Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik,
email=jz12345@
-I· earthlink.net,
]]\: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217) c=US
Date: 2009.02.28
DECLARAnON OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION 16:29:41 -08'00'

28
Joseph Zernik )
in pro per ) 27
2415 Saint Georae Street )
Los Angeles. California 90027 ) 26
reI: 310-435-9107 )
Fax: 801-998-0917 ) 25
IEmail: j712345((~eacthJink.net ~ ------------------------------­

Defendants 24
)
) 23
) B K DARWISH ET AL. individuals.
) 22
i ) v.

Plaintiff. ~ 21
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(SC060217) MANOUCHEHR CiALDJIE. an individual ) 20
q
DERWISH \' DARWISH ET AL FOR TI-I E COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
B. (SC SC(52737) & line!. (SC0602--1-7)--­ ~
& 19
) 10 In re: Dt' .lernik·s AI egations of Widespread ) Case # (SC087400),
) (SC SC052737) Defendants.
II Corruptiun at the LA Count) Superior Court &) Case # (SC052737) inel. (SC060217) 18
~
) GALDJIE ET AL \' DARWISH ET AL JOSEPH ITRN IK. all individual.
) Racketeering by Judges in Collusion with 17
) 12
IN RE: 1)laintiffs and Counsel. under the Guise of Real) No I'(I/id Assigmnenl On Fileti)1' (/Ill' ojlhese
v.
) I)ropert\ t:cjuitv. Ri!..!,'lts Liti!"!'ations.
KRAMAR DARWISH
)) ( ·([ses. Dr Lernik heliel'cs rhal Ihey (lrc all ill
16
13 ,
) DECLARATION OF BARBARA ~ ~
Plaintitl:
fi/el NOlv'-( ASES
~ ) NIVIE SAMAAN. all individual. 15
14 )
A. fSC(87400) ) A. fSC087400)
) 14
15 NIVIE SAMAAN. all individual. )
DECLARATION OF BARBARA
(act NOlv-C 'ASE.\. ) -------------------------
Plaintitl: ) 13
)) C ·([ses. DI' Lernik helien's Ihot they ol'e all in
16 ) I)ropert\. t~(luit\. Ri!!'ltS Litigations.
~

KRAMAR DARWISH
~

\. ) IN RE:
1)laintiffs and Counsel. under the Guise of Real) No Valid Assignment On File/;II' {/Ill' of these 12
17
Racketeering by Jud~:es in Collusion with ~ )
JOSEPH IERNIK. an individual, ) GALDJlE ET AL \' DARWISH ET AL 11
18
Corruption at the LA Count) Superior Coul1 &) Case # (SC052737) incl. (SC060217)
Defendants. ) (SC SC052737)
In re: Dt' Zernik's AI egations of Widespread ) Case # (SC087400).
)
19 ---------:-------------- )
& 10

B. (SC S(052737) & line!. (SC060217)

FOR THE COljNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) DERWISH \' DARWISH ET AL 9
20 MANOUCHEHR CiALDJIE. an individual ) (SC060217)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
21 Plainti ff. ) 8
)
v. )
22 )
B K DARWISH ET AL. individuals. ) (-,
23 )
Defendants )
24
25
~) Email: jzI2345 1(vea:thlink.net
80 1·998-091 7 Fax:
4

) reI: 310-435-9107 :'

26 ) Los Angeles. CaTifornia 90027
) 2415 Saint Georae Street ~

27 ) in pro per
-,

) Joseph Zernik
28
DECLARAnON OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITlGATlON
)]\: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
-1-
 IN: GALDJI!: V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
DECLARATION OF RARHARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
----~----------
-2-
deliberately misleading. 28
kinds of information. sometimes true and helpful. and sometimes false and 27
2 DECLARATION OF BARBARI'\ KRAMAR DARWISH

en'.ails. phone calls from people that he did not know. and such people ga\\.:: him all 26
3
IN RE: A PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH DR JOSEPH ZERNIK

fill' never received any response. He said that he had a number of anonymous ktters.
ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2009, AND SUNDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2009, IN RE: 25
4 REAL PROPERTY LITIGATIONS AT THE LA SIJPERIOR COURT
He said he emai led back to the sender. thanking her, and asking who she was. but so 4)
2.+
5 GALDJIE ET AL v DARWISH ET AL (SC SC052737)

and it said that she hoped It would be of help.

