2016-07-11 Attachment 9.4 in RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian Citizen Detained in Israel - Complaint Filed With The UN HRC Working Group On Arbitrary Detention

Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik,
o=HRA-NGO, ou,
email=joseph.zernik@hr
a-ngo.org, c=IL
Date: 2016.07.11
11:31:09 +03'00'
Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel
Fax: 077-3179186 Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Attachment9.4StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inthe
NazarethDistrictCourtrequests,decisionsinattempttoinspect
electronicjudicialdecisionrecords
InRE:ROMANZADOROVaUkrainiancitizendetainedinIsrael
Filedwith:
WorkingGrouponArbitraryDetention
c/oOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights
UnitedNationsOfficeatGeneva,Switzerland
Byemail:wgad@ohchr.org,urgent-action@ohchr.org
1/5
Attachment9.4StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inthe
NazarethDistrictCourtrequests,decisionsinattempttoinspect
electronicjudicialdecisionrecords
Notes:
1) Regardless of six month efforts to inspect valid Judgment records, valid
Judgments Docket, valid Arrest Decree, only invalid Judgment records were
discovered, invalid Judgments Docket, and no Arrest Decree at all.
2) The Court refuses to rule on repeat requests to inspect the electronic signatures
(which almost certainly are missing) execution data. The publication of judicial
decision records, where parties, counsel, and the public at large cannot distinguish
whether they are signed, valid court records, or only sham/simulated court records
("drafts" - as such records are called by the judges), is the essence of the fraud in
Net-HaMishpat case management system of the district and magistrate court in
Israel.
3) Pursuant to domestic law there is no requirement for filing a request to inspect
unsealed judicial decision records, and the judges have no jurisdiction in this
matter. In practice, the offices of the clerks refuse to permit inspection without
judicial decision. Therefore, the filings are titled "pro-forma request to inspect",
and they explicitly state that there is no requirement for fling a request.
4) In such unlawful process of Requests to Inspect, which is not authorized by law,
there is no Due Process in the Israeli courts:
a) The process is conducted as some kind of a poker game: The requester cannot
see a docket of the requests and responses. Therefore he cannot know whether
and how his requests were docketed, whether responses were filed by parties
(since they routinely fail to serve the responses on the Requester, and the Court
refuses to serve them either.
b) The Court maintains double docket for Decisions, and not all decisions are
entered. Un-entered decisions should be deemed sham/simulated court
records..
c) None of the decisions in this case were duly served on the requester, regardless
of repeat requests. Due service requires mailing by the court by certified mail
with an authentication letter by the clerk. The Ombudsman of the Judiciary
May 31, 2012 Decision in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols
scandal reviews the matter in detail. The Decision explains that unless an
electronic decision records is electronically signed, i.e., is a valid decision
record, the system does not permit due service. However, the Ombudsman's
Decision notes, that the system provides ways to print out unsigned decisions,
which can then be mailed or faxed (as done here) without the authentication
letter. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that none of the decisions in this
case was electronically signed, and that they are all sham/simulated decisions.
d) In certain cases, it is obvious that decision records were sham/simulated court
records, e.g., Judge Esther Hellman's December 27, 2015 and January 12, 2016
"scanned" decision records, and Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham's February
3, 2016 and June 2, 2016 "Post-it Decisions".
2/5
e) Likewise, regardless of repeat requests, addressed both the Court and to the
Chief Clerk, no signed and certified copy, "True Copy of the Original", of any
decision was ever received. Therefore, again, it is reasonable to assume that
none of the decisions in this case was electronically signed, and that they are
all sham/simulated decisions.
#
Record
Page
1.
2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Request #111 - to inspect

lawfully made judgments, lawfully made arrest warrants, lawfully made Judgments
Docket
2.
2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on

Request #111 - to inspect judgments as received by fax (later it was discovered
that it was docketed as Request #112)
3.
2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on

Request #111 - to inspect judgments as posted in Net-HaMishpat
4.
2016-01-11 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Request # 113 - for

9
correction of a perverted Net-HaMishpat records Judge Esther Hellman's December
27, 2015 decision on Request #111 - to inspect judgments
5.
2016-01-11 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Request #114 - for rendering 12
a decision on Request #111 - to inspect judgments
6.
2016-01-11 ZADOROV affair: Where are the Nazareth court judgments?
7.
2016-01-12 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on a) 19

Request #111 - to inspect, b) Request #113 - to correct perverted court record as
received by fax
8.
2016-01-12 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on on 22

a) Request #111 - to inspect, b) Request #113 - to correct perverted court record
as posted on Net-HaMishpat
9.
2016-01-19 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (000502-07) Request #115 - for a duly 26
signed and certified copy of Judge Hellman's January 12, 2016 perverted Decision
record on Requests #111, #113
14
10. 2016-01-19 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Request #116 - for
clarifications regarding Judge Esther Hellman's January 12, 2016 perverted Decision
record on Requests #111, #113
32
11. 2016-01-19 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Inspection: Verdict,

Sentencing, Supplemental Judgment records, as received in the Office of the Clerk of
the Nazareth District Court
70
clarifications regarding Verdict, Sentencing, Supplemental Judgment records,
received during inspection
85
13. 2016-01-20 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on
Request #117 for clarifications, in re: Judgment records "Denied" - as received by
fax
91
inspection of complete, lawful Decisions Docket, original paper decision records
93
15. 2016-01-20 ZADOROV AFFAIR: Crooks of the Nazareth District Court
97
16. 2016-01-21 Zadorov Affair: Attorney Avigdor Feldman's commendation, regarding Dr

Zernik's efforts to expose the crooked records of the Nazareth District Court
108
17. 2016-10-21 Zadorov Affair: Prof Uzzi Ornan's commendation, regarding Dr Zernik's
work to expose the crooked records of the Nazareth District Court
111
3/5
18. 2016-01-21 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on
113
Request #118 - for inspection of complete Decisions Docket, paper decision records
seeking State response - as received by fax
19. 2016-01-23 State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07): Request #119 to inspect electronic
signatures data of judgment records
20. 2016-01-24 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) Judge Avraham Decision on
Request #119 to inspect electronic signatures data of judgment records Requester should appear in the office of the clerk
115
21. 2016-01-24 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) - Request #120 for Due
Process Due Service of court decisions
124
22. 2016-01-25 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Avraham Decision on
128
Request #120 - for Due Process Due Service of court decisions the Requester
attempts to conduct investigation of the operation of the Court... in such matters this
Court shall not engage - as received by fax, and which initially failed to appear in
the Decisions Docket
23. 2016-01-25 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) - Request #121 repeat
request to inspect Lawfully made Judgments Docket, Lawfully made Arrest Decree
135
24. 2016-01-25 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Request #123 - for rendering 139
due decision on Request #119 - to inspect electronic signature data of judgments
25. 2016-01-25 ZADOROV AFFAIR: Crooks of the Nazareth District Court
143
26. 2016-01-25 Response by State Prosecutor, Attorney Shila Inbar, on Request #118 - to 171
inspect paper decision records - conspiracy theories... abuse of the term 'Right to
Inspect'... has not yet been appointed Ombudsman of the Courts... The record was
docketed as Response on Request #112 (which is not a request at all, but Judge
Hellman's perverted decision on Request #111). Both the Court and the State
Prosecution refused to serve it on the Requester. The record was discovered during a
visit to the Office of the Clerk on June 26, 2016:
27. 2016-01-26 Open letter to Legal Counsel of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel,
173
Attorney Dan Yakir in re: Zadorov affair and conduct of the Nazareth District Court
request for opinion
28. 2016-01-27 Zadorov affair: Nazareth Attorney Hosni Zoa'bi (member of the Judicial
Selection Committee) is asked to opine on conduct of the Nazareth District Court
judges
181
29. 2016-02-03 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Avraham Decision on
Request #122 - for Due Process service of State Prosecution Responses "investigation he is trying to conduct an investigation pertaining to conduct of the
Court I again refer him to the office of the clerk"
188
30. 2016-02-03 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Avraham Post-it
Decision on Request #123 for rendering decision on Request #119 to inspect
electronic signature data - bothering the court... consider imposing sanctions to
benefit the State Treasury... - as received by Online Chat - the decision was never
even faxed, and fails to appear in the Decisions Docket.
190
a decision in re: previous repeat requests to Inspect Lawfully Made Arrest Decree
32. 2016-06-02 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Avraham Post-it
Decision on Request #127 - to inspect duly made arrest warrant cantankerous,
useless, denied as received by fax
194
33. 2016-06-02 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Request #128 - for a duly
signed and certified, "True Copy of the Original", copy of Judge Avraham June 2, Postit Decision on Request #127 - to inspect duly made Arrest Decree
196
4/5
34. 2016-06-02 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) fax to Chief Clerk Oshrat
Avichezer re: inspection of a) Arrest Warrant, b) Prosecution responses, c) Electronic
signatures on judgments (entered in Net-HaMishpat as Request #129). The Chief
Clerk informed the Requester that she would not answer in writing on any of his
inquiries. Head of the Criminal Division in the Office of the Clerk informed the
Requester that he would not permit any inspection without judicial decision,
permitting the inspection.
199
a decision on Requests to inspect electronic signatures data (if they exist at all) of the
Judgment records in Net-HaMishpat
36. 2016-06-26 Zadorov affair: Secretive, conspirative filing by State Prosecutor Shila
Inbar, dated January 26, 2016, which the Court and State Prosecution refused to duly
serve and was discovered in a visit to the Office of the Clerk.
206
37. 2016-06-26 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - Request for Certification of
Judicial Decision Records, which was filed with Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer (like
previous requests, was never answered). Appendix to the request is Ombudsman of
the Judiciary Decision on Judge Varda Alshech's "Fabricated Protocols", which
discusses how certification should be executed (page 233).
220
38. 2016-06-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - Clarifications in re: Request
for Certification of Judicial Decision Records - fax to Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer
278
5/5
][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

FiledbyfaxonDecember27,2015,to:046087930
_________________________________________________________________________
)(,";2003)2)4((
.1:
( :'
('053625596 :
",33407
(:
(:
0773179186
(:
.2:
(':
,'50207
(:
.3/:
(""/"",
""/"",142010,
.
("",.
("/",/"/",
.
.4:
"",
.,:
((2003):
"..,
,,"".
(2009
'(5917/97)":
,""..."
,
.
,,
"":
[1].
1 Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978) pp 434-5
The interest necessary to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been
found, for example, in the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of
public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E.
535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L. 332, 336-339 (1879), and
in a newspaper publisher's intention to publish information concerning the operation of
1/280
1/4
((1992)
//.
(,,10"
".
(
".
,.
,"")
(2015,2010,(2013).
()
,(7939/10.
,
,.
(""
,.
(,
:
":
".
":
,.
.,"...
.
,
..
.
.
,,
,/
/,
.
.5)/(:
,.
27,2015,
'
))RegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003);Form2(Regulation4(c
ProFormaRequesttoInspectCourtFile
1. Requester'sDetails
a)Fullname:
JosephZernik,PhD
government, see, e.g., State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis.2d 672, 677, 137 N.W.2d
470, 472 (1965), modified on other grounds, 28 Wis.2d 685a, 139 N.W.2d 241 (1966).
But see Burton v. Reynolds, 110 Mich. 354, 68 N.W. 217 (1896).
2/280
2/4
b)IDNo:
c)Address:
d)Telephone:
e)Fax:
053625596
POBox33407,TelAviv
None
0773179186
2. CourtFileDetails
a)CourtFileNumber:
NazarethDistrictCourt,FileNo50207
b)Parties:
StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
3.Records,whicharesubjectoftherequest:
a.AnyandallVerdict,Sentencingrecords,dulyenteredininstantcourtfile,
including,butnotlimitedtoanyVerdict,Sentencingrecords,dulyenteredonor
aroundSeptember14,2010ininstantcourtfile.
b.DulymadeJudgmentsDocket,listingallJudgmentrecords,dulyenteredin
instantcourtfile.
c.Anyandalldulymadedetentionand/orarrestwarrantspertainingtoDefendant
RomanZadorovininstantcourtfile.
4.PurposeandJustificationfortheInspection
InstantRequestisfiledProForma,andthereshouldhavebeennoneedtofileor
justifyit.Regardless,thefollowingjustificationisprovided:
a.TheRegulationsoftheCourts,InspectionofCourtFiles(2003),say:Everyperson
ispermittedtoinspectdecisionsandjudgments,whicharenotlawfullyprohibited
forpublication.Instantcourtfileisnotsealed.Therefore,thereshouldnothave
beenarequirementforinstantRequest,andaccordingly,itistitledProForma
Request.
b.TheSupremeCourt2009JudgmentinAssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelv
MinisterofJusticeetal(5917/97),says:Therighttoinspectisafundamental
principleinademocraticregimeandaconstitutional,suprastatutoryright.The
JudgmentintheAssociation'spetitionalsorepeatsthepetitioners'arguments
regardingtheimportanceoftherighttoaccesscourtrecordsrelativetopublictrust
ingovernmentauthorities:
Theimportanceofthisprincipleisingeneratingpublictrustinthepublic
authoritiesingeneral,andinthecourtsinparticular,sinceitcontributesto
generatingtheappearanceoftheprocessofjusticeinamannerthatpromotes
suchtrust.
TheimportanceofthecommonlawRighttoInspectandtoCopyCourtRecords,is
likewisejustifiedinalandmarkrulingoftheUSSupremeCourt:tofulfillthe
citizen'sdesire'tokeepawatchfuleyeontheworkingsofpublicagencies.[i]
c.BasicLaw:HumanDignityandLiberty(1992)isvoidedofmeaningrelativetothe
preventionoffalsearrestsbygovernmentauthorities,absenttheabilityto
materializetherighttoinspectjudgmentsandarrest/detentionwarrants.
d.TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,Article10,statestherightforfair
publichearing.
3/4
3/280
e.TheRequesterhasbeenengagedforyearsinacademicresearchregardingIT
systemsoftheIsraeliandUScourts,andadministrationofpublicaccesstocourt
records.Hisresearchonsuchsubjectshasbeenpublishedandpresentedin
internationalacademicconferencesintherelevantfields,subjecttoanonymous,
internationalpeerreview.Hisreportsonsuchsubjectshavealsobeenincorporated
intoUNHumanRightsCouncilReportspertainingtotheUnitedStates(2010,
2015)andIsrael(2013),followingtheCouncil'sProfessionalStaffreview.
f.TheRequesterfiledandreceivedpermissiontoinspecttheSupremeCourtfile
ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10),purportedlyoriginatinginjudgmentsfrom
instantcourtfile.However,inspectionoftheSupremeCourtfileshowedthatno
dulymadeandcertifiedjudgmentrecordswerefiledintheSupremeCourtwiththe
NoticeofAppeal,indisregardofexplicitprovisionsofthelaw.
g.InspectionoftherecordsinNetHaMishpatcasemanagementandpublicaccess
systemoftheNazarethDistrictCourtfailedtodiscovertherequestedrecords.
h.Instantcourtfileholdsthehighestpublicpolicysignificance,sinceitraisedand
raisesnumerousconcernsamongthepublicatlargeandexperts:
Regardinginstantcourtfile,anexpertoncriminallawwrote:Conductofthe
StateProsecutionisscary.
Regardinginstantcourtfile,anotherexpertoncriminallawwrote:Thereisno
scientificevidencetyingthesuspecttothecrimescene,thereisnomotivefor
thecrime.Thesuspectdeniedhisguiltduringmostoftheinvestigationstages
andallalonghistrial.Whenheconfessed,hedidnotleadtheinvestigatorsto
anyevidenceatall....TheVerdictisnotconvincingthatguiltwasproven
beyondanyreasonabledoubt.ThenewVerdictinthematterofRoman
Zadorovraisesnumerousconcerns,ontopofconcernsthatwereraisedbythe
originalVerdictinthisaffair.Zadorov'sguiltwasnotprovenbeyonda
reasonabledoubt.
Interestofthepublicatlargeininstantcourtfileisunprecedented.Hundreds
ofthousandsofcitizensarelistedinsocialnetworkgroups,whichsupportthe
innocenceoftheaccusedandcallforjusticefortheaccused.
TotheRequester'sbestknowledgeandbelief,citizenswhoexaminedthe
evidencematerialthatwasaccessibletothem,alsofiledcriminalcomplaints
withtheMinistryofJusticeand/ortheAttorneyGeneralagainstmembersof
theinvestigationteamforpervertingand/orfalsifyingevidence,andagainst
membersoftheprosecutionteamfordeliberatelymisleadingtheCourt.
5.Relationshipoftherequestertothecourtfile(directorindirect)
None,exceptforacademicinterest.
Today,December27,2015
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
4/4
4/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth

District Court Judge Judge Hellman Decision on Request #111 to
inspect judgments as received by fax //
( 502/07)
111 '
The Decision was by fax with no authentication letter by the Clerk. Initially it failed to appear
in the Decisions Docket.
The record is a clear perversion a scanned record, where in Net-HaMishpat electronic
records, signed by electronic signatures are duly issued. Paper decisions were signed by
hand-signatures. Here, the record is signed by a graphic signature - which is invalid.
The Request reference number at the top is also false 11, instead of 111.
The failure to duly serve the decision also indicates that it is a perverted record. Also, the
Court failed to respond on requests to receive a certified True Copy of the Original of this
record.
Later it was discovered that the record was in fact docketed as Request #112.
The record commenced a judicial review process, with no legal foundation.
The record fails to address the request for Lawfully made Judgments Docket (the
judgments were never entered), and also fails to address the request for Lawfully made
Arrest Decree (later it turned out it is missing).
____________
Decision
Tothebestofmyknowledge,inspectionofwhichisrequestedVerdictand
Sentencing,werepublishedindatabases,andthereisnoprohibitionfortheir
inspection.
ThesameistruefortheIndictmentthereisnoprohibitionforitsinspection.
Forcaution'ssake,theProsecution'sresponseisrequested,byDecember31,2015.
FormyreviewbyJanuary3,2016.
Renderedandnoticedtoday,December27,2015,intheabsenceoftheparties.
1/1
5/280
6/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-01-12 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge

Hellman Decision on on a) Request #111 - to inspect, b) Request
#113 - to correct perverted court record as received by fax //
( 502/07)
111 '
The Decision was received by fax with no authentication letter by the Clerk. Initially it failed
to appear in the Decisions Docket.
The record is a clear perversion a scanned record, where in Net-HaMishpat electronic
records, signed by electronic signatures are duly issued. Paper decisions were signed by
hand-signatures. Here, the record is signed by a graphic signature - which is invalid.
The Request reference number at the top is also false 114, instead of 111. It is likely that
it was docketed as Request #114 (There is no request #114 otherwise).
The failure to duly serve the decision also indicates that it is a perverted record. Also, the
Court failed to respond on requests to receive a certified True Copy of the Original of this
record.
The record is part of a judicial review process on Request to Inspect, with no legal
foundation.
The record fails to address the request for Lawfully made Judgments Docket (the
judgments were never entered), and also fails to address the request for Lawfully made
Arrest Decree (later it turned out it is missing).
____________
Decision
NotingthejustificationoftheRequest,andthelackofResponsebytheResponders,I
permittheinspectionof:
Indictment.
Verdict.
Sentencing.
Parenthetically,inviewofclaimsmadeinanotherrequestbytheRequester,instant
Decision,likethepreviousone,isvalidforeverypurpose,eventhoughitwasscanned
intoNetHaMishpatfortechnicalreasons.
TheOfficeoftheClerkshallserveontheparties.
Renderedtoday,January12,2016,intheabsenceoftheparties.
1/1
7/280
1/11/2016
8/280
1/1

