09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #6 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part3 p199-243

Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 1 Filed 03/20/2009 Page 34 of 50
ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 199

Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 1 Filed 03/20/2009 Page 47 of 50

Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 16



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 2-b
28
INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/SETTING ASIDE

Case No. BC351286
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
09-08-01-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-request-for investigation
09-08-01 Request for investigation in RE: Concerns regarding docketing, maintenance of
Court records, and conduct of clerical staff, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
Terry Nafisi
District Court Executive and Clerk of Court
(by email and by priority certified mail, restricted delivery)
312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8
Los Angeles, California 90012
terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov
Timed response requested by Wed, August 5, 2009, 5:00pm.

Clerk Nafisi:
Please accept this letter as my request for investigation in re: Concerns regarding docketing,
maintenance of Court records, and conduct of clerical staff at the U.S. District Court, Los
Angeles in the following cases:
1) Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-cv-01914), and
2) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
The two cases are jointly reported, since in both cases, the key persons involved included:
1) Magistrate Carla Woehrle
2) Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas
3) Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer.
For both cases request was also filed for access to NEFs to inspect and to copy, and
additional concerns may be raised following review of the NEFs.
Time is of the essence, preliminary response is requested by Wed, Aug 5, 2009, 5:00 pm:
a) Whether the Clerk of the Court intends to take any action relative to instant
complaint?
b) If so – what is the estimated time for completion of such review?
c) If the complaint is reviewed – would complainant Joseph Zernik be notified
of the results of such review?
d) Is there any other specific procedure at the Court for filing complaints on
such matters?
e) Request is herein filed for access pursuant to Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978) to the Docket Activity Reports and to the
Calendar of the Courts, relative to both actions, to inspect and to copy.
1) Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County (2:09-cv-01914)
Dr Zernik got interested in the case only when it was close to the end of the legal review
process. Accordingly, Dr Zernik uncovered the issues of concern listed below, only very
recently – after the legal review process was completed. Given the central significance of the

z Page 2/6 August 1, 2009
record in (a) below, concern is that any untowardly event related to such record could have
resulted in perversion of justice, and the ongoing jailing of a person which should have been
released from jailing.
a)Purported Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt1,2,3
appearing as part of the record (Dkt #1, Dkt #16).
Such judgment for contempt against Att Richard Fine is the central document in
the entire case. Concerns are raised regarding the validity of both copies of the
record, which appear in the docket. However, primary concern in this letter rests
with Cope #1, and the possibility that it was adulterated after being filed as a
record at the U.S. District Court, LA.
Inherent defect is apparent in both copies of the purported Judge David Yaffe
March 4, 2009 Judgment included in litigation records in this case (Copies #1, #2
- Footnotes #1, #2, respectively). Such Judgment bears a FILED stamp of the LA
Superior Court dated March 4, 2009. Copy #1 of the Judge David Yaffe March
4, 2009 Judgment was later incorporated as an exhibit in the Habeas Corpus
Petition of Att Richard Fine, bearing a FILED stamp of the U.S. Dist Crt, LA,
dated through hand-alteration March 20, 2009. Copy #2 was filed as an exhibit
on May 1, 2009. However, both Copy #1 and Copy #2 of the Judgment are dated
Mach 24, 2009 by hand-writing pertaining to and adjacent to the verification
attributed to Judge David Yaffe on the last pages of the respective Copy #1 and
Copy #2 of the purported judgment records.
Att Fine reports that the copy that he provided for submission with Dkt #1, had
no date entered in it.
The docketing text of Dkt #1 refers to changes or modifications in the records
that took place on March 24, 2009, albeit, the exact nature of the modification is
not spelled out.
On July 20, 2009 I raised such concerns regarding the purported March 4, 2009
record with Ms Sharon McGee, Supervisor of Operations in the Clerk’s Office.
She promised me to look into the matter.
On July 27, 2009 I discussed the matter with Ms McGee again. At that time she
informed me that she concurred with my opinion that there was reason for
concern in this regard, and she informed me that she raised the issue with the
court of Magistrate Woehrle.
b) Table of Contents of exhibits that were filed with Petition to California
Court of Appeals, 2nd District, and incorporated as part of record (Dkt #1) 4
1
Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt, Copy #1: Att Richard Fine’s
Habeas Corpus Petition, U.S. Dist Crt, LA (Dkt #1) as recently seen in Pacer:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-03-04-judgment-
contempt.pdf
2
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-
contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
3
Party in Interest Dr Joseph Zernik, and likewise Att Richard Fine are yet to gain access to
authenticated copies of any of the U.S. Court records discussed here.

The titles of 4 exhibits: #4,5,6,7 are missing in the record that is today seen in
Pacer, and no Exhibit Numbers are shown. Due to very limited communications
opportunity with jailed Att Richard Fine, I did not have the opportunity to review
the issue with him prior to this date. However, I am forwarding to him a copy of
this letter, hoping that he respond and state what was the nature of the respective
page in the document that he provided for filing in court.
c) Letter dated March 20, 2009 included as part of the record (Dkt #1) 5
Letter dated March 20, 2009 from Deputy Clerk Chris Sawyer to Att Richard
Fine could not possibly be part of the filing by Att Richard Fine, and it is unclear
why it is represented as such.
d) Notice of Reference to a Magistrate Judge (Dkt #2)
The assignment to a judge is listed per GO 07-02.
Concern is that no such General Order could be found.
e) Notice of Clerical Error in re: Stamp FILED on Dkt #1 (Dkt #3)
The docketing text states:
03/24/2009 3 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: On the petition the date was March
19, 2009, which is incorrect. The correct date is March 20, 2009. (rn) (Entered:
03/24/2009)
Concern is regarding confluence of unusual events relative to Dkt #1 on March
24, 2009.
f) Notice of Clerical Error in re: Assignment to judge (Dkt #4)
The docketing text states:
03/25/2009 4 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error the Case has
been reassigned from Judge Dean D. Pregerson to Judge George H Wu for all
further proceedings. The case will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV
09-01914 GW (CW). (rn) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
Concern is that in fact recusal of a judge, or undoing of invalid assignment, which
were not Clerical Errors were incorrectly recorded.
2) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
a) Case numbering – unusual clustering with unrelated cases, which on its
face appears in violation of FRCP Rule 79 (a)(1)
Select a case:
2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Joseph Zernik v. Jacqueline Connor et al (closed)
2:08-mj-01550-DUTY USA v. Martinez (closed)
5:08-cv-01550-SGL-OP Hector Martinez v. Litton Loan Servicing LP et al
(closed)
b) Adulteration of Plaintiff’s summons, and docketing of false and
deliberately misleading summon as part of court records in Pacer (Dkt
#1).
4
TOC of Exhibits that were part of a petition filed with California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, appears
as p42, Dkt #1-2:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-03-02-petition-to-
cal-ct-app-2nd-toc-exhibits.pdf
5
Letter dated March 20, 2009 from Deputy Clerk Chris Sawyer to Att Richard Fine.

On the day of filing the complaint, Plaintiff presented Pro Se Clerk, Chris
Sawyer, with valid Summons. Mr Sawyer refused to verify and issue such
summons, and insisted on generating on his own, out of compliance with Rules
of Court, false and deliberately misleading summons, which he then proceeded to
docket under the complaint in Dkt #1. Such conduct should be deemed upon
review obstruction of justice, denial of access to the court and to fair trial.
c) Notice of Reference to United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt #4)
The assignment to a judge is listed per GO 07-02.
d) Order Returning Case For Reassignment Upon Recusal (Dkt
#6, #7,#8, #9, #10)
The re-assignment to a magistrate judge is listed per GO 07-02.
e) Long delays I docketing of Plaintiff’s papers, and other irregularities,
resulting in substantial divergence of the records from ordinal sequence.
As a result of various delays imposed only on Plaintiff’s papers, at times over a
month, the docket shows records that diverge substantially from ordinal
sequence.
f) Docketing of unrelated papers under the same record number and the
same docketing text (Docket #52, #56, #58)
Concern is that such conduct resulted in the concealment of critical records.
g) Failure to docket records with Pacer header security blue imprint
A number of records were docketed with no blue header imprint, at times, such
inadequate docketing was corrected after complaints were filed with FBI.
h) Proofs of Service of Summons and Complaint (Dkt #43)
False records were docketed.
i) Proofs of Service of Summons and Complaint (Dkt #43)
False recording under Related Transactions.
j) Judgment (Dkt #107)
False registration as seen in Related transactions – unrelated to Complaint (Dkt
#1), which was left unterminated.
3) Concerns applicable to both cases
a) Allowing filing of papers by attorneys with no Notices of Appearances by
Counsel
At least in one case – filing of papers by Bryan Cave, LLP for Countrywide, the
evidence is rather conclusive that Bryan Cave, LLP, was never authorized to
appear as counsel of record in court for either Countrywide or Bank of America.
Instead, Bryan Cave, LLP and Countrywide and/or Bank of America Corporation
engaged in what must be deemed upon review repeat of conduct that was
rebuked by the Hon Jeff Bohm, U.S. Judge, Texas, and which Countrywide

