Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/34407018/09-08-13-Sturgeon-v-La-County-BC351286-at-the-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-11-Dr-Zernik-s-Motions-Vol-II-Part6a-p394-441
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 21:06:35
Document Index: 32562976

Matched Legal Cases: ['art6', 'art6', 'ARTE 1', 'art6', 'art4', 'art4', 'art5', 'art2', 'art5', 'art6', 'art1', 'art8', 'art8', 'art3']

09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #11- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6a p394-441 | Summary Judgment | Judgment (Law)
09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #11- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6a p394-441Uploaded by Human Rights Alert, NGORelated InterestsSummary JudgmentJudgment (Law)MailEvictionJudgeRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
Document 58-6
MR. ZERNIK HAS SET UP A WEB SITE IN WHICH HE
CHALLENGES THE COURT'S AUTHORITY OVER HIM, HE...View MoreCase 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
CHALLENGES THE COURT'S AUTHORITY OVER HIM, HE CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT AND HE MAKES ALL KINDS OF WILD AND BIZARRE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, AGAINST EVERY JUDGE THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AND AGAINST MY CLIENTS. THE COURT: HE'S ALLOWED TO SET UP A WEB SITE. I'M NOT SAYING HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO, IF I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS
MR. KESCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 39 of 5015
1 YOUR HONOR. MR. ZERNIK HAS SET UP A WEB SITE IN WHICH HE
2 CHALLENGES THE COURT'S AUTHORITY OVER HIM, HE CHALLENGES THE
3 VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT AND HE MAKES ALL KINDS OF WILD AND
4 BIZARRE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, AGAINST EVERY JUDGE THAT HAS
5 BEEN ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AND AGAINST MY CLIENTS.
THE COURT: HE'S ALLOWED TO SET UP A WEB SITE.
MR. KESHAVARZI: I'M NOT SAYING HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO,
8 YOUR HONOR. IT GOES TO HIS INTENT. IF I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS
9 ALLOWED TO, I WOULD HAV2 BEEN HERE IN FRONT OF YOUR YOUR HONOR
10 WITH AN EX PARTE ASKING FOR A TRO AND INJUNCTION. I BELIEVE
11 HE'S ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT WEB SITE. THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.
12 MY PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT HE SAYS IN THAT WEB
13 SITE ALONG WITH HIS ACTIONS SO FAR, SHOWS THAT HE'S UNWILLING
14 TO SEE THIS JUDGMENT CARRIED THROUGH.
15 YOUR HONOR, MY CLIENTS HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT
16 SUMS OF MONEY IN ATTORNEYS FEE GETTING THIS JUDGMENT
17 ENFORCED -- GETTING THIS JUDGMENT. AND NOW THAT WE'VE HAD THE
18 JUDGMENT SINCE AUGUST 9TH, MR. ZERNIK HAS NOTICED OVER 45
19 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS, YOUR HONOR, 45 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS.
THE COURT: IS THERE AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION?
MR. KESHAVARZI: THERE IS AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION.
22 JUDGE CONNOR, WHEN SHE ENTERED THE JUDGMENT SAID THAT WE WERE
23 NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT WE HAD A DIALOGUE ON THE
24 RECORD WHERE SHE SAID I COULD BRING A MOTION IF I WANTED TO.
25 SHE WASN'T SURE ABOUT PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT SHE SAID
26 POST JUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, I COULD BRING A MOTION.
27 SO WITH RESPECT TO PREJUDGMENT, WHO KNOWS. IT
28 MAY BE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES,
394 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p394/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 40 of 50
r--------..;;-------------
1 BUT POST JUDGMENT WE CERTAINLY DO INTEND TO BRING THAT MOTION.
2 YOUR HONOR, WE MADE THE ARGUMENTS IN OUR
3 PAPERS. I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE YOUR HONOR'S TIME. IF YOU
4 DON'T APPOINT A RECEIVER, THIS JUDGMENT IS NEVER GOING TO GET
5 ENFORCED, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING. WE'VE TRIED
6 SENDING HIM A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, SENDING HIM A COpy OF THE
7 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. WE TRIED CALLING THE REFEREE.
8 IF HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE REFEREE NOT HAVING
9 THE CONTRACT, WHY WOULDN'T HE JUST SHOW UP AND GIVE THE
10 REFEREE A COPY OF THE CONTRACT? MR. ZERNIK IS ELEVATING FORM
11 OVER SUBSTANCE. HE'S TRYING TO FIND TECHNICALITIES AND T R ~ TO
12 GET OUT FROM THE JUDGMENT BEING ENFORCED AGAINST HIM ON
13 TECHNICALITIES.
11 ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK SAID THAT MY
15 DECLARATION HAS A COPY OF THE SCMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER INSTEAD
16 OF THE JUDGMENT. THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL AGREE WITH HIM ON
17 THAT. THE REASON IS I HAD NOT SEEN ~ COpy OF THE JUDGMENT. I
18 BELIEVED -- AND JUDGE CONNOR HAD TOLD ME ON THE RECORD WHEN I
19 SAID, "WE NEED A JUDGMENT ENTERED." SHE SAID, "I'M ENTERING
20 THE JUDGMENT" AND HER CLERK GAVE ME A COpy OF THE ORDER AND
21 SAID THAT THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT, BUT YOUR HONOR HAS A COPY OF
22 THE JUDGMENT, AND IT MIRRORS THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. THE
23 SUMMARY JUDGMENT -- ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS EXACTLY
24 THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IN THE JUDGMENT IS
25 THAT IT'S A L I T ~ L E BIT SHORTER.
THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOU GET THE LAST WORD.
MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, I'M R E A ~ L Y CONFOUNDED BY EVERYTHING
28 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI SAYS FROM BEGINNING TO THE END BECAUSE
395 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p395/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 41 of 50
1 HE'S A LAWYER. I'M NOT. I START FROM THE END. HOW CAN YOU
2 SAY THAT ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT --
THE COURT: YOU CAN DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT,
4 NOT TO HIM.
MR. ZERNIK: I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAN SAY THAT
6 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THE SAME AS JUDGMENT.
7 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.
8 THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCUSSES
9 THE VALIDITY OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT THE
10 JUDGMENT ITSELF DEALS WITH ISSUES OF MONEY AND PROPERTY. SO
11 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP.
12 FOR EXAMPLE, HE GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF ATTORNEYS
13 FEES. NO WHERE IN THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS
14 THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED
15 TO ANY ATTORNEYS FEES. AND AS HE HIMSELF MENTIONED, THIS IS A
16 VERY SIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY. THAT IS SPELLED OUT IN THE
17 JUDGMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF JUDGMENT.
18 SIMILARLY, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ATTORNEY FOR
19 PLAINTIFF MEANS BY SAYING THAT HE HAD A DIALOGUE WITH
20 JUDGE CONNOR REGARDING FILING ADDITION TO THE JUDGMENT.
THE COURT: NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE MOTION.
MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. BEYOND THAT, HE'S MADE CLAIMS WHICH
23 ARE TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED ABOUT WEB SITE, ET CETERA. IF HE
24 HAD SUCH CLAIM, HE SHOULD HAVE FILED IT. HE SHOULD HAVE FILED
25 THE DOCUMENTS, BUT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS WHICH HE DID
26 NOT BRING BEFORE THE COURT, THAT'S UNREASONABLE.
27 BEYOND THAT HE SAYS FORM OVER SUBSTANCE. JUDGE
28 O'BRIAN DID NOT HAVE HIS APPOINTMENT DONE. JUDGE O'BRIAN
396 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p396/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 42 of 50
1 HIMSELF SIGNED, WITH COOPERATION OF PLAINTIFF, A PROPOSED
2 ORDER FOR HIS OWN APPOINTMENT, WHICH CAME BEFORE THE COURT IN
3 SOME KIND OF UNUSUAL LODGING MECHANISM BEFORE JUDGE GOODMAN
4 AND JuDGE GOODMAN DENIED IT. I DON'T KNOW WHY. I WAS FOR IT.
5 I WAS LOOKING FOR A REFEREE THAT IS APPOINTED AS -- DULY
6 APPOINTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
BUT I N S ~ E A D , HE WAS NOT APPOINTED. HE DID NOT
8 HAVE THE CORRECT DOCUMENTS. HE SHOULD HAVE -- HE RECEIVED
9 FROM THE COURT WITH THE ORDER APPOINTING HIM THE CORRECT
10 DOCUMENT. INSTEAD HE RELIED ON PLAINTIFF TO GIVE HIM THE
11 DOCUMENTS. AND HOW CAN PLAINTIFF SAY HE NEVER SAW THE
12 JUDGMENT? SO HOW DID YOU EXPECT TO EXECUTE IT? HOW COULD YOU
THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE REPEATING
15 YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOU'RE DIRECTING YOUR COMMENTS TO COUNSEL,
16 NOT TO THE COURT. THE MATTER IS UNDER SUBMISSION. YOU WILL
17 BE NOTIFIED IN THE MAIL.
MR. KESHAVARZI: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
(AT 9:42 A.M., THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED.)
