SUSTAIN - THE LA SUPERIOR COURT'S CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Excerpts from a document filed with the California Court of Appeal , 2nd District.
d. Sustain Incorporates Some Features that Should Never be
Allowed in CMS – Such as Secret Invalidation of Records.
others, to invalidate or vacate records with no notice to parties. Such is
implemented by changing the date of entry of the document, after the fact,
into 00/00/00, or 33/33/33 – applying to an order or a document that was
already filed, entered, and noticed, an invalid entry date. Practically all judges in Samaan v Zernik resorted to this disturbing feature:
i. Item #27, Exh p25 May 14, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte
Application to Shorten Time to Hearing Motion for Reconsideration- secretly invalidated…
minute order was vacated as well. The application by Zernik, Defendant in
LASC, was for reconsideration of serious sanctions set on him (>$2,000) by
Judge Connor, in a situation that in and of itself resulted from denial of access
to Court File records and Minute Orders and dishonest conduct by Att
Keshavarzi. The decision to set the sanctions was somewhat unusual, and the
denial of the motion for shortened hearing on reconsideration could have been
seen as rather harsh as well. The records were eliminated.
None of this could be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None of
this could be figured out using any of the records typically provided to litigants
ii. Item #52, Exh p55, Sept 20, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Due Process and Proposed Referee O’Brien “lodged” Motion for Appointment as Referee - secretly invalidated…
The record shows that this minute order was invalidated after April 30, 2008
by changing the entry date to “00/00/00”. Judge Goodman was with no
authority at that time, and whether he or anybody else invalidated this minute
order, it was a case of falsification of litigation records.
Judge Goodman never realized that Countrywide was involved in this case
until about a month after taking over as Presiding Judge. That is very difficult
to accept at face value. But once he realized that, and given his “long term
close personal friendship with the chief legal counsel of
Countywide”, he immediately recused himself.
One must commend his honesty, even if he was late to remember his friends.
But then again, careful inspection of the records shows that he vacated the
minute order after it was issued and noticed to parties… and that he forgot to
notice the parties of the fact that he vacated that order.
One must note that Judge Goodman was with no authority at all after his
recusal, including no authority to vacate his own Minute Order. Therefore, if
he himself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of
falsification of litigation records.
iv. Item #67, Exh p 65, Nov 5, 2007 Judge Segal’s Ex Parte For Shortened Notice Hearing On Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of A Receiver – secretly invalidated…
This is the minute order of Plaintiff’s ex parte to shorten time for hearing on
appointment of receiver. Given the ruling was on Nov 5, 2007, opposition was
due on Nov 6, 2007, that is the next day. Judge Segal decided to generously
allow Defendant two extra days till Nov 8, 2007.
A legitimate Minute Order was issued and incorporated in paper Court file, but
the electronic Court File data shows it was invalidated by changing the entry
date to 33/33/33. No notice was given to litigants.
v. Item #78, Exh p 73 DEC 7, 2007 -Ex Parte Proceedings Before The Honorable Lisa Hart- Cole – secretly invalidated…
The record indicates that Judge Hart-Cole followed the same routines. By the
time she was recused, her records show that she already set the grounds for
running a hearing on Receiver’s ex parte application as an “off the record”
proceeding. In addition, after issuing the minute order of her own recusal and having a clerk mail it out, which was also entered in the paper court-file, same Minute Order was vacated without making any explicit record of it, just changing the document date to “00/00/00”.
One must note that Judge Hart-Cole was with no authority after her recusal,
including no authority to vacate her own Minute Order. Therefore, if she
herself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of falsification of
vi. Item #83, Exh p 78, Supervising Judge Rosenberg, Dec 26, 2008 Minute Order Denying Appellant’s Ex Parte for Due Process – secretly invalidated…
On December 26, 2008, Appellant appeared before the Supervising Judge, to
ask for his civil rights to be restored – access to litigation records, vacating of
false records, etc. Judge Rosenberg denied it all wholesale. But then he
vacated his own Minute Order with no notice to Appellant.
vii. Item #90, Exh p 83, Judge Friedman, Jan 30, 2008 Appellant’s Ex Parte Application to Release Funds that are his Proceeds from the Sale of his Home against his Will, and are Held by the Court with no Legal Authority – secretly invalidated…
On Jan 30, 2008, Appellant appeared Ex Parte before Judge Friedman, and
asked that the Court release his funds, originally ~$800,000, but ever
vanishing, held by the Court with no due authority.
