Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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.
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
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
z Page 4/4 February 15, 2010
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
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
z Page 3/6 August 27, 2009
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
z Page 4/6 August 27, 2009
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
z Page 5/6 August 27, 2009
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
z Page 6/6 August 27, 2009
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles, California
31 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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.
33 / 545
z Page 3/18 September 2, 2009
8
February 2009 – correspondence Zernik-Grundfest-Bezek:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf
35 / 545
z Page 5/18 September 2, 2009
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
z Page 6/18 September 2, 2009
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-part2.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part3.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-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part5.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part6a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part6b.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part7.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part8a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part8b.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
z Page 7/18 September 2, 2009
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
z Page 8/18 September 2, 2009
“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.”
39 / 545
z Page 9/18 September 2, 2009
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
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf
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-256-1-NOTICE #1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-02-doc-256-2-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-09-04-15-doc-257-0-NOTICE #2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-15-doc-257-1-NOTICE #2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-15-doc-257-2-NOTICE #2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-15-doc-257-notice2.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-259-2-notice#3-exh-a-2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-3-notice#3-exh-a-3.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-4-notice#3-exh-a-4.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-5-notice#3-exh-a-5.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-6-notice#3-exh-a-6.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-00-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-01-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-02-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-03-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-04-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-05-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-06-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
41 / 545
z Page 11/18 September 2, 2009
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
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-07-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-08-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-09-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-10-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-11-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-12-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-13-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-14-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-15-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-16-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-17-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-18-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-19-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-20-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-21-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-22-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-23-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
25
Same as #1 above.
26
August 31, 2009 – Request for clarifications by Bryan Cave, LLP.
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-31-cover-emai+-zernik-requests-explanation-from-bryan-cave-llp-s.pdf
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
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-31-cover-emai+-zernik-requests-explanation-from-bryan-cave-llp-s.pdf
42 / 545
z Page 12/18 September 2, 2009
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
z Page 13/18 September 2, 2009
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
z Page 15/18 September 2, 2009
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
z Page 16/18 September 2, 2009
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:
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
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
z Page 18/18 September 2, 2009
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
z Page 19/18 September 2, 2009
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
December 7, 2007 Reporter’s transcript from ex parte appearance of Att David Pasternak before
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
December 7, 2007 Reporter’s transcript from ex parte appearance of Att David Pasternak before
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
z Page 20/18 September 2, 2009
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:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf
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
z Page 22/18 September 2, 2009
58
Borrower William Alan Parsley, Houston, TX (05-90374), Dkt #248:
http://inproperinla.com/08-03-05-coutnrywide-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke-s.pdf
59
missing reference
60
missing reference
53 / 545
z Page 23/18 September 2, 2009
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
z Page 24/18 September 2, 2009
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 >
(by email and by fax)
5) Basel Committee
[redacted-jz]
(by email)
8) FBI
Fax: 12022782478@efaxsend.com
(by fax)
56 / 545
Rapid Communication
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
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
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:
ii. Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Dec 7, 2007 Recusal per CCP §170.6 – 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
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.
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.
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.
-5-
67 / 545
3) Results
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.
-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.”
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:
-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).
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.:
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.
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.
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.
-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:
-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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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?
-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.
-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.
-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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:
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”.
86 / 545
Date of Entry - 01/30/06.
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
-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
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
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
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
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
15) Connor Defendant’s Motion to be Relieve as Counsel – shell only 01/16/07 - - 22 1/16/07 22 1/16/07
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.
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 - - - -
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 - - - -
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
95 / 545
54) Paper Order Granting Summary Judgment 08/09/07 115 08/09/07
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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.
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"Ql" 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 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott R. Meister
" ,
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
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" 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.
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 signatures. Additionally, unusual
features of"Ql" and "Q2" 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" 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.
Respectfully submitted,
~c... tr ~ . Me;ster
Scott R. Meister
COUNTY OF HAMILTON
Not§ry Public - State of Indi _ ,
Email:experts@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.~Otg(!ty~ind(!t~.com
Questioned Document Examiner Letter
Questioned Signature of Victor Parks - Case 3
Date: August 19, 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
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" 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
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 signatures. Additionally,
unusual features of "Q 1" and "Q2" 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" 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
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
Education
108 / 545
Robert A. Meister, FDE Page 2
Library
Professional Affiliations
109 / 545
Scott Meister
Forensic Document Examiner
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
AmericanInstitute of AppliedScience
CertificationIn Questioned Documents, 9/2005
Specific Areas of Training:
HandwritingIdentificationand Discrimination .. j
Signature Comparison
Techniques for DistinguishingForged Signatures
Disguised Handwriting
Altered Numbers
AnonymousWriting
laboratory Procedures
Ethics in Business and the legal System
110 / 545
Laboratory Equipment used for examination:
Computer
Adobe Photoshop
Photocopier
Scanner .
Magnifyingdevices
Stereo Microscope5x-30x, with DigitalOutput Camera
LIbrary
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
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-
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
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
.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
-'~:..:;=~':':...~. ~"""--'
.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
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?
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
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
'
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
'
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 ~\ ,,' ,-~,.'
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-~
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
122 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 50
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
24
DATE: Feb 29, 2008
25
26
27
28
124 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 50
125 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 50
126 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 50
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-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide
127 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 50
13 I. Nivie Samaan, with full support through fraudulent verified statements by Maria
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-
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
26 3. Two Countrywide top officers were fully aware of the fraud since early 2007:
28 Jewish Charity, and member of the board of numerous other Jewish organizations in
-5-
128 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 50
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-
129 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 50
131 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 50
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
132 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 50
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
23 //1
24 /II
25 /II
26
/II
27
/II
28
-10-
133 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 50
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)
-11-
134 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 50
• 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
135 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 50
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-
136 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 50
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-
137 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 17 of 50
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-
138 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 50
139 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 50
18 /II
19
20 III
21
22 /II
23
24 III
25
26 III
27
28
-18-
141 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 50
-19-
142 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 50
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-
143 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 50
-21-
144 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 26 of 50
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-
147 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 50
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
Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and Fraud ulent Representations
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaa n & Countrywide
148 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 28 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 29 of 50
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,
150 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 30 of 50
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-
151 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 31 of 50
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.
152 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 32 of 50
153 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 33 of 50
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-
154 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 34 of 50
,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
155 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 35 of 50
156 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 36 of 50
157 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 37 of 50
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.
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 38 of 50
to close was
d. Statem ent from Samaa n's mother regarding owners hip of funds
2 still missing.
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-
159 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 39 of 50
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-
160 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 40 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 41 of 50
.~.
Plllpelty",l be:
PrimOII' Re>l!lena> Dsoa>ndiuy _...,.0 Investment
rolal(a+bl
Omalltl Olobomaclo
llllewiB
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
162 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 42 of 50
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
~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
$
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
~Inlerutn .. 44,000
163 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 43 of 50
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.)
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
164 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 44 of 50
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-
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
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
VIS, School
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-
Hl,md,~wi'i"i'I?t1 100::t
166 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 46 of 50
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
Furniture 150,000 Job Related Expensa (child cere. union dues•• 'e,) 5
Jewelry 100,000
.... ,.
"I I r
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' . . . ~_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
168 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 48 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 49 of 50
.. '. :'. . :
.'
-.'
-".-'
...,.----
:~;=::-:---'-:-.:...-_---------:=...:......_--_-.:.._....
-::::":-"~";'~",:'
". ... "-
-'-' ,.-.... '. . ",:.:' ".
~ :.':.: .:... '~~ ...
