09-05-01 zernik v melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the us district court, washington dc: (dkt #1-1)...

8/6/2019 09-05-01 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #1-1) Complaint

1/120

Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 120JUlt11!fILEDMAY - , 2009

Clerk U.S. District andB a ~ k r u p t c y Courts

Case: 1:09-cv-00805Assigned To: Leon, Richard J.Assign. Date : 5/1/2009Description: Admin. Agency Review

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

VS. / IKENNETH MELSf>N, U DEPT OF JUSTICE,KENNETH KAISER, F ~ SAMUEL BEZEK, /SEC/KENNETH LEWIS', TIMOTHYM A Y O P O U L O S { B A N K ~ F AMERICACORPORATION (BAC), BACjAUDITCOMMIyTEE(DON LENTS{PETER VANCLEVE/BRYAN CAVE, LLP/

c k i . ~ ()Y- !Y1rJn1YYrnV\ /

JOSEPH H ZERNIKP.O BOX 52' i " 8 ~ 3 f d D n - J / ~ L !!;,vJ)LA VERNE, CA 91750TEL: 310435 9107FAX: 801 998-0917EMAIL: jz12345rti1earthlink.net

PLTF ALLEGES SEVERE ABUSE OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, AND REFUSAL OF U.S. OFFICERS TO PERFORMTHEIR DUTIES. PLTF WAS FORCED OUT OF HIS HOME UNDER THE THREAT OF FORCE AND HAD HISPROPERTY TAKEN FOR PRIVATE USE WITH NO COMPENSATION AT ALL UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.VETERAN FBI AGENT, DECORATED BY U.S. CONGRESS, BY FBI DIRECTOR, AND BY U.S. ATTORNEYGENERAL OPINED: " ..FRUADS BEING COMMITTED...." PLTF ALSO HAD THREE (3) GAG ORDERSIMPOSED, THROUGH EX PARTE PROCEDURES TO BENEFIT LARGE CORPORATIONS, AND ALLEGEDLYFRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS OF CONTEMPT AND SERIOUS SANCTIONS EXCEEDING $30,000 IMPOSED.PLAINTIFF WAS ALSO FALSELY THREATENED WITH JAIL, IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA, WHEREMANY ARE FALSELY IMPRISONED: THE RAMPART-FIP's - ESTIMATED AT 10,000 OR MORE PER PBS'FRONTLINE' BROADCAST (2001), MOSTY BLACK AND LATINO. THEY WERE LEFT FALSELYIMPRISONED A DECADE AFTER THE MASSIVE RAMPART CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION (1998-2000)ENDED - ALBEIT - WITH NO REPORT EVER BEING WRITTEN... ATTORNEY RICHARD FINE - A FORMERU.S. ATTORNEY LED THE FIGHT AGAINST PAYMENTS TO ALL LA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AT $45,000PER YEAR, PER JUDGE, THAT WOULD BE NAMED BY A LAYPERSON "BRIBES," AND WERE RULED INOCTOBER 2008 "NOT PERMITTED." HE IS NOW INDEFINITELY JAILED FOR CONTEMPT, UNDERCONDITIONS THAT ARE REPORTED TO BE UNREASONABLE.FOR TWO YEARS FBI AND USDO] REFUSE TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES AND GUARANTEE PLTF'S EQUALPROTECTION AGAINST SEVERE ABUSE OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW. MOREOVER,WITH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF LONG TERM, WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION, USDOJ SECTION OFPUBLIC INTEGRITY SHOWS NO INDICTMENTS AND NO PROSECTUTIONS IN LA IN THE PAST 25 YEARS!UNDERLYING MATTER IS ALLEGED RICO AND FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT BYCOUNTRYWIDE, NOW WHOLLY OWNED BY BAC. FRAUDS ALLEGED IN MY CASE BY COUNTRYWIDEARE REPEATS OF THOSE REBUKED BY THE HON. U.S. JUDGE BOHM IN TEXAS MARCH 2008, AND INPITTBURGH PENN COUT IN JAN 2008. IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES BY THE HONORABLE SENATORFEINSTEIN & CONGRESSWOMAN WATSON IN MY CASE - FBI & USDOJ PROVIDED FALSE ANDDELIBERATELY MISLEADING RESPOPNSES TO U.S. CONGRESS.DAMAGES SOUGHT IN SUM TO BE DETERMINED, AND ALSO AWARD PER CIVIL RICO AND FALSECLAIMS ACT.

JOSEPH H ZERNIKPOBOX 526

LA VERNE, CA 91750


2/120

Case 1:09-cv-00805-RJL Document 1 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 2 of 120

) . 1 Joseph Zernik2 POB 526 LV, CA 91750

Tel: (310) 43591073 Fax: (801) 998 09174 [email protected] in pro se

Digitally signed by Joseph ZernikDN: cn=Joseph Zernik,[email protected]=USDate: 2009.05.01 03:12:56 -OTOO'

5678

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF COLUMBIADEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11

15

13

16

CASE NO.------TO COMPEL U.S. OFFICERS TOPERFORM THEIR DUTIES PER 28 USC1361; TO ENFORCE EQAULPROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONALCIVIL RIGHTS & INTERNATIONALLAW HUMAN RIGHTS FOR PLAINTIFFAND OTHERS IN LA COUNTY;ALSO: COMPLAINT PRUSUANT TOFALSE CLAIMS ACT AND CIVIL RICOAGAINST COUNTRYWIDE SUBSIDIARY OF BANK OF AMERICACORPORATION.

9 JOSEPH ZERNIK,also standingfor:Att. Richard Fine -political prisoner, LA,

The 10,000 Rampart-FIPs, LA, and12 The 10 million residents ofLA County,

whose civil rights are continuouslyabused under the color of law, and14 U.S. Elected Officials & U.S. Voters,

routinely deceived and defrauded byDefendants u.s. Officers re: Sub-Prime Heist & the BailoutPlaintiffs

10

vs.1718

21

25REQUESTS FOR INCORPORATION BYREFERENCE AND JUDICIAL NOTICEINCLUDED IN COMPLAINT

MAY 1,2009ATE:

VERIFIED COMPLAINTFOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVERELIEF REGARDING VIOLATIONS OFFEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTSAND HUMAN RIGHTS PURSUNT TOINTERNTIONAL LAW; FORMANDAMUS, AND FOR DAMAGES

1) KENNETH MELSON & U.S. DEPT19 OF JUSTICE (USDOJ), KENNETH20 KAISER & FBI; 2) SAMUEL BEZEK& SEC; 3) KENNETH D LEWIS,

TIMOTHY J MAYOPOULOS, BACAUDIT COMMITTEE & BANK OF22 AMERICA CORPORATION (BAC);23 4) DON G LENTS, PETER D VAN

CLEVE, & BRYAN CAVE, LLP24 (BCLLP); ROES 1-20,Defendants

Copies of this complaint are also filed with:26 a) Office ofTARP IG Att Barofsky;27 b) Office ofTARP Oversight Panel, and28 c) Israeli Embassy in Washington DC

-1-ZERNIKVMELSON, ET AL, VERIFIED COMPLAINT


3/120


List of Six "Key Records" that Audit Committee of Bank of America Corporationhas repeatedly been requested to either authenticate or repudiate

Xl. Detailed AllegationsXII. PlaintiffEnters His ComplaintXIII. Prayer for ReliefXIV. List of Exhibits

IV. Verified Request for Lenience by a Pro Se FilerV. Requests for Incorporation by referenceVI. Request for Judicial NoticeVII. StandingVIII. Jurisdiction & Venue

I. TOC 23

21

38404160616162626369739496

114116117120

VERIFIED COMPLAINTI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background & Scope

General Allegations.

IX. PartiesA. PlaintiffsB. Defendants

II.

XV. Statement ofVerification

Ill. Chronology of Events

XVI. Proposed OrdersXVII Exhibits

2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

-2-ZERNIK V MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT


4/120


PLAINTIFF, Joseph H Zernik files herein his Verified Complaint:

II.BACKGROUND & SCOPE OF COMPLAINT-

ALLEGATIONS OF LONG-TERM, WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION OF THEJUDICIARY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND FAILURE OF FBI AND USDOJ TOPROTECT CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THAT REGION OF THE U.S.A.