Judge Friedman immediately denied the application, with prejudice, and
warned Appellant that if he asks for it again, Judge Friedman would impose
Later – Judge Friedman vacated this order. Therefore, on May 19, 2008,
Appellant came again ex parte to ask for release of his funds. Judge Friedman
was not in that day, so Appellant was seen by Judge Tarle, who denied the
application, with prejudice again.
e. Sustain allows the Judiciary to Run Proceedings “of the record” without notice to parties.
This litigant of course would never have participated in any of these
proceedings, had he known that they were off the record.
i. Item #13 Exh p13 – 10/31/06-11/9/06 Defendant’s Motion To Expunge Lis Pendens – “off the record”
Combined, these records demonstrate the proceedings of Defendant’s Motion
to Expunge Lis Pendens, which was managed entirely as an “Off the Record “
procedure. This abuse of the system is pervasive throughout the records, and
is directly tied to the assignment of multiple independent Events to a single
An adequately verified Case Management System should not have allowed
such to be practiced. The abuse of the system is also tied to the assignment of
adjudication “Motion Denied” to an Event that was “Case Management
Conference”. Again, a adequately verified Case Management System should
not have allowed that entry.
None of this evidence could ever be found by Appellant had he relied on Case
Summary – the document filed by Defendants as the “Docket”. It appears that
Courtnet and Case Summary rely heavily on text editing, but have minimal
assertions and limitations that are built into the software – in short – it would
tolerate almost anything, but it is not the formal record of the litigation.
None of this could be figured out using records typically provided to
litigants in LASC.
ii. Item #11, Exh p 11, 13, 15, Oct Nov 2006 – Trial Setting Conference – “off the record”
The Trial Setting Conference was a proceeding “off the Record”, and no trial
date was ever adequately entered in Sustain, while Judge Connor continued to
manipulate trial dates and to switch between Jury and Non-Jury trials, until
after she was disqualified, Sept 10 2007, when she finally formally entered trial
date into the system at around 4:30pm.
In between, Summary Judgment hearing was conducted less than 30 days
before trial date, as set at that time, with no explicit notice or permanent
record of such. Note the date of entry of Minute Order is not consistent among
the several pages of the Minute Order, changing in the last page from
November 9, 2006 to January 16, 2007.
None of this could ever be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None
of this could be figured out using records typically provided to litigants in
iii. Item #31, July 6, 2007 - Indeterminate Party Countrywide Ex Parte Application For A Protective Order – “off the record”
Zernik often asked, but never got the answers:
• How could Countrywide be Non Party, Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross-
Defendant, Intervenor, all at the same time?
• How could the ex parte application of July 6, 2007 be scheduled in the
first place, at a time that no Discovery Motions were allowed, by a nonparty, at a time that the court was dark?
Now Zernik knows, that the answer is that this was another “off the record”
proceeding. For that reason, the Protective Order that was the outcome of this
hearing was never issued, never recorded, never produced, and never noticed
But when so desired, such a non-existent Protective Order was deemed by
Judge Friedman very recently – in Feb 2008 - as being “in full force and
effect”, although the order was never seen by that time or after.
Judge Friedman later also found such a non-existent order as the legal
foundation for setting serious sanctions against Zernik exceeding $22,000,
and finding Appellant in Contempt of the Court, all through a Bench Trial,
where Judge Friedman, Triar of Facts, admitted evidence that is writings
produced by Countrywide, with no authentication at all, as was the case with
Judge Connor in Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and Motion for Summary
Combined – while courts around the United States rebuke Countrywide
litigation practices, that were documented around the country to include filing
of false and misleading documents, the LASC continues abuse of Plaintiff’s
rights for Speech, Due Process, and Possession, all based on such fraudulent
The right to file mandatory counter claims for fraud, or to have a chance for a
fair hearing on motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7 on such fraudulent
documents were consistently denied.