:.:.:.:. •• ~~. ~:.:.:. :':' '.:.~ :', i.. ; .
, • t ..... '. ' "r ...;.
- ~..
:~''=:'~'''-:': . :.
'-'...... ,,'
.:--:=:. " ' : - ; . - ' - , - . . . : . - -
_ ------:----------
--
.' .
..,....:.....:...;....--.-.;---~,--~~--~--~-
~ "
. -.' "---'I"''':~'-';
,.
... ;-.::' ,
170 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 50 of 50
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
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 50
lbltRig . iti.~,
.~·.~:a.iJ -o.JJll;U,
: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:. .
I
~
~~~~~~l~tr~~":i~~=~f~:~~·::~t~
ak~·~ite~
- - .
.
- .. -.. . ,. -j -~---. . . ~. . . . . . . . "" ... ~_ . .,--~-
(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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 50
.Bclrri:i'iwWr'• . --"s;:.~=:.
.••:.:.:..'...;IU~V:.;I:::£:.--
",.", ___'
·\tk C;;'~li,,::it '$;fO,O:ap pulsa1 fh!ld revi... tee 'fx." brvr Jell ".or""
--:"~';"'----"-'-"';':--~"f'"':~~
~-.-- ...........,--'---"~-
Pate
-51-
174 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 50
~MaelKesbpvcu~l· To marliullclaurtn@countrywide.com
; ..... ,.'. <~Ka~havarzl@sheppar.('jh1UII
~;.~- --',:
............................. in.com;.; .. .' cc
•.. 1 1/06/2006 03:22 PM bet
Su!>i:ect- ~iiletter'
Maria,
<:<DOe;PtlF»
Moe KEishaVilf:Zi;lBsq.
Sheppard Mlillln;Richter·&Jd;~mpton, LLP
~3~ ·S:9~tIl·t'lo~$'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
-52-
~r2C
Q.l; ,'
175 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 50
&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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 50
@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
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 50
'~~!:ti~!F~, b
e.-.:..;~, 723
Lo,*~i'~"a;LQn
DIi:t~:
:ct'~; ;i=~"
S~~~~~~:t.tL-~_Di-M:tE)
;"~.PIlCJ!iI~~a.'l'M"
• -55-
178 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 50
10 t'iiCa;;;r:~~s:~i0ll.ll.4'SO,·f 8h01
'~.q::' ,••'6il.~id~ ~"J,il>~w~"""{~i;",,,J',ro''' ..,In dO"""
.--~.'"
~:(~,?~\~nl~,ij~~~~~~=""""~'~~"9
•
-56-
179 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 50
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:
-57-
41
·M ·.•· ·.'!JI.
:-~_,_,':~W
•
180 / 545 I
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 50
.C8UI1~.~
Affi;:itl'¢;~:SWltG~~ALE'LENDER
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
__'i
~~~_~~
~~~~~,
__
con4$il.'D1l COncl:b:1-cn DH<:/CO... ..rits
~~~~
_~~
"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...'
'> .,< .'.
182 / 545
\
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 50
~ "",",,:._~ ::::.!..'..: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
~!",--~-.~-~~~"'~~~:"!"-~-
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,
;~~~~~~~~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
/'
183 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 50
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-
C'C:(Hf'/@,isll)tl;;lii.: .
~I(<: "'k7,.~:' ~~~pir.~ CA _C)i,:~j3g
'" iu:'u.'pi"",.t1r..IO'7 ,'.
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 .
/ti;lul/iwlrrI1K"i/ b.~:
!loti,'
-62-
185 / 545
I
/
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 50
p.e
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'
A,rplit:unl
#13
-63-
186 / 545
,
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 50
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-
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
(Showing 1-1)
[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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 50
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-
190 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 50
'.
... ",.
:;·:.;::.;:.:_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...
I.Iq\lid AII.a:i
~ "$
$ ,-. . \
$, -""'_
s
. '.
$ '(Il) "
cD) IIllUt be ~tbi.D CA)
",
"
191 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 50
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': • _
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 50
193 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 50
• •• •
Date:... ---,....,
omnieots~ .... ;.
. . '
:1' '.,. .
y..~: ":'~.: ~~., .. :.
'.
" .0..
194 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 50
LOAN APPLICATION
DISCLOSURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Lender Representallve:_--j~~::!:::::~~~~~~60-.=.,.i- _
-72-
~~
• 0 a1 73 73 7.6 0 0'0 00 2 D 82 3 •
195 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 50
196 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 26 of 50
•
',J;J
'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.
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. •
-74-
P"lla2ol2
197 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 50
.,
• •
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 28 of 50
.. ~
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.
FIlA/WI/CONY
• SorvIdnlITlllIISIorDlJd..... Slxlomonl
2019'1·US 1D7103)(d) Pogo 1 012
-76-
·23991·
II~ 11111
3737150000020197·
199 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 29 of 50
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:
This is only our besl esUmale and it is not binding. Business condRlons or other circumstances may affect our
future transferring decIsions.
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.
Bom>....
B..........
-77-
FIWIIMlONV
• ISaMctl;TnrulorDlsdastn Stolomont
2C187olJS lO1AlS) Pa;12c1Z
200 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 30 of 50
rIP..
TRUTH 'IN LENDING DISCLOSURE STA
~IIE
MENT
P'oparedl>y:GERAlDlNGRAHAM
DSlAND FEATURE: [j[] This loan do.. nc! """0 a Demand Feab.. o 11111 loan has a Demand Falllln as 1o....1S:
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 31 of 50
•
DEFINmON OF TRUTH-IN-LENDING TERMS
• LOAN j, 81737375
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 32 of 50
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
BEVERLY BILLS, CA 90212-3715
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
lIWe hereby acknowledge reading and receIVIng acompleted copy of this disclosure.
-
N IVm S»WU!
-
-80-
--
'0&17373750000020120'
203 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 33 of 50
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
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY BILLS, CA 90212-3715
noN SCHEDUlf::
PIofTPAVM1!NT PAlNCIPAL IH1Elll!5T BA1AIlCE pm PAYUeIIT PRlNCIPlU.1N'I!II£SI' 8A1AHCt! PUTPAWENT P_lU.1Il1I!REST BAlANCE
Page 1012
204 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 34 of 50
....
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
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212-3715
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 35 of 50
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-
=====~=~===
===;==========================
=================;;==~========
- 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.
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
207 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 37 of 50
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 %
208 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 38 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 39 of 50
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 -----
==============
============================ 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)
210 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 40 of 50
Nivie Samaa n
Salary $ 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
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.
Total Debt
211 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 41 of 50
Item 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
$ 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.
212 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 42 of 50
- - -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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 43 of 50
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-
Applied loan Amount 1,374,40 0.00 P~mm:NC 5/1 LIBR J\RM InterestO nly
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 45 of 50
i:Dan:: 81737375
•
ADDENDUM TO UNDEAWRrrlNG DECISIONlCONDmON lETTER
(PAGE2 OF2 )
-93-
Fll.W1JCONV
• UNIlEllWlllT1NG Il5CISIO.'III(;ONOmo.~ lETIER
zcao.us (07104)
216 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 46 of 50
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-
80/90 to 1.5M usln Core Jumbo with .750% add to fee tor Reduced Doc
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
.-
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
218 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 48 of 50
US/Secondary Comments
Standard Condilions
Additional Condillons
.
j
-96-
219 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 49 of 50
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-
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 50
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-
~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 ..
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-
{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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 50
LJ2UGX& At
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
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'.
