08-03-06 zernik v connor (2:08-cv-01550) dkt #005 plaintiff zernik's ex parte application for a...

8/14/2019 08-03-06 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) Dkt #005 Plaintiff Zernik's Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restrai…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/08-03-06-zernik-v-connor-208-cv-01550-dkt-005-plaintiff-zerniks-ex 1/31

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 of 31..

UNITED STATES DISTRIC

T COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF C

ALIFORNIA

TRAl DISTRICTOf CAlIFO NtA

Case # CV08-1550-GAF(MA

N)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 Joseph Zemik

2 2415 Saint George St.

Los Angeles, California

3 Tel: (310) 4359107

4 Fax: (801) 9980917

Plaintiff

5 in pro per

6

7

8

9

10

1112 JOSEPH ZER

N IKPlaintiff

VER IF IED EXPARTE APPL

ICATINS

FOR TEMPORARY RESTR

A INING

ORDER(S) &ORDER(S) TO

SHOW

CAUSE & EXHIBITS

v.3

14JACQUELIN

E CONNORET AL

15Defendan ts

16

17 TO THE COURT AND TO A

LL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF

18 RECORD: Plaintiff Joseph Z

emik is herein settingforth his Verifi

ed Ex Parte

19 Application forTemporary Res

training Orders & Orders to Show

Cause:

20

21

I.

INTRODUCTION

22Plaintiff is app

roaching U.S.District Court w

ith this urgent application to a

void

23criminal record

and ja il sentence likely by Fri

day, March 7, 2008, in a case where he

24 is the victim, but is vilified by the court. P la in tiffs comp

laint, filed March 5, 2008,

25 alleges that Countrywide Hom

e Loans, Inc (CHL) colluded w

ith Nivie Samaan's false

26 claims in the LA Superior Co

urt, West District (Case #SC0

87400), to defraud Plaintiff

27 Zemik ofhis home and his eq

uity.

28 --1--

PLAINTIFF 'SEX PARTE AP

PLICATION FOR TRO & OSC



Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 of 31

•

1

2 In September 2004 Samaansubmitted an offer to purcha

se Plaintiff home, and

3 Plaintiff and Samaan entered a contract, albeit, based on fraudulent inducement by

4 Samaan, who produced a forged and false Prequalificatio

n Letter and engaged in other

5 misrepresentations regarding her occupation, income, an

d fmancial ability. P laintiff

6 knew none of that until December 2006 or early 2007.

7 By late October 2004 Samaan could not get her loans ap

proved, and would not

8 remove her contingencies even after a Notice to Buyer to

Perform, and Plaintiff

9 eventually issued Instructions to Cancel Escrow.

10 Plain tiff was entirely ignorant regarding Samaan 'sloan applications until

11 December 2006 or early 2007, when he gradually uncov

ered the true facts in the

12 matter:

I3 - That Samaan 's husband (Jae Arre Lloyd) and his cousin

(Victor Parks) were "Loan

14 Originators" for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc (CHL), i

n San Rafael, California,

15 - That Samaan submitted toCountrywide extremely frau

dulent loan applications that

16 she prepared by herse lf with her husband(unlicensed and a spouse), b

ut were

17 fraudulently signed in Victor Parks na

me,

18 - That such applications were suspended by the Senior B

ranch Underwriter Diane

19 Frazier on October 14 ,2004, after Samaan refused to pro

vide corrected loan

20 applications (1003),

21 - That regardless of the fraud,Branch Manager Maria McLaurin removed Samaan's

22 loan applications from Underwriter Frazier, and tried to fraudulently approve th

em

23 herself,

24 - That the fraudulently approved 2

ndLien Loan application was e

ventually presented

25 by CHL for funding by Countrywide Bank on Jan 27, 2005, and were immediately

26 denied funding.

27 In October 2005, regardless ofall the facts listed above, Sa

maan filed claims

28 against Z em ik in the Los Angeles Superior Court, for Sp

ecific Performance and for

-2-




1 Damages. Eventually, she by November 2006, she

developed, w ith help from Victor

2 Parks, from Maria McLaurin , and from her then new counsel, A tt Mohammad

3 Keshavarzi (Sheppard M u llin et all) completely f

raudulent claims, based on the

4 allegation that Zernik prevented her loans frombeing funded in 2004.

5 In August 2006 the CFC Legal Department p roduced Sam aan 's loan file in

6 response to Zern ik 's subpoena. But as Zernik realized by 2007, this sub

poena

7 production was replete w ith fraudulent documents tha t in ten

ded to cover up the true

8 history ofSamaan's loans underwriting, which was in violation of the law and

9 regulations. Instead, a false history was created for the loans ' underwriting process.

10 With that, the CFCLegal Department became an active co-conspirator

in

11 Sam aan 's fraud in the LA Superior Court.

12 From November 2005 to Sept 10. 2007 Defendan t Jacqueline Connor

presided

13 in Samaan v Zernik. P la in ti f f alleges that she coll

uded w ith Samaan and Keshavarzi's

14 fraudulent claims, p rim arily to benefit Countr

yw ide Horne Loans, Inc, and

15 Countryw ide Financial Corporation. P la intiff furthe

r claims that she hadno authority

16 in Samaan v Zern ik at least since July 6, 2007, when she engaged in willful

17 misconduct to benefit Countr

yw ide, that was the subjectof disqualificat

ion filing per

18 CCP §170.3 on July 12, 2007, which Defendant Connor dishonestly dismissed.

19 Defendant Connor even tually

agreed to be disqualified by P la in tif fZ em ik on Sept 10,

20 2007.

21 On December 7,2007 the case was transferred to Defendant Terry

Friedman,

22 w ith no authority at all. Defendant Friedman acts as the eighth Presiding Judge in

23 Samaan v Zem ik . Defendant Friedman has known connection to CFC's Chie f L

egal

24 Counsel, Samuels (Exh ), yet he dishonestly refused tw ice to disqualify, on

Jan 11,

25 2008 , and Jan 15, 2008. W ith that he continued the abuse ofP lain t

iff's rights forDue

26 Process underthe co lo r of the law of California.

27 On Feb xx, 2007 Defendant Friedman held a hearing on P laintiff 's requ

est for

28 an order to release the funds tha t thecourt is holdin

g w ith no legal foundation

-3-




ll.

REQUEST FOR INJUCTION

STATEMENT OF CASE718

1 whatsoever, originally over $700,000, t

hat are P la in tiffs proceeds from the sale of

2 Plaintiff's home, action that lacked lega

l foundation in and of itself. Defendant

3 Friedman denied Zern ik 's application with no explanation at all, in c

ontinued abuse of

4 Zernik 's rights for Due Process and Poss

ession under the color of the law of

5 California.

6 On Feb 15 ,2007 Defendant Friedmanheld a hearing on C

HL's motion for

7 sanctions exceeding$16,000 against Pla

intiff, based on the non-existent July 23,

2007

8 Protective (gag) Order by Defendant Co

nnor, who was alsowithout any authori

ty by

9 July 23 ,2007 . Defendant Friedman dis

honestly awarded such sanctions exceed

ing

10 $16,000 to CHL. Yet he failedtoenter any order to tha

t effect or notice it to Plaintiff.

11 In the same Feb 15,2007 hearing, Defe

ndant Friedman ordered a hearing on an

12 Order to Show Cause for Friday, March 7 ,2008 . Defen

dant Friedman warned

13 Plaintiff Zernik thatsuch a hearing is likely to result in

additional sancations, in a ja il

14 sentence, and is of criminal nature.

15

16

19 Plaintiff Joseph Zemik alleges that Defen

dant Sandor Samuels and Defendant

20 Countrywide HomeLoans, Inc (hereto a

fter referred as "CHL"), and/or Countrywide

21 Financial Corporation (hereto after refe

rred as - "CFC") colluded with Samaan

22 (plaintiff in LA Superior Court Samaan v Zem ik SC087

400), in fraud against Zernik

23 under the color of the law ofCalifornia, in legal action in LA Superior Court.

24 Unbeknown to Plain tiffZernik until 20

07, Samaan's husband (lae Arre Lloyd

)

25 and his cousin (Victor Parks) wereand are "loan origin

ators" for Defendant Cm."

