-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
1/264
-1-
Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill BlvdLV, CA 91750Tel: (310) 435 9107Fax: (801) 998 [email protected] Se Petitioner
UNITED STATES COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOSEPH H ZERNIKPetitioner
vsKENNETH MELSON ET AL
Respondants
CASE No1:09-cv-00805
VERIFIED NOTICE #1 OF SUPPORTING RECORDS.
PETITIONER FILES HEREBY NOTICE OF:
(1) RECREATED LETTERS FILED AS EVIDENCE BY COUNTRYWIDE INCASE OF BORROWER SHARON DIANE HILL (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, WesternDistrict of Pennsylvania, Case No 01-22574);
(2)AN OUTSIDE-COUNSEL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME BY COUNTRYWIDE IN
CASE OF BORROWER WILLIAM ALLEN PARSLEY (U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Southern District of Texas, Case No 05-90374);
(3)ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY RESPONDENT LEWIS & SENIORU.S. OFFICERS RELATIVE TO THE BAC/MERRILL LYNCH DEAL.
TOGETHER, SUCH RECORDS CORROBORATE THE BASIC ELEMENTSALLEGED BY PETITIONER RELATIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF U.S. OFFICERS,WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE SUB-PRIME CRISIS AND PERMITTED HUMANRIGHTS DISGRACES OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS IN LA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA, BUT MAY OTHERWISE APPEAR TO A NAVE READER AS ACONSPIRATORIAL THEORY.
INSTANT PAPER IS ALSO FILED UNDER ALTERNATIVE COVER PAGES INTHE CASES OF BORROWERS HILL & PARSLEY REFERENCED ABOVE.
Dated: May 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:
______________________JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik,
email=jz12345@e
arthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2009.05.17
18:30:59 -07'00'
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
2/264
-2-
Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill BlvdLV, CA 91750Tel: (310) 435 9107Fax: (801) 998 [email protected] Se Interested Party
UNITED STATES COURT
SOUTHER DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WILLIAM ALLEN PARSELYBorrower
CASE No05-90374
VERIFIED NOTICE #1 OF SUPPORTING RECORDS.INTERESTED PARTY IN INSTANT CASE, WHO IS PETITIONER IN ZERNIK VMELSON ET AL, CASE NO 1:09-cv-00805 IN U.S. COURT, DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA, FILES HERIN NOTICE OF:
(1) RECREATED LETTERS FILED AS EVIDENCE BY COUNTRYWIDE INCASE OF BORROWER SHARON DIANE HILL (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, WesternDistrict of Pennsylvania, Case No 01-22574);
(2)AN OUTSIDE-COUNSEL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME BY COUNTRYWIDE INCASE OF BORROWER WILLIAM ALLEN PARSLEY (U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Southern District of Texas, Case No 05-90374);
(3)ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY KENNETH LEWIS & SENIOR U.S.OFFICERS RELATIVE TO THE BAC/MERRILL LYNCH DEAL.
TOGETHER, SUCH RECORDS CORROBORATE THE BASIC ELEMENTSALLEGED IN PETITION FILED IN U.S. COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ,RELATIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF U.S. OFFICERS, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THESUB-PRIME CRISIS AND PERMITTED HUMAN RIGHTS DISGRACES OFHISTORIC PROPORTIONS IN LA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BUT MAYOTHERWISE APPEAR TO A NAVE READER AS A CONSPIRATORIALTHEORY.
INSTANT PAPER IS ALSO FILED UNDER ALTERNATIVE COVER PAGES INTHE CASES PETITIONER ZERNIK AND OF BORROWER HILL, REFERENCEDABOVE.
Dated: May 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:
______________________JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
3/264
-3-
Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill BlvdLV, CA 91750Tel: (310) 435 9107Fax: (801) 998 [email protected] Se Interested Party
UNITED STATES COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHARON DIANE HILLBorrower
CASE No01-22574
VERIFIED NOTICE #1 OF SUPPORTING RECORDS.
INTERESTED PARTY IN INSTANT CASE, WHO IS PETITIONER IN ZERNIK VMELSON ET AL, CASE NO 1:09-cv-00805 IN U.S. COURT, DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA, FILES HERIN NOTICE OF:
(1) RECREATED LETTERS FILED AS EVIDENCE BY COUNTRYWIDE IN CASEOF BORROWER SHARON DIANE HILL (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District ofPennsylvania, Case No 01-22574);
(2)AN OUTSIDE-COUNSEL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME BY COUNTRYWIDE INTHE CASE OF BORROWER WILLIAM ALLEN PARSLEY (U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Southern District of Texas, Case No 05-90374);
(3)ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY KENNETH LEWIS & SENIOR U.S.OFFICERS RELATIVE TO THE BAC/MERRILL LYNCH DEAL.
TOGETHER, SUCH RECORDS CORROBORATE THE BASIC ELEMENTS ALLEGEDIN PETITION FILED IN U.S. COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RELATIVE TO THECONDUCT OF U.S. OFFICERS, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE SUB-PRIME CRISISAND PERMITTED HUMAN RIGHTS DISGRACES OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS INLA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BUT MAY OTHERWISE APPEAR TO A NAVEREADER AS A CONSPIRATORIAL THEORY.
INSTANT PAPER IS ALSO FILED UNDER ALTERNATIVE COVER PAGES IN THECASES OF PETITIONER ZERNIK AND BORROWER PARSLEY, REFERENCEDABOVE.
Dated: May 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:
______________________JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PRO SE PETITIONER
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
4/264
-4-
PRO SE PETITIONER in Zernik v Melson et al, U.S. Court, District of Columbia, who is
also Interested Party, case of Borrower Parsley, U.S. Court, Southern District of Texas, and
who is also requesting designation as Interested Party in case of Borrower Hill, U.S. Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania, hereby files1 notice #1 of support records.