2345 1)6 A. This case stems from my alleged abuse at the hands of judges of LA Superior7 Court in the case of Samaan v Zernik, and refusal of FBI and USDOJ, named8 defendants in this case, to take action to protect my Civil and Human Rights.9 2) This case stems from events related to my abuse by judges of the LA Superior Court,

10 which started in 2005, and continue even today, and refusal of FBI and USDOJ to take11 action even today, in the face of overwhelming evidence ofwidespread corruption at the LA12 Superior Court, both in my case and also in other cases listed below. The basic claim is that13 Samaan v Zernik never was a true case of the LA Superior Court in the first place, but a case14 of the "Enterprise Track" operated in that court. None of the judges held assignment order, I15 was denied and still am denied access to the records of that case, fraud expert provided16 opinion that the grant deed issued on my home as the outcome of that affair was fraud and17 recommended that investigation be instituted.18 3) I was forced to abandon my home under the threat of force, my home was taken with19 no compensation at all, I sustained losses exceeding $2.0 millions, I allege that two20 judgments for contempt issued at the request of Countrywide/Bank ofAmerica were also21 part ofmy abuse and fraud by these parties on me, as were sanctions exceeding $30,000.22 4) I also had three gag orders issued against me, in an attempt to restrict my speech, all23 to benefit large corporat ion.24 5) There is no way that review of procedures of the LA Superior Court in my case can25 find them part of any legitimate legal proceedings consistent with the Civil Rights26 guaranteed to me by the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.27 6) Regardless of the overwhelming evidence of widespread corruption of the LA28 Superior court in my case, FBI and USDO] refused to take any action.

-3-ZERNIKV MELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT


5/120


7) At present, I ma y also be fugitive from the law in Los Angeles County, California,2 where there may be a warrant for my arrest, for failure to appear in Court.3 8) That underlying violations were of traffic code, related to the enormous stress I4 endured in 2007, bu t at the en d I lost my driving license through a dubious phone procedure5 related to vehicle registration.6 9) I wa s caught driving without a valid license, while on suspension, which I then learnt7 was a criminal misdemeanor.8 10) In preparation for appearance in court in that regard I consulted 3 different offices in9 Los Angeles. All three had no Minute Orders and no Registers of Actions of cases they10 handled in court, reflecting same conditions as are the underlying conditions allowing the11 alleged corruption in the civil courts. Tw o of the offices insisted that my concern and12 insistence on such formalities were irrelevant - the practice o f law was an art, and the papers13 I wa s asking about were insignificant. The third office insisted that there was no such thing14 as computerized case management system in the criminal courts in Los Angeles, and for all I15 know that attorney truly believed so.16 11) I therefore decided not to subject myself to further abuse by dubious tribunals and17 failed to appear in court.18 III19 B. Payments that were "not permitted", bu t w er e t ak en by A LL LA Superior Court20 judges for years, an d would be called "Bribes" by a layperson, ar e also an21 integral part of this complaint.22 12) In October 2008, the California Court ofAppeal, San Diego, issued its ruling that23 payments by Los Angeles County to Los Angeles Superior Court judges, amounts of24 approximately $45,000 pe r year pe r judge were "not permitted".25 13) During the years that judges were offered and accepted such payments, such judges26 never disclosed these payments to parties in cases they heard, which included LA County as27 a party. Reviews of such cases for some years, as reported in various media showed that28 such judges never issued judgment by court against LA County in such cases.



6/120


14) In layperson language these payments would be named "Bribes".2 15) The judges of the LA Superior Court then filed for review of the case by the3 California Supreme Court. But that California Supreme Court refused to hear the case.4 16) Upon information and belief, it took some four or five days from the announcement5 that the California Supreme Court would not hear that case, until a bill was passed and6 signed into law by the Governor ofCalifornia, and addressed these payments in a manner7 that is deemed in violation of the U.S. Law, and violation of the Civil Rights and Human8 Rights of all who reside in LA County.9 17) In view of such evidence ofwidespread corruption of the judiciary in Los Angeles10 County for years, the failure of enforcement by Defendants who are FBI and USDa] in the11 past quarter century, based on reports of the Public Integrity Section of the USDa] is12 striking.13 C. Abuse of Att Richard Fine, now indefinitely jailed in LA County on contempt,14 after leading the efforts to expose such alleged corruption of the LA Superior15 Court related to the payments by LA County, is an integral par t of this16 complaint.17 18) As described below, Att Richard Fine is now indefinitely jailed in Los Angeles County,18 review of his Petition for a Writ ofHabeas Corpus and a subsequent Ex Parte application are19 unreasonably delayed.20 19) The failure ofDefendants who are FBI and USDO] to provide protection for Att Richard21 Fine, and allowing his continued abuse is an integral part of this complaint, and a direct affront to the22 Civil and Human Rights of all who reside in LA County.23 D. Rampart scandal (1998-2000) and the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned24 persons), mostly black and latinos, wrongfully incarcerated in Los Angeles25 County a decade after the investigation ended- but no report was issued, are26 integral part of the matter underlying this complaint27 20) On the Rampart scandal, which is an integral part of the subject matter underlying this28 complaint, legal authorities in Los Angeles County, wrote about ten years ago:



7/120


wrongs inflicted upon the victims were being addressed and remedied, albeit - they wereastonished that the conduct of the LA Superior Court judges went unnoticed, and that thejudges were not held accountable.

issues that are large scale human and civil rights abuses - disgrace of historic proportions!E. Allegations of extensive wrongdoing at the LA Superior Court related to an

alleged fraud in operation of the case management systems, denial of publicaccess to court records, and an "Enterprise Track" in the court are also an

"...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes theydid not commit How could so many participants in the criminal justicesystem have failed either to recognize or to instigate any meaningful scrutinyof such appalling and repeated perversions of justice?"" . we felt a particular obligation to ensure that no aspect of the Los Angelescriminal justice system, including the lawyers and judges, escaped scrutiny."

Prof David W. Burcham, then Dean, and Prof Catherine L. Fisk,Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, Rampart symposium, 2000

Rampart scandal were released. The vast majority of the Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisonedpersons), mostly black and latinos, are still wrongfully incarcerated in LA County. Theirexact number is still unknown, partly because the LAPD never wrote a final report of themassive investigation, with no reason at all, and partly as one of a range of aberrations andabuses of rights resulting from the LA Superior Court's elimination of the public recordsthat are the Books ofCourt around 1985 - a fundamental abuse of the civil and common lawrights of all 10 million residents of the County. That conduct is also an integral part ofinstant complaint. I use here the estimate of 10,000, which is a low, conservative estimatebased on some published and unpublished sources.

"Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of theheinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with themost repressive dictators and police states. ""... and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."Erwin Chemerinsky, today Dean of Irvine Law School, Universityof California, 57 Guild Prac. 121, 2000

In fact, only a small fraction of those who were falsely imprisoned as part of the

I believes that at the time ofwriting these statements, the authors believed that the

In opening with such statements I also make it clear that this complaint addresses

21)

22)

23)

2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728



8/120


integral part of instant complaint.2 24) While I suspected that my case was part of a fraud routine by the judges of the LA3 Superior Court, I had a hard time producing the evidence of the pattern - since the court4 denies access to public records. I identified the case ofGaldjie v Darwish a while ago as a5 high probability candidate, but the court would not al low me access to the file.6 25) In February 2009 I managed to meet Defendant Darwish, and she provided the7 necessary documentat ion. In fact, the case ofDarwish is much more astonishing than mine.8 What is amazing is that after being dragged in the courts from 1998 to 2006, including two9 full appeals from invalid judgments at the California Court ofAppeal, 2nd District, and10 having lost a 6-unit rental property in Santa Monica, she never suspected wrongdoing by the11 judges themselves at the time I met her.12 26) Part ly because she appeared not to believe my interpretation of her own court history,13 I asked her to repeat what I did - to sent requests to the Clerk/Executive Officer of the LA14 Superior Court, with adequate payments, and ask for certificates:15 a. That her case was a valid case of the Superior Court ofCalifornia,16 b. That Judge John Segal, who issued the judgment in her case, was duly assigned judge17 of the Superior Court ofCalifornia in that case, and18 c. That his judgment was a valid effectual judgment of the Superior Court ofCalifornia.19 Just as in my case, there has not been any response at all from the Clerk/Executive Officer.20 F. The conduct of Countrywide and Bank ofAmerica Corporation in my case -21 Samaan v Zernik in the LA Superior Court , and refusal of FBI and USDOJ, as22 well as SEC, to protect me from such abuse, reflection of the Sub-Prime Heist23 and the Bailout, are also an integral part of the matter underlying this complaint24 27) This complaint also addresses a range of the highest priority public policy issues25 related to the sub-prime heist and the bailout. The connection between the two subjects,26 which initially appears tenuous at best, is that Los Angeles County, allowed by Defendants27 who are U.S. officers and agencies to deteriorate into lawlessness, was also the birthplace28 and cradle of the heist. Per FBI reports prior to 2007, Los Angeles County was "the



9/120


epicenter of an epidemic of real estate and mortgage frauds".2 28) This complaint also includes allegations related to the conduct ofCountrywide and3 Bank ofAmerica related to the sub-prime heist and bailout. Such allegations involve4 conduct that involved not only financial recklessness, but also corruption of the courts and5 the practice of the law.6 29) On the subject of litigation practices of Countrywide, today wholly owned

allow Countrywide, now wholly owned by them, to continue with such practices in my abuseat the LA Superior Court, even today, using almost exactly the same wrongful conduct thatwas rebuked in Houston Texas and in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Courts in 2008.

