Digitally signed by

Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@ear
thlink.net, c=US
Location: La Verne,
California
Date: 2009.10.20
THE COD PROJECT by Dr Z (not-for-profit tax id application to be filed) 22:50:55 -07'00'

Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhD

PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net

07-12-07 Ex parte proceeding by Atty David Pasternak at the Court of Judge Hart-Cole in
Beverly Hills

Two ex parte proceedings were conducted in the morning of December 7, 2007, at the
request of Atty David Pasternak, in a row:

1) At the court of Judge Lisa Hart Cole – at the Beverly Hills Courthouse

2) At the court of Judge Patricia Collins – at the Santa Monica Courthouse

Such proceedings were seen as a high mark in alleged criminality: Atty David Pasternak did
not hesitate to file in court motions for order that were allegedly criminal on their faces:

1) Indemnity Agreement – for future criminality – for Mara Escrow ( a subsidiary of Old
Republic Title Insurance Holding Co.) – to overcome refusal of escrow officer to
participate in the scam.

2) Gag Order – to prevent Defendant in pro se from Protected Speech in defense of

self, and to benefit to large financial institutions – Mara Escrow and United Title Co.

3) Fraud Grant Deed – Grant Deed were brought for purported court approval, which
were later opined as Fraud by a highly decorated FBI veteran agent and Fraud
Expert.

4) Various abusive financial papers.

Enclosed is the Transcript of the first ex parte proceeding – at the court of Judge Hart-Cole.

Of note –

1) Judge Hart Cole attempted to mishandle the peremptory challenge that was filed in
court prior to the initiation of the proceedings.

2) Beyond Atty David Pasternak, who was present in person, Att Mohammad
Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin ) participated by phone.

3) A third attorney appeared and participated in the proceedings, but neither he, nor
Atty David Pasternak, nor Judge Hart-Cole would divulge his name, or the name of
his client! Much later it turned out to be Att Richard Ormond from (Buchalter Nemer)
– for Mara Escrow. He attempted to participated in the proceedings incognito, and
the conduct of Judge Hart –Cole and Atty David Pasternak demonstrated that such
effect was coordinated by the three in advance.

Related papers that are posted online:

1) December 7, 2007 - Transcript from the court of Judge Patricia Collins.

2) December 7, 2007 – moving papers by Att Pasternak

z Page 2/2 October 20, 2009

3) December 7, 2007 – Peremptory Challenge papers filed by Dr Zernik against Judge

Hart Cole.

4) December 7, 2007 – Disqualification for a Cause against Judge Collins filed by Dr

Zernik.

5) December 7, 2007 – Order signed by Judge Patricia Collins – purportedly approving

Atty Pasternak’s motion.

6) December 7, 2007 – Minute Order by Judge Hart-Cole – purporting to record her

recual.

7) December 7, 2007 – Minute Order by Judge Hart-Cole – documenting secret

“disposal of the Minute Order recording the recusal.

8) December 7, 2007 – Minute Order by Judge Collins – purporting to document the

proceedings.

9) December 7, 2007 - Register of Actions – showing false registration by Judge

Patricia Collins – secretly disposing of her actions on that day.

Generally – the proceedings demonstrate the typical conduct of “Enterprise Track” cases –
double or triple records are created. Similar conduct was the characteristic of the
proceedings for jailing of Atty Richard Fine on March 4, 2009.

The significance of such double records is by the fact that they are intended for presentation
to review courts. Therefore, the party, who is denied access to such secret records may file
a petition, or an appeal, protesting judicial actions that were in serious violation of the law.
Amazingly – the review court would not find any fault in the case. The reason – the review
court was presented with the false records – in which the actions were “disposed”.
Needless to say – the party is never informed that such records were secretly filed with the
review court.
 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT WE X HON. LISA HART COLE, JUDGE

NIVIE SAMAAN, AN INDIVIDUAL,

PLAINTIFF,

VS. NO. SC087400

JOSEPH ZERNIK, AN INDIV IDUAL, AND DOES 1

THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,

DEFENDANTS.
ORIGINt~L

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2007

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON

BY: MOE KESHAVARZI, ESQ.
(VIA COURT CALL)
1901 AVENUE OF THE STARS
SUITE 1600
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
(310) 228-3700

