YOU'RE SAYING SUE TOLD
11 'faU fAXED TO MR. LIBOW ON OCTOBER 20?
IB YOU THAT SHE WAS WAITING TO HEAR FROM YOU. "YOU"
IB A. YES.
O. NOW, LET'S GO THROUGH THIS LETTER. YOUR LETTER 19 MEANING HR. LIBOH --
19
20 ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 'fOU GOT THE -- THE fIRST PARAGRAPH ON 20 A_ EXACTLY.
21 O. -- BEFORE SHE COULD PREPARE IT.

21 OCTOBER 18, 2004, YOU RECEIVED THE NOTICE TO BUYER TO
22 A. EXACTLY.
22 PERFORM; CORRECT?
23 O. NOW, DID GAl L HERSHOWI TZ TELL YOU THAT SHE ~AS

23 A. YES.
24 WAITING FOR MICHAEL LIBQW BEFORE SHE coULD PREPARE THE

24 O. THE THIRD P.~GRAPH SAYS, "YOU WILL NOT REMOVE
THE APPRAISAL CONTINGENCY UNTIL I HAVE RECEIVED THE 25 ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS?

25
NIVIE SAMAAN 7/10100

N1V1ESAMAAN 7/10106
JIG-Jn.1111 SOUSACOURTREPORTI:RS 714·571.0111

31Q.372-1111 SOUSACOURTREPOR1c:RS 714-571-0111
Pugc67
A. YES.
A. YES_
Q. s0085 AND 50086, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU RECEIVED
O. DID SHE TELL YOU THAT ON SEPTEMBER 24"?
A. SHE TOLD HE THAT ON ALL THREE DAYS THERE. FROM HR. LIBOW?
4 Q. SEPTEMBER 24, SEPTEMBER 29, AND OCTOBER 6; A. YES.
Q. THEN THERE'S SOMETHING HANDWRITTEN THERE ON THE

5 CORRECT?
6 SECOND PAGE, S008 6.
A. YES.
IS THAT YOUR HANDWRITING --
o. AND IS IT CORRECT THAT ON OCTOBER 20, 2004, YOU
6 FAXED TO MR. LISOW THE CONTINGENCY REMOVAL NO.2 FOR THE A. NO.
O. __ "MICHAEL, PLEASE SEND COPIES TO BETH STYNE

9 LOAN AND TITLE, BUT YOU DID NOT REMOVE THE APPRAISAL
10 IN ESCROW"?
10 CONTINGENCY ON TRAT DATE?
II A. NO. THAT IS NOT MY SIGNATURE. THAT IS NOT MY
II A. YES.
12 HANDWRITING.
12 Q. NOW, LOOK AT S0042 AND 50043.
13 O. NOW, IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU RECEIVED S0086, A

13 ARE THOSE DOCUMENTS WHERE YOU NOTIFIED
14 LETTER FROM OR. ZERNIK ADDRESSED TO YOU -- TO MICttAEL

14 HR. LIBOW OF THE CONTINGENCY REMOVAL FOR REPORTS AND
IS LISOW -- TO YOU AND MICHAEL LIBOW, STATING THAT HE WAS

15 DISCLOSURES IN YOUR INVESTIGATION OF THE PRopERTY?
16 CANCELING THE ESCROW?

16 A. YES.
17 HR. STEIN: MISSTATES WHAT THE DOCUMENT STATES. IT
17 O. CAN YOU LOOK AT 50083.
IB SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

18 IS TH.:I\.T A VOICE M.~IL OR E-MAIL, OR WHAT IS
19 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
19 THAT? FAX? CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT IS? IS THAT A
20 O. DID YOU RECEIVE S0086 ON OCTOBER 21, 20041

20 COpy OF AN E-MAIL?
21 A. YES.
21 A. I THINK THAT WAS AN E-MAIL. VES, E-MAIL.
22 O. E-HAIL THAT YOU SENT TO HICHJ\£L LIBOW? -1 &6- 22

Q. AND DID YOU SEND S0084 TO HR. LIBOW THE EVENING
23 OF OCTOBER 21, 2004, AFTER VOU RECEIVED S0066 FRCH

23 A. YES.
o. DID YOU EVER SEE THE [-HAIL THAT'S MARKED 24 HR. ZERNIK?
24
25 HR. STEIN: PLEASE RESTATE THAT BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED
25 S0084?
259 / 545
NTVlE MMAAN 7/1(W6
NlVlESAMAAN 7/1Q/OG
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008
------Page
- - -39
- -of
-- 50_-- ...
310-J1~.111l SOUSACOURTR.FJ'ORTERS n"·57I..Q1I1

JIG,.]72-1111 SOUSACQURTREPORT'ERS 71 ....nJ-0111
p3#;e70
P~c6'J
THE WI TNESS: OKAY. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

AS TO THE NUMBERS OR HAVE THE COURT REPORTER --
BY MR. cl.JM}o4INGS:
BY HR. CUMMINGS:
Q. WHICH ONE WAS SENT fIRST? DID YOU RECEIVE
Q. 50086 WAS FAXED TO YOU AT 4: 36 P.M. ON
500B5 BEFORE YOU SENT SOOB3?

OCTOBER 21, 2004; CORRECT?
MR. STEIN: IF SHE HAS KNOWLEDGE.
A. I DON'T SEE THE TIME. I'M NOT SURE.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE I'D SEEN THE UOCUMENT
Q. CAN YOU TURN TO THE fRONT PAGE, S0085, THE
50086 BEFORE I SENT MY DOCUMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE TIMES
COVER SHEET.
STATE THAT I sENT MINE -- THAT MICHAEL -- TKAT
A. OKAY. YES.
MR. ZERNIK SENT HIS BEFORE MINE, I DON'T KNOW IF I SAW
O. OKAY. AND THEN YOUR E-MAIL TO MR. LIBOW IS
10 HIS BEFORE I SENT MINE.
10 7: 09 P.M:.
A. THAT'S FROM MICHAEL LIBOW. 11 BY MR. CUMMINGS:

11
12 Q. OKAY. SO YOU SENT 30083.
12 O. OKAY. FROM MICHAEL LIBOW TO YOU. OKAY.
13 THEN yOU SEE S0085 .4.ND 50086; CORRECT?

13 GOING BACK THEN TO 50083.
14 A. YES.
14 A. YES.
15 O. AND THEN DID YOU RECEIVE S0084 FROM HR. LIBOW?
15 O. TAAT E-MAIL IS DATED OCTOBER 21, 2004; CORRECT?
16 A. YES.
16 A. YES.
17 Q. DO YOU SEE THE LAST PARAGRAPH IN MR. LrBOW'S

17 Q. AND N.'S IT SENT BY YOU TO MR. LIBOH AT OR ABOUT
18 [-MAIL TO YOU? THAT'S 50084, WHERE IT SAYS, "r WILL

18 5:09 P.M.?
19 MAJ<E EVERY ATTEMPT TO CALM MR. ZEPJHK, AND, HOPEFULLY,
19 A. YES.
20 WE'LL BE ABLE TO TELL HIM TQNORROW THAT YOU ARE READY TO
20 Q. ON THAT DATE?
21 RELEASE ALL CONTINGENCIES. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS WILL

21 A. YES.
22 BE EFFECTIVE, BUT IT'S THE BEST THAT I CAN 00. SHOULD

22 Q. NOW, WAS THAT SENT BEFORE OR AFTER YOU RECEIVED
23 HE ELECT NOT TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT, I BELIEVE THAT HE

23 SOOB5?
24 WILL NEED ADDITIONAL TIME IN THE PROPERTY, INCLUSIVE OF
24 A. I DON'T HAVE AN S008S.
25 THE NEED FOR FUMIGATION." DO YOU SEE THAT?
25 HR. STEIN: YES, YOU DO.
NIVIE SAMAAN 1/10iU6

NfVlESAMAAN 7/10106
)10-372-1111 SOUSACOllRTR.EJ'ORTERS 71-4·511-0111

)1~171.11I1 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 11-4·)71-0111
Pllgc72
PIlgc11
O. AND YOU FAXED THAT TO MR. LIBOWi IS THAT
A. YES.
Q. DID YOU UNDERSTAND AT THAT TIME THAT DR. ZERNIK CORRECT?
MAY PROCEED WITH HIS ELECTION TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT? A. YES.
HR. STEIN: HR. CUMMINGS, I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE

HR. STEIN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT AS IT C.boLLS FOR A
A GOOD TIME FOR HE, IF YOU DON'T HIND.
LEGAL CONCLUSION.
HR. CI.JI'+lINGS: FINE. WE'LL BREAK AT THIS TIME.
MR. CUMMINGS: I'M ASKING FOR HER STATE OF MIND.
OFF THE RECORD.
HR. STEIN: OKAY.
(WHEREUPON AT TilE 1l0UR of 12:32 P.M.
MR. CUMMINGS: HER UNDERSTANDING.
THE DEPOSITION WAS ADJOURNED FOR A LUNCH
THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION.
10 BREAK, TO RESUME AT 1: 30 P.M.)

10 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
11 Q. YES. DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHEN VOU RECEIVED 11
12 HR. LIBOW'S E-MAIL TO YOU, THAT'S MARKED 500884, THAT 12
13 DR. ZERNIK MAY CONTINUE TO ELECT TO C.ltNCEL THE CONTRACT? 13
14
14 A. YES.
15 O. LOOKING AT EXHIBIT OR AT DOCUMENT NO. 500 -- 15
16
16 S0102, S0103 --
17
17 A. YES.
18 Q. -- TlLboT'S WHEN YOU FINALLY W.l\IVED THE LOAN IB
19
19 CoNTINGENCY; IS TKAT CORRECT?
20 A. ALL THE CONTINGENCIES WERE REMOVED. 20
21 a. AND THAT'S ON OCTOBER 25, 2004?

21
22 A. YES. -1 7- 22
23 O. THAT'S WHEN YOU W.UVED THE APPRAISAL 23
24 CONTINGENCY FOR THE FIRST TIME; CORRECT? 24
25
25 A. YES.
260 / 545
tIlVIESAMAAN 7/10Kl6
N1VIESAMAAN 711Ml6
----_ ._- Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 40 of 50
31()']12-1111 SQUSACOURT REPORTERS 714·57\.()111
3!0-372-1111 SQl!SACOURTRF.PORTERS 7,.-.-nl-0111
Pace?'!
I
EVEN THOUGH IT WAS HIS LEGAL RIGHT TO CANCEL,
AFTERNOON SESSION
OR HE
DID NOT BELIEVE THAT -- THAT HE WOULD CANCEL
(WHEREUPON AT THE HOUR OF' 1:]2 P.M.
THE SHOULD CANCEL BECAUSE or THE FACT THAT HIM AND HIS
OF THE SANE DAY, AT THE SAME PLACE,
ALL THE
THE TAKING OF REPRESENT ATIVES DELAYED US IN RECEIVING
SAME PARTIES BEING flRESENT,
INFORMATIO N THAT WE NEEDED TO MEET OUR OBLIGATIO
NS. so,
THE WITHrN DEPOSITION WAs RESUMED, AND
6 IN MY OPINION, I U[U NOT FEEL 'fHAT HE SHOULU HAVE

THE FOLLOWING PRQCEElJIN GS OCCURRElJ: )
THEIR
7 CANCELED OR BECAUSE THAT THEY DID NOT MEET
TU.n:LY FASHION
B OBLIGATIO NS IN GETTING US ANYTHING IN A
NIVIE SAr.fAA.N.
NS.
9 SO WE WERE PRECLUDED FROM MEETING OUR OBLIGATIO
THE WITNESS HEREIN, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSL Y
WHAT IS IT THAT YOU CLAIM THAT MR. ZERNIK
WAS EX.~INED 10 o.
10 DULY ADMINISTE RED THE OATH,
YOU WITHIN A
11 PREVENTED YOU FROM -- [lIU NOT PROVIDE TO
11 .1V'f[J TE5T I n E[J fURTHER A5 fOLLOWS;
12 TIMELY FASHION?
12
13 A. WELL, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT PICKED THE ESCROW
13 EXAN:[NATIO N (RESUMED)
COM:PANY, WHICH IS MARA ESCROW; SO THEY WERE RESPONSIB LE

14
14 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
AND THERE HAS
15 IN NOT GETTING US THE PRELIMINAR Y TITLE,
15 O. LOOK AT 0030.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. I THINK THE
TIME 16 Sot-tETHING ELSE.
16 WERE YOU AW.r..RE OF THESE TWO E-MAILS IN THE
PRELIMINAR Y
17 LOAN -- THE ESCROW INSTRUCTJ ONS AND THE
17 FRAME OF' OCTOBER 18 --
J THINK IT WAS NOTED OCToBER 6. WE HAD
16 TITLE, UNTIL --
18 A. THE 19TH?
THINGS WERE
19 ACCEPTED THE OFFER AS Of THE 16TH, AND THOSE
19 O. -- AND THE 19, 20047
OCTOBER 6. SO
20 NOT FORWARDED TO THE LOAN OFf! CERS UNTI L
20 A. YES.
21 WAS QUITE DELAYED. AND ALSO OUR ESCROW INSTRUCTIO NS
21 O· DOCUMENT ,50031.
19, 22 WERE DELAYED BEING SENT TO Os.

22 WERE YOU AWARE Of THAT E-MAIL ON OCTOBER
23 AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT IN THE ESCROW
23 2004?
ONS?
BUT I 24 INSTRUCTIO NS -- WHERE ARE THE ESCROW INSTRUCTI
24 A. I WAS AWARE THAT THE: SELLER M.IGHT CANCEL,
25 HR. STEIN: IT WOULD BE 44.
25 WANT TO ELABORATE ON S~THING_
NlVlE SAMAAN 1fI0!OO

NlvtE SAMAAN 7/10!tl6
31G-37l-111! SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71<1·571-0111

310-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111
P.gc:7(,
I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE IT IS. THAT TIME

GONE OVER.
THE WITNESS: 44?
ON THREE
THAT I WROTE TO HICHAEL LIBOW AND TOLD HIM
HR. STEIN: YES.
SPOKE TO GAIL HERSHOWIT Z, AND SHE
3 SEPARATE OCCASIONS I
3 THE WItNESS; OKAY. IN NO. 44, WHERE IT STATES THAT
4 KEPT SAYING, "I HAVE TO WAIT FOR MICHAEL LIBOH TO GIVE
WE WOULD BE GIVING A S15,000 DEPOSIT, THAT
.4 ON OCTOBER a,
5 ME THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANYT" ING. "
IS EVIDENCE TO ME TfL~T THEY DID AGREE TO THE ONE-WEEK
HR. STEIN: IT'S HERE.
6 EXTENSION BECAUSE IF THEY HADN'T, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
'rHE WITNESS: 18. IT' S IN PARAGRAPH 4.
OCTOBER 1. so THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY AGREED TO
B BY MR. CUMMINGS:
a EXTEND THE ACCEPTANC E.
O. WHEN WAS THE FIRST DATE THAT YOUR LOAN BROKER
50 MY THINKING WAS THAT THERE WAS NO RUSH
10 REQUESTED THAT ESCROW INSTRUCTIO NS BE PROVIDED?
US WHAT WE
10 BEC.I\USE THEY WERE NOT RUSHING IN GETTING
11 MR. STEIN: IF SHE HAS t<NOWLEDGE.
11 NEEDED.
12 NOT TO GUESS.
12 WE ALso DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE TRANSFER
13 THE WITNESS: I DON'T -- I'M SURE IT'S IN ONE OF
THosE WERE ALSO LATE. WE DID
13 DISCLOSUR E AGREEMENT S.
14 THESE DOCUMENTS . I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT DATE IT Is,
OCTOBER 4, AND
14 NOT SIGN THOSE DR EVEN RECEIVE THEM UNTIL
. IT'S IN
E; SO 15 BUT I'M SURE THAT THEY'RE IN THESE DOCUMENTS
IS THAT WAS WAY PAST THE SEVEN DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANC
LIBOH.
16 ONE or THE E-HAILS THAT HE HAD SENT TO MICHAEL
AS GETTING
16 THEY WERE NOT IN A TIMELY FASHION AS FAR
17 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
17 EVERYTHIN G THAT WE NEEDED, BUT THEY EXPECTED US TO BE IN
--
18 o. HOW DID GETTING THE PRELIMINA RY TITLE REPORT
16 A TIMELY FASHION. THEY MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR US TO GET
YOU FRrn
]9 NOT GETTING THAT UNTIL OCTOBER 6 PREVENT
19 ANYTHING WE NEEDED TO GET IN ON TIME.
20?
20 WAIVING THE APPRAISAL CONTINGEN CY ON OCTOBER
20 O. oro YOU PERSONALL Y EVER ASK THE ESCROW COMPANY
21 A. FR~ MY KNOWLEDGE , WHAT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO
ONS?
21 TO GIVE VOU A COPY OF THE ESCROW INSTRUCTI
22 A. ABSOLUTEL Y.
-1. 8- 22 ME, AND I MIGHT NOT BE SAYING THIS CORRECTLY
, BUT THE
REPORT IN
23 LENDER NEEDS TO HAVE THE PRELIMINA RY T1TLE
23 Q. WHAT DAY?
ORDER TO SUBMIT THE LOAN. ~ITHOUT IT, THEY CANNOT
24
24 A. ON THE THREE DAYS. ON THOSE THREE OCCASIONS
.~LREADY 25 PROCEED WITH THE LOAN.

WE'D
25 THAT WAS STATED IN ONE OF THE LETTERS WHICH
H1V1E SAMAAN 1I10A:l6
261 / 545
NlVlE SAMAAN 7110106
.- -----
--~----------_ .. __ - - - - - -Document
- - - - - - - - - - -40-3
- - - - - - - -Filed
------04/17/2008
--- Page 41 of 50
310-371-1111 SOUSACOUHTRF.F'ORTERS 71~-571"()111 ]10-372-1111 SOUSACOURTREPOR1'E.RS 71~-571..(J1I1
Pile ,.
0_ IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE DELAY IN GETTING PARTY; SO I GUESS THEy WOULO BE WORKING FOR BOTH OF US,
2 THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT BEFORE OCTOBER 6 PRf.VElITED BUT THEY WERE SELECTED BY THEM.
3 THE APPRAISAL FROM BEING COMPLETED? Q. WELL, ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT FROM YOUR EDUCATION
A. IT PREVENTED -- IN REAL ESTATE AS A SALES AGENT I THAT YOU' RE AWARE THAT
MR. STEIN: HOLD ON. I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE 5 AN ESCROW CCMPANY IS THE AGENT FOR BOTH THE BUYER AND
6 QUESTION AS IT CALLS fOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION, ANlJ IT ASKS 6 THE SELLER?
FOR HER OPINIONS IN THE AREAS THAT SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED A. YES, I AM. AWARE, BUT LET ME RESTATE THAT I HAD
8 TO TESTIFY, AND IT ASKS FOR EXPERT OPINION. B NOT HAD ANY REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE BEFORE THIS
9 BY HR. CUMMINGS: 9 TRANSACTION.
10 O. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE APPRAISAL WAS ORDERED? 10 Q. BUT YOU'RE AWARE FROM YOUR EDUCATION TO GET A
II A. I DO NOT. 11 LICENSE TO SELL REAL ESTATE IN THE STATE OF CALI FORNIA
12 O. 00 yOU KNOW WHO ORDERED IT? 12 THAT AN ESCROW COMPANY ACTS AS THE AGENT FOR THE BUYER
13 A. I DO NOT. IT WAS EITHER VICTOR PARKS -- IT WAS ] 3 AND THE SELLER; CORRECT?
14 PROBABLY VICTOR PARKS OR MY HUSBAND. I DON'T KNOW. A. YES.
15 O. DID YOU EVER MEET WITH THE APPRAISER? 15 0- DID ANYBODY AT MARA ESCROW CC:«PANY EVER TELL
16 A. I DID NOT PERSONALLY, NO. 16 YOU THAT THEY WERE NOT YOUR AGENT?
17 O. DID YOU EVER TALK TO HIli? 17 A. NO, BUT THEY STATED, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT THEY
18 A. NO. 18 WORK FOR MICHAEL LIBOW.
19 O. NOW, IS IT YOUR UNDEnSTANDING THAT MR. ZERNIK 19 O. WHO TOLD YOU THAT THEY WORK FOR MICHAEL LI80W?
20 WAS SUPPOSED TO ORDER THE APPRAI SAL? 20 A. WELL, EVERYTHING THAT I EVER CALLED TO ASK FOR
21 A. NO. 21 WAS NOT GIVEN TO ME UNLESS THERE WAS AN AGREEKENT
22 0- IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT MARA ESCROW 22 BETWEEN HER AND MICHAEL LIBOW. SHE WAS ALWAYS WAITING
23 COMPANY WAS THE AGENT FOR YOU AND MR. ZERNIK? 23 fOR MICHAEL LIBOW'S ANSWER, FOR A BETTER TERN. I WAS
24 A. I KNOW THAT THEY WERE SELECTED BY -HR. ZERNIK; 24 NEVER GIVEN WHAT I REQUESTED ON THE TIMES THAT I
25 SO I DON' T KNOW. I MEAN I GUESS THEY'RE A NEUTRAL 25 REQUESTED IT, UNLESS MICHAEL LIBOH AGREED TO IT.
NIVlESAMAAN 7f1Ml6 NWIE SAMAAN 71JM)6
llQ.}12-11I1 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 7I"S71-o11 1 110-l72-1111 SQUSACOURTREPORlERS 711-511-0111
o. I WANT YOU TO TE:LL ME EVERY SINGLE ITEM THAT THE APPRAISAL.
2 YOU REQUESTED THAT GAIL HERSHOWITZ SAID SHE WOULD NOT Q. ISN'T IT A FACT THAT THE APPRAISAL -- THE
3 PROVIDE TO YOU UNLESS MICHAEL LIBOW AGREED TO IT. 3 APPRAISING OF THE PROPERTY IS S(;METHING THAT IS DONE BY
A. THE ESCROVI INSTRUCTIONS • THE PROSPECTIVE LENDER?
.5 O. ANYTHING ELSE? 5 A. I BELIEVE SO.
6 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE COMES FROM THE ESCROW 6 Q. AND THE LENDER WAS SELECTED BY YOUR MORTGAGE
7 COMPANY; SO THAT'S ALL -- 7 BROKER; CORRECT?
O. YOU NADE A STATEMENT THAT SHE TOLD YOU SHE A. YES.
9 WOULDN'T GIVE YOU THINGS. I WANT TO KNOW, OTHER THAN Q. AND THE MORTGAGE BROKER WAS THE COMPANY THAT
10 THE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, WHAT IT IS THAT YOU CLAIM GAIL 10 YOUR HUSBAND WORKS FOR; CORRECT?
11 HERSHOWITZ TOLD YOU SHE: WOULD NOT GIVE YOU UNLESS 11 A. YES.
12 MICHAEL LIBOW APPROVED IT_ 12 AND ONE MORE THING TO ADD TO WHAT I HAD ASKED
13 A. THE PRELIMINARY TITLE, WHICH I REOUESTED IN 13 OF MARA ESCROli. I ALSO ASKED THEM NOT TO DEPOSIT THE
14 THAT LETTER, AND THE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS. 14 CHECK, WHICH THEY DID ON HICKAEL LIBOW'S INQUIRY. I HAD
15 Q. .a.NYTHING ELSE? 15 TOLD HER TO HOLD THE CHECK BECAUSE IT WOULD BE
16 A. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I'VE REQUESTED THOSE 16 INSUFFICIENT FUNDS, AND sHE STILL WENT AHEAD AND CASHED
11 SEVERAL TIMES, BOTH ITEMS. 17 IT BECAUSE OF WHAT MICHAEL LIBOW TOLD HER TO DO.
18 O. DID YOU ASK ANY80DY AT MARA ESCROW TO DO 18 O. DID GAl L HEMUOWI T2 TELL YOU THAT SHE CASHED
19 ANYTHING REGARDING THE APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY FOR 19 THE CHECK BECAUSE OF WHAT MICHAEL LIBQW TOLD HER?
20 YOUR LOAN APPLICATION? 20_ A. ABSOLUTELY. SHE SAID," MICHAEL LIBOW" -- WHAT
21 A. I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T DEAL WITH THE 21 IS THE WORD?
22 APPRAI SAL. -1 9- 22 HR. STEIN: DIRECTED.
23 O. DID YOU ASK MICHAEL LIBOH TO 00 ANYTHING 23 THE WITNESS; -- "DIRECT ME TO CASH THE CHECK, AND
24 REGARDING THE .~PPRAISAL fOR YOUR LOAN APPLICATION? 24 THAT'S WHAT I DID."
25 A. I DID NOT PERSONALLY ASK HIM ANYTHING REGARDING 25 //
NlVIESAMAAN 7/10106 N1V1E SAMAAN 7JIOJ06
262 / 545
""311-1111 SOUSACOURTRfPORTERS 71'-;71=~-~--- -------.-----------·--~-----~"- -m~1I1 .. SOUSA COURT RfPOR'US "'-511-<1111 ._.~
BY MR. CUMMINGS: P~e81 r-l----Q-.--WE-.-E-Y-O-U-A-W-Afl.-E-O-F-'-.I!A-'.-E-_-MA-l-L-o-"-o-.-.-""-O-U-T- P3ccll
O. DOCUMENT NO. 50032 AND 50033. 2 OCTOBER 22, 2004?
3 WERE YOU AWARE OF THE THREE E-MAILS THAT ARE A. YES.
4 LISTED ON THOSE -- SET FORTH ON THOSE TWO PAGES, }\ND Q. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE E-MAIL DOCUMENT S0035?
5 THEY'RE ALL DATED FRIDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2004? A. YES.
A. I WAS AWARE of THEM. Q. WERE: YOU AWARE OF THAT [-MAIL 01'1 OCTOBER 25,
O. WERE VOU AW_~E OF THEM ON DR ABOUT THE TIME 7 200<1?
8 THEY WERE RECEIVED? A. YES, ON DR ABOUT THAT TIME.
A. I DON'T RECALL IF I WAS AWARE OF THEM AT THE O. DID YOU GET ALL OF THE E-HAILS THAT .llRE SET
10 TIME THEY WERE RECEIVED. 10 FORTH ON PAGES 0027 THROUGH 0038 FROM YOUR HUSBAND?
11 Q. WERE YOU AW.a.RE Of THEM BY FRIIJJ\Y, OCTOBER 22, 11 A. I'VE SEEN THE E-MAI LS. I LOOKED AT THEM, YES.
12 2004? 12 O. THROUGH YOUR ttuSBAND,,?
13 A. I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS AWARE OF THEM THAT DAY OR 13 A. THROUGH MY HUSBAND, YES.
14 IF IT WAS ANOTHER DAY. 14 Q. LOOKING A.T DOCUMENT NO. 0081, DID YOU INSTRUCT
15 Q. DID YOUR HUSBAND TELL VOU TH..~T MR. LIBOW HAD 15 VICTOR PARKS TO KEEP ALL CORRESPONDENCE WITH HR. LIBOW
16 CONTACTED VICTOR PARKS AND TOLD litH THl'.T THE SELLER HAS 16 IN WRITING?
17 REQUESTED A CANCELLATION OF THE ESCROW? 17 A. MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH 01 D.
18 A. I WAS AWARE OF HIM WANTING TO CANCEL THE 18 Q. DID YOU PERSONALLY ASK MR. PARKS TO DO THAT?
19 ESCROW. 19 A. I MAY HAVE. I DON'T REMEMBER.
20 Q. YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT ON OCTOBER 22, 2004; 20 O. WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN YOUR HUSBAND DID?
21 CORRECT? 21 1\. I DON'T RECALL.
22 A. I DON 'T REC.~LL THE DATE. I MEAN WHENEVER IT 22 Q. LOOKING AT 0086 AND 0085, IS IT CORRECT TH.~T ON
23 WAS DONE, I WAS PROBABLY AWARE or IT. 23 OCTOBER 21, 2004, YOU KNEW THAT MR. ZERNIK WAS
24 Q. DO YOU SEE THE E-KAIL THAT'S DOCUMENT S0034? 24 INSTRUCTING HIS REALTOR TO DRAW INSTRUCTIONS FOR
25 A. YES. 25 CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT?
NIVlESAMAAN 1/10106 NTVlE SAMAAN 7/1a.oo
)10-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-)71-0111 310-171-1111 SOUSACOURTkEPORTERS 71·4.571.0111·
Pugclt1
A. YES, I WAS MADE AWARE or THAT, BUT, AGAIN, AS I MR. STEIN: NO. WE CAN rORWAP.O IT VIA [-HAIL TO
2 STATED BEFORE, I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WAS HIS RIGHT YOU.
3 TO CANCEL BECAUSE THEY WERE -- THEY PRECLUDED US FROM MR. CUMMINGS: THE AUDIO?
.4 PERFORMING IN A TIMELY MANNER. MR. STEIN: YES.
Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID ANYBODY AT PACIFIC MR. CUMMINGS: YOU CAN'T PUT IT ON A TAPE AND GET IT
6 MORTGAGE CONSULTANTS DO ANYTHING TO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A 6 TO ME OR CD OR ANYTHING?
7 LOAN APPROVAL FOR YOU BEFORE YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND MR. STEIN: THAT'S HOW.WE RECEIVED IT WAS -- YOU
8 RETURNED FRCM HAWAII ON SEPTEMBER 23. 2004? PLAY IT RIGHT BACK FROM THE E-MAIL. I CAN DO IT ANY WAY
A. NO. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING WAS STARTED 9 YOU WANT IT.
10 BEFORE WE RETURNED FROM HAWAII. NOTHING BEGAN. 10 MR. ClIHMINGS: I WOULD R.~THER HAVE IT ON A CO.
11 Q. DOCUMENT SOlO!). WHO PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT? 11 MR. STEIN: IT WILL 8E DONE. WHEN I PRODUCE THE
12 A. IT SAYS LOUISE AT MARA ESCROW. THIS WAS A 12 OTHER DOCUMENTS TO YOU, WE'LL GIVE YOU A CD OF THIS
13 VOICE MESSAGE THAT W.~ LEFT. 13 TEXT.
14 Q. BUT WHO TYPED UP THIS DOCUMENT? 14 BY HR. CUMMINGS:
15 A. I BELIEVE MY HUSB.WD OR VICTOR DID. 15 Q. DID YOU EVER DEPOSIT THE ADDITIONAL S15,000?
16 MR. STEIN: FOR THE RECORD, MY OFFICE PREPARED THAT. 16 A. YOU MEAN THE SECOND DEPOSIT?
17 THE WITNESS: OR. 17 Q. YES.
16 HR. CUMMINGS: DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL TAPE? 18 A. YES. IT WAS GIVEN BY CASHIER' SCHECK. I
19 HR. STEIN: WE HJWE THE TAPE TKAT WE RECEIVED THE 19 PERSONALLY WALKED IT IN TO MARA ESCROW MYSELF, BUT WHAT
20 COpy FROM, YES. 20 HAPPENED WAS -- WHICH IS PROVEN BY THE DATE THAT THEY
21 MR. CUMMINGS: THE TAPE? 21 POSTED THE CHECK -- I WALKED IT IN TO MARA ESCROW. I
22 HR. STEIN: YES. WE HAVE A COPY. -1 0- 22 KAD CALLED THEM THAT DAY AND TOLD THEH THAT I WAS GOING
23 HR. CUMMINGS: AN AUDIOTAPE'? 23 TO BE BRINGING IN THE CHECK. I LEFT THE CHECK WITH THE
24 HR. STEIN: YES. 24 RECEPTIONIST BECAUSE GAIL HERSHOWITZ WAS NOT IN THE
25 HR. CUMMINGS: HAVE YOU PROVIDED THAT TO US? 25 OFFICE, AND I TOLD -- I HAD THE ENVELOPE ADDRESSED TO
NIVlESAMAAN 7/10106 NJVIE SAMAAN 7/10~

263 / 545
, - - - - - - - - - - - - - _.. -
JIo.l12-llll SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71.J.j7l.o11l

Document 40-3
PagcHS ~----p""·I.
Filed 04/17/2008 Page 43 of 50
M~:'"l SO-US-A-CO-UR-T-REI'O--RTE-RS-71-"-;7-t-O-t-ll-~--- ···"ll
1 GAIL HERSHOWITZ ANU SAIU THAT SHE SHOULO BE GIVEN THIS ) Q. DO YOU KNOW THE RECEPTIONIST'S NMfE? ,
2 CHECK. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER -- TWO TO THREE DAYS LATER A. NO.
I GET A FRANTIC CALL FR<:t4: MICHAEL LIBQW STATING THAT I Q. WHAT DID SHE LOOK LIKE?
orD NOT KEEP MY WORD AND DID NOT TAKE IN A CHECK, AND I A. I BELIEVE SHE HAll LONG BROWN STRAIGHT HAIR. I
5 STATED TO HIM, "OF COURSE, I DID." AND THEN I GOT A THINK SHE WAS OF HISPANIC DESCENT.
6 PHONE CALL FROM GAIL HERSHOWITZ STATING THE SAME THING, 6 Q• I' H SORRY. WHAT?
., AND I SAID, '"I WALKED IN THE CHECK PERSONALLY ON THE DAY 7 A. OF IITSPANIC DESCENT, r BELIEVE.
I SAID I WAS GOING TO GIVE IT TO YOU. AND THEY SAID Q. DID YOU RECEIVE DOCUMENT S0104?
9 THEY COULDN'T FIND THE CHECK. SO THEN I BEUEVE .fI,FTER 9 A. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?
10 THEY SEARCHED FOR THIS CHECK, ANO I DON'T KNOW -- I 10 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE THAT DOCUMENT, s0104?
11 GUESS THEY BELIEVE THEY roUNO IT ON THE 12TH, WHICH IS 1l A. YES.
12 DATED WHEN THEY RECEIVED IT, IS WHEN SHE CALLED HE:, AND 12 Q. DID YOU SIGN IT?
13 SHE TOLD ME SHE HAD THE CHECK, 13 A. DID I SIGN IT?
Q. WHAT 15 THE DATE OF' THE CHECK? 14 Q. YES.
15 A. I BELIEVE IT'S OCTOBER 8. THE DATE IT WAS 15 A. NO. MY SIGNATURE IS NOT ON THERE.
16 DELIVERED WAS OCTOBER 8 TH.l\T I DROPPED IT OFF'. THE DAY 16 Q. IS YOUR MONEY STILL IN ESCROW?
17 I GOT IT WAS OCTOBER 8. THE DAY I DELIVERED IT WAS 17 A. YES.
16 OCTOBER 8. 18 Q. $30,000?
19 O. WHAT DOCUMENT NUMBER ARE YOU LOOKING AT? 19 A. YES.
20 MR. STEIN: THAT'S 50110. 20 Q. DID YOU SIGN LOAN DOCUMENTS?
21 BY HR. CUMMINGS: 21 A. NO, WE DID NOT.
22 O. WHEN YOU BROUGHT IT IN TO MARA ESCROW, WHOM DID 22 Q. S0106. WHAT IS THAT DOCUMENT?
23 YOU GIVE IT TO? 23 A. I DON'T KNOW. I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE.
24 A. THE RECEPTIONIST, BECAUSE GAIL HERSHOW!TZ WAS 24 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO PREPARED IT7
25 NOT THERE. 2S A. NO, I DON'T.
NlVIE SAMAAN 7/10106 NlVlE SAMAAN 1110J06
31()"312-1111 SOUSA coURT REPORTERS " ....S1I.()lll 310-372·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 11 ....S1'-0111
Q. HAVE YOU EVER DISCUSSED THE CONTENTS OF THIS Q. IF I ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOUR ATTORNEY CAN' ASK
WITH ANYBODY? YOU A QUESTION. I JUST HAKE THINGS FOR THE RECORD.
A. CONTEXT OF WHAT? WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE AGREEMENT --
Q. CONTENTS OF EXHIBIT 106 WITH ANYBODY. THAT YOUR COUNTER OFFER NO. 2 WAS ACCEPTED BY DR. ZERNIK
A. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. IT 5 ON SEPTEMBER 15, 20041
LOOKS LIKE A TIMELINE OF SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT A. WHICH DOCUMENT IS THAT?
IT IS. Q. 0026,
e Q. LOOK AT DOCUMENT NO. SOI07. A. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?
9 DID YOU RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT? Q. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOUR COUNTER
10 A. DID I RECEIVE IT? 10 OFFER NO.2 WAS ACCEPTED BY DR. ZERNIK ON SEPTEMBER 15,
11 Q. YES. 11 20041
12 A. YES. 12 A. YES.
13 Q. WHEN? 13 Q. WHAT'S YOUR FAX NUMBER AT Ham?
14 A. WELL, IT SAYS "NOVEMBER 10, 2004." I DON'T 14 A. (310i 215-5352. I THINK THERE HAS A COUPLE OF
IS KNOW IF THAT'S THE DAY I READ IT OR NOT. 15 DIFFERENT FAX NUMBERS. I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER ONES.
16 Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO BETH IS7 16 Q. WHAT WAS THE FAX NUMBER AT WORK?
17 A. YES. SHE' S THE MANAGER AT COLDWELL BANKER, 17 A. AT MY OFFICE'?
18 WHICH, BY THE WAY, THAT WAS ANOTHER INDICATION TO ME 18 Q. WELL, DOES THAT --
19 THAT MICHAEL LIBOW WAS ACTING IN HIS CLIENT'S INTEREST 19 A. GILLERAN GRIFFIN, YOU MEAN? I NEED TO LOOK
20 BECAUSE HIS MANAGER WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE 20 THAT UP, AND I CAN TELL YOU. HOLD ON A SECOND. I KNOW
21 SEVEN-DAY EXTENSION WAS AGREED UPON AS WELL. 21 WHERE IT IS. I ACTUALLY DON'T -- I KNOW THE OFFICE
22 BY THE WAY, CAN I POINT OUT ANOTHER PARAGRAPH -1 1- 22 NUMBER. I DON'T USE TKAt' FAX NUMBER. I USE MY PERSONAL
23 IN HERE? ON THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH, IT STATES THAT -- 23 fAX, BUT --
24 Q. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION PENDING, MA'AM. 24 Q. WHAT IS THE FAX NUMBER'?
2S A. OKAY, BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT FOR THE RECORD. 25 A. AT GILLERAN GRIFFIN?
NlVIE SAMAAN 1/10106 NIVlE SAMAAN 7/I0iU6

264 / 545
,---------_._--- ---- Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008
- - - - - -Page
- - - -44
- -of
- -50
-_._-
JIG-Jl1-1111 SQUSACOURTRFJ>QRTERS 71~i71.Q111 JI().)1l,.1111 SOUSACOURTRa'ORTERS 1l-1·571~111
Pagel'll P~e'IU
Q. YES. A. I'M SORRY"?
A. r DON'T KNOW IT. I DON'T KNOW IT BY HEART. Q. WERE YOU TO SHARE IN THE COMMISSION ON THE
o. yOU DON'T HAVE: IT ON YOUR CARD? PROPERTY?
A. NO. ON MY CARD, I HAVE MY PERSONAL FAX NUMBER. A. YES.
O. WHICH IS WHAT? Q. AND GILLERAN GRIFFIN WAS GOING TO GET HALF THE
A. I THOUGHT 1 HAD IT. LET ME JUST LOOK FOR A 6 CCXiMISSrON; IS THAT CORRECT?
7 SECOND. A. NO. THEY DON'T GET HALF. OA, YOU HEAN BETWEEN
MR. STEIN: IS THIS YOUR HOUSE NUMBER, YOUR HOUSE THE AGENTS?
9 FAX NUMBER? Q. GILLERAN GRIFFIN AND COLDWELL BANKER WAS GOING
10 THE WITNESS; I THINK, YES. YES. 10 TO GET HALF; CORRECT?
11 I HAVE ANOTHER FAX NUMBER TH.l\.T USED TO BE AT MY II A. YES.
12 HOME BEFORE I MOVED IN WITH MY HUSBAND. I CAN GIVE YOU 12 O. WHAT PERCENTAGE WERE YOU GOING TO GET OF THE
13 THAT ONE. (323) 843-9378 IS ONE, AND -- 13 PORTION THAT WENT TO GILLERAN GRIFFIN?
14 BY HR. Clfl'{MINGS: 1< A. I DON' T KNOW EXACTLY. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY
15 o. WHAT ADDRESS DID YOU LIVE AT BEFORE YOU MOVED IS WHAT PERCENTAGE THEY GOT AND WHAT PERCENTAGE I GOT.
16 IN WITH YOUR HUSBAND? 16 Q. CAN YOU LOOK AT DOCUMENT NO. 50009.
17 A. 1227-1/2 SOUTH ALFRED STREET, LOS ANGELES, 17 A. YES.
18 90035. 18 O. WAS THAT THE LAST PAGE OF THE OFFER YOU
19 o. DID YOU HAVE YOUR MAIL fORWARDED WHEN YOU 19 SUBMITTED, THE ORIGINAL OFFER YOU SUBMITTED?
20 HOVED? 20 A. WELL, I ALSO SUBMITTED THE BUYER'S INSPECTION
21 I>.. YES. 21 ADVISORY AND THE WOOD DESTROYING PEST INSPECTION; SO
22 (RECESS TAKEN.) 22 THAT WAS NOT THE LAST PAGE.
23 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 23 Q. BUT I HEAN OF THE OFFER.
2' o. WERE YOU TO SHARE IN THE COMMISSION ON THE 24 A. OF THE OFFER, YES.
25 PROPERTY? 25 o. WHAT ADDRESS DO YOU LIST THERE?
NIVlE SAMAAN 7/lCJit)6 NTVlE SAMAAN 7/1().{l(j
31~372·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-mll 31~J72·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 7I.ol-S71.{)!11
A. 1333 WESTWOOD BOULEVARD. OUR OFFICE HAS MOVED. WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MARKED BY THE REPORTER AS
o. WHAT ADDRESS DO YOU LIST FOR YOURSELF RIGHT DEFENDANT I S EXHIBIT 4 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND
3 UNDER YOUR SIGNATURE? IS HERETO' ATTACHED.)
A. MY LAST HexiE ADDRESS BEFORE I HOVED IN WITH MY HR. CUMMINGS: I'LL MARK AS EXHIBIT 5 A LETTER Of
5 HUSBAND. 5 TRANSMITTAL, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, NIVIE SAMAAN, AT
Q. WHAT ADDRESS IS THAT? 1227-1/2 SOUTH ALFRED STREET.
A. 1227-1/2 SOUTH ALFRED STREET. (WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
O. AND YOU ALSO LISTED GILLERAN GRIFFIN'S ADDRESS; WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MARJ<ED BY THE REPORTER AS
9 CORRECT? DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 5 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND
10 A. YES. 10 IS HERETO ATTACHED.)
1L HR. CUMMINGS: WE'LL M..~K AS EXHIBIT 5 -- 11 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
12 HR. STEIN: I THINK IT'S EXHIBIT 4. 12 Q. DID YOU EVER RECEIVE THAT DOCUMENT?
13 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 13 MR. STEIN: IF YOU RECALL.
14 o. EXHIBIT 4. DID YOU RECEIVE THAT DOCUMENT? 14 THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THIS.
15 EXHIBIT 4 IS A TRANSM·ITTAL, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, IS HR. CUMMINGS: WE'LL MARK AS EXHIBIT 6 A COPY of THE
16 FRet{ MARA ESCROW Cct>lPANY TO GILLERAN GRIFFIN CCNPANY, 16 TRANSMITTAL FRC»04: MARA ESCROW CC»04:PANY TO NIVIE SAMAAN.
17 1333 WESTWOOD BOULEVARD, SUITE 1,>1; ATTENTION: NIVIE 17 DATED OCTOBER 6, 2004, ADDRESSED AT 1221-1/2 SOUTH
18 SAIl...AIl. IB ALFRED STREET.
19 A. I NEVER RECEIVED THIS. I DON'T RECALL SEEING 19 (WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
20 THIS BEFORE. 20 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MARKED BY THE REPORTER AS
21 O. THAT WAS YOUR WORJ< ADDRESS FOR GI LLERAN 21 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 6 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND
22 GRIFFIN; CORRECT? -112- 22 IS HERETO ATTACHED.)
23 A. YES, .~T THE TIllE. 23 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
2. O. HAY I HAVE IT BACK, PLEASE. 24 O. DID YOU RECEIVE THAT TRANSMITTAL?
25 (WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT 25 .... YES .
265 / 545
N1VlE SAMAAN 7/10106 NTVIESAMAAN 71J0..u6
~---~ Case
----2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -Document
- - - - - - - - - , -40-3
- Filed 04/17/2008 Page 45 of 50
31G-l'l.1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 11+.571-0111 310-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 11-1·;11--0111
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU RECElVELJ IT? "APPLICABLE TIME fRAMES," OATEO SEPTEM.BER 26, 2004,
A. ON OR ABoUT THAT DATE, J BELIEVE. ADORESSED TO HICHAEL LIBOW, WITH SOME HANDWRITING ON THE
Q. ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 6. 2004? DOCUMENT _ "RE: N!VIE. OATES CHANGED?" AND SOME OTHER
A. I IMAGINE THAT'S WHEN -- HANDWRITING.
MR. STEIN: IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT !WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
UATE. WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MARKEll BY THE REPORTER AS
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. DEfENDANT I S EXHIBIT 8 FOR IDENT r fICATION AND
MR. CUMM"INGS: MARl< AS EXHIBIT 7 A DOCUMENT ENTITLED IS HERETO ATTACHED.)
"APPLICABLE TIME FRAMES. IT'S DATED SEPTEMBER 23, BY MR. CUMMINGS:
10 2004 _ 10 Q. I S MY OF THAT HANDWRITING ON THAT DOCUMENT
11 (WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT 11 YOURS "!
12 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY HARKED BY THE REPORTER .ll,.S 12 A. NO.
13 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND 13 O. DID YOU PROVIDE ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT'S
14 IS HERETO ATTACHED. 14 IN HANDWRITING TO GAIL HERSHOWITZ OR ANYBODY ELSE AT
15 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 15 MARA ESCROW,?
16 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE THP.T DOCUMENT? IT'S ADDRESSED 16 A. I BELIEVE I HAD WHEN I HAD SPOKEN TO HER. WHEN
17 TO NIVIE SAMAAN IN C.ItRE OF GILLERAN GRIfFIN COMPANY. 17 I GOT THE FIRST SET THAT YOU JUST SHOWED ME, I HAD
18 1333 WESTWOOD BOULEVARD, SUITE 101. 18 CALLED HER AND SAID THAT THE DATES WERE WRONG AND THAT
19 A. YES, I HAD RECEIVED IT .. 19 THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE OCTOBER 8 AND THE 24TH OR THE
20 O. ON WHAT DATE? 20 23RD, AND SHE SAID THAT SHE cOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTJlING
21 A. PROBABLY AROUND THE FEW DAYS -- WITHIN A FEW 21 UNTIL SHE SPOKE WITH MICHAEL; SO THEN THIS IS WHAT WAS
22 DAYS OF THE DATE STATED. I DON'T RECALL EX.&.CTLY THE 22 SENT.
23 DATE. 23 Q. LET HE GO OVER THESE ITEMS. JUST A SECOND.
24 CAN I SEE THAT ONE MORE TlH.£'! 24 NOW, STARTING AT THE TOP WHERE IT HAS -- I'LL
25 MR. CUMMINGS: MARK AS EXHIBIT 8 A DOCUMENT ENTITLED 25 GIVE YOU THE PRIOR ONE SO YOU CAN READ IT, THE ONE THAT
HIVIE SAMAAN 711Ml6 NlVIE SAMAAN 7flMJG
1----------------_._---------------------------------------------------1
llG-372·llll SOUSACOURTREPORnRB 7.4-j71.(]111 31G-112·1111 SOUSA COURTRFPORTERS 71<l-S71.(]11 t
Ptrgc9S Pqe96
WE MARKED AS EXHIBIT 7, SO YOU CAN COMPARE THEM. 24TH, AND THE ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT OF THE 8TH, AND THAT
THERE'S A SCRATCH OUT. THE ACCEPTANCE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE -- ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ORIGINALLY IT SAID, "INITIAL DEPOSIT TO BE PURCHASE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON SEPTEHBER 23. THOSE ARE
RECEIVED BY ESCROW HOLDER" AND ORIGINALLY WAS WRITTEN THE ONLY DATES THAT I GAVE HER.
DOWN SEPTEMBER 22, 2004; CORRECT? Q. OKAY. THERE'S AN ITEM THERE. IT SAYS "BUYER'S
A. YES. INVESTIGATION CONTINGENCIES EXPIRE," AND THEY HAD STATED
O. AND THEN IT'S SCRATCHED OUT. AND CAN YOU READ SEPTEMBER 27, 2004, AND THEN IT'S HANDWRITTEN IN "TEN
THE DATE THERE AFTER THAT'! DAYS fROM 9124."
A. I BELIEVE IT SAYS THE 24TH. DID YOU PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO HER?
10 O. OKAY. DID YOU TELL GAIL HERSHOWITZ THAT IT WAS 10 MR. STEIN: ONE ADDITION. THERE'S A QUESTION MARK.
11 SUPPOSED TO BE SEPTEMBER 24? 11 IF YOU'RE GOING TO REFERENCE, YOU HIGHT AS WELL HAVE
12 A. I PROBABLY DID, YES. 12 THAT TOO.
13 Q. OKAY. THEN IT SAYS "ADDITIONAL DEPOS!T." IT l) BY MR. CtOOlINGS:
14 SAYS "OCTOBER." IT HAD BEEN THE 1ST, AND IT'S WRITTEN ]4 Q. DID YOU PROVIDE THAT PROVISION TO GAIL
15 OCTOBER 8. 15 HERSHOWITZ?
16 010 YOU PROVIDE THE OCTOBER 8 DATE TO GAIL 16 A. NO.
11 HERSHOWITZ? I? Q. DOWN BELOW, IT SAYS, "LAST DAY FOR BUYER TO
18 A. YES. 18 REMOVE APPRAISAL CONTINGENCY: 11 DAYS - 24?"
19 O. THEN THERE'S NO CHANGE IN DATE FOR THE SIGNED 19 DID YOU PROVI DE THAT INFORMATION TO HER?
20 ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS; IS TH.lI,T CORRECT? THIRD ITEM DOWN. 20 A. NO.
21 A. OKAY. WE WEREN°T EVEN HERE ON THAT DAY. 21 O. "LAST DAY FOR BUYER TO RECEIVE FINAL LOAN
22 O. DID YOU GIVE GAIL HERSKOWITZ A DIFFERENT DATE -I.:: 3- 22 APPROVAL." IT STATES "11 DAY - 24TH?"
23 FOR THAT ITEM? 23 DID YOU PROVIDE TH.AT INfORMATION TO HER?
24 A. NO, I DID NOT. THE ONLY ITEMS I TOLD GAIL 24 A. NO.
25 HERSHOWITZ ABOUT WAS THE INITIAL DEPOSIT, WHICH W.J\S THE 25 HR. CUMMINGS: THE LAST EXHIBIT WAS 5 -- 8,
266 / 545
NlVlESAMAAN 7/10106 NlVlE SAMAAN 7110..06
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW ---- Document
- - - - - - , - 40-3
--- Filed 04/17/2008 Page 46 of 50
]10-]72-1111 SOUSA COURTREPORlCR..<;; 71.J-57I-0111 ]10-]72-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71.J-51I-0111
P;lge<)7 P.,;eIJII
EXHIBIT 8; CORRECT? Q. DID YOU NOTIFY DR. ZERNIK THAT ANY OF THE TIME
MR. STEIN: YES. THAT'S CORRF.CT. FRAMES -- ANY OF THE DATES SET FOP.TH ON THE APPLICABLE
MR. CUMMINGS: I'LL MARK AS 9 ANOTHER SET OF TIME FRAMES, DATED OCTOBER 5, 2004, WERE INCORRECT?
.~PPLlCABLE TIME FRAMES, DATED OCTOBER 5, ADDRESSED TO A. NO.
NIVIE SAMAAN IN CARE OF GILLERAN GRIFFIN COMPANY. Q. HANDING YOU BACK EXHIBIT 9. DO YOU SEE THE
(WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT STATEMENT UNDERNEATH THE NOVEMBER THE LAST DATE, THE
WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MARKED BY THE REPORTER AS PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS, "BUYER AND SELLER HAVE
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 9 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND INDICATED IN THE ORIGINAL RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT
IS HERETO ATTACHED. I AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS THAT THEY DESIRE THE
10 BY MR. CUMMINGS: 10 ACTIVE METHOD FOR REMOVAL OF CONTINGENCIES"? DO YOU SEE
11 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE THAT DOCUMENT? 11 THAT?
12 A. YES, I BELIEVE SO. 12 A. YES.
13 Q. WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE IT? 13 Q. DID YOU READ THAT WHEN YOU RECEIVED IT?
14 A. IT WAS AROUND THIS DATE, OCTOBER 5. 14 A. NO.
15 Q. DID YOU READ IT WHEN YOU RECEIVED IT? 15 Q. ANY REASON YOU DIDN'T READ IT?
16 A. I LOOKED OVER IT, YES. 16 A. NO. I JUST -- I LOOKED AT THE DATES. THAT'S
17 Q. AFTER YOU RECEIVED IT, DID YOU NOTIFY ANYBODY 17 ALL I LOOKED AT.
18 AT MARA ESCROW THAT ANY OF THE DATES SET FORTH ON 18 Q. ANYBODY PREVENT YOU FRC«READING IT?
19 EXHIBIT 9, THE APPLICABLE TIME FRAMES SCHEDULE, DATED 19 A. NO.
20 OCTOBER 5, 2005, WERE INCORRECT? 20 Q. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT
21 A. NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 21 THAT PARAGRAPH?
22 Q. DID YOU NOTIFY MICHAEL LIBQW THAT ANY OF THE 22 A. YES. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS,
23 DATES SET FORTH ON THE OCTOBER 5 APPLICABLE TIME FRAME 23 "ACTIVE METHOD.
24 SCHEDULE WERE INCORRECT? 24 Q. IT SAYS, "THEREFORE, IF WITHIN THE TIME" --
25 A. NO. 25 READ THE REST OF PARAGRAPH, AND TELL ME I F YOU DON'T
NlVIE SAMAAN 7/10106 NlVlE SAMAAN 7/I0A16
f-------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
]10-]"12·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 ])0-]72·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714·511-0111
Page'l'l PugeWO
UNDERSTAND IT AND WHAT IT I S YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT BY MR. CUMMINGS:
IT. Q. DID YOU RECEIVE --
A. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S SAYING. A. THE QUESTION WAS DID I RECEIVE IT?
Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PARAGRAPH THAT'S WRITTEN Q. CORRECT.
THERE -- A. YES.
A. YES. Q. DID YOU RECEIVE IT ON OR ABOUT THE DATE OF THE
Q. -- UNDERNEATH THE NOVEMBER 1, 2004, DATE? TRANSMITTAL LETTER, TRANSMITTAL FAX?
A. YES. A. YES.
CAN I SEE ONE MORE THING IN THAT PAAAGRAPH? Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH
10 Q. SURE. 10 GILLERAN GRIFFIN AS TO HOW MUCH YOUR COMMISSIONS ARE
11 DID YOU RECEIVE A COPY OF' THE PEST CONTROL 11 SUPPOSED TO BE, WHAT PERCENTAGE YOU GET OF THE
12 REPORT THAT HAD BEEN DONE ON THE PROPERTY? 12 COMMISSION THAT THE COMPANY RECEIVES?
13 A. I DON'T KNOW. I '0 HAVE TO ASK MY HUSBAND. 13 A. YES, I BELIEVE so, YES.
14 MR. STEIN: SHOW HER WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, IF 14 Q. WHAT DOES IT PROVIDE?
15 YOU WOULD, PLEASE. I' THINK THAT MIGHT REFRESH HER 15 A. 1 DON'T KNOW THE EXACT PERCENTAGE. I WOULD BE
16 RECOLLECT ION. 16 ESTIMATING. I THINK --
17 MR. CUMMINGS: I'LL MARK THAT AS EXHIBIT 10, THE FAX 17 Q. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE?
18 FROM MICHAEL LIBOW TO GAIL HERSHOWITZ, WITH A COpy TO 18 A. I THINK I GET 90 PERCENT, AND THEY GET TEN.
19 NIVIE SAMAAN, OF A BOND PEST CONTROL REPORT. 19 IT'S AROUND THAT ESTIMATE.
20 (WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT 20 Q. DID YOU HAVE A SPECIAL AGREENENT WITH GILLERAN
21 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MARKED BY THE REPORTER AS 21 GRI FFIN RELATING TO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE COMMISSION
22 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 10 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND

-1· 4- 22 THAT YOU WOULD RECEIVE ON THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY
23 IS HERETO ATTACHED. 23 AT 320 SOUTH PECK DRIVE?
24 THE WITNESS: YES. 24 A. NO.
25 II 25 MR. CUMMINGS: I'M GOING TO MARK AS EXHIBIT 11 A
267 / 545
NlVlESAMAAN 7/10106 NIViESAMAAN 7/J0!U6
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed
_ . 04/17/2008
- Page 47 of 50
-_._-------_._.----~
31G.-l12.1111 SOUSA CQURTREPQRTERS 7U-57I-oJ II

31~]12.1111 SOUSACOURTREPORlCRS 71 ....57HJIII
P:lIIC 1U2
P3ge lUI
ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY GAIL HERSHOWITZ, DATED HR. STEIN: DIU YUU RECEIVE THEM?
2 NOVEMBER B. 2004. AND I WANT YOU TO GO THROUGH THAT THf: WITNESS: IS THAT THE ESCHOW INSTRUCTION?
3 DOCUMENT AND TELL ME WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IN YOUR BELIEF, HR. STEIN: YES.
THE WITNESS: NO, I DID NOT RECEIVE THEM ON THAT

4 AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY. IS NOT ACCURATE ABOUT THAT
5 STATEMENT MADE BY GAIL HERSHOWITZ, STARTING AT THE TOP 5 DATE.
6 AS yOU GO THROUGH, ANO I F YOU CAN JUST TELL ME BY -- 6 BY MR. cUMMINGS:
Q. 00 YOU KNOW IF GILLERAN GRIfFIN RECEIVED THEM?

HR. STE IN: WHY DON I T WE READ THE SENTENCE AND DEAL
8 WITH IT. OTHERWISE. IT'S ALL OVER THE PlACE. A. NO, I DON'T.
Q. ANn THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS, "RECEIVED A CHECK

(WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
WAS SUBSEQUENTLY HARKED BY THE REPORTER AS 10 FROM BUYER ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2004."
10
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 11 FOR IDENTIFICATION !\ND 11 A. NO, THAT' S NOT CORRECT. I GAVE THEM A CHECK ON
11
12 SEPTEMBER 24, 2004, WHICH IS STATED ON THE CHECK.
12 (5 HERETO ATTACHED. I
13 Q. WHEN DID YoU TELL THEM TO HOLD IT UNTIL?

13 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
O. THE FIST SENTENCE SAYS, "MICHAEL LI80W F.l\XED ME 14 HR. STEIN: TWO DAYS.
15 THE WITNESS: TWO DAYS. TWO TO THREE DAYS.

15 A PURCHASE CONTRACT ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004."
A. WHO IS THIS LETTER ADDRESSED TO? I MEAN WHO IS 16 BY MR. CUMMINGS:

16
17 O. ALL RIGHT. "PURCHASE CONTRACT CALLS FOR CHECK
17 IT GOING TO? WAS IT ADDRESSED TO HE OR --
IT'S NOT ADDRESSED TO ANYBODY. IT'S A 18 TO BE DEPOSITED ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2004."

1B Q.
19 00 YOU DISPUTE THAT?

19 STATEMENT.
OH, IT'S A STATEMENT sHE'S MAKING. OKAY. I 20 A. THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS AGREED UPON.
20 A.
ooH'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT. IT DOESN'T 21 Q. WAS TAAT AGREED TO IN WRITING?
21
22 A. NO, NOT IN WRITING.
22 HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH Me.
23 Q. WAS THE DATE OF SEPTEMBEH 24, 2004, AGREED TO

23 O. THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS, "I TYPED THE
2' INSTRUCTIONS AND FAXEO THEH TO MICHAEL LIBOW AND NIVIE 2. IN WRITING?
SAMAAN ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2004." 25 A. NO.

25
NIVIE SAMAAN "IMIG

NIVIE SAMAAN 7/10106
1------------------------_._----+-------_._---------------------1
310-l71.\111 SOUSA coURT REPORTERS 714_571..()111

)1Q..)12.1111 SOUSACOURTRFPORTERS 714-571-0111
Pace: 1M
INSTRUCTIONS IF THEY wERE NOT FINALIZED. II
o. "WE DEPOSITED THE CHECK TWICE, AND IT CAME BACK
A. I DON'T KNOW.
2 NSF TWICE."
A. THAT'S INCORRECT. THE CHECK CAME BACK ONCE o. "ON SEPTEMBER 24, NIVIE CALLED ANO ASKED IF WE
4 COULD EXTEND THE T IKE FRAMES FRO'( 01 FFERENT OATES FROH

4 WITH NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDS, AND WE WERE TOLD WE NEEDED TO
5 THE CONTRACT AS SHE WAS GoING OUT OF TOWN."
5 GET A CASHIER I S CHECK AND DELIVER IT TO MICHAEL LIBOH
A. NO, BECAUSE, FIRST Of ALL, I WAS NOT GOING OUT
6 PERSONALLY.
OF TOHN. I HAD JUST COME BACK FROM TOWN, AND THAT'S
o. IT SAYS, "WE CALLED BROKER TO ADVISE THEM, AND
6 WHEN -_. THAT'S WHEN I TOLD HER ABOUT THE DATES NEEDING
6 ON OCTOBER 4 RECEIVED A REPLACEMENT CHECK."
9 TO BE -- WHEN I CALLED HER ABOUT NOT DEPOSITING THE
A. YES, TH.Jl.T IS -- I ACTUALLY GAVE THE REPLACEMENT
10 CHECK, I ALSO TOLD HER ABOUT THE DATES THAT WERE AGREED
10 CHECK TO MICHAEL Lleow PERSONALLY ON THE DAY THAT THE
11 UPON BY MICHAEL AND I F'OR THE FIRST DEPOSIT, THE SECoND
11 HOME: INSPECTION WAS BEING DONE, WHICH HE sHOWED UP AT ON
12 DEPOSIT, AND THE ·START or THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; SO
12 OCTOBER 4.
13 THAT IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE I HAD JUsT cCIfE BACt< FROM
13 Q. IT SAYS, -AN ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT WAS DUE ON
OCTOBER 1, 2004, AND WE RECEIVED IT oN OCTOBER 12, 14 TOWN.