Pennsylvania court that Countrywide entered as evidence "recreated letters". In fact it wasthe publication of that story about Countrywide's legal practices, not its financialperformance that led to the final crash of Countrywide share price and rumors of bankruptcy,accompanied by tremors in financial markets, that led within 24-48 hours to the initialannouncement of the merger-acquisition by Defendant BAC.

subsidiary ofDefendant BAC, and their use of outside counsel, such s Defendant BryanCave, LLP, legal authorities wrote in 2008:

Countrywide and their outside counsel "have shown a disregard for theprofessional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and Judicialsystem".Judge Jeff Bohm, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Houston, Texas, March2008 Memorandum Opinion

wantonly allowed Countrywide and others to engage in such abuse. I discovered the fraudagainst me by Countrywide and others in December 2006, exactly a year before the mainpart of it was consummated. But no matter how convincing my evidence was, this complaintalleges that Defendants who are U.S. officers and agencies refused to protect my rights, andallowed me to be forced out of my own home under the threat of force, to have my propertytaken for private use with no compensation at all, to have two fraudulent judgments of

In January 2008 Countrywide counsel also finally admitted in a Pittsburgh,

Instant complaint alleges that Defendants BAC, its officers, and its Audit Committee

The complaint also alleges that Defendants who are U.S. officers and agencies

30)

31)

32)

789

10I I1213141516171819202122232425262728



10/120


contempt issued against me, to have sanctions exceeding $30,000 fraudulently set upon me2 by Countrywide, by BAC, and by Bryan Cave, LLP (BBLLP). To make it absolutely clear3 in the face of fraudulent statement by a U.S. officer - I have never been involved in any4 bankruptcy, foreclosure or mortgage default. It was fraud under the guise of real estate5 litigation.6 33) That part of the claim, unbelievable as it was, that my case - Samaan v Zemik7 (SC087400) was part ofwhat I called, for lack of better term "the Enterprise Track", recently8 received solid support:9 34) First - in news report regarding the recent litigation involving Sharon Stone, where

10 the case was entirely missing from court records.11 35) Second - in the case ofGaldjie v Darwish, as described below.12 G. Allegations of cover up and false statement to the public-at-Iarge and to elected13 officials by FBI and USDOJ, relative to my case, and also relative to14 investigation of the sub-prime heist are integral par t of this complaint15 36) This complaint alleges the cover-up of such conduct by U.S. Officers and agencies is16 part ofa much larger scale fraud on the U.S. tax payer and on U.S. elected officials by such17 U.S. officers and agencies. For a year, they have been falsely claiming in various media that18 they have been vigorously investigating wrongdoing by Countrywide and others. In fact19 they have been running a cover-up operation.20 37) The role ofU.S. Officers, by LA Superior Court judges, and by Bank ofAmerica,21 including its Audit Committee is highly disturbing. The Audit Committee of BAC lists22 among its members General Tommy Franks and Admiral Joseph Frueher.23 38) However, the conduct ofBCLLP, the law-firm who executed much of the24 wrongdoing on behalf of first Countrywide, and in the past year - BAC, is no less disturbing.25 As described below under "Parties", former partners in BCLLP are The Establishment itself.26 How could a law firm of such caliber get involved in such conduct in the LA Courts?27 39) It was not only one judge and one court. First it was a group of judges of the LA28 Superior Court that were associated with the conduct ofBCLLP, and such conduct later



11/120


12/120


12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

I will separately write a short review of my findings regarding conditions at theState Court - LA Superior Court, which are incomparably worse, and requireurgent Federal intervention.4) California Court of Appeal (particularly 2nd District):Core issues require urgent Federal intervention, and are directly related tothe ties between this Court and the LA Superior Court.

B. THOSE I HOPEWOULD PROVIDE INPUT1) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky & Prof Joseph Grundfest -Legal authorities and civic leaders, who are California residents. I greatlyappreciate their wisdom, and I hope that they would contribute to this debatein a manner that they see fit. As noted below, the Rules of Court are Just thesurface manifestation of the much deeper, continuous crisis of the LA JusticeSystem, which appears to be coming to its periodic boil at this time.2) TARP-IG Barofsky, and TARP-Oversight Panel Members - Att DamonSilvers & Prof Elizabeth Warren -Surely they recognized that LA County was key in the development of thesub-prime scandal. Even before the scandal reached that level, FBI reportsdefined LA County as "the epicenter of an epidemic of real estate andmortgage frauds that are a high national priority to fight". Likewise, LACounty is key to understanding the causes of the scandal, and for settingcorrective measures and safeguards to prevent its recurrence. The direct linkof the subject at hand to the sub prime scandal is also reflected by the factthat Countrywide was involved in court events that generated the experiencesdescribed below. The way its appearances were or were not listed in thedockets is a key issue as well. More alarming is the fact that as a directoutcome of the tax payer sponsored merger-bailout, it appears that Bank ofAmerica is acquiring court practices that are in violation of the law, and isgaining its primary training in this regard on location - at the LA SuperiorCourt!3) U.S. Congress - Judiciary CommitteesEventually the matter should come before the judiciary committees. Theproposals l isted below, your input, and the input of others, we hopedemonstrate to Congress the need for action, and also the proposed actionsto take.C. WORKING HYPOTHESIS IN RE SUB-PRIME SCANDAL & BAILOUT:Genesis of the scandalThe sub-prime scandal in its essence reflects criminal conduct.While Enron was about accounting and auditing practices and the exploitationof Deregulation, the sub-prime scandal, dwarfing Enron in its costs and longterm impact, is about the practice of law, the collapse of the LA County justicesystem over a decade ago, and the neglect of U.S. Government and U.S.agencies in the past decade to address the issue. Legal practices that were



13/120


23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

brewed in LA County provided the blueprints for "streamlining" of courts andregulators everywhere. Beyond financial recklessness, Countrywidefacilitated corruption of the courts in LA.Accordingly, in charting the course of correction:1. Procedures used in the aftermath of the Enron scandal to establishcorrective measures should be subjected to outcome evaluation, andaccordingly either emulated or rejected.2. Restoring the integrity of LA County justice system, is a prerequisite forrestoring trust -- both at home and abroad -- in the integrity of financialinstitutions, financial markets, corporate reporting, real estate markets, andtheir derivatives.D. MANIFESTATIONS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE LA JUSTICESYSTEM:1. Ongoing wrongful incarceration of the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs 10 years afterthe false convictions and false sentencing were discovered.2. The disbarment of Att Richard Fine.3. Indefinite wrongful incarceration of Attorney Richard Fine - a politicalprisoner in LA County, California. He is nearing the end of his second monthin jail, part of extreme campaign of retaliation, harassment, and intimidationagainst a former U.S. Attorney, who exposed judicial corruption.http://inproperinla.com/09-03-04-fu II-d isclosure-network-att-richard- fine-jailedin-attempt-to-disgualify-Ia-judge.pdfhttp://inproperinla.com/09-04-21-richard-fine-inmate-informatlon-center-%20booking-details.pdf4. Ruling in October 2008 that all judges of LA Superior Court took paymentsof $45,000 per year that were "not permitted" - "BRIBES" in lay person'slanguage.http://inproperinla.com/08-1 0-1 O-appe lIate-ruling-judges-of-sup-court-Iareceived-illegal-payments-s.pdf5. Inadequate response to the discovery of the "bribes" - through actions thatare in violation of the law, and failure to even suggest the reversal of any ofthe biased judgments.6, Failure of the U S Overseer of Civil Rights to accomplish his mission, andapparent refusal of the LAPD to comply with provisions of the ConsentDecree in U.S Government v City of LA, LAPD, et al. (2:2000cv11769).7. Denial of First Amendment and Common Law rights to access courtrecords to inspect and to copy for the past 25 years.8. Opinion letter of veteran FBI agent James Wedick, decorated by U.S.Congress, FBI Director, and U.S. Attorney General - Real estate "frauds are



14/120


23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

being committed" by the LA Superior Court in collusion with Countrywide,now BAC, on the one hand, and large law firms - Bryan Cave, LLP andSheppard Mullin, and the former President of the LA Bar Association - DavidPasternak.http://inpropennla.com/07-12-17-grant-deeds-wedick-s-opimon-s.pdfhttp://inpropennla.com/07-12-17wedick.memo.notarized.deeds.zernik.2009.02.05-s.pdf9 Alleged operation of an Enterprise Track by the LA Superior Court - notedagain in recent days through the case of Sharon Stone.http.//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-Ia-sup-ct-index-of-all-cases-stone-sharonapril-24-2009-case-sealed.pdfE. OPERATION OF PACER AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTS, LOSANGELES

