Digitally signed by

Joseph H Zernik
Dr Z DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik,
o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthlink
Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhD .net, c=US
Location: La Verne,
California
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net Date: 2010.01.24 07:44:17
-08'00'

08-02-15 Non-Party Countrywide’s Reply on Motion for OSC Contempt and Sanctions.

The paper should be deemed fraud and extortion on numerous accounts, including, but not
limited o the following:

1. The evidence shows that there was no such caption of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, as Samaan v Zernik.

2. Judge Terry Friedman never obtained the duly required by law Assignment Order for
such case. He simply took possession of the purported file.

3. Judge Terry Friedman refused for two years to provide a statements on the record,
pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics, regarding financial benefits to him
or to family residing with him from Countrywide/Bank of America.

4. The July 23, 2007 Order that was purported the subject of the motion, never existed,
and was never produced by Countrywide.

5. Bryan Cave, LLP was falsely appearing, while not a Counsel of Record.

6. Instant Reply was presumably filed to add the Exhibit that was the email from Zernik
to others, including Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels. However, the record was
clearly adulterated - most of its first page was deleted. Furthermore, it came with no
authentication at all.

7. None of Countrywide’s records ever included any declaration by party, only by

counsel - not a competent fact witness in this case at all. In short – since the
undersigned had no way to know the email addresses of Angelo Mozilo or Sandor
Samuels, there was never any valid evidence filed in court to show that they ever
received any such email notice.

Dated: January 24, 2010 in La Verne, California,

By______________

Joseph Zernik
 5~

1T­
1 II nRYAN CAV~ LLP
2 II John W. Ambe~g (CA State Bar No. 108166)
Jenna Moldaws~y (CA State Bar No. 246109)
3 11 120 Broadway, ?uite 300
Santa Monica, C!:alifornia 90401-2386
I

4 II Telephone: 3[0--576-2100
5 Facsimile: 3~0--576-2200

61 Sanford Shatz C\=A State Bar No. 127229)

Todd A. Boockl (CA State Bar No. 181933)
'7 II 5220 Las Virgerkes Road, MS: AC-11
8 II Calabasas, Califprnia 91302
Telephone: 818-871-6045
9 Facsimile: 8!~8-.871-4669

10 Attorneys for Non-Party COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.

11
to
co
(V)
12 $UPERlOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~
o~
00
(V)"<t 13 FQR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
Q..2g
...J . ­
~~.~ 14
~ ~g
0;::<0 i
<:-00
l\l l\l _ 15 II NIVIE SAMMN, et aI., Case No. SC087400
>-Ol\l
'-~ U
CO CO 'c
00 16
~:2
l\l
:Plaintiffs, NON-PARTY COUNTRYWIDE HOME
C LOANS, INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPpRT
l\l
(/)
17
v~. OF ITS MOTION TO ENFORCE THE
18
JULY 23,2007 PROTECTIVE ORDER
19 1/ JOSEPH ZERNIK, et al.
AGAINST DEFENDANT JOSEP)-I
ZERNIKAND FOR OTHER RELIEF;
20 Defendants. DECLARATION OF JENNA
MOLDAWSKY
21

DATE:
February 15, 2008
22

TIME:
8:45 a.m.

23
DEPT:
J (Hon. Terry B. Friedman)

24

I. Introduction
25
Non-partJy Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") fully and completely
26 " ,
responded to fo~r of Defendant Joseph Zernik's ("Zernik") document subpoenas
27 II
approximately one year ago. Zernik was unsatisfied with the documents Countrywide
28 "

SMOI DOCS6678 16.2 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY BRIEF

 1 produced and, since March of 2007, has engaged in a campaign of harassment direct~d at

2 Countrywide officers and employees to obtain additional documents and information in

3 response to his subpoenas. Tbis case was resolved by summary judgment against Zernik six
4 months ago, yet Zernik's harassment of Countrywide officers and employees in search of

5 additional discqvery continues unabated. Zernik has chosen to repeatedly violate the Court's
6 Protective Order in his relentless pursuit of further discovery.