14
15 200 •. "
15 o. DID YOU REQUEST DIFFERENT OATES ON THAT?
A. THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THE NEXT DEPOSIT WAS DUE 16 A. YES, I DID.
16
17 Q. THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS, "I CALLED AND LEFT A
ON OCTOBER 8, WHICH IS VERIFIED IN THE ESCROW
18 MESSAGE FOR MICHAEL LIBOH REGARDING THIS MATTER.·
IB INSTRUCTIONS. AND WHEN I DELIVERED oN IT OCTOBER B,
19 A. I DON'T KNOW IF sHE DID. [BELIEVE SHE DID. r

19 THEY LOST THE CHECK AND DID NOT RETRIEVE IT -- DID NOT
20 DON'T KNOW FOR sURE.

20 FINO IT UNTIL OCTOBER 12, .l\tW THAT'S WHY IT WAS D.h.TED ON
21 OCTOBER 12.
21 o. "HE ADVISED HE TO HOLD OFF SENDING THE ESCROW
22 o. "oN SEPTEMBER 24, 2004, VICTOR (LENDER) CALLED -1~ 5- 22

INSTRUCTIONS OUT PENDING THE TIME FRAME cHANGES MADE BY
23 THE BUYER."
23 TO ADVISE ME HE WAS THE LENDER."
2' A. SHE MENTIONED TO ME THAT SHE WAS TO HOLD orF

A. I DON'T KNOH IF THAT WAS DONE OR NOT.
2'
25 UNTIL MIcHAEL GOT BACK TO HER.
25 o. "TOLD H1M WE COULD NOT SEND OUT ESCROW
268 / 545
NlVlE SAMAAN 1/1006
NlVlESAMAAN 111M>6
,-------------------------- Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 48 of 50
310-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71 ....571-0111 310.372-1 III SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571..{l111
Pag~ IUj
1 Q. "I SENT OUT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS ON OCTOBER 5, Q. DO YOU THINK YOU GAVE HER SIGNED ESCROW
2 2004." INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE THAT DATE?
A. YES, I DON'T KNOW. IT MAY HAVE BEEN AROUND MR. STEIN: IF YOU DON'T RECALL, JUST SAY YOU DON'T
4 THAT TIME. RECALL.
Q. "SENT OUT PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ON THE WITNESS: YES, I DON'T RECALL.
6 OCTOBER 6, 2004, BY CERTIFIED MAIL." 6 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
A. YES. Q. "ON OCTOBER 22, 2004, I RECEIVED A CONTINGENCY
Q. "NIVIE CALLED TO SAY SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE REMOVAL FORM SIGNED BY BUYER AND SELLER AND A FAX FOR
9 PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT I BUT I HAD A CERTIFIED SLIP 9 NOTICE TO PERFORM FOR BUYER."
10 BACK FROM HER SIGNED OCTOBER 8, 2004, WITH HER SIGNATURE 10 MR. STEIN: THAT'S INCORRECT.
11 ON IT THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED IT." 11 THE WITNESS: THAT'S INCORRECT.
12 A. I GUESS SO. 12 BY HR. CUMMINGS:
13 Q. "NIVIE ADVISED THAT THERE WAS A NISTAKE IN THE 13 Q. WHAT IS THE CORRECT INFORMATION?
14 ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, AND I ADVISED HER TO CORRECT THEM, 14 A. PROBABLY AROUND THE 20TH.
15 INITIAL THEM, AS WE WILL DO A FINAL AMENDHENT." 15 Q. "ON OCTOBER 25 AND NOVEMBER 5, 2004, I RECEIVED
16 A. YES, THAT'S TRUE, 16 INSTRUCTIONS FROM SELLER TO CANCEL THE ESCROW, AS THE
17 Q. WHAT CORRECTIONS DID YOU REQUEST? 17 CONTINGENCY DATES HAD EXPIRED AND THE BUYER HAD NOT
18 A. THE DATES TO BE CHANGED, AS I -- THE 18 PERFORMED. "
19 PURCHASE -- THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER TO BE CHANGED, 19 A. I BELIEVE SO. I DON'T KNOW WHEN SHE RECEIVED
20 THE INITIAL DEPOSIT DATE AND THE SECOND DEPOSIT DATE TO 20 THAT FROM THE SELLER.
21 BE CHANGED. 21 Q. "BUYER HAS NOT SIGNED SAID CANCELLATION
22 Q. "ON OCTOBER 22, 2004, WE RECEIVED HER SIGNED 22 INSTRUCTIONS ...
23 PAPERS." 23 A. YES.
24 A. I DON'T KNOW If THE DATE IS CORRECT OR NOT, 24 MR. STEIN: THAT'S EXHIBIT 11, COUNSEL?
25 OCTOBER 22. 25 MR. CUMMINGS: YES_
NIVIE SAMAAN 7/1 0106 NIVIE SAMAAN 7/10Al6
t----------------------------------c------------------------------------
31()"372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 310-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111
PngelU7 PllgeWIl
Q. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU EXHIBIT 9 AGAIN, WHICH KNOWLEDGE?
2 HAS THE REVISED APPLICABLE TIME FRAMES. A. NO.
3 YOU'VE ALRE.~DY STATED YOU DIDN'T NOTIFY ANYBODY Q. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT BETH STYNE IS THE
4 THAT YOU DISAGREED WITH THOSE TIME FR..b,MES; CORRECT? 4 MANAGER AT THE COLDWELL BANKER OFFICE WHERE MR. LIBOW
A. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DID NOT, NO. 5 WORKS?
Q. WHEN YOU RECEIVED IT, WERE THERE ANY OF THOSE 6 A. YES.
1 TIME FRAMES YOU DISAGREED WITH? Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MICHAEL LIBOW DID ANYTHING
MR. STEIN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, BUT SHE CAN ANSWER B WRONG IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TRANSACTION?
9 IF 5HE RECALLS. 9 JUST HER UNDERSTANDING.
10 THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 10 MR. STEIN: JUST YOUR UNDERSTANDING, NOT ANV LEGAL
11 BY HR. CUMMINGS: 11 CONCLUSIONS.
12 Q. SO AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, 00 YOU BELIEVE THAT 12 THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE THAT HE DIDN'T KEEP HIS WORD
13 THOSE ARE THE .~CCURATE APPLICABLE TIME FRAMES FOR THOSE 13 ABQUT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
14 TRANSACTIONS? 14 PURCHASE SHOULD BE AND THAT, IN ESSENCE, IT RUSHED
15 A. YES. IS EVERYTHING. IT HADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO MEET OUR
16 Q. AND I S IT CORRECT THAT YOU 01 ON' T REMOVE THE 16 OBLIGATIONS AND BELIEVING THAT HE WAS BEING INSTRUCTED
11 APPRAISAL CONTINGENCY BY OCTOBER II, 2004? 17 BY HIS CLIENT; SO ••.
18 A. YES. 16 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
19 Q. IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU DIDN' T REMOVE THE FINAL 19 Q. WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT DR. ZERNIK
20 LOAN APPROVAL CONTINGENCY BY OCTOBER 11, 2004? 20 DIDN'T AGREE WITH ANY EXTENSIONS?
21 A. YES. 21 A. NO, THAT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING.
22 Q. IS IT CORRECT THAT ESCROW WAS TO CLOSE BY -I< 6- 22 MR. CUMMINGS: I'LL BE BACK IN ABOUT THREE MINUTES.
23 NOVEMBER 1, 2004? 23 (BRIEF RECESS. I
24 A. YES. 24 THE WITNESS: CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING TO WHAT VOU
25 Q. WERE LOAN DOCUMENTS EVER PREPARED, TO YOUR 25 ASKED ME --
269 / 545
NlvtEsAMAAN 7II0JD6 NlVIE SAMAAN 7/10!tl6
~---------------------- Document
----- - - - - - - - , -40-3
- - - - - - - -Filed
- - - - -04/17/2008
--- Page 49 of 50
310-)12·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 114·571..Qtll 310-]12-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571~111
Po~c 110
BY HR. CUHMI NGS: Q. NO. AT THE TIME THAT HE TOLD YOU TH)\T.
Q. YES_ A. OH, OKAY. YES, THAT IT WAS BETWEEN 2.1 AND
A. -- ABOUT If MICHAEL LIBOH HAD DONE ANYTHING 2.2.
4' WRONG. Q. WHEN DID HE TELL YOU?
I NEVER DID RECEIVE A FULLY EXECUTED AND SIGNED A. IT WAS PROBABLY JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FROM MICHAEL LIBOH DR fROM ZERNIK ANll THERE WAS ALSO A Hc«E AROUNU 'fHE BLOCK THAT
WITH HIS SIGNATURE ON IT, own I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS SOLD FOR $700,000 MORE THAN WHAT WE HAD PURCH."\SED THE
SOHETHING THAT WE NEEDED FOR THE LOAN APPROVAL TO GO PECK PROPERTY FOR.
THROUGH; so TallT WAS SOMETHING THAT I NEVER RECEIVED. Q. WHAT PROPERTY WAS THAT?
10 O. HAS ANYBODY TOLD you WKAT THEY BELIEVE THE ]0 A. IT WAS ON BEDFORD. I DON'T KNOW THE EXAcT
11 PROPERTY AT 320 SOUTH PECK DRIVE IN BEVERLY HILLS IS 11 ADDRESS, BUT IT WAS ON BEDFORD.
12 CURRENTLY WORTH? 12 O. BETWEEN WHl\T STREET AND WHAT STREET?
13 A. NO, NOBODY HAS TOLD HE. 13 A. IT'S THE STREET RIGHT NEXT TO PECK, AND THAT
14 O. HAS ANYBODY TOLD YOU -- STATED ANY OPINION or 14 HAD ACTUALLY HAPPENED A WEEK AFTEP. WE HAD ACCEPTED .l\N
15 VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO YOU AT ANY TIME SINCE 15 OFFER FOR THE PECK PROPERTY.
16 OCTOBER 25. 200'1? 16 O. DID yOU FEEL THAT PROPERTY WAS COMPARABLE TO
17 A. YES. 17 THE PECK PROPERTY?
,. Q. WHO? ,. A. IT WAS 500 SQUARE FEET LARGER, BUT IT WAS
19 A. MY HUSBAND. 19 PRETTY COMfORTABLE, OTHER THAN THAT ..
20 O. WHAT DID HE TELL VOU? 20 Q. HOW LARGE: IS THE PECK PROPERTY?
21 /Jo.. THAT THE PROPERTY HAS GONE UP IN VALUE. 21 A. TWENTY-SIX SOMETHING, 26,000 SOMETHING.
22 Q_ DID HE SAY HOW MUCH? 22 O. 2,600?
23 A. I'M ESTIMATING ABOUT 2.2 MILLION. 23 A. 2,600, I MEAN.
24 Q. THAT IT WAS WORTH. THAT AT THE TIME HE TOLD YOU? 2. HR. STEIN: 26,000 Is PRETTY GOOD.
25 A. YOU MEAN AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE BUYING IT? 25 MR. CUMMINGS: IT WOULD BE ONE BIG HOUSE.
NlVTE SAMAAN 7/10/06 NlV1E SAMAAN 7/10!U6
-----e---.-----.----------------------------j
310-372-1111 SOUSACOURTRFPORlCRS 714-S71.()111 311).]11·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-511"()lll
P:Jgclll P.~c' 12
Q. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION WHAT THE PROPERTY'S THOUGHT YOU WERE GETTING A GOOD DEAL.
WORTH NOW? A. I BELIEVED THAT IT WAS WORTH MORE THAN THAT,
A. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY BETWEEN TWO AND 2.2 HORE THAN ONE POINT sEVEN EIGHTEEN.
MILLION. O. HOW HUCH MORE?
Q. WHAT DID YOU THINK THE PROPERTY WAS WORTH ON A. PROBABLY AROUND 250,000 TO 300,000 MORE.
OCTOBER 25, 2004? O. so YOU THOUGHT THE PROPEP.TY WAS WORTH -- OKAY.
A_ I DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. I BELIEVED IT FINE.
WAS I BELIEVED IT HAS WORTH THE PRICE IT WAS LISTED I HAVE NO fUTURE QUESTIONS Of THIS WITNESS AT
AT. THIS TIME.
10 O. WHAT WAS THE PRICE IT WAS LISTED? 10 MR. STEIN: I KAVE NO QUESTION'S.
11 A. I DON' T KNOW EXACTLY. 1 . 6 SOMETHt NG_ 11 MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT HR. SHULKIN WILL.
12 Q. WAS YOUR OFFER -- WAS THE COUNTER OFFER, 12 WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT ACCORDINGLY.
13 1,718, 000, GREATER THAN THE LISTING PRICE? 13 MR. CUMMINGS: YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHTs ARE.
14 A. YES, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN 14 DON I T HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT.
15 WORTH MORE, THOUGH -- I HEAN THAN WHAT IT W.a.5 LISTED. 15 THE WITNESS: I UNDERSTAND. THAT] UNDERSTAND.
16 BELIEVE -- I BELIEVED I WAS GETTING A GOOD DEAL FOR THE 16 HR. CUMMINGS: HE GOT NOTICE.
17 PROPERTY. I? HR. STEIN: YES. YOU WANT TO SET A STIPULATION,
1. Q. YOU BELIEVED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS WORTH LESS ,. MR. CUMMINGS?
19 MR. CUNMINGS: I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE ORIGINAL

"
20
THAN l,718,000?
HR. STEIN: MISSTATEs HER TESTIHONY. 20 TRANSCRIPT BE SENT TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEPONENT; THAT
21 BY HR. CUMMINGS: 21 WITHIN 30 DAYs AFTER RECEIPT OF IT BY COUNSEL FOR THE
22 O. DID YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS WORTH

-1 7- 22 DEPONENT, THAT THE DEPONENT WILL REVIEW IT I OUR FIRM
23 LESS THAN 1, 718, aDO? 23 WILL BE NOTIfIED OF ANY CHANGES THAT ARE HADE; IT C.I\N BE
24 A. NO. 24 SIGNED UNDER PENALTY O.F PERJURY; THE REPORTER CAN BE
25 Q. TELL HE WHAT YOO MEANT WHEN YOU SAl D YOU 25 RELIEVED OF HER OBLIGATION; AND THAT IF WE'RE NOT
NlV!£SAMAAN 7/1Q/D6 NlVlBSAMAAN 7/1M16
270 / 545
, . . - -Case
- - - -2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
------_. -- Document 40-3
-_.-_._---~ Filed 04/17/2008 Page 50 of 50
]10-)12-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571.()111
f':1gel13
t{OTIFIED Of THE CHANGES WITHIN THAT 30-DAY PERIOD, THEN
A CERTIFIED COPY CAN 8E USEO .l\S THOUGH IT WERE THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED UNDER PENALTY or PERJURY, WITHOUT ANY
CHANGES; AND THAT THE ORIGINAL DEPOSITION WILL BE
PRODUCEO AT THE TRIAL OF' THJS ACTION AND AT ANY OTHER
TIME ON A REASONABLE rH>TICE TO COUNSEL FOR PLAINTI fF_
HR. STEIN: SO STIPULATED.
(WHEREUPON AT THE HOUR OF J 29 P.M.,
THE DEPOSITION WAS COIlCLUDED. I
10 -000-
1L 1 DECLARE UNDER PENALTY or PERJURY THAT THE
12 FOREGOING IS TRUE: AND CORRECT_
13 EXECUTED AT CALIFORNIA,
14 THIS DAY OF • 2006.
15
16
17
18
SIGNATURE OF' THE. WITlfE5S
I'
20
21
22
23
2.
25
NIVIESAMAAN' 1110105
'-- • ~ ..J
-148-
271 / 545
272 / 545
273 / 545
274 / 545
275 / 545
276 / 545
277 / 545
278 / 545
279 / 545
280 / 545
281 / 545
282 / 545
283 / 545
284 / 545
AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER-~
Branch !: 0000933 Srokar. M!CHAEL JAMES O'REILLY DBA PACIFIC
750 LINDARO STREET STE 110 Broksr
SAN RAFAEL, CA 9~901 Conlac\: VICTOR PARKS
Phone: (415)257-2701 Broker
Br Fax No.: (415)259-0866 Phone: IUS) ~44-044B
810kar
SUSPENDED by: Fax#: .,,1..::;4.:;1.:;.5:..>~.;;,9;;.:2::..--,~:;;:3;.;:B;.;:B,--_---:;-- _
DIANE FRAZIER 10/14/2004 ~/p -I...fq(p~?~'";t}jh.9/7J.'711.D~

This Is to Inform you that your loan submission was revl~wed at the terms listed below:
Loan it 81737375 Borrower's Nams::;S:::J\MAAN=="',<......:Nc:.;.IV::..:..I:;.E=- _
AppllsdLoan Amount 1,374,400.00 Prog~m:NC 5/1 LIBR ARM InterestOnly
PUlpDss: PURCHASE, Ol'lNER OCCUPIED, REDUCED

Start Rate: 5.500 SIartTsrm: 60 LTV: BO. 00
LOAN AMOUNT: 1,374,400.00
Subject to the specific conditions listed below, we will be able to approve

your loan submission. For all submissions, pending final approval, no change
in the borrower Is) financial status or employment can occur, and the credit
documents and appraisal must remain current.
To avoid having your submission closed for incompleteness, any items listed
below as 'Required Prior to Approval' must be received within 10 days of the
date shown above.
CondlUons at Pilose 2 - Approwl: 17
RequIred Condlllon CondlUon

Pllorto Status Code CondRlon DascJCommsnls
OPEl~ ~ Acceptable
BORROliER WRIr"IEn EXP:Ll\NAJ:IOI~
why business
e~planation
REGARDING
in 411 reverse is on 1227 So
Al.fred, L.A.
APPROVAL OPEll
~ E:>
136. OTHER COllDITIOH 1
Corp approval req'd for this enhanced proqram w/ ~% added to
fee , any conditions, provide a complete copy package along with
all conditions in triplicate
APPROVAL OPEN
~.
B
139. OTHER COllDITI~1 2
Pricing to be corrected to show .75% add to fee for this enhanced
exception program
APPROVAL OPEIl ~ OTHER COllDITIOn 4
$30k on deposit wi escrow wi source verified
~
VerifY
APPROVAL 9PEIl 14 OTRER CONDITION 5
rovide complete e~ecuted purchase contract, eScrow instructions
~
ill not act as a substitute
APPROVAL OPEll I 4. OTHER ConDITION 7
Provide 03' business license or CPA letter verifying filed last 2
~
yrs 1040's as self employed same location
OPElI • OTHER COllDITION 8
WF bk stmt i681-4098360 for 7/12 thru 8/12 at $180k
DOCUMEIITS OPEN 006. APPRAISAL-ACCEPTABLE FIELD REVIEW (TO SUPPORT $ >
«««« Condition information conCinues on attached addendum »»»»
10/1412004
Underwrlter's Sign re. Date
Branch Managsr's Signaturo Dato
DVP's1RVP'slR5M's Signature Dato
FHANNCONV
• UNOERWRmNG DEClSlONICONDmON \ETTER
2C26D-US (07J04){d)
·23991·
285 / 545
,
ADDENDUM TO UNDERWRITING DECISION/CONDITION LETTER
(PAGE2 OF2 )
lean #: 81737375 BOlTOwofs Namo:NIVIE SAHAAN
RBqu~od Condition Condition DBsqjpllooiConmBnls

Condition
PrlorTo Slalus Cocm
Sl, 718, 000 p~ogram quideline at cost to brwr, •. ':'J:1 o_ae- aft",::
-E!C_P -l!l!ll'O"'''z.-
DOCUt1Etn"S OPEN 064. CORRECTED/SIGNED 1003 iAT LOCK-IN-RArE)
Show type of business
DOCOHorrs OPEN ~ OIHER COlmITION 6
Acceptable VOR covering present residence, req'd for 2nd
FUllDING OPEN 007. APPRAISAL-ACCEPTABLE CBL/NEW APPRAIS<l.L (MIll VALa$_)
if not funded by 12/2 provide a drivoby ext as a recert
FUNDIIlG OPEn 010. APPRAISAL-A!?PRAISER TO PROVIDE CURROlT LICEnSE
Provide also an additional set of color photos
FtTh"llIHG OPEN 028. BROKER CERTIFICATION THAT ALL CO!?IES ARE TRUE AND CORRECT
FUNDING OPEN 077. HELOC - COpy OF FIRST MORTGAGE NOTE
Concurrent close with 2nd at $171800 & provide note
FUNDIN'G OPEIl 093. INCOME-CO~WLEIE/SIGNEDFORM 4506 / 95-01
FUNDIHG OPEn 140. OTHER CONDITION 3
Collect $400 appraisal field ~eview fee from brwr in eSCrow
FlWVAlCONV
• UNOERWRmNG OEClSlONICONOmON u;TTER
2C2llO-US (07ID4)
286 / 545
Sub)" Re: Samaan Loan Approval
Date 10/19/2004 9'12:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From Vlctor@PMLoans,com
To mJhbow@aol com
Good Morning Michael. Regarding the loan contingency, you'll need to speak to Ms. Samaan about it. I've
informed her that although the loan is approved, it's not over until the appraisal review is back. As you know, if
for some reason the appraisal is cut, we don't have a deal. That being said, countrywide is very good with
appraisals and it's been a long-time since I've had an appraisal cut, I've reviewed the cornps and the value is we'll
supported, but there's always the possibility.
I should have the review by Friday which still gives everyone ten days until the dose of escrow. Please feel free
to call me should you have any further questions.
Respectfully,
vrctor Parks
Sr. Loan Officer
Pacific r-tortqaqe COnsultants
victo r@PiV1Loans.com
310.275.5353 Office
310.496.3256 Fax
"-------.--------.---.- Forwarded Message ----------------------
From: Mjlibow@aol.com
To: Vktorcopmloans.com
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:01:40 EDT
Subject: R-e: !;!i.lJ1'laan Loan A~roYal
VICTOR,
IT WAS ODD THIS MORNING AS i FAXED TO YOU THE NOTICE TO PERFORM AND THE NUMBER
TRANSFERRED TO NIVlE'S SECONDARY FAX LINE SHE HAD GIVEN ME ..ARE YOU IN THE SAME
OFFICE AT GILLERAN GRIFFIN??, . ,PLEASE EXPLAIN WE DO NEED HER TO REMOVE HER LOAN
CONTINGENCY AT THIS TIME AND I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE SATISFIED HER ENOUGH TO ENABLE HER
TO DO SO. THE OWNER IS IN NEED OF SECURING ANOTHER PROPERTY AND CAN NOT DO SO UNTIL
THE CONTINGENCY IS REMOVED. WE ARE ALREADY DELAYED ON THE REMOVAL BY SEVEN DAYS,
MICHAEL LlBOW
Monday, November 08, 2004 America Online' Mjlibow
287 / 545
Sub] Re: aarnaan Loan Approval
Date. 10(19/2004
To: Victor@PMLoanscom
CC: NSamaan 1
VICTOR.,
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE SELLER WILL LIKELY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT AT
THIS POINT. I DON'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. THE MAJORITY OF MY DEALS HAVE LOAN
CONTINGENCIES REMOVED SUBJECT "1:0 CERTAIN CONDITIONS. , .LET'S FACE IT... THE LENDER
COULD GO BANKRUPT PRIOR TO ESCROW CLOSE, .THERE HAS TO BE SOME RISK ASSUMED BY THE
BUYER IN THIS CASE, , .SHE HAS AN EXTREMELY LOW DEPOSIT IN ESCROW (LESS THAN 2PERCENT)
AND I WOULD FIND ',T HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WITH YOUR TRACK RECORD AND ASSURANCES THAT
SHE WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE, , .BY THE WAY, . ,YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO MY QUERY
ABOUT YOUR FAX NUMBER FORWARDING TO NIVIE'S,
MICHAEL LlBOW
COLDWELL BANKER
P.S. - AS I AM NOT AT THE COMPUTER MUCH, I WOULD APPRECIATE A CALL FROM YOU ASAP AT 310-
991-2689" ,MY CELL
Monday, November 08, 2004 America Online: Mjlibow
288 / 545
Joseph Zemik
2 2415 Saint George St.
3 Tel: (310) 4359107 _.-','''',
, i
4 Fax: (801) 998 0917

jz l2345@earthlink.net
, "",o.IIy "",,0<1 by Jo.. ph
5 Plaintiff ~ .17' ~~~;~=_phZ.,"I~

in pro per ). ~L. :':~:2"_'"b"n~
6 Da~: 200B.04.15 11:38;59
.fJ7'Q{!
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOSEPH ZERNIK No. CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
11 Plaintiff HON C. WOEHRLE, JUDGE
12 NOTICE OF A KEY FRAUDULENT
13 COUNTR~DEDOCUMENT
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL
PREVIOUSLY FILED
14 Defendants IN LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT IN
SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)
15
AS-
16
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE
17 OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY
18 KNOWN AS 320 SOUTH PECK DR,
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212.
19 CITED IN AUGUST 9,2007 JUDGMENT BY
COURT PURSUANT TO CCP §437c.
20
21 FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REQUEST TO
22 CONTINUE, ALTERNATIVELY TO
23 CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS
24 DATE: APRIL 15, 2008

25
26 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:

27 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the following document, previously flied in LASe in
28 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)- -1-
NOTICE OF A FRAUDULENT COUNTRYWIDE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT
289 / 545
NT -
T CO UN TR YW IDE 'S DO CU ME
1 NO TIC E OF A KE Y FRAUDULEN
ted , and
per ty, which was nev er aut hen tica
2 Co ntr act for Pur cha se of Real Pro
ncial
ch is the pro duc t of wir eIfax frau d across stat e lines and against a fina
3 whi
O. This
itut ion , the refo re -lik ely to be considered a pre dic ate d act per RIC
4 inst
ly Bri ef of
um ent was kno win gly adm itte d as evidence by Att Kes hav arz i in Rep
5 doc
ady protested
aan 's Mo tion for Sum ma ry Jud gm ent , afte r Pla inti ff Zer nik had alre
6 Sam
rem ain
tha t frau dul ent doc um ent . An d the Co urt allowed the doc um ent to
7 the use of
's objections.
8 as key evidence, ove rru ling Zer nik
allowed to
s con trac t was nev er pre sen ted in the complaint, and Sam aan was
9 Thi
the complaint,
ty equity rights wit h no con trac t in
10 proceed in litigation of rea l pro per
was denied by the cou rt.
11 afte r dem urr er on stat ute of frau ds
tes Court, Los Angeles in support of
12 This document is filed in United Sta
s,
inti ffs ex par te app lica tion to con tinue hearings on Motions to Dismis
13 Pla
s.
14 alternatively - to consolidate hearing
Dated: April 14 h, 2008
t
15
16 Respectfully submitted.
).~
17
18 JOS EP H ZE RN IK
Pla inti ff
19 in pro per
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
YWIDE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT
NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT COUNTR
290 / 545
DU LE NT
1 N OF NO TIC E OF A KE Y FR AU
STA TE ME NT OF VE RIF ICA TIO
PR EV IOS LY FIL ED IN LA SC
2 CO UN RR YW IDE DO CU ME NT )
IN SAM AA N V ZE NR IK (SC087400 nik
3 Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zer
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant &
I am also Appellant
4
087 400 ) mat ter hea rd in Los Ang eles Superior Court, West District,
(SC nor et
Ang eles Sup erio r Court: (B2 030 63), and also Plaintiff in Zem ik v Con
5 in Zem ik v Los
Los Angeles, California.
in the United States District Court,
6 al (CV 08-01550) matter heard
len t Countrywide Do cum ent File d
I hav e read the foregoing Notice of Key Fra udu
7
087400):
8 in LA SC in Sam aqa n v Zer nik (SC
RC HA SE
9 NO TIC E OF CONTRACT FO R PU
TY CO MM ON LY KN OW N AS 320 SO UT H PE CK DR ,
10 OF RE AL PR OP ER GM EN T
HIL LS, CA LIF OR NIA 902 12. CIT ED IN AU GU ST 9, 2007 JUD
BE VE RL Y P §437C.
11 BY CO UR T PU RSU AN T TO CC
on my own
12 true and correct. It is correct based
and I kno w the content thereof to be
laration that the
13 pro per in said case. I make this dec
personal knowledge as Defendant in
s of California and
penalty of perjury pursuant to the law
14 foregoing is true and correct under
15 the United States. th
on this 14 day in
nty of Los Ang eles , Cal ifor nia,
16 Executed here in Los Angeles, Cou
17 April, 2008.
).~
18
19 Jos eph Zer nik
Pla int iff
20 inpTopeT
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
YWIDE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT
NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT COUNTR
291 / 545
1 Joseph Zernik
in pro per
2 320 S. Peck Avenu e
Beverly Hills, Califor nia 90212
3 Tel: 310-43 5-9107
Fax: 801-99 8-0917
4
5
6
7
8 SUPE RIOR COUR T OF THE STAT E OF CALIF ORNI A
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGE LES
NIVIE SAMA AN, an individual, Case No. SC087 400

10
No Valid Assignment On File
11 Plaintiff,
12 v.
NOTI CE
13 JOSEP H ZERN IK, an individual, and DOES 1 OF
14 throug h 20, inclusive, CONT RACT FOR PURCHASE
OF
15 Defendants. REAL PROP ERTY
COMM ONLY KNOWN
16 JOSEP H ZERN IK, an individual, AS
17 320 SOUT H PECK DR
Cross- Compl ainant, BEVE RLY HILLS CALIF ORNI A
18 v. 90212
CITED IN
19 COLD WELL BANK ER RESID ENTIA L JUDG MENT BY COUR T
20 BROK ERAG E; MICH AEL LIBOW , an PURS UANT TO CCP §437c
individual, AUGUST 9, 2007
21
Cross- Defend ants.
22
23
24 DATE: NOVE MBER 13,200 7
25
26
27
TO ALL PART IES AND THEIR COUN SELS OF RECO RD:
28
-1-
IN JUDGMENT BY COURT
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED
292 / 545
1 III
Connor of
2 Aug ust 9, 20007, Judge Jac que line
PLE AS E TA KE NO TIC E that on
y Judgment by
rt, granted the Motion for Swn mar
3 Dep artm ent I, Los Angeles Superior Cou
gment by Cou rt.
4 Plaintiff, and ord ered entry of Jud
5
As such:
6 was awarded specific
ED AD JUD GED AN D DEC REE D that Plai ntif fNi vie Sam aan
It was OR DER
7 Sou th Pec k Drive Beverly
hase of Real Property known as 320
perf orm anc e of the Con trac t for Purc
8
Hills 90212.
9
y of the Con trac t for Pur cha se of
Rea l Pro per ty that was
ibit A is a true and corr ect cop
10 Exh
for Sum mar y Judgment. This
odu ced as evid enc e by Kes hav arzi in Plai ntif fs Rep ly for Mot ion
11 intr
Jud ge Con nor 's Jud gme nt by
12 Con trac t for Pur cha se of Real Pro per ty serv ed as the basis for
13 Cou rt entered Aug ust 9,20 07.

ewe d as part of pending
14 as an offending document, to be revi
This Con trac t is held by Def end ant
ons:
15 Motions for San ctio ns Pur suan t to CCP § 128.7, for the following reas
aan filed claims in a
16
Pla inti fffil ed in 200 5 clai ms with out a Contract: In Oct obe r 200 5, Sam
a)
claim. Zem ik submitted
17
te spec ific perf orm anc e with no con trac t that was the basis for such
real esta
ied suc h demurrer
18
er 200 5 dem urre r purs uan t to Statute of Fraud. Judge Con nor den
in Nov emb
19 ntua lly introduced as evidence
her claims. Such contract was eve
with out orde ring Sam aan to amend
20 9,20 07.
for sum mar y judg men t, heard on Aug
only in plai ntif f's Rep ly for Mo tion
21 ced by
tract were pro duc ed in discovery, but non e introdu
b) Multiple variants oft he Con
22 overy documents
Motion for Sum mar y Judgment: Am ong disc
Pla inti ffas evidence unt il Reply to
23 t. The Con trac t
v Zernik, Zem ik iden tifie d six (6) different variants of the Contrac
in Samaan
24 Jud gme nt, was one of two
fs Reply for Mot ion for Sum mar y
introduced by Kes hav arzi in plai ntif
25 ntry wid e in response to
Sam aan 's Loan File produced by Cou
such vari ants that wer e included in
26 for this transaction, was
trac t was nev er found in Esc row file
sub poe na for doc ume nts. Thi s con
27 Zem ik's realtor, and mos t
uce d by Lib ow and Coldwell Ban ker,
nev er foun d amo ng doc ume nts prod
28
2
D IN JUDGMENT BY COURT
CHASE OF REAL PROPERlY CITE
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PUR
293 / 545
was both buyer and realtor

1 significantly - never found among documents produced by Plaintiff, who
2 for buyer!
3 document, which was the
c) This Contract docum ent was never properly authenticated: This
4 reasonable standards required
product of fax transmission, was never properly authenticated by any
5 Court regarding
for authentication of faxed documents. (e.g., see for reference Rules of
6 authentication of fax filing with Court Clerk).
7 ing identity ofSender,
d) The preponderance ofevidence shows that Plaint iffs claims regard
8 ing: The fax cover sheet,
Receiver, and time oftransmission are allfalse and deliberately mislead
9 arzi represent this
as well as declarations and oral arguments by Samaan, Parks, and Keshav
10 to Countrywide, in
document as if it had been faxed by Parks, from the State of Washington,
11 also to be supported by the fax
northern California, on October 25,200 4, 5:03pm. Such claims seem
12 were not the true facts in
cover sheet and the fax header imprint of this document. However, these
13 during the transaction in
this matter. The anonymous header imprint was routinely used by Samaan
14 fax machine log was
2004 to fax documents that appeared to come from Parks. Samaan's
15 copy of the fax log
introduced as evidence by Samaan herself. Exhibi t B is a true and correct
16 in Courier font by Zernik,
introduced by Samaan. Added on the original document are comments
17 se Agreement document
and stars to show the instant transmission. This log shows that this Purcha
18 d, JR Lloyd, and not from
was in fact the product of fax transmission from Samaan to her husban
19 whom it was transferred to
Parks to Countrywide. Therefore, we do not know what time and by
20 se ofRea l Property was part
Countrywide. Therefore, the transmission of this Contract for Purcha
21 al Institu tion-
of the wire scheme by Samaan and Parks against Zernik and against Financi
22 Manger at San Rafael).
Countrywide (albeit with full cooperation of Maria McLaurin - Branch
23
n, were taken at face
e) Even if the purpor tedfax transmission data, as claime d by Samaa
24
tion ofthis litigation as a
value, this Contract contradicts Plaint iffs claims that were the founda
25
whole and the Summa ry Judgm ent in particular: Samaan's claimed-
26
initials on a Contract faxed by Mara
27 i. That her loan funding was delayed only because of Defenda nt's missing
-yet Samaan removed the Loan Continge ncy in response to Notice to
Escrow on Friday, October 22, 3:42pm
shows that it was transmitted by Mara
28 Buyer to Perform of Oct 18, 2004, and the instant copy of the Contract
CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT

NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
294 / 545
s.
bear Defendant's initials and signature
1 Escrow on Oct 22, 3:42pm, and it does
Approval delayed her appr aisa l-
l Contingency, since the delay in Loan
ii. That she did not remove the Appraisa
2 that came in at purchase price,
yet Samaan already had an appraisal
or Parks later than Oct 22, 2004,
of the Con tract was transmitted by Mara Escrow to Vict
3 iii. That yet anot her copy Defe ndan t's initials and signature.
er was shown to that effect -- bearing
3:42 pm - but no evidence whatsoev
ment noticed here ·- to Countrywide
4 - purported to be the Contract docu
iv. That Victor Parks faxed this Contract ion of this document at that time was
004, at 5:03 pm -- but the fax log shows that the fax transmiss
on Oct 25,2
5 from Samaan to Lloyd.
5:03 pm caused Countrywide to
by Countrywide on Oct 25, 2004 at
6 v. The purported receipt of this Contract ved an Underwriting Letter
loan (but on Octo ber 26, 2004, Samaan purportedly recei
immediately appr ove the oval of the appraisal, which allowed
lication), which led to immediate appr
7 stating Suspension of the Loan App Appraisal Contingency on the mom
ing
ingency - but Samaan removed the
Samaan to remove the Appraisal cont tryw ide.
receipt of the Contract by Coun
8 of Oct 25, 2004, prior to the purported
el
re Zem ik issued Instruction to Canc
l Contingency on Oct 25, 2004 befo
9 vi. That Samaan removed the Appraisa Instr uctio n on Oct 21, 2004 .
aan received the
Escrow - but Zernik issued, and Sam
nt that Judge Connor
of this document, this is the docume
10 Regardless of the offending nature
tact for Purchase
11 in her Jud gme nt by Cou rt, deem ed entered on Aug 9,20 07, as the Con
referenced
on for the Specific
instant document that is the foundati
12 ofR eal Property. Therefore, it is the
nt by Court.
13 Performance ordered in that Jud gme
date, since:
14 tract for Purchase Agreement at this
Defendant Zernik is noticing this Con
15 , as part of
ente d by proposed Referee Judge O'B rien
a) Such document was never pres
16 appointed. Those
that wou ld hav e form ed the foun dation for his authority as referee, if
documents
17 d to provide a copy of the
O'B rien by Keshavarzi, yet he faile
documents were supplied to Judge
18 cific Performance.
rt as the basis for his claims for Spe
Contract that he introduced in Cou
19
raisal, although that
d in Plaintiffs Motion to Compel App
20 b) Such document was never include
formance of this Con tract..
21 Appraisal is founded on Specific Per
d in Plaintiff's Noticed Motion for
Appointment ofa
22 c) Such document was never include
ormance executed by such
ld be the foundation for Specific Perf
23 Receiver, although this Contract wou
24 proposed Receiver.
a Shortened Notice
25
h doc ume nt was nev er incl ude d in Plaintiff's ex parte application for
d) Suc
foundation for Specific
26 r, although this Contract would be the
Motion for App oin tme nt ofa Receive
27 osed Receiver..
Performance executed by such prop
28
4
D IN JUDGMENT BY COURT
CHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITE
NOTICE OF CON TRA CT FOR PUR
295 / 545
ty, which was the

1 Therefore, Defendant is noticing this Contractfor Purchase ofRea l Proper
the foundation for the
2 foundation for the claims of Specific Performance by Plaintiff, and also
3 Judgm ent by Court of Aug 9,2007 .
4
5
6
7
JOSEPH ZERNIK
8 Defendant and Cross Complainant
in pro per
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
IN JUDGMENT BY COURT
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED
296 / 545
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT A
28
6
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT
297 / 545
p.l
uo~ ~o U~ uosu~p
s
Pa ci fic M or tg ag e C on su lta nt
Fa x Co ve r
Vic tor Pa rks
(88 8) 575 -56 93 Dire ct
(S0 9) ~n- 784 5 Fi'X
o o P/eose Approve o Please Reply

;1 Urgent Please Review
To: ShawnJOonna
Flilx Num IJor : 415.259.Q855- o""c...
N"m ber of Page&a 15
MCluchll9 (;O\I(lr)
From : Victor Parks
o~~; October 25, 2004
wI Counters (Samaan Approval)
Commentsl Fully Executed Purchase Agreement
298 / 545
p.2
IO~ ~b 0.. 05: 03p
ESCRO\\1 PAGF.. 02
191 22/2 094 15:4 2 3195 5675 31 ~AR A
--''" . OJ' ~ ""VLc ,,''''-L L- o~r\t:rt;
310 271 4634~ a~~-2~.04 ~;OlPM; PAGE 15/1 5
Fuln Ron t \ton l.an i MuuJ
,"AGE 2/2
Sl 0 ~"I 4834 :
:NT BY; t:OLO\'Il:ll. BANI<CIl;
~'f t~ o~ 04'G ap
_.. ..--.------ ~---

_
--- -
...
-
_--~--
-
7.
00.
o.
299 / 545
p.3
Oo~ 25 04 05l 03p
MARA 1:.!::il,;1<\JW PAGE 13/15

SEP 'Z2- 04 ~:~9PM;
310 ~7' 4834;
p;3
~IO ?71 40::.. :
COU N'T eRO FFe A ~ 6~G :. <,: 1\ I . " " " II. N I II.
(~Of _ Dr 5I'IIM Of BU)IOI'. ASS OCI ATI ON

l_otf cor.) (')r R.\ZI \t_T( )I~~' ~
M"1' ... ~ to- M"'t lp" COuI
C::o-".
(<:.A.f1. " ......
)
i:
.- ... __._...-------.,....-
.... _ e _ , _ O r ;
D) to . . . . . .'
()If4rj ~o ~, ~
I;ftoo_" MUL 't,pu: I;OImT<::1'l OI'Fcn. :l"'r ,l" n..klllCJ 1\ Couo\twr,... ono. by' G~,Qf ..h:lU Clot 1180 b.nltl. .p un""' " ..." "ft~ II :. .!
01 lll~ (;q""
mMk' by doloYQMO ~ ~lI Copy
&. .
.....f '"X .... -1\& _ 0 .... 'n
,..... COuNCI' Oil",. ","" ,,'_0 ~ ,
..
n_ ft! ""''' ' II ....... • ;0-/01 ~
~\"%6. ~A'.I\-.) "'..,...tty.
lII....c
ou:JGI)Qucll:l~,n.:~1IO I)" ~I
.. ir 1'\1'110'110/1 T loci"'" <)fill cOMII'' "uyo."" re.
'" ",.Mb tI. ~ ~ 0' OV 'O(SIPtolc... ..10" ,~ _"..oy "'00>"'6lI.llI
(l('<I ~ ... rnrll.. ..., h _ 410 411_
0' Oll~llAIIOn.. "'" II", p"'CIhWt<
'" :..11, <lIl1lC1
.... _dp CIt MOl ,"u... ..Vol"" " ~o(
,
.;~
7. IlIlA, nllLII CC)lJJ fI'CR orn; q

6~~1 I.U" lI!: lJ)' ""!aft ""
,,,,,ll
\)of_.
ttt\1>I' D_. 'pne ... PlMa...."
e.) (I'~" ~,,-
o_
&011.. . _ " ' ' ' ' NUI l~C .,Jr.--'''Ph ,~''''--.)
•• T
0lfW.
_ _ /4" ~
..
:10 " '".. boll
HO'MTO ~l!J."l;/lI; NOT .Ill"' '"" _ _" _
~,.. na.. _,.
u_
300 / 545
p.~
UO~ ~b U~ UblU~p
PAGE 64
MARA ESGRaoI
10/2 2/28 64 15:4 2 31tJ5567531 8&- 22-0 4 3:49 PM; PACE 2
310· 271 463oof,
CAU FOR NIA . EEMENT

SE IlGR
RESIOENTIAL PUR CHAINS
~",."I.If""""I." AND JOINT eSC ROW TRUCTIONS D.tAl Ihed
c:ho d Df
~~.,. " " 'i t) ~ I,"" '(I'"
For UII" WIth Slngf<I S'omllV Aol.us
.ntJp1 Propewty -Atta
~ C)" lH, -\I.·r () R ...r RPArCA. AevIs84l10102)
(C.A.R. Fonn ' Califomia•
,.!lSiS%-!l!!i:r.li!.:lCIW1l:Ue=",l!<l.L-
~~ A~"R.t""..-e:-'l....
..~~ ~I _ ,_ _~
_ _ ('(lUVllI").
~~ .. ..
... OFl=l!~:
~.A __""-.:~:-:-,:""
A. tHlS l..'l AN OFf: nt rROM
,.
1. ""jI . tWlunte4 In
Ilk ACQ UIRE D 1$ GelllllJOeO liS NO. 432 S-02 f-gp
8. THE Rl:AL l>RO l'1:H' N '1'0 ,As_ sor's Pltroel • C~m". ("PfODOItY1.
... ._ ~ ~
,COll ntyof
."
~J,J. ""cw:red cI'. ...CQ 1;y 2'bQ! t2m:v f
c. 'n'l(l t>U n~I 't>tU¢1o
01T",,,0 II' ~" I!U 1 h at! ~h' OOIlO to~ A.'''O.ooq,o" DapAllerAc.;epLJnct:)..
._ 1~( orO
.....,. .,. ~~~ ~~_ ._ _ Os:t nher .2:5. zqu Olh9rwiocr
CCU lon _ l 2K or 2llo eIIodCad bQlDIII: or IlIl
O. CLO SeOF esCR OWs tlallO , of 1Il1o J'lQI'09frlent unlClGl:; (II .,lIIlvdoPllGlf, dowt l oavrnont .no CIO:llflIJ ClC>\l~ .. nOt
lhe! IoAnB bfll_ ~ II colltO nll"no 'lf1\ll
2. FlNANCS TP,AMs: Ob,QIIIlfIQ...., dllly.",lIV ~ In Ilood I'IUlIlIO ODIUln U11l Cll:GIQnDtod lOll... . ObDlJ DOD OD
tIQtOed III Wf1IItY,l. IIlJyCt S/1;l'
t fOprl! llolll6 l1lll1 futlG$ WIll De lI¢Od when
oeQo'lleCI Wltll &cro lV tlOIllC!., ,.........
. .,.$ :to ,.
OO.... flscn t;y. Olly.l ilI Or, •••• , ,
oJ
gIIt..n .. dcPOolf 11\ rile ;at"(lOU
Co
A. INITIAL DEPQSI't: ~r ~ ). Ill" llrmonlll ~

(or to CJ
to I"" A~nt 10,,1-1'/1.'"'110 IIII!.' O~I).II'Il
•
... IdOJl 'lly"b lcllt ~pranGO
(O'Ci. O tIIDIl depg:l ilO(l WICllI~ 3 ll~ff1Cll:$ da~ ~/I4r
A~pl""Cl lIfl11 ).wIl11
""'ICh Shall bv 1I.1tt unen b"" URta
(or:::J _ _ • _
totO
Inlo Brgker'$ tlVst ,~lI"1). :Jll In llle ..lI\OUi It t1I • •. $
Esao w HolClvr.
Owe r IIMU CleQl) $I' WllI1 F.lIIIlrC7N HClldl'.1 IIl'l tRCl'llMOd c1npo .,...._ _
l!l. INCRCAseD Cl(!PO SlT:
OoYII.AAcr ~1lW\Ce,
O!CJ -:-
1.,3 3",0 00.0 0
WIfJlln , ••• , •.•• , :... . • ..• $
OF •• .., •..• ••• , •• : •• " , •••• •• ,., •• ..'
. _ _1ft\!J If nor. p:tjftlO
C. FIRST LOAN IN TME AMO Uf(f '" llllNl xlm..
or Iellller. enwlYlblJlrfl1g lk. ~ 'WI"ft II\ICJ~~lr.:oIC
11) IIII;W FItst Oee<l "f T'\I5l1J1 ttlvo' 'I. iftitJalllclju.lllbto l'If1o YVIl/l Cl maxrt
,""'tMI .6ilD
of "So ? <,(. f"cod
- "f.. /Uolalll» duct III
'A~. 01
39
::, QQQ
yel!l1S . ;srno l1ittd ov~ 30 yealll. Eluyer \11\;111
het ll>e dellfg"llllld IO$n
or --2.. . (TluIM letms allDlywtJol
--- :
pat-loan reMIPOims not to e"eee d
1$ con\l~nllonl>L FHA Or
VA.)
"'tmt.
onl\' -/lilly ro ,.... F"HJ. or VA _Ina,".
~cked·1
I:l) O'H I', c; VA :n tol/OWIII!I % ClIc"o ,,", pO<l'l.... ~ollor ~DlIlQt othor fca nol .a1OWlld 10 be ~Ill
ft by ~.
Sodo! C/I,,' Po)Y _ _ ._
Gholl pay ,110 _ I ~ 1000~ f lVqulllCld ~pol'" (~1Id1119
Sellor
for in tllla Agn:c rnunt . 0 not
f) 110' 10 f'.lCUled S 10 eo/et;'C'd
pl'dlf) not "th... tw!4" plo\lIdO'd full(lln o
Ih_ tot wOO(1 ~lrOyltY,l it trIvttg:lQo lnGur.lnoe ptc:l'l'lIul1l'"
• lI\<:W~r Io"n ~I" ",y ",_ '0
:; $ _ _--'~o:;li~7"""O""(J""O-,-
•.",O-,,,O
•••• .•.• • , .•
1000. Of ClOsing ~A\l>l" lItO M:tncCCl.) =O';'
O. oACDll'lONAL FINANClNG ; '.:..looo!:w:~..~l't1n4::;:...:::;jjl;:;:,::()I\Ci~h~;;:.;n;<..;~.,(>::,:ITI\~:n'-:"'l~:=.::~~;,;;,;,;,"""'
~:
._- --_ .., -- -- -- -- -- -- --

(e "".R. rll"'" ItAA par;tQ ro1I1" "
--' -., the lIl1'IOunt of . 5 _-J..!!le.-o

..o..O_.J)..l!.
(nol tADludlnO costs of ob,eln~
loans alld otII8r dosltlfl COIlS) ItI
e. 8A1A 0,. PU~G nAse I'IUC e:
N¢1;
e' wll/lll1suffieJt.nlllmeo to clO$~ ewow S :te 1$70 , ooCt. 00
'0 be d'llO~ed Imn EsC/ow Hold . .. ,
,.... . ..
lelldlu or n\ortg llg", 10llll
p. l'\J(tCH.AElC r~c(" (TO tAL) shaD pto.t! du ~elot 1I hiliOf' from
'. , e"yc t
prellPPlO1led 10r tile N~W Igln
I D.\ya After A.c;QoptllrlCG
n ': (Cllr Q
C. LOAN .....Pt.ICA""ON 'S: Will"
w of Buyct'£ wtUIOCI llppllcallOfl anel
e:te<Iit rvpott. tlItyv t .. prequallfled or
~ ""Illi g tIl~ ..... 1Od Dr> ;a
'J>vlo
t' ~_ \0 101 ~~I. wilhlR
_CIl1 1lllin 20 t1bQy q o..y... (0' Ol'yor"l' lctll10t 0' ~n l)rOl\f
"NT ANt) Ct.OOlNO CO$r~; and clMlng msb .
VPA'I"CATlON OJ' OOWN rAYlW IMti/lclIlIon at Auyo ta dol'l/ll J):Iyrr K'nt
H.
_ _ l Ooa't$ Mer Ac:cepWICQ. PRJIIiOo 5cllorwrll1p.n anCl O. ;IS IJpecillod In DIfl '~""
14, _"' "
:r {O, 0
(I) Within t1 (0' 0 ) D;oyu MOr A~Pt BuYe r .hall.
ir1 in eH9et Ufl(B tho da!llg nllled
loa""
'"tit
CONT INGE NCY REMO VAL:
ld' 0 tbe l1On (I~~ nIl "01I18
I ttlill A9re esmn t OR (", (I' l;h~f
I. LOAN lolUl
me 'O;Il con~"gency or eatlCO elt)' IIPJKal$JIl9 .. t no
"'/\\IC/O, Th"'AgRNlmeI\U" (Of'l. If ~dalcI.
[J II NOll Cl>iIQI9ent U)lOn t.... i>rop Ald. :31 Wlnun 11 (Of
IN(1( NCY "NO REu ovA v ;"g_ r ~ _lIO d (or. If chQC/C
J. APPAAJSAL CONT t1mo tho 10.... oone
If tkltr~ .~ lO f"an I;On'n;O""'¥, ot tho 140( :). , . _ tho OW" 'i"" «IlClbnOCCllly or l:al'QJIIhllI AOn:cmfII'll
.
leu Ib,n 1'IIe aDllCifiod pur.::n3$\/ lltl<:e. "". BuY'" ellA•• IJ~ npocllk>d In por.oo
r"P" Y 'W\lnItl 17 (Ot ) O;oy"
8_ . _ ) Oay, AIl..r AOCJIpl8nc nl-.ol~ '>1' ..pr.e/fwld In "..raliRlph
f 40(3) . temlW e u... ~(o ..'" 1lO"""l ICClCo
" t~~ ,~ no '00;" c:nn'ln:7"ncy. R,,~r
groorn'1fI1 b NOT " c:onUngcnqr
of f.'lq;
Mill" AccePl;lnCfJ. irI pnrag rapll, 2C. 2D or el,ewhero in thll:.A to 011'/0 (" aCj)01l~ or
(It c/ltIdIeO): Ob\;l'"mo llo'llf JoQn tllo Property, SoUo , mllY "'" ....\lIIe\1
K. (j NO LOAN CONTINGEftCY I18")"O , do". net pu,du.GO
n t~ 10.." and IItl a I1Osu
Agre e",,"! . If Buyel d,," nol ObliJl } Oayt Mer AOl:llp\ll"Ol!.
nl/lCI leg.' ta_d ~" f'mIl8flY. (lU)'t'£ GIlall. Wlttlin '1 (01'
0 _
L ,.\:ft
(I(CflC Ckel1 ): NofQan ill llttI!CIl!Clttl putellssernectton.
.... D"'t. <:AS Hor
$.lllK:<Il1lIIuI\Cl$ m close lIlis transa
p,OYJde Sckr WI,,,,,,,., vllfitlC31101\ ot
CI.,O SIM; "'Ntl OCCU fl'oUI C:\', t~ PIIM~tY R1.IlJ.p'JC».
10 o~~p)O ,...... "'IUp atly In t\uf' d~ of Clost' 0' C,crQII/;
3.
,.. eu,., Inlan d" ior ("j dDt:'~ ng\ II\I~nd) l» deli _d lJ) Swo , ft _ _1.11-.._
t!l AM 0 PM. 0 011 ,...,ph~) IJ ~'Cl'III/"liInd
f..
S.IIo r.o.. ,,,jl••
d <r•• YOCl
:
Int
010
pto
110
~:
la,e,
Oeeu pancy
lI'llln _
'"''''
Oa)O$ Mer Close or EaefO
ltllo
W.
II
(CAR
wrilten
. Form
~PAI
PM.
\C)'
P8
n . 1""""
lima. ~t an~ SeJ/4Ir lte ,.cl~d
(J 01\ to; (') elllllt
oecur '''0 tiMl6 ::::: :
not llu~r',.. 1I\Illnill ( -,~"'
OGr.up ,1nl:Y do ;Jt
,nsUt.:>".... a"ll ~1I' «dvb occ
:t '" •• ·J.1 _ , r,." "'" ....... ."..... ~e"crl'l 'n41a1S .u. ._, -_~
.....~I _ or "" Inl
,., .... 'v... .,f,~"'_ 1116'' ' ' ' 'l1li,. _
..".!or ~
=.l:¢ ..::tAf&m!::,.*Jl~W ...OO:.
.._
'_•...,~Q< ;~3 ...
~ -'~uHNi r Aef'.t:!I\I'l\!!IJ
..-~~'..W
,:(,;.,.A;.;.;:(z;::..;';..(I::";..:a.~-....,.". P.-p3 tH"II tJ':3 WlNForman~.-
,
rRi~::_~:_::oCJ\:::-~RliV~-:lS;;,;l:O~1~QI~O;:%; 1I'-:( 310)4 'r4tll SoOJ
"ax:( :JfO)
Col gbO'4
AlIOtI(: NlYr OliI_ Nn 1.«0 0102
tJ3J W.Cbotood Q/\Id,
Bto\lor: Giltl!l'iIrIl Cnl'lin R.alft)rs
301 / 545
Uo~ ~~ U4 U~I U4p
PAGE 8S
MARA ESCROW
2/20 04 15:4 2 31055075 31 acr· ZZ· 04 ~:~OPM; PAGE 3
18/2
t
.... _ "u,. ""l.U ftc,," ... OANI \t:H; 310 ~71 4834;
Dare: .1l~b=r " zop«
A 'R'd'Ar.27 If;. Z Z" Q\..
...u t..l- t.-- d
es&;. Jg 't, l's£k 'iCU
) 0ltYc Pnor OtoliQ or
tsc;rQ w. unlnn. . (Jthct wlao "!l""'
1>* .... c.nl ..lIoOl>t IS (ot D _
A-ope!rt)' Addr I()
"">," (i) Pf'OP l'rly ~Il colltr ol .. 1t(I <ltne r ~ppll ubl.l ..'Iw.YOI/ may
c. TOll: lnt-ol lGllpi elf -'I'OP .lNId l .... rtt
;' J'top etty yaCl fIl1n acco nlltnc
1101': "yo" ' ..... unodbl.. '0 delive
In wrClllp. "'OC9to $ ..Agrv PM,
In brerilCh of tIIlll
be l:ll"ll nt thrto Mt8e ment (CAR Form
IIllO
led addendUm 1$ Incol 'llome d
OR MIff thecke<ll 0 to _ I n In POD".lw:o!tM. Tno altlltl
T('r1P41 rty
R:ip3ld1ng oc:eupan<;y of tile P,apo
~ItI\lTUOn 3 ). r IIl\11!rillQ mlo" ~ "~l Mnl
Ci TtllO "'u," mcn t IS t.Gllllfl9Gl'lt ~n 8IIyc r llna $olfv el\t1et Su)'O r or ~oll ct~) ' ••"tQ;! thlfo Ag'....rnont
14H(1). If 110 wdtlen agr~~
OR (,?' /If d>llC knd) ill telllllle<l WlI'* ' this-li me.
1NI11\ltlIM I""" "p"el! 1ed In "",,,g raph
in u... $111'1 ~ Ghall fltOVld.. ~
fnwntJlI\). MYlOIJloIlI" Cop.ctlGo
.......e l'ty ngh~ fo' Items Includ ed
Clo~ $,,110' Da"JOIIa to O"y..' nny IlIIldllhabJto
"'lII/tIoXe, seCl/llty~.
D. !'oJ Of C"lO W. aO,ln y 01 any waQ'4 '1l1tlS .
ol anlf will nel deten nm" lhe lIuGn
01 su~.,., w"'r&nll~. 8tokfll't. CIInn
:ro...~ In _llIn g. S4ol/e, slIaII prOYlO ll lle'j$ aml/or means to ~ ai/locks, r mal' be rllqUr~ 10 pSly "
E. Ac C.,. 01 ewow. ullless· Dlhvrwl$e locab rd In Ii CGmII 1llfl i,*re sl s\ll)(l "lslOn. SI/lle
Ir Pro""rt~ /$ " conclCll'l/nlum 0'
alartnll 'lid g~reqe door OPene....el,,1I0 " ('110-\") t" (>blIol~ Iwyo to _ l l l l e HOA ~elllllocl. pOly 10' "'" ,llpclll,......peelion. lost
d\lP~ 1o".. . foI0ItJlX/'Olnu.,;· AsCO
s OInetw'~ ~~11 hero. ItIiIl
l)c.'''O~ ol\lr cIO _rxo "","0 i$ tOO
S (II't:!l edlec t}: UnlOs "" 10 pay fOr IIny work t ~ or ide/IG1I8d
... AllO CAT ION 01" COOT
Of 8lasw hcre In lhb ~ree mell
l 1M CIAll>mlna\l On ""wh o
nlen\ lO~. Jr not Ilpec;i 1leo IIenl ~l'#O ",p/l 14D(2 I.
er 6Crvfca
lesl or l\lltvi U $halllHr by \lie
mcthocl ..geolr ," In
by "'1y;ouCh ,cpan. in5peCf/On.
A. WOOD OesT liOY ,NC Pl!:ST
Itor.!lPCCTIO"': ying po616 ..lid o'9"IlIl/fl'l$ fJ'lo
ponl W/t~ CbllII lie P~JfCCI
I""PCll:\Ion and .. pon for WOOd doalro • a rc:g/&Ittlld 81lVC I\If"lle st
11 ) Iluye t 0 S4lIllt, Slid pay 10' an
C! Uletl ifill, ir
IIy _ _ a,.llo, of tho main blllldlll!il and O1t:Icftod &Uu=
stlall COWl r ttle IlCQIJ !ltlble olhOt ~\l'tIt .W..... Of MOP!>
COmrol COR'lpan~. TnI' Ftepo n
ca'1'Ort:I. 0 d"IJICh~" dFdl... 0
til" 101Iow lllO . ltIIIRGIIOJI ~~p.
; U (/<f1~ C"YCI ~"Rl/ <'9 ..,..,

_Ch~ . tho Report W\all Inaludo only \l'lo
In II OQnIITlO" hlletQst .utxI1vIslon
lc IllCoI "'.... '"'l9~ II P,opo ny III a COl\oomftll\ll'll Or 1O<:llt.o e comm on ,rl!QlI . unt'lM othP.lWfMl :llIrfMd. WIlt,. , Il::It." or
not inclu< ohlllllWt InclUd
VO 31'1!'S being lfanetvlT'il11 and rtv ~I_ thol ,,""" "',
.
."pal'(lUf IntorOlII ;)~d ony I,fxaulllvo,U e(lt of lhe 0\lIIIQ IU 0' prooo b IncolllOlllted
1t01 ~ pertO/l'JlOcI WJlhOllt COftl 1l\5PIIQ1on ..1lCl DlJo~lIon of coG[
o;lJC,wor Pllttll 0"' rJfJP<tf InV'1J rJtllb l'nOy d.ng IIUlc>cl d<lW oyfng ptrfO(
lel1 Ql1Id~nCl\lrn CC.A.~. Ito.......
WPA ) ie03t
OR (2) ~ lit CllecfCe<I1 Til" ;lUaQ
InlO IIlI$ Agrel!mefll. _
il. 01lle R INSP eC1l OHS~lIan Atlo REPORT$: llJ~~.' :'JI''''~ in!lpG
ClOII ~
---
(11 0 G\lVo r a $&lnll f P:!Y 10 hav", tu!pIl~ Dl' ptlYA\o ~PO~
W811" potDbnllf unCI prOUll I:I1VJt y _-:- -:- .....
-------
12) 0 lilly"," iJ $dne, l.h,)I! pay
\0 It/ilYe dome stic wells 'IIIsted for !l":'JE..f,ql&b!lie~l"'.,..os..----- _
:.ara.rona a~" lepon prepl IlIllI b)' ~:I!!la!.!~~.t~e:.
f." r ,,/roOU pl>1 ro, a nDIU'IlI11a :cltlon orrop on ., _
LJ GI/lI'"
(3) c:J
(4}
flu)!... .
0 £l"uc
~Ilo' .hell p;,y fo,tll o foIIOW "'O lrIopc
a pay rorlh n 10JIO""IR~ .R$pt etlO,. ",. '''''Of t
(Ii) 0 Uuy' " :;r,II" r lll'lol\
TS ANO ReTR OFIT ; mqul red "V Luw. Prio, 10 Cl_
Of tl".,.. _. !;aver
C. GOVERNWlCNT Rl:'QUlREMEN for ..",oke dsl1lc;(o' I~l/allon lINJlo' _'Or heo\D,lQQointJ. If lM/lL
(1) 0 Buye f C3115 elltlf &111111 PilI' /0CI!I Il:lw. 1lft"" ""exl
n ... wltJ\ ~""lC' and
""'ftdel'4l>. tnw~O"1l MO
~ provlCl'll!lu"..' " lNr~ n
..f;lt..m.."t of r.omglll'n.. . In lI~ l'MlI4 otory ~oVfltnrl\nnl MWI il _
eno l" wlUl any oIhr:' monlrllUM
11) C! tluyi) f m ~",'W ocI\illl Pit)' tho ~" of _ph lfI CSGClO W unde r llny Law.
'f1pa m of f'I'>Q~I ,<ld as ;l canad ian 01 dOGII
_
o. CSI;:ROW AtiD nTLC : ,.,r.etlI!!1l"L.,;l~t~~U';;J"lI.ll~g
!YL.
.
C'f) mRllrot< aa ~"Ilor snail "'''1 """,a w 10* ~;'_lI~iUbllYIJ""I!!!!l""£.
I~.~x.. "~U IYl ~yq~ R_ .
Chall be- P»~ ~Ji !l£ Io! ,.! aI~
FOC: la.vl1 old., ~~IIc11n pol1lSraph 12
(2) 0 lluyt ' C1!l6'f"~'~I\,ll Ray 'Or ownor'.'Juo,n-II'lIllC_C polley
OWoer'5 !lire policy te ~ ,"uocl ~y 'r. unll"r-oblhl;'nrlioo ~d In wrJlin
ll.)
ura~ nQllcylnRu~ BuyCl'., '",rod!;
(Buye f aha' !lay rDl' any 1Itle IlJ!I _
~; , _
... OTlof"rc ccmT ' "lull ""'1 Clllln ty
If/;ln,!\:''\lJl\ ot tnln~'"(("" . •
Ii) Ci nil)''' ' ~ ~Itll(l
----
(2) 0 G\f)Io, Oil So\IoI sh3P p;ty
CIty ullns r", laIC Ofwn sflJt fH
.,....
(3) D 8uv" r D Solto , "hflli pay
HOA tralla l'crfU a
.-;_ :'_: _:~= _;:: ::___~:':::_:".:;:
----
14J 0 Buy" , ro SoU. r al'lllll j)olY HOA OOOUITI"nto
rviOlof:lftlO" (,'~ ~_-- _ _- • of d one-y uu, hOlm: "''''''''Illy _
pI;tI.
' Oil Sel(e ,.rml l DaY tile cost, tlofto l!lfC'AHld S 3M QD _
fbI (J DU'f. b)' .FAA:.§t: Alpb:r~~~~
..I:Z:lIl1
tU1JM '_2fi>:~"'
l!l!e n!!l1.
laa~ed
ap8. _
wllh Ih, foltowlnll oollo nal covtlr _
~
(0) l:! 0\1)111 ' Cl Selllll ' Ghllli J)oY 101 _ _

(or . IU!ll} AND CAIolCEU.A1'ION RIGH
TS:
(1. l:J &.I)IUt' l:J !loY.... ~hAIl (IllY SSO PAIN T llU:A1fD OISCl,.()$U relf by l.1tw; III ~. . .,.., l ..l'd-GaIDood P.ainl D1se1~~ ""cI
~S (INCL UDIN G &.SAO-SA de,.,,,,
5. SYAYU'l'ORY OI$CLOSU tlmo $pec: ili~ In per,g ll1plt '''A. W BlIy.r. 11 Coqlli
"m 1'I~o lt \Wq. off"" CAlIf orrq CNIIC ftd..
A. ('I) Gellet 8hOll, WillI'" tJ\lt ~QfI I11' W.at. seq.
,,~~ SlolQlJlOnl l"TPS">, Nalll,
OSllt1l~ or nCM .-,eq lllrltll by
at
1<""' ): _Ill ) <1l$Cl Cllt:d v Tnrl'll;fOr D~(1
p...mp_ ("l.caG OI~"\ Orcc~UJV'I In~Mlo. bUI em
net ""'COd 10. co Raol
wbat anea. notIcD 01 GPcllIlIl blt lIIt\dlo r
ClsdOl lu~Il· ). Sti1M O/V ot rt.\t(t~ 1lO of IIOQ:l I conlt dled of
~. nolles. or Oclual \ul~Cl
/":;\I1I I1IO(y
lfes Alit ..lid /mp ,.,_ t OotKl Ad
HazarG OlSdosufa &aremenl ('NHO uy equivalent ntllice nt,(llltdlnll tJte Mello-Iloo, Commlfnlb" FlXiI . t=orm S5D),
Mles amen lt (Ot. ~ anoweCl. lit1o'lBnlla un mlWl:) ry OlCl/lll"08 toc:eUQlI (I1s(: bsure ICAR selJotr
In fnO\lS tliel end
StQMOry ~ 19:1!$ Di&dOll\II'M W
1'1ll(1). ""urn l!I ~ CepI e, ol1heJ"4 """", ,-fly ~.~", tho tI'OIU'rt)/. 0' any Illlltonal
lr:llgll.
1')1:; ) PAd I' Golle r /100 lIe:tUlll knOW
llKl In pu,-g rlJPIl
12) Buyc!' llhab. with.n tho 11m" tpo.:r Of "'$V\"~ ~"'1K l.f'O. Gdlc f :lhB1l
!' Of "~,a w, tl.cQ t/l'I, IIWaOC tJuyeJ' hl othor wbo unoWl
(SI 11\ 1M evflill Cell. ,. prio, In CIOAl nallllft Q( rep",senra\i0n5 pr'eVI
l)I/$ly P"lYlcJed 10 6l1yer of Which m&.~_V~ ~ or _.. vK
'n"CWl'Dey III <l~clO:SIlIl!:G. lIV'on writing, OOUe ririll lIKlse 1le
.rnOndfld Clr6c1oowe Of nOl&c e, ,n
ts ., ~ ~
p'ornll1l)' PlIO""'" :I "tIb..aqll4ll'lt 0'
d lor <.on dltlon r..nd ~,j .'
Inaceur~Clll'OlllolClSlIClln repor
'1I!1l:J~ /?" Q==I
ClI/lo 1o"'", ' "hAil no' bn ...qu1l'O
ORl14 >.INC; :
Buyer'lI (
SeI"' r'. . Inhl$liI (
o.t.
z:::...- )((. =~ I
:002 CAlIrORNIA AIlllOClo'lTIQ
N Of' AlI.IU.T , " - ' - ""
Copy llJl/lt enlll- '''/I~Ot~(\ 1.1''''
RPAo CA RfiVl Sl:O ~O/OZ fPACJE 2 01'1.11 lAL IJURCHASl' AGR (:[ML 'N'r
f~PA -cA PAfi I: 2 OF 1\)
CJ\U"O~NIA RFSl tlt:NT
302 / 545
p.6
Oo~ 25 04 05104 p
MtlRA ESCROW PAGE 8S

10/22/2 094 15:42 ~1055e 7531
. _. .. _.. '"" "''''''''''l.:n. ~lO 27' 4834; Se~·2Z-04 3;51rM i PAGE 4/15
CfI 2 9'1;2 ~e.~: t b ". 2DM

PrOPt'l)tAdd r.cc·.1.2Q.....L I4'tc" Qrtyc "ftZlllrty :tal';,
S1gnecl.
1'-' If lilly OllllllOllunt 0' ~tc.o ~ d In SA/li. or ~"t
or - d d l I dllK2l0~tI!O or /lOUOO III oOllverOd 10 l3u)'er lII1or:n4 olTOr" IllI
<llllll/ery In pcrs;on. or S Olio)'ll ~ dl!llVOlY tlV ClfJPQll( n tIIaI mall.
fJ\lYDr ~J1 "ave lho "!l1I1 1V c:aneoll~~ A~mont wllnin :I Dayt. /'III4f md must~ ftlll GCII1/Iled mall orbcller.)
fllOn to &oller 0' Selrer~ ag.. nt. (LIl/14 oI~ures "/lIlly
~ _otIon nallU Of<:llllC<llll
lm is prohiblllOlS by law.
(~J Jl/oW to Gwltr Dnd 3~"r; W.l....' Of :>~lOry ~nCS Leao OIsC'OG\ tJ",,,,,
tho 1moo cP<-<:1Ii1Jd In p'''''lIr:a"" 14. So..., ~•• If fClllll,..lI oy
UI",; (i) d"""""-'0
B. HATURAL AND &flVl~ONlIIIENTALt4A?.AItOS t Wlltlin d1~\P It Ihtl
DOOlllce: (iiI 'JVl\(l '~1l""'1lt 110m lIlO ObllOo>t:on \0 II<t1V'" It JlHO.
".:.I\hqu~ .. Quldr.. (."x1 qUcn(fonn" fIC) .,)M <tIlw.unrrrCl/ll.;ll />:lm1W ly
(1rII1I1dat1on) Area; VelY High Fu. HIIAl'CI Zclnll: SfAtlI r:l1'O Rollpo~li
PrOJll1/ty ~ IClClllD4 '" " Gpecrall'1oQG Ham«I Area: Polellllal flOoding l8N end pro\l~
Nelli: F.arlhau"k e 1'"",.
~o"o: ~BIllie Hozel'd lOtls: 8114 (iii) llitldose sny OlI1et :tvne lIS fl:(:UIntd by IIny lither inforrnlllJcln
tl'quJred for tho,..,. "''''''''

C. DATA eAst: DISeLOS
2QO.OOO or mo'e ana mQll)'
UIU:: ....OTlC~ Thft ClIbl'Ofllla ~~ of ~tlQO...hOM.. dop~M;
OlIter local laW il:nlOl'ceml lm '''lholtlos
feg1$lIIr pUI5U1I1II III ".'lIIll1llJ h 11) 01 $~lsIon (ll) of Seer/on 290A
IJlIIintllln
of
for
nvlvhbOlll
pubDc :a_ . pollao deplto1mcntl S<l1\Ilng ,unsdldKln, of
II 41l1lo ~lM!r or Ihll lDCdtIOll' of peniOllS I\lCIlIliea 10
5'_1 CCIde. The dill' b-t /5 upcIlIled on a qllllrrerly ba~
u.o
aod. Till' Do~nt Of JUIlIlClf alco M.~inrAn, :0 ~,I\ll Ofli:nW
lIIld II
30Urce 01 ,~ltO/l ,,!)Out the pr...~'lt;N 0' I/>elIII lndMdu,l, In OIlY

IIlfoIll'OIlOII
MAdO. Thla rllilo ,\)00' relaphOl\O $IlMQ... CAl1t1\\ mil'll I\tlVO GQ('CA"JO
f(1cnlJ/ t;II1<Jn lJM throug" ",InCh '"qu;'...~ IlbO\lIl1l11lv/duab May tie
11h.y lnr"m'\lbo o rtt9.. rdlng fHIIg/lllOlh OOdS., 001 avsDable IIlf000gh lIIct -goo" IeillPllOt19 /llIrvlce.
lI110ut 1~'vldu'II: ..... dlodc1ne. .
URe5:
8. CONDOMINIUQ/PUkNl\t) \IN". OINeI.OP MOIT DISC(.OS
) "lOY" Aflof Acc-PllInc e 10 dJ3d~e 10 buyar wn01/lef the PrOJJ$ll1 \r; a ecndomfn llllfl. 0' ItI /oC;JI1ld n :I
A. llP.(.U!~ HAS: 7 ft;r' U _ .
pt...... lId u'li: deval~ ot bihar CO/llfnon 'llfOfolGt '''!)(IN,,,OI
l (CAPt l"0Ml SfJO).
d<t•••I''''m''''I .... olJ>or QOIftInOl\ /ntoIcAA ~ubdlVl¥f<,o. ~IIe, hA
;, (Of 0 _ J
tl. 1/ rno PtoPtItY. , a condoMinium Qt Is ~Icd in It p~nnelt ",nil s requlnld by L,,-, III) dl(;clae..1'0 oT "">' peMflng
HOA); (l) Ooples of ~l' document
Oaylll AlIDr Acce~la~ to ,eqllest from the HO'" (CAR. 1=0""
~ j)al'll,no oIll11 stOtol9lr
~n' Q>flbdnlttCllhn lDeIIlion Md ~r or <l0'lI
or 31l9C1~tOl1 Clam or ,,'gll1.,., bY Ot Ilga1ft$t lh~ HOA; (10) ... n1Qmla1~nof
COp",~ IIlIt mo't<a4:"C lnt 12 monthr. of IiOA /lllnurt:ll flU re{jU1,r anel ~ MtfIIItrfIS; ~I\d III) 1IW IIOr\'loI$ .Ilel COttIlICI.
IIQQr_: Ilv) 01
Seller 6IlaUIIllmlte- enCllleliVCll' CO BlJ)'Ilr ,II Cl OlSCIOSUI'IIIl received
from t~ HCIA
"" HOAs govOI'II,n9 II\lJ P'opclty lelllledNely. 'Ct Of~CIOSl/'e$'. IIllJ1lldlUld Itr (>:J1flpn>p" 14.
I _ ' of Cl DlseIoslIrOll is a COntingenC)' of t/IIs Agteement ~
lIIld any 01 OrtdosUI'8 s ,n Gel....... pONc:sslon. BuyGlr"s W
CONDrt!ONS AFFt:CTlMO PRQPt:tn Y:
"T. ph)'lolQolI .,Orldlaun .... of tho _ of A ~ C Q """" tbllll00blOOt to
"'. Utll...... OlN>twl:.o "pRlCld; II) ",,0 IIt'OpNty ,. 'SOld (..) In I,. pAAsnrr 1~b$l$n~11)' IIIe ~
~P". L1tte!sOOI)lOO ",nd Qfounas. IS 10 bot ~m:tlecl III
8\IyOr"s In-.l!JM
as lhe
/on
f1lltO
rlgh1S:
ofAccepli
(/I) Ill..
l"ce:
PIQPe~.
..1Il3 (Iii) 811
"'dudmg
dtbr~
pOOl,
JJr1d pcr:;onor proporty not lnclUdall in t"e- $a'" .,1101 IlO feMOVCd "y CIOH 01 e:st:row.
'144, D1111Cl.O(;S 1(/fQlIYN MAlIlJW\ L FACTS AlIIO oerem-$ ~1'I9
condbOo 01' t1H'
8. S~lLE~ SHALL. within lt1e ,imQ $J)flOlfi,.d ,,, p._llnlph O ltV LAW I~·~
Propo~ ••no!ur;llng knoloWt l~u ....n" c;1.imtt wlUl". tho ~l "..., yWl"'" AHO MAKI! OTHl!R DlliCLOS UR£$ RCQI1~1t
'-_:loS!) ).
_. NOTe'TO ElUVGR: VO'J 0'" stron"Jy Advb~ W <:Of\CUct ll'M>lolIeol
lomo 0' Ule c~ PtopoffY 11'1 ordet to detBrmh'ls lCS prcIMt1( oonditilln
$II'CCI $Oller moy not I:lII A_" of .,II d"~ :lffll<'tlnl llfl.
""'PIORY or ot/1Irr f.t~ \hot you c:oftr.rIdH r,..paftllnt. ~ /mQrOIIO_OS
or .... tItHl ponlIltll; I.........
"'.y not be bUilt .:Iee_.nl l to ,,0<10. In compl'..n .... wltll CIl'n-rl1lf Law.
al\d. all $pedll6CIll'I p:iII'aora/lCJ '.cB, b3hd upon Inf1ItllRltlon dhlO~
In
D. UOl'e. TO Sc:s.Lt::It: ~u,c:f 1Ill.. 1.... ng"'10 Inlllllet ~ f'J'opotJlr make Repafl'tf (Ir!alctt oUler ~on.
l~$: (iI_cOl Agi".rnen c: or (il) tCClUll&' th:ll )'01'
tri_ln UtI"
rrt:M;'.lHC LUDCO AlI<O exCLUDE D: nol: I ~ in 1Il(o pu'~_
or ..ltCIuucd In "'" ML5. '/lyon tit tnt>rtlf~n,WIdIr....IIlI~ II'"
fl.
14. N~ TO IRUY"~ ll,NO nrLl.1!JIt: lInrrl~ deled ~~ ...0I1ldt:ct
D"09 Qr 8Ko:l\ICJ0I1/tom Iho c.olo "pli:u speeit.c:d In ~11 0' C.
9. JrEMS INCl.UD&:D IN llALI':
(1) AU CC'STINO nl<lu,.." anlt /lIlInll" lh~1 "rt: llUDC/lC!d \0 '''0 Prollllfl'/; t:r..t<:m6.
rilllUn:lIl. COI~nsr r.ncI, ""'pf~oM lne.<lrt:.. OIlC /olJ'I Dnd 0 - . G"''''
tOll t:lI.,;t111q n~C'lI. ",... rJ\onl~l. t'QhMa. IIhmlllulO OlIO ""111lllll
l)uo/\otn .pPlra~es. WlRllClW ,nd dOo' IlOlllIlns... ....IIlOJ. SIlulle~.
'II...dow C01/ClI1ngo. olJacllnd /lao. clMlling!, &devl,lon DlIltnll':I. NIDIItD
P(>ClVcpA cquipnuon~ $1...._ <I...... o""nolWI.....-'" conl<9b. maIlbox.
dlshtlu. PRVlIlIl IllIepfatad lul_OAlt oy$Jllln$. af. coole""<Xl'ldldon~.,..
(31 TM
III"9lOU"Ct I;nOI"aDl'1
tl,lnwnJ 11.01":1'
q. lfeelCf~hru~.
•
_ ....r ..,1\.,,,,,,.. WlIt~r PlItllill..... ~uritV "Y"lPn\Sflllltlmt:
--
nnd . _
ieiier rapto.oru ; l~ :;0' helN: l'ld"dod In the: puR:h~ pnce, unlllu om_ _ $jleOfoe<l, AIll (!Wile<! by Soller.
(.4)
(01 AI Hl'I'I\IIllldudPd ,h". ~ trIiln::f<lffmf tfflP of lions
:100.1 ~,.,.nly.
.t'l(/ W1rnoul _:_
C:. ITlOr.omrltCLlIDI 0 FROM SALE': • ' ~
9. eU'feA'S INVeSTIGATION OF PROPeRlY AND ,.U:rt~ AI'FEC'TlN

G PROPSRTV:
ID '" MOIIno"lI ey of !hit Ap'"lOmo nll\7 ~PDr;ifil)(f
lit 1It1~
afl'edlnJl tiff! Prllperiy.
A. tsuyers 1tlXi'.'lll2nca of tllt eofldirlOf\ gr. lind Dfl'f OthOf mattor unlll:1lO q\'lOIWiGo
jllll'o>g'o1On 140(1). ~U)'W' "hllll n _ In" tlQnl. III "1I)'l!I"~ .,lfDonr.o
P>I'llll'''P h ;,nd p;/t3stDph l.fe. W~Il'" IIHr I....., ..""cIflOCl In \he "gill to: 41)
f'81l}'ef 'n~8IIotl$'). IRClUdlnrJ. but llOt UmilJ:d 1/).
agtc«f: 10 f_lhlef ll1optlCIIO/lS. <Ilve$tiglt~lIns. ,eS/$. lllRVey& Ind ~et studiesfor WOOdl4e$1JOying pem and Oflllllftlsf1lS: (HI) rcv/9W" ..,gJ~~red
Jc...t~1IH d plllllt nll%$rc!ll: (II) lnl.o_.-1
Itfspoa 10f relllO-llaf1Kl pe,'" anel OIllGt n\Il\tH _ ~ /II I.... <>llJ,a;I\M
tho' PIOPVttv; .nd (vJ eatl$fy 1!r1OY~ " .. 10 _
flDA """'ndel' 1l:l1~0l:!: Ilv) conf...... ~ IncUle"""Y oJ' SWOt .t'l(/ 1ar /lUl~ nllt' CIt...... to bI1/flOd,,: (i)IfIVO:WV
""~fS 1noPe<;1IO" lOA tl Form O'A). W\houl.n ollef, prlQt Wf1U'l11 conOGol. OuytIr lSh~1I1lO111 OIgo....mtr't6RI employe... unko... NrCl""od
!\rtoJ.,o" ~"Y Ilo..... mmonlal b,,11<I1nS Or ;tOninll i~-.
Of lIos,,,,,,,,,,., SIOYer C",,"\i2..11l1n..: .... (1I11""""l:tione. by
"Yl.OW.
B. B<Jy1tl' Illall CQrlOI$IO 8u'ef Inv..$\Ig,,~ 11<1(/••" ."..01_
In I>III'''1lroph ,.D. ...._ ....
CloP .... """ll..ncy 0' ",,~ool tllil>lIDr.... meonlo 0"Y"" "",,"
Olv"
otlllllllC'eI by QlIY"r. SftlJIlr nllnU I'lIIlkI' Irtf' Property Ilvlr.alIlo fOr Ill.
811\11!1
t.QlInr 11\ no (XUI. t:Ctl\PIo~ Cop,n". of .&II "WOo InYlld/GlAlio" t'lllo"" plfOI Illl/ll$ 011 tor SilYll(S Inva~i1I1oft$Il"l1l1l1Wg)lItIO elete POCAeGiOlI ir;
InVOSl'04 I-.l_ ~......ha' h~vll "'.,.... go•• ele<:(ifCl)' lind lin
mad"QYo.. a~IQBuyvt
opel1lllle
-f) /
.
RU1C'r't bnl/llfs t ..:tJ.P. !.