1. GeneralBelow are examples of abuse of Pacer by U S. District Court, Los Angeles,Court of Magistrate Carla Woehrle. The case Zernik v Connor et al2:2008cv01550 can serve as a text book of such manipulations. The docketshows Magistrate Carla Woehrle and her clerk indefatigably employing firstbeginner's, then advanced techniques for compromising docketing in Pacer.My typical response was to document the conduct by filing notice of it. In oneinstance - I also filed a complaint with the FBI, and notice of the complaint toFBI into the Pacer docket.2. Why was it necessary?Zernik v Connor et al 2:2008cv01550, complaint for abuse of civil rightsunder the color of law, was fi led on March 5, 2008. Litigation wasabandoned by me (Plaintiff - Joseph Zernik) as an abusive, sham,proceedings at the U.S. District Court, Los Angeles around August 2008, andcomplaint was finally dismissed by Judge Virginia Phillips only a few daysago.In reading the sequence of dishonest manipulations of the Pacer docket atthe U.S. District Court, LA, the question must come up:Why was it necessary?Pro se Plaintiff is an orthodontist.Pitted against him were some 10 judges of the LA Superior Court,Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo, Sandor Samuels, Bryan Cave, LLP - a giantlaw firm, Buchalter Nemer, David Pasternak - former President of the LACounty Bar Association, etc.The reason is that Plaintiff caught the judges of the LA Superior Court in realestate fraud - racketeering from the bench. There was no question that theU.S. District Court would protect the judges, who were in a precariousposition:



15/120


23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

The case was of the Enterprise Track, so none of them had an assignmentorder, and none of them had any judicial authority, and none of them had anyimmunity! In short - they were caught engaged in alleged criminal conductwith no immunity at all.For such reasons, it was insufficient that the U.S. District Court would dismissthe complaint, it was essential that Plaintiff would not be able to file anyevidence. It was extremely undesirable for such records to be permanently onPacer. Surely the Judges of the LA Superior Court wished that the U.S.District Court could offer them the Sharon Stone option....3. Is this the only case of this kind?If the question is regarding real estate frauds by the LA Superior Courtjudiciary, the question is surely notl We have identifIed at least one case thatIS a perfect match - Galdjie v Darwish ( SC052737). The LA Superior Courtrefused to allow me to inspect the records, but I finally located the Defendant,and had a chance to review her records. John Segal and David Pasternakare in key positions in that case as well.I separately conducted a search in the office of registrar/recorder, andretrieved from there copies of numerous grant deeds by David Pasternak withfeatures similar to the one that James Wedick opined was a fraud.If the question is regarding the conduct of Magistrate Woehrle seen in thiscase, the answer is that it is not unique either Attorney Richard Fine is nowindefinitely incarcerated, after he was instrumental in exposing the bribestaken by ALL judges of the LA Superior Court. Conditions in LA County aresuch, that media do not report on his case. He was allowed no visitors for awhile, and not even pencil and paper. He therefore had to dictate by phone aPetition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus The Petition was referred to MagistrateWoehrle as well. Those more experienced than me say that the delay inadjudicating the petition is unusual.http//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dlst-ct-Ia-fine-v-Ia-county-sheriff-doc-1habeas-corpus-petition.pdfhttp://inproper!nla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-fine-v-Ia-county-sheriff-doc-1p2-habeas-corpus-petition.pdfhttp://inproperinla com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-flne-v-Ia-cou nty-sheriff-doc-1p3-habeas-corpus-petition.pdfhttp://lnproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-fi ne-v-Ia-cou nty-sheriff-doc-1p4-habeas-corpus-petition.pdfPrior to that, retaliation of the LA Superior Court judges involved disbarmentof Attorney Richard Fine, a former U.S. Attorney, about 70 years old, oncharges of "Moral Turpitude", where moral turpitude was filing complaintsagainst LA Superior Court judges.Att Fine challenged the disbarment in U.S. District Court, and the case wasreferred to - Magistrate Woehrle.What is most noticeable in all cases is the abuse of "Clerical Errors" The"Filed" stamp on Attorney Richard Fine's Habeas Corpus is clearly

-14-ZERNIK VMELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT


16/120


23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

adulterated by hand. In addition, it appears that "Clerical Errors" have beenused to conceal the recusals of judges in the case of Attorney Fine2.09-cv-019142:08-cv-029064. The general sequence of abuses in docketing was as follows:1. At the beginning of litigation I filed a request for electronic filing, andspecifically expressed my concern that demanding costly and timeconsuming paper filing from pro se only, and subjecting him to arbitraryconduct of the clerks, was unreasonable. Request was denied The U.S.Distnct Court in Los Angeles, would not allow pro se litigant to filedelectronically, while the U S. District Court in DC would allow such filing,provided that the pro se litigant took the necessary class and passed it. Ihold that the rule of the Los Angeles court is in violation of constitutionalrights Furthermore, I am of the opinion that it was used as a tool to abuse apro se litigant (see below).2. Manipulations of the docket started in Pacer started on day 1. The clerkrefused to sign valid summons that I presented to him, and insisted oncreating his own (which later I found was defective) - all in violation of rules ofcourt.http://inproperinla com/08-03-05-us-dist-ct-Ia-doc-no1-summons-as-issuedby-clerk.pdfWhen I tried to correct the defect - again the clerk refused to sign the validsummons.3. The clerk then docketed the defective summons under the complaint, sothat it would hardly be noticed. In other U S. courts it is my impression thatthe summons are docketed in the second slot. Regardless - the docketing ofSummons in Pacer should be consistent, and set by rule, given the centralsignificance of that paper in the litigation, and not be subject to manipulation.4. Later, Minute Orders of Magistrate Woehrle were Inexplicably delayedbetween filing and entry. Such delays were most harmful to me, sinceWoehrle also interpreted the rules that the court was barred from emailingnotices to me, as it did to all other parties Therefore, delayed entry + mailing,created a significant handicap. I believe that anytime that Minute Order is notentered upon filing in Pacer, the judge should be required to justify the delay.5 Conversely - all other parties filed their papers electronically, but I wasrequired to appear in person in the clerks office, where they would keep metypically for 30-60 minutes. And after that - you may notice that some of mypapers, but none of any other party, were delayed in entry at times over amonth.6. Later - my papers were artificially delayed in entry, presumably by addingsome attachment, for no reason at all. I filed my protest on that in a caseinvolving a critical ex parte application for leave to file first amendedcomplaint. The effect could have easily been killing the litigation by claiming



17/120


23456789

10111213141516

171819202122232425262728

that the Magistrate was not aware of the ex parte, and blaming plaintiff for alast minute filing (but in this case it was a stillborn litigation anyway). Simplereview of the sequence of the ordinal numbers of the records in this caseshows that some dishonest manipulation was underway.The U.S. District Court and Pacer should be given credit fo r this!This writer considers the ordinal numbering of records the quintessentialfeature of a "Register of Actions" - as is clearly implied in the name. Pacer isunique in its honesty on this account.a, Ventura County- documents can be entered and removed.b. LA Superior Court - no numbering at all - free for allc. Cal Court of Appeal - the online "Docket" has no numbering, but it is notthe real docket either, the court uses the double books system.7. Later - my papers including evidence that was undesirable, were hiddenunder unrelated tags of other papers ( See Doc #52,#56, & #58).8. When I protested this latest dishonesty - Magistrate Woehrle issued theJune 6, 2008 Minute Order (Doc #63), where she reinvented docketing - anydocuments that I would fi le on the same day, would have the same facepage, regardless of their content. Preventing such abusive ad-hoc creativerules, is the reason that the case management system must be formalized asRules of Court.http.//inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-63-08-0606-minute-order-docketing-etc.pdf9. To mark the 4th of July, 2008, I sent a request to about 30 members ofU.S. Congress, to "Open the Book of Judgments of LA County... Bring LAback into the fold of the U.S. Constitution ..." I consider the denial of publicaccess to the court's public records for the past quarter century, which startedconcomitantly with the installation of the case management systems at the LASuperior Court (but failing to treat them as Rules of Court) as the key to theregression of the LA justice system to some patterns of conduct of earliercenturies. I believe that the most cost effective approach to the problem isthrough restoration of First Amendment and Common Law rights affirmed bythe U S. Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications. Inc.I have made numerous requests to that effect to the US Department ofJustice under the previous administration, but was routinely denied.Nevertheless, I believe that such decision must be reversed, since such U.Sofficers had and have no administrative discretion in this matter.The paper was about 150 page compilation reflecting conditions of the publicrecords in LA County. Coming from LA, the face page was decorated withimages of Jefferson, palm trees, and the ocean waves. I tried to file it as arecord in Zernlk v Connor et ai, since it addressed some related core issues.Magistrate Woehrle ruled to deny its filing, and ordered me to notice herruling.