'7 Zernik's. Opposition confirms that his harassment of Countrywide and violations of

8 the ]Protective <Drder are premised on his discovery-related quest for additional evidence to

9 support his spupous claims of "fraud." As set forth in his Opposition, Zernik seeks additional
10 information rel~ting to Countrywide's purported "fraudulent" documents and deman:ds to
11 question Countrywide officers about the supposedJy "fraudulent" documents that
CD
co
<')
12 Countrywide pt;oduced many months ago.
~
Coun~de is not a party to this action, and was merely the recipient of sevebl third­
o~
00
<')'<t 13
a. Q) 0
-J~O>
...J::>ro
<Il CI) 'E 14 party documen~ subpoenas from Zernik, to which C:ountrywide fully responded.
~ ~-E
O~~
<:"00
ro ro _ 15 Countrywide withheld no responsive documents from Zernik, yet he has relentlessly harassed
~oro
~ 0
CD CD 'E
00
~~
16 Countrywide o~ficers and employees, aU of whom are represented by counsel, in an attempt to
ro
C
ro
CI)
17 obtain additional documentation and information in support of his claims. This harassment
18 has gone on even after this Court issued a Protective Order designed to prevent this very
]9 conduct, and even after the filing of this motion. Z<:rnik's harassment shows no signs of
20 stopping. Thusl Countrywide has been forced to seek relief from this Court in the hope that
21 the Court will pht an end to Zernik's consequence-free violations.

22 Zernik's harassment is premised on his wholly unsupported allegation that he is a

23 victim of an alleged "fraud" perpetrated against him by Countrywide, the plaintiff Nivie
24 Samaan, her law:yer, and judicial officers of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Indeed, as
25 recently as Janu~ry 25, 2008, Zernik again emailed Countrywide officers, accusing
I

26 Countrywide of! "extensive fraud" with respect to "key documents." See Declaration ofJ enna
271\ Moldawsky ("~oldawsky Decl."), ~ 2, Ex. A. Zernilk referred to his "meet and confer" efforts

28
SMOIDOCS667816,2 2
COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY BRIEF
 1 II with Countrywide's counsel and claimed that it was: "incredible" that Countrywide dqes not

2 I have additional docmnents to support his claims of fraud. 1d.

3 I Finally, Zernik served his Opposition on Countrywide three court days after the

4 II st.atutorily-prescribed deadline and only one day before Countrywide's reply was to be filed. 1

5 I Zernik has shown no respect for Countrywide, this Court, or its rulings, and his unabated

6 II a1..iempts to for<::e Countrywide to engage in further discovery by harassing its officers and

7 II employees and should not be tolerated by the Court. Accordingly, Countrywide's motion

8 II should be grant~d.

9111][ . Zemik'~ Qpposition Confirms That He Continues To Seek Evidence In

10 Support of His Claims

11 Zernik's Opposition confirms that he is seeking documents and information to
<D
co
(")
12 support his uncbrroborated belief that the judgment entered against him in this case i's the
<;'
a ~
00 13 result of documents produced or withheld by Countrywide and that Countrywide and others
o..~CS
....J~O>
....J~tll
Q)
>
C/) ·c
- ~
14 have colluded in fraud against him. Zernik's Opposition states that Countrywide officers
ro >...E
c.>~~
c:-oc.>
CIl tll _ 15 "have been reqt,1ested numerous times to authenticate or repudiate the authenticity ot' key
c:-e~
1Il 1Il ·c
00
~~
16 docmnents in tllis litigation" (Opposition, p. 2, In. 12-13.) and are "refusing to respond
CIl
c
tll
C/) 17 regarding the integrity of Countrywide's banking documents." (Opposition, p. 2, In. 24.)
18 Zernik's Opposition states that he "is hereby filing yet another request to Countrywide, to
19 Mozilo and to S!amuds to respond and authenticate or repudiate" the documents Zerhik
20 purports to be 'iffaudulent." (Opposition, p. 3, In. 3-4.) Labeling Countrywide a "purveyor
21 of fraudulent ev;idence" (Opposition, p. 6, In. 1.), Zernik contends that the documents

22 Countrywide produced to him in response to his document subpoenas were "fraudulent" and
23 produced in "an: attempt to cover up Countrywide's numerous ... violations of the law

24 docmnented in [plaintiff] Samaan's loan applications." (Opposition, p. 6, In. 7-9.)