6
&

speak with these people. and it provided their address and phone numbers. sl~l:king to
DER\VISH v DARWISH ET AL (SC060217)
'")')
7

whom he had never emailed before. and the email said that she was a\\are that he \\as 21
8 10
I. BARE3ARA KRA \~AR DARWISH. hereby declare as follows.
come from a woman whose name he did not recognize. and with that appeared 20
9 I was a Defendant in Galdjie v Darwish et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.
at least haIfa year. but had no luck. Then today. in the afternoon. he receivecl an email 19
10 SCOS273 7. As such. I have personal knowledge orthe facts set forth herein. which I know to
Dr Zernik then told me that he had been trying to reach me or Mr David Darwish for 3)
18
11 he true and correct ard. ifcalled as a witness. I could and would competently testify with
he \\as calling me. 17
12 respecllhereto. This declaration i~ submitted in response to a request by Dr Joseph /ernik:
looking Icw an orthodontist either. I asked him how he got m) phone number and why 16
13 I) 01"1 Friday. February 6. 2009 in the evening. I received an unexpected phone call from
2) I \\;as surprised by the phone calL because 1 had never heard his name. and I \\as not 15
14 a person who represented himself as Dr Joseph Zernik. a practicing orthodontist.
a person who represented himself as Dr Joseph Zernik. a practicing orthodontist. 14
15 2) I was surprised by the phone call. because I had never heard his name. and I was not
I) Orl Friday. Fehruary 6. 2009 in the evening. I received an unexpected phune call from 13
16 looking for an orthodontist either. 1asked him how he got my phone number and why
submitted in response to a request by Dr Joseph /ernik: i~ respect thereto. This declaration 12
17 he was calling me.
be true and correct ard. ifcalled as a witness. [could and vvould comretently testity with 11
18 3) Dr Zernik then told me that he had been trying to reach me or Mr David Darwish for
SC05273 7. As such. [ have personal knowledge orthe facts set forth herein. which I know to 10
19 at least half a ~!ear. but had no luck. Then today. in the afternoon. he receivecl an email
I was a Defendant in Galdjie v Darwish et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 9
20 that appeared 10 come from a woman whose name he did not recognize. and with
I. BARE3ARA KRA \1AR DARWISH. hereby declare as follows. 8
21 whom he had never emailed before. and the email said that she was av\are that he \\<ls 7
i/
,;..~
DER\VISH v DARWISH ET AL (SC060217)
sl~cking to speak with these people. and it provided their address and phone numbers.
& 6
23 and it said that she hoped It would be of help.
GALDJIE ET AL v DARWISH ET AL (SC SC052737) 5
24 4) He said he emai led back to the sender. thanking her. and asking who she was. but so
REAL PROPERTY LITIGATIONS AT THE LA SIJPERIOR COURT 4
25
ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2009, AND SUNDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2009, IN RE:
1:11' never received any response. He said that he had a number of anonymou:.; ktters. 3
IN RE: A PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH DR JOSEPH ZERNIK
26 en-.ails. phone calls from people that he did not know. and such people
DECLARATION OF BARBAR4 KRAMAR DARWISH ga\C him all
27 kinds of inforrnation, sometimes true and helpful. and sometimes talse and
28 de Iiberalely misleading.
-2­
-----~-------------
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
IN: GALDJI!: V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
 IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
----------------
-3-
Mr Galdjie is not doing with it anything. it was just sitting there. 28
5) First we talked about what happened during the underlying real estate transaction. It
had bad luck in that case. But the property was in such a run down situation. and now 27
L
a). we Cl\\ turned out that it was almost identical cases. In both cases there was a Buyer who was
attorneys \'iere not prepared. had health problems. an expert \\ itness passed 2E
really not qua ified. in both cases the Buyer misrepresented to the Seller that he/she
