09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none)...

8/6/2019 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none) Supporting R

1/264

-1-

Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill BlvdLV, CA 91750Tel: (310) 435 9107Fax: (801) 998 [email protected] Se Petitioner

UNITED STATES COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOSEPH H ZERNIKPetitioner

vsKENNETH MELSON ET AL

Respondants

CASE No1:09-cv-00805

VERIFIED NOTICE #1 OF SUPPORTING RECORDS.

PETITIONER FILES HEREBY NOTICE OF:

(1) RECREATED LETTERS FILED AS EVIDENCE BY COUNTRYWIDE INCASE OF BORROWER SHARON DIANE HILL (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, WesternDistrict of Pennsylvania, Case No 01-22574);

(2)AN OUTSIDE-COUNSEL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME BY COUNTRYWIDE IN

CASE OF BORROWER WILLIAM ALLEN PARSLEY (U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Southern District of Texas, Case No 05-90374);

(3)ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY RESPONDENT LEWIS & SENIORU.S. OFFICERS RELATIVE TO THE BAC/MERRILL LYNCH DEAL.

TOGETHER, SUCH RECORDS CORROBORATE THE BASIC ELEMENTSALLEGED BY PETITIONER RELATIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF U.S. OFFICERS,WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE SUB-PRIME CRISIS AND PERMITTED HUMANRIGHTS DISGRACES OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS IN LA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA, BUT MAY OTHERWISE APPEAR TO A NAVE READER AS ACONSPIRATORIAL THEORY.

INSTANT PAPER IS ALSO FILED UNDER ALTERNATIVE COVER PAGES INTHE CASES OF BORROWERS HILL & PARSLEY REFERENCED ABOVE.

Dated: May 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, by:

______________________JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER

Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik

DN: cn=Joseph

Zernik,

email=jz12345@e

arthlink.net, c=US

Date: 2009.05.17

18:30:59 -07'00'


2/264

-2-

Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill BlvdLV, CA 91750Tel: (310) 435 9107Fax: (801) 998 [email protected] Se Interested Party

UNITED STATES COURT

SOUTHER DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WILLIAM ALLEN PARSELYBorrower

CASE No05-90374

VERIFIED NOTICE #1 OF SUPPORTING RECORDS.INTERESTED PARTY IN INSTANT CASE, WHO IS PETITIONER IN ZERNIK VMELSON ET AL, CASE NO 1:09-cv-00805 IN U.S. COURT, DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA, FILES HERIN NOTICE OF:

(1) RECREATED LETTERS FILED AS EVIDENCE BY COUNTRYWIDE INCASE OF BORROWER SHARON DIANE HILL (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, WesternDistrict of Pennsylvania, Case No 01-22574);

(2)AN OUTSIDE-COUNSEL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME BY COUNTRYWIDE INCASE OF BORROWER WILLIAM ALLEN PARSLEY (U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Southern District of Texas, Case No 05-90374);

(3)ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY KENNETH LEWIS & SENIOR U.S.OFFICERS RELATIVE TO THE BAC/MERRILL LYNCH DEAL.

TOGETHER, SUCH RECORDS CORROBORATE THE BASIC ELEMENTSALLEGED IN PETITION FILED IN U.S. COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ,RELATIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF U.S. OFFICERS, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THESUB-PRIME CRISIS AND PERMITTED HUMAN RIGHTS DISGRACES OFHISTORIC PROPORTIONS IN LA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BUT MAYOTHERWISE APPEAR TO A NAVE READER AS A CONSPIRATORIALTHEORY.

INSTANT PAPER IS ALSO FILED UNDER ALTERNATIVE COVER PAGES INTHE CASES PETITIONER ZERNIK AND OF BORROWER HILL, REFERENCEDABOVE.


______________________JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER


3/264

-3-

Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill BlvdLV, CA 91750Tel: (310) 435 9107Fax: (801) 998 [email protected] Se Interested Party

UNITED STATES COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHARON DIANE HILLBorrower

CASE No01-22574

VERIFIED NOTICE #1 OF SUPPORTING RECORDS.

INTERESTED PARTY IN INSTANT CASE, WHO IS PETITIONER IN ZERNIK VMELSON ET AL, CASE NO 1:09-cv-00805 IN U.S. COURT, DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA, FILES HERIN NOTICE OF:

(1) RECREATED LETTERS FILED AS EVIDENCE BY COUNTRYWIDE IN CASEOF BORROWER SHARON DIANE HILL (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District ofPennsylvania, Case No 01-22574);

(2)AN OUTSIDE-COUNSEL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME BY COUNTRYWIDE INTHE CASE OF BORROWER WILLIAM ALLEN PARSLEY (U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Southern District of Texas, Case No 05-90374);

(3)ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY KENNETH LEWIS & SENIOR U.S.OFFICERS RELATIVE TO THE BAC/MERRILL LYNCH DEAL.

TOGETHER, SUCH RECORDS CORROBORATE THE BASIC ELEMENTS ALLEGEDIN PETITION FILED IN U.S. COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RELATIVE TO THECONDUCT OF U.S. OFFICERS, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE SUB-PRIME CRISISAND PERMITTED HUMAN RIGHTS DISGRACES OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS INLA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BUT MAY OTHERWISE APPEAR TO A NAVEREADER AS A CONSPIRATORIAL THEORY.

INSTANT PAPER IS ALSO FILED UNDER ALTERNATIVE COVER PAGES IN THECASES OF PETITIONER ZERNIK AND BORROWER PARSLEY, REFERENCEDABOVE.


______________________JOSEPH H ZERNIK

PRO SE PETITIONER


4/264

-4-

PRO SE PETITIONER in Zernik v Melson et al, U.S. Court, District of Columbia, who is

also Interested Party, case of Borrower Parsley, U.S. Court, Southern District of Texas, and

who is also requesting designation as Interested Party in case of Borrower Hill, U.S. Court,

Western District of Pennsylvania, hereby files1 notice #1 of support records.

