Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel
Fax: 077-3179186

"
6133301 ",33407 "
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org

2016-03-22 Kenan v Cohen (11466-01-16) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court

records in Net-HaMishpat IT system office of the clerk //
-( " 11466-01-16)

Zion Kenan, Bank HaPoalim CEO is routinely greeted by "Thief, Thief" calls. Attorney Barak Cohen,
leader of "Meet the Banksters" protest group.

Efrat Busani's judicial conduct in a matter, where she redefined Freedom of Expression in
Israel, and her record keeping appear erratic. However, their outcome is consistent denying public and party access to records, and undermining due process... The records
demonstrate judicial process in an incompetent court, where judges pervert the records as
they please... The records also again demonstrate the fundamental fraud in development
and operation of Net-HaMishpat. Production of vague and ambiguous court records is wellknown worldwide as a hallmark of crooked judges... And the affinity of crooked judges and
banksters is also well-known worldwide for generations...
" ,
."
... ,
...
- ...-
, ...
...

1/10

Figure 1: In open court Judge Busani declared on February 4, 2016 that the court file was not
sealed, but she did not know how to set it in the system... an incredible statement for a judge...
There is no lawful sealing decision in the court file, but attempts to access the court file through
Net-HaMishpat public access system to this date (2016-05-04) prompt the message: The user is
not permitted to view this court file.
,,2016,4:1
......
:,(20160504),
.

Figure 2: February 4, 2016 Decision in the Protocol states in paragraph 8, The Protocol and
Decision are Open to the Public (there is no judicial decision in the file that the file is lawfully
sealed), but the record itself is marked Closed Doors...
"",2016,04"""":2
,.()
...""

2/10

Figure 3: The January 09, 2016 Decision by Judge Efrat Busani (1st decision in the Decisions
Docket), was replaced by a scanned, hand-written scanned page saying error. There is no
indication under whose authority such change was applied, or when.
("")2016,09:3
,.",
.

Figure 4: The Decisions Docket tab lists 2 decisions on January 9, 2016. There is no indication
that one of them was lawfully deleted from the system, under whose authority, and when. There
also is no way to ascertain which one of the two was served on the parties.
.2016,9"":4
,.,,"",
.

3/10

Figure 5: Service tab The January 30, 2016 Post-it Decision - setting hearing for February 4 was not served at
all. Petitioner's counsel statements in court lead to the conclusion that he set the hearing
to match his client's schedule. Respondent's statement in the Protocol indicate that he
learned about the hearing by chance on the same morning. Petitioner's counsel
statements indicate that he begrudged the fact that the public knew about the hearing,
which was conducted in open doors.
The February 13 and February 25 Post-it Decisions on request to inspect were never
served on the Requester1, and the system denied public access, so that he could not
know of their existence...
"":5
.42016,30" "
".","
.
.
, 2513" "
,()
.

4/10

Figure 6: Judge Busani's Court Calendar for February 4, 2016 fails to show the hearing in
Kenan v Cohen to this date. On the contrary, it shows a hearing in another case at 1:30pm on
that date...
.,2016,4"":6
...1:30,

Table 1: Decisions and their service, compiled from Decisions Docket and Service
tab.
" " " ":1 '
# Decision

Service

1.

2016-01-09 Error

2016-01-10 service listed on both parties,

" unknown whether for decision #1 or #2???
,
??? 2 ' 1'

2.

2016-01-09 ordering Respondent to

2016-01-10 service listed on both parties,
respond on the Petition, Temporary
unknown whether for decision #1 or #2???
Restraining Order extended.
,
,
??? 2 ' 1'
.

3.

2016-01-17 refuting Respondent claim

2016-01-17 service listed on both parties.
that extension of Restraining Order was
.
with no authority.
,
.

4.

2016-01-23 granted extension for

2016-01-25 service on Respondent only.
Petitioner's reply.

.
.

5.

2016-01-30 setting hearing for February

4, 2016.

6.

2016-02-05 decision #1 in protocol

Not served on either party. The protocol states:
. 1 ' rendered and noticed in presence of parties.
However, since the protocol was signed on
February 5, while the hearing was held on
February 4, there is no way to ascertain,
whether the decisions, as written, are the same
as stated in open court.
: .
.""
04 , 05
, , , ,
.

7.

2016-02-05 decision #2 in protocol

Same as above.
. 2 '

8.

2016-02-13 decision on request to

2016-02-14 served on both parties, but not on
inspect
the Requester1 (inspect).
.
,
.

Not served on either party. Respondent Cohen

indeed stated that he did not know of the
hearing until he heard about it by chance on the
same morning. On the other hand, it was
apparent from petitioner's counsel that he set
the hearing date to suit his client, who returned
from abroad on the previous night.
.
.2016 , 04
.
,
. ",

5/10

."

9.

2016-02-20 change of Petitioner's

2016-02-21 served on both parties.
counsel.
.
.