26 Defendant CHL and/or CFC provided Sa

maan with fraudulent documents in their Aug

27 2006 and subsequent productions in resp

onse to Plaintiff Zernik 's subpoenas.

28-4-




•

1 Defendant CHL also provide

d Samaan w ithfraudulent dec

larations by Maria

2 McLaurin, B ranch Manager,

San Rafael.

3 Such collusion was aimed to cover up CFC and CHL u

nlawful conduct relative

4 to Samaan 's loans underwriti

ng in 2004. Inproviding such

fraudulent documents and

5 declarations, Defendant Cm..,

and/or CFC engaged in obstr

uction of justice and

6 w illfully harmed Pla in tiff Ze

m ik .

7 Samaan, w ho never managed

to get her loans approved by

Defendant CHL in

8 2004 (since she was grossly u

nqualified), used such docum

ents in fraudulent claims in

9 above action toclaim Zem ik 's reside

nce.

10 Judges of the LA Superior Court

, some of themwith known co

nnection to

11 Defendant CIa and/or CFC and/or Defendant Sandor Samuels actively assisted

in

12 this fraud under the guise of le

gal action. W ith that, judgesof the LA Superior Court

,

13 named here asDefendants, in

fact abused andare still abusin

g, under the color of the

14 law ofCalifom ia, Plaintiff 's civil

rights per the US Constitution

, for Free Speech, for

15 Due Process, and for Possessi

on, Amendments the First, the

F ifth and the Fourteenth.

16 On July 6, 2007 Defendant C

onnor allowedDefendant CH

L (listed on that day

17 as Plaintiff, although it did n

o t have any clear standing in

the case, and still does not

18 have a clear standing in the c

ase - see Exh ) to appear ex parte in cour

t, in a

19 procedure thatdefied any not

ion of due process, and apply

for a wide range gag order

20 against Zem ik, to prevent h im

from talking about Countrywide.

21 On July 6, 2007 Defendant C

onnor denied Defendant CHL's application

, bu t

22 allowed it a shortened notice

hearing on July23, 2007. She

also allowed itto amend

23 its application,but failed to se

t a deadline forthe filing of the

amended moving

24 papers, whilesetting a deadl

ine of July 12,2007 for P la in tiff Zem ik 's

opposition.

25 By July 12, 2007 Plain tiff Zem ik was still n

ot served w ithDefendant CHL's

26 movmg papers.

27 On July 12, 2007 Pla in tiff Z

em ik filed in open court pape

rs pursuant to CCP

28 §170.3 for Defendant Connor

's disqualification, based on h

er partial treatment of




1 Defendant CHL and the abuse ofPlaintifTZernik's right

s for Free Speech and for Due

2 Process. In open court Defendant Connor immedi

ately ruled that thefiling was

3 pursuant to CCP 170.6, therefore untimely, therefore struck. She then immediately

4 went on presiding in proceedings in Samaan v Zernik.

5 PlaintiffZemik holds that with this dishonest conduc

t Defendant Connorin fact

6 established herse lfand a judge who ref

used to be disqualified, and all her acti

ons after

7 that were and are void and null (see ref

erences below), at least since that date,

July 12,

8 2007. But more likely, Defendant Connor ha

d no authority whatsoever in Samaan v

9 Zernik since July 6, 2007 - the date tha

t the events listed inPlaintiff Zem ik 's Ju

ly 12,

10 2007 Disqualification papers took place. And probably D

efendant Connor lost any

11 authority in Samaan v Zernik much earlierthan that - at least since April

22, 2007

12 listed in the July 12 ,2007 Disqualification papers as the

date Defendant Connor and

13 Defendant Jaime colluded in deceiving

PlaintiffZem ik regarding the date that

the then

14 current Trial Date was set.

15 On July 23, 2007, Defendant Connor, by then surely with no authority at all, in

16 open court stated that she would issue t

he Protective Gag Order at Defendant C

I--a's

17 request (by July 23, 2007

it was more narrowly formulated). However, Defendan

t

18 Connor never produced such a signed

order, never entered such an order, and

19 Defendant CI-a, who was ordered to notice it, never noticed su

ch an order, even after

20 repeated remindersby Plaintiff Zernik.

21 Defendant Friedman is the eighth LA Superior Court acti

ng as Presiding Judge

22 in Samaan v Zernik. Defendant Friedman has been acting a

s Presiding Judge in

23 Samaan v Zernik since Dec 7, 2007. But in fact,like the five judges

before Defendant

24 Friedman has no authority at all in Samaan v Zernik. Defendant Friedma

n never

25 obtained a Re-assignment Order. Plaintiff Zem ik repeated

ly asked Defendant

26 Friedman to noticehim of a Reassignment Order, but Defendant

Friedman refuses to

27 do so. There is no Re-assignment order listed in the electronic doc

ket either. With

28-6-




•

1 that - Defendant Friedman was engaging in abuse ofPlaintiffZemik's right for Due

2 Process under the color of the law ofCalifornia from day one.

3 On January 11, 2007, Defendant Sandor Samuels filed a Notice ofPerson in

4 Interest in Samaan v Zel'nik In his notice he described his relationship with

5 Defendant Friedman. Defendant Sandor Samuels was and is the President of "House

6 ofJustice" a prominent Jewish charity for free legal services. Defendant Friedman

7 was the Executive Director of "House ofJustice". Defendant Sandor Samuels

8 acknowledge their relationship, but claimed that they had not discussed Samaan v

9 Zernik, in fact alluding that they still meet in some context or another.

10 On Jan 11, 2007 P la in tiffZem ik filed in court for disqualification ofDefendant

11 Friedman per CCP §170.3 based on his relationship with Defendant Samuels, which

12 Defendant Friedman had never acknowledged, although he had been acting as

13 Presiding Judge since December 7,2007. Similarly, Defendant A llan Goodman acted

14 with no authority at all, and w ith no Re-assignment Order as Presiding Judge in

15 Samaan v Zernik for almost a month in Sept-Oct 2007, before recusing and

16 acknowledging a long-term close personal friendship with Defendant Sandor Samuels.

17On Jan 11, 2007 Defendant Friedman struck Plaintiff Zem ik 's filing per CCP

18 §170.3 AND filed a verified statement opposing Zemik 's claims, in effect denying any

19 knowledge of his relationship with Defendant Samuels.

20 Plain tiff Zern ik holds that Defendant Friedman had no authority in Samaan v

21 Zernik from the outset on December 7, 2007 for the following reasons:

22 a. He had no Re-assignment Order

23 b. He had engaged in dishonest conduct, failing to state his relationship with

24 Sandor Samuels

25 c. He had never filed any statement as required by the Judges Ethics Code

26 (Exh ) regarding gifts, loans and funds he may have received from

27 Samuels, whose personal wealth is in the many millions, or possibly in

28 the low billions.

-7-




Pla intif f Zernik holds that Defendan t Friedman at least had no authori ty since

2 he struck the Jan 11, 2008 disqualifica tion filing, since:

3 a. Defendant Friedman was dishonest in denying his relat ionship with

4 Sam uels

5 b. Defen dant Friedman both struck Plaintiff Zemik's papers as lacking on

6 their face any lega l basis AND filed a verified statemen t opposing

7 Zem ik alleg ations. Such is not al lowed per the Califo rnia Judge Bench

8 Guide publish ed by the Judicia l Council ofCalifornia. Such filing also is

9 self contradictory and defies all a logic, and therefore is invalid.

10 On Jan 11 , 2008, in open court, Defendant Friedman also deniedaU Pla in tif f

11 Zernik's applic ations included in an ex parte appea ran ce before Defendant Rosenberg ,

12 including vacating ru lings, orders, and judgmen ts by Defendant Connor pursuan t to

13 CCP §170.3. W ith that, Defendants Rosenberg and Friedman in fact colluded with

14 Defendant Connor 's dishonest conduct. Moreover , Defendant Rosenberg issued to

15 Plain ti ff Zern ik on a previous occasion a let te r claim ing, in bla tant viola tion of the

16 law, that he had no authori ty to vacate such ru lings, orders, and judgmen ts by another

17 judge. CCP§ 170.3 clearly states the opposite.