25
26 Ian February 7, 2008, the date this Reply was due, Zernik served Countrywide via email with 98
pages of exhibits fn support of his Opposition. (Moldawsky Decl., ~ 4.) Countrywide has never
27 authorized servic~ via email. [do at ~ 3.) Further, to the extent it is necessary for Countrywide to
respond to Zer~'s 98 pages of exhibits, Countrywide will flie a supplemental brief.
28
SMOJDOCS6678J 6.2 3
COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY BRIEF
 1 Zernik thus calls for Countrywide and its offlcers to provide him with answers to his

2 questions and t? engage with him in an exploration of the facts underlying the lawsuit. This is

3 precisely the pdrpose of discovery in litigation, and Zernik has been calling for Countrywide's

4 additional compliance with these demands for almost a year, long after Countrywide produced

5 its documents. Since March 2007, Zernik has persisted in harassing Countrywide and its
I

6 officers and employees to obtain evidence of Countrywide's "fraud." Clearly unsatisfied with

7 the documents Countrywide produced in response to his four document subpoenas, Zernik

8 has waged a ye~r-long campaign of harassment directed at Countrywide's officers in the hopes
9 of securing the answers and evidence only he believes exists. In July 2007, Zernik attbmpted

10 to take the deposition of Sandor Samuels, Countryv.ride's Chief Legal Officer, and Zernik's

11 request was denied by the Court. The information Zernik is now seeking via harassirig tactics
«)
co
<'">

12 is exactly that v,;hich he was unable to discover by deposition. Zernik's harassment isl
C';'

o~
00
<'">~
13 predicated solely on Countrywide's responses to his document subpoenas and his deSire for
Q..a>0
~:!:::'O)
-l"'<'Il
CI) en .§ 14 more information regarding the documents Countrywide produced. Zernik's window for
> :>; 0
(3~~
cu() 15 discovery has long since closed. Zernik should not be allowed to continue his attempts to
;;~<O
<.>
~
a:l a:l 'c

00
~:2
16 bully Countrywide's officers into providing him witl-l the information he seeks without
ell
C
ell
(f)
17 consequence. Countrywide fully complied with Zernik's subpoenas many months ago and is

18 not a party to this case, yet it has had to expend tens of thousands of dollars and cout;ltless

19 hours dealing with Zernik's never-ending discovery-related harassment. This must stop now,
20 II and Countrywide should be left alone.

21 I III. Zemik Continues To Violate The ProtectJlve Order

22 II Even after Countrywide was forced to seek exparte relief to accelerate the heaiing date

23 lion this motion due to Zernik's repeated violations of the protective order, Zernik has

24 II continued to willfully violate the Court's Order. On January 25, 2008, Zernik again etnailed

25 II Angelo Mozilo, the Chairman of Countrywide's parent company, Countrywide Financial

26 II Corp., and Sandor Samuels, Countrywide's Chief Legal Officer, accusing Countrywide of
27 II "extensive fraud" with respect to "key documents" produced in response to subpoenas.

28 II (Moldawsky De\=l., ~2, Ex. A.) Zernik referred to his "meet and confer" efforts with

SMOIDOCS6678I6.2 , 4
COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY BRIEF
 1 I Countrywide's counsel and claimed that it was "incredible" that Countrywide does nQt have

2 II additional documents to support Zernik'~; claims of fraud. ad.) Zernik called upon Mozilo

3 II and Samuels to follow their "corporate and persona] code of ethics and finally respond

4 II regarding this ongoing fraud against me." ad.) Despite his knowledge of a Protective Order

5 1\ that has been ini place for over six months, Zernik continues to willfully and deliberately

6 II violate the Order in an attempt to obtain infonYlation regarding Countrywide docum~nts and

7 II to support his claims of fraud. Zernik's harassing tactics are intended to badger Countrywide

8 II officers into prqviding him with additional discovery in a case that has long since been

9 "resolved. Zernik should not be allowed to continue with these blatant violations of the

10 I Court's ruling Without consequence.

11 I IV. Zemik Did Not Timely Serve Coutill:Ywid{~ With His Opposition
to
00 12 Pursuan~ to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005(b), all papers opposing a motion
C')
N
O~
00
C')'<t 13 1

"shall be flied with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days ...
0
Q.<1l
--,~m 1

....J::lCll
Q) C/) 'c 14 1 before the heamg." Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Service of all opposition papers must ''be
> >. 0
roeu~
O;:Cii
",,,0
CIl CIl _ 15 reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not later than the close of
~e~
I1l I1l 'c
00
~:2
16 the next busine~s day." Code Civ. Proc. :~ 1005(c). Countrywide's motion is scheduled to be
CIl
C
III
(f) 17 heard on February 15, 2008. Zernik was to ensure Countrywide's receipt of any opposition

18 papers by the close of business on February 4, 2008. However, Countrywide did not receive a
19 1
copy of Zernik's Opposition until February 6, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. via email (though
1

20 Countrywide ha$ never authorized service by email), and did not receive a hard copy <t>f the

21 Opposition unci) after 4:00 p.m. (Moldawsky DecL, ~3.) Countrywide did not receive a copy

22 of the 98 pages of exhibits in suPPOtt Zernik's Opposition until February 7,2008. ad. at ,-r4.)