SdOr'o 'IlI\IWO ( )(
•
tOUt·200:? CAUFOIlNIAASSOCIA"IlON 0- IlI;ALTO~",.INe.
r.l)!lyn9IlU~ ~.."lawood!>or CIJI.
flt'A.CA fllMSEO '0I021~AGE 301" 4) pAGe:s or 0)
CAl.lFOR NIA RFlIlorm lAl PURCHA.ClP AQRp.fMFkT (RPA.(:'A
303 / 545
p.?
Ooe 25 O~ 05~05 p
MARA ESCROW PAGE 87

10/22/2 004 1~:42 3165581 531
OC'VI ur: l,;VL~.L I. DANKCR ; 010 211 4634; SEP·?P.-04 3:52PM; PAGE 5/15
~\q:tra z"_~c,, ..29q'
stI;lt."I)': "ill. ""4 OOf'?;
PfoPertvA ddtbs:'!'!p...$_~c:k Qd;w;r:
.lit 3el",'5
Qr l;Cl<ldlllO" un1C.U olhon.vl~ -\lnuoc:l I,. WriIIng. R~:al~ 111 OCt pef1b1TM1I
10. CWPl\,rdh 1\~;lI.n "llIlll bf I;l)lhP"'led llnor to fina' l/IOriflCDIlon etlWIp~ wlll> ~lIIIc::ab" t.-. inC/l1(11n11 g...,*-n tal " ..""II.
/r>O/l~on
ft'\OY "" 1I11/f9l'~ Dy SOl/or or lI1rO\lOh Otll.~. p'ovd04 tn"'l,,," wIltll nner "'lilt IlIIItllrlalll of QUlIIIIy lind 1I0pOMllfllllt eon1lllllall le \0 exl$t/np
.."po""" requuemM l$. Rep."", shau bit perfollfMd In • good. ak/I/tullTJll
allll acPf.,.,.'
e or ~ellc IlefllS following eA RepaltJ. may not be /XlSllible,
mObtain $elrer 1llIaft:
IN!TItriall;. U 1$ lIl1CU1l'Stcoa m~ OlCact rntoraUon or appearanc sue/! ReplllrC: lid
rQCclp~ ror Reptlt<$ pellQtmed by olller•• (H) llfeD8t't II Wl11leIl
arallll'lont IIIdlo:1l111l1 tha ~ep"'1'$Jlt'1'fo~d by SG~r Arlit the dot. of
II> lilIA' vorflcollo" 01 CQfId'~Dn.
\111' ptoII"" COl/ilia Ilr ~,Pt.. .:IIIC/ ~\.lIt".....ntlllo auyo' pnor t'rope~ Cleat Of 101\$; (Ii)
UI"ON pftOl'l!ftT Y; 8uyer Shto.: (i) ~p \lie 1l'ee .nd
1'. DUYER lNDCllNITY. AND :!;1!!1.U:R PROl'C(:TION !'OR D1TKV It;lImIClll. froIn 011 ~uluno Ii;lbiti~. clAIm:., dcMCll$I$. dlun8gooc
tlllm 61l)t':r Invl>lIIlgo!i Oll'" QIJd (Iii) indotmnlfy ~d hOld $eUM
RlICllllr lIII c/:lmag-. .""Ing ll~htIlI' to Cllrry. "ollo~ ttllinbillty. -.!alr,· CClrl'lpC>Itf;lli.. n "nd
olMt
gild coS1$. Buyer shan Q!"1/. or 8uy•• 3ha11 ",quire e"10noo: aalno on 8\1V~t InVMIlgab onl' or
rQr Sly InJUfltl!J lD Po~ns a prapel1Y occurrirtO c/Iut'"O <lny BUye'r b)' ~~ If.
Gppl'CIID1D "'~ur.tJCtI. CIO~"'Ifi"O lind C\l'ol,ll~n!J ~"r ~m lIabi1~y ""~a4 $)11....
Of e.-. Goller .. DdvIlIOd!h at _ltarn ,""",,<;:lIOnS may be
WOrlC 4l0lle 011 t'lO PI$p,,1.'Y, at auyAr~d ,,~_ prior to Clo,," f'ro1lfltlY lit ctlrAdlorl. Bu~"" obllqalJonn
"Notlee at Pto...re~on,lbillly· (C A.Fl. Fo"" HNR) tvr Eluyer
hl~B\lQp5 ,lid worle dOllG on Ille Buyow''l
ll
UMllftll.. para\lrllllflllhi1lIlIlU/'lllVll th8lfU","'8 lllIll oH1I1s MI1!8I'I'Iet
12. TrT'LI! AltO ~O:
a eurrcnt ptIlllmllllll)' (I~I r~ott, w111Cll1ll only an ofle, ~ lInI we
tn:o\Irer to
1\. W1lh1n 1."00 limo 'lpet:llill(ll ll p....egr"ptl14 . DlIyolor :sh3U l» p_lCI~lI OYtofS l'eIIICW at tho pteJlminDry report iSnd any~' marian> whICh
r.ano:o ~ may IlOI_ir l CNDf'I iteM A!fellllngll tle.
:OO11/lll polley ofttlfc.t.lnsu
IMlr aff1!c1lill/l "If' II CiQ'IllngI!l1CY of 1II1.. Agmometll "0 :)POCi~<;CI In
p.aril9lilPl1148.
. C:OVOll;lilto. co/'ldillOf\'), taftbiclloN l. rf!1\\? lIl'1<1 ot!Itlr mallO".
wIlOtbl>r
e. TIlle' ~ llklJn In ItS p~nt ~IUon ~eet 10 1111 fIIleumtll'anl:Vi. 41:1l1lNl1onlA orlecol'll1ll'l1e3S Buyer 1$ _um,llg lnoae obllgallllns or Ulkillg me PIOflQrtl'
of raco~ or nal, as rtf l'IC 4.1«> 01 Ac..-pl;lno ., tt./I"'fII. (I} mtlll~lUry IlIlIl$
haS agreed 10 remove'" W""ng.
~ubI"r:t to thl>$I# Olll'gllllona' eno (Ii) 'I/lO$C m~a wnic:ll Sillel disclOse to BWerS1I1Jli\10I1 kilown 10 Seller 1Iffl!cti'tQ we. wheUleror /llCIOr(l Of /lot.
~. WIthin ltl" tiM<. lIPccdlud In par<rgUlph 14A. ~ nas a DUlY to
D. At CIQ""e, Of C~ClllW. Du", .",.1 lUCC>ivl! II Q~ dC'CG
u.:rtdie.IllY. 0' ,>! :·..,~r .... '''4SCh,,'d InIO_). Including 011.
conve~llt
n-I\4l""
tide- (Of. (bI IltOtl1 COO/l\"fDI~ or Ulng·Ultrrl '''DOl.' 1111 Wo'OIjW""
011<1 w",or rlgllllO Ir CUrtcmlly 0-"1) by :;.I1"r, Til,., "hoU
'''' 01 ,K'eII
\I~I 0' d~,j1I'l ~ In
ENCeS.
~.. ~1emon ...' elScrOw In:ottu<;tlOllll. "l"HE MANNtoli
ott 'l'Al'3NG nl'U!! MAY HAve: ::olafflflC ANl U!~L ANa TAX CONSEQU
CONSULT AN APPI'IOPRIATE PROl'e&s IONAt.. ... tlllo comp:tny. 'It Dll)'Cf'~ ~. CDII prtNldC InflltrMllo n IIIlDUl tile
e. 911}'Ot ".,.,// 'lloo/w" lO CL'iNA!.'r A ~OIl1_" (c Palk:y d lltlo l'l6ur.anco. titlO OOIMrillOO alllDt l/l~ _t
. oQ~.9Ir "nd c.oe:t of vlllfouc IItItI illllur~ncc CDVOr49~ 0llCl oOMOl'llCmtJnI.,. If AllY"" OO~iftl3
:MUabl/~" ..blltty. coverage.
11M PtIY tiny incr_ fa QDIlI.
'41'1,,1<0<1 b)' 1111(1 pat.ll'aph . Ou~f ,""OJllflstf\lGI E$C(O'oI/ Holder III WtlUng
1a, :s.a.t.E Of' rJ/JYI:I\'~ P~O~TY :
A. Thb ~ n t ..~ NOT comlllgDnl upon me 111110 Of any (lfOPetfY
ownlO by Suyer.
by f)uyor IClo ~_tl'4
COP) I<lOO~ng t/lIt oontln$lllncy f4r IIMl rH>1O o11111111l"\Y DW~!1
01\ D. 0 (II ChnCklldr Thl' 1I1'.:\tMd dClCllO'l(/um (CAR. "-OMI
onlO 'Ill.. A!ll\'C'lllln \
CArJCel.l.ATION RlOHTS: Thtr fqflQwfng ~It podod$ ~y ollly
bo o*",<kld....~.
1.&. nlWlii PEftIOOS; REMOVAl. OF CONTINGeNCIES, boo In wl'CllftQ
of COfItinv"nl:le<t cor c:m"'l'llJatlo" undtlr ttl... p;mlIClr:oph _
modified '" C'*"'lIod by ml'fu"" wrIte,," OlJI'Nmotn t. Arty ",,,,olllll
IC.AA p-.., cm· deliver \0 Ouyer ..II rt:jlon:.. (It:lldO:I _ aM .Ilfl:lrtnllllon ror whlGh :>eller
I:J
A. SLLl.C.R HAS: T (Of [j _ _ ) Oars A1UlI' Aecapta~ to
rw$pan'lbl ll "ftder par:tgrapII s 4. 6A and B. fiA. 7tJ AM l:l.
U. (1/ IlIUYL'R HAS: ,1 \~ S __ I O/IYIS AlIor AoCl:!PlOIIoo. UlllO'lI O~o Ig(etl<lln Wlltlng. 10:
;Ill OlDdcnU/01S. 1ll/lO~~ .rll Oll'lOf flO/IliCADIO ,nfOtm'l1ian, \'VI'ICll
llClyllt 1'COOMc:) 1(01/\ :iefk,t: M<I
Ifl"ll'lJIillIl\l On:;; lIPorovo
(I) c:.o(l\Orott" IIU UII)I«
/OllJ._C1 P.'Iint ;on" ~~b"'d l)lIil'\ hNltlr6, Ill" WIt" " OlllN inforM"~dotl MlOQfteclln
IJPO/O\lO "II "'llUlItr. all...C'oitlD tilt' P'DI)OIlY C,lleI\JCMll
par'9~O" II ,nc/lnsura bllily or Buyerllntl \Ile PrOPllrty):
and
lllIOlIvered by Seller In lIc:eotl/....Oll with J)~ M-
(III <etUtll 10 Selh!r Slgnecl CoOltoSf of Statutory lind L.eod Olllclo=u<e (C.A,~. Form
(;!) WlllI,n I"n t'IM lIQl'Clfll'<Q In 140(tl. t!vyllr m:ay l'4qIl/l~t",
..t SOU.,.."AI<O ~1I1~ OI"fak8 RIlY athOr.cbon "'!lll'tlmg \hit PlOpnny
IlR,. Sellar ho nO ot>1ig"~Dn to "g,ooto or '£OPotId "" Uuy"r.. '''llu".b. tl'Ic
y ot i:J (a eppralSal COntintJeney). BU)'lV 5fQfll. III W(lling. fA/llOYe
(3) ay the llftll DI' \Il<t II'l'oo :spaClli.. ~ III '48(1110 ' 2110r toiIn conbngllnc
t. wowt:1lC!r. if OIl!' (gllOWll'l9 llI11peCllOnll, RIIPOM or dlllClosures ,r~
not maoe
.aPPlic:al)1e (;O'lDnllllllCY ,CAR. Fonn CR) or canc:elthl s A<!rtlemefl In
) O:ay" ",fl""oIICI'Ilpl Of tilly""",, llcn>:>. o,t1lC'1ln'l !'llj)t1c!lkt( I
","n1n "'.. t...... 'Gt'~l"n 1..cA. Ih.... 8\Il1O'" haA!f (orO ed ,R'JpcCOOnS or
y or c:onCtlI thi!: JIOr*DrJ1Clllln wnlmS: (I} govc:rnme nt-mandat
t040(1 i. whr..hclvt! r,·; '~I"r to t.lIlOWI 1II.. :Jpphc:JbIo QOn!lng8ne
"'PO~ r,Qultod 00 ... condl\lon of cltr.lina: ar{ll) Conomon
Inltlr1:l:sl Ol5GIosu...~ pulSUBnlt o pu~..ph !lB.
IO": ~ER fU¢liT1'O CANCEL:
C. CONTINUATION OF CONTtNOF.NCV OR CONTRACTU"1.. OBUCt\T ll'lll)l ClInCil:ll
(1} SoU..,. ~ , .. Calle-"I: Duyur CIJntJftQo nd",,; &110',
...ner tim! glvtll\l fluyr.r A flotico to Fluyor to f'ItWl'6rm (I>:J ,pCldllccl bclaw).
limo Wll\fClllllll III m... AOl'<IINlIenl, Duyor doB" not rOrnDVO in
...,IUng
wnlin" or lJuY""s dell'*' if. b)' "'"
fh... Ag/tlcmc~t ,n UtIli •• thonnt tdUrn
Itria "IgreellWl lL On~ all CllllllllgenC loli tlaVo DRIl I'8lI\Ovll4, ~~u(O or t1ll11er tlU)'el' or $el~ to CIO.se
1110 8ppG~11I CQ,llIftgcnc :y or can,,"1
OllClOW on IjMll m:JY be ., bre~ctl Of till" Agl'OOIl14nL
III , 40(1), e~var 1'(otlI1~ ~ ~h1 to Malle ,,",",Mil: to U«llcr.
t2J ¢ordinu"t iO" qf COhUtl{lO flOy: eVil" .n~f llIn .....lllratiOn of fl•• to"'lO .,f)ooG'l1OO '''CC'}.
P\llll<,l4n1 to 0.- f.lolle" ,DOOlvcw: Auvllt'r.
'"l'p'lC.-b'" conlll'!loney .... OAnCOl/ltn" .AQroomoJIlt ulIlII !t.. llttr c:JllCiIl..
ftltllCIVO U\ wr"'I\O lilt'
tpV~:JI\IIO 1(C(1).
wrllllln tAmovol 01:011 conlla~ncJes,. $eliot l'I'3y Mt a.nOlllIhIll Agieemen a NolJoe> 10 Buyotr to Podonn C.... "podlied bakllN). m.y
(31 ~ rrl,llrt to C<lnc,,'. B~r Conlr.ct Obllll"tl.."", S"-...lWr f1rIl gllllng Ouyff
fOI or Ihc fallOWlna I~': III If Duycr tflft'l (0 lItp010it rUflClI1 M
CIOncol 'II\.~ ~lot>mC'nt III "NnUilO 0I1'lO aulf~flta (t<h,tn or Uuyol';t CIellCl'lI IIny
'" 2A 20 QIO II<l\ 000<1 wfIt'11 OOpOll'UlQ; (ill) d AIIY'lr f,,~ to prOV1l111 11 IOlI"lr llA
MQUI~ 1))1 'JPo ot ~Cs. (/lIlt mil PIIl»lJont
'''''010 <:.,.pOllirod Dr
., l'C\lu1nad by 21-/ or :zt.: (v) "Soller rvUOtl8bl y dlUpplOv es oltlle vllriflCllllon ~tllvldeO
requ~.d by 20: (M If SU)'Qr 1;t1ll! 10 plovlc/q vvrlficatlon
talln III 5lgn 01' lnlll"r a
Olklqsl/l1l '" ItS R!qu/nld by P"lliJOraph 6A(2): 01' (viI) 1/ SUYllf
by 2H or 2L.: (vI) II 8U)'OJ' ~s to "'t,,", SUtvtory ond ~q(/ !Jl~ Duyer 4 Notice- to
D~ rllCfl1iMd b, p,u:lQmph 16. ~",IJjl, IlJ not .-<Juil"d '0
SCITo'~ ItQIIldAlOd <1-0. Ionn t'c:1 :Ill IncMQCIId d9VOGII
....,(01111 nogar.""/i etOIle o1l::tc;row .
(C.AK f~," NtSF') SIlaIl: (I) be In wllllfl9i (u) DO "I"il~ ~ l3clor;
lIf>d (III) !/Iv.,
(4) NQ'lioo Tq D\lYer To I"I!>rrolW\~ TN: ~attee fO l:luYe, 1.0 t'eI!OtrIl Olllllgntpll . w~. f$ I;>SI) 10 TaIC~ ene 8PP!lClll)IO"
In 11111 8ppJiQlQIIJ
al/yer at 1ea~124 (Of U _ (or
l elmo
G:r
nour. VillIl Ille OPllQ(llIlJ
any l.'llrl/ar tnon ~ DDy~ Pilot to 1110 expllPl1Cm • nCQ!)'"~L\IIC
QCtlon A NOt.,.", 10 I;IUV~1 10 "'offar,., mlly Ilat lh7 glvon
a conunoClttty '" o;o~tlNd AQIaorno ntormC'l 'llll ...C(:tll)bllr; Jloli"" l!Iuyer's IMlII/f. ( )(.
It) =
(''''"V1lIl'll e flle1~2. CALlflORNlA ASSOClA "aN 01' RliAlTOIlS
HPA·CA REVl~£O 16102IPA (;l!" OF 0)
I/. INC i
nou....: ',,11I"1s. (
t~! L.- ; 01114
:. I
' mo=
1'62ll92.fU.l.I'}\
¢lIl.lFOf\N1I\ I'le!IOCH TlAl. PUnCHASE AORt:EME NT (~A..cA PAGE. OF fl)
304 / 545
p.t: I
PAGE 8S
MARA ESCROW
16/2 2/20 94 15:4 2 3165 5875 31 8EP·22-04 3:5SPU; PAGE 0/15
~"C;N· D': UUa.L X1CL I.. tJANKl:H; 310 ~71 .6~ ;
l)ata :.liIt D""" 'er.rl 2Jl, DJ.. -
~Jo ..u ,g ~ 9021 2 iAe
g'Oll "lty Ad/lnr~. 1ZC D. PeG!;
;)x'''' ft
Y or OlWIClIIIUliorI IJghts. 11I"llS $ Qtnerw r
ICftlClOlO'. III WIIltlO, on)' eolll:lllOOIIC Uwc
. 0,. GONl'lNCENC,F.6: If 'Il\lYCr ad 10 hUll,,: (I) cornp illOll lOf
O. PJ7FFC1' 01' RUYF.R'S RP.MOVI\l "'''t llOtWoon OIlY~r ;IIIjJ ~Iet'. auyer ""llU conOI\llll~Y be doomlSIcnoy or l:llnoel/8llon 1lRN: (II) ~0WCl
/l "9~" <llsClO$\lIllS p81'li11n1ng to II'tBI conU/ llOlls pena01ing to t)lBt GOlIIlngency gr
spl:C1rlOCl I"l " "oop~~lo wMllt
and orner appllcao!e InlOrmtltion ami
'"VQ.'l1ilJal>otl;1, lind rcMew 0' NIflOll4 "" :tlt'lumNCI olllillblltly, '811l'0n&lllUlIy IIIlC1 ~Xpon'B !Dr KePlIttJ lit
oorreC
10 lIraecacl Will> lht' ~on: ""ell " mtlnQi~. nllv ~b'" dill)' ......" .;..11 .-.d<l
r the>
lky 10 OblDl n ..-;a
~ ~ righI, ~ for Il1lltll SI1"s : "DIl1 "" or ~,.,r Oilto" W1ll1J1
n nClIIQI of canClllltnlio
reJe'u o Ocooc J/.S. less ten iIllld
FLr., aTKm ON Qf:PO
$ 10 QlnClllllle IIAI'" and G6CIO W Mel
,.....·,.·Ff=CT O~ CANC
:Jo" r 40.... . Ul lilg" mulUlll Iftllll\lct.OTl ror servl~ encj oroduetP p~$d durln9
co-tG.
ellClO W.
to ,....
~'en
fl.'"
wm" 0' Il"6 Agr.. ....onl. Buy"r "lid FllflS tlml costs may till payable to seMele ptoVllle/8 lind vendOlll
e-
""lllIo
'Of
d
ftJll<lA
to thu
will
lu,,"'"
n>qt,Ill\lO .... ut...., SIgI'Nd ~""'_uI:llOl
for "'VA ' til
l5uom
.",eb
:liQn
8uyo
,M~O
r am' SOue r.lulll clal dlJcilI~ or arbItr1itIon
OlI~ .f OIl) goOt J f.:t;Ul
:a'o\lIlrd. A.
4laJP IU ~1I W _ to WhO ,,,
p"na l~ of up til> $1,00 0
p.>11Y flI.:Il( bO ~uoj.-;t to 4 civil 1 0."", Pilor
(ClYU Cod . &1061.:1). nty ",111111'1 tI tor
antlll od to Iho dC'Jl<"Sirod fund s r/oflt to m...lUt II ftnllllrnJQD<SIon of \ho Propr ('II
OF eol'fO lYlON ; Buye r Gllad "ave Ihe
~ I. m.li nla~ PIl~U.1lt Iv jlarag faP" "A:
15. FINAl. ve~"ICA YlON
INGt= HCV
the
OF THl: SALE'. bvlllOklJv to ¢onfllrtl: obllslllllor>D undvr1l>1v I'\Ql'CIO~ll\.
(I)
tl.> C'- or r~_ ... NOT All A COlI/T
IC IlIllh :-...Uor'il etIIor
lIl:/ret'O: lind (,". S!lI/<'r /Ul.1Il»rnpIb "'\, Sell er $tml J r_Dl n.
Roll.u·v IlO'l0 O<p_n <:omoiollll<l iI:: lil beoa~li1e 9' 8uv or's (IMP
DAM AGI :S; If Buy er fltil& to com plet e thiS P\Jf(:J\aS Jliflg with .,0 mor e than four unite, ope
1~. LIQuiDA TED
ed dam ages , tile cMp osil actu afly paid . lfth e Prop erty is a dwe then 3% of tho purc has e prien.
OIS liqu idat
ds. (0 OCG UW, tnen the arno .. nt ~llIed sha ll be n~ Rlor e &<e n,W~IiOm: from
of whic h Buyor inten tcq\ llre mulU al, Sign ed 'efN:
to BUy ~. ROle_co of fund $ will SIGN A SEPARATE
Any oXCcns ~nnlt bn mtu mM BUVeR ANn SaL ER SHA LL
dcr; lcton f)( ilrb lu. n awa
bolt l Suy or lind Sollor, Judic'", DEP OSIT . (C.A.R. FORM RID)
.
AGE S PRO VISI ON FOR ANY INCR
LlQU'DAT£:D DAM s"«or'll.n/t1CIrl1o
~ I Eluv'''s lllil;. .....,
(
felUll ill!l transac:lJon.
1 T. OLSPUTE REsO LU1'l Oh: OUl4>1 lhls Agtee ml2llt . Of btooJ
, soree to medlI rte tiny d'.olllJlto or do'M ~no be_ II mom <II" not 1I'r4' I\rbl\tiJUun P,O"",Io'11Io \Iliriolllood. IoI4!dflltron
A. MED IATIO N: BUjle r aM SeUt. ~C'*' CII'fIIv lOII _r
oc\Jon. Pll~9~ 1~~1 AIl<f (~' Jtl :Ipp1l/11l. any pny ~rnet\CIOlIo
llQ10r0 t~l1l1la to ;,lo,Ir:lOoll Ot court
f_. If any, shea bo dMde Cl,oc, "elly
lplltl9 to
"mo1>
re$Ol
3 1Ile- p"M . IIlWllve<t. I'. tor any lI!spu
ve we maner UIIOugll medlallOn, or lelus
te CIt etal/TlIO wnu:ft till" p....OlJtlll
es to medh ltc aIler a reque
.ny
st ba ""II
~. th4n thaI party
SLlC/l adlon . THIS MEOlATlO
t.l
.-n :lotion W11IlQ vl Mil ot\C1l be _Ulb le to that pat1y '"
b'l "nrillr.cI to rc=v ", Clllom&")'
fed, awn It \l'Iey WIIulll OIIl.lWiM INIYIALf;O.
"hOI' "'" AAOIiRAYlOJII P~\flSJON IS equ ity ..Ii:tin g
~OVISION APpu r.!l VVI'lETHCl't O~ NOT "ttC
Sw or and ~llIr ~grce thllt ilny dlsp uto or c:laim In Law orugh med~t;or..
fTRA 'nON OF" DIS PuTES: (1)
$3ct 1on. Whi ch 'G not setlf ed thro
e. ARS ma nt or any resu lting tr.IfliIInd and (3) belo w.
betw een them ovt of thl9 As_ t$ubject to paragrapt&8 178 (2)
bn deci df!'d by ntlu tral, bInd ing arbl tr..tl on, Inc:l udln g ~l\.y with at 1000 t $ yellll'$ 0' roCt (Jenl U., relll ~
od judQ o or i_li oo, Or an lJtW
ld1al l ",nd er .1II1 awa rd in
The .rbil roltl or $naU be- :a ,..t;r paruO$ mut ulllll y aoro o to a c:tifforcnt arbi trato r. who :shallry in acco fdan ce with
Law ~xperieR(le. uRle ss (he sha ll h:lv c the righ t to disc :ovo
Fo"l'ila Law. The P'orf.lCl$ ec:t:s, Ihe atbi .,.U On $ha " be condu1:Ulld In
acco rdan ce with sub stan tive C;:lli ro §12S3.0S. In all gtho r reo;sp n tb~ awa rd of th~
CaJWornia Cod e of Civil Proc :edu fo"nlt. Coa. 01 CIVi l PlOC Odu ro. Jud gme nt upo
.a~o rdan ee with Td'~ 9
or P~u1 III af the C~li Inte rpro tatlo n of lhte agre eme nt
to arbi trate
Into any COU!1 haVing Juris dicti on.
arb'trator(s) may be ente red lnal Arb itrat ion Acl
tlon «ms lItIlJtl'aUon; <'1 • Jud~C
lI
shal l be gov erne d by the FedC 1nll ~ AI,. OKdudAd (tom mMb lItl8I\d I I . 0 0 _ ~ dcf'ltIOd
tATtON ANO AI\etl'RAnON: n.. 'oIlow
(2) EXCI.Ir..>rOH.." f'FlO¥ NlEO or It",",- m~ 9" «i"' ~llMO
r ",ot/q " or povo oodin a to C!nfo rw a dIIIld 0111 mect lllnla 'o lien; enll (Iv. an~ rnatI lIIttfla t
or I\On'1UO,elllf tl)r'jIc loflU '" or otllO
{1I);an unlaW ful dlttall lC!r ac;lIO
t1; (Ill) Iflc lIlfng or .n1Qte:8l1l81lt
n '0 enab le 01.. RICOf'CIlI1f of 81'1OC
l4:lJ ct
In Ci'lfo rnl fl CiVil Co~9 §2981
l:
''lr>, .."",n e,..lnTt 0' old \lC ~ eoutt . TIle IIlin eot. cour t Rctio
Cl_. ~" f10t <;tOfl$UbJIilP .. -1IN lr of
,tI"
Is wl~l" tho JUrb.di¢t1QR or JJ P'"<'''' t, I'CCCllvtmohlo, Inl""CUOfl.
Of OlllVr IImv it'ona l rcmo
'n, nrrfoJ r nI" .. lQoO hmbll
tNInd lno .......I..n. E1I6f1Ol'lJ, C:O~r ~ 17 A
rn.~",CloO .and .. rt)lttat,orr
pfovn ,tona . or dlrlIM mVDIv'na olther of I)OIb
rtERS : £Iuy. .... n<l Solle r aSll"v o to _dla te and arbl hlll d~ ' Qtlon prior to, or ~I.. a I'llIICSlH'IObIlt t~
. r , the
(31 BRO t1on or lII'b/U
anO shall have -.;I ~ to suoh ~tt. nor nosult
~ftd
droou
8, orovr lllld e'the r or Ilottl
tllo .... OlDI,.. 'n _n~r;I to l'I'Q\(I
8fl1JC
ltol. An, ..IClctl "n by .It....,
Clr boUt Drotw :r.s '0 psut/ ei"... . In rnedl~tro"Of orblt ntlon 0"411
As_ mim I. ANY olsp ure

'''.8r o-'''. baing CI"""'od prr.tit b. I.. "'" IN THE SPACe BELOW VOU ARE AGReEING TO HAv eON DEC IDeD Ii1V
"NO TIC E~ BY INITIALING AllO N OF DIS P\Jn :S' PRO VISI
S INCLUDEO IN THi: 'AR Srm ANY RIGHTS YOU
ARISING OUT OF THe MAT TeR VIDE D BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU Am : GIV ING UP lNITlAl.1NG IN ntt
l'RA l. ARe JTR ATIO N AS PRO A COU RY OR JUR Y 'MIA L. 8V
NEU : DISPUTE UTIG AYe D IN APP EAL , UNLESS
MIG HT POSsr::sS TO HAv e THEING UP YOUR .JUDICIAL RiG HTS TO Dls cov e~v ANDPROVISION. IF YOU
SPA CE BEL OW YOU ARe GIV ICA LL'i INCLUDeD IN THE 'ARB iTRA TION OF O'SP UTF S·
DE COM PEL l.EO
THO SE RIG HTS ARe SPt :ClF TO THIS PROVISION, you MAY CF.DURe. YOUR
'T'RJI.TIO... AFT eR AGREEING
ReF Use YO SUa MIT TO ARO AUTHORITY OF THe CAUFORN'A COD e OF CIVIL PRO
TO ARBITRATE: UND ER THE TIO N PRO VISI ON IS VOL UNT ARY ,"
DISPU1'ES AlUS ING
AGR EEM ENT TO THIS ARB ITRA eRs TAN O THe FOREGOING AND AGR I$ TO SUB MIT ON TO NEt ImA L
"WE HAV E REA D AND UND N OF DIS PUl ES' PRO VISI
UOF.O IN l'HE 'AftBlTJ:tATIO
OUT OF THE I\IlATIE RS INCL S611er'6fnlfbt.. I
;; '; ;; -- -i
r~
AReIT~ATION.··
305 / 545
p.~
uoe ~~ u~ U~tUb P
PAGE El9
JleSSe7531 MAPA C::iCROW
lA/22/2 084 1~:42
'I;IW' ~ r: tI"UI.V''Il:.LL ~4,NKEA; 310 271 ~634; SEP-Z2-04 3:64PM; PAGE 7/15
_ OQte:.ae-.~~ __
"o~AOclm5$:~."X' ~r(' C!""~d.x. er· PII ~W:Z
Unless ot~ llI9reed In writing. lila foDowing flems 6I!aD be

PAID
18. PRORATIONS OF PROPER"rY TAXeS AND OTHER rrEIIS:
Of !:ll....OW: rtal DJ'OP":rty ll11ltes 8rl(f 3~el\tJ).
CURRENT elM S)rOfeled b9lW~t:1'l Buyer and SeIIe( 1'5 of ClOlllt IlOd llfIor to ClQ$t or r::~ow. p~rnjlJm~ on ln~ OOtlwu:d
'"'.rellt.
rents.
liOA neoul3r. $OcClIlI. lind omeri)Ollr;;)l duos. _nd llIClIf)Oomanlil1mplJ MSOOllmenl
bV BII)I.et. 11M pavmOllll : 011 MelJo.Ro oli .;mel Olhl'lr ~
1>)1 Byyor. pliIYdlenlG Ofl bonds lind assessm ento iUtlSumed l!lIlSUlJllld by Buyer \IIIITHOV T CREDIT toward Ute
nts III 11M. r,." follQwlng iaerne sh<l/l be
0Is~ bond!< "nd ~~"smlO lhtlt are now
Al:MllScnotIt Of.lrll:t bon<I$. taI'I4 as.~umClf\tt. ana HO" ~
DUfCl\ase prit,:P.; PlQrated l)8ymontl1 01\ M~llo-Roo ... m\d otMr Special
1'II:I1I::C:~ USlOfl ehll~CI of ownl'fa·u p. My ~ltJII'llt"lad
t.;lll biIJ4
""O""m ~. Ihlll .'0"OW G be-n bl.ll not vet duo. propertY will ba
end (I/) tor period:! pnor to CIoge or ClIC7VW. by SeHer. -rAX
llhlll lUI !)ald:as (0110\1,/$: (I) for POfl(l411 attnr eros.. Or ~ow. by euyer:
811.LS ISSUED AFTER CLOS£ OF ESCROW SHAI.I. BE: HANDLE D DIRECTI.V BET\'lIE1eN BUYER ANI) St:LLEFt Prolation$ &~
b4' mace bailcd ott olI Jo.~ tnOtlth y
any lnsWfMn t, aflidtlvat, slQ'~Ql\t or 'n3trllQtion ronllOmlbly rntf:~lI<Jr
9. WITHHOLOING TAXeS: SQUor OInlJ BU)'et' ilpmn 1(\ nxeoutct required CC...... F'<. Fonn. A$ lind Ae,.
.ng 1.8W, If
'0 c;omply wll/'I fO(1oral (fIM"'TA~ and CahtO/l'll8 WIll>l101d
:0. MULl1'·US lJSTtI4G S~CE ("MLS"): Bc(lk~ are evlhoriz:eto d to raport 10 \he MLS a pending S81e and. upon Close Of~. Ule
OR publl$t\ea 8rtd dl!l~min ;&t~ poroons lind Q"t1Ik1~ EluthorlzlN:l 10 use the Informol/Olt on letMD
IlKmlO of 1111& IramlFlClIon 10
:'Jtlprovt:d by tho! MLI;;.
comp/laneo with fnds/CII. &Ilft: :lI1d loca'an(i·dlt.:crlmlmJUon L.-.
1. GQUAI. HOU$IN C OPPORTUNITY: Tne Pro~tty 1$ 10/4 in between awer lind /Seller ariBlna out or tnh; AgtMme nr, the p_lling
:a. A'tTOAA eY 1=F.;88: In any action, P~eclinEl«l.~om"Y or a~lan
fee" anel 00$1G ftQm the no",pl'evAlUne BlI)'ClI' or &11(\1'.
elI<:eIlt 3$ prollideoa 10
nuyor Of S.1Ip.r ;hDII De enllt't!!d 10 r09SQnab
p~r~gfJ)l)1l 17A.
Buyer or 5eI1e1 lO pellJOnllo. venaor... or ~ervlc;e or prnduet pfc:MdQoa
3. SaECTl ON OF SI:RVICE PROVII)E\:lS~ It' BrOke", rofot
ProviQe\'a. Buyer 811(J seller mllY SlfllQc:t ANY PtovUMm of tIlelr
(IIMI
C-provlc/er:c·). tlroker.; do not guaralllljl r, tho perfOnMr lCC of any
cnoollinl,J. nrf:
Time ii or VIto <lOllOlice. }jJ/ UD<l_I01IIId'mg!l. ~rn the pm1Jc1l
41 riME O~ f'SSl!l\lCr'; rNTlRE CON1'RAC1: CHANCP.S: all e (,n&l. c:ompfot. liIld' elldue;!vo expressio n of theit
",. /t$ terms IIro .... tetlCled by the paflioc;
11\ci>fP()"'~cI In 'his Aq'eerJ>c f1lncoUS
contraCIIl;led by .lIldsnoe or My prior egre=mc nt or OOtltempo
AgreemeJlt wl1h te5j)aet to flu lIubJec1 n-ettllr, Elild may nol be
lnef/ectiVe or IIwal/et. lhr. r~mllinJng ptOlllnlona wfll newrth~" Of
DO
be
'l. If Qrty prOVfr.ion Of II1ls Agreeme nt IS hE-ld to
OMI agreemcn In it mllY bit o~Tld~, avnunchol2. MVC'lf~ t1ltotod
GIVen lUll fOIC~c And 0"0<:1. NOltno>r ttll.. l\.<tf~MOI'lt nor llll\y P~CIII~Ic.n
cn*,,9'KI. c'Xcap1 in writing Sfgtlcd by Buy.r and St:llal'.
5. OTI-f!(R TeRMS ANn CONDITI ONS. Induding er\9che4 6upple<nenb<: --;,- _
-
A. f:1'LRJ!Y.t!I'Jl.ln~ellDIl Adv,S.01'}! tC.6B.~n:-_SIM~,"",",~==~~==:- :,---:~-:- :-:--!-:-~,,:,:-::-~~~~:::-;-
c. ~!l.'W-t' Agra."!"l.t ;tl AddOndul 'l)..!C A.N. "tllm W~~~!?Q!'l l!lil!i:!p !!:hwn!]!u m~b~_!!.", __
QQ!: t ... .....oeed':A rt..., Pe.rc!!!l el Qt' chll p.naJ,
C. 5pUp.r' eo pay ~pA), ol'ir w ~Y;,. jln ..n Q;\!lQwu:
~ .... price. B,.J1e;o :Ie AmI'" t:bal! Zm",..);"
"91.* .. <>J.l!.s!'l>mto !?sr.. t N,f:,ate L!\qQrJII .
&. ,"':
D6Fiiil'l'rl"ONS: AlO uiGa In' lI'lls AC!r.'"",offor b "~hverod 10 And P<1"onAlIy
A. "Aooope ance~ mO:lnl,\ l/'Ilt limo Iho or tln6lf C9unter otl'er Is aoco:>P1e;>CJ '" WtIling by a pIOnI' lind
by the Olhor party or WI PD/'Ilt's autnorlz:ed <:Igent In accoretaflC»
wlh the teUM of 1I11s olfet orIII final ClOunter offer.
reeell,tId <;:#omfl l Reslgcmtlal PII~ AgIOCllflQ1'lt end eny :o=opted
B. -Agrqqm on('" m'!lln!l' lfIe teons lt1Id C;:QfI<lItlons of lh~ -cceptl!(l
Counll:r offurt. Ilontl ;'ddl.'ndil .
Co "C.A.R. Fom." ,nt:a5t1S tne ,pac:IRc form i.reront!C!d or or enoltlcr compatabl8 fDRn liI!J1l'B(lIO by tIIo pertles.
dose of
o. -C\os.o or e.1:~W· neanll u,. \late 1I'Ie grant ~, then otlltr evidet1O& of tr.mef01 of title. lro nt.;ot({e(l. If the Ild\edule d
IOg:l/ MlJday. dOlle of e~erow lJ~1I bQ tha fl9Xt bUlllness dOlY IIlltel'tIle vctJedule<l
escrow fnlb on IJ SehJtOoy . SunDay or
e:to~ 01 escrow dnlb.
~. "C:opy~ means copy by ;)nv mea"~ Includin~ llhctOcoP
y, NCR. fOltsimlle anCl t'leworllC -
F. "l);aY:lIi" meaM 03/c:),,~ rdaYll • ..,1)/0$4 OtneJWlse .squlrlld b)' lew.
3IIa.r the OCCIJI'I'P,nce of the Cll'enl np'!Olllfld, not countlrtg 1/'1& QI(lndsr
G. "DaY'> Atr.",." Inll'Onll the $J)l!¢Ifl~O numbCIt' or c;<l1ef\02lr daY!"
~11 t:l:IOPM "" the fi'lllli d;,)'.
clate Qn IIInlCh 1"0 SP..eJ1IPd OVlInl occur~. Jlnd nn~lflg be(or" tile OG~unc e of ttltl "vent llpodfiod . nal counllng Ill<;
H, NDaya Prlo.... ~8rl:s Ul~ ..pocifled numbc:r of ClIlenll8r da'y$
Q/len<lar date on W/1ldl rill! 'lpccH\ed event III schodule d fa OCQIr.
"ppll&~le. lin <tICI;It(lnIC Copy Of l$igOllt~ complying with
California
J. ··E10ctronlc: CepyM ot' "flt>elron /o Slgn.tlll" Q" means. liI$
Uow. ~uY(lr .m<l t;lt11OJ' tigre" Illot OInc:lronl l; MQQ(l1 WIll not boo ulICld by .. rthat' Potty 10 modify or 1)1\("" thu contont
0(in,.""ly of lMI
A9rC~tnen~ Wllnoul the ktI0Wlf'dg9 Elnel COI'If:Rnl Ofthe othOr
. ~ Of O(dar, which iI) 8(f()tl(e(I by :II col'itrolling city. c:oun~. state
or
.1. "L'aW" means eny J:>w. CO<le. St$lutc. ordinanc e. ""gulaflon
fc:dw;,llel 1!sllIllve. JuCllCI:.l1 or e;o;$ClUWe body or agency. Signed bY ~Iof' and SNIt
K ""OlIGO \0 RVyiCIr te> Pononn "'o~nr. 9 dowmetl t. (C.A.H.
P
rorm NSP). Whidl :.tllJlI bit In writillg land
h 1<&C(4/) to remove a contInDOllCY or porfo/Tll ar;
give BIIYOf ill /(last 24 hour$ lor ~ otharwls tt .o:p~lflfld in par.llgr:lp
applICabl e
Q!leral'Oflll. raplllcem ents. modlfl~ns or tllIltOtiWng DI the
property
L. ·'RepeIJl; M mellI'S any ,tlpDlrll lltlc:!udh'<j pellt control).
ptovitlrd (Qf ~nd(lr Ihl:! ASl~e'~nl.
Cl'llflt oligino,doCUMertt. CoDY or My oolJn1erpart.
M. ··';;ignud' · moans elltl~f a h.:lnClWrltllln Of oI.u:troniO slllnalttlO
8P9fOPri ale..
N. Singu'lII' "nd Plural tGltrnl (I"~ InCluCle lI\(;: olf1or. wherI
306 / 545
p.1U
PAa: ),13
MARA €SCRGI
10/~2/2004 15:42 310'3':iEl7~31
_... -,. wv.. u......... uI""'I'\c:n; 310 271 4834j OCr-22 -o4 3:55PM; PAGE 8/15
1l2) 2 _ ~:JJJ>~4-J ?Opc

·ropelt)rAd<lt'ft»·.:z.:g..AI~_ClcCtq ....YaJ:ly "!U~
e7. AGENCY :
"nil Sellnr a03M ac:knowlcd!l& prior ~pt Qf CAR. FOI'/'I1 AD 'Olsc:lOsure ReglJ'Cllng I«>~I estllte AlJI'"ey
A. OISCLOSURE: &~t
"'ll'J..h,,~,p~:
and Sell." eaoh 4\tJ<nowledge receipt Qf 8 dhicl~re Of tI\~
13. POTe~TIAu..y COMPeTING 8UYeRS ~o Sa-LEA S: BlIYer nt,
/ of mtlll1llle rlpregen~ lion by the 9101COr reprelletl ting that princlpal. ThLs: D1sdosu~ may be pan or a lIl'ting agt&ltmA
pollslbil/l)
~ Und('t'Qf~ nds thOl 6folCer roptes8l1llJ1g DlJ)Iet mil)' alIsO
t t
bl!yllr-bro ke il9 41nmcUlt or lloPlIl;lt~ <l9QJnwn t (CAR. Fo"" OAJ.
ropre$oent otllor j)Oletllrl,il bUY'fC'!l. \"""0 may con4idcr, INIk" oftett, on or ullimlltely
aoqllite the Propetty. &allor un~randl) ' ':It
g propertieD ofintoret;t to this Buyer.
Broker repfet.ell\ino Seller may 1)1:10 repr&lllll't t O\hel' $elJel'S Wi1l'l COl\'Ipt\tn
Thr. fOllowing ogc~cy relltljon611l~ are I'Ieteby cOIlllrtned fClr thl~ lI'aIlMOtiOrr.
C. COI\IARMATJON: (Pont Flcm NillOO) " tl'te agent
t.'lll~ ....glll'l1 _.__ qqJ<U !!w~r
of (GlltlClc one,: ~ «'wi Serler elldur.lvll ly: or 0 boltl the Buyer.. "d SeNer.
• (Prinf Firm /'Quruo) (if ncn !U'~
SeJllFIg Agcm _ __. _G)"~. l~G!:fWn ,H,palt<!1!'!
.,xcI~\Isl)': or 0 tile S..Iler eXClu\Ilv..Jy: or O./)Olh thtt Ouyor nnd
1I11 t.l!llinO Aqont) I.. Iheo 1190nl Qf <eh9¢!c Onfl'): m till:' Ouy.r
flot P~"'$ Agrfleml 'tlt betWeen Buyer an" Sollf:t.
Soller. ~~81 E,lot~ BtOl<lmS 10'0 10 tho
a. JOINT eSCROw INSTRU CiiONS TO ESCROW HOl..DeR: ons of
A. The follow1nsr par~rollphlJ. or .:tppllClAble pOrclons
:thereor, of thb A9""~ nt c:on!ltltute ~ jo.Int eGotOVll lnlltt\Jctl
,~ 10 u,,, alMll With ony rolC/to(! COl/oler 0It0~ oncl QddOftcUa , 11110 any
~.r IllllcJ 9<tJlltr '0 &c:row HoICJor. w/lIl:h UlcrQIN Holde/' ~"'CI
12. 13£1. lAS. 1lt 11), 2<4. ~a lU'IcI C. I2G. 28, 2!). 32A. :J3
MCllllctlal II'Musl Inr.!ructlons to clO:l:e tM l!J8C,'ON: 1. :l. .... provldOd
pstSgtilp h 0 or tl'le aocrJon 1111.(1 Rea, e~ Brok,m on J'llge
8. " .. Copy of the s-elar~1e oomp~ on ogfeemP.m(s)
2(1 or 32A. pO~gr1l91 J D of ,he ..cClio" titled Roo' ~ I:lro~o~ on P"~ ., is d~p~ wdtl F.1Ie:row Hold.,
for In j)nrl'gmp h Or
15lK:h a9r~on1 Cp) ClI'Id P"Y <:M !tOm f3uyet'll or Sel/of's runas. or bQIh. illS spplicabl lt. U\Q
by ~1'Q~r. Escrow HOldOr IIhaU accept
101 in I'ucl'\ ag~s }. Tile lennI> and conditioTl'& of 11'11=0 Agrvemo nt nOI $&t rortn In thq
Broke,t'~ eornpen$ ebert pt<Wi(k!d
n "foldor. but ..bOut Which e:oerow "'older J1(IVG not bo
"pnc:ifl~ pnl'l39 ~~ lIItC ;tddlllOtll!11 m~lo", for t"~ lnrO~bo
or Escl'OW
" ~UCh
d. Buyer .,I\d S6l1~ wlII nK~O EserQW I-lOIdor'r; gtllW1lll IlrO~otl8 UlI\'lelly from Escrovt Holdor llnd WPI~
conaorM nt.
HClldar"s hlqueQl To me exton! the genoml prov'slo ~ lito ineomlc;W nl or conflld with this Agreeme
tllOll/tlOllG UOOIl E:.<:tO\N
os to th'7 duties lind obligatio" "'. or Cl~O'N HoIde:r only. Buyt:l' "'00 Snllet wiQ ex...eule acllllllfoM l
th'3 l)Qt!ora'l)f(nlifl'On$ will c;gntrol
Inl:INctioo~. dOCIIR'IC'nmllnd fortn~ prO'ollCllld by l>e<:IfOW
Jo(o!dor m. ,_"" ""2110Mbly nOCl:lll~ to cro:.tr Ilw~.
3 bU:!;lfIen. daYlI Btier ~p1al1C V
of Inle; Agreement shell bO delivered to EscrQIII Holder wIthin
e. A Copy ). Buyer lilfId Seuer authClrlZo &orow
lOt 0 __ . _.
to OpOll ClIQOW ;;tn(l for ottKIr
Hokftlr '0 ,)l;C~1 ""<I
r"lv on CoPIes Dnd :J19n"tufOO illS d"fln~d in UUt. A.{)1'Can'It'M
bo~ Ruyfl'
lEI originlilo.
and Sallr.r I'B not Q1f1'>ded bl' Wtllll~ or W""" EllCtow
PurOO"Il" "r escrow. Tha vi>"d'ly of thl$ Aoreeme nt all
Holder $,gnl; thl~ AgreelMt1l.
COmpe~Oltioll pursuallt Jt) Pl"'<I~J'DJ)hG 29, ~A anc1 p:lragrllp
tl 0 ()flhe
C. A.-ol<er~ &til 0 P<lrty 10 thn opqrow for 'lip aale pUrpCla~ Of lAtiofl c;poclliCd in
sellor l~oClbl y ~9~ t" Brot<arl\ lXImpenil
~jletion 1I11e<l ~¢1I1 l:~tatlJ Oroke~ on page a. BUyer Qfld
or
HOlder to disbul$IlI triose fvnd5 to Brol<ero at CIlY.,t)
PlJrlJSfe$l1lS :l9 anet ~2A. rQcpeClille!Y, amt trreV<loably 1t1SITUCl EOGIWI
99l'MmM 1. CO~end tlOn IMtf\\CllOOII cell be 8I1\endod
or
pursuant to lIlny O'II\er mU\uolly eX9CUle<l Clll'Icel l~
e..l:rOW or
of Broker;. E!'.etow Holder lIfroll immediatelY lWtify Alol(OI1l: (I) if BvlI\Irtl illlt,;d or any
t.wQkod omy witn th., wrinon COl)se/lt
If Pure,
or 1& OOt good ot timlf Or dc:posil Wlll1 E:lcrow HOkler: or (ii)
nddlt,Ollal ~UII is not ","do pursUlmt to It>ls J\!1feement
.
..nd Seller Inst"Uct e,¢J'OW HOlder to c;tIocel ~ow. shaq be
of this AglWmlClM 'or vJhic;;h Escrow Hold"r I~ rC8palllli bla
D. A Copy of Bny amflorldmof1l thAI ;lff~$ any PAragr.elll'l
Holdor withm 2 ~~i"n:\:1 Cll!lV$ trftt:t mutulll 6xeclltion 011ho o:uncndmc:nt.
dO'tWre<l to EllC"OW
e. upon CICl$C!l Of !:Wow. au.,er agrees to DollY COmpenSblbl to Brol«(lr M
I. BROKeR C()IVIPENSAT.OIII FROM euYl:R: If lIPpllcabJ
3P"dllnd ill B !>flperol& Vlri\\en ;J9"eeme "t belwoen 9uyur >ind SIQKet.
I. Tf.!I'tMS AND CONCI11 0NS OF OFFER:
ClOd condltlol'l:!. All pe.raG~~1'l5 with ,pac\!:$ tor Inlll8l• .bV Buyef
and
Tnls IS eo off.r to pu~ the Propel"y on the above tefTJl& 1n/IIDI. $ l;:O\IIltor offer Is
I:>y 811 Dllrtlota. II 8t leael OIle bllt not All pElrtles
SeUer .~ ;l\corpQI7,Jted in U1ls Agteeme flt only if 1I'l'[lll'led
1o Off.' thQ prOPslly for J;;I!O l)na to ~~t ariy otnr.r Of"r III
;In)'
l'CQulr"d unlil IlSJ~menl'S ~gchod. Seller Me; ,~ ~ntlo oonbnue
IQ ll<ltifie;lbCln «AC¢&ptr lnCA:. auyer hID r~ "nd ac:knawlD <lges rec"pt of;ll Copy of lho OIr6r IUld "greGG ICIthe abo1Io
tlmo pnor be reQ~nlllble lor
~CCClp(ed and 8uyer ll\Itllll~quonjly defou/tll. 8Uyer mto)'
c::onlinnation of 8l)e"C}' relallonshiP$. 11 !hIli otter is
unl add!Jl'lc:lum or mOdll1Ca1lOn. lnellding ~ny cony. may bo:
pavment 01 BI·gkP.'S· CQ\l"ll)9M:atlon. Thill A9fooment 3nr.\ O1ny 'Iluppt.nl
COl'l1tlllull!' ono OtIC tl10 $:.Jrnf Wtitin9.
$Igled It'mo or mol'll countOtpOlrt$...n or whicn l;h01It
307 / 545
p.ll
PAGe 11
M.QRA ESCROW
15:4 2 31~ ~~a 753 1 3:50PM. PAGE 9115
1~/22/2e64 271 4334; SfP .2?, ·04
I) I. "'\JI.""~"\'1. l:)Ali lU;H; ~10
.......
Olll... ~..hQr l zttttc

'~~ _ ~>Cl ,)" e:uJ 3 r:;a MZ;u .
bY ~l1t and a Copy atthe
l·fO". .tl)'AddIDO~:""U;;' """ Cl "",es s 111ft 0lf61 A 8,glle Q
and ho doposllall411 be rolulllC • who IS
off.t ~"DII bll ~d revoKed
:l1. EXPlRAl'lON OF OFR :A; rill, dlcrc:Iwd. [J by
6lantlO offer I. pr.t:JOtlaJIy reoohled
b~ Buye l. Ot by lQ 510""<1 by rtuye r (or. If
CGIIlncl". d~ 11ll4or Ihlt. oll'ot
JlUltIotuftcl t" ~cP\v", .1 0'/ S:OO PM on \he lnltO
OI-M Orl; l).
:~~l:tL.,q~zi·" s . ~
(da" '.oIt
-----------
I=ln~"r---lr----~
• .._ 7op;;:n:::n:'l:t'i:N _
H~~"
IP"nINlime)" Al.Q::Mft.'l:cel.'. t.P.'" .. ....... J ............~---
~ P ,." o""~ ,,
J.23Z ~~!I
......
l.o.uCS~) •
w~ aptnr nonr l>~1 '\ W'''
.nn.~R: ' »no (Sn)ke f.
32. ~0f(S;R CO,,",CNSATION ~A~ OtaMlf..,. ~et m a "f).,aJl)
. 1l9~e:l TO J)dV compo"G~on to
A. \lPOll 01000 or E6U<lW. Sell.. ~rut lf wl1lt1 llt Agreement.
lIOn'II PUyllblo <1& Jpef:ifled In Ul;ll
le thill AlJIOOm9/1I. Sellet QCCepI$lIll!
0. II e:lCtOW ClOts Mt dose . ~omJ)8nQ nts 11>., SeUe I Is \hot own,r of 11111 ProoettY. or nall tile lIutbarlty I" _e:u o~ AOqtl!lY AlflMiQlllIhl"" S<\ll/lf 11M
.aDO" (lfft:/", . _ 10 _.11

SOIlO J' WlIl'I '
:I:. ACCEPTANCE OF 0," t'l1R:~h. "'rcopM)/ 01> llJeo :abOWI
alld
,.nm;
Md conCIiUollll, 11M Ilg~c 10 IIlll
DlImoti%ftfo EJrt:lu>. III dllllYM
AIl6_ c:ontltP>atioII
~ ~\OncCf COW to OIlyttl'. _
'wlIC1 and .1d.~l)I::l ",CelPI or..
CODY of 1l1l:I Agl'lt llnnn l.
DATED _ ,_ _-
o (If~dl SlJ9J ECT
'rOATTACH£D COUNYeROFFl!R, ~----
_--
_
_
0 -
Oll1O _ . _ lJc,u, ep,
>:= == :-
~
fJE:I.\.Eft _.
JI~~»
z .. ~
jPrlll f Iiiiiiiei
IJOn'l! till.... .'
" or 0tJ)'Ct'1l Illdllo(~
t...a4... .6) ------ wa, IN_n .lllJ)I rtlClt>VOd b~ lSIIy" -a Wflefl
CC: A COpy of :stgn td Al:CaPW1clll A bllJd lng AQnI llm... .. 1e e...
r. _ . _ ! ) CQN rlRM 4 nOll/ OF ,-CCe p'l'AN &C _ 0 AM 0 I'M.
8QQtll Oft (~:'l") or euy.1"'l!I ....thof t-d lIllr"n t WhA th.r Of' not ......flrmed iQ
llnCblo) , III !X'...co".... " rec:eJyed IIy iluyo
r
A ~ It .... l).01~
II copy of $'9'>1 ld Ae«'J )l3nl: c l'6qUit9d In OfdO t.o efll':lW Illilltlli"JI
lOonf lnnal lon "' noll0!9l1lly
Ull., ~mont. Complu\lOI'\ or \JIb I'tVIJ.
Conllnnotion qf ACC4llltollClJ hIllS O<lOU
Inten<tOCl [0 ltllldetl<:e 'Ct!lI thto In.t
RI!AI. esTATE SPlO!<ERS; ... ~r ~ ~lIor.
A. RelII E._~ li'rokers lII'.
ntltV 'lrtlU to t!l4' .9~botwol
:IU1to d II' Pllfllg r.spll 2'1.
/ltlGd 46 L
Go AIMIl"Y '.':tIlO Mhlp c; rIlt9 C»BR l v'"o llubm llled ~ offor tor lIu,. , lIWul(l\llfedgell. leClllpt of ~I(Selli ng' Firm ) bAli OooPlt"il\l~9 lSlOIt
el II9te ll1l 10
C. II !OPllQIIeCI in pllIO~tllph 2A. AgCn6N~I \TIO N: LIostIll!l lill'OK er aglW H to ~y C/lOP 9l8tll lllllro kr. , 1'1. a P,utlo lpWll Of Iha MLS In
nRO lU!R COMP ~ In ttllt MUi. d..d CooP efllUn ll """""
O. co0P i:RA1 1N(I ptI;Jvl
ft~Ol out of l.Ionlna fItok$ r'$
proc:eoos 1ft o::ct'Q III: (I) Ino alI'lO\lotltC'..pe
(il dl..cI<Cd) lno ;amou nt lOpItClI\tod
In 10 ~P41UfCl' \N~ ~m ..nt
(CAR . Form
~lo Ot II t4CiQr~1 Ml,6: 01 (II)
",hrd \ tno PtOP "Ify ,~ O!UrOlj for
Ct'Ct l>olw ten LIf,/I" lI6fO ker 0..0
COope/:.llltlg Ol'Ol<of.
--. .., .,- -=- --- ~-:
-~~ -~_ -:- ~=- =-: -- __
tLjl.Jt~r1~"..c_,-
Estel " Brolte r (Selling Ann) ~~·l:;.IOolil7mr;r_l'i~c.......#;go::tn~!UR~e!l.. ~- v. ~ Da"" .aGl2
1:ft! P'!!r . %11f14 .1
Rfllll .• ~18 C!l. 70s!) .MJ.QZ.4,
6y_ •. M"_"
Clly £"'[ .,.......J.o:" J
1I.4Q'I'~ __• • 2.lt.tWSF1!T;:a~
1>4v,SU'SI ~_.Vp-'-'!'.WSo!cL~\
Jee,"lI:
l!.ll\lIUmIJml~/1rIN'ta!9'1.1ml.
. _ _ t'..c ..a?' 'lIR., ",-9: 178
TdO j)h_ t:J1, O/17 8-Xt' 1JL..
------------ 1
----------;:;~ --~ -I
,~~ FI:rn1~~~~~_.~-----
Oaf" --- --o -_. --- 1
RllalEstav: QrOlv..f{I SllIl. 2"''lJ
0)/ ••.~ c,ty __
_' -::-_._.~
~~=-_
-----
Addn>lia -_ E-tNl11
_ 1'11)(
T.. l6pllon~
--- ~-- I.
":;CROW HO\.~ ACI(NOWU!
D~T. llu t\t O(s _-- ---
l oro COp)! 01 lhll> All"'" lnonl .
(,f en.eIrod, 0 D ~M In tNl u'" .... ,._; _~__ :_~_ :'--
I
~Cf_ Holdflr ackllow'ccl~"" t~olp "no _ _..,. .~-~ -,-- --~~ . 'any
llmbe tl\ _ _ ~ 10 at\ a, Ea!;YC1W Holder llllb}eCl to JlIsRlll~l>h 26 o;fUlI-. A9~1l'P.n\
o:oun t., affern • and '"Il
-I'l'7'\fo--o7f-::p~~~-w-tt~O-"1lI0fl1 00l\(lt41 prov/'
"0l15
"u"p/_f\t~1 ••r:rvw In:t'.. ct..,"t:-.,-<l<i~I~h-a~I I18noo of 1M " ' 9 - t 011' toto _n ElOYOT and S41l1er ill
-'_
l
t t/lo d"lo '" COtlf,lTfl<)lIon 01 AI\ClllC jf- --
e....."" '" Holeo l IS Ddv..:..C1lhll es~ _
._ • ,.. Ollie ~
_
Esao wHal dOt ...
__ . . . . , __ ~
Ily ... ~
~
4dO Jvft a--..