18 There fore, on Jan 15,2008 PlaintiffZem ik filed in open court a second time for

19 Defendant Friedman's disqualif ication, on th e grounds of his dishonest ruling on Ja n

20 11, 2008. This time Defendant Friedman st ruck Zern ik 's filing instan taneously, and

21 ruled th at his re ply from Jan 11,2008 was also applicable to the Jan 15,2008

22 disqualifica tion papers. Again Judge Friedm an engaged in dishonest conduct and still

23 failed to make any sta tem en t regard ing his re la tionsh ip with Defendan t Samuels.

24 On Feb 15 ,2008 Defendant Friedman held a hearing on Countrywide's motion

25 for Sanct ions exceeding $16,000 again st Zem ik for purpo rted vio lat ion of the non-

26 exis tent Ju ly 23, 2007 Pro tec tive Gag Order, by then presiding ju dge lacking in

27 authority Defendant Connor. Defendant Friedman in open court dishonestly validated

28 the Prote ctive Gag Order, although it still had never been produced, entered , or




1 noticed, and was never included in the Feb 15,2007 CHL moving papers. Defendant

2 Friedman granted Defendant em... sanctions exceeding $16,000, and ordered Plaintiff

3 Zernik to pay within 20 days (now due).

4 On Feb 15,2007 Defendant Friedman also ordered a hearing on ose Re:

5 contempt for March 7, 2008. And he warned Zernik of the criminal nature of the

6 hearing, and the likely jail sentence. Therefore, it is obvious that Defendant

Friedman

7 was already determined not to impose civil sanctions, if any, but sanctions of criminal

8 nature.

9 Defendant Friedman also ordered Defendant em... to serve Plaintiff Zemik with

10 the moving papers by Feb 19 2008, andordered Plaintiff Zem ik to serve his

I I opposition by Feb 27, 2008.

12 But Defendant Friedman to date - failed to enter an order regarding his ruling

13 and order for sanctions, and such an order was never noticed to Zemik. Therefore,

14 Zernik cannot even appeal it. It was also essential for Plaintiff Zernik to see such an

15 order in order to write his opposition. Also - CHL never adequately served Plaintiff

16 Zemik with the moving papers for the March 7, 2008 ose hearing. Judge Friedman

17 signed the order for Hearing on OSC only on Feb 19,2008, and Zem ik found the

18 papers in an envelope outside his door on Feb 20,2008 in the evening.

19 On March 3, 2008 Plaintiff Zemik applied ex parte for continuance of the

20 March 7, 2007 ose hearing. eHL appeared t but never filed opposition papers. In

21 open court Defendant Friedman asked Defendant CHL if it agreed to the continuance

22 and Defendant eHL said: No. Defendant Friedman then asked for the reason.

23 Defendant em... said that it knew that Plaintiff Zemik had had some issue with the

24 service, but that it really did not matter, since Plaintiff Zernik knew already that a

25 hearing was scheduled for March 7, 2008. Defendant Friedman then ruled denying

26 the continuance.

27

28




1 Judges of the LA Superior Court have already:

2 • Robbed Pla in tiffZem ik of2 years of his life

3 • Robbed Pla intiffZem ik ofhis home

4 • Are hold ing what was originally over $700,000 o fP la in tiffZem ik 's home

5 equity with no reason at all

6 • Have des troyed PlaintiffZem ik cr edit ra ting by appointing a Receiver, with

7 no reference to any sec tion of the code.

8 And now they are try ing to jail P lain ti ff Zem ik and saddle him for life with a

9 criminal record , when in fact, he is the victim of crim inal conduct.

10 Pla intiff Zemik 's fault - he figu red out that the judges were engaged in fraud

11 and deception and obst ruction of just ic e in favor ofDefendants CHL, Samuels, and

12 Mozilo, and he did not yie ld to thei r fraud and deception .

13

14

15

III.

POINTS AND AUTHORIT IES

17

16 Do Jurisdictio n of this court

Title 42 U.S . Code § 1983 reads as follows:

Every person who, under co lo r of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom , or usage, of any State or Territory, subje cts,

or causes to be subjected, any citi zen of the United States or

o the r person within the jurisd ic tion thereof to the depri vation of

any rights, privileges, or immunitie s secured by the Constitu tion

and laws, shall be liable to the party inju red in an action at law,

suit in equity , or o the r p roper p roceed ing for redress.

23

18

19

20

21

22

Here , P la in tiffZ em ik is al leging abuse of his rights per the 1st

, 5th

, and 14th

24 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by conduct ofju dges of the LA Superior Court ,

25 named here as defendan ts and their co llabo rators .

26 Such defendan ts, through thei r conduct, abused Plain ti ff 's right for Free

27 Speech, for Due Process, and for Possession. They did so over a long time period, in

28 a coordinated fashion, as willfu l misconduct to obst ruct ju st ice.

-1 -




1

2 CCP §170 says (underines added):

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

170. A judge has a duty to decide any proceeding in which he or she

i s no t d isqu a l i f ied .

170.1 . (a) A judge sh a l l be d isqua l i f ied if anyone or more of the

fol low ing i s t ru e :

(1) (A) The judge has personalknowledge o f d ispu ted ev id en t ia ry

fa c ts concern ing theproceed ing .

(8) A judge sh a l l be deemed to have personal knowledge with in the

meaning of t h i s paragraph if the jUdge, or the spouse of th e judge,

o r a person with in the th i rd degree of re la t io n sh ip to e i th e r of

them, or the spouse of such a person i s to the ju dg e 's knowledge

l ik e ly to be a mate r ia l witnessin the proceeding .

(2) (A) The judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding , or in any

o th er proceeding involv ing the same issues he or she served as a

lawyer fo r any pa r ty in the pre sen t proceed ing or gave adv ice to any

par ty in the pre sen t proceeding upon any matte r involved in the

ac tion o r proceeding .

(B) A judge sh a l l bedeemed to have served as a lawyer in

the

proceeding if with in the pas t two years:

( i) A party to the proceeding or an o ff ic e r , d ire c to r , or t ru s te e

of a pa r ty was a c l ie n t of the judge when the judge was in the

p r iva te p ra c t ic e o f law or a c l i e n t of a lawyer with whom the judge

was a sso c ia ted in the p r iv a te p ra c tic e of law.

( i i ) A lawyer in th e proceed ing was a s soc ia ted in the p r iv a te

p rac t ic e o f law with the judge .

(e) A judge who served as a lawyer fo r o r o f f ic e r of apublic

agency th a t i s a par ty to the proceeding sh a l lbe deemed to have

served as a lawyer inthe proceeding if he or she pe rsona lly adv

ised

o r in any way rep resen ted the pub lic agency concern ing the fac tua l or

leg a l is sue s in the proceeding .

(3) (A) The judge has a f in anc ial in te re s t in the sub jec t matter

in a proceeding or in a pa r ty to the proceeding .

(B) A judge sh a l l be deemed to have a f inan c ia l in te r es t within

th e meaning of t h i s paragraph i f :

(i ) A spouse or minor ch i ld l iv ing in the household has a

f inanc ia l i n t e r e s t .

( i i ) The jUdge or the spouse of the judge i s a f idu c ia ry whohas a

f in an c ia l in te re s t .

(e) A judge has a du ty to make reasonable e f fo r t s to inform

h im self o r he r se lf about h is or her personal and f id u c ia ry in te r e s t s

and those o f h is o r her spouse and the personal f in an c ia l in te r e s t s

of ch ild ren l iv in g in th e household .

(4) The judge , or the spouse of the judge, or a person with in the

th i rd degree o f re la t ion sh ip to e i th e r of them, or the spouse of such

a personi s a pa r ty to the proceeding or an o f f i c e r , d ire c to r , o

r

t r u s te e of a pa r ty .

(5) A lawyer or a spouse of a lawyer in the proceeding i s the

spouse , former spouse , ch i ld , s ib lin g , or paren t o f th

e judge o r the

judge 's spouse o r if such a person i s a ssoc ia ted in the p r iva te

p rac t ice of law with a lawyer in the proceeding .