23 I
Zernik's failure to comply with his statutory service obligations forced Countrywide t6

24 I prepare and flie its Reply brief in less than 24 hours, and may require Countrywide to flie an

25 additional brief to respond to Zernik's untimely exh~bits. Zernik should not be rewarded for

26 his failure to tirriely serve his Opposition. Accordingly, Zernik's Opposition should not be
27 I considered by die Court and Countrywide's motion should be granted.

28

,­
::>
SMOIDOCS667816.2

COUNTRYWIDE'S RfEPLY BRIEF

 1 II V. Conclusion

2 tI Zernik'~ Opposition largely ignores CountryW'ide's motion and continues to s~ek

3 II discovery where none exists. This case is over, particularly for Countrywide, who was never a

4 I party and fully responded to Zernik's document subpoenas many months ago. Zerntk does

5 I not deny his harassment of Countrywide and its offtc:ers and employees - he only attempts to
6 I justify his outrageous and inappropriate conduct. Zernik's harassment has gone on long

7 I enough without consequence, and it is lime for the Court to step in and enforce its Order.
, I

8 I Accordingly, Countrywide respectfully requests the Court to grant its motion and enforce the

9 IlJuly 23, 2007 protective order against Zernik, sanction Zernik in the amount of$16,1170,

10 I declare that Countrywide has no further obligation to respond to Zernik's harassing

11 I communications, and order that Zernik show cause why he should not be held in contempt of
<!>
<X>
(")
12 II court and sanctioned accordingly.
";I
0"­
00

(La>0
(")'<1"
13 II DATED: February 7, 2008 BRYAN CAVELLP
....J~(j)
....J ::J.~
Q) en E 14 ] ohn WI. Amberg
in ~g ] enna Moldawsky
t)~(ii
cut)
Cll Cll _ 15
2:- ....
0Cll
()
co co 'c
00
16
~::a
~ By C¥A1/NI'f~~
c
Cll
(f)
17 ?t~rllla Moldawsky
Attorneys for

18
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
19
20

21

22

23

24

25
26

27

28
"
SMOIDOCS667816.2 6
COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY BRIEF
 1I PECLARATIONOFJENNAMOLDAWSKY

2 II I, J enna Moldawsky, declare:

3 1. Ii am an attorney licensed to practice law before all the courts of the St~te of
4 UCalifornia. I am an associate in the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP, counsel of record for

5 I Countrywide I-tome Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide"). I have personal knowledge of the Ifacts set

6 II forth in this de~laration, and if called to testify, I could testify competently to such facts.

7 I 2. On
I
January 25,2008, Defendant •Joseph
.
Zernik ("Zernik',) emailed Ahgelo
I
,
8 II Mozilo, the Chairman of Countrywide's parent company, Countrywide Financial Co.t!P., and

9 I Sandor Samuels, Countrywide's Chief Legal Officer, accusing Countrywide of "extensive

10 II fraud" with respect to "key documents." Zernik referred to his "meet and confer" efforts

11 fI with Countrywide's counsel and claimed that it was "incredible" that Countrywide dGes not
<D
ex:>
(')
12 I have additional! documents to support Zernik's claims of fraud. Zernik called upon Mozilo
~
o~
00
(')'1 13 I and Samuels to' follow their "corporate and personal code of ethics and filially respoild
Q.Qlg
:J s.~
E
Ql (/) 14- I regarding this ongoing fraud against me.'" A true and correct copy of Zernik's January 25,
~ ~g
O~rn
e-oO
ro ro • 15 I 2008 email is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
~erl
en I1l 'c
00
~~
16 3. (:)n February 6, 2008, my office received a copy of Zernik's Opposition to
etI
C
ro
(/)
17 I Countrywide'S motion to enforce the protective order and for other relief via email at 1:38

18 I p.m. and received a paper copy of the Opposition after 4:00 p.m. Bryan Cave has never

19 II authorized service by email.

20 4. On February '7, 2008, my office received 98 pages of exhibits in support of

21 II Zernik's Opposition via email.

22 II I declard under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

23 I foregoing is true and correct.

24 I Executed this 7th day of February, 2008, at Santa Monica, California.

25

26 ~~/jA/WA111d~
jinna Moldawsky
27
28
SM01DOCS667816.2 7
COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY BRIEF
" JLI81IH)(3

 joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>

01/25/2008 05:59 AM

To

sa ndor_samuels@countrywide.com, a nge 10_mozilo@countrywide.com

cc

Subject

Mozilo on "corporate" ~nd "personal" ethics ...