FOR DEFENDANT ZERNIK: JOSEPH ZERNIK

IN PROPRIA PERSONA

FOR THE RECEIVER: PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PATTON

BY: DAVID J. PASTERNAK, ESQ.
1875 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2200
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
(310) 553-1500

ANGELA MAPP, CSR NO. 7824, CRR

OFFICIAL REPORTER
 1

1 I CASE NUMBER: SC087400

2 CASE NAME: SAMAAN V. ZERNIK

3 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2007

4 DEPARTMENT X HON. LISA HART COLE, JUDGE

5 REPORTER: ANGELA MAPP, CSR NO. 7824

6 TIME: A.M. SESSION

8 APPEARANCES:

9 MOE KESHAVARZI, ATTORNEY AT LAW, FOR

10 PLAINTIFF NIVIE SAMAAN, APPEARING VIA COURT

11 CALLi DAVID PASTERNACK, ATTORNEY AT LAW,

12 FOR THE RECEIVER AND MOVING PARTYi JOSEPH

13 ZERNIK, THE DEFENDANT, PRESENT AND IN

14 PROPRIA PERSONA.

15

16 THE COURT: OKAY. SAMAAN VERSUS ZERNIK, SC087400.

17 MR. PASTERNACK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. DAVID

18 PASTERNACK, RECEIVER, MOVING PARTY.

19 MR. ZERNIK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I'M

20 DEFENDANT IN PRO PER, AND I'M HERE FOR THE RULING ON THE

21 PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE BEFORE ANY OTHER HEARING.

22 THE COURT: YES, I'M PREPARED TO RULE ON THAT. A

23 PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE WAS FILED THIS MORNING. HOWEVER, IN

24 REVIEWING THE FILE, IT APPEARS THAT, ON JULY 12TH, 2007, A

25 170.3 MOTION WAS FILED AGAINST JUDGE CONNOR. IN THAT

26 MINUTE ORDER JUDGE CONNOR INDICATED THAT SHE DENIED THE

27 170.3 BUT DEEMED THAT CHALLENGE TO BE A CHALLENGE PURSUANT

28 TO 170.6. AND THAT CHALLENGE WAS SO ACCEPTED, AND THE

 2

1 I CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER --

2 I MR. ZERNIK: NO, IF YOU READ CAREFULLY, THE --

3 I MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I

4 I WOULD LIKE TO STATE MY APPEARANCE. THIS IS MOE

5 I KESHAVARZI, COUNSEL FQR PLAINTIFF NIVIE SAMAAN. AND I

6 I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING THERE IN PERSON, YOUR HONOR.

7 I THE COURT: OKAY. MR. ZERNIK, LET ME BE VERY CLEAR

8 I ABOUT ONE THING. WHEN I'M SPEAKING, I DON'T EXPECT TO EE

9 INTERRUPTED. IS THAT CLEAR?

10 MR. ZERNIK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

11 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND SO ON THAT MINUTE ORDER

12 THE COURT DEEMED THE 170.3 TO BE A MOTION PURSUANT TO

13 170.6, AND IT WAS SO ACCEPTED, AND THE CASE WAS

14 I TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER COURT. AND THAT MINUTE ORDER IS

15 ONE THAT I'M SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT.

16 THERE WAS AN APPEARANCE BY JAHAN JAOGOVAR,

17 I WHO WAS SPECIALLY APPEARING ON BEHALF THE DEFENDANT ON

18 THAT DAY.

19 SO, FOR THAT REASON, THE COURT DEEMS THE

20 1170.6 FILED THIS MORNING TO BE INVALID, ONE HAVING ALREADY

21 BEEN EXERCISED.

22 YOU MAY BE HEARD, SIR.

23 I MR. ZERNIK: FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO

24 THIS GENTLEMAN IS.

25 THE COURT: YOU MAY BE HEARD ON THE 170.6, SIR.

26 MR. ZERNIK: BUT INTRODUCTIONS DON'T COME BEFORE

27 THAT?

28 THE COURT: YOU MAY BE HEARD ON THE 170.6, SIR.

 3

1 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. ON THE 170.6, IF YOU READ VERY