397 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p397/679
VOLUME III REQUESTS & MOTIONS IN STURGEON V LA COUNTY {PROPOSED] INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE
EXHIBIT 4,l 398 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p398/679
The minute order and order of November 21, 2007, probably present the best way the collusion between corrupt judges of the LA Superior Court and the Sheriff Department. The fact that Judge Segal felt comfortable to put on paper such orders is a disgrace for the U.S. Justice system. Needless to say Att David Pasternak role in this case is alleged obstruction, perversion of justice, taking of real estate under the threat of force, hence robbery, and other types of criminality as may be deemed upon review by prosecutors.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 11/21/07 DEPT. WEO HONORABLE JOHN SEGAL JUDGE II N. ESTRADA DEPUTY CLERK AVA FRASER, CA HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE DeputySheriffil SANDY MACNEIL, CSR #9013 Reporter 8:30 amlSC087400 Plaintiff Counsel DAVID J. PASTERNAK (X) NIVIE SAMAAN VS Defendant JOSEPH ZERNI K Counsel JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) RECUSAL - JUDGES A.GOODMAN; J. in pro per BIDERMAN; & J. CONNOR; CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1. RECEIVER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER (1) ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNICK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS TO IMMEDIATELY VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDER IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY ENFORCE A WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY (2) AUTHORIZING THE RECEIVER TO FILE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNICK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY; 2. DEFENDANT'S (JOSEPH ZERNIK) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT PENDING HEARING OF MOTION TO SET BOND FOR APPEAL; Matters are called for hearing and argued. Matters stand submitted. LATER: Court issues its ruling on submitted matters as follows: Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Order for Temporary Stay of Enforcement of Judgment Pending Hearing of Motion to Set Bond For Appeal, as captioned above, is DENIED. MINUTES ENTERED Page 1 of 3 DEPT. WEO 11/21/07 COUNTY CLERK 399 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p399/679
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 11/21/07 DEPT. WEO HONORABLE JOHN SEGAL JUDGEII N. ESTRADA DEPUTY CLERK AVA FRASER, CA HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Deputy Sheriffll SANDY MACNE I L, CSR #9013 Reporter 8:30 amlSC087400 Plaintiff Counsel DAVID J. PASTERNAK (X) NIVIE SAMAAN VS Defendant JOSEPH ZERNIK C o o m ~ JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) RECUSAL - JUDGES A.GOODMAN; J. in pro per BIDERMAN; & J. CONNOR; CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Receiver's Ex Parte Application for an order ordering defendant Joseph Zernick and all other occupants to immediately vacate the receivership real property and directing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to enforce the order in the same manner as they enforce a writ of execution after the issuance of an unlawful detainer judgment is GRANTED. Order ordering defendant Joseph Zernick and all other occupants to immediately vacate the receivership real property is signed and filed this date. Clerk to give notice. CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the cause herein, and that this date I served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of 11/21/07 upon each party or counsel named below by depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse in Santa Monica, California, one copy of the original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope for each, addressed as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid. Date: November 21, 2007 MINUTES ENTERED Page 2 of 3 DEPT. WEO 11/21/07 COUNTY CLERK 400 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p400/679
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 11/21/07 DEPT. WEO HONORABLE HONORABLE JOHN SEGAL JUDGEII JUDGE PRO TEM N. ESTRADA AVA FRASER, CA DEPUTY CLERK ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE DeputySheriffl1 SANDY MACNEIL, CSR #9013 Reporter 8:30 amlSC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS JOSEPH ZERNIK RECUSAL - JUDGES A.GOODMAN; BIDERMAN; & J. CONNOR; CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF J. Defendant Counsel Plaintiff Counsel JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) in pro per DAVID J. PASTERNAK (X) NA TURE OF PROCEEDINGS: John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk By: N. Estrada, Clerk DAVID J. PASTERNAK RECEIVER 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 JOSEPH ZERNIK IN PRO PER 320 S. PECK AVENUE BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 MINUTES ENTERED Page 3 of 3 DEPT. WEO 12/04/07 COUNTY CLERK 401 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p401/679
lllDavid J. Pasternak, Bar No. 72201 Receiver 2111875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 L Los Angeles, California 90067-2523 3l1Telephone: 310.553.1500 NOV 2 1 2007 Facsimile: 310.553.1540 41IE-Mail: djp@paslaw.com 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT 10 1111NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, CASE NO. SC 087 400 1211 Plaintiff, Hon. John A. Segal 13 II vs. ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK AND ALL 14 II JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual OTHER OCCUPANTS TO IMMEDIATELY and DOES 1 through 10, VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL 1511 inclusive, PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S 16 II Defendants. DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDER IN THE SAME MANNER AS 17 THEY ENFORCE A WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF 18 AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT 19 DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 TIME: 8:30 A.M. 20 DEPT. o 21 22 The Court having considered the Ex Parte Application of 23 Receiver David J. Pasternak for the issuance of an Order (1) 24 Ordering Defendant Joseph Zernik and all other occupants to 25 immediately vacate the receivership real property located at 320 2611S. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 (the "Receivership 271IProperty") and directing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's W:\73235\PleadlngS\CrderReRecelver'sExParteM 1 28 II otlonU.doc PASTERNAK [PROPOSED] ORDER ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNICK AND ALL OTHER TO PASTERNAK VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND THE LOS ANGELES &PATION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDSR IN THE AS THEY ENFORCE A WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT 402 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p402/679