FiledbyfaxonJanuary11,2016,to:046087930
_________________________________________________________________________
50207
:
'
",33407
0773179186:
:
27,2015,
,',:
27,2015,
:
(127,2015,,
""":1
".
:11,2016,
27,2015,"".
______
(2,
,.
.'
11.2016,
(3,
""
)./88/1231.(2012,
,,
,27,2015,.
11,2016,
50207
9/280
'
NazarethDistrictCourt
1/2
RequesterofInspection
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax: 0773179186
RequestforcorrectionofapervertedcourtrecordinNetHaMishpat:
JudgeEstherHellman'sDecember27,2015decisiononProForma
RequesttoInspectCourtFile
TheRequesterofInspection,JosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinarequestforcorrection
ofapervertedcourtrecordinNetHaMishpat:JudgeEstherHellman'sDecember27,
2015decisiononProFormaRequesttoInspectCourtFile:
1)OnDecember27,2015,JudgeEstherHellman'sdecisionwaspublished,whichwas
registeredinNetHaMishpatcasemanagementsystemundertheDecisionsDocket
tabas:InstructiontothePlaintiff1tofileitsresponse.
Figure:January11,2016screenprintfromNetHaMishpat,showingtheregistration
ofJudgeEstherHellman'sDecember27,2015decisionundertheDecisionsDocket
tab.
______
2)Inspectionoftherecord,whichwasdocketedundersuchregistrationinNet
HaMishpat,indicatesthatitisNOTavalidelectroniccourtrecord,whichwasduly
generatedanduploadedtoNetHaMishpat.Instead,itisanamateurscanofapaper
record.ExhibitAshowsthedecisionrecord,asitwasfoundinNetHaMishpaton
January11,2016.
3)RegardingtheregistrationinNetHaMishpatofcourtrecords,whicharenot
electronicallysigned,pleasealsoseedecisionofOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary
regardingJudgeVardaAlSheikh'sreconstructedprotocol(Decision88/12/Tel
AvivDistrictCourt,May31,2012).
Therefore,IhereinrequestthattheCourtregisterinNetHaMishpatavalidcourt
record,electronicallysigned,foritsDecember27,2015decisiononmyrequestto
inspect.
Today,January11,2016
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
2/2
10/280
1/11/2016
11/280
1/1

_________________________________________________________________________
50207
:
'
",33407
0773179186:
,',
,:
(""/"",
""/"",14,
2010.
("",.
("/",/"/",
.
(1"27",2015,",
.,)
(2003:
"..,,,
"".
(227,2015,,
31.2015,
.
(3272015,"
.03.01.2016
,.
11,2016,
50207
'
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax: 0773179186
RequestforrenderingadecisiononProFormaRequesttoInspect
CourtFile
12/280
1/2
TheRequesterofInspection,JosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinarequestforrendering
adecisiononhisproformarequesttoinspectcourtrecordsininstantcourtfile,which
are:
a.AnyandallVerdict,Sentencingrecords,dulyenteredininstantcourtfile,
including,butnotlimitedtoanyVerdict,Sentencingrecords,dulyenteredon
oraroundSeptember14,2010ininstantcourtfile.
b.DulymadeJudgmentsDocket,listingallJudgmentrecords,dulyentered
ininstantcourtfile.
c.Anyandalldulymadedetentionand/orarrestwarrantspertainingto
DefendantRomanZadorovininstantcourtfile.
1)TheabovereferencedrequestwasfiledonDecember27,2015,proforma,since
bylawtherewasnorequirementforitsfilingorjustification.Towit,theRegulations
oftheCourts,InspectionofCourtFiles(2003),say:Everypersonispermittedto
inspectdecisionsandjudgments,whicharenotlawfullyprohibitedforpublication.
Instantcourtfileisnotsealed.Therefore,therewasnorequirementforfilinginstant
request,andthereforeitstitle,proformarequest.
2)OnDecember27,2015,decisionbyJudgeEstherHellmanwaspublished,seeking
theStateProsecution'spositioninthismatter.Therewasnolawfulreasonfor
seekingtheStateProsecution'spositioninthismatteratall.
3)JudgeHellman'sDecember27,2015decisionsays:FormyreviewonJanuary3,
2016.
Therefore,IhereinrequestthattheCourtrenderitsdecisioninthismatterwithout
furtherdelay.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
2/2
13/280
)Human Rights Alert (NGO
"
" ,33407" 6133301
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Fax: 077-3179186
2016-01-11 ZADOROV affair: Where are the Nazareth court judgments? //

?
-
...
] [
English abstract
In a case that is widely seen as fraud, Roman Zadorov was convicted in the murder of 13.5
Tair Rada, and sentenced to life in prison. However, there was no evidence tying him to
the murder...
Additionally, the authentic conviction and sentencing records of the Nazareth District
Court in his case are nowhere to be found. Judge Esther Hellman and Presiding Judge
Avraham Avarham engage in suspicious conduct, when asked to permit inspection of the
court file.
All signs show Fraud Upon the Court by the judges...
____
...
"
."""
.
"",
"""".
.
,,
""
""...
...
.
,...
1/5
14/280
:.
,
..
.
:
.
____
",
,""
,2010
[1].
"""
"...
""14
,2010,,""
...)(
,)(",
..
,,,
,"
,":".
:
:,
,
,
.
"",
.,
,"".
,,
...27,2015,""
...
:
...
1/5
15/280
:27,2015,
.
,."
",
""..
,...
______
27,2015,
,,
""...
,.,
[2].
""
.
,
.""
"".
,,
,""
...
,
.
,...
,,
.,
:,
...
,...
,
...
2/5
16/280
,
:
)6(
.
""
,,
.
.2015,
.
.,"
".
[3].
,:
*?
*""?
*,?
:
,,
,
.
,
:"
,
...
.
)(!
[1]20160111StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(00050207)SeriousCrime
intheNazarethDistrictCourt:RequestforrenderingadecisiononRequest
(#111)toinspectjudgments//
(00050207)
:(#111)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/295102908/
[2]20160111StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(00050207)SeriousCrime
intheNazarethDistrictCourt:RequestforcorrectionofapervertedNet
HaMishpatrecordJudgeEstherHellman'sDecember27,2015decisionon
Request(#111)toinspectjudgments//
3/5
17/280
(00050207)
:
27,2015,(#111)
[3]20151229RequesttoNazarethDistrictCourtPresidingJudgetoclarify
inspectionprocedures,registrationofJudgments,orlackthereofinStateof
IsraelvZadorov(50207)//
,
(50207)
1/5
18/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-01-12 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court
Judge Judge Hellman Decision on Request #114 as received by fax //
( 502/07)
114 '

The Decision was received by fax with no authentication letter by the Clerk.
It is a "scanned" decision, bearing a "graphic signature", therefore invalid.
I fails to address the request to inspect Judgments Docket, Arrest Decree.
The record should be deemed sham/simulated court record.
____________
19/280
[Coat of Arms of the State of Israel]

The Courts
In the Nazareth District Court
Date: January 12, 2016
Request No. 114
State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07)
Presided by: The Hon Judge Esther Hellman's

Regarding:
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Requester
v
1. State of Israel
2. Roman Zadorov
Responders
Decision
Given the justification of the request, and the lack of responses, I order that the Requester is
permitted to inspect the following records:
Indictment.
Verdicts.
Sentencing.
Parenthetically, and in view of claims in an additional request, filed by the Requester, instant
Decision, like the previous one, is a valid and effectual decision for any purpose, even if it
were scanned into Net-HaMishpat for technical reasons.
The Office of the Clerk shall serve copies of instant Decision on the parties.
Rendered today, January 12, 2016 in chambers.
[scanned signature]
________________
E. Hellman, Judge
20/280
21/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-01-12 StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(00050207)SeriousCrime
intheNazarethDistrictCourt:Perverted,fraudulentDecisionrecord,
issuedbyJudgeEstherHellman,inre:RequesttoInspectCourtRecords//
(00050207)
,"":
.
[]
Page #
Record
January 12, 2016 perverted, fabricated Judge Esther Hellman's

Decision record - English translation
12 ,
2016
January 12, 2016 perverted, fabricated Judge Esther Hellman's

Decision record Hebrew original
12 ,
2016
Twofabricated,pervertedDecisionrecords,datedDecember27,2015andJanuary
12,2016,wereissuedbyJudgeEstherHellman,pertainingtorequeststoinspectthe
Zadorovcourtfile.Suchrecordsareclearlytheproductsofscanningofpaperrecords
intotheelectroniccasemanagementsystem,andthereforethesignaturesonthem
aregraphicsignatures(scannedsignatures)lackinganyvalidityandauthority.
TheissuanceofsuchcourtrecordswasthecoreofthefraudulentconductofJudge
VardaAlSheikhintheReconstructedProtocolscandal.DecisionoftheOmbudsman
oftheJudiciaryregardingJudgeVardaAlSheikhandtheReconstructedProtocol
clarifiesthatdecisionrecordinNetHaMishpat(casemanagementsystemofthe
Israelicourts),whichdonotdulybearanelectronicsignature,areinvalidcourt
records,merelyadraft.Arequesttocorrectpervertedcourtfilewasfiledwith
JudgeEstherHellmanintheZadorovcourtfile,followingherDecember27,2015
pervertedDecisionrecords.Inresponse,sheissuedthefabricated,perverted
January12,2016Decisionrecord,whichclaimedthatshehadtechnical
problems,andclaimedthatfabricated,perverted,invalidcourtrecordswerevalid
andeffectualcourtrecords...
,""
,2016,12,2015,27,
,.
(")"""
.
.""
""
1/3
22/280
,""
.,""
""27,
,2015""12,
,2016"",,
...
______
:
[1]20151227StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(00050207)SeriousCrimeinthe
NazarethDistrictCourt:Request(#111)toinspectjudgments//
(00050207):)
(#111
NazarethDistrictCourt:DecisiononRequest(#111)toinspectjudgmentspostedinNet
HaMishpatsuspectedperversion//
:(00050207)
(#111),
NazarethDistrictCourt:RequestforcorrectionofapervertedNetHaMishpatrecord(No
113)JudgeEstherHellman'sDecember27,2015decisiononRequesttoinspectjudgments
(No111)//
:(00050207)
)'(113
.27,2015,)'(111
NazarethDistrictCourt:DecisionofJudgeHellmanona)Requesttoinspect(No111),b)
Requesttocorrectpervertedcourtrecord(No113)asdownloadedfromNetHaMishpat//
(00050207):
,:()',(111(
.)'(113
[5]20160120ZADOROVAFFAIR:CrooksoftheNazarethDistrictCourt//
:
2/3
23/280
[CoatofArmsoftheStateofIsrael]
TheCourts
IntheNazarethDistrictCourt
Date:January12,2016
RequestNo.114
StateofIsraelvZadorov(502/07)
Presidedby:TheHonJudgeEstherHellman's
Regarding:
JosephZernik,PhD
Requester
v
1.StateofIsrael
2.RomanZadorov
Responders
Decision
Giventhejustificationoftherequest,andthelackofresponses,Iorderthatthe
Requesterispermittedtoinspectthefollowingrecords:
Indictment.
Verdicts.
Sentencing.
Parenthetically,andinviewofclaimsinanadditionalrequest,filedbythe
Requester,instantDecision,likethepreviousone,isavalidandeffectual
decisionforanypurpose,evenifitwerescannedintoNetHaMishpatfor
technicalreasons.
TheOfficeoftheClerkshallservecopiesofinstantDecisiononthe
parties.
Renderedtoday,January12,2016inchambers.
[scannedsignature]
________________
E.Hellman,Judge
3/3
24/280
1/17/2016
25/280
1/1
26/280
27/280
50207
:
'
",33407
0773179186:
""
16,2016,,"
,',
16,2016,,"
":
(127,2015""
"")'
(111.,
.,
.
(216,2016""""
)',(111)'(113
""27.2015
(3,""16,2016
.,""
.
(4,""16,2016
,:
,,,
,,""
.
""16,2016""
,
.
(5""16,2016:
].[
""27,2015""
16,2016
)(
.
].'17,2016
16
[.2016
(6
,
,.
,.
28/280
1/3
,,(7
,2016,16,
"",(")"
,.
,
,,""
.',"",
.
'
2016,19,
50207
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax: 0773179186
RequestforapapercopyofJudgeEstherHellman'sJanuary16,2016
Decisionrecord,bearingherhandsignatureanddulycertified
TrueCopyoftheOriginal.
TheRequesterofInspection,JosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinarequestforapaper
copyofJudgeEstherHellman'sJanuary16,2016Decisionrecord,bearingherhand
signatureanddulycertifiedTrueCopyoftheOriginal:
1)OnDecember27,2015,JudgeEstherHellman'spervertedDecisionrecord,
pertainingtomyRequesttoInspect,waspublishedinNetHaMishpatcase
managementsystemoftheNazarethDistrictCourt.Onitsface,suchrecordcannot
bedeemedbyareasonablepersonavalidcourtrecord,pursuanttothelawsofthe
StateofIsrael.Therecord'scontentalsofailstocomplywiththelawoftheStateof
Israelrelativetotherighttoinspectcourtrecords.
2)OnJanuary16,2016,JudgeEstherHellman'ssecondpervertedDecisionrecord,
pertainingtomyRequesttoInspectandalsopertainingtomyRequestfor
CorrectionofaPervertedCourtRecord,waspublishedinNetHaMishpat.
3)Onitsface,theJanuary16,2016,JudgeEstherHellman'sDecisionrecordalso
cannotbedeemedbyareasonablepersonavalidcourtrecord,pursuanttothelaws
oftheStateofIsrael.Therecord'scontentalsofailstocomplywiththelawofthe
StateofIsraelrelativetotherighttoinspectcourtrecords.
4)Moreover,thepervertedJanuary16,2016Decisionrecordpurportedlyaddresses
theRequestforCorrectionofaPervertedCourtRecord,bysaying:
Inthemargin,andgiventheclaiminanadditionalrequestfiledbythe
Requester,instantdecision,likethepreviousdecision,isavaliddecisionfor
anyandallpurposes,althoughitwasscannedintoNetHaMishpatsystemfor
technicalreasons.
2/3
29/280
However,thepervertedJanuary16,2016Decisionrecordfailstoexplainwhat
werethetechnicalreasons,whichnecessitatedthepublicationofperverted,
invalidrecords,andwhatthelegalfoundationisforaperverted,invalidcourt
record,sayingthatitisavalidcourtrecord.
5)ThepervertedJanuary16,2016Decisionrecordalsosays:
TheOfficeoftheClerkshallservecopiesofinstantDecisionontheparties.
[Boldandunderlineintheoriginaljz]
However,boththepervertedDecember27,2015Decisionrecordandthe
pervertedJanuary16,2016Decisionrecordweresenttomebyfaxasinvalid
recordspursuanttothelawoftheStateofIsrael,andwithnoaccompanyingletter
(authentication)byanauthorizedpersonintheOfficeoftheClerk.Therefore,the
faxtransmissionofsuchrecordsshouldbedeemedsimulatedserviceofa
simulatedcourtrecord.[ExhibitAisacopyofthefaxtransmission,receivedby
meonJanuary17,2016,whichissimulatedserviceofJudgeHellman'sJanuary
16,2016pervertedDecisionrecord.]
6)JudgeEstherHellman'sconductrelativetomyrequesttoinspectinstantcourt
fileraisesseriousconcernsoffraudbyaDistrictJudgeoftheStateofIsrael
throughthepublicationofsimulatedcourtrecords,simulatedserviceofsimulated
courtrecords,andconductofsimulatedcourtprocessrelativetotheRequestto
Inspectinstantcourtfile.Allofthatinacourtfilepertainingtoaseriouscrime,
whereapersonwaspurportedlyconvictedandsentencedtolifeinprison.
8)Therefore,inordertoremoveanydoubt,IhereinrequestthatJudgeEsther
Hellmanprovidemebymailtomyaddress,listedabove,apapercopyofher
January16,2016Decisionrecord,bearingherhandsignature(wetsignature)
anddulycertifiedTrueCopyoftheOriginalbyadulyappointedChiefClerk,or
bytheMagistrateoftheNazarethDistrictCourt.Inordertoavoidanyfurther
perversions,Ihereinrequestthatthenameandauthorityoftheperson,whosigns
thecertificationappearonthefaceoftherecord,andthatthelanguageofthe
certificationstatementbeTrueCopyoftheOriginal,asprescribedbylaw,and
notperverted,meaninglessstatement,suchasCopyingisTruetotheOriginal,
etc.
TheCourtshouldgrantinstantrequest,incompliancewiththefundamentalsof
justiceandthelaw.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
3/3
30/280
Exhibit A
31/280
[BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW]