2 CAREFULLY -- THAT MINUTE ORDER IS LENGTHY, I KNOW, FOR

3 JULY 12TH. IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. BECAUSE WHAT

4 HAPPENED THERE FIRST, IN OPEN COURT, THE JUDGE, JUDGE

5 CONNOR, SAID WHAT YOU JUST SAID NOW, THAT SHE DEEMS IT,

6 FOR WHATEVER REASON -- ALTHOUGH, IT SAYS CLEARLY 170.3,

7 SHE DEEMED IT 170.6. BUT, APPARENTLY, SHE CHANGED HER

8 MIND. AND EVENTUALLY-- IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MINUTE ORDER,

9 EVENTUALLY, AND ALSO IN THE SUSTAIN SHE RECUSED HERSELF ON

10 170.3.C.2, I BELIEVE. BUT THE FINAL DECISION OF 170.3.C.2

11 IS A RECUSAL OF JUDGE IN RESPONSE TO 170.3. SHE CHANGED

12 HER MIND.

13 (THE JUDGE IS READING THE FILE.)

14 MR. ZERNIK: AND, INDEED, THE BASIS --

15 THE COURT: SIR, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT WHILE

16 YOU'RE ASKING ME TO READ SOMETHING. IS THAT ALL RIGHT?

17 MR. ZERNIK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

18 THE COURT: THANK YOU.

19 OKAY. YOU MAY BE CORRECT. LET'S HAVE A

20 SEAT. LET ME CHECK IT OUT.

21 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH. I MAY SUGGEST, YOUR HONOR --

22 THE COURT: HAVE A SEAT. I'M GOING TO CHECK IT

23 OUT.

24 MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD ON

25 THAT?

26 THE COURT: NO. THANK YOU.

27 I THE COURT WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL I GET THE

28 I NEW VOLUME.
 4

1 (RECESS. )

2 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO BACK ON THE

3 RECORD.

4 MR. ZERNIK, YOU ARE CORRECT, JUDGE CONNOR

5 ENDED UP RECUSING HERSELF. YOU DID NOT USE A 170.6.

6 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU.