~ I II Department to enforce that order in the same manner as they 211enforce a writ of execution issued after an unlawful detainer 3 II judgment, or alternatively (2) Authorizing the Receiver to file 411an unlawful detainer lawsuit to evict Defendant Joseph Zernik and 511all other occupants from the Receivership Property; the 611supporting Declaration of David J. Pasternak; all of the 711pleadings and others documents in the Court's file for this case; 811and all other and further oral and documentary evidence presented 911to the Court at or in connection with the ex parte hearing of 101lthis Receiver's Application; and good cause appearing therefor; 1111 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Joseph Zernik and all 12110ther occupants shall immediately vacate the receivership real 1311property located at 320 S. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 141190212 and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is directed 1511to enforce that order forthwith in the same manner as they 1611enforce a writ of execution issued after an unlawful detainer 1711 judgment J Tv 1'¥ eKle.t fJ" c;l,er,{F', !}pa</Yo.t.r /1 ...hk 1J,,I{;d. 18 1911 DATED: lr(zr/?1­
20 II Court Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 W:\'32JS\P:eadlngs\OrderReReceiver'sExparteM 2 28 II otlonE.doc [PROPOSED] ORDER ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERN=CK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS TO =MMEDIATELY VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S JEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDER IN THE SN1E MANNER AS ToEY ENFORCE A WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF AN CNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT 403 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p403/679
PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 II STATE OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 311 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1875 Century Park -4 II East. Suite 2200. Los Angeles, California 90067-2523. liOn November 28, 2007. I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF ORDER ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK AND ALL 611 OTHER OCCLPANTS TO IMMEDIATELY VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS ANGELES COU:\TY SHERIFF'S 711 DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDER IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY ENFORCE A WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF AN UNLAWFUL 8 II DETAINER JUDGMENT on all interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: 9 SEE ATTACHED LIST BY MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California. " 11 The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with this tirm' s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is 12 deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal 13 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 14 0 BY FACSIMILE: At or before 5:00 p.m., I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by " facsimile. The telephone number of the sending facsimile machine was (310) 553-1540. The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone number(s) of the person(s) served are set 16 forth in the service list. The document was transmitted bv facsimile transmission, and the sending facsimile machine properly issued a transmission report continning that the 17 transmission was complete and without error. 18110 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited such document(s) in a box or other facility regularly maintained by the overnight service carrier, or delivered such document(s) to a 19 courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by the overnight service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) being served. 21110 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope(s) by hand to the office of the person( s) being served. 22 0 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered such envelope(s) directly to the 23 person( s) being served. 2-4 II I dedare under penalty of perjury under the lavvs of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 28, 2007, at Los Angeles, California. 26 /'
" _/ < l.···..:,t·/ "\
\ '-""'" 28 L. K. Snyder PASTERNAK. PASTERNAK &PAITON \V "3235 Pleadings Pn'l)f llf Service l KS 11-28-07 doc 404 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p404/679
EXHIBIT 4,m 405 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p405/679
Note at the end of section 4,m the two minute orders of the two successive ex parte applications of the morning of December 7, 2007, in two courthouses. The two judges engaging in the abuse were, Lisa Hart Cole and Patricia Collins. Judge Hart Cole appeared excited about the opportunity that was provided to her finally to join some racketeering activity. I never met her before, but I filed upon arrival a peremptory challenge. She was visibly disappointed, and tried to deceive me on that court action as well. Judge Patricia Collins was indifferent. I served her with Disqualification for a cause, but she just ignored it, She made a couple of statement that made it clear that the only thing that she cared about was to get to her lunch on time. Therefore she was a bit rushed in engaging in the various criminal orders that she signed. Both judges later dishonestly voided their actions in Sustain. Lisa Hart-Cole "disposed" of the minute order in Sustain, as seen in the date on the last page of her minute order "00/00/00". Patricia Collins used false registration in the Register of Action to void the proceeding.