50207
:
'
,33407"
0773179186:
""(116')
(116),',
:""
','201616',
.'2016,12
'
2016,20,
50207
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax: 0773179186
CorrectiontoRequest(No116)forclarificationsregardingJudge
EstherHellman'sDecisionrecordininstantcourtfile
TheRequesterofInspection,JosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinacorrectiontothe
request(No116)forclarificationsregardingDecisionrecordbyJudgeEsther
Hellmanininstantcourtfile:
Inanyplace,wherethewritingsays'January16,2016Decisionrecord'itshouldsay
'January12,2016Decisionrecord'.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
1/1
32/280
33/280
34/280
50207
:
'
",33407
0773179186:
""16
2016
,',""
162016,:
(116,2016""""
)',(111)'(113
""27.2015
(2""16,2016)'(113
,:
,,,
,,
"".
(3
31/88/12)2012,"(""
,:19
',,
.
,
]...[
,
,
., ,
)(
,"".
":21
"
.
.
.,
:
,.,
,.,
"".
:,
",2001""
,,""].'
35/280
1/4
/88/12"312012,
[
(4""16,2016)'(111
,:
:
.
.
.
:
.,
".
.:
)(1/".
)(2"",.
,(1))(2,
.,
,",""...
(5
,,,.
.
(6,:
.""
""272015162016,
?
.""16
2016,"
",?
."",
?""
,.
."/"?
"/",
.
.
19,2016,
50207
'
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax: 0773179186
RequestforclarificationsregardingJanuary16,2016Decision
recordbyJudgeEstherHellmanininstantcourtfile
36/280
1/4
TheRequesterofInspection,JosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinarequestfor
clarificationsregardingtheJanuary16,2016DecisionrecordbyJudgeEsther
Hellmanininstantcourtfile:
1)OnJanuary16,2016,JudgeEstherHellman'ssecondpervertedDecisionrecord
waspublishedinNetHaMishpat,pertainingtomyRequesttoInspect(No111)
andalsopertainingtomyRequestforCorrectionofaPervertedCourtRecord(No
113).
2)ThepervertedJanuary16,2016Decisionrecordpurportedlyaddressesmy
RequestforCorrectionofaPervertedCourtRecord(No113),bysaying:
Inthemargin,andgiventheclaiminanadditionalrequestfiledbythe
Requester,instantdecision,likethepreviousdecision,isavaliddecision
foranyandallpurposes,eventhoughitwasscannedintoNet
HaMishpatsystemfortechnicalreasons.
3)SuchstatementbyJudgeEstherHellmancontradictstheOmbudsmanofthe
JudiciaryMay31,2012Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)regardingJudgeVarda
AlSheikh'sReconstructedProtocol,whichsaysinparagraph19:
TheHonorableJudge'sexplanationindicatesthatasfarasNetHaMishpat
systemisconcerned,anyprotocolbearsascannedgraphicsignatureofthe
judgeonalldecisions.However,untiltheprotocolrecordissignedbythe
judgeusinganelectronicsignature,itisadraftprotocol,whichis
maintainedintheProtocolsFolderofthesystem...[underlineinthe
originaljz]
Sincethescannedgraphicsignatureofthejudgeappearsalsoonthedraft,
aprintoutofthedraftandaprintoutoftheelectronicallysignedprotocol
lookthesame,andthereisnowaytodistinguishbetweenthem.Under
suchcircumstances,workguidelinesinstructthatprotocolsmustnotbe
printedoutfromtheProtocolsFolders(asdonebyhersecretary)butonly
afteritiselectronicallysigned,throughtheProtocolImplementation
assignmentoftheOfficeoftheClerk.
Theabovereferenceddecisionsaysinparagraph21:
TheprintingofadraftprotocolbytheOfficeoftheClerkispossibleby
enteringtheProtocolsFolder,notthroughtheProtocolImplementation
assignment.Undersuchcircumstances,noalertwouldbeissuedthatthe
printedprotocolisunsigned.
Itisimpossibletodistinguishbetweenagraphicallysignedprotocoland
anelectronicallysignedprotocoloncetherecordhadbeenprinted.With
it,intheelectronicfilesinNetHaMishpatsystemthereareseveralwaysto
distinguishbetweenthem:AsignedprotocolbearsacoloredCoatofArms
oftheStateofIsraelaboveitstitle,whilethegraphicallysignedprotocol
bearsablackandwhiteCoatofArms.Inaddition,theAssignments
linenoftheprotocolinNetHaMishpatiscoloredingreenwhenthe
protocoliselectronicallysigned,butinblackwhenitisadraft.In
addition,thereisdocumentationoftheexecutionofelectronicsignatures
intheProtocolEventsfolderinthesystem.
Inshort:TheOmbudsman'sdecisionclarifiesthatanelectronicrecordinNet
HaMishpatcasemanagementsystemofthecourtswhichisnotsignedusingan
electronicsignaturepursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001),butonlyusing
ascannedgraphicsignature,isnotavalidcourtrecord,butatbestadraft.
2/4
37/280
[ExhibitAisacopyoftheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012Decision
(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)]
4)ThepervertedJanuary16,2016Decisionrecordpurportedlyaddressesmy
RequestforInspectionofinstantcourtfile(No111),bysaying:
TheRequesterispermittedtoinspectthefollowingrecords:
Indictment.
Verdicts.
Sentencing.
Suchstatementisperplexingforthefollowingreasons:
a.TheRequesterneveraskedtoinspecttheIndictmentrecord,anditremains
unclearwhyanyreferencetoitwasincludedintheJanuary16,2016
pervertedDecisionrecord.
b.TheJanuary16,2016pervertedDecisionrecordfailstosayaword
regardingtherequesttoinspectthefollowingrecords:
(1)DulymadeArrestWarrant.
(2)DulymadeJudgmentsDocket,includingalljudgmentsthatwereduly
enteredininstantcourtfile.
Withit,byfailingtostatepermissiontoinspectrecords(1)and(2),above,infact,
therighttoinspectsuchrecordsisunlawfullydenied.AsdetailedinmyRequestto
Inspectcourtrecords,suchrightwasdeclaredbytheSupremeCourtoftheStateof
Israel,afundamentalprincipleinademocraticregime,andaconstitutional,
suprastatutoryright...
5)Theobviousconcern,basedonalltheabove,isthatJudgeEstherHellmanis
engagedhereinfraud,perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofcourtprocess,and
breachofloyalty.Allofthatinaseriouscrimecourtfile,whereapersonwas
purportedlyconvictedofmurderandsentencedtolifeimprisonment.
6)Therefore,IhereinrequestthatJudgeEstherHellmanprovidethefollowing
clarifications:
a.RegardingtheDecember27,2015andJanuary16,2016Decisionrecordsin
instantcourtfile:Whatarethetechnicalreasons,whichnecessitatedthe
publicationofperverted,invalid,scannedrecordsinNetHaMishpat?
b.Whatisthelegalfoundationforthevalidityofaninvalidcourtrecordthe
January16,2016Decisionwhichsaysthatpervertedandinvalidcourt
records,whichwerescannedintoNetHaMishpat,arevalidandeffectualcourt
records?
c.WhatisthelegalfoundationfordenialofinspectionofadulymadeJudgments
Docket,listingalljudgmentsininstantcourtfile?Incasethereisnosuchduly
madeJudgmentsDocketininstantcourtfile,theCourtishereinaskedto
explicitlystateso.
d.WhatisthelegalfoundationfordenialofinspectionofadulymadeArrest
Warrantininstantcourtfile?IncasethereisnotsuchdulymadeArrest
Warrantininstantcourtfile,theCourtishereinaskedtoexplicitlystateso.
TheCourtshouldgrantinstantrequestincompliancewiththefundamentalsofjustice
andthelaw.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
3/4
38/280
Exhibit A
39/280
40/280
41/280
42/280
43/280
44/280
45/280
46/280
47/280
48/280
49/280
50/280
51/280
52/280
53/280
54/280
55/280
56/280
57/280
58/280
59/280
60/280
61/280
62/280
63/280
64/280
65/280
66/280
67/280
68/280
69/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-01-19 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (000502-07) Serious Crime in the Nazareth District Court: Verdict,Sentencing, Supplemental
Judgment records, received during inspection //
( 000502-07)
" ," " ," " :
.
ThesignaturepagesoftheJudgmentrecords,whichwerediscoveredduring
inspectionofStateofIsraelvZadorovcourtfileintheofficeoftheclerkofthe
NazarethDistrictCourtwereprintedoutbythesamecourtemployeeonthesame
printer:
a.September14,2010Verdict:Therecordwasdiscoveredhereforthefirsttime.
ItfailstoappearinNetHaMishpat(casemanagementsystemofthecourt)eitherin
theDecisionsDocketortheJudgmentsDocket.Therecordfailstobearthe
signatureofJudgeHaimGalpaz.Additionally,thesignaturesofJudgesYitzhaq
CohenandEstherHellmanareunusual,sincetheyappearinthenegativeform,a
phenomenonneverseenbefore.
b.September14,2010Sentencing:TherecordappearsinNetHaMishpatunder
DecisionsDocket,butfailstoappearundertheJudgmentsDocket.Thisrecord
alsofailstobearthesignatureofJudgeHaimGalpaz.Alsoonthisrecordthe
signaturesofJudgesYitzhakCohenandEstherHellmanappearinthenegative.
c.February24,2015SupplementalJudgment:Thegraphicsignaturesonthis
recordarenotinthepositiveform.However,JudgeYitzhakCohen'sgraphic
signatureonthisrecordisentirelydifferentthanhisgraphicsignatureonthetwo
previousrecords.JudgeEstherHellman'ssignatureonallthreerecordsisidentical.
Weretheserecordssignedbylawfulelectronicsignatures,oraretheymerely
drafts?
AsmadeclearbytheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecisionrelativetoJudgeVarda
AlSheikh'sReconstructedProtocolaffair,thereisnowaythatthepublicand
counselcandistinguishbetweenvalidrecords,signedbylawfulelectronicsignatures
andinvalidrecords,signedonlybygraphicsignatures.
ThejudiciaryimplementedinNetHaMishpatinvisibleelectronicsignaturesThe
Emperor'sNewClothes.
OnJanuary19,2016,requestwasfiledwithJudgeHellmanfortheelectronic
signaturedataontheserecords.
However,inseveralpreviousattemptsinseveralothercourts,andalsoinrequest
filedwiththeAdministrationofCourts,accesstoelectronicsignaturedatawas
alwaysdenied...
,""
:,
,:2010,14"".
.""""
1/2
70/280
.,
,,
...
"."14:2010,"
","".
.
.
"."24":2014,"
.""
..
,""?
"",

"".
".
.
,
,
...
Document
Page #
1
1 2010-09-14 Verdict - page 3-4, 502-504 of Protocol
2 2010-09-14 Sentencing - page 1-2 of Protocol
3 2014-02-24 Supplemental Judgment - pages 1-2, 61, 66, 71-72
2/2
71/280
72/280
73/280
74/280
75/280
76/280
77/280
78/280
79/280
80/280
81/280
82/280
83/280
84/280
85/280
86/280
87/280
88/280
89/280
90/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
Judge Judge Hellman Decision on Request #117 for clarifications in re:
judgment records received during inspection as received by fax //
( 502/07)
117 '

____________
Decision
If I understood correctly the Requester's claims, they fall outside the scope of a Request to
Inspect.
Under such circumstances, I have nothing to add on my previous decisions on his requests.
Rendered today, January 20, 2015, in the absence of the parties.
91/280
92/280

_________________________________________________________________________
)(,";2003)2)4((
.1:
( :'
('053625596 :
",33407
(:
(:
0773179186
(:
.2:
(':
,'50207
(:
.3/:
(,,,,.
(",,,,
.
.4:
"",
.,.
.
,,
.
,,,
:
((2003):
"..,
,,"".
(2009
'(5917/97)":
,""..."
,
.
,,
"":
[1]".
93/280
1/4
((1992)
//.
(,,10"
".
(
".
,.
,"")
(2015,2010,(2013).
()
,(7939/10.
,
,.
(""
,."
",
.
(,
:
":
".
":
,.
.,"...
.
,
..
.
.
,,
,/
/,
.
.5)/(:
,.
20,2016,
'
a)Fullname:
JosephZernik,PhD
94/280
2/4
b)IDNo:
053625596
c)Address:
POBox33407,TelAviv
d)Telephone:
None
e)Fax:
0773179186
2. CourtFileDetails
a)CourtFileNumber:
b)Parties:
a.AnyandallDecision,Decree,Warrant,Order,Judgmentrecords,whichwere
issuedaspaperrecordsininstantcourtfile.
b.DulymadeDecisionsDocket,listingallDecision,Decree,Warrant,Order,
Judgmentrecords,whichweredulyenteredininstantcourtfile.
InstantRequestisfiledProForma,andthereshouldhavebeennoneedtofileor
justifyit.Likewise,thereisnoroombylawforresponsesorobjectionbythepartiesin
thismatter.TheRegulationsprescribethatPresidingJudgeofeachcourtshall
publishproceduresforinspectionoffilesinthecourtwherethePresidingJudge
officiates.However,regardlessofrepeatrequests,PresidingJudgeoftheNazareth
DistrictCourtAvrahamAvrahamsofarfailedtoperformhisdutiesbylaw.
Therefore,theneedaroseforfilinginstantproformarequest,andfollowingisits
justification,whichissuperfluousbylawaswell:
forpublication.Instantcourtfileisnotsealed.Therefore,therethisshouldnot
havebeenarequirementforinstantRequest,andaccordingly,itistitledProForma
Request.
suchtrust.
3/4
95/280
publichearing.
systemoftheNazarethDistrictCourtshowsthatinstantcourtfilewasinpart
administeredasapapercourtfile.Decisionrecords,whichwereissuedaspaper
recordsappearinNetHaMishpatasunsignedelectronicrecords,andcannotbe
deemedbyanyreasonablepersonvalidcourtrecords.
reasonabledoubt.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
4/4
96/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-01-20 ZADOROV AFFAIR: Crooks of the Nazareth District Court //

-
[]
Reminder letter was delivered yesterday to Presiding Judge of the Nazareth District
Court, regarding his duty to publish inspection procedures for his court files and his
duty to answer on request for clarifications regarding the registration of valid and
authentic judgments of the Nazareth District Court. In parallel, partial inspection was
conducted in the Nazareth District Court in the State of Israel v Zadorov file. Finally,
an electronic copy was discovered of the September 14, 2010 Verdict record,
which fails to appear in Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the Court).
The record would be deemed invalid and lacking any effect and authority by any
reasonable person. Signatures of Judge Haim Galpaz, who has since passed away,
are missing on both the September 14, 2010 Verdict and Sentencing records.
Additionally, inspection discovered three different graphical signatures of Presiding
Judge Yitzhak Cohen (who has since resigned on the background of investigation of
serious sex offenses) on various records in the Zadorov court file... The third
member of the panel Judge Esther Hellman has recently issued a fabricated,
perverted Decision record in the Zadorov file, pertaining to the request to inspect...
and on a request to correct the fabricated, perverted court record, she issued a
second fabricated, perverted court record, which says that the perverted court
records were issued due to technical problems, but perverted court records are
valid and effectual court records... During the Zadorov trial, senior police and
prosecution officers knew that Presiding Judge Yitzhak Cohen was suspected of
serious sex crimes, but failed to take action. Such circumstances left Judge Yizhak
Cohen open for extortion by police and the prosecution. All of that in a trial, where
Prof. Mota Kremnitzer wrote, Conduct of the State Prosecution is scary, and Prof.
Boaz Sangero wrote, Conviction with no real evidence... The latest findings again
demonstrate the fundamental fraud in development and operation of Net-HaMishpat
case management system of the Israeli court. Beyond the abuse of the individual
Roman Zadorov, the case hold historic significance in exposing widespread
corruption of the justice and law enforcement systems in Israel today!
General background regarding the Zadorov case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Zadorov
!
Figures:ProtestsigninsupportofRomanZadorov.JudgeEstherHellman,whowas
amemberofthepanelinhistrial,andtodayholdsthecourtfile,hasrecentlyissued
twofabricated,pervertedDecisionrecords,pertainingtorequeststoinspectthe
1/11
97/280
courtfile.PresidingJudgeYitzhakCohen,servedastheheadofthepanel,whose
September14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordswereneverdulyenteredand
registeredbytheCourtinNetHaMishpattheCourt'scasemanagementsystem.
Duringthetrial,seniorpoliceandprosecutionofficersknewofcomplaintsagainst
PresidingJudgeCohen,pertainingtoserioussexcrimes,includingsexcrimesagainst
minors.Therefore,hewasvulnerableforextortion.SignaturesofJudgeHaim
Galpaz,thethirdmemberofthepanelareentirelymissingfromtheSeptember14,
2010VerdictandSentencingrecords.IntheZadorovcourtfilethreedifferent
graphicsignaturesofPresidingJudgeCohenwerediscovered.Whichofthe
judgmentrecordsisdulysignedbyvalidelectronicsignatures?Thereisnowayto
know...PresidingJudgeoftheNazarethDistrictCourtAvrahamAvrahamfailsto
performhisdutiesandpublishproceduresforinspectionoftheCourt'sfilesand
explaintheregistrationproceduresofauthenticjudgmentrecordsintheNazareth
DistrictCourt...
_____
Figures:Twofabricated,pervertedDecisionrecords,datedDecember27,2015and
January12,2016,issuedbyJudgeEstherHellman,pertainingtorequeststoinspect
theZadorovcourtfile.SuchrecordssayintheirmastTheCourts,insteadofThe
NazarethDistrictCourt,andareclearlytheproductsofscanningofpaperrecords
intotheelectroniccasemanagementsystem,andthereforethesignaturesonthem
aregraphicsignatures(scannedsignatures)lackinganyvalidityandauthority.
TheissuanceofsuchcourtrecordswasthecoreofthefraudulentconductofJudge
VardaAlSheikhintheReconstructedProtocolscandal.DecisionoftheOmbudsman
oftheJudiciaryregardingJudgeVardaAlSheikhandtheReconstructedProtocol
clarifiesthatdecisionrecordinNetHaMishpat(casemanagementsystemofthe
Israelicourts),whichdonotdulybearanelectronicsignature,areinvalidcourt
records,merelyadraft.Arequesttocorrectpervertedcourtfilewasfiledwith
JudgeEstherHellmanintheZadorovcourtfile,followingherDecember27,2015
pervertedDecisionrecords.Inresponse,sheissuedthefabricated,perverted
January12,2016Decisionrecord,whichclaimedthatshehadtechnical
problems,andclaimedthatfabricated,perverted,invalidcourtrecordswerevalid
andeffectualcourtrecords...
______
2/11
98/280
Figures:SignaturepagesofJudgmentrecordsinStateofIsraelvZadorov,as
discoveredduringinspectiononJanuary19,2016,intheNazarethDistrictCourt,
andasprintedoutbythesamestaffmemberonthesameprinter:
a.September14,2010Verdict:Therecordwasdiscoveredhereforthefirsttime.
ItfailstoappearinNetHaMishpat(casemanagementsystemofthecourt)eitherin
theDecisionsDocketortheJudgmentsDocket.Therecordfailstobearthe
signatureofJudgeHaimGalpaz.Additionally,thesignaturesofJudgesYitzhaq
CohenandEstherHellmanareunusual,sincetheyappearinthenegativeform,a
phenomenonneverseenbefore.
b.September14,2010Sentencing:TherecordappearsinNetHaMishpatunder
DecisionsDocket,butfailstoappearundertheJudgmentsDocket.Thisrecord
alsofailstobearthesignatureofJudgeHaimGalpaz.Alsoonthisrecordthe
signaturesofJudgesYitzhakCohenandEstherHellmanappearinthenegative.
c.February24,2015SupplementalJudgment:Thegraphicsignaturesonthis
recordarenotinthepositiveform.However,JudgeYitzhakCohen'sgraphic
signatureonthisrecordisentirelydifferentthanhisgraphicsignatureonthetwo
previousrecords.JudgeEstherHellman'ssignatureonallthreerecordsisidentical.
Weretheserecordssignedbylawfulelectronicsignatures,oraretheymerely
drafts?
AsmadeclearbytheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecisionrelativetoJudgeVarda
AlSheikh'sReconstructedProtocolaffair,thereisnowaythatthepublicand
counselcandistinguishbetweenvalidrecords,signedbylawfulelectronicsignatures
andinvalidrecords,signedonlybygraphicsignatures.
ThejudiciaryimplementedinNetHaMishpatinvisibleelectronicsignaturesThe
Emperor'sNewClothes.
OnJanuary19,2016,requestwasfiledwithJudgeHellmanfortheelectronic
signaturedataontheserecords.
However,inseveralpreviousattemptsinseveralothercourts,andalsoinrequest
filedwiththeAdministrationofCourts,accesstoelectronicsignaturedatawas
alwaysdenied...
3/11
99/280
Figures:ThreetypesofPresidingJudgeYitzakCohen'sgraphicsignatures
alternatelyappearintheZadorovcourtfile.Asclarifiedindecisionofthe
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciary,graphicalsignaturesinNetHaMishpat(case
managementsystemoftheIsraelicourts)areinvalid.However,thepublicand
counselcannotdistinguishbetweenjudicialrecords,whichweresignedonlyby
graphicalsignaturesandrecordswhichweredulysignedbylawfulelectronic
signatures...Thejudiciarydevelopedandoperateacasemanagementsystemwhere
theelectronicsignaturesareinvisibleTheEmperor'sNewClothes...Thisisa
classicsituationofShellGameFraud,alsoknownasFlimFlam...
LINKS:Below
)(.,
,
""14,2010,
..
,,""
""14.2010,"
")
(...
...,
,
,...,
,
,.
.
"",'"
"...
.
,
!
4/11
100/280
:,
,,
.,
""14,2010,.
,
,.,
.,,
""...
?...
.
_____
:"",
27,2015,12,2016,.
,,"","
")(.
,
""")"(
.
"".
""
,""
.,""
""27,
5/11
101/280
,2015""12,
,2016"",,
...
______
:"",19,2016,
,
:"."14:2010,
,"
""".
.,,
,...".
"14:2010,"
","".
.
."."24:2014,
"".""
.
.
,""?
"",
"".
6/11
102/280
:"",
.",
",
.
""...
"","".
_____
"20,
,
.
,
:
.),(,2003
.
.)(,",1958
,245
)(.,.
12,201529
.2015
:
,:
.
""""
?
.""",",/"
"""""
?
.""",",/"
"""""
?
,
,,
.
,
."
7/11
103/280
,12".
,2009,,
"",""...
,,
/,,
,.
,.
""50214
.2010,,
,""""
.,,
.
""14".2010,",
).
""24.(2014,
,,
,
:
*,
*,
,
*"",
*"",
*""
.
,,
.
,
?
.,2014
,
,,
.,
.,'
"",'"
"...
"",
8/11
104/280
"
"",,
,
"".
,
,
,"","".
,
"",
.
:,,
,"".
.
27,2015,,
"",""
.,""
12,2016,
.
""
,
!
12,2016,
:
(5
,,,
.
.
(6,:
.""
""272015122016
,?
.
""122016
,"",
?
.""
,?
"",
.
."/"
?"/
",.
9/11
105/280
".,,
,,
,,
".
,
:
,,,,
,,
!
:
(00050207):)
(#111
:(00050207)
(#111),
(No111)//
:(00050207)
)'(113
.27,2015,)'(111
(00050207):
,:()',(111(
.)'(113
[5]20160119ReminderfiledwithNazarethDistrictCourtPresidingJudgeAvraham
Avrahamregardinghislawfuldutytopublishinspectionproceduresandtorespondon
inquiryre:dueregistrationoflawfuljudgments,within45days//
.,,45
(00050207):)
(#111
10/11
106/280
(No111)//
:(00050207)
(113')
(111'),2015,27.
:(00050207)
(,(111')(:,
(113').
[9]20160119Request(No115)foradulysignedandcertifiedcopyofJudgeHellman's
January16,2016pervertedDecisionrecord//
(115')
2016,16
[10]20160119Request(No116)forclarificationsregardingJudgeEstherHellman's
January12,2016decision//
2016,12(116')
[11]20160119Request(No117)forclarificationsregardingVerdictandSentencing
records,receivedduringinspectiontoday//
""""(117').
NazarethDistrictCourt:Requestforinspectionofpapercourtrecords//
:(00050207)
11/11
107/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-10-21 Zadorov Affair: Attorney Avigdor Feldman's response, regarding

crooked records, judges of the Nazareth District Court //
" :
[]
The Israeli courts and law enforcement system were hijacked through largescale fraud in IT systems...
Figures: Prof Uzzi Ornan, Attorney Avigdor Feldman