(6) IA) For any reason :

(i) The judge be lieves h isor her re cusa l would fu r th e r the

-ll-




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

111213

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

26

27

28

i n t e res t s of j u s t i c e .

(ii) The judge bel ieves the re i s a subs tan t ia l doubt as to h is or

h er c ap a ci ty to be impar t ia l .

( i i i ) A person aware of the fac ts might reasonably en te r t a in a

doubt t h a t th e judge would be able to be impa r t i a l .

(B) Bias or pre jud i ce toward a lawyer in th e proceeding may be

grounds fo r d i squa l i f i c a t i on .

(7) By reason of permanent or temporary phys ica l impairment, the

judge i s unable to proper ly perce ive the evidence o r i s unable to

proper ly conduct the proceeding.

(8) (A) The judge has a cu r r en t a rr angemen t conce rni ng prospec t ive

employment or o the r compensated s e rv i ce as a dispute reso lu t ion

n eu tra l o r i s par t ic ipa t ing in , o r , wi th in the l a s t tw o years has

par t ic ipa ted in , discuss ions regarding prospec t ive employment or

se rv ice as a d is pu te r es ol ut io n n e ut ra l, or has been engaged in such

employment or se rv ice , and any o f the fol lowing appl ies :

(i) The arrangement i s , or th e pr io r employment o r discuss ion was,

with a pa r ty to the proceeding.

( i i ) The mat ter b efo re th e judge inc ludes i ssues r e la t ing to th e

enforcement of e i t he r a n a gr eement to submit a dispute to ana l t e r na t i ve dispute reso lu t ion process or an award o r o ther f ina l

deci s ion by a d i spu t e reso lu t ion neu t ra l .

( i i i ) The judge d i r e c t s the pa r t i e s to pa r t i c i pa t e in an

a l t e r na t i ve d i spu te reso lu t ion process in which th e d is pu te

r es o lu ti on n e ut ra l wi l l be an i nd iv id u al o r en t i t y with whom th e

ju dg e h as the arrangement , has previous ly been employed or served, or

i s discuss ing o r has discussed the employment or se rv ice .

(iv) The judge wi l l s e l e c t a dispute resolu t ion neutra l or ent i ty

to conduct an a l t e r na t i ve dispute reso lu t ion process in the mat t e r

before th e judge , and among those ava i l ab le fo r se l ec t ion i s an

ind iv idua l or en t i t y with whom the ju dg e h as the arrangement , with

whom the ju dg e h as previous ly b een emp loyed o r se rved , o r with whom

th e judge i s discuss ing or has d is cu ss ed t he employment or se rv ice .

(B) For th e p urp os es o f t h i s paragraph , a l l of the fol lowing

apply:( i) "Par t ic ipa t ing in discuss ions" or "has pa r t i c ipa t ed in

d i scuss ion" means t ha t the judge so l i c i t ed o r otherwise i nd i ca t ed an

i n t e r e s t in accept ing or n e go ti at in g p o s si b le employment or s e rv i ce

as an a l t e rna t ive dispute resolu t ion neu t ra l or responded to an

unsol ic i ted s ta tement re ga rd in g, o r an of fe r of, such employment or

serv ice by express ing an i n t e r e s t in t ha t employment or se rv ice ,

making any i nqu i ry regarding the employment or se rv ice , or

encouraging the person making the s ta tem en t o r of fe r to provide

add i t iona l informat ion about t ha t possib le employment or se rv ice . I f

a judge ' s response to an unso l i c i t ed s ta tement regarding , a ques t ion

about , or of fe r o f, p ro sp ec ti ve employment o r other compensated

se rv ice as a d i spu t e r es o lu ti on n e u tr a l i s l imi ted to responding

n e g at iv e ly , d e cl in in g the of fe r , or decl in ing to discuss such

employment or serv ice , th at response does not cons t i tu te

pa r t i c i pa t i ng in discuss ions .( i i ) "Par ty" inc ludes the parent , subs id ia ry , or other l ega l

a f f i l i a t e o f any ent i ty t ha t i s a pa r ty and i s involved in the

t ra n sa c ti on , c o nt ra ct , or f a c t s t ha t gave r i s e to th e iss ue s su bjec t

to the proceed ing .

( i i i ) "Dispute reso lu t ion n e u t r a l ~ means an a rb i t r a t o r , mediator ,

tempora ry ju dg e appointed under Sect ion 21 o f Art i c l e VI o f the

Ca l i fo rn ia Con st it ut io n , r e fe re e appoin ted under Sect ion 638 or 639,

-12-




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a ut ho ri ty t o appoint a r ep lacement of the disqua l i f ied judge as

provided in subdiv i s ion (a) .

(d ) The de te rmina t ion of t he q u es ti on of the disqua l i f ica t ion o f a

judge i s no t an a p pe a la b le o r de r and may be re vie we d o nly by a wr i t

o f mandate from t he a pp ro p ri at e cour t of appeal sought only by the

p ar t ie s to t he p ro c ee di ng . Th e pe t i t i on for the w ri t sh al l be f i l ed

and se rved wi th in 10 days a f t e r serv ice of w rit te n n ot ice o f en try o f

the cou r t ' s order determining the ques t ion o f d i squa l i f i c a t i on . I f

the no t ice o f ent ry i s served by mail , t ha t t ime s h a l l be e xt en de d as

provided in subdiv i s ion (a ) of Sect ion 1013.

170.4 . (a ) A d i squa l i f i ed judge, notwi ths tanding h is or her

disqua l i f ica t ion may do any of the fo l lowing:

(1 ) Take any ac t ion or i s sue any o rd e r n e ce ss ar y to mainta in the

j u r i s d i c t i on of the cour t pending the assignment of a judge not

d i squa l i f i e d .

(2 ) Request any o the r judge agreed upon by the p ar t ie s to sit and

a c t in h is or he r p l ace .

(3 ) H ear and determine pure ly de fau l t mat t e r s .

(4 ) I s sue an orde r fo r possess ion pr io r to judgment in eminentdomain proceedings .

(5 ) Se t proceedings fo r t r i a l or hear ing .

(6 ) Conduct se t t l emen t conferences .

(b ) Notwi ths tanding paragraph (5 ) o f subdiv i s ion (c ) of Sect ion

170.3 , if a s t a t emen t o f d i squa l i f i c a t ion i s unt imely f i l ed o r if on

its face it d i sc lo se s no l ega l grounds fo r d i squa l i f i c a t i on , the

t r i a l jUdge aga ins t whom it was f i l ed may orde r it s t r i cken .

(e) (1) I f a s t a t emen t o f d i squa l i f i c a t ion i s f i le d a fte r a t r i a l

or hear ing has commenced by the s t a r t of vo i r d i r e , by the swearing

of the f i r s t wi tnes s or by the submission of a motion fo r deci s ion ,

the judge whose impar t ia l i ty has been ques t ioned may orde r the t r i a l

or hear ing to con t inue , no tw i th s ta ndi ng t h e f i l i ng of t he s ta tem en t

o f d i squa l i f i c a t i on . Th e i s sue of d i sq u a li fi ca ti o n s h al l be r e f e r r ed

to another jUdge f or d ec is io n a s p ro vid ed i n s ub div is io n (a ) of

Se ct io n 1 7 0. 3, andif it

i s determined t ha t th e j udge i sd iSqua l i f i ed , a l l orders an d rUl ings of th e jud ge found to be

diSqua l i f ied made a f t e r the f i l i ng o f t he s ta tem en t sha l l be vaca ted .

(2 ) For the purposes of t h i s subdivis ion , if (A) a proceeding i s

f i l ed in a s ing le j udge co urt o r has been ass igned to a s ing le judge

fo r comprehensive d i spos i t i on , and (B) the proceeding has been s e t

fo r trial or hear ing 30 or more days in advance before a judge whose

name wa s known a t the t ime , the t r i a l or hear ing s h a l l be deemed to

have commenced 10 days p r i o r to the date scheduled fo r t r i a l or

h ea rin g a s to any grounds fo r d i squa l i f i c a t ion known before t ha t

t ime.