promised that Court not to repeat (case of Borrower Parsley, No 05-90374,

Memorandum Opinion (Dkt #248).
b) Failure to provided adequate Corporate Disclosures in a timely manner,
and/or inclusion of Corporate data from unknown sources.
The court failed to enforce the law in re: Corporate Disclosures, and included
corporate data from unknown sources.
c) Use of manual stamps versus electronic stamps “FILED”.
In both cases certain records were stamped “FILED” using a manual stamps
instead the elecronic stamps most commonly used at the court. Concern is that
such stamps on such records represented retroactive stamping of the records.
d) Delegation of the Clerk’s authority to Courtroom Assistant.
In both cases certain clerical functions were carried out by Ms Donna Thomas,
who is upon information and belief Courtroom Assistant. Concern is whether
such functions are indeed delegated to Courtroom Assistants by the Clerk of the
Court.
e) Participation of Deputy Clerks, knowingly, in docketing records that
may not be authentic court records
Concern is regarding conduct of deputy clerks or courtroom assistants, which
may constitute docketing of records, which on their face were not authentic court
records, e.g. – summons in Zernik v Connor et al. Such conduct that may have
taken place, may be deemed upon review production of false and deliberately
misleading litigation records, and obstruction of justice and/or perversion of
justice.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

f) Participation of Deputy Clerks, knowingly, in Court conduct that may

not be legitimate court procedure, and that may be deemed upon review
as abusive on its face.
Concern is regarding conduct of deputy clerks or courtroom assistants, which
may have involved participation in court conduct that out of compliance with
authentic, valid, court procedures, and may be deemed upon review as abusive in
nature, e.g. – Discrepancy procedures in Zernik v Connor et al, which were never
recorded by the court, but were recorded by plaintiff as “Perverted Discrepancy
Procedures” (Dkt #105).
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Dated: August 1, 2009 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
________________________
By: Joseph H Zernik
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV, CA 91750
Tel: (323) 515 4583; Fax: (801) 998 0917;
jz12345@earthlink.net
CC:
Richard I. Fine
(By USPS first class mail & by email to mm)
Prisoner Attorney (1824367)
Pro Se Petitioner
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
Twin Towers
450 Bauchet St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 2-c
28
INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE

Case No. BC351286
09-07-31-att-fontana-la-sheriff-marina-judgment-verification
09-07-31 Meet & Confer with Att Fontana for LA Sheriff Department
Mitchell Fontana
(by email and by fax)
Attorney for Sheriff of Los Angeles County
Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi PC
100 West Broadway Suite 1200
Glendale, CA 91210
818-545-1925
818-545-1937 (Fax)
afontana@lbaclaw.com
TIMELY RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5:00 pm, MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2009
RE: Marina v LA County (BS109420) – LA Superior Court;

Fine v Sheriff (2:09cv01914) – U.S. District Court, LA;
Fine v US Dist Ct, LA (09-71692) – U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th circuit
Meet and Confer in RE: Motion for Relief & and Immediate Release of Falsely
Jailed Att Richard Fine - Request for copies of any record of March 4, 2009
Judgment, and/or Register of Actions that were the legal foundation for the
actions of the Sheriff Department in this case.
Attorneys Fontana:
Please accept this letter as part of my Meet & Confer efforts. Your timely response is
requested so that we may avoid burdening the courts again with this matter. Please let me
know if you intend to respond by Monday, August 3, 2009, 5:00pm.
Initial Meet & Confer letter was sent after I discovered the defect in the purported Judge
David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment for Contempt1,2,3 against Att Richard Fine. You were
informed of one of the inherent defects in both copies of the purported Judge David Yaffe
March 4, 2009 Judgment viewed by me to date (Copies #1, #2 - Footnotes #1, #2,
respectively). Such Judgment bears a FILED stamp of the LA Superior Court dated March 4,
2009. Copy #1 of the Judge David Yaffe March 4, 2009 Judgment was incorporated as an
exhibit in the Habeas Corpus Petition of Att Richard Fine, bearing a FILED stamp of the U.S.
Dist Crt, LA, dated through hand-alteration March 20, 2009. However, both Copy #1 and
1
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-03-04-judgment-
contempt.pdf
2
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-
contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
3
Party in Interest Dr Joseph Zernik, and likewise Att Richard Fine are yet to gain access to
authenticated copies of any of the U.S. Court records discussed here.

z Page 2/2 July 31, 2009
Copy #2 of the Judgment are dated Mach 24, 2009 by hand-writing pertaining to and
adjacent to the verification attributed to Judge David Yaffe.
In the course of Habeas Corpus litigation, Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County

(2:09cv01914), the Sheriff Department, represented by you, and named by jailed Att Richard
Fine as Respondent, effectively refused to respond, and never filed in court any record that
could have allowed the Magistrate in that case “to inquire into the legality of the
prisoner's detention”, and for the imprisonment to “be shown to conform with
the fundamental requirements of law” pursuant to Fay v Noia (1963) pp. 401–
402.
Therefore, please accept this letter as a request that you inform me as soon as possible
whether the LA Sheriff Department had in its possession on March 4, 2009, or any time
after that, the essential legal records to establish that the imprisonment of Att Richard
Fine conformed with the fundamental requirements of the law:
1) A valid March 4, 2009 Judgment for the jailing of Att Richard Fine, and
2) A Register of Actions of underlying case - Marina v LA County (BS109420)
If the Sheriff Department indeed holds such records, please provide me with copies as soon
as possible.
Dated: July 31, 2009 JOSEPH H ZERNIK
________________________
By: Joseph H Zernik
Pro Se Party in Interest
1853 Foothill Blvd, LV, CA 91750
Tel: (323) 515 4583; Fax: (801) 998 0917;
jz12345@earthlink.net
CC:
Richard I. Fine
(By USPS first class mail & by email to mm)
Prisoner Attorney (1824367)
Pro Se Petitioner
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
Twin Towers
450 Bauchet St.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 3-a
28

Case No. BC351286
00-00-00-la-sup-ct-clerk-authentication
09-07-17-Request for authentication
July 17, 2009
John Clarke
Clerk/Executive Officer
Los Angeles Superior Court
Phone: 213 974 5050
Fax: 213 621 7952
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
By Fax and by Email
jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org
RE: REQUEST FOR AUTHENTICATION OF COURT RECORDS IN:

a) GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC052737),
b) SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400), AND
c) MARINA V COUNTY (BS109420)
Dear Mr Clarke:
California Government Code says:

GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 69840-69848
69840. (a) The clerk of the court shall exercise or perform, in

addition to the powers, duties, and responsibilities provided by
statute, any powers, duties, and responsibilities required or
permitted to be exercised by the county clerk in connection with
judicial actions, proceedings, and records. The county clerk is
relieved of any obligation imposed by law on the county clerk with
respect to these powers, duties, and responsibilities.
69842. The clerk of the superior court shall keep such indexes
as will insure ready reference to any action or proceeding filed in
the court. There shall be separate indexes of plaintiffs and
defendants in civil actions and of defendants in criminal actions.

z Page 2/5 July 17, 2009
The name of each plaintiff and defendant shall be indexed and

there shall appear opposite each name indexed the number of
the action or proceeding and the name or names of the adverse
litigant or litigants.
69843. The clerk of the superior court shall issue all process and
notices required to be issued.
69844. The clerk of the superior court shall keep the minutes
and other records of the court, entering at length within the time
specified by law, or forthwith if no time is specified, any order,
judgment, and decree of the court which is required to be entered
and showing the date when each entry is made. Failure so to
enter the date or failure to enter the order, judgment, or decree
within the time specified in this section shall not affect the validity
or effectiveness of the entry.
The local Rules of Court say:

3.0 JUDGMENTS (See Also LASCR, rule 8.96)
(a) Original and Copy. Whenever a proposed judgment
is submitted to the court, the original shall be
accompanied by a complete, legible copy. If the
judgment provides for the payment of child support
through a public officer, the original of the proposed
judgment shall be accompanied by three copies thereof.
(b) Court Trustee. The Auditor-Controller of the County
of Los Angeles is hereby designated as the officer of the
county to whom support payments shall be made when
the court orders such payments to be made through a
court trustee.
….
(c) Execution by Clerk of Documents. If a judgment
awards real or personal property and the necessary
documents for the transfer are not at that time executed,
the execution of such necessary documents by the proper
party shall be ordered. In such case, the Clerk of the
Court, or his/her designee, on order of the court, shall
have the authority to execute such necessary documents,
as are specified in the court’s order, in the event of the
failure of the obligated party to do so within a specified
period of time.
(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.
Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court,
which are required by law to be entered, shall be entered
by the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her either in
the Public Services Division, of the Central District, or the
clerk’s office in each of the several districts. The
judgment, order or decree shall be entered in the
judgment books in the district wherein the same was
rendered and no other entry thereof shall be required.

z Page 3/5 July 17, 2009
The Local Rules also say:

8.96 FORM OF JUDGMENT (See Chapter 3)
In drafting forms of judgment for the trial judge to sign,
counsel shall clearly show the full names of the parties
for whom, and against whom, the judgment is rendered,
including their capacities as plaintiffs, defendants, cross-
complainants and cross-defendants.
(Rule 8.96 [1/1/94] REPEALED in part, and effective
7/1/98.)
The Local Rules also say:

1.4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR
COURT
(a) Intent of Rule. It is the intent of the Court by
adopting this rule to, inter alia, provide that the duties of
the Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court
("Executive Officer") be performed by one individual who
will not hold any other position in state or county
government.
(Rule 1.4(a) [1/1/94] amended and effective 1/22/2000.)
…
(e) Powers and Duties. Pursuant to Section 69898 of
the Government Code and Rule 10.610 of the California
Rules of Court, the court declares that, under the
direction of the Presiding Judge, the powers and duties of
the Executive Officer shall include:
(1) To execute, on behalf of the court and subject to the

supervision and direction of the Presiding Judge, the
administrative supervision and control of the non-judicial
activities of the court.
(2) To establish such divisions in the office of Executive
Officer as may be deemed advisable, subject to the
approval of the Executive Committee.
(3) To delegate his or her duties where necessary, and to
assign or supervise and direct the work of all non-judicial
officers and employees of the court.
…
(16) To exercise and perform all of the powers, duties
and responsibilities of the County Clerk and Clerk of the
Superior Court required or permitted by this Court to be
exercised or performed by the Executive Officer in
connection with judicial actions, proceedings and records
under subdivision (d) of Section 69898 of the
Government Code. Such powers, duties and
responsibilities include:
a) To accept, process and file papers in connection with
any action or proceeding before the court, including but
not limited to those relating to the court's original
jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction and appeals from the

z Page 4/5 July 17, 2009
court; to maintain and manage court records; to

microfilm court records; to keep and dispose of papers,
documents, files and exhibits in accordance with law.
b) To maintain indexes of all court files; to keep a
register of actions or its alternate.
c) To issue process and notice; to accept service on
parties; to enter defaults; to transmit transcripts on
change of venue.
d) To be present at each session of court and with the
judge in chambers when required; to administer oaths; to
keep the minutes and other records of the court.
e) To enter orders, findings, judgments and decrees; to
accept confessions of judgment for filing; to authenticate
records; to certify abstracts of judgment; to keep a
judgment book or its equivalent.
This request is made pursuant to the California Constitution, Article 1

Declaration of Rights, §3, and the California Public Records Act (CCP §6243)
within the time mandated by law.
This request is also made pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc

(1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed the common law and First
Amendment rights to inspect and to copy court records.
This request is for:
1) Authentication that the three following cases were and are authentic matters
litigated as cases of the California Superior Court:
a. GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC052737),
b. MARINA V COUNTY (BS109420)
c. SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400),
2) Authentication that Judgments were rendered and entered as valid effectual

judgments of the Superior Court of California in these cases as follows, by the
individuals named herein, in their capacities as duly assigned judges of the
Superior Court of California, in the respective cases:
a. GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC052737) –

by John Segal, Judge, May 2002
b. MARINA V COUNTY (BS109420) –
by David P Yaffe, Judge, March 4, 2009
c. SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) –
by Jacqueline Connor, Judge, August 9, 2007

z Page 5/5 July 17, 2009
If you are unable to authenticate at this time all three cases, I would be
grateful if you could authenticate any one of them of your choice.
Please charge the appropriate fees to my credit card:
CC: Visa
Name as it appears on the card: Joe Zernik
CC Number: 4801250028293201
Date of Expirations: 06/11
Zip code of Billing Address: 91750
I am grateful for your help in this matter. In case any information is missing or
needs clarification, please do not hesitate to have your staff call me. My cell
phone number is 310 435 9107.
Sincerely,
Joseph Zernik
CC:
D Brett Bianco, Counsel for the Court
"D. Brett Bianco" <BBianco@LASuperiorCourt.org>

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Following are pages from the Register of Actions
19 in Galdjie v Darwish:
1) Pages 1-2: notice that the case is listed as disposed on
20
May 20, 2002, through trial by court. Also noticed that no
21 counsel is listed for Defendant.
2)Pages 34-40: period corresponding to May 2002, when trial
22
by court was purported by Muni-Judge.
23
24 ALSO NOTICE THAT ALL FEES IN THIS CASE ARE LISTED AS:
Journal Entries.
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 3-b
28

Case No. BC351286
CAS E HIS TOR Y REP 0 R T
Santa Monica - West District

Civil Div.isi.on
Case :'Jumber: SC052737 MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH

FiliD<3 Type: New Filing # Children
Case Type
15:47:25 Other Compl-not tort or Complex
07/15/08 Filed OS/27/98
Judge Paul G. Flynn Age 1454 1 PAGE:
Disp Type Judgment by Court Disposed OS/20/02
Disp ]"1anr Court Trial - Completed
BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH
Galdjie. Mano~chehr PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PATTON
VS
AMNON DERWISH MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE
Stern, Adina
fka Derwish, Adina Other Compl-not tort or Complex
MANOUCHEHER GALDJIE
MEMO New Filing
Case Filed OS/27/98
Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s)
v S
Attorneys of Record: Activity Attorneys of Record: Date
Green 6< Marker HIS TOR Y CAS E

1875 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 1880
LOS ANGELES CA 90067
II 310 201 0406 ! Los A:1g eles CA 90067-2515 II
Kudo & Daniels LLP Suite 1490
12400 Wilshire Blvd 1875 Century Park East
Suite 400 Weiss~1an, Kenneth A.
Los Angeles CA 90025-1023
310 442: 7900 310 442: 7900
CA 90025-1023 Los Angeles
Weiss·~1an,Kenneth A. Suite 400
1875 Century Park East 12400 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 1490 Kudo & Daniels LLP
I Los A:r=_1=C=J==e:=l=e=s=========C=A==9=0=0=6=7=-=2=5=1=5=~======================='J
310 201 0406
LOS MJGELES CA 90067
SUITE 1880
1875 CENTURY PARK EAST
CAS E HIS TOR Y Green & Marker
Date Attorneys of Record: Activity Attorneys of Record:

v s
Defendant(s) Plaintiff(s)
OS/27/98 Case Filed
New Filing MEMO
MANOUCHEHER GALDJIE
Other Compl-not tort or Complex fka Derwish, Adina
Stern, Adina
MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE AMNON DERWISH
VS
PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PATTON Galdjie, Mano~chehr
Court Trial - Completed Disp ]"1anr
Judgment by Court Disposed OS/20/02 Disp Type
PAGE: 1
Paul G. Flynn Age 1454
07/15/08
Judge
15:47:25
Other Compl-not tort or Complex Filed OS/27/98 Case Type
New Filing # Children FiliD<3 Type:
SC052737 MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH Case :'Jumber:
Civil Div.ision
REP 0 R T HIS TOR Y CAS E
Santa Monica - West: District
Civil Div:ision
[I Case :Jumber: SCO 52 737

15:47:25 07/15/08 MANOUCHEHR GA,LDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISl-C] 2 PAGE:
CAS E HIS 'I' 0 R Y

Defendant Darwish, David of Beha~f On
Dat2 Defendant Activity
Darwish, Barbara Kramer of Beha~f On
Other Pmnt
Consolidated with SC060217 $75.00
Vols. 1-3 Recld from Culver City
Received - Fee, Adverse party
Courthouse on 08/06/02
,Journal Entry 10/15/98
Former Attorney for Defen RHONDA WALKER Filed By
OS/27/98
Defendant Journal Entry Darwish, David On Behalf of
Defendant Received - Civil Filing Fee Darwish, Barbara Kramer On Behalf of
$192.00 Attorney for Defendant
Other Pmnt
Answer
Document: Filed 10/15/98
OS/27/98 Document Filed
Complaint Filed
Defendant Darwish, David On Behalf of
Defendant Darwish, Barbara Kramer On Behalf of
OS/27/98 Scheduled Event Attorney for Defendant
Status Conference Cross-complaint filed
Master Calendar Document Filed 10/15/98
01/26/99 at 9:30 am
01/26/99 at 9:30 am
10/15/98 Document Filed Master Calendar
Cross-complaint filed Status Conference
Attorney for Defendant Scheduled Event OS/27/98
On Behalf of Darwish, Barbara Kramer Defendant
On Behalf of Darwish, David Defendant
Filed By RHONDA WALKER Former Attorney for Defen
Complaint Filed
Document Filed OS/27/98
10/15/98 Document Filed
Answer Other Pmnt
Attorney for Defendant $192.00
Received - Civil Filing Fee
On Behalf of Darwish, David Journal Entry Defendant OS/27/98
10/15/98 .:rournal Entry Courthouse on 08/06/02
Received - Fee, Adverse party
Vols. 1-3 Rec'd from Culver City
$75.00 Consolidated with SC060217
Other Pmnt
On Beha=_f of Darwish, Barbara Kramer
Activity Defendant Dat2
On Beha=_f of Darwish, David Defendant
HIS l' 0 R Y CAS E
PAGE:
DARWISl-~ 2 MANOUCHEHR GA.LDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR [~:.Jumber:
07/15/08
SC052737 15:47:25
Civil Div:ision

Santa Monica - West: District:
Ci vil Di visi on
[I Case ::Jumber: -SC052737

15:47:25 07/15/08 MANOUCHEHR GA.LDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH 34 PAGE:
CAS E HIS l' 0 R Y