2/4/2008

 Page 2 of7

January 25, 2008

Gentlemen:

While browsing a routine search for "countrywide"* and "fraud" I came across the following
web page (attached): .
"Corporate Responsibility" including "A MesSa9(? from the CEO" by Angelo Mozilo.

Countrywide's Code of Business Ethics reflects the company's

eXisting culture and serves as a guide for our directors, officers and
employees in their dally activities. In all of OUI' business practices,
we are committed to doing the right thing. As a result, Countrywide
has a strong reputation for integrity with its customers, business
partners, shareholders and its own employees.

A culture of "corporate" ethics can only be built: on a strong foundation of "personal" ethics;
For this reason, we expect all of our directors, officers and employees to conduct
themselves in a manner that reflects Countrywide's commitment to acting ethically and in
compliance with the I~w. Every director, officer and employee is held accountable for
complying with this Code.

The very nature of our business dictates a high level of respect for the confidentiality and
privacy of customer and business partner information. We are also dedicated to ensuring
the accuracy of our financial reporting and all other documentation that we prepare. We
have strict policies pr<;>hibiting activities that conflict with the interests of Countrywide, our i
shareholders and our ,ability to provide unsurpassed service to our customers.
As Countrywide takes! its place among the foremost diversified financial services providers,
we will continue to se~ the industry standard for excellence and integrity.

Sincerely,
Angelo R. Mozilo
Chairman and CEO
Countrywide Financial: Corporation

This web page and personal message arE~ a perfect match for Mr Samuels "fraud buster"
personal message on the web pages of Bet Tzedek (attached). Unfortunately, those web
pages were hastily removed
I
after I first communicated with the two of you, over half a year
ago. I hope that the Corporate Ethics page would not suffer the same fate.

Beyond the personal message from the President and CEO, this web page includes more
detailed review of Countrywide's code of ethics, and a comrnitment of all officers to abide
by this "corporate" and "personal" Code of Ethics. It further call upon employees to report
suspected illegal or unethical conduct, andl promises to refrain from retaliation for such
reporting.

"Overview
At Countrywide, ethicqll conduct and legal compliance are the foundation for our position of:
industry leadership. Countrywide's ability to maintain its lecldership position requires that
each employee, officer and director exhibit a high level of personal integrity when
interacting with Countrywide customers, business partners, shareholders, and each other.

2/4/2008

 Page 3 of7

Directors, officers and employees must allow honesty, cornman sense and good judgment
to govern their conduct.
As a condition of employment, each officer and employee is expected to comply with this
Code of Business Ethics and will be held accountable if hE~ or she fails to do so. Any
violation of this Code,! or any conduct that violates any law, rule, regulation, or ethical or
professional norm, is kubject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of
employment. Director's, officers and employees are also E~xpected to cooperate fully with
any company audits Qr investigations and to answer all questions fully and truthfully. It is a
violation of company policy to intimidate or impose any other form of retaliation on any
employee who report~ any actual or suspected illegal or unethical conduct (however, an
employee who knowingly makes a false report may be SUbject to discipline).
This Code prov,des the standards of conduct that gUide all directors, officers, and
employees of Countrywide. All of our directors, officers and employees must conduct
themselves appropriately and seek to avoid even the appearance of improper behaVior.
Our Ethics Statement serves as the benchmark by which each of our daily business
decisions should be m~easured and lies at the very core of the Countrywide way of doing
business:
"At Countrywide, ethical standards gUide our business conduct. We act lawfully and
with integrity in our dkalings with our customel"S, business partners, shareholders,
and with each other."

Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations

Countrywide directors, officers and employees are reqUired to comply with all applicable
laws, rules and regula:tions.