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
Provide OJ' b",~in.s:t lieens.. or: crA letter ~r!fY1n9 C.:U.ecl last. 2
yr: 1D40·. o.~ :sell cllployed .an& location
-103-
226 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 50
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-
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·
Terms of Counteroffer:
." •••• ' •• '1 "" " , a•• tU.U •• " , •••••• " "' " ••
Priclng Information: /
1st Mtg Risk-Based Add-on: 0.750
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" "
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 50
Appraisal Value: 1,718,000.00 Property Type: SFR Doc Type: Reduced Doc
: 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
: Reduced doc, purchase, 5/1 L1bor 10, Enhanced 80190, 1st td $1,374,400 & heloc $171,800; no
exception
GUIDELINE EXCEPTIONS
-106-
229 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 50
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.
-107-
230 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 50
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-
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 .
-109-
232 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 50
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):
Thank you for su!:=ittiIlq your loan to Countxywide, lIJllerica' s WhOlesale Lender I lie sincerely appreciate
your busUJes9.
10/29/2004
dl:---dt
'Branch Manager
- ;k
~"-::_--
.
-flMM-------
Date
The following conc:l1tions have been satisfied and ate shown here for raference only:
Cond1tion DRSc/C_nu
-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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 50
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-
• •
Urgent D~livery!
LSI File #: 41004810
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
File Identification
Borrower: INivie Samaan Job Type: IFleld 2000
Loan Number: 181737376
-112-
Eastern ReglonDIOJliw
700 Cbcrrington Parln<Iy· ConIopolls, PA 1510&
ToR Frtc: 1·IOII-<rS1·2400 • FII: .-800.66I.asas
235 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 50
•
• Complete Appraisal, SummlllY Appraisal Report
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.
. • . ..
~ . . ..
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.
4. Is the data In Ihe Imnrovsnen19 oecUon comnlete and aOClJ'llle? YES-DlOOIlde a brtelstmmsN. NO-exnlaln.
-_Ll -
236 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 50
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-
.~
•
-115-
238 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 50
~(f;;)----
• BcrroWlll'. Nam.:, -=SJlMAAN::=::==,...:;N:,:IVc:..:I:,:E:.- _
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
-116-
(Page 2 of 2 11/03/20 04 18:04:54 )
• UNOElIWRIl1NG DEClSlONICONomoo IEI'TER. WID
2£:$HlS (OMU)
239 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 50
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-
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:
,"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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 50
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 50
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
PLAINTIFF,
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
VS. CASE NO. SC 081400
P~c-l
WITNESS:
NIVIE SAMAAN
FOR CROSS-DEFENDANTS COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
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
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
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
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
A. YES.
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
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.
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.
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
12 QUESTIONS, CAN WE PUT ON THE RECORD THE STATUS OF 12 WILL YOU PLEASE LOOK AT THE NOTICE OF
14 DEPOSITION? I ' 0 LIKE IT ON THE RECORD THAT THEY CHOSE 14 HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO READ OVER THAT?
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
,------------------ Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 50
P,&cIO
1 TO THESE: REQUESTS. IN AUIHTION, THE Pl.AINTIFF HAS Q. ARE YOU CURRENTLY MARRIED'?
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?
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,?
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?
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
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,
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'?
3 Q. WHERE WERE YOU BORN? Q. DID YOU TAKE ANY OTHER FORMAL EDUCATION AFTER
5 Q. WHEN DID YOU COME TO THE UNITED STATES? A. I OBTAINED MY REAL ESTATE LICENSE.
12 A. BYER HIGH SCHOOL IN MODESTO, CALIFORNIA. 12 Q. HOW LONG DID YOU TAKE THOSE COURSES'?
14 A. B-Y-E-R. 14 O. DID YOU PASS THE TEST THE FIRST TIME YOU TOOK
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?
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
Pagel] Page 14
OFFICES; ONE AS AN OFFICE MANAGER; ONE AS A BUILDING A. I DON'T RECALL. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT HY
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
8 Q. HAS IT BEEN PLACED WITH MORE THAN ONE BROKER? REGARDING PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS LAWSUIT, WERE YOU AN
15 A. 1575 WESTWOOD BOULEVARD, SUITE 300, LOS lillGELES 15 Q. DID YOU CONTINUE TO WORK IN OTHER EMPLOYMENT?
16 90024. 16 A. YES.
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?
/------------------------------1-------------------------------------1
])0-312·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 310-372·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111
Pi/ge IS
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
8 A. WHEN DID I BEGIN MY EMPLOYMENT WITH BARNEY I S? 8 A REAL EST"TE "GENT FOR " PARTY TO A CONTRACT -- STRIKE
10 ". FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THAT. 10 SELLER TO A CONTRACT, YOU HAD TO HlIVE !\N AGREEMENT IN
13 LICENSE, DID YOU TAKE !\NY COURSES THAT DEALT WITH 13 Q.!\ND DID YOU UNDERST!\ND THAT !\N MENT'S
.15 A. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? 15 !\N AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO FOR THE PURCHlISE OR S"LE OF
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.
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
lIO-l12-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71.4--571...Q111 lI0-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS nt..j71..{)111
Pa,;c:tl
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
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.
10 O. WAS THERE ANYBODY IN YOUR OFFICE THAT YOU 10 WERE SUBSEQUENTLY K.I\RKED BY THE REPORTER AS
12 A. IF I HAD QUESTIONS, I woULD CALL MY MANAGING 12 IDENTIFICATION AND M~E HERETO ATTACHED.;
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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
16 Q. WAS IT A MAN OR A WOMAN? 16 50116 FRa-l: WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE THE SOURCE OF THE
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 50
-- -_._-_._-------
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?
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?
1-
-+ . --1
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.
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?
15 O. WHAT I 5 HER ADDRESS? 15 Q. THE oNE THAT YOU JUST REFERRED TO AS YOUR
25 A. THIS IS MY ACCOUNT. 25 Q. DID YOU EVER MAKE AN OFFER THAT WAS JOINTLY
IN
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
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
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 29 of 50
,-- - - - - - - ------------.--
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?
THIS TRANSACTION, MICHAEL LIBOW AND COLDWELL BANKER WERE Q. NOW, IS THAT SCMETHING THAT YOU RECEIVED BACK
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
15 O. DID YOU SUBMIT THAT AT THE TIME YOU SUBMITTED 15 MR. CUMMINGS: YES.
18 Q. NOW, DID YOU SUBtHT THAT OFFER IN PERSON TO 18 O. THEN YOU'VE GOT A RESPONSE BACK ON SEPTEMBER 10
21 O. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU CALL HR. LIBOW UP BEFORE 21 O. WAS THAT FAXED TO YOUR OFFICE OR YOUR HCHE?
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,
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?
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. 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?
12 A. BUT I WOULD ALSO DO COSMETIC WORK OUTSIDE OF 12 O. AND YOU RECEIVED TKAT ON SEPTEMBER la, 2004;
15 O. NOW, YOUR OFFER WAS FOR 1,670,000; CORRECT? 15 O. THEN' BETWEEN SUBMITTING THE OFFER TO MR. LIBQW
17 O. THEN YOU RECEIVED A COUNTER OFFER, WHICH IS 17 ON SEPTEMBER 10, DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. LIBOW?
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
22 PRICE? -1 7- 22 A. YE~.
JID.l71·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTEKS 71 ....;71..(1111 310-l72-1111 SOUSA COURT RfI'ORTERS 7I.l·j11..{l111
Pagel4
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
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
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
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
Pugc.1S
14 DAYS AFTER THE ACCEPTANCE; CORRECT? WHAT STOCK WERE YOU LIQUIDATING?
7 MR. LIBOW WITH YOUR FAX THAT CQNTAINED THE PAGES S0018 O. WAS THAT STOCK THAT WAS OWNED BY YOU?
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?