_____
OccupyTLV,January21followingmyrecentpublications,detailing
perversionofcourtrecordsandcourtprocessintheZadorovcourtfileinthe
NazarethDistrictCourtandcrookedconductbyjudges,employingfraudulent
ITsystemsofthecourts,Ihavereceivedseveralcongratulatorymessages.
AmongthesenderswereUzziOrnanseniorlinguisticsandcomputerscience
professorandawellknownpublicfigure,aswellasAttorneyAvigdor
Feldman.AttorneyFeldmanisarguablytheNo1criminaldefenseattorneyin
Israeltoday,andisalsoanotableHumanRightsadvocateandapublicfigure.
FollowingisAttorneyAvigdorFeldman'snote:
On 2016-01-21 10:32 am, Feldman wrote:
Yosef Shalom,
In my opinion you are doing a very important work. The court
system is known for its insistence that papers filed in court
must be authentic, not scanned, not soiled by carbon (during
the carbon copy period). And you show that the court system
itself was hijacked through an unsupervised electronic system,
which enables the judges to do with the judgments as they
wish, and raising serious doubts whether judges, who signed
their agreement on judgment records indeed read them. Also
your comments relative to Judge Yitzhak Cohen make me lose
sleep at night, and I am checking them in depth.
Thank you for your persistent and thorough work.
Avigdor Feldman
Ihopethatinthenearfutureagroupofseniorpublicfigureswouldmakea
callforanindependent,transparentexaminationofITsystemsofthecourts
andprisonsbyITandlegalexperts.
1/3
108/280
Currentconditionsareabsurd:Inastate,wheresomeofthefoundersofthe
fieldofcryptologyreside,andwheresomeoftheworld'sleadingdatasecurity
corporationswerefounded,thejusticeandlawenforcementsystemswere
hijackedthroughalargescalefraudinITsystems.Papers,whichIpublished
inacademicconferencesonegovernmentabroadrefertosuchconditions
unannouncedregimechange,andtheimminentandseriousdangerto
humandignityandlibertyisclearlydemonstratedintheZadorovaffair.
JosephZernik
OccupyTLV
LINKSbelow
...
:',"
____
"21,
,
,'".
":
On 2016-01-21 10:32 am, Feldman wrote:
,
,
)(
.
:
,,
...
""
".
2/3
109/280
"
:
:
[2]Zernik,J.FraudulentNewITSystemsoftheIsraeliCourtsUnannounced
RegimeChange?Proceedingsofthe15thEuropeanConferenceone
Government(ECEG),UniversityofPortsmouth,UK,pp331340,2015.
3/3
110/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-10-21 Zadorov Affair: Prof Uzzi Ornan's response, regarding crooked

records, judges of the Nazareth District Court //
' :
[]
The Israeli courts and law enforcement system were hijacked through largescale fraud in IT systems...
Figures: Prof Uzzi Ornan, Attorney Avigdor Feldman

_____
OccupyTLV,January21followingmyrecentpublications,detailing
perversionofcourtrecordsandcourtprocessintheZadorovcourtfileinthe
NazarethDistrictCourtandcrookedconductbyjudges,employingfraudulent
ITsystemsofthecourts,Ihavereceivedseveralcongratulatorymessages.
AmongthesenderswereUzziOrnanseniorlinguisticsandcomputerscience
professorandawellknownpublicfigure,aswellasAttorneyAvigdor
Feldman.AttorneyFeldmanisarguablytheNo1criminaldefenseattorneyin
Israeltoday,andisalsoanotableHumanRightsadvocateandapublicfigure.
FollowingisProfessorUzziOrnan'snote:
On201601209:19pm,UzziOrnanwrote:
Congratulations!Allpowertoyou!
Ihopethatyouseethefruitsofyourenormousinvestment!
UzziOrnan
Ihopethatinthenearfutureagroupofseniorpublicfigureswouldmakea
callforanindependent,transparentexaminationofITsystemsofthecourts
andprisonsbyITandlegalexperts.
Currentconditionsareabsurd:Inastate,wheresomeofthefoundersofthe
fieldofcryptologyreside,andwheresomeoftheworld'sleadingdatasecurity
corporationswerefounded,thejusticeandlawenforcementsystemswere
hijackedthroughalargescalefraudinITsystems.Papers,whichIpublished
inacademicconferencesonegovernmentabroadrefertosuchconditions
unannouncedregimechange,andtheimminentandseriousdangerto
humandignityandlibertyisclearlydemonstratedintheZadorovaffair.
JosephZernik
1/2
111/280
OccupyTLV
LINKSbelow
:'
...
:',"
____
"21,
,
,,
,".
':
On201601209:19pm,UzziOrnanwrote:
!
!

.
:
,,
...
""
".
!
"
:
:
[2]Zernik,J.FraudulentNewITSystemsoftheIsraeliCourtsUnannounced
RegimeChange?Proceedingsofthe15thEuropeanConferenceone
Government(ECEG),UniversityofPortsmouth,UK,pp331340,2015.
2/2
112/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "

Hellman Decision on Request #118 - for inspection of complete
Decisions Docket, paper decision records seeking State response
- as received by fax //
( 502/07)
, 118 '

foundation.
____________
Decision
ForresponsebytheRespondentbyJanuary27,2016.
FormyreviewbyJanuary28,2016.
Renderedtoday,January21,2016,intheabsenceoftheparties.
1/1
113/280
114/280

_________________________________________________________________________
)(,";2003)2)4((
.1:
( :'
('053625596 :
",33407
(:
(:
0773179186
(:
.2:
(':
,'50207
(:
.3/:
((.
,,
.
""((,/
""((:
(""14,2010,
(""14,2010,
(""24.2014,
.4:
:"",
.,.
,(2003))6'(,
.,,
.
,,,
:
((2003):
"..,
,,"".
(2009
'(5917/97)":,
""..."
:
,
.
,,
"":
[1]".
((1992)
//.
115/280
1/5
(,,10"
".
(
".
,.
,"",2010)
(2015,(2013).
(,(7939/10)
.
,,
.
(27",2015,"
)'.(11119,2016,
[2].
"",)(,
.
(,31
,2012,""/88/12)"(
,.
,
",2001
,,"".
":19
',,
.
,
]...[
,
,.
":21
.,
...:
"".
(,
:
2 2016-01-19 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (000502-07) Serious Crime - in the
Nazareth District Court: Verdict,Sentencing, Supplemental Judgment records,
received during inspection //
) (000502-07 : "
"" , " , " .
116/280
2/5
":
."
":
.,
...",.
.
.,
.
.
.
,,
/,
,/
.
:(/).5
.,
'
2016,23,
RegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003);Form2(Regulation4(c))
a)Fullname:
JosephZernik,PhD
b)IDNo:
053625596
c)Address:
POBox33407,TelAviv
d)Telephone:
None
e)Fax:
0773179186
2. CourtFileDetails
a)CourtFileNumber:
b)Parties:
Anyandalldata,whichdocumenttheexecutionofelectronicsignaturesofthejudgeson
recordsa)c),below.Suchdataarerequestediftheyexist,andiftheydonotexist,the
Courtisaskedtoexplicitlystatesoinitsdecisiononinstantrequest.Therequested
recordsarethedataofexecutionofelectronicsignatures,whichappearintheProtocol
Eventsfolder,pertainingtorecordsa)andb),below,and/oranyotherrecordsinany
otherfolderinNetHaMishpat(casemanagementsystemoftheCourt),pertainingto
theexecutionofelectronicsignaturesonrecordsa)c),below:
a)September14,2010Verdictrecord,
b)September14,2010Sentencingrecord,
c)February24,2014SupplementalJudgmentrecord.
Preface:InstantRequestisfiledProForma,andthereshouldhavebeennoneedtofile
orjustifyit.Likewise,thereisnoroombylawforresponsesorobjectionbythepartiesin
thismatter.TheRegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003),Regulation
3/5
117/280
6(b),prescribesthatPresidingJudgeofeachcourtshallpublishproceduresfor
inspectionoffilesinthecourtwherethePresidingJudgeofficiates.However,regardless
ofrepeatrequests,PresidingJudgeoftheNazarethDistrictCourtAvrahamAvrahamso
farfailedtoperformhisdutiesbylaw.
Therefore,theneedaroseforfilinginstantProFormaRequest,andthefollowing
justification,whichissuperfluousbylawaswell:
a.TheRegulationsoftheCourts,InspectionofCourtFiles(2003),say:Everypersonis
permittedtoinspectdecisionsandjudgments,whicharenotlawfullyprohibitedfor
publication.Instantcourtfileisnotsealed.Therefore,therethisshouldnothave
Request.
b.TheSupremeCourt2009JudgmentinAssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelvMinisterof
Justiceetal(5917/97),says:Therighttoinspectisafundamentalprincipleina
democraticregimeandaconstitutional,suprastatutoryright.TheJudgmentinthe
Association'spetitionalsorepeatsthepetitioners'argumentsregardingtheimportance
oftherighttoaccesscourtrecordsrelativetopublictrustingovernmentauthorities:
suchtrust.
likewisejustifiedinalandmarkrulingoftheUSSupremeCourt:tofulfillthecitizen's
desire'tokeepawatchfuleyeontheworkingsofpublicagencies.[i]
preventionoffalsearrestsbygovernmentauthorities,absenttheabilitytomaterialize
therighttoinspectjudgmentsandarrest/detentionwarrants.
d.TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,Article10,statestherightforfairpublic
hearing.
e.TheRequesterhasbeenengagedforyearsinacademicresearchregardingITsystems
oftheIsraeliandUScourts,andadministrationofpublicaccesstocourtrecords.His
researchonsuchsubjectshasbeenpublishedandpresentedininternationalacademic
conferencesintherelevantfields,subjecttoanonymous,internationalpeerreview.His
reportsonsuchsubjectshavealsobeenincorporatedintoUNHumanRightsCouncil
ReportspertainingtotheUnitedStates(2010,2015)andIsrael(2013),followingthe
Council'sProfessionalStaffreview.
f.TheRequesterfiledandreceivedpermissiontoinspecttheSupremeCourtfileZadorov
vStateofIsrael(7939/10),purportedlyoriginatinginjudgmentsfrominstantcourtfile.
However,inspectionoftheSupremeCourtfileshowedthatnodulymadeandcertified
judgmentrecordswerefiledintheSupremeCourtwiththeNoticeofAppeal,in
disregardofexplicitprovisionsofthelaw.
g.OnDecember27,2015,theRequesterfiledProFormaRequesttoinspect(Request
No111)ininstantcourtfile.OnJanuary19,2016theRequesterpartiallyexercisedthe
inspectionofjudgments,inspectionoftheelectronicsignaturesofwhichisrequested
herein.[2]Suchrecordsinthemselves,andthemannerinwhichtheyareenteredin
NetHaMishpatraiseseriousconcernsthatsuchrecordsarenotauthenticcourt
records,andthattheywereneverelectronicallysignedbyalljudgesofthepanels,
whosenamesappearonthem.
h)AsclarifiedbytheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldberg'sMay31,2012
Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict),pertainingtoJudgeVardaAlSheikh's
ReconstructedProtocol,followingimplementationofNetHaMishpat,thereisa
materialdifficultyinidentifyingdulymadedecisionandjudgmentrecords.Thepublic
118/280
4/5
cannotdistinguishbetweenprintoutsofprotocol,decisionandjudgmentrecords,which
aredulysignedusingelectronicsignatures,pursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct
(2001),andcourtrecordsthatbearonlygraphicsignatures,andaredraftsonly.
judgeusinganelectronicsignature,itisadraftprotocol,whichismaintained
intheProtocolsFolderofthesystem...[underlineintheoriginaljz]
Sincethescannedgraphicsignatureofthejudgeappearsalsoonthedraft,a
printoutofthedraftandaprintoutoftheelectronicallysignedprotocollook
thesame,andthereisnowaytodistinguishbetweenthem.
Itisimpossibletodistinguishbetweenagraphicallysignedprotocolandan
electronicallysignedprotocoloncetherecordhadbeenprinted.Withit,in
theelectronicfilesinNetHaMishpatsystemthereareseveralwaysto
distinguishbetweenthem:...thereisdocumentationoftheexecutionof
electronicsignaturesintheProtocolEventsfolderinthesystem.
h.Instantcourtfileholdsthehighestpublicpolicysignificance,sinceitraisedandraises
numerousconcernsamongthepublicatlargeandexperts:
scientificevidencetyingthesuspecttothecrimescene,thereisnomotiveforthe
crime.Thesuspectdeniedhisguiltduringmostoftheinvestigationstagesandall
alonghistrial.Whenheconfessed,hedidnotleadtheinvestigatorstoany
evidenceatall....TheVerdictisnotconvincingthatguiltwasprovenbeyondany
reasonabledoubt.ThenewVerdictinthematterofRomanZadorovraises
numerousconcerns,ontopofconcernsthatwereraisedbytheoriginalVerdictin
thisaffair.Zadorov'sguiltwasnotprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt.
Interestofthepublicatlargeininstantcourtfileisunprecedented.Hundredsof
thousandsofcitizensarelistedinsocialnetworkgroups,whichsupportthe
TotheRequester'sbestknowledgeandbelief,citizenswhoexaminedtheevidence
materialthatwasaccessibletothem,alsofiledcriminalcomplaintswiththe
MinistryofJusticeand/ortheAttorneyGeneralagainstmembersofthe
investigationteamforpervertingand/orfalsifyingevidence,andagainstmembers
oftheprosecutionteamfordeliberatelymisleadingtheCourt.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
5/5
119/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
record received by fax purported Decision by Presiding Judge Avraham
Avraham on request to inspect electronic data records of Zadorov's purported
verdict, sentencing records //
( 502/07)

. ,
[]
OnJanuary24,2016inthemorning,requestforinspectionofelectronicsignaturedataofVerdict,
SentencingandSupplementalJudgmentrecords,whicharesuspectedfraud,wasfiled.Bytheearly
afternoon,faxtransmissionwasreceivedfromPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,
purportedDecision,whichfailstomentionelectronicsignatures,failstodecideontherequest,failsto
appearintheDecisionsDocketoftheCourt,andfailedtobedulyserved,indisregardofanexplicitrequestfor
dueprocessfiledwiththecourt.
"," ," " , , 24
, , . ,"
, ," " , "
. , ,""
LINKS:
[1] 2016-01-23 State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07): Notice to counsel in re - Request to Inspect
electronic signature data in judgment records //
. :(502/07)
[2] 2016-01-24 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (000502-07) Serious Crime - in the Nazareth
District Court: Request (No 120) for Due Process in requests to inspect court file //
( 120 ' ):( 000502-07)

#
Document
Page
1.
2016012419:57ScreenprintofDecisionsDocketinNetHaMishpatcasemanagementsystemof
theIsraelicourts,whichfailstoshowthepurportedPresidingJudgeAvraham'sdecision,whichwas
faxedat15:12//
"",19:57""
15:12,
2.
20160124StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtrecordreceived
byfaxpurportedDecisionbyPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamonrequesttoinspectelectronicdata
recordsofZadorov'spurportedverdict,sentencingrecordsENGLISHTRANSLATION//
(502/07)

.,
3.
byfaxpurportedDecisionbyPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamonrequesttoinspectelectronicdata
recordsofZadorov'spurportedverdict,sentencingrecordsHEBREWORIGINAL//
(502/07)

,
1/3
120/280
2016012418:43ScreenprintofDecisionsDocketinNetHaMishpatcasemanagementsystemofthe
Israelicourts,whichfailstoshowthepurportedPresidingJudgeAvraham'sdecision,whichwasfaxedat
15:12//
"",18:43""
15:12,
Thelastdecision,whichislistedintheDecisionsDocketisJanuary21,2016DecisionbyJudgeEsther
Hellman.PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvarham'sJanuary24,2016Decisiononrequesttoinspectelectronic
signaturedatafailstoappearinthedocket.
.2016,21,""
2016,24""
.""
1/3
121/280
24/01/2016
15:12
046087799
PLILIMEHOZINAZA
PAGE01/01
[COATOFARMS,STATEOFISRAEL]
January24,2016
StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(50207)
RequestNo119
By:PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham
Requester:
v
Responders:
JosephZernik,PhD
StateofIsrael
Decision
AsfarastheRequesterasksforinspectioninthecourtfile,heshouldappearinthe
OfficeoftheClerk,wherehewouldbeguidedhowtoactinordertogaininspection.
AsfarastherequesterhasclaimsagainstNetHaMishpatsystem,Ihereinreferhimto
theLegalDepartmentoftheAdministrationofCourts.
[graphicsignature]
AvrahamAvraham,PhD,PresidingJudge
1/3
122/280
123/280