10 2016-02-25 decision on request to

2016-02-25 served on both parties, but never
.
inspect, purporting that the 2016-02-04
served on the Requester of Inspection.
Protocol and Decisions are open to the
public.
,
. ,
. 2016-02-04
Notes:
1) Service on Petitioner electronic, service on Respondent by certified mail. No service at all is
listed for Requester of Inspection (received the decisions eventually by online chat).
2) No way to ascertain which of the two 2016-01-09 decisions was served on the parties.

_______
OccupyTLV,May4CEOofBankHaPoalim,thelargestbankinIsrael,ZionKenanrequested
anewrestrainingorderagainstAttorneyBarakCohenasocialprotestactivist.Theoriginal
restrainingorder,whichhadexpired,wasissuedbyJudgeEfratBusaniunderadubious
process,andwasdescribedbymediaredefiningFreedomofExpressioninIsrael.
Inahearinginopencourt,AttorneyCohenexplainedthatheheardaboutthehearingby
chance,whenhecametocourtonthesamemorningforanotherpurpose...Ontheother
hand,itbecameapparentthatthehearingwassetbyKenan'scounseltosuitthescheduleof
hisclient,whoreturnedfromabroadonthepreviousnight,andthathewasunhappythat
thepublic,whichasusualreceivedKenanwithThief,Thiefcalls,learnedaboutconductof
thehearingonthatday...
Inopencourt,JudgeBusanistatedthatthecourtfilewasnotsealed,butshedidn'tknow
howtoimplementitinthesystem...anincrediblestatementbyajudge,ifcompetent...
PublicaccesstotherecordsinNetHaMishpatITsystemofthecourtisblockedtothis
date,butthereisnolawfulsealingdecisioninthecourtfile.Ontheotherhand,thereisa
writtendecision,statingthattheFebruary4,2016protocolanddecisionareopentothe
public.However,theverysamerecordismarkedClosedDoors...
Allthepostitdecisions,includingtheonethatextendsarestrainingorder,whichhad
expired,areunsigned.AsexplainedbyOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary,thereisnowayforthe
publicandpartiestoascertainthattheprotocol,bearingagraphicsignature,isalawfully
signed,validcourtrecord,oronlyadraft(fabricatedcourtrecord),either...
Decisions,pertainingtotherequesttoinspect,wereneverservedontheRequesterof
Inspection,andsincepublicaccesstothecourtfileisblocked,hecouldnotviewthemor
knowoftheirexistence.
Therecordsdemonstratejudicialprocessinanincompetentcourtwherejudgesperert
courtrecordsastheyplease...Therecordsalsoagaindemonstratethefundamentalfraudin
developmentandoperationofNetHaMishpat.Productionofvagueandambiguouscourt
recordsiswellknownworldwideasahallmarkofcrookedjudges...Andtheaffinityof
crookedjudgesandbankstersisalsowellknownworldwideforgenerations...
FullcopyoftheelectroniccourtfileinNetHaMishpatOfficeoftheClerk'sterminal,is
providedinthelinkbelow.

6/10

" 4 , -" ,
," . ,
, ," -
".
," ,
... ,
, ," . ,
, , ,.
, ,
... , ...
- , .
4" ,"
"...
"" , , .
, ,
,"" , ,""
)(...
,
,.

...
-...
-
... , ...
_____
Table 2: Index of court records discovered in inspection
':2
Page
#
1

Record

General details

1.

Sealing: Sealed to the public, open to the parties
: ,
Parties

2.

Joseph Zernik Requester1

Note: Requester of inspection
Counsel

3.

Requester's Counsel: Maya Liquernik
Note: Incorrect counsel listing. Kenan was represented by a large law firm Zellermayer,
Pelossof, Rosovsky, and Co, and several attorneys from the law firm appeared. However, the
law firm is not listed, as required by law. A different attorney from the law firm filed the
commencing record and appeared in court.
: " , ." .
.
Non-party appearances

Case Calendar

7/10

4.

February 2, 2016 1:30

5.

Pleadings

Petition (commencing record)

Notes:
1) The request cites numerous times where the respondent called Kenan Thief.
2) The affidavit by the Petitioner cites mostly Facebook posting, and the responses to them
by the public, claiming that he is afraid that they would lead to physical violence against him
and his family.
3) p 18 - Among the exhibits is the June 25, 2015 Restraining Order in related court file
(35113-06-15). It is marked sealed, although it was widely published. It is not certified
True Copy of the Original.
4) Other exhibits are posts and videos from Facebook.
5) p 31 - Another exhibit Restraining Order issued against Cohen by CEO of Bank Leumi,
Rakefet Rosek-Aminah. (34896-06-15)
6) p 40 Another exhibit Restraining Order issued against Cohen by Bank HaPoalim
Spokesperson Dahbash (16161-05-15). In hearing in instant court file Dahbash came and
sat on the bench behind Cohen, and Cohen stated that regardless of the Restraining Order,
Dahbash neared him on several occasions.
( )
:
."( "1
,( 2
.
. (35113-06-15) ,2015 25 - 18 '( 3
." " ." "
.( 4
(34896-06-15) . - 31 '( 5
.(16161-05-15) , 40 '( 6
, , ,
.
6.