15 MR. STEIN: I'M THE ONE THAT STAPLED THEM. lS HIM, THAT YOU DON'T RECALL THAT --
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
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,
2004?
A. PROBABLY SO.
P~eJ1
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
OF YOUR OFFER; CORRECT? O. HAVE YOU TOLD ME EVERYTHING YOU RECALL ABOUT
II O. THAT DEADLINE BEING 12:QO P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 14, J1 INCLUDING SEPTEMBER J 3, 2004?
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.
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
25 Q. UP TO THIS DATE -- POINT IN TIME, SEPTEMBER 13, 25 TOLD YOU OR YOU HAD TOLD MR. LIBOW UP THROUGH AND
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?
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?
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?
14 HOW TO DO A COUNTER OFFER? 14 Q. DOES HE AND VICTOR PARK WORK IN THE SAME
15 A. UH-HUH. 15 OFFICE?
19 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION UP THROUGH AND 19 Q. I MEAN DO THEY HAVE A JOINT BUSINESS?
23 A LOAN FOR THE PROPERTY UP THROUGH AND INCLUDING 23 Q. IS DELTA PACIFIC A MORTGAGE LOAN BROKER?
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. YES.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHO RUNS THE COMPANY? Q. SO WAS THAT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 13, 2004, AND
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
14 Q. WHERE ARE THE OFFICES OF DELTA PACIFIC? 14 Q. WAS IT IN PERSON OR 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
21 Q. ALL THAT WAS HANDLED BY YOUR HUSBAND? 21 MARRIED, AND THAT r WOULD NEED THE ACCEPTANCE DATE TO BE
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
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
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
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
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
16 O. DID YOU EVER ASK MR. LISON IF DR. ZERNIK HAD 16 BE DEALING WITH THIS WHILE I WAS AWAY ON MY HONEYMOON.
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
MORNING BECAUSE HE F.lI.XED TO HF. THE ACCEPTANCE ON THE Q. DOES THAT HAVE DR. ZERNIK'S SIGNATURE ON IT?
Q. WHERE IS THAT ACCEPTANCE? Q. NOW, YOU HAVE A FAX HERE. FIRST OF ALL, THE
A. WHAT .I\.CCEPTANCE ARE YOU REfERRING TO? O. YOU HAVE A COVER SHEET FROM THE FAIRMONT IN REA
13 BASICALLY, SAID THEY WERE ACCEPTING MY OFFER, AND THAT ]3 THAT'S PAGE S002S,?
15 O. WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU REfERRING TO? IS O. DID YOU THEN INITIAL "N.S .• " THE CONFIRMATION
18 THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD TO BE OR. ZERNIK'S ACCEPTANCE OF 18 O. AND yOU SENT THAT BACK ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2004,
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.
2. THE wITNESS; COUNTER OFFER 2. 2. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION AS OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2004, THAT
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
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
15 HR. STEIN: VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHEN YOU'RE 15 A. MY HUSBAND WAS ASSISTING WITH THE LOAN; SO THAT
18 Q. CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE E-MAILS BEING SENT. 18 THE LOAN WERE THROUGH YOUR HUSBAND?
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;
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?
Q. LET'S HAKE SURE. LOOKING AT PAGE 50014 -- Q. SO THE AMOUNT OF THE FIRST TRUST DEED LOAN WAS
II Q. AND YOUR ORIGINAL OFFER WAS FOR A 10 PERCENT II WAS GOING TO REMAIN AT 161,000; CORRECT?
13 AND A 10 PERCENT SECOND TRUST OEED LOAN; CORRECT? 13 Q. BUT THE DOWN PAYMENT WAS GOING TO INCREASE TO
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
22 THAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRANS.~CTION; 22 Q. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS I WANT TO KNOW YOUR
310-312.-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 JIG-J72-1I11 SOUSA COURT REPORTE.RS 71-4_571.0111
P,geS2
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?
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
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?
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
19 IF YOU DON'T HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, THEN -- 19 Q. 00 YOU KNOW HOW IT WAS GOING TO 8£ CALCULATED?
21 WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. 21 Q. HOW DID YOU KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY YOU WERE GOING
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 35 of 50
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.
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.
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.
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'?
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
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,?
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
256 / 545
NlVlE sAMAAN 7/10106 NIVIE SAMAAN 1(UW6
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 36 of 50
--~ .._- ------------ ----------.-------.---~----r_~~~~~~~---~
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
A. I MAY HAVE SPOKEN TO ANOTHER LADY AT ONE POINT. 6 GIVE THEM THE CHECK, BUT THEY WERE TO HaLO IT FOR A
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
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
P.~e(,O
EVENING OF THE 24TH. MR. STEIN: CAN WE GET ONE MOP,E COPY, PLEASE? THANK
DID NOT TAKE THE CHECK. MY HUSBAND TOOK THE CHECK. O. IS THAT A COPY OF THE CHECK THAT YOU GAVE TO
A. NO. I WAS NEVER THERE. 6 A. IT WASN'T GIVEN TO MARA ESCROW. IT WAS GIVEN
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
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
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
22 IS HERETO ATTACHED. J -1 4- 22 A. BECAUSE I ALREADY SAID THAT THE FUNDS WERE NOT
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,
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
9 A. NO. NOT THE 23RD. WE WERE B.l'\CK ON THE 23RD. 9 O. CAN YOU LOOK AT 50044 THROUGH S0066.
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
16 A. NO, NOT NECESSARI LY . 16 MR. CUMl'1INGS; WE'LL GO <14 THP.OUGH 4 B. LET'S LOOK
20 INCREASED DEPOSIT OF ADDITIONAL 1 S, 000 WITHIN 14 DAYS 20 Q. THOSE ARE: DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2004; CORRECT?
22 A. YES. 22 O. yOU GOT BACK INTO TOWN THE NIGHT OF THE 2JRO OF
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?
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?
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.
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?
14 O. WHEN DID YOU SIGN AND RETURN THEM? 14 Q. LOOKING AT 50030, DO YOU SEE THAT?
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.
21 A. YES. 21 Q. NOW--
22 O. .AND ON OCTOBER 4, 2004, DID YOU ALSO DELIVER -1. 5- 22 HR. STEIN: 500301
24 A. WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING -- OCTOBER 47 24 O. WAIT. CAN YOU LOOK AT $0074 AND 50075.
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
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
22 A. EXACTLY.
22 PERFORM; CORRECT?
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?
6 FAXED TO MR. LISOW THE CONTINGENCY REMOVAL NO.2 FOR THE A. NO.
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.
19 BY MR. CUMMINGS:
19 THAT? FAX? CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT IS? IS THAT A
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_-- ...
p3#;e70
P~c6'J
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.
Pllgc72
PIlgc11
O. AND YOU FAXED THAT TO MR. LIBOWi IS THAT
A. YES.
14
14 A. YES.
16
16 S0102, S0103 --
17
17 A. YES.
19
19 CoNTINGENCY; IS TKAT CORRECT?
22 A. YES. -1 7- 22
25
25 A. YES.
260 / 545
tIlVIESAMAAN 7/10Kl6
N1VIESAMAAN 711Ml6
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
----_ ._- 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
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)
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
261 / 545
NlVlE SAMAAN 7110106
.- -----
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
--~----------_ .. __ - - - - - -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
MR. STEIN: HOLD ON. I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE 5 AN ESCROW CCMPANY IS THE AGENT FOR BOTH THE BUYER AND
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
10 O. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE APPRAISAL WAS ORDERED? 10 Q. BUT YOU'RE AWARE FROM YOUR EDUCATION TO GET A
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?