///

I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Alternative Cover Pages 1-3I. TOC 4

II. List of Exhibits ... 5

III. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer 6

IV. Requests for Incorporation by reference .... 7

V. Request for Judicial Notice .... 8

VI. Significance of the Records Notified Herein .... 9

VII. Statement of Verification .... 25

VIII. Proposed Orders ... 27

IX. Exhibits .... 29

1Copy is concomitantly filed with TARP Oversight Board, and with TARP Inspector General, as arequest for urgent investigation into matters related to TARP and the Bailout.

Copy is concurrently filed with Lawrence Summer, Director, U.S. President National EconomicCouncil

Copy is concurrently filed with Paul Volker, Chairman, U.S. President Economic Recovery AdvisoryBoard, as request for investigation of the allegation that widespread corruption in LA County,California, involving Countrywide, gave rise, at least in part, to the sub-prime crisis.

Copy is concurrently filed with Carol E. Dinkins., Chairwoman, U.S. President Privacy and CivilLiberties Advisory Board, as a request for investigation of alleged widespread corruption and civilrights and human rights violation of historic proportions in LA County, California.

Copies are concomitantly filed with U.S. Congress, as a request for urgent hearings on underlyingmatters.


5/264

-5-

II.

LIST OF EXHIBITS IN CURRENT NOTICE

EXHIBIT 1. 07-12-27-three Recreated Letters filed by Countrywide as evidence in the

Case No 01-22574, Borrower Sharon Diane Hill, in U.S. Bankruptcy Court,

Pittsburgh, PA

EXHIBIT 2. 07-12-20-Transcript from above referenced case.

EXHIBIT 3. 09-05-15 Pacer docket of above referenced case.

EXHIBIT 4. 08-03-08 Memorandum Opinion of the Hon Jeff Bohm, U.S. Judge, in Case

No 05-90374, Borrower William Allen Parsely, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,

Houston TX.

EXHIBIT 5. 09-05-15 Pacer docket of above referenced case.

EXHIBIT 6. 09-04-23 Letter of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Congress.

EXHIBIT 7. 09-04-23 Global Economic Trends Blog: Let theIndictments Begin Paulson,

Bernanke, Lewis.

EXHIBIT 8. 08-01-08 NYT: Morgensons Report of Countrywides Recreated Letters

EXHIBIT 9. 08-01-09 NYT: Stocks Dive on Reports of New Ills

EXHIBIT 10. 08-01-11AM Greenbergs MarketBlog: Posting on Countrywide/BAC deal

EXHIBIT 11. 08-01-11PM CNN: BofA inks deal to buy Countrywide for $4 billion

EXHIBIT 12. Wikipedia: Bank of America Corporation

///

///

///

III.

REQUEST FOR LENIENCE BY PRO SE FILER

Copy is concomitantly filed with the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, with request for monitoringand protection of the rights of dual citizen, Joseph Zernik, per Universal Declaration of HumanRights, ratified International Law.


6/264

-6-

While I make substantial efforts to comply with court procedures, and study

applicable law, I request special lenience as apro se filer:

A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, Estelle, 429 U. S., at106, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to lessstringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ibid. (internalquotation marks omitted). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) (All pleadings shall be

so construed as to do substantial justice). (Erickson v Pardus et al, 2007)In particular, I am unqualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask the

Honorable Court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I claim, and do take into

consideration the facts and the claims themselves, and if they can support some other valid

theory, assign such legal theory to them, and review them pursuant to such valid legal theory

(Haddock v Cal Board of Dental Examiner, 1985).The Honorable Court is requested to entirely disregard my comments, explanations,

or legal arguments pertaining to such papers, when my writings appear to be of the nature of

legal theories, or legal arguments, and are deemed erroneous, or irrelevant. If it pleases the Honorable Court, let the Honorable Court act of its own volition

whenever permitted to do so by law:

a. To initiate action pursuant to the Code of Conduct of U.S. Judges, Canon 3B(3):

(3) A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomesaware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessionalconduct by a judge or a lawyer.

b. To act pursuant toFed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) to do substantial justice for

Plaintiffs who claim to have been inflicted substantial harms by the Los Angeles

justice system.


________________________

JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER

///

///


7/264

-7-

III.

REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

I request that the Honorable U.S. Courts incorporate by reference each others dockets

as they appear in Pacer, as well as USDOJ reports, also available online. The request is to

incorporate by reference such records at whatever state they are in the data-base referenced

below. However, in places where records in their current data-base (case #4 below) were not

scanned at all, or were improperly scanned, or were improperly tagged, as describe in pages

7-16 of Petition Zernik v Melson et al, the records will be filed again with the Honorable

Courts, so that they re properly scanned and tagged.In addition to Pacer records, request is also for incorporation by reference of official

reports of the U.S. Dept of Justice, Independent Counsel, Special Counsel, and LAPD

reports, pertaining to allegation of long-term, widespread corruption of the justice system in

LA County, tolerated and patronized by U.S. Agencies. The petition alleges that such

widespread public corruption in Los Angeles County, California, gave rise to corruption in

Countrywide that was essential for the development of the Sub-Prime Crisis, on the one

hand, and human rights disgraces of historic proportion, on the other hand.