TRI.A.L 5/13/01
Activity
Status Conference Held
MEMO
Attorney for Defendant/X-Defendant Final Status Conference
Event Complete 05/03/02
On Behalf of Darwish, David Defendant
Filed BI
Plaintiff RHONDA WALKER Former Attorney for Defen
Galdjie, Manouchehr On Beha:f of
On Behalf of Logerm LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff Defendant
Green & Marker Filed By
Attorney for Plaintiff
05/03/02 Document Filed List of Witnesses
Juri Instructions Document Filed 05/03/02
Attorney for Defendant/X-Defendant
On Behalf of Darwish, Barbara Kramer
Plaintiff Defendant
Galdjie, Manouchehr On Beha~f of
On Behalf of Darwish, David
Exhibit List
05/03/02 Document Filed Document Filed 05/03/02
Brief MEMO
Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff Galdjie, Manouchehr On Behalf of
Attorney for Plaintiff Green & Marker Filed Bv
TRIAL
TRIAL
Filed B'1 Green & Marker Attorney for Plaintiff
On Beha'L f of Galdjie, Manouchehr Plaintiff
MEMO Brief
Exhibit List
Filed By
Defendant Green & Marker Darwish, David Attorney for Plaintiff
On Behalf of
On Beha:.f of Galdjie, Manouchehr
Defendant Darwish, Barbara Kramer Plaintiff On Behalf of
Attorney for Defendant/X-Defendant
05/03/02 Document Filed Jury Instructions
List of Witnesses Document Filed 05/03/02
Filed By
Defendant Green & Marker Logerm LLC Attorney for Plaintiff
On Behalf of
On Beha:. f of Galdjie, Manouchehr
Former Attorney for Defen RHONDA WALKER Plaintiff Filed By
Defendant Darwish, David On Behalf of
05/03/02
Defendant Event Complete Darwish, Barbara Kramer On Behalf of
Final Status Conference Attorney for Defendant/X-Defendant MEMO
Status Conference Held
Activity Dat,~
TRI.A.L 5/13/01
HIS l' 0 R Y CAS E
PAGE: 34
MANOUCHEHR GA.LDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH 07/15/08 15:47:25
[I Case ::Jumber: -SC052737
Civil Division
Santa Monica - West: District:


Civil Divisi.on
[I Case Number: SC052737

15:47:25 07/15/08 MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE 'IS BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH 35 PAGE: II
COURT TRIAL;
CAS E HIS 'I'
1:30 pm0 R Y
Munl Judge
Dat2 Activity
Court Trial - Short Cause
Event 05/13/02
05/13!02 Event
~Tury Trial DIV I, CULVER CITY MElVIO
Paul G. Flynn
10:00 am Tra~sferred to Diff. Department
MEMO ~TU:RY TRIAL; J·urv Trial
Event Complete 05/13/02:
Cause is called for hearing.
DIV I, CULVER CITY
Court and counsel confer in chambers.
Notice is waived.
Consolidated case, Darwish 'Is. Galdjie has settled.
Counsel for plaintiff to transport the court file.
All counsel waive trial by jury.
2002 at 1:30 p.m ..
New time estimate for trial is 1 to 1 1/2 days.
to Division I in Culver City for trial on May 13,
This court bei~g unavailable, case is transferred
This court bei~g unavailable, case is transferred
to Division I in Culver City for trial on May 13,
New time estimate for trial is 1 to 1 1/2 days.
2002 at 1:30 p.m ..
All counsel waive trial by jury.
Counsel for plaintiff to transport the court file.
Galdjie has settled. 'IS. Consolidated case, Darwish
Notice is waived.
Court and counsel confer in chambers.
DIV I, CULVER CITY
Cause is called for hearing.
05/13/02: Event Complete
J·urv Trial TRIAL;
~TU:RY MEMO
Tra~sferred to Diff. Department 10:00 am
Paul G. Flynn
MElVIO DIV I, CULVER CITY ~Tury Trial
Event 05/13!02
05/13/02 Event
Activity Dat2
Munl Judge
1:30 pm HIS 'I' 0 R Y CAS E
COURT TRIAL;
PAGE:
II 35
BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH 'IS MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE 07/15/08 15:47:25
[I Case Number: _SC052737
Ci vi] Di visi.on


civil Divisi.on

15:47:25 07/15/08 MANOUCHEHR GJl.LDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH 36 PAGE:
CAS E HIS'!'ORY
IN DIVISION 1.
Dat2 Activity
BEING ORDERED TO RETURN ON MAY 15, 2002 AT 10:30 A.M.
THE TRIAL IS RECESSED FOR THE DAY WITH ALL PARTIES
THE TRIAL TRANSFERRED FROM DEPARTMENT WEST G, IS
COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER.
CALLED FOR HEARING.
DEFENSE RESTS.
COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER REGARDING EXHIBITS.
liND TESTIFIES AS A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE.
BARABARA KRAMER DARWISH, PREVIOUSLY SWORN, IS CALLED
PLJl,INTIFF S EXHIBITS 100 (DOCUMENT-OFFER),
I
101 (DOCUMENT) 102 (ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS), 103 (LOAN

I
LUPO, SUZANNE COLE AND BARBARA KRAMER DARWISH.
COMMITMENT), 104 (DOCUMENT), 105 (DOCUMENT),
BEHALF OF THE :?LAINTIFF: MANOUCH EHRENGIE, VINCENT
106 (INSPECTION REPORT) AND 107 (TERMITE REPORT) ARE
THE FOLLOWING lNITNESSES ARE SWORN AND TESTIFY ON
MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.
STATEMENTS.
PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENSE MAKE THEIR OPENING
DEFENSE EXHIBITS 26 (STATEMENT OF EXPENSES),
~~ 7 (CONTRACT), 28 (COUNTER OFFER), 29 (FRED SANDS
DOCUMENT), 30 (ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS), 31 (PROPERTY
lmMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.
INSPECTION) 3.2 AND 33 (EACH A LETTER) AND 34 (RENT-
I
ROLL DOCUMENT) ARE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND LATER
ROLL DOCUMENT) ARE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND LATER
INSPECTION) 3.2 AND 33 (EACH A LETTER) AND 34 (RENT- I
lmMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.

DOCUMENT), 30 (ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS), 31 (PROPERTY
~~ 7 (CONTRACT), 28 (COUNTER OFFER), 29 (FRED SANDS
DEFENSE EXHIBITS 26 (STATEMENT OF EXPENSES),
PLA.INTIFF AND THE DEFENSE MAKE THEIR OPENING
STATEMENTS.
MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.
THE FOLLOWING 1NITNESSES ARE SWORN AND TESTIFY ON
106 (INSPECTION REPORT) AND 107 (TERMITE REPORT) ARE
BEHALF OF THE :?LAINTIFF: MANOUCH EHRENGIE, VINCENT
COMMITMENT), 104 (DOCUMENT), 105 (DOCUMENT),
LUPO, SUZANNE COLE AND BARBARA KRAMER DARWISH.
101 (DOCUMENT) 102 (ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS), 103 (LOAN
I
PLIUNTIFF S EXHIBITS 100 (DOCUMENT-OFFER), I

BARABARA KRAMER DARWISH, PREVIOUSLY SWORN, IS CALLED
JleND TESTIFIES AS A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE.
COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER REGARDING EXHIBITS.
DEFENSE RESTS.
CALLED FOR HEARING.
COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER.
THE TRIAL TRANSFERRED FROM DEPARTMENT WEST G, IS
THE TRIAL IS RECESSED FOR THE DAY WITH ALL PARTIES
BEING ORDERED TO RETURN ON MAY 15, 2002 AT 10:30 A.M.
Activity Dat2
IN DIVISION 1.
HIS'!'ORY CAS E
PAGE:
II 36
MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH 07/15/08 15:47:25
civil Divisi.on
R T REP 0 HIS TOR Y CAS E


Ci vil Di vi si on
II Case :'Jumber: SC052737

I
15:47:25 07/15/08 MANOUCHEHR GA.LDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISf~]
37 PAGE:
CAS E HIS
ISSUES l' 0 R Y
CLOSING TRIAL BRIEF ON SELECTED
Date Activity
Attorney for Defendant
MEMO Brief
Exhibit List
Accorney for Defendant Subnitted
05/13/02 Document Filed Event Complete 05/15/02
Brief MEMO
SUP?LEMENTAL T~IAL BRIEF ON THE
MATTER IS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.
ISSUE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
THE PARTIES MAKE THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND THE
05/15/02 Event
INDICATED.
HEARING WITH ALL PARTIES PRESENT AS HERTOFORE
ivluni Judge
THE MATTER CONTINUED FROM MAY 13, 2002 IS CALLED FOR
10:40 am
COURT TRIAL;
COURT TRIAL;
10:40 am
THE MATTER CONTINUED FROM MAY 13, 2002 IS CALLED FOR
Muni Judge
HEARING WITH ALL PARTIES PRESENT AS HERTOFORE
INDICATED. Event 05/15/02
THE PARTIES MAKE THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND THE

ISSUE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
MATTER IS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.
SUPPLEMENTAL T~IAL BRIEF ON THE
MEfv'IO Brief
05/15/02 Event Complete Document Filed 05/13/02
SubMitted Actorney for Defendant
Exhibit List
Brief MEMO
Activity Date
CLOSING TRIAL BRIEF ON SELECTED
ISSUES HIS l' 0 R Y CAS E
PAGE:
II 37
Case :'\lumber: SC052737 II
Civil Division


Ci vil Di visi on
II Case :'Jumber: SC052737

15:47:25 07/15/08 MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH 38 PAGE:
statement of decision which is signed and filed this

CAS E HIS l' 0 R Y
The court sets forth the basis of his ruling in a
Date Activity
Plaintiff is awarded costs.
OS/20/02 Case Disposed

plaintiff.
judgment in favor of defendants and against the
~rud9mentby Court
As to the third cause of action, the court enters MEMO
Court Trial - Completed
1454 Days
defendants.
judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against
MANOUCHEHR GAL:JJIE
As to the second cause of action, the court enters
VS
Consolidated with SC060217
judgment in favor of defendants and a9ainst plaintiff.
As to the first cause of action, the court enters
OS/20/02 Event f-IlAY 15, 2002:

THE COURT RULEi3 AS FOLLOWS ON THE MATTER SUBMITTED
Ruling on Submitted Matter
Muni Judge
8:30 am
RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER; RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER;
8:30 am
Muni Judge
Ruling on Submitted Matter
THE COURT RULE~3 AS FOLLOWS ON THE MATTER SUBMITTED
t'llAY 15, 2002: Event: OS/20/Cl2
As to the first cause of action, the court enters

judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.
Consolidated with SC060217
As to the second cause of action, the court enters
VS
judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against
f-1ANOUCHEHR GAL:JJIE
defendants.
1454 Days
Court Trial - Completed
As to the third cause of action, the court enters
~rud9ment by Court
MEMO judgment in favor of defendants and against the
plaintiff. Case Disposed OS/20/02
Plaintiff is awarded costs.