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
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
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.
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
6 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE COMES FROM THE ESCROW 6 Q. AND THE LENDER WAS SELECTED BY YOUR MORTGAGE
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
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
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."
262 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 42 of 50
""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
4 LISTED ON THOSE -- SET FORTH ON THOSE TWO PAGES, }\ND Q. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE E-MAIL DOCUMENT S0035?
A. I WAS AWARE of THEM. Q. WERE: YOU AWARE OF THAT [-MAIL 01'1 OCTOBER 25,
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.
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?
18 A. I WAS AWARE OF HIM WANTING TO CANCEL THE 18 Q. DID YOU PERSONALLY ASK MR. PARKS TO DO THAT?
20 Q. YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT ON OCTOBER 22, 2004; 20 O. WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN YOUR HUSBAND DID?
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
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?
Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID ANYBODY AT PACIFIC MR. CUMMINGS: YOU CAN'T PUT IT ON A TAPE AND GET IT
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
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
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?
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
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? ,
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?
12 DATED WHEN THEY RECEIVED IT, IS WHEN SHE CALLED HE:, AND 12 Q. DID YOU SIGN IT?
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?
16 OCTOBER 8. 18 Q. $30,000?
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
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.
Q. CONTENTS OF EXHIBIT 106 WITH ANYBODY. THAT YOUR COUNTER OFFER NO. 2 WAS ACCEPTED BY DR. ZERNIK
LOOKS LIKE A TIMELINE OF SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT A. WHICH DOCUMENT IS THAT?
IT IS. Q. 0026,
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.
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?
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
24 Q. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION PENDING, MA'AM. 24 Q. WHAT IS THE FAX NUMBER'?
Pagel'll P~e'IU
A. r DON'T KNOW IT. I DON'T KNOW IT BY HEART. Q. WERE YOU TO SHARE IN THE COMMISSION ON THE
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?
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?
15 o. WHAT ADDRESS DID YOU LIVE AT BEFORE YOU MOVED IS WHAT PERCENTAGE THEY GOT AND WHAT PERCENTAGE I GOT.
19 o. DID YOU HAVE YOUR MAIL fORWARDED WHEN YOU 19 SUBMITTED, THE ORIGINAL OFFER YOU SUBMITTED?
2' o. WERE YOU TO SHARE IN THE COMMISSION ON THE 24 A. OF THE OFFER, YES.
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
A. MY LAST HexiE ADDRESS BEFORE I HOVED IN WITH MY HR. CUMMINGS: I'LL MARK AS EXHIBIT 5 A LETTER Of
O. AND YOU ALSO LISTED GILLERAN GRIFFIN'S ADDRESS; WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MARJ<ED BY THE REPORTER AS
12 HR. STEIN: I THINK IT'S EXHIBIT 4. 12 Q. DID YOU EVER RECEIVE THAT DOCUMENT?
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
19 A. I NEVER RECEIVED THIS. I DON'T RECALL SEEING 19 (WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
21 O. THAT WAS YOUR WORJ< ADDRESS FOR GI LLERAN 21 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 6 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND
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
MR. STEIN: IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT !WHEREUPON THE AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENT
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. DEfENDANT I S EXHIBIT 8 FOR IDENT r fICATION AND
13 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND 13 O. DID YOU PROVIDE ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT'S
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
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
1----------------_._---------------------------------------------------1
Ptrgc9S Pqe96
WE MARKED AS EXHIBIT 7, SO YOU CAN COMPARE THEM. 24TH, AND THE ADDITIONAL DEPOSIT OF THE 8TH, AND THAT
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
O. AND THEN IT'S SCRATCHED OUT. AND CAN YOU READ SEPTEMBER 27, 2004, AND THEN IT'S HANDWRITTEN IN "TEN
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
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?
19 O. THEN THERE'S NO CHANGE IN DATE FOR THE SIGNED 19 DID YOU PROVI DE THAT INFORMATION TO HER?
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?"
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?
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
13 Q. WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE IT? 13 Q. DID YOU READ THAT WHEN YOU RECEIVED IT?
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?
20 OCTOBER 5, 2005, WERE INCORRECT? 20 Q. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT
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.
f-------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
]10-]"12·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 ])0-]72·1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714·511-0111
Page'l'l PugeWO
A. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S SAYING. A. THE QUESTION WAS DID I RECEIVE IT?
THERE -- A. YES.
A. YES. A. YES.
CAN I SEE ONE MORE THING IN THAT PAAAGRAPH? Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH
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
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
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
-_._-------_._.----~
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.
8 WITH IT. OTHERWISE. IT'S ALL OVER THE PlACE. A. NO, I DON'T.
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
O. THE FIST SENTENCE SAYS, "MICHAEL LI80W F.l\XED ME 14 HR. STEIN: TWO DAYS.
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.
2' INSTRUCTIONS AND FAXEO THEH TO MICHAEL LIBOW AND NIVIE 2. IN WRITING?
1------------------------_._----+-------_._---------------------1
Pace: 1M
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
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,
21 OCTOBER 12.
21 o. "HE ADVISED HE TO HOLD OFF SENDING THE ESCROW
23 THE BUYER."
23 TO ADVISE ME HE WAS THE LENDER."
268 / 545
NlVlE SAMAAN 1/1006
NlVlESAMAAN 111M>6
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
,-------------------------- 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
A. YES, I DON'T KNOW. IT MAY HAVE BEEN AROUND MR. STEIN: IF YOU DON'T RECALL, JUST SAY YOU DON'T
Q. "SENT OUT PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ON THE WITNESS: YES, I DON'T RECALL.
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.
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
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.
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?
t----------------------------------c------------------------------------
31()"372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111 310-372-1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-571-0111
PngelU7 PllgeWIl
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
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?
10 THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 10 MR. STEIN: JUST YOUR UNDERSTANDING, NOT ANV LEGAL
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
16 Q. AND I S IT CORRECT THAT YOU 01 ON' T REMOVE THE 16 OBLIGATIONS AND BELIEVING THAT HE WAS BEING INSTRUCTED
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?
22 Q. IS IT CORRECT THAT ESCROW WAS TO CLOSE BY -I< 6- 22 MR. CUMMINGS: I'LL BE BACK IN ABOUT THREE MINUTES.
24 A. YES. 24 THE WITNESS: CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING TO WHAT VOU
269 / 545
NlvtEsAMAAN 7II0JD6 NlVIE SAMAAN 7/10!tl6
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
~---------------------- 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.
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.
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
21 /Jo.. THAT THE PROPERTY HAS GONE UP IN VALUE. 21 A. TWENTY-SIX SOMETHING, 26,000 SOMETHING.
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.
-----e---.-----.----------------------------j
P:Jgclll P.~c' 12
Q. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION WHAT THE PROPERTY'S THOUGHT YOU WERE GETTING A GOOD DEAL.
A. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY BETWEEN TWO AND 2.2 HORE THAN ONE POINT sEVEN EIGHTEEN.
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.
WAS I BELIEVED IT HAS WORTH THE PRICE IT WAS LISTED I HAVE NO fUTURE QUESTIONS Of THIS WITNESS AT
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.