Pacer Dockets:

1) Zernik v Melson at al. U.S. Court, DC, Case No 1:2009cv00805

2) Borrower Parsley U.S. Court, Southern District of TX, Case No 05-90374

3) Borrower Hill U.S. Court, Western District of PA, Case No 01-22574

4) Zernik v Connor et al.- U.S. District Court, LA, CA, Case No 2:2008cv01550

5)Fine v LA Sheriff of LA U.S. District Court, LA, CA, Case No 2:09-cv-01914

6) Fine v. State Bar of CA et al U.S. Dist Court, LA, CA, Case No 2:08-cv-02906

7) U.S. Gov v City of LA et al U.S. Dist Court, LA, CA, Case No 2:2000cv11769

Official Reports available online, which are not part of Pacer:

8) U.S. Dept of Justice - Annual Reports of the USDOJ Public Integrity Section

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/pin/

9) U.S. Dept of Justice - Special Report (December 1987) regarding drug sales for profit by


8/264

-8-

CIA in LA County in the 1980 as part of Iran-Contra.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9712/

10) Records of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh relating to Iran/Contra

http://www.archives.gov/research/independent-counsels/walsh.html

11) LAPD - Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) and responses by Police Chief and

the office of LA District Attorney.

http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/RampartReconsidered.html

Rampart Reconsidered - Full Report (101 pages - pdf file)

Rampart Reconsidered - Executive Summary (32 pages - pdf file)

Rampart Reconsidered - Appendices (141 pages - pdf file)


________________________

JOSEPH H ZERNIK

PRO SE PETITIONER///

///

IV

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

I request that the Honorable Courts take Judicial Notice of each others rulings in

cases 1, 2, and 3 referenced in Request for Incorporation in Reference, above.

Regarding case #4, Zernik v Connor et al, I request that the Honorable Courts take

Judicial Notice of the following incontrovertible facts:

1) The non-sequential order of the records in the docket.

2) The failure to issue valid summons in the case (Summons as issued by the clerk are

found under Doc 1, Complaint).

3) Inadequate docketing, where critical records are concealed under unrelated records,

EG, Doc #52, 56, 58.


9/264

-9-

4) Alleged perverted discrepancy notices (Doc # 105) documenting the fact that a large

number of records were completely eliminated from the docket with no record at all

of the procedures underlying such elimination.

///

5) Complaint filed with FBI regarding alleged dishonest manipulations of Pacer docket

in the case (Doc #088)


________________________

JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER

///

///

V.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RECORDS NOTICED HEREIN

///

A. Records from the case of Borrower Sharon Diane Hill, No 01-22574, U.S.

Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

Such records document Countrywide admitting filing Recreated Letters (Exhibit 1) as

evidence. Such conduct was admitted in proceedings in the court of the Honorable Thomas

P Agresti, as documented in the Transcript of a December 20, 2007 proceeding in that case

(Exhibit 2). Such records are accompanied by the up to date Pacer docket of that case

(Exhibit 3).

Petitioner claims similar conduct by Countrywide, now BAC relative to alleged fraud

in key record that is an invalid underwriting letter of October 26, 2004, and was repeatedly

introduced in evidence as a valid underwriting dated October 14, 2004 or mid-October 2004.


10/264

-10-

The alleged fraudulent underwriting letter, support records, request for an evidentiary ruling

and declaratory relief will be separately filed.

///

B. Records from the case of Borrower William Allen Parsley, No 05-90374, U.S.

Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas:

Such records document Countrywide admitting in proceedings in the court of the Honorable

Jeff Bohm engaging in an Outside Counsel Employment Scheme. Such records include

Memorandum Opinion, March 8, 2008 (Exhibit 4), and an up to date Pacer docket of that

case (Exhibit 5).Petitioner claims similar conduct by Respondent BAC, relative to employment of

Respondent Bryan Cave, LLP as an Outside Counsel in cases involving Petitioner. Outside-

Counsel Procedures manual of BAC, together with records supporting the allegations of

fraud in employment of Respondent Bryan Cave, LLP as Outside Counsel, will be separately

filed, together with requests for evidentiary rulings and declaratory relief.

///

C. Records from the investigation of the Merrill-Lynch/BAC merger

Such records provide evidence that both BAC Officer Respondent Kenneth Lewis, and

U.S. Officer former Treasury Secretary Paulson, admitted alleged criminal conduct related

to the merger referenced above. Such records include a letter by NY Attorney General

Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Congress (Exhibit 6), and Global Economic Trend blog call for

criminal indictments of Paulson, Bernanke, and Lewis which was widely distributed on the

web (Exhibit 7).Petitioner claims that discovery in this case will confirm similar conduct by

Respondents BAC, and U.S. officers relative to the Countrywide/BAC merger. Letters by

U.S. officers Respondents Kaiser and Melson, which are alleged as fraud on U.S. Congress,

together with requests for evidentiary rulings and declaratory relief will be separately filed.

D. Additional Records

Supper records are related to:


11/264

-11-

a. The publication of the news of Recreated Letters in the Hill case, in early

January 2008 (Exhibits 8,9), leding to what was variably termed Merger, Takeover,

and Takeunder, of Countrywide by BAC.

b. The nature of the Countrywide/BAC merger, (Exhibits 10, 11, 12) that show that

the transaction was inexplicable in terms of normal business conduct, and was accompanied

by overt provisions by Bush Administration officials aimed to induce BAC to enter the deal.

Furthermore, such records support the claim that discovery in this case is very likely to

uncover covert provisions/understandings by Bush administration officials and BAC, to

induce/coerce the merger, and shield BAC from possibly or likely criminal liability related tothe deal. The petition alleged that such conduct was furhtermore concealed from share-

holders, tax-payers, and U.S. Congress.

///

E. Significance of the above referenced cases to Petition of Zernik v Melson et al, U.S.

Court, Washington DC and vice versa:

The records listed above support allegations in Petition in U.S. Court, District of

Columbia, that:

1. Countrywide filed as evidence and produced in response to legal subpoena in

Samaan v Zernik (SC08400) a large volume of false and deliberately misleading

banking records, which upon review will dwarf in comparison the Recreated

Letters filed in the case of Sharon Diane Hill. Former Countrywide Officers,

Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels were repeatedly requested to stop the alleged

fraud on Petitioner. Current Officers of Respondent BAC, Respondents Lewis,Mayopoulos, and the BAC Audit Committee were likewise repeatedly requested

to stop the fraud. All of them refused to take corrective action, and colluded with

the ongoing alleged fraud on Petitioner Zernik.

2. Countrywide initiated the alleged false and deliberately misleading employment of

Respondent Bryan Cave, LLP in cases pertaining to Petitioner Zernik, which upon

review will dwarf in comparison the Outside Counsel scheme in the case of


12/264

-12-

Borrower Parsley. Respondent BAC continued and continues such employment.