18/120


19/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

16. Eventually, I filed statement of disqualification for a cause of MagistrateWoehrle (Doc #89), where the abuse of First Amendment rights was theprimary causehttp://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-89-exdisgualification-for-a-cause-magistrate-woehrle.pdf17, Please notice on the face page, that the Statement of Disqualification fora Cause was also initially targeted for "Discrepancy", but was later recovered.18. Although I abandoned this process in summer 2008, while my oppositionto motion to dismiss was due, no ruling was made in this case for some 8months When I realized that the dismissal is imminent, I filed Doc #105"Notice of Allegedly Perverted Discrepancy Notices", so that there would bein the docket some record of the numerous papers that disappeared with norecord at all.http://inproperinla com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernIk-v-connor-doc-1 05-09-0409-notlce-of-perverted-discrepancy-notices-missing-proposed-order.pdf19) Regarding the docketing of the latter (Doc #105), it did not escape its ownmanipulation - please notice the difference between the paper as docketed,where the Proposed Order, which I deliberately included as an attachment,was removed:http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-us-dist-ct-Ia-zernik-v-connor-doc-1 05-09-0409-notice-of-perverted-discrepancy-notices-mlssing-proposed-order pdfFor comparison, I posted online the paper as filed in court, with the ProposedOrder included:http://inproperinla com/.OHeadlng-1 03-us-dlst-ct-la-perverted-use-ofdiscrapancy-notices-with-proposed-order pdf

One can argue that proposed orders should not be included with thedocument, but the rule must be consistent. The other parties who were filingelectronically included proposed orders in their papers as attachment. I wasnot permitted to do so.The issue was of significance to me in this particular paper, since I was tryingto press Magistrate Woehrle to rule on the matter - my request forincorporation of her perverted discrepancy notices. And obviously, she wasnot fond of the idea.The Proposed Order was deliberately bound into the paper, in front of thePOS. The clerk had to take the paper apart and remove these pages.F. PROPOSED TAKE HOME LESSONS:1 The rules of operating such system must be handled pursuant to the RuleMaking Enabling Act.2. Such systems should have been presented for public comment andchallenge prior to their Introduction into use, just like rules published onpaper.

-18-ZERNIK VMELSON ET AL; VERIFIED COMPLAINT


20/120


21/120


extensive abuses ofmy rights at the Los Angeles County courts that are fully2 documented.3 b. Review of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Attorney Richard Fine -4 whom I consider a political prisoner in Los Angeles County, at the U.S. District5 Court in Los Angeles is long overdue. The case was referred to Magistrate Woehrle.6 The Pacer records already show various signs of abuse and dishonest manipulations.7 The delays in hearing both the Petition and an Ex Parte application subsequently8 filed by Att Richard Fine, and his treatment at the jail are unreasonable!9 It is my opinion that review of the Petition for a Writ ofHabeas Corpus ofAttorney

10 Richard Fine must be removed from the court ofMagistrate Woehrle, based on the11 evidence I provided above for her dishonest conduct in my case. The common feature12 of the two cases is that the subject matter involved evidence ofmisconduct by LA13 Superior Court judges. Human rights monitors should also carefully observe any14 abuse ofAttorney Richard Fine at the U.S. District Court and/or at the County Jail in15 Los Angeles.16 I. Hurdles faced in filing this complaint17 44) With such outrageous claims, I believe that the authenticity ofmy unusual claims is18 in the details, and therefore this complaint is more detailed than normally expected.19 45) I also recognize that I am clearly unqualified to file such complaint. I am in pro se20 not by choice.21 46) However, in the past year I realized and accepted that it could be part ofmy fate to22 have fallen into this trap - an alleged fraud by judges of the LA Superior Court and others,23 to uncover the underlying alleged criminal conduct, and provide assistance to many others24 who have been abused, falsely imprisoned for years, or deceived in real-estate and litigations25 in the LA Superior Court.26 47) Most of them may not even know who their abusers are .. .27 48) In part I hope that this complaint will call awareness to the subject matter, so that28 those who are better qualified can take it over.



22/120


23456789

10I I

IIIII I

III.CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATED TO MYABUSE AND TAKING OF MYPROPERTY WITH NO COMPENSATION AT ALL, ISSUANCE OF ALLEGEDFRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS FOR CONTEMPT AND SERIOUS SANCTIONS AT

THE REQUEST OF COUNTRYWIDEIBANK OF AMERICAII I1. Plan A initiated (Sept-Oct 2004)Nivie Samaanfalsely enters real estate purchase contract on my home &.files.fi7Ise mortgageapplications with Cozmtry}l'ide

a) Assent to Contract12 49) In August 2004 r had my residence listed for sale for ~ $ 1 . 8 millions.13 50) I had no business whatsoever with Countrywide, and I did not even recognize the name.14 51) Nivie Samaan, a resident ofLos Angeles County was at that time employed as a1516171819202122232425262728

cosmetics saleswoman in a department store.52) I am informed and believe that unbeknown to me at that time, her fiance, lae ArreLloyd (formerly Timothy Lloyd Morrow), was a convicted felon, and had been involved inthe disappearance of the medical benefits funds of Skyline Funding, a real estate andfinancial firm based in the San Fernando Valley.

53) Her fiance was also acting at that t ime as a "Loan Originator" for Countrywide.54) Unbeknown to me, her fiance also operated at that time an unlicensed, unregisteredbranch of Pacific Mortgage Consultants (PMC), a loan brokerage firm, in the Los Angelesarea.

55) On September 4, 2004 Nivie Samaan presented me, through my realtor, with an offer topurchase my home. In such offer, she falsely represented herself to me as a realtor who"c1ose[s] a few properties a year".56) In fact, she had no experience whatsoever in real estate transactions, as she lateradmitted in deposition.

57)Given the fact that she was a realtor representing herself, I refused to entertain her offer,absent a third party, arm's length pre-qualification.



23/120


23456789

10111213141516

171819202122232425262728

58) On September 7,2004, through my realtor, she presented me with a PrequalificationLetter. It was represented as written, verified, and faxed by Victor Parks, loan broker forPacific Mortgage Consultants (PMC).59) Fraud expert opinion is that the signature on the letter was not that ofVictor Parks, loanbroker, as it was falsely represented.60) It is my opinion that the preponderance of the evidence shows that such letter was neverfaxed by Victor Parks either.61) Instead, it is my opinion, that such letter was the first example of the wire/fax schemesin these transactions, where Samaan routinely impersonated her loan broker, Victor Parks,in fax communications with me and with others.62) It is my opinion that the facts above, as well as the underwriting history of Samaan'sloans make it abundantly clear that Nivie Samaan, a cosmetic saleswoman, was far fromqualified for the purchase ofmy home at ~ $ 1 . 8 m .63) On September 15,2004, I assented to a real estate Purchase Contract under deceptiverepresentations, by endorsing and dating Samaan's 2nd Counter Offer.64) On September 16, 2004, Samaan initialed and dated the same, acknowledgingacceptance of a fully executed the Purchase Contract.b) Samaan's Loan Applications (1003)

65) In such Purchase Contract, Samaan was required to act "honestly and diligently toobtain designated loans".66) In early October 2004, unbeknown to me in 2004, Samaan filed Uniform ResidentialLoan Applications (1003s) for U.S. government-backed loans, with CHL, San RafaelWholesale Branch.67) Such applications were for loans that were entirely different from those designated inthe contract.68) In such loan applications, Samaan also represented herself as President and Sole Ownerof a corporation named "Spellbound Enterprise"69) I later found out through a web search that such corporation was founded in 2004, thevery same year, and was retailing through the web crystal balls, Tarot cards, anointmentoils, divining objects, and other consumer goods for followers of the psychic and the occult.It was advertised as the "Supernatural Superstore".



24/120


23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

70) In such loan applications Samaan stated her income as derived solely from her posit ionas President and Sole Owner of Spellbound, and earning $400,000 a year.

71) In deposition, Samaan admitted that her income at that t ime was from her employmentas a cosmetics saleswoman in a department store. In deposit ion she never claimed anyincome at all from Spellbound Enterprise.

72) In other Countrywide papers Samaan was listed as earning $4,000,000 per year.73) In such loan applications Samaan listed herself as a Single Woman.74) However, by the time that she filed the loan applications, she had stated in writtencommunications with me that she had married her fiance, Jae Arre Lloyd.

75) Fraud expert opinion is that the loan broker's signatures on the 1003s, which wererepresented as those ofVictor Parks, were not Victor Parks signatures.

76) In deposition in 2006, Samaan herself admitted that loan broker Parks, whose name andsignatures appear on the loan applications had nothing to do with it, and that she and herhusband alone completed the loan applications.

III

2. Plan A fails (Oct 2004)False data noted by Countrywide's San Rqfael 5,"enior Undenvriter Diane Frazier.

a) -Oct 4,2004 - 1003s arrive at San Rafael.77) On or around October 4, 2004 the Loan Applications arrived in Countrywide.78) At that time they were stamped "Received" with the respective date.79) The exact date of these stamps on the 1003s cannot be read today, since the stampswere defaced.b) Oct 6,2004 - false employment data noted

80) On or around October 6,2004, Diane Frazier, Countrywide's San Rafael SeniorUnderwriter, duly assigned to the underwriting of Samaan's 1003 s, detected the falseemployment data.

81) Frazier detected the false data using web-based Yellow Pages reverse look-up, exactlyas noted in Countrywide's "Employment Re-verification" instructions.

82) She inserted a printout of the screen of the reverse look up, dated October 6,2004, intothe loan file.