None of this could be discovered based on :”Case Summary”, or records
normally provided to litigants in the LASC.
f. Sustain allowed Judge Connor to file fictitious Minute Orders.
Appellant believes that the integrity of courts in the English speaking countries
depended to a large degree on the checks and balances in the power of Judges
and Clerks. A Judge could write an order, but could never enter it.
On the basis of the partial data provided, Appellant believes that such
distinctions were eliminated in Sustain. The only power remaining with the
clerk to stop an invalid order is to refuse to mail it out.
But then again, it appears that the LA Superior Court holds minute orders
valid even when they are not mailed out to litigants or served in any other way,
in defiance of basic notions of Due Process, or any logic at all.
Judge Connor entered two entirely fictitious Minute Orders:
i. July 9, 2007, Minute Order – Motion for Reconsideration –
The minute order describes a telephonic hearing of motion for reconsideration
that never took place. Apparently this was to replace the minute order that she
vacated, and here she granted the motion for reconsideration. None of it was
reported to litigants – no minute order was mailed out. Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order – Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7/Disqualification Of Judge Connor
The record for this proceeding is of critical significance:
It was represented in minute order and also in a letter from Att Keshavarzi to
Retired Judge O’Brien as a proof that Judge Connor ruled that none of Zernik’s
claims of fraud in Countrywide’s documents was valid. And numerous attempts of Zernik to vacate this record, which was entered with no authority at all, and which defies truth and justice, were always denied.
An “on the record” hearing on the Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7
could have overturned the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP
Careful analysis of the record in Case History now shows:
Defendant’s filing of statement of disqualification was entered (p105) as:
- 9/10/07 Document Filed
Defendant, & Defendant in Pro Per
Instead of using the correct menu selection in Sustain:
- 9/10/07 Document Filed
Affidavit of Prejudice
Judge Connor ran the recusal on her own motion as the only “on the record”
proceeding in this case. Both the affidavit of prejudice and the motion for sanctions per CCP §128.7 were merely “off the record” proceedings in this case.
1) This proceeding is also instructive in examining the use of Courtnet
“Case Summary” – the web-base, publicly-accessible system to
mislead. Under “Proceedings” in Case Summary, the following entry appears:
- Proceeding: Recusal (Motion for Sanctions) – Motion
Obviously, the phrasing is deliberately tangled, to mislead, but the overall
impression is that the hearing was on the Recusal, which was granted. That is
of course the opposite of the record created in Sustain.
And on Aug 30, 2007 Appellant Took Part in What he
Thought was a Status Conference, and in Fact was
Registered as a Hearing on a Motion.
i. Item #45, Exh p 47, Aug 30, 2007 - Status Conference
This proceeding presents an entirely new deception technique: Although the
proceeding was announced as a status conference, here without defendant’s
knowledge, it is defined as a “hearing”. During the proceeding itself, Judge
Connor a couple of times referred to the conference as a “hearing” of a
“motion”. Each time defendant protested that there was no motion before the
court, but Judge Connor did not explain her secret intention – to record the
status conference as a motion to appoint an escrow referee, instead of a
unilateral court appointment. Yet the appointment was going to be a defective
one. The language of the minute order is deliberately defective:
- “The Court appoint Honorable Greg O’Brien,
prepare the order to appointing discovery
There may be judges who write like this, but not Judge Connor, who is possibly the sharpest in the Santa Monica Court House, and by far te best writer.
On the record there was an adequate order appointing O’Brien discovery
referee, issued secretly in chambers July 27, 2007, and never noticed. But
none of that was ever mentioned. The ingenuity here is in the ability to self eface and appear dum .. when it is useful.
Absurd as it may sound: during the conference, defendant, who by now was
familiar with Judge Connor’s conduct asked her on the record ‘to be diligent in
completing an appointment in compliance with the law’ and offered the use of
ADR forms. Judge Connor, on the record, explained that she had no intention
of issuing an appointment in compliance with the law.