The Recording and Reporting of Countrywide Information

At CountryWide, we a~e committed to ensuring that all business-related information is
recorded and reported accurately, honestly and in a timel'y manner. Directors, officers and
employees must ensure that information is reported truthfully and correctly, and also
exercise diligence in e:nsuring that reported information is organized in a way that is
understandable and dges not mislead or misinform those who receive the information. Our
policy relating to accuracy of company records extends to financial statements, loan
documents and servicing records prepared on behalf of our customers, and to information
provided to government employees or officials.
Nowhere is Countrywide's commitment to ethical standards more evident than in how we
communicate our financial position and operational results. We strive to ensure full, fair,
accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports i31t'ld documents that we file with,
or submit to, the Securities and Exchange Commission and in other public communications
made by us. CountryWide officers and employees who prepare financial reports must
exercise the highest diligence in ensuring that there are no false or misleading statements.
We also proVide our officers and employees the means to confidentially, anonymously
report concerns about accounting and auditing matters by calling 1-888-310-6761, which is
operated 24 hours a dpy by operators employed by an independent, third party helpline
prOVider. The independent helpline provider may also be contacted by weblink at
www.tnwinc.com/webreportorbyU.S.maii at Countrywide Ethics, Accounting and Auditing:
Helpline, c/o The Network, 333 Research Court, Norcross, GA 30092.

Unfair Business Practices

I
Countrywide's commitment to high ethical standards in it!':: business practices with
customers, business partners and competitors is reflected in our dedication to candid and
forthright communications about our products and services. Unfair and deceptive business
practi.ces (e.g., the misuse of proprietary information or the misrepresentation of material
facts) are strictly prohibited. CountryWide will engage in responsible lending and other
business practices and; treat all customers fairly, without regard to gender, race, color,

2/4/2008

 Page 4 of7

reli~lion, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or
physical or mental disability.
Antitrust and Anti-Competitive Activities
Countrywide offers its; products and services to customers in compliance with antitrust laws,
which prohibit CountrYwide from entering into any agreement with its competitors to
restrict
the system of free trade by fixing prices, allocatin~J ten'itories or customers or refusing to
provide service to particular customers. Countrywide's customers conduct business with the
Company on the basis of its industry reputation. Our customers choose Countrywide as
their financial service~ provider because of the quality of its services and products. ,
Countrywide and its directors, officers and employees must, at all times, conduct business,
openly and avoid any situation that might even create the appearance that Countrywide ha~
made any agreement that improperly impacts industry prices or the competition.
Confidential and Proprietary Information
Because of the natureiof our business, Countrywide possesses sensitive and confidential
information about our'customers, business pal1ners and thE! Company itself. All directors,
officers and employees have a duty to protect against the disclosure of such information
unless disclosure is authorized and within the law.
With respect to our cu~tomers, who entrust us with confid(~ntial personal and financial
information, Countrywide is committed to safeguarding all such information, including
information gathered ~hrough applications and supporting documents, account information
obtained in the course! of our ongoing relationsl1ips with customers, and information
exchanged through th~ Company's websites.
Similarly, Countrywide's dirE!ctors, officers and emploYE~es may be exposed to proprietary or
otherwise confidential information about a business partner.. Countrywide directors, officersl
and employees accept responsibility for maintaining the confidentiality of confidential
business partner information, neither using it for personal gain nor disclosing the
information to others without proper authorization.
Finally, Countrywide dIrectors, officers and employees may be privy to sensitive and
confidential information about their fellow employees or Countrywide as a whole.
Unauthorized disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited.

Improper Influence
At Countrywide, all cu$tomers and business partners receive the same high level of
assistance and service~ CountryWide directors, officers and employees are strictly
prohibited from giving,: soliciting or accepting business courtesies or gifts intended to
influence business dec,sions. All business decisions are to bE~ made on the basis of the
merit of the transaction and in compliance with any legal and regulatory requirements.
Countrywide also routirely conducts business with a variety of government agencies such
as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,. the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, and a, host of state regulators, local and state bond authorities and others.
What may be acceptable practice in the commercial business environment, such as
prOViding nominal gift~ and hospitality, may be inappropriate when managing relationships
with government empl9yees or those who act on the government's behalf. All directors,
officers and employees must adhere to the relevant laws and regulations governing
relationships with government: customers, employees, and officials. Countrywide directors,
officers and employees: are strictly prohibit(~d from improperly influencing the decisions of,
or obtaining restrictedinforrnation from, government employees or contractors by offering
or promising to give money, gifts, (oans, rewards, favors or anything else of value.
Additionally, Countrywide exercises proper protocol in bidding on all government contracts,
which prohibits the requesting of information from government officials or agents that
would
provide the company with an unfair advantage.