1. Q. YOU BELIEVED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS WORTH LESS ,. MR. CUMMINGS?
HR. STEIN: MISSTATEs HER TESTIHONY. 20 TRANSCRIPT BE SENT TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEPONENT; THAT
23 LESS THAN 1, 718, aDO? 23 WILL BE NOTIfIED OF ANY CHANGES THAT ARE HADE; IT C.I\N BE
25 Q. TELL HE WHAT YOO MEANT WHEN YOU SAl D YOU 25 RELIEVED OF HER OBLIGATION; AND THAT IF WE'RE NOT
270 / 545
, . . - -Case
- - - -2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
------_. -- Document 40-3
-_.-_._---~ Filed 04/17/2008 Page 50 of 50
f':1gel13
10 -000-
13 EXECUTED AT CALIFORNIA,
15
16
17
18
I'
20
21
22
23
2.
25
NIVIESAMAAN' 1110105
'-- • ~ ..J
-148-
271 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 13
272 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 13
273 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 13
274 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 13
275 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 13
276 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 13
277 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 13
278 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 13
279 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 13
280 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 13
281 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 13
282 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 13
283 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-4 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 13
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,--_---:;-- _
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
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
FHANNCONV
• UNOERWRmNG DEClSlONICONDmON \ETTER
2C26D-US (07J04){d)
·23991·
285 / 545
,
ADDENDUM TO UNDERWRITING DECISION/CONDITION LETTER
(PAGE2 OF2 )
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
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
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
288 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 29
Joseph Zemik
2 2415 Saint George St.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
3 Tel: (310) 4359107 _.-','''',
, i
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
289 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 29
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 29
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 29
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
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 29
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
D IN JUDGMENT BY COURT
CHASE OF REAL PROPERlY CITE
NOTICE OF CONTRACT FOR PUR
293 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 29
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
294 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 29
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 29
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 29
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
297 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 29
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
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 29
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 29
p.3
Oo~ 25 04 05l 03p
COU N'T eRO FFe A ~ 6~G :. <,: 1\ I . " " " II. N I II.
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(
,
.;~
300 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 29
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,
301 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 29
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.
laa~ed
ap8. _
wllh Ih, foltowlnll oollo nal covtlr _
~
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 29
p.6
Oo~ 25 04 05104 p
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
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': • ' ~
303 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 29
p.?
Ooe 25 O~ 05~05 p
304 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 17 of 29
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
305 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 29
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
&. ,"':
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 29
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
307 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 29
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
.......
:~~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
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 ... ~
~
308 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 29
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
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)
309 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 29
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.
310 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 29
uo~ ~~ U~ U~IU~p p. l~
l-'L\(-;E 14
....•3Hl5507531 PAGE lZ1HI
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,.,\;
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 29
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
_--
.....,.... ._- -- --'-
.- - ._"
"'._ .
• • 1,to7(1'l.$ I""i-._ •.••• _
--
.... .. _./
312 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 29
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
313 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 26 of 29
bp officejet dl3S
priDter/f.vscanaerJcopier
- -.;
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
314 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 29
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
315 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 28 of 29
NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S)
NAME. ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE
JOSEPH ZERNIK
4215 Saint George Street
Los Angeles, CA 90027
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
Party Served
Signature
MENT OF SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE· ACKNOWLEDG
CV-40 (01100)
316 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 45 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 29 of 29
)
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
John Amber g
Bryan Cave, LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Tel (310157 6-2100
Fax (3101 576-2200
Email: jwamberg@BryanCave.com
317 / 545
August 12, 2008
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
2415 Saint George St.
Los Feliz, CA 90027
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,
318 / 545
Robert A. Meister
Certified Document Examiner
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 Document Examiner Letter
Questioned Date on Underwriting Letter
Date: August 12, 2008
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.
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
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.
Respectfully submitted,
,
.-.
Robert A. Meister did appear before me. ..:" ,.., ~.: "...
,.. /'\
~
- .'.~, '
.00
-' ..-
STATE OF INDIANA
319 / 545
320 / 545
Scott Meister
Forensic Document Examiner
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
321 / 545
Laboratory Equipment used for examination:
Computer
Adobe Photoshop
Photocopier
Scanner
Magnifying devices
Stereo Microscope 5x-30x, with Digital Output Camera
Library
Conferences Attended
Publications
322 / 545
Robert A. Meister
Forensic Document Examiner
Forgery Finders, LLC
120 N. Mill Creek Road
Noblesville, In 46062
Phone: (317) 770-1000 Fax: (800) 786-2629
Education
323 / 545
Robert A. Meister, FDE Page 2
Library
Publications
Professional Affiliations
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
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 31
339 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 31
340 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 31
341 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 31
342 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 31
343 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 31
344 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 31
345 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 31
346 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 31
347 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 31
348 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 31
349 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 31
350 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 31
351 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 31
352 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 31
353 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 31
354 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 17 of 31
355 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 31
356 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 31
357 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 31
358 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 31
359 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 31
360 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 31
361 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 31
362 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 31
363 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 26 of 31
364 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 31
365 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 28 of 31
366 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 29 of 31
367 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 30 of 31
368 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 44 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 31 of 31
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
FBI
Fax (310) 996-3359
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.
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
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
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
372 / 545
1. SOURCE OF RECORDS EXAMINED BY MR WEDICK
373 / 545
2. WHAT IS SAMAAN V ZERNIK?
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
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.
376 / 545
4. OPINION LETTER OF MR WEDICK
377 / 545
11230 GOLD EXPRESS DRIVE S'l'E 310 GOLD RIVER CA 95670 916.638.3566
WWW.FRAUDSPECIALIS.l.S.COM
From: Investigator/E
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 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.
SEE ATTACHMENT
379 / 545
California All-Purpose ACknowledgment as of 1/1/08
State of California )
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
.,•.: "~~HoKOM
.-.... COMM. #1770388.
1 ~
Signature.__ ~~~=----=:..._~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
z:" .1 Notary Public,Californla ~
/ / SACRAMENTO COUNTY
~.~.' ! .1y , .•,.,,,rtl, Exp, 9!11Pt. 21, 201 1
_______________________ 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.
380 / 545
5. TWO (2) FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEEDS
381 / 545
5a. 12/07/2007 FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEED
382 / 545
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
Title #: 80701422-77
APN #: 4328-0024-023
Nivie Samaan
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
~
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"">, (
WITNESS
Signaturf !J
~YU1~ttfVJ\ (\ .
) \ ~ ,
2 'LI
384 / 545
5b. 12/17/2007 FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEED
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
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
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\\~,
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,
389 / 545
STAMP IS ON BACK OF LAST PAGE
390 / 545
March 25, 2008
901 H St., Suite 312, Sacramento, Calif. 95814 • (916) 444-2355 • Vol. 98, No. 58 • 75¢ • Tuesday, March 25, 2
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
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
2415 Saint George St, Los Feliz CA 90027 Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
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.
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
395 / 545
CONGRESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IN RE: FBI, DOJ
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
397 / 545
DIANE E. WATSON FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
CALIFORNIA Subcommittee 011 AfrlCrl and Global Health
August 8~ 2008
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
398 / 545
u.s. Department of Justice
Washington, D. C 20535-0001
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.
Sincerely yours,
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
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
400 / 545
Ptil'l•• d on R6Cvclad ~~por
DIANr~E FE'~STEIN
September 8, 2008
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.
DF:mn
S ,. ,'·Elu
401 / 545
I
\Va;hington, D. C. 20535-000 I
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.
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
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0504
http://feinstein.senate.gov
'.
.; .' .'
.' ," J)
/
't
'\ ,- ~
.:
' ....
j
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
United States Senator
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
WI"ISHINGTON, DC 2D510-0504
htto)' feinstein.sende gov
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,' ! -'\.