///
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Alternative Cover Pages 1-3I. TOC 4
II. List of Exhibits ... 5
III. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer 6
IV. Requests for Incorporation by reference .... 7
V. Request for Judicial Notice .... 8
VI. Significance of the Records Notified Herein .... 9
VII. Statement of Verification .... 25
VIII. Proposed Orders ... 27
IX. Exhibits .... 29
1Copy is concomitantly filed with TARP Oversight Board, and with TARP Inspector General, as arequest for urgent investigation into matters related to TARP and the Bailout.
Copy is concurrently filed with Lawrence Summer, Director, U.S. President National EconomicCouncil
Copy is concurrently filed with Paul Volker, Chairman, U.S. President Economic Recovery AdvisoryBoard, as request for investigation of the allegation that widespread corruption in LA County,California, involving Countrywide, gave rise, at least in part, to the sub-prime crisis.
Copy is concurrently filed with Carol E. Dinkins., Chairwoman, U.S. President Privacy and CivilLiberties Advisory Board, as a request for investigation of alleged widespread corruption and civilrights and human rights violation of historic proportions in LA County, California.
Copies are concomitantly filed with U.S. Congress, as a request for urgent hearings on underlyingmatters.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
5/264
-5-
II.
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN CURRENT NOTICE
EXHIBIT 1. 07-12-27-three Recreated Letters filed by Countrywide as evidence in the
Case No 01-22574, Borrower Sharon Diane Hill, in U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Pittsburgh, PA
EXHIBIT 2. 07-12-20-Transcript from above referenced case.
EXHIBIT 3. 09-05-15 Pacer docket of above referenced case.
EXHIBIT 4. 08-03-08 Memorandum Opinion of the Hon Jeff Bohm, U.S. Judge, in Case
No 05-90374, Borrower William Allen Parsely, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Houston TX.
EXHIBIT 5. 09-05-15 Pacer docket of above referenced case.
EXHIBIT 6. 09-04-23 Letter of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Congress.
EXHIBIT 7. 09-04-23 Global Economic Trends Blog: Let theIndictments Begin Paulson,
Bernanke, Lewis.
EXHIBIT 8. 08-01-08 NYT: Morgensons Report of Countrywides Recreated Letters
EXHIBIT 9. 08-01-09 NYT: Stocks Dive on Reports of New Ills
EXHIBIT 10. 08-01-11AM Greenbergs MarketBlog: Posting on Countrywide/BAC deal
EXHIBIT 11. 08-01-11PM CNN: BofA inks deal to buy Countrywide for $4 billion
EXHIBIT 12. Wikipedia: Bank of America Corporation
///
///
///
III.
REQUEST FOR LENIENCE BY PRO SE FILER
Copy is concomitantly filed with the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, with request for monitoringand protection of the rights of dual citizen, Joseph Zernik, per Universal Declaration of HumanRights, ratified International Law.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
6/264
-6-
While I make substantial efforts to comply with court procedures, and study
applicable law, I request special lenience as apro se filer:
A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, Estelle, 429 U. S., at106, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to lessstringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ibid. (internalquotation marks omitted). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) (All pleadings shall be
so construed as to do substantial justice). (Erickson v Pardus et al, 2007)In particular, I am unqualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask the
Honorable Court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I claim, and do take into
consideration the facts and the claims themselves, and if they can support some other valid
theory, assign such legal theory to them, and review them pursuant to such valid legal theory
(Haddock v Cal Board of Dental Examiner, 1985).The Honorable Court is requested to entirely disregard my comments, explanations,
or legal arguments pertaining to such papers, when my writings appear to be of the nature of
legal theories, or legal arguments, and are deemed erroneous, or irrelevant. If it pleases the Honorable Court, let the Honorable Court act of its own volition
whenever permitted to do so by law:
a. To initiate action pursuant to the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges, Canon 3B(3):
(3) A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomesaware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessionalconduct by a judge or a lawyer.
b. To act pursuant toFed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) to do substantial justice for
Plaintiffs who claim to have been inflicted substantial harms by the Los Angeles
justice system.
Dated: May 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:
________________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER
///
///
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
7/264
-7-
III.
REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
I request that the Honorable U.S. Courts incorporate by reference each others dockets
as they appear in Pacer, as well as USDOJ reports, also available online. The request is to
incorporate by reference such records at whatever state they are in the data-base referenced
below. However, in places where records in their current data-base (case #4 below) were not
scanned at all, or were improperly scanned, or were improperly tagged, as describe in pages
7-16 of Petition Zernik v Melson et al, the records will be filed again with the Honorable
Courts, so that they re properly scanned and tagged.In addition to Pacer records, request is also for incorporation by reference of official
reports of the U.S. Dept of Justice, Independent Counsel, Special Counsel, and LAPD
reports, pertaining to allegation of long-term, widespread corruption of the justice system in
LA County, tolerated and patronized by U.S. Agencies. The petition alleges that such
widespread public corruption in Los Angeles County, California, gave rise to corruption in
Countrywide that was essential for the development of the Sub-Prime Crisis, on the one
hand, and human rights disgraces of historic proportion, on the other hand.
Pacer Dockets:
1) Zernik v Melson at al. U.S. Court, DC, Case No 1:2009cv00805
2) Borrower Parsley U.S. Court, Southern District of TX, Case No 05-90374
3) Borrower Hill U.S. Court, Western District of PA, Case No 01-22574
4) Zernik v Connor et al.- U.S. District Court, LA, CA, Case No 2:2008cv01550
5)Fine v LA Sheriff of LA U.S. District Court, LA, CA, Case No 2:09-cv-01914
6) Fine v. State Bar of CA et al U.S. Dist Court, LA, CA, Case No 2:08-cv-02906
7) U.S. Gov v City of LA et al U.S. Dist Court, LA, CA, Case No 2:2000cv11769
Official Reports available online, which are not part of Pacer:
8) U.S. Dept of Justice - Annual Reports of the USDOJ Public Integrity Section
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/pin/
9) U.S. Dept of Justice - Special Report (December 1987) regarding drug sales for profit by
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
8/264
-8-
CIA in LA County in the 1980 as part of Iran-Contra.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9712/
10) Records of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh relating to Iran/Contra
http://www.archives.gov/research/independent-counsels/walsh.html
11) LAPD - Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) and responses by Police Chief and
the office of LA District Attorney.
http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/RampartReconsidered.html
Rampart Reconsidered - Full Report (101 pages - pdf file)
Rampart Reconsidered - Executive Summary (32 pages - pdf file)
Rampart Reconsidered - Appendices (141 pages - pdf file)
Dated: May 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:
________________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PRO SE PETITIONER///
///
IV
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
I request that the Honorable Courts take Judicial Notice of each others rulings in
cases 1, 2, and 3 referenced in Request for Incorporation in Reference, above.