He asked me what happened in the litigation. I told him that it was complicated. some 9) 25
4 was qualified. In both cases the Buyer then failed to get the loans approved. In both
gOll1g on. 24
" cases the Seller waited for a while. then gave notice and cancelled escrow. In both
against Defendant. and Defendant was the only one who did not know what was 23
6 cases. the Buyer then claimed a dispute and claimed that there was an oral
attorneys. and the court itself. a situation where all of these people were colluding 22
modification of the contract. and that the Seller promised the Buyer that the Buyer
victim of a much more comprehensive fraud -- one that could involve judges and 21
8 was not bound by the time frames that were written in the contract and the Buyer
S) Dr Zernik answered that he was trying to investigate the possibility that I was the 2C
9 could take his/her time. It was really surprising. it looked like it was done l'rom a
I told him that I knew that Galdjie was lying in court. 7) IS
I (I scri pt. cases of I'raud on the Defendants. 18
II 6) Dr Zernik then asked me some questions regarding the litigation in Galdjie v Darwish
Samaan v Zernik may have a lot in common. He said that both appeared to him as 17
12 et al. It was obvious that he had some knowledge of the case. However. he told me
record. He said that he believed that the Case ofGaldjie v Darwish and his case. IE
13 that his know ledge was exclusively from some computer printout. and the printout
prll1tout was fdse and deliberately misleading. although he said that it was some court 15
14 was in many places confusing. He said that it was also possible that the computer
was in many places confusing. He said that it was also possible that the computer 14
15 prll1tout was fdse and deliberately misleading. although he said that it was some court
lhat his know ledge was exclusively from some computer printout. and the printout 13
IE record. He said that he believed that the Case ofGaldjie v Darwish and his case.
et al. It was obvious that he had some knowledge of the case. However. he told me 12
17 Samaan v Zernik may have a lot in common. He said that both appeared to him as
Dr Zernik then asked me some questions regarding the litigation in Galdjie v Darwish 6) II
18 cases of l'raud on the Defendants. scri pt. 1C'
IS 7) I told him that I knew that Galdjie was lying in court.
could take his/her time. It was really surprising. it looked like it was done from a
2C S) Dr Zernik answered that he was trying to investigate the possibility that I was the
was not bound by the time frames that were written in the contract and the Buyer
21 victim of a mllch more comprehensive fraud -­ one that could involve judges and
modification of the contract. and that the Seller promised the Buyer that the Buyer
22 attorneys. and the court itself. a situation where all of these people were colluding
cases. the Buyer then claimed a dispute and claimed that there was an oral
23 against Defendant. and Defendant was the only one who did not know what was
cases the Seller waited for a while. then gave notice and cancelled escrow. In both
24 gOll1g on.
was qualified. In both cases the Buyer then failed to get the loans approved. In both 4
25 9) He asked me what happened in the litigation. I told him that it was complicated. some
really not qua ified. in both cases the Buyer misrepresented to the Seller that he/she
2E attorneys \'iere not prepared. had health problems. an expert \\ itness passed (1\\ ay. we
L
turned out that it was almost identical cases. In both cases there was a Buyer who was
27 had bad luck in that case. But the property was in such a run down situation. and now
First we talked about what happened during the underlying real estate transaction. It 5)
28 Mr Galdjie is not doing with it anything. it was just sitting there.
-3­
---------------­
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
 IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
-------------------------
-4-
10)01' Zernik then asked me why the case was heard by so many judges. I did not know
is still going. and could also go on forever.
2 that there were many judges who heard the case. He started reading to me the names:
2U06. That \\as an extremely unusual case. He said that his case started in 2005. and
3 a) Alan Haber. b) Roben M. Letteau. c) David B. Finkel. d) John Reid. c) Candance
12) I-Ie al so noted that the case started in 1998 and continued a 11 the way ti II the end of 2b
4 D. Cooper. f) Paul Ci. Flynn. g) Patricia Collins. h) "Retired Judge". i) "Muni Judge".
refused to do so. 2:;
5 j) Julius Title. k) John L Segal. Moreover. not only did some 10 judges hear the case.
demanded that Assignment Order be issued to the judges. But the court always
6 but they wen~ coming and going, so that they did not hear the case continuously.
RDsenberg. and also wrote to the Presiding Judge of the Court. Stephen Czuleger. and _.\
)'
7 Moreover. it looked to him unusual that the name of the Judge who actually tried the
Order. Dr Zernik said that he also appeared before the Supervising Judge. (Jerald
8 case did not appear in the Register of Actions. instead it said once "Muni Judgc" and
Dr Zernik said that he routinely demanded that Judge Friedman obtain an Assignment 21
9 another time "Retired Judge". He thought one of them may also bc the samc as
FI'iedman tor over a year. and Dr Zernik appeared a few times before Judge Friedman. 2)
10 Julius Title. Beyond thall. he said that one of the things that was of great concern to
Assignment Order. The court file in Dr Zernik's case was now held by Terry I)
11 him in his case. was that there really was no Assignment Order to any of these judges.
Dr Zernik said that he discovered that none of the judges in his case had an I~
12 it was as if they were doing it off duty. and he said that it appeared the same in m)
David Pasternak. who was the receiver in our case was also the receiver in his case. 17
13 case.
Segal. f) Lisa Hal1-Cole. g) Patricia Collins. h) Terry Friedman. lie said also that \6
14 11 )Dr Zernik told me that it was similar in his case. The judges in his case included: a)
R. NeidorlT b) Jacqueline Connor. c) Allan Goodman. d) Joseph Biderman. e) John 15
15 R. NeiclorfL b) Jacqueline Connor. c) Allan Goodman. eI) Joseph Bielerman. e) John
] I )Dr Zernik told me that it was similar in his case. Thejudges in his case included: a) 14
16 Segal. !) Lisa Hart-Cole. g) Patricia Collins. h) Terry Friedman. lie said also that
case. 13
17 David Pasternak. who was the receiver in our case was also the receiver in his casc.
it was as if they were doing it off duty. and he said that it appeared the same in my 12
18 Dr Zernik said that he discovered that none of the judgcs in his casc had an
him in his case. was that there really was no Assignment Order to any ol'these judges. II
19 Assignment Order. The court file in Dr Zernik's case was now held by Terry
Julius Title. Beyond thail. he said that one of the things that was of great concern to 10
2) FI'iedman for over a year. and Dr Zernik appeared a few times before Judge Friedman.
another time "Retired Judge". He thought one ofthelll may also be the same as 9
21 Dr Zernik said that he routinely demanded that Judge Friedman obtain an Assignment
case did not appear in the Register of Actions. instead it said once "Muni Judge" and 8
T)
Order. Dr Zernik said that he also appeared before the Supervising Judge. (Jerald
Moreover. it looked to him unusual that the name of the Judge who actually tried the 7
'),
.;.. ) Rosenberg. and also wrote to the Presiding Judge of the COLll1. Stephen Czuleger. and
but they wer,: coming and going, so that they did not hear the case continuously. 6
24 demanded thelt Assignment Order be issued to the judges. But the court always
j) Julius Title. k) John L Segal. Moreover. not only did some 10 judges hear the case. 5
2:; refused to do so.
D. Cooper. f) Paul Ci. Flynn. g) Patricia Col1ins. h) "Retired Judge"'. i) "Muni Judge". 4
2() 12) H~ also noted that the case stat1ed in 1998 and continued a II the way ti II the end of
a) Alan Haber. b) Robert M. Letteau. c) David B. Finkel. d) John Reid. e) Candance 3
2'7 2006. That \'vas an extremely unusual case. He said that his case started in 2005. and
that there were many judges who heard the case. He started reading to me the names: 2
28 is still going. and could also go on forever.