Respondents BAC, Lewis, Mayopoulos, and BAC Audit Committee, as well as

Respondents Lents and Van Clever, were repeatedly asked to stop such alleged

fraud on Petitioner, but refuse to do so.

3. Respondents FBI, USDOJ, and SEC, as well as respective U.S. Officers,

Respondents Kaiser, Melson, and Bezek, consistently refuse perform their duties

and provide Petitioner with Equal Protection against such alleged criminal

conduct, regardless the severe abuse of his civil rights. Such conduct by

Respondents Melson and Kaiser included false and deliberately misleadingstatements to U.S. Congress. Such conduct by SEC and Respondent Bezek

involved failure to enforce SEC regulation and protect both BAC share-holders

and U.S. tax-payers like Petitioner from ongoing alleged frauds of large scale.

4. Combined, the conduct of Respondents BAC, USDOJ, FBI, SEC, & Bryan Cave,

LLP, and their respective officers in underlying cases involving Petitioner Zernik,

is most plausibly explained in confidential provisions or understandings, yet to be

discovered, that upon review would dwarf in their alleged criminality those that

took place in relationship to the Merrill-Lynch/ BAC merger. Therefore -

Respondents BAC and Bryan Cave, LLP, and respective officers, felt falsely

secure in their alleged criminal conduct, while Respondents FBI and USDOJ and

SEC felt falsely compelled to allow ongoing extreme abuse the civil rights of

Petitioner and others.

5. Evidence included in the cases cited herein, alone, without any further discovery,would likely provide sufficient credible evidence for indictment of Sandor

Samuels and Angelo Mozilo, possibly also Kenneth Lewis, Timothy Mayopoulos,

and Bryan Cave, LLP on Racketeering per RICO 18 USC 1961-1968. The cases

cited herein include allegations of numerous predicated acts that took place in

2007-2009, including alleged obstruction and perversion of justice, falsification of

banking and legal records, intimidation, harassment and retaliation against victims,


13/264

-13-

witnesses, and informants, and more. Petitioner therefore alleged in his original

filing that the investigation by FBI of Countrywide, upon review, must be deemed

as deliberately aimless, and public statements made by USDOJ and FBI

officers regarding vigorous investigation of Countrywide are attempts to mislead

the U.S. tax payers and U.S. Congress.

6. The conduct of U.S. Officers under the Bush Administration relative to BAC,

Countrywide, and Merrill Lynch, now allow BAC to grow beyond limits

previously promulgated relative to banking institutions, as safeguards for the U.S.

economy in the wake of the Great Depressions. Furthermore, such conduct nowpermits BAC to engage in alleged criminal conduct with effective immunity.

Combined, this concoction is contrary to the law, contrary to any sound public

policy, and the recipe for disaster for the U.S. economy and the rule of law.

///

///

F. Notice provided to Counsel of Borrower Hill and U.S. Trustee of intend to file

notices in the case of Borrower Hill, to inform the Honorable Thomas P. Agresti,

United States Bankruptcy Court Judge, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, of the current

conduct of BAC in LA, California

Email note was forwarded today, May 15, 2009 to counsel for Borrower and for the

U.S. Trustee in the case of Sharon Diane Hill, noticing counsel of my intent to file notices in

that case as an Interested Party.

The May 15, 2009 email note explains my interest in the case as follows:My interest is in no way adversarial to that of Borrower Sharon Diane Hill,and is most closely aligned with the interest of the U.S. Trustee.

My interest in Pennsylvania case of Sharon Diane Hill

My claim is that in LA County, California, home-base of Countrywide, itcontinues to this very day to perpetrate on me the same frauds that wererebuked in other courts around the country. Specifically - I allege that underBAC control, it continues to perpetrate on me the "Recreated Letters" fraudthat is a copy of its conduct in the PA court, which was rebuked in the case ofSharon Diane Hill.


14/264

-14-

My interest in Texas case of William Alan Parsley

You may view similar notices which I have recently filed in U.S. Court inHouston, Texas (Borrower - William Allen Parsley case # 05-903-74, Filed:10/13/2005). My claim there is that under BAC control, it continues toperpetrate on me the "Outside Counsel" fraud that is a copy of its conduct inthe TX court, which was rebuked in the case of William Alan Parsley.

Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the California Superior Court for the Countyof Los Angeles

I was named Defendant in civil unlimited litigation of Samaan v Zernik(SC087400). Claims in that litigation stemmed from real estate failedtransaction in 2004, when I tried to sell my Beverly Hills home, and NivieSamaan fraudulently induced me to enter a contract where she was notqualified for the purchase.

However, with Countrywide's collusion, she was trying to perpetrate amortgage fraud, which failed. A year later, in 2005, she filed against meclaims for Specific Performance or Breach of Contract. In such case, again incollusion with frauds by Countrywide, I was forced to leave my home underthe threat of force, my home was taken for private use with no compensationat all, and I never received a penny. I had gag orders placed on me to benefitlarge corporations in ex parte procedures, as part of extensive severe abuseof my due process and first amendment rights.

My allegations in re: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400):

I claim that I was subjected to fraud under the guise of litigation in SuperiorCourt of California for the County of Los Angeles. Suffice is to say that the

Clerk of the LA Superior Court has refused to certify in the past year that thecase is a valid case of the Superior Court of California, that the judgment insuch case was a valid, effectual judgment of the Superior Court of California,and that Judge Terry Friedman, who has been holding the "file" for over ayear (albeit, like all other judges in this case - with no assignment order at all)is a duly assigned judge in this case.

Regarding the Grant Deed filed by the court on my home, while the "file" washeld by Judge Terry Friedman - veteran FBI agent, decorated by U.S.Congress, by FBI Director, and by U.S. Attorney General, has opined "...frauds being committed..."

My case in not unique either. I have identified numerous similar real estate

frauds at the court, most notably, the case of Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737).I consider my case unique only in the meticulous documentation of thefrauds.