Regarding case #4, Zernik v Connor et al, I request that the Honorable Courts take
Judicial Notice of the following incontrovertible facts:
1) The non-sequential order of the records in the docket.
2) The failure to issue valid summons in the case (Summons as issued by the clerk are
found under Doc 1, Complaint).
3) Inadequate docketing, where critical records are concealed under unrelated records,
EG, Doc #52, 56, 58.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
9/264
-9-
4) Alleged perverted discrepancy notices (Doc # 105) documenting the fact that a large
number of records were completely eliminated from the docket with no record at all
of the procedures underlying such elimination.
///
5) Complaint filed with FBI regarding alleged dishonest manipulations of Pacer docket
in the case (Doc #088)
Dated: May 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:
________________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER
///
///
V.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RECORDS NOTICED HEREIN
///
A. Records from the case of Borrower Sharon Diane Hill, No 01-22574, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
Such records document Countrywide admitting filing Recreated Letters (Exhibit 1) as
evidence. Such conduct was admitted in proceedings in the court of the Honorable Thomas
P Agresti, as documented in the Transcript of a December 20, 2007 proceeding in that case
(Exhibit 2). Such records are accompanied by the up to date Pacer docket of that case
(Exhibit 3).
Petitioner claims similar conduct by Countrywide, now BAC relative to alleged fraud
in key record that is an invalid underwriting letter of October 26, 2004, and was repeatedly
introduced in evidence as a valid underwriting dated October 14, 2004 or mid-October 2004.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
10/264
-10-
The alleged fraudulent underwriting letter, support records, request for an evidentiary ruling
and declaratory relief will be separately filed.
///
B. Records from the case of Borrower William Allen Parsley, No 05-90374, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas:
Such records document Countrywide admitting in proceedings in the court of the Honorable
Jeff Bohm engaging in an Outside Counsel Employment Scheme. Such records include
Memorandum Opinion, March 8, 2008 (Exhibit 4), and an up to date Pacer docket of that
case (Exhibit 5).Petitioner claims similar conduct by Respondent BAC, relative to employment of
Respondent Bryan Cave, LLP as an Outside Counsel in cases involving Petitioner. Outside-
Counsel Procedures manual of BAC, together with records supporting the allegations of
fraud in employment of Respondent Bryan Cave, LLP as Outside Counsel, will be separately
filed, together with requests for evidentiary rulings and declaratory relief.
///
C. Records from the investigation of the Merrill-Lynch/BAC merger
Such records provide evidence that both BAC Officer Respondent Kenneth Lewis, and
U.S. Officer former Treasury Secretary Paulson, admitted alleged criminal conduct related
to the merger referenced above. Such records include a letter by NY Attorney General
Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Congress (Exhibit 6), and Global Economic Trend blog call for
criminal indictments of Paulson, Bernanke, and Lewis which was widely distributed on the
web (Exhibit 7).Petitioner claims that discovery in this case will confirm similar conduct by
Respondents BAC, and U.S. officers relative to the Countrywide/BAC merger. Letters by
U.S. officers Respondents Kaiser and Melson, which are alleged as fraud on U.S. Congress,
together with requests for evidentiary rulings and declaratory relief will be separately filed.
D. Additional Records
Supper records are related to:
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
11/264
-11-
a. The publication of the news of Recreated Letters in the Hill case, in early
January 2008 (Exhibits 8,9), leding to what was variably termed Merger, Takeover,
and Takeunder, of Countrywide by BAC.
b. The nature of the Countrywide/BAC merger, (Exhibits 10, 11, 12) that show that
the transaction was inexplicable in terms of normal business conduct, and was accompanied
by overt provisions by Bush Administration officials aimed to induce BAC to enter the deal.
Furthermore, such records support the claim that discovery in this case is very likely to
uncover covert provisions/understandings by Bush administration officials and BAC, to
induce/coerce the merger, and shield BAC from possibly or likely criminal liability related tothe deal. The petition alleged that such conduct was furhtermore concealed from share-
holders, tax-payers, and U.S. Congress.
///
E. Significance of the above referenced cases to Petition of Zernik v Melson et al, U.S.
Court, Washington DC and vice versa:
The records listed above support allegations in Petition in U.S. Court, District of
Columbia, that:
1. Countrywide filed as evidence and produced in response to legal subpoena in
Samaan v Zernik (SC08400) a large volume of false and deliberately misleading
banking records, which upon review will dwarf in comparison the Recreated
Letters filed in the case of Sharon Diane Hill. Former Countrywide Officers,
Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels were repeatedly requested to stop the alleged
fraud on Petitioner. Current Officers of Respondent BAC, Respondents Lewis,Mayopoulos, and the BAC Audit Committee were likewise repeatedly requested
to stop the fraud. All of them refused to take corrective action, and colluded with
the ongoing alleged fraud on Petitioner Zernik.
2. Countrywide initiated the alleged false and deliberately misleading employment of
Respondent Bryan Cave, LLP in cases pertaining to Petitioner Zernik, which upon
review will dwarf in comparison the Outside Counsel scheme in the case of
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
12/264
-12-
Borrower Parsley. Respondent BAC continued and continues such employment.