1O)Dr Zernik then asked me why the case was heard by so many judges. I did not know
-4­
-----~---------------------
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
 IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
---------------
-5-
28
13)1 could not understand what exactly he was talking about.
incorrectly registered - they do not write the disqualification in a valid way or a way 27
J II 14)1 told Dr Zern ik that 1 felt that my attorney Mr Ezer would be able to explain the case
200 1. Howewr. he said that he noticed in several files. that usually that procedure is 26
3 II to him. Dr Zernik told me that he actually did call that morning Mr Ezer. since he
that he could see that there was something of that nature around October-November 25
4 II W~IS seeking an attorney that could help him. 1 then asked what Mr Ezer told him. Dr
judge. that means that there was a reason. or a cause for that action. Dr Zernik said 24
5 II lcrnik said th;]t when he asked Mr Ezer why so many judges vvere involved. Mr Ezer
if in the middle: of the litigation one of the sides starts a procedure to replace the 23
6 II gave him som~: explanations. But Dr Zernik said that when he asked Mr Ezer how
one of the sides decides that they do not like the judge. that is not such a big deal. But 22
7 II could it be that none ofthcm had an assignment order. Mr Ezer hung up on him
what he mean1 by that. He said that if at the very first time that the judge gets the case 21
8 II i mmed iate Iy.
17)Dr Zernik then asked me ifthere was a Disqualification in my case. [was not sure 20
9 II 151 Dr Zerni k ashd me about the Demurrer in Derwish v Darwish. on May 4. 2000.
recs". or "Filing Fees". 19
10 II which vvas heard by Judge Patricia Collins. I did not know much about that. He said
Entries". but in cases that are written correctly. the payments are clelinecl as "Cuurt 18
I I II that he was no1 an attorney. he was just looking at the way it was written in the
16) He also to Id rt; I~ that in both of these cases. all the payments are Iisted as ".lourna I I7
12 II computer file. and it looks like there was some dishonesty about the way it was
secretly cancelled - Disposed - it. 16
13 II written. it looked like it was cancelled - "Disposed" - after the fact by the judge.
thing in his Demurrer. Two years after the fact he found out that Judge Connor 15
14 II Judge CJllim,. but she never told the parties about it. He said it \\as exact I) the same
.ludge C'Jllim" but she never told the parties about it. He said it \\as c:-..actl: the "ame 14
15 II thing in his Demurrer. Two years after the fact he found out that Judge Connor
\\ritten. it looked like it was cancelled - "Disposed" - after the fact b) the .iudge. 13
16 II secretly cancelled - Disposed - it.
computer file. and it looks like there was some dishonesty about the way it was 12
17 II, 16)~k' also told rr;l~ that in both of these cases. all the payments are listed as "Journal
that he was no1 an attorney. he was just looking at the way it was written in the II
18 II Entries", but illl cases that are written correctly. the payments arc defined as "Court
which \\as heard by Judge Patricia Collins. I did not know much about that. He said 10
19 II ~ecs". or "Filing Fees".
15) Dr Zerni k askl~d me about the Demurrer in Derwish v Darwish. on Ma: 4,2000. 9
20 II 17)Dr Zernik then asked me if there was a Disqualification in my case. [was not sure
immediately. 8
21 II what he meal'll by that. He said that if at the very first time that the judge gets the case
could it be that none ofthcm had an assignment order. Mr Ezer hung up on him 7
22 II one of the sides decides that they do not like the judge. that is not such a big deal. But
explanations. But Dr Zernik said that when he asked Mr Fzer how som~' gave him 6
23 II if in the middl(~ of the litigation one of the sides starts a procedure to replace the
Zcrnik said th;1t \\hen he asked Mr Ezer why so many judges \\ere involved, Mr Ezer 5
24 II judge. that means that there was a reason, or a cause for that action. Dr Zernik said
was seeking an attorney that could help him. I then asked what Mr Ezer told him. Dr 4