Regarding the conduct of Countrywide Samaan v Zernik (SC087400):

Bryan Cave, LLP, has regularly appeared in this case for two years, claimingto represent Countrywide, later BAC, and self-designating as "Non Party".The LA Superior Court designated it interchangeably "Defendant" Plaintiff","Real Parties in Interest" [sic-jhz], "Cross-Defendant", "Intervenor", andmore... In recent months, neither BAC nor Bryan Cave, LLP would respondto demand that they explicitly state that Bryan Cave, LLP was authorized torepresent BAC in this case.


15/264

-15-

Since early 2007, neither Angelo Mozilo, nor Sandor Samuels, and morerecently - neither Kenneth Lewis, nor Timothy Mayopoulos, nor the BAC AuditCommittee would answer requests to either authenticate or repudiate records

they filed in court as evidence, among them - "recreated letters" certified asfalsely dated by a fraud expert.

In short, through cases such as the case of Sharon Diane Hill, I show that U.S. Courts

in Texas and Pennsylvania rebuke the litigation practices of Countrywide, initially as an

independent publicly traded corporation - CFC - more recently controlled by Bank of

America Corporation (BAC). At the same time, I allege judges of the LA Superior court,

such as Terry Friedman, in fact willfully colluded with Countrywide, BAC, and others, andcontinue to collude with such practices to this date, in perpetrating fraud on me under the

guise of civil litigation.

///

G. Litigation Practices of Countrywide as seen in the case of Borrower Sharon Diane

Hill were publicized in January 2008.

Exhibit 8, is a copy of a news item published on January 8, 2008 in the Business

Section of the New York Times, by Pulitzer-Prize winner Gretchen Morgenson.

Morgenson article, title: Lender Tells Judge It 'Recreated' Letters, reported that in

late December 2007, Countrywide finally admitted in the U.S. Court in Pittsburgh

Pennsylvania that it had filed evidence in the case of Sharon Diane Hill, which was

recreated letters. The letters themselves, which were false, made up banking records, are

provided in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 2 is the transcript of the hearing in the case of Sharon Diane Hill onDecember 20, 2007, where the true facts in this matter came to be admitted by

Countrywides counsel. Morgenson in her article quotes the Honorable Judge Agresi stating:

"These letters are a smoking gun that something is not right in Denmark." That comment

appears on transcript page 19. The transcript more fully cited says:

THE COURT: Well, there's definitely a need for3discovery here. Theseletters are a smoking gun that something4is not right in Denmark. I just -- Ican't get over what I'm5being told here about these recreations and what the


16/264

-16-

purpose is6or was and what was intended by them. It just -- I don't see7anycredible reason for doing that other than to create a8perception that noticeswere timely sent. But maybe there is,9and that's why there's a need for

discovery, obviously.

Attorney Puida, anything -- any response here?

PUIDA: Yes, Your Honor. Again, the -- we were12doing nothing more thanproviding counsel with a history of what escrow was received and paymentsduring the course of the bankruptcy, what was paid out, what differencebetween the two there may have been. The letters again were never offeredas being something that was sent out to debtor's counsel or to the Trustee. Itwas just a starting point to show this is the breakdown for that particularyear's escrow.

THE COURT: All right. I appreciate that. This is your understanding of whatyou did, but when I asked some rather pointed questions to further explainthe purpose behind these letters, you couldn't respond. You could notanswer, and I can appreciate that, and that's just more reason why there hasto be some discovery here to find out what is going on and why it was done,because that will determine -- you know, if it can't otherwise be settled orresolved, that will be an item of concern for this Court in assessing theappropriate damage or remedy. So it's highly, extremely relevant, andimportant for a decision in this matter

///

///

H. Such publication was the cause of a meltdown in Countrywides share price, andalso caused tremors in financial markets.

Morgensons January 8, 2008 publication in the NYT caused a sharp drop in the

Countrywide share price, and on the same afternoon rumors started circulating of pending

bankruptcy filing by Countrywide, which required press release by Countrywide denying

such rumors. The news led to overall declines in financial markets that raised concerns about

U.S. financial markets stability.

On the next day, January 9, 2008, the New York times reported, as seen in Exhibit 9:

Shares tumbled late Tuesday after the head ofAT&T suggested thatconsumers might be cutting back and Countrywide Financial denied thatit was tumbling into bankruptcy..

Shares of Countrywide fell $2.17, or 28.4 percent, to $5.47, after thecompany issued a statement that said there was no substance to the rumorthat Countrywide is planning to file for bankruptcy.


17/264

-17-

The Standard & Poors 500-stock index fell 1.84 percent, or 25.99points, to1,390.19, its lowest close since March 5.The Dow Jones industrial averagedeclined 238.42 points, or 1.86 percent, to 12,589.07,while the Nasdaq

composite index dropped 58.95 points, or 2.36 percent, to 2,440.51

Such values for major indices may seem phenomenally high to date, but as the report

notes, they brought the S&P to the lowest level in 10 months. Eventually, two days later, on

January 11, 2008, announcement was made of the intent to have BAC take over control of

Countrywide.

On should note that investors negative sentiments, reflecting vanishing confidence in

Countrywide, which led to such final collapse, were not driven by any financial performance

data of Countrywide. Instead, such negative investors actions were driven by news of

alleged massive corruption of Countrywides Legal Department, at the time headed by

Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal Officer. Today, I am informed and believe that Samuels serves

as Associate General Counsel at BAC.

It is my opinion that investors reactions were logical and fully justified. The legal

department of any public corporation, and in particular any financial institutions, is critical in

safeguarding the integrity of internal controls. Such realization was recognized following

the Enron debacle in the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 307, and respective promulgated

SEC regulations. Therefore, once the corruption of a Legal Department of financial

institution is evident, alternatively, once it becomes evident that SEC is not enforcing the law

in this regard, no investor in his right mind should trust any further financial reports from

such corporations and/or regulators. That is indeed the current alleged state of affairs

regarding Countrywide, BAC, and SEC.