Respondents BAC, Lewis, Mayopoulos, and BAC Audit Committee, as well as
Respondents Lents and Van Clever, were repeatedly asked to stop such alleged
fraud on Petitioner, but refuse to do so.
3. Respondents FBI, USDOJ, and SEC, as well as respective U.S. Officers,
Respondents Kaiser, Melson, and Bezek, consistently refuse perform their duties
and provide Petitioner with Equal Protection against such alleged criminal
conduct, regardless the severe abuse of his civil rights. Such conduct by
Respondents Melson and Kaiser included false and deliberately misleadingstatements to U.S. Congress. Such conduct by SEC and Respondent Bezek
involved failure to enforce SEC regulation and protect both BAC share-holders
and U.S. tax-payers like Petitioner from ongoing alleged frauds of large scale.
4. Combined, the conduct of Respondents BAC, USDOJ, FBI, SEC, & Bryan Cave,
LLP, and their respective officers in underlying cases involving Petitioner Zernik,
is most plausibly explained in confidential provisions or understandings, yet to be
discovered, that upon review would dwarf in their alleged criminality those that
took place in relationship to the Merrill-Lynch/ BAC merger. Therefore -
Respondents BAC and Bryan Cave, LLP, and respective officers, felt falsely
secure in their alleged criminal conduct, while Respondents FBI and USDOJ and
SEC felt falsely compelled to allow ongoing extreme abuse the civil rights of
Petitioner and others.
5. Evidence included in the cases cited herein, alone, without any further discovery,would likely provide sufficient credible evidence for indictment of Sandor
Samuels and Angelo Mozilo, possibly also Kenneth Lewis, Timothy Mayopoulos,
and Bryan Cave, LLP on Racketeering per RICO 18 USC 1961-1968. The cases
cited herein include allegations of numerous predicated acts that took place in
2007-2009, including alleged obstruction and perversion of justice, falsification of
banking and legal records, intimidation, harassment and retaliation against victims,
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
13/264
-13-
witnesses, and informants, and more. Petitioner therefore alleged in his original
filing that the investigation by FBI of Countrywide, upon review, must be deemed
as deliberately aimless, and public statements made by USDOJ and FBI
officers regarding vigorous investigation of Countrywide are attempts to mislead
the U.S. tax payers and U.S. Congress.
6. The conduct of U.S. Officers under the Bush Administration relative to BAC,
Countrywide, and Merrill Lynch, now allow BAC to grow beyond limits
previously promulgated relative to banking institutions, as safeguards for the U.S.
economy in the wake of the Great Depressions. Furthermore, such conduct nowpermits BAC to engage in alleged criminal conduct with effective immunity.
Combined, this concoction is contrary to the law, contrary to any sound public
policy, and the recipe for disaster for the U.S. economy and the rule of law.
///
///
F. Notice provided to Counsel of Borrower Hill and U.S. Trustee of intend to file
notices in the case of Borrower Hill, to inform the Honorable Thomas P. Agresti,
United States Bankruptcy Court Judge, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, of the current
conduct of BAC in LA, California
Email note was forwarded today, May 15, 2009 to counsel for Borrower and for the
U.S. Trustee in the case of Sharon Diane Hill, noticing counsel of my intent to file notices in
that case as an Interested Party.
The May 15, 2009 email note explains my interest in the case as follows:My interest is in no way adversarial to that of Borrower Sharon Diane Hill,and is most closely aligned with the interest of the U.S. Trustee.
My interest in Pennsylvania case of Sharon Diane Hill
My claim is that in LA County, California, home-base of Countrywide, itcontinues to this very day to perpetrate on me the same frauds that wererebuked in other courts around the country. Specifically - I allege that underBAC control, it continues to perpetrate on me the "Recreated Letters" fraudthat is a copy of its conduct in the PA court, which was rebuked in the case ofSharon Diane Hill.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
14/264
-14-
My interest in Texas case of William Alan Parsley
You may view similar notices which I have recently filed in U.S. Court inHouston, Texas (Borrower - William Allen Parsley case # 05-903-74, Filed:10/13/2005). My claim there is that under BAC control, it continues toperpetrate on me the "Outside Counsel" fraud that is a copy of its conduct inthe TX court, which was rebuked in the case of William Alan Parsley.
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the California Superior Court for the Countyof Los Angeles
I was named Defendant in civil unlimited litigation of Samaan v Zernik(SC087400). Claims in that litigation stemmed from real estate failedtransaction in 2004, when I tried to sell my Beverly Hills home, and NivieSamaan fraudulently induced me to enter a contract where she was notqualified for the purchase.
However, with Countrywide's collusion, she was trying to perpetrate amortgage fraud, which failed. A year later, in 2005, she filed against meclaims for Specific Performance or Breach of Contract. In such case, again incollusion with frauds by Countrywide, I was forced to leave my home underthe threat of force, my home was taken for private use with no compensationat all, and I never received a penny. I had gag orders placed on me to benefitlarge corporations in ex parte procedures, as part of extensive severe abuseof my due process and first amendment rights.
My allegations in re: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400):
I claim that I was subjected to fraud under the guise of litigation in SuperiorCourt of California for the County of Los Angeles. Suffice is to say that the
Clerk of the LA Superior Court has refused to certify in the past year that thecase is a valid case of the Superior Court of California, that the judgment insuch case was a valid, effectual judgment of the Superior Court of California,and that Judge Terry Friedman, who has been holding the "file" for over ayear (albeit, like all other judges in this case - with no assignment order at all)is a duly assigned judge in this case.
Regarding the Grant Deed filed by the court on my home, while the "file" washeld by Judge Terry Friedman - veteran FBI agent, decorated by U.S.Congress, by FBI Director, and by U.S. Attorney General, has opined "...frauds being committed..."
My case in not unique either. I have identified numerous similar real estate
frauds at the court, most notably, the case of Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).I consider my case unique only in the meticulous documentation of thefrauds.