50207
:
'
",33407
0773179186:
,',:
(127,2015,.
(2,
""27,2015,122016,
.
[2,1].
(321,2016,""
3
:20,2016,'[ ],117
21,2016,'[4].118,,
,,
,"","".
,,,
""
)(.
(431/88/12)2012,"(
"",
,
1 2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (000502-07) Serious Crime - in the Nazareth
District Court: Decision on Request (#111) to inspect judgments as received by fax //
: ) (000502-07
) (#111 ,
)District Court: January 12, 2016 Decision of Judge Hellman on a) Request to inspect (No 111), b
Request to correct perverted court record (No 113) as received by fax//
) (000502-07 : 12,
,2016 :( )' ,(111( )'
- (113 .
District Court: January Judge Hellman's Decision on Request (No 117) for clarifications, in re:
Judgment records Denied (as received by fax). //
) (000502-07 :
)' (117 : - .
District Court: Judge Hellman's Decision on Request (No 118) to Inspect all decision records,
issued as paper records seeking State response - as received by fax //
) (000502-07 :
)' ( 118 - .
124/280
1/4
""
.
,":19
',,
.
,
]...[
,
,.
,"
:33
.
.
(5,,
,,"',"
""2000")(3032/99)
(.,,
,",".
,"
,".
:34
.34:):(,,1992
....
:
....
...
.,,
,,1992
...
(6,,
,,
,"".
,:
.,
,
.(1)20,2016,'
(2),11721,2016,',118
""
)(
.
.
24,2016,
125/280
'
1/4
50207
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax: 0773179186
RequestforDueProcessinRequeststoInspectinInstantCourtFile
TheRequesterofInspection,JosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinarequestforDue
Processinrequeststoinspectininstantcourtfile:
1)OnDecember27,2015,Ifiledmyfirstrequesttoinspectininstantcourtfile.
2)Followingthatrequestandsubsequentrequests,JudgeEstherHellmanissuedtwo
DecisionrecordsonedatedDecember27,2015,andtheotherdatedJanuary12,
2016whichareperverted,invalidcourtrecordsontheirfaces.Suchrecordswere
alsosenttomebyfax,conductwhichshouldbedeemedsimulatedserviceof
simulatedcourtrecords.[1,2]
3)OnJanuary21,2016,IreceivedbyfaxfromtheNazarethDistrictCourttwo
additionalDecisionrecordsbyJudgeEstherHellman:OnedatedJanuary20,
2016,pertainingtorequestNo117,[3]andtheotherdatedJanuary21,2016,
pertainingtorequestNo118.[4]Regardingsuchtworecords,thereisnowayto
distinguish,whethertheyareauthenticcourtrecord,whichwereelectronically
signedbyJudgeEstherHellman,orsimulatedcourtrecords,whichonlybear
graphicsignatures,andareonlydrafts.However,theserviceofboththese
recordswasclearlyinvalid,outofcompliancewithDueProcesssincetheywere
transmittedwithnoCertificatesofService(authentication)bytheOfficeofthe
Clerk.
4)TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)
regardingJudgeVardaAlSheikh'sReconstructedProtocol,providesdetailed
descriptionofmethodsforissuanceofauthenticcourtrecords,versusissuanceof
simulatedcourtrecords,andconductofdueservice,versusconductofsimulated
serviceinNetHaMishpatthenewcasemanagementsystemofthedistrictand
magistratecourtsoftheStateofIsrael.
Regardingtheissuanceofsimulatedcourtrecords,theabovereferenced
Ombudsman'sdecisionsaysinparagraph19:
judgeusinganelectronicsignature,itisadraftprotocol...[underlineinthe
originaljz]Sincethescannedgraphicsignatureofthejudgeappears
alsoonthedraft,aprintoutofthedraftandaprintoutoftheelectronically
signedprotocollookthesame,andthereisnowaytodistinguishbetween
them.
Regardingsimulatedserviceofsimulatedcourtrecords,theabovereferenced
Ombudsman'sdecisionsaysinparagraph33:
Thereisnodocumentationthattheprotocolwasprintedandwhereitwas
printedfrom.Whenserviceisexecutedthroughthesystem,thereis
documentationofit.
2/4
126/280
5)IntheAmosBaranesaffair,whereapersonwasfalselyindictedonmurder,falsely
convictedofmurder,andfalselyimprisonedformanyyears,hiscounsel,Attorneys
ProfKennethMann,thelateDavidWeiner,andothersfiledin2000Requestfora
NewTrial(BaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99)intheSupremeCourt).Insuch
Request,circumstancesweredescribed,whichlastedovertwentyyears,where
policemenandprosecutors,includingseniorstaff,stoodlikeafortifiedwallto
obstructthetruth.Therefore,Baranes'scounselraisedanewcauseforaNew
Trialseriousproceduraldefectsintheoriginaltrial,whichdeniedhimFairProcess
andamounttoperversionofjustice.
InherdecisiontogranttheRequestforaNewTrial,JusticeDaliaDornersaysin
paragraph34:
34.BasicLaw:HumanDignityandLiberty(hereinafter:TheBasicLaw),
whichwasenactedin1992,establishedaconstitutionalbasicrightforfair
criminalprocess...
ReferringtotheimpactofTheBasicLawoncriminalprocedure,Boaz
OkonandOdedShahamwrote:
therightofapersonforLibertywasestablished.Ithasmaterial
impactonthecriminalprocedure...aperson'srighttoDueProcesswas
recognized...
TherightforDueProcesshasbeenestablishedbylawincivilizedjusticesystemsas
aconstitutionallevelrightforcenturies.Therefore,onemustwonderregardinga
lawandjusticesystem,wheretherightforDueProcesswasconstruedonlyasa
resultofa1992legislation,andthattooonlyincriminalprocess...
6)Thereisnodoubtthatconditions,beitincriminalorcivilprocess,whereaparty
cannotascertainwhetherrecords,whichthepartyreceivesfromthecourtare
authenticcourtrecordsorsimulatedcourtrecord,andthecourtfailstoperform
lawfuldueservice,areoutofcompliancewiththefundamentalsofDueProcess,and
outofcompliancewithfairpublichearing.
Therefore,Ihereinrequestthat:
a.Regardingmyrequestsininstantcourtfile,theCourtissueinNetHaMishpat
decisionrecords,whicharelawfullysignedbyelectronicsignatures,and
b.TheCourtdulyserveonmeitsJanuary20,2016decision(onmyrequestNo
117),itsJanuary21,2016decision(onmyrequestNo118),andanyfuture
decisiononmyrequestsbyexecutingtheserviceprocedureinNetHaMishpat
system,andmailingtomyaddress,providedabove,paperrecordsofits
decisions,accompaniedbyCertificatesofService(authentication)signedbyan
authorizedpersonintheOfficeoftheClerk.
andthelaw.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
3/4
127/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
record received by fax purported Decision by Presiding Judge Avraham
Avraham on request (No 120) to inspect duly made Arrest Warrant, Judgment
Index entries (if they exist at all) //
( 502/07)

) ,( 120 ' )
(
[]
Inspection of the duly made Arrest Warrant and Judgment Index had been requested already
in the original December 27, 2015 request to inspect in Zadorov's court file. However, Judge
Esther Hellman's January 12, 2016 fabricated Decision record (which, among other fraudulent
features, was produced on a fake letterhead, failing to show the name of the Nazareth District
Court in its masthead) failed to refer to such records at all.
Arrest Warrant: Israeli law, like the law in other civilized nations, says that no person shall be
admitted to prison without a duly made arrest/detention warrant. Therefore, the question begs to
be asked: Based on what record is Roman Zadorov held today in prison?
Judgment Index: Valid and reliable entry of judgments is a fundamental characteristic of honest
and competent courts since the late middle ages... A court where there is no registry of
judgments would not doubt be deemed an incompetent or corrupt court. In contrast, in the
Zadorov court file there is no entry in the Judgment Index of the September 14, 2010 Verdict
and Sentencing records. And the evidence clearly shows that such records were never valid and
effectual court records, but only simulated court records fraud upon the court, upon the
Defendant and upon the public at large.
It should also be noted that Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham has failed to respond to repeat
requests over recent months to clarify the procedures for entry and registration of judgments in
the Nazareth District Court.
Such requests said in part:
a. Who lawfully holds the authority and the duty to register judgments of the
Nazareth District Court under the Judgments tab in Net-HaMishpat?
b. Does the registration of a court record as a Judgment, Verdict and/or
Sentencing under the Judgments tab in Net-HaMishpat say that it is indeed a
lawfully valid and effectual judgment in the respective court file?
c. Does the lack of registration of a court record as a Judgment, Verdict and/or
Sentencing under the Judgments tab in Net-HaMishpat say that it is NOT indeed
a lawfully valid and effectual judgment in the respective court file?
Vagueness and ambiguity regarding the lawful existence, validity and effect of
judgments in any court, and in particular judgments pertaining to conviction and
life imprisonment in a murder case, would no doubt raise serious concerns
regarding competence of the respective court and the safeguard of fundamental
Human Rights.
In contrast, today Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham has swiftly answered on a request filed this
morning to inspect Zadorov's Arrest Warrant and Judgment Index. Presiding Judge Avraham
Avraham has again issued a perverted Decision record, which fails to appear in the Decisions
Docket and which was transmitted by fax with no Certificate of Service (authentication) in total
disregard of the Request for Due Process, which was also filed earlier this morning.
In today's fabricated Decision record, pertaining to the request to inspect Zadorov's Arrest
Warrant and Judgment Index entries (if they exist at all), Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham says:
The Requester again files requests, whose subject, purportedly, is inspection of
court records, but these are not requests to inspect court records, but an
investigation, which the Requester is conducting, regarding validity of the operation
of Net-HaMishpat system, and a long list of grievances regarding conduct of the
judicial panel in instant court file. In such matters this Court shall not engage...
1/6
128/280
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham leaves no room for a doubt that inspection of the requested
records, or knowledge of their nonexistence would provide additional evidence regarding the
fraud in conduct of Judges Cohen, Hellman and Galpaz. However, Presiding Judge Avraham
Avraham fails to clarify a simple, central issue: What is the foundation in the law to his
determination that such requests to inspect court records are not requests to inspect court
record?
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham's statement, In such matters this Court shall not engage... is
at least perplexing. The public's right to inspect court records has long been recognized as aimed
at enabling the public to keep as watchful eye on the workings of public agencies. [1]
Obviously, through his own criminal conduct, Judge Avraham Avraham is engaged in obstructing
discovery of additional evidence of the criminality of Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and
Haim Galpaz.
Serious implications of the Roman Zadorov case and conduct of the Nazareth District
Court judges regarding Human Rights and the nature of regime in Israel.
Following several weeks, during which Judge Esther Hellman engaged in the issuance of simulated
court records and fraud in addressing requests to inspect the Zadorov court file, somehow
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham has now decided to enter the matter himself. However, there
is no document of re-assignment of the case to Presiding Judge Avraham, or any explanation for
his taking over of the case.
Consequently, Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham has issued over the past couple of days two
fabricated Decision records, where he unlawfully denied the right to inspect judicial decisions
a right prescribed by law to any person, and a right, which the Israeli Supreme Court declared,
a fundamental principle of a democratic regime, and a constitutional, supra-statutory right.
Absent the right to inspect judgment and arrest warrant records, there is no way for the public to
safeguard against arbitrary and capricious, tyrannical imprisonment of persons by State agencies.
Therefore, Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham is engaged in bullying, criminal and cheeky conduct
in the Zadorov case.
However, the evidence already discovered, makes it absolutely clear: Judges Yitzhak Cohen,
Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz engaged in perversion of court records, obstruction of justice,
and conduct of simulated court trial in the case of Roman Zadorov. Their intention was to mislead
the Defendant and the public that Zadorov was duly convicted in the murder of Tair Rada, and
that he was duly sentenced to life in prison. However, lawfully executed Verdict and
Sentencing records were never executed by the Court and never entered in this court file.
The outcome of such criminality is the long-term, false imprisonment of an innocent person.
The findings also again document the fundamental fraud in development and operation of NetHaMishpat the new case management system of the Israeli courts. Previous publication of the
findings in this case has prompted unprecedented support messages from computer science and
linguistics professor Uzzi Ornan and from notable criminal defense attorney Avigdor Feldman.
Conduct of Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, Haim Galpaz and now also Presiding Judge Avraham
Avraham should be deemed fraud, perversion of court records, obstruction of justice, and
breach of loyalty.
Conduct of the Nazareth District Court shows contempt of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
and contempt of fundamental Human Rights. Conduct of Judges of the Nazareth District Court is
typical of courts of police states and dark regimes.
27 ( 111 " )/ " " "
,2016 , 12 "" .2015 ,
.
. -
? :
-
. ...
" " , .
.2014 , 14 " " " "
. -
,
: ,
".
?" " "
1 US Supreme Court: Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
2/6
129/280
. " "" , " ,/ " " " " "

" ?
. " "" , " ,/ " " "
" " " ?
- ,
, ,
.
,
. ,
" " , )( -
, .
"" , )
( :
, , , , ,
,
" . ....

, , .
: " "?
" : "....
... " "
[ 2] .
, , .

, .

.
, ,
, " " ,
" " ," -" . ,
, , ,
.
, , ,.
: , ,
, , .
" , .
" " " " , .
.

" - " . '
" .
, , -
- , , , .

.
.
:
[1] 2016-10-21 Zadorov Affair: Attorney Avigdor Feldman's response, regarding crooked records,
judges of the Nazareth District Court //
: "
[2] 2016-10-21 Zadorov Affair: Prof Uzzi Ornan's response, regarding crooked records, judges of
the Nazareth District Court //
: '
District Court: Request (No 119) to Inspect electronic signature data on judgment records //
) (000502-07 : )' (119

)2 US Supreme Court: Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978
3/6
130/280
District Court: Request (No 121-2?) for Due Process in requests to inspect court file //
?( 121-2 ' ):( 000502-07)

[5] 2016-01-24 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court record
received by fax purported Decision by Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham on request (No 119) to
inspect electronic data records of Zadorov's purported verdict, sentencing records //
( 502/07)
( 119 ' )
. ,
District Court: Request (No 121?) for Inspection of duly made Arrest Warrant, Judgment Index //
( 120 ' ):( 000502-07)
,
District Court: Request (No 123?) for rendering due decision on request (No 119) to inspect
electronic signature data of judgments //
?( 123 ' ):( 000502-07)
( 119 ' )
District Court: Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham's Decision, in re: Request (No 120) for
Inspection of duly made Arrest Warrant, Judgment Index as received by fax, and which fails to
appear in the Decisions Docket//
"" :( 000502-07)
,( 120 ' )
." " ,
#
Document
Page
1.
2016012516:38ScreenprintofDecisionsDocketinNetHaMishpatcasemanagementsystemof
theIsraelicourts,whichfailstoshowthepurportedPresidingJudgeAvraham'sdecision,whichwas
faxedat12:39//
"",16:38""
12:39,
2.
byfaxpurportedDecisionbyPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamonrequest(No120)toinspectduly
madeArrestWarrant,JudgmentIndexentries(iftheyexistatall)ENGLISHTRANSLATION//
(502/07)
,(120')
()
3.
byfaxpurportedDecisionbyPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamonrequest(No120)toinspectduly
madeArrestWarrant,JudgmentIndexentries(iftheyexistatall)//
(502/07)
,(120')
()
4/6
131/280
2016012516:38ScreenprintofDecisionsDocketinNetHaMishpatcasemanagementsystemofthe
Israelicourts,whichfailstoshowthepurportedPresidingJudgeAvraham'sdecision,whichwasfaxedat
12:39//
"",16:38""
12:39,
Thelastdecision,whichislistedintheDecisionsDocketisJanuary21,2016DecisionbyJudgeEsther
Hellman.PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvarham'sJanuary25,2016DecisiononrequestNo120failstoappearin
thedocket.
.2016,21,""
1202016,25""
.""
5/6
132/280
25/01/2016
12:39
046087799
PLILIMEHOZINAZA
PAGE01/01
[COATOFARMS,STATEOFISRAEL]
January25,2016
StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(50207)
RequestNo120
By:PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham
Requester:
v
Responders:
JosephZernik,PhD
StateofIsrael,StateProsecution,NorthernDistrictCriminal
Decision
TheRequesteragainfilesrequests,whosesubject,purportedly,isinspectionofcourt
records,butthesearenotrequeststoinspectcourtrecords,butaninvestigation,which
theRequesterisconducting,regardingvalidityoftheoperationofNetHaMishpat
system,andalonglistofgrievancesregardingconductofthejudicialpanelininstant
courtfile.InsuchmattersthisCourtshallnotengage.AsIhavereferredhimina
previsousdecision,IhereinreferhimagaintotheLegalDepartmentofthe
AdministrationofCourtsforresponsesonhisquestions.
[graphicsignature]
AvrahamAvraham,PhD,PresidingJudge
6/6
133/280
134/280

_________________________________________________________________________
)(,";2003)2)4((
.1:
( :'
('053625596 :
",33407
(:
(:
0773179186
(:
.2:
(':
,'50207
(:
.3/:
("",.
("/",/"/",
.
,.
.4:
:
"",
.,.
27,2015,)'(111,
,.3.12,2016,
".
.
:
((2003):
"..,
,,"".
(2009
'(5917/97)":
,""..."
,
.
,,
"":
[1].
((1992)
//.
135/280
1/4
(,,10"
".
(
".
,.
,"")
(2015,2010,(2013).
()
,(7939/10.
,
,.
(""
,.
(,
:
":
".
":
,.
.,"...
.
,
..
.
.
,,
,/
/,
.
.5)/(:
,.
25,2016,
'
136/280
2/4
a)Fullname:
JosephZernik,PhD
b)IDNo:
053625596
c)Address:
POBox33407,TelAviv
d)Telephone:
None
e)Fax:
0773179186
2. CourtFileDetails
a)CourtFileNumber:
b)Parties:
a.DulymadeJudgmentsDocket,listingallJudgmentrecords,dulyenteredin
instantcourtfile.
b.Anyandalldulymadedetentionand/orarrestwarrantspertainingtoDefendant
RomanZadorovininstantcourtfile.
Incasesuchrecordsdonotexist,theCourtishereinrequestedtoexplicitlystatesoin
itsdecisiononinstantrequest.
Preface:
InstantRequestisfiledProForma,andthereshouldhavebeennoneedtofileit,or
justifyit.Regardless,thefollowingjustificationisprovided.
OnDecember27,2015,IfiledRequesttoInspect(No111)ininstantcourtfile,which
includedtherecords,whicharelistedin3.,above.JudgeEstherHellman'sJanuary
12,2016DecisionontheabovereferencedRequesttoInspectfailedtoaddressthese
tworecordsatall.Therefore,instantrepeatrequestisfiledherein.
Additionaljustificationforinstantrequest:
forpublication.Instantcourtfileisnotsealed.Therefore,thereshouldnothave
Request.
suchtrust.
3/4
137/280
publichearing.
systemoftheNazarethDistrictCourtfailedtodiscovertherequestedrecords.
reasonabledoubt.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
4/4
138/280

50207
:
'
",33407
0773179186:
)(119
,',)(119
:
(124,2016,)(119
"",","",
,[1].
(225,2016,)(121.
,,,
.
"")
(,
)([2].
(324,2016,""
,[3].:
."""""
".,""
.
."")(.,
"""".
."""",
.
) (000502-07 : )' (119

District Court: Request (No 120?) for Due Process in requests to inspect court file //
) (000502-07 : )' (?120