"l>j)netrllJ<!E.rna;1 ol3l'lOn&.O lmwr..._.C l Real E5taID. UCo nl&#
C\afifomla OeO&lin'cn\ ul 1:1 COrp
!!.c:rnW t10ldet IS. ,.;;;;; ell bY'lI I.
OFFI"R; No ~I/nr.,r oIOt
;. l)OMv m.1~. T/li. o1lor
_10 rlt\llo>WCld und 'CJcQell bY ~ 011.
1_ _ : __l Rr.JP'C1"'OH 01" (Oale/

:5.11.1'1: l'llhilb ) _
308 / 545
p. 1 c:
MARA ESCROW
PAGe: 1.2
15:42
10/22/2 004Ul1C'-l.. 318Sn07531 3; 67PMj PAGE 10/15
..r;.~ • .... " .... UANKt.A i 0'0 271 4834; SEP-Z2'04
BOYER 'S INSPECTION ADV.SORY

(c..o..\t. Ponn alA. JlIOV,.C\I'IOIO%)
I~ !lOt
CA:lndltion of lfJo IIJtICllllnl1 imJ)rQvementr. beino PlJ~
A. IMPORT ANCl: OF PROPE:R TV IHVr;snS ATlON: Th. pl\Y$JClJI jrnt~ga1 ion .. of thtl PropertY ponsonolly and wflh
~l:On. ':Iou snould conckl~ thorough
gU3ral'lleed by olthat Sdller or BrakerI'. J:"or this 8111SpeCb
lfon~. A generlll physiCO" inspecllo " typIcally do" not etNer
pttlteSSionels WI'IO should provlde written lllPOI1S of /herr InvestI'cJa or! Ule PI'OQ$C\y. If tha lll'Ofosslo neltl ~mmac'ld fUtth'l1r
of the Prop;orty n::lf items affedit'lQ the property mOlt .w not physlC/)J\y IOC8tlld
apr-tntor to l"..ped itlr.accI'lAdbl'" ~,,& or Ihl'l Property, yOU ~1\OU1d
QClnt4et
InVt!ut'p:.110A9. inel(lojn~ D reCOt'l'm~nd:\tlOn by A "1'll\T CQnltol
Ql,/;1tifJOd ellpelU t/) eonc:IUct suo" J1c1dll101\"1 ,nvelltlQ6I1on$.
of
II:> alC.tdae '&~n"b1 e (:8I'CI to prullld your"lr. Int.luding Ol)OOvOIy
O. lJU'feR RIOHtS ANI) DUlles: You haVll an 3f1ifnmlv", duty tion and yanOOtlJto n or I/lfofl1ultJon tiN tll~ UYJt yov
and the Ilw06t1ge
1110 Il:gtlI. prnctlcDJ Ond totChnlt;:lJ 'mplieatlon~ of djsclO$td fl1d3.
elO6 "grfittlGl' \t'9'vGs you the right flO lnve~gato tIlEl Pl'OlX'~y. 11
tenow or that Dre willlin your dlllgent ~tlenfion:and obseNali on. T"tlpufCl1 eG with ihn ~um. of t~t :lgrfUlf'rlent. This is tho Clear way ro.- you to)
you eX.raille this righl ill1d you I5hcl,lltf. you mull! do :lO ill I1COOl'llan
WliUen repo/1$ providld by profa!:lJioneJ$ 'lid to d1l:CU.!l4 Ihf) rtt:;u~ or
,r010<:t YQUlWIt. It IS oex\rl)mo'y rmporwn t fOl' you 10 ro3d
0111
d thl': lnepocrlo n. Vou hqvo tI\~ tight to mq"Q$1 Ihm SoIlor mallv rtl~lrll,. cerroctlon u or
"l;pcotiol l$ will> tho pr?lol!i",on.";ll WhO conducte discloSed by Soller. It Seller /$ unwilling or lu'Iebll!: to satisfy your
vd in your lr,,'e$llgaU an6 or
~altlf other ~r.lIO" bllSccJ Ur;lOn ilem. di:>cOwr .and dl6COWre d C:OOtlitlor>, you have the tighl to ouncel the
·oQth::.ls_ or lIQU do nal want to PUfeh<l~ the J"ropllr1y itI its dbdoliCd
triG agreemc !lt In a timely .:Ind pl'Oper Manner. yOIl may bo
in
timet p"riotft. If yOt> <10 not 4:Clne4'l
~9mnmetll " you 'let wllhi" jl;p6Clfic
~n:1\CtI or .;ontr••"
d~ose to you M4lrerial feats ktlOllllO to him/her th.Jot
affect tIlo vfJ/uo Dr
::. SEU.ER RIGHTS AND DUTIES: SlllllDt lill teCluire<l to COllUllIOn R. ~l!r ao~ nol h$"" An ~Jtgallon
not b'il :JW~(~ Of ~om .. Praporty C1Cfed:\ Of
fo:"J,.'01bllltv Of Ute PIOl)"'rty. H~vt>r. S¢llo1 lNly 10 you
10 r~llillr. corrCCl or oU\ervi1:sc cure knqwn dco(c:eto that ot\t disclOGed
'0 insp,ct the property tof YQlJr l)8l1clit nor 1$ Seller C,bJlglotCld dut/ng ~row. The QUfChi.l&c egreement obllg.2leS Seller to
you Or your irIupecw s
)t' pr8\ll~81 y unknown defeCl~ 'hat are discowl1 ld by
mike th.. ~.oP'lny 8YaJ'I'bJe '0 you for IIWe$li~;on$.
In allarI'D':; Ina lhe/'tlfClr. C4nnOlllCtv!.,\., >,ou on
many Itl!mS. sul;h l;llllJOil
). BROt<fR OflllGAT ION$: Brokers t:JO not tJavc axpel1ille lS. $ll\letural canctitlOIlS 011tle four'ldatlOI"l or other
;t:lblll:Y. gSDIogI.. or _ironme nt:ll co"cfitiotl S. h~dou c or Illegal controlled sutls-.anCG
woQi\\oI1I"90 elcctrlcal . MNI«. ~ wastll dl~. or ~Ilot e;yGtlOI'll.
mprovelTlerllll. ar lhe conditicn of Ih~ foof, Plumbing . h"etlng. all' r:s through ~n Impedlo n b'i nn etp!J'opnatu Jl~~ 1 5ellPCtqcJ!:ly
rh" onlY w!Ily to :a"cour410Iy dtl'1ltrmll'l o 'lit eondll/on ofth. Prol:l'!1tY
dQll:l not gu.rant " lt1etr parfomJanc'l!:. You f'Il~ IB'J/Cet tillY prOfeS$1Q
M1
IOU. II Oroknr ~lv"$ yOu fof"rr"t. to socn prof"u1O nal$. 8I'tJkflt a cfil~ent visual
,t your choosIng. In SaIf'.<: InvoJVmg resldP.ntlClI dwellings wit'! no Il'lOfel
tttan (our unill. eroktlfS h.". a d~ to make ~feets
U) dlllCfOBO the resullR oJ thl!t Inspel;\lo o. However
• .-s some propurty or
nllll~lon af the lIccCSlllh lo "rc~a$ 01 the Property Bna
:Ondi/lOnfo may not bto d,:;covOQ blo frurn VI.,,"'
;II in:Jpnatio n. '*h pocr.iblo eroknfJ' /litO not _~ 0' (I'Iorn. II )'OU n~• •nt~red Into ~
nt will d~tefm/r'\e ti'Io nafure and Clltcnt 01 thaI Broker', duty
10 you.
witten agmel7''Ilnl Yldl'l a ero/(er. IIlot ~puei1ic tetWlll of thlll sgre.!lmaO\ll Jl>MD SUllAt:UL JTY OF Al.\. ASPEc'l '$ Of YH2 PROf't1.RTY'. (~
fOU ARE STROMe \.Y Aov\SEP 10 tHvesnG ATE THI! CONDf\'I
OF MOJ(I!R S.
(00 00 NOT 00 ~O. YOU ARE ACTING AGAINS T THe ADVIce
THE ENnRE PRt)PERTY,INCl.UOING. euT NOT l.IMll'I!D
TO THE
:. you ARE AoVISEO TO CONOUC T INVESiJGAT1QNS-ot'
FOLLOW ING:
S AND COMPON EN1'S: FOllndol/. o". roar. Plumbing . ~tino.
Blr
1. GeNERAL CONDITI ON OF THe PROpeR TY. 1'l"3 SYSTeM
l$l. "'~henr~ l. oowrlry. paollnplI. om",r $tf\lC1VrD' nne! non·$Ir\.Ie:turOI 5yslem~ :lII\O <;ompone nt'l. filC\Ures.
co~ltiorlll electrical.
ena.-gy Il'tlber.e.y of the Pro~ny. (Structur al eAglneGIs we best
!lII,lt.in appliance s. 4ny par$QOal proporty Included In the c:llo. and
Iilnd WfIettlor Improvem ertts II~ nttuetural ly ~und.)
suitc<llo ctetemJinll po~le design Or COO1~II'UctlQn dofcx:m. ~. Any
room dlMlltl~on$. Jot PZIi', "ttO of im.orOVM'lcmh: an<:l bOllndfl(i~
2. SQUARE: FOOTAGfl. AGe. OOUNDA ItIES: Sqvaro fOO1a9C1, S ON1.V and hlrllO nClt b.l)fl vonfICleJ by Seller lHlc1 'C;llMO\
bit
nUlnCtl'lCISl ~te:men\1'. ragardlrlg \hlttlll' ItOM' are APMOXI MA'flON Cd barrIers or mllrloetl; do 1'101 "c~~r;.l'
YIIflflCd by BrokQfS. FenCC4. t1ec1ge•• walls, retaining wall& and other natur.1l' or COI1strucI
$. archllllCIS. 6UlV\'IyQt5 "fICI Ovd en91"eP.r~ are beGt !lUlled
to
lder>tlfy trU. PrOPerly llollndati es. (P,of"lIoI 0nal$ GUCh as DpI)/lliser
>r. Pro~"r.)
detonnlnn f;QU." foolll!ll', dimelllllon~ ~nd "ouncMnt tl1'the
'1C~ly iO IQed 10 '"o pte8Unoe or \IiQOCI dtoBttl)ying ,,~t~
AhCI OtgBnfsrM
;:. WOOO Ol!STnO VlJtc; PP.5TS: Pfc$9nc:o of. Ot COl'l(llpon& iaentil1",.
IhC$1II items can be IIcparatecf Into two see:llon$: Section 1
a1td other lIl1fl.tal>Cln Of I"r.etion, IJ1l\PQcVon roport$ CGverln$J thORt are condillon .. IIkQly to I&oc! to inf&Station or
Sr....::tlon 2 IdllnlillQ o1Iroees Ylfter..
cl(&~$ wh9fe 'nfe4Ultion or in(ccrion Is eviCleM.
ICl I'er1om\ thtl8& II15~Ml.
.nfection. A rCOISIomd 5truaur EU pcM control comPAny ~ belSC $uited
~
"'0 u(!IYtl9ht law.. 01 Ina Urtltea Sll:Itoc (Tille 11 V.S. Code) rortlld
".UlIwrtZe d f9llt'W\K\IQ n d \hI!. fo"". Of QI\Y DOl\'Ion lnfl'60f,
t/ID
V/I)hOlOCOll)' """"~A ln~~ t
~;ol~ Inltlalol f _ ) (
'<
-t9 --f'l;:.
'OM?M~.
VlG!t..... 0' lVIv a"'..r -0""••I\GlvU,"O tnc.~lmll, or o;omllUl.. If~"
1Gll.
:op,nllllf 0 1C101-2002. CAUt:'ClRNIA ~OClATlo." 01- loIEAlTOA) bIi,...ecJ ~~ ----:. lIale _
~C. AU. ~1C'.l-fn; Re:SSRVEi::>
itA T<eVtSF.D 10rG2 (pAGe 1 oF 2)
. eUYFR 'S INSP~C TlONAp "V~ Y BIA PAGe 1 OF 2 o::ffl:-~-~1II~lng~~~:-a-fnIlI,1&)-~r:of,~,~watO-.,

~1J..nt: NM' SClrn~:In PfJorM: (310}4781835 -:':::FU:~'(=31:::0=:'J--=:....;....;;,--l
1s:1:ll Wostwoo<l BlII'd. • L_ An 4ltve CA 91l4ta4
Broker: GUIenr.. & Orltf,,, Reafto,..
309 / 545
p.13
Oo~ 25 04 05109 p
MAAA ESCROW
PAGE :1.::1
310 271 4~34i SCP·~2-04 3:57PM; PAGe 11/15
~1lr.~'tJ2t9'$*C "~O"
't\)PC1Iy M$""• .J,U..f.-....e.~~~1".t:.'::.Y~... L CA #)O:t~
e or con~C1ing soU, sweaptltllrrty 11) d/ppllge, &etUUlg Ol'moveftlGllt.
I. SOH. STASIUTV: Eldt<te1lCl! of flit or eompact~d sou. expansIV
and tne adeqU8~ of d/ll'nDoe. (Ge-oleeh niClJI enllilleGI' $ are bel!lt ClIlled to deJ.rmJne SUCh c:oncllllo09. caU$e$ eM retnedlC$.) !l.)
I, ROOf': Pr~"t COndItiO'!. QSlO, ,... Iu:. ""d femainln g ...lIGfuI
lim. (RODllng CQIllr=letotS .:mt bnAt ~lIIleer to cte\etmlrw ll\ej<t cond"lllotl
controc:to ro IIII'~ Ilefd 1IU1""<f to cUttCll'l'llIt)O Ih..::e l;On<!olIontl.)
;. POOVSP A; Crlll;k". h/QIcoo 0( op(>f"tion cl Pl9blOmo . (Pool COMedio l' 10
of SC\II'$' al'\d ~ptic SyAIems and ¢011'lpone mt..
WASTe DfSPOOAL: Typt!l. size. odequacy. Cll~ and •condition
~r. an" applk:olbl e ,,"(>d.
y, 1.1:I0 teStrictlO/1$ =>Ild coGts. Wafor
I, WA1'E~ AND unUTCS ; weu. SVSTe!M $ AND CO~Ne N'N;~ Wotor l)tId utifIt¥ iWalIlIlItrl1
quD/lly. acIl1Q\l1scy. condition , :md porl'Qmt: mc.l of welllly.w
lml ond COMl)one nlt.
t!NVlAO" .Ml:NTAL HAZARD S: Pownlial envlronmemat !tS%4(dl$.
lnc:ludlng, bUt tlQlllmi10d 10. Olf>bestoa, leBd·b$&ed pllllIt an4 CUte/'
. other gasoe. fuel Oil or ctllllmical s1DtaQe t:ln1l1lo. eonUJ1\1lnated wlL or vrot'llf, maaltioU $ waste,
If'-''<f o::ontarnlnatloll, taelon. n1Ql1\anv And other SUb1!llIn c_. fllalqrlllls, I)l'OC!Uds. or ~ndltiOnll (IPe;ludlng
\Wllsle dl6POSaI 0;.0... deolromnglWtlC IleIds. nudqjM' 4Ourl:M,
Ontll). (Fill' ""ot. ""onnatto n on 1M" tt9m~ YOll 11l&V
consult Gn
(:lH'\)omo . t(l)(lC or ~1W,l;C) . lunOlA~ or DimO•• COfltilmll\ end Ten.nIS,·
rIlJl.lal MDZ3~O: A Guide fO( Homoow nore. Buyer$, ll!fldordl ll
mokf
lIPproprh~I\lO protoS$,oOai or r..tu.! tho bookleto "€ovil\:lnr
"Prolee\ YOl,lr FamilY f"rorn ~d in YourHOtl'Ie" or bam.) Of fltli PI'ClPQtt)' to
PropO/tV to PrfhquJKeJeOismlo hIl:l::ntd~ and PI'OPlMl;i ty
o. f:AJi1'HQ UAK£S ANO FLOODIN G: $uscilpflb lliry of lIIe proV'd.. /Dlonrr,'lt/OI) 01\ 1l1ot:n wndillotl l:.)
flood. (A (,';.. oI09IGt Or ('""otce:hn ical EnlJlnr~er ,.. bl'Ot lWltod to
2n<1 ~&t of nOc;.l$SlIr y gr cr.... fI'o<! If\8Ul'll11'lCO l'IUIy vary.
Yho IoCIItloll of
1. flF<E. HAZARD AAO OTMEtt INSURAN CI:: TIle avnlbl.bllily oondltlonll, IWch as lhlll sge oCme PI'Opc:lty lind the ~$ history of
the PtOpetty in g $oi_ie. (IQOI1 or are hiWlrd ;l:on•• andnee<l oU'ler e op\\o<'<o
for eel1ai~ typt'S of InlJuranc&. 9uyer llhOuid _)(plo", 1n"1.ltlll\o
the pmjlel'fy amI SUYQr. may affeQ '\he- 4lII81labirl\\l :lnd 0' lomn md Inspection (I(lnllnl:lilnciC'(\. (An j~c.srtlnce 6gcnt
~:;lrly ~ tl'lio iMormatio n mPy ofrOGt Olner O"~lori5 . indu~lnl1 the mmovtll
I:> b~ ~uiled to prOVIde In(prmil1ion on tneae CQI'l<llUonS.) R.E<:tUIREMENT$: f'urmiw. IneP9QIOIlS. oettifJ~. .tonlngo.Oto1ller
2. BUILnINO PERMITS, ZONING AND (jOVERNl\llEI'fTAL alfllcl.inl1 the culT8nt Of fultJAt use of the Ptopefty. ilA doYoIopmem
size.
goverttme ntal firntUltions. It':!l1rletloFl~. and requtremtlnlG I1JIO prlv4te Infotn't'lio n PltlvicJ~. l:l(Olc8l'$ IUP not Quallrted to
(Such In{ormmloll 10 tlVllilot'l'" from Ol9PTOpriO 'O 9OVnmm ellt..1 &"e'f1olt!S
rc;vio!tW Of Inl....prol allY &Uclllnform4110n.~ Dl8t can be
a. RecTAL PROpeRTY ReSTRIC TIONS: Some citic5
and QOulilleS l/lIPos$ re51r~oll$ that rl/\'llt the 31n01Irrt of mnt aad aeaut'(\>
klck$
the msximom numbttr of oCCOpl'Jn ts: end trur tlgtll of 8 'anellOtcl to terrn1naw a tenaile)l. DltO(lboA or othel' n:qu~mcn \ls.
c:har9lJd.
~v~ 10r ~ pM Wihdows. including WIndow b:an. snoutd
be ll'l(;)ll\lned to dtl1flmllf\a wtlC"",r they eatl&(Y legal .
Informatio n about th~ f.,~ and olhac' rtoqUlrr.m en.,,)
(GovOtllmllllt e!J<:nc:I~ CAn provIde ttlc ln8Ulnauon of barricM. ec;c;ess elat'mo. setl~Idllng meollafll1
il'M
4.SecUR I1'V AND SAFE"N : Slatc and local L_ /lilly requlro other l)~rson8 of exlstll'lQ owllll1ll1ng poolS and hot~. DOcltl' 'Well e. vatll)US
enel/or other <neBsure$10 dGcroae.o m&! rlslc to childten and Property, Compllonoe> I'6QUlr~Il1Mtt differ from city to al'ld CO~ly
lite ~f~ly Qnd othf;lt mllasIJtcCl GOncomlng aIM/' (cotures of 1M In
to County. Un"'~ 1lP4!(:I{lcaily tlorCCO, the Prt1p8fCY ~I' nol
bu eompllon cil wiUllhO~(I rcqUirom ont$. (l..OClII gowrnfl')1Otl1 liQ<!nCltlCII
Cl'Il provide inlol'l'rnltlQfl DbOut tn~ tct6tnction~ >I~
~ teClll1rem,ntli.)
loNS: PERSON AL t'AC!qR S: Nel,llntICmoott ororMeaeorn frtionlJ, ~I\Jdin9
6. NEfCH8ORtfOOD, AReA. SU90MS JON CONOtr "nt,. c:rione statlsllcs, Iho PIOlQn'litV of nrglSt ~ ("Ionn of(enoel'G, file prO~()f1.
01 UnfOl«!m
COIlt of any ~Wlf'I ld. wln:IMs l~...,t COII'!.l!(:l1"~
~enools. proxim.!y .."d /iltlltquacy b-onr IX DthOl"
alher !lov..rnm" t'll ~etVlC"~ I'V:lld:lbiDty, 1I0lfqU&C)' aMJ ~mNcl ". IndLlllbiDI or caoncultU1\S! 8Clhrltlo:\.
lel~0lllmunk::otlon5 or Ot~r lbchnolO gl/ fiervl~ lsnd IlWllt"'t/o ll$. proximJtv III
or odcr
o>clatlng Gl'd prop05eCl lran/tPOrlBlion. <;Ofl$true:tion ,,"d devel ~tlhat may IIffoct nclse. view, or tratlkl. allP.Ol1 noise. tlOI8t!l propeJt/ffs.
l. tv,xenl'S, rJt cln;IulNla nces, PfO\&Ctad ..,oecIQs. wetland
ItQrn (lny SQUr~, Wnll IiItld domoa.ic "'llma/s. othor nul580C8I~ or lmprowm ep~. CC!f\\Clte~. fntlllitiOr, nnd condition 01' oct~lf!On
bolnnic:.d 1l111r.'.:ISOa. IttG1Qnc; or otMr 9OI'(l)fnm ellt;lny otot"r.Iod
.:ompllance with eft)' govemln a documl1'nlll of' HCImcowrnm:' AalSOCl:lII
Otl
ar~s gf comlnon ItltetrO$l $ubdIVJ8iofllt. olld 006$1)1. rack of rcqu/f'elTlonb OlId
nts. condition s and tnl1uenCl:l $ of tiiOtlJflCM ce to =rt:aln cWlures'anEl/Or religIons. ond personal noed$,
reqtlireme
ptcl'orehcet; of 8uyer.
nUYEFC'S INSPIiC1 'ON ADVISOR Y (BlA "'AGe ~ OF ~)
310 / 545
uo~ ~~ U~ U~IU~p p. l~
l-'L\(-;E 14
....•3Hl5507531 PAGE lZ1HI
WOOD DESTROYING PEST INSPECTION AND

ALLOCATION OF COST ADDENDUM
(CA.R. r_ Wl'A. Rc'vl.... tOI02)
T:"II$ Is an i1ddl!ndum {a U'le Oil California Residential Pumh(JSe Agreement or Q Ol.b~r _

_ . l~Agr6emont', dsteO ~eet:~ i.e ;'004
on propCl1Y known O~ _"I~D s. FIDeM o..~.1!S-o.-~.!I.zi!:JLII~lf' CA f},g\102~:t.:;2"'_ •
- ("PrOperty").
I btltwoen N:J. ",1.. fiall1/Jar: ('BuyP:"">
nnd .:rol!!£P.h S':rr-;;p..JJ! (·~lIcn·
THE J:OI.LOWiNG SHAll REPI..ACe 'THE WOOD OESTROYING PES'T INSPECTION PARAGRAPH (4A in thg carlfomb
Residentl.' P(.lrch~ Agrecmont (RPA-CA» and !:/'lall supnroede ony conlllcllng tetm9 In allY pmYIOU'!Y-9c'ner"leO
Ilgr&eme,.,\;
WOOD DESTROYING PESTS

A. 0 euy~r Qij Seller ~atl pay (or 3 I-'~ COnt/OJ ROpOlt for wood deslroy,ng pt:$lr. and orgl1nJc.m& only rs:tcport·~.
Tho R~port s~1I be proparea by S9;:Lqj!jS obo&S\O _ • :a regil!>btlUo ~tfuctura{ peat
control com08flY. wno 5hall !IoRPllrate ltle Repolt Into Wellons for ~ident InrestatJon or infectIon (Section ') and ft)r
conditions bke!ly to lead to InfeatObOn or lhf'cCllOn (sf!Cition 2). Tho Report GhUII cover !he main budGing Bnd attachltd
::lrlJClureli and. if chocked: Qi1 detached palUQO$ snet C3rpoft$, CI d~tlIetled decks, 0 tile foIlow;n!! other :structures
C(l the Properly: _ . • .
The RcpOn 8MII not inch,/dt> ICOf cov~ring$. If thE! Property is :l unit in e condominium or otnor common Internst
:;ubdiv'510n. the Report :!;hEdl include only tJ1e IIcpenllo in~rl:~r tint! any ex<:lusive'1l:.l1: :1~ being tmnfOfurr"CI, and
shall not Include common area:l. Water te$~ of ShoWQf' pans on upPQr level vnlb> may not be ~erl'otmed ul$ss the
owners of property belOW tile sllower consent, If Buyer roquesTs mspliJetl<ln of inneoeSsilllca ereas. auy..r shell pay for
th~ ~!:t or entry, inspl»ctJo/\ .oll'ld CloSltlg for lllOlOe a~an. "nloss olherwl!iG 3gteed. A written Pcmt Control Certification
liMn be jz;t;l,lcd pnor to Close or e~row, unloGS otnetwb:e agt9od. onl)' if no infe6tatlon or If'ltt:Ct/on Is fourll:! or If
reqolrPd cOfree1!ve worK IS completed.
D. (SbGbon 1)0 euyer IE Sellcr 5hS/l pay tor wolk recommended IC> COfTC(:t "SectlCln 1" col'ldltlon$ lIeacr\bed in 111ft
RQ~" end the COSt of inl'lpectlon. orIUy and closrng of those inaeeessible a~s where active intdtatlon or lnfiectlon
1$ dIBcovl'lr'lo.
($4'ction :2.ta Buytsf Cl Sf~lI(:r .-nan pz;ty for \York rocomrn~ded to cotrecl 'Section ~. condltlol1s de:sc:ntled in tho
Report jf rcquC$(ec! by Buyer.
ilv slgnJAg Delow. \flo undon\Igned acknowleClgf:> UlCit ..aeb hll$ reocl. l,Il1deR5pndB and has ft:QuiV1Od a Cbpy of Ull$
~ddendum. •
O"te 2!!P..~~...£_:<\!0aO~4!...- _
3uyer _ .. _.~ . -_
....,~~---------
Sener .._ - _
311 / 545
Oot 25 04 05al0 p p.15
PAGE 1~
15;42 tIARA EScp'(J.IJ
lal22/2 884 ~IU ~/l 4 0 34; SEP·2~. 04 4:00PM; PAGe 14Jf5
p."
..-
7.01"" 1;)~(:l.().~(.1)\""',"'''()n'ON~Ot$CI.Q:.' UlU; ltEfl)1I:'J'$ t ..~ n ..· ft. oIl~CL'_ "I""" .1 ;". ~_ "" ",;u. "'.
cIw
I" .."...,...
en be: prodcIed! "" O. A"~ftt
,,.y,,..,"''''.\1 '1\t "y.IHt..n'r 11I. .\1 !)to q~"",'c41 i _" :'h~~"C'f L13. ,;~ .... 1'ClC' W . . .~ -~ oo.'';'''''d.-.Ml~
n .. cI1sde-''' Clr~ A1aJJI.G
.,..... .I~A,... ........,.Id.~".r
" ' ' " ' ' -.... (It' l'_."r ~
....d;•• ahr.'aC,...,.
..,"",,_ Ik"k""
cl;.,
f.,.w~.. d~'\ttIN"' .. ftCI
".'dl.....
.w. M' _
'UfrAIl
C_""'"'"
cIi....r.- ..""....:.._.lcII ~ ... ..-...
t"~.l n.......... ~ "C,••,,..
...."HIt 1\4.,.....J·1),(~t'AI _ _ "'ld 1"_01,,... . 1lolyt'~R~"'d4 ",.6t_n p..~:»f~
r~ 'IJ1p",.... h. II ,h,.,.. .." oU.,..••
.,.,t .".."'ur~ ~'IJ\\H'n ... ott .)",. ....r""y G.....-,ln\lb .llwl'l""" tWO a.,"'1"~"r
te' •• bw t~•• A ,~. r.ftn~. ,:.~
. . ~llMl\.:ll.l'l¥:l. t\u)'tl" ~":' 'be ""~ 'C',", ""'.r (Xm""''' .afla ,II".
- ".."
)
IMe .... hlt:"'Ct \"'If ....'ft "- ~u' 1)01. "S~ .:rJ\\f'O',l"rl" "VQh .,p\;".•btt ",,'fe.\
v;' f,,' "~''''\I.''
\~"t pf ."C-:~
(I",.... '1ft'.. _.:.."
'0 """\~ 'hI.· ))'"1''''''''' ttl' (..\
.ft , .... i\ Wf",.. A. ". 4,1".VI"t.""'C: in
\.!.,.,,,.
rradr'
_r:"'n,; .. n, "',.......
wI.k'"
~dl4....'".. he
...ncl-,-f\&."t "V~","DLt( lAw, 4't# 1'~ drthh'ltt.ft J1Ir u'11".... Yddi.....". ~'"" "~.'.,.".... WiI,I. ,....11
'11' .....a<, fJ»"~'Jo .... 1l"rt'•• ,.,nd1t'9 ,...n.\o""l~ ,'". <,1t".lIl~\
"I
i'",""bt'
,1Ie.t.II',...... tf "'::'. h" " ".."" '" ""'(tlt"k.,1 j" .'~ .'1C""',,,,"N,
In ~..liG,rtV".
\S "y (""..uWlt.idJtca (ud,.o·ie,. ~d ""X •• t"~,, ";Jd_ br.itnd ~slt, ....
rt;Il.~M.5 ••,-", ""nv,. .l\' ~".,:.~ C'h.1 \t;\••A\3. ~"n~" 'i\3l\\WI~~Wf' '''''4 .. n,. r.".4wut .r tit., It........"")" ..... flP>rl(\'rnJ b:' ,. tty.4irtt'tl ~
:..
j ..... ""~.,.," l'IA' f1N\~ I·"~I. "of"'"
'",OCn ;..f,,·Af.Ji"''fI ..... ~ ...... Ct,·""". ",.,\....,
oJ! 4""\,,,"""1t(f \"
"'"'I"'........ r.n II'." •• ·.11••""1......,.•,,,,,•.·r .....,. ( 'u""""'IIo'r 1'.·I.... 'Lh ~"'':I)' ( ;''''''1
,,,,,11'1.
rtK CI~". C4 ...,'C.ry ~oI' ';n.4,tt;Qs: fltstJU""t. 1f <-cI1:.t"ul Bc~u1ort'~
l'''t~.SG. It ..h""",,,,,-,. tiW)'t;r ,U.~. ""","!I'dn ~.< CJ) qe)" .. fi-- ..:- p(Au~~.
J..
'n.\I....~n."'.·hl""u]' If) " ... 'f,ni,)..... ~ """"... ~ "NY'.,l".... ,./",)... ,,\,......"'"",",,".1 ttl""At',."".ti,.. . "....r 1'<'1'~"'1"4 "..... ft'"bf'wldAM '" ,t\&'1ll"fl"'1 ""IOOt/"Mo\U 'lloya'
.11t~:"\""J ")I\~'A"V" 'I""" ""dwl,h "",J'Qlu' .,,,,1 ¥tit..' "'.~I"l~"""'f:I h)'t"" "'.,y .,w", II~.q r.lt f.. ~ ow_f ",..·h
""'~''''''. "'\a..:' ""I~·lJ "_J.." 4'Valt,.· ". tJ"", ~
r,htrt 1c",t:.1';:: \l.a:.~f~ ... U..l·.... "".,hrM,. .tI....! .~\h :,"= .J\~ ,.t'!c.\oI"'6 \ttuf'(C" R'\tJ JI)_~ ,dl~C'.I '0 ".,,- .h ;"'rfOCb,4Itd l\it'". ' .." '"...."..11."
.. _.,J...
L·...,,~ ,I. -k.J..J.lVI l>'" N.. (ni _'n",.r~ ll121clo. ".~"'(I,,,u&<-r14~)W
1"m:Q."l $l'1~~''jl.NTPI' lt~~ I" rh.·C'c'" ,I.,
'1tI1o,)1~ ~t." ~k-r.:
·n "',I\c """,".' .'\....".,., ,~·tl .....: ".u'••ly ,\to ••""t\'c!), n"' ( ""olJt,\·"""
", 1" ~''''( .~~ J' ,,) ,I' ..any In.~ .... ',... l'I,u,,"(V rft''t\t·,u. C.) ",,,s..''''.l ~IQ
..'nf.,. ,.."",'.nn: 1ft '~Ac.~*"4- ""'I ""'JI'9"" oJ ,,,i.A.I\C
..u•.:........"~· ..... I1'.. _"'. :\h)""1 ,..,.••·h~ .~I\1 ,1~ ", Jo4"u~.. Cht\'IUI)l'4t.. at ir o"'Ul'Ioltt4~· lt4J.)"'tt .... ""tf 1\'l1--.c~...
""•.Jwf,..~: J"('1I0t'1 r-'..
,c,1 "" "'t\C'\J.n'J::I~, ....,. <nt 1\'';I\C8S .,.rUnl":".4~:1'...,J4! 6ft)" cn,i~ "'*~ tftfU'1'Oj,l y f.,fJ,.$I'lkr. ""....1."
,,,,,,,,';...,. I•• ~", "lh-iU. .,t~ :'.,-,.,."'.,......., .. ,..:., .......-
.,.,J"J(., ,":.httJ~. l~nNI'.n;Ir" " ........,.~ ,. o"h,. .......J-fl:...N;I.iA-,l ,'vrP"lf¥tt
leb""~. lie 4'1f,,,lrnIIIiU 'ff I ...
Ilu....J~" ....:......_ ... •J" "'....,1\,1\\ ""I' ·"~I'\I.h." ..t4t:"o.\"I~ hl......
"lr'JIWVI 'II6f...... <C"rc~ nl
f)()C~'&:'I'TJ'7"t<>N' C'.oMrUA Nt:r; 1't'3'. A..:",- _1,1
:'ir...... , .w;;.".",~cJ..., ~"..,.t, ~1If....rtlll.Jr J...Q"JJ p.wt."AMl'n...J
\liPIIwi". Ct•••• WftW,'"' ;.w""tt "·
lNoft tn.,nl1\'''' '~¥I:,bd~ .,,,""dr••""'""'~
1'f\'I'C'I'Y T1uh,.·.J.
..~.n"'I:.... ,· ":f: ...,flIh' Wf,ul,uf\l ~:"'lm'''J','' oIr.Ur ,.,.~"'w~.., W,,"ht~"US .. nu, ·"r5&.K.
,..-..1.. •• hu"".1 "'•• )'"ndi•.,. C .",i1" ,hr- '''''I\."I''h "~:Ol~'''h
)rr.-'''-, ""d'W"Jlv'~,,
in I\ooul t'tt'l""n) I;'c /'to.. (11M I" I\t. ~.I"k.,t''''
'e.·t..llmJli Vl:..::C'~II''''''''''''' ttl",,,,r...,, .,...,....,.n. •.
'"..-0:.(
~\t" :.nl\. nft",1 ct..""""tN'J tTtlr.r.i4h¥ h:
(),,,, I't¥t1"'. t...,Jt't"'...,. ~,.~J' o.c.:Ntll'!'. ;.,..J .·.IIVU't1ntW\.("ttTIiI Hv.otevt-.. o...-.c."'"......
\:W11'r'ft11"\U "'\Jr""y St;pt'l"l" t.tC"","'O,
~f"""'I"~' ..\ "\1' I'f': .. ,-.f, ~. ~h'~'" ".I'"""'" f"'~.".'\r\f ~;...
,~ P-oI.. ,,,...I".,,,,,, ,,~,(" ·h·" ;'t1.;'I"",_" "h¥ 1':"J~'1r.,'''''U,u", ......dllt"•.»'.t.• ~'1ull\td ."'''''''10'''''''
!I"~\I'''''.J/ ... ':"\1'1." hl'r,."n....: .............d" S,r'1 :(;,,\}....
\J(f I'I6f.atwW ... elf Vlltf
"J\ ~ • '~r"""\o"~" dO:lttllt"r... ~O(,..::"., ..L"'~ r..... :-:'l,I" "'ltn t(UlI'
,f.",·.. "tc''''-'' otS)T '" rot:' c. ~C' d\",,\\.~h ~.·n",·d"·" ,"'If)"
'~" 11",...... "";1., ),ll..,.,do.t J(.:CfttrW1~1tc I"-t lit .w.'fit;',~ ,... du·,m.rnt
..... , \Curt:
..,,""'"' 'It" ,1·,...tre:, .,f•.'H· ftI4""ll<U"to ,,"f\'n#"'t")'..~Jra 111 'v'JS.. 4" li"..n~.~I.
... I~'I""'- "." ",,,·fI 1:...,_ •• :.l~'h I..lj..lht
luu....lt•..,...IIYn,,,••",J 1.,wI> ""'P"";'" .,..,. ~'" J.~.blf""'" f"'lll Uii"u,"b t~t

(. Clt.Ur<lIlN 'J\ fNr.: VlJ\N.l'~,..... ..... ~ d:.\1 ........."'.~ 'ul 4'...;" b ..".!JrJ." COIIW11 owll). .....-""" '''iIlh'';utt..~•
}IliA'" ~ fi.,"It}",
rhn. rol:, M\~ ; .. ,'r~Jt ,ft". '''''of I'"
""~,,":.e-"'r, "'4lch f/,tlP'"rmlJlN ~l'l·.rlc tuni
llf"",·n~"'&:.....r l'rh'·J.\' . .n'..
.t,·..&n'''i ""I1'....'.r "1"" ",,,,1,., ""l.,v '.'L'.'•••"''''''·''' ("hr (4;
••" ..,. ' •••• t ""~';'-'u,,; ~.~
~ .... ~\"N.. tI()' ..",.. whK,"
tt.:-tOIU(::IU.(:o~,tc V.A."'<;\~ J'h.. l "",f""" "' )••' •• dr~hft"r\! ~J b''''INk-.J r"•• JI'&IWI... lIt boP- .... L·oIt.~ 11\'.1 J'4'r'~\, ....\ l\#l'
'
':"I&JU U..., ~1 J~II:"r rM4.)'tloflll\)il'f1' II) t\'If\,...I,·: ot, .ttovrJ••p 'hv flIVI'C"'fh
...,n>lnCNA' "1W1nO~~fCN'1iV,. "A7J\.R1).':' ".h,.JJl,.. I"'''n ...,,' <h1"I)f\1 11.-.. ,1.1' I".. ·J.... " ,. ,,I.• •'."..,.. ""1"",..
I '.1••11I\. ,~, .. ~.,,'- ~•• 1' ... tll~ '''''N~'''\I'~ ,w,
J:.
.... I~ "":t"',.~\ .... ~,,..q,.» lq~"'''''y. ,hi.....w,•• 1''ul. 1Iot11Q "".W,,ha(.( (",riCh""
,.,.rMu",........... ,•.
1 ~ .mtJ :!"'" Ar"'......' "h: I'V;S U,"Io:I'r
9U..... '~ !l,;'Tt'''WI''. ~~ """,~N. ~W IJ",,,,~ ~l
10 ".,...,...... ••• ,I,.. I".".,·n\·
"'''~'''I~n' h\l" ·.I,v.ldi.:,1 \1#"".. . "'.. . ,-' ~It"."" r"" .'''''' ,,- ~ 1.J!'«i"< in tJtlf f~Il'Atb'
•• __ . _ I ...... ' •
_ . . . ._ " . ••• _
OTJt~ •
_--
.....,.... ._- -- --'-
.- - ._"
"'._ .
• • 1,to7(1'l.$ I""i-._ •.••• _
--
.... .. _./
__ .... 'I'·UtI. n ,la' '~~)t~ ~"

- _..-I __ • • • __ • - : : : : - '_._--:••_
,_...,.''1000
..
;:,"::~t::::~~~.,..t'""' ... _....... •_- It.,

........... "' ' "'&.I
312 / 545
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBITB
28
7
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY CITED IN JUDGMENT BY COURT
313 / 545
bp officejet dl3S
priDter/f.vscanaerJcopier
- -.;
Fu-His tory ltepon for
. ()c( 1:1 ~ ~:~
jast 3Q imp-t iOll

ldentificadon DoDUioD ~ b1I
US JiB :J)gc
8237218 0:29 1 OK'

Oct 19 7:17pm Fax Sem ~3ot i {)K
Oct 19 7~26pm hJ[~ Q371iil
Oct 19 8t281: n Fax Sent 8l112I8 0';" 'r or
Fax Sent 8:587842 1:30 4 OK
Oct 20 If): 1:~ 4 OX
Oct 20 1():12am Fax Sent 2784934-
2784934 1:22 4 OK
Oct 20 1():19am Fax Sent 1:20 4 OK
Oct 20 1;'23am Fax Sent 8S87842
-8!3nli l t:Z1 4 -OK
Oct 20 1 .2Sam -Fa Scm t OK'
5:1C:n IIt89S 6rm tr.4:'

Oct 20 1~:24pm F'ax sent 0:47 1 OK
8237218
Oct 20
Fa Sent
Oct 20 52flft>m Fax Sent 8237218 0:41 1 OK
Fax Sem 18189S61l33 0:37 1 OK
Oct 21 1 0:43 1 OK
Oct 21 1 :3q)lJ1 Fax Sent 8237218 £nor JIlJ1
'6:45 i
-&t li ~i9pi'D Fa-&n t 4?8!i35
1:44 2 Enur35 0
Oct 21 5USpm Fax Sent 4782135
EM; $eali . - m121& -.
0c&..2l- 'j.~39jMP
2;S4a- 7-
0
'*-
No answer
Fax Sent 8237211 0:00
Oct 22 9~~ 12:39 14 OK ***
*** Oct 22 1 t:2Oam
Fax Sent 19258927966 2 OK
141S53213QI 0:50
Fax Sent
Oct 22 11 ;S7am 4 £ft'iOI"~
Uii22§ 61it! «~
Oct 22 1 :31pm
I'M
Oct 22 l!=liIpM $eftt
Fax Sent 1213225628'1f 1":33" 4' or:
18183411897 1:10 2 OK
Oct 2S 1~:43pmFax Sent 4:39 15 OK
Oct 2S 4~1=m Fax Sent 141S259085S 0 Brrot 386
14152590866 0:37
Oct 2S 4:15 m Fax Seat Error 441
5= 14152590866 0:S6 1
Oct 25 4:lS9pm Fax Sent ~ i'S 'OK ***
--m1!i 8
***
Oct2S
Oct 25 5: ~'5em
Palrrs..- 2184OO4r- ~
l:~
g..
2
e-d
OK
Oct 2S 5.. 4pm Fax Seot 2784934 OK
8587842 1:03 2
Oct 2S 5:jIJ2pm Fax Sent 1:10 2 OK
Oct 27 9:52am Fax Sent 8237218
FAX LOG OF SAMAAN AS INTRODUCED BY SAMAAN.

MISSIONS
ALL COMMENTS IN COURIER, AND STAR NEAR SECIF IC TRANS
ARE BY JZ 11/3/ 07.
ITIES IN FAX
THIS FAX MACHINE WAS USED WITH TWO ALTERNATIVE IDENT
HEADER: SPELLBOUND, WHEN USED AS SAMAAN
ANONYMOUS - WHEN USED AS PARKS.
A STAR.
TRANSMISSION OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ARE MARKED WITH
a) THE TRANSMISSION OF OCT 22 AT 11:20 a, 14 pages :
n to
Appea rs in Coun trywi de's loan file, as if sent by Samaa
92-79 66
Count rywid e at that time, but was trans mitte d to 925-8
r page added ):
b) THE TRANSMISSION OF OCT 25 AT 5:03p , 15 pages (cove
from 509 271 7845
Appea rs in Coun trywi de's loan file, as if sent by Parks
in San Rafae l
(State o~ Wash ington ) to 415 259 0966, Count rywid e
from Samaa n in Los
(Cali forni a). As shown here, in effec t it was faxed
Angel es to her husba nd in Los Angel es
314 / 545
1 Joseph Zemik
In Pro Per
2 320 S. Peck Avenue
3 Beverly Hills, California 90212
Tel: (310) 435-9107
4 Fax: (801) 998-0917
PROO F OF SERV ICE
5 STAT E OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
over the age of 18
6 I am employ ed in the Los Angeles County, State of California, I am
is: _
years and not a party to the action; my business address
as:
7 On Novem ber 13,200 7, I served the foregoing docum ent described
8 Notice ofContractfo r Purchase ofRea l Property
by placing a
This docum ent was served on the interested party or parties in this action
pe, and addres sed as noted in
9 true copy thereo f in the finn's mail, enclosed in a sealed envelo
10 the attached mailin g list.
. Under that
[x] BY MAIL: I am familiar with processing correspondence for mailing
on that same day with postag e thereon
11 practice it is deposi ted with the U.S. Postal Service
of busine ss. I am aware that
12 fully prepaid at Beverl y Hills, California in the ordinary course date or
cancel lation
on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal
t for mailing in this
13 postage meter date is more than one working day after the date of deposi
declaration.
14 FOR ATTO RNEY S FOR PARTIES
be sent to
MILE: I caused all of the pages of the above entitled docum ent to
15 [ ] VIA FACSI ile numbe r as noted in
the recipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the facsim
and transmission
16 the attached mailing list. This document was transmitted by facsimile
17 reported comple te withou t error.
FOR COUR T FILIN G
hand to the offices of the
18 [ ] BY PERSO NAL DELIV ERY: I delivered such envelope by
addressees noted in the attached mailing list.
Zernik in Pro Per.
19 [x] BY EMAI L: Courtesy copy. Sent by email with copy to me by Joseph
20 Execut ed on Nov 13,200 7, Los Angeles, California.
nia that the
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califor
21 above is true and correct.
22 MAILING LIST:
1. NIVIE SAMAAN 2.COLDWELL BANKER + LIBOW
23 Moe Keshavarzi, Esq Rober t J. Shulki n, Esq.
SHEPP ARD MULL IN, LLP COLD WELL BANK ER
24 333 SOUT H HOPE STREE T THE LAW DEPA RTME NT
TH
25 48TH FLOO R 11611 SAN VICEN TE BLVD 9
LOS ANGE LES, CA 90049
26 LOS ANGE LES, CA 90071
FAX: (213) 620-1398 FAX: 31044 71902
27
28 Name Signature
8
CITED IN JUDGM ENT BY COURT

NOTICE OF CONTR ACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
315 / 545
NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S)
NAME. ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE
JOSEPH ZERNIK
4215 Saint George Street
E: jzI23 45@ earth link. net
T: 3104 35-9 107 F: 801 998-0917
T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR
NIA
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFOR
CASE NUMBER
JOSEPH ZERNIK
08-CV-01550-VAP-CW
PLAINTIFF (S) .
v.
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL GMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE - ACKNOWLED
OF SERVICE
DEFENDANT(S) .
nty of
that I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the Cou
1, the undersigned, certify and declare , State of California, and not a
Los Angeles, , 20 08 , I served a true copy of
April 15th
party to the above-entitled cause. On FRA UDULENT DOCUMENT- REA L
EST ATE PURCHASE CONTRACT
NTR YW IDE KEY
PlaintifTZernik's NOT ICE OF COU ivP 5(b); by
to the pers on (s) indi cate d belo w in the manner as proVided in FRC
by personally delivering it thereon fully prepaid to the followin
g:
osit ing it in the Uni ted Stat es Mai l in a sealed envelope with the postage
dep necessary.)
) served. Attach additional pages if
(list names and addresses for person(s
ia
Place of Mailing: Los Angeles, Californ , California
Executed on Apri7l.J..!tff IG , 20--,0:- .::8 at Los Angeles
service is made by mail:

Please check one of these boxes if
trict Court, Central District of
of the Bar of the United States Dis
o I hereby certify that I am a member
California. of this Court at whose direction the
in the office of a member of the Bar
o I hereby certify that I am employed
service was made.
of perjury that the fore .
IXI I hereby certify under the penalty
f Person Making Service

77t.c7-J7' & /I \l
E
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVIC
document on _
, received a true copy of the within
1,
Party Served
Signature
MENT OF SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE· ACKNOWLEDG
CV-40 (01100)
316 / 545
)
SERV ICE LIST FOR ZERN IK V CONN OR ET AL (revised 4/6/08
Sarah L Overto n
Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates
3801 University Avenue
Suite 700
Riverside, CA 92501
951-276-4420
Email: soverton@cmda-law.com
John W Patton , Jr
Pasternak Pasternak & Patton
1875 Century Park E
Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2523
310-553-1500
Email: jwp@paslaw.com
Michael L Wacht ell

Buchalter Nemer PC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457
213-891-5761
Email: mwachtell@buchalter.com
John Amber g
Bryan Cave, LLP
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Tel (310157 6-2100
Fax (3101 576-2200
Email: jwamberg@BryanCave.com
317 / 545
August 12, 2008
2415 Saint George St.
Los Feliz, CA 90027
Dear Mr. Zernik,
Enclosed is our professional opinion concerning the dates of the documents that you
furnished to us.
We are including a copy of the submitted documents, together with the professional
opinions of Robert Meister and Scott Meister.
Additionally, we are including the CV from each of us.
We appreciate this opportunity to perform our analysis and provide you with our written
opinion.
If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at,
,
(317) 443 -1616
Sincerely,
Robert Meister, FDE

Enclosures
318 / 545
Robert A. Meister
120 No Mill Creek Road, Nob1esville, IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000 * Fax: 800.786.2629
Email:experts@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.J:OtggtyJ:indgt!:.com
Questioned Date on Underwriting Letter
I have examined four (4) submitted documents. One set of documents titled, "America's
Wholesale Lender" contains two pages labeled JZ1-A and JZ1-B. Another set of documents was
also submitted titled, "America's Wpolesale Lender", containing two pages labeled JZ2-A and
JZ2-B. These two sets of documents were used to determine the date that the document was
printed and then faxed.
Today I have compared the information on the documents referenced above to determine the date
of origination and the date of faxing.
The origination date and time stamps on the JZ1-A and JZ2-A documents shows that the date is
"10/26/2004 10:44:51" for page 1. Using JZ-1B and JZ2-B documents the date for page 2 is
"10/26/2004 10:44:52".
The time imprint at the top of JZ2-A is "(TUE) OCT 26 2004 10:54" for page 1 and using JZ2-B
the time imprint at the top is "(TUE) OCT 26 2004 10:54" for page 2. It is customary for fax
machines to print the date and time received at this location, using the date and time set on the
fax machine of the receiver.
October 26, 2004 was the date that the underwriting document was originated and faxed.
I am willing to testify to this opinion in a court of law.
,
.-.
SWORN BEFORE ME on this 1ih day of August, 2008 '"'
Robert A. Meister did appear before me. ..:" ,.., ~.: "...
,.. /'\
~
- .'.~, '
.00
-' ..-
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF HAMILTON Ivrr I , Il/-."VVV ~I ~v, 0"
mary Public - 'State ofIndCina ,.

My Commission Expire's /0, I tJ':;;}qf2
319 / 545
320 / 545
Scott Meister
Forensic Document Examiners, LLC
120 N. Mill Creek Rd
Noblesville, IN 46062
Phone: (317) 441-4845 Fax: (317) 770-7788
www.forgeryfinders.com
Includes but not limited to disputed documents or signatures, including wills, checks,
contracts, deeds, account ledgers, medical records, and autograph authentication.
Education
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, May 2000

Masters of Science in Accounting, July 2001

Training completed between 10/2004 – 10/2006
Analyzed Documents from over 63 Cases in 23 States
Instructor for Handwriting University’s School of Forensic Document Examination
2006-2007


Altered Numbers
Anonymous Writing
321 / 545
Computer
Adobe Photoshop
Photocopier
Scanner
Magnifying devices
Stereo Microscope 5x-30x, with Digital Output Camera
Library

Written In Crime, Reed Hayes,
Conferences Attended
2006 Document Examination Training Conference

Dallas, Texas

Dallas, Texas

Dallas, Texas
Publications
“The Concise Technique for Forgery Detection”,

“Use of PowerPoint in Determining Document Authenticity”
“Advanced Computerized Techniques in Exhibit Preparation”
322 / 545
Robert A. Meister
Forgery Finders, LLC
120 N. Mill Creek Road
Noblesville, In 46062
Phone: (317) 770-1000 Fax: (800) 786-2629
Disputed documents or signatures, including wills, checks, contracts, deeds, account

ledgers, medical records, and autograph authentication.
Education
BS Civil Engineering, Bradley University, 1968

MS Engineering Administration, Bradley University, 1975
Certificate in Electronics, DeVry Institute, 1972

Training Completed between 10/2004 - 10/2006
Analyzed Documents from over 70 Cases in 28 States, Canada and D.C.
Instructor for Handwriting University’s School of Forensic Document Examination,
2006 - 2007


Altered Numbers
Anonymous Writing
323 / 545
Robert A. Meister, FDE Page 2
Precision Nikon Digital Camera

Precision Flat Bed Optical Document Scanner
AmScope Stereo Microscope ST60 5x-30x, with Digital Output Camera
Assorted lighting devices and measuring scales and rulers
Library

Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, Ordway Hilton, 1993
Written In Crime, Reed Hayes
Forensic Handwriting Examination, Reed Hayes 2006
Attorney’s Guide to Document Examination, Katherine Koppenhaver, 2002
Document Examination manuals from American Institute of Applied Science
Black’s Law Dictionary
Barron’s Law Dictionary
Conferences Attended & Presenter
2005 Document Examination Training Conference.

Dallas, Texas
Publications
“The Concise Technique for Forgery Detection”,

”Use of PowerPoint in Determining Document Authenticity”
”Advanced Computerized Techniques in Exhibit Preparation”
Professional Affiliations
Registered Professional Engineer, Illinois and Indiana
324 / 545
325 / 545
326 / 545
JZ1-A
327 / 545
JZ1-B
328 / 545
329 / 545
330 / 545
331 / 545
332 / 545
333 / 545
334 / 545
335 / 545
336 / 545
JZ2-A
337 / 545
JZ2-B
338 / 545
339 / 545
340 / 545
341 / 545
342 / 545
343 / 545
344 / 545
345 / 545
346 / 545
347 / 545
348 / 545
349 / 545
350 / 545
351 / 545
352 / 545
353 / 545
354 / 545
355 / 545
356 / 545
357 / 545
358 / 545
359 / 545
360 / 545
361 / 545
362 / 545
363 / 545
364 / 545
365 / 545
366 / 545
367 / 545
368 / 545
369 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills CA 90212 Tel: (310) 286-9567 Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
October 18, 2007
FBI
Fax (310) 996-3359
RE: BEYOND FINANCIAL – COUNTRYWIDE AND CORRUPTION OF THE COURTS IN LA.
Sir/Madam:
I called last night and reported to a female agent, on duty answering the phones, my allegations of corruption of the Courts
in LA, as evidenced in Samaan V Zernik, SC087400, LA Superior Court, West District.
Please accept this as notice for request to have the government join this litigation under Qui Tam laws. My estimate is
that Maria McLaurin, using a specific procedure involving Countrywide Edge Computerized Underwriting Monitoring
System, was defrauding the US Government to the tune of $0.5 billion a year in non credit worthy mortgage loans, in
violation of Regulation B of the Federal Reserve. This is just a small fraction of the fraud in the San Rafael branch under
her management. I included this claim in my opposition to Countrywide’s motion for Protective Order under the Corrupt
Judge Connor. In their reply, Countrywide did not refute this claim, only stated that my estimate may not be accurate.
I also request that Special Agent Vallese, who was assigned to this case since January 2007, but showed no interest, be
replaced.
Countrywide employees involved:

Angelo Mozilo – Chairman
Sandor Samuels – Chief Legal Counsel
Todd Boock – Attorney, Legal Department
Sandy Shatz - Attorney, Legal Department
Maria McLaurin – Branch Manager, San Rafael
Outside Countrywide:
Jae Arre Lloyd, formerly Timothy Lloyd Morrow -
Samaan’s Husband, Parks first cousin and business associate, McLaurin’s friend, the brains behind the fraud
Vitor Parks – Samaan’s Loan Broker
Judges involved:
Richard Neidorf - was not involved, but was recused to allow assignment of Connor
Jacqueline Connor – the brains behind corruption of the court
Allan Goodman – close personal friend of Sandor Samuels, continued the corrupt conduct
Biderman – marginally involved
John Segal – in cooperatain with Connor, continued the corrupt conduct
Rosenberg – Supervising Judge – West District – oversaw my physical harassment by two armed sheriffs, when I filed
complaint that he wanted withdrawn.
Stephen Czueleger – Presiding Judge
Attorneys involved:
At Bryan Cave, LLP: John Amberg, Jenna Moldawsky – attorneys for Countrywide
Ar Sheppard Mullin: Mohammad Keshavarzi, Paul Malingagio – attorneys for Samaan
At Sullivan Workman and Dee: Charles Cummings, attorney for Zernik
At Brown and White: Thomas Brown – attorney for Zernik
Zachary Schorr: attorney for Zernik
Joseph Zernik
370 / 545

Anonymous
07-12-17. Wedick's Opinion Letter re: Pasternak's Grant Deeds
EVIDENCE
OF REAL ESTATE FRAUD
&
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF TITLE
by
DAVID PASTERNAK, PURPORTED “RECEIVER”
appointed by the
LA SUPERIOR COURT
In
ALLEGED SHAM LITIGATION OF
SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)
371 / 545
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Source of Records Examined by

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

generated by Receiver
Pasternak, “Receiver” appointed
by the LA Superior Court:
5a. 12/7/2007 Grant Deed ... … 11
5b. 12/17/2007 Grant Deed, certified ... … 14
372 / 545
1. SOURCE OF RECORDS EXAMINED BY MR WEDICK
a) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed

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

This record was found upon search in the Office of Registrar
Recorder of La County, and a certified copy was obtained from
that office. No notice was served by Pasternak of this record,
and no notice was given of its entry in the office of the
Registrar/Recorder.
373 / 545
2. WHAT IS SAMAAN V ZERNIK?
It is entirely unclear what Samaan v Zernik was, and is. In part, it

defies definition, since the offices of the Presiding Judge of the
Court, Stephen Czuleger, as well as the in-house Counsel of the
Court, Mr D. Bret Bianco, and also the external counsel retained
by the Court for this matter, all refuse to answer even the most
basic questions regarding this matter:
a) Is Samaan v Zernik a true case duly registered and indexed, as required by
law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California?
b) Is Samaan v Zernik a case listed in the Calendar of the Courts, as required by
law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California?
c) Is there a judge duly assigned to this case, as required by law for a case heard
by the Superior Court of California?
d) Is there a valid, entered judgment in this case, alternatively – is there no valid,
entered judgment in this case?
In recent letter to Mr Kenneth Melson, Director, U.S. Department of
Justice, it was referred to as an “Enterprise Track” case. In his
response Mr Melson doubted that I had sufficient evidence to
prove the existence of such track in the court.
Here, Samaan v Zernik is referred to as “sham litigation”. Some
of the characteristics are: None of the judges had an assignment
order, as required by law. Therefore, none had any authority in
this case either. I appeared before the Supervising Judge of the
Court several times during litigation, with request that he issue
due assignment orders, but he refused to do so.
374 / 545
3. MR WEDICK'S RESUME'
375 / 545
JAMES J. WEDICK
WEDICK & ASSOCIATES
11230 Gold Express Drive, Suite 310 - #0364
Gold River, CA 95670-4484
916.638.3566 (Direct) 916.290.0999 (Fax)
Website: www.fraudspecialists.com Email: jwedick@fraudspecialists.com
www.FBIexpert.com
FBI INVESTIGATIONS; WHITE COLLAR CRIME; FRAUD
Early FBI Career

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

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

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

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

Lastly, in April 2004, Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT personally praised Mr. Wedick commenting his successes
represented the finest traditions in the Department of Justice. With almost 35 years experience in the FBI, Mr. Wedick was
frequently rated an exceptional employee who routinely handled the Bureau’s most complicated and sensitive investigations,
including writing/supervising both long/short term undercover proposals/operations, used/supervised criminal informants,
monitored/recorded authorized personal/telephone conversations, was long-term undercover agent, and managed a squad
FBI agents. Currently, Mr. Wedick is a licensed California Private Investigator [PI] and Certified Fraud Specialist [CFS], and
member in good standing with the Association of Certified Fraud Specialists [ACFS], Association of Certified Fraud
Examiners [ACFE], California Association of Licensed Investigators [CALI], Sacramento County Bar Association, FBI Agents
Association [FBIAA], and Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI.
376 / 545
4. OPINION LETTER OF MR WEDICK
Mr Wedick, an FBI veteran, commended by

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

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

Wedick was also provided, at his own
request, with a volume of over 500 pages of
records - a comprehensive review of Mr
Pasternak's appointment procedure and
subsequent conduct in Samaan v Zernik.
377 / 545
11230 GOLD EXPRESS DRIVE S'l'E 310 GOLD RIVER CA 95670 916.638.3566
WWW.FRAUDSPECIALIS.l.S.COM
To: Dr. Joseph Zernik
Date: January 29, 2009
From: Investigator/E
Subject: Grant Deed file Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK,

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

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

Mr. WEDICK received the FBI Director's Award for a much publicized investigation in
California that concerned several members of the California State Legislature prosecuted
for taking "bribes" with his accomplishments later cited in the U.S. Congressional
Record. Mr. WEDICK is a 34-year Bureau veteran whose performance has been praised
by U.S. Attorney General [AG] JOHN ASHCROFT as being in the "highest traditions"
of both the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice. Commenting on his many successful
investigations, AG ASHCROFT described Mr. WEDICK's pursuits as literally "models"
for other agents to "emulate."
378 / 545
And because Mr. WEDICK was responsible for the FBI's Sacramento
based white-collar-crime corruption squad, his credentials include handling some of the
Bureau's most complicated and sensitive investigations, including prosecuting the sons
of New York mobster JOSEPH CHARLES BONANNO for conducting an illicit wire
fraud scheme; convicting GILBERT W. CHILTON for orchestrating a $50 million loan
from the California State Teachers Retirement System [STRS] to a Denver con-man-all
in return for a $1 million bribe; and prosecuting Beverly Hills resident MARK L.
NATHANSON for extorting Hollywood celebrities actor/director SYLVESTER
STALLONE, music composer BURT BACHARACH, lyricist CAROL BAYER SAGER,
entertainment moguls JEFFREY KATZENBERG, BARRY DILLER, and DAVID
GEFFEN, movie producers BLAKE EDWARDS and his wife JULIE ANDREWS,
IRWIN WINKLER and MICHAEL JACKSON's business manager SANDY GALLIN.
Mr. WEDICK also is responsible for prosecuting seventeen [17] local city
council members, land owners, and developers [in the ClovislFresno area] suspected
soliciting/receiving "bribes" in exchange for favorable zoning requests-all in violation
of the federal RICO and mail fraud statutes-and designed three [3] Health Care Fraud
Initiatives responsible for prosecuting three-twenty-four [324] Los Angeles based
medical providers suspected defrauding funds totaling in excess of $228 million from
California's Medicaid Program.
Reviewing the two [2] Grant Deeds, the first reportedly dated December 7,
2007 and the second December 17,2007, Mr. WEDICK opines the very fact two [2]
Grant Deeds exist for one transaction-each containing different information-suggests
on on-going fraud requiring immediate investigation-particularly before any documents
are allowed to be filed with a court and/or funds are disbursed.
With respect to Grant Deed #1 dated December 7,2007, Mr. WEDICK

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

immediate investigation should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the circumstances
behind any fraud being committed so that appropriate local, state, and federal authorities
can be notified, including the appropriate court.
SEE ATTACHMENT
379 / 545
California All-Purpose ACknowledgment as of 1/1/08
State of California )
County of ,sAC RAMEkiTO )

On 1129!O~ before me, E. c.. H() k 0 M ,a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared, --
- , lANES ::os. WEal ClC -
who proved to me the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person Y4
whose name ($) is/aje
subscribed to the within instrument and acknry,vledged to me that he/sl'teARey executedthe same in
hisfh~ir authorized capacity ~), and that by hislAefftheir signature ~ on the instrument the
person ~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person (}) acted, executed the instrument
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
.,•.: "~~HoKOM
.-.... COMM. #1770388.
1 ~
Signature.__ ~~~=----=:..._~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
z:" .1 Notary Public,Californla ~
/ / SACRAMENTO COUNTY
~.~.' ! .1y , .•,.,,,rtl, Exp, 9!11Pt. 21, 201 1
(Area for Notary Seal)
_______________________ OPTIONAL _
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the
document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this to another document.
Further Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Attached Document _
Document Date:. _ umber of Pages, _
Signer(s) or Issuing Agency:. _
Capacity Claimed by Custodian

Signer's Name _ I.
o Individual
o
o
Corporate Officer- Title(s):.-,-
Partner - 0 Lirn ited oGeneral
_
Ii
o Attorney ill Fact
o Trustee
o
o
Guardian or Conservator
Other: _ I
Signer is Representing: _
380 / 545
5. TWO (2) FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEEDS
381 / 545
5a. 12/07/2007 FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEED
This Grant Deed was presented by DAVID

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

Judge PATRICIA COLLINS, as part of an
order that she signed on the same day at
DAVID PASTERNAK's request, and which he
entered in court file, albeit, with no notice to
the owner, Defendant ZERNIK, as required
by law.
382 / 545
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
United Title Company
Title #: 80701422-77
APN #: 4328-0024-023
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
Nivie Samaan
SPACE ABOvE THIS liNE FOR RECORDERS USC

Grant Deed
The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s):
Documentary transfer tax is $1,889.80
(X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
( ) computed on full value less of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
( ) Unincorporated area: () City of Beverly Hills
FOR A VALUABLE CONS1DERATlON, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,

Joseph H. Zernik, an unmarried man
hereby GRANT{S) to
Nivle Samaan, a married woman, as her sole and separate property
that property in The City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, State of California, described as follows:
Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the Oty of Beverly Hills, County of los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in
Book 83, Pages 94 and 95 of maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
Together with all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain Oil and Gas lease, executed by and
between sammy Narens and Lylyan Narens, as Lessor, and Standard Oil Company of California, as Lessee, recorded
September 23, 1964, as Instrument No. 3156, Official Records, Los Angeles County, Catiforla
Mail Tax Statements to Gra=n~tee=:..-"a-,--t-"a-=cdd-,--r~ess=:..--=a-,--bo-,--v-,--e=- , _

Dare November 27, 2007
~
2J 2;Q
383 / 545
/'
State of ___ ) 1 ~ T ~)(,'r __
County of ,- ft
I'~if' ~~ I~
David J. Pasternak, Receiver
On - ;.:: . 1 - --' before me, (Solely In that capacity)
I "'-- =1 \ J f> .t ,I. 1--\ v_____
a Notary Public,~rsonally appeared :.)
~',"''';,i -J- :- ):.~-.~ . ,)
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of 'r A <> ,0" <> -<> <> cOt <">.<""» C'b <> At"">, (
satisfactory eVidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) i51are

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

(typed or pnnted)
FTGIS-j4<l8/90 IS area for oIlidal nalanal seal
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
2 'LI
384 / 545
5b. 12/17/2007 FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEED
This Grant Deed was recorded by David

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

Joseph Zernik, who retrieved this Grant
Deed from the Recorder/Registrar's files a
few months later.
385 / 545
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK
12400 IMPERIAL HWY. - P.O. BOX 1024, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90651-1024
DEAN C. LOGAN
ACTING
Flegislrar-Recorder/Counly Clerk
If this document contains any restriction based on race, color,

religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status,
disability, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision
(p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and
federal Fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant
to Section 1~~956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions
under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing
or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions
based on familial status.
386 / 545
I
This page is part of YI)Ur doc unnent • DO NOT DISCARD ..
;s: 20072759874 ~g~es:
=- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ml l l l l~ I~
Recorded/Filed in Official Records Fee' 1400
'"1111111111
Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County, . .
California Tax: 1,889.80
Other: 0.00
12/17/07 AT 08:00AM
Total: 1,903.80
Tttle Company
TITLE(S): DEED
~
LEAD
III ~ III III ~
SHEET
Assessor's Identification Number (Jl.IN)

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

387 / 545
UNITED TITLe COMPANY
WESTLAKE VILLAGE BRANCH
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
United Title Company
Tille tI: 8070 1422·77 12117/07

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

ria~i~ T: ~astetnak as Receiver far JosEph V. Zernick pursuant to case number SCOB 400
hereby GRANT{S) to
Nivie Samaan, a married woman, as her sole and separale property
that property In The City ofBever~HIIS, Los Angeles [Ollnt'!, State of California, described as follows:
Lot 252 of Trac~ 7710, in the City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded In
Book 83, Pages 94 and 95 of maps, In the office of the C lur,ty Recorder of said County.
Together with all of Grantor's right, title and int,~rest in a 1d to that certain Oil and Gas Lease, executed by and
between Sammy Narens and Lylyan Narens, as Lesser, a ld Standard Oil Company of california, as Lessee, recorded
September 23, 1964, as Instrument No. 3156, Official Re :ords, Los Angeles County, Califoria
--------_.------ -_.-.- -
Date
388 / 545
.
State of
County of Lex:., A"li-c/c ';
On (I ~ .:9 'L:.. 0 '7 teforc r11e,
~~tary Public, p~Onal;Y ~~;~~ed ~/{ I" /'?J-'!~l.:.~.

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

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

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

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

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

This area for offiaal notanal seal
389 / 545
STAMP IS ON BACK OF LAST PAGE
390 / 545
March 25, 2008
THE DAILY RECORDER Official Newspaper for the Cio' ofSacran
901 H St., Suite 312, Sacramento, Calif. 95814 • (916) 444-2355 • Vol. 98, No. 58 • 75¢ • Tuesday, March 25, 2
MORTGAGE FRAUD CASES
California, the
Hotbed of
Housing Fraud
By LINDA RAPAHONI
FROM THE DA1Ll'jOlJRNAL
SACRAMENTO - California pros-
ecutors are mining a mother lode of
mortgage fraud cases, uncovering an
astonishing amount of lying and brib-
ing that took place during the biggest
housing boom si.nce World War II.
"When you do start looking, it's
amazing how widespread it is," said
McGregor Scott, the U.S. attorney in
Sacramento. "I don't think anybody has
S. TODD ROGERS I DAlLY JOURNAL
any idea how much fraud is going to be
"A lot of man-hours go into these. You have
written down here."
mUltiple Jurisdictions that are affected. An
Fueling the growth was the avail- investigation in Fresno involves a Utah-based
ability of credit and loans and a rise corporation," said McGregor Scott, U.S. attorney
in subprime mortgages aimed at buy- in Sacramento.
ers who lacked the creditworthiness
necessary for the best market rates. gia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New
The subprime market rose from 2.5 York, Ohio, Texas and Utah.
percent of the overall market in 2001 to "We need to start thinking about this
14 percent in 2005, said Kevin Baker, in terms of the savings and loan crisis
FBI supervisory special agent for the in the 1980s and Enron," said Scott,
financial crimes squad in Sacramento. who attended Mueller's meeting.
By 2006, 40 percent of all new mort- Baker said the FBI got a surge of
gages were financed subprime. complaints in 2004 from a number of
Federal law enforcement officers are financial institutions required to re-
investigating cases involving a wide port suspicious activity, such as false
range of claims, including straw buyers information on mortgage loan applica-
getting paid to stand in for people with tions or a series of mortgage transac-
bad credit, loan officers being bribed tions involving the same person, all of
by brokers to process fraudulent loans, which have a history of early payment
mortgage brokers falsifying docu- defaults, large cash outs or very recent
ments to get commissions, and buyers sales activity. The FBI didn't open
falsifying information on loan applica- many cases immediately because loans
tions and filing for bankruptcy to avoid were performing and few homeowners
loan payments. were reporting losses, he said.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told the The next year, financial institutions
nation's U.S. attorneys that mortgage referred 500 cases of suspicious activ-
fraud was "front and center" on their ity in the Sacramento region, which
,1n .. kln..1 jon 1 111111 : .. ')IiIiC __ .1 ..1 __ .L1_;1
391 / 545
Fraud C
alifornia's real estate market is the
most expensive in the nation, and
higher prices attract greater mortgage
Continued from Page 1 fraud because there is more money to be
made, he said. Central California was attract-
again to 2,000 in 2007, Baker said. ing scores of homebuyers priced out of the
California sits squarely at the epicenter real estate market in other parts of the' state,
of the sl.lbprime mortgage maelstrom. and builders were answering their demand
Los Angeles ranked first .nationwide for with large-scale developments.
mortgage fraud complaints among the Scott's counterpart in San Francisco,
56 FBI regions around the country with recently appointed U.S. Attorney Joseph P.
8,000 complaints, far outpacing Miami, Russoniello, said his office probably would
ranked No. 2 with 2,700. San Francisco see "the big slug of cases" arrive late this
tanked No.3, with 2,500 complaints, and year or early next year.
Sacramento came in at No.7. "Alameda and Contra Costa counties have
A year ago, when Scott, who oversees been identified as two of the most heavily im-
the Eastern District of California, got seri- pacted counties in the country for subprime
ous about mortgage fraud, he appointed lending, and I'm sure we're going to have
a task force headed by Assistant U.S. At- significant referrals," Russoniello said.
torney Matthew Stegman to coordinate In the Los' Angeles area, Thomas P.
efforts by various agencies, including the O'Brien, U.S. attorney for the Central Dis-
IRS, FBI, U.S. Department of Housing trict, has obtained indictments in two cases
.and Urban Development and California in which real estate agents and appraisers
Department of Real Estate. His office has defrauded lenders of $40 million by send-
obtained indictments in four cases. ing them false documents, bogus purchase
In one, a senior loan officer at Long contracts and inflated appraisals.
Beach Mortgage pleaded guilty to falsely In a separate case in November, the of-
testifying he didn't receive any money fice charged four officers of now-defunct
from a broker for processing fraudulent Mortgage One Corp. of Hesperia and M-l
loan applications when records showed Capital Corp., based in Riverside and Ran-
he got $100,000. u.s. v. Ahmad, 2:07-CR- cho Cucamonga, of defrauding government
0386. In another case in Stockton, four and private lenders of $10 million by fraudu-
men were charged with defrauding Wash- lently obtaining loans and selling the notes
ington Mutual Bank and Fremont Invest- to private lenders.' .
ment and Loan through a mortgage fraud 'We see several types of mortgage-related
scheme that asked people to buy homes frauds," said 1110m Mrozek, a spokesman
on behalf of others with bad credit. for the office. 'We also tend to do very large
Scott has another dozen cases under cases, easily among the largest in the na-
investigation. tion."
"Stockton led the nation in foreclosures, 111e typical federal case involves six to 10
and there are multiple areas in our district individuals anc! 20 to 300 properties, Baker
that are among the top 10 ill foreclosure said, 111e FBI is looking at both loan origi-
rates," he said. nation fraud, in which a borrower inflates
392 / 545
...·,r
""_ •• " j " .'-",:' .. '" ",.
.income or fails to report all debt, and corpo- rown joined other states in early
rate fraud involving subprime lenders who
were fudging their books by underreporting
the number of defaults in their loans.
B 2006 to prosecute Ameriquest Mort-
gage Co., the nation's sixth-largest
subprime mortgage company, for allegedly
Corporate fraud cases take longer to misrepresenting loan terms, which resulted
investigate, Baker said. Complicating the in a $325 million settlement.
investigations are the subprime lenders who And other government agencies are in-
went bankrupt last year, making it harder to volved, as well. The California Depal;tment
obtain loan documentation, Baker added. onustice has an "active and ongoing" inves-
"A lot of man-hours go into these," Scott tigation into mortgage fraud, said Benjaimin
said. "'You have multiple jurisdictions that Diehl, a Los Ang~les deputy attorney gen-
are affected. There's an investigation in eral in the department's consumer section.
Fresno that involves a Utah-based corpora- Malcolm Segal, a former U.S. attorney
tion." now a partner in Segal & Kirby of Sacra-
The targets of the investigations are pri- mento, said he anticipates a lot more cases
marily mortgage brokers who repeatedly to come along. He said his clients are mostly
fudged documents by, for example, falsely inclividuals and small mortgage brokerage
stating the buyers' income, employment firms or officers in national firms.
and the price of the home they were buying "Anyone who has afederal practice is get-
to get their commissions, and officers who ting calls/' said Mark Reichel, a Sacramento
were bribed by the brokers. to approve the sole practitioner, who said lawyers could see
loans, he said. a 10 percent to 25 percent increase in re-
"One lending institution, if the witnesses tainer fees. "This is just the beginning, and
are to be believed, had multiple loan officers a whole bunch more are coming."
who were involved in mortgage fraud loans Mostwhitl:X:ollar criminal defense lawyers in
and were bought off by the brokers," Scott Sacramento are one-lawyer shops like Reichel's.
said. "Forty to 50 percent of all the loans Some of his clients first contacted him ayear
were· fraudulent. This is a major lending ago and are calling now to say they believe they
institution we are talking about." are close to being indicted, he said.
Meanwhile, other government agen- "If they wanted to, the courtrooms could
cies are getting in on the action. Attorney be filled five days aweek with loan fraud and
General Jerry Brown last week shut down mortgage fraud cases,"he said. "It's an epi-
six lending companies in and around Los . demic. That's where the business is and will
Angeles that employed telemarketers, be for a couple of years."
notaries, brokers and escrow officers who Another Sacramento defense lawyer isn't
peddled fraudulent loan applications and quite so sure. Christopher Wing said he
pushed homeowners into loans they could anticipates a steady stream of cases rather
not afford. than a tidal wave.
Acourt froze the assets of Lifetime Finan- "There's only so many FBI agents, pros-
cial, Nations Mortgage, Greenleaf Lending, ecutors and probation officers," Wing said.
Virtual Escrow, Olympic Escrow and Direct "1 don't think it's going to get crazy."
Credit Solutions. Seven defendants faced Staff Writer Adam Gorlick contributed to
civil penalties and restitution of $20 million. this report
393 / 545
2415 Saint George St, Los Feliz CA 90027 Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
May 15, 2008
Mr Steven Goldman
WCCS, FBI
RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - UNSEALED PART, FRAUD BY COUNTRYWIDE, SAMAAN AND
OTHERS IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)
Mr Goldman:
Enclosed is the unsealed portion of my First Amended Complaint. I am forwarding it to you in parallel to filing it in court,
per your request. Although I am working on it as my only occupation in the last two weeks, progress was much slower
than anticipated.
Enclosed also are sealed documents filed with the Honorable C Woehrle:
a. Request for Notice of Lis Pendens
b. Evidence of adulteration of records in transfer of title on my property by Receiver Pasternak and the LA Superior
Court.
I hope to complete the main sealed portion of the complaint in the next few days, but I believe that there is plenty of data in
the unsealed portion that is worthy of your review. Please let me know if you need any additional documentation on any
particular point in this document.
In the last couple of weeks I have obtained some additional significant information in this case. I am not sure who to report
it to. Your secretary, Ann Marie, informed me that I need to file a complaint. I did file a complaint over a year ago, in January
2007, and I also submitted several hundred pages of evidence regarding Countrywide, Samaan, and others in this case at that
time. Already then I made estimates that even in a small branch, in San Rafael, California, Countrywide was funding
government-backed loans to entirely unworthy applicants to the tune of $5-10 billions a year. That was before the national interest
in Countrywide and the sub-prime industry. Agent Vallese was assigned to the case. A couple of months later, he clearly stated
that he was not interested in getting any additional information from me.
I assume that now, with the announcement in Washington DC FBI headquarters of investigation against companies in the
mortgage industry, there is interest in the subject.
Information obtained in recent weeks includes:
1) Jae Arre Lloyd – Samaan’s husband, was obviously the mind behind the all the convoluted schemes. His name
prior to 2003 was Timothy Lloyd Morrow. He has been in the finance industry for years, but never held his own
license, instead working for others, that seem not as sharp at all (here – Victor Parks). I believed all along that
there was some issue with criminal record. It now seems based on a reliable source, that the issue involved the
medical insurance and benefit funds of Skyline Funding, a real estate company based in the Valley. I could not
get additional information to confirm this detail.
My sources tell me that he amassed some fortune in the process, but it is all outside the U.S. (probably in
Europe). For that reason and others (child support delinquency) he could not show income or assets. Therefore,
the purchase was in Nivie Samaan’s name. Nivie herself probably does not own much on her own.
Also – I could not get the information regarding the litigation relative to the Skyline Funding. I believe that he
made concerted efforts to expunge records, etc. It appears that he managed to get away with a lot in that
litigation, and figuring out the parties and counsels may provide very important in formation.
2) Nivie Samaan claims that Victor Parks is Lloyd’s first cousin, but I cannot get that confirmed, on the contrary, I got
suggestions that it was not true. What is the advantage of being considered cousins? Is Victor Parks related to
Bernard Parks? Could not confirm any of it.
3) Jae Arre Llyod – started recently carrying a gun openly during his work day. He explains the need for it –
protection against Joseph Zernik. For the record, although I served in a combat unit in the Israeli army, and I am
very well trained in arms, I never held a gun at home as a matter or principle, and I am not going to change that
anytime soon.
394 / 545
Page 2/2 May 15, 2008
4) Sustain - I believe that you do not have any authority to investigate conduct of the LA Superior Court, etc.
Regardless, I am providing you with the data, so that you have the complete picture. I believe that it was written
over 20 years ago in dBase, a data bases management package by Ashton-Tate. Ashton-Tate had a major
development center in LA County at the time, and if you get hold of anybody who worked there, you would be
able to figure things out very fast. I believe that Sustain, the way it is operated in the West District was
compromised after the initial launch, and that the initial launch was a legitimate software package, but that is just
my guess.
5) How did Judge Connor get on this case? – I suspect that her assignment order is a document that was tampered
with. I present in the complaint evidence that since day one (Jan 30, 2006) she was engaging in dishonest
conduct in this case . Who was the party who got her on? Initially I assumed it had to be Countrywide, since I
assumed Samaan and Lloyd did not have the required funds. I now re-assess that estimate, and I tend to believe
that it was Jae Arre who was directing the LA Superior Court scheme from the beginning, and Countrywide got
involved only once I filed a subpoena for documents from them in early 2006. I tend to believe that Jae Arre had
the necessary connection in the LA Superior Court from his Skyline Funding trial, but I did not have the time or
resources to figure out much more than that.
Joseph Zernik
Cell 310 435 9107
Cc: Judge C. Woehrle
395 / 545
CONGRESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IN RE: FBI, DOJ
Congresswoman Diane Watson in re: FBI

Aug 8, 2008, Congresswoman Diane Watson's - Letter to
Constituent in re: Inquiry with FBI ................... 1
July 30, 2008, FBI Assistant Director Kenneth Kaiser's

Response in re: FBI lack of response to Zernik's
complaints. .................. 2
Senator Diane Feinstein in re: FBI

Sept 8, 2008, Senator Diane Feinstein's - Letter to
Constituent in re: Inquiry with
FBI ................... 3
Aug 21, 2008, FBI Assistant Director Kenneth

Kaiser's Response in re: FBI lack of response to
Zernik's complaints. ................... 4
396 / 545
Congresswoman Diane Watson in re: DOJ
Aug 15, 2008, Congress Diane Watson's - Letter to Dept of
Justice Becker in re: Zernik's request for Special
Counsel ................... 5
DOJ response to Congresswoman Watson - Pending
Senator Diane Feinstein in re: DOJ

July 25, 2008, Senator Diane Feinstein's - Letter to Dept of
Justice Benezkowki in re: Zernik's request for Special
Counsel ................... 6
Sept 23, 2008, Senator Diane Feinstein's Letter to Constituent

in re: DOJ response to inquiry DOJ .................... 7
Sept 9, 2008, DOJ Director Kenneth Melson's Response

in re: DOJ lack of response to Zernik's request for
Special Counsel in re: Integrity of Operation of LA
Superior Court ................... 8
397 / 545
DIANE E. WATSON FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
CALIFORNIA Subcommittee 011 AfrlCrl and Global Health
Subcommittee eJrl ASia the PAClfll' zmrl

VVASHING rON OFFICF the G loti a I F II V I r U II III e ~ il
125 CAr--Jf\Jor'J BU!l L,IN' J
\N!-\SHI~,J(J [UfJ, DC 20515

OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNME-NT
(202) 225 708<+
1202\ 22r; 24)] I, ". I
(£Oltgrcss ltf tl1c 1111itrll ~tatrs RE-F ORM COrv1rv1ITTtT
"::,(Itl' I ,Iql1 ill ';c-, iili 0, lil'Pstl" ~"I/I
~llll9C 11£ [J{c~lrcn.entntittc6

UIS] r::<IC T (jf til' C
~t32~) \Al" ~,~4"~L B, ' i : ' ;.f'l

DtMOCR/\ TIC 8EGIONAL \iVHIP
Fi\ii ,r;l lUi
L \'-, A f\J' ,f ! I' CA '::) iJ() 10
I 3:; 3) 965 1~ 2 :; CHf'.IR COllqrpSS!,lflal ElltprtalrirllE:nl
13231 '::l6i) 111] 'f ',,- I[, d I J ~, t r I esC (1 U( II S
.t~ I I I'" ~ '..\ c, r
August 8~ 2008
Dr. Joseph Zemik

2415 St. George Street
Los Feliz.. CA 90027
Dear Dr. Zemik:
1\1y office received a response rt:garding the inquiry we made on your behalf. For further
assistance please follow the instructions on the letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and forward your information to the office listed in their letter.
Sincerely~
~'.Ir~
Diane E. Watson
Member of Congress
Printed 011 Recycled Paper
398 / 545
u.s. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D. C 20535-0001
July 30, 2008
Honorable Diane E. Watson

Member of Congress
Room 302
4322 Wilshire Boulevard
Dear Congresswoman Watson:
I am writing in response to your June 4, 2008, letter to the Department of Justice

which was forwarded to the FBI for response.
In order for the FBI to initiate an investigation of any complaint we receive,

specific facts must be set forth to indicate that a violation of federal law within our investigative
jurisdiction has occurred. Altl10ugh Mr. Zernik has made numerous allegations, there are
insufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of federal law wit11in our investigative jurisdiction or
to support the initiation of an FBI investigation.
If Mr. Zernik has further details to support his allegations, he should provide them
directly to the FBI's Los Angeles Office located at 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700,
Los Angeles, California 90024, telephone number (310) 477-6565.
I hope this information will be helpful in responding to Mr. Zernik.
Sincerely yours,
\{L; " v . ,~H C___ f/C <
Kenneth W. Kaiser
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
399 / 545
09/10/2008 10:54 3239551113 CONGRESSWOMAN WATSON PAGE 03/03
F=OREIGN I\FFAIRS COMMITTEE
DIANE E. WATSON
CALIFORNIA 5vbeon'lmitt!& on Alrlc! alld GIQb~1 H~.llh
SLlbeommlttee on A~i •• the I'Milie nnd

o WASHINGTON OFFICE, the Grob~1 I;nwl,onmAnt
125 CANNON 8UILDING
WASHiNGrON. DC 205! 5
OVERSIG,",i ANO GOVERNMENT
1.202) 225·70S4
(2021 2.2!;l-'I422 (FAX I Cltnugreas af tqe '1uittit ~tafes RSFOAM COMMITTEE
SUbcommltt"'A an Domoatic PolicV
o OIS~ICT O~~ICE:
iiinus!! of ittpttll.entatiuc,a
4322 WII.SHIRF, BoUlEVAFlD
Rl;!oM.l102 DEMOCRATIC REGIONAL WHIP
Los M<:le.F.s. CA 900 10
(323) 965-1422 CHAIR. COnSlr'lS~;onl'l Entertainment
13231 965· 1113 (FAX) Industries CMlCl,Js
WWW.HO\JS~.ijOV/WATsaN
August 15,2008
Grace C Becker
Acting Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, 20530 DC
I am writing on behalf ofDr.loseph Zemik, a constituent in my district. As indicated in
his letter to my office, he made a request about two months ago, but did not receive a response.
It would be appreciated if you would review the enclosed documents and respond to Dr. Zernik,
with a copy to my district office.
Sincerely,
Diane E. Watson
Member of Congress
cc: Dr. Joseph Zemik

2415 St. George Street
Los Feliz, CA 90027
400 / 545
Ptil'l•• d on R6Cvclad ~~por
DIANr~E FE'~STEIN
'United ~tatrs ,5rnatr

WASHINGTON DC 22511)0504
11ttp fe:I'steI11 ser i1te.~ov
September 8, 2008
Mr. Joseph Zernick

2415 St George St
Dear Mr. Zernick:
I am forwarding on to you the response I lave received from the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about your case. We will continue to monitor your
case with the Department of Justice.
I hope that this response from the FBI is helpful and that the information
outlined in it will clarify the situation for you. If you have further questions, or if
there is any way my office can help you in the bJture, I hope you will contact me
again.
./-""\ .. Sincerely, ~.'