Regarding the conduct of Countrywide Samaan v Zernik (SC087400):
Bryan Cave, LLP, has regularly appeared in this case for two years, claimingto represent Countrywide, later BAC, and self-designating as "Non Party".The LA Superior Court designated it interchangeably "Defendant" Plaintiff","Real Parties in Interest" [sic-jhz], "Cross-Defendant", "Intervenor", andmore... In recent months, neither BAC nor Bryan Cave, LLP would respondto demand that they explicitly state that Bryan Cave, LLP was authorized torepresent BAC in this case.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
15/264
-15-
Since early 2007, neither Angelo Mozilo, nor Sandor Samuels, and morerecently - neither Kenneth Lewis, nor Timothy Mayopoulos, nor the BAC AuditCommittee would answer requests to either authenticate or repudiate records
they filed in court as evidence, among them - "recreated letters" certified asfalsely dated by a fraud expert.
In short, through cases such as the case of Sharon Diane Hill, I show that U.S. Courts
in Texas and Pennsylvania rebuke the litigation practices of Countrywide, initially as an
independent publicly traded corporation - CFC - more recently controlled by Bank of
America Corporation (BAC). At the same time, I allege judges of the LA Superior court,
such as Terry Friedman, in fact willfully colluded with Countrywide, BAC, and others, andcontinue to collude with such practices to this date, in perpetrating fraud on me under the
guise of civil litigation.
///
G. Litigation Practices of Countrywide as seen in the case of Borrower Sharon Diane
Hill were publicized in January 2008.
Exhibit 8, is a copy of a news item published on January 8, 2008 in the Business
Section of the New York Times, by Pulitzer-Prize winner Gretchen Morgenson.
Morgenson article, title: Lender Tells Judge It 'Recreated' Letters, reported that in
late December 2007, Countrywide finally admitted in the U.S. Court in Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania that it had filed evidence in the case of Sharon Diane Hill, which was
recreated letters. The letters themselves, which were false, made up banking records, are
provided in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 2 is the transcript of the hearing in the case of Sharon Diane Hill onDecember 20, 2007, where the true facts in this matter came to be admitted by
Countrywides counsel. Morgenson in her article quotes the Honorable Judge Agresi stating:
"These letters are a smoking gun that something is not right in Denmark." That comment
appears on transcript page 19. The transcript more fully cited says:
THE COURT: Well, there's definitely a need for3discovery here. Theseletters are a smoking gun that something4is not right in Denmark. I just -- Ican't get over what I'm5being told here about these recreations and what the
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
16/264
-16-
purpose is6or was and what was intended by them. It just -- I don't see7anycredible reason for doing that other than to create a8perception that noticeswere timely sent. But maybe there is,9and that's why there's a need for
discovery, obviously.
Attorney Puida, anything -- any response here?
PUIDA: Yes, Your Honor. Again, the -- we were12doing nothing more thanproviding counsel with a history of what escrow was received and paymentsduring the course of the bankruptcy, what was paid out, what differencebetween the two there may have been. The letters again were never offeredas being something that was sent out to debtor's counsel or to the Trustee. Itwas just a starting point to show this is the breakdown for that particularyear's escrow.
THE COURT: All right. I appreciate that. This is your understanding of whatyou did, but when I asked some rather pointed questions to further explainthe purpose behind these letters, you couldn't respond. You could notanswer, and I can appreciate that, and that's just more reason why there hasto be some discovery here to find out what is going on and why it was done,because that will determine -- you know, if it can't otherwise be settled orresolved, that will be an item of concern for this Court in assessing theappropriate damage or remedy. So it's highly, extremely relevant, andimportant for a decision in this matter
///
///
H. Such publication was the cause of a meltdown in Countrywides share price, andalso caused tremors in financial markets.
Morgensons January 8, 2008 publication in the NYT caused a sharp drop in the
Countrywide share price, and on the same afternoon rumors started circulating of pending
bankruptcy filing by Countrywide, which required press release by Countrywide denying
such rumors. The news led to overall declines in financial markets that raised concerns about
U.S. financial markets stability.
On the next day, January 9, 2008, the New York times reported, as seen in Exhibit 9:
Shares tumbled late Tuesday after the head ofAT&T suggested thatconsumers might be cutting back and Countrywide Financial denied thatit was tumbling into bankruptcy..
Shares of Countrywide fell $2.17, or 28.4 percent, to $5.47, after thecompany issued a statement that said there was no substance to the rumorthat Countrywide is planning to file for bankruptcy.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
17/264
-17-
The Standard & Poors 500-stock index fell 1.84 percent, or 25.99points, to1,390.19, its lowest close since March 5.The Dow Jones industrial averagedeclined 238.42 points, or 1.86 percent, to 12,589.07,while the Nasdaq
composite index dropped 58.95 points, or 2.36 percent, to 2,440.51
Such values for major indices may seem phenomenally high to date, but as the report
notes, they brought the S&P to the lowest level in 10 months. Eventually, two days later, on
January 11, 2008, announcement was made of the intent to have BAC take over control of
Countrywide.
On should note that investors negative sentiments, reflecting vanishing confidence in
Countrywide, which led to such final collapse, were not driven by any financial performance
data of Countrywide. Instead, such negative investors actions were driven by news of
alleged massive corruption of Countrywides Legal Department, at the time headed by
Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal Officer. Today, I am informed and believe that Samuels serves
as Associate General Counsel at BAC.
It is my opinion that investors reactions were logical and fully justified. The legal
department of any public corporation, and in particular any financial institutions, is critical in
safeguarding the integrity of internal controls. Such realization was recognized following
the Enron debacle in the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 307, and respective promulgated
SEC regulations. Therefore, once the corruption of a Legal Department of financial
institution is evident, alternatively, once it becomes evident that SEC is not enforcing the law
in this regard, no investor in his right mind should trust any further financial reports from
such corporations and/or regulators. That is indeed the current alleged state of affairs
regarding Countrywide, BAC, and SEC.