25/120


23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

83) Frazier also detected that Samaan listed "$0.00" as loan fees, where in fact her loan feesper "Program Rules" were supposed to be 0.75% - or over $10,000.84) Allowing waiver of such fees would have been contrary to the interests ofCountrywide's share-holders.85) Allowing Samaan waiver of such loan fees would also raise concerns regardingcompliance with Fair Housing and Fair Credit laws.

86) Allowing Samaan waiver of such loan fees would also raise concerns regardingcompliance with "sound banking principles" per Regulation B of the FRB.87) Frazier also noted other violations of "Program Rules": Samaan listed her loanapplications as "Reduced Documentation", but the loan amount that she requested undersuch terms, by far exceeded that which was allowed per program rules.

88) Furthermore, Samaan never filed a copy of the Purchase Contract with her loanapplications. Instead, Samaan filed an unverified letter titled "Supplemental EscrowInstructions" .

89) For all of these reasons, Frazier refused to issue any underwriting recommendation onthese 1003s.

90) Frazier instead demanded new loan applications with correct loan fees listed, areasonable explanation for employment data, and a true copy of the purchase contract - notan escrow letter.

91) Unbeknown to Frazier at that time, the contract terms in the unverified letter ti tled"Supplemental Escrow Instructions" were different from the true terms listed in thePurchase Contract.

92) Unbeknown to Frazier at that time, had Samaan filed a true copy of the PurchaseContract, her loan applications would have been summarily denied, since Samaan listed inthe Purchase Contract her commission as part of the down payment for the property, whichis explicitly prohibited.c) Samaan fails to comply

93) There is no evidence that Samaan ever complied with such underwriting conditions setforth by Diane Frazier.d) Oct 12,2004 - 1003s re-scanned and re-stamped

94) On or about October 12,2004 the old loan applications were scanned a second time.95) The old "Date Received" stamps from early October were defaced.



26/120


27/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

114) In mid December 2006 I saw for the first t ime any records ofSamaan's loanapplications and underwriting, in subpoena production that I inspected in my counsel'soffice.115) As is apparent from the records produced by Countrywide in subpoena, the loanapplications were never terminated on October 25, 2004, as stipulated by the duly assignedSenior Branch Underwriter, Diane Frazier.116) Instead, "Edge" the underwriting monitoring system falsely allowed Maria McLaurinto assume underwriting privileges for such loan applications.117) Such computer system must not permit such unauthorized underwrit ing actions.118) In October 25-29, 2004, McLaurin even communicated with Demetrio Gadi, CFCCorporate Underwriting Supervisor, regarding her unauthorized underwriting actions.119) Mr Gadi on the one hand stated his disagreement with such unauthorized underwritingactions by a BranchManager in lieu of a duly assigned Underwriter.120) Mr Gadi also instructed McLaurin to stop such unauthorized underwriting actions.121) On the other hand, on or about October 29,2004, Mr Gadi failed to outright rejectMcLaurin's unauthorized underwriting actions, and in fact, did not prevent them fromcontinuing, when he must have been cognizant that the 1003s were to be terminated onOctober 25, 2004.122) On or about October 29,2004 and November 3,2004, McLaurin also issuedUnderwriting Letters from "Edge", with no authority at all.123) McLaurin verified such unauthorized Underwriting Letters with her hand signatures,but with no signature by a duly assigned authorized Branch Underwriter.124) Such act ions were in contradiction ofMr Gadi's instructions.125) The loan files fail to include any valid Underwriting Decision within the time framesdefined in regulations.126) Up till January 2005, Maria McLaurin proceeded with unauthorized underwritingactions relative to Samaan's 1003.127) In January 2005 such unauthorized loan applications (2005) were even presented forfunding by Countrywide Bank, FSB.128) In January 2005, Countrywide Bank FSB summarily issued a "Denial Letter" onSamaan's unauthorized loan applications.



28/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

129) Such underwri ting conduct in the San Rafael Branch ofCHL must be raise concernregarding compliance with both banking regulations and also federal and California stateFair Housing and Fair Credit Acts.130) The facts regarding Samaan's 1003s were fully known by both CHL management andthe CFC Legal Division since mid 2006, and by Sandor Samuels and by Angelo Mozilosince at least early 2007.131) There is no evidence of corrective action ever being taken, or any reporting toauthorities.132) Instead, Sandor Samuels, Angelo Mozilo, and various others engaged in cover- upattempts.133) In parallel, CHL and CFC continued to inflict greater and greater harms on me.134) I am informed and believe that in early 2005 Diane Frazier lost her job as SeniorUnderwriter a CHL San Rafael.135) To the best ofmy knowledge, to this date, Maria McLaurin is Branch Manager atCHL, San Rafael

II I3. Samaan fails to perform (Oct 2004)rVire(fclX schemed detected, and Zernik cancels escrow.

a) Oct 18-21. 2004 - Samaan refuses to perform per Contract136) First week ofOctober 2004 - In the meanwhile, Samaan failed to remove her loan andappraisal contingencies in a timely, as required by the Purchase Contract. She would notexplain why. Instead, she repeatedly claimed that the loan applications would be approvedin a mat ter of days.137) On or about October 18, 2004, I issued to Samaan Notice to Buyer to Perform.138) On or about October 18, 2004, Samaan falsely informed me through my realtor thather loan applications were conditionally approved by the lender!139) In fact on that date the 1003s were already suspended, with termination scheduled forOctober 25, 2004.140) However , there is no indication that Samaan made any effort to file new loanapplications and meet the conditions set forth in the October 14, 2004 UnderwritingCondition/Decision Letter, issued by the duly assigned underwriter, Diane Frazier.



29/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

141) In such daily written communications between October 14, 2004 and October 18,2004, Samaan never asked me, or my realtor for any additional records to facilitate her loanapplications.142) On the contrary, she expressed her confidence that the approval was pending.b) Oct 18, 2004 - fax/wire scheme is detected by my realtor

143) Also on or about October 18,2004, while faxing the Notice to Samaan's loan broker,Victor Parks, my realtor detected the fax/wire scheme, whereby Samaan was impersonatingher loan broker in fax communications.144) On or about on October 18, 19 & 20, 2004. my realtor sent requests for clarifications,but no explanation was received.145) On or about October 20, 2004 Samaan responded in writing to the Notice to Buyer toPerform.146) In her response, she informed me of her refusal to perform per the Purchase Contractand fully remove the contingencies, but she also refused to follow the other option provided- to cancel escrow.147) Close of escrow was scheduled for November 1, 2004 but under such circumstances Icould not secure my subsequent housing, without assuming an unreasonable risk offinancial losses, since Samaan failed to remove her contingencies.148) Samaan also failed to request continuance of escrow closing date.c) Oct 21,2004 - I issue instructions to cancel escrow

149) On October 21, 2004, given her refusal to perform, given the alleged faxlwire scheme,and given that I los t my planned subsequent housing in the process, I issued instructions tocancel Escrow.

III4. Plan B (2005-6)Samaan initiates what [ later learned was a standard litigation scheme -false allegations ( ~ "verbal mod[fication afreal estate contract" and claimsf(Jr "specific performance ordama;.:es ".a) Oct 2005 - Samaan files a complaint



30/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

150) In October 2005, Samaan initiated Plan B - alleged lit igation scheme by fil ing acomplaint at the LA Superior Court.

151) It is my opinion that she would never have filed such an absurd complaint had she nothave some advance assurances that she would have full support from Countrywide andothers.152) Initially, the complaint was based on the claims of verbal modifications of a real estatecontract.153) Samaan fai led to file a real estate contract with her complaint or to clearly state theterms of the contract.154) The basic scheme does not require any claims related to the underwriting process.

b) Later I found evidence of a standard court scheme155) I found at least one other case that appears as an almost perfect match- Galdjie vDarwish (SC052737), with some of the same participants as well.156) Barbara Darwish lost a 6 unit rental building through such a scheme.157) She was also trapped in the courts for some eight (8) years start ing 1998.158) However, even when I first talked with her in 2009, she thought that her primary errorwas tha t she did not spend enough money on attorneys!159) It is my opinion that such a scheme is unlikely to work well in most courts, where thecomplaint is l ikely to be dismissed based on the Real Estate Codes - which prohibit verbalmodification of real estate contracts andlor the Statute of Frauds - which requires a contractor clearly stated contract terms as part of the complaint.160) It is my opinion that such is and was a well-established real estate scheme in the LosAngeles courts.161) It is my opinion, based on reading, that the origins of the basic real estate schemedescribed here are medieval .. .

II I5. Plan B Fails (July-Aug 2006)Samaans use afthe standard litigation schemefails.a) July 2006 Samaan's deposition162) In July 2006, in deposit ion, Samaan admitted much of the scheme in her offer- thatshe had no experience in real esta te in 2004, that she owned no stock funds as the cla imedin writing.