Later, retired Judge O’Brien, on Sept 7, 2007, will present defendant with this
defective minute order as the sole source of his authority as an escrow referee
to seize defendant’s property.
Obviously, the Order Appointing Referee, marked in Case History (P103) as
signed and entered, was either the same, alternatively – it was some secret
order, like the one from July 27, 2007, that was never noticed to anybody,
including Judge O’Brien.
In “Event Complete” (P103), one notes that in this case the “Hearing-Other”, which Defendant participated in without even being aware of it, was in fact the “on the record” proceeding in this case. The “Status Conference” was in fact an “off the record” proceeding here.
finds a manually entered comment as part of the language of the minute order:
Obviously, Jury Trial (albeit, the record indicates parties agreed to non-jury
trial) date was still manually carried, not entered in Sustain, and here Judge
Connor forgot that just two days earlier she continued it to Jan 11, 2008.
h. On Sept 14, 2007, the Supervising Judge, the Hon Rosenberg, secretly filed documents in the file, with no notice to litigants.
On page 113 in Case History one finds the following entry:
- 09/14/07 Document Filed
Dism-Plaintiff In Pro Per
(2) Documents received by facsimile
service and filed per the direction of the
Supervising Judge of the West District
the Honorable Gerald Rosenberg.
Filed By ZERNIK, JOSEPH Defendant
The record copied above, in full, is probably the reduced essence of the use of
Sustain as an instrument of fraud on Defendant Zernik in the West District, LA
- 1. The notice is cryptic and deliberately misleading.
- 2. No notice was given to litigant of this unusual filing.
3. Nobody expected that Zernik would ever lay his hands on Case
History by Sustain. In fact, among the numerous attorneys Zernik
questioned on this point, none ever obtained Sustain records during
litigation, except that some, but a minority, get Minute Orders at times.
- 4. The honorable Gerald Rosenberg is:
Not – Zernik, Joseph - Defendant, and also
Not - Dism-Plaintiff in Pro Per
Judge, who preached to Defendant Zernik his lack of authority to even vacate
the groundless minute order filed after disqualification by a judge lacking in
authority at all. Obviously the Supervising Judge is authority to hear motions
to vacate judicial acts, under the stipulations prescribed by law.
To this day Defendant Zernik does not know what documents were filed by
Judge Rosenberg, but an educated guess suggests that they were papers
including the proposed order for appointment of O’Brien as Escrow Referee,
produced by Plaintiff’s Counsel and O’Brien, together, as a remedy for the
deliberately defective orders produced by Judge Connor. Of course there was
nothing to prevent Plaintiff from filing the proposed order with a motion per
Similarly, on Dec 13, 2007, Judge Friedman signed an order, Appellant still
does not know for sure what it was. With no advance notice at all, this proposed order was moved for a hearing on
Sept 20, 2007, see row #52 below, during what was noticed as Case
Conference. An introductory comment by Judge Goodman, was obviously
disingenuous, when he claimed had no idea where the papers came from (yet
he brought them for immediate hearing).
i. A person Reviewing the Case as a Whole Would Also Reasonably Entertain the Doubt that Sustain, as Operated in Santa Monica, but not in Beverly Hills, Allows Financial Mismanagement or Worse.
The record from Dec 7, 2007, Ex Parte in Beverly Hills before Judge Hart –
Cole is unique, since it shows that the system in Beverly Hills is set to print
the register number of the action (here - #BH490068002). Register
numbers were deleted from all the Santa Monica clerk’s printouts. This is
further evidence that the Santa Monica system was especially suitable for
abuse of Due Process. But since the register numbers are tied to payment for moving party, all Journal Entries in Santa Monica, typically for $40.00 each, are with no ID
j. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based systems
It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were
discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration
should be given to strengthening the ministerial arm of the court, as a counter
balance to the judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions.
The authorities of the judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully
prescribed and segregated, to generate appropriate checks and balances.
k. CMS’s Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor the Quality and Integrity of the Courts
The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems
must not allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing.