///
///
I. Such publication was the cause of Countrywides final demise and the take-over
(designated below as Takeunder) by BAC announced on January 11, 2008, and
sponsored by U.S. officials under the Bush Administration in its waning days.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
18/264
-18-
Herb Greenberg is listed as a senior columnist for MarketWatch. His column also
appears in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal, and he's a contributor to CNBC.
He joined MarketWatch after six years as senior columnist for TheStreet.com. He previously
spent 10 years as a six-day-a-week business columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.
Before that, he was the New York financial correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, where he
covered the food and restaurant industries.
Exhibit 10 is Herb Greenbergs blog column, January 11. 2008 early morning
posting, designating the Countrywide/BAC deal as Takeunder. It also notes what was
noted in other publications as well The Fed is behind the deal, and speculates the
government likely agrees to guarantee BofA against Countrywide-related losses, while
noting There was nothing in the press release about that.
It further implies confidential provisions by Bush administration officials related to
the Countrywide/BAC deal:
Now we know. Based on the implied price of the deal, which is around $7,give or take, this is a takeunder. Yesterday I opined (clearly as a guessinggame) that it would appear apparent:
1. The Fed is behind the deal. (Todays thought: Its as likely asyesterday.)
2. The Fed is behind the deal because the rumors yesterday of a nearbankruptcy were probably true. (Based on the price, it would appear moreevident than ever.)
3. As part of the deal, the government likely agrees to guarantee BofAagainst Countrywide-related losses. (There was nothing in the pressrelease about that, so lets give them the benefit of the doubt and sayBofA is shouldering all of the risk and at this price it believes the risk isworth the reward.)
4. Lost in the in the noise yesterday was that Moodys downgraded theratings on 30 (count em THIRTY!) tranches of Countrywides mortgagedebt by more than a few notches. They did something similar beforeAmerican Home Mortgage filed for bankruptcy. (Remains as telling todayas it was yesterday.)
Exhibit 11, CNN report later that Friday, January 11, 2008 notes:
"If this deal occurs, I believe it will have been shepherded by the bankregulators," said Punk, Ziegel & Co. analyst Richard Bove wrote in aresearch note Friday.
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
19/264
-19-
The deal was valued at about $4 billions, but later BAC set aside double that sum for
covering potential litigation losses related to Countrywide. BAC also later decided to retire
the Countrywide name, recognizing the negative goodwill that came attached to the name.
///
J. Financial analysts largely failed to recognize the potential or likely criminal
liabilities related to the Countrywide/BAC deal, and likely confidential provisions or
understandings regarding criminal immunities, which in fact are likely to be of
criminal nature as well.
News and analysis reports quoted above often noted that the transaction as disclosed
to the public, and also to U.S. Congress, did not make sense financially, and that the
transaction was chaperoned by Bush Administration officials. Numerous reports speculated
that U.S. Officers provided provisions to induce BAC to enter the transaction. However,
financial analysts largely ignored the criminal liability that came attached to Countrywide.
Wikipedia, as downloaded on May 15, 2009 (Exhibit 12), provides a better picture of
BAC and the Countrywide/BAC deal, noting:Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC(http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/bac.html)), based in Charlotte, NorthCarolina is the largest financial services company in the world[4], largestbank by assets,[3] second largest commercial bank by deposits,and(previously) third largest by market capitalization in the UnitedStates.[5][6] Also, Bank of America is the number one underwriter of globalhigh yield debt, the third largest underwriter of global equity and the ninthlargest adviser on global mergers and acquisitions.[7]
One should notice that the statement Bank of America is the number oneunderwriter of global high yield debt, also implies that BAC is the number one
underwriter of global high risk debt. In the mortgage industry such debts were designated
sub prime lending.
On the acquisition of Countrywide Wikipedia states:
Acquisition of Countrywide Financial
On August 23, 2007 the company announced a $2 billion repurchaseagreement for Countrywide Financial. This purchase of preferred stock was
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
20/264
-20-
arranged to provide a return on investment of 7.25% per annum and providedthe option to purchase common stock at a price of $18 per share.[15]
Following that initial investment, on January 11, 2008, Bank of Americaannounced that they would buy Countrywide Financial for $4.1 billion.[16]This acquisition, which closed on July 1, 2008, gave the bank a substantialmarket share of the mortgage business, and access to Countrywide'sexpertise, technology, and employees for servicing mortgages.[17] Theacquisition was seen as preventing the potential of bankruptcy forCountrywide. Countrywide, however, denied that it was close to bankruptcy.Countrywide provides mortgage servicing for nine million mortgages valuedat $1.4 trillion USD as of December 31, 2007.[18] However, Countrywide isunder FBI investigation due to possible fraud in home loans and mortgages,therefore Bank of America states that by 2009 they will only be "officially"affiliated to Countrywide.[19]
On July 1, 2008, Bank of America Corporation completed its purchase ofCountrywide Financial Corporation. This purchase made it the USA's leadingmortgage originator and servicer, controlling between20 to 25 percent of thehome loan market.[20] The deal was structured to merge Countrywide withthe Red Oak Merger Corporation, which Bank of America created as anindependent subsidiary. It has been suggested that the deal was structuredthis way to prevent a potential bankruptcy stemming from large losses inCountrywide hurting the parent organization by keeping Countrywidebankruptcy remote.[21]
One should particularly notice the statement: Countrywide is under FBI
investigation due to possible fraud in home loans and mortgages, therefore Bank of
America states that by 2009 they will only be "officially" affiliated to
Countrywide.[19]
One must also particularly notice the statement: The deal was structured to merge
Countrywide with the Red Oak Merger Corporation, which Bank of America created
as an independent subsidiary. It has been suggested that the deal was structured this
way to prevent a potential bankruptcy stemming from large losses in Countrywide
hurting the parent organization by keeping Countrywide bankruptcy remote.[21].
Petitioner alleges that both reflect efforts by BAC to sequester criminal liabilities as
well as financial liabilities related to Countrywide.
