08-02-08 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Dr Zernik's Opposition to Countrywide's Extortionist Motion for...

8/9/2019 08-02-08 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Dr Zernik's Opposition to Countrywide's Extortionist Motion for Sanction Co

1/8

Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhDDefendant2 in pro per2415 Saint George Street3 Los Feliz CA 9002745678910

ORIGINAL1=ILEOFEB 06 2008

S Digitally signed byUPERIOR CO .., JosephZernikUR"" ON: ~ n = J o s e p h~ - 'A Zernlk,). ~ L . . [email protected], c=USDate: 2008.02.0613:29:07 -08'00'

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS A GELES

12 Plaintiff,11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual,

Cross-Defendants.

Cross-Complainant,v.

COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIALBROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW, anindividual,

13 v.14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES 1through 20, inclusive,

) Case No. SC087400) NO VALID ASSIGNMENT ON FILE SINCE) SEPT 10,2007/ '?) -r)))) DEFENDANT & CROSS-Defendants. ) COMPLAINANT'S ZERNIK OPPOSITION

16 ) TO COU TRYWIDE'S MOTION FOR AN--------------) ORDER TO SET SANCTIONS EXCEEDING17 _JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, ) $16,000.)))))))))) DATE: FRI FEB 8, 2008) TIME: 8:30 AMPLACE: DEPARTMENT WE-

15

1819202122232425262728

OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'SMOTIO FOR SANCTIONS

Digitally signedby Joseph Zernik

DN:cn=Joseph Zernik,o,ou ,

[email protected],c=US

Date:2010.05.12 14:46:06 +03'00'


2/8

234567891011121314

15161718

TO ALL PARTIES A D COUNSELS OF RECORD:Below is Zernik's Opposition to Motion by Countrywide1 for an order to set

sanctions against Zernik.DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT ZERNIK INSUPPORT OF IDS OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTIO FOR AN

ORDER TO SET SANCTIONS.I , Joseph Zernik, Defendant & Cross-Complainant, declare as follows:

I. MOZILO AND SAMUEL'S CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO AUTHENTICATE ORREPUDIATE COUNTRYWIDE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE KEY TO THE FRAUD BYSAMAAN, KESHAVARZI AND OTHERS IN SAMAAN V ZERNIKSamaan v Zernik in its essence is real estate fraud under the guise of legal proceedings.

Such fraud is entirely based on documents produced by Countrywide. Mozilo and Samuelshave been requested numerous times to authenticate or repudiate the authenticity of keydocuments in this lit igation, that are key to the fraud. Mozilo and Samuels have continuouslyrefused to answer any questions regarding such documents.II. MOZILO AND SAMUELS MUST ANSWER SUCH QUESTIONS PURSUANT TOTHEIR FIDUCIARY DUTIES AS OFFICERS IN A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ANDA PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATION

Mozilo serves as President and Chair of the Board, and also as Chair of the Internal19 Audit Committee, Samuels serves as ChiefLegal Counsel. As such, they hold special duties

to safeguard the integrity of operations of Countrywide, based on various regulations of the202122232425262728

Federal Reserve, Office of Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission.Such regulations, and Mozilo and Samuels duties and obligations derived from them, are nottied to any t ime frames in Samaan v Zernik, such discovery cu t off date, in any way at all.

Mozilo and Samuels are abdication any notion of compliance with such regulations byrefusing to respond regarding the integrity of Countrywide's banking documents.

I Hereinafter Countrywide designates CFC, Inc, and/or any and all of its affiliates and/orsubsidiaries jointly and/or severallyOPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S

-2- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS


3/8

2...

oJ

456789

10I I1213141516171819202122232425262728

III. MOZILO AND SAMUELS: PLEASE ABIDE BY YOUR DUTIES ANDAUTHENTICATE OR REPUDIATE THE TWO COUNTRYWIDE DOCUMENTSTHAT ARE KEY TO THE FRAUD IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK

Defendant is hereby filing yet another request to Countrywide, to Mozilo and to Samuels torespond and authenticate or repudiate the following two documents, noticed to them personallyseveral times in the past. Copies of these two documents with explanatory notes would beagain provided to you upon request.

1) Document purported to be a valid Underwriting Letter of October 14,2004, ormid-October, 2004, received by Parks (Samaan's purported Loan Broker) onOctober 15, 2004. In fact it is an invalid underwriting Letter, unsigned, clearly datestamped and October 26,2004. This letter was never part of Countrywide's 2004 Loanfile, as clearly stated by Countrywide in Meet and Confer. This letter never appeared insubpoenas in August 2006 and Jan-Feb 2007. It was provided for the first time afterMeet and confer, as part ofNov 2006 correspondence between Keshavarzi (Counsel forPlaintiff), Lloyd (plaintiffs husband), and McLaurin (Countrywide's San RafaelBranch Manager).This unauthenticated document should never have been admitted as evidence by JudgeConnor.Mozilo and Samuels have repeatedly refused to answer the question whether this is anauthentic Countrywide Underwriting Letter ofOct 14,2004 or mid-October 2004. Theinstant motion is just one more attempt to build up their justification for failing to abideby their fiduc"iary duties.