Waivers of Code

2/4/2008
 Yage,) or /

Any waiver of this Code for executive officers or directors may be made only by the Board
of Directors and must be promptly disclosed to shareholders.
Reportin~1 Unethical and Illegal Conduct/Ethics Questions
Countrywide employees are required to report: megal or une~thical conduct to one of the
followin~1:
(1) To confidentially or anonymously report any ethics concern, including concerns about

questionable accounting or auditing matters, employees should contact the Ethics,

Accounting and Auditing Helpline through one of the following methods:

By telephone, at 1-888-310-6761 (staffed 7 days per week, 24 hours per day)

By Weblink, at www.tnwinc.com/webreport:

By U..s. mail, at Countrywide Ethics, Accountin9 and Auditing Helpline, c/o The Network,

333 Research Court, Norcross, GA 30092

(2) To report suspectE1d criminal activity, employees should contact the Fraud Hotline

through one of the following

I
methods:

Phone: (877) CUFRAUD (877-283-7283)

Email: Fraud_Hotline@Countrywide.com

Fax: (805) 955··5888

Mail: Countrywide.sFraudHotline.1757TapoCanyonRoad.Maii Stop SVW-469, Simi

Valley, CA 93063

It is not necessary tha,t employees independently confirm their suspicions before calling the
Fraud Hotline. In addition to reporting suspected criminal actiVity, employees may contact
the Fraud Hotline to ah questions and discuss concerns about potential criminal violations.
Examples of suspicious actiVity that should be reported' to the Fraud Hotline include:
Fraud (e.g. identity theft, mortgage loan fraud, check fraud, wire fraud or credit card
fraud)
Insider abuse such as bribery, embezzlement, misuse of position or self-dealing
Money laundering
Violations of the Bank Secrecy Act
Computer intrusion

(3) To report employment-related concerns (discrimination, harassment, compensation

matters, etc.), employees should contact their Employee Relations representative by calling
the HR Service Center. at 1-866-447-4232.
Countrywide will take reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of any employee who:
makes a non-anonymous report to the Ethics, Accounting and Auditing Helpline, the Fraud
Hotline or Employee Relations.
Similarly, Countrywide will take reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of
employees about or against whom such a report has been made, unless or until it has been
determined that: an actual violation has occurred.

IT IS A VIOLATION OFiCOMPANY POLICY TO INTIMIDATE OR IMPOSE ANY OTHER

FORM OF RETAl.IAnO~ ON AN EMPLOYEE WHO REPORTS ANY ACTUAL OR

SUSPECTED ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL CONDUCT. HOWEVER, AN EMPLOYEE WHO

KNOWINGLY MAKES A FALSE REPORT MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE."

I am writing to you in the spirit of your "corpor-clte" and "personal" Code of Ethics to request

the following:

a) A copy of the said Code of Ethics

b) Is the message in this web page extended also to non employees who wish to report

fraud by Countrywide?

c) Is the message in this web page extended also to guarantee no retaliation against non­

employees who report fraud by Countrywide?

d) Is there any waiver of the code regarding Samaan loan file-?

e) Are the attached follOWing documents indeed products of fraud as I atlege, or am I

misguided in this regard?

2/4/2008
 Page 6 of7

I have reported to the two of you in the past extensive fraud at the San Rafael Branch,
under the management of IVlaria McLaurin. To ensure no plausible deniability, I again attach
here detailed description of the fraud relative to two key documents:

a) an Underwriting Letter purported to be a vaili,d document from October 14, 2004 or mid-
October 2004

b) a Purchase Contract purported to be the product of fax transmission from Parks (State of
Washington) to San Rafael (State of California), which reflects wire/fax fraud against an
individual (Zernik) and also against a financial institution (Countrywide) across state lines.

In Meet and Confer with Att Todd Boock (Legal Department) in early 2007, he claimed that
there were no Internal Audit Report, External Audit Report, Security Report, Imaging
Report, or any other similar reports regarding the Samaan loan applications. Even regarding
Pipeline Report for the! relevant months he claimed that I was requesting non-existing
reports!

I found such claims inc;:redible, since the blatant: violations of banking and other regulations
in this loan file could t)e detected by a child - starting from the double "DATE RECEIVED"
stamps on the 1003 uniform residential loan applications. Moreover, I have reported such to
the Legal Department starting December 2006, and the Legal Department had reviewed the
Loan File as early as Apgust 2006 in conjunction with preparation of my first subpoena
production.

In a later note to Rabbi Bernhardt, it was claimed that thE?re was some report regarding thi$
matter that found my allegations to be with "no merit at all". I would be grateful if you
could prOVide a copy of that report.