Combined losses to investors and tax-payers by Countrywide alone are likely to total
close to $1trillion mark soon. Regarding tax-payers awards to BAC Wikipedia states as
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
21/264
-21-
follows:
Federal bailout
Bank of America received US $20 billion in federal bailout from the USgovernment through the TARP program on 16 January 2009 and also gotguarantee of US $118 billion in potential losses at the company.[28] This wasin addition to the $25 billion given to them in the Fall of 2008 through TARP.The additional payment was part of a deal with the US government topreserve Bank of America's merger with the troubled investment firm MerrillLynch.[29] Since then, members of the US Congress have expressedconsiderable concern about how this money has been spent, especially sincesome of the recipients have been accused of mis-using the bailoutmoney.[30] The Bank's CEO, Ken Lewis, was quoted as claiming "We are stilllending, and we are lending far more because of the TARP program."
Members of the US House of Representatives, however, were skeptical andquoted many anecdotes about loan applicants (particularly small businessowners) being denied loans and credit card holders facing stiffer terms on thedebt in their card accounts.
According to a March 15, 2009 article in The New York Times, Bank ofAmerica received an additional $5.2 billion in government bailout moneywhich was channeled through American International Group. [31
The sums listed above in bailout, through the TARP and elsewhere, are well above
$150 billions! Petition filed in Washington DC Court alleged criminal conduct by recipients
of TARP funds.
///
///
K. Cover-up and direct involvement of high ranking U.S. Officer in the Bush
Administration in criminal conduct of individuals and corporations related to sub-
prime lending who amassed fortunes at the expense of the U.S. Taxpayer and
Homeowners is fully documented in the Merrill-Lynch/BAC deal.
The picture painted above may seem to a nave reader as a fictional conspiratorial
theory. Not so! Direct evidence for such conduct, and worse is found in the Merrill-
Lynch/BAC deal.
On April 23, 2004, Andrew Cuomo wrote to U.S. Congress (Exhibit 6):
I am writing regarding our investigation of the events surrounding Bank ofAmerica's merger with Merrill Lynch late last year. Because you are theoverseers and regulators of the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), the
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
22/264
-22-
banking industry, and the Treasury Department, we are informing you ofcertain results of our investigation. As you will see, while the investigationinitially focused on huge fourth quarter bonus payouts, we have uncovered
facts that raise questions about the transparencyof the TARP program, as well as about corporate governance and disclosurepractices at Bank of America. Because some matters relating to ourinvestigation involve federal agencies and high-rankingfederal officials charged with managing the TARP program, we believe it isimportant to inform the relevant federal bodies of our current findings. Wehave attached relevant documents to this letter for your review.
The letter continues to state:
At a meeting that evening Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben Bernanke, Lewis, Bank of America's CFO, and other officials discussedthe issues surrounding invocation of the MAC clause by Bank of America.The Federal officials asked Bank of America not to invoke the MAC until therewas further consultation. There were follow-up calls with various Treasuryand Federal Reserve officials, including with Treasury Secretary Paulson andChairman Bernanke. During those meetings, the federal government officialspressured Bank of America not to seek to rescind the merger agreement. Wedo not yet have a complete picture of the Federal Reserve's role in thesematters because the Federal Reserve has invoked the bank examinationprivilege.
Bank of America's attempt to exit the merger came to a halt on December 21,
2008. That day, Lewis informed Secretary Paulson that Bank of America stillwanted to exit the merger agreement. According to Lewis, Secretary Paulsonthen advised Lewis that, if Bank of America invoked the MAC, itsmanagement and Board would be replaced:
"[W]e wanted to follow up and he said, 'I'm going to be very blunt, we're verysupportive on Bank of America and we want to be of help, but' --as I recallhim saying "the government," but that mayor may not be the case -"does notfeel it's in your best interest for you to call a MAC, and that we feel sostrongly," --I can't recall if he said "we would remove the board andmanagement if you called it" or if he said "we would do it if you intended to." Idon't remember which one it was, before or after, and I said, "Hank, let'sdeescalate this for a while. Let me talk to our board." And the board's reaction
was of "That threat, okay, do it. That would be systemic risk.""In an interview with this Office, Secretary Paulson largely corroboratedLewis's account. On the issue of terminating management and the Board,Secretary Paulson indicated that he told Lewis that if Bank of America wereto back out of the Merrill Lynch deal, the government either could or wouldremove the Board and management. Secretary Paulson told Lewis a series ofconcerns, including that Bank of America's invocation of the MAC wouldcreate systemic risk and that Bank of America did not have a legal basis toinvoke the MAC (though Secretary Paulson's basis for the opinion wasentirely based on what he was told by Federal Reserve officials).
Secretary Paulson's threat swayed Lewis. According to Secretary Paulson,
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
23/264
-23-
after he stated that the management and the Board could be removed, Lewisreplied, "that makes it simple. Let's deescalate." Lewis admits that SecretaryPaulson's threat changed his mind about invoking that MAC clause and
terminating the deal.
Secretary Paulson has informed us that he made the threat at the request ofChairman Bernanke. After the threat, the conversation between SecretaryPaulson and Lewis turned to receiving additional government assistance inlight of the staggering Merrill Lynch losses.
Lewis spoke with individual Board members after his conversation withSecretary Paulson. The next day, December 22, 2008, the Board met andwas advised of Lewis's decision not to invoke the MAC. The minutes of thatmeeting listed the key points of Lewis's calls with Secretary Paulson andChairman Bernanke:
"(i) first and foremost, the Treasury and Fed are unified in their view that thefailure of the Corporation to complete the acquisition of Merrill Lynch wouldresult in systemic risk to the financial system in America and would haveadverse consequences for the Corporation; (ii) second, the Treasury and Fedstate strongly that were the Corporation to invoke the material adversechange("MAC") clause in the merger agreement with Merrill Lynch and fail toclose the transaction, the Treasury and Fed would remove the Board andmanagement of the Corporation; (iii) third, the Treasury and Fed haveconfirmed that they. will provide assistance to the Corporation to restorecapital and to protect the Corporation against the adverse impact of certainMerrill Lynch assets: and(iv) fourth, the Fed and Treasury stated that theinvestment and asset protection promised could not be provided orcompleted by the scheduled closing date of the merger, January 1, 2009; that
the merger should close as scheduled, and that the Corporation can rely onthe Fed and Treasury to complete and deliver the promised support byJanuary 20, 2009, the date scheduled for the release of earnings by theCorporation."