3 2016-01-24 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court record
)received by fax purported Decision by Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham on request (No 119
to inspect electronic data records of Zadorov's purported verdict, sentencing records //
) (502/07
)' (119
, .
139/280
1/4
."":
,,
".19,2016,
.
.
,
,.
."":
,".
,"".
.
.
,
,.
(431/88/12)2012,"(
"",
"".
"".
,""
.
,24
)2016,(119"",
","",
)(.
.
25,2016,
50207
'
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax: 0773179186
RequestforDueRenderingaDecisiononRequest(No119)toInspect
ElectronicSignatureData
Therequesterofinspection,JosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinarequestfordue
renderingadecisiononrequest(no119):
1)OnJanuary24,2016,myrequest(No119)totoinspectelectronicsignaturedata
wasenteredininstantcourtfile.TherequestpertainedtoVerdict,Sentencing,
andSupplementalJudgmentrecordsininstantcourtfile,allofwhichare
]suspectedinvalid,pervertedcourtrecords,lackinganyforceandeffect.[ 1
140/280
2/4
2)OnJanuary25,2016,myrequestfordueprocessinrequeststoinspectwas
enteredininstantcourtfile.However,ithasnotbeenenteredtothistime.The
requestfordueprocesswasfiledfollowingconductofJudgeEstherHellman
relativetomypreviousrequeststoinspectininstantcourtfile,whichshouldbe
deemedascontinuedissuanceofinvalid,pervertedcourtrecords,lackinganyforce
andeffect.TherequestaskedthattheCourtdulyoperateonallitsdecisionsonmy
requeststheelectronicsignatureapplicationandtheserviceapplicationinNet
HaMishpat(casemanagementsystemoftheIsraelicourts),andthatthecourtmail
tomeitsdecisionsonpaper,accompaniedbylawfulCertificatesofService
(authentication).[2]
3)OnJanuary24,2016,IreceivedbyfaxfromtheNazarethDistrictCourta
DecisionrecordbyPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham.[3]Inspectionofsuch
recordshows:
Onitsfaceandastoprocess
a.SuchDecisionrecordfailstoappearintheDecisionsDocketinNet
HaMishpatininstantcourtfile.Therefore,itshouldbedeemedarecordonwhich
theelectronicsignatureapplicationhadnotbeenoperated.
b.SuchDecisionrecordwassentbyfaxwithnoCertificateofService
(authentication).Therefore,itshouldbedeemedarecordonwhichtheservice
applicationhadnotbeenoperated.
c.SuchDecisionrecordindicatesthatitwasrenderedinchambers,butfailsto
dulyinstructtheofficeoftheclerktoserveitontheparties.
Astoitscontent
d.SuchDecisionrecordsaysinitsfirstpart:AsfarastheRequesterpetitionsto
inspectthecourtfile,heshouldappearintheofficeoftheclerk,whereheshould
beinstructedhowtoactinordertogaintherighttoinspect.TheRequester
appearedintheOfficeoftheClerkonJanuary19,2016,andalsodiscussedthe
matterwithHeadoftheCriminalDivisionoftheCourt.Itbecameabsolutely
apparentthattheRequesterwouldnotbegrantedaccesstoinspecttheelectronic
signaturedataabsentexplicitdecisionoftheCourt.
Therefore,suchstatementshouldbedeemedavoidingrenderingadecisiononthe
requesttoinspect,misleadingtheRequester,andbotheringhiminvain.
e.SuchDecisionrecordsaysinitssecondandlastpart:AsfarastheRequester
hasgrievancespertainingtoNetHaMishpat,IhereinreferhimtotheLegal
DepartmentoftheAdministrationofCourts.TheRequesterfiledaRequestto
Inspect,andnotgrievancespertainingtoNetHaMishpat.TheLegalDepartment
oftheAdministrationofCourtsisnotthelawfulauthorityfordecidingonrequests
forinspectionofcourtfiles.TheCourtisthelawfulauthorityforsuchmatter.
Therefore,suchstatementshouldbedeemedavoidingrenderingadecisiononthe
requesttoinspect,misleadingtherequester,andbotheringhiminvain.
4)TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012Decision(12/88/TelAviv
District),pertainingtoJudgeVardaAlSheikh'sReconstructedProtocol,provides
detaileddescriptionofmethodsfortheissuanceofauthenticcourtrecord,andon
thecontrarymethodsfortheissuanceofinvalidcourtrecordswithoutoperating
theelectronicsignatureapplicationandwithoutoperatingtheserviceapplication
inNetHaMishpat.TheOmbudsman'sDecisionreferstosuchinvalidrecordsinan
unreasonablyforgivinglymannerasDrafts.However,theRequesterclaimsthat
3/4
141/280
suchrecordsshouldbelawfullyreferredtoasSimulatedCourtRecords
intendingtodefraud.
Therefore,IhereinrequestthattheCourtdulyrenderadecisiononmyJanuary
24,2016Request(No119)toinspecttheelectronicsignaturedataofVerdict,
Sentencing,andSupplementalJudgmentrecordsininstantcourtfile,and
dulyserveitonmeonpaperbymail,accompaniedbyalawfulCertificateof
Service(authentication).
andthelaw.
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
4/4
142/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
20160125ZADOROVAFFAIR:CrooksoftheNazarethDistrictCourt//
[]
InresponsetoroutinerequeststoinspecttheRomanZadorovcourtfile,
JudgeEstherHellmanhasissuedinrecentweeksaseriesofperverted,
invalidDecisionrecords,intendedtodefraud.Now,PresidingJudgeof
theNazarethDistrictCourtAvrahamAvrahamisfollowingsuit:Overthe
lastcoupleofdays,hehasissuedtwopervertedDecisionrecords,
whichshouldbeseenasparticularlyoffensive.Thefirstwasintendedto
unlawfullydenyinspectionoftheelectronicsignaturedata(whichmost
likelydonotexistatall)inZadorov'sVerdictandSentencingrecords.
Thesecondtounlawfullydenyinspectionofadulymadearrest
warrantanddulymadejudgmentindex(whichmostlikelydonotexist
atall)intheZadorovcase.JudgeAvrahamAvraham'sconductstandsin
directviolationofthelawandaSupremeCourtjudgment,which
declaredtherighttoinspectcourtrecordsafundamentalprincipleina
democraticregime,andaconstitutional,suprastatutoryright.
Regardless,thefindingssofarmakeitabsolutelyclear:JudgesYitzhak
Cohen,EstherHellmanandHaimGalpazoftheNazarethDistrictCourt
engagedinperversionofcourtrecords,obstructionofjustice,and
conductofsimulatedcourtprocess.Theirgoalmisleadingthe
DefendantandthepublicatlargetobelievethatRomanZadorovwas
dulyconvictedofthemurderofTairRada,andthathewasduly
sentencedtolifeinprison.Theoutcomeofthefraudisfalse
imprisonmentofaninnocentperson.Thefindingsalsoagaindocument
thefundamentalfraudindevelopmentandoperationofNetHaMishpat
thenewcasemanagementsystemoftheIsraelicourts.Aprevious
publicationinthismatterpromptedunprecedentedsupportnoticesby
computerscienceandlinguisticsprofessorUzziOrnanandbynotable
criminaldefenseattorneyAvigdorFeldman.Conductofthejudgesofthe
NazarethDistictCourtshouldbedeemedfraud,perversionofcourt
records,obstructionofjustice,andbreachofloyalty.PresidingJudge
AvrahamAvrahamisengagedinbullying,criminalandcheekyconduct.
ConductoftheNazarethDistrictCourtshowscontemptofBasicLaw:
HumanDignityandLibertyandcontemptoffundamentalHumanRights.
ConductofJudgesoftheNazarethDistrictCourtistypicalofcourtsof
policestatesanddarkregimes.
1/28
143/280
Wikipedia:
Readinblog:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/01/20160125zadorovaffair
crooked.html
Figures: Judge Esther Hellman, who sat on the 3-judge panel in the Zadorov
trial, has issued over recent weeks a series of peverted, fabricated Decision
record in response to requests to inspect the Zadorov court file. Presiding Judge
of the Nazareth District Court Yitzhak Cohen chaired the panel, whose
September 14, 2010 Verdict and Sentencing records were never duly signed
and entered in Net HaMishpat the new case management system of the Israeli
courts. While he was presiding in Zadorov's trial, senior police and prosecution
officers knew of serious sex offense complaints against him, including
pedophilia, and therefore, he was vulnerable to extortion. Three entirely different
graphic signatures of Judge Cohen have been discovered in the Zadorov
electronic court file. Signatures of Judge Haim Galpaz, the third panel member,
are entirely missing on Zadorov's Verdict and Sentencing records... Which of
the record is electronically signed and is of any validity and effect? There is no
way to ascertain... Current Presiding Judge of the Nazareth District Court
Avraham Avraham issued over the past couple of days perverted, fabricated
Decision records in order to unlawfully deny inspection of the electronic
signature data of the Verdict and Sentencing records (which most likely do
not exist at all), and to unlawfully deny inspection of Arrest Warrant and
Judgment Index (which most likely do not exist at all) in Zadorov's case.
According to Judge Avraham Avraham, such were not requests to inspect at all,
but attempts to examine the integrity of the judicial panel in the Zadorov trial...
In such matter this Court shall not engage...
____
OccupyTLV,January25JosephZernik,PhD,hasfiledoverthepastcoupleof
daysaseriesofrequestsinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inthe
NazarethDistrictCourt.
2/28
144/280
A.RequestforDueProcess
Figure: Between the Amos Baranes affair a notorious case of false murder
conviction - and the Roman Zadorov cases 30 years have passed but nothing
changed in conduct of the Israeli judgment system. Justice Dalia Dorner's
decision to grant Baranes a new trial was a landmark in recognition partial as it
is of the right for Due Process in the Israeli courts. The failure to recognize the
right for Due Process as a fundamental right is inconsistent with the conduct of
competent, honest, and fair courts.
_____
TheRequestforDueProcesswasfiled,followingtheissuanceofaseriesof
pervertedandmisleadingDecisionrecordsbyJudgeEstherHellmanand
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamintheZadorovcourtfileinrecentweeks.
TherequestasksthejudgesoftheNazarethDistrictCourttoceasetheissuance
ofperverted,invalidDecisionrecords,andinstead,todulyentervalidcourt
records,onwhichtheelectronicsignatureapplicationandthedueservice
applicationinNetHaMishpatwereexecuted.
TherequestforDueProcessinpartsays:
5)IntheAmosBaranesaffair,whereapersonwasfalselyindicted
onmurder,falselyconvictedofmurder,andfalselyimprisonedfor
manyyears,hiscounsel,AttorneysProfKennethMann,thelate
DavidWeiner,andothersfiledin2000RequestforaNewTrial
(BaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99)intheSupremeCourt).In
suchRequest,circumstancesweredescribed,whichlastedover
twentyyears,wherepolicemenandprosecutors,includingsenior
staff,stoodlikeafortifiedwalltoobstructthetruth.Therefore,
Baranes'scounselraisedanewcauseforaNewTrialserious
proceduraldefectsintheoriginaltrial,whichdeniedhimFair
Processandamounttoperversionofjustice.
InherdecisiontogranttheRequestforaNewTrial,JusticeDalia
Dornersaysinparagraph34:
34.BasicLaw:HumanDignityandLiberty(hereinafter:The
BasicLaw),whichwasenactedin1992,establisheda
constitutionalbasicrightforfaircriminalprocess...
ReferringtotheimpactofTheBasicLawoncriminal
procedure,BoazOkonandOdedShahamwrote:
therightofapersonforLibertywasestablished.It
hasmaterialimpactonthecriminalprocedure...a
person'srighttoDueProcesswasrecognized...
3/28
145/280
TherightforDueProcesshasbeenestablishedbylawincivilized
justicesystemsasaconstitutionallevelrightforcenturies.
Therefore,onemustwonderregardingalawandjusticesystem,
wheretherightforDueProcesswasconstruedonlyasaresultofa
1992legislation,andthattooonlyincriminalprocess...
6)Thereisnodoubtthatconditions,beitincriminalorcivil
process,whereapartycannotascertainwhetherrecords,which
thepartyreceivesfromthecourtareauthenticcourtrecordsor
simulatedcourtrecord,andthecourtfailstoperformlawfuldue
service,areoutofcompliancewiththefundamentalsofDue
Process,andoutofcompliancewithfairpublichearing.
Therefore,Ihereinrequestthat:
a.Regardingmyrequestsininstantcourtfile,theCourtissueinNet
HaMishpatdecisionrecords,whicharelawfullysignedby
electronicsignatures,and
b.TheCourtdulyserveonmeitsJanuary20,2016decision(onmy
requestNo117),itsJanuary21,2016decision(onmyrequestNo
118),andanyfuturedecisiononmyrequestsbyexecutingthe
serviceprocedureinNetHaMishpatsystem,andmailingtomy
address,providedabove,paperrecordsofitsdecisions,
accompaniedbyCertificatesofService(authentication)signedby
anauthorizedpersonintheOfficeoftheClerk.
B.Requestforrenderingaduedecisiononrequest(No119)toinspect
electronicsignaturedataofVerdictandSentencingrecords
a.
4/28
146/280
b.
Figures: a. Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24 and January 25,
2016, fabricated Decision records, pertaining to inspection of electronic
signature data of Zadorov's Verdict and Sentencing records, and inspection
of Zadorov's Arrest Warrant and Judgment Index (if they exist at all), were never
duly entered in the Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat a cardinal sign of
Decision records, on which the electronic signature application in NetHaMishpat has never been executed. b. Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham's
fabricated January 24, 2016 Decision record, which was never duly entered in
the Decisions Docket, and which was faxed with no Certificate of Service
(authentication) a cardinal sign of a record, on which the due service
application in Net-HaMishpat has never been executed. Content of the
Decision record is misleading and stands contrary to the law effectively
denying inspection of the electronic signature data of the Verdict and
Sentencing records (if they exist at all).
________
Therequesttoinspecttheelectronicsignaturedata(iftheyexistatall)
Zadorov'sVerdictandSentencingrecordwasservedyesterdaymorning.
Bytheafternoon,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'spervertedand
5/28
147/280
misleadingDecisionrecordwasreceivedbyfax.
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sJanuary24,2016Decisionrecordis
invalidandmisleadingonitsface:
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sJanuary24,2016Decisionrecord
failstoappearintheDecisionsDocketinZadorov'sfileinNetHaMishpata
cardinalsignofadecisionrecordsonwhichtheelectronicsignature
applicationinNetHaMishpathasneverbeendulyexecuted.
wastransmittedwithnoCertificateofService(authentication)acardinal
signofadecisionrecord,onwhichtheserviceapplicationinNetHaMishpat
hasneverbeendulyexecuted.
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sJanuary24,2016Decisionrecordis
misleadinginitscontent:
JudgeAvrahamneverdecidedontheinspectionoftheelectronicsignature
datainZadorov'scourtfile.Thewordselectronicsignaturesneverappearin
thedecisionrecordatall.
saysinitsfirstpart:AsfarastheRequesteraskstoinspectacourtfile,he
shallappearintheOfficeoftheClerk,whereheshallbeinstructedhowtoact
inordertogaininspection.TheRequesterhadappearedintheOfficeofthe
ClerkonJanuary19,2016,anddiscussedthematterwithHeadofthe
CriminalDivision.Ithadbeenmadeabsolutelyclearthatnoaccesstothe
electronicsignaturedatawouldbepermittedwithoutexplicitdecisionofthe
Court.
saysinitssecondandfiinalpart:AsfarastheRequesterhasgrievances
pertainingtoNetHaMishpatsystem,IreferhimtotheLegalDepartmentof
theAdministrationofCourts.TheRequesterfiledarequesttoinspect,and
notgrievancespertainingtoNetHaMishpatsystem.TheLegalDepartmentof
theAdministrationofCourtsisnotanauthorityfordecidingarequestto
inspect.TheCourtisthecorrectauthorityinsuchmatter.
Therefore,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sJanuary24,2016Decision
recordshouldbedeemedfalse,invalidrecord,whichmisleadstheRequester,
andattempttoengagetheRequesterinfutileefforts.
Theneedtorequestinspectionoftheelectronicsignaturedataarose,sincein
NetHaMishpat,thejudgesimplementedinvisibleelectronicsignaturesThe
Emperor'sNewClothes...FollowingtheenactmentoftheElectronicSignature
Act(2001)andthetransitiontoelectronicadministrationofcourtfilesinNet
HaMishpat(circa20092010),theelectronicsignaturesbecameauthoritative.
Withit,DecisionoftheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryinJudgeVardaAlSheikh's
ReconstructedProtocolaffairdocumentedindetailfraudmethods,through
whichjudgesissueinNetHaMishpatjudicialrecords,whicharenotsignedat
all,butparties,theircounsel,andthepubliccannotdiscernsuchfact.Such
recordsareconsideredbythejudgesdrafts.However,theirpublicationand
transmissiontopartiesasvalidcourtrecordsshouldbedeemedpublicationof
simulatedcourtrecordsandobstructionofjusticeseriouscriminalconduct.
6/28
148/280
FollowingthereceiptofPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sJanuary24,2016
Decisionrecord,requestforrenderingduedecisiononrequest(No119)to
inspectelectronicsignaturedatawasfiledonJanuary25,2016.TheJanuary
25,2016requestdetailedthedefectsinPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham's
January24,2016Decisionrecord,andaskedfortheissuanceandentryofa
validandeffectualdecisionrecordontherequesttoinspectelectronic
signaturedata.
C.RequesttoinspectdulymadeArrestWarrantandJudgmentIndex
Figure: One of the striking perversions in the Zadorov court file is the failure to
enter the September 14, 2010 Verdict and Sentencing records, which
purportedly were the foundation for a 5-year long appeal in the Israeli Supreme
Court...
_____
InspectionofthedulymadeArrestWarrantandJudgmentIndexhadbeen
requestedalreadyintheoriginalDecember27,2015requesttoinspectin
Zadorov'scourtfile.However,JudgeEstherHellman'sJanuary12,2016
fabricatedDecisionrecord(which,amongotherfraudulentfeatures,was
producedonafakeletterhead,failingtoshowthenameoftheNazareth
DistrictCourtinitsmasthead)failedtorefertosuchrecordsatall.
ArrestWarrant:Israelilaw,likethelawinothercivilizednations,saysthat
nopersonshallbeadmittedtoprisonwithoutadulymadearrest/detention
warrant.Therefore,thequestionbegstobeasked:Basedonwhatrecordis
7/28
149/280
RomanZadorovheldtodayinprison?
JudgmentIndex:Validandreliableentryofjudgmentsisafundamental
characteristicofhonestandcompetentcourtssincethelatemiddleages...A
courtwherethereisnoregistryofjudgmentswouldnotdoubtbedeemedan
incompetentorcorruptcourt.Incontrast,intheZadorovcourtfilethereisno
entryintheJudgmentIndexoftheSeptember14,2010Verdictand
Sentencingrecords.Andtheevidenceclearlyshowsthatsuchrecordswere
nevervalidandeffectualcourtrecords,butonlysimulatedcourtrecords
frauduponthecourt,upontheDefendantanduponthepublicatlarge.
ItshouldalsobenotedthatPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamhasfailedto
respondtorepeatrequestsoverrecentmonthstoclarifytheproceduresfor
entryandregistrationofjudgmentsintheNazarethDistrictCourt.
Suchrequestssaidinpart:
a.Wholawfullyholdstheauthorityandthedutytoregister
judgmentsoftheNazarethDistrictCourtundertheJudgments
tabinNetHaMishpat?
b.DoestheregistrationofacourtrecordasaJudgment,Verdict
and/orSentencingundertheJudgmentstabinNetHaMishpat
saythatitisindeedalawfullyvalidandeffectualjudgmentinthe
respectivecourtfile?
c.DoesthelackofregistrationofacourtrecordasaJudgment,
Verdictand/orSentencingundertheJudgmentstabinNet
HaMishpatsaythatitisNOTindeedalawfullyvalidandeffectual
judgmentintherespectivecourtfile?
Vaguenessandambiguityregardingthelawfulexistence,validity
andeffectofjudgmentsinanycourt,andinparticularjudgments
pertainingtoconvictionandlifeimprisonmentinamurdercase,
wouldnodoubtraiseseriousconcernsregardingcompetenceof
therespectivecourtandthesafeguardoffundamentalHuman
Rights.
Incontrast,todayPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamhasswiftlyansweredon
arequestfiledthismorningtoinspectZadorov'sArrestWarrantandJudgment
Index.PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamhasagainissuedaperverted
Decisionrecord,whichfailstoappearintheDecisionsDocketandwhich
wastransmittedbyfaxwithnoCertificateofService(authentication)intotal
disregardoftheRequestforDueProcess,whichwasalsofiledearlierthis
morning.
8/28
150/280
Figure:Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham's fabricated January 25, 2016