(0"""'I \~ ,,(; . ....,
. ~:.t. ~) ~~p-,
J •
" . ./ Dianne Feinstein
../ United Slates Senator
DF:mn
SAN DIEGO OFi'ICE

• r,1 ' _ I:'> •• ";-'.
S ,. ,'·Elu
401 / 545
I
D,f 1 l>'" «'11:.~

.J
Federal Bureau of Investigation
\Va;hington, D. C. 20535-000 I
August 21, 2008
Honorable Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator
Suite 2450
One Post Street
San Francisco. CA 94104
Dear Congresswoman Feinstein:
I am writing in response to your July 25, 2008 letter to the FBI on behalf of your
constituent, Mr. Joseph Zemick, who alleges corruption in the Los Angeles Superior Courts.
Although Mr. Zemick has made numerous allegations, there are insuHicicnt facts to
demonstrate a violation of federal law within our investigative jurisdiction or to support the initiation
of an FBI investigation. In order for the FBI to initiate an investigation of any complaint we receive,
specific facts must be set forth to indicate that a violation of federal law within our investigative
jurisdiction has occurred.
In the past, Mr. Zemick has been in contact with the FBI's Los Angeles Office and
the Central District of Califomi a United States Attomey's Office regarding these same allegations. In
addition, Mr. Zernick has requested various other elected representatives to contact the FBI and the
Department of JuSlice on his behalf regarding these same allegations.
If Mr. Zernick has further details to support his allegations, he should provide them
directly to the FBI's Los Angeles Office located at 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Federal
Office Building, Los Angeles, California 90024-3672, telephone number (310) 477-6565.
I hope this information will be heloful in responding to Mr. Zernick.
Si rlcerely yours,
V ~
vt~A/ltu.
Ken~eth W. Kaiser
A~;sistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
402 / 545
DIANNE FEINSTEIN COMMITIEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CALIFORNIA COMMITIEE ON THE JUDICIARY
COMMITIEE ON RULES AND
ADMINISTRATION-CHAIRMAN
%:lntted ~tate5 ~enate SELECT COMMITIEE ON INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504
http://feinstein.senate.gov
July 25, 2008
r':) /7-"0.,. r~ \\f

I i ,
'.
.; .' .'
.' ," J)
/
't
'\ ,- ~
.:
' ....
j
Dear Mr. Benczkowski:
I am writing to bring to your attention a letter from Mr. Joseph Zemick

regarding his request for a response to the letters he submitted to the U.S.
Department of Justice. Please look into the issues raised, as quickly as possible, so
I can appropriately respond to Mr. Zemick.
Attached you will find the enclosures from my constituent to assist you with
your review. After you have completed your review, please send your written
response to Mirella Nieto of my San Francisco office. Ms. Nieto may be contacted
by phone at (415) 393-0707, or by fax at (415) 393-07] 0, if you have any
questions.
Sincerely, ~ "
IM.,.~~
Dianne Feinstein
DF:mn
FRESNO OFFICE LOS ANGELES OFFICE: SAN DIEGO OFFICE: SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE:
2500 TULAHE- STREET 11111 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 750 B S fREET ONE POST STREET
SUITE 4290 SUITE 915 SLITE 1030 SUITE 2450
403 / 545
FRESNO, CA 93721 Los ANGELES, CA 90025 SAN D,EGO, CA 92101 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
(5591 485-7430 13101 914-7300 1619\ 231-9712 (415', 393-0707
:::,;'J>JNE FEli\iSTEI,\
.... r ~ (~r '\
:=,~v1~ ..1,:EE C\, ~""E JUDiCiAR'-
~~:J~. n.1:T:EE I:'\j ~'_,LES .~r~D
,~[)MI'JI.sT,~ A -'O~J -, '~f-jAIRM ',I,

llnircd ~tJtes ;Senate r:~-' :)\'11\,1 ,r -r:-F ~~ \,"1 L I,~
WI"ISHINGTON, DC 2D510-0504
htto)' feinstein.sende gov
September 23, 2008
Mr. Joseph Zernick

2415 St George St
Dear Mr. Zernick:
I am forwarding on to you the response I have received from the U.S.

Department of Justice about your case.
I hope that this response is helpful and that the information outlined in it will
clarify the situation for you. If you have further questions, or if there is any way
my office can help you in the future, I hope you will contact me again.
~
,
SinCere~y,:;
,
Dianne Feinstein
I~'"
l.~
,
DF:mn
~RES!\JO OFFICF LOS ANGELES OFFICE SMJ OliGO OFFICE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
S,r;t->- " ", i S/', -'\ \.lr ' B :.::.: 7SC t:s S-'-Pl : f"l ~-:; [ 1-<;,,1
;> ,1 ~)I",
404 / 545
S' ,:'1 lLT 5, f- Y1 ~ 51 ,'r 1 (.'J,'J SI I,
I': .:\ \"" t'~ Cl1 :jO07~ S,,' C,.'J, q,' ! -'\.
::).;.:.,~, ~"n j'4 730r) t;; Cj :='3 41'

Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Office of the Director Room 2261, RFK Main Justice Budding (202) 514-2121
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
lVashll1gron, DC 20530
SEP 09 Z008
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein S~rl i-TcHC¥&f ~r Oil'lCe

One Post Street, Suite 2450 SEP 1 7 2008
San Francisco, CA 94104
Action~"=~=._".,.,,,,, ,-=,"",
Attn: Mirella Nieto
Dear Senator Feinstein:
This responds to your letter dated July 25, 2008, to the Office of Legislative Affairs,
regarding your constituent, Joseph Zernik. Mr. Zernik asserts that the "Enterprise Track"
procedures for real estate foreclosure cases in the Los Angeles Superior Court violate his civil
rights and have resulted in his being improperly fined. He also complains that he has been
prevented from inspecting and copying records of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Mr. Zernik's claims are currently pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in civil action 2008cv01550. The action names Superior Court
judges and clerks as defendants. Because the issues are pending before that court, it would be
improper for us to comment on those issues.
Mr. Zernik states that he has already been in contact with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Central District of
California. Legal and ethical constraints prevent us from discussing the status of any matter
under consideration by a USAO, other than facts of public record. Please be assured, however,
that United States Attorneys' Offices take all allegations of criminal conduct very seriously and
carefully review any investigative evidence presented to suppoI1 such allegations. We encourage
Mr. Zernik to continue to provide information that evidences criminal conduct to the FBI.
We hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. Please do not

hesitate to contact the Department of Justice if we can be of assistance in other matters.
Sincerely,
Kenneth E. Melson
Director
405 / 545
09-07-31-att-fontana-la-sheriff-marina-judgment-verification
09-07-31 Meet & Confer with Att McCormick for LA Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe.
Kevin M McCormick
Attorney for Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles
& Attorney for Judge David Yaffe
Benton Orr Duval & Buckingham
39 North California Street
P O Box 1178
Ventura, CA 93002-1178
805-648-5111
kmccormick@bentonorr.com
TIMELY RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5:00 pm, MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2009
RE: Marina v LA County (BS109420) – LA Superior Court;

Fine v Sheriff (2:09cv01914) – U.S. District Court, LA;
Fine v US Dist Ct, LA (09-71692) – U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th circuit
Meet and Confer in RE: Motion for Relief & and Immediate Release of Falsely
Jailed Att Richard Fine - Request for copies of any record of March 4, 2009
Judgment, and/or Register of Actions that were the legal foundation for the
actions of the Sheriff Department in this case.
Attorneys McCormick:
Please accept this letter as part of my Meet & Confer efforts. Your timely response is
requested so that we may avoid burdening the courts again with this matter. Please let me
know if you intend to respond by Monday, August 3, 2009, 5:00pm.
Initial Meet & Confer letter was sent after I discovered the defect in the purported Judge
David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt1,2,3 against Att Richard Fine. You were
informed of one of the inherent defects in both copies of the purported Judge David Yaffe
March 4, 2009 Judgment viewed by me to date (Copies #1, #2 - Footnotes #1, #2,
respectively). Such Judgment bears a FILED stamp of the LA Superior Court dated March 4,
2009. Copy #1 of the Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment was incorporated as an
1
Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt, Copy #1: Att Richard Fine’s
Habeas Corpus Petition, U.S. Dist Crt, LA (Dkt #1) as recently seen in Pacer:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-03-04-judgment-
contempt.pdf
2
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-
contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
3
Party in Interest Dr Joseph Zernik, and likewise Att Richard Fine are yet to gain access to
authenticated copies of any of the U.S. Court records discussed here.
406 / 545
z Page 2/2 July 31, 2009
exhibit in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Att Richard Fine, bearing a FILED stamp of the U.S.
Dist Crt, LA, dated through hand-alteration March 20, 2009. However, both Copy #1 and
Copy #2 of the Judgment are dated Mach 24, 2009 by hand-writing pertaining to and
adjacent to the verification attributed to Judge David Yaffe.
In the course of Habeas Corpus litigation, Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County

(2:09cv01914), the Sheriff Department named by jailed Att Richard Fine as Respondent,
effectively refused to respond, and never filed in court any record that could have allowed the
Magistrate in that case “to inquire into the legality of the prisoner's detention”,
and for the imprisonment to “be shown to conform with the fundamental
requirements of law” pursuant to Fay v Noia (1963) pp. 401–402.
The Court and Judge David Yaffe, as well, failed to respond, filing an insufficient
pleading, based on declaration by counsel alone, and including the defective judgment
record described above.
Therefore, please accept this letter as a request that you inform me as soon as possible
whether the parties represented by you had in their possession on March 4, 2009, or any
time after that, the essential legal records to establish that the imprisonment of Att
Richard Fine conformed with the fundamental requirements of the law:
1) A valid March 4, 2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, and
2) A Register of Actions of underlying case - Marina v LA County (BS109420)
If parties represented by you indeed holds such records, please provide me with copies as
soon as possible.
Dated: July 31, 2009 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
________________________
By: Joseph H Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV, CA 91750
Tel: (323) 515 4583; Fax: (801) 998 0917;
jz12345@earthlink.net
CC:
Richard I. Fine
(By USPS first class mail & by email to mm)
Prisoner Attorney (1824367)
Pro Se Petitioner
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
Twin Towers
450 Bauchet St.
407 / 545
09-08-01-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-request-for investigation
09-08-01 Request for investigation in RE: Concerns regarding docketing, maintenance of
Court records, and conduct of clerical staff, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
Terry Nafisi
District Court Executive and Clerk of Court
(by email and by priority certified mail, restricted delivery)
312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8
terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
Timed response requested by Wed, August 5, 2009, 5:00pm.

Clerk Nafisi:
Please accept this letter as my request for investigation in re: Concerns regarding docketing,
maintenance of Court records, and conduct of clerical staff at the U.S. District Court, Los
Angeles in the following cases:
1) Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-cv-01914), and
2) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
The two cases are jointly reported, since in both cases, the key persons involved included:
1) Magistrate Carla Woehrle
2) Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas
3) Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer.
For both cases request was also filed for access to NEFs to inspect and to copy, and
additional concerns may be raised following review of the NEFs.
Time is of the essence, preliminary response is requested by Wed, Aug 5, 2009, 5:00 pm:
a) Whether the Clerk of the Court intends to take any action relative to instant
complaint?
b) If so – what is the estimated time for completion of such review?
c) If the complaint is reviewed – would complainant Joseph Zernik be notified
of the results of such review?
d) Is there any other specific procedure at the Court for filing complaints on
such matters?
e) Request is herein filed for access pursuant to Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978) to the Docket Activity Reports and to the
Calendar of the Courts, relative to both actions, to inspect and to copy.
1) Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-cv-01914)
Dr Zernik got interested in the case only when it was close to the end of the legal review
process. Accordingly, Dr Zernik uncovered the issues of concern listed below, only very
recently – after the legal review process was completed. Given the central significance of the
408 / 545
record in (a) below, concern is that any untowardly event related to such record could have
resulted in perversion of justice, and the ongoing jailing of a person which should have been
released from jailing.
a)Purported Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt1,2,3
appearing as part of the record (Dkt #1, Dkt #16).
Such judgment for contempt against Att Richard Fine is the central document in
the entire case. Concerns are raised regarding the validity of both copies of the
record, which appear in the docket. However, primary concern in this letter rests
with Cope #1, and the possibility that it was adulterated after being filed as a
record at the U.S. District Court, LA.
Inherent defect is apparent in both copies of the purported Judge David Yaffe
March 4, 2009 Judgment included in litigation records in this case (Copies #1, #2
- Footnotes #1, #2, respectively). Such Judgment bears a FILED stamp of the LA
Superior Court dated March 4, 2009. Copy #1 of the Judge David Yaffe March
4, 2009 Judgment was later incorporated as an exhibit in the Habeas Corpus
Petition of Att Richard Fine, bearing a FILED stamp of the U.S. Dist Crt, LA,
dated through hand-alteration March 20, 2009. Copy #2 was filed as an exhibit
on May 1, 2009. However, both Copy #1 and Copy #2 of the Judgment are dated
Mach 24, 2009 by hand-writing pertaining to and adjacent to the verification
attributed to Judge David Yaffe on the last pages of the respective Copy #1 and
Copy #2 of the purported judgment records.
Att Fine reports that the copy that he provided for submission with Dkt #1, had
no date entered in it.
The docketing text of Dkt #1 refers to changes or modifications in the records
that took place on March 24, 2009, albeit, the exact nature of the modification is
not spelled out.
On July 20, 2009 I raised such concerns regarding the purported March 4, 2009
record with Ms Sharon McGee, Supervisor of Operations in the Clerk’s Office.
She promised me to look into the matter.
On July 27, 2009 I discussed the matter with Ms McGee again. At that time she
informed me that she concurred with my opinion that there was reason for
concern in this regard, and she informed me that she raised the issue with the
court of Magistrate Woehrle.
b) Table of Contents of exhibits that were filed with Petition to California
Court of Appeals, 2nd District, and incorporated as part of record (Dkt #1) 4
1
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-03-04-judgment-
contempt.pdf
2
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-
contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
3
Party in Interest Dr Joseph Zernik, and likewise Att Richard Fine are yet to gain access to
authenticated copies of any of the U.S. Court records discussed here.
409 / 545
The titles of 4 exhibits: #4,5,6,7 are missing in the record that is today seen in
Pacer, and no Exhibit Numbers are shown. Due to very limited communications
opportunity with jailed Att Richard Fine, I did not have the opportunity to review
the issue with him prior to this date. However, I am forwarding to him a copy of
this letter, hoping that he respond and state what was the nature of the respective
page in the document that he provided for filing in court.
c) Letter dated March 20, 2009 included as part of the record (Dkt #1) 5
Letter dated March 20, 2009 from Deputy Clerk Chris Sawyer to Att Richard
Fine could not possibly be part of the filing by Att Richard Fine, and it is unclear
why it is represented as such.
d) Notice of Reference to a Magistrate Judge (Dkt #2)
The assignment to a judge is listed per GO 07-02.
Concern is that no such General Order could be found.
e) Notice of Clerical Error in re: Stamp FILED on Dkt #1 (Dkt #3)
The docketing text states:
03/24/2009 3 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: On the petition the date was March
19, 2009, which is incorrect. The correct date is March 20, 2009. (rn) (Entered:
03/24/2009)
Concern is regarding confluence of unusual events relative to Dkt #1 on March
24, 2009.
f) Notice of Clerical Error in re: Assignment to judge (Dkt #4)
The docketing text states:
03/25/2009 4 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error the Case has
been reassigned from Judge Dean D. Pregerson to Judge George H Wu for all
further proceedings. The case will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV
09-01914 GW (CW). (rn) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
Concern is that in fact recusal of a judge, or undoing of invalid assignment, which
were not Clerical Errors were incorrectly recorded.
2) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
a) Case numbering – unusual clustering with unrelated cases, which on its
face appears in violation of FRCP Rule 79 (a)(1)
Select a case:
2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al (closed)
2:08-mj-01550-DUTY USA v. Martinez (closed)
5:08-cv-01550-SGL-OP Hector Martinez v. Litton Loan Servicing LP et al
(closed)
b) Adulteration of Plaintiff’s summons, and docketing of false and
deliberately misleading summon as part of court records in Pacer (Dkt
#1).
4
TOC of Exhibits that were part of a petition filed with California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, appears
as p42, Dkt #1-2:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-03-02-petition-to-
cal-ct-app-2nd-toc-exhibits.pdf
5
Letter dated March 20, 2009 from Deputy Clerk Chris Sawyer to Att Richard Fine.
410 / 545
On the day of filing the complaint, Plaintiff presented Pro Se Clerk, Chris
Sawyer, with valid Summons. Mr Sawyer refused to verify and issue such
summons, and insisted on generating on his own, out of compliance with Rules
of Court, false and deliberately misleading summons, which he then proceeded to
docket under the complaint in Dkt #1. Such conduct should be deemed upon
review obstruction of justice, denial of access to the court and to fair trial.
c) Notice of Reference to United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt #4)
The assignment to a judge is listed per GO 07-02.
d) Order Returning Case For Reassignment Upon Recusal (Dkt
#6, #7,#8, #9, #10)
The re-assignment to a magistrate judge is listed per GO 07-02.
e) Long delays I docketing of Plaintiff’s papers, and other irregularities,
resulting in substantial divergence of the records from ordinal sequence.
As a result of various delays imposed only on Plaintiff’s papers, at times over a
month, the docket shows records that diverge substantially from ordinal
sequence.
f) Docketing of unrelated papers under the same record number and the
same docketing text (Docket #52, #56, #58)
Concern is that such conduct resulted in the concealment of critical records.
g) Failure to docket records with Pacer header security blue imprint
A number of records were docketed with no blue header imprint, at times, such
inadequate docketing was corrected after complaints were filed with FBI.
h) Proofs of Service of Summons and Complaint (Dkt #43)
False records were docketed.
i) Proofs of Service of Summons and Complaint (Dkt #43)
False recording under Related Transactions.
j) Judgment (Dkt #107)
False registration as seen in Related transactions – unrelated to Complaint (Dkt
#1), which was left unterminated.
3) Concerns applicable to both cases
a) Allowing filing of papers by attorneys with no Notices of Appearances by
Counsel
At least in one case – filing of papers by Bryan Cave, LLP for Countrywide, the
evidence is rather conclusive that Bryan Cave, LLP, was never authorized to
appear as counsel of record in court for either Countrywide or Bank of America.
Instead, Bryan Cave, LLP and Countrywide and/or Bank of America Corporation
engaged in what must be deemed upon review repeat of conduct that was
rebuked by the Hon Jeff Bohm, U.S. Judge, Texas, and which Countrywide
411 / 545
promised that Court not to repeat (case of Borrower Parsley, No 05-90374,

Memorandum Opinion (Dkt #248).
b) Failure to provided adequate Corporate Disclosures in a timely manner,
and/or inclusion of Corporate data from unknown sources.
The court failed to enforce the law in re: Corporate Disclosures, and included
corporate data from unknown sources.
c) Use of manual stamps versus electronic stamps “FILED”.
In both cases certain records were stamped “FILED” using a manual stamps
instead the elecronic stamps most commonly used at the court. Concern is that
such stamps on such records represented retroactive stamping of the records.
d) Delegation of the Clerk’s authority to Courtroom Assistant.
In both cases certain clerical functions were carried out by Ms Donna Thomas,
who is upon information and belief Courtroom Assistant. Concern is whether
such functions are indeed delegated to Courtroom Assistants by the Clerk of the
Court.
e) Participation of Deputy Clerks, knowingly, in docketing records that
may not be authentic court records
Concern is regarding conduct of deputy clerks or courtroom assistants, which
may constitute docketing of records, which on their face were not authentic court
records, e.g. – summons in Zernik v Connor et al. Such conduct that may have
taken place, may be deemed upon review production of false and deliberately
misleading litigation records, and obstruction of justice and/or perversion of
justice.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
412 / 545
f) Participation of Deputy Clerks, knowingly, in Court conduct that may

not be legitimate court procedure, and that may be deemed upon review
as abusive on its face.
Concern is regarding conduct of deputy clerks or courtroom assistants, which
may have involved participation in court conduct that out of compliance with
authentic, valid, court procedures, and may be deemed upon review as abusive in
nature, e.g. – Discrepancy procedures in Zernik v Connor et al, which were never
recorded by the court, but were recorded by plaintiff as “Perverted Discrepancy
Procedures” (Dkt #105).
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Dated: August 1, 2009 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
________________________
By: Joseph H Zernik
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV, CA 91750
Tel: (323) 515 4583; Fax: (801) 998 0917;
CC:
Richard I. Fine
(By USPS first class mail & by email to mm)
Prisoner Attorney (1824367)
Pro Se Petitioner
Twin Towers
450 Bauchet St.
413 / 545
09-08-22 Request for an opinion letter by fraud expert, decorated, veteran FBI agent James
Wedick
Hi Jim:
First – the good news is that a public non-profit organization, committed to Civil
Rights (not ACLU), informed me that they will provide me with legal assistance
starting September 2009. As you know, I have been on my own for a couple of
years now, with no qualifications in the law at all. I hope that such assistance would
allow me to gain some level of normalcy in my life. It also encouraged me, since it
meant that review of my claims and my positions by professionals found them to be
of high public policy significance, and hopefully also – a strategy and choice of
subjects that present an opportunity to prevail.
Recently, I consulted with you in re: my plans to provide evidence in one of the
international courts in re: severe, long-term Human Rights abuses by the Justice
System in LA County, and failure of the U.S. Government to comply with
International Law.
You suggested that I try to convince federal authorities to take action instead. I was
not inclined to take that route, since I have already taken the case up to Washington
DC last year, which you may have not been aware of. However, in recent days, I
reconsidered my position.
1) New circumstances have recently emerged.
A unique situation emerged I believe in LA: FBI Office Head retired, and the
Office of U.S. Attorney, Central District of California is vacant. Therefore, it may
be easier for U.S. Attorney General to take action, if he chooses to do so.
On the other hand, last year, two senior U.S. Officers in Washington DC,
Kenneth Kaiser and Kenneth Melson engaged, I alleged, in fraud on U.S.
Congress, in their responses to inquiries by Senator Feinstein and
Congresswoman Watson on my behalf.
However – a new Attorney General was appointed since then, after election of
President Obama. We hope and we trust that all U.S. Attorneys General have
the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution as their guiding principles, and that the
staff of the office of Attorney General, and leadership of FBI act accordingly.
2) Attempt is to create a noteworthy precedent – overturning of an alleged corrupt

court judgment.
I selected what appeared to be the best case to allow U.S. Attorney General to
reverse an allegedly corrupt court judgment - the false imprisonment of Att
Richard Fine. The fraud in the judgment, in my opinion, is a kid’s play to figure
out, but as was the case in the past, nobody except you, would dare issue such
an opinion.
414 / 545
However, you too fell under undue pressure last year after issuing an opinion
letter that found fraud in operation of the LA Superior Court. Therefore, instant
letter is also forwarded as a certified, personal & confidential, restricted delivery
letter, to Att General Eric Holder, and the Chairs of the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees, John Conyers, Jr, and Patrick Leahy. They are requested
to ensure that you are not subjected to undue pressure by FBI or any other U.S.
or California State agency if you agree to engage in review of the matter at hand.
Overturning even one such allegedly corrupt case, like the false jailing of Att
Fine, can be critical in demonstrating that U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, is
ready, willing, and able to enforce the law and the U.S. Constitution in LA
County, California. There were too many examples to the contrary in the past
two decades, which may have led local branches of federal government, or state
and local government, to assume that they are outside the sphere where the
U.S. Constitution is applicable.
I also believe that the case of falsely jailed Att Richard Fine is one where
enforcement is relatively easy – an order to release Att Richard Fine from false
jailing by the Sheriff of LA County. Furthermore, if such release is accomplished
it would have substantial impact on the underlying issue, which led to the jailing
in the first place – the “not permitted” payments, about $45,000 per judge per
year, secretly taken for over a decade by ALL ~450 LA County judges. Att Fine
was vocal in his efforts to stop such payments, and his treatment by the court is
largely seen as retaliation for his opposition to what was called by media
“bribes”.
Moreover, the March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine, where
your opinion is requested, in and of itself, is not under review by any court at this
time. Most recently, the 9th circuit Court of Appeals permitted Att Richard Fine to
appeal the case of Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) – but only
on the limited question of disqualification of “trial court judge”. In my opinion,
that transaction, under caption of Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County, which took
place in the court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle was not at all, an authentic case
of the U.S. District Court (see below). Therefore, I perceive the deliberately
ambiguous order,1 permitting such limited appeal, as further abuse of Att Richard
Fine by the justice system.
If you decide to review the question at hand, and then issue the requested
opinion letter, I intend to forward that letter to the same parties – U.S. Attorney
General, and the Chairs of the Judiciary Committees, and request that they
finally take immediate action to stop the false jailing of Att Richard Fine.
If Att Fine is released thanks to such opinion letter that you may agree to issue
upon review of the matter, it would be a historic day for justice in California.
Rumor had it that Chief Justice of California Supreme Court, Ronald George,
was determined to have Att Fine remain jailed. Therefore, there was no chance
1
Aug 12, 2009 Justice Kleinfeld Order, in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (09-56073) permitting appeal
ONLY on a limited question.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sherifh-of-la-09-08-12-kleinfeld-granting-appealability.pdf
415 / 545
that any attorney or any judge in California would now dare to act upon this
matter to the contrary.
3) Dynamics of corruption in the courts – cases are deceitfully conducted that are
not part of the California Superior court system, where the judges deem
themselves free to rule in violation of the law. Furthermore, such corrupt rulings,
orders, and judgments are immutable.
The basic fraud in the case is a judgment fraud, of the type that were common in
medieval times… and are now frequent in LA County. In that respect the case,
Marina v LA County (BS109420) resembles Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and
Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), and other cases – Enterprise Track cases of
the court, which were never cases of the Superior Court of California. In all
of these cases, there never was a valid effectual judgment, but the judges
tried to enforce execution of such ineffectual judgments on the parties.
The reason for the frequent Judgment Frauds in LA County, is that there is
no Judgment Book, neither on paper, nor digital, and therefore, no valid entry
of judgment. Initially it appears absurd – why would a judge issue an invalid
judgment in a case where he/she is biased and wants the judgment to
represent his/her bias?
However, under conditions now prevailing in the justice system in California,

and possibly throughout the U.S., such false judgments are ideal for that
purpose:
a) Trial court judges consider themselves not bound by U.S. law, or for
instant matter – by California law - when ruling in such cases that they
conduct and are NOT at all cases of the California Superior Court (or U.S.
District Court, respectively). Furthermore, the review courts concur with
such position, which on its face is of criminal nature and severe abuse of
Human Rights per International Law.
Such conclusions may sound unbelievable. However, suffice is to review

the seven petitions filed at the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, by
Zernik in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) on each and every step in the
alleged criminal conduct of judges in that case. All such petitions were
summarily denied. Finally, the last petition only claimed that the Justices
of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, were reliably informed of
conduct of other judges that was in violation of the law, and should
therefore initiate corrective action. That petition seemed to be difficult for
the justices to deny, but they denied that one as well, after some delays,
nevertheless.
Similarly, the U.S. District Court, LA, went out of its way to defend alleged
criminality in both Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and Marina v County
(BS109420). The respective cases in U.S. Court being Zernik v Connor
et al (2:08-cv-01550), and Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-
01914), both show recusals by a number of judges, with no clear
explanations, and both were eventually referred to Magistrate Carla
Woehrle.
416 / 545
Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, similarly, created

allegedly perverted, invalid, unauthenticated proceedings originating from
both of U.S. District Court, LA, cases. Using such invalid proceedings, the
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit upheld and defended the allegedly
perverted judgments issued by the U.S. District Court, LA, which in turn
upheld and defended the alleged criminality inherent in the judgments of the
LA Superior Court in the two underlying cases. The respective cases at the
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit were Zernik v LA Superior court, LA (08-
72714), and Fine v U.s. District Court LA (2:09-Cv-01914).
Such alleged perverted proceedings at the LA Superior Court and the
U.S. Courts are made possible through case management systems that
must be deemed fraudulent upon review, and which were installed in the
courts without due public oversight (Rule Making Enabling Act and Nixon
v Warner Communication, Inc)
A theme that recurred in both Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and Galdjie
v Darwish (SC052737), and could possibly serve as the perverted legal
logic for such position by trial court judges, was that such litigations were
conducted pursuant to the historical “Equity Rights” rather than Statutory
Law.
b) Trial court judges consider such rulings and orders and judgments, which
are alleged as criminal in nature, in cases that are deceitfully conducted
in courthouses, but are NOT part of the California Superior Court system,
or the U.S. Court system, as irreversible. Furthermore, the review courts
concur with such position, which on its face is of criminal nature.
The same examples listed above apply to this conclusion as well. The
misguided legal thinking that presumably drives such conclusion, is that
the review courts have no authority to review such rulings, orders, and
judgments, since they are not issued in true court cases. However, the
review courts should have initiated corrective actions in such cases,
pursuant to the U.S. and/or California Judicial Codes of Conduct/Ethics.
Instead, review courts issue denials, albeit – reasoned through
ambiguous or at time plainly ludicrous legal rationale.
For example, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, uses a standard reasoning
in such cases, seen both in Zernik v U.S. District Court, LA ( ) and in
Fine v U.S. District Court, LA (2:09-Cv-01914). Similar language was
used in other cases as well, e.g. Haddick v U.S. District Court, LA (97-
50090): Such cases never amounted to the level that would justify
intervention by the extreme measure of a mandate…and therefore
denials were issued in a reasoned, unsigned, unpublished court orders…
Combined, the two allegedly corrupt notions listed above, which may be
seen as false consensus among at least some of judiciary, give rise to one of
the basic, unpublished Rules of Court:
An honest court ruling, order, or judgment may be overturned. A
corrupt court ruling, order, or judgment – shall not be overturned.
Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg explained that rule, also in writing, to
Zernik, when Zernik applied for an order to set aside the orders and rulings
417 / 545
of Judge Connor, after disqualifying her for a cause, for conduct that upon
review must be deemed as criminal.
Supervising Judge Rosenberg reasoned his refusal to hear an ex parte
application to set aside Judge Jacqueline Connor’s rulings, orders, and
judgments as follows:
We are all independently elected constitutional officers…
And also:
No judge in West District will overturn another.
Needless to say, the California law2 states the opposite -Good cause apparent –
the rulings, orders, and judgments of a judge that was disqualified for a cause
should be set aside upon review by his/her peers.
4) Records for your review and consideration
The following records are presented for your review as part of the requested
opinion letter.
a) March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine by Judge David Yaffe,
in Marina v County (BS109420), LA Superior Court. Such judgment was
purportedly the foundation for the indefinite jailing, for contempt, ever since
March 4, 2009, of Attorney Richard Fine. Five (5) variants of the records
were retrieved from sources as follows:
i. Copy filed May 1, 2009 by Att McCormick on behalf of Judge David

Yaffe and the LA Superior Court as exhibit in the response to habeas
corpus petition in Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County. Of note – he did not
use a certified copy from the court file itself. Instead, it appeared that he
obtained a copy from the Sheriff Department. Such conduct would
indicate further attempt on behalf of the LA Superior Court and Judge
David Yaffe, as well as Clerk John Clarke, to distance themselves from
the alleged fraudulent Judgment record. It also is likely to be seen as
distancing themselves from any claims made by Att McCormick on their
behalf, therefore generating plausible deniability.
Please notice the fax header imprints on the record, which may show
that the Sheriff Department had no such record during the hearing on
the morning of March 4, 2009. I am reliably informed that Att Fine never
had a copy of the judgment on March 4, 2009 either.
Also please notice that the judgment record came with no

documentation of Service and Notice of Entry by a Clerk.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-judment-record-copy-from-us-
dist-ct-habeas-corpus-doc-16-response-by-la-sup-ct-filed-may-1-2009.pdf
2
Cal Code of Civ Proc §170.3
418 / 545
ii. Copy filed March 19, or 20, 2009 (the stamp is a manual stamp in lieu
of the standard electronic clock used in U.S. District Court LA, and the
date was hand altered) with the habeas corpus petition in Fine v
Sheriff Dept of LA County. The docketing text of the petition includes
an cryptic note that exhibits were modified on March 24, 2009, with no
explanation at all.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-judment-record-copy-from-
us-dist-ct-habeas-corpus-petition-filed-march-20-2009.pdf
iii. Copy received by Zernik on July 20, 2009 by fax from Att Naftalin.
Conditions surrounding the filing of the habeas corpus petition were
strange and abusive. Att Fine was held for a long period in solitary
confinement, with no access to pen and paper, hardly any visitors,
and hardly any communication with the outside world. He was denied
even the right to visit the jail library, under claim that he had no proper
registration as a pro-se litigant… Major efforts were made to force him
to take representation by an attorney. Att Fine refused, and I fully
agree with his position, given my experience with LA Attorneys, under
pressure by judges. At the end, the petition was compromised – he
gave instructions by phone to a former client John Rizzo, and John
got some assistance from Att Naftalin, and that was how the petition
was filed, but without an original signature of Att Fine.
When I approached Att Naftalin and John Rizzo with questions about
the source of the record that they filed in court as judgment, John
would not answer at all. Att Naftalin eventually faxed me the record
shown here. However, by phone he took the position that appeared
to try to convince me that this is all minor “procedural details”, and that
I had no clue what I was talking about.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-
judment-record-copy-received-from-att-naftalin.pdf
iv. Copy of the judgment that I found online, posted by Full Disclosure
Network. The significance is in the fax header imprints. It may show
it going from John Rizzo (Nutrition Warehouse) to Judicial Watch, and
from there to Full Disclosure Network.
judment-record-found-on-full-disclosure-network-site.pdf
v. Copy of the judgment as it was posted by the LA Superior Court as part

of images of litigation records.
judment-record-from-court-file-in-marina-v-county-from-mardi-03-04-09.pdf
b) March 4, 2009 Minute Order by Judge David Yaffe in Marina v County

(BS109420), LA Superior Court. Copy as it was posted by the LA Superior
Court as part of images of litigations records.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-minute-order.pdf
419 / 545
c) Entry of Judgment in LA County, California:
A short summary of current California Code sections and local Rules of Court
of LA County that pertain to the Entry of Judgment, to make it effectual
pursuant to California Code. Also - my observations regarding the practice of
the court relative to Entry of Judgments, which I hold is contrary to the Code
and local Rules of Court in the past 25 years – since computers were
introduced in the court, without ever updating the Local Rules of Court, and
without implementing a computerized system that complies with the law. My
opinion is that such discrepancy made the entry of judgment, a critical part of
the administration of justice vague and ambiguous, and deliberately so.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-conclusions-us-constitution-non-compliance.pdf
d) June 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Carla

Woehrle in Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914), based
on the purported March 4, 2009 Judgment – for denial with prejudice of the
habeas corpus petition of Att Richard Fine.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-26-mj-woehrle-
amended-r-n-r-09-06-12.pdf
e) August 20, 2009 Request for explanation by Joseph Zernik, forwarded to Att
Naftalin and John Rizzo, regarding the origin of the record in U.S. Court file
as part of the Att Richard Fine habeas corpus petition, which was not
provided by Att Richard Fine, to the best of my understanding. No response
was received. Prior to sending the written request I also spoke with Rizzo
once or twice by phone and asked for explanation. He gave none.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-08-20-request-rizzo-disclose-
origin-of-judgment-record-s.pdf
f) July 23, 2009 Letters of Meet and Confer by Joseph Zernik, Party in Interest
in Fine v U.S. District Court, LA at the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Such
letters were sent to counsel for all parties in the respective cases in
preparation for possible motion for relief from judgment procured through
fraud. No response was received.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la_09-07-23-meet-and-confer-
s.pdf
g) August 1, 2009 Request for investigation regarding concerns pertaining to

U.S. Court records in Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-
01914), and also in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-01-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-reques-for-investigation-s.pdf
h) August 19, 2009 Requests to access court records to inspect and to copy - in
Fine v Sheriff of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914), and Zernik v Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550) at the U.S. District Court, LA, where concerns is that
litigations were entirely based on invalid, unauthenticated records, but such
facts were concealed from Plaintiffs Fine and Zernik through segregation of
420 / 545
parties to one of dual docketing systems at the U.S. Courts – Pacer and
CM/ECF. Access is so far denied.
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-19-denial-of-accessto-court-records-at-us-district-court-s.pdf
5) Notes regarding records that were missing, or where access is denied, and
could be critical for the case.
a) Nowhere to be found is any Certificate of Mailing/Service and Notice of Entry

by a Clerk, pertaining to the March 4, 2009 Judgment by Judge David Yaffe
in Marina v County (BS109420) for Jailing of Att Richard Fine.
b) Likewise, the March 4, 2009 Minute Order by Judge David Yaffe, In Marina v
County (BS109420) came with no Certificate of Mailing and Notice of Entry
by Clerk.
c) The LA Superior Court would not allow me access to essential litigation

record - the Register of Actions (equivalent to Docket in the U.S. courts) in
Marina v County (BS109420) to inspect and to copy per Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978).
d) The Sheriff, which was named respondent, refused to respond to the habeas
corpus petition, and Magistrate Woehrle allowed it to stay that way.
e) The LA Superior Court, which eventually produced a response in lieu of the

Sheriff, failed to ever produce the Register of Actions, and also failed to
produce a declaration under penalty of perjury by Judge David Yaffe, or by
any other Officer of the Court, to provide sufficient foundation for the
pleading in response to the habeas corpus petition. And therefore, again, the
judgment record may be deemed lacking in foundation. Magistrate Woehrle
accepted such insufficient pleading, supported by declaration by counsel
only, and based her recommendation on it.
6) Notes regarding records that were excluded, but would be provided upon
request.
As was the case in the past, I believe that the smaller the number of papers that
are required to reach an opinion of fraud, the strongest the opinion is. Listed and
described below are records which I excluded, but would provide upon request.
a) May 1, 2009 Response by LA Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe to

habeas corpus petition of Att Richard Fine in Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA
County (2:09-Cv-01914), based on declaration by Counsel McCormick, who
had not participated in Marina v County (BS109420) at the LA Superior
Court at all.
b) Papers related to review by Magistrate Woehrle a year earlier, of an almost

identical situation – invalid judgment in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), which
she reviewed in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550). Review of the latter
case could possibly be instructive, since it could help in assessing what part
of her writing could possibly be oversight, and what part was possibly
deliberate perversion of justice. However, I am concerned that it would
421 / 545
require a large volume of records, and it pertains to a question that should be

excluded from the opinion letter, I believe.
7) Question defined, where your review and a Fraud Expert opinion letter are
requested
The only question that you are asked to consider and issue a Fraud Expert
opinion on, is the following:
a) Was there ever any possibility, based on the records provided, that a valid,
effectual judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine was entered, as required
by California law, by Judge David Yaffe on March 4, 2009, which was the
foundation for the legality of the jailing by the Sheriff Department of LA
County since then to this date?3
Self-evident questions, such as the ones listed below, would better be left for
review by others, or by you, at a different time, under a different mandate:
b) What was the nature of the various records of the March 4, 2009 Judgment?
c) What was the nature of the conduct of parties such as Judge David Yaffe,
Magistrate Carla Woehrle, LA County Sheriff, Counsel for the Sheriff,
Counsel for Yaffe, Att Naftalin, and others?
Conclusion:
I have no doubt that you realize the true significance of this request in the larger
picture of the integrity of the Justice System of the United States of America, and the
safeguard of Civil Rights pursuant to the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
Human Rights pursuant to ratified International Law. I am the first to admit that I am
entirely unqualified for the job that fell in my lap, and I also am lacking in perspective.
Regardless, based on studying of the underlying issues, I believe that the U.S.
justice system was severely undermined in the process of introduction of computers
into the court.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Joseph Zernik.
3
The basic review standards for a habeas corpus petition were defined by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Fay v Noia (1963), written by the late Justice Brennan: In a writ of habeas corpus, a
U.S. Judge is petitioned to: “to inquire into the legality of the prisoner's detention”, and that the
standard of review in such inquiry is:
…if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental
requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release.
Fay v Noia (1963) pp. 401–402.
422 / 545
09-08-27 Email notice by John Amberg, Bryan Cave, LLP relative to Countrywide and Bank of
America Corporation communications
At 04:50 PM 8/28/2009, you wrote:
Dr. Zernik,
Please direct all of your communications for Bank of America or Countrywide to me

or Jenna Moldawsky of this law firm, rather than to employees. We are not
authorized to accept service.
John Amberg
John W. Amberg
Bryan Cave LLP
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 576-2280
This electronic message is from a law firm. It may contain confidential or privileged
information. If you received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender to
advise of the error and delete this transmission and any attachments.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by

the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction
or matter addressed herein.
423 / 545
09-08-29 Request for access to court records, to inspect and to copy in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-
06829), and related questions about Rules of the Court at U.S. District Court,
Southern District of NY
August 29, 2009
J. Michael McMahon, Clerk of Court

MANHATTAN FOLEY SQUARE COURTHOUSE
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
(by certified mail USPS,
return Receipt, restricted delivery)
Mr McMahon:
I am a resident of Los Angeles County, California. I had interest in SEC v BAC

(1:09-cv-06829), and I got permission by the Honorable Jed Rakoff, presiding in
the case, to submit a letter regarding the settlement proposal by parties to the
case, now before the Court.
Therefore, I am for first time accessing records in your District, and I apologize
for my ignorance. I made efforts to access court records of the U.S. Court for the
Southern District of NY, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978), and I was only partially successful. In that
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the fundamental right to access
court records, to inspect and to copy. The Supreme Court found it to be
grounded in Common Law rights, older than the U.S. Constitution, and also in
the First, Sixth, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments.
I am also writing this letter as part of my efforts to document the state of such
rights in the various courts today, at the end of the dynamic period of transition
from paper to digital records. Today I believe that the last of the U.S. Courts,
including the U.S. Courts of Appeals, have installed Pacer and CM/ECF.
However, I have by now found out that the various Districts and the various
Courts of Appeals vary in their implementation of Pacer and CM/ECF platforms.
In part, I am trying to document to what extent the new customs, whatever they
are in the various Districts, are based in published Law and published Rules of
Court. My findings so far indicate that in the transition from paper administration
to digital administration, many rules were added, removed, or changed, but
many were never published in their new form – as practiced in reality, based on
the configuration of Pacer CM/ECF. The Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC
§2071-7, clearly prescribed the procedures for updating the Rules of Court, and
the Clerk of the Court typically holds a central position in this function.
424 / 545
In the case at hand, I noticed with great appreciation the care to detail by the
Court of the Honorable Rakoff, relative to the entry of Orders by the Court. It
reflected an effort to make the certification and authentication of such orders
clear and unambiguous, and visibly accessible to all. Not all share such
practices.
I spoke with three different offices of the court, the last of which was Mr Wolfson.
All persons were kind and tried to be helpful. However, I was unable to exercise
my rights. Furthermore, some of my questions, which fall on the “theoretical
side” were not the kind that staff is routinely used to answer. Therefore, Mr
Wolfson suggested that I address them in writing to you. I included here many
more questions than I ever asked by phone.
The questions below, and your answers to them, are directly relevant to the
letter I am to compose in re: Settlement now before the Court in SEC v BAC
(1:09-cv-06829). I would therefore be grateful if you could initially at least
provide an estimate when you would be able to complete the answers, or some
general view of the types of answers that may be generated in a phone call.
I will try to contact your office later this week in this regard.
1) Civil Docket:
My understanding is that the U.S. Court, Southern District of NY, like most
other U.S. courts, now keeps at least three separate and unequal dockets,
and various persons are assigned different access privileges:
a. Docket in the paper file

b. Docket in CM/ECF
c. Docket in Pacer
FRCP, Rule 79, says:
Rule 79. Records Kept by the Clerk

(a) Civil Docket.
(1) In General.
The clerk must keep a record known as the “civil docket” in the
form and manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts with the approval of the
Judicial Conference of the United States. The clerk must enter
each civil action in the docket. Actions must be assigned
consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket
where the first entry of the action is made.
a) Which of the three dockets 1) a) – c) listed above is/are the “civil docket”
referred to in the Rule 79?
b) I request access to inspect and to copy the writings that are the “form and
manner prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts”. Is it available online somewhere?
425 / 545
c) Is there any other basis in the law or in Rules of Court for the custom of
keeping such multiple different dockets with different access privileges for
different persons?
2) Action type and numbering

a) Action numbers in your District, like other Districts, are of the general
syntax <o:yy-tt-11111>, where-
O: is Office, here designated “1”

yy: is Year, here designated “09”
tt: is Type, here designated “cv”
11111: is Number, here designated “06829”
However, the practices relative to application of this general syntax vary
among the Districts:
i. What are the rules for designation of each of these parameters in your
District? Are they based in Law or Rules of Court?
ii. How many Office designations are used in the District, and subject to
which rules?
iii. What are the rules relative to year designation?
iv. How many types are used in your District, which are they by name,
and what the are the rules for their application I a given action.
v. What are the rules for assignment of the Number to a given action?
b) Case association – numbering of the actions, and implied rules relative to
assignment, shared records, evidence, calendars, etc
Question pertains to actions that have shared parties, shared subject

matter, shared evidence, or other features that require some coordination
that normally is not required between independent actions in the court.
i. How are such associations among cases implemented, if ever, in

case numbering in your District?
ii. What are the implications of designation of association between cases
in your District? E.g. rules in re: Assignment, reference, or other rules.
iii. What is the basis for such practices in the Law or Rules of Court?
3) Summons in general and in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) in particular:

FCRP, Rule 79 says:
(2) Items to be Entered.
The following items must be marked with the file
number and entered chronologically in the docket:
(A) papers filed with the clerk;
(B) process issued, and proofs of service or other returns
showing execution; and records required by the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the
approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
(C) appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments.
426 / 545
(3) Contents of Entries; Jury Trial Demanded.

Each entry must briefly show the nature of the paper filed or writ
issued, the substance of each proof of service or other return,
and the substance and date of entry of each order and judgment.
….
(b) Civil Judgments and Orders.
The clerk must keep a copy of every final judgment and
appealable order; of every order affecting title to or a lien on real
or personal property; and of any other order that the court directs
to be kept. The clerk must keep these in the form and manner
prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts with the approval of the Judicial
Conference of the United States.
(d) Other Records.

The clerk must keep any other records required by the Director
of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts with the
approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
a) Summons as issued by the Clerk of the Court: I request the that the Clerk
of the Court provide the basis for the respective custom in the law, or in
the Rules of Court.
Summons as issued were not docketed in the case at hand in Pacer, and
I was told that the U.S. Court, Southern District of NY does not docket the
summons as issued in the two other dockets as well. I will have to ask
Plaintiff for a copy.
b) Summons as executed: I request that the Clerk of the Court provide the
basis for the respective custom in the law, or in the Rules of Court.
I was told that summons as executed are not docketed in any of the
dockets as well, only the service is noted as docketing text, but the
records themselves are not posted in any of the docket.
4) Stamps and NEFs for papers that are filed on paper by parties
I assume that all papers by parties that arrive at the desk of the clerk in
person or by mail are stamped with date.
a) Are any papers that arrive by parties in actions of the court not stamped
at all?
b) I assume you use “FILED” and “RECEIVED”, are they both electronic?
i. What are the Rules of Court relative to the use of FILED vs
RECEIVED?
ii. Is the use of non-electronic stamps allowed in the court?
iii. Is the alteration by hand of dates on the stamps allowed in the court?
iv. Who is authorized to stamp papers in the court?
v. Who is authorized to make entries in docketing sheets I the courts?
427 / 545
vi. Are NEF or any other notices issued in CM/ECF when a paper that
was filed on paper in court was entered in the docketing sheet by the
Clerk?
5) NEFs for papers that are electronically filed by parties, in general and in
SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) in particular:
NEFs for electronically filed papers include the Proof of Service, which FRCP
Rule 79, (2)(b), quoted above, required to be docketed. However, NEFs are
not accessible in Pacer, and I was unsuccessful in my attempts to gain
access to inspect and to copy.
I requested to obtain the printouts of NEFs of papers filed by parties. It appeared
that several of the Deputies, and even law clerks were not clear about the
location and significance of the NEFs. Possibly – they are also used to the
current state of affairs that they are not accustomed to Proofs of Service
practice. However, when I directed them to the NEFs in CM/ECF they seemed
to be clear that I was NOT allowed to obtain copies of such records.
Mr Wolfson stated that the parties file paper copies of the NEFs with a paper
copy of the papers that they filed electronically. However, he was not aware of
the fact that those who are not you specific district CM/ECF authorized users
cannot see the NEFs, since such records were stripped from the original
electronic filings in Pacer.
a) Request to obtain paper copies of the NEFs (no need to copy the papers
themselves, I have them downloaded from Pacer) of all paper electronically
filed by parties in the case at hand.
There are less than a dozen papers in total, and I will contact the office of the
Clerk of the Court with cc details by phone. I am asking if I am allowed to
obtain the copies of the NEFs from paper court file in the first place.
b) Request to obtain digital copies of the NEFs of all papers electronically filed
by parties in the case at hand.
I am asking if I am allowed to obtain digital copies of the NEFs, e.g. in the

form that such NEFs were emailed in the first place, since such records in
their true original form are digital records. If I am allowed, I prefer to get
digital copies rather than paper copies. Payment arrangements will be cc by
phone.
c) Request to inspect the NEFs of all papers electronically filed by parties in the
case at hand, as separate right from the right to copy.
I am asking whether I would be allowed to inspect the NEFs in their true

original form (e.g. – the way that such NEFs are displayed on CM/ECF for
your district authorized users) from a terminal at the court site, if I come to the
Office of the Clerk of the Court during business hours.
428 / 545
d) Request for references to Law or Rules of Court that are the foundation for
whatever the practice is in your district relative to 3) a) - c) above.
6) Rejection of papers filed by parties/striking papers off the record

I am readily familiar with Discrepancy procedures.
Question pertains to any practices at the District Court that would result in
papers, after being conveyed into possession of the Clerk of the Court, not
being stamped, not being docketed, directives issued verbally by a judge or
a magistrate to the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to which such papers are
denied any mention in the docket, and no record is generated in the court file
in Pacer or CM/ECF of the disappearance of such papers from the action.
If such procedures exist in your District, are they based on published Law or
Rules of Court?
7) NEFs for Orders entered by Court
The U.S. Constitution, Art. IV §I declares:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public
acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And
congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which
such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the
effect thereof.
By the U.S. Congress Act of May 26, 1790, it is provided:
That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be

authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed
thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts
of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within
the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of
the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of
the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may
be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records
and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have
such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the
United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the
state from whence the said records are, or shall be taken.
NEFs include the attestations by Clerk of the Court in digital court file, and
therefore are critical part of Court records. NEFs also include the Proof of
Service or Certificate of Mailing by Clerk respective to such orders. Therefore,
such NEFs are critical part of Court File.
It was not clear to me at the end what the practice was relative to the NEFs for
Orders filed by Court, and whether paper copies of the NEFs are docketed in the
paper file of the court. It appeared that such was not the practice. It was clear
that I was unable to obtain any copies of such NEFs in any form.
a) I request to know what the practice is relative to docketing of NEFs of Orders

by the court in the three dockets a) – c) listed above, and what the foundation
is for the practice of your District in the Law or Rules off Court.
429 / 545
b) I request to exercise my right to inspect the NEFs for Orders filed by the
Court, and for the foundation of whatever the practice is in your District in
Law or Rules of Court.
The question is whether I would be allowed to inspect the NEFs in their true
original digital form, e.g. – from a terminal in the Office of the Clerk of the
Court – the way they are displayed in CM/ECF for users of your own District,
if I come to the Office of the Clerk of the Court during business hours.
c) I request to exercise my right to copy the NEFs for the Orders filed by the
Court, on paper and/or in digital form, and for the foundation of whatever the
practice is in Law or Rules of Court.
The question is whether I would be allowed to copy the NEFs for the Orders,
either on paper, and/or in their true original digital form, e.g. – from a terminal
in the Office of the Clerk of the Court – the way they are displayed in
CM/ECF for users of your own District, if I come to the Office of the Clerk of
the Court during business hours.
8) Filing and entering by the Clerk of the Court of unsigned Orders and
Judgments
Is there such practice in your District of filing and/or entering orders and
judgments by the Clerk of the Court that are not signed by a judge, and are
posted online in Pacer and/or CM/ECF, and are stated in the docketing sheet
as “unsigned, unpublished” orders or judgments, and the final outcome of a
court action?
Is so, are such practices based in Law or Rules of Court?
9) Removal of papers and orders from public view in Pacer and/or
CM/ECF
I am readily familiar with sealing procedures for paper records, that are
stipulated by Law and Rules of Court. The question pertains to removal of
papers or orders from public view on Pacer or CM/ECF, outside of cases
where papers were sealed by court procedure.
a) What is the practice in your District regarding removal of papers or orders
from public view on Pacer?
b) Is there such practice of never filing papers or orders for public view in
the first place?
c) Are such practices founded in Law or Rules of Court?
10) Digital signatures in docketing sheet of electronic dockets in Pacer and
CM/ECF, and hand signatures in docketing sheet of paper court file.
a) Request to inspect and to copy hand signatures that are the attestations
in the paper court file of papers and Orders by the Court.
The question is whether or not you keep a docketing sheet with the paper
court file, and whether the docketing sheet includes hand signatures of
the clerk who entered the notes.
430 / 545
Also- Are the same docketing notes, by the same clerk, and same
signature as the one who entered digital docketing notes?
Also- Is there a hand signature of the Clerk attesting on the face of the
record in the paper court file.
b) Request to inspect and to copy digital signatures that are the attestation
in the electronic court file in the docketing sheet.
The docketing sheet in Pacer shows the initials of the clerks, and I am
informed that these initials correspond to full digital signatures in the
docketing sheet in CM/ECF. However, any tags that would have allowed
to ascertain the authenticity of such digital signatures were stripped from
the Pacer system.
The question is whether I would be allowed to inspect and to copy the

docketing sheet in CM/ECF if I show up in the Office of the Clerk of the
Court during business hours.
Additional question is for the basis of the custom in your district, whatever
it is in the Law or Rules of Court.
11) Other reports in Pacer or in CM/ECF

Your District provides public access in Pacer to reports such as Calendars,
Docket Activity Report, and Related Transaction Report. The various districts
vary in which reports they allow public access to in Pacer.
Question is –
a) Which reports are accessible in CM/ECF in your District?
b) Would I be allowed to access such reports as are accessible in CM/ECF if I
come to the Clerk’s Office during working hours?
c) What is the basis in the Law or Rules of Court for the practices as they are,
for which reports are allowed public access and which are not in either Pacer
or CM/ECF.
12) Other reports and access privileges to such reports in your District
a) What other reports are available in CM/ECF, in Pacer, or in any equivalent
system, that are accessible only in the Judicial level in your District.
Request is for: (i) The list of the names of such reports, (ii) Short description
of the substance of the report, such as would appear in an overview manual,
and (iii) The name of the system or access portal, (iv) The general
description of class of persons allowed access to such reports.
b) What is the basis in Law or Rules of Court for the practice as described in 7)
a).
13) Access to U.S. District Court records by the respective U.S. Court of
Appeals
a) Request is for information which level access is permitted to the Justices of
the respective U.S. Court of Appeals from either Court of Appeals location or
431 / 545
otherwise, and the foundation for the practice of your District, whichever it is,
in the Law or Rules of Court.
The question pertains to which level access is provided through terminals in
the respective U.S. Court of Appeals: Pacer, CM/ECF, Judicial level access?
14) Pacer Dictionary and rules pertaining to docketing, Docketing Activity
Report, Related Transactions Report, and related issues.
a) Dictionaries
Various functions in Pacer provide variables where the input are words that
are commonly used in natural language, but in Pacer or CM/ECF, such use
is restricted as valid values that may be entered in given variables. For
example, in Docketing Activity Report, a paper can be designated as
“Motion”, but it can also be designated as “Misc”, however, I assume that if
you tried to designate it “Green”, the system would reject that value as invalid
for the variable.
Request is for access to inspect and to cop the Pacer and CM/ECF
Dictionaries of words that are permitted by the programs as valid values to be
entered in the various variables, and their specific rules of use.
b) Accountability and quality assurance for true and correct use of Dictionaries
in docketing.
i. What are the practices in your district regarding accountability for true
and correct use of Dictionaries in docketing?
ii. Are there any conditions where values can be entered for a given
variable, which are meaningless, and are accepted by the programs?
For example, if “Motion” may be an acceptable paper type, “motion”
may not. If the program allowed “motion” to be entered, it would have
no meaning for the program.
iii. What is the basis in Law or Rules of Court for such practice?
iv. Is the public allowed comments on errors in the use of such
Dictionaries in docketing?
c) Rules of court in re: assignment of terminations, and missing adjudications
i. What are the rules in your District regarding assignment of Related
Transactions and Terminations?
ii. What are the rules in re: missing adjudications?
d) Reports that list adjudications
The reports that are publicly accessible in Pacer conspicuously fail to list the
adjudication of the motion themselves – Granted, Denied, Moot, etc.
Request is regarding other reports that may list the adjudications, and the
basis for their constructions and denial of public access privileges, and the
basis for such practices in Law or Rules of Court.
432 / 545
z Page 10/10 August 29, 2009
I apologize for the lengthy requests, surely you realize the significance of the
questions. In fact, not being a lawyer, I was astonished by the fact that in most
courts I was the first one ever who made such requests. I believe that the Common
Law right to access court records, to inspect and to copy, is not only a right, but also
a duty. A public that does not perform his duties is to blame for any deficiencies in
the system as we see it.
Joseph Zernik
CC:
1) Counsel for SEC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

Phone:(212) 336-0113
Phone:(212)-336-0125
Phone:212-336-0153
2) Counsel for BAC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829):

Phone:(202)-974-1552
Phone:212-225-2000
3) Court of the Honorable Jed Radoff

Courtroom: 14B
MANHATTAN FOLEY SQUARE COURTHOUSE
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
(by USPS, first class mail)
433 / 545
09-08-30 Letter to Counsel in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – requesting copies of litigation records
and actions to prevent delays in Dr Zernik’s letter to the Hon Jed Rakoff in re:
settlement proposal
August 30, 2009
Counsel for SEC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

Phone:(212) 336-0113
Phone:(212)-336-0125
Phone:212-336-0153
Counsel for BAC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829):

Phone:(202)-974-1552
Phone:212-225-2000
Attorneys for SEC & BAC:

In my letter to the Clerk of U.S. Court, Southern District of New York, J Michael
McMahon, dated August 29, 2009, 1 I stated that my efforts this past week to
access records in litigation referenced above, to inspect and to copy, were so far
unsuccessful.
Therefore, I request that you provide me copies of litigation records, listed
below, and take additional actions that would allow me, and the public at large,
at least minimal transparency into the nature of the court action, as required by
law pursuant to Common Law as well as First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment
Rights re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1983).
Such records and actions are also requested so that I may proceed to complete
my letter to the Hon Jed Rakoff, in re: settlement proposal, with minimal delays
relative to the previously proposed schedule. 2
1
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-29-zernik-request-to-ny-clerk-access-to-instpect-and-to…-s.pdf
2
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-27-binder-re-sec-v-bac-schedule-initial-requests-six-key-fraud-records-
s.pdf
434 / 545
Please fax and/or email to me no later than 5:00 pm on Monday, August 31,
2009, copies of the following records, together with a declaration by a Custodian
of Records in this regard:
1. NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing) of all papers filed by parties and of all
orders filed by the Court in this action so far (each NEF is about 1-2
pages long, for a total of about a dozen records), both as PDFs and as
digital files such as they are displayed in CM/ECF. Copies of the records
themselves are not requested.
2. Summons, as issued by clerk.
3. Summons, as an executed record.
The litigation records in SEC v BAC, as they were so far published, must be
deemed uninformative and confusing, vague and ambiguous U.S. government
records relative to integrity of operations and integrity of conduct of senior
officers at Bank of America Corporation (BAC). Such U.S. government records
were doubly offensive since they were published by initiative of SEC, a U.S.
government agency, whose mission was and is to protect investors and
safeguard the integrity of markets. Furthermore, such initiative was taken by
SEC in the midst of the worse crisis in the operation of U.S. financial institutions
and markets in almost a century.
The current crisis inflicted harm on investors and workers world-wide, and such
persons, from Basel to Beijing share the Common Law rights of access to U.S.
Court litigation records.
Joseph H Zernik
CC:
1) BAC Audit Committee:
D. Paul Jones,
Donald E. Powell
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
"ATTENTION: BAC AUDIT COMMITTEE "< joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com >
2) BAC Executive Committee

Kenneth D. Lewis
Charles K. Gifford,
435 / 545

NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
"ATTENTION: BAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE "<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
3) BAC - Signers of SEC Reports and/or

Holders of Reporting Duties per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Joe L. Price
100 North Tryon St
"ATTENTION: Edward O’Keefe, Neil A Cotty, and Joe L Price"<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
4) BAC Independent Auditor

PriceWaterhouse
(by fax)
5) Basel Committee
[redacted-jz]
(by email)
6) Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in the U.S.