///

///

I. Such publication was the cause of Countrywides final demise and the take-over

(designated below as Takeunder) by BAC announced on January 11, 2008, and

sponsored by U.S. officials under the Bush Administration in its waning days.


18/264

-18-

Herb Greenberg is listed as a senior columnist for MarketWatch. His column also

appears in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal, and he's a contributor to CNBC.

He joined MarketWatch after six years as senior columnist for TheStreet.com. He previously

spent 10 years as a six-day-a-week business columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Before that, he was the New York financial correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, where he

covered the food and restaurant industries.

Exhibit 10 is Herb Greenbergs blog column, January 11. 2008 early morning

posting, designating the Countrywide/BAC deal as Takeunder. It also notes what was

noted in other publications as well The Fed is behind the deal, and speculates the

government likely agrees to guarantee BofA against Countrywide-related losses, while

noting There was nothing in the press release about that.

It further implies confidential provisions by Bush administration officials related to

the Countrywide/BAC deal:

Now we know. Based on the implied price of the deal, which is around $7,give or take, this is a takeunder. Yesterday I opined (clearly as a guessinggame) that it would appear apparent:

1. The Fed is behind the deal. (Todays thought: Its as likely asyesterday.)

2. The Fed is behind the deal because the rumors yesterday of a nearbankruptcy were probably true. (Based on the price, it would appear moreevident than ever.)

3. As part of the deal, the government likely agrees to guarantee BofAagainst Countrywide-related losses. (There was nothing in the pressrelease about that, so lets give them the benefit of the doubt and sayBofA is shouldering all of the risk and at this price it believes the risk isworth the reward.)

4. Lost in the in the noise yesterday was that Moodys downgraded theratings on 30 (count em THIRTY!) tranches of Countrywides mortgagedebt by more than a few notches. They did something similar beforeAmerican Home Mortgage filed for bankruptcy. (Remains as telling todayas it was yesterday.)

Exhibit 11, CNN report later that Friday, January 11, 2008 notes:

"If this deal occurs, I believe it will have been shepherded by the bankregulators," said Punk, Ziegel & Co. analyst Richard Bove wrote in aresearch note Friday.


19/264

-19-

The deal was valued at about $4 billions, but later BAC set aside double that sum for

covering potential litigation losses related to Countrywide. BAC also later decided to retire

the Countrywide name, recognizing the negative goodwill that came attached to the name.

///

J. Financial analysts largely failed to recognize the potential or likely criminal

liabilities related to the Countrywide/BAC deal, and likely confidential provisions or

understandings regarding criminal immunities, which in fact are likely to be of

criminal nature as well.

News and analysis reports quoted above often noted that the transaction as disclosed

to the public, and also to U.S. Congress, did not make sense financially, and that the

transaction was chaperoned by Bush Administration officials. Numerous reports speculated

that U.S. Officers provided provisions to induce BAC to enter the transaction. However,

financial analysts largely ignored the criminal liability that came attached to Countrywide.

Wikipedia, as downloaded on May 15, 2009 (Exhibit 12), provides a better picture of

BAC and the Countrywide/BAC deal, noting:Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC(http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/bac.html)), based in Charlotte, NorthCarolina is the largest financial services company in the world[4], largestbank by assets,[3] second largest commercial bank by deposits,and(previously) third largest by market capitalization in the UnitedStates.[5][6] Also, Bank of America is the number one underwriter of globalhigh yield debt, the third largest underwriter of global equity and the ninthlargest adviser on global mergers and acquisitions.[7]

One should notice that the statement Bank of America is the number oneunderwriter of global high yield debt, also implies that BAC is the number one

underwriter of global high risk debt. In the mortgage industry such debts were designated

sub prime lending.

On the acquisition of Countrywide Wikipedia states:

Acquisition of Countrywide Financial

On August 23, 2007 the company announced a $2 billion repurchaseagreement for Countrywide Financial. This purchase of preferred stock was


20/264

-20-

arranged to provide a return on investment of 7.25% per annum and providedthe option to purchase common stock at a price of $18 per share.[15]

Following that initial investment, on January 11, 2008, Bank of Americaannounced that they would buy Countrywide Financial for $4.1 billion.[16]This acquisition, which closed on July 1, 2008, gave the bank a substantialmarket share of the mortgage business, and access to Countrywide'sexpertise, technology, and employees for servicing mortgages.[17] Theacquisition was seen as preventing the potential of bankruptcy forCountrywide. Countrywide, however, denied that it was close to bankruptcy.Countrywide provides mortgage servicing for nine million mortgages valuedat $1.4 trillion USD as of December 31, 2007.[18] However, Countrywide isunder FBI investigation due to possible fraud in home loans and mortgages,therefore Bank of America states that by 2009 they will only be "officially"affiliated to Countrywide.[19]

On July 1, 2008, Bank of America Corporation completed its purchase ofCountrywide Financial Corporation. This purchase made it the USA's leadingmortgage originator and servicer, controlling between20 to 25 percent of thehome loan market.[20] The deal was structured to merge Countrywide withthe Red Oak Merger Corporation, which Bank of America created as anindependent subsidiary. It has been suggested that the deal was structuredthis way to prevent a potential bankruptcy stemming from large losses inCountrywide hurting the parent organization by keeping Countrywidebankruptcy remote.[21]

One should particularly notice the statement: Countrywide is under FBI

investigation due to possible fraud in home loans and mortgages, therefore Bank of

America states that by 2009 they will only be "officially" affiliated to

Countrywide.[19]

One must also particularly notice the statement: The deal was structured to merge

Countrywide with the Red Oak Merger Corporation, which Bank of America created

as an independent subsidiary. It has been suggested that the deal was structured this

way to prevent a potential bankruptcy stemming from large losses in Countrywide

hurting the parent organization by keeping Countrywide bankruptcy remote.[21].

Petitioner alleges that both reflect efforts by BAC to sequester criminal liabilities as

well as financial liabilities related to Countrywide.

