Skip to content


May 18, 2008




Mr van Cleve
Managing Partner
Bryan Cave LLP
St. Louis
By fax: 314 259 2020

Timed response requested by May 23, 2008

RE: Litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in LA Superior Court, Zernik v Connor (2:2008cv01550) in US District Court

Mr van Cleve:

As a courtesy, please be informed that on March 5, 2008 I filed complaint in United States District Court – Zernik v Connor et al (2:2008cv01550), and with it – complaint of public corruption with the appropriate authorities.
Countrywide, Angelo Mozillo, and Sandor Samuels, are named Defendants in this Federal case. Bryan Cave, Jenna Moldawsky, and John Amberg are not named as Defendants in the Federal complaint, but their role in this case may come under scrutiny, and become a source of liability for Bryan Cave. The role of some national law firms working with the Legal Division of Countrywide already came under scrutiny and rebuke in the 72-page, March 5, 2008 opinion of Judge Bohm, Houston, Texas.

In litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Att Moldawsky and Amberg appeared before Defendant Connor, on July 6, and July 23, 2007, in proceedings that at that time were the worst abuse of Zernik’s United States Constitutional rights for Due Process and Free Speech in that litigation. In those proceedings Bryan Cave asked for a Protective (gag) Order on behalf of Countrywide.

In particular the July 6. 2007 ex parte proceeding was at a time that the Court never heard ex parte proceedings, in a special session of the court, when the court was dark, and it was scheduled at least 3 days in advance. It asked for a discovery motion at a time that no discovery motions were allowed. Bryan Cave
refused to disclose how such a proceeding was ever scheduled, except to say that it involved “nothing improper“.

Countrywide, claimed by Bryan Cave to be non-party, was listed on that day as “Plaintiff” in court records. In other court records, to this very day, Countrywide and Bryan Cave as its counsel, are listed interchangeably as: Defendant, Cross-Defendant, Intervenor, Objector, Plaintiff, all with no legal foundation at all.

More recently, in Jan-March 2008, Att Moldawsky and Amberg aggravated that abuse in proceedings before the Honorable Friedman, named Defendant Friedman in the Federal lawsuit. These proceedings were based on non-existent, purported July 23, 2007 Protective (gag) Order by Defendant Connor. That July 2007 order was never signed, never issued, never entered, never noticed in July 2007. Court file includes three copies of proposed orders by Bryan Cave from 2007, and one proposed joint stipulation, all unsigned. Two of the proposed orders are also marked in red Denied across the page.

That order was likewise never produced, even in the aberrant procedures before the Court of Defendant Friedman, in Jan-March 2008.
• On Jan 11, 2008 Bryan Cave attorneys had Defendant Friedman issue a statement that the July 2007 order “was in full force and effect“.
• On Feb 15, 2008 they had Defendant Friedman set serious sanctions of >$16,000, which should have triggered the right for jury trial, base on that order
• On March 7, 2008 they had Defendant Friedman decree Contempt following OSC based on that order, in a proceeding where Bryan Cave acknowledged in open court never adequately serving summons, and additional sanctions of $7,000 were set, based on unauthenticated evidence that should have
never been admitted in this Bench Trial, where Defendant Friedman was Triar of Facts.

Bryan Cave attorneys were present in open court in proceedings in Jan – March 2008 where:
• Defendant Friedman denied any relationship with Defendant Samuels twice, on Jan 11 and Jan 15, in response to Affidavits of Prejudice – for Cause, while verified statement of Defendant Samuels, filed by Bryan Cave reflects a long term close acquaintance of Defendants Samuels and Friedman.
• Defendant Friedman continues to refuse to file Statement on the Record, as required by the California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3E(2), regarding his relationship with Samuels, or any financial benefits to him or to family members residing under the same household from Samuels or Countrywide.

Recent investigation clarified why Defendant Connor never issued the Protective Order requested by Bryan Cave in July 2007. Defendant Connor listed these proceedings as “off the record” in Court records. Therefore she could not issue any “on the record” orders from them.

Needless to say, Plaintiff Zernik holds the notion of “off the record” proceedings, held secretly so, without knowledge of a Party are an abomination of justice.

Please let me know whether Bryan Cave, Jenna Moldawsky, John Amberg, or anybody else at Bryan Cave was ever aware of such proceedings being held, or even being contemplated, at the LA Superior Court.

Your response on this matter is requested no later than May 23, 2008.

Joseph Zernik

CC: J. Modisett, Los Angeles


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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