[redacted-jz]
(by email)
7) FBI
(by fax)
8) US Department of Justice (US DOJ)

(by email)
9) Bryan Cave, LLP

John Amberg, Esq
Bryan Cave, LLP, Santa Monica, California
Email: jwamberg@BryanCave.com
436 / 545
09-08-31 Cover email for letter to counsel of BAC and SEC, requesting records and actions
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:25:16 -0700

To: 12123361348@efaxsend.com, boryshanskyj@sec.gov, 12123361317@efaxsend.com, lewism@sec.gov,
schen@cgsh.com, 12029741999@efaxsend.com, 12122253499@efaxsend.com, lliman@cgsh.com
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: 09-08-30-zernik-to-counsel-sec-v-bac-req-records-actions-s.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional
Cc: "ATTENTION: THOMAS MAY"<ir@nstar.com>, "ATTENTION: BAC AUDIT COMMITTEE"
<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>, <patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com >, "ATTENTION: BAC EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE "<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>,<patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>,
17043444100@efaxsend.com, 12022782478@efaxsend.com, AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
RE: Request for records and for actions.
To Counsel for SEC & BAC:
Please ignore the date of Monday, August 31, 2009, noted in the letter itself, in re: forwarding the. I would appreciate it if
you could forward the records by the end of the day tomorrow, Tuesday, Septermber 1, 2009.
Joseph Zernik
Please support our petition:

CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA -
FREE THE 10,000 RAMPART-FIPs, FREE ATTORNEY RICHARD I FINE
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
References
1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs
where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine
Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the
LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006)
3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District
Attorney office, 15,000 by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated
2005) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-
frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from jail
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD <jz12345@earthlink.net>, Fax: (801) 998-0917; Cell: 310 435 9107, No voice mail; IM,
Page- OK, No ID- No response
437 / 545
09-08-31 Cover email for response to message from Att John Amberg, Bryan Cave, LLP
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:13:47 -0700

To: jwamberg@BryanCave.com, jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com, pdvancleve@BryanCave.com,
dglents@bryancave.com
Subject: 09-08-30-zernik-requests-explanation-from-bryan-cave-llp-s.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional
Please see attached response to Mr Amberg. Timely response requested by Friday, Sept 4, 2009,
5:00pm.
Joseph Zernik

References
1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted
and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper
from Guild Practitioner
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil
rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006)
3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by
criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated 2005)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD <jz12345@earthlink.net>, Fax: (801) 998-0917; Cell: 310 435 9107, No voice mail; IM, Page- OK, No ID- No
response

References
1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted
and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper
from Guild Practitioner
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil
rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006)
3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by
criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001, updated 2005)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD <jz12345@earthlink.net>, Fax: (801) 998-0917; Cell: 310 435 9107, No voice mail; IM, Page- OK, No ID- No response
438 / 545
09-09-02 In re: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) demands for Clerk John Clarke’s compliance with
the law:
1) Demand to remove any reference to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from LA
Superior Court “Case Summaries” online;
2) Demand to ensure that no Deputy Clerk is present in purported Case Conference
on September 23, 2009, and
3) Demand that no Deputy Clerk enter any additional Minute Orders in John
Clarke’s name in Sustain under such caption.
September 2, 2009
John A Clarke
Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
< jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org >
< 12136217952@efaxsend.com >
(by fax and by email)
Timely compliance with the law is demanded, no later than Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm
Mr Clarke:
I recently noticed that the “Case Summaries”1 of the LA Superior Court still carries
reference to matter of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), moreover, a “Case
Conference” is listed there as a “Future Proceeding” on September 23, 2009. 2,3
You have continuously refused to certify the case as an Action of the Superior Court
of California, refused to certify Judge Terry Friedman as duly assigned Presiding
Judge (and there never was an Assignment Order on file either), and refused to
certify the August 9, 2007 Judgment as a Judgment of the Superior Court of
California.
Additional credible evidence demonstrated that such matter was never a valid
effectual action of the Superior Court of California. The Grant Deeds issued by Att
David Pasternak on behalf of the court, likewise, were opined by decorated FBI
veteran, fraud expert James Wedick as “fraud”. 4 Likewise, period reports issued by
1
“Case Summaries” are published by the LA Superior Court with a disclaimer (see Footnote #2) stating that such are not court
records, and should not be relied upon. In parallel, the LA Superior Court denies for the past quarter century public access to the
Registers of Actions – which are public records by law (see Footnote #3). Therefore, the “Case Summaries”, which should not be
relied upon, are the only non-record available to the public.
2
Copy of the case summary of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-a-online-case-summary_09-08-24-not-a-court-record.pdf
3
Denial of access to Registers of Actions, to inspect and to copy:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-04-requests-to-access-court-file-in-sturgeon-v-la-county-denial-of-access.pdf
4
December 7, 2007, and December 17, 2007 Grant Deeds issued by Att David Pasternak, opined as “fraud” by decorated FBI
veteran James Wedick:
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-s.pdf
439 / 545
Att David Pasternak are primary evidence of the alleged racketeering predicated
acts of monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. 5
There simply is no explanation within the realm of the law for the ongoing conduct of
the court and Att David Pasternak.
For lack of better term, I refer to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and other similar
cases, such as Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), 6 as the “Enterprise Track” of the
LA Superior Court. Upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, such cases
surely would be deemed racketeering pursuant to RICO - Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 USC §1961-8.
Additional cases, which carry substantial public policy interest, and are likely be
designated “Enterprise Track”, where I could not make final determination as a
result of denial of access to records, 7 included:
a) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
Under such caption the court purported to review the question of payments to
judges that were ruled “not permitted” by the California Court of Appeals, and
were labeled by media “bribes”.
Although it remains unclear whether the case as a whole is “Enterprise Track”

case, surely what is represented as judgments by Justice Richman were false
and deliberately misleading records, as detailed in the motion for Mistrial which I
filed in court.8
b) Marina v LA County (BS109420)
Under such caption, the court purported to review the question of land development
in the Marina area. Although it remains unclear whether the case as a whole is
“Enterprise Track” case, surely what was represented as March 4, 2009 Judgment
for the jailing of Att Richard Fine was false and deliberately misleading record, as
detailed in letter of meet and confer sent to attorneys for the court and for the
sheriff.9
As you know, I am pressing for investigation of Samaan v Zernik, given the

extraordinary public policy interests inherent in it:
a) Relative to alleged racketeering by Sandor Samuels and Countrywide

Financial Corporation (CFC), as the underlying context for the current
financial crisis, still never addressed after the merger with Bank of America
Corporation (BAC).
5
June 22, 2009 - The latest report by Att David Pasternak:
http://inproperinla.com/09-06-22-att-david-pasternak-report-holding-$360000.pdf
6
The central role in Galdjie v Darwish of Judge John Segal, listed anonymously as “Muni Judge”, and Att David Pasternak,
parallels their roles in Samaan v Zernik. Other common features of the two cases can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-enterprise-track-samaan-v-zernik-&-galdjie-v-darwish-s.pdf
7
Denial of access to records of the LA Superior Court, in contradiction with Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978):
8
Ex parte for leave to file, and Motion for Mistrial in Sturgeon v LA County:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-ex-parte-application-orders-for-access-leave-to-file.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-i.pdf
9
Letter of meet and confer in re: false and deliberately misleading March 4, 2009 judgment in Marina v LA County.
440 / 545
b) Relative to refusal of SEC to engage in effectual engagement in re: CFC or

BAC.
c) Relative to alleged racketeering by Judge Jacqueline Connor, which sheds

new light on her conduct in the First Rampart Trial (2000), 10, 11 and the
continued false confinement of the estimated 10,000 Rampart FIPs (Falsely
Imprisoned Persons), as a result. It calls for new assessment of the reasons
for their false convictions and false sentencing by judges like Jacqueline
Connor, an aspect of the scandal that was entirely ignored in the official
investigation (1998-2000), which placed the blame entirely on the LAPD.
d) Relative to the position of LA County, as described by FBI: “The epicenter of

the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud”.
e) Relative to the roles of national and international law firms such as Bryan
Cave, LLP, and Sheppard Mullin, in alleged racketeering in LA County,
California.
Please accept this letter as notice of demands for your personal compliance with the
law no later than Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm:

Superior Court’s “Case Summaries” online;
2) Demand to ensure that no Deputy Clerk is present in purported Case
Conference on September 23, 2009 or any other purported proceeding
under such caption, and
3) Demand that no Deputy Clerk enter any additional Minute Orders in your
name in Sustain under such caption.
________________________________________
Joseph Zernik
CC:
Att Mohammad Keshavarzi
“Mohammad Keshavarzi”< MKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com>,
Att Paul Malingagio
"Paul Malingagio" < PMalingagio@sheppardmullin.com >,
Att Ted Max
"Ted Max"< tmax@sheppardmullin.com >
Sheppard Mullin
10
December 22, 2000 Judge Connor’s ruling to reverse jury convictions:
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-the-judge-s-decision-los-angeles-times.pdf
11
December 22, 2000 Judge Connor’s ruling as described by media:
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-los-angeles-judge-overturns-convictions-of--police-in-scandal-nyt.pdf
441 / 545
Att Robert Shulkin

"Shulkin, Robert" < Robert.Shulkin@camoves.com >
Coldwell Banker
Att Todd Boock

"Todd Boock" < Todd_Boock@Countrywide.Com >
Att Sandor Samuels
sandor_samuels@countrywide.com ,
Att Sanford Shatz
sandy_shatz@countrywide.com ,
Angelo Mozilo
angelo_mozilo@Coutnrywide.com ,
Formerly - Countrywide Financial Corporation
Att John Amberg

"Amberg, John W." < jwamberg@BryanCave.com >
Att Jenna Moldawsky
"Moldawsky, Jenna L." < jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com >
Att Jeffrey A Modisett
"Modisett, Jeffrey A, Managing Partner- LA" < jamodisett@bryancave.com >
Att Peter van Cleve
"Van Cleve, Peter D. - Managing Partner – St. Louis" < pdvancleve@BryanCave.com >
Att Don Lents,
“Lents, Don G”< dglents@bryancave.com >
Bryan Cave, LLP.
Att for SEC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

boryshanskyj@sec.gov ,
lewism@sec.gov,
Att for BAC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

schen@cgsh.com ,
lliman@cgsh.com
Prof Joseph Grundfest,

Stanford Law School,
Author of the Affidavit (Dkt #10) in SEC v BAC.
Basel Committee
[redacted]
BAC Executive Committee

Kenneth D. Lewis
Charles K. Gifford,
Audit Committee:
D. Paul Jones,
Donald E. Powell
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
442 / 545
"ATTENTION: THOMAS MAY"< ir@nstar.com >
Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Holder of direct reporting duties
Neil A. Cotty
Joe L. Price
By email
100 North Tryon St
"Please forward, Attention Officers/Directors: Lewis, Gillford, Massey, Jones, May, Powell, O’Keefe,
Cotty, Price"
< joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com >, < patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com >,
Bank of America Corporation
PriceWaterhouse
Fax:< 17043444100@efaxsend.com >
443 / 545
09-09-02 Correspondence with Att Samuel Bezek, SEC, and Prof Grundfest, Stanford University,
in re: Dr Zernik’s complaints to SEC re: CFC and/or BAC
Introductory Notes:
i. Prior to the first email note there was a rather lengthy phone conversation in which same
general issues covered in the correspondence were discussed.
ii. The compilation here is not the entire correspondence, due to its length, not all notes were
included. Sufficient notes were included to provide perspective of the extent and the
scope of the correspondence.
1. Zernik to Grundfest February 9, 2009, 16:28 –

Request for protection from the racketeering Countrywide and LA
Superior Court
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:28:17 -0800

To: grundfest@stanford.edu
Subject: Request for protection from the racketeering Countrywide and LA Superior
Court
Prof Grundfest:
We talked briefly by phone at the end of last week. I am following up with an email
per your request.
I was victim of fraud by Countrywide, the first time I heard the name was December
2006. But by January 2007 I submitted a complaint of about 100 page to the LA FBI
regarding fraud by Countrywide against US gov.
By March 2007 I produced a rough estimate of hundreds of billions of liability. The
FBI told me not to send anything anymore. I also filed at that time complaints with
Thrift and Trade Commission, and my experience can tell a lot about what happened
in Countrywide. But the FBI refuses to investigate, since it would inevitably lead to
the corrupt judges.
In parallel, a campaign of unstoppable harassment started. No agency local or

federal would defend me, and Countrywide and the court go on with their
racketeering as if there was no sub prime crisis at all. It included the taking of my
home with no compensation (NOT A FORECLOSURE as the FBI falsely stated, I
never missed a payment, it was simply racketeering), gag orders, and just plain
harassment. All done openly, in complete violation of the law.
Strangest of all is the conduct of BOA Tim Mayopoulos. As I mentioned to you by

phone - the only explanation I find for it is some guarantees that are outside that
which is allowed by law. But that would not be surprising either.
In the meanwhile in abusive and retaliatory court actions, CFC refers to BOA as its
"new affiliate".
444 / 545
I would try to call you, and hope you could help.
Part of the problem is that I also figured out the fraud on a massive scale in the
computers of the court here.
The FBI knows it all, but wont do a thing. Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman
Watson issued an inquiry for me last year. The response of FBI and USDOJ was
fraudulent.
You can find my mini encyclopedia of LA corruptions at: http://inproperinla.com/
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD

<jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cell: 310 435 9107
No voice mail; IM, Page- OK
No ID- No response
________________________________________
2. Zernik to Grundfest, February 9, 2009, 17:27 –
Request for protection from the racketeering Countrywide and LA
Superior Court
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:27:05 -0800

Subject: Request for protection from the racketeering Countrywide and LA Superior
Court
Prof Grundfest:
I realize that you may be one of the few who can read and comment on my proposal
last year to the judiciary committees -urgently needed regulation of computers at the
courts. They asked me for a one page proposal, so it is a bit skimpy, but the idea is
clear, in believe.
http://inproperinla.com/.0Heading-140-conclusions-concerns-proposal-computers-&-
courts.pdf
Otherwise, I am sure you can easily figure out the massive fraud in the Register of
actions. They created a system where some proceedings that in open court appear
real, are actually off the record, and not adjudicated in the register.
The whole system that they elaborately built here, is distinctly medieval in intent and
outcome.
And the result is the abundance of medieval style frauds by the court on the litigants -
summons frauds, judgement frauds, etc.
It is fully coordinated with the court of appeal 2nd district, and I have substantial data
on them too. And the LA District court is fed y judges from the LA Sup Ct, so no
wonder they are similar.
I can eve show the frauds perpetrated on Pacer in the USDCLA.
But pacer overall is ok, it has some deficiencies.
The minute orders of the LA SUP Ct are another major area of fraud. They
developed a system that t a judge may make a ruling or order in open court ,
outrageous as it may be. Then if the judge secretly voids it on the computer, with no
notice to the parties, it is ok. I know it sound so infantile that it cannot be true. But if
you look at the record that I sent you, all the minute orders with 00/00/00 for date of
445 / 545
entry are voided.
But no attorney or litigant ever sees these records.

Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
________________________________________
3. Zernik to Grundfest, February 10, 2009 –

Evidence for Enterprise Track at the LA Superior Court
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:46:27 -0800

Subject: Evidence for Enterprise Track vs True Court Track for procession cases in
LA Superior Court.
Prof Grundfest:
I initiated a web-based petition for the appointment of a Special Counsel to

investigate and prosecute the denial of access to the public records of the LA
Superior Court in the last quarter century. That was the essence of my request to the
USDOJ last summer, denied by false claims that I was complaining about
"foreclosure procedures".
I believe that the USDOJ cannot rely in this matter on the FBI, but a unit from Dept of
Treasury or the department that was involved in seizing computers in failed banks
could accomplish the basic task overnight.
It is a cheap, short-term, cost effective action, with minimal intervention, relative to

the impact it can have.
Separately - I finally managed to located the defendant in another court case that
appears like a cookie cutter copy of my case. With that I confirmed I believe that
particular type of "Enterprise Track". Although I originally discussed only two tracks, it
is obvious now that it is in reality multiples tracks... for example - cases of LA
COUNTY are a track on its own.
The Enterprise Track are cases that are not at all appearing on the Index of All
Cases, and are considered by the Judiciary as not bound by U.S. of Ca law, and are
basically looted.
Admission to the Track is tricky, requires compliance with ALL requirements below:
1) Must not have any valid record of a pleading
2) Must not have any valid record of any dispositive action
3) Must not have any valid record of an effectual entered judgment
4) Must not have any valid record of an effectual entered appealable order
5) Must not have any valid record of an assignment order
6) Must not have any valid record of dispositive action on assignment and jurisdiction
(Peremptory Challenge, disqualifications for a cause)
7) Must not have any valid record of required conferences (initial, trial setting, pretrial,
446 / 545
post-trial)
8) Must not have any valid record of monetary transactions that establish a contract
for court services between the parties and the court.
And yet, I have 2-3 cases that qualify!
I would be grateful if you would agree to discuss such matters by phone or meet.
There are hardly any people qualified to discuss these issues, and practicing
attorneys stay away from any such issue. Furthermore, I find that most practicing
attorneys are not inclined to understand or find any significance to issues related to
administration of the courts.
I am confident of my findings, since all my findings on non-computerized records

were confirmed. Furthermore, the death threats I received were the best confirmation
of all. One was directly related to Countrywide, the other one to the court.
Joseph Zernik.

Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
________________________________________

Petition to Free the Rampart-FIPs
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:32:41 -0800
Subject: Petition for a Special Counsel to restore public access to the public's
records. Please takes a few seconds - make a difference... Please sign the petition...
and also forward it to others.
.
Restore Justice In L.A.
.
Target: PRESIDENT OBAMA & SUPPORTERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
EVERYWHERE
Sponsored by: Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, California
.
Takes a few seconds - make a difference,., sign the petition...
RESTORE JUSTICE IN L.A. - PETITION
< http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-
justice-in-l-a>
__________________________________________________________________
http://inproperinla.com/01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
NOW, THAT DETENTIONS AT GUANTANAMO BAY ARE COMING TO AN

447 / 545
END, it is time to apply the same standards at home - here - in L.A., where the
number of those who are falsely imprisoned is estimated at 10,000 - those who were
never released in the past decade in disregard of the Rampart scandal investigations
(98-00) and successive review panel reports that followed. The blight of government
in L.A. County, California, the most populous in the U.S., is visible also in large scale
abuses of the civil rights of all the 10 millions who live here; in an ineffective U.S.-
appointed Overseer for civil rights, and well documented corruption of the justice
system. Such lawlessness was tolerated by the U.S. Government and its Justice
Department for decades -- with a price - since the sub-prime crisis - was brewed at
L.A.-based Countrywide. And yet, in the past year the FBI is engaged, again, in a
deliberately investigation, while the evidence is clear that regardless of the enormous
bailout, Countrywide is as far from compliance as ever before. And in the meanwhile
- the wave of foreclosures has turned into looting of homeowners in court across the
U.S., where the role of Countrywide was again, fully documented. In LA County it is
coupled with widespread corruption of the courts on a scale unheard of elsewhere in
the U.S.
.
These are problems that must be addressed by the U.S. government. We call upon
President Obama to appoint a SPECIAL COUNSEL TO RESTORE THE PUBLIC'S
RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC'S RECORDS AT THE COURTS. It is a
minimal gesture, demonstrating his administration's stand on "equal protection", and
civil rights at home.
.
We call upon human rights organizations everywhere to study conditions prevailing
in L.A. and to send observers here to examine the conduct of both local and U.S.
agencies during the ongoing crisis. Such organizations ought to do so -- for their own
benefit. Because the impact of the failure of government to govern, here, is now felt
world-wide. Here such observers will also be able to study forms of corruption and
abuse that are yet to be conceived in most other places.
.
The restoration of public access to the public's records at the courts will empower the
public at large and also civil rights organizations, it is a key measure for restoration of
the integrity of the courts. It will allow the public to review the track records of the
judges, and it will also allow effective use of large scale writs of habeas corpus to
release those who are falsely imprisoned. The office of Overseer appeared to be
handicapped by lack of access, and will therefore benefit from such measure as well.
And FBI in LA may become more focused, free of distraction by the preoccupation of
how to conduct an investigation against Countrywide, without finding any wrongs at
the court.
.
In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), the U.S. Supreme
Court affirmed "the common-law right of access to judicial records" otherwise
referred to as "the common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records". And
yet, for the past quarter century, the LA Courts have declared (but never published) a
rule that their quintessential records were "privileged - for the Courts only", in
entire disregard of the law.
.
Where did the courts find the authority to impose such a "privileged" state on the
public's records held by the court for safekeeping? It was never spelled out, because
there wasn't, there isn't, and there never will be a just reason for an honest court to
conceal the public's records from the public.
.
IT IS THE WISDOM OF GENERATIONS - JUSTICE SEEN IS JUSTICE DONE -
AND IT IS ALSO THE LAW!
.
__________________________________________________________________
.
1) In doubt and need to review some original records to support the claims
listed above?
448 / 545
a) View - May 1, 2001, PBS Transcript with estimates of the number of falsely
imprisoned people in LA.
.
b) View - The 2006 Blue Ribbon Review report.
The report details the refusal of police, prosecutors, and judges, to allow
the FIPs to be released.
.
c) View - Sustain - a Corrupt Case Management System at the LA Superior Court-
. routinely generates false and deliberately misleading litigation records.
.
d) View - August 2008, email note from James Wedick - a veteran FBI agent, to
Zernik.
Wedick, decorated by U.S. Congress, FBI Director, and U.S. Attorney General,
explains that the FBI, which for two years is refusing to investigate complaints of real
estate fraud by Countrywide and judges of the LA Superior Court, would not assist
Zernik in recovering his possession, unless Zernik can come up with a complaint that
avoids mention of the judge involved in the matter...
First complaint regarding fraud by Countrywide, in particular the CFC Legal
Department, against Zernik and against the U.S. government, were filed in January
2007. By March 2007, FBI was advised that rough calculations show that the liability
to U.S. government by Countrywide may end up in the hundreds of billions. At that
time, FBI instructed Zernik not to submit any more papers.
e) View - July Sept 2008, Correspondence between senior officers of the U.S.
Dept of Justice and congress.
Correspondence between the Honorable Senator Diane Feinstein, the Honorable
Congresswoman Diane Watson, Director of the U.S. Department of Justice, and
Assistant Director of the FBI, explaining their refusal to investigate. Upon review,
such responses may be deemed false and deliberately misleading, since the claim of
lack of "federal investigational jurisdiction" contradicts statements to the press by
the FBI at the same period. And Mr Melson's claim of "foreclosure" and "improper
fines" is an entirely made up, groundless, derogatory statement.
Such statements were made to explain the denial over two-year period to initiate an
investigation against Countrywide, in a case that most likely, upon review, has
sufficient evidence for indictments on claims of racketeering, involving top officers of
Countrywide such as Sandor Samuels - former Chief Legal Officer.
At the same time, FBI intensive investigation, for over a year now, seems to be
without any results that are news worthy. The chances of any major discovery by the
FBI from such investigation are most likely getting slimmer by the day.
f) View- Oct 11, 2008, ruling of California Court of Appeal regarding payments
that were "not permissible".
Oct 15,2008, broadcast by KNBC, stating that the "not permissible" payment
generated bias in the courts.
Mr Melson, Director of the U.S. Department of Justice, also seems to doubt Zernik's
claims that the LA Superior Court runs an Enterprise Track in parallel to the Court
Track. However, since then, Zernik identified additional cases that support his claims,
and the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling that in fact indicated the existence
of yet another track - The LA County Track.
2) Willing to help even more?
a. Please forward this email to some friends.
b. Please insert the attached gadget into the HTML code of your web page, and it
would generate a polling station right there and then, for use by anybody visiting your
web page. (example of the resulting insert can be seen at
a. http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ ;
b. http://tikkunla.blogspot.com/ ;
c. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a ;
d. http://www.youtube.com/now654321
449 / 545
Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
_________________________________________________________

Log Of FOIA Responses From Federal Trade Commission
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:31:54 -0800
Subject: Record that you may find of interest- LOG OF FOIA FROM FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION 2007
Feb 12, 2009
Prof Grundfest:
I thought you would be interested in the following record:
A. FALSE AND MISLEADING FTC-FOIA- response log

In itself it is very simple - log of Federal Trade Commission FOIA responses, listing
my name as someone who made a request for a countrywide home loan record, and
whose request was granted in full.
http://inproperinla.com/.0Heading-146-otc-foia-s.pdf
However, I consider it of interest because it is a false and deliberately misleading

record, the last piece in a series of frauds by the Federal Trade Commission, where
the agency was colluding with Countywide in frauds against me, instead of protecting
me, which is their mission.
There was some of it also n Thrift, but my impression with Thrift was that they
conduct a bona fide investigation. What was corrupt in Thrift is the information they
released from the investigation. and also that several months later somebody in thrift
adulterated the investigation results.
But in Trade Commission it was much worse:

Outline of the conduct of Trade Commission:
a) Impossible to get through by phone.
b) When I figured out the phone number of the Director, secretary tried for a while to mislead
me that it
was the wrong agency.
c) Then they tried to mislead me that they lost the complaint that was generated by Thrift
Supervision,
but Federal Reserve told me it was a laughable story.
d) Then they tried to claim that they did not have jurisdiction
e) Then they simply claimed that they did not have the duty to investigate every case, and they
decided
not to investigate this one.
f) Then I filed FOIA
g) Then they would not give me anything in a timely manner.
h) Then I filed complaint with Inspector General.
i) Then I got a few pages, but they were marked as edited, not redacted.
j) I could not even get a copy of my own complaint, to established that they really logged it.
450 / 545
The record here states that my request was Granted in Full.
B. SHAM LITIGATION BY COUNTRYWIDE AND BOA GOES ON AT LA SUPCT

The reason I would like to talk with you, is that I am still where I was at that time,
trying to hide, while being persecuted by Countryside and now BOA. On February
17, 2009 they will have again a hearing for sanctions and OSC against me, and for
all I know may decide to jail me. But the whole thing is racketeering:
o The judge does not have an assignment order,.
o The attorneys are not authorized by BOA, and
o The case, is not recognized by the LA Superior Court as a True

Case
o Countrywide is not a real party- but a Non-Party, but the court will
decide on the day what to call them.
o The order that I purportedly violated is a protective order by Judge

Connor from July 23, 2007, I never saw it, since it does not exist.
But that is no problem'
o The hearing on Feb 17,2009, is based on the notion that BOA is a

new affiliate of CFC, and therefore the non-existent order by Judge
Connor of July 23, 2007, which was created off the record , off the
calendar is in effect and prohibits me from any communication with
any BOA employee - while I hold BOA deposit accounts. Just as a
reference I am also providing the outside counsel manual of
BOA that is now valid;
http://inproperinla.com/08-12-11-boa-outside-counsel-procedures-s.pdf
That was my problem with Judge Connor too--- you cannot even call it fraud,
because there is never any reliance, I never believe a word any of them said, it is just
that the judges act like thugs, and have the ability to take my home issue fraudulent
grant deed on it, and nobody in California, or maybe the whole united states would
dare say anything - because they are judges.
That false deference to corrupt judges is mind boggling. And it goes all the way to the
judiciary committees.
Any suggestion would be appreciated. I hope I do not have to find shelter in a foreign
embassy in the U.S. from violations of my civil rights under the color of law of
California, after the FBI assistant Director and Director of USDOJ refused to provide
me protection, and provided congress with fraudulent responses why they do so.
My true sin is that I figured it all out about Countrywide in January 2007, as an
orthodontist with no background in nothing. And worse yet - that I exposed the Play
Pretend legal theory that is the basis of the whole State of California Court system -
since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ronald George, is most likely the
inventor of this infantile legal system, which came into being around 1985.
My prediction is that many of the judges, possibly even Ronald George will escape
when the records are opened. And after that there would be a need for truth and
reconciliation committees, such as was done in South Africa.
C. Organized Crime:
My case shows the whole structure of the organized crime in Southern California in a
nut shell:
a, In the criminal courts - bribes go routinely.

I believe Samaan's husband, Jae Arre - who is the "Brains" bribed a judge, most
likely Connor, after he stole the benefits of Skyline Funding.
b. The police racketeer in drug trading, but the judges get out of the way
anybody who knows anything or is a problem,
451 / 545
with long term sentence. That is why they cannot let them out. The real reason they
are in prison is that they were in the way of the police and the judge. I myself believe
I was target for framing a couple of times in recent months... that is the way to get rid
of me.
b, Civil Courts- Play Pretend Galdjie v Darwish

Most likely it was Connor herself who at that time explained to him how to bring a
real estate fraud case to make it most beneficial. Specific performance. The reason I
say that is that last week I finally found the defendants in the other case of specific
performance that I was looking for a long time. A not very intelligent couple of 65,
they lost a 6-unit rental property. several of the same people were involved, and it
included a chain of judges, like in my case, and none with an assignment order, like
in my case, and strange judgment like in my case, by court.
Here are the registers of actions and the minute orders. and you see that there is o
assignment whatsoever.
These are also cases of Statute of frauds fraud, and the demurrer was secretly
voided. You can see it in the file # 2 electronic minute order, d-v-d sustain. page #4,
which is page #2 (last) of the demurrer: Minutes Entered 00/00/00 County Clerk. In
my case there are many more of these. But in paper court file they have a valid date.
1) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-register-of-actions-case-history-g-v-d-
sustain-ocr.pdf
2) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-register-of-actions-case-history-d-v-d-
sustain-ocr.pdf
3) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-electronic-d-v-d-
complete-ocr.pdf
4) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-electronic-g-v-d-
complete-ocr.pdf
I asked them why they had no jury trial. Because the secret record of the court is
really strange on that point. The jury trial was continued again and again for two
years. Then they all showed up for jury trial, and then the attorneys went to
chambers, and then there was no jury trial, and they ended up going in the afternoon
to the muni judge in Culver city, whose name is missing from the record, and none of
the attorneys in that procedure is listed, but they are the same as were before and
after, and they lost their property. And it started exactly like my case:
A convicted felon who did not qualify made an offer. Then could not get the loan,
then did not say anything, finally, after they gave him an extra 3 months! they
canceled escrow. A year later he sued, and they lost the property and more.
c. Court of Appeal- giving the blessing to the frauds

The outrageous issue in their case is that an appeal attorney fraudulently took them
through h an appeal - there was no valid judgment - how could they appeal ? And
the Appeal court made them lose,and made it into a published opinion!!!!
Galdjie v Darwish. They tried to do it to me too... they do not even have anymore on
the online docket a place to list the date of entry of judgment. But I realized that, and
also filed a series of motion that made it clear that the court of appeal was trying to
perpetrate a fraud on me. At the end I claimed it was a premature notice of appeal,
since it was never entered yet, but they claimed it was and entered judgement, and
dismissed the appeal for my refusal to file opening brief. But at the same time they
refused to allow me to see the records of the lower court.
The only major significance of the appeal was that the clerk of the lower court tried to
file a fraudulent record as Register of Actions, and I objected, and they in fact
accepted my objection. It means that nobody in LA county ever sees the true
register, and that the record with all the Play Pretend system is the TRUE
REGISTER PER COURT OF APPEAL.
d. Courts of Equity - and real etate frauds - the specialty of the courts
452 / 545
when I called this couple last Friday, a few years after the fact, they still did not have
a clue that they were victims of fraud by the court. They believed that the buyer, the
felon just lied in court, and was a good liar, and that their attorney had a surgery a
week or two before the trial so that she was not in good shape, and that maybe the
judge was a bit too young.... but they never even dreamed that all these people
ganged up on them to steal the equity they had in the property.
They really did not know much. But when I asked why they did not have a jury trial,
the lady knew the answer right away - that it was an equity court, and based on
English tradition of the equity court there is no right for a jury trial...
They was exactly the story that i got from my real estate attorney on the first time we
met after I retained him.
This cannot be something the convicted felons tell each other in jail. it is something
they learn when they bribe the judge in the criminal trial.
Even this fraud is medieval in nature.. And because of that in fact equity courts had
no jurisdiction on property, they could not change the title... it was only in personam
jurisdiction.
e. Countrywide and sub-prime perfect game- generating high volume real

estate litigations
No wonder that countrywide and the court are in mutual happiness.
f, The large law firms - Sheppard Mullin and Bryan Cave, LLP
The sent relatively young attorneys, but they were supervised by senior partner. The
attorney from Bryan Cave was 2 years out of UCLA when she started, and right
away they engage in racketeering as if that is what they learnt in law school. I
conclude that the senior partners in the big law firm are the "institutional memory" of
the specific procedures of the various corrupt judges.
g. The Officer of the Court. the Registrar. and the notary

After visiting the Registrar, it was much clearer to me the fraud Att Pasternak, friend
of Samuels did with his Notary, and I called and asked to see the journal. He called
back that he instructed security to apprehend me and escort me out if I try to enter
the building.
h. FBI and USDOJ

They are really the ones who decided to permit it in the last couple of decades. How
do they rationalize it?
I was told by a guy who should know that I am defined as "bad" guy, and the FBI is
doing its best to protect the corrupt judges.
i. Seeking a way to stop the disgrace of the U.S. legal system

If not for me as fellow citizen abused to the extreme by the corrupt california and U.S.
legal systems, then for saving any dignity of the system that may be salvaged. My
daughter is in Yale law school. I was teaching her growing up that the events that
coincided to generate the drafting of the U.S. Constitution are so statistically unreal -
a collection of enlightened and non-corrupt leaders, that it can be considered divine
intervention... At the end, Jefferson could not help himself when he saw a good deal
with the Louisiana Purchase, but other than that...
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, especially a phone call to Mr Mayopoulos.

Legal Department
NC1-002-29-01
101 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28255
Tel 704-386-6834
Fax 704-602-5785
Phil Wortz
I also figured out the personal extension of Mr Mayopoulos, but I do not think it is
appropriate for you to do that.
453 / 545
But because of that, it is endless, it can go on for ever. And they already drove me
out of my own home - no security in my own residence, and took my property with no
compensation for private use, and issued on me 3 gag orders, and violated any
semblance of due process, it is really a disgrace...... And the U.S. sent experts to Iraq
to teach them court administration...
You may realize now why I consider the hiding of the books the key to the whole
corruption in LA County.. Without the books you can run fake litigations, you can
imprison fake prisoners, all medieval style.
I am urgently seeking help. And the fact that my petition is primarily targeting the
world outside the U.S. to help me get my basic civil rights protected inside the U.S.,
where I am a citizen, surely is making Jefferson, Madison and the rest of the Framer
roll in the graves.
Any suggestion would be helpful... I believe that one phone call from the SEC to MR
TIM MAYOPOLOUS COULD MAKE ME AN "EQUAL PROTECTION" CITIZEN
AGAIN. THE LAST TIME I TALKED BY PHONE WITH SEC ABOUT THIS WAS
Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
________________________________________

Request for opinion memos
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:10:32 -0800

Subject: Request for an opinion memo and proposed opinion memos
Please see attached:

09-02-13 zernik to grundsfest -concerns-s.pdf;

Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
________________________________________

Request for Opinion Memos
The full document can be viewed next page.

Request was also posted online at:
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-13-zernik-to-grundsfest-concerns-request-opinion-
memo-s.pdf
454 / 545
09-02-13. Zernik to Grundsfest Request for an Opinion Memo

Feb 13 ,2009
Professor Joseph Grundsfest

William A. Franke Professor of Law and Business
Stanford Law School
Former Chairman
United States Stock Exchange Commission
Dear Prof. Grundsfest:
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me by phone last week. I am grateful for any help
that you would be willing to provide. Obviously, you have heard and read by now more than
enough to allow a person of your stature to figure out what is going on, or at least what is
sufficiently plausible to require follow up.
The issue is urgent, since the LA Superior Court set a date for a “hearing” on OSC Contempt
for February 17, 2009, based on false charges, and already in a previous such case Judge
Friedman threatened to jail me.
I enclosed a set of six independently written opinions for your consideration in both short and
long format, with references. At the end, as always, I am pressed in time and could not put in
place all the references, all of which are online at http://inproperinla.com/. The allegations
in #2-6 are of serious violations of my rights in a sham litigation by two large corporations
engaging in perversion of justice with no inhibitions. But review of that would be time
consuming. For the allegations in #1, relative to false response to legal subpoena, it is
sufficient to provide one or two references. Therefore it is the least time demanding for you to
review.
Regardless of your decision, I would be grateful for any speedy notice of your intentions in
this regard.
I also prepared a compilation of my previous complaints the SEC and failure to act upon them,
similar to what took place in FTC and Thrift, but I see review of that as a waste of your time.
I would be glad to provide it to Congressoinal committee of oversight jurisdiction in that
matter.
I am grateful for any help. Surely you recognize that I deliberately try to conduct this case in a
manner that provides public service, albeit neither by choice nor by design, so that the years
spent on seeking remedy to such abuse will not have been spent in vane.
Thanks again,
Joseph Zernik
455 / 545
Proposed Recommendations
1) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400): The February 8, 2007 Countrywide Subpoena

Production records2, combined with the records provided by Zernik, analyzing
Samaan’s loan applications of September 27, 20043,4 clearly amount to material
violations of the law, and raise the question of compliance with Sarbanes –Oxley Act
(2002) §307 by both CFC and BOA. The Chairman of the SEC will be orally notified by
this licensed member of the California State bar association pursuant to the code of
professional conduct, with a recommendation that BOA immediately stop any actions by
Bryan Cave, LLP, in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) purportedly unauthorized by BOA to
begin with, pending filing of reasonable explanations by both former Chief Legal Officer
of CFC, Sandor Samuels, and current General Counsel of BOA Timothy Mayopoulos and
acceptance of such explanations by the Chairman of the SEC.
2) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400): The use of party designation ”Non Party” by

Countrywide for all the period from July 6, 20075 and to the February 17,2009
moving papers,6 is inconsistent with either the law or the practice of good counsel,
and support concerns raised regarding the overall nature of this matter, amounting
to obstruction of justice and material violations of the law. July 6, 2007 papers include
various issues of concern7 regarding attempts by a corporation to restrict speech by an
individual, but more than anything else, is the missing minute order in paper court file8,
the missing date for submission of moving papers for July 23, 2007 in the electronic court
file minute order9, and the notation “proceedings not recorded” in the register of
actions10. The hearing on July 23, 2007, followed a disqualification for a cause on July
12, 2007, which appears as if handled in a manner that was inconsistent with the law,
raising further questions regarding the proceedings. The outcome of the July 23, 2007 –
the Protective Order is nowhere to be found in the records, not even in moving papers by
Countrywide that were the basis for serious sanctions or finding of contempt for purported
violations of such order. Countrywide’s moving papers for January 13. 200911, and for
February 17, 200912, with no judge assignment listed on their face, and the failure to ever
present a valid Protective Order that Defendant Zernik is allegedly in violating of, and
numerous other obvious defects, surely are not reflection of the professional standards that
Bryan Cave , LLP would like to claim their own, Failure to identify an Assignment Order
for Judge Friedman in certified copies dated November 14, 2008 of either Register of
Actions13, or Minute Orders14, are matter for serious concerns and material wrong doing.
December 26, 2007 Minute Order by Judge Rosenberg15, denying Zernik’s request for and
Assignment Order, combined with its invalidation in the Electronic copy but not the paper
copy, make the matter inadequate for participation by a public corporation. Judge
Friedman’s refusal to file a statement on the records regarding his relationship with
Samuels and Countrywide, as well as his refusal to release any funds to Zernik from the
alleged sale of the property, with prejudice and a threat of sanctions, while the very same
order was again is invalidated, and numerous “waiver of notice” in court records, which
must never be part of corporate practice, and the failure of BOA’s General Counsel to
authorize Bryan Cave, LLP for more than half a year, even after demands by Dr Zernik,
retaliation against Dr Zernik for communication with General Counsel on this matter to
protect his rights, and what appears as an attempt to obstruct throughout this dispute,
456 / 545
clearly contradicts the stated standards in the Outside Counsel Procedures manual of
BOA16, combined make the conduct by Bryan Cave, LLP on behalf of BOA.
Unauthorized as it may be, but obviously done with a nod from the General Counsel, it is
a material violation of the law, and raises the question of compliance with Sarbanes –
Oxley (2002) §307. The Chairman of the SEC will be orally notified by this licensed
member of the California State bar association pursuant to the code of professional
conduct.
3) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400): The records related to the appointment of a Court

Officer who is the “Receiver”, starting with Missing Assignment Order of Judge Segal,
denial of Zernik’s ex parte application on October 10,2 007 to be noticed of such order,
November 5, 2007 minute order that has been invalidated, and motion that included false
record for a judgment, combined with repeat inclusion of a false record for a judgment on
November 9, and transcript of November 9, where Att Keshavarzi stated in open court
rejection of the judgment may these motion and order dubious. The appointment order
17
itself, showing no section of the code ahs the legal foundation for the appointment,
shooing no judgment, and no contract, make the case Minute order , Appointment of
Receiver, culminating in dubious grant deeds require immediate investigation by the
Section on Public Integrity of the Justice Department in Washington DC, ebdubg wutg the
refusal to allow Zernik to inspect the journal of the Notary Public..
4) Zernik v Connor (2:2008cv01550) The failure to adjudicate pending matters in the

past half year, combined with issues raised by plaintiff in litigation records as well as the
extensive set of rejected filings18, are worthy of review by the Section on Public Integrity
of the Justice Department in Washington, DC.
5) General: The proposed appointment of a Special Counsel per 28 CFR §600 to

enforce public access to the public records is inadequate as presented by Zernik an
in pro se litigant in the petition,. However, the facts and the claims presented are
compelling, and present a request that is a moderate measure relative to the scope of
the violations some merely allegations19, but others very substantially supported by
the evidence.20,2122
6) General: Zernik’s proposal pursuant to the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC
§2071–207723 - in its current format is useless, but the core issue is of interest not
only for the courts, but in a range of other public and private organization. We may
be able to put together a team here at the Stanford Center for Law and Business that
would be able to advance a range of proposals including such that would be submitted
to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and Chairs of
Subcommittees on Administration of the Courts.
2
Countrywide subpoena production
http://inproperinla.com/07-02-08-countrywide-fraudulent-subpoena-production-c-s.pdf
3
Samaan’s false loan applications with Countrywide
http://inproperinla.com/04-09-27-doc-40-samaan-fraudulent-loan-applications-s.pdf
457 / 545
4
Fraud expert opinion letter in re: Samaan’s false loan applications with Countrywide.
http://inproperinla.com/04-09-27-opinion-letter-fraud-in-loan-applications-signature-s.pdf
5
July 6, 2007 “Non-Party” Countrywide’s Application for a Protective Order.
6
February 17, 2009 “Non Party” Countrywide’s Notice of Motion and Motion
7
July 6, 2007 moving papers by Countrywide
8
Missing minute order for July 6, 2007
9
Missing date of submission for July 23, 2007 moving papers
10
“Proceedings not recorded” in the July 6, 2007 register of Actions.
11
January 13, 2009 countrywide moving papers
12
February 17, 2009 countrywide moving papers
13
Nov 14, 2008 certified copy of Register of Actions missing assignment order for Friedman
14
Nov 13, 2008 certified copy of minute orders missing assignment order for Friedman
15
December 26, 2007 Minute Order by Gerald Rosenberg Denying Zernik’s request for an assignment order for a judge,
was invalidated.
16
Outside Counsel Procedures of BOA
17
Appointment Order of a Receiver
18
Compilation of records denied filing base on false claims of “discrepancies“ in the Court
19
Allegation that the Court of Appeal, 2nd District holds a terminal for Sustain.
20
Minute Order Table
21
Minute Orders, Certified November 14, 2009
22
Register of Actions, Certified, November 14, 2009
23
Proposal in re: Rule Making Enabling Act.
458 / 545
8. Grundfest to Zernik, Feb 14, 2009 -
Prof Grundfest brought Zernik’s observations to attention of Director of
Division of Enforcement at SEC.
To: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>

Subject: Re: Request for an opinion memo and proposed opinion memos
X-KeepSent: 0A39E9C9:0EEEAA19-8825755D:0066C5A6;
type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006
From: Joe Grundfest <joelaw@law.stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:52:10 -0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on lawmail1/stanford(Release 8.0.2|August 07,
2008) at
02/14/2009 10:54:57 AM
X-ELNK-Received-Info: spv=0;
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
Mr. Zernick:
I have brought you observations to the attention of the director of the division of
enforcement of the SEC and am copying her on the attached correspondence.
As you are well aware, I am not a government employee and have no independent
ability to conduct any inquiries. Also, it appears that your allegations relate primarily
to fraud in real estate transactions, and I have no comparative expertise in that are of
the law.
Regards,
Joe Grundfest
Professor Joseph A. Grundfest

The William A. Franke Professor of Law and Business
and Co-Director, Rock Center on Corporate Governance
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, Ca. 94305
Tel: 650.723.0458
Fax: 650.723.8229
____________________________________
joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
02/13/2009 04:12 PM
To
cc
Subject
Request for an opinion memo and proposed opinion memos

459 / 545
Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response !SIG:49960c56235971318415215!
09-02-13 zernik to grundsfest -concerns-s.pdf
____________________________________

Thanks, and defining key issues.
To: Joe Grundfest <joelaw@law.stanford.edu>

Subject: Re: Request for an opinion memo and proposed opinion memos
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

I appreciate your generosity!
I would be grateful if you could give me her name and address, I would like to mail
her some evidence of criminal conduct at countrywide, under the guidance of the
Legal Department. But only if you think that there is really interest in enforcement
there. I have seen enough agencies that are not interested in any enforcement. I
assume you noticed the loan applications. The data was all false, but that you can
say is the applicant , but the double date received? and in Meet and Confer they
claimed that they have no clue how it happened.
Well the way it happened is like this:
In case you are interested in my insights, as someone who was totally new to the
field two years ago and had to learn fast:
1) Digital signatures:
Some say that Japan loses every year some fraction of its potential growth as a
result of lack of leadership to move its banking industry out of the use of the carved
seals for account identification. Similarly, I suggest, that the U.S. loses every year
some of its potential growth as a result of lack of leadership in moving at least certain
sectors into routine use of digital signatures. It requires long term planning, realistic
targets, and education. It is my understanding that to a degree the problem is with
the E-sign law of 2002. If that is indeed the case, then California should possibly take
a leadership position.
2) The practice of law

If Enron was primarily about accounting, then Countrywide is primarily about the
practice of law. At the end nobody even knows the name of countrywide CFO. In
Enron, nobody knew the name of the General Counsel. If in Enron the key concept
was deregulation, in Countrywide the key concept was: Streamlining. Samuels can
streamline the LA Superior court, Thrift regulator, FTC, anybody.
3) Why LA is the Capital of Fraud (per FBI)

The court in LA created an environment that is not only fraud permissive, but fraud
coercive. If you are in the real estate business, as an attorney, realtor, broker, etc.
460 / 545
you must never be caught on the wrong side of a dispute, or you may lose you
license. The clearest example was and is Att Richard Fine. He was the first who
antagonized the court on taking money from the county that is not permitted
($46,000 per judge per year for the last 10 years, and some years the county never
lost a case in trial by court). He lost his license on claims of "moral turpitude" (he is
about 70 yo, and a former special prosecutor), where the Moral Turpitude was filing
claims against judges. Since then, the Cal Court of Appeal ruled the same way - that
the judges of LA are not allowed to take supplements for their pay from the county..
But Att Fine is still debarred.
In my case: MY realtor started out relatively honest. Oct 18,19,20,2004 he
reported to me that he caught Samaan in wire fraud - she was impersonating
her loan broker all along. But by Oct 21, 2004, he was already on the other
side. Probably threatened. And in litigation, was not willing to provide any
declaration on the simplest facts.
4) UETA enforcement
None of the professionals kept any reasonable authentication of transmission, which
is done I believe deliberately to allow room for manipulation later on. The end result
was that there were 6 different variants of the contract in the subpoena productions,
and I consider none of them authentic. In particular not the one that came from
Countrywide. It was clearly the product of fax/wire fraud. For two years
Countrywide, and now BOA refuse to answer regarding the two records that are the
crux of the fraud and came from them. But if you look at Samaan’s loan file, you
realize that much of the loan file was also the product of the same type of wire/fax
fraud. it showed records with dates that had no bearing on when they really arrived in
countrywide.
At 10:52 AM 2/14/2009, you wrote:

Mr. Zernick:
I have brought you observations to the attention of the director of

the division of enforcement of the SEC and am copying her on the
attached correspondence.
As you are well aware, I am not a government employee and have

no independent ability to conduct any inquiries. Also, it appears that
your allegations relate primarily to fraud in real estate transactions,
and I have no comparative expertise in that are of the law.
Regards,
Joe Grundfest
Professor Joseph A. Grundfest

The William A. Franke Professor of Law and Business
and Co-Director, Rock Center on Corporate Governance
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, Ca. 94305
Tel: 650.723.0458
Fax: 650.723.8229
02/13/2009 04:12 PM
To
461 / 545
cc
Subject
Request for an opinion memo and proposed opinion memos


Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response !SIG:49960c56235971318415215!

Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
________________________________________

1) CFC, BAC fail to report pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002).
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:29:01 -0800

To: "Joseph Grundfest" <grundfest@stanford.edu>, "Erwin Chemerinsky"
<chemerinsky@law.duke.edu>
Subject: An open letter to Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Irvine Law School,
University of California: A few questions for your acquaintance - Judge TERRY
FRIEDMAN
Feb 19, 2009
Professor Joseph Grundfest

William A. Franke Professor of Law and Business
Stanford Law School
Former Chairman
United States Stock Exchange Commission
Dear Prof Grundfest:
I am grateful for your expedient help. I request that you add this email note to the
request for investigation by the SEC.
I allege that evidence, a fraction of which you have already seen, demonstrates
failure to report to SEC, by both SANDOR SAMUELS, former chief legal officer at
Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) and by TIMOTHY MAYOPOULOS,
General Counsel of Bank of America (BOA) pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley 307.
I allege that evidence, a fraction of which you have already seen, demonstrates
conduct by CFC, BOA and others, against its own share holders, against the U.S.
government, against me - JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and against the People
that amounts to violations of various designated federal laws, enumerated in 18 USC
1961, see also Giulliano v. Fulton, 399 F.3d 381, 388 (1st Cir. 2005).
I allege that the case encompasses evidence that meets all four elements: (1)
conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity, per 18
462 / 545
USC 1962, see also Kenda Corp. v. Pot OGold Money Leagues, Inc., 329 F.3d
216, 233 (1st Cir. 2003). Furthermore, I claim that the evidence would also be
deemed upon review to meet additional analysis: an enterprise that is marked by
association and control; a pattern that requires a showing of continuity --continuous
and related behavior that amounts to, or poses a threat of, continued criminal
violations; and racketeering activity that involves the violation of designated federal
laws as noted above.
Therefore, I allege that the case holds sufficient evidence for indictment per
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 USC 19618.
I allege that CFC, a racketeer-influenced and corrupt organization, was led by

ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR SAMUELS, engaged in financial crimes and
willfully defrauded its own share holders, in a scheme that at the end led to a loss in
capitalization value amounting to ~$100 billions, and also led to much larger liabilities
to the U.S. Government - amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. The outcome
of such conduct by ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR SAMUELS led tens of
thousands of American families to lose their homes, it will shackle this nation both at
home and abroad in the foreseeable future.
Again, I am grateful for your generosity and willingness to look at the matters of an
individual. Your actions are justified, because what is at stake is any semblance of
integrity of U.S. financial institutions, financial markets, and the courts. In particular -
any semblance of integrity in investigation of the Sub-Prime Lending Crisis and the
Bailout. All of these are critical at a time when the dollar is at a precarious
predicament, and after such conduct inflicted substantial damages on both investors
and working people world-wide.
In addition, your actions are also critical for securing the release of some 10,000
people who are falsely imprisoned in Los Angeles, by the same Court, since they
were never released in the aftermath of the Rampart scandal. What is at stake there
- is any semblance of compliance by the U.S. government with International Law
such as the Human Rights Conventions (1967), which incorporated the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948). All of these are critical at a time when U.S.
respect for Dignity of Man is questioned world-wide, even after the prudent decision
by President Barack Obama to stop the detentions at Guantanamo Bay.
Indeed, one cannot expect the a U.S. government to act with Integrity or to respect
Human Dignity at home, when it acts otherwise off shore. And likewise, one cannot
expect U.S. government to act with Integrity on some parts of the Law, while it
willfully disregards others.
While I understand that SEC policy is to keep its investigations confidential, I request
that the SEC notify me as soon as possible, whether, and when I would be notified
regarding response to my personal request entered herein:
My request, as an individual, to the SEC is to instruct CFC and BOA to
immediately stop all actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Los
Angeles Superior Court, alleged as racketeering, pending review by the SEC of
their conduct in this matter.
Sincerely,
Joseph Zernik
P.S. Beyond the email note to Prof. E. Chemerinsky, below, I request that the SEC
also incorporate into my complaint the following three attempts to describe the affair
in its entirety:
1) 08-12-13 Short narrative in chronological order (2 page narrative with 14

463 / 545
references)
http://inproperinla.com/08-12-03-zernik-press-release11-s.pdf
2) 09-02-19 Share Your Story of the Economic Crisis: or How I was driven out of my
home, and how my home was looted.
Contribution to the online project by President Obama (11 page narrative with 10
references).
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-19-president-obama-stories-project-s.pdf
3) 09-02-19 Zernik to Grundfest Request for an Opinion Memo - Incomplete Draft
dated Feb 14, 2009 (8 pages with >130 references)
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-19-zernik-to-grundsfest%20-request-for-opinion-
memos-s.pdf
__________________________________________________________________
2) An open letter to Prof Chemerinsky, Founding Dean, Irvine Law

School, University of California, in re: Alleged Racketeering by
Judge Terry Friedman.
Feb 19, 2009
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky

Dean, Irvine Law School
University of California
Dear Erwin:
I am grateful for your prompt responses, and for taking the time to correspond with
me. I would like to make one final request: Since Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN is your
acquaintance, as a personal favor, please ask him to explain to you how exactly he
perceives his conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), which he holds for over a
year, and whether he shares my opinion that his conduct, upon review by a
competent court, would be found in violation of U.S. Penal Code, per RICO 18 USC
1961-8.
In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400):
a) The Clerk of the Court, Mr JOHN CLARKE, would not certify Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) as a case of the superior court, neither as non-case
b) Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN like some other 10 judges that acted in the case
holds no assignment order
c) The Clerk of the Court, Mr JOHN CLARKE, would not certify Judge TERRY
FRIEDMAN as the duly assigned judge, holding jurisdiction in this case, neither as
not assigned, and holding no jurisdiction in this case.
d) Plaintiff NIVIE SAMAAN never paid filing fees for the original complaint
(October 25. 2005), but the complaint was never dismissed as required law.
e) All payments in the case instead of being registered in court records as "Filing
Fees", "Motion Setting Fees", etc. are listed as "Journal Entries".
f) All pleading and dispositive motions are listed in a manner that is invalid.
g) Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR (best remembered for her performance in
derailing the first Rampart trial) who instigated the case, allowed neither me nor my
counsel any access to court file, and also denied any notice or service of court
orders, ruling, judgments
h) Even today I am denied by Clerk of the Court, Mr JOHN CLARKE, my rights to
access court records to inspect and to copy per Common Law Rights affirmed in
Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc.
g) Where the Clerk of the Court, Mr JOHN CLARKE, refuses to certify a
Judgment by Court per Cal Code Civ Proc 437c, rendered by Judge Connor, as
464 / 545
either entered and effectual, alternatively - as not entered and ineffectual.
h) My home was taken with no judgment for private use with no compensation
j) Att DAVID PASTERNAK was purportedly appointed as "Receiver" for
execution of judgment for specific performance, in an order where no mention is
made of any section of the code, where no judgement is referenced or incorporated,
neither is any real property purchase contract
k) Where att DAVID PASTERNAK issued on behalf of the court two grant deeds
on my residence, both of which were opined by decorated veteran FBI agent JAMES
WEDICK as "frauds being committed...".
l) I appeared before Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN on January 30, 2008, later than
30 days from the date of the purported sale and asked for distribution of my
purported proceeds from the purported sale. Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN denied my
request with no explanation at all, with prejudice and with an explicit threat of
sanctions if I ever bring such request again. Then he went ahead and secretly listed
the proceedings as "Disposed" in court file, with no notice to parties.
m) Where SANDOR SAMUELS, former chief legal officer of Countrywide is listed
as a person of interest, and filed a verified statement describing his personal
relationship with Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN, but the latter denied any such
relationship and continues to refuse to disqualify,and also continues to refuse to file a
statement on the record per Cal Code Jud Eth Canon 3E(2) regarding such
relationship and any financial benefits to him or his family.
n) Where Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN failed to respond to disqualification for a
cause (March 12, 2008 - the 3rd such disqualification) per Cal Code Civ Proc 170.3
in an adequate manner, and then secretly registered his response to disqualification
as "Disposed".
m) Countrywide (with whom I had no business at all, but plaintiff's husband - a
felon - was a "loan originator") issued subpoena records of hundreds of false and
deliberately misleading banking records.
n) Where a key records by countrywide, an Underwriting Letter was opined by
nationally acclaimed fraud expert Robert Meister as false.
o) Where countrywide is allowed to appear for almost two years, represented by
BRYAN CAVE, LLP, and designates itself "Non Party".
p) Where the court designates Countrywide "Defendant", "Plaintiff", "Cross
Defendant", "Intervenor", "Real Party in Interest"... interchangeably, depending
on the date...
q) Where BRYAN CAVE, LLP, continued appearing for countrywide after the
July1,2008 takeover by BANK OF AMERICA, but to this date has failed to file
adequate corporate disclosure.
r) Where office of TIM MAYOPOULOS, General Counsel of BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION repeatedly informed me that BRYAN CAVE, LLP, is not authorized
to appear in their name in court.
s) Where the office of TIM MAYOPOULOS, routinely collaborate with BRYAN
CAVE, LLP, in support of their appearances in court as representing Countrywide.
u) Where neither BANK OF AMERICAN, nor COUNTRYWIDE never reported the
litigation in Samaan v Zernik, including any reporting per Sarbanes Oxley 307,
v) Where the BEVERLY HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT has refused to even
accept a report of a crime, needless to say investigate.
w) Where the office of California Attorney General JERRY BROWN, now running
for governor, after extensive review issued an opinion that such is a "private
matter", where the office of the Attorney General should not get involved.
w) Where the FBI is refusing to investigate for over two years, a complaint
claiming violations per RICO 18 USC 1961-8 and ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR
SAMUELS are directly involved, while publicly stating that they are engaging in an
intensive investigation of the sub-prime lenders
y) Where FBI refuses to investigate the case for over two years claims of RICO 18
USC 1961-8 against judges of the LA Superior Court, while publicly stating, as
recently as December 10, 2008, in New York:
465 / 545
"FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public
corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and
can tear at the fabric of a democratic society,"
z) Where assistant director of FBI, KENNETH KAISER, in response to
congressional inquiries by the Honorable DIANNE WATSON and the Honorable
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, explained the FBI refusal to investigate as based on lack of
"federal investigational jurisdiction".
aa) Where director general of U.S. Department of Justice, KENNETH MELSON, in
response to congressional inquiries by the Honorable Diane Watson and the
Honorable Dianne Feinstein, explained the refusal to investigate by falsely claiming
that ZERNIK was complaining about "foreclosure procedures", in a case that
involved no foreclosure and no default at all.
bb) Where counsel for the Judiciary Committee and the Housing Committee of the
U.S. House of Representatives, ROBERT REED issued recommendation not to
review the case, citing concerns about "politization of the courts"
bb) Where Thrift Supervision provided false and deliberately misleading responses
as the purported outcome of official investigation, but in fact was parroting what was
fed to it by the presidential suit of Countrywide.
cc) Where Federal Trade Commission refused to investigate at all.
dd) Where three protagonists hold substantial honors due to their association with
the "House of Justice", "Bet Tzedek", possibly the most prominent Jewish charity in
Los Angeles: SANDOR SAMUELS - former President, DAVID PASTERNAK -
former president, and TERRY FRIEDMAN - former executive director.

Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
____________________________________
11. SEC to Zernik – February 19, 2009 –

Confirmation by SEC of receipt of complaint in re: BAC
X-McAfee-Timeout-Protection: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,235,1233550800";
d="scan'208,217";a="26672468"
Subject: Delivery Notification / Enforcement Complaint Response
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:38:41 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Delivery Notification / Enforcement Complaint Response
Thread-Index: AcmSsIXKjLiAmWMuSruvILJDDIopsg==
From: "ENFORCEMENT" <enforcement@sec.gov>
To: <jz12345@earthlink.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2009 16:38:41.0872 (UTC)
FILETIME=[861D0D00:01C992B0]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
*PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE*

Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for your recent e-mail to the group electronic mailbox of the Division of
Enforcement at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
Washington, D.C. We appreciate your taking the time to write to us. This automated
response confirms that the Division of Enforcement has received your e-mail. You
466 / 545
can rest assured that an attorney in the Office of Internet Enforcement will review
your e-mail promptly.
We are always interested in hearing from members of the public, and you may be
assured that the matter you have raised is being given careful consideration in view
of the Commission's overall enforcement responsibilities under the federal securities
laws. It is, however, the Commission's policy to conduct its inquiries on a non-public
basis -- so this may be the only response that you receive. If your complaint is more
in the nature of a consumer complaint (such as a dispute with your broker or a
problem with your brokerage or retirement account), you should contact our Office of
Investor Education and Assistance -- they may be able to help you. You may reach
the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy via telephone at (202) 551-6551or
through the Web at HYPERLINK "http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml ".
The Commission conducts its investigations on a non-public basis to preserve the

integrity of its investigative process as well as to protect persons against whom
unfounded charges may be made or against whom the Commission determines that
enforcement action is not necessary or appropriate. Subject to the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act, we cannot disclose to you any information which we
may gather and we cannot confirm to you the existence or non-existence of an
investigation, unless made a matter of public record in proceedings brought before
the Commission or in the courts.
If you are unsure where you should direct your inquiry or you want to learn more
about how the SEC handles inquiries and complaints, please visit the SEC
Complaint Center at HYPERLINK "http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml".
Should you have any additional information or questions pertaining to this matter,
please feel free to communicate directly with us at HYPERLINK
"mailto:enforcement@sec.gov".
We appreciate your interest in the work of the Commission and its Division of
Enforcement.
Very truly yours,
S/
John Reed Stark
Chief, Office of Internet Enforcement
United States Securities & Exchange Commission
____________________________________
12. Zernik to Grundfest, February 27, 2009

1) Denial of access to court records at the LA Superior Court
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:47:31 -0800

Subject: Fwd: Message to the members of BOA Audit Committee; Timely response
requested by March 10, 2009, 5:00pm
Feb 27, 2009
Prof Grundfest:
FYI, I am also forwarding this to SEC as part of my complaint against BOA/CFC.
I would like to call you to hear your opinion about a central issue here - the denial of
467 / 545
access to court records that are "electronic court files". The LA Superior Court
adopted an unpublished Rule of Court around 1985, when it introduced the computer
system, Sustain, which I hold fraudulent. That rule says: "Sustain is privileged - for
the court only."
Sustain pertains to civil courts, but exactly the same takes place in the criminal courts
as well.
I am not sure if you noticed it in other writings, but at the same time, the court also
abandoned its published Rules of Court relative to judgment, notice of judgment,
entry of judgment, etc, and started relying on unpublished rules instead. The
published rules have not been updated on these critical issues ever since, and i hold
that to be the key to establishment of the "Enterprise Track" of the court.
I believe that such conditions are severe violation of International Law.
Joseph Zernik
____________________________________
2) Complaint filed with BAC Audit Committee, pursuant to

Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:36:59 -0800

To: "Attention: BOA AUDIT COMMITTEE"
<ocrates@bankkofamerica.com>,
Subject: Message to the members of BOA Audit Committee; Timely
response requested by March 10, 2009, 5:00pm
Cc: "Attention: WILLIAM BARNET, III, JOHN T COLLINS, General TOMMY
R FRANKS, WALTER E MASSEY, THOMAS J MAY (chair), Admiral
JOSEPH W FRUEHER, AUDIT COMMITTEE, BOA/CFC"
<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>
February 27, 2009
WILLIAM BARNET, III,

JOHN T COLLINS,
General TOMMY R FRANKS,
WALTER E MASSEY,
THOMAS J MAY (chair),
Admiral JOSEPH W FRUEHER
AUDIT COMMITTEE
BOA/CFC
By email and by fax
RE: Message to the members of BOA Audit Committee;
Timely response requested by March 10, 2009, 5:00pm
Mr Barnet III, Mr Collins, General Franks, Mr Massey, Mr May, Admiral

Frueher:
I, victim of alleged frauds by CFC and BOA, am writing to each of you as an

individual member of the AUDIT COMMITTEE of CFC/BOA. Below I
describe only a small fraction of such frauds in simple lay-person terms. I
have notified BOA General Counsel Mr TIMOTHY MAYOPOULOS of such
468 / 545
alleged frauds against me several times in the past. I also notified Mr
KENNETH LEWIS and others at BOA/CFC. None responded, and the
frauds are allowed to continue, even today.
I request that you immediately take corrective actions. Please personally

respond, either at my home address: 2415 Saint George, LA CA 90027, or
my email address <jz12345@earthlink.net> no later than Monday, March 9,
2009, 5:00pm. At minimum I request acknowledgement of receipt of this
communications. Please also include a statement of your intended actions
in this regard, specifically regarding the six items below that I identify as
keys in CFC now CFC/BOA alleged collusion in fraud in ongoing litigation of
Samaan v Zernik at the LA Superior Court.
As described below, I first heard the name COUNTRYWIDE in December

2006. I had no business with the company whatsoever, but I found out that
at that time, the company was already involved in alleged fraud against me
for over two years! I fast grew to realize, still in December 2006, that what
happened to me was not the work of one employee, a bad apple, but a
reflection of the Legal Department at Countrywide, headed by SANDOR
SAMUELS, that I concluded already then was operating as a corrupt
organization. Such allegations appeared radical in January 2007, when I
submitted my first complaint to the FBI, but by January 2008 became
commonplace, when "recreated letters" were found in Pennsylvania, and in
March 2009, when U.S. Judge Jeff Bohm published his opinion on
Countrywide's legal practices. He found routine engagement in what must
amount upon review by a competent court to frauds against homeowners all
across the U.S. - based on a year long study by the United States Trustee,
Regardless of his decision no indictments were filed to this date, to the best
of my knowledge, against SANDOR SAMUELS, ANGELO MOZILO, or
anybody else at the Legal Department of Countrywide.
Instead, in an urgent attempt to stabilize collapsing financial markets, the

Bush administration chaperoned the take over of the CFC by BOA, which
was effective July 1, 2008. Obviously, such merger was undertaken by BOA
only with substantial inducements by the Bush administration, the scope of
which we will never know for sure, simply because much of it was not in
enumerated cash, but in provisions that may transform the framework of the
U.S. financial world as we know it today. After all, BOA took upon itself the
responsibility for a large entity that had large negative financial value,
tremendously negative goodwill, and very substantial criminal liabilities.
The tax payer, who will pay for all of this, could expect at least that BOA
would ensure that alleged criminal conduct at CFC would cease the moment
it became part of BOA. But at least in Los Angeles, California, such conduct
is continuing in full force today, in public, without even an attempt to conceal
it, under your watch. And the responses I received from the office of the
BOA General Counsel appeared not at all as the responses of a concerned
corporate citizen, who is now charged with responsibility for a major public
hazard. Instead, it appeared as the response of a corporation that holds
itself immune to any criminal charges, regardless of the conduct of CFC, its
own subsidiary. I would like to believe that such conduct is limited to Los
Angeles, where the local compounding factor is the LA Superior Court itself.
Listed below are key records of the alleged fraud by CFC/BOA against
JOSEPH ZERNIK in litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA
Superior Court:
1) Underwriting Letter misrepresented as a fax transmission of mid-

October 2004, from Countrywide, San Rafael to VICTOR PARKS, State
469 / 545
of Washington. [1] Introduced repeatedly in court. Most recently for a
motion noticed for November 2008. Alleged key fraud record.
2) Real Property Purchase Contract misrepresented as a fax

transmission of October 25, 2004, 5:03pm from VICTOR PARKS, State
of Washington, to Countrywide, San Rafael. [2] Introduced repeatedly in
court. Most recently for a motion noticed for November 2008. Alleged key
fraud record.
3) Set of a letter and declarations by CFC/ MARIA MCLAURIN, Branch

Manager, San Rafael, California. [3] Introduced repeatedly in court. Key
fraud record.
4) Subpoena Production of Countrywide in Samaan v Zernik. [4] About

400 pages, produced by the Legal Department a total of 5 times from
August 2006 to April 2007. Deemed fraud in its entirety - since it included
loan files that were recreated after the fact, and records that are the product
of wire/fax fraud and bear false and deliberately misleading fax header
imprints, when in fact there is nothing in this production that allows to
determine where and when such records appeared from. It was part of a
concerted effort by SAMAAN, McLAURIN and the Legal Department of CFC
to fabricate false history for SAMAAN's loan applications in 2004,
5) Records showing CFC and even more recently CFC/BOA appearing

in court for almost two years under the party designation of "NON-
PARTY", while the court interchangeably designates it "DEFENDANT",
"PLAINTIFF", "INTERVENOR","ROSS-DEFENDANT","REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST", etc. [5] Such appearances are deemed false and deliberately
misleading and have no basis in the law of the U.S. or California, Therefore
they place the entire litigation in a real that is outside the law.
6) July 23, 2007 Protective/Gag Order by Judge JACQUELINE

CONNOR [6]. Such purported order led to two judgment of quasi-criminal
nature being entered by Judge Terry Friedman against me, both at the
request of CFC, The second one - in February 2009, at the requests of
CFC/BOA. I have no valid court record of that nature, and the court and
CFC/ BOA so far have failed to produce this record either.
____
Below I attached a short review of part of Samaan v Zernik that allows you
to place the records above in their context.
You must realize that you have much greater influence in this case than
correcting the wrongdoing against me in Samaan v Zernik, because this
case happened to travel in time and space that were prior to it, and
afterwards as well, the scene of other much bigger events. Insignificant as
the case itself was and is, it provides unique insights into the bigger events
that are reflected in it.
a) Rampart scandal, and continued false imprisonment of 10,000, mostly

black and latinos in LA, 10 years after confirmation of their innocence.
The most notorious example of the malfunction of the LA Superior Court are
of course the estimated 10,000 people who are still falsely imprisoned in LA
County, mostly black and latinos, victims of wrongdoing by police of the
Rampart station. Such wrongdoing was exposed and investigated in detail
as part of the Rampart scandal of 1998-2000. In my efforts to understand
470 / 545
what was happening in the courtroom in Samaan v Zernik I eventually got
involved in studying the Rampart scandal, since Judge JACQUELINE
CONNOR was and is the central figure in both, in more ways than officially
acknowledged.
In fact, I claim that the two cases are mirror images of each other, one in the
criminal courts, the other in the civil courts. In both cases false evidence was
routinely entered. In one case - police purportedly "duped" judges like
CONNOR, in the other - corporations like CFC. In fact, combined review of
the two cases would lead a reasonable person to the inevitable conclusion,
that Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR was never "duped" at all. Similarly I
claim that what was stated by Judge CONNOR in her December 22, 2000
ruling that reversed jury verdicts of the four police that were first to be
prosecuted for their conduct revealed in the scandal, as her own "errors" in
jury instructions, and "errors" she routinely allegedly made in Samaan v
Zernik, resulting in invalid litigation records, were no errors at all. Instead, I
claim that she herself was the central figure, not only as a judge, but also as
the one who initiated or coordinated the wrongdoing in both Samaan v
Zernik, and on a much bigger scale - in the cases that underlie the Rampart
scandal and later in derailing the first Rampart trial, Therefore, she herself is
the central figure who is accountable for what we see today - the continued
false imprisonments of at least 10,000 people - mostly black and latinos -
who were confirmed innocent in the investigations of the Rampart scandal.
Such conditions were capably described in the Blue Ribbon Review Panel
report of 2006 [7].
My request for an immediate review by the Audit Committee of which you

are a member, of the conduct of CFC/BOA in Samaan v Zernik bears
directly on the conduct of Judge CONNOR in Samaan v Zernik, and
indirectly - on her conduct in the Rampart scandal and the demands for
restoring my rights per International Law, and also the rights of the Rampart-
FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons).
b) Sub-prime crisis and bailout
I am of the opinion that the conduct of the office of the General Counsel of
BOA in Samaan v Zernik call for immediate scrutiny by the Audit Committee
of the CFC/BOA merger agreement. In particular - any provisions that were
explicitly made by the Bush administration, or even insinuated by such
officials relative to criminal liabilities related to the conduct of Countrywide
prior and also after the merger with BOA. There is no doubt in my mind that
true review of the conduct of CFC would lead to the conclusion that it was
and is a corrupt organization. You may read small fraction of the evidence
below. BOA officers must have recognized that fact as well, and must have
taken steps to protect themselves from being drawn into such affair. But as
part of the merger-bailout, BOA at minimum must take responsibility to stop
any such criminal conduct that is alleged to be ongoing.
I believe that this AUDIT COMMITTEE, listing respectable names, who

served this country for many years, would not have tolerated anything less
than an honest General Counsel at BOA. And yet, following the merger the
office of Mr MAYOPOULOS has engaged in conduct relative to Samaan v
Zernik that has been far from honest. The only explanation for such conduct
at BOA that I could come up with, is that U.S. administration officials, in their
desperation to avoid total melt-down of financial markets before they leave
office, made representations to that office that were taken to mean that
conduct of CFC in general, or in LA County, or just in LA Superior Court, or
just in Samaan v Zernik were extra-constitutional zones, similar in nature to
471 / 545
Guantanamo Bay. Such discrimination is unacceptable. We who live in Los
Angeles County are entitled per the International Bill of Human Rights
(1976) to Equal Protection under the law, with no regionally-based
discrimination by government in the application of the law.
Likewise, when you read the pages below, surely you will find some points
where you would contemplate whether ANGELO MOZILO, SANDOR
SAMUELS, MARIA McLAURIN, TODD BOOCK, OR SANFORD SHATZ, all
CFC people, were engaging in criminal conduct. Most of them are still
CFC/BOA employees, and are still engaging in the same conduct through
Samaan v Zernik - now - under the BOA name and under your oversight
duties.
Obviously, I hold the FBI investigation, running now for a year, as

deliberately aimless. And statements made by the FBI and law enforcement
regarding investigation of the causes of the sub-prime crisis as deliberate
attempts to mislead the public. But all of that does not permit you, as a
member of the Audit Committee of BOA/CFC to ignore your duties.
Some officers of the U.S. may consider that they have successfully fooled
the public, for example, in responses by Mr KAISER (FBI) and Mr MELSON
(USDOJ) to Congressional inquiries by Senator FEINSTEIN and
Congresswoman WATSON concerning Samaan v Zernik in August -
September 2008. But the true answer to such conduct is coming roaring
from financial markets at home and abroad - nobody is fooled! We are yet to
see the end of it. Absent renewed confidence in the integrity of U.S. financial
institutions and financial markets, and underlying that - the rule of law and
integrity of the courts, there will be no way to sustain the interests of your
share holders. That is where you have enormous responsibility these days,
when others fail their duties.
As described below, one feature that is common to the two affairs - the
alleged frauds at the LA Superior Court and the alleged frauds at CFC, - is
the misuse of large computer systems: SUSTAIN at the court and EDGE at
CFC. It is my opinion that until BOA undertakes review of the operation of
EDGE by CFC, one must assume that the frauds are permitted to continue.
With the LA Superior Court and SUSTAIN the wrongdoing is compounded -
since in order to enable the alleged frauds in SUSTAIN, the court has been
concealing for the past quarter century public records, and denying public
access to such records. I hold that it is the denial of public access to public
records that is at present the stumbling block in the release of the Rampart-
FIPs.
I therefore also started a petition online for the restoration of fair tribunals in
LA County, pursuant to International Law, and the Right for Liberty of the
estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs. Their innocence was established 10 years
ago, and after it was confirmed and re-affirmed by several review panels
since then. The essence of the petition is a call for reestablishing public
access to the public records of the LA Superior Court. That would be
necessary and sufficient to bring about speedy release of the FIPs. I would
be grateful if you sign the petition, to show your support. Their continued
false imprisonment is inexcusable, it is a disgrace of historic proportions as
well - and more than 10 times the scope of the Guantanamo Bay detentions.
Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
Blue Ribbon 2006 Report: http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-
review-panel-2006-report.pdf
Front line, PBS, one source of estimates: http://inproperinla.com/01-05-01-pbs-
frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
I similarly demand restoration of my own full rights pursuant to the
International Bill of Human Rights (1976) which incorporated the Universal
472 / 545
Deceleration of Human Rights (1948). I hold that it would be sufficient to
allow me full access to my litigation records of Samaan v Zernik in the
SUSTAIN file, to demonstrate unequivocally, and in great detail, that which
is already evident - that the litigation as a whole is based on false and
deliberately misleading conduct by the court. But the court would not allow
me access to the file even in the fourth year of litigation, in disregard of the
U.S. Constitution, U.S. Law, California Constitution, California Law,
California Rules of Court, etc.
All of this is meant to convey the concept - CFC is alleged to have been
involved in crimes that were beyond financial recklessness, it was a major
participant in the corruption of the courts in LA, and the victims were all 10
millions who live in LA County. We ask that you take corrective actions, and
we believe that BOA has the power to effect correction that is far beyond
Samaan v Zernik, for example - by making the court allow me access to my
own litigation file in SUSTAIN, in compliance with the International Law, and
access to the comparable records of the criminal courts, which would allow
the speedy release of the Rampart-FIPs. The effect of the restoration of
such simple basic civil rights would be tremendous.
Joseph Zernik
[1]
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-countrywide-fraudulent-underwriting-letter-s.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-underwriting-letter.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-opinion-letter-countrywide-underwriting-letter-oct-26-s.pdf
[2]
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-25-doc-45-countrywide-fraud-contract-record.pdf
[3]
http://inproperinla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-1-countrywide-mclaurin-false-declarations.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-2-countrywide-mclaurin-false-declarations.pdf
[4]
http://inproperinla.com/07-02-08-countrywide-fraudulent-subpoena-production-c-s.pdf
[5]
http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-cw-motion-sanctions-osc-contempt-S.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-moldawsky-notice-of-motion-sanctions-contempt.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-document-1.pdf
[6]
I have no such record. I expect CFC/BOA to produce the record.
[7]
[8]
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-wedick.memo.notarized.deeds.zernik.2009.02.05-s.pdf
Attached:
1) Review of frauds directly related to CFC - in this message.
2) Request for Congressional, SEC, and CFC/BOA Audit Committee review
- in a separate message.
This letter and its attachments are also copied to the SEC, as supplement
for my new complaint. They are also copied to Prof Joseph Grundfest,
Stanford Law and Business Center, former Chair, SEC, to Prof Erwin
473 / 545
Chemerinsky, Dean of Irvine Law School, University of California, to various
congressional committees, and to U.S. NGOs concerned with integrity in
government operations, It is also copied to NGOs concerned with the rights
of homeowners, being looted in courts around the country today, in a
process of historic proportions that is undermining any sense of social
contract, which was carefully built in the U.S. over almost a century following
the Great Depression. It is also copied to international Human Rights
organizations, with the request that they monitor human rights conditions in
LA County - a human rights disaster area, not the least, as seen in this case
as a result of corruption in both CFC and at the LA Superior Court.
_____________________________________________________
REVIEW OF ALLEGED FRAUDS DIRECTLY RELATED TO CFC IN

SAMAAN V ZERNIK
In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), starting with the filing of the complaint in

October 2005, or even earlier, judge(s) of the Los Angeles Superior Court
are alleged to have colluded with CFC and NIVIE SAMAAN in fraud in the
courtroom against me and against the people. However, prior to that,
starting September 2004, Countrywide colluded with SAMAAN in fraud that
was related to her attempt to purchase my residence, but where in fact the
U.S. government and CFC Share Holders were the primary targets. Had
that fraud succeeded, I would have never even known about the whole
affair, since I had no business with CFC. Only after the fraud against the
U.S. Government and CFC Share Holders failed, did CFC and SAMAAN
target the fraud against me.
1. Fraud in 2004 against U.S. Government and CFC Share Holders in a

failed real estate transaction
In September 2004 I had my Beverly Hills Residence listed for sale.