31/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

163) In July 2006, in deposition, Samaan admitted much of the scheme in her loanapplications - that her income was as a cosmetic saleswoman in a department store.164) In July 2006, in deposit ion, Samaan also admitted that loan broker Parks, was entirelyout of the loop.165) In fact she also admitted lack of funds to materialize the purchase.166) It was and it is my opinion that Samaan performed poorly in deposition, and that sheand others realized that.b) Claims of "verbal modifications" were not credible in this case

167)My realtor entirely denied engaging in such unauthorized conduct as verbalmodifications of a real estate contract.168) Such modifications were and are explicitly prohibited by the California Real EstateCode.169) Samaan communicated exclusively with my realtor prior to cancellation. Therefore, fortwo realtors to engage in such verbal modifications was entirely incredible.170) My counsel and I claimed that given that Samaan held a real estate license (albeit neverused it prior to September 2004), the claim of "verbal modifications of a real estatecontract" was entirely incredible.171) By late 2006, in my opinion, Samaan and others realized that the scheme did not workvery well in this case.c) Aug 2006 - I ini tiateMotion to Expunge Lis Pendens

172) Starting August 2006, following Samaan's deposit ion in July 2006, I got impatient anddemanded that my counsel file a Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, hoping to get the wholelitigation dismissed that way.173) At that time, Samaan replaced her counsel and engaged Att Mohammad Keshavarzifrom Sheppard Mullin, a major U.S. law firm.174) Att Keshavarzi requested continuance of the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, given hisunfamiliarity with the case.

II I6. Countrywide's 1st Subpoenas (Aug 2006)a) Aug 2006 - concerns in re: subpoena production

175) By August 2006, Countrywide responded to my subpoena by producing some 400pages of records of Samaan' s loan applications and their underwriting process.



32/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

176) The subpoena production omitted almost any record prior to October 12,2004.177) The subpoena production omitted all email correspondence related to Samaan's1003s.178) As I later found out email correspondence existed between Samaan's husband andMaria McLaurin, Branch Manager.179) In verified statements, McLaurin claimed that she had no involvement in underwritingof Sarnaan's 1003s.180) The subpoena production included false blank "Conversation Logs".

b) Fax/wire schemes in th e 1st Subpoena production181) The subpoena production also included numerous papers from Samaan that wereproducts of "anonymous" fax transmissions.182) The fax headers of these records did not include any phone/fax number or 10 of thesender.183) A naYve reader may assume that such transmission came from Victor Parks.184) However, the evidence shows that such transmissions originated with Samaan.185) Samaan would fax such papers to Jae Arre Lloyd, thereby generating header imprintswith data and time, but no TO at all.186) The evidence shows Jae Arre Lloyd transmitted papers that appeared as faxtransmissions to Maria McLaurin as PDF attachments to email notes.187) Such papers had no fax cover sheets included either.188) Therefore there was and there is no way to ascertainwhen such papers arrived atcountrywide, and when they were inserted into the loan files.189) The evidence shows that fax transmissions were used to generate false underwritinghistory after the fact.190) Such practices raise concerns regarding Countrywide's compliance with its ownManuals of "Practice and Policy" regarding the operation of fax machines.191) Such practices raise concern regarding Countrywide's compliance with UETA-relative to documentation of electronic transactions in banking.192) Such practices raise concerns regarding Countrywide's compliance with "soundbanking principles" per Regulation B of the Federal Reserve.

Such practices raise concerns regarding fax/wire schemes in communications with afinancial institution, albeit, in this case - in full collusion with the financial institution itself.



33/120


34/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

b. That Samaan' s loan applications were almost immediately suspended on October14, 2004, purportedly 2 days after arrival;

c. That Samaan's loan applications were suspended purportedly because of a missingsignature or initial ofmine on the Purchase Contract.

206) As a reminder - Samaan had never filed a Purchase Contract by October 14, 2004,and had she filed one, her applications would have been summarily denied.207) However , in a series of declarations over a period of almost a year, Maria McLaurinprovided additional false statements to support such a scheme.208) Regardless ofmy counsel's objections to the admission of such invalid evidence inthe ex parte Sur Reply, it was entered, albeit with no evidentiary rulings.209) This false evidence was repeatedly used as evidence in court, most recently aroundOctober-November 2008! This alleged scheme continues to this date!210) Based on such evidence my Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens was denied on October9,2006.

IIIIII

8. Dealing with Countrywide's Legal Department (Nov-Dec 2006)Countr)Mide is repeatedly asked to stop the schemes, but instead initiates a campaign ( ~ alleged illlimidation, harassment. and retaliation against me.

a) Dec 2006 - Review of Countrywide records in my counsel's office211) InNovember 2006 for the first t ime I got suspicious that something was inherentlywrong in this litigation. From October 2005 and until that t ime I was barely involved in thelitigation. I attended part of Samaan's deposition, but that was about it.212) In Mid-December 2006 I decided to review the discovery records in my counsel'soffice. That was the first time that I saw the name Countrywide. I had no business withCountrywide whatsoever until that time.213) Within less than 30 minutes I realized some of the basic frauds involved in the case.

b) Dec 2006 - Jan 2007 - attempting to sort the problem with the LegalDepartment.



35/120


36/120


23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

He also explained that Frazier was prohibited by Countrywide from discussing anythingrelated to this matter. As a reminder, Frazier was by then two years out of herCountrywide job.

III10. Meet & Confer (March 2007)Atf Shat::: & Boock claim that are no Pipeline Reports. no Internal Audit reports, no KyternalAudit reports, 110 Security Alerts, no I I J l { [ ~ i n g Reports r e ~ a r d i n g Samaan 's 1003s with thedouble "Dale Received" stamps.227) In March 2007, soon after my conversation with Diane Frazier, Meet & Confer wasconducted with Attorney Todd Boock and Attorney Sanford Shatz from Countrywide'sLegal Department.

228) The contrast was eerie. They stated the exact opposite ofwhat Diane Frazier stated asthe true history of the loan applications.

229) They also denied that any Pipeline Reports, Internal Audit Reports, External AuditReports, Security Alert Reports, Imaging Reports related to Samaan's 1003s with thedouble "Received" stamps existed.

230) At the same time, they had no explanation at all for the double "Received" stamps, andwhy the first one was defaced.

231) It is my opinion that they knowingly and deliberately deceived me in that conference, inpart, since they did not realize the degree to which I was familiar by then with the details ofCountrywide's underwriting procedures and the underwriting of Samaan' s 1003.Alternatively - they knew that they could get away with it.

II I11. Initial approach to Mozilo & Samuels (June 2007)Direct requests j(W Samuels (then President ( ~ l " t h e !louse ( ~ l J u s t i c e " - Bet Tiedek) andA1ozilo to help in preventingfi-aud b.v Countrywide - in response they initiate the campaignb.v Bryan Cave. LLP

a) May-June 2007 -letters and emails to Mozilo & Samuels232) By May-June 2007, since I realized that the Legal Department of Countrywide wasdirectly involved in the schemes. I decided to seek direct help from the top officers Mozilo and Samuels.



37/120


38/120


2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

244) In October-November 2008 I started to suspect that there is also a dishonest schemerelat ive to the engagement of Bryan Cave, LLP by BAC.

245) In November December 2008, and again in January February 2009, I therefore calledthe office ofBAC General Counsel . I reached senior staff of that department including butnot limited to Phil Wertz, Carolyn Johnson, and others.

246) In all these phone conversations, without exception, I was instructed that Bryan Cave,LLP was not authorized to appear on behalf of BAC.

247) I was instructed that Todd Boock was the only counsel authorized to represent BAC inmy case.b. The evidence is clear: To this date, BAC, CFC, Bryan Cave, LLP and Todd Boock

are engaged in some variation of the scheme rebuked by this Honorable Court inMarch 2008.

248) Todd Book claims that I am prohibited from communications with him per someundisclosed court order, and that I must communicate only with Bryan Cave, LLP.

249) Bryan Cave, LLP, in turn, went to court and claimed that I harass BAC, and issuedjudgment of Contempt against me, claiming I was prohibited from any communicationswith BAC or any of its employees, and violated such order when I figured out that theywere never authorized to appear for BAC in court!c. I also filed complaints with the Audit Committee

250) More recently, in early 2009, I also purchase a single share ofBAC, to establish myshare-holder status.251) The price I paid was about $5.00, far below the price of around $50.00 about a yearago. The loss to share holders have sustained in the past year is in the hundreds of billionsof dollars.

252) In recent months I filed a complaints with the Audit Committee ofBAC and asked theirresponse on the same and related questions regarding the schemes againstme byCountrywide.

253) I cannot get the Audit Committee to even acknowledge receipt of a complaint perSarbanes Oxley Act of2002.III13. Epilogue254) Through such conduct Countrywide caused my financial devastation.