2) Purchase Contract that was Purportedly faxed by Parks (Washington State) toCountrywide (State of California) on October 25, 2004, 5:03pm. In fact, thisdocument is part of extensive wire/fax fraud underlying this litigation and alsounderlying most of Samaan's original loan application to Countrywide. The documentin question was in fact faxed on October 25,2004 at 5:02 or 5:03pm from Samaan's HPLaser printer/fax/scanner to her husband, Jae Arre Lloyd, both in Los Angeles County,as documented in Samaan's fax log entered by her as evidence in Samaan v Zernik.

OPPOSITION TO COUNTRYWIDE'S-3- MOTION FOR SANCTIONS


4/8

When and how the Purchase Contract document was transferred to Countrywide, we2 have no direct evidence in Samaan v Zernik. Circumstantial evidence suggest that it3 was transferred as PDF by Jae Arre Lloyd to Maria McLaurin at an unknown time after4 that marked on the fax.5 Therefore, this document and others like it in Samaan's loan file are likely to6 constitute upon review both wire/fax fraud across state lines against a financial7 institution (Countrywide) and against an individual (Zernik).8 The anonymous fax header imprint of this document is in violation of FCC9 regulation. Countrywide's own Fax Policy and Procedure manuals forbid the

10 operations of anonymous fax machines, and fax documents originating from an11 anonymous machine should never have been accepted as part of a loan file. Needless to12 say, such unauthenticated documents should never have been admitted as evidence by13 Judge Connor as well.14 Mozilo and Samuels have repeatedly refused to answer the question whether this15 is an authentic Countrywide document received by fax on October 25, 2004, 5:03pm.16 The instant motion is just one more attempt to build up their justification for failing to17 abide by their fiduciary duties.18 IV. COUNTRYWIDE,MOZILO AND SAMUELS ARE NO STRANGERS TO FILING

FRAUDULENT DOCUME TS IN COURT1920 Newspaper printouts were included in a Request for Judicial Notice, filed under a21 separate cover:22 1) Jan 8, 2008, early AM: Morgenson, Pulitzer-prize winner, published in NYT Business23 section that counsels for Countrywide admitted in Court in Y that letters filed as24 evidence in a real property case there were in fact "recreated letters".25 2) Jan 8, 2008, afternoon: Countrywide share lost about 30% of its value based primarily26 on that report. Market capitalization of $1.3 billion was lost on that day alone!27 3) Jan 8, 2008, late afternoon: Rumors of Countrywide's imminent bankruptcy filing28 spread, requiring a denial by Countrywide.



5/8

1 4) Jan 8, 2007, late night: The crisis is averted by news reports of Countrywide purchase2 by BOA at reduced price of $4.5 Billion, to take effect in 3rd quarter of 2008, pending3 approval by regulators.4 In Samaan v Zernik the stakes are much higher, since the scope of fraudulent documents is5 much wider, and due to the personal involvement of Mozilo and Samuels!6789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

v. INSTANT MOTION - AN ATTEMPT TO DISTRACTAs filed, instant motion is just an attempt to distract and provide a fictitious shield to

Mozilo and Samuels, who lost long ago any semblance of plausible deniability relative to thefraud in Samaan v Zernik.

VI. INSTANT MOTION - THE ESSENCE OF CO CElTThis motion will no doubt be read upon review as the distil led essence ofwhat went

wrong in Los Angeles Superior Court in Samaan v Zernik, and the role played by Countrywidein it. Obviously, the court too felt that way: Papers related to the purported, non-existent July23, 2007 Protective Order that is the fictitious foundation for the instant motion wereconcealed in the "Volume IV Continued". Access to "Volume IV Continued" was denied, andits existence concealed from Defendant even after access to other paper court file documentswas finally gradually allowed starting Aug 31, 2007, after many months that all access wasdenied to court file, to minute orders and other notices.

VII. COUNTRYWIDE, MOZILO AND SAMUELS REAL PARTIES IN INTERESTReal Party in Interest - the true designation of Countrywide, Mozi10 and Samuels in

Samaan v Zernik is clearly stated on July 24, 2007 by Judge Connor in Sustain Case History.Audit data show that the entry was made only one day after she purportedly signed the nonexistent Protective Order, subject of the instant motion. However, as part of numerous otherfalse and misleading records in this court file, it was entered with the misleadingly back-datedto 7/24/2004, ensuring its permanent, prominent display on page 1 of Case History.