Activity Date
The court sees forth the basis of his ruling in a
statement of decision which is signed and filed this
HIS l' 0 R Y CAS E
PAGE:
I] 38 07/15/08 15:47:25
MANOUCHEHR GA.LDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH II Case \fumber: SC052737
ci vil Di visi on

C A, S E HIS TOR Y REP 0 R T

Ci vi] Di vision
II Case Number: SC052737

CAS E HIS TOR Y

Date Activity
Substitution of Attorney
Document Filed 08/16/02
date.
TO .JURY FEE.
The clerk is directed to mail copies of the
ON 4-16-02 REC.#SM210917023 TRSFD
statemenc of decision to counsel.
FEES IN THE SUM OF $150.00 POSTED
NOTICE TO BOOKKEEPER ISSUED JURY
OS/20/02 Event Complete Clerk
MEMO Ruling on Submitted Matter Miscellaneous-Other
Completed Document Filed 08/12/02
OS/20/02 Document Filed
Attorney for Plaintiff Weissman, Kenneth A. Filed By
Plaintiff Order fka Derwish, Adina MEMO
On Behalf of
Plaintiff Court Stern, Adina On Behalf of
Attorney for P:aintiff
RUL=NG ON SUBMITTED Y1ATTER AFTER Notice of Lien
COURT TRIAL; Document Filed OS/24/02
Document Filed
OS/24/02 COURT TRIAL;
Notice of Lien RUL=NG ON SUBMITTED Y1ATTER AFTER
On Behalf of Stern, Adina Plaintiff
Court
On Behalf of fka Derwish, Adina
MEMO Plaintiff
Order
Filed By Weissman, Kenneth A. Attorney for Plaintiff
Document Filed OS/20/02
08/12/02 Document Filed Completed
Miscellaneous-Other Ruling on Submitted Matter MEMO
Clerk Event Complete OS/20/02
NOTICE TO BOOKKEEPER ISSUED JURY
FEES IN THE SUM OF $150.00 POSTED
statement of decision to counsel.
ON 4-16-02 REC.#SM210917023 TRSFD
The clerk is directed to mail copies of the
TO .JURY FEE.
date.
08/16/02 Document Filed
Activity Date
HIS TOR Y CAS E
PAGE:
]] 39
Case Number: SC052737 II
Ci vi] Di vision
REP 0 R T HIS TOR Y C A, S E


Civil DivJ:sion
II Case Number: SC052737

KRAMAR DARWISH
CAS E HIS TOR Y
TO THE DECLARATION OF BARBARA
Date ActivityAttorney for Plaintiff
MEMO Objection
Document Filed 10/07/02
Filed By ABB, WAYNE M. Attorney for Defendant
Plaintiff Galdjie, Manouchehr On Behalf of
09/09/02Document Filed
Attorney for Plaintiff Green & Marker Filed By
Attorney for Defendant TO MTN FOR NEW TRIAL
On Beha:_f of Derwish, Amnon Defendant
Filed By Ezer, Williamson & Brown Attorney for Defendant
MEMO Cpposition
09/11/02Document Filed Document Filed 10/07/02
Notice of Entry of Judgment
Attorney for Defendant Ezer, Williamson & Brown Filed By
Filed Bv Green & Marker
Defendant Darwish, David Attorney for Plaintiff
On Behalf of
On Beha~_f of Galdj ie, Manouchehr
Defendant Plaintiff
Darwish, Barbara Kramer On Behalf of
09/30/02: Document Filed FOR NEW TRIAL
Memo points & authorities MTN AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MEMO
MEMO AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MTN
Memo points & authorities
FOR NEW TRIAL Document Filed 09/30/02
On Behalf of
Plaintiff Darwish, Barbara Kramer Defendant
Galdj ie, Manouchehr On Beha:_ f of
On Behalf of Darwish, David
Filed By Ezer, Williamson & Brown Attorney for Defendant
Notice of Entry of Judgment
Cpposition MEMO
Attorney for Defendant Ezer, Williamson & Brown Filed By
Defendant Derwish, Amnon On Beha:_f of
TO MTN FOR NEW TRIAL Attorney for Defendant
Filed By Green & Marker Document FiledAttorney for Plaintiff
09/09/02
On Behalf of Galdjie, Manouchehr Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant ABB, WAYNE M. Filed By
10/07/02
Defendant Document Filed Darwish, Barbara Kramer On Behalf of
Objection MEMO
Attorney for Plaintiff Activity Date
TO THE DECLARATION OF BARBARA
HIS TOR Y CAS E
KRAMAR DARWISH
PAGE:
1] 40
MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH 07/15/08
~3C052737 15:47:25
II Case Number:
Civil Div]:sion
R T REP 0 HIS TOR Y CAS E

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Missing records.
13 In searching the Registrar/Recorder office records, I could
14 not find any grant deed in the past 9 years (since January 1,
2000), I then asked a staff member to search for me. She
15 could not find any grant deed on the Yale Property either. And
16 she searched both by name and by parcel number.
Eventually, the record that she did find was only a judgment
17
record, with no Grant deed at all.
18 However, it was not the judgment from May 2002, the one that
Darwish assumed was the judgment in the case, and the one
19
that is listed in the Register of Actions as the date of
20 Disposition of the case.
21 Instead, it was a judgment signed by Judge John Segal dated
in 2006.
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 3-c
28
INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE

Case No. BC351286
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 3-d
28

Case No. BC351286
-1-
)]\: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
DECLARAnON OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITlGATlON
28
Joseph Zernik )
in pro per )
-,
27
~ 2415 Saint Georae Street )
Los Angeles. CaTifornia 90027 ) 26
:' reI: 310-435-9107 )
Fax: 80 1·998-091 7 25
4 Email: jzI2345 1(vea:thlink.net ~)
Defendants 24
)
) 23
(-, ) B K DARWISH ET AL. individuals.
) 22
) v.
) 21
8 )
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plainti ff.
(SC060217) ) MANOUCHEHR CiALDJIE. an individual 20
9 DERWISH \' DARWISH ET AL FOR THE COljNTY OF LOS ANGELES
) B. (SC S(052737) & line!. (SC060217)
---------:-------------- ) 19
10
& )
In re: Dt' Zernik's AI egations of Widespread ) Case # (SC087400). Defendants.
(SC SC052737) )
11 Corruption at the LA Count) Superior Coul1 &) Case # (SC052737) incl. (SC060217)
) JOSEPH IERNIK. an individual,
18
GALDJlE ET AL \' DARWISH ET AL
Racketeering by Jud~:es in Collusion with ~
) 17
12
IN RE: 1)laintiffs and Counsel. under the Guise of Real) No Valid Assignment On File/;II' {/Ill' of these
) \.
KRAMAR DARWISH )
~ ~
16
13
I)ropert\. t~(luit\. Ri!!'ltS Litigations.
) )) C ·([ses. DI' Lernik helien's Ihot they ol'e all in
Plaintitl:
-------------------------
DECLARATION OF BARBARA ) ) (act NOlv-C 'ASE.\. 15
all individual. NIVIE SAMAAN.
14 )
A. fSC087400) ) ) A. fSC(87400)
14
15 NIVIE SAMAAN. all individual. ) ~
fi/el NOlv'-( ASES
Plaintitl: ) DECLARATION OF BARBARA
~ ~ ,
13
16
( ·([ses. Dr Lernik heliel'cs rhal Ihey (lrc all ill ) KRAMAR DARWISH
I)ropert\ t:cjuitv. Ri!..!,'lts Liti!"!'ations. ))
v.
No I'(I/id Assigmnenl On Fileti)1' (/Ill' ojlhese ) IN RE:
1)laintiffs and Counsel. under the Guise of Real) 12
17 )
Racketeering by Judges in Collusion with
JOSEPH ITRN IK. all individual. ) GALDJIE ET AL \' DARWISH ET AL ~
II
18 Case # (SC052737) inel. (SC060217)
Defendants.
Corruptiun at the LA Count) Superior Court &)
) (SC SC052737)
Case # (SC087400), )
In re: Dt' .lernik·s AI egations of Widespread )
& 10
19
B. (SC SC(52737) & line!. (SC0602--1-7)-- ~
FOR TI-I E COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DERWISH \' DARWISH ET AL q
20 MANOUCHEHR CiALDJIE. an individual ) (SC060217)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8
21 Plaintiff. ~
v. ) i
22 )
B K DARWISH ET AL. individuals. )
23 )
Defendants )
24
IEmail: j712345((~eacthJink.net
------------------------------
25
~
) Fax: 801-998-0917
) reI: 310-435-9107
26 ) Los Angeles. California 90027
) 2415 Saint Georae Street
27 ) in pro per
) Joseph Zernik
28
DECLARAnON OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
]]\: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
-I·
IN: GALDJI!: V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
-----~-------------
-2
de Iiberalely misleading. 28
kinds of inforrnation, sometimes true and helpful. and sometimes talse and 27
him all ga\C DECLARATION OF BARBAR4 KRAMAR DARWISH
en-.ails. phone calls from people that he did not know. and such people 26
IN RE: A PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH DR JOSEPH ZERNIK
3
1:11' never received any response. He said that he had a number of anonymou:.; ktters.
ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2009, AND SUNDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2009, IN RE: 25
4 REAL PROPERTY LITIGATIONS AT THE LA SIJPERIOR COURT
4) He said he emai led back to the sender. thanking her. and asking who she was. but so 24
5 GALDJIE ET AL v DARWISH ET AL (SC SC052737)
and it said that she hoped It would be of help. 23
6 &
speak with these people. and it provided their address and phone numbers. sl~cking to
DER\VISH v DARWISH ET AL (SC060217) ,;..~
i/
7
whom he had never emailed before. and the email said that she was av\are that he \\<ls 21
8 I. BARE3ARA KRA \1AR DARWISH. hereby declare as follows.
come from a woman whose name he did not recognize. and with 10 that appeared 20
9
I was a Defendant in Galdjie v Darwish et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.
but had no luck. Then today. in the afternoon. he receivecl an email ~!ear. at least half a 19
10 SC05273 7. As such. [ have personal knowledge orthe facts set forth herein. which I know to
3) Dr Zernik then told me that he had been trying to reach me or Mr David Darwish for 18
11 be true and correct ard. ifcalled as a witness. [could and vvould comretently testity with
he was calling me. 17
12 respect thereto. This declaration i~ submitted in response to a request by Dr Joseph /ernik:
looking for an orthodontist either. 1asked him how he got my phone number and why 16
13 I) Orl Friday. Fehruary 6. 2009 in the evening. I received an unexpected phune call from
2) I was surprised by the phone call. because I had never heard his name. and I was not 15
14 a person who represented himself as Dr Joseph Zernik. a practicing orthodontist.
a person who represented himself as Dr Joseph Zernik. a practicing orthodontist. 14
15 2) I \\;as surprised by the phone calL because 1 had never heard his name. and I \\as not
I) 01"1 Friday. February 6. 2009 in the evening. I received an unexpected phone call from 13
16 looking Icw an orthodontist either. I asked him how he got m) phone number and why
submitted in response to a request by Dr Joseph /ernik: i~ respecllhereto. This declaration 12
17 he \\as calling me.
he true and correct ard. ifcalled as a witness. I could and would competently testify with 11
18 Dr Zernik then told me that he had been trying to reach me or Mr David Darwish for
SCOS273 7. As such. I have personal knowledge orthe facts set forth herein. which I know to
3) 10
19 at least haIfa year. but had no luck. Then today. in the afternoon. he receivecl an email
I was a Defendant in Galdjie v Darwish et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 9
20 that appeared come from a woman whose name he did not recognize. and with
I. BARE3ARA KRA \~AR DARWISH. hereby declare as follows.
10 8
21 whom he had never emailed before. and the email said that she was a\\are that he \\as 7
'")') DER\VISH v DARWISH ET AL (SC060217)
sl~l:king to speak with these people. and it provided their address and phone numbers. 6
&
and it said that she hoped It would be of help.

GALDJIE ET AL v DARWISH ET AL (SC SC052737)
5
2.+ 4) He said he emai led back to the sender. thanking her, and asking who she was. but so
REAL PROPERTY LITIGATIONS AT THE LA SIJPERIOR COURT 4
25
ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2009, AND SUNDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2009, IN RE:
fill' never received any response. He said that he had a number of anonymous ktters. 3
IN RE: A PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH DR JOSEPH ZERNIK
26 en'.ails. phone calls from people that he did not know. and such people ga\\.:: him all
DECLARATION OF BARBARI'\ KRAMAR DARWISH
2
27 kinds of information. sometimes true and helpful. and sometimes false and
28 deliberately misleading.
-2-
----~----------
DECLARATION OF RARHARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION

IN: GALDJI!: V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)

IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
---------------
-3
Mr Galdjie is not doing with it anything. it was just sitting there. 28
5) First we talked about what happened during the underlying real estate transaction. It
had bad luck in that case. But the property was in such a run down situation. and now 27
L
ay. we (1\\
turned out that it was almost identical cases. In both cases there was a Buyer who was
attorneys \'iere not prepared. had health problems. an expert \\ itness passed 2E
really not qua ified. in both cases the Buyer misrepresented to the Seller that he/she
He asked me what happened in the litigation. I told him that it was complicated. some 9) 25
4 was qualified. In both cases the Buyer then failed to get the loans approved. In both
gOll1g on. 24
cases the Seller waited for a while. then gave notice and cancelled escrow. In both
against Defendant. and Defendant was the only one who did not know what was 23
cases. the Buyer then claimed a dispute and claimed that there was an oral
attorneys. and the court itself. a situation where all of these people were colluding 22
modification of the contract. and that the Seller promised the Buyer that the Buyer
victim of a mllch more comprehensive fraud - one that could involve judges and 21
was not bound by the time frames that were written in the contract and the Buyer
Dr Zernik answered that he was trying to investigate the possibility that I was the S) 2C
could take his/her time. It was really surprising. it looked like it was done from a
I told him that I knew that Galdjie was lying in court. 7) IS
1C' scri pt. cases of l'raud on the Defendants. 18
II 6) Dr Zernik then asked me some questions regarding the litigation in Galdjie v Darwish
Samaan v Zernik may have a lot in common. He said that both appeared to him as 17
12 et al. It was obvious that he had some knowledge of the case. However. he told me
record. He said that he believed that the Case ofGaldjie v Darwish and his case. IE
13 lhat his know ledge was exclusively from some computer printout. and the printout
prll1tout was fdse and deliberately misleading. although he said that it was some court 15
14 was in many places confusing. He said that it was also possible that the computer
was in many places confusing. He said that it was also possible that the computer 14
15 prll1tout was fdse and deliberately misleading. although he said that it was some court
that his know ledge was exclusively from some computer printout. and the printout 13
IE record. He said that he believed that the Case ofGaldjie v Darwish and his case.
et al. It was obvious that he had some knowledge of the case. However. he told me 12
17 Samaan v Zernik may have a lot in common. He said that both appeared to him as
6) Dr Zernik then asked me some questions regarding the litigation in Galdjie v Darwish II
18 cases of I'raud on the Defendants. scri pt. I (I
IS 7) I told him that I knew that Galdjie was lying in court.
could take his/her time. It was really surprising. it looked like it was done l'rom a 9
2C S) Dr Zernik answered that he was trying to investigate the possibility that I was the
was not bound by the time frames that were written in the contract and the Buyer 8
21 victim of a much more comprehensive fraud -- one that could involve judges and
modification of the contract. and that the Seller promised the Buyer that the Buyer
22 attorneys. and the court itself. a situation where all of these people were colluding
cases. the Buyer then claimed a dispute and claimed that there was an oral 6
23 against Defendant. and Defendant was the only one who did not know what was
cases the Seller waited for a while. then gave notice and cancelled escrow. In both "
24 gOll1g on.
was qualified. In both cases the Buyer then failed to get the loans approved. In both 4
25 9) He asked me what happened in the litigation. I told him that it was complicated. some
really not qua ified. in both cases the Buyer misrepresented to the Seller that he/she
2E attorneys \'iere not prepared. had health problems. an expert \\ itness passed
turned out that it was almost identical cases. In both cases there was a Buyer who was Cl\\ a). we
L
27 had bad luck in that case. But the property was in such a run down situation. and now
5) First we talked about what happened during the underlying real estate transaction. It
28 Mr Galdjie is not doing with it anything. it was just sitting there.
-3-
----------------

-----~---------------------
-4
1O)Dr Zernik then asked me why the case was heard by so many judges. I did not know
is still going. and could also go on forever. 28
2 that there were many judges who heard the case. He started reading to me the names:
2006. That \'vas an extremely unusual case. He said that his case started in 2005. and 2'7
3 a) Alan Haber. b) Robert M. Letteau. c) David B. Finkel. d) John Reid. e) Candance
12) H~ also noted that the case stat1ed in 1998 and continued a II the way ti II the end of 2()
4 D. Cooper. f) Paul Ci. Flynn. g) Patricia Col1ins. h) "Retired Judge"'. i) "Muni Judge".
refused to do so. 2:;
5 j) Julius Title. k) John L Segal. Moreover. not only did some 10 judges hear the case.
demanded thelt Assignment Order be issued to the judges. But the court always 24
6 but they wer,: coming and going, so that they did not hear the case continuously.
Rosenberg. and also wrote to the Presiding Judge of the COLll1. Stephen Czuleger. and .;.. )
'),
7 Moreover. it looked to him unusual that the name of the Judge who actually tried the
Order. Dr Zernik said that he also appeared before the Supervising Judge. (Jerald T)
8 case did not appear in the Register of Actions. instead it said once "Muni Judge" and
Dr Zernik said that he routinely demanded that Judge Friedman obtain an Assignment 21
9 another time "Retired Judge". He thought one ofthelll may also be the same as
FI'iedman for over a year. and Dr Zernik appeared a few times before Judge Friedman. 2)
10 Julius Title. Beyond thail. he said that one of the things that was of great concern to
Assignment Order. The court file in Dr Zernik's case was now held by Terry 19
II him in his case. was that there really was no Assignment Order to any ol'these judges.
Dr Zernik said that he discovered that none of the judgcs in his casc had an 18
12 it was as if they were doing it off duty. and he said that it appeared the same in my
David Pasternak. who was the receiver in our case was also the receiver in his casc. 17
13 case.
Segal. !) Lisa Hart-Cole. g) Patricia Collins. h) Terry Friedman. lie said also that 16
14 ] I )Dr Zernik told me that it was similar in his case. Thejudges in his case included: a)
R. NeiclorfL b) Jacqueline Connor. c) Allan Goodman. eI) Joseph Bielerman. e) John 15
15 R. NeidorlT b) Jacqueline Connor. c) Allan Goodman. d) Joseph Biderman. e) John