Combined losses to investors and tax-payers by Countrywide alone are likely to total

close to $1trillion mark soon. Regarding tax-payers awards to BAC Wikipedia states as


21/264

-21-

follows:

Federal bailout

Bank of America received US $20 billion in federal bailout from the USgovernment through the TARP program on 16 January 2009 and also gotguarantee of US $118 billion in potential losses at the company.[28] This wasin addition to the $25 billion given to them in the Fall of 2008 through TARP.The additional payment was part of a deal with the US government topreserve Bank of America's merger with the troubled investment firm MerrillLynch.[29] Since then, members of the US Congress have expressedconsiderable concern about how this money has been spent, especially sincesome of the recipients have been accused of mis-using the bailoutmoney.[30] The Bank's CEO, Ken Lewis, was quoted as claiming "We are stilllending, and we are lending far more because of the TARP program."

Members of the US House of Representatives, however, were skeptical andquoted many anecdotes about loan applicants (particularly small businessowners) being denied loans and credit card holders facing stiffer terms on thedebt in their card accounts.

According to a March 15, 2009 article in The New York Times, Bank ofAmerica received an additional $5.2 billion in government bailout moneywhich was channeled through American International Group. [31

The sums listed above in bailout, through the TARP and elsewhere, are well above

$150 billions! Petition filed in Washington DC Court alleged criminal conduct by recipients

of TARP funds.

///

///

K. Cover-up and direct involvement of high ranking U.S. Officer in the Bush

Administration in criminal conduct of individuals and corporations related to sub-

prime lending who amassed fortunes at the expense of the U.S. Taxpayer and

Homeowners is fully documented in the Merrill-Lynch/BAC deal.

The picture painted above may seem to a nave reader as a fictional conspiratorial

theory. Not so! Direct evidence for such conduct, and worse is found in the Merrill-

Lynch/BAC deal.

On April 23, 2004, Andrew Cuomo wrote to U.S. Congress (Exhibit 6):

I am writing regarding our investigation of the events surrounding Bank ofAmerica's merger with Merrill Lynch late last year. Because you are theoverseers and regulators of the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), the


22/264

-22-

banking industry, and the Treasury Department, we are informing you ofcertain results of our investigation. As you will see, while the investigationinitially focused on huge fourth quarter bonus payouts, we have uncovered

facts that raise questions about the transparencyof the TARP program, as well as about corporate governance and disclosurepractices at Bank of America. Because some matters relating to ourinvestigation involve federal agencies and high-rankingfederal officials charged with managing the TARP program, we believe it isimportant to inform the relevant federal bodies of our current findings. Wehave attached relevant documents to this letter for your review.

The letter continues to state:

At a meeting that evening Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman

Ben Bernanke, Lewis, Bank of America's CFO, and other officials discussedthe issues surrounding invocation of the MAC clause by Bank of America.The Federal officials asked Bank of America not to invoke the MAC until therewas further consultation. There were follow-up calls with various Treasuryand Federal Reserve officials, including with Treasury Secretary Paulson andChairman Bernanke. During those meetings, the federal government officialspressured Bank of America not to seek to rescind the merger agreement. Wedo not yet have a complete picture of the Federal Reserve's role in thesematters because the Federal Reserve has invoked the bank examinationprivilege.

Bank of America's attempt to exit the merger came to a halt on December 21,

2008. That day, Lewis informed Secretary Paulson that Bank of America stillwanted to exit the merger agreement. According to Lewis, Secretary Paulsonthen advised Lewis that, if Bank of America invoked the MAC, itsmanagement and Board would be replaced:

"[W]e wanted to follow up and he said, 'I'm going to be very blunt, we're verysupportive on Bank of America and we want to be of help, but' --as I recallhim saying "the government," but that mayor may not be the case -"does notfeel it's in your best interest for you to call a MAC, and that we feel sostrongly," --I can't recall if he said "we would remove the board andmanagement if you called it" or if he said "we would do it if you intended to." Idon't remember which one it was, before or after, and I said, "Hank, let'sdeescalate this for a while. Let me talk to our board." And the board's reaction

was of "That threat, okay, do it. That would be systemic risk.""In an interview with this Office, Secretary Paulson largely corroboratedLewis's account. On the issue of terminating management and the Board,Secretary Paulson indicated that he told Lewis that if Bank of America wereto back out of the Merrill Lynch deal, the government either could or wouldremove the Board and management. Secretary Paulson told Lewis a series ofconcerns, including that Bank of America's invocation of the MAC wouldcreate systemic risk and that Bank of America did not have a legal basis toinvoke the MAC (though Secretary Paulson's basis for the opinion wasentirely based on what he was told by Federal Reserve officials).

Secretary Paulson's threat swayed Lewis. According to Secretary Paulson,


23/264

-23-

after he stated that the management and the Board could be removed, Lewisreplied, "that makes it simple. Let's deescalate." Lewis admits that SecretaryPaulson's threat changed his mind about invoking that MAC clause and

terminating the deal.

Secretary Paulson has informed us that he made the threat at the request ofChairman Bernanke. After the threat, the conversation between SecretaryPaulson and Lewis turned to receiving additional government assistance inlight of the staggering Merrill Lynch losses.

Lewis spoke with individual Board members after his conversation withSecretary Paulson. The next day, December 22, 2008, the Board met andwas advised of Lewis's decision not to invoke the MAC. The minutes of thatmeeting listed the key points of Lewis's calls with Secretary Paulson andChairman Bernanke:

"(i) first and foremost, the Treasury and Fed are unified in their view that thefailure of the Corporation to complete the acquisition of Merrill Lynch wouldresult in systemic risk to the financial system in America and would haveadverse consequences for the Corporation; (ii) second, the Treasury and Fedstate strongly that were the Corporation to invoke the material adversechange("MAC") clause in the merger agreement with Merrill Lynch and fail toclose the transaction, the Treasury and Fed would remove the Board andmanagement of the Corporation; (iii) third, the Treasury and Fed haveconfirmed that they. will provide assistance to the Corporation to restorecapital and to protect the Corporation against the adverse impact of certainMerrill Lynch assets: and(iv) fourth, the Fed and Treasury stated that theinvestment and asset protection promised could not be provided orcompleted by the scheduled closing date of the merger, January 1, 2009; that

the merger should close as scheduled, and that the Corporation can rely onthe Fed and Treasury to complete and deliver the promised support byJanuary 20, 2009, the date scheduled for the release of earnings by theCorporation."