6/8

23456789

101l121314151617

VIll. COU TRYWIDE - PURVEYOR OF FRAUDULENT EVIDENCEDocuments repeatedly produced by Countrywide's Legal Department starting Aug 2006 in

response to subpoenas by Zernik included fraudulent documents. Zernik noticed such uponhis first cursory review of the materials in early December 2006, and he called Countrywide'sLegal Department a t that time, to ask that they avoid such documents in a repeat subpoena. Anotice to that effect was also included with the repeat subpoenas in January 2007. Regardless,Countrywide repeatedly produced such fraudulent documents. The intent was an attempt tocover up Countrywide's numerous blatant failures to comply and violations of the lawdocumented in Samaan's loan applications. The two key fraudulent documents were eachnoticed separately by Defendant:IX. COUNTRYWIDE, MOZILO, AND SAMUELS - COLLUDERS IN FRAUD WITHSAMAAN, ATT KESHAVARZI, AND OTHERSEven after numerous notifications of the fact that their false documents are used by Samaan

to defraud Zernik, Mozilo, Chair of the Internal Audit Committee, and Samuels - ChiefLegalCounsel, both officers of Countrywide who are charged with the safeguard of the integrity ofoperations in a chartered Banking Institution and a Publicly Held Corporations, absolutelyrefused to authenticate the fraudulent documents or confirm that they are fraudulent in nature.x. COUNTRYWIDE'S PRIVILEGES IN TillS COURT DEFY ANY NOTION OF DUE

18 PROCESS19 a. Sticking to the ficti tious non-party status, to avoid reporting to SEC and other20 regulatory agencies21 b. Allowed by the court all rights of a party, and beyond.. .22 c. Designated by the court in various documents anything from Defendant to Intervenor to23 Plaintiff - all wi th no legal foundat ion at all.24 d. Protected from claims by Zernik by Judge Connor denial of the leave to amend claims.25 e. Allowed by the Court to file Discovery motions at a t ime no such mot ions were26 allowed, again, in violation of any notion of Due Process Rights. Zernik's motion for27 Extension of Discovery Cut Off Date, April 22, 2007, was denied by Judge Connor,28 based on false pretenses, that Sustain showed the then valid trial date to be set in



7/8

November 2006. In fact, as we now know, no trial date was entered in Sustain by Judge2 Connor in Samaan v Zernik until Sept 10,2007 in the afternoon. At that time Judge3 Connor had no authority in Samaan v Zernik, since she was disqualified that morning.4 f. To justify allowing Countrywide filing a discovery motion when it was in fact not5 allowed, an excuse was made up in a post -facto ruling on July 23, 2007 Minute Order-6 the discovery cut of f date was purportedly effective only on Zemik, but not on other7 parties .. . and the July 23, 2007 Minute Order itselfconcealed from Zernik until much8 later .. .9 g. The initial ex parte appearance was scheduled on July 6,2007, through a procedure that

10 cannot be explained by Countrywide's counsels, and would not be allowed to any other11 party, and is in defiance ofDefendant's Due Process Rights.12 h. The July 6,2007 proceeding was concluded through a shortened notice hearing on July13 23,2007, where Countrywide was allowed, and did serve Defendant Zernik with its14 moving papers later than Zernik's deadline set by the court (July 12,2007) for his15 opposing papers, making an entire ridicule of any notion of Due Process Rights.16 1. The main claim by Countrywide in that motion, and in instant motion as well, was17 based on the fictitious notion that Zernik had addressed or is addressing Mozilo and18 Samuels as part of a Discovery procedure in Samaan v Zernik, with no evidence to19 support such notion whatsoever.20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing21 is true and correct.

in pro perJoseph ZernikDEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT27

28

22 Executed on Feb 6, 2008, in Los Angeles, California.23242526



8/8

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER TO SET SANCTIONS

PROOF OF SERVICESTATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESI am employed in the Los Angeles County, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years

and not a party to t,he action; my address is: \ z. S r \~ .. O S \ 'S \ l A CA q00\On 1,,\'AciO ,I served the foregoing document described as :0".

Joseph Zernikin proper2415 8t George StLos Angeles, CA 90027Tel: (310) 435-9107Fax: (801) 998-0917

These document were served on the interested party or parties in this action by placing a truecopy thereof i l l tIle firm's mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as noted in the attachedmailing list.[ ] BY MAIL: I am familiar with processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it isdeposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid atBeverly Hills, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the partyserved, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more thanone working day after the date of deposit for mailing in this declaration.[] VIA FACSIMILE: I caused all of the pages of the above entitled document to be sent to therecipients noted above via electronic transfer (FAX) at the facsimile number as noted in the attachedmailing list. This document was transmitted by facsimile and transmission reported completewithout error.[X ] BY PERSO AL DELIVERY: I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of theaddressees noted in the attached mailing list.(except for California Att General - byOIN mail)[X] BY EMAIL: Courtesy copr- Sent by email wi th copy to me by Joseph Zerllik in Pro Per.

Executed on -z...\ f....Q \ o

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	human-rights-alert-ngo-ra
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times