7 THE COURT: SO YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THAT. SO YOU

8 STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE YOUR 170.6. AND I WILL

9 ACCEPT THIS 170.6.

10 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

11 THE COURT: YOU'VE BEEN REFERRED TO DEPARTMENT J

12 BACK IN SANTA MONICA.

13 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

14 THE COURT: EXCUSE ME FOR ONE MOMENT. LET ME

15 FINISH, IF I MAY.

16 MR. ZERNIK: DID YOU --

17 THE COURT: MAY I FINISH, PLEASE?

18 MR. ZERNIK: YES.

19 THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.

20 THAT'S JUDGE FRIEDMAN. BECAUSE THIS IS AN

21 EX-PARTE APPLICATION,I'M GOING TO ORDER THAT THE PARTIES

22 GO THERE FORTHWITH.

23 MR. PASTERNACK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

24 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

25 MR. PASTERNACK: IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU, YOUR HONOR.

26 MR. ZERNIK: BUT

27 THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MR. ZERNIK, JUST WAIT ONE

28 MOMENT. WAIT. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I WANT TO MAKE SURE

 5

1 I THAT'S GOOD WITH THE JUDGE.

2 I (A DISCUSSION WAS HELD BETWEEN THE

3 COURT AND CLERK WHICH WAS NOT

4 REPORTED. )

5 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. I'LL REFER YOU

6 TO DEPARTMENT J, JUDGE FRIEDMAN. AND EITHER IF HE'S NOT

7 I THERE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND --

8 I EXCUSE ME, SIR.

9 I -- WHICH I UNDERSTAND HE IS NOT, THEN A

10 JUDGE WHO'S COVERING HIS EX PARTES WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.

11 YES, SIR?

12 MR. ZERNIK: TWO COMMENTS THAT ARE CRITICAL. I

13 HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY TO DO IT TODAY BECAUSE I HAD SOME

14 MEDICAL APPOINTMENT ALREADY SET BECAUSE I DID NOT THINK IT

15 WOULD GO UNTIL THE MIDDAY, NUMBER ONE. BUT NUMBER TWO IS

16 THAT I THINK IT IS IN VIOLATION OF COURT RULES TO DO AN EX

17 PARTE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. ALL EX PARTES IN THE WEST

18 SIDE DIVISION ARE DONE ALWAYS AT 8:30 SHARP.

19 I IF I CAME AT 8:32, I WAS DENIED A HEARING ON

20 I EX PARTE. SO TO START AN EX PARTE IN MIDDAY, I THINK IT

21 I WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF COURT RULES.

22 I THE COURT: THAT'S NOT CORRECT, SIR. THE EX PARTE

23 I HAS TO BE FILED BY 8:30. THIS EX PARTE WAS TIMELY FILED.

24 I MR. ZERNIK: IN THIS COURTHOUSE, BUT NOT IN THAT

25 COURTHOUSE.

26 THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE OBJECTION IS

27 NOTED AND OVERRULED.

28 MR. PASTERNACK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

 6

1 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE,

2 PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

3 THAT'S IT, SIR. THANK YOU.

4 MR. PASTERNACK: YOUR HONOR, CAN I JUST CONFIRM --

5 THE CLERK: FOR CLARIFICATION, THE CASE IS ASSIGNED

6 TO JUDGE FRIEDMAN, DEPARTMENT J, FOR ALL PURPOSES. BUT

7 THE EX PARTE FOR TODAY IS TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE COLLINS IN

8 DEPARTMENT B FOR TODAY'S EX PARTE. SHE WILL HANDLE THE EX

9 PARTE IN PLACE OF THE ASSIGNED JUDGE, FOR THE ALL-PURPOSE

10 JUDGE.

11 THE COURT: OKAY. SO YOU'RE ORDERED --

12 MR. ZERNIK: WHO ARE YOU BE GETTING IT FROM?

13 THE COURT: -- DEPARTMENT B.

14 EXCUSE ME, SIR. DEPARTMENT B.

15 MR. ZERNIK: BUT WHO'S THE SOURCE OF THIS

16 INFORMATION?

17 THE COURT: JUDGE COLLINS.

18 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. WHAT IS HIS (SIC) TITLE?

19 MR. PASTERNACK: IF I CAN, CAN I JUST CONFIRM THAT

20 MR. KESHAVARZI IS STILL ON THE PHONE AND HEARD THIS?

21 THE COURT: MR. KESHAVARZI, ARE YOU STILL THERE?

22 (NO RESPONSE FROM ANYONE ON COURT

23 CALL.)

24 THE COURT: NO, HE'S NOT.

25 MR. PASTERNACK: OKAY.

26 THE CLERK: CAN WE HAVE ONE OF THESE ATTORNEYS GIVE

27 NOTICE OF THE REASSIGNMENT?

28 THE COURT: THE PLAINTIFF IS GIVING NOTICE.

 7

1 MR. PASTERNACK: SURE.

2 THE COURT: ACTUALLY, MR. PASTERNACK IS.

3 MR. PASTERNACK: I'LL GIVE NOTICE.

4 MR. ZERNIK: CAN I KNOW WHO'S THIS

5 THE COURT: SIR, PLEASE DON'T SPEAK TO MY CLERK

6 I WHEN I'M ON THE RECORD.

7 MR. ZERNIK: SORRY.

8 THE COURT: THAT'S IT, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

9 I YOU'RE ORDERED TO DEPARTMENT B FORTHWITH.

10 MR. PASTERNACK: I WILL GIVE NOTICE.

11 THE COURT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

12 THEY'RE WAITING FOR YOU. THAT'S IT, SIR.

13 MR. ZERNIK: I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS THE SOURCE OF

14 I
THE ORDER. IS IT YOU?

15 THE COURT: JUDGE COLLINS.

16 MR. ZERNIK: WHO IS JUDGE COLLINS?

17 THE COURT: SHE'S THE ACTING SUPERVISING JUDGE IN

18 SANTA MONICA.

19 MR. ZERNIK: DO YOU HAVE ANY WRITTEN COPY OF IT?

20 THE COURT: IT WILL BE. THAT'S IT, SIR. THANK

21 YOU.

22 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY.

23 THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.

24 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

25

26 (THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)

27 ***
28
 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 I DEPARTMENT WE.X HON. LISA HART COLE, JUDGE

4 INIVIE SAMAAN, AN INDIVIDUAL,

5 I PLAINTIFF,

6 VS. NO. SC087400

7 I JOSEPH ZERNIK, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1

THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
8
DEFENDANTS.
9

10

11 I I, ANGELA MAPP, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE

12 I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY

13 IOF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING

14 I PAGES, 1 THROUGH 7, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND

15 I CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS HELD

16 I IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER ON DECEMBER 7, 2007.

17 I DATED THIS 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2008.

18

19

20

21

~
22

23

24
/
,,I'

i
/) ~

25

26

27

28