(3 ) A pa r ty may f i l e no more than one s t a t emen t of

d i squa l i f i c a t i on aga ins t a judge unless fac ts sugges t ing new grounds

fo r d i squa l i f i c a t i on a re f i r s t l earned of or a ris e a ft e r the f i r s t

s ta te me nt o f d i squa l i f i c a t i on was f i l ed . Repe t i t i ve s ta tements of

d i squa l i f i c a t i on no t a l l eg ing fac t s sugges t ing new grounds fo r

d i sq u a li fi c at io n s h a ll be s t r icken by the judge aga ins t whom they are

f i l ed .

(d ) Except as provided in t h i s s ec t i on , a d i squa l i f i ed judge sha l l

have no power to a c t in any proceeding a f t e r h is o r her

d iSqua l i f i c a t ion or a f t e r the f i l ing of a s t a t emen t of

d i sgua l i f i c a t i on un t i l th e gues t ion of h is o r he r d i squa l i f i c a t ion

-15-




•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

has been de te rmined .

170.5 . For th e p urp ose s o f Sec t ions 170 to 170.5, i n c lu s ive , the

fol lowing de f i n i t i on s apply:

(a ) "Judge" means judges of the s u pe r io r c o ur ts , and cou r t

comm is si on er s a nd r e fe rees .

(b l "Financial i n t e r e s t " means ownership o f more than a 1 percen t

l eg a l o r equ i t ab l e i n t e r e s t in a par ty , or a lega l o r equi tab le

i n t e r e s t in a par ty o f a f a i r market value in excess o f one thousandf ive hundred do l l a r s ($1,500), o r a r e l a t i on sh ip as d i r e c to r , advisor

o r o ther a ct ive par t i c ipan t in the a f fa i r s o f a par ty , except as

fo l lows:

(1 ) Ownership in a mutual o r common investment fund t h a t holdsse cu r i t i e s i s no t a " f inanc i a l i n t e re s t " in those secur i t i e s unless

the judge pa r t i c i pa t e s in th e management of the fund.

(2 ) An of f i ce in an educa t iona l , r eli gi ou s, c ha ri ta bl e, f ra te rn a l,

o r c iv ic organ izat ion i s not a " f inanc i a l in te res t " in secur i t i e s

he ld by th e organ izat ion .

(3 ) The p rop r i e t a ry i n t e r e s t of a pol icyholder in a mutual

insurance company, or a depos i to r in a mutual sav ings associa t ion , ora s imi la r p rop r i e t a ry i n t e r e s t , i s a " f inanc i a l i n t e re s t " in the

organ izat ion only if th e outcome of th e proceeding couldsUbs tan t i a l l y a f f e c t th e value of th e i n t e r e s t .

(c ) "Of f i ce r of a publ ic agency" does not inc lude a Member of th e

Leg i s l a tu re o r a s t a t e or l o ca l agency o f f i c i a l act ing in a

l eg i s l a t i v e capaci ty .

(d ) Th e t h i r d degree o f r el at io n sh ip s h al l be ca l cu l a t ed accordingto the c i v i l law system.

(e ) " P ri va te p ra c ti ce of law" inc ludes a fee for se rv i ce ,

re t a ine r , or sa la r ied represen tat ion o f p r iva t e c l i en t s or publ ic

agenc ies , bu t exc ludes lawyers as fu l l - t ime employees of publ ic

agencies o r lawyers working exclus ively fo r l ega l a id of f ices , publ ic

defender o f f i c e s , or s im il a r n o np ro fi t en t i t i e s whose c l i en te l e i s

by law r e s t r i c t ed to th e i nd ig en t.

(f) "Proceeding" means the ac t ion , case , cause, motion, o r spec i a lproceeding to be t r i ed or heard by the judge.

(g ) "F idu ci a ry " i n cl ude s any executor , t r u s t e e , guard ian , or

admin i s t r a to r .

i. The basis for disqualification of Judge Friedman

PlaintiffZemik's disqualification of Judge Friedman was based on the

following paragraph:

170.3 ( i i i ) A person aware of th e fac t s might reasonably en t e r t a i n a

doubt t h a t the judge would be able to be impar t i a l .

Defendant Friedman was the Executive Director of "House of Justice", yet an

employee of that organization. And Defendant Samuels, as a very wealthy donor, was

in a deciding position relative to that employment, typically Board Member, now

President of the Board.

-16-




1 But that in itself wasnot the issue. The i

ssue was that Defendant Friedman

2 took upon himselfto preside in this ca

se (with no authority), and did not both

er to

3 make any statement to the effect that he had any relationship whatsoev

er to Defendant

4 Samuels, obviouslythe dominant figure

in this litigation. He was dishonestly

5 protected by JudgeConnor from having claims filed

against DefendantCHL and

6 himself, but he remained the dominant

figure in this litigation nonetheless.

7 And given that thequestion of bias towards CHL and Samuels was al

ready at

8 the core of the disqualifications ofDefendants Connor, Goodman, an

d Segal,

9 Defendant Friedman had to realize tha

t such relationship would be considered

relevant

10 by Defendant Zemik:

11 The California Code of Judicial Ethics says:

12 Canon 3 (E )(2) says:

13

14

15

"In all trial court proceedings, ajudge shall di

sclose on the recordinformation that

the judge believes the parties or their law

yers might considerrelevant to the

question ofdisqualification,even if the judge believes

there is no actual basis for

disqualification."

16 But Defendant Friedman, instead, after

having this relationship pointed out to

17 him in disqualificationstatement, chose to

in fact deny any such relationship, twic

e.

18

19 The California Code of Judicial Ethics says:

20 Canon 4(D)(5) says:

21

22

23

24

"Under no circumstances shall a judge acce

pt a gift, bequest, orfavor if the donor is a

party whose interestshave come or are re

asonably likely to come before the judge. A

judge shall discourage members o fthe ju

dge 's family residing in the judge's

household from accepting similar benefits from parties who have co

me or are

reasonably likely tocome before the jud

ge."

25 Plain tiff Zernik has explicitlyasked Defendant Fr

iedman in the hearing on

26 March 3, 2008 to make a statement to this effect

. Judge Friedmanis still mum about

27 his relationship w ith Defendant Samue

ls, and any gifts, funds, loans, or equiv

alents

28-17-




that he or family members residing in his household have received from Defendant

Samuels.

And the California Bench Guide says on this issue:

§2.8 Judge 's Duty To Disclose Information Poten t ia l ly Relevant to

Disqua l i f ica t ion

A ju dg e mus t d i sc lo se on the r ec or d i nf orma tio n t he judge bel ieves

the pa r t i e s or t h e i r a t t o rneys might cons ider r e l evan t to the ques t ion o f

d i squa l i f i c a t i on , even if the judge b e li ev e s th er e i s no a ct ua l b as is fo r

d i squa l i f i c a t i on . Cal Code Jud Ethics , Canon 3E(2) . The pa r t i e s should

have an oppor tuni ty to weigh t h i s informat ion when cons ider ing whether

to chal lenge th e judge . Many judges inv i te th e pa r t i e s to comment on thed i sc l o sed i n fo rmat ion .

§2.9 Disc ip l i na ry Act ion for Fa i lure To Recuse

A j udge ' s fa i lu re to i n i t i a t e r ecusa l when grounds fo r disqua l i f ica t ion

c lea r ly ex i s t may be grounds for disc ip l ina ry ac t ion . Se e In re YOllngblood

(1983) 33 C3d 788, 191 CR 171 ( ju dg e e ng ag ed in l i t i g a t i on aga ins t

corpora t ion t h a t was pa r ty in case ass igned to judge) ; Rothman, Handbook

§7 .36 . However, a j udge ' s f a i lu r e to i n i t i a t e recusa l , even when recusa l is

mandatory , i s no t a cr imina l vio la t ion of Govt C §1222 (wi l l fu l f a ilu re to

p er fo rm duty requi red by law o f p ub lic o f f i c i a l ) or a c r im i n al o f fe n se o f

any kind. Boags v Mllnicipal COllr t (1987) 197 CA3d 65 , 69-71, 242 CR

681.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 ii . Validity and authority after disqualification

16 It may be open for debate what date Defendant COlUlor lost her authority, if she

17 had any to start out (her Reassignment Order is one ofmany documents from Sustain

18 of dubious character, it is dated bothNovember 1,2005, and Jan 30,2006). But

19 surely, after the disqualificdation of July 12,2007, citing the dishonesty of July 6,

20 2007, she had no authority at all.