The Board Minutes further state that the "Board clarify[ied] that is [sic] wasnot persuaded or influenced by the statement by the federal regulators thatthe Board and management would be removed by the federal regulators if theCorporation were to exercise the MAC clause and failed to complete theacquisition of Merrill Lynch."

Following the Cuomo letter to congress the Global Economic Trends blog issued a

posting that gained wide spread distribution and responses (Exhibit 7):LET THE CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS BEGIN: PAULSON, BERNANKE,LEWIS

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's letter to the SEC andSenate Banking Committee on the Bank of America, Merrill LynchMerger provides strong evidence of coercion to commit securities fraud byformer Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, andactual securities fraud by Bank of America CEO Kenneth D. Lewis.

Coercion To Commit Securities Fraud


24/264

-24-

It's crystal clear from the letter that a strong case can be made that Paulsonand Bernanke coerced Lewis to carry out a merger agreement that was not inBank of America's shareholders best interest. Lewis arguably did so only to

save his own job and the board.

Flashback Monday, September 15, 2008

I called this correctly at the time. Please consider Market Votes "NoConfidence" In Merrill, Bank of America Merger.

There was no pressure from regulators, absolutely no pressure, said MrLewis, who described the deal as the strategic opportunity of a lifetime. Hesaid: The first contact came on Saturday morning and we put the transactiontogether in 48 hours. The instant we talked it made sense.

My Translation:

"The pressure from the Fed was enormous. Anyone in their right mind knowsthis deal makes no sense to Bank of America".

....

Please note that Cuomo's letter states "In an interview with this Office,Secretary Paulson largely corroborated Lewis's account. "

As far as I am concerned, Paulson just pleaded guilty. I do not care whatPaulson's reasons were, no one is above the law.

Let the criminal indictments begin: Paulson, Bernanke, and Lewis.

///

///

L. Cover-up of criminal conduct is not the right remedy for the ailing economy. What

is required is restoration of confidence in integrity of U.S. financial institutions,

markets, regulators, and the courts through enforcement of the law. The cover-up is

not fooling anybody, either at home, or abroad!

Restoration of investors confidence at home and even more so abroad, in the

integrity of U.S. financial institutions, regulatory agencies, and law enforcement is

quintessential for recovery. The conduct described in instant petition is a recipe for future

economic disaster!

The large-scale experiment in deregulation, undertaken at the expense of the U.S.

taxpayer in the past decade, is recognized by most reasonable persons as a monumental

public policy failure - from Enron to Countrywide and beyond. It allowed the defrauding of


25/264

-25-

U.S. tax-payers, American homeowners, and workers world-wide. It threatens to decimate

the home-owning American Middle-Class. The epilogue of this failed experiment the Bush

administration's sponsored and/or coerced mergers and consolidations in its waning days,

such as Merrill-Lynch/BAC and Countrywide/BAC, combined with waiver of growth limits

for BAC, alleged cover-up of past criminality of financial institutions such as Countrywide,

which fails to convince investors either at home or abroad, and documented as well as alleged

a priori immunities for further criminality by BAC, all stand contrary to the law, contrary

to any reasonable public policy, and contrary to prudent regulations promulgated in the wake

of the Great Depression.

Combined, such poisonous concoction appears as the recipe for a looming economic disaster

on a grander scale, and further undermines the rule of law and Civil Rights guaranteed in the

Amendments as well as Human Rights guaranteed as part of ratified International Law in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


BY:_________________JOSEPH H ZERNIKPRO SE PETITIONER

Joseph Zernik1853 Foothill BlvdLV, CA 91750Tel: (310) 435 9107Fax: (801) 998 [email protected]


26/264

-26-

VII.

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATAION

I, Joseph H Zernik, have written and re-read the foregoing:

VERIFIED NOTICE #1 OF SUPPORTING RECORDS

I know the content thereof to be true and correct. It is true and correct based on my

own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information

and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.The exhibits provided with this complaint under Exhibit 1 through Exhibit12, as

listed in Section: II, List of Exhibits, above, are true and correct copies of records in my

possession, or records downloaded from the web, except for advertising that was redacted

where indicated.

I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury

pursuant to the laws of the United States.

Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles on this 16 th day in May, 2009.

_____________________

JOSEPH ZERNIK

pro se Plaintiff


27/264

-27-

VIII.

PROPOSED ORDER


28/264

-28-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ZERNIK,

Petitioner

vs.

MELSON ET AL.Respondent

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00805

PROPOSED ORDERS

1) REQUEST FOR

INCORPORATION BY

REFERENCE AND

2) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL

NOTIC

THE COURT has read Plaintiffs requests and considered Plaintiffs requests:

1) Request for Incorporation by Reference is ____ Granted

____ Denied

2) Request for Judicial Notice is ____ Granted

____ Denied

SO IT IS ORDERED!

DATED: May _________, 2009

_________________________

Judge of the U.S. District Court

District of Columbia


29/264

-29-

IX.

EXHIBITS


30/264

May 15, 2009

Exhibit 1

January 8, 2008 NYT Report

Exh p30/264


31/264

Dl[;(tally SIQned by JosephZW'lI.

" 0,\1. cn..Joseph Zernll(,, ..- = + . ~ : ~ ~ t r T I a H ' ~ j z 1 2 3 4 5 @ I ! a r t h l i n k . .) U M I , { ; ; ~ U S Date: 2008.01.09 01 ;Oot;4Q-(lllOC

09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none)...

Documents

Transcript of 09-05-21 Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) in the US District Court, Washington DC: (Dkt #none)...