Without accurate docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the
system can become a valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The
contribution of the ministerial staff in this process needs to be emphasized,
and their personal accountability for each act of docketing, which must bear a
personal digital signature that is easily visible.
l. The Common Feature – The Culture of Silence
The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that
“true remedy is in filing an appeal from order for
appointment of receiver”.
But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court of Appeal,
like the Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the California
Code of Ethics Canon 3D(1).
They all knew of the unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff
by Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code, which is clear cut
in its directive.
Canon 3D(1) says:
D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that
another judge has violated any provision of the
Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or
initiate appropriate corrective action, which may
include reporting the violation to the appropriate
None of the judges involved took or initiated appropriate corrective action.
Plaintiff believes that best explanation for what takes place in the LA Superior Court is found in a paper by Erwin Chemerinsky -The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.
In it he states:
"Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart
Division of the Los Angeles Police Department
framed innocent individuals by planting evidence
and committing perjury to gain convictions.
Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes
they did not commit and were convicted by juries
because of the fabricated cases against them. Many
individuals were subjected to excessive police force
and suffered very serious injuries as a result.
Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin
with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what
the officers did. This is conduct associated with the
most repressive dictators and police states. It
occurred in Los Angeles….
O First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem,
and indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.
O Second, the report fails to recognize that the
central problem is the culture of Los Angeles Police
Department… the “Code of Silence”..
O Third - the …report fails to consider the need for
O Fourth – the problems in the… disciplinary system
are unduly minimized…" Much of what is stated above is directly applicable to the LA Superior Court, in
particular the statement regarding the “Culture of Silence”. Chemerinsky concludes with a statement that is also applicable here:
- "No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an event, but a process that will take many years to complete…"
1. progress by the Judicial Council, in order to avoid errors made in the
introduction of Sustain in LASC over 20 years ago. In particular, this complaint emphasizes the unusual mode of operation of Sustain, the case management system in the West District, Los Angeles Superior Court, which different than its use in Central District. Moreover, Appellant shows significant differences in the usage pattern even between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, both court houses of the West District.
- Is there any Correlation, or Even Cause and Effect Relationship
between These Unusual Rules of LASC, and the Unusual Events
Surrounding Entry of Judgment in Samaan v Zernik?
- Is there any Correlation, or Even Cause and Effect Relationship
between These Unusual Rules of LASA and the Fact that LA County was Designated by the FBI “Epicenter” of the “Real Estate Fraud Epidemic”?
Zernik as a whole would be hard pressed not to conclude that the answer is
“Yes” to both questions. The Court of Judge Connor was not only permissive of
Real Estate Fraud - it was supportive of it.
And the succession of judges the presided in Samaan v Zernik after her, all
with no Reassignment Order and with no authority at all, engaged in dishonest
conduct in attempts to cover up the whole affair and stand by a colleague,
instead of standing by the Law and the Constitution, as they have vowed to do
in their Oath.
Interviews with at least a couple of dozen attorneys who were experienced in
Real Estate litigation also revealed that they all had unanimous opinion –
under no circumstances would any of them agree to claim fraud and deceit in a
Real Estate litigation in the Santa Monica court, regardless if it is true or not.
The excuses were far fetched. Eventually, an older attorney, Larry Rothstein
provided a straight forward answer:
and second – the Judge will only hold it against you.”
Indeed, when Appellant insisted on exposing the fraud in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400), Judge Connor explained in open court to Appellant’s newly
retained counsel on Aug 21, 2007 – that she considered Appellant “A Pest”
and that she ”treat[ed] him accordingly”.