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 27
406 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p406/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 27
407 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p407/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 27
408 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p408/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 27
409 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p409/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 27
410 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p410/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 27
411 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p411/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 27
412 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p412/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 27
413 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p413/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 27
414 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p414/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 27
415 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p415/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 27
416 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p416/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 27
417 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p417/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 27
418 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p418/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 27
419 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p419/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 27
420 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p420/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 27
421 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p421/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 17 of 27
422 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p422/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 27
423 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p423/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 27
424 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p424/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 27
425 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p425/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 27
426 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p426/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 27
427 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p427/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 27
428 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p428/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 27
429 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p429/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 27
430 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p430/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 26 of 27
431 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p431/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 27
432 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p432/679
DATE: 12/07/07 DEPT. WE X HONORABLE HONORABLE #9 Lisa Hart NONE Cole JUDGEII JUDGE PRO TEM Deputy Sheriffll N. E. A. CSR# 7824 LEE SAN ANDRES, CiA MAPP DEPUTY CLERK ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR Reporter 8:30 amlSC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (X) Counsel VIA COURTCALL NIVIE SAMAAN VS Defendant JOSEPH ZERNIK, PRO PER (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel RECEIVER: RECUSAL - JUDGES ALAN GOODMAN; DAVID PASTERNAK (X) J.BIDERMAN; J.CONNOR; & J.SEGAL R. ORMOND(X)FOR INTERESTD 170.6-JUDGE R.NEIDORF PARTY MARA ESCROW CO. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF RECEIVER DAVID J. PASTERNAK
Pursuant to the order of the Master Calendar for the West District of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Patricia L. Collins, Acting Supervising Judge presiding, the above-entitled action is reassigned for all purposes to Judge Terry B. Friedman in Department West J, located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. Any hearings currently set MINUTES ENTERED Page 1 of 3 DEPT. WE X 12/07/07 COUNTY CLERK 433 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p433/679
DATE: 12/07/07 DEPT. WE X HONORABLE HONORABLE #9 Li sa Hart Cole JUDGEII JUDGE PRO TEM N. E. LEE SAN ANDRES, CiA DEPUTY CLERK ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Deputy Sheriffll A. MAP P CSR# 7824 Reporter 8:30 amlSC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (X) Counsel VIA COURTCALL NIVIE SAMAAN VS Defendant JOSEPH ZERNIK, PRO PER (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel RECEIVER: RECUSAL - JUDGES ALAN GOODMAN; DAVID PASTERNAK (X) J.BIDERMAN; J.CONNOR; & J.SEGAL R. ORMOND (X) FOR INTERESTD 170.6-JUDGE R.NEIDORF PARTY MARA ESCROW CO. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: in Department West X are ordered advanced to this
Any presently calendared motions shall be re-scheduled and re-noticed for hearing by the moving party in the newly assigned Department. Moving party is to contact the newly assigned Department for a motion hearing date suitable to that Department's calendar. However, the above-referenced ex parte application
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
MINUTES ENTERED Page 2 of 3 DEPT. WE X 12/07/07 COUNTY CLERK 434 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p434/679
DATE: 12/07/07 DEPT. WE X HONORABLE Lisa Hart Cole JUDGEII N. LEE E. SAN ANDRES, CiA DEPUTY CLERK HONORABLE #9 NONE JUDGE PRO TEM Deputy Sheriffll A. MAPP CSR# ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR 7824 Reporter 8:30 amlSC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS JOSEPH ZERNI K RECUSAL - JUDGES ALAN J.BIDERMAN; J.CONNOR; 170.6-JUDGE R.NEIDORF GOODMAN; & J.SEGAL Plaintiff Counsel Defendant Counsel MOE KESHAVARZI (X) VIA COURTCALL JOSEPH ZERNIK, PRO PER (X) RECEIVER: DAVID PASTERNAK (X) R. ORMOND(X)FOR INTERESTD PARTY MARA ESCROW CO. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of 12-7-07 upon each party or counsel named below by depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse in Beverly Hills, California, one copy of the original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope for each, addressed as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid. Date: 12-7-07 John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk By: N. Lee DAVID J. PASTERNAK, ESQ., RECEIVER 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 MINUTES ENTERED Page 3 of 3 DEPT. 00/00/00 COUNTY CLERK 435 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p435/679