Office of the Director Room 2261, RFK Main Justice Budding (202) 514-2121
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
lVashll1gron, DC 20530
SEP 09 Z008
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.
Sincerely,
Kenneth E. Melson
Director
405 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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
(by email and by fax)
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
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
Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt, Copy #2: Att Richard Fine’s
Habeas Corpus Petition, U.S. Dist Crt, LA (Dkt #16) as recently seen in Pacer:
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.
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
If parties represented by you indeed holds such records, please provide me with copies as
soon as possible.
________________________
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.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
407 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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
Los Angeles, California 90012
terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
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
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
Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt, Copy #2: Att Richard Fine’s
Habeas Corpus Petition, U.S. Dist Crt, LA (Dkt #16) as recently seen in Pacer:
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
z Page 3/6 August 1, 2009
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
z Page 4/6 August 1, 2009
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.
Concern is that no such General Order could be found.
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.
Concern is that no such General Order could be found.
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
z Page 5/6 August 1, 2009
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
412 / 545
z Page 6/6 August 1, 2009
________________________
By: Joseph H Zernik
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.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
413 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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.
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.
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
z Page 2/9 August 23, 2009
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
z Page 3/9 August 23, 2009
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?
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.
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:
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.
2
Cal Code of Civ Proc §170.3
418 / 545
z Page 6/9 August 23, 2009
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.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-
judment-record-found-on-full-disclosure-network-site.pdf
419 / 545
z Page 7/9 August 23, 2009
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
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
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
z Page 8/9 August 23, 2009
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.
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.
d) The Sheriff, which was named respondent, refused to respond to the habeas
corpus petition, and Magistrate Woehrle allowed it to stay that way.
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.
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.
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
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
09-08-27 Email notice by John Amberg, Bryan Cave, LLP relative to Countrywide and Bank of
America Corporation communications
Dr. Zernik,
John Amberg
John W. Amberg
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
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.
423 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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
Mr McMahon:
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
z Page 2/10 August 29, 2009
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) 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
z Page 3/10 August 29, 2009
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?
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
z Page 5/10 August 29, 2009
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.
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.
428 / 545
z Page 6/10 August 29, 2009
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.
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.
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
z Page 8/10 August 29, 2009
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.
Additional question is for the basis of the custom in your district, whatever
it is in the Law or Rules of Court.
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:
433 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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
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
z Page 2/3 August 30, 2009
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
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 >
(by email and by fax)
435 / 545
z Page 3/3 August 30, 2009
5) Basel Committee
[redacted-jz]
(by email)
7) FBI
Fax: 12022782478@efaxsend.com
(by fax)
436 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
09-08-31 Cover email for letter to counsel of BAC and SEC, requesting records and actions
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
437 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
09-08-31 Cover email for response to message from Att John Amberg, Bryan Cave, LLP
Please see attached response to Mr Amberg. Timely response requested by Friday, Sept 4, 2009,
5:00pm.
Joseph Zernik
438 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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
z Page 2/2 September 2, 2009
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:
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”.
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
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):
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-04-requests-to-access-court-file-in-sturgeon-v-la-county-denial-of-access.pdf
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.
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-la-sheriff-department-fontana-s.pdf
440 / 545
z Page 3/2 September 2, 2009
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:
________________________________________
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
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
z Page 4/2 September 2, 2009
Basel Committee
[redacted]
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
442 / 545
z Page 5/2 September 2, 2009
Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Holder of direct reporting duties
Neil A. Cotty
Chief Accounting Officer
Signer of SEC reports
Joe L. Price
Chief Financial Officer
Signer of SEC reports and certificates per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
By email
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon St
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
"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
Independent Auditors for BAC
214 N Tryon St, Ste 3600
Charlotte, NC 28202-2366
Fax:< 17043444100@efaxsend.com >
443 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Prof Grundfest:
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.
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.
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.
Joseph Zernik.
.
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
449 / 545
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD
<jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cell: 310 435 9107
No voice mail; IM, Page- OK
No ID- No response
_________________________________________________________
Prof Grundfest:
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.
o Countrywide is not a real party- but a Non-Party, but the court will
decide on the day what to call them.
C. Organized Crime:
My case shows the whole structure of the organized crime in Southern California in a
nut shell:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD
<jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cell: 310 435 9107
No voice mail; IM, Page- OK
No ID- No response
________________________________________
454 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
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
z Page 2/4 February 13, 2009
Proposed Recommendations
456 / 545
z Page 3/4 February 13, 2009
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.
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
z Page 4/4 February 13, 2009
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.
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
Tel: 650.723.0458
Fax: 650.723.8229
____________________________________
joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
02/13/2009 04:12 PM
To
grundfest@stanford.edu
cc
Subject
Request for an opinion memo and proposed opinion memos
459 / 545
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD
<jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cell: 310 435 9107
No voice mail; IM, Page- OK
No ID- No response !SIG:49960c56235971318415215!
____________________________________
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.
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.
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.
Regards,
Joe Grundfest
Tel: 650.723.0458
Fax: 650.723.8229
02/13/2009 04:12 PM
To
grundfest@stanford.edu
461 / 545
cc
Subject
Request for an opinion memo and proposed opinion memos
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.
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:
__________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
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-Received-Info: spv=0;
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
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 ".
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
____________________________________
Prof Grundfest:
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.
Joseph Zernik
____________________________________
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:
469 / 545
of Washington. [1] Introduced repeatedly in court. Most recently for a
motion noticed for November 2008. Alleged key fraud record.
____
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.
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].
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.
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.
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
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-17-document-1.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-17-document-2.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-02-17-document-3.pdf
[6]
I have no such record. I expect CFC/BOA to produce the record.
[7]
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
[8]
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-wedick.memo.notarized.deeds.zernik.2009.02.05-s.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opinion-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.
_____________________________________________________
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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:
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
________________________________
Please support our petition:
Calling upon the President Obama:
Open the Books of LA Superior Court - to Free the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
_________________________________________________
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD
<jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cell: 310 435 9107
No voice mail; IM, Page- OK
No ID- No response
____________________________________
485 / 545
13. Zernik to Grundfest, March 2, 2009 –
Complaint filed with BAC Audit Committee
_________________________________________________
Please support our petition:
Calling upon the President Obama:
Open the Books of LA Superior Court - to Free the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
_________________________________________________
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD
<jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cell: 310 435 9107
No voice mail; IM, Page- OK
No ID- No response
Attachment: 09-03-02-news-release-bank-of-america-s.pdf;
________________________________________
486 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
DEMANDS FOR AUDIT COMMITTEE REVIEW & TIMED RESPONSE RE: ALLEGATIONS
OF SUB-PRIME BAILOUT ABUSE AT BANK OF AMERICA 2-Mar-09 12:02pm
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
z Page 2/4 September 10, 2009
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
z Page 3/4 September 10, 2009
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
z Page 4/4 September 10, 2009
* 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.
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”.
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
________________________________________
Your message
492 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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
493 / 545
z Page 2/2 September 2, 2009
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:
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”.
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
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):
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-04-requests-to-access-court-file-in-sturgeon-v-la-county-denial-of-access.pdf
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.
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-la-sheriff-department-fontana-s.pdf
494 / 545
z Page 3/2 September 2, 2009
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:
________________________________________
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
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
495 / 545
z Page 4/2 September 2, 2009
Basel Committee
[redacted]
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
496 / 545
z Page 5/2 September 2, 2009
Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Holder of direct reporting duties
Neil A. Cotty
Chief Accounting Officer
Signer of SEC reports
Joe L. Price
Chief Financial Officer
Signer of SEC reports and certificates per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
By email
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon St
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
"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
Independent Auditors for BAC
214 N Tryon St, Ste 3600
Charlotte, NC 28202-2366
Fax:< 17043444100@efaxsend.com >
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
City: La Verne
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
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
_____________________________________________
To: Stanford Law School Faculty, and faculty of other law schools.