21 Similarly, Defendant Friedman, who never had any authority at all, absent a

22 Reaasignement Order, surely lost any authority by Jan 11,2008, and his dishonest

23 reponse regarding his relationship with Defendant Samuels.

24 Therefore, the validation on Feb 15,2008, by Defendant Friedman, lacking any

25 authority himself, of a non-existent order of July 23, 2007 by the then lacking in

26 authority herselfDefendant Connor, is of no validity at all.

27 There are numerous decisions on the subject, and they are unanious:

28

-18-




1 "[D]isqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not2 when the disqualification is established."

(Christie v. City of EZ Centro, supra,135

Cal. App. 4

th

at p. 776.)3'(I]t is the fact of disqualification that controls, not subsequent judicial action

4 on that disqualification."5 Giometti v. Etienne (1934) 219 Cal. 687, 688-689) (Rossco Holdings Inc. et a/., v.

Bank of America (4/19/2007, B189963) 2nd Appellate District)6

7 Giometti v. Etienne, supra, states:

" this court has on several occasions pointed out that a judgment rendered by a8 disqualified Judge is void."9 (219 Cal. at p.689.)

10 "Orders made by a disqualified judge are void."(Cadenasso v. Bank ofItaly (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 567-568; Christie v. City of

11 E/ Centro (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 767, 776 )

12

13 "With regard to the entry of summary judgment by the disqualified judge, theUrias court relied on a line of cases from 1920-1984 and found that a judgment

14 or order rendered by a disqualified judge is void whenever broughtinto question."

15 T.P.B., Jr. v Superior Court (1977) 66 CA3d 881, 136 CR311; Civil Litigation

16 Reporter, April 2004

17

"Orders made by a disqualified judge are void."18 (Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 567-568; Christie v. City

19 of EZ Centro (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th

767, 776 )

20 "There is a dispute in recent appellate authority as to whether such orders

21 should be considered void or only voidable at the option of a party; theSupreme Court's latest opinion on the matter held them to be void."

22 (Christie v. City of El Centro, supra, 135 Cal. App. 4th

at pp. 669-780;

23 Rossco Ho/dings Inc. et a/., v. Bank of America (4/19/2007, B189963) 2nd

Appellate District)24

25 "The law is clear that a disqualified judge's order are void, regardless of

26 whether thay happen to have been legally correct."(Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 568-569; Rossco Ho/dings

27 Inc. et al., v. Bank of America (4/19/2007, B189963) 2nd Appellate District)

28

-19-




1 "Statutes governing disqualification for cause are intended to ensure public

2 confidence in the jud iciary and to protect the right of litigants to a fair and

impartia l adjud ica to r."

3 (Curle v. Superio r Court (2001) 24 Cal. 4th

1057, 1070)

4

5

"A void order is void even before reversal."

Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348,41 S. Ct. 116

6 (1920) (US Supreme Court)

7

9

8

15

11

13

14

12

ii. Allowable Responses to Disqualification

Defendan t Friedman, like Defendant Segal before him and like Defendant Segal

10 before him , and like Defendan t Connor before him , engaged in a dishonest and invalid

response to filings by P la in tif f pursuant to CCP §170.3: They strike it as having no

legal basis on its face, and then they file their verified response challenging the

allegations b rought forth by P lain tif f Zem ik.

Such a filing by a judge is not allowed per CCP §170.3. In fact, the verified

statement invalidates the ruling that the filings by PlaintiffZemik had no legal basis

16 on its face. Therefore , the remaining item, the judge's verified statement had to be

17hea

rd by another judge. That never happened in any of the cases tha t P la in tiff

Zem ik

18 disqualified judgesofLA Superior Court, W est District. They all disobeyance the

law

19 in the very same fashion.

20 CCP §170.3(c)(S) says:

21 A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not

pass upon his or her own d isqua lif ica tion or upon the sUfficiency in

22 law, fac t , or otherwise, of the statement of d isqualif ica t ion f i led

by a party . In tha t case, the question of d isqua lif ica tion shall be

23 heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by a l l the parties

who have appeared _

24

25

27

The law is also clear that until suc

h hearing is concluded by another judge, the

disqualified judgehas no authority at all:

26CCP §170.4(d) says:

28(d ) Except as provided in th is sec tion, a d isqualif ied judge sha ll

have no power to ac t in any proceeding a f te r h is or her

-20-




..

d isq u a l i f i c a t io n or a f te r th e f i l in g o f a s ta tement o f

d is q u a l i f ic a t io n u n t i l th e question o f h is or her d isq u a l i f ic a t io n

2 has been de term ined .

3

4

Therefore , Judge Terry Fri edman, who twice filed suchverif ie d statements, but

never had any other judge pas s upon th em is stil l with no authority, if for no other

5rea son.

6

7

9

8

11

But if there was any doubt left, the Califo rnia Bench Guide clarifies the issue.

Such a fil ing is no t allowed, and indeed, it is oxymoronic in natu re. The Bench Guide

sa ys (bold and underl in e added):

10d. Judge 's Response to S ta tement of Disqualification

(1) [§2.28] Judge's Options

25

15

19

27

13

17

21

18

12 A judge whose impartia lity has been challenged maytake a number

of actions. The ju dge may:

• Request any judge agreed on by the parties to ac t in his or her

14 place, w ithout conceding disqualif ication. CCP §170.3(c)(2).

! JUDICIAL TIP : If a sta tement of disqualification has been filed

under CCP §170.3 and there are no actu al grounds fo r

disqualification, a judge should not circumvent the duty to hear a

16 case (CCP §170) by consenting to the disquali ficationor

re questing anoth er judge to act in his or her place. Judges have a

prim ary obligation to decide cases. See CCP §170;Rothman,

California JUdic ia l Conduct Handbook §7.00 (CJA 1999).

• Consent to the disqualif ica tion within te n days of the fil ing o r

service of the statement, whichever is later, and notify the

presiding judge or other person authorized to appoin ta

replacement. CCP §170.3(c)(3}.

• W ith in te n days of th e filing or service of the statement, file a

verified written answer, adm ittin g or denying the allegations and

sett ing forth additional facts. The cle rk must transm ita copy of the

ju dge 's answer to each party or attorney who has appeared. CCP

23 §170.3(c}(3).

24 • Strike the sta tement if it was untim ely filed (see §2.27) or, on it s

face, d is closes no legal grounds fo r disqualification (see §2.25).

CCP §170.4(b). A judge is not precluded from striking the

statement as untim ely by the fact that the ju dge has previously

26 filed an answer to th e sta tement under CCP §170.3(c)(3). These

procedural options are not mutua lly exclusive. PBA,LLC v KPOD.

Ltd. (2003) 112 CA4th 965, 972, 5 CR3d 532. Howeve r, a Judge

cannot consent or answer afte r st riking the statement of

20

22

28

-21 -




1

3

d isq u a lif ica tio n . 112 C A 4th a t 973.

If no action is taken w ith in the applicable t im e lim its, th e ju d g e is

2 d ee m ed to have c on s en te d to th e disqualification. C C P §170.3(c)(4);

People v Superior Court (M udge) (1997) 54 CA4th 407, 411, 62 C R 2 d

721.

4

5 i i i Appoin tment of Subsequent Judge af te r Disqualification

6 CCP §170.3 is absolutely clear on the p

oint that the disqualified Judge has no

7 authority to re-assign the case before hi

m to another judge.