Decision record, which was never duly entered in the Decisions Docket - a
cardinal sign of a record, on which the electronic signature application in NetHaMishpat had never been executed, and which was faxed with no Certificate of
Service (authentication) a cardinal sign of a record, on which the due service
application in Net-HaMishpat had never been executed. Content of the
Decision record is misleading and stands contrary to the law, with dire
implications for Civil and Human rights in Israel - denying public access to
inspect court judgments and arrest warrants in criminal prosecution court files.
__________
Intoday'sfabricatedDecisionrecord,pertainingtotherequesttoinspect
Zadorov'sArrestWarrantandJudgmentIndexentries(iftheyexistatall),
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamsays:
TheRequesteragainfilesrequests,whosesubject,purportedly,is
inspectionofcourtrecords,butthesearenotrequeststoinspect
courtrecords,butinvestigation,whichtheRequesteris
9/28
151/280
conductingregardingvalidityoftheoperationofNetHaMishpat
system,andalonglistofgrievancesregardingconductofthe
judicialpanelininstantcourtfile.InsuchmattersthisCourtshall
notengage...
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamleavesnoroomforadoubtthatinspection
oftherequestedrecords,orknowledgeoftheirnonexistencewouldprovide
additionalevidenceregardingthefraudinconductofJudgesCohen,Hellman
andGalpaz.However,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamfailstoclarifya
simple,centralissue:Whatisthefoundationinthelawtohisdetermination
thatsuchrequeststoinspectcourtrecordsarenotrequeststoinspectcourt
record?
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sstatement,InsuchmattersthisCourt
shallnotengage...isatleastperplexing.Thepublic'srighttoinspectcourt
recordshaslongbeenrecognizedasaimedatenablingthepublictokeepas
watchfuleyeontheworkingsofpublicagencies.[1]Obviously,throughhis
owncriminalconduct,JudgeAvrahamAvrahamisengagedinobstructing
discoveryofadditionalevidenceofthecriminalityofJudgesYitzhakCohen,
EstherHellman,andHaimGalpaz.
SeriousimplicationsoftheRomanZadorovcaseandconductofthe
NazarethDistrictCourtjudgesregardingHumanRightsandthenatureof
regimeinIsrael.
Followingseveralweeks,duringwhichJudgeEstherHellmanengagedinthe
issuanceofsimulatedcourtrecordsandfraudinaddressingrequeststoinspect
theZadorovcourtfile,somehowPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamhasnow
decidedtoenterthematterhimself.However,thereisnodocumentofre
assignmentofthecasetoPresidingJudgeAvraham,oranyexplanationforhis
takingoverofthecase.
Consequently,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamhasissuedoverthepast
coupleofdaystwofabricatedDecisionrecords,whereheunlawfullydenied
therighttoinspectjudicialdecisionsarightprescribedbylawtoany
person,andaright,whichtheIsraeliSupremeCourtdeclared,a
fundamentalprincipleofademocraticregime,andaconstitutional,supra
statutoryright.Absenttherighttoinspectjudgmentandarrestwarrant
records,thereisnowayforthepublictosafeguardagainstarbitraryand
capricious,tyrannicalimprisonmentofpersonsbyStateagencies.
Therefore,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamisengagedinbullying,criminal
andcheekyconductintheZadorovcase.
However,theevidencealreadydiscovered,makesitabsolutelyclear:Judges
YitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,andHaimGalpazengagedinperversionof
courtrecords,obstructionofjustice,andconductofsimulatedcourttrialinthe
caseofRomanZadorov.TheirintentionwastomisleadtheDefendantandthe
publicthatZadorovwasdulyconvictedinthemurderofTairRada,andthat
hewasdulysentencedtolifeinprison.However,lawfullyexecutedVerdict
10/28
152/280
andSentencingrecordswereneverexecutedbytheCourtandneverentered
inthiscourtfile.
Theoutcomeofsuchcriminalityisthelongterm,falseimprisonmentofan
innocentperson.
Thefindingsalsoagaindocumentthefundamentalfraudindevelopmentand
operationofNetHaMishpatthenewcasemanagementsystemoftheIsraeli
courts.Previouspublicationofthefindingsinthiscasehasprompted
unprecedentedsupportmessagesfromcomputerscienceandlinguistics
professorUzziOrnanandfromnotablecriminaldefenseattorneyAvigdor
Feldman.
ConductofYitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,HaimGalpazandnowalso
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamshouldbedeemedfraud,perversionof
courtrecords,obstructionofjustice,andbreachofloyalty.
ConductoftheNazarethDistrictCourtshowscontemptofBasicLaw:Human
DignityandLibertyandcontemptoffundamentalHumanRights.Conductof
JudgesoftheNazarethDistrictCourtistypicalofcourtsofpolicestatesand
darkregimes.
LINKSTORECENTCOURTRECORDS:
Below
READMORE:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/01/20160120zadorovaffaircrooks
of.html
[2]20160121ISRAEL:ProfUzziOrnan'sresponse,re:Crookedjudges//
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/01/20160121israelresponsesre
crooked.html
[3]20161021AttorneyFeldman'sresponse,regardingZadorovaffairand
crookedjudges
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/01/attorneyfeldmansresponse
regarding.html
[4]20160125ZADOROVAffair:CrookedjudgesoftheNazarethDistrict
Court//
crooked.html
,
,,""
.
"",
"".
)
.""""(
11/28
153/280
""
)(.
,
"
","".
:,,
,.
",.
.
"
".
'"
.,
,,.
,,.
,.
.
:
crooked.html
:,,
"".
,""14,2010,.
,,
.,""
.,,""...
12/28
154/280
?...
"",,
)(.,
,"...
"....
_____
"25,'
(502/07):
:30.
,
.
.
_____
""
.
""
"".
:
(5,,
,,
"',""2000
"")(3032/99)
(.,
,,",
".,
",
".
:34
.34:):(,
,1992
....
:
13/28
155/280
.
......
.,
,
,,1992
...
(6,
,
,
,
,"".
,:
.,
,
.(1)20,
,2016'(2),11721,2016,
',118
""
)(
.
.)(119
.
14/28
156/280
.
:.""
24252016,
"",,
,""
""..
""24,2016,
",)(
.
"".
________
)(
."
""
:
"""
"
15/28
157/280
"".
""
"
".
"":
".
"....
"":
,,
".19
,2016,.
.
*"":
,
".,"
".
..
"",
,.
""...
(2001)
),(20092010
.,
"",
,,,
."".
.
""24,2016,
252016,)'(119
.
,
..
."""/"
:,""""14
.2014,5.
16/28
158/280
_____
"""/"
)(11127.2015,""
12,2016,.
.:?
...
.
.,
""""""14.2014,
.
,
,
:
.
""""
?
.""",",/""
""""
?
.""",",/""
""""
?
,,
,
17/28
159/280
.
,
.
,
"",
)(,.
18/28
160/280
:""25,
,2016"
,
)(.
"",
.
__________
"",
)(
:
,,,,
,
,".
....
,,.
:"
"?
":
".......
""[2].
,
,.
,
.
.
,,
,
"",
"","".
,,,
,.
,
,,.
:
,,,,
.
19/28
161/280
",.
"""",
.
.
"".
'
".
,,
,,
,.
.
:
[1]20161021ZadorovAffair:AttorneyAvigdorFeldman'sresponse,regardingcrooked
records,judgesoftheNazarethDistrictCourt//
:"
[2]20161021ZadorovAffair:ProfUzziOrnan'sresponse,regardingcrookedrecords,
judgesoftheNazarethDistrictCourt//
:'
NazarethDistrictCourt:Request(No119)toInspectelectronicsignaturedataonjudgment
records//
(00050207):)'
(119
NazarethDistrictCourt:Request(No1212?)forDueProcessinrequeststoinspectcourt
file//
(00050207):)'
(?1212
[5]20160124StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt
recordreceivedbyfaxpurportedDecisionbyPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamonrequest
(No119)toinspectelectronicdatarecordsofZadorov'spurportedverdict,sentencing
records//
(502/07)
)'(119
.,
NazarethDistrictCourt:Request(No121?)forInspectionofdulymadeArrestWarrant,
JudgmentIndex//
(00050207):)'
(120,
20/28
162/280
NazarethDistrictCourt:Request(No123?)forrenderingduedecisiononrequest(No119)
toinspectelectronicsignaturedataofjudgments//
(00050207):)'
(?123)'(119
NazarethDistrictCourt:PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sDecision,inre:Request(No
120)forInspectionofdulymadeArrestWarrant,JudgmentIndexasreceivedbyfax,and
whichfailstoappearintheDecisionsDocket//
(00050207)
:"")'(120
,,"
".
)(.,
,
""14,2010,
..
,,""
""14.2010,"
")
(...
...,
,
,...,
,
,.
.
"",'"
"...
.
,
!
:,,
,.
21/28
163/280
,""14,2010,
.,
,.
,.
,,""
...
?...
.
_____
:"",
27,2015,12,2016,.
,
""")"(
.
"".
""
,""
.,""
""27,
,2015""12,
,2016"",,
...
______
22/28
164/280
:"",19,2016,
,
:"."14:2010,
,"
""".
.,,
,...".
"14:2010,"
","".
.
."."24:2014,
"".""
.
.
,""?
"",
"".
:"",
.",
",
.
23/28
165/280
""...
"","".
_____
"20,
,
.
,
:
.),(,2003
.
.)(,",1958
,245
)(.,.
12,201529
.2015
:
,:
.
""""
?
.""",",/"
"""""
?
.""",",/"
"""""
?
,
,,
.
,
."
,12".
,2009,,
"",""...
,,
/,,
,.
24/28
166/280
,.
""50214
.2010,,
,""""
.,,
.
""14".2010,",
).
""24.(2014,
,,
,
:
*,
*,
,
*"",
*"",
*""
.
,,
.
,
?
.,2014
,
,,
.,
.,'
"",'"
"...
"",
"
"",,
,
"".
,
,
,"","".
,
"",
.
25/28
167/280
:,,
,"".
.
27,2015,,
"",""
.,""
12,2016,
.
""
,
!
12,2016,
:
(5
,,,
.
.
(6,:
.""
""272015122016
,?
.
""122016
,"",
?
.""
,?
"",
.
."/"
?"/
",.
".,,
,,
,,
".
,
:
,,,,
26/28
168/280
,,
!
:
):(00050207)
(#111
(00050207):
,(#111)
(No111)//
(00050207):
(113')
(111'),2015,27.
:(00050207)
(,(111')(:,
(113').
[5]20160119ReminderfiledwithNazarethDistrictCourtPresidingJudgeAvraham
Avrahamregardinghislawfuldutytopublishinspectionproceduresandtorespondon
inquiryre:dueregistrationoflawfuljudgments,within45days//
45,,.
):(00050207)
(#111
(No111)//
:(00050207)
(113')
(111'),2015,27.
:(00050207)
(,(111')(:,
(113').
27/28
169/280
[9]20160119Request(No115)foradulysignedandcertifiedcopyofJudgeHellman's
January16,2016pervertedDecisionrecord//
(115')
2016,16
[10]20160119Request(No116)forclarificationsregardingJudgeEstherHellman's
January12,2016decision//
2016,12(116')
[11]20160119Request(No117)forclarificationsregardingVerdictandSentencing
records,receivedduringinspectiontoday//
""""(117').
NazarethDistrictCourt:Requestforinspectionofpapercourtrecords//
:(00050207)
28/28
170/280
2016-01-25 Response by State Prosecutor, Attorney Shila Inbar on Request #118

to inspect previously published decisions from the paper court file, which was docketed
by the Court as Response on Request #112 (which is not a request at all, but a
fabricated Judge Esther Hellman decision on Request #111, which was docketed as a
request), and which both the Court and the State Prosecution refused to serve on the
Requester, as discovered during a visit to the Office of the Clerk on June 26, 2016:
conspiracy theories, abuse of the term right to inspect, has not yet been appointed
Ombudsman of the Courts... //
118 ' " ,
, ) 112 ' ,
,( ,111 '
2016 , 26 ,
..." ," " ," -
171/280
English translation
In the Nazareth District Court
502/07
Request #118
Requester:
Dr Joseph Zernik
v
Responders:
1. State of Israel
2. Roman Zadorov
Response by Responder 1
1) The Requester files on a daily basis requests to inspect various materials from the
court file, some of them were forwarded for response by the State.
2) The nature of these requests is unclear, but it appears that they are meant to
establish some conspiracy theories regarding instant court file, or the justice system
in general.
3) There is no relationship whatsoever between the request and the claims, regarding
the technical form of the records, and claims, pertaining to to the evidence and
conviction, which are mostly based on baseless rumors and theories.
4) In general, the Responder has no position, regarding the question, whether the
Requester or others should be permitted to inspect the court decisions, which have
been published, and are open to public inspection.
5) With it, it should be noted that the Requester is abusing the Right to Inspect, and
such right should not be considered permission for anybody to bother the Courts and
the Offices of the Clerks, in a manner that they would not be able to perform their
duties, and for futile reasons.
6) As for as the Responder knows, the Requester has not been appointed Ombudsman of
the Courts, and nobody authorized him to conduct investigations and reviews.
7) Beyond that, the Responder fully supports the correct words of the Hon Presiding
Judge in his January 25, 2016 Decision on Request No 120.
[graphic signature]
___________________
Attorney Shila Inbar
Area Director (criminal)
North District Attorney Office
172/280
"
" ,33407" 6133301
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Fax: 077-3179186
Bilingualletter,EnglishfollowstheHebrew
262016,
"
"
",
:
,.
:,
,.
,,,
,
.
(502/07)
.
,
,.,
.
[12],
,
.""
,.
.
,.
:
,"
","".
)(,
""[1].
:
""
,:
()'(119""
"")(.
24)(
""[3].""
173/280
1/8
.
)(
.
"")'(119
""""")([4].
""""
"",
."""",
"".",""",""
".",
""
.,
"",
"",
,,
"".
)'(?123)'(119
[5],""
,
.
()(120"""
",)(
25)(
"",
)([6].
,
)"",""(
.
"")(120"
""",[7].
.:
?
...
,.
.,""
""""14...2014,
"",
,"""",
)
(:
,,,,,
,
"....
,:
174/280
1/8
,,,,
"...
",
,,
"[1].
")
'((5917/97)
:
,
.
2009
",":,"
"...
"",
)(
"".""""
)(,)(,
,.
,",
)((2003)
,,
:
,:
.
""""?
.""",",/"""
"""?
.""",",/"""
"""?