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES DATE: 12/07/07 DEPT. WEB HONORABLE HONORABLE PATRICIA L. COLLINS JUDGEII M. MABUNGA S. MIXON, CSL/CT JUDGE PRO TEMII DEPUTY CLERK ASST. ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE DeputySheriffl1 LAUREN JONES, CSR#7007 Reporter 11:45 amlSC087400 NIVIE SAMAAN VS JOSEPH ZERNIK NO LEGAL FILE! Defendant Counsel Plaintiff Counsel IN PRO PER (X) MOE KESHAVARZI,APPEARS VIA "COURTCALL" (X) DAVID J.PASTERNAK (X) RICHARD P.ORMOND (X) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: RECEIVER'S EX PARTE 1) APPROVING ESCROW APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER: DOCUMENTATION(INCLUDING GRANT DEED) SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO ESCROW BY RECEIVER: 2) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO SIGN AND SUBMIT TAX DOCUMENTATION TOO ESCROW; 3) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO ENTER INTO MARA ESCROW COMPANY INDEMNITY AGREEMENT; AND 4) PROHIBITING DEFENDANT,JOSEPH ZERNAK FROM COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH ESCROW, TITLE INSURER, OR BUYER'S LENDER, AND ORDER THEREON: At 11:45 A.M., no appearance by defendant,JOSEPH ZERNIK, court goes forward with the ex parte application. At 11:55 A.M., defendant,JOSEPH ZERNIK now appears. Challenge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3 filed by defendant,Zernik against Judge COLLINS is ordered striken by the court. The matter is called and argued. After arguments, Receiver's above-captioned ex parte application is granted as outlined in the the Order thereon filed and incoporated herein. Copy of said Order given to all parties. DAVID PASTERNAK,counsel for receiver to give notice. MINUTES ENTERED Page 1 of 1 DEPT. WE X 12/07/07 COUNTY CLERK 436 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p436/679
EXHIBIT 4,n 437 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p437/679
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net ”
. EVIDENCE OF REAL ESTATE FRAUD & FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF TITLE by DAVID PASTERNAK, PURPORTED “RECEIVER” appointed by the LA SUPERIOR COURT In ALLEGED SHAM LITIGATION OF SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) 438 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p438/679
07-12-17. Wedick's Opinion Letter re: Pasternak's Grant Deeds TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Source of Records Examined by Mr Wedick ... … 2 2. What is Samaan v Zernik? ... … 3 3. Mr Wedick's Resume' ... … 4 4. Opinion Letter of Mr Wedick, notarized ... … 6 5. Two Fraudulent Grant Deeds ... … 10 generated by Receiver Pasternak, “Receiver” appointed by the LA Superior Court: 5a. 12/7/2007 Grant Deed ... … 11 5b. 12/17/2007 Grant Deed, certified ... … 14 439 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p439/679
1. SOURCE OF RECORDS EXAMINED BY MR WEDICK a) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed This record was copied from L Superior Court paper court file, where Mr Pasternak entered a copy of an order purportedly approved by Judge Patricia Collins on December 7, 2007. No notice was served by Pasternak of this order, and no notice was given of its entry. b) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed This record was found upon search in the Office of Registrar Recorder of La County, and a certified copy was obtained from that office. No notice was served by Pasternak of this record, and no notice was given of its entry in the office of the Registrar/Recorder. 440 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p440/679
2. WHAT IS SAMAAN V ZERNIK? It is entirely unclear what Samaan v Zernik was, and is. In part, it defies definition, since the offices of the Presiding Judge of the Court, Stephen Czuleger, as well as the in-house Counsel of the Court, Mr D. Bret Bianco, and also the external counsel retained by the Court for this matter, all refuse to answer even the most basic questions regarding this matter: a) Is Samaan v Zernik a true case duly registered and indexed, as required by law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California? b) Is Samaan v Zernik a case listed in the Calendar of the Courts, as required by law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California? c) Is there a judge duly assigned to this case, as required by law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California? d) Is there a valid, entered judgment in this case, alternatively – is there no valid, entered judgment in this case? In recent letter to Mr Kenneth Melson, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, it was referred to as an “Enterprise Track” case. In his response Mr Melson doubted that I had sufficient evidence to prove the existence of such track in the court. Here, Samaan v Zernik is referred to as “sham litigation”. Some of the characteristics are: None of the judges had an assignment order, as required by law. Therefore, none had any authority in this case either. I appeared before the Supervising Judge of the Court several times during litigation, with request that he issue due assignment orders, but he refused to do so. 441 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p441/679