SAMAAN made an offer, representing herself as a realtor "closing a few
properties a year". I refused to review the offer prior to receipt of a third
party, arm's length prequalificaion. A few days later, she indeed produced a
Prequalification letter. In 2007 I realized it was fraud, and later it was
examined and found the same by a fraud expert. Under such fraud and
others I was induced to assent to contract in 2004.
In the contract, SAMAAN was required "to act diligently and honestly to
obtain designated loans". However, she never removed the loan
contingencies on time. Neither did she remove the appraisal contingency,
albeit she had an appraisal that came at sales price in her possession. She
did not explain why she never obtained loan approval, and I did not even
know that she was dealing with CFC. She did not ask for extension either,
although it was getting close to escrow closing day. At the advice of my
realtor I then gave her a notice to buyer to perform. She refused to complete
the removal of contingencies, and also refused to cancel escrow, and
claimed that my realtor and she, also a realtor, had some verbal
understandings that she was not bound by the time frames stipulated in the
contract.
On October 18, 2004, at the time that my realtor faxed the Notice to
Perform, he realized that the fax machine was automatically forwarding his
fax, and instead of going to SAMAAN's loan broker, as dialed, it was going
to SAMAAN. To make a long story short - SAMAAN was impersonating her
loan broker in communications with me and in communications with CFC all
474 / 545
along. As far a CFC is concerned, it is likely or almost certain that such
arrangement was in full agreement with the Branch Manager, MARIA
MCLAURIN, who the records show was involved in the frauds all along. My
realtor then sent a request for explanation to SAMAAN and to loan broker
PARKS. Neither would answer regarding what must be deemed upon
review as wire/fax fraud - a serious federal offense and also a predicated act
for RICO.
I then issue instruction to cancel escrow.
A few days later, Samaan sent notice to my realtor that she had removed
the contingencies, and that the loans were fully approved by October 25,
2004. She demanded to close escrow. I refused to deal with her.
2. Frauds from 2005 to the present - under the guise of litigation at the LA
Superior Court
a. October 2005: Initiation of an invalid litigation
A year later, in October 2005, Samaan filed complaint against me in the Los
Angeles Superior court. In January 2009 I realized that she never paid her
filing fees, her check were NSF, just like her checks for the escrow deposit.
By law, the complaint must be dismissed at the end of 30 days. Not this one.
I also wrote to the clerk of the court, but as usual, received no response.
Similarly, in late 2008, I realized that all payments in Samaan v Zernik
similar to all payments in anther "Enterprise Track" case - Galdjie v Darwish,
are listed as "Journal Entries", whereas payments in "True Court Track"
cases are listed as "Filing Fees", "Motion Setting Fees", "Stipulations Fees",
etc.
The original complaint was based on the claim of "oral modification" of a real
estate contract, and the complaint did not include any contract at all, and did
not provide a good explanation why. My attorney filed a Demurrer per
statute of frauds. In her first appearance in proceedings in this case, Judge
JACQUELINE CONNOR, in open court Overruled the Demurrer, without
asking SAMAAN even to amend the complaint by including a contract. In
late 2007, when I deciphered slowly the frauds in Sustain -the court's
computer systems, I realized that she deliberately left invalid records of the
Demurrer - it was simultaneously "Overruled", "Granted", and "Disposed".
The Initial Case Conference that was purportedly conducted on that day,
had no true record at all. Likewise - I later found out - all key proceedings in
Samaan v Zernik were invalid - a key feature of the Enterprise Track of the
Court.
b. November 2006: SAMAAN's original claims seemed to evaporate - new

false claims were fabricated - in collusion with CFC
In July 2006 SAMAAN provided deposition which was very damaging to her.
She admitted that PARKS, the loan broker never had anything to do with the
loan application to CFC, that she and her husband, JAE ARRE LLOYD, who
then we learnt, was a "Business Partner" of CFC as a "Loan Originator"
produced all the records. Eventually I also found out that he was a convicted
felon, on financial crime against SKYLINE FUNDING, but had his identity
change (formerly - TIMOTHY LLOYD MORROW). Indeed, fraud expert
examination of the CFC loan applications, confirmed fraud, on account of
false verification. Separately the loan applications must also be deemed
fraud on false employment data, income, marital status, and other data.
In November 2006, I asked my attorney to run a motion to expunge lis

475 / 545
pendens. In fact, my main interest was "to test the armies", since the whole
litigation was baseless from the start, and it was incomprehensible why it
was not yet dismissed. The motion to expunge lis pendens was expected to
work like a general rehearsal for a trial - forcing the parties to show their
cards. Then , SAMAAN switched attorneys, to SHEPPARD MULLIN, the
new attorney, MOHAMMAD KESHAVARZI asked to continue the hearing.
Evidence I obtained much later showed a last minute, rush, three-way
correspondence between KESHAVARZI, LLOYD, and McLAURIN, in which
entirely new false claims were fabricated on November 3-6, 2006. The
litigation was no longer based on the "oral modification" claims, but instead,
on the fabulous claims that I prevented SAMAAN from obtaining her loans in
a timely fashion from CFC. Accordingly, a letter was produced by CFC -
through McLAURIN to authenticate a fraudulent entirely new Underwriting
Letter[1], which was never produced in discovery before. McLAURIN's letter
also fraudulently misrepresented SAMAAN's loan underwriting history.
Such letter was far less that a declaration, as requested by KESHAVARZI.

In fact, the letter was inadequate for either authenticating the Underwriting
Letter or to introduce new statements of facts. Therefore, the fraudulent
CFC Underwriting Letter should never have been admitted as evidence in a
competent court, since it was not verified, and also since it had inadequate
authentication. My attorney did file his objections, but Judge JACQUELINE
CONNOR nevertheless allowed such inadmissible evidence to be admitted
in an ex parte sur reply proceeding - an entirely unreasonable due process
practice. But as was her habit throughout the litigation - she did not leave
explicit evidentiary rulings. She later based her ruling on such fraud, and
denied the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.
Therefore, the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in November 2006 indeed

forced SAMAAN to show her cards- unlimited source of false records and
declarations in CFC, and a similarly unlimited source of deliberately false
rulings by Judge CONNOR. A reasonable person upon review of the case
would conclude that such understandings were set up prior to the filing of
the complaint. Much later, i figured out that both the Motion to Expunge Lis
Pendens, and also the Trial Setting Conference that was purportedly
conducted that day were never registered in a valid way.
c. December 2006: Already in my initial review of discovery records I

realized that fraud by CFC was involved
About a month later, in mid-December 2006, I started reviewing the

discovery records of the litigation for the first time. Within 15 minutes so, it
was clear to me that discovery records included many that were fraudulent,
that my counsel never advised me of. In particular, I then saw for the first
time the subpoena production from CFC [2]. Although I had no background
in law, in banking, in baking regulation, or in real estate, it was obviously
fraud. But again - my attorney never advised me of that, and never filed a
cross complaint for fraud and deceit against CFC or SAMAAN. When he
asked me for my opinion of the records, I told him that I thought that there
were numerous frauds in them. He claimed that I was "clueless" (which I
was). I then took some key records, and went to FBI and California DEPT of
REAL ESTATE. I was then lucky (neither I, nor my counterparts knew then
that judges were involved) and I got honest advise - that I was right, and that
my attorney was negligent for not filing counterclaims. particularly I was
advised that the Fraudulent Inducement was sufficient to make the contract
void, and with it , also the litigation in its entirety.
My attorney then offered me $25,000 in fee waiver to leave his office

(without signing any release).
476 / 545
In January 2007 I started searching for a counsel who would file counter
claims for fraud and deceit. I could find none.
In January 2007 I also filed with CFC a new subpoena for documents, and
in the instructions I explicitly wrote that the previous production was deemed
to include fraudulent records, and I requested that the new one would be
free of such records.
In January 2007 I also filed my first complaint with FBI against CFC and
others, noting the fraud against U.S. Gov, against me,. against share
holders, and against the people.
d. December 2006- February 2007: Attempts to obtain from CFC authentic

records through repeated subpoena failed - CFC repeatedly produced false
records.
By February 2007 CFC repeated the Subpoena 3 more time, with all the
same fraudulent records as before. I believe that the production of such
records in itself includes more than sufficient predicated acts to indict the two
attorneys involved in the Legal Department - TODD BOOCK, and
SANFORD SHATZ, and well as ANGELO MOZILO and SANDOR
SAMUELS. SAMUELS - was directly in charge of the Legal Department,
and both of these officers received from me direct requests, similar to the
one you are receiving here - to authenticate or repudiate specific fraudulent
records, on a number of occasions. They routinely refused to respond, and
initiated a campaign of harassment against me, that continues even today.
The fraud in the subpoena production was clear, but the Legal Department
insisted on repeating it again and again, including in Meet and Confer in
March 2007:
i) The double date received stamps on the loan applications,

and insistence on denial of the true date of receipt of the
loan applications.
Such adulterations are also in complete disregard for Regulation B and Fair
Housing Fair Credit laws, which are all based on pipe line reports, which in
turn are based on date of filing of the loan application. Even in meet and
confer, Att SHATZ and BOOCK insisted that the applications arrived only
once, and that the date of receipt was October 12, 2004. They had no
explanation at all for the defaced stamps. They denied any imaging report,
any pipeline report, any security report, any integral audit report, any
external audit report existed regarding such "ugly" banking records.
There is a group of records in the subpoena file with fax header imprint of
October 6 or 7, 2004. If we are to accept the fax header as indicative of date
of arrival - these records contradict the date of arrival of October 14,2004.
These records, like others that are part of the fax/wire fraud come from an
anonymous machine, in obvious violation of UETA, of "sound banking
principles", and also in contradiction of CFC's own policy and procedure
manual on fax machines operations.
In fact - the application were received the first time on or about October 4,
2004. By October 6, 2007, DIANE FRAZIER - the senior underwriter in San
Rafael detected the fraud in employment data, and noted it, as can be seen
in evidence in the subpoenas themselves . FRAZIER was also unable to
complete the disclosures, which are by law required within 3 days, since
SAMAAN falsely listed $0.00 as loan fees, where 0.75% was due (over
$10,000). . Finally - there was no contract at all with the application, and
most other support documentation was missing. It was not a reasonable
application.
477 / 545
FRAZIER then issued the first underwriting letter, which was omitted from
the subpoena production, although CFC denied that all along. It demanded,
just like the one from October 14, 2004, that Samaan provide new loan
applications (1003), and correct the employment data, or provide a
reasonable explanation. It also demanded listing of correct loan fees of
0.75%, and also a copy of the signed contract, since no contract at all was
included with the application.
McLAURIN insisted that there was no need for new applications, and that
there was no need for the 0.75% loan fees in this case. At the end, to spite
FRAZIER, she defaced the date received stamps on the old applications,
stamped them again, on October 12, 2004, as if they were new, and passed
them through imaging, then presented them to FRAZIER as new
applications. FRAZIER in response issued the underwriting letter of October
14, 2004, which repeated the previous conditions, but now also listed a 10
day suspension, within which SAMAAN was required to provide the new
records, or else the applications would be terminated. She included also
condition of corporate underwriting approval (Mr DEMETERIO GADI)
ii) Loan application records are missing authentication data,

and in fact represent retroactive fabrication of the loan file.
As mentioned above - the records include many that carry fax header that
does not match the official time frames, and also came from an anonymous
machine. I claims that such records came from SAMAAN's HP fax/printer
which she operated in two modes. One - "Spellbound" ID -as seen in a
defective copy of the contract that she faxed on Friday, October 22, 2004.
That record had the fax cover sheet omitted - probably to hide the fact that
SAMAAN was faxing directly to CFC, which she was prohibited from doing,
and CFC was prohibited from receiving records from her either. Two =
"Anonymous" which was used when she was impersonating PARKS. This
ID had no name and no phone numbers. Accepting such records by CFC
was obviously in violation of law and regulations. But from time to time,
SAMAAN mixed them up, and also in litigation she filed the fax log itself,
assuming that nobody would figure it out, and the HP laser jet lists in one log
the transmissions of the two IDs.
In fact, as SAMAAN admitted in her deposition -- PARKS had nothing to do
with the loan applications. That is in fact evident, since of all the hand
signatures of PARKS in this loan file - all are forged. Not a single one is an
authentic PARKS signature, although they can be divided into two
categories - the Southern California forgery (probably by LLOYD) and the
Northern California forgery (probably by Becky Cusera). The single
signature, that is essential for the validity of the loan file as a whole, is
missing - the signature on the record titled "Broker's Certification of
Records".
Most of the record arrived most likely by email attachments to McLAURIN.
When - we have no way of knowing from the loan application file. But as far
as I can tell, they were inserted into the loan file after October 24, 2004,
regardless of the dates in the fax header imprint. CFC never produced the
emails. In fact, that is how I knew already in December 2006 that the Legal
Department was a corrupt organization. When I first reviewed the subpoena,
it included "Conversation Logs", which were clearly some blank forms from
an entirely different era than the rest of the records. There were various
places where it was obvious that all communications were by then by email -
with GADI, with ORTON, etc. I then simply called MARIA McLAURIN, and
she picked up the phone, and I asked her why the emails were not included.
She was possibly confused, and to defend herself explained that subpoenas
were prepared through joint work by her and the Legal Department, and that
the legal Department determined the subpoenas do not pertain to email, and
therefore they included the blank conversation logs instead.
478 / 545
In short - the false records were not the product of negligence by a
custodian of records and lack of attention by any more senior manager. On
the contrary, a group of senior employees - MARIA was probably even an
officer, decided to get CFC in this litigation, which it was not party to, and do
so in order to obstruct and pervert justice, thought the staff of the Legal
Department. Obviously, it would not be the first time ever - I never thought I
was that special. Similar results were confirmed by March 2008 by the
Decision of U.S. Judge JEFF BOHM in Texas, based on a year long study
of the practices of CFC in courts around the country, and the fraud in a
Pennsylvania Court in January 2008 is what caused the final decision on
take over by BOA. Furthermore, as I later found out, the coordination of
such frauds continued all the way to the Presidential Suit - when Office of
Thrift Supervision is sending an email and receiving back a false statement,
intended to obstruct and pervert justice. And then the Office of Thrift
Supervision parrots it in an official letter of the agency, as if it were the
outcome of an "investigation".
iii) The loan applications were never approved on October 25,

2004, as claimed by Samaan and CFC, neither were they
approved at any other time.
Neither by October 25. 2004. nor by Jan 27, 2005, the date of denial by
Countrywide Bank, did Samaan ever complete even the most basic
condition - providing loan application with correct loan fees on her loan
applications, and signing the disclosures as required by law.
Furthermore, even the representation of the loan applications as live and
well after October 25,2004 is entirely fraudulent. By that day they were
officially dead. But McLAURIN operated, and for all we know still operates
today a special "Zombie-applications/ Regulation B-Exempt Track" in
parallel to the official "Regulation B-nonexempt Track".
On October 25, 2004, when the 10 day suspension was over, and the
applications officially were dead, "EDGE" CFC's underwriting monitoring
system was supposed to kill the applications. Moreover, any reasonable
system like that must not allow a non underwriter access to underwriting of
loan applications. Obviously all security and auditing controls were
dismantled in San Rafael, and for all we know the branch is still managed
the same way today. Because the final outcome was and still is that the
underwriter was terminated, and is living in fear, monitored at home years
after dismissal, and the Branch Manger, who engaged in multiple frauds, is
still in the same position.
McLAURIN inserted herself as underwriter, in violation of law and
regulations, and started efforts to fund the applications in disregard of
conditions set by FRAZIER, the duly assigned underwriter, and also in
disregard of conditions set by Mr GADI in his Oct 29, 2004 response to the
October 25, 2004 Exception Request filed by McLAURIN. On October 25,
2004, McLAURIN filed a fraudulent Exception Request with Mr GADI, she
inflated SAMAAN's fraudulent income from $400,000 to $4,000,000. She
also omitted the required "CLUES" report from the request - since it would
have been derogatory. Neither would she file a contract, since the contact
would cause SAMAAN's applications to be denied immediately.
Beyond that, the fact that the system allowed a loan application that was
purportedly filed on October 12, 2004 to be presented for funding in January
27, 2005, with no underwriting decision along the way, indicates complete
breakdown of compliance with time frames and Regulation-B at San Rafael,
and any pipeline report - the key report in regulation of such government-
backed operation from that branch should be considered suspect.
Otherwise stated - without being a bank regulator, I cannot believe that any
internal or external audit was in place in San Rafael, or for that matter is now
in place in the San Rafael branch of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, and for
479 / 545
that matter in any of the wholesale branches. The overall nature of the
conduct points out to total disregard for the law.
iv) The true reason that SAMAAN never filed a contract with
her applications was that it included a fatal violation
SAMAAN was never qualified for the purchase contract she signed, and she
never had sufficient cash for the down payment, even in the conditions that
prevailed then. Therefore, she wrote into the contract that her commission
as broker for self would be counted as part as the down payment. Such
transaction is explicitly prohibited. Had SAMAAN filed the contract anytime
during the period that FRAZIER was in charge of underwriting, the
applications would have been immediately denied. Therefore, the contract
was faxed only AFTER FRAZIER was no longer involved - i.e. after the
applications were purportedly terminated on October 25, 2004.
Therefore, after October 25, 2004, the applications were both fatally flawed,
and also dead on account of failure to correct the conditions of suspension
prior to October 25, 2004. Regardless, McLAURIN continued her efforts,
operating a fraud on the U.S. government and on share holders, and tried to
get the applications funded only to be denied by Countrywide Bank at the
end.
Some questions linger: wasn't Mr GADI supposed to be online on EDGE?
Couldn't he see that these were Zombie-Regulation-B Exempt Track
applications? I believe that he had to be online on the system, and that top
management knew of the Zombie/Regulation-B Exempt Track, but it was
just one more way to "streamline" underwriting. It does not make sense any
other way to have corporate underwriting support if that orifice is not live on
the system.
e. March 2007: Locating FRAZIER, establishing an estimate of U.S.

liabilities, and a death threat
In March 2007, I also located DIANE FRAZIER. It was clear that she had a
conflict with McLAURIN, and that she would know the true details. We
discussed the subject in great detail by phone. She was obviously
intimidated, even 2 years after her termination, and she remembered any of
the smallest details of SAMAAN's applications, the one that cost her the job
after 19 years with CFC. She repeatedly warned me "You don't know who
you are dealing with", and also "Nobody can touch MARIA McLAURIN".
That conversation was also sufficient for me to produce estimates of the

liabilities anticipated to U.S. government and the U.S. tax payer that now
seems to surprise some observers. It was not that difficult at all. I consider
the significance in the formulating of the question. I by then had already had
discussions with research analysts in Federal Reserve regarding the state of
calculating the Savings and Loans losses, which I figured out was the only
reasonable precedent. The take home lesson from that discussion was that
we will never know the true cost of such losses, since it is a moving target
with currently fluctuations etc. Therefore, I figured out that a very rough
estimate was all that was needed. Based on several figures from San
Rafael, and the number of branches in COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,
INC, I estimated the total loss. With that there is the implied assumption that
the WHOLESALE DIVISION was the hot bed of frauds, and that the other
parts of CFC were negligible in comparison relative to fraudulent loans. The
whole business model appeared unreasonable.
The next time I tried to call DIANE FRAZIER, I got a man by phone, and he
explained to me angrily that FRAZIER was not allowed to talk with me in the
first place, because CFC did not allow it, and "If you call this number again, I
will come down to LA and gun you down". When I tried to have her served
480 / 545
for subpoena deposition, a man answered the door, and claimed she no
longer lived there, and my service people observed the house 24 hours a
day for a few days, she was never seen.
During these months of January - June, 2007 I also sent several messages
to SANDOR Samuels and ANGELO MOZILO directly, since they advertised
that they were personally fighting frauds. I asked them to authenticate or
repudiate the key records. They never responded.
f) July 2007: Harassment, retaliation, and intimidation against a witness,

victim, and informant started in full force
In late June I then left a sealed envelope for SANDOR SAMUELS at BET
TZEDEK, HOUSE OF JUSTICE, where he served as president, and where
he advertised on the web his personal campaign against fraud. It was a
copy of the usual request. The next day, the whole web site of HOUSE OF
JUSTICE was down, and it remained down for about a week. When it came
back up, it was a two year older version, with no mention of SAMUELS or
his campaign against frauds.
A week later, on July 6, 2007 CFC appeared in court as "NON PARTY" at a

time that the court was "dark", for an ex parte application for what they call
"Protective Order" - while such discovery motions were no longer allowed.
By its nature and timing, I consider it "Gag Order" it sought to prohibit me
from talking to almost anybody who Countrywide wanted me not to talk with.
I was to be prohibited from talking with FRAZIER, RABBI BERNHARDT,
retired JUDGE SCHOETTLER.
CFC's moving papers are now missing from court file, although my paper in
opposition did appear there last time I checked. Likewise, there is no minute
order for that proceeding. And yet, CFC used a fictitious order that
persuadably was the progeny of this hearing, as the basis for fraudulent
sanctions and Contempt hearing against me, under Judge TERRY
FRIEDMAN in both February March 2008, and February 2009.
g) Searching for attorney, and leave to file compulsory counterclaims for

fraud and deceit is denied
Only in July 2007 I found the reason why I could not find an attorney to file
for me the fraud and deceit counterclaims. It came from Att LARRY
ROTHSTEIN - that attorneys in LA were intimidated by Judge
JACQUELINE CONNOR. Any experienced real estate attorney would know
that she would not rule in favor of a fraud and deceit argument. Yet worse -
she would retaliate against the counsel who filed it.
Eventually I filed the motion for leave to amend answer for the counterclaims
in pro per. Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR then without any reason
continued the hearing by several weeks, then denied the right to file such
counterclaims, which are considered "compulsory".
h) August 2007: Summary Judgment in August 2007 and the second key
record from CFC - real property purchase contract
In motion for summary judgment in August 2007, Judge CONNOR allowed

SAMAAN's counsel, KESHAVARZI to enter the contract that was the
subject of the litigation, in Reply brief, in violation of due process.[3] That
was a fraudulent record from countrywide. With that , the statute of frauds
fraud, which defined the first 2 years of the litigation was concluded, and on
the same day the second overarching fraud was initiated - the entry of
481 / 545
judgment fraud, which would define the remainder of the litigation. At the
summary judgment hearing, I spent the whole time allowed for me in oral
arguments on demonstrating the various frauds evident in that CFC record.
The main fraud in it was the Fax/Wire Fraud. It came with a fax cover sheet
that purported to be of PARKS, and the fax transmission was purported to
have arrived at San Rafael on October 25, 2004, 5:03 pm, by fax from
Washington State, from PARKS - SAMAAN's loan broker. Based on such
fax, it was purported that SAMAAN's loan applications were approved -
albeit - much earlier in the day. And VICTOR PARKS in fact dated such fax
in his declaration of November 2006 to Friday, October 22, 2004 - since the
fraudulent claims were fabricated as you go, there were such inherent fatal
inconsistencies. Moreover, already in the hearing in August 2007 I showed
that the imprint of October 25,2004, 5:03 pm was from a transmission from
SAMAAN to LLOYD, as part of the wire/fax fraud, and not at all a
transmission from PARKS to SAN RAFAEL.
We have no knowledge when and how the record arrived at CFC, like most
other records in the fraudulent subpoena production, since they arrived as
part the fax/wire fraud. Most likely - as attachments to email from LLOYD TO
McLAURIN, at a time that was later than the time of the transmission from
SAMAAN to LLOYD, but is otherwise undefined.
Again, although the record was inadequately entered as evidence, and

never adequately authenticated, and overruling objections, but refusing to
issue explicit evidentiary rulings, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR admitted it
as evidence , and based the "judgment" on it. Furthermore, the fraudulent
Inducement, which was clearly evidenced, was simply ruled by her "RED
HERRING".
A new attorney I hired then, EDWARD HOFFMAN, agreed to help me write

a motion for reconsideration. On August 21, 2007, after working overnight
with Att HOFFMAN to complete the motion in time, I filed the motion for
reconsideration signed by him, at his insistence, while he appeared for me in
a short hearing with Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR. When we met, shortly
afterwards, he was visibly shaken. He eventfully admitted that Judge
JACQUELINE CONNOR intimidated him with threats of action against his
license. He insisted on withdrawing any paper bearing his name, and with
that his representation came to an end. I also missed the deadline for that
critical motion.
i) >July 1, 2008: Fraud by CFC/BOA continues
In the period after August 2007 and until January 2008, I was subjected to
some of the worst abuse. But that part did not directly involve CFC. It had
already done its share. Suffice is to say that I was forced to abandon my
home under pure threat of force, with no legal foundation. Att. DAVID
PASTERNAK a friend of both SANDOR SAMUELS and Judge FRIEDMAN
forcibly entered the property, "took possession", purported to sell it to
SAMAAN, kept the funds to himself, and filed a fraudulent grant deed on the
property, as opined by veteran decorated FBI agent, JAMES WEDICK:
Accordingly, based on above observations MR. .WEDICK opines an
immediate investigation should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the
circumstances behind any fraud being committed so that appropriate local,
state, and federal authorities can be notified, including the appropriate court.
[8]
I never received a penny from the purported sale of the property. By law, if
any of the matter was conducted under the law, I was to receive the
proceeds within 30 days.
482 / 545
In January 2008 CFC renewed its harassment campaign, and in
proceedings by Judge FRIEDMAN, who like all judges before him never
held an Assignment Order, and was acting with no valid authority at all,
sanctions were set on me for over $22,000, at the request of CFC, based on
proceedings and evidence that were all false and deliberately misleading.
After July 1, 2008 when CFC became a subsidiary of BOA, I expected that
all such actions will cease. I have sent notifications to officers of BOA
starting February 2008, and I even received a response from the office of Mr
Kenneth Lewis in February 2008, indicating receipt of my notice. When
BRYAN CAVE, LLP, continued the purported representation of CFC after
the merger, I asked for information about corporate disclosure and nature of
their engagement. They never provided adequate responses.
I therefore contacted in November-December the Offices of Mr TIMOTHY

MAYOPOULOS, and spoke with several senior staff members there, and
also left a couple of messages on Mr MAYOPOULOS' extension. All those I
spoke with , without exception, were unanimous: BRYAN CAVE, LLP was
NOT authorized to appear in court for CFC/BOA. However, although a
couple of those I spoke with promised to follow up with a written statement
to the same effect, I could never obtain such statement, and in fact, the
records show that the office of Mr MAYOPOULOS colludes with BRYAN
CAVE, LLP in their alleged fraudulent appearances in court in LA.
Such conduct is surely in contradiction with the principles guiding the

conduct of the General Counsel, as detailed BOA manual: External Counsel
Procedures. The most plausible explanation for such deceitful conduct is
that it is intended to bypass compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section
307.
In proceedings on January 13, 2009, and February 17, 2009 Judge

FRIEDMAN again found me in contempt and again set sanctions for
thousands of dollars. This time the claim by BRYAN CAVE, LLP was that
my phone calls to the office of General Counsel of BOA, where I uncovered
their fraud in court - appearing for BOA without authorization, constituted
violation of a court order from July 23, 2007. Not only is that court order yet
to be discovered, it could not possibly refer to anything related to BOA. No
need to get into all the additional ways in which the whole spectacle is an
insult to any notion of justice system under a regime that represents itself as
compliant with International Law.
j) Computer systems: Represent compliance, but underlie alleged frauds

at both CFC and LA Superior Court
Upon review of the case as a whole, one fact of interest is that the basic
tools enabling the frauds at San Rafael and in Los Angeles are the same -
Computer system that were installed to convey the impression of better
compliance and scrutiny, but in fact are used for the opposite purpose - for
circumventing the law. At San Rafael it is the mode of operation in EDGE, at
the court it is the mode of operation of SUSTAIN.
k) Denial of access to public records: Conditions of justice in LA County

are medieval in nature.
In reviewing the case as a whole, one cannot avoid noticing that the case
was defined by courtroom frauds that were typical of much older eras - as
far back as the medieval era - the statute of frauds fraud, and the entry of
judgment fraud. I would add to that the opinion that the continued
imprisonment of the estimated 10,000 Rampart victims is also of the same
483 / 545
nature - a medieval fraud of the court. And the reason that in the early 21st
century we find in Los Angeles County medieval frauds of the court is that
conditions in Los Angeles County Superior Court are in some respects of
late medieval nature. The right to access judicial records to inspect and to
copy, which was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of Nixon v.
Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) is denied in LA County
since 1985 - the time computers were introduced in that court in what must
be deemed fraud on the people.
I hold that it is the lack of access to Books of Court that is preventing us from
engaging in Habeas Corpus writs to free the Rampart victims... Since
although the Habeas Corpus was granted in the earlier middle ages, I am
confident that there studies out there showing its ineffectiveness until a later
period, when the concept of Books of Court and public records became
common place.
For example, to this date I am not permitted by this court to inspect and to
copy my own litigation records in Samaan v Zernik. It is exactly that - the
denial of public access to public records that are the records of the court that
enables this range of medieval frauds - from Statute of Frauds Fraud, to
Entry of Judgment Fraud, to the continued False Imprisonment of the
Rampart victims - thousands of innocent citizens.
l) Los Angeles Superior Court is in violation of International Law
The Los Angeles County Superior Court of California has operated in the
past quarter century in a manner that upon review by a competent
international court of jurisdiction, is likely to be deemed as an ongoing
violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I hold that in my
case, the following articles were violated:
Article 2 says:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on
the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-
self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. "
Article 7 says:
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
equal protection of the law."
Article 8 says:
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.
Article 10 says:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11 says:
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has
had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or
omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or
international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier
penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal
offence was committed.
484 / 545
Article 12 says:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks.
And Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR is intimately involved in all of these
frauds, in more ways than one.
I fully support the opinion that came to me in an anonymous letter from a
person who credibly described himself as an experienced criminal defense
attorney:
"The troubles that you have with Jacqueline Connor, however, sound very
familiar.....a former deputy prosecutor from the L.A. County District Attorney
Office, is a "Rampart Judge" from way back....while on criminal court bench,
Connor would confer with the D.A. behind the backs of defense attorneys in
order to find out ways to convict Defendants. She would intimidate
witnesses in her courtroom ... in order to convict people she disliked. Thus, I
imagine that she coordinated her activities with opposing counsel in your
case.
Connor was inappropriately assigned to hear the first case against the
Ramparts officers.,, It does not take an Einstein to see that Connor was
protecting herself and the other Rampart judges from disclosure."
And:
" My opinion is that she belongs in prison and not on the bench."
m) Requested: Support by the Audit Committee of BOA for efforts to

restore the access to public records of LA Superior Court.
Beyond corrective actions involving conduct of BOA itself, I hope that the
Audit Committee would find ways, as a committee or as individuals, to exert
influence and support efforts to restore human rights in Los Angeles, in
compliance with International Law. My goal is to effect the minimal
correction of conditions at the LA Superior Court that involve the operation of
fraudulent computer systems and hiding the records of such systems from
the public, where by law they are public records. Under current conditions,
the Audit Committee of Bank of America Corporation has the potential to
effect such changes. I hope that you would make decisions that would
reflect your concern for the rule of the law across the U.S. and the
preservation of civil rights that were achieve after many generations and are
on decline or gone in LA.
________________________________
Calling upon the President Obama:
Open the Books of LA Superior Court - to Free the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs.
_________________________________________________
Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
____________________________________
485 / 545
13. Zernik to Grundfest, March 2, 2009 –
Complaint filed with BAC Audit Committee
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:31:30 -0800

Subject: FYI, RE: ATTENTION: WILLIAM BARNET, III, JOHN T COLLINS, General
TOMMY R FRANKS, WALTER E MASSEY, THOMAS J MAY (chair), Admiral
JOSEPH W FRUEHER, AUDIT COMMITTEE, BOA/CFC
FIY, and thanks!
_________________________________________________
Calling upon the President Obama:
Open the Books of LA Superior Court - to Free the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs.
_________________________________________________
Cell: 310 435 9107
No ID- No response
Attachment: 09-03-02-news-release-bank-of-america-s.pdf;
________________________________________
486 / 545
News Release by Joseph Zernik - 02-Mar-2009

Re: Bank of America Corporation (ticker: BAC, exchange: New York Stock Exchange)
DEMANDS FOR AUDIT COMMITTEE REVIEW & TIMED RESPONSE RE: ALLEGATIONS
OF SUB-PRIME BAILOUT ABUSE AT BANK OF AMERICA 2-Mar-09 12:02pm
Requests for review/ enforcement also pending before SEC
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
LOS ANGELES, CA, Mar 02/ /-- In a letter to individual members of Bank of America Audit Committee,
Joseph Zernik, claiming to be victim of ongoing frauds by Countrywide*, now subsidiary of Bank of America,
and failure of corporate officers to respond to his previous requests for assistance. Zernik demands response of
either the committee as a whole, or the individual members, by March 10, 2009. Underlying matter is a real
estate dispute – in 2004 Zernik listed his Beverly Hills residence for sale. Buyer Nivie Samaan made an offer
and obtained Zernik’s assent to contract in September 2004 under false pretenses including, but not limited to,
the use of a fraudulent prequalification letter - as determined by fraud expert examination. Zernik canceled
escrow in October 2004 after Samaan failed to perform per contract relative to obtaining mortgage loans, would
not remove contingencies, and was caught engaging in alleged wire/fax fraud, where she impersonated
throughout the transaction her loan broker in fax communications with both Zernik and Countrywide, allegedly
– with the latter’s collusion.
In October 2005 Samaan filed complaint in LA Superior Court, and Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was heard by
Judge Jacqueline Connor, best remembered for her performance in the First Rampart Trial (2000), where she
reversed jury verdict convicting corrupt LAPD police involved in large-scale framing resulting in the false
imprisonment of thousands of innocent people in Los Angeles, California. Zernik alleges that severe violations
of due process and multiple instances of fraud by Connor in collusion with Samaan’s counsel and Countrywide
as part of the litigation, are credibly evidenced through records of the court itself. Connor rendered Summary
Judgment for Specific Performance of the 2004 real property purchase contract based on fraudulent
Countrywide records, as opined by fraud expert. Such records were admitted by Connor as evidence in alleged
deliberate violation of due process and the evidence code. Multiple requests to stop the fraud, filed directly with
Angelo Mozilo, then President, and Sandor Samuels, then Chief Legal Officer of Countrywide in the months
preceding the summary judgment hearing, led only to alleged retaliation through collusion of Countrywide and
the Court, coordinated by Bryan Cave, LLP. The law firm has been appearing in court for almost two years
under the false self designation of Non-Party, while the Court interchangeably designates Countrywide
Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Intervenor, all without adequate legal foundation.
After repeat disqualifications for a cause of Connor, the case changed hands, and in November-December
2007, Zernik’s property was taken for private use, under the threat of force, through coordinated actions of
judges including, but not limited to John Segal and Terry Friedman, with no compensation at all. Such actions
were perpetrated under the guise of execution of judgment, but without ever relying on the actual August 9,
2007 Judgment - rendered, but not entered by Judge Connor, without ever issuing a Writ of Execution, and
through reliance on fraudulent Grant Deeds, issued for the court by Att David Pasternak, as opined by expert
fraud examiner.
487 / 545
Zernik claims that Connor, Segal, Friedman and other judges involved in this case colluded with Countrywide,
including, but not limited to Angelo Mozilo, Sandor Samuels, and the Legal Department, and engaged in
racketeering under the guise of litigation. Zernik further claims that the preponderance of the evidence in his
case and in several other cases he has identified demonstrate a well- established Enterprise Track at the LA
Superior Court, where today, the Clerk of the Court, John A Clarke, and Presiding Judges, formerly Stephen
Czuleger and today Charles McCoy, refuse to certify the case as litigation in the Superior Court of California,
refuse to certify Judge Friedman, who still holds the file, as duly assigned to the case (none of the judges held an
Assignment Order), and refuse to certify the August 9, 2007 Judgment by Connor as a valid effectual judgment
of the Superior Court.
In December 2006, Zernik, who had no business with Countrywide, first realized that Countrywide had already
been involved in various frauds against him - by then for over two years. He initially attempted for a few
months to address the frauds through the Legal Department of Countrywide, only to realize that the Department
was the one who had coordinated the frauds in the first place. He then addressed both Angelo Mozilo, then
president, and Sandor Samuels, then chief legal officer, directly, with requests to stop the frauds being
perpetrated by Countrywide against him. Both officers then advertised their personal commitment to fight
frauds, and invited victims or informants to approach them. The response was a campaign of harassment/
intimidation/ retaliation against a victim/ witness/ informant, still ongoing today. Such conduct was coordinated
by Bryan Cave, LLP, appearing for almost two years in LA Superior Court as counsel for Countrywide, under
the false self-designation “Non-Party”. The Court interchangeably uses for Countrywide false designations of
“Defendant”, “Plaintiff”, “Cross-Defendant”, “Real Party in Interest”, etc – all with no legal foundation.
In anticipation of the Sub-Prime Bailout merger, Zernik gave notice to officers of Bank of America already in
February 2008. However, in the nine months since the July 1, 2008 merger of Countrywide with Bank of
America, such retaliation did not cease, on the contrary, it has been escalated. However, Bryan Cave, LLP
would no longer clearly identify its clients in the case, and so far has failed to file adequate corporate disclosure.
Office of Bank of America Timothy Mayopoulos, General Counsel, claims that Bryan Cave, LLP is not
authorized to appear in its name, yet no attempt has been made to stop such appearances, on the contrary – court
records evidence support by Bank of America of Bryan Cave, LLP actions. Neither Countrywide, nor Bank of
America filed any disclosure in this matter per Sarbanes-Oxley, section 307. Appeals to Bank of America’s
Ken Lewis, president, Timothy Mayopoulos, General Counsel, members of the board, and members of the
Audit Committee to this date remain unanswered.
Similarly, there is no indication that Bank of America has taken any corrective action so far regarding massive
fraud against the U.S. government, identified by Zernik already in a complaint filed with FBI in January 2007,
particularly at the wholesale branches of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Zernik alleges fraudulent use of large
systems such as EDGE for underwriting monitoring, which deceptively convey appearance of compliance with
Regulation B of the FRB, Fair Housing and Fair Credit laws, but allow underwriting in disregard of the law.
Starting December 2006, Zernik approached various local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies,
uniformly, all refused to even review the evidence. Credible evidence from FBI shows that the reason for such
refusal was the need to address allegations of widespread public corruption and racketeering – particularly in
real estate litigations – by a large group of judges, including the leadership of the LA Superior Court. Zernik
alleges that the court’s large computer systems, e.g., SUSTAIN, are the enabling tools of the racket in its current
manifestation, and that credible evidence is found in court records generated by the system. Such frauds are
facilitated by the combined abandonment of published rules of court and denial of access to digital litigation
records since the introduction of SUSTAIN around 1985 - in defiance of universally recognized basic human
rights. In August September 2008, Kenneth Melson, director, US Department of Justice, and Kenneth Kaiser,
assistant director, FBI, provided responses to inquiries by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Diane
Watson regarding failure of agencies to respond in this case. Such responses are deemed by Zernik false and
misleading. For example, Melson explained the conduct of U.S. Justice Department by making a false,
misleading, and derogatory statement that Zernik was complaining about foreclosure procedures.
488 / 545
Support of Zernik’s position in this case has come so far from retired Judge R William Schoettler, who in May
2007 reviewed the evidence in the case as Mediator and determined that Samaan had “no case at all”, fraud
experts Robert Meister and James Wedick, who reviewed key records in this case, and Prof Joseph Grundfest,
SEC former Chair, who after brief review of some records forwarded the case to SEC Enforcement. American
Homeowners Resource Center, an advocacy group supports Zernik’s cause, pointing out that the case, which
involved no foreclosure and no default at all, is a poster-child for the role of the courts in the current looting of
homeowners throughout the U.S. in collusion with lenders and lawyers as part of the Sub-Prime Crisis.
Zernik himself points out that his case provides the clearest evidence for the widespread corruption of the LA
Superior Court, and requires reevaluation of the Rampart scandal, where judge were claimed to have been
“duped” by corrupt police to enter false evidence. However, in Samaan v Zernik Judge Connor, who was the
central figure in the Rampart scandal, and also Judges Segal and Friedman, are alleged to have presided with no
Assignment Orders and no authority at all, to have entered false evidence in violation of the evidence code and
due process procedures, to have made rulings that were contrary to the law deliberately and without any
explanation, and to have generated false and deliberately misleading court records routinely. Zernik claims that
such allegations are credibly evidenced through the court records themselves.
Moreover, Zernik claims that the bigger looming disgrace is the ongoing incarceration of estimated (based on
PBS Frontline, 2001) 10,000 Falsely Imprisoned People (FIPs) in Los Angeles, mostly black and latinos, over
10 years after they were confirmed innocent in Rampart Scandal investigations. Such false imprisonments were
confirmed and re-affirmed in a series of official reviews, latest of which was the Blue Ribbon Review Panel
Report (2006), commissioned by the LAPD itself. The Rampart scandal (1998-2000) was described at the time
as the worst abuse of civil rights by police in the history of the U.S. But following Connor’s derailing of the
First Rampart Trial (2000) – all prosecutions of culprit police ceased, and the victims remained imprisoned. A
U.S. judge was appointed Overseer of civil rights in LA pursuant to the Consent Decree (2001), but his office is
deemed ineffective- it was scheduled to meet prescribed goals and close in 2006.
At present, Zernik has requests for review/corrective-action/enforcement pending before the audit committee
and individual members of Bank of America - William Barnet, III, John T Collins, General Tommy R
Franks, Walter E Massey, Thomas J May (Chair), Admiral Joseph W Frueher. Requests for
investigation/enforcement are also pending before congressional committees and SEC.
In summer 2008, Zernik filed with Judge Friedman, who is still holding the file today, “Notice to Cease and
Desist Racketeering” and ceased participation in any LA Superior Court proceedings of Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400). Regardless, Judge Friedman and Countrywide continued their proceedings, most recently entering
against Zernik on February 17, 2009 Judgment of Contempt, for the second time in two years, and again setting
sanctions, by now in excess of $30,000. The most recent charge was that by contacting the office of Bank of
America General Counsel, Timothy Mayopoulos, and obtaining information that Bryan Cave, LLP, was not
authorized to appear in court for Countrywide/Bank of America, Zernik violated a July 23, 2007 Order by Judge
Connor, yet to be discovered, which purportedly directed him to communicate only with Att Todd Boock , of
Countrywide’s Legal Department. The office of Mr Mayopoulos likewise instructed Zernik that the counsel
authorized to represent Bank of America/Countrywide in this case was only Book. But Boock claims that
Zernik is prohibited from communicating with him by court orders.
Complaint filed in March 2008 in U.S. District Court, LA, against LA Superior Court, its judges, Countrywide,
Mozilo, and Samuels – Zernik v Connor et al (2:2008cv01550) - was abandoned over half a year ago. Zernik
holds that the docket of the case, as seen on Pacer, both before and after the case was abandoned, is inexplicable
as litigation pursuant to either U.S. or International Law.
Requests were filed with international agencies to monitor the conduct of the courts in LA, California, in light of
severe, large-scale, long-term abuse of human rights of all 10 million residents of the most populous county in
the U.S., with inexplicable indifference by U.S. government agencies such as FBI.
489 / 545
* Countrywide here denotes Countrywide Financial Corporation, Inc, and all its subsidiaries and affiliates.
** Digitally certified PDF copies of key evidence in this case available upon request.
CONTACT: Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
END
490 / 545
14. Bezek to Zernik, May 4, 2009 -
Return receipt of request to serve summons for complaint filed with
against Bezek and SEC in U.S. Court, Washington DC “to compel U.S.
officer to perform his duties”.

Subject: Please let me know if you would accept service of summons by certified
mail for bezek and sec.
From: Joe Grundfest <grundfest@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:35:08 -0700
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on lawmail1/stanford(Release 8.0.2|August 07, 2008) at
05/04/2009 01:35:08 PM
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Return Receipt
Your document: Please let me know if you would accept service of summons by certified mail for
bezek and sec.
was received by: grundfest@stanford.edu
at: 05/04/2009 01:34:21 PM
________________________________________
15. Grundfest to Zernik May 5, 2009 –

Confirmation of receipt of Zernik’s notice of filing complaint in U.S.
Court, Washington, DC, against SEC and Samuel Bezek “to compel
U.S. officer to perform his duties”.
X-McAfee-Timeout-Protection: 1
d="scan'208";a="31862566"
Subject: Read: Please let me know if you would accept service of summons by certified mail
for bezek and sec.
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:33:44 -0400
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Please let me know if you would accept service of summons by certified mail
for bezek and sec.
Thread-Index: AcnM95jBkUGzCryeTGylJB6I7GenFQAjoPeh
From: "Bezek, Samuel" <BEZEKS@SEC.GOV>
To: "joseph zernik" <jz12345@earthlink.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2009 13:33:45.0215 (UTC)
FILETIME=[1CF8D0F0:01C9CD86]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Your message
To: Bezek, Samuel

Cc: grundfest@stanford.edu
Subject: Please let me know if you would accept service of summons by
491 / 545
certified mail for bezek and sec.
Sent: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:32:41 -0400
was read on Tue, 5 May 2009 09:33:44 -0400
Final-Recipient: RFC822; BEZEKS@SEC.GOV

Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: gtiXGh1FnE+hbYKT6qR64Q==
Original-Message-ID: <E1M14qy-0003ic-QR@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
492 / 545
09-09-02 In re: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) demands for Clerk John Clarke’s compliance with
the law:
Superior Court “Case Summaries” online;
2) Demand to ensure that no Deputy Clerk is present in purported Case Conference
on September 23, 2009, and
3) Demand that no Deputy Clerk enter any additional Minute Orders in John
Clarke’s name in Sustain under such caption.
September 2, 2009
John A Clarke
< 12136217952@efaxsend.com >
Mr Clarke:
I recently noticed that the “Case Summaries”1 of the LA Superior Court still carries
reference to matter of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), moreover, a “Case
Conference” is listed there as a “Future Proceeding” on September 23, 2009. 2,3
You have continuously refused to certify the case as an Action of the Superior Court
of California, refused to certify Judge Terry Friedman as duly assigned Presiding
Judge (and there never was an Assignment Order on file either), and refused to
certify the August 9, 2007 Judgment as a Judgment of the Superior Court of
California.
Additional credible evidence demonstrated that such matter was never a valid
effectual action of the Superior Court of California. The Grant Deeds issued by Att
David Pasternak on behalf of the court, likewise, were opined by decorated FBI
veteran, fraud expert James Wedick as “fraud”. 4 Likewise, period reports issued by
1
“Case Summaries” are published by the LA Superior Court with a disclaimer (see Footnote #2) stating that such are not court
records, and should not be relied upon. In parallel, the LA Superior Court denies for the past quarter century public access to the
Registers of Actions – which are public records by law (see Footnote #3). Therefore, the “Case Summaries”, which should not be
relied upon, are the only non-record available to the public.
2
Copy of the case summary of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-a-online-case-summary_09-08-24-not-a-court-record.pdf
3
Denial of access to Registers of Actions, to inspect and to copy:
4
December 7, 2007, and December 17, 2007 Grant Deeds issued by Att David Pasternak, opined as “fraud” by decorated FBI
veteran James Wedick:
493 / 545
Att David Pasternak are primary evidence of the alleged racketeering predicated
acts of monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. 5
There simply is no explanation within the realm of the law for the ongoing conduct of
the court and Att David Pasternak.
For lack of better term, I refer to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and other similar
cases, such as Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737), 6 as the “Enterprise Track” of the
LA Superior Court. Upon review by a competent court of jurisdiction, such cases
surely would be deemed racketeering pursuant to RICO - Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 USC §1961-8.
Additional cases, which carry substantial public policy interest, and are likely be
designated “Enterprise Track”, where I could not make final determination as a
result of denial of access to records, 7 included:
a) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
Under such caption the court purported to review the question of payments to
judges that were ruled “not permitted” by the California Court of Appeals, and
were labeled by media “bribes”.
Although it remains unclear whether the case as a whole is “Enterprise Track”

case, surely what is represented as judgments by Justice Richman were false
and deliberately misleading records, as detailed in the motion for Mistrial which I
filed in court.8
b) Marina v LA County (BS109420)
Under such caption, the court purported to review the question of land development
in the Marina area. Although it remains unclear whether the case as a whole is
“Enterprise Track” case, surely what was represented as March 4, 2009 Judgment
for the jailing of Att Richard Fine was false and deliberately misleading record, as
detailed in letter of meet and confer sent to attorneys for the court and for the
sheriff.9
As you know, I am pressing for investigation of Samaan v Zernik, given the

extraordinary public policy interests inherent in it:
a) Relative to alleged racketeering by Sandor Samuels and Countrywide

Financial Corporation (CFC), as the underlying context for the current
financial crisis, still never addressed after the merger with Bank of America
Corporation (BAC).
5
June 22, 2009 - The latest report by Att David Pasternak:
http://inproperinla.com/09-06-22-att-david-pasternak-report-holding-$360000.pdf
6
The central role in Galdjie v Darwish of Judge John Segal, listed anonymously as “Muni Judge”, and Att David Pasternak,
parallels their roles in Samaan v Zernik. Other common features of the two cases can be viewed at:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-enterprise-track-samaan-v-zernik-&-galdjie-v-darwish-s.pdf
7
Denial of access to records of the LA Superior Court, in contradiction with Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978):
8
Ex parte for leave to file, and Motion for Mistrial in Sturgeon v LA County:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-ex-parte-application-orders-for-access-leave-to-file.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-i.pdf
9
Letter of meet and confer in re: false and deliberately misleading March 4, 2009 judgment in Marina v LA County.
494 / 545
b) Relative to refusal of SEC to engage in effectual engagement in re: CFC or

BAC.
c) Relative to alleged racketeering by Judge Jacqueline Connor, which sheds

new light on her conduct in the First Rampart Trial (2000), 10, 11 and the
continued false confinement of the estimated 10,000 Rampart FIPs (Falsely
Imprisoned Persons), as a result. It calls for new assessment of the reasons
for their false convictions and false sentencing by judges like Jacqueline
Connor, an aspect of the scandal that was entirely ignored in the official
investigation (1998-2000), which placed the blame entirely on the LAPD.
d) Relative to the position of LA County, as described by FBI: “The epicenter of

the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud”.
e) Relative to the roles of national and international law firms such as Bryan
Cave, LLP, and Sheppard Mullin, in alleged racketeering in LA County,
California.
Please accept this letter as notice of demands for your personal compliance with the
law no later than Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm:

Superior Court’s “Case Summaries” online;
2) Demand to ensure that no Deputy Clerk is present in purported Case
Conference on September 23, 2009 or any other purported proceeding
under such caption, and
3) Demand that no Deputy Clerk enter any additional Minute Orders in your
name in Sustain under such caption.
________________________________________
Joseph Zernik
CC:
Att Paul Malingagio
Att Ted Max
Sheppard Mullin
10
December 22, 2000 Judge Connor’s ruling to reverse jury convictions:
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-the-judge-s-decision-los-angeles-times.pdf
11
December 22, 2000 Judge Connor’s ruling as described by media:
http://inproperinla.com/00-12-24-los-angeles-judge-overturns-convictions-of--police-in-scandal-nyt.pdf
495 / 545
Att Robert Shulkin

Coldwell Banker
Att Todd Boock

Att Sandor Samuels
Att Sanford Shatz
Angelo Mozilo
Att John Amberg

Att Jenna Moldawsky
Att Peter van Cleve
Att Don Lents,
Bryan Cave, LLP.

lewism@sec.gov,

schen@cgsh.com ,
lliman@cgsh.com

Basel Committee
[redacted]

Kenneth D. Lewis
Charles K. Gifford,
Audit Committee:
D. Paul Jones,
Donald E. Powell
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
496 / 545
Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Joe L. Price
By email
100 North Tryon St
Cotty, Price"
PriceWaterhouse
497 / 545
9/3/2009 Franks & Associates LLC
Home A bout General Franks Contact Us Speaking OPs Press Room Photo A lbum Links Shop Donate
Self-addressed, stamped envelopes are required with requests for autographs.

Please enclose $2.75 for each signed photo plus postage:
.62 cents for 5x7 photos and .87 cents for 8x10 photos.
Gen Tommy Franks

4 Star Ranch
Roosevelt, OK 73564
Name: Joseph Zernik
Address: PO Box 526
City: La Verne
State: Calif ornia
Zip Code: 91750
Country: USA
Phone 323 515 4583
Number:
Fax: 801 998 0917
E-mail jz12345@earthlink.net
Address:
www.tommyfranks.com/Contact.shtml 1/2
498 / 545
9/3/2009 Franks & Associates LLC
TO: General Tommy Franks
FROM: Joseph Zernik
RE: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell Address" by Admiral Joseph W Frueher, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee
Copied below is my request, addressed to Stanford Law faculty, for peer-review of an Affidavit (Dkt #10) provided by Prof Joseph Grundfest in proceedings of SEC v BAC
cv-06829), at the U.S. District Court, Manhattan. Links, provided at the footnotes of that message, are to the Affidavit record itself, and separately - to a September 2, 2
letter addressed to Prof Grundfest and counsel for SEC and BAC in the proceedings in question, requesting that the Affidavit be either re-written or altogether withdrawn.
I likewise request that you, and a separate request is forwarded to Admiral Joseph Frueher, provide a public written statement - a "Farewell Address" - as culmination of yo
duties, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee. [1]
The recent changes in the roster of the BAC Audit Committee, were only one indicator of the transformation of BAC during the period that the two of you served on the Au
Committee, with the mergers with Countrywide Financial Corporation ( CFC) and with Merrill Lynch as the hallmarks. Regarding the former merger - BAC was granted a wai
deposit limits, and your input is requested as to the prudence of such waiver from national security perspective. Regarding the latter merger, NY Attorney General Andrew
Cuomo wrote the April 23, 2009 letter to the U.S. Senate, [2] which led to calls in media for criminal indictments of both BAC and U.S. officers, including Ben Bernanke - Cha
the FRB, and Kenneth Lewis - Chair of BAC. Matters were described in such letter that would have required review by the BAC Audit Committee, and separately - by U.S.
regulatory agencies.
There is no public evidence of any such review by regulatory agencies. Likewise, in my September 2, 2009 letter, I reference complaints filed with SEC, FBI, and other regu
agencies, starting January 2007 - of credibly evidenced material violations of the law by officers holding direct reporting duties at Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC),
subsidiary of BAC. All such agencies refused to investigate the complaints. There is no evidence that BAC attempted to enforce compliance at its CFC subsidiary. On the
contrary, the evidence shows that BAC after the merger knowingly allowed conduct that would be deemed in violation of the law to proceed.
In contrast, the Affidavit (Dkt #10) stated that BAC was a "highly regulated" financial institution.
Concerns are that such affidavit, and the approval of a Proposed Settlement before the Court in the proceedings of SEC v BAC, would convey the impression of effective
regulation of BAC, that could be relied upon by the U.S. and world financial markets to avoid unreasonable risks.
I would be grateful for your response in this matter, no later than Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 5:00 pm, so that I may incorporate it in my letter to the Honorable Jed Rak
U.S. Judge.
No doubt, you realize that the matter pertains to the long-term peace and welfare of the U.S. no less than any military or naval endeavor.
Joseph Zernik
_______________________________________
[1] Such Farewell Address is requested in explicit reference to the January 17, 1961 General Dwight D Eisenhower Farewell Address upon leaving the office of U.S. Preside
Questions http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-61-01-17_dwight_d_eisenhower_farewell_address-s.pdf
or [2] April 23, 2009 letter to U.S. Senate by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo
Comments: http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
_____________________________________________
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:59:55 -0700

To: [Stanford faculty list - redacted, JHZ]
Subject: Request for peer review of Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof Joseph Grundfest in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
To: Stanford Law School Faculty, and faculty of other law schools.
From: Joseph Zernik
RE: Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof. Joseph Grundfest, Stanford Law School, in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
Links are provided below for the Affidavit referenced above [1], and for a letter I wrote today to Prof Grundfest and to Counsel for SEC and BAC, requesting a re-write or
withdrawal of the affidavit. [2] As his peers, I request your help in assessing the integrity, including, but not limited to Academic Integrity, of the Affidavit. Included in such
request is the request for assessment of the integrity of filing such paper in proceedings where there is no publicly visible summons and no publicly visible Assignment to a J
and with no party filer appearing on the face of the paper.
Needless to say, the proceedings in SEC V BAC pertain to matters that are critical for the economic future of the U.S.
I would be grateful for your response in this matter, no later than Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 5:00pm, so that I may incorporate it in my letter to Honorable Jed Rakoff,
Judge.
Joseph Zernik
_____________________________________________________
[1] Affidavit of Prof Joseph Grundfest in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-ny-sec-v-bac-09-08-24-doc-10-affidavit-joseph-grundfest.pdf
[2] September 2, 2009 Letter to Prof Grundfest, counsel for SEC and BAC, requesting re-write or withdrawal of the Affidavit
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-zernik-to-counsel-sec-v-bac-grundfest-re-affidavit-s.pdf
Submit
Home | A bout General Franks | Contact | Speaking OPs | Press Room | Photo Album | Link s | Shop
© 2009 Franks & A ssociates LLC
Site Designed and Maintained by HCP Interactive
www.tommyfranks.com/Contact.shtml 2/2
499 / 545
09-09-04 Request to access court records to Inspect and to copy

Terry Nafisi
District Court Executive and Clerk of Court
(by email and by priority certified mail, restricted delivery)
312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8
Timed response requested by September 17, 2009, 5:00pm.
Clerk Nafisi:
Please accept this letter as my request to access court records to inspect and to copy pursuant
to Nixon v Warner Communication, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed
the Common Law and First Amendment rights to access judicial records to inspect and to
copy.
This request pertains specifically to NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) including any
digital stamps, or digital signatures, encrypted as series of numbers and characters, which
may be embedded in such NEFs of various records in the following cases:
1) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), and
2) Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-cv-01914).
I have previously requested access to ECF/CM, where such NEFs are viewable, in a motion
in Zernik v Connor et al. Such request was denied. Instead I was referred by the court to
Pacer as a way to access court records to inspect and to copy. However, my access through
Pacer does not provide any way to view the NEFs of any of the records in the two cases listed
above.
Please let me know ASAP when and where I will be allowed access to court records, listed
above, to inspect and to copy.
Enclosed is also the record of our communications in the past two months. We are yet to
cross the line where you allow those who communicate on your behalf to:
a) Identify their professional qualifications as Clerk Deputy – or not, and
b) State that they were communicating on your behalf.
Regardless of what you consider a dialogue of two months that can’t get any further than that
– a reasonable person is likely to consider it simply as denial of access to court records.
Therefore, please be noticed - Ongoing posting of false and deliberately misleading records is
harmful. Please either have such records marked clearly as invalid, so that a layperson would
500 / 545
not mistake them for anything else. Alternatively – entirely remove them from the online
docket.
I am also yet to hear your response in re: the various abuses noted in my request for
investigation.
Time is of the essence, response - alternatively action to mitigate damages is requested by ,
September 17, 2009, 5:00 pm. My fax and email information are provided below.
Dated: September 4, 2009 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
________________________
By: Joseph H Zernik
PO Box 526
Tel: (323) 515 4583; Fax: (801) 998 0917;
CC:
Att for BAC and SEC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
Prof Joseph Grundfest
Stanford Law Faculty
Parties in Zernik v Connor et al, per service list.
501 / 545
09-09-04 Communications with Clerk Nafisi – U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, in re: Access to
Court Records - Addendum.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:06:09 -0700

To: terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov,
Subject: Re: U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, followed the example of LA Superior Court - and repeatedly denied
Party's right to access court records - to inspect and to copy.
Cc: Danalyn_Castellanos@cacd.uscourts.gov, Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov,
Dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov
August 25, 2009
Clerk Nafisi:
May I ask again - Please - if you do not wish to respond yourself, the person responding in
your name should state that they are assigned, or were requested to respond in your name.
Otherwise, I request that the person identify themselves also by the legal authority. The way I
know it, there are only two types of authorities for this matter: 1) Executive/Clerk, and 2)
Deputy Clerk. The other titles are administrative ranks, etc, and irrelevant to my questions. I
need to know that the person I am talking with is: a) assigned by you to respond, and b) is
duly authorized by law to engage in clerk issues.
Thanks for your understanding, I do not like to be difficult, but there is no way that I can tell
what the other titles mean, and as stated previously, we are dealing with a situation where
there were breaches of authority relative to clerk's functions, by Donna Thomas, to the best of
my knowledge.
Joseph Zernik
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
X-MSK: CML=0.001000
d="scan'208";a="166352820"
Subject: Re: U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, followed the example of LA Superior
Court - and repeatedly denied Party's right to access court records - to
inspect and to copy.
Cc: Danalyn_Castellanos@cacd.uscourts.gov,
Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov,
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 HF852 January 26, 2006
From: Dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:42:53 -0700
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on 09CACMAIL01a/M/09/USCOURTS(Release 8.0.2FP1 HF316|May
05, 2009) at 08/21/2009 08:42:55 AM
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Joseph,
As I mentioned to you in my earlier e-mail all cases are public record and
502 / 545
you may come in to the courthouse anytime between the hours of 10 and 4 to
view these cases.
In Zernik vs. Connor you should have received an NEF when you received the
service of your documents by mail. I did randomly check a few documents
and the NEF does indicate that you received service by mail to the address
that is listed on the docket, If for some reason you did not received an
NEF with a document please let me know which document and I will be happy
to print the NEF for you.
Dawn Bullock
Records Supervisor
503 / 545
09-08-20 U.S. District Court –Los Angeles, follows the example of LA Superior Court – denying
access to records
August 20, 2009
RE: U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, followed the example of LA

Superior Court - and repeatedly denied Party's right to access court
records - to inspect and to copy.
Calling upon U.S. Congress to carefully monitor the appointment of
new head of FBI office, Los Angeles, in view of alleged widespread
corruption of the courts in Los Angeles, California.
Executive Summary
Correspondence copied below documents ongoing denial of access to court records in the
past month by the office of the Clerk/Executive of the U.S. District Court, LA, Terry Nafisi. The
records that are the subject of the requests for access are the digital signatures that are the
attestation/authentication of court records in CM/ECF - one of the dual docketing systems
(the other one being Pacer) by now practically fully implemented at the U.S District Courts
and U.S. Courts of Appeals. Such dual docketing systems are separate and unequal, and are
used by the U.S. courts to segregate parties in violation of Human Rights pursuant to ratified
International Law. it is incomprehensible what justification that is even remotely related to
furtherance of justice could be found for the expenditure of precious resources to establish
such travesty of due process. As discussed below, it is suspected that such dual docketing
systems enabled additional alleged criminality and abuse relative to the conduct of captions
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) and Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914),
which were suspected to have been invalidated most likely from day one, yet involved the
enlargement of parties alleging severe abuse of Civil Rights under the Color of Law by State
of California judges in Los Angeles, in sham court actions at the U.S. District Court- LA -
additional severe violation of Human Rights. Both captions were most likely invalidated as
court cases from day one. The denial of access to records of attestation/ authentication is
most likely an attempt by the Clerk of the U.S District Court, LA, Terry Nafisi, to cover-up such
suspected criminality by Magistrate Carla Woehrle and various staff members of the Clerk's
office. Of note, complaints were filed with FBI Los Angeles office regarding the conduct of
Zernik v Connor et al in mid 2008, but there was no indication of any follow up by FBI on the
matter.
Almost identical alleged criminality was noted in recent weeks by the Court of Judge Richard
J Leon and Clerk of the Court Mr David Scott, U.S Court, Washington DC, in relationship to
caption of Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805).
The common features of all three captions listed above - they all stem from what is alleged to
be widespread criminality that amounts to alleged racketeering by judges of the LA Superior
Court. Furthermore, the conduct of such captions represents the alleged collusion and cover-
up of such criminality by U.S. Courts and senior officers of U.S Department of Justice and
FBI.
U.S. Congress is called upon to carefully monitor the appointment of the new head of FBI
Office, Los Angeles. The remarkable turnaround at CIA should be the guiding example. FBI
must become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
U.S. Congress is called upon to press for enforcement of Rule Making Enabling Act on all
case management systems of the U.S. Courts - since such systems are large aggregates of
Rules of Courts in programming languages, yet Rules of Courts they are nevertheless.
U.S Congress is called upon to press for enforcement of Nixon v Warner Communications,
Inc (1978) - the right to access court records to inspect and to copy - on court records in such
computerized systems.
504 / 545
U.S. Congress is called upon to immediately secure public access to court records in LA
County, California, through the appointment of a Special Counsel, as proposed below, or
through any other feasible method within the law.
Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, amount to severe violations of Human
Rights by the U.S. Government, of historic proportions, in violation of ratified
International Law.
The U.S. Constitution, Art. IV §I declares,

