Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 00:17:51 -0700
To: "Wertz, Phillip -Legal"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Bank of America Corporation continues with its alleged deceit in re: Outside Counsel.
May 5, 2009
Below is a recent posting from my blog at:
For your convenience, you may also refer to the Outside Counsel Procedures of Bank of America Legal Department at:
I would greatly appreciate your comments on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------------May 4, 2009
Below is recent correspondence with Phil Wertz, senior counsel at Bank of America Corporation Legal Department in North Carolina. There is a large body of credible evidence indicating deceit by BAC in relationship to employment of Bryan Cave, LLP as an outside Counsel in this case.
Countrywide, now Bank of America, has been appearing at the LA Superior Court for the past two years in the courts of Jacqueline Connor, John Segal, and Terry Friedman under the self designation of "Non Party", while the LA Superior Court designated it interchangeably "Defendant", "Plaintiff", "Cross Defendant", "Intervenor", "Real Parties in Interest" - all with no legal foundation at all.
In such actions Countrywide had Bryan Cave, LLP appear in court as if it were authorized to represent Countrywide, later Bank of America. However, later, BAC claimed that Bryan Cave, LLP was NEVER authorized to appear in court. At present, Bryan Cave, LLP refuses to answer any questions regarding the identity of its clients and the nature of its engagements, relative to putative "no communications with Countrywide clauses" and failure to define "attorney in charge". It is likely that upon discovery and review, it would be deemed that what is taking place is deceit that is repeat of a deceitful scheme relative to employment of outside counsel, used by Countrywide in a Texas Court, rebuked by the Hon Jeff Bohm U.S. Judge in his March 8, 2008 72-page Memorandum Opinion (Borrower: William Parsley; Case # 05-903-74).
Of interest, an opinion was published May 1, 2008 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky in the LA Times regarding counsel attempting to conceal the identity of his clients. In his May 1, 2008, opinion, Prof Chemerinsky stated:
- In fact, the law of professional responsibility is clear that the identity of a client is generally not deemed confidential. The law requires that a lawyer keep secret the content of communications with a client, but the identity of a
- client is not regarded as confidential except in the rare case in which disclosing it would inevitably reveal the content of a secret communication. There is nothing in the California Rules of Professional Responsibility, the California Business and Professional Code or the ABA's Model Rules that require that a lawyer keep secret the identity of past or current clients.
It is likely that the schemes described above, regarding appearance as "Non Party" and regarding engagement or lack thereof of outside counsel, are related to circumventing regulations - most likely - SEC and Office of Federal Trade Commission regulations. Of note, these two offices have refused for the past two years to review my complaints regarding Countrywide/BAC. Not that they claimed that my complaints were false or invalid, they refused to review them in the first place. Some evidence suggests also false records related to my complaints, at least at Federal Trade Commission, but possibly also at SEC.
The underlying matter involves alleged very large scale fraud and deceit against the U.S. Government in relationship to uniform residential loan application (1003) underwriting. Neither Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo, Sandor Samuels, BAC, Kenneth Lewis, Timothy Mayopoulos, nor BAC Audit Committee would answer any questions for the past 2 years regarding the 1003 below and its double "Date Received" stamps. The one from early October 2004 was defaced, and a second one dated October 12, 2004 was impressed.
The person who is the most knowledgeable witness on this matter, Diane Frazier, former senior Countrywide underwriter in the San Rafael Branch, is intimidated into believing that she is prohibited from discussing the matter. After I located her in March 2007, and after she willingly provided me with the information explaining the detailed events that led to these double date-received stamps, I received a death threat from a person who explained that Countrywide prohibited me from communicating with Frazier, and that "If you call this number again, I will come down to LA and gun you down."
Subsequently, Bryan Cave, LLP appeared in the court of Judge Jacqueline Connor on July 6, 2007, when the court was dark, off the record, off the calendar, with no clerk present, for a "protective order", which requested to prohibit me from communicating with Diane Frazier, among others. In their court papers they explained that after I located Diane Frazier, they had to handle me "firmly".
Diane Frazier is available at:
- 4329 Gloria Ct
- Rohnert Park, CA 94928
- (707) 586-1479
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:23:20 -0700
To: "Wertz, Phillip -Legal"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: RE: Please let me know if you would accept summons by certified mail on behalf of Lewis, Mayopoulos, audit committee and BAC
May 4, 2009
I do not believe that your response would be deemed reasonable for the following reasons:
There never were any prior "instructions to me of this nature". By phone both you and others repeated multiple times the opposite "instructions" - that Bryan Cave, LLP was NEVER authorized to represent BAC in matters pertaining to me. Moreover, both you and others instructed me by phone that the ONLY one authorized to represent BAC in court in matters related to me was in-house counsel Todd Boock. However, both you and others repeatedly refused to provide any such "instructions" in writing. Moreover, in our last phone conversation you "instructed" me that you had recently learned that Todd Boock was prohibited from representing BAC in my matter, pursuant to a "protective order". When I asked if you had seen such a "protective order", or if you could notice me of such "protective order", you hung up the phone.
The language you use below is the first ever in writing. However, the language you use below may be deemed upon review as part of the deceit as well. It avoided explicitly stating:
Could you or anybody else at BAC please provide such statement in writing?
- "Jenna Moldawsky and John Amberg of the law-firm of Bryan Cave, LLP, are authorized to represent Bank of America Corporation, Kenneth Lewis, Timothy Mayopoulos, and the Audit Committee in Court".
Obviously, allegations of deceit in employment of outside counsel are part of the matter at hand. Accordingly, Bryan Cave, LLP is named defendant in the same matter.
At 03:37 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote:No. I am not authorized or an appropriate person. Please direct any of your correspondence to John Amberg or Jenna Moldawsky at Bryan Cave per our earlier instructions to you.
**As of July 14, 2008, my telephone number has changed to 980-386-6834.
From: joseph zernik [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 4:41 PM
To: Wertz, Phillip -Legal
Subject: Please let me know if you would accept summons by certified mail on behalf of Lewis, Mayopoulos, audit committee and BAC
Thanks for your prompt response.
Please support our petition: Calling upon President Obama - Free the 10,000 Rampart-FIPs. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restore-justice-in-l-a
Best reference on how they got falsely convicted, and why they are still imprisoned: LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006): http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10,000- PBS Frontline (2001): http://inproperinla.com/01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-imprisonments-s.pdfJoseph Zernik, DMD PhD
, Fax: (801) 998-0917;