8 The disqualified judge has two options

(beyond the immediate term):

9 ONE - refer the case back to the Super

vising /Presiding Judge, or

170 .3(c) t h e judge s h a l l n o t i f y t h e p r e s i d i n g judge o r t h e person

a u t h o r i z e d t o a p p o i n t a replacement o f h i s o r her r e c u s a l

1 7 0 . 3 ( a ) " ... t h e judge s h a l l n o t i f y t h e p r e s i d i n g judge o f t h e c o u r t

o f h i s o r h e r r e c u s a l and s h a l l notf u r t h e r p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e

p roceed ing"

(2) Without conceding his or her d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , a judge whose

i m p a r t i a l i t y has been cha llenged by t h e f i l i n g o f a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t

may r e g u e s t any o t h e r judge agreed upon by t h e p a r t i e s t o sit and

a c t i n h i s o r h e r p l a c e .

TWO - transfer thecase to another judg

e agreed upon by the parties.

170.3(C)(2) says:

26

20

But in all cases starting with Defendant

Connor, who indeed recused herself

after the Sept 10, 2007 disqualification

per cep §170.3(c)(2), it wasthe recused judge

who transferred thecase to the next jud

ge, but w ith no consent of the parties.

And

Defendant Rosenberg, the Supervising

Judge, refused to issue Re-assignment

Orders.

22Therefore, Defenda

nt Hart-Cole enaged in conduct in viol

ation ofthe law - the re-

assigned the case toanother judge - De

fendant Terry Friedman, and Defendan

t

24

Friedman had no authority

to start out with.

25iv Authority ofOne Judge to Review and Vacate Rulings, O rders,

Judgments ofAnother a fter Disqualif

ication

23

19

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

21

27

28-2 2 -




The law says in 170.4(c):

...and if it i s determ ined th a t th e judge i s

d isq u a l i f i ed ,a l l orders and ru l in g s of the judge found to be

d isq ua lif ied made a f te r th e f i l in g o f the s ta tement sh a l l be vaca ted .

(4) I f grounds fo r d isq u a l i f ic a t io n a re f i r s t lea rned of o r a r ise

a f te r the judge has made one or more ru l ing s in a proceeding , bu t

be fo re the jUdge has completed ju d ic ia l act ion in a proceeding , the

judge s h a l l , un less the d isq ua l i f ic a t io n be waived, d isqu a l ify

him se lf o r h e rse l f , but in the absence of good cause th e ru l ing s he

or she has made up to th a t t ime sha l l not be se t as id e by the judge

who rep laces the d isq u a l i f iedjudge.

..

Similarly, CCP §170.3 is clear cut on the fact that one judge of the Superior

2 Court is allowed to review and vacate the action of another judge who was

3 disqaulified.

4 The law says in 170.3(b) (4):

5

6

7

8

9

10

111213 The statement to the opposite provided by Supervising Judge Rosenberg in his

14 letter of xxx was dishonest, and without any foundation.

15 Logically, it does not make any sense either. I f that was indeed the law, then

16 any case, no matter what stage, once a judge was disqualified, had to be moved to the

17 Court ofAppeal, since the disqualified Judge could easily irreperably taint the case.

18

19 c. Order to Show Cause - Contempt

20 Beyond the invalidity of the July 23 ,2007 Protective (gag) Order, Defendant

21 Friedman also showed abuse ofPlaintiff Zern ik 's Due Process rights in his Feb 19,

22 2008 Order To Show Cause.

23 First - although he ruled in open court in this matter on Feb 15, 2008, and set a

24 shortened notice for the hearing, he signed the Order only on Feb 19,2008, and that-

25 according to Counsel for CHL wasthe reason it was never served on Plaintiff Zem ik

26 on time.

27 Second - Defendant Friedman failed to spell out in his Order To Show Cause

28 the code section by which he will run that hearing. He did warn Plaintiff Zem ik in

-23-




open court of the criminal nature of the hearing, but he never spelled out the code

2 section in this Order. Two vastly different code sections may be used, and two vastly

3 different standards ofproofand adjudication may therefore be applied. Leaving such

4 ciritical issue vague is abusive in and of itself.

5 Third - he accepted CHL argument that the fact that PlaintiffZemik knew of

6 the pending hearing was sufficient, was unreasonable. The notice is required not only

7 for the time and place, but also for other critical information - such as deliberately

8 withheld by Defendant Friedman -

9 a. the code sections by which he would adjudicate Contempt, and

10 b. the ruling and order that he used on Feb 15,2008 to validate the non-existent

11 July 23, 2008 Protecive (gag) Order.

12

13 d. Plaintiffis abusedfor over two years by officials of the State ofCalifornia, under

14 the color ofthe law o f the State ofCalifornia, and the State has abandoned its dutyto protect its citizens.

15 Not only has the State ofCalifornia allowed the ongoing abuse ofPlaintiff

16 Zemik, it has abandoned its duty by law to protect him from such abuse.

17Calfironia Government Code §270 says:

18 270. Every person while w ith in th e Sta t e i s SUbject to i t sj u r i sd i c t ion and en t i t l ed to i t s p ro t ec t i on .

19

20

21

22

IV.ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS WRONGS WITIDN THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA JURISDICTION

23a. Los Angeles Superior Court -

24

25

26

27

28

Zemik disqualified Judges of the LA Superior Court on numerous

occasions, but these judges chose to ignore such disqualifications. Judge Friedman

alone was disqualified twice, on Jan 11, 2008 and again on Jan 15,2008.

Moreover, Zernik filed a Writ Petition with the State ofCalifornia Court ofAppeal

-24-




However, both appeals are still only in early stages ofpreparation of

records on appeal, and months away from any hearings.

Zernik filed several writ petitions with California Court ofAppeal:

1. B199661 - from April 22, 2007 Order Denying Continuance of

Discovery CutoffDate - denied

2. B204029 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9, 2007

Judgment by Court - denied

3. B204164 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9,2007 Judgment

by Court - denied

1 regarding Judge Friedman's refusal to disqualify, but the Court ofAppeal denied

2 Zemik's petition.

3 In the cases where judges of the LA Superior Court did disqualify, their

4 successors would not, as a matter ofprinciple, set aside or vacate any ruling, order,

5 judgment of their disqualified peers. One of the motions for vacating such judicial

6 actions was heard by Supervising Judge Rosenberg, and he issued later a letter to

7 Zemik, falsely claiming that no judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court has the

8 authority to review another judge's judicial actions. But the California law,

9 specifically in CCP §170.3 provides such authority to Judges of the Superior

10 Court.

11 b) California Court ofAppeal -

12 Zemik noticed two appeals related to the matter ofSamaan v Zemik:

13 1. B203063 - noticed 10/5/07, from Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, and

14 2. B204544 - noticed 12/10/07, from Nov 9,2007 Order Appointing

15 Receiver.

16 The latter appeal was noticed as the recommendation of the Court of

17 Appeal itself, which in one of its order stated that true remedy may be in such an

18 appeal.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-25-




4. B205195 - from Judge Frie dman str ik in g disqualif ic ation filings Jan 11

& 14,.2008 - denied

5. B205686 - from Judge Friedman denial of applicatio n for Ord er to

Rele ase Funds held by the Court - filed Feb 13, 2008 - still pending. As

ofMarch 4th

, 2008, Div ision 5 Cle rk could not ensure th at th is writ is

on the schedule fo r a hearin g this week.

6. B205737 - - from LA Superio r Court's denial of acce ss to electronic

file docket data and re la ted documen ts, and re fusal to cert ify key paper

file documents - filed Feb 14,2008 - sti ll pending. As ofMarch 4th,

2008, Divis io n 5 Clerk could not ensure that th is writ is on the schedule

for a hearing this week.

Zernik filed tw o addendums with the Court ofAppeal after the orig inal

filing dates to update the condit io ns in LA Superio r Court , and inform the

Californ ia Court ofAppeal of the urgency in Zern ik 's si tu ation.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 b. Commis sio n on Judicial Perfo rmance -

Zemik filed complaints w ith the Commission, most recently against

Judge Friedman. The Commissio n decided to run its hearing on the compla in ts,

including the one re lated to Frie dman in earl y February, re gardle ss ofZernik's

objections. A t th e tim e of the hearing, the commis sion never re ceived yet th e full

documentatio n of Judge Frie dman 's conduct, and such was still under way.