In case you decide to (ook into this matter again, I have plenty of additional documents to
substantiate the allegation of wire/fax fraud. In fact, most: of the Samaan loan file is the
product of that schemE;? Moreover, it had to have an insider for a collaborator - most likely
Maria McLaurin herself'. Surely there is no indication of any change in her position as Branch
Manager since 2006.

It is only reasonable that the wire/fax fraud and! other fraud methods detected in this loan
file (there are quite a few of them) were not invented exclusively for Samaan's loan
application. Such were, and probably still are prevalent in the San Rafael Branch, and are
possibly prevalent in other similar branches as well.

Gentlemen, I call upon you to follow your "corporate" and "personal" code of ethics, and
finally respond regardirg this ongoing fraud against me, against the Federal Government,
and against Share Holders and 401(k) benefit plans.

Joseph Zernik

P.5. This note is written in response to the message in the web page, to report suspicions of
wrongdoing. This is not part of any discovery procedure in past, present or future
litigations. This note is also written in an effort to focus investigators at the Office of
California Attorney General and Illinois Attorney General on areas where they are likely to
have significant findings in their ongoing investiqations.

* Countrywide here designates CFC, Inc and/or any of its subdivisions and affiliates, jointly
and/or sE!verally

CC:

2/4/2008
 Pag'e 7 of7

1) Office of California Attorney General Jerry Brown

2) Office of Illinois Attorney General Linda Muli9an

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in and transmitted with this communication is strictly
;;onfidential, is intended only for the use of the intended recipient, and is the property of Country~ide
Financial Corporation or its affiliates and subsidimies. If you are not the intended recipient, you Je
hereby notified that any use ofthe information contained in or transmitted with the communication or
1issemination, distributiob, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have
received this commlmica~ion in error, please immediately retum this communication to the sender: and
1elete the original message and any copy of it in your possession.
=====================-============::::::====~--=========:=::.=====:==========::==::==-=====------===========-==================::;::

2/4/2008
 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I am emPJloyed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age :of 18 and
not a party to the within action. My business address is 120 Broadway, Suite 300, Santa Mo*ica,
3 California 90401-2305.
4
On February 7, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s), described as NON-PAR:TY
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
5 MOTION TQ ENFORCE THE JULY 23, 2007 PROTECTIVE ORDER AG4INST
DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIKAND FOR OTHER RELIEF; DECLARATION
6 OF JENNA MOLDAWSKY, on the interested party(s) in this action, as follows:
7
Moe Keshavarzi, Esq. Joseph Zernik
8 Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP 2415 Saint George Street
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor Los Feliz, California 90027
9 Los Angeles, CA, 90071-1448 JZ12345@earthlink.nct
FacsUnile: 213-620-1398
10
tnkcshavarzl(a~sheppardtnullin.cotn

11 Robert J. Shulkin, Esq.

David J. Pastern~k
Legal Department I
<D
co
C0
12 Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton, LLP Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage <Company
o~
";l
1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 11 (i'11 San Vicente Boulevard, 9th floor
00
C0'<t 13 I
Los Angeles, California 90067-2523 Los Angeles, CA 90049
0..0)0
--.J .~ 0'> I

---'
0) (f)
::J
·c
'"
14 Telephone: 310-553-1500 Facsilnile: 310-447-1902
> >. a FacsunDe: 310-553-1540 robcrr.shulkin@camoves.com
o~~
cuU 15 dip@paslav;.com
'">. '"
~
0
~
rn-
0
OJ OJ ·c
00
~::2
16
'"
C
'" 17 o ~Y MAIL) I placed a true copy of the foregoing document in a sealed envelope
(f)
addressed to each interested party as set forth above. I placed each such envelope, with post~ge
18 thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, California. I am
readily familiar wIth Bryan Cave LLP's practice for collection and processing of corresponde~ce for
19 mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the correspondence woulal be
deposited in the 10nited States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business.
20
[8J (BY OVERNITE EXPRESS) I deposited in a box or other facility maintained by
21 Overnite Express, an express carrier service, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by said
express carrier se~ice to receive documents, a true copy (or original) of the foregoing document, in
22
an envelope designated by said express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided fon
23
Executed on February 7, 2008, at Santa Monica, California.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
25 and the State of:Califomia that the foregoing is tme and correct.
26
27
C-
28
SMO I DOCS667816.2

COUNTRYWIDE·S REPLY BRIEF