Skip to content

>BEYOND FINANCIAL RECKLESSNESS- CORRUPTION OF THE COURT?

October 4, 2007

>Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:25 -0700
To: “Amberg, John W.” , “Moldawsky, Jenna L.”

From: joseph zernik
Subject: TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. RE: Samaan v Zernik
10/3/07
Att Moldawsky
Att Amberg
BRYAN CAVE LLP

Ms Moldawsky and Mr Amberg:

Perhaps you misunderstood me, but I am not asking you to be further involved in this
matter. Instead I am asking that you help clarify conduct that might have been out of
compliance with the law, so that your past involvement in this matter will cease to aid in subversion of justice at present.
I urgently need the data requested below in order to allow me to clarify basic facts
regarding Judge Connor’s conduct in this case.
Please provide such data no later than Friday, October 5, 2007, at 5:00pm.
I have no interest in any legal action or any filing of complaints with State Bar etc
against Bryan Cave LLP or individual lawyers who participated in this, if you
cooperate and provide the data listed below that is essential for the management of my court case.

Joseph Zernik
Defendant and Cross-Coplainant
in pro per!

======================================================================
At 09:16 PM 10/2/2007, you wrote:
Dr. Zernik,
We decline to get further involved in this matter. I am sorry, but I cannot help you.
John W. Amberg
—–Original Message—–
From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:57 AM
To: Moldawsky, Jenna L.; Amberg, John W.
Subject: Samaan v Zernik

Oct 2, 2007

Att Moldawsky
Att Amberg
BRYAN CAVE LLP

Ms Moldawsky and Mr Amberg:

On Sept 10, 2007, in pro per, I served Judge Connor with filing per CCP s 170.3. The
claims listed there amounted to wilful misconduct, subversion of justice, and fraud
and deceit. Much of it was about the treatment of Countrywide and Bryan Cave LLP
attorneys in court, in violation of due process of the law.

Connor took off for over an hour to her chanmbers, then announced that she was not
admitting any of my claims, but recusing herself on her own motion per CCP s 170.3(c)
(2). Given the nature of the claims, Connor’s response was short of a reasonable effort by a judge to defend her integrity, when confronted with claims of venal, criminal corruption.
One of the problems left in the aftermath, is a corrupt court file. One of the claims was that Connor deliberately created a court file that would not disclose the scope of the involvement of Countrywide in this litigation. At times attorneys for Countrywide were listed iin Minute
Orders as attorneys for plaintiff, other times – as attorneys for defendant, but hardly if ever as attorneys for Countrywide. I am trying to fix that now… and I am writing to ask for your help, to make sure that the record is set right.
What do you consider to be the correct term for Countrywide in this litigation? Non-
Party? Intervenor? Other?

Please forward to me the following:
1) Listing of any and all names of attorneys who participated in this litigation on behalf of Countrywide
2) Listing of all filings entered by Countrywide in this litigation
3) Listing of any and all ex parte communications that led to the initial ex parte
appearance in court and allowed the unusual scheduling and listing of that appearance
4) Listing of any and all ex parte communications that may have been transmitted
later in litigation
5) Listing of any and all appearances in court with date and name of attorney

Joseph Zernik
Defendant and Cross-Coplainant
in pro per!

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s