Discovering, archiving, and disseminating knowledge regarding abuse of the People by governments and corporations in the Medieval Digital Era//
גילוי, ארכיבאות, והפצת מידע על התעללות בציבור על ידי ממשלות ותאגידים בימי הביניים הדיגיטליים
NOTICE OF SUGGESTION DESIGNATE COUNTRYWIDE* AS JUDGE IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK Countrywide here designates CFC, Inc and/or any and all of its subsidiaries and affiliates jointly and/or severally
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, Please also take notice of the following suggested stipulation:
WHEREAS, Sustain Case History pages #1, 194, 195, 196 include the following designations for Countrywide: a) Real Parties in Interest b) Person in Interest c) Defendant d) Cross Complainant e) Non-Party f) Intervenor;
WHEREAS, on Sept 10, 2007 Judge Jacqueline Connor was disqualified pursuant to filing per CCP §170.3, with claims largely hinging upon obstruction of justice to benefit Countrywide;
WHEREAS, since Sept 10, 2007, through case transfers among a number of judges, Defendant and Cross-Complainant has never been noticed of any Order by Supervising Judge of Re-assignment of the case;
WHEREAS, no Re-Assignment Order dated later than Sept 10, 2007 is to be found on file;
NOW THEREFORE, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Zernik is respectfully submitting that the following suggestion at least be contemplated:
DESIGNATE COUNTRYWIDE AS JUDGE!
Exhibit A is true and correct copy of pages 1, 194, 195, 196 of Sustain Case History, as received from the Clerk’s Office on Dec 31, 2007.
Sustain Audit data still missing, out of compliance with the law!
DATED: Jan 3, 2008
_____________________________________ JOSEPH ZERNIK DEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT in pro per
COMMENT: The note on page 1, designating Countrywide as "Real Parties of Interest" and dated "7/24/04", was in fact entered into the system on 7/24/07 by Department "I" of LA Superior Court, where Judge Connor is Presiding Judge. In and of itself this note shows: a) That Sustain, the Court's Official Case Management System is unsafe and unreliable. b) That the Court held the know-how for posting retroactively dated, invalid data in Sustain, which should never have been allowed in such a system in the first place, if properly built and managed. c) That the Court in fact engaged in posting retroactively dated, invalid data in Sustain in Samaan v Zernik