Zernik was exclu ded from any specif ic and detail ed knowledge of the

fi ling ofjudges for the hearing by the Commission, o r steps taken by the

Commission to in vestig ate the si tuation. Zem ik was in formed that his comlaint

was found with out mer it. Moreover, when he submitt ed fo llow-up info rmation

regard ing curre nt events in Judge Fri edman Court, he received a let te r from the

Commission re fu sin g to accept such documents , since the complaint regarding

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-26-




1

2

3 c.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Judge Friedman was already heard and closed (Exh xx is a xxlxxJ081etter from the

Commission).

Californ ia A ttorney General-

Safeguard of the civil rightsof California citizens are w ith i

n the charges

of the California A ttorney General. Z ern ik had numerous

communications with the

staffof the office of the Attorney General, including senio

r sta ff members such as

Au. Tom Green, Special Assistant, reporting directly to

A tt General Brown, and

A tt A lbert Sheldon, H ead ofthe Section on Consumer P

rotection, and Head of the

section on False Claims.These officials appeared si

ncerely interested in Zernik's

claims against Countryw ide, in the con text of the Office

of California Attorney

General own investigationagainst Countryw ide. and Z

ernik was instructed to add

the Office ofCaliforn ia Attorney General as a Party ofI

nterest on the Court filings.

Regard ing Zernik's concerns in the areas ofCivil R ight

s abuse and

Integrity of the Judiciary, theoffice of California Attorney

General refused to

in tervene ..

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik respectfully ask

s th is Court to

grant him such declaratory, injunctive to prevent the hearing on OSC

Re:

Con tempt th is Friday, March 7, 2008, to s top the abuse of his equity, to release h

is

funds held by the LA Superior Court w ith no legal fou

ndation, and for any other

relief as the Court deems just and proper,

Respectfully submitted on March 6, 2008 by:

PLA INTIFF

7Jlv-JOSEPH

-27-

PLAINTIFF'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO & OSC




· ...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

in pro per

v.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS th is Court issue equitab le relief

as follows:

1. A Temprorary Restra in ing Order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman re: hearing

on the Motion to Show Cause againstruled on Feb 2008, and

ordered on Feb 19,2007, cu rren tly scheduled for March 7, 2008.

2. A Temporary Restra in ing Order for D efendant Judge Terry Friedman and

Defendant Rece iver David Pasternak re: execution ofpayment of sanctions agains t

PlaintiffZern ik exceed ingeither from Plaintiff Zernik or from his funds

curren tly held by the LA Superio r Court.

A Temporary Restra in ing Order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman and

Defendan t R ece iver David Pasternak , re: any furthher expend iture from funds held

by which are Plaintiffs proceeds from the sale ofPlaintiffs home.

4. An order for Defendant Judge Terry F riedm an and Defendan t R eceiver Dav id

Pas te rnak to immediate ly release to PlaintiffZernik the balance of the funds held

by Receiver, wh ich are Plaintiffs proceeds from the sale of Plaintiffs home, with

a final accoun ting report.

5. An order for Defendan t Judge Terry F riedm an to show cause why he should not

immediate ly release to parties a s ta tement on the reco rd regard ing his re la tionsh ip

w ith Defendant Samuels and any gifts, funds, loans, or va luable goods or serv ices

rece ived by F riedman or his family members res id ing in his househo ld from

Samuels.

15

16 3.

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

26

27

28-28-

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO & OSC




.. , ." I "

J O S e P h ~ i k/'/

/ , i F " \

By: - - - - - - f G 7 / ~ i +b----:?'-/---Joseph Zenrik

Plaintiff

in pro per

VI.

STATEMENTOF VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

8. Issue declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate just.

7. An order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman and Defendant Supervising Judge

Gerald Rosenberg to show cause why litigation ofSamaan v Zernik in LA Superior

Court should not be ruled as mistrial and transferred to U.S. District Court.

I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zernik

(SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, I am also

Appellant in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court (B203063 - noticed 10/5/07 and

B204544 - notice 12110/07), matters currently in preparation of records on appeal for

California Court ofAppeal, and I am also Petitioner Zernik v Los Angeles Superior

Court (B205686 - to release funds held by LASC and secure Zernik's rights for Due

Process and Possession, filed 2/13/08 and B205737- to safeguard Zemik's rights for

6. An order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman and Defendant Supervising Judge

Gerald Rosenberg to show cause why all Defendant Judge Connor's actions in

Samaan v Zernik should not be vacated.

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

109. Issue any other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

11

12 Respectfully submitted on March 5, 2008

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

-29-

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FORTRO & OSC




i '-

1 Due Process re: Denial ofAccess to Court Fil e and related public records, filed

2 2/14/08, both still pending before the California Court ofAppeal).

3 I have read the foregoing Verified Request/or Inju ncti on (Amended, &

4 Exhibits and I know the content thereof to be true it is correct based on my own

5 personal knowledge as Defendant & Cross Complainant, as Appellant, and as

6 Petitioner in pro per, except as to those matters therein sta ted as based upon

7 info rmation and belief , and as to to those matters, I believe th em to be true and

8 corre ct as well.

9 I make this declara tion th at the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of

10 perju ry pursuant to the laws of Cali fo rnia and the United States.

11 Executed here in Los Angele s, County ofLos Angeles, on this 6thday in

Cali fornia Bench Guide, by the Judicia l Council ofCalifornia

California Judge 's Eth ics Code

Notice o fSam aan ;s Fraudulent Loan Applic ations, Submitted to

Countrywide, Their Underwrit ing, Suspension, and Denial ofFunding,

and Fraudulent Representations to the Contrary Made in Court by

Samaan and Countrywide.Jan 11, 2008 Samuels Notic e ofPerson of Interest

Jan 11,2008 Judge Frieman's fi ling in response to disqualification

Jan 15 ,2008 Judge Friedman 's response to disquali fi cation

Feb 15 ,2008 Zemik 's Opposit ion to Sanctions

Feb 15, 2008 Zemik 's Talking points

-3 -

12 March, 2008.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 Exhibit A:

22 Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:23

24

25 Exhibit D:

26 Exhibit E:

Exhib it F :

27 Exhibit G:

28 Exhibit H:

V II .

EXHffiITS

) . - - - IJ C.··. I .

V )Joseph Zernik

Plaintiff

in pro per




I I.

Feb 15, 2008 Transcrip t

Feb 20 , 2008 No tice to Appear March 7 for OSC Contempt.

March 3,2008 Zernik's ex parte applica tion to con tinue OSC re:

1 Exhibit I:

2 Exhib i t J:

ExhibitK:3 Contempt

4 Exhibit L : March 4 , 2008 Zernik's addendum for Writ Peti tion

Exhibit M: March 5, 2008 Online docke t of Samaan v Zern ik (SC087400), LASC

5 Exhibit N : March 5, 2008 Online docket ofZemik v LA Sup Ct, Appella te docket

6 Exhibit 0: March 7, 2008 Zemik's opposition to OSC , includ ing follow ing exhibits:

7

Exh 1 - No tice of Countryw ide fr audule nt Oct 26, 2004in valid Underw ri ti ng Lett er,

8repre sented in cou rt as a val id Oct 14,2004 Underwriting Lett er.

9

Exh 2 -.Notice of Countryw ide fra udule nt fa x copy of Sep t 15 , 2 004Purchase Contr ac t

to

11Exh 3 - No tice ofCountrywide's fra udule nt Samaan's Loan Appli catio ns (1003)

Exh 4 - Notice o fDocument: Countr yw ide in Samaan v Zern ik

12Exh 5 - NYT new s it em : "recrea ted lett ers" filed in court .

13Exh 7 - Zemik's le tter a sk ing for certi fic ati on of docum ents

14

15

16

Exh 8 - Talk ing poin ts fi led by Zern ik in Court Feb 15, 2008

Exh 9 - Decla ra tions of Alex Rodriguez an d Jose G arc ia

Exh 10 - Coll ec ti on of unsig ned, D enied proposed Protec tive Orders re tr ie ved by Zemik

17from Court F ile . No s igned order was ever fou nd, ente re d , or noti ced .

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1-

08-03-06 zernik v connor (2:08-cv-01550) dkt #005 plaintiff zernik's ex parte application for a...

Documents