The Board Minutes further state that the "Board clarify[ied] that is [sic] wasnot persuaded or influenced by the statement by the federal regulators thatthe Board and management would be removed by the federal regulators if theCorporation were to exercise the MAC clause and failed to complete theacquisition of Merrill Lynch."
Following the Cuomo letter to congress the Global Economic Trends blog issued a
posting that gained wide spread distribution and responses (Exhibit 7):LET THE CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS BEGIN: PAULSON, BERNANKE,LEWIS
New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's letter to the SEC andSenate Banking Committee on the Bank of America, Merrill LynchMerger provides strong evidence of coercion to commit securities fraud byformer Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, andactual securities fraud by Bank of America CEO Kenneth D. Lewis.
Coercion To Commit Securities Fraud
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
24/264
-24-
It's crystal clear from the letter that a strong case can be made that Paulsonand Bernanke coerced Lewis to carry out a merger agreement that was not inBank of America's shareholders best interest. Lewis arguably did so only to
save his own job and the board.
Flashback Monday, September 15, 2008
I called this correctly at the time. Please consider Market Votes "NoConfidence" In Merrill, Bank of America Merger.
There was no pressure from regulators, absolutely no pressure, said MrLewis, who described the deal as the strategic opportunity of a lifetime. Hesaid: The first contact came on Saturday morning and we put the transactiontogether in 48 hours. The instant we talked it made sense.
My Translation:
"The pressure from the Fed was enormous. Anyone in their right mind knowsthis deal makes no sense to Bank of America".
....
Please note that Cuomo's letter states "In an interview with this Office,Secretary Paulson largely corroborated Lewis's account. "
As far as I am concerned, Paulson just pleaded guilty. I do not care whatPaulson's reasons were, no one is above the law.
Let the criminal indictments begin: Paulson, Bernanke, and Lewis.
///
///
L. Cover-up of criminal conduct is not the right remedy for the ailing economy. What
is required is restoration of confidence in integrity of U.S. financial institutions,
markets, regulators, and the courts through enforcement of the law. The cover-up is
not fooling anybody, either at home, or abroad!
Restoration of investors confidence at home and even more so abroad, in the
integrity of U.S. financial institutions, regulatory agencies, and law enforcement is
quintessential for recovery. The conduct described in instant petition is a recipe for future
economic disaster!
The large-scale experiment in deregulation, undertaken at the expense of the U.S.
taxpayer in the past decade, is recognized by most reasonable persons as a monumental
public policy failure - from Enron to Countrywide and beyond. It allowed the defrauding of
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
25/264
-25-
U.S. tax-payers, American homeowners, and workers world-wide. It threatens to decimate
the home-owning American Middle-Class. The epilogue of this failed experiment the Bush
administration's sponsored and/or coerced mergers and consolidations in its waning days,
such as Merrill-Lynch/BAC and Countrywide/BAC, combined with waiver of growth limits
for BAC, alleged cover-up of past criminality of financial institutions such as Countrywide,
which fails to convince investors either at home or abroad, and documented as well as alleged
a priori immunities for further criminality by BAC, all stand contrary to the law, contrary
to any reasonable public policy, and contrary to prudent regulations promulgated in the wake
of the Great Depression.
Combined, such poisonous concoction appears as the recipe for a looming economic disaster
on a grander scale, and further undermines the rule of law and Civil Rights guaranteed in the
Amendments as well as Human Rights guaranteed as part of ratified International Law in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Dated: May 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:
BY:_________________JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER
Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill BlvdLV, CA 91750Tel: (310) 435 9107Fax: (801) 998 [email protected]
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
26/264
-26-
VII.
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATAION
I, Joseph H Zernik, have written and re-read the foregoing:
VERIFIED NOTICE #1 OF SUPPORTING RECORDS
I know the content thereof to be true and correct. It is true and correct based on my
own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information
and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.The exhibits provided with this complaint under Exhibit 1 through Exhibit12, as
listed in Section: II, List of Exhibits, above, are true and correct copies of records in my
possession, or records downloaded from the web, except for advertising that was redacted
where indicated.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury
pursuant to the laws of the United States.
Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles on this 16 th day in May, 2009.
_____________________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
pro se Plaintiff
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
27/264
-27-
VIII.
PROPOSED ORDER
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
28/264
-28-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ZERNIK,
Petitioner
vs.
MELSON ET AL.Respondent
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00805
PROPOSED ORDERS
1) REQUEST FOR
INCORPORATION BY
REFERENCE AND
2) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTIC
THE COURT has read Plaintiffs requests and considered Plaintiffs requests:
1) Request for Incorporation by Reference is ____ Granted
____ Denied
2) Request for Judicial Notice is ____ Granted
____ Denied
SO IT IS ORDERED!
DATED: May _________, 2009
_________________________
Judge of the U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
29/264
-29-
IX.
EXHIBITS
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
30/264
May 15, 2009
Exhibit 1
January 8, 2008 NYT Report
Exh p30/264
-
8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R
31/264
Dl[;(tally SIQned by JosephZW'lI.
" 0,\1. cn..Joseph Zernll(,, ..- = + . ~ : ~ ~ t r T I a H ' ~ j z 1 2 3 4 5 @ I ! a r t h l i n k . .) U M I , { ; ; ~ U S Date: 2008.01.09 01 ;Oot;4Q-(lllOC