39/120


12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

255) I was forced to abandon my home under the threat of force.256) My home was taken for private use with no compensation at all.257) My losses exceed $2 millions.258) Grant Deeds were issued and filed, which per fraud expert are fraudulent conveyance of

title.259) I am still under harassment and intimidation today.260) In recent months I repeatedly requested response from Bank ofAmericaCorporation/Countrywide regarding 6 Key Records , which I allege are the core of thefrauds by CFC and now BAC, listed in Exhibi t. CFC, BAC, their officer, counsel, andmore recently the Audit Committee of BAC refuse to answer at all.

II ILIST OF SIX KEY RECORDS THAT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF BANK OF

AMERICA CORPORATION WAS REPEATEDLY REQUESTED TOAUTHENTICATE OR REPUDIATE, BUT REFUSES TO RESPOND T LL

261) Below is the list as copied verbatim from letters and complaints sent to the AuditCommittee ofBAC:

"Listed below are key records of the alleged fraud by CFC/BOA againstJOSEPH ZERNIK in litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LASuperior Court:1) Underwrit ing Lettermisrepresented as a fax transmissionof mid-October 2004, from Countrywide, San Rafael toVICTOR PARKS, State of Washington. [1]

INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. MOST RECENTLY FOR AMOTION NOTICED FOR NOVEMBER 2008. ALLEGED KEYFRAUD RECORD.2) Real Property Purchase Contract misrepresented as a fax

transmission of October 25, 2004, 5:03pm from VICTORPARKS, State ofWashington, to Countrywide, San Rafael.[2 ]

INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. MOST RECENTLY FOR AMOTION NOTICED FOR NOVEMBER 2008. ALLEGED KEYFRAUD RECORD.

3) Set of a Jetter and declarations by CFC/ MARIAMCLAURIN, Branch Manager, San Rafael, California. [3]INTRODUCED REPEATEDLY IN COURT. KEY FRAUD RECORD.

4) Subpoena Production of Countrywide in Samaan v Zernik.[4 ] About 400 pages, produced by the LegalDepartment a total of 5 times from August 2006 to



40/120


[1] http://lnpropennla .com/04-10-26-countrywlde-fraudulent-underwntlng-letters.pdfhttp://lnpropenn la .com/04-10-26-doc-44-countrywlde-fraud-underwritlngletter.pdfhttp://lnproperinla .com/04-10-26-opinlon-letter-countrywlde-underwriting-letteroct-26-s.pdf

April 2007. Deemed fraud in its entirety - since itincluded loan files that were recreated after thefact, and records that are the product of wire/faxfraud and bear false and deliberately misleading faxheader imprints, when in fact there is nothing inthis production that allows to determine where andwhen such records appeared from. It was part of aconcerted effort by SAMMN,McLAURIN AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF CFC TOFABRICATE FALSE HISTORY FOR SAMMN's LOANAPPLICATIONS IN 2004,

5) Records showing CFC and even more recently CFC/BOAappearing in court fo r almost tw o years under the p artydesignation of "NON-PARTY", whi le the co urtinterchangeably designates i t "DEFENDANT","PLAINTIFF", "INTERVENOR", "ROSS-DEFENDANT", "REALPARTY IN INTEREST", etc. [5 ]Such appearances are deemed false and deliberatelymisleading and have no basis in the law of the U.s.or California, Therefore they place the entirelitigation in a real that is outside the law.6) July 23, 2007 Protective/Gag Order by Judge JACQUELINECONNOR [6].

Such purported order led to two judgment of quasicriminal nature being entered by Judge TerryFriedman against me, both at the request of CFC,The second one - in February 2009, at the requestsof CFC/BOA. I have no valid court record of thatnature, and the court and CFC/ BOA so far havefailed to produce this record either."The numbers in square brackets in the text of the letters and thecomplaints to the Audit Committee referred to records, which were postedonline at the URLs listed below. Such lists were provided in the letters andcomplaints to the BAC Audit Committee as well.

2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

[2][3]

[4]

http://lnpropennla.com/04-10-2S-doc-4S-countrywlde-fraud-contract-record.pdfhttp://lnpropennla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-1-CQuntrywlde-mciaunn-falsedeclarations. pdfhttp://lnpropennla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-2-countrywlde-mclaunn-falsedeclarations. pdfhttp://lnpropennla.com/07-02-08-countrywlde-fraudulent-subpoena-productlonc-s.pdf



41/120


42/120


Respectfully submitted, May 1,2009, Washington, DC.

Joseph Zernikpro se Plaintiff

IIIIII

Zernik v Connor et at 2:2008cv01550)66)

(3) A Judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes awareof reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a .lawyer.

A copy of the California State Bar Association - Rules o fProfessional Conductwill be accordingly filed with the Honorable Court.

b. To act pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) "to do substantial justice" forPlaintiffs who cla im to have been inflicted substantial harms by the Los Angelesjustice system.

Online: Pacer, Central District of CaliforniaOfficial U.S. Courts Site

v.PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

265) I request that the Honorable Court incorporate by reference in this complaintthe following U.S. Court records, available online through Pacer, as well as USDa] reports,also available online. The request is t o incorporate by reference such records t whateverstate they re in the data-base referenced below. However, in places where records in theircurrent data-base were not properly scanned or were improperly tagged, s describe in pages7-16 above, the records will be filed gin with the Honorable Court, so that they re properlyscanned and tagged.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

-41-ZERNIK V MELSON ET ALj VERIFIED COMPLAINT


43/120


44/120


45/120


278) Review of the conduct ofDefendant Bryan Cave, LLP, shows that they were retained2 immediately after such requests were made, and that all along their main function was3 obstructionist - to prevent Plaintiff Zernik from obtaining remedy of the fraud against him,4 and to pervert justice by allowing the fraud in the LA Superior Court to continue to5 completion.6 f) Allegedfraudulent loan applications (l003) ofNivie Samaan, andfrauds7 in their underwriting by Countrywide (Document #40)8 279) This is another key fraud record (fraud expert opinion letter was produced) from CFC,9 which first CFC, now BAC are refusing to either authenticate or repudiate. This record is

10 also primary evidence for (a) False Claims and (b) RICO against CFC and BAC in instantII complaint.12 280) The loan application documented in this record was fraudulent on numerous accounts,13 and the fraud was detected early on by the San Rafael Senior Underwriter - Diane Frazier.14 However, Maria McLaurin, the Branch Manger was staunch in her support of the fraud, and15 eventually she assumed the underwriting of the loan application by herself. Her conduct16 regarding the underwriting of these loan application must be deemed in violation of the law17 upon review. The main objective ofCFC in its fraud against Plaintiff Zernik at the LA18 Superior Court, was to cover up such earlier fraud.19 281) The efforts to prevent testimony by Diane Frazier are also key to the claims ofRICO20 in instant complaint.21 g) PlaintiffZernik's declarations regarding court actions on December 7,22 2007 by Attorney DavidPasternak (Record #41).23 282) Allegations of fraud by Att David Pasternak - former President of the Los Angeles24 County Bar Association, were central to the complaints filed with the FBI and the USDOJ.25 A volume of about 500 pages (see below) is entirely dedicated to his conduct. This record is26 focused on his actions on December 7,2007 alone. In two successive ex parte appearances27 on the same morning, he achieved the following:28



46/120


47/120


1 against a financial institution that was used in retroactive construction ofNivie Samaan's2 loan file.3 j) Request for filing FBI report under seal (Document #49)4 285) Already in January 2007 PlaintiffZernik filed complaint with the FBI in Los Angeles,5 in which he described the fraud by CFC against the u.s. government relative to the funding6 of unworthy government backed residential loans, which later became the sub-prime scandal.7 Defendant FBI refused all along to review any such complaints. But in 2008, under8 pressure, FBI announced launching of a vigorous investigation of sub-prime lenders. In mid9 2008 FBI contacted Zernik and demanded that PlaintiffZernik submit a list of all his contactlO i n CFC that allowed him to figure out the fraud in 2007.11 286) Of note - to this date, Defendant FBI has never filed any indictment resulting from its12 investigation ofCFC. In contrast - PlaintiffZernik claims that the evidence in his records is13 sufficient for indictment on RICO.14 k) Request filed with the California Court ofAppeal 2nd District to take15 corrective Action pursuant to the California Code ofJudicial Ethics Canon16 3E(2) (Document #52).17 287) After the California Court of Appeal 2nd District denied six petitions where the frauds18 perpetrated by the LA Superior Court were described in great detail, a last request was made19 - to take action upon being reliably informed of the conduct of the judges of the LA Superior20 Court per California Code of Judicial Ethics. Denied as well.21 288) This record is concealed under an unrelated tag, part of dishonest manipulations in22 Pacer docketing.23 I) Minute Ordersfrom LA Superior Court Samaan v Zernik (Document #53)24 This volume is primary evidence relative to the alleged fraud in the operation of the25 LA Superior Court's case management system, and the fact that Samaan v Zernik,26 like Galdj ie v Darwish, was an Enterprise Track case, or fraud by the court.27 m) Analysis ofrecords from LA Superior Court'

09-05-01 zernik v melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the us district court, washington dc: (dkt #1-1)...

Documents