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial
proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in
which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
By the U.S. Act of May 26, 1790, it is provided,
That the act of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal
of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the
courts of any state shall be proved or admitted, in any other court within the United States, by
the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with
a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the
said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated
as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United
States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the state from whence the said records
are, or shall be taken.
It looks more and more likely by the hour, that the U.S. District Court LA engaged in alleged criminality
in both Zernik v Connor et al and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County, and that the essence of
such alleged criminality was in the issuance of ineffectual court records, but concealing the fact that
such records were ineffectual by: First -- during litigations - through failure to notice and serve the
attestations on Pro Se Plaintiffs, Joseph Zernik and Richard Fine, respectively, who were excluded
from access to CM/ECF. Second, now- through denial of access to the attestations, as a lame attempt
to cover up such alleged criminality.
Such alleged criminality had to involve a large group of judges, clerks, and attorneys, and it was
enabled by the dual docketing systems created by the U.S. Courts - Pacer, and CM/ECF, separate
and unequal, and the segregation of parties into such systems by the U.S. Courts.
Conditions reflected in the denial of access to court records to party in litigation, first demonstrated in
recent weeks in LA Superior Court, and now at the U.S. District Court, LA, evidence the regression of
LA County Courts (at a time that the LAPD has shown substantial progress in compliance) to what
may be comparable to early post-medieval period as far as court integrity and compliance with Due
Process. In parallel, it widespread criminality at the courts is alleged. The Common Law right to
access such records, the public record status of court records, as well as the segregation of authorities
of the judicial and ministerial arms of the court - all of which were basic safeguards for the integrity of
the courts, found their origin at that historic period. And such basic safeguards are now directly
undermined by the courts.
Such regression of the courts was enabled by the introduction of computerized case management
systems in the courts, with no public oversight, and the deliberate failure by the courts to recognize
that such systems had to be treated as Rules of Court, and their installation had to involve compliance
with the Rule Making Enabling law, State, or Federal, respectively. Likewise, the courts had to
recognize that court records in such systems were subject to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc
(1978), where the U.S Supreme Court re-affirmed the right to access court records to inspect and to
copy, as anchored in Common Law right that is older than the U.S. Constitution, in First, Sixth, and
Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments rights.
One should also note that such conditions were allowed to evolve with the full knowledge of senior
U.S. Department of Justice officers under the Bush administration. Request was filed over a year ago -
for the appointment of a Special Counsel, pursuant to 28 CFR §600, with a short-term, limited and well
circumscribed mandate - to secure public access to public court records at the LA County Courts, to
investigate and if necessary prosecute those who abuse the Civil and Human Rights of the 10 million
residents of LA County by denying such access to court records. It was recommended that FBI NOT
be relied upon in any such actions, and that units from Dept of Treasury, which captured the
505 / 545
computers of failing banks, be relied upon instead. It was estimated that the critical phase of such
operation could last overnight, or at most over a weekend, and that public access could be secured,
from court locations terminals only, within 1-2 weeks, and with that - bringing to fruition the core
mandate of such Special Counsel. It was also recommended that in parallel - "Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions" be instituted, since such records are likely to expose widespread
criminality of the judiciary in LA County.
U.S. Department of Justice failed to respond.
When inquiries were issued by U.S. Congress - the Honorable Diane Feinstein and Dianne Watson
on my behalf, senior U.S. Officers of the U.S Department of Justice, who are Kenneth Kaiser and
Kenneth Melson, issued responses that must be deemed upon review fraud and criminality by senior
U.S. Officers of the Justice Department.
Therefore on May 1, 2009, complaint was filed in U.S. Court, Washington DC "to compel U.S. Officers
to perform their duties". Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) was initially assigned to Judge Richard
J Leon, but request for disqualification was immediately filed, based on service of the judge as minority
counsel on related issue that is discussed in the complaint.. The handling of Zernik v Melson et al by
Judge Richard J Leon and Clerk of U.S Court DC, Mr David Scott, was almost exact repeat of the
conduct of Magistrate Carla Woehrle at the U.S. District Court , Los Angeles - severe abuse and
alleged perversion of justice and denial of access to the court, to fair trial, and denial of the right to file
papers in court.
Most recently - request was filed for access to authentication records of the U.S. Court, Washington
DC. No response was received so far. The handling of caption Zernik v Melson et al at the U.S. Court,
Washington DC deserves its own negotiation by the Public Integrity Unit of the Justice Department.
Notice must be taken of the fact that the appointment of Mr Leon Panetta led to what appeared as
expedient turn around at CIA in re: compliance and truthfulness in reporting to U.S. Congress.
Implementing similar measures at FBI and U.S. Department of Justice is long overdue. Yesterday,
August 19, 2009, news was released that Salvador Hernandez, who headed the FBI's Los Angeles
office, was retiring to take a job in the private sector.
o U.S. Congress is called upon to carefully monitor the appointment of the new head of
FBI Office, Los Angeles. The remarkable turnaround at CIA should be the guiding
example. FBI must become part of the solution, not part of the problem.
o U.S. Congress is called upon to press for enforcement of Rule Making Enabling Act
on all case management systems of the U.S. Courts - since such systems are large
aggregates of Rules of Courts in programming languages, yet Rules of Courts they
are nevertheless.
o U.S Congress is called upon to press for enforcement of Nixon v Warner

Communications, Inc (1978) - the right to access court records to inspect and to copy
- on court records in such computerized systems.
o U.S. Congress is called upon to immediately secure public access to court records in
LA County, California, through the appointment of a Special Counsel, as proposed
below, or through any other feasible method within the law.
Conditions in Los Angeles County, California, amount to severe violations of Human Rights by
the U.S. Government, of historic proportions, in violation of ratified International Law.
Joseph Zernik
-------------------------------------------------------------------
506 / 545
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:36:54 -0700

To: terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
Subject: U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, followed the example of LA Superior Court - and repeatedly
denied Party's right to access court records - to inspect and to copy.
Cc: Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov, Danalyn_Castellanos@cacd.uscourts.gov,
Dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov
August 19, 2009
Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the Court/Executive
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
It is now close to a month since my first phone inquiries with the office of the Clerk/Executive, U.S.
District Court, Los Angeles, as part of my ongoing efforts to access my own litigation records, to
inspect and to copy. It is now 20 days since my first recorded written request was forwarded to you in
the same matter. As shown below, you so far failed to respond to my requests, and staff of the U.S.
District Court, Los Angeles, attempted to deny my rights to access such records to inspect and to
copy, on various false grounds.
The writer of the most recent response from U.S. Courts, California Central District, Dawn Bullock, like
Ms Danlyn Castellanos before her, responded to messages addressed to you, but failed to state that
she did so with your authorization. Moreover, Ms Bullock's position title failed to include the ministerial
"Clerk" in it, and she also failed to visibly copy you on her response.
Needless to say, I find such combination of facts of concern, particularly on the background of
complaint I filed recently with you, regarding conduct of Ms Donna Thomas at the Chamber of
Magistrate Carla Woehrle. I believe that Ms Thomas was not a Deputy Clerk, and that she engaged in
various transactions on U.S. District Court records that she was not authorized to engage in, and that
such transactions were likely upon review to be deemed as part of efforts to obstruct and pervert
justice in Zernik v Connor et al and Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County.
Both cases involved allegations of widespread corruption of LA Superior Court judges, both involved
allegations of severe abuse of civil and human rights by the judges of the LA Superior Court, and both
were allegedly perverted at the court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle.
Therefore, I would not directly address the message below, dated August 19, 2009, from Ms Bullock,
unless I am re-assured that such communication and the ones from Danalyn Castellanos before it,
were forwarded to me with your authorization and reflected your positions on the matters at hand.
In case the opinions which were expressed by Ms Dawn Bullock indeed reflected your position on my
request to access U.S. District Court records - to inspect and to copy, I request that you provide
authorities, since the opinions expressed in Ms Bullock's note on their face were false, legally invalid,
and defied reason.
Furthermore, if communications below were authorized by you, I request that you also provide a brief,
simple language explanation for the following three questions:
1) Why was I denied service of such court records in Zernik v Connor et al, during litigation, when all
other parties were served such records?
2) What reason(s) could lead the Executive/Clerk of U.S. District Court to deny today my right to
access - to inspect and to copy - the digital authentication/endorsement by the Clerk of the Court of
records of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-015550), purportedly a court litigation where I was named
Plaintiff? Could any such reason(s) be even remotely related to administration justice in compliance
with the law? Could any such reason(s) be even remotely related the furtherance of justice?
507 / 545
3) In case the responses from Ms Bullocks and Ms Castellanos, copied below, were indeed
authorized by you:
Please provide a reasonable explanation why I would have been allowed access to the requested
records, had I agreed to skip my right to inspect, and agreed instead to rely on your good offices to
produce copies, but my right to access the records would be denied if I insist on my right to inspect the
records before accepting copies produced by the court, but now am told I would be denied access to
the same records, after I insisted on my right to inspect, prior to accepting copies produced by your
good offices.
I expect a response by 5:00 pm today, Thursday, that would allow me to access the records
tomorrow, Friday, August 21, 2009. As stated before, the denial of access to the requested court
records may be deemed abuse of Common Law right to access such records, as well as abuse of the
right to access such records as part of First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as re-affirmed by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978),
Thanks for your timely care of the matter.
Joseph Zernik
My previous requests:
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-request-to-access-records-s.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-18-second-request-nafisi-us-dist-ct-la-access-court-records-s,pdf.pdf
At 10:36 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote:
Mr. Zernik,
Anyone has access to the public records between the hours of 10 and 4.
Both of the below cases were filed electronically so there are no paper
documents and you can use the public terminals located in the Records
Department to view these files. All documents filed in the case are
available. You do not need to make an appointment and you do not need to
inform anyone of when you are coming in. Anyone may come to the Records
Department and use the public terminal to view a case file. There is no
fee to view these Records. If you would like copies of anything you may
either purchase regular copies from our copy service or certified copies
from the Records Department.
What needs to be researched is the NEF because the NEF is not part of the
case file itself. Also, in your letters you raise more issues than just
viewing the record.
Dawn Bullock
Records Supervisor

To: terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
08/19/2009 10:22 AM
cc Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov
Subject Request by party to access his own

litigation records, which the
court failed to ever notice him of
508 / 545
- to inspect and to copy.
August 19, 2009
Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the Court/Executive
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
Let me try to simplify the request. I am not asking your office to

research anything at all.
I am asking the office of the Clerk of the Court to allow me access to

public records that are my own litigation records. Our correspondence
shows that on July 31, 2009 I made my first request to access my own
litigation records at the U.S. District Court, LA in Zernik v Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550), where I am named Plaintiff, as they appear in CM/ECF
docket. By law, I am permitted to appear anytime during business hours at
the Office of the Clerk, and request to see such records, and the Office of
the Clerk is required to allow me such access.
I would like to believe that my right to inspect such records is not

doubted by your office. Please advise me if I am wrong in such belief.
Once I see the records, I will decide if I would like to obtain copies, and
I will pay accordingly.
Do I have to pay to exercise my right to inspect my own court records which

the court failed to notice or serve me, while noticing and serving all
other parties? Please cite authorities for fees for such inspection by
party of his own litigation records.
If I came to the clerk's office during business hours, and asked to see the
paper court file of Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550), would I have to
pay $26.00 first as well?
Similarly, in Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-Cv-01914) the

U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit accepted my request for being designated
party in interest. Therefore, the same logic applies.
Please be advised that I intend to appear on Friday, August 21, 2009 during
business hours, and request to access the records listed above and in
previous communications, to inspect and to copy. Please let me know if
there is any particular preferred time for addressing such request by your
office.
Any further delays in allowing me access to my own litigation records would

likely be deemed as violation of my rights.
Joseph Zernik
CC: Att Richard Fine
At 08:30 AM 8/19/2009, you wrote:
509 / 545
Dear Joseph:
The NEF copy quote that was provided to you below were for the case
numbers that you had provided on your July 18th request. However, for
information about Nixon v. Warner Communication, we need a U.S. District
case number to further research your request. Please provide me with a
case number. Otherwise, please be advised that a non-refundable processing
fee of $26.00 per case, name, or item researched is required before we can
complete your request.
The above quoted rates are established pursuant to Title 26, Section 1914
of the United States Code. Please make remittance in the form of a
cashierÃ¢€™s check, certified bank check, business ss or corporate check, or a
money order drawn on a major American bank or the United States Postal
Service, payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." Personal checks or checks
drawn on non-business accounts will not be accepted.
Forward a self-addressed stamped envelope of sufficient size to hold the

request and a copy of this e-mail to the attention of: Correspondence
Clerk, Western Division, 312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8, L.A. CA 90012.
Thank you,
Correspondence Clerk

To terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
08/18/2009 09:22 PM
cc Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov,
Subject Re: NEF Requests
Attached please find second request to access court records to inspect and
to copy, per Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
(See attached file: 09-08-18-second-request-nafisi-us-dist-ct-la-access-court-records-s,pdf.pdf)
At 02:24 PM 8/18/2009, you wrote:
Dear Mr. Zernik:

We received your correspondence request dated July 31, 2009 for NEF
copies of case numbers 2:08CV01550 Zernik v. Connor and 2:09CV01914. Please
see quotes below to further complete your correspondence request.
The cost of service requested is $53.50. This reflects the following:

2:08CV01550 Photocopies numbering 107 pages at a cost of $0.50 per page (total:
$53.50).
The cost of service requested is $24.50. This reflects the following:

2:09CV01914 Photocopies numbering 49 pages at a cost of $0.50 per page (total:
$24.50).
The above quoted rates are established pursuant to Title 26, Section
1914 of the United States Code. Please make remittance in the form of a
cashierÃ¢€™s check, cercertified bank check, business or corporate check,
or a money order drawn on a major American bank or the United States
510 / 545
Postal Service, payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court." Personal checks or

checks drawn on non-business accounts will not be accepted.
Forward a self-addressed stamped envelope of sufficient size to hold

the request and a copy of this e-mail to the attention of: Correspondence
Clerk, Western Division, 312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8, L.A. CA
90012.
Thank you,
Correspondence Clerk

References
1) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000, 200 investigators), on how
the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar,
Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild
Practitioner
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts,
commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon
Report (2006)
3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000, compared to an estimate of 8,000 by
the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS
Frontline (2001, updated 2005) http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-
rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdf
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD <jz12345@earthlink.net>, Fax: (801) 998-0917;
511 / 545
09-09-04 General Tommy Franks, former Member of the Audit Committee, Provides a Show and
Tell in re: Integrity of Operations at Bank of America Corporation
_________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:48:52 -0700
To: admin@tommyfranks.com, boryshanskyj@sec.gov, lewism@sec.gov, schen@cgsh.com,
lliman@cgsh.com, grundfest@stanford.edu, "ATTENTION: THOMAS MAY"<ir@nstar.com>,
17043444100@efaxsend.com, <joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>, " Audit Committee:D Paul
Jones; Thomas J. May, Chair; Donald E Powell" <patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>, " Executive
Committee Kenneth D Lewis, Charles K Gifford, Walter E Massey
Chair"<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>, " Edward OKeefe, Neil A Cotty, Joe L Price"
Subject: Demand for the "Legal Team of BAC' to produce by Monday, September 7, 2009, 5:00pm,
the "Restraining Order" that they informed General Tommy Frank about. Request for Prof Grundfest to
propose remedial action .
Bcc:
1) General Tommy Frank:

It was you who made that false statement, not the Legal Team of BAC. Please
retract your statement if you cannot produce the document.
You are yet to utter a word regarding integrity of operations at BAC. But then
again, you gave us a show and tell.
2) Attorneys for BAC:

I am forwarding this note to Attorneys for SEC and BAC, with a demand that
BAC Attorneys produce for General Franks, who was duped by them, the
"Restraining Order" by Monday, September 7, 2009, 5;00 pm.
3) BAC Officers and Directors:
Audit Committee
D. Paul Jones,
Donald E. Powell
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
Executive Committee
Kenneth D. Lewis
Charles K. Gifford,
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
512 / 545
Edward OKeefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Joe L. Price
100 North Tryon St
Fax: 704.388.7342
joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com
PriceWaterhouse
.. Page 2/2 August 25, 2009
Fax: (704) 344 4100
4) Attorneys for SEC:

In case BAC Attorneys fail to produce such valid effectual order, I demand that
SEC immediately initiate an investigation into alleged perversion of justice, and
other predicated acts, allegedly sufficient for indictment on RICO charges,
related only to this one fabrication -- now in its 3rd year, of the following
individuals:
1) ATT SANDOR SAMUELS, BAC
2) ATT TODD BOOCK, BAC
3) ATT SANFORD SHATZ, BAC
4) ATT JENNA MOLDAWSKY, BRYAN CAVE, LLP
5) ATT JOHN AMBERG, BRYAN CAVE, LLP
It is alleged that the five attorneys above conspired with others to use such
fabrications to obstruct and pervert justice, including, but not limited to two false
OSC contempts filed by Bryan Cave, LLP, and resulting transfers of moneys that
amounted to money laundering, and were transacted in relationship to such
fabricated OSC contempts with ATT DAVID PASTERNAK.
In case SEC refuses to take any regulatory action, I demand an explanation.
5) Prof Joseph Grundfest:

This exchange of messages provided good perspective on the strength of the
BAC Audit Committee's strongest presumable former independent members,
who have left by now - Tommy Franks, who, as we see was easily duped by the
BAC legal team, and Admiral Frueher, who remains silent.
This message exchange also demonstrated that in the U.S. 2009, there was and
there is no recourse for an individual against an allegedly racketeering
corporation like BAC or CFC at the Courts. Therefore, it must be deemed
essential for Equal Protection, and also for integrity of operations of the
corporations that Government Regulatory Agencies like SEC demonstrate
consistent and effective efforts to stop any racketeering by senior management
at the legal department, such as Sandor Samuels, to enforce the law, and to
protect individuals from criminality by corporations. Until the merger, Mr Samuels
was engaging in the alleged racketeering while holding direct reporting duty to
SEC.
513 / 545
The idea that a corporation could be engaging in honest accounting, while

engaging in criminality in the area of Human Rights, is entirely deluded.
Provisions of Sarbanes Oxley Act, (2002) were stipulated specifically to
eradicate such crooked logic. And there was nothing more demonstrative of the
fallacy of such logic, than the history of LA County in the past 2 decades.
Accordingly, the Basel Accords, as well, requires that a financial institution
comply with the law in all parts of the law, not only in accounting.
Based on this whole exchange, I also request that Prof Grundfest please provide
by Monday, 5:00 pm a brief opinion, by bullets only, if time does not permit more
than that, for public review by his peers:
a) Is BAC indeed a "highly regulated" entity?
b) Should SEC engage in enforcement when it becomes aware of credible

evidence of alleged perversion and obstruction of justice, over a period of two
years, including numerous predicated acts per RICO, by the legal department of
a large financial institution?
I am offering preliminary evidence in the records below under 5.b)
c) Same as b) with the added condition that the Legal Department in question
has a track record of some years, previously noted by the courts, of similar
conduct.
I am offering the evidence in the records below under 5, c):
d) How would he explain SEC's failure and refusal to enforce the law at the
Legal Department of BAC up to this date?
6) Independent Auditor
FYI
7) Basel Committee
FYI
8) Chinese Embassy, Washington DC

FYI
___________________________________________________
EVIDENCE FOR PROF GRUNDFEST USE:
5.b)
All indexed under: http://inproperinla.com/

514 / 545
5, c):
i. Case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) U.S. Court, Southern District of TX,
ii. Case of Borrower S D Hill (01-22574) U.S. Court, Western District of PA,
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-pits-hill-00-docket-09-06-03.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-pits-hill-07-12-20-transcript.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-27-countrywide-three-recreated-letters-filed-in-pittsburgh-pa-court.pdf
_______________________________________________________________
At 09:29 AM 9/4/2009, you wrote:
Sir. I have referred this the BAC legal team, who will deal with this.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: joseph zernik

Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:54:45 -0700
To: <admin@tommyfranks.com>
Subject: Demand that General Tommy Franks provide the
documentation within 48 hours for his statement about a Restraining
Order, or retract it as false.
September 4, 2009
General Tommy Franks:
Getting back to your last statement: Whether it was you, or an employee

on your behalf, let me repeat my demand that you produce a copy of a
valid, effectual Restraining Order within 48 hours, or retract your false
statement. And let me add to it also the demand that you produce a valid
Dismissal Order of a Complaint, or retract that statement as well.
515 / 545
Otherwise, it appeared that you entirely forgot that the focus of the Audit
Committee was on the integrity of operations. Could you please make
any statement whatsoever, on that aspect of Bank of America
Corporation operations?
Could you, for example explain who provided you with the false
information that you repeated yesterday?
Finally - could you provide any reason why the Audit Committee failed to
review complaints?
Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) says that the Audit Committee had to do so
pursuant to set procedures.
Did you ever have any such procedures?
Did you ever review any complaints?
What was the reason you never reviewed my complaints?
Even without my complaints, there was sufficient public evidence of

routine alleged wrongdoing of the Legal Department of Countrywide in
the courtrooms across the U.S. [1] [2] It lead the Honorable Jeff Bohm,
Houston Texas to state in March 2008, that Countrywide Legal
Department and their outside counsel:"have shown a disregard for the
professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and
judicial system." [2]
Did BAC ever try to enforce compliance at the Legal Department headed by Sandor
Samuels?
I hope that you could make some statement regarding Integrity of Operations at
Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation under your watch, that would regenerate
some credibility.
Joseph Zernik
CC:
1) Admiral Joseph Frueher - Hoping that he could make any statement regarding
integrity of operations at BAC and CFC under his watch, to assist the General.
2) Attorneys for BAC - Hoping that they could explain the fabrication of the Restraining
Order, and who originated it.
3) Attorney for SEC - Hoping that they could shed some light on any enforcement efforts
in view of public information of wrongdoing by the Legal Department of Countrywide.
4) Basel Committee - As support for a request for observers delegation.
5) Chinese Embassy to the U.S. - As evidence of non-effective U.S. Banking
Regulation, that still has not changed a bit.
[1] Borrower Sharon Dianne Hill, Pittsburgh, PA (01-22574)

[2] Borrower William Alan Parsley, Houston, TX (4-05-bk-90374)
______________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:19:46 -0700

To: admin@tommyfranks.com
Subject: Re: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell
Address" by General Tommy Franks, upon departure from the BAC
Audit Committee
September 3, 2009
516 / 545
Dear Sir/Madam:
Please disclose your name, and also - Did General Tommy Frank
really authorize you to state all that you are stating?
Your statement below is false and deliberately misleading. And to
the degree that you represent that you are speaking on General
Tommy Franks' behalf, I demand that you either retract such false
statement, as appears below, or else produce that Restraining Order
that you just mentioned within the next 48 hours.
Finally - it is my understanding that General Franks is no longer a

Director, so what does it have to do with it?
Joseph Zenrik.
__________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:13:40 -0700

Subject: Re: request
Sir/Madam:
Thank you again for the quick response. Your statement is

somewhat lacking. You are not identified by name, or for that matter
by position, or by authority to make a statement such as the one
below on behalf of General Franks. If General Tommy Franks could
just date and sign the statement that you wrote below, which would
take no more than a few seconds of his time, that would be perfectly
fine. However, as you stated yourself in a previous message, so far,
he was not inclined to state anything in writing.
Otherwise, regarding the statement below: I wonder specifically if it

could extended to include something along the lines of "...including
the conduct described in NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's
April 23, 2009 letter to U.S. Senate". For your convenience, I again
linked the letter below.
As a U.S. resident, a tax payer, and a Bank of America Corporation

share-holder, and a citizen, I hope that General Tommy Franks
would not duck down on this one.
Joseph Zernik
Andrew Cuomo, NY Attorney General letter to U.S. Senate:

http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-
lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
_______________________________________________________________
At 07:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
Sir. Understand BAC has a restraining order against you, which

prohibits you from contacting anyone at Bank of America, including
its directors. Your complaints have been dismissed by the courts. So
pls do not contact Gen Franks again regarding BAC business.
517 / 545
From: joseph zernik

Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:54:41 -0700
Subject: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell Address" by General Tommy Franks,
upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee
September 3, 2009
Sir/Madam:
Thank you for your quick response. Your response demonstrated the exact reason for my request. I
am a member of the public at large, in addition, I am also a share holder at Bank of America
Corporation. I am no attorney to define the exact extant of General Franks' duties. However, it seems
to me that events took place under his watch, which should have been reviewed by the Audit
Committee and publicly reported to both investors and the public at large. Refusing to make any
statement at all, in a matter the holds substantial risks to both share-holders and the public at large, is
inconsistent with his duties.
However, I was approaching General Franks not from a legal perspective, but as a retired general,
who served this country for many years. The case bears substantial risk to the U.S. economy and to
stability of world financial markets. I was calling upon him, and also upon Admiral Joseph Frueher to
make such statements in the spirit of Dwight D Eisenhower - as an important service to their country.
I hope that you would be able to reach General Tommy Frank, and that he would be able to make
even the shortest statement on the record relative to what his perspective is relative to compliance,
effective regulatory actions, and integrity of operations, as he saw them during his tenure on the Bank
of America Audit Committee. Refusal to make any statement at all may be seen by the public at large
as "taking the Fifth" - as used in lay person's language.
The timing is critical, given the pending court proceedings.
Joseph Zernik
_____________________________________________________
At 12:36 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
Sir. Thanks for your note to Gen Franks. I will review this with him,
but know he will not be able to, or be inclined to write such a letter.
He has not responded to, or publicly commented to anyone
regarding his time with BAC. Additionally, he travelling until 12 Sept.
Thanks.

______________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:05:15

To: <contact@tommyfranks.com>
Subject: tommyfranks.com Contact Form Submission
Thursday 09/3/2009
E-Mail Message
518 / 545
From: Joseph Zernik

Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Address: PO Box 526

Address2:
City: La Verne
State: CA
ZipCode: 91750
Country: USA
Phone:
Fax: 801 998 0917
Message:
FROM: Joseph Zernik
RE: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell Address" by Admiral Joseph
W Frueher, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee
Copied below is my request, addressed to Stanford Law faculty, for peer-review of an

Affidavit (Dkt #10) provided by Prof Joseph Grundfest in proceedings of SEC v BAC
(1:09-cv-06829), at the U.S. District Court, Manhattan. Links, provided at the footnotes of
that message, are to the Affidavit record itself, and separately - to a September 2, 2009
letter addressed to Prof Grundfest and counsel for SEC and BAC in the proceedings in
question, requesting that the Affidavit be either re-written or altogether withdrawn.
I likewise request that you, and a separate request is forwarded to Admiral Joseph
Frueher, provide a public written statement - a "Farewell Address" - as culmination of
your duties, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee. [1]
The recent changes in the roster of the BAC Audit Committee, were only one indicator of
the transformation of BAC during the period that the two of you served on the Audit
Committee, with the mergers with Countrywide Financial Corporation ( CFC) and with
Merrill Lynch as the hallmarks. Regarding the former merger - BAC was granted a waiver
on deposit limits, and your input is requested as to the prudence of such waiver from
national security perspective. Regarding the latter merger, NY Attorney General Andrew
Cuomo wrote the April 23, 2009 letter to the U.S. Senate, [2] which led to calls in media
for criminal indictments of both BAC and U.S. officers, including Ben Bernanke - Chair of
the FRB, and Kenneth Lewis - Chair of BAC. Matters were described in such letter that
would have required review by the BAC Audit Committee, and separately - by U.S.
There is no public evidence of any such review by regulatory agencies. Likewise, in my

September 2, 2009 letter, I reference complaints filed with SEC, FBI, and other regulatory
agencies, starting January 2007 - of credibly evidenced material violations of the law by
officers holding direct reporting duties at Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC), now a
subsidiary of BAC. All such agencies refused to investigate the complaints. There is no
evidence that BAC attempted to enforce compliance at its CFC subsidiary. On the
contrary, the evidence shows that BAC after the merger knowingly allowed conduct that
would be deemed in violation of the law to proceed.
In contrast, the Affidavit (Dkt #10) stated that BAC was a "highly regulated" financial
institution.
Concerns are that such affidavit, and the approval of a Proposed Settlement before the
Court in the proceedings of SEC v BAC, would convey the impression of effective
regulation of BAC, that could be relied upon by the U.S. and world financial markets to
avoid unreasonable risks.
I would be grateful for your response in this matter, no later than Tuesday, September 8,
2009, 5:00 pm, so that I may incorporate it in my letter to the Honorable Jed Rakoff, U.S.
Judge.
519 / 545
No doubt, you realize that the matter pertains to the long-term peace and welfare of the
U.S. no less than any military or naval endeavor.
Joseph Zernik
_______________________________________
[1] Such Farewell Address is requested in explicit reference to the January 17, 1961
General Dwight D Eisenhower Farewell Address upon leaving the office of U.S.
President.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-61-01-17_dwight_d_eisenhower_farewell_address-s.pdf
[2] April 23, 2009 letter to U.S. Senate by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo
_____________________________________________
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:59:55 -0700

Subject: Request for peer review of Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof Joseph Grundfest
in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
From: Joseph Zernik
RE: Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof. Joseph Grundfest, Stanford Law School, in SEC v
BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
Links are provided below for the Affidavit referenced above [1], and for a letter I
wrote today to Prof Grundfest and to Counsel for SEC and BAC, requesting a re-
write or a withdrawal of the affidavit. [2] As his peers, I request your help in
assessing the integrity, including, but not limited to Academic Integrity, of the
Affidavit. Included in such request is the request for assessment of the integrity of
filing such paper in proceedings where there is no publicly visible summons and
no publicly visible Assignment to a Judge, and with no party filer appearing on the
face of the paper.
Needless to say, the proceedings in SEC V BAC pertain to matters that are
critical for the economic future of the U.S.
I would be grateful for your response in this matter, no later than Tuesday,
September 8, 2009, 5:00pm, so that I may incorporate it in my letter to Honorable
Jed Rakoff, U.S. Judge.
Joseph Zernik
_____________________________________________________

[2] September 2, 2009 Letter to Prof Grundfest, counsel for SEC and BAC,
requesting re-write or withdrawal of the Affidavit
520 / 545

References
the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional
scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky -paper from
Guild Practitioner
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-
57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
Report (2006)
4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from
jail
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD <jz12345@earthlink.net>, Fax: (801) 998-0917; Cell: 310 435 9107, No
voice mail; IM, Page- OK, No ID- No response
521 / 545
09-09-04 In re: Zernik v Melson et al (1:2009cv00805) – Demand to mitigate damages:

1) Mark invalid court records as such, or 3) Remove a false docket from public
view, no later than September 17, 2009
September 4, 2009
Ms Nancy Mayer-Whittington
Clerk of the Court
Fax: 202-354-3067
Fax: 202-354-3067
Your timely response or action is requested no later than September 17, 2009
Ms Mayer Whittington:
The Court mailed me about a month ago a “conformed” copy of my ex parte
application (Dkt #9). 1 Combined, the copy, and the docketing of that record,
again evidenced the invalidity of the records that the Clerk of the Court
docketed online under such caption. Details were provided in the footnote.
The handling of such papers was doubly offensive, since the application itself
was for an order to allow me access to NEFs, after access was denied.
Inspection of the NEFs would be the only way to conclusively establish if any
of the papers under this caption was ever a valid court record at all.
In Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) the U.S. Supreme Court re-
affirmed the Common Law and First Amendment rights to access court
records, to inspect and to copy. Therefore, I should have been allowed to
come during working hours and request access to inspect (that means here –
to inspect the original digital records of the NEFs in CM/ECF online from a
courthouse terminal), and to copy (obtain either digital and/or paper copies).
So far that was denied. Upon review an international court of Human Rights
may conclude that the conditions of the justice system established in the U.S.
Courts with the completion of the installation of the Pacer versus CM/ECF
dual, segregated access systems, are classic “shell game fraud”, on the
largest scale ever.
Your handling of my case caused me great harm so far: Yesterday, I
received a note from a person who self-represented as a speaking for
General Tommy Franks, or could be General Franks himself - former member
of the Audit Committee of Bank of America Corporation. I demanded an
explanation why the BAC Audit Committee never reviewed my complaints
regarding the conduct of the Legal Department of CFC.
Details of such conduct were included in papers that were filed in Court, but
were abused and subjected to an unrecognizable procedure, that was never
1
“Conformed” copy of Plaintiff’s ex parte application for access to court records (Dkt #9), as
received by mail from the court:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-at-as-received-by-mail-purported-papers-from-the-
court-09-07-30-ex-parte-request-nefs-s.pdf
522 / 545
evidenced in the docket. 2 It was your responsibility to ensure that my papers

would be handled in accordance with the law, and not by some ad-hoc made-
up procedure-of-the-day.
Did you approve the procedures that my papers were subjected to?
To start out, it was your duty to ensure that each paper be stamped one way
or another on its face when it comes into the Clerk’s possession. The
disregard for such basic duty of the Clerk is evidenced in my “conformed”
copies of the ex parte applications (Dkt #9), which were stamped “Received” on the
back of the last page.3
Was such practice, of stamping records on their backs, authorized by
you?
The online copy, on the other hand, bears no stamp at all.
Was the docketing of record #9 approved by you?
General Tommy Franks, responded (it appeared after consultation with BAC
Legal Department) that my “complaints were dismissed by court…”
My complaint was never dismissed, I am yet to view an NEF that would attest
that any of the records on the docket in Melson v Zernik et al had any validity
as court records to start out. A paper that was never a valid court paper in
the first place, could not be dismissed. Moreover, as far as the specific record
of the July 29, 2009 “Order” (Dkt #8) 4-- I consider it an invalid court record on
its face.
Did you approve its docketing the way it appear now?
To a large part – I consider it invalid, because no clerk colluded in what
would likely be deemed an attempt to mislead – the way it was received by
me by mail. 5
However, a layperson, who may view the online docket in Pacer, even an
intelligent one, like General Tommy Franks, would likely be mistaking it for a
valid Order.6
Of note, that docket entry was done by KC, and not by JF, the docketing staff.
If I remember KC correctly, he was involved in some dishonesty early on, as
well, and he was a Law Clerk, not a Deputy Clerk.
Was KC authorized by you as to make such docket entries in the first
place?
2
Face pages of the records that were eliminated from the docket with no foundation in the law,
were included in record #9:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-09-08-14-doc-009-zernik-ex-parte-request-nef-
disambiguation.pdf
3
Ex parte applications (Dkt #9), as received by mail from the court.
court-09-07-30-ex-parte-request-nefs-s.pdf
4
July 29, 2009 “Order” as it appears in the docket.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-09-07-29-doc-008-order.pdf
5
July 29, 2009 “Order”, as received by mail from the court.
court-09-06-29-doc-8-order-s.pdf
6
September 3, 2009 Docket of Melson v Zernik et al.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-al-0-a-docket-09-09-03.pdf
523 / 545
As Clerk of the Court it is your personal responsibility that none of this would
happen.
Please let me know within 10 days, no later than September 17, 2009, how
you would like to address such alleged corruption of trial court litigation
records.
Reasonable resolutions could be:
a) Marking the docket of Melson v Zernik as invalid as a whole, in a way
that would be visible in Pacer by a layperson with no effort, or
b) Removing it from Pacer and CM/ECF altogether.
Regardless, continued posting of false and deliberately misleading records by
the Clerk of the U.S. Court, particularly one in Washington DC, is likely to be
deemed as severe violation of Human Rights per ratified International Law.
Likewise, you may be deemed the offender.
______________
Joseph H Zernik
CC: Parties per mailing list.

Attorneys for SEC and BAC at SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
524 / 545
09-09-05 Request for individual members of U.S. Congress to issue welcome statements to
international visitors/study groups/observers
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:04:32 -0700
To: Joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Request for U.S. House and Senate individual members, accountable as such, to extend public welcome statements to
international observers, or international study groups, or international visitors to observe conditions prevailing under the current
financial crisis.
Bcc: U.S. Congress NGOs & Others
TO: Individual members of U.S. Congress, accountable as such
FROM: Joseph H Zernik, of the People of the United States, and of the People of Los
Angeles County, California
Dr Joseph H Zernik, Resident of Los Angeles County, California, herein publicly addresses the
individuals members of the U.S. Congress, with a request to extend their individual public welcome
statements to international visitors, who may wish to observe the U.S. justice system, the U.S. banking
regulatory system, and conditions in Los Angeles County, California, or elsewhere in the U.S.A., under
the current financial crisis.
WHEREAS, events that are centered in Los Angeles County, California, including, but not limited to
events related to individuals who are Dr Joseph Zernik, Ms Diane Frazier, Att Richard Fine, and the
estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs, elaborated and credibly evidenced below, all stemmed from the
alleged collapse of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California;
WHEREAS, such events are also directly related to the causes of the current financial crisis, including,
but not limited to the collapse of Los Angeles County-based Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC);
WHEREAS, credible evidence was provided of alleged perversion of justice, combined with deference
to the courts by CFC and Bank of America Corporation (BAC);
WHEREAS, credible evidence was provided of the refusal of FBI, US Department of Justice, and
other U.S. law enforcement agencies to enforce the law;
WHEREAS, credible evidence was provided of the failure of the court system in the U.S. to address
grievances by an individual against alleged corporate racketeering by CFC and BAC, including, but
not limited to: (1) LA Superior Court, (2) U.S. District Court LA, (3) U.S. Court, District of Columbia;
WHEREAS, members of the U.S. House and Senate were routinely informed of such conditions in the
past two years, and failed in their efforts to provide assistance;
WHEREAS, such events demonstrate alleged FAILURE OF U.S. GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH

AND GUARANTEE EQUAL PROTECTION, COMMON LAW RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO COURT
RECORDS - TO INSPECT AND TO COPY, FAIR TRIBUNALS, AND OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS
PURSUANT TO THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS - RATIFIED
INTERNATIONAL LAW;
WHEREAS, credible evidence demonstrates that the U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NOT READY,
WILLING, ABLE, TO EXERT EFFECTIVE REGULATION OF U.S. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,
albeit, it is imperative to re-establish international confidence in the U.S. banking regulatory system in
order to emerge from the current crisis;
WHEREAS, extending a welcome to international visitors may be the first step in honestly addressing
525 / 545
the problems in the U.S. justice system and the U.S banking regulatory system, underlying the current
financial crisis.
THEREFORE, individual members of the U.S. Congress, accountable as such, are called upon,
particularly those who represent California, or Los Angeles County, or those sitting on Judiciary,
Banking, Financial Services, and Oversight Committees, to extend their individual public welcome
statements to international observers, or international study groups, or international visitors, who may
be interested in visiting the U.S.A., particularly California and Los Angeles County, and observe
conditions prevailing under the current financial crisis.
Signed here, in Los Angeles County, California, on the 5th of September, 2009
_____/s/ Joseph Zernik____________________

Joseph H Zernik
CC:
1) Stanford Law Faculty.
2) Basel Committee
3) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
5) Attorneys for SEC
6) Attorneys for BAC
7) PriceWaterhouse
Independent Auditor of BAC
____________________________________
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1) Alleged racketeering against Joseph Zernik, an individual, resident of Los Angeles County,
by CFC, later by BAC.
Dr Zernik was a victim of fraud, as opined by veteran decorated FBI agent James Wedick and other
alleged criminalities, who exposed such conduct and its direct relationship to the most senior officers
of CFC, later BAC, and the judges of the LA Superior Court.
Evidence : Provided below.
Joseph Zernik
PO Box 526
La Verne, California
Fax: 801 998 0917
2) Alleged racketeering against Diane Frazier, an individual, resident of Marine County,

California, by CFC, later by BAC.
Ms Frazier was a Senior Underwriter at CFC, and opposed fraud.
Evidence: Large part of the evidence provided by Dr Zernik regarding alleged racketeering against
himself overlaps evidence for alleged racketeering against Ms Frazier overlaps. However, law-
enforcement would have to depose Ms Frazier, a key witness who was allegedly tampered with by
BAC and CRC since 2005.
Diane Frazier
4329 Gloria Ct
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
(707) 586-1479
526 / 545
3) Ongoing false jailing of Att Richard Fine, after he opposed alleged decade long racketeering
by judges of the LA Superior Court.
Alleged racketeering referred to herein is only such that related to the taking of the "not permitted"
payments by all judges of the LA Superior Court for over a decade. Such alleged racketeering was
opposed by Att Richard Fine, 70 yo, former U.S. Prosecutor, noted anti-trust attorney, who is confined
under cruel and unusual conditions, based on a false and deliberately misleading March 4, 2004
Judgment record.
Evidence:
a) False March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine
Evidence directly related to the alleged fraud in judgment record that was used to confine Att Fine
since March 4, 2009, is provided below.
b) Ex Parte for Leave to File, and Motion for Mistrial in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
Evidence for alleged racketeering by judges of the LA Superior Court in purported litigation in re: The
"not permitted" payments.
Richard I. Fine
Twin Towers
450 Bauchet St.
4) Ongoing false confinement of the estimated 10,000 Rampart-FIPs.

Evidence was provided below in the signature area in relationship to a petition for their release.
Rampart FIPs
California Jails and Prisons
EVIDENCE
3.a) False March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine
i) Letter of meet and confer, in preparation for a motion at the 9th circuit court of appeals. for relief from
judgment that was procured through fraud (the judgment to deny the habeas corpus petition in the
U.S. District Court, and also the judgment of a previous petition by Att Fine to the 9th District Court)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-fine-v-sheriff-of-la_09-07-23-meet-and-confer-s.pdf
ii) Request for opinion from FBI agent James Wedick.
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-23-request-wedick-opinion-letter-on-fraud-in-judment-record-att-fine-draft-s.pdf
3b) Ex Parte for Leave to File, and Motion for Mistrial in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
Under index at: http://inproperinla.com/

• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-ex-parte-application-orders-for-access-leave-to-file.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-i.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4ai.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4aii.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-17-denial-zernik-exparte-leave-to-file.PDF
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-24-requests-elated-to-august-17-2009-minute-order-s.pdf
527 / 545
_________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:48:52 -0700
To: admin@tommyfranks.com, boryshanskyj@sec.gov, lewism@sec.gov, schen@cgsh.com,
lliman@cgsh.com, grundfest@stanford.edu, "ATTENTION: THOMAS MAY"<ir@nstar.com>,
17043444100@efaxsend.com, <joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>, " Audit Committee:D Paul
Jones; Thomas J. May, Chair; Donald E Powell" <patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>, " Executive
Committee Kenneth D Lewis, Charles K Gifford, Walter E Massey
Chair"<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>, " Edward OKeefe, Neil A Cotty, Joe L Price"
Subject: Demand for the "Legal Team of BAC' to produce by Monday, September 7, 2009, 5:00pm,
the "Restraining Order" that they informed General Tommy Frank about. Request for Prof Grundfest to
propose remedial action .
Bcc:
1) General Tommy Frank:

It was you who made that false statement, not the Legal Team of BAC. Please
retract your statement if you cannot produce the document.
You are yet to utter a word regarding integrity of operations at BAC. But then
again, you gave us a show and tell.
2) Attorneys for BAC:

I am forwarding this note to Attorneys for SEC and BAC, with a demand that
BAC Attorneys produce for General Franks, who was duped by them, the
"Restraining Order" by Monday, September 7, 2009, 5;00 pm.
3) BAC Officers and Directors:
Audit Committee
D. Paul Jones,
Donald E. Powell
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
Executive Committee
Kenneth D. Lewis
Charles K. Gifford,
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
Edward OKeefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Joe L. Price
528 / 545

100 North Tryon St
Fax: 704.388.7342
joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com
PriceWaterhouse
.. Page 2/2 August 25, 2009
Fax: (704) 344 4100
4) Attorneys for SEC:

In case BAC Attorneys fail to produce such valid effectual order, I demand that
SEC immediately initiate an investigation into alleged perversion of justice, and
other predicated acts, allegedly sufficient for indictment on RICO charges,
related only to this one fabrication -- now in its 3rd year, of the following
individuals:
1) ATT SANDOR SAMUELS, BAC
2) ATT TODD BOOCK, BAC
3) ATT SANFORD SHATZ, BAC
4) ATT JENNA MOLDAWSKY, BRYAN CAVE, LLP
5) ATT JOHN AMBERG, BRYAN CAVE, LLP
It is alleged that the five attorneys above conspired with others to use such
fabrications to obstruct and pervert justice, including, but not limited to two false
OSC contempts filed by Bryan Cave, LLP, and resulting transfers of moneys that
amounted to money laundering, and were transacted in relationship to such
fabricated OSC contempts with ATT DAVID PASTERNAK.
In case SEC refuses to take any regulatory action, I demand an explanation.
5) Prof Joseph Grundfest:

This exchange of messages provided good perspective on the strength of the
BAC Audit Committee's strongest presumable former independent members,
who have left by now - Tommy Franks, who, as we see was easily duped by the
BAC legal team, and Admiral Frueher, who remains silent.
This message exchange also demonstrated that in the U.S. 2009, there was and
there is no recourse for an individual against an allegedly racketeering
corporation like BAC or CFC at the Courts. Therefore, it must be deemed
essential for Equal Protection, and also for integrity of operations of the
corporations that Government Regulatory Agencies like SEC demonstrate
consistent and effective efforts to stop any racketeering by senior management
at the legal department, such as Sandor Samuels, to enforce the law, and to
protect individuals from criminality by corporations. Until the merger, Mr Samuels
was engaging in the alleged racketeering while holding direct reporting duty to
SEC.
The idea that a corporation could be engaging in honest accounting, while

engaging in criminality in the area of Human Rights, is entirely deluded.
Provisions of Sarbanes Oxley Act, (2002) were stipulated specifically to
eradicate such crooked logic. And there was nothing more demonstrative of the
fallacy of such logic, than the history of LA County in the past 2 decades.
Accordingly, the Basel Accords, as well, requires that a financial institution
comply with the law in all parts of the law, not only in accounting.
529 / 545
Based on this whole exchange, I also request that Prof Grundfest please provide
by Monday, 5:00 pm a brief opinion, by bullets only, if time does not permit more
than that, for public review by his peers:
a) Is BAC indeed a "highly regulated" entity?
b) Should SEC engage in enforcement when it becomes aware of credible

evidence of alleged perversion and obstruction of justice, over a period of two
years, including numerous predicated acts per RICO, by the legal department of
a large financial institution?
I am offering preliminary evidence in the records below under 5.b)
c) Same as b) with the added condition that the Legal Department in question
has a track record of some years, previously noted by the courts, of similar
conduct.
I am offering the evidence in the records below under 5, c):
d) How would he explain SEC's failure and refusal to enforce the law at the
Legal Department of BAC up to this date?
6) Independent Auditor
FYI
7) Basel Committee
FYI

FYI
___________________________________________________
EVIDENCE FOR PROF GRUNDFEST USE:
5.b)
All indexed under: http://inproperinla.com/

530 / 545
5, c):
i. Case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) U.S. Court, Southern District of TX,
ii. Case of Borrower S D Hill (01-22574) U.S. Court, Western District of PA,
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-pits-hill-00-docket-09-06-03.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-pits-hill-07-12-20-transcript.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-27-countrywide-three-recreated-letters-filed-in-pittsburgh-pa-court.pdf
_______________________________________________________________
At 09:29 AM 9/4/2009, you wrote:
Sir. I have referred this the BAC legal team, who will deal with this.
From: joseph zernik

Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:54:45 -0700
Subject: Demand that General Tommy Franks provide the
documentation within 48 hours for his statement about a Restraining
Order, or retract it as false.
September 4, 2009
General Tommy Franks:
Getting back to your last statement: Whether it was you, or an employee

on your behalf, let me repeat my demand that you produce a copy of a
valid, effectual Restraining Order within 48 hours, or retract your false
statement. And let me add to it also the demand that you produce a valid
Dismissal Order of a Complaint, or retract that statement as well.
Otherwise, it appeared that you entirely forgot that the focus of the Audit
Committee was on the integrity of operations. Could you please make
any statement whatsoever, on that aspect of Bank of America
Corporation operations?
Could you, for example explain who provided you with the false
information that you repeated yesterday?
Finally - could you provide any reason why the Audit Committee failed to
531 / 545
review complaints?
Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) says that the Audit Committee had to do so
pursuant to set procedures.
Did you ever have any such procedures?
Did you ever review any complaints?
What was the reason you never reviewed my complaints?
Even without my complaints, there was sufficient public evidence of

routine alleged wrongdoing of the Legal Department of Countrywide in
the courtrooms across the U.S. [1] [2] It lead the Honorable Jeff Bohm,
Houston Texas to state in March 2008, that Countrywide Legal
Department and their outside counsel:"have shown a disregard for the
professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and
judicial system." [2]
Did BAC ever try to enforce compliance at the Legal Department headed by Sandor
Samuels?
I hope that you could make some statement regarding Integrity of Operations at
Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation under your watch, that would regenerate
some credibility.
Joseph Zernik
CC:
1) Admiral Joseph Frueher - Hoping that he could make any statement regarding
integrity of operations at BAC and CFC under his watch, to assist the General.
2) Attorneys for BAC - Hoping that they could explain the fabrication of the Restraining
Order, and who originated it.
3) Attorney for SEC - Hoping that they could shed some light on any enforcement efforts
in view of public information of wrongdoing by the Legal Department of Countrywide.
4) Basel Committee - As support for a request for observers delegation.
5) Chinese Embassy to the U.S. - As evidence of non-effective U.S. Banking
Regulation, that still has not changed a bit.
[1] Borrower Sharon Dianne Hill, Pittsburgh, PA (01-22574)

[2] Borrower William Alan Parsley, Houston, TX (4-05-bk-90374)
______________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:19:46 -0700

Subject: Re: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell
Address" by General Tommy Franks, upon departure from the BAC
Audit Committee
September 3, 2009
Dear Sir/Madam:
Please disclose your name, and also - Did General Tommy Frank
really authorize you to state all that you are stating?
Your statement below is false and deliberately misleading. And to
the degree that you represent that you are speaking on General
Tommy Franks' behalf, I demand that you either retract such false
statement, as appears below, or else produce that Restraining Order
that you just mentioned within the next 48 hours.
532 / 545
Finally - it is my understanding that General Franks is no longer a

Director, so what does it have to do with it?
Joseph Zenrik.
__________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:13:40 -0700

Subject: Re: request
Sir/Madam:
Thank you again for the quick response. Your statement is

somewhat lacking. You are not identified by name, or for that matter
by position, or by authority to make a statement such as the one
below on behalf of General Franks. If General Tommy Franks could
just date and sign the statement that you wrote below, which would
take no more than a few seconds of his time, that would be perfectly
fine. However, as you stated yourself in a previous message, so far,
he was not inclined to state anything in writing.
Otherwise, regarding the statement below: I wonder specifically if it

could extended to include something along the lines of "...including
the conduct described in NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's
April 23, 2009 letter to U.S. Senate". For your convenience, I again
linked the letter below.
As a U.S. resident, a tax payer, and a Bank of America Corporation

share-holder, and a citizen, I hope that General Tommy Franks
would not duck down on this one.
Joseph Zernik
Andrew Cuomo, NY Attorney General letter to U.S. Senate:

http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-
lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
_______________________________________________________________
At 07:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
Sir. Understand BAC has a restraining order against you, which

prohibits you from contacting anyone at Bank of America, including
its directors. Your complaints have been dismissed by the courts. So
pls do not contact Gen Franks again regarding BAC business.
From: joseph zernik

Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:54:41 -0700
Subject: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell Address" by General Tommy Franks,
upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee
533 / 545
September 3, 2009
Sir/Madam:
Thank you for your quick response. Your response demonstrated the exact reason for my request. I
am a member of the public at large, in addition, I am also a share holder at Bank of America
Corporation. I am no attorney to define the exact extant of General Franks' duties. However, it seems
to me that events took place under his watch, which should have been reviewed by the Audit
Committee and publicly reported to both investors and the public at large. Refusing to make any
statement at all, in a matter the holds substantial risks to both share-holders and the public at large, is
inconsistent with his duties.
However, I was approaching General Franks not from a legal perspective, but as a retired general,
who served this country for many years. The case bears substantial risk to the U.S. economy and to
stability of world financial markets. I was calling upon him, and also upon Admiral Joseph Frueher to
make such statements in the spirit of Dwight D Eisenhower - as an important service to their country.
I hope that you would be able to reach General Tommy Frank, and that he would be able to make
even the shortest statement on the record relative to what his perspective is relative to compliance,
effective regulatory actions, and integrity of operations, as he saw them during his tenure on the Bank
of America Audit Committee. Refusal to make any statement at all may be seen by the public at large
as "taking the Fifth" - as used in lay person's language.
The timing is critical, given the pending court proceedings.
Joseph Zernik
_____________________________________________________
At 12:36 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
Sir. Thanks for your note to Gen Franks. I will review this with him,
but know he will not be able to, or be inclined to write such a letter.
He has not responded to, or publicly commented to anyone
regarding his time with BAC. Additionally, he travelling until 12 Sept.
Thanks.

______________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: jz12345@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:05:15

To: <contact@tommyfranks.com>
Subject: tommyfranks.com Contact Form Submission
Thursday 09/3/2009
E-Mail Message
From: Joseph Zernik

Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Address: PO Box 526

Address2:
City: La Verne
State: CA
ZipCode: 91750
Country: USA
Phone:
Fax: 801 998 0917
Message:
534 / 545
FROM: Joseph Zernik
RE: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell Address" by Admiral Joseph
W Frueher, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee
Copied below is my request, addressed to Stanford Law faculty, for peer-review of an

Affidavit (Dkt #10) provided by Prof Joseph Grundfest in proceedings of SEC v BAC
(1:09-cv-06829), at the U.S. District Court, Manhattan. Links, provided at the footnotes of
that message, are to the Affidavit record itself, and separately - to a September 2, 2009
letter addressed to Prof Grundfest and counsel for SEC and BAC in the proceedings in
question, requesting that the Affidavit be either re-written or altogether withdrawn.
I likewise request that you, and a separate request is forwarded to Admiral Joseph
Frueher, provide a public written statement - a "Farewell Address" - as culmination of
your duties, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee. [1]
The recent changes in the roster of the BAC Audit Committee, were only one indicator of
the transformation of BAC during the period that the two of you served on the Audit
Committee, with the mergers with Countrywide Financial Corporation ( CFC) and with
Merrill Lynch as the hallmarks. Regarding the former merger - BAC was granted a waiver
on deposit limits, and your input is requested as to the prudence of such waiver from
national security perspective. Regarding the latter merger, NY Attorney General Andrew
Cuomo wrote the April 23, 2009 letter to the U.S. Senate, [2] which led to calls in media
for criminal indictments of both BAC and U.S. officers, including Ben Bernanke - Chair of
the FRB, and Kenneth Lewis - Chair of BAC. Matters were described in such letter that
would have required review by the BAC Audit Committee, and separately - by U.S.
There is no public evidence of any such review by regulatory agencies. Likewise, in my

September 2, 2009 letter, I reference complaints filed with SEC, FBI, and other regulatory
agencies, starting January 2007 - of credibly evidenced material violations of the law by
officers holding direct reporting duties at Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC), now a
subsidiary of BAC. All such agencies refused to investigate the complaints. There is no
evidence that BAC attempted to enforce compliance at its CFC subsidiary. On the
contrary, the evidence shows that BAC after the merger knowingly allowed conduct that
would be deemed in violation of the law to proceed.
In contrast, the Affidavit (Dkt #10) stated that BAC was a "highly regulated" financial
institution.
Concerns are that such affidavit, and the approval of a Proposed Settlement before the
Court in the proceedings of SEC v BAC, would convey the impression of effective
regulation of BAC, that could be relied upon by the U.S. and world financial markets to
avoid unreasonable risks.
I would be grateful for your response in this matter, no later than Tuesday, September 8,
2009, 5:00 pm, so that I may incorporate it in my letter to the Honorable Jed Rakoff, U.S.
Judge.
No doubt, you realize that the matter pertains to the long-term peace and welfare of the
U.S. no less than any military or naval endeavor.
Joseph Zernik
_______________________________________
[1] Such Farewell Address is requested in explicit reference to the January 17, 1961
535 / 545
General Dwight D Eisenhower Farewell Address upon leaving the office of U.S.
President.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-01-61-01-17_dwight_d_eisenhower_farewell_address-s.pdf
[2] April 23, 2009 letter to U.S. Senate by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo
_____________________________________________
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:59:55 -0700

Subject: Request for peer review of Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof Joseph Grundfest
in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
From: Joseph Zernik
RE: Affidavit (Dkt #10) by Prof. Joseph Grundfest, Stanford Law School, in SEC v
BAC (1:09-cv-06829)
Links are provided below for the Affidavit referenced above [1], and for a letter I
wrote today to Prof Grundfest and to Counsel for SEC and BAC, requesting a re-
write or a withdrawal of the affidavit. [2] As his peers, I request your help in
assessing the integrity, including, but not limited to Academic Integrity, of the
Affidavit. Included in such request is the request for assessment of the integrity of
filing such paper in proceedings where there is no publicly visible summons and
no publicly visible Assignment to a Judge, and with no party filer appearing on the
face of the paper.
Needless to say, the proceedings in SEC V BAC pertain to matters that are
critical for the economic future of the U.S.
I would be grateful for your response in this matter, no later than Tuesday,
September 8, 2009, 5:00pm, so that I may incorporate it in my letter to Honorable
Jed Rakoff, U.S. Judge.
Joseph Zernik
_____________________________________________________

[2] September 2, 2009 Letter to Prof Grundfest, counsel for SEC and BAC,
requesting re-write or withdrawal of the Affidavit

References
the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional
scholar, Founding Dean of Univ of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky -paper from
Guild Practitioner
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-
57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
Report (2006)
536 / 545
4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from
jail
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD <jz12345@earthlink.net>, Fax: (801) 998-0917; Cell: 310 435 9107, No
voice mail; IM, Page- OK, No ID- No response
537 / 545
09-09-07 Request for timely responses from Stanford Law Faculty
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:54:41 -0700

To: "Stanford Law Faculty" <jca@stanford.edu>, <bbabcock@stanford.edu>,
<jbankman@stanford.edu>, <rbanks@stanford.edu>, <pbrest@hewlett.org>,
<jmbrodie@law.stanford.edu>, <megc@law.stanford.edu>,
<gcasper@stanford.edu>, <jcohen57@stanford.edu>, <wcohen@stanford.edu>,
<gmcole@stanford.edu>, <rcraswel@stanford.edu>, <tcuellar@stanford.edu>,
<mldauber@stanford.edu>, lance@law.stanford.edu, dfengstrom@law.stanford.edu,
nora.engstrom@law.stanford.edu, fisherg@stanford.edu, jlfisher@stanford.edu,
rford@stanford.edu, marcf@stanford.edu, bfried@stanford.edu, lmf@stanford.edu,
rgilson@stanford.edu, paulgold@stanford.edu, wbgould@stanford.edu,
hgreely@stanford.edu, tgrey@law.stanford.edu, grundfest@stanford.edu,
theller@stanford.edu, dhensler@stanford.edu, dho@law.stanford.edu,
karlan@stanford.edu, mkelman@stanford.edu, akessler@law.stanford.edu,
fkessler@stanford.edu, klausner@stanford.edu, bkoski@stanford.edu,
lkramer@stanford.edu, mlemley@law.stanford.edu, lmarshall@stanford.edu,
janmartinez@law.stanford.edu, jmartinez@law.stanford.edu,
mmendez@stanford.edu, merry@stanford.edu, dmills@dmills.com,
amorantz@law.stanford.edu, petersilia@law.stanford.edu, polinsky@stanford.edu,
rrabin@stanford.edu, rhode@stanford.edu, rosenhan@psych.stanford.edu,
schacter@stanford.edu, kenscott@stanford.edu, siciliano@law.stanford.edu,
dsivas@stanford.edu, nspaulding@law.stanford.edu, jsrikantiah@law.stanford.edu,
hstacy@stanford.edu, jstrnad@stanford.edu, sullivan@law.stanford.edu,
asykes@stanford.edu, buzzt@stanford.edu, schewick@stanford.edu,
mwald@stanford.edu, michael.wara@stanford.edu, aweiner@stanford.edu,
Subject: Time is of the essence! Peer review of Prof Grundfest Affidavit (Dkt #10) in
SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) and related questions.
Bcc:
September 7, 2009
To: Stanford Law Faculty
From: Joseph Zernik
RE: Peer review of Prof Grundfest Affidavit (Dkt #10) in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-
06829) and related questions. Time is of the essence, since letter to the
Honorable Jed Rakoff is due by the deadline of September 9, 2009.
Your response or comments are requested in re: the following matters:
1) Peer review of Prof Grundfest Affidavit (Dkt #10) in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) in
support of Proposed Settlement, in particular the statement that Bank of America
Corporation was a "highly regulated" entity.
2) Public records that both Prof Grundfest and SEC were fully aware of, e.g under
Borrower William Parsley Houston, TX (4-05-bk-90374) , Dkt# 256-260, provided
credible evidence of various alleged criminalities by Countrywide Financial
Corporation, and later - by Bank of America Corporation, and of refusal by SEC to
enforce the law.
538 / 545
3) The U.S. Courts have installed a dual docketing system, Pacer, and CM/ECF,
separate and unequal, where the courts can segregate parties at will. Those
segregated into Pacer are unable to distinguish the valid and effectual court records
from the large volume of invalid and ineffectual records posted online, since they are
denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings). Conducting litigations
under such conditions may be found by International Human Rights Courts to be
extreme violation of Human Rights by the U.S. Government and U.S. Courts, and the
largest ever "shell game" fraud.
I would be grateful for a timely response by individuals faculty members, or group(s),

regarding the matters above.
Joseph Zernik
______________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:22:59 -0700

To: <grundfest@stanford.edu>
Subject: Time is of the essence. Please let me know if you intend to
respond to any of my requests.
Prof Grundfest:
Please let me know if you intend to respond to any of my requests.

Time is of the essence, since I intend to have my letter to the
Honorable Jed Rakoff delivered by the deadline of September 9,
2009.
Joseph Zernik
539 / 545
09-09-08 Demand for Clerk Clark to stop alleged collusion in the fabrication in re: A fictitious
“Protective Order” and in its use for alleged obstruction and perversion of justice.
September 8, 2009
John A Clarke
< 12136217952@efaxsend.com >
Timely response demanded, no later than Friday, September 11, 2009, 5:00 pm
Clerk Clarke:
Please accept this letter as a demand that you provide notice, no later than Friday,
September 11, 2009, 5:00 pm: Whether or not the file of Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) included a valid and effectual “Protective Order”, or “Restraining Order”
by Judge Jacqueline Connor dated on or about July 23, 2007.
If such order existed, demand is that you produce a copy, and certify it as a valid,
effectual order of the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles.1
As explained in adjoining letter, so far you have refused to certify the case as a
whole - as a case of the Superior Court of California, you have refused to certify
Judge Terry Friedman – as a duly assigned Presiding Judge (he holds no
Assignment Order), and you have continuously refused to certify any order or
judgment in the case as such. In short – your conduct was consistent with the rest
of the evidence – that the case was never a true case of the Superior Court of
California.
The purported “Protective Order”, or “Restraining Order” would have been by law a
public record. Yet it was never noticed, it was never found in copies of court file, and
it was never produced in response to specific requests delivered to your office (see
below). In short – there was and there is no evidence of its existence.
And yet, Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) and Bank of America

Corporation (BAC) in Samaan v Zernik, engaged in various alleged violations of the
law based on the fabrication that such fictitious, order existed, including, but not
limited to, the purported issuance of two (2) judgments of Contempt.
1
Upon notice that the order existed, I would contact your office and provide CC information for the
certificate.
540 / 545
Such alleged violations of the law under CFC directly involved Sandor Samuels,
who noticed himself as “Person in Interest” in instant case. 2 Moreover, he was then
Chief Legal Counsel, holder of direct reporting duty.
Such violations of the law under BAC directly involved Officers such as Kenneth
Lewis - CEO/Chair, Joe Price – CFO, and Timothy Mayopoulos – General Counsel,
all holders of reporting duties, who were repeatedly noticed of the alleged perversion
and obstruction of the law taking place in their name at the LA Superior Court, but
refused to take action to stop such alleged perversion.
Ongoing refusal of your office to respond in any way at all in this matter, would likely
to be deemed upon review as alleged collusion by omission in various violations of
the law by CFC and BAC. Yet such omission must eventually be taken for what it
really is – reflection of the non-existence of the fiction of a “Protective Order” or
”Restraining Order”.
Needless to say – it could not exist, since the case a whole was ineffectual, it could
nto exist, since the party appearing in motions to ask for it were illegitimate “Non
Parties” represented by Counsel who was not authorized to appear. But beyond it
all – Judge Connor clearly marked in the Register of Actions their appearances as
invalid “off the record” appearances, both on July 6, 2007, and also on July 23,
2007. 3Therefore, she would not have issued an effectual order. The fact that such
events took place, required investigation in and of itself.
I have written to you or to the Office of the Clerk a number of times in the past two
years, in requests of the same nature. Your office has failed to respond at all.
The reason I am writing to you again, is that in the past week, the issue of the
fictitious “Restraining Order” or “Protective Order” gained entirely new significance,
in undermining the credibility of General Tommy Franks, and with it – the Audit
Committee of BAC. 4
2
Notice of Sandor Samuels as Person in Interest in Samaan v Zernik:
http://inproperinla.com/08-01-11-samuels-notice-of-intersted-party-s.pdf
3
Register of Actions, copy of November 14, 2008:
a) Appearance of CFC on July 6, 2007 was marked “Proceedings not Recorded”, on page 58,
twice.
b) Appearance of CFC on July 23, 2007 was listed as part of the text of an altogether different
“Event”- “Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens”. pp 72-74. Accordingly, on p 74 there was no
adjudication at all for the purported Motion for Protective Order. Under “Event Complete”, the
only adjudication listed is for Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.
c) In between, on July 9, 2007, p 59, Judge Connor recorded a hearing that purportedly took
place “telephonically”, but in fact never took place in reality… There is no transcript of the sort.
d) In between, on July 12, 2007, p 65-69, Judge Connor recorded a back-dated, invalid Answer
of a Judge to Disqualification for a Cause, which was entered on July 23, 2007, later than the
10 days allowed by law. It was also invalidly entered – through Certificate of Mailing and
Notice of Entry by a judge for herself… to one party only, who never received it by mail
either…the Deputy Clerk for some reason refused to cooperate.
4
September 2009 - General Tommy Franks correspondence in re: Integrity of Operations at BAC, or
lack thereof:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-04-general-tommy-franks-correspondence-in-re-integrity-of-operations-
at-bac-s.pdf
541 / 545
General Franks was presumed to be one of the stronger independent former

members of the BAC Audit Committee. In email correspondence, he first refused to
provide any statement on the record, whatsoever, regarding Integrity of Operations
at BAC. Later, he excused his refusal with a claims of “Restraining Order” against
me, purportedly in Samaan v Zernik. Finally, when face with demand to either
produced such order or retract his statement, he did neither.
Clerk Clark, you have allowed the fabrication of a “Restraining Order” or a

“Protective Order” to proceed now into its third year:
For over two years, you allowed CFC and BAC to file papers under an invalid party
designation of “Non Party”, including, but not limited to “Motions for OSC Contempt”.
Such extreme measures were entirely based on the fabricated, fictitious “Protective
Order” or “Restraining Order”.
For over two years, you also allowed Terry Friedman to continue conducting
“proceedings”, with no Assignment Order, in a case that you refused to certify as a
case of he Superior Court of California, based such “Motions”5, 6 which were invalid
on their face. 7 None of these “proceedings” could have taken place absent
participation of Deputy Clerks.
For over two years, the Office of the Clerk of the Court also continuously refused to
produce a certified copy of the purported “Protective Order”/ “Restraining Order”
when requested to do so, by me directly, or through legal services providers. 8,9, 10
Such conduct is likely to be deemed extreme abuse of Human Rights, upon review
by a competent court of jurisdiction. You, as an individual, are likely to be deemed
one of the major offenders.
In sum, the case of the so far never documented “Protective Order” was an extreme
that demonstrated the nature of the “case” as a whole – alleged abuse of Human
Rights under the guise of court action.
Parties to be noticed regarding existence or non-existence of “Restraining Order” or

“Protective Order”:
5
March 2008 - Motion for OSC Contempt by Bryan Cave, LLP, for CFC, while not authorized as
Counsel of Record: http://inproperinla.com/08-03-07-coutnrywide-sanctions-osc-contempt.pdf
6
January 2009 - Motion for OSC Contempt by Bryan Cave, LLP, for BAC, while not authorized as
Counsel of Record: http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-moldawsky-notice-of-motion-sanctions-
contempt.pdf
7
Some of the blatant fatal defects in motions by Bryan Cave, LLP, filed in Samaan v Zernik, while not
authorized as Counsel of Record, and filing as “Non Party”:
http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-countrwide-motion-monetary-sanctions-defective-s.pdf
8
Declaration of legal services provider - refusal of the office of Clerk of the Court to provide certified
copies of orders and judgments in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400):
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-declarations-refusal-to-certify-key-court-
records-07-12-jose-salazar-dds-legal-services.pdf
9
List of orders, judgments certification of which was repeatedly requested from the Office of the Clerk
of the Court, but was and is denied: http://inproperinla.com/08-01-28-request-for-clerk-office-to-certify-
purported-protective-order-and-other-papers-in-samaan-v-zernik.pdf
10
December 2007 - Purported “Protective Order” listed with Missing Records, which the office of the
clerk was requested to search for and provide copies of: http://inproperinla.com/07-12-11-request-for-
clerk-to-provide-copies-of-missing-papers-including-purported-protective-order.pdf
542 / 545
1) Joseph Zernik
Fax: 801 998-0917
2) Bank of America - Audit Committee:
Audit Committee:
D. Paul Jones,
Donald E. Powell
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
3) Bank of America – Executive Committee

Kenneth D. Lewis
Charles K. Gifford,
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
4) Bank of America Corporation - General Counsel

Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Legal Department
NC1-002-29-01
101 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28255
Tel 704-386-6834
Fax 704-602-5785
5) Bank of America – Independent Auditor

PriceWaterhouse
6) Bank of America – Former member of Audit Committee

General Tommy Franks
<admin@tommyfranks.com>
543 / 545
________________________________________
Joseph Zernik
CC:
Att Paul Malingagio
Att Ted Max
Sheppard Mullin
Att Robert Shulkin

Coldwell Banker
Att Todd Boock

Att Sandor Samuels
Att Sanford Shatz
Angelo Mozilo
Att John Amberg

Att Jenna Moldawsky
Att Peter van Cleve
Att Don Lents,
Bryan Cave, LLP.

lewism@sec.gov,

schen@cgsh.com ,
lliman@cgsh.com

Basel Committee
544 / 545
[redacted]
Chines Embassy, Washington DC

[redacted]

Kenneth D. Lewis
Charles K. Gifford,
Audit Committee:
D. Paul Jones,
Donald E. Powell
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Joe L. Price
By email
100 North Tryon St
Cotty, Price"
PriceWaterhouse
General Tommy Franks

< admin@tommyfranks.com >
545 / 545

09-09-09 SEC V Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) DR Joseph Zernik's Affidavit and Appendices in Opposition To Settlement Then Pending Before The Court S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09-09-09 SEC V Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) DR Joseph Zernik's Affidavit and Appendices in Opposition To Settlement Then Pending Before The Court S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digitally signed by

09-09-09 SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) Dr Joseph

The August 25, 2009 Order (Dkt #13) stated:

Both parties filed papers in support of their proposed Consent Judgment.

No Letter Title Page

America Corporation communications

09-08-27 Confer letter in re: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829 ) –

2) BAC (by email)

Please take notice:

A. Proposed schedule for exchange of comments prior to submitting letter to court.

E. Concerns regarding additional, ongoing, Securities Fraud that should be

09-09-02 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – requests to replace or withdraw Prof Grundfest’s

August 30, 2009

1) Counsel for SEC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Joseph O. Boryshansky

2) Counsel for BAC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)

3) Prof Joseph Grundfest

Timely response requested by Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm

Attorneys for SEC & BAC, and Prof Grundfest:7

to him. Regardless, as a Stanford Law Professor, and as a Former

Such statement appeared of questionable validity. Prof Grundfest should

k. The commonality of sham court actions in both U.S. and state

Prof Grundfest, in the Affidavit stated (p3, ¶4):

And further in the Affidavit he stated (p2, ¶2):

I have personal knowledge of the procedures involved in settling

Publicly available information, including filings with the

e. However, BAC never made any effort to stop such appearances,

CFC, and that therefore, the provisions of the non-existent

Based on Dr Zernik’s experience in LA County – none of the financial

a. December 7, 2007 – Indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow, a

The California Constitution prohibited ex post facto laws. California

41. Dr Zernik’s experiences– where regulatory agencies refuse to perform their

complaints were possibly eliminated. Att Bezek objected to Dr Zernik’s

b. March 5, 2008 – Memorandum Opinion rebuking CFC legal practices,

he was former ambassador to China, and therefore was probably an asset in

52. A Dark Image – hypothetical narrative for events described above:

2) BAC Executive Committee

3) BAC - Signers of SEC Reports and/or

Holders of Reporting Duties per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)

4) BAC Independent Auditor

6) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights

7) Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in the U.S.

9) US Department of Justice (US DOJ)

BEYOND VOTING MACHINES – CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”

125. How do we know that 00/00/00 means voiding/disposing of minute

i. Judge Goodman’s Oct 3, 2007 Recusal – voided.

iii. Judge Friedman March 19, 2008 response to disqualification – voided.

CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CMS’S) AND THE COURTS:

New technological instruments and new respective legal procedures should be

c. Minute Orders are Part of Litigation Records – in paper Court File

b. Identification of Data Variations among the Sources

c. No Legal Analysis for Compliance was Undertaken

a. Minute Orders as part of the records in Sustain – No Authenticated

b. Implementation of Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing in Sustain.

CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/

I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the

“I served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of 11-1-

California Rules of Court state:

Chapter 3. Service and Filing

08/09/07 Document Filed MEMO

Therefore, if “Case History” report in Sustain is serving as the “Register of Actions”, it is

e. Minute Orders - time stamps