11 )Dr Zernik told me that it was similar in his case. The judges in his case included: a) 14
\6 Segal. f) Lisa Hal1-Cole. g) Patricia Collins. h) Terry Friedman. lie said also that
case. 13
17 David Pasternak. who was the receiver in our case was also the receiver in his case.
it was as if they were doing it off duty. and he said that it appeared the same in m) 12
I~ Dr Zernik said that he discovered that none of the judges in his case had an
him in his case. was that there really was no Assignment Order to any of these judges. 11
I) Assignment Order. The court file in Dr Zernik's case was now held by Terry
Julius Title. Beyond thall. he said that one of the things that was of great concern to 10
2) FI'iedman tor over a year. and Dr Zernik appeared a few times before Judge Friedman.
another time "Retired Judge". He thought one of them may also bc the samc as 9
21 Dr Zernik said that he routinely demanded that Judge Friedman obtain an Assignment
case did not appear in the Register of Actions. instead it said once "Muni Judgc" and 8
Order. Dr Zernik said that he also appeared before the Supervising Judge. (Jerald
Moreover. it looked to him unusual that the name of the Judge who actually tried the 7
)'
_.\ RDsenberg. and also wrote to the Presiding Judge of the Court. Stephen Czuleger. and
coming and going, so that they did not hear the case continuously. wen~ but they 6
demanded that Assignment Order be issued to the judges. But the court always
j) Julius Title. k) John L Segal. Moreover. not only did some 10 judges hear the case. 5
2:; refused to do so.
D. Cooper. f) Paul Ci. Flynn. g) Patricia Collins. h) "Retired Judge". i) "Muni Judge". 4
2b 12) I-Ie al so noted that the case started in 1998 and continued a 11 the way ti II the end of
a) Alan Haber. b) Roben M. Letteau. c) David B. Finkel. d) John Reid. c) Candance 3
2U06. That \\as an extremely unusual case. He said that his case started in 2005. and
that there were many judges who heard the case. He started reading to me the names: 2
is still going. and could also go on forever.

10)01' Zernik then asked me why the case was heard by so many judges. I did not know
-4-
-------------------------

---------------
-5-
28
13)1 could not understand what exactly he was talking about.
incorrectly registered - they do not write the disqualification in a valid way or a way 27
J II 14)1 told Dr Zern ik that 1 felt that my attorney Mr Ezer would be able to explain the case
200 1. Howewr. he said that he noticed in several files. that usually that procedure is 26
3 II to him. Dr Zernik told me that he actually did call that morning Mr Ezer. since he
that he could see that there was something of that nature around October-November 25
4 II W~IS seeking an attorney that could help him. 1 then asked what Mr Ezer told him. Dr
judge. that means that there was a reason. or a cause for that action. Dr Zernik said 24
5 II lcrnik said th;]t when he asked Mr Ezer why so many judges vvere involved. Mr Ezer
if in the middle: of the litigation one of the sides starts a procedure to replace the 23
6 II gave him som~: explanations. But Dr Zernik said that when he asked Mr Ezer how
one of the sides decides that they do not like the judge. that is not such a big deal. But 22
7 II could it be that none ofthcm had an assignment order. Mr Ezer hung up on him
what he mean1 by that. He said that if at the very first time that the judge gets the case 21
8 II i mmed iate Iy.
17)Dr Zernik then asked me ifthere was a Disqualification in my case. [was not sure 20
9 II 151 Dr Zerni k ashd me about the Demurrer in Derwish v Darwish. on May 4. 2000.
recs". or "Filing Fees". 19
10 II which vvas heard by Judge Patricia Collins. I did not know much about that. He said
Entries". but in cases that are written correctly. the payments are clelinecl as "Cuurt 18
I I II that he was no1 an attorney. he was just looking at the way it was written in the
16) He also to Id rt; I~ that in both of these cases. all the payments are Iisted as ".lourna I I7
12 II computer file. and it looks like there was some dishonesty about the way it was
secretly cancelled - Disposed - it. 16
13 II written. it looked like it was cancelled - "Disposed" - after the fact by the judge.
thing in his Demurrer. Two years after the fact he found out that Judge Connor 15
14 II Judge CJllim,. but she never told the parties about it. He said it \\as exact I) the same
.ludge C'Jllim" but she never told the parties about it. He said it \\as c:-..actl: the "ame 14
15 II thing in his Demurrer. Two years after the fact he found out that Judge Connor
\\ritten. it looked like it was cancelled - "Disposed" - after the fact b) the .iudge. 13
16 II secretly cancelled - Disposed - it.
computer file. and it looks like there was some dishonesty about the way it was 12
17 II, 16)~k' also told rr;l~ that in both of these cases. all the payments are listed as "Journal
that he was no1 an attorney. he was just looking at the way it was written in the II
18 II Entries", but illl cases that are written correctly. the payments arc defined as "Court
which \\as heard by Judge Patricia Collins. I did not know much about that. He said 10
19 II ~ecs". or "Filing Fees".
15) Dr Zerni k askl~d me about the Demurrer in Derwish v Darwish. on Ma: 4,2000. 9
20 II 17)Dr Zernik then asked me if there was a Disqualification in my case. [was not sure
immediately. 8
21 II what he meal'll by that. He said that if at the very first time that the judge gets the case
could it be that none ofthcm had an assignment order. Mr Ezer hung up on him 7
22 II one of the sides decides that they do not like the judge. that is not such a big deal. But
explanations. But Dr Zernik said that when he asked Mr Fzer how som~' gave him 6
23 II if in the middl(~ of the litigation one of the sides starts a procedure to replace the
Zcrnik said th;1t \\hen he asked Mr Ezer why so many judges \\ere involved, Mr Ezer 5
24 II judge. that means that there was a reason, or a cause for that action. Dr Zernik said
was seeking an attorney that could help him. I then asked what Mr Ezer told him. Dr 4
25 II that he could see that there was something of that nature around October-November
to him. Dr Zernik told me: that he actually did call that morning Mr Ezer. since he 3
26 II 200 I. Howewr. he said that he noticed in several files. that usually that procedure is
14li told Dr Zern i,k that I felt that my attorney Mr Ezer would be able to explain the case 2
27 II incorrectly registered - they do not write the disqualification in a valid way or a way
13)( could not understand what exactly he was talking about.
28
-5
-------------------
--_._-----------
-6-
28
that can be easily understood. In this case. he said that the writing simply did not
2i
) make sense.
/·if~~~ --
26
18)01' Zernik said that he tried several times to get to see the paper coul1 file in Galdjie v 2S
Darwish. but could not get to see it. He said that by age. it had to be in the archive. 24
Signed here. in Los Angeles. California. February cl°. 2009.
but it \\ as not there. The arch ive to Id him that some cases. Santa Man ica dec ided not 2:
subll1itt~:d. Respectfully
to send to the archive. and they keep them in the basement in Santa Monica. He tried 2=
'7
to see it in Santa Monica. but was never allowed yet. 21
22)1 could not understand at all what he was talking about.
19)01' Zernik said that he was interested in that disqualification because he was trying to 10
l) that I did not 'Nant it.
tigure out wlEtt happened with the trial. why we never had ajur) trial. Onlhat issue I 19
10 will ing. and a ble. and that my attorney in bet li led Jury Instructions. but I dec ided
actually kne\\ the answer. I told him that my attorney at the beginning of the case, I ~:
11entitled to a Jury Trial. the opposite. it is written as if the Jury was waiting - ready.
Att Rhonda \Valker. explained to me that the case was of Equity Rights. and 17
21 )For example. he told me that in my case. the way it is written is not that I was not
thercfore. there would be no Jury Trial.
I ."',
16
mDre it did net make sense at all.
2(1)])1' Zernik said that his first attorney told him exactly the same thing. but Dr lernik IS
14
not sure. he was not an attorney, but the more he was try ing to figure il out. the vV;.\S
\\ ,.IS not sure. he was not an attorney, but the more he was try ing to figure i L out. the 14
IS
7ernik said that his first attorney told him exactly the same thing. but Dr lernik 20)])1'
more it did net make sense at all. ," I
16 therefore. there would be no Jury Trial. "
2\ )For example. he told me that in my case. the way it is vvritten is not that I was not I :~
I ~' Att Rhonda \Valker. explained to me that the case was of Equity Rights. and
entitled to a Jury Trial. the opposite. it is written as if the Jury was waiting - read). II
I ~:
actually knev, the answer. I told him that my attorney at the beginning orthe case.
Willing. and able. and that my attorney in f:.lct filed .lUI') Instructions. but I decided 10
I (I
tigure out wlEtt happened with the trial. why we never had a jury trial. On lhat issue I
that I did not 'Nant it.
20
19)Dr Zernik said that he was interested in that disqualification because he was trying to ()
22)1 could not understand at all what he was talking about. g

to see it in Santa Monica. but was never allowed yet.
'7
to send to the archive. and they keep them in the basement in Santa Monica. He tried
Respectfully submitt~:d.
l)
but it was not there. The archive told him that some cases. Santa Monica decided not
Signed here. in Los Angeles. California. Februarv ,}D. 2009.
)
Darwish. but could not get to see it. He said that by age. it had to be in the archive.
'l
2S
18)Dr Zernik said that he tried several times to get to see the paper couri file in Cialdjie v
.)
2E ,
make sense. ) II
that can be easily understood. In this case. he said that the writing simply did not
28
-6-
---'-----------