25 II that he could see that there was something of that nature around October-November
to him. Dr Zernik told me: that he actually did call that morning Mr Ezer. since he 3
26 II 200 I. Howewr. he said that he noticed in several files. that usually that procedure is
14li told Dr Zern i,k that I felt that my attorney Mr Ezer would be able to explain the case 2
27 II incorrectly registered - they do not write the disqualification in a valid way or a way
13)( could not understand what exactly he was talking about.
28
-5­
-------------------
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
 IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
---'-----------
-6-
28
that can be easily understood. In this case. he said that the writing simply did not
BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH
) II make sense.
, 2E
.)
18)Dr Zernik said that he tried several times to get to see the paper couri file in Cialdjie v 2S
'l
)
Darwish. but could not get to see it. He said that by age. it had to be in the archive.
Signed here. in Los Angeles. California. Februarv ,}D. 2009.
but it was not there. The archive told him that some cases. Santa Monica decided not
l)
submitt~:d. Respectfully
to send to the archive. and they keep them in the basement in Santa Monica. He tried
'7
to see it in Santa Monica. but was never allowed yet.
g 22)1 could not understand at all what he was talking about.
()
19)Dr Zernik said that he was interested in that disqualification because he was trying to 20
that I did not 'Nant it.
tigure out wlEtt happened with the trial. why we never had a jury trial. On lhat issue I I (I
10 Instructions. but I decided .lUI') Willing. and able. and that my attorney in f:.lct filed
actually knev, the answer. I told him that my attorney at the beginning orthe case. I ~:
II entitled to a Jury Trial. the opposite. it is written as if the Jury was waiting - read).
Att Rhonda \Valker. explained to me that the case was of Equity Rights. and I ~'
I :~ 2\ )For example. he told me that in my case. the way it is vvritten is not that I was not
" therefore. there would be no Jury Trial. 16
I ," more it did net make sense at all.
20)])1' 7ernik said that his first attorney told him exactly the same thing. but Dr lernik IS
14
not sure. he was not an attorney, but the more he was try ing to figure i L out. the \\ ,.IS
vV;.\S not sure. he was not an attorney, but the more he was try ing to figure il out. the 14
IS Zernik said that his first attorney told him exactly the same thing. but Dr lernik 2(1)])1'
mDre it did net make sense at all.
16
I ."',
thercfore. there would be no Jury Trial.
21 )For example. he told me that in my case. the way it is written is not that I was not
17 Att Rhonda \Valker. explained to me that the case was of Equity Rights. and
entitled to a Jury Trial. the opposite. it is written as if the Jury was waiting - ready. 11
I ~:actually kne\\ the answer. I told him that my attorney at the beginning of the case,
will ing. and a ble. and that my attorney in bet li led Jury Instructions. but I dec ided 10
19
tigure out wlEtt happened with the trial. why we never had ajur) trial. Onlhat issue I
that I did not 'Nant it. l)
10
19)01' Zernik said that he was interested in that disqualification because he was trying to
22)1 could not understand at all what he was talking about.
21 to see it in Santa Monica. but was never allowed yet.
'7
2=
to send to the archive. and they keep them in the basement in Santa Monica. He tried
Respectfully subll1itt~:d.
2:
but it \\ as not there. The arch ive to Id him that some cases. Santa Man ica dec ided not
Signed here. in Los Angeles. California. February cl°. 2009.
24
Darwish. but could not get to see it. He said that by age. it had to be in the archive.
2S
18)01' Zernik said that he tried several times to get to see the paper coul1 file in Galdjie v
26
--
2i
/·if~~~ make sense. )
BARBARA KRAMAR DARWISH
that can be easily understood. In this case. he said that the writing simply did not
28
-6-
--_._-----------
DECLARATION OF BARBARA DARWISH RE: REAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
IN: GALDJIE V DARWISH (SC SC052737) & DERWISH V DARWISH (SC060217)