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To 09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #11- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6a p394-441Skip carousel10-02-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and Prospects of Future Honest Court Services in Los Angeles County, California s09-07-28 to 09-07-30 Correspondence w Bennett Court Counsel Denial of Access10-12-28 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County et al (D056266) in the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Decision Affirming Judgment in Surgeon v LA County et al (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #9- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part4 p319-34309-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #7- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part4 p295-30611-01-03 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sturgeon v LA County (D056266) in the California Court of Appeals, 4th District - Opined as Elaborate Fraud on the California Courts-s09-07-26 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Available Document Images s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #2- Dr Zernik's Motions Exec Summary and Table of Contents09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #8- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p307-31810-07-15 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), Los Angeles Superior Court Online Case Summary (Not a Formal Court Record) s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #5- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part2 p99-19809-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #10- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p344-39309-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #12- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6b p442-49109-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #4- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part1 p1-9808-12-23 Cal Supreme Court Denies Hearing of Sturgeon v LA County-s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #15- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part8b p641-32-67809-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #14- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part8a p492-641-3109-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #1- Dr Zernik's Ex Parte Application for Orders for Access Leave to File09-10-16 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Los Angeles Superior Court -Request for Presiding Judge McCoy - to Access Court Records to inspect and to copy s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #6- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part3 p199-24310-03-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LA Superior Court11-04-13 Attempt to recover “not permitted” payments ("bribes") to Los Angeles County judges s09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #3- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol i10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights sCarter v. Cybertech Int'l., 10th Cir. (2001)Wexler decision on Nassau wage freezeSheridan v. Nationwide Retirement Solutions, 4th Cir. (2009)Hawkins v. Shinholster, et al - Document No. 39Richard Loberger v. Del-Jen Inc., 11th Cir. (2015)Jesse Lee Howell v. United States of America, Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Third Party v. Daniel L. Nichols and Sydney Nichols, Third Party, 81 F.3d 172, 3rd Cir. (1996)Documents About Summary JudgmentSkip carousel14-2066[1]Teller v. Dodge March 20144th DCA Knock Out - An Endorsement in Blank That is Unsigned and Unauthenticated Creates a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Riggs_v_Aurora2nd Deposition of Jeffrey Stephan – GMAC's Assignment - Affidavit SlaveDeloitte v FlanaganCalista Enterprises v. Tenza Trading - PorntubePharrell Williams + Robin Thicke v. Gaye - order re admissibility.pdfJohann Deffert court documentsJustice Department Reply brief 7.29.16Rocket Docket Annihilator - DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTEminem Court PapersFlorida 2nd DCA Case 2D08 3553 SJ Premature No Standing to Foreclose14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderBirthday EvidenceVillage of Sackets HarborGrandison, Walter v. Cuyler, Julius T., Capt. Howard, Mr. Levengood, Mr. Buzzard C.O.I., Mr. Ettinger, Officer Salvey C.O.I., Sgt. Horwitz, Unknown at This Time, 774 F.2d 598, 3rd Cir. (1985)Anderson v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 11th Cir. (2011)Cunningham v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2007)Wesley v. Arlington County, 4th Cir. (2009)Raymond Wray v. City of New York, Daniel Martorano, William Weller, James McCavera and New York City Police Department, Docket No. 05-3341-Cv, 490 F.3d 189, 2d Cir. (2007)Edens v. Netherlands Insurance, 10th Cir. (2016)Jerome Calvert v. Fulton County, Georgia, 11th Cir. (2016)Minaxi I. Patel v. The Honorable John McHugh, 11th Cir. (2014)Cohen v. Abbott Laboratories, 4th Cir. (1999)72 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 801, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,409 Nicanor A. Briones v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., 101 F.3d 287, 2d Cir. (1996)John Martinez, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Tosano Simonetti and Richard J. Rosa, Thomas McCauley Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Nancy Heinz-Faljean, Esq., Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Richard Olivo, Defendant-Cross-Claimant, James Fulginiti, William Hyland, Richard Trapanese and Anthony Discala, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Counter-Claimants, the New York City Police Department, Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner, James Tavares, and Richard Gutch, New York City, Defendant-Cross-Defendant, 202 F.3d 625, 2d Cir. (2000)Frances Winfrey, Dr. v. The School Board of Dade County, Florida, Dr. Tee Greer, Russell Wheatley, 59 F.3d 155, 11th Cir. (1995)Bert Hetchkop, in His Fiduciary Capacity as Director, and the New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Vacation Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund, and Supplemental Fund v. Woodlawn at Grassmere, Inc., 116 F.3d 28, 2d Cir. (1997)Barbara Johnson v. City of Mobile Alabama, 11th Cir. (2009)ECF 28 RedactedMore From Human Rights Alert, NGOSkip carousel2017-06-29 Human Right Alert's Appendix to SubmissionZernik, J. “E-government in Israel – transformation into the post-truth era” - European Conference on Digital Government pp 270-9 (2017)2017-06-13 Zernik, J. "E-government in Israel2017-06-12 Zernik Present