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 3-e
28

Case No. BC351286
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
09-02-28. Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) & Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737)

Examples of Real Estate/"Equity Rights" - alleged frauds at the LA Superior Court
New evidence substantiates allegations re: the "Equity Rights" litigations at the LA
Superior Court.
a) After long delays I finally tracked Defendants in Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737). By now I
have accumulated sufficient evidence to claim with certainty what I previously
suspected - that Galdjie v Darwish, like Samaan v Zernik, was a case of the "Equity Rights"
of the LA Superior Court. The two cases have many features in common:
i) The underlying dispute was almost identical - unqualified Buyer made an offer,
obtained Seller’s assent to contract though false and deliberately misleading claims
that must be deemed fraudulent inducement, then failed to obtain loans designated
in the contract, would not remove the contingencies and would not ask for extension
either. After long delays Seller cancelled escrow, and Buyer later filed a complaint.
ii) Based on review of the Register of Actions there is no way to ascertain that the
case was a litigation of the Superior Court of California, as is my case - where the
Clerk of the Court is refusing to certify it as a case of the Superior Court of California.
iii) In both cases – The LA Superior Court denies access to court files - in Darwish’s
case - the court file was missing from the County Archive, where it belonged by age,
and the LA Superior Court denied my request to inspect and to copy the court file
itself, pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc. Likewise, I am still denied
access to critical litigation records in my case. Because of the denial of access to
court file, and registrations that were obviously false and misleading in the Register
of Actions, it was imperative to find the Defendants and ascertain what in fact took
place in the case of Galdjie v Darwish.
iv) In both cases - The case was launched with complaint in real estate purchase
contract dispute, entirely based on false claims of oral modification of a written
contract.
v) In both cases - At least one convicted felon among plaintiffs - in my case - it is

plaintiff's husband, then fiancé, who was convicted in another financial fraud case.
vi) In both cases - Causes of action included claim for "Specific Performance".

z Page 2/2 March 1, 2009
vii) In both cases - the false claim of “Equity Rights” was used, part of misconduct
by Defense Counsel from the very start, to falsely advise Defendants that they were
not eligible for a Jury Trial.
viii) Defense Counsel failed to ever file counterclaims for fraud and deceit and
fraudulent inducement, as in my case.
ix) In both cases - Demurrer on Statute of Frauds was “Overruled” in open court,
but secretly "Disposed" in the concealed "electronic court file" in the case
management system - Sustain.
x) In both cases – proceedings through a succession of multiple judges.
xi) In both cases - none of the judges held an Assignment Order, and therefore they
were all acting with no jurisdiction at all.
xii) In both cases - according the Register of Actions in Sustain, a good number of
proceedings was "off the record”.
xiii) In both cases - no registration records of an Initial Case Conference or a Trial

Setting Conference were to be found.
xiv) Some of the same individuals appear in both cases, including judges,
attorneys, and court officer: Judge JOHN SEGAL, Judge PATRICIA COLLINS, Att
RICHARD GREEN, Mr LUPO, Att DAVID PASTERNAK – as “Receiver”.
xv) In both cases - all payments are registered as "Journal Entries", in contrast
with the legitimate registration of payments in other cases as "Filing Fees",
"Motion Setting Fees", "Stipulation Fees", etc.
xvi) In both cases - invalid Bench Trials: In my case – Summary Judgment that
was invalid in its registration, in Darwish’s case – Trial by Court by a municipal
court judge (John Segal), whose name is not disclosed in the Register of Actions (it
just says “Muni Judge”) in an civil unlimited case.
xvii) In both cases misconduct by Defense Counsel relative to opposition papers for
the Bench Trial: In my case – opposition papers were adulterated - part on wire/fax
fraud was excised, and Att Schorr claimed his secretary “mixed versions”. In
Darwish’s case it appears that Att Walker never filed any opposition, and in open
court, when asked by Defendant Barbara Darwish about the deposition paper, she
claimed that “the evidence was lost”.
xviii) In both cases – the court deceitfully enforced execution of ineffectual

judgments that were not entered.

z Page 3/2 March 1, 2009
xix) Conveyance of title - in my case – through fraud by David Pasternak. In

Darwish’s case – no conveyance of title could be found at all, even upon search
by professional staff. Only paper found was a judgment dated in 2006 and signed
by John Segal. The Register of Actions, in contrast, lists disposition per May 20, 2002
Judgment, which is also what Darwish considered the judgment in the case.
xx) The case was unusual in its length (1998-2006), as is my case (2005- ongoing).
The cookie-cutter similarity between the cases, involvement of convicted felons, and
some of the same individual among the legal professionals and judges, raise the
inevitable concern that such cases were disputes by design and complaints by request.
However, the most surprising discovery was that defendants never suspected any
corruption of the court until the day I talked with them. Obviously they knew that
plaintiff filed a false complaint, and that plaintiff's counsel was gloating over the success
of such fraud. But they never suspected that any of their several counsel betrayed them,
where in fact they all did, or that the judges and the Court itself were involved in the
fraud, where in fact the evidence shows that the judges as the main culprits. Instead
they rationalized the events as "bad luck", or failure to hire a more pricey attorney to
start out, or that the judge who conducted the trial by court was too young, and was too
easily "duped" by plaintiff and his counsel, and defendant's counsel appeared for trial
with no papers because "she lost them".
The contradiction between the Register of Actions and the account by Defendants was of
great concern. Defendants were convinced from day one that they had no right for Jury
Trial, based on counsel advice to them. However, the Register of Actions shows a Trial
Jury scheduled and continued repeatedly over several years. When the day finally
arrived, according to Defendants they went to court (LA Superior Court, West District,
Santa Monica). However, the register of actions represents that the jury was ready able
and willing, and that the jury was already given some instructions.
I assume that Darwish’s case is closer to the rule, and my case was the exception.
b) Yet a third case is also identified as an Enterprise Track case but is characterized by
somewhat different features.
c) In my case - Samaan v Zernik repeat review in the electronic court file, which is
typically concealed from the public and counsel, revealed that plaintiff Samaan failed to
pay her original filing fees with her complaint, and the court never dismissed the case at
the end of 30 days as required by law. I filed a request with the clerk to act upon his
duties now, and immediately dismiss the case, but as usual, never received any
response whatsoever.

09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #6 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part3 p199-243

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #6 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part3 p199-243

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 1 Filed 03/20/2009 Page 34 of 50

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 199

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 200

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 201

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 202

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 203

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/SETTING ASIDE

Timed response requested by Wed, August 5, 2009, 5:00pm.

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 207

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 208

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 209

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 210

promised that Court not to repeat (case of Borrower Parsley, No 05-90374,

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 211

f) Participation of Deputy Clerks, knowingly, in Court conduct that may

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 212

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE

RE: Marina v LA County (BS109420) – LA Superior Court;

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 214

In the course of Habeas Corpus litigation, Fine v Sheriff Department of LA County

2) A Register of Actions of underlying case - Marina v LA County (BS109420)

Dated: July 31, 2009 JOSEPH H ZERNIK

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 215

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/SETTING ASIDE

July 17, 2009

RE: REQUEST FOR AUTHENTICATION OF COURT RECORDS IN:

California Government Code says:

69840. (a) The clerk of the court shall exercise or perform, in

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 217

The name of each plaintiff and defendant shall be indexed and

The local Rules of Court say:

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 218

The Local Rules also say:

The Local Rules also say:

(1) To execute, on behalf of the court and subject to the

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 219

court; to maintain and manage court records; to

This request is made pursuant to the California Constitution, Article 1

This request is also made pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc

This request is for:

2) Authentication that Judgments were rendered and entered as valid effectual

a. GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC052737) –

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 220

Please charge the appropriate fees to my credit card:

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 221

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/SETTING ASIDE

Santa Monica - West District

Case :'Jumber: SC052737 MANOUCHEHR GALDJIE vs BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH

Green 6< Marker HIS TOR Y CAS E

Date Attorneys of Record: Activity Attorneys of Record:

[I Case :Jumber: SCO 52 737

CAS E HIS 'I' 0 R Y

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 224

[I Case ::Jumber: -SC052737

CAS E HIS l' 0 R Y

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 225

Santa Monica - West District

[I Case Number: SC052737

ATTACHMENTS & EHSIBITS 226

Santa Monica - West: District

[I Case Number: SC052737

101 (DOCUMENT) 102 (ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS), 103 (LOAN

lmMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.