Motions and Instructions

54

Note:
1) The requests are numbered, responses and replies are listed under each request, with
links to records, and outcome/reason for closing is listed accordingly.
:
/ , , ,( 1

7.

Requests for Temporary Remedies

55

8.

Post-closing Requests

56

Notes:
1) The Requests to Inspect are listed, numbered consecutively with the requests in the court
file.
:
. ,( 1
9.

Decisions Docket

57

Note:
1) The decisions are not numbered, and there is no stamp on the decision records, showing
their date of entry.
:
. ,( 1
10. 2016-01-09
Error

58
""

First decision was replaced by by Judge Efrat Busani (1st decision in the Decisions

Docket), was replaced by a scanned, hand-written page saying error - unsigned,

undated (Figure 2, above).
("")
.(,2)",
11. 2016-01-09

59

8/10

"Post-it Decision
The post-it decision, printed on commencing record schedules a hearing for January 30,
2016. The post-it decision instructs the Petitioner to serve the Petition and the post-it
decision on the Respondent. The January 30, 2016 date was extended by the Peitioner's
request, as explained in open court on February 2, 2016. It remains unclear whether any
service was executed on the Respondent, since he heard about the hearing by chance on the
morning of February 2, 2016.
""
,2016 , 30 , ,
.2016 , 2 2016 , 30 .
2 ,
.
12. 2016-01-17
60
"Post-it Decision
Cohen requests clarification for the January 9, 2016 Post-it Decision, which stated that the
Restraining Order in related court file was extended on a temporary basis. Cohen claims
that the court acted with no lawful authority, since the other restraining order expired, and
there is no way to extend an expired restraining order. Moreover, the Petitioner never asked
for it, knowing that there was no way to extend an expired restraining order. Judge Busani
insists that the extension stands.
""
,2016 , 9
, . , .
. .
13. 2016-01-23
"Post-it Decision
Extension of time for Petitioner's reply on response.

61
""
.

14. 2016-01-30
62
"Post-it Decision
Listed in the Decisions Docket as Decision on Petitioner's Request to Extend Hearing Date.
However, it is printed on Petitioner's Reply, which includes no request to extend. The Post-it
Decision, dated January 30, extends the hearing date to February 4. However, based on
Respondent statement in the opening of the protocol, it appears that the extension was
decided on February 3, i.e., 1 day ahead of the hearing, and not notice was given to the
Respondent.
""
.
30 . ,
, . 4 ,
. , , 3
15. 2016-02-04
63
Protocol
The hearing was conducted in open court. Judge Busani stated in the beginning of the
hearing that the court file was not sealed. However, the Protocol is marked Sealed. In
opening statement, the Respondent says that he heard about the hearing by chance, during
a visit for a different purpose in the office of the clerk. He asks for extension.
Paragraph 8 of the Decision, at the end of the protocol, states that the Protocol and Decision
are not sealed.

. .
, .""
. ,
. , 8
16.

20160213
"Post-it Decision
On Request #4 Request to Inspect

71
""
. 4 '

17.

20160220
"Post-it Decision
On Request #5 Change of Petitioner's counsel.
Neither the old law firm, nor the new one are duly listed.

72

""
. 5 '

9/10

.
18.

2016-02-20
73
"Post-it Decision
On Request #6 Rendering Decision on Request #4 - inspection.
The post-it decision states that the February 4, 2016 Protocol and Decision are not sealed.
""
. - 4 ' 6 '
. 2016 , 4

19.

Judgments Docket
74
"No details found.
The court file is listed Closed, due to Decision/Judgment. The February 4, 2016 Decision, if
indeed entered, should have been listed under the Judgment Docket.
" "
""
, , 4 ."/ "" "
." "

20.

Hearings Protocols
75
The list includes one item- the February 4, 2016 Protocol. The listing in this tab is of all
protocols, both entered and drafts, as indicated in Ombudsman's decision on Judge Varda
Alshech. Such listing is the instrument of misleading. In instant court file, there is no way to
ascertain, whether the February 4, 2016 Protocol and Decisions in it were indeed signed and
entered.

.2016 , 4
. , ,
2016 , 4 , .
.

21.

Exhibits
One exhibit is listed a disk.

76

." - .

22.

77

Related Court Files

"No details found

""

23.

Clerk's Notices
2016-01-06 Notice by Clerk Mualem is listed.

78

. " 2016-01-07

24.

2016-01-06
79
Clerk's Notice
Requesting Petitioner to state whether he would bring a portable computer for viewing the
disk.

.

25.

Service
Service on Cohen was by certified mail. Service on the Petitioner through Net-HaMishpat
and email. No service is listed on either party of the February 4, 2016 Restraining Order (In
contrast, the February 13, 2016 Post-it Decision, pertaining to the Request to Inspect was
served on the parties). No service on the Requester of Inspection is listed the February 13
and 25 Post-it Decisions, pertaining to the inspection, were never served not even by fax
(were eventually received by online chat at the Requester's initative).

.- " .
13 , ) .2016 , 4
. 2016 ,
) ' 2016 , 25 13
.(

26.

Certificates of Counsel
"No details found

""

10/10