E-GOV IN ISRAEL LISBON F.pdf2017-05-07 Tel-Aviv District Court2017-05-07 FOIA Response (107-2017) by Ministry of Justice, in re2017-05-29 FOIA Request (48-2017) on Administration of Courts – electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat - request for completion of response in compliance with the law// בקשה (48-2017) על פי חוק חופש המידע על הנהלת בתי המשפט – חתימות אלקטרוניות בנט-המשפט – בקשה להשלמת התשובה כחוק2017-05-29 FOIA Request (48-2017) on Administration of Courts – electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat - denied// בקשה (48-2017) על פי חוק חופש המידע על הנהלת בתי המשפט – חתימות אלקטרוניות בנט-המשפט – נדחתה2017-04-24 FOIA Request (48-2017) on Administration of Courts – electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat - notice of extension// בקשה (48-2017) על פי חוק חופש המידע על הנהלת בתי המשפט – חתימות אלקטרוניות בנט-המשפט – הודעה על הארכת מועד תשובה2017-03-28 FOIA Request (48-2017) on Administration of Courts – electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat // בקשה (48-2017) על פי חוק חופש המידע על הנהלת בתי המשפט – חתימות אלקטרוניות בנט-המשפט2017-05-29 Detainee Lori Shem-Tov’s petition (4311/17) in the Supreme Court – request to inspect lawfully made publication prohibition decree // ערר העצירה לורי שם-טוב (רע”פ 4311/17)2017-05-22 Ometz v Attorney General et al (5514/16) in the Supreme Court – Disqualification for a Cause (Req 21) of Supreme Court Justices Yoram Danziger, Neal Heldel and Noam Solberg in the ancillary process of request to inspect // תנועת אומץ נ היועמ"ש, פרקליט המדינה ואח' בג"ץ (5514/16) - בקשת פסלות (מס’ כ”א) נגד השופטים יורם דנציגר, ניל הנדל, ונועם סולברג בהליך הנלווה - בקשות לעיון 2017-05-22 Anonymous (Shuki Mishol) v State of Israel (1322/17) – Request (No 12) for Clarifications of Magistrate Liam Benmelech’s May 11, 2017 Decision on request to inspect lawfully made arrest warrant // פלוני (שוקי משעול) נ מדינת ישראל (1322/17) – בקשה (מס' 12) להבהרות על החלטת הרשמת ליאת בנמלך מיום 11 למאי, 2017, על בקשת עיון בצו מאסר עשוי כדין2017-05-14 Request for inspection of record re2017-05-09 State of Israel v Judge Yitzhak Cohen (42649-11-16) in the Rishon Magistrate Court – repeat Request to Inspect // מדינת ישראל נ יצחק כהן (42649-11-16) בבית המשפט השלום בראשון – בקשה חוזרת לעיון2017-05-09 State of Israel v Judge Yitzhak Cohen (42649-11-16) in the Rishon Magistrate Court – “Post-it Decision” on Request to Inspect // מדינת ישראל נ יצחק כהן (42649-11-16) בבית המשפט השלום בראשון – "החלטה בפתקית" על בקשה לעיון2017-05-08 State of Israel v Judge Yitzhak Cohen (42649-11-16) in the Rishon Magistrate Court – Request to Inspect // מדינת ישראל נ יצחק כהן (42649-11-16) בבית המשפט השלום בראשון – בקשה לעיון2017-05-03 Tel-Aviv District Court2017-05-03 Request for a valid Ministry of Justice FOIA response (90/17)2017-04-03 Ministry of Justice invalid FOIA response (90/17)2017-04-02 Shin-Bet response on complaint against judges and attorneys – electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat – sabotage and subversion of the fundamental of democratic procedures and institutions (paper mail, hand-signed)// תגובת השב”כ על תלונה נגד שופטים ועורכי דין - חתימות אלקטרוניות במערכת נט-המשפט – חבלה וחתרנות תחת יסודות סדרי המשטר הדמוקרטי ומוסדותיו (בדואר, בחתימת יד)2017-04-30 State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – Holyland corruption scandal – Request (No 336) to inspect duly made Publication Prohibition Decree (gag order) // מדינת ישראל נ צרני (10291-01-12) בבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א – פרשת הולילנד – בקשה (מס' 336) לעיון בצו איסור פרסום2017-04-19 Tel-Aviv District Court Presiding Judge Eitan Orenstin’s response in re2017-04-30 Mishol v State of IL (1322/17) – Urgent pro forma Request (No 8) to inspect “lawfully made Arrest Decree” pertaining to Appellant Mishol // משעול נ מדינת ישראל (1322/17) ערעור פלילי – בקשה דחופה למען הסדר הטוב (מס' ח') – לעיון בצו מאסר עשוי כדין לגבי המערער משעול2017-04-05 Addendum to Complaint (192/17/Nazareth District), filed with Ombudsman of the Judiciary – denial of access to inspect electronic signature data in Net-HaMishpat by Judges Avraham Avraham – State of Israel v Zadorov (502-07), Eliyahu Bachar – Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv (18790-10-14), Shalhevet Kamir-Wiess – State of Israel v Klass (63343-01-17), Oded Moreno – State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17)// תוסף לתלונה (192/17/מחוזי נצרת), שהוגשה לנציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים2016-01-19 Fake complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv District) – repeat request for clarifications by Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Rivlin, regarding purported “Decision” by “Senior Appointee” Avraham Wolf, which is suspected as “fabrication” // תלונה מפוברקת (875/16/מחוזי ת”א) – בקשה חוזרת להבהרות הנציב אליעזר ריבלין לגבי "החלטה" כביכול של "ממונה בכיר" אברהם וולף, החשודה כ"פברוק" 2016-12-31 Fake complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv District) – request for clarifications by Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Rivlin, regarding purported “Decision” by “Senior Appointee” Avraham Wolf - closing the fake complaint // תלונה מפוברקת (875/16/מחוזי ת”א) – בקשה להבהרות הנציב אליעזר ריבלין לגבי "החלטה" כביכול של "ממונה בכיר" אברהם וולף – סגירת התלונה2017-04-06 Ombudsman of the Judiciary – invalid “Decision” on complaint (192/17/Nazareth District) - electronic signatures on judicial records in Net-HaMishpat // תשובה חסרת תוקף של נציבות תלונות הציבור על השופטים על תלונה (192/17/מחוזי נצרת) – חתימות אלקטרוניות על החלטות השופטים בנט-המשפט2017-04-21 Mishol v State of IL (1322/17) – Request (No 6) to inspect “lawfully made publication prohibition decree” (gag order) // משעול נ מדינת ישראל (1322/17) ערעור פלילי – בקשה (מס' ו') – לעיון בצו איסור פרסום עשוי כדין2017-04-06 Ometz v Attorney General et al (‫‪5514‬‬ ‫‪/16‬‬) - repeat mailing by the Supreme Court (purported inspection) – unsigned decision and decree (received April 23)// תנועת‬ אומץ נ היועמ"ש, פרקליט המדינה שרת המשפטים ואח' (בג"ץ 5515/16) – משלוח חוזר בדואר של מסמכים על ידי בית המשפט העליון (עיון כביכול) - החלטה וצו על תנאי בלתי חתומים (התקבלו 23 לאפריל)