,,
,.
:
,,
,"""",
"""",
""."".,
.
.,.
,
175/280
1/8
'
"
:
January25,2016
AttorneyDanYakir
TelAviv
Byemail
DearAttorneyYakir:
RE:OpenlettertheZadorovaffairandconductoftheNazarethDistrictCourt
requestforyouropinion
Asalways,Iamgratefulforyourhelpinvariousmattersoverthepastfewyears.
Thispublicletterisintendedtoclarifysomepossiblemisunderstandinginprevious
correspondence.RegardingtheZadorovaffair,Iamseekingneithertheofficial
positionoftheAssociationofCivilRightsinIsrael,noritsassistance.
Iamwritingtoyou,anindividual,oneofthepeopleoftheStateofIsrael,who
attainedlegaleducation,andwhoholdsuniqueexperienceandexpertiseinthe
matteroftherighttoinspectcourtrecordsanditssignificanceinthesafeguardof
civilandhumanrights.IamseekingyouropinionregardingtheconductofPresiding
JudgeAvrahamAvrahamandJudgeEstherHellmanoftheNazarethDistrictCourt
relativetomyrecentrequeststoinspecttheStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)
courtfile.
Myrequestisaddressedtoyouinpartfollowingunexpectedsupportmessagesformy
work,outlinedhere,whichhavebeenrecentlyreceivedfromcomputerscienceand
linguisticsprofessorUzziOrnanandAttorneyAvigdorFeldman,ontheirown
initiative.Ihopethatyouwouldbeabletoaddressmyrequest,andthatyour
professionaloccupationastheLegalCounseloftheAssociationforCivilRightsin
Israelwouldnotprohibityoufromexpressingyouropinionsinmattersthatare
criticalforcivilandhumanrightsinIsrael.
Twooftheattachedpapers,[12]providegeneralreviewoftheconductofJudge
EstherHellmanandPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamregardingmyrequeststo
inspecttheabovereferencedcourtfile.Suchconductincludedtheissuanceofa
seriesofDecisionrecords,whichareperverted,fabricatedcourtrecords,andwhich
inmyopinionshouldbedeemedsimulatedcourtrecords.Theirissuanceand
transmissiontomeshouldbedeemedinmyopinionconductofsimulatedcourt
process.Theintentionofsuchconductdenialofaccesstocourtrecords,unlawfully
inmyopinion.
Inpreviousexamples:
JudgeEstherHellmantransmittedtomebyfaxDecisionrecord,onletterheadof
TheCourts,insteadofthecorrectletterheadofTheNazarethDistrictCourt.Such
recordswerealsoneverdulyenteredinNetHaMishpat(thenewcasemanagement
systemoftheIsraelicourts)aselectronicrecords,butinstead,asscannedpaper
recordsinvalidontheirfaces.[1]
Inthemostrecentexamples:
2/8
176/280
InrecentdaysPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamhasissuedtwoDecisionrecords
intheZadorovcourtfile,althoughthereisnodocumentationorexplanationofthe
purportedreassignmentofthecourtfiletohim:
a)Myrequest(No119)toinspectelectronicsignaturedataoftheVerdictand
sentencingrecordsinStateofIsraelvZadorov(iftheyexistatall)
Onthedaybeforeyesterday(January24)PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham
transmittedtomebyfaxarecordtitledDecision.[3]Suchrecordfailstoappear
intheDecisionsDocketacardinalsignofarecord,onwhichtheelectronic
signatureapplicationinNetHaMishpathadnotbeenexecuted.Suchrecordwas
transmittedwithnoCertificateofServicebytheOfficeoftheClerk(authentication)
acardinalsignofarecord,onwhichtheserviceapplicationinNetHaMishpathad
notbeenexecuted.
Suchrecordwaspurportedlyrenderedrelativetomyrequest(No119)toinspect
theelectronicsignaturedataoftheVerdictandSentencingrecordsinStateof
IsraelvZadorov(iftheyexistatall).[4]
TheVerdictrecordappearsneitherintheDecisionsDocket,notinthe
JudgmentsDocketagain,acardinalsignofarecord,onwhichtheelectronic
signatureapplicationinNetHaMishpathadnotbeenexecuted.TheSentencing
recordappearsintheDecisionsDocket,butfailstoappearintheJudgments
Docket.BoththeVerdictandsentencingrecordsfailtobearevenagraphic
signatureofJudgeHaimGalpaz(memberofthethreejudgepanel).Graphic
signaturesofJudgeJudgeYitzhakCohen(headofthethreejudgepanel)do
appearonbothrecords.However,threeentirelydifferentgraphicsignaturesof
JudgeYitzhakCohenwerediscoveredonvariouselectroniccourtrecordsinthis
courtfile.Moreover,asclarifiedinOmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecisioninJudge
VardaAlSheikh'sReconstructedProtocolaffair,evenwhenagraphicsignature
appearsonanelectronicrecordinNetHaMishpat,thereisnotwaytodistinguishon
thefaceoftherecord,whetheritwasindeedsignedwithanelectronicsignature,as
avalidandeffectualcourtrecord,orwasnotsigned,andisdeemedbythejudges
merelyadraft.
Asdetailedinmyrequest(No123?)forrenderingduedecisiononmyrequest(No
119)toinspecttheelectronicsignaturedata,[5]PresidingJudgeAvraham
Avraham'sDecisionrecordeffectivelydeniestheinspectionofelectronicsignature
dataofthejudgmentrecordsinZadorov'scourtfile,butfailstoprovideany
foundationinthelawforsuchdenialofaccesstoinspecttherequestedrecords.
b)Myrequest(No120),toinspectdulymadeArrestWarrantanddulymade
JudgmentDocketinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(iftheyexistatall)
Yesterday(January25)PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamtransmittedtomebyfax
asecondrecordtitledDecision,[6]again,arecordwhichhadnotbeenenteredin
theDecisionsDocketandwhichwastransmittedwithnoCertificateofService
(authentication).
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamtransmittedsuchrecordindisregardofmy
protests(filingofarequestforcorrectionofapervertedcourtrecordandrequest
fordueprocess)againstpreviousconductofthesamenaturebyPresidingJudge
AvrahamAvrahamandJudgeEstherHellman.
3/8
177/280
ThefabricatedJanuary25,2016Decisionrecordpurportedlyaddressesmy
request(No120)toinspectdulymadeArrestWarrantanddulymadeJudgment
DocketintheZadorovcourtfile.[7]
ArrestWarrant:Israelilaw,likethelawinothercivilizednations,saysthatno
personshallbeadmittedtoprisonwithoutadulymadearrest/detentionwarrant.
Therefore,thequestionbegstobeasked:BasedonwhatrecordwasRoman
Zadorovadmittedandisheldtodayinprison?
JudgmentDocket:Validandreliableentryofjudgmentsisafundamental
characteristicofhonestandcompetentcourtssincethelatemiddleages...Acourt
wherethereisnoregistryofjudgmentswouldnodoubtbedeemedan
incompetent,orcorruptcourt.Incontrast,intheZadorovcourtfilethereisno
entryintheJudgmentDocketofeithertheSeptember14,2010Verdict,or
Sentencingrecords...
InhisfabricatedDecisionrecord,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamofthe
NazarethDistrictCourtwroteasjustificationfordenialofinspectionofdulymade
ArrestWarrantanddulymadeJudgmentDocket,andalsoasjustificationforthe
denialofinspectionoftheelectronicsignaturedata(ifanyofthemexists)inthe
Zadorovfile:
TheRequesterisrepeatinghisrequests,subjectofwhich,purportedly,isinspectionof
courtrecords,butinfactisnotinspectionofcourtrecords,butinvestigationthatthe
Requesterisconducting,relativetovalidityoftheoperationofNetHaMishpatsystem,
andalonglistofclaims,relativetoconductofthejudicialpanelintheabove
referencedcourtfile.ThisCourtshallnotengageinsuchmatters...
RegardingsuchstatementsbyPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham,oneshould
examine:
Whatisthefoundationinthelaw,whichwasnotexpressedhere,forthe
determinationthatrequeststoinspectcourtrecord,arenotrequeststoinspect
courtrecords...
HowsuchstatementsstandrelativetothelandmarkrulingoftheUSSupreme
Court,whichfoundthattherighttoinspectcourtrecords,originatingcenturiesago
intheEnglishcommonlaw,wasaimedatenablingthepublictokeepaswatchful
eyeontheworkingsofpublicagencies.[2]
HowsuchstatementsstandrelativetoyourwritinginpetitiontotheHighCourtof
Justice(AssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelvMinisterofJusticeetal(5917/97)),
whichwasquotedbytheCourtinitsJudgmentinthatpetition:
Thesignificanceofsuchprincipleisingeneratingpublictrustinpublicagenciesin
general,andinthecourtsinparticular,sinceitcontributestowardthegenerationof
theappearanceofthejusticeprocessinamannerthatpromotessuchtrustinit.
HowsuchstatementsstandrelativetotheHighCourtofJusticeJudgmentinthe
samepetition,whichdeclaresthattherighttoinspectcourtrecordsisa
fundamentalprincipleinanydemocraticregime,andofconstitutional,supra
statutorystatus...
ThroughtheissuanceoffabricatedDecisionrecords,JudgeEstherHellmanand
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamdeniedmyaccess(andaccessofthepublicat
large)toinspectrecords,inspectionofwhichispermittedbylawtoanyperson.
FirstandforemostdulymadeArrestWarrantandJudgmentDocket(iftheyexist
1/8
178/280
atall),andalsotoelectronicsignaturedata(iftheyexistatall),whichwouldhave
clarifiedbeyondanydoubtthevalidityorlackthereof,oftheVerdictand
SentencingrecordsintheZadorovfile,andthelawfulnessoftheimprisonmentof
RomanZadorov.
Itisimportanttonotethatinparalleltohisconductrelativetomyrequeststoinspect
intheZadorovcourtfile,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamfailstoperformhisduty
(pursuanttotheRegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003))and
publishinspectionproceduresfortheNazarethDistrictCourt,andalsofailstoanswer
onmyrepeatedrequestsinthatmatter,whichsayinpart:
Therefore,Irequestyourclarifications:
a.Wholawfullyholdstheauthorityandthedutytoregisterjudgmentsofthe
NazarethDistrictCourtundertheJudgmentstabinNetHaMishpat?
b.DoestheregistrationofacourtrecordasaJudgment,Verdictand/or
SentencingundertheJudgmentstabinNetHaMishpatsaythatitisindeeda
lawfullyvalidandeffectualjudgmentintherespectivecourtfile?
c.DoesthelackofregistrationofacourtrecordasaJudgment,Verdictand/or
SentencingundertheJudgmentstabinNetHaMishpatsaythatitisNOTindeed
alawfullyvalidandeffectualjudgmentintherespectivecourtfile?
Vaguenessandambiguityregardingthelawfulexistence,validityandeffectof
judgmentsinanycourt,andinparticularjudgmentspertainingtoconvictionandlife
imprisonmentinamurdercase,wouldnodoubtraiseseriousconcernsregarding
competenceoftherespectivecourtandthesafeguardoffundamentalHumanRights.
InSum:
Inacourtfile,whereapersonwaspurportedlyconvictedofmurder,andwherea
personwaspurportedlysentencedtolifeinprison,andpurportedlypursuantto
whichapersonisheldinprisonforaboutadecade,therearenovalidandeffectual
VerdictandSentencingrecordstobefound,onlyinvalidVerdictand
Sentencingrecordslackinginforceandeffect,andsuchrecordsarenotenteredin
theJudgmentDocket.Similarly,thereisnovalidandeffectualArrestWarrantto
befound.Inparallel,JudgeEstherHellmanandPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham
oftheNazarethDistrictCourtdenyaccesstorecords,whichwouldprovidethe
ultimateanswersregardingvalidityandeffectoftheimprisonmentofRoman
Zadorov,pursuanttothelawoftheStateofIsrael.
Iwouldbegladtoreadyouropinioninthismatter,Iwouldbegratefulforyour
expedientresponse.Iwouldsurelyprovideitwidedistribution.
Truly,
__________________
JosephZernik,PhD
OccupyTelAviv
Attached:
[1] 2016-01-20 ZADOROV AFFAIR: Crooks of the Nazareth District Court //
:
[2] 2016-01-25 ZADOROV AFFAIR: Crooks of the Nazareth District Court //

1/8
179/280
[3] 2016-01-24 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court record
received by fax purported Decision by Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham on request (No 119)
to inspect electronic data records of Zadorov's purported verdict, sentencing records //
( 502/07)
( 119 ' )
. ,
( 119 ' ):( 000502-07)

District Court: Request (No 123?) for rendering due decision on request (No 119) to inspect
electronic signature data of judgments //
?( 123 ' ):( 000502-07)
( 119 ' )
[6] Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham's January 25, 2016 Decision on my January 25, 2016
Request (No 120), to inspect duly made arrest warrant and duly made judgment index in State
of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court (received by fax at 12:39)
' ),2016 , 25 , ,
,2016 , 25 ( 120
.(12:39 ) . ,(502/07)
[7] My January 25, 2016 Request (No 120), to inspect duly made arrest warrant and duly made
judgment index in State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court (sent
by fax to the Office of the Clerk at 8:56)
2016 , 25 ( 120 ' )
(8:56 ) . ,(502/07)
1/8
180/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-01-27 Zadorov affair: Attorney Hosni Zoa'bi is asked to opine on

conduct of the Nazareth District Court judges//
" :

[- Bilingual post]
The evidence is clear: In the Zadorov trial in the Nazareth District

Court, the judges engaged in criminality on the bench by conducting
simulated, sham court process in order to affect the false
imprisonment of an innocent person by pretending to convict him of
murder. After Legal Counsel of the Association for Civil Rights in
Israel Attorney Dan Yakir refused to opine on the fraudulent judicial
records, Attorney Hosni Zua'bi, Chair of the Northern District
Committee of the Israel Bar Association, member of the Judicial
Selection Committee, Human Rights activist, and a resident of
Nazareth is asked to opine on the same. The affair also again
demonstrates the fundamental fraud in development and operation
of Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the Israeli courts) by
the Israeli judiciary - as a class.
, :

.
,"
" , " ,
, , ,
.
)
. - (
Figures: In the Zadorov affair, Professor Uzzi Ornan and Attorney Avigdor Feldman,
two notable public figures commended the author on his efforts on their own
initiative.
" , :
.
1/7
181/280
Figures: In the Zadorov affair, Attorney Zua'bi - Chairman of the Northern District
Committee of the Israel Bar, Member of the Judicial Selection Committee, and a
Human Rights activist is asked to opine on conduct of the Nazareth District Court
Judges. Dan Yakir, Legal Counsel of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel refused
to opine on this matter.
:" -" ,
,
." ,
, .
Figures: In the Zadorov affair, 3-judge panel of the Nazareth District Court - Yitzhak
Cohen, Esther Hellman and Haim Galpaz - issued simulated, sham, fabricated
"Verdict" and "Sentencing' records in Zadorov's murder trial, and Judges Esther
Hellman and Avraham Avraham issued simulated, fabricated "Decision" records on
requests to inspect the court file.
: 3 , - ,
- " " " " ,
. ""
, .
_____
"27,"',"
,,
,"""/"
.3
,""""
"/".
,,
,.
:
2/7
182/280
",""
,""
.
,""
,,
.
,.
,.
,.,
,()
.
.'"
_____
OccupyTLV,January27AttorneyKhaledHosniZua'bi,Chairmanofthe
NorthernDistrictCommitteeoftheIsraelBarAssociation,Memberofthe
JudicialSelectionCommittee,andaHumanRightsactivisthasbeenrequested
toopineonconductofNazarethDistrictJudgesEstherHellmanandAvraham
Avraham,whoproducedfabricated,simulatedDecisionrecordsregarding
requeststoinspecttheRomanZadorovcourtfile.Inthesamecourtfile,3
judgepaneloftheNazarethDistrictCourtYitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,
andHaimGalpazissuedsimulated,fabricatedVerdictandSentencing
records,whichresultedinthefalseimprisonmentofRomanZadorov.
Incivilizednation,theissuanceoffabricated,simulatedcourtrecordsis
recognizedasamethodofobstructingjustice,andseriouscriminalconductby
judgesandcourtofficers.
NotsoinIsrael:
InJudgeVardaAlSheikh'sReconstructedProtocolaffair,Chairofthe
TelAvivDistrictoftheIsraelBarAssociationcalledfortheimmediate
terminationofhertenure.However,theAdministrationofCourtsand
SupremeCourtPresidingJusticecontinuedtobackhercontinuedsitting
onthebench.
InJudgeHilaCohen'sFabricatedProtocolsaffair,Directorofthe
AdministrationofCourtsJudgeBoazOkonandPresidingJusticeofthe
SupremeCourtrefusedtoterminatehertenure.Eventually,Judge
Cohenwasremovedfromthebenchthroughanunprecedented
procedure,whereherappointmentwasvoidedbytheJudicialSelection
CommitteeinresponsetorequestbyMinisterofJusticeTzipiLivni.In
contrast,retiredSupremeCourtJusticeJacobTurkelcriticizedthe
3/7
183/280
removalofJudgeCohenfromthebench,andlaterasArbitratorruled
thatshereceiveenhanced,lifelongreparations...
Thefabricated,simulatedcourtrecordsinRomanZadorovcasedwarfthe
JudgeVardaAlSheikhandJudgeHilaCohenaffairs.Here,thematterinvolves
purportedmurderconvictionrecord,purportedlifesentencingrecord,which
resultedinfalseimprisonmentofaperson.Moreover,conductintheRoman
Zadorovcaseshouldbedeemedorganizedcrimebyagroupofjudgesofthe
NazarethDistrictCourt.
Theseaffairsalsodemonstratethefundamentalfraudindevelopmentand
operationofNetHaMishpat(casemanagementsystemoftheIsraelicourts)by
theIsraelijudiciaryasaclass.
BelowisthefulllettertoAttorneyKhaledHosniZoa'bi
LINKS:
[1] 2016-01-27 Request for Attorney Zoa'bi's opinion in re: conduct of the judges in
State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court //
"
( 502/07)
[2] Wikipedia: Roman Zadorov
========================
[Bilingual letter, English follows the Hebrew ]
2016,27
'"
,
.
1607100,3027/21'
:"
(502/07):
!.7
,"
.(502/07)
,",
,,".
.
,
.
"()'
.
4/7
184/280
,,:
,,
,,
.,
,,,.
:
,,,,
.
",.
""""
,.
.
"".
,.
.
,
,,
,,.
.
,,
,,,
.
,
'
HumanRightsAlertNGO
"
:
January27,2016
AttorneyKhaledHosniZua'bi
ChairmanoftheNorthernDistrictCommitteeoftheIsraelBarAssociation,and
MemberoftheJudicialSelectionCommittee
3027/21Street,Nazareth1607100
Byemail:
RE:PublicletterStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazareth
DistrictCourtrequestforyouropinionregardingconductofthejudges
!Yourresponsewithin7daysiskindlyrequested.Timeisoftheessence
5/7
185/280
DearAttorneyHosniZua'bi:
Ihereinrequestyouropinion,asChairmanoftheNorthernDistrictCommitteeofthe
IsraelBar,andMemberoftheJudicialSelectionCommittee,regardingconductof
judgesoftheNazarethDistrictCourtinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07).
Attachedpleasefindmyrequestforopinioninthismatter,whichwasaddressedto
AttorneyDanYakir,theLegalCounseloftheAssociationforCivilRightsinIsrael.
AttorneyYakirrefusedtoopineinthismatter,eitherasanindividual,orinhis
capacityasLegalCounseloftheAssociation.
Thedocuments,whichareattachedtotherequestoriginateinmyactivityin
theareaofinspectionofcourtrecordsingeneral,andinthecourtfile,
referencedabove,inparticular.Myactivityinthisareahasbeenrecently,and
unexpectedlycommendedbynotableandreputablepublicfiguresProf
(linguisticsandcomputerscience)UzziOrnanandAttorneyAvigdorFeldman.
However,myopinionsinthismater,whichwerepublishedextensively,are
perhapsextreme:
Absenttherighttoinspectjudgmentsandarrestwarrants,thereisno
wayforthepublictoascertainthatthecourts,theprisons,andother
governmentagenciesarenotengagedinarbitraryandcapriciousfalse
arrestsofpersons.Therefore,conductofPresidingJudgeoftheNazareth
DistrictCourtAvrahamAvrahamisthuggish,criminalandcheeky.
Theevidencediscoveredsofarclarifiesbeyondanydoubt:Judges
YitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,andHaimGalpazengagedinperversion
ofcourtrecords,perversionofcourtprocess,andconductofsimulated,
shamcourtprocess.TheirintentionwastomisleadtheDefendantand
thepublicatlargetobelievethatRomanZadorovwasdulyconvictedof
themurderofthelateTairRada,thathewasdulysentencedtolifein
prison.However,validandeffectualVerdictandSentencingrecords
haveneverbeenrenderedandhaveneverbeenenteredinthiscourtfile.
TheoutcomeofsuchFraudUpontheCourtisfalseimprisonmentofan
innocentpersonforyears.
Theevidencealsodocumentthefundamentalfraudinthedevelopment
andoperationofNetHaMishpatthenewcasemanagementsystemof
theIsraelicourts.Themodeofoperationofthesystemhastransformed
theNazarethDistrictCourtintoone,wheretheexistenceoflawful,valid
judgmentsisvagueandambiguous.Thereisnodoubtthatsuch
conditionswouldcharacterizetheCourtincompetentorcorrupt.
ConductofJudgesYitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,andHaimGalpaz
nowjoinedbyJudgeAvrahamAvrahamshouldbedeemedfraud,
perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofcourtprocess,andbreachof
loyaltyseriouscriminality.Suchconductdemonstratescontemptof
BasicLaw:HumanDignityandLiberty,andfundamentalHumanRights.
ConductoftheNazarethDistrictCourtJudgesistypicalofcourtsof
policestatesanddarkregimes.
6/7
186/280
Therefore,thereisspecialinterestinyouropinioninthismatter,asChairman
oftheNorthernDistrictCommitteeoftheIsraelBarAssociation,asMemberofthe
JudicialSelectionCommittee,asaHumanRightsactivist,andasonewhoholds
extensiveexperienceintheIsraelijusticesystem.
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlert(NGO)
OccupyTLV
CC:Widedistribution
7/7
187/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "

Avraham Decision on Request #122 - for Due Process service of
State Prosecution Responses //
( 502/07)
- 122 '
-
The Decision was never duly served.
It fails to address the request at all.
foundation.
The Office of the Clerk informed me that I would not be able to inspect the records, absent
judicial decision...
____________
Decision
TheRequesterdoesnotceasefilingrequests,whichpurporttobeRequeststoInspect.
IreferredhimtotheOfficeoftheClerk,wherehemaypetitiontoinspect,butit
appearsthatsuchisnothisinterest,buttoconductaninvestigation,pertainingto
conductoftheCourtinacasethatwasconcludedinaJudgmentbytheSupreme
Courtnotlongago.TheRequesterisnotentitledforthat,ofcourse.Ifheis
interestedininspectiontherecords,IreferhimagaintotheOfficeoftheClerk,where
hewouldbeguidedhowtoactinordertoinspecttheCourtfile.
Renderedtoday,February03,2016,intheabsenceoftheparties.
1/1
188/280
2.6.2016
189/280
1/1

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-02-03 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth

District Court Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham Post-it Decision
on Request #123 for rendering decision on Request #119 to
inspect electronic signature data //
( 502/07)
119 ' 123 '
.
The threatening Post-it Decision was received through Online Chat. It was never duly
served, and was never even received by fax. It also fails to appear in the Decisions
Docket.
The record is not signed in any manner, and should be deemed a sham/simulated court
record.
On the same day, request was filed for providing a signed and certified, True Copy of the
Original, copy of this record. No such copy was ever received.
February 3, 2016
Decision
Request 123 in court file 502-07
Judge Dr Avraham Avraham
______________________________________________
The requester does not stop bothering the
Court and wasting its time with futile
requests, which amount to nothing. If he
continues filing similar requests, I shall
consider imposing on his expenses to benefit
the State Treasury.
1/