Appellant entered a comment to that effect in his Aug 30, 2007 Case Management Statement, expecting that Judge Connor would finally recuse herself. But Judge Connor only made a comment about Appellant ‘throwing it in her face’, and Appellant had to file for recusal for cause again on Sept 10, 2007. Only then Judge Connor finally recused.
g. This California Court of Appeal Should Declare Samaan V Zernik
The issues reviewed here, do not involve the finding of facts in the Aug 9,
2007 Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, where Judge Connor was
Triar of Facts, a whole subject in and of itself, which is one of the subjects of
underlying the appeal from the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to
The issues reviewed here also do not involve the circumstances surrounding
the appointment of Att David Pasternak as Receiver. In an unusual generous
comment, this Court of Appeal itself wrote that:
“Petitioner’s true remedy is in an appeal from the Order Appointing Receiver”
The issues reviewed here also do not involve the determination of the Courts of
Judge Segal and Judge Friedman to rob Appellant of his home equity,
proceeds from the sale of his home against his will, purportedly pursuant to
the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court for Specific Performance. Those funds are
indefinitely held by the Court with no legal foundation at all.
The issues reviewed here also do not involve the fraudulent conveyance of real
property title by Receiver Pasternak recently uncovered by Appellant. Since
Receiver Pasternak, following the Appointment Order by Judge Segal, was
determined to convey title to the property without any reliance on the Aug 9,
2007 Judgment by Court, he needed to avail himself to practices that are out of
compliance with the law, including straight forward fraud. [As a reminder -
Receiver Pasternak appears as one of the LASC’s favorite receivers, by the
sheer number of transactions showing under his name in the Registrar’s office,
and the number of cases showing in review of LASC records, all regardless of
his own declaration of his exorbitant fees.]
This review of the operation of Sustain – LASC CMS – in the Santa Monica
Court House is submitted to the California Court of Appeal in support of the
motions named below, and concurrently with them:
1) Request for Reconsideration of Appellant’s Petition of April 1, 2008,
amended April 4, 2008, in which Appellant requested that the Court of
Appeal take corrective action to stop conduct of other judges that is in
violation of the California Code of Ethics, Canon 3D(1), and was denied
with no explanation at all. This review of the operations of Sustain – the
LASC provides plenty of additional examples of unethical conduct by
judges relative to Samaan v Zernik, which Appellant himself was not
aware of and did not have appropriate evidence for at the time of filing
that Petition, as a result of the LASC’s ongoing denial of access to
2) Request to Set Aside the Court of Appeal’s ruling on Appellant’s January
24, 2008 Petition in Re: Judge Friedman’s response to Affidavits of
Perjury for Cause on Jan 11 and Jan 15, 2008, which was denied on the
basis of timeliness relative to the Jan 11, 2008 Affidavit. In view of the
dishonesty in the stated Date of Entry on the Minute Orders of both Jan
11 and Jan 15, 2008 this court may consider that Petition timely relative
even to the Jan 11, 2008 Affidavit.
3) Request for Reconsideration of Appellant’s request that the Justices of
the Court of Appeal who decide this case file a Statement on the Record
relative to their relationships with the judges named here, given the
unusual nature of this case. Appellant requests alternatively, that any
Justice that served as a Judge in the LASC since the introduction of
Sustain, recuse from this case.
4) Request to rescind the filing of the Reporters’ Transcript and the Clerk’s
Transcript filed by the LASC. Both were filed with no counsel signature,
out of compliance with CCP §128.7, and both include false and
deliberately misleading records, again trying to cover up dishonest
conduct of judges. In particular, the Clerk’s Transcript includes a copy of
“Case Summary” from Courtnet, which in included where a Register of
Action should have been included.
This review is also submitted concurrently with a request for Receiver
Pasternak to resign as Receiver, for violation of the Oath he took when
assuming that position, by offering Appellant to support release of Appellant’s
funds held by Receiver, if Appellant drops the U.S. complaint against Att
This review limited itself to the dishonest conduct involved in the docketing
and recording of litigation involved in the operation of the LASC’s Case
Management System – Sustain. And yet, the issues related to abuse of United
States Constitutional rights for Due Process revealed in this review are
sufficient in and of themselves to deem Samaan v Zernik Mistrial and vacate
all rulings, orders, and Judgments.
Appellant requests new rulings in the matters listed above, and suggests that a
just and appropriate ruling is to declare Samaan v Zernik Mistrial.
Dated: May 20, 2008
DEFENDANT & CROSS-COMPLAINANT
in pro per