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
_____________________________________________________
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
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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:
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:
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
z Page 2/2 September 4, 2009
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.
________________________
By: Joseph H Zernik
PO Box 526
Tel: (323) 515 4583; Fax: (801) 998 0917;
jz12345@earthlink.net
CC:
501 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
09-09-04 Communications with Clerk Nafisi – U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, in re: Access to
Court Records - Addendum.
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
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,251,1249272000";
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.
To: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cc: Danalyn_Castellanos@cacd.uscourts.gov,
Records_CACD@cacd.uscourts.gov,
terry_nafisi@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-Received-Info: spv=0;
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
Joseph,
As I mentioned to you in my earlier e-mail all cases are public record and
502 / 545
z Page 2/2 September 4, 2009
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
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
09-08-20 U.S. District Court –Los Angeles, follows the example of LA Superior Court – denying
access to records
August 20, 2009
504 / 545
z Page 2/2 August 25, 2009
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.
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
z Page 3/2 August 25, 2009
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.
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 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
z Page 4/2 August 25, 2009
Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the Court/Executive
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
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
z Page 5/2 August 25, 2009
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),
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
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
Terry Nafisi
Clerk of the Court/Executive
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles
Once I see the records, I will decide if I would like to obtain copies, and
I will pay accordingly.
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?
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.
Joseph Zernik
509 / 545
z Page 7/2 August 25, 2009
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
cashier̢۪s 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.
Thank you,
Correspondence Clerk
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)
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
cashier̢۪s check, cercertified bank check, business or corporate check,
or a money order drawn on a major American bank or the United States
510 / 545
z Page 8/2 August 25, 2009
Thank you,
Correspondence Clerk
511 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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"
<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
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:
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>
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
C/O Corporate Secretary
Bank of America Corporation,
101 South Tryon Street,
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
512 / 545
z Page 2/13 September 5, 2009
Edward OKeefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Chief Accounting Officer
Signer of SEC reports
Joe L. Price
Chief Financial Officer
Signer of SEC reports and certificates per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
By Fax and By Certified Mail
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon St
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
Fax: 704.388.7342
joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com
PriceWaterhouse
Independent Auditors for BAC
214 N Tryon St, Ste 3600
.. Page 2/2 August 25, 2009
Charlotte, NC 28202-2366
Fax: (704) 344 4100
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
z Page 3/13 September 5, 2009
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:
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
___________________________________________________
5.b)
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-6-notice#3-exh-a-6.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-00-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-01-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-02-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-03-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-04-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-05-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-06-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-07-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-08-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-09-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-10-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-11-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-12-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-13-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-14-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-15-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-16-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-17-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-18-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-19-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-20-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-21-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-22-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-23-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
5, c):
i. Case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) U.S. Court, Southern District of TX,
http://inproperinla.com/08-03-05-coutnrywide-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke-s.pdf
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.
515 / 545
z Page 5/13 September 5, 2009
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?
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.
______________________________________________________________________
September 3, 2009
516 / 545
z Page 6/13 September 5, 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.
Joseph Zenrik.
__________________________________________________________________
Sir/Madam:
Joseph Zernik
_______________________________________________________________
517 / 545
z Page 7/13 September 5, 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.
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
Thursday 09/3/2009
E-Mail Message
518 / 545
z Page 8/13 September 5, 2009
RE: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell Address" by Admiral Joseph
W Frueher, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee
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.
regulatory agencies.
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
z Page 9/13 September 5, 2009
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
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
_____________________________________________
To: Stanford Law School Faculty, and faculty of other law schools.
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
_____________________________________________________
520 / 545
z Page 10/13 September 5, 2009
521 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
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
z Page 2/3 September 4, 2009
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.
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
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.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-dc-zernik-v-melson-et-at-as-received-by-mail-purported-papers-from-the-
court-09-06-29-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
z Page 3/3 September 4, 2009
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
Los Angeles County, California
524 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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>
From: 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
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, 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
z Page 2/13 September 5, 2009
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
CC:
1) Stanford Law Faculty.
2) Basel Committee
3) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
4) Chinese Embassy, Washington DC
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
jz12345@earthlink.net
Fax: 801 998 0917
Diane Frazier
4329 Gloria Ct
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
(707) 586-1479
526 / 545
z Page 3/13 September 5, 2009
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
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
Twin Towers
450 Bauchet St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
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)
_________________________________________________________________________
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"
<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
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:
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>
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
C/O Corporate Secretary
Bank of America Corporation,
101 South Tryon Street,
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
Edward OKeefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Chief Accounting Officer
Signer of SEC reports
Joe L. Price
Chief Financial Officer
Signer of SEC reports and certificates per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
By Fax and By Certified Mail
528 / 545
z Page 5/13 September 5, 2009
PriceWaterhouse
Independent Auditors for BAC
214 N Tryon St, Ste 3600
.. Page 2/2 August 25, 2009
Charlotte, NC 28202-2366
Fax: (704) 344 4100
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.
529 / 545
z Page 6/13 September 5, 2009
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:
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
___________________________________________________
5.b)
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-08-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-09-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-10-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-11-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-12-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-13-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-14-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-15-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-16-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-17-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-18-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-19-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-20-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-21-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-22-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-23-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
5, c):
i. Case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) U.S. Court, Southern District of TX,
http://inproperinla.com/08-03-05-coutnrywide-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke-s.pdf
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.
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
z Page 8/13 September 5, 2009
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?
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.
______________________________________________________________________
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
z Page 9/13 September 5, 2009
Joseph Zenrik.
__________________________________________________________________
Sir/Madam:
Joseph Zernik
_______________________________________________________________
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.
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
Thursday 09/3/2009
E-Mail Message
534 / 545
z Page 11/13 September 5, 2009
RE: Request for a public written statement, as a "Farewell Address" by Admiral Joseph
W Frueher, upon departure from the BAC Audit Committee
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.
regulatory agencies.
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
z Page 12/13 September 5, 2009
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
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
_____________________________________________
To: Stanford Law School Faculty, and faculty of other law schools.
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
_____________________________________________________
536 / 545
z Page 13/13 September 5, 2009
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
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
537 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
September 7, 2009
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.
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
z Page 2/2 September 7, 2009
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.
Joseph Zernik
______________________________________________________
Prof Grundfest:
Joseph Zernik
539 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
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
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 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.
1
Upon notice that the order existed, I would contact your office and provide CC information for the
certificate.
540 / 545
z Page 2/6 September 8, 2009
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
z Page 3/6 September 8, 2009
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.
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
z Page 4/6 September 8, 2009
1) Joseph Zernik
Fax: 801 998-0917
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
Timely compliance with the law is demanded, no later than Friday, September 11, 2009, 5:00 pm
543 / 545
z Page 5/6 September 8, 2009
________________________________________
Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
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
Basel Committee
544 / 545
z Page 6/6 September 8, 2009
[redacted]
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 >
Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Holder of direct reporting duties
Neil A. Cotty
Chief Accounting Officer
Signer of SEC reports
Joe L. Price
Chief Financial Officer
Signer of SEC reports and certificates per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
By email
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon St
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
"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
Independent Auditors for BAC
214 N Tryon St, Ste 3600
Charlotte, NC 28202-2366
Fax:< 17043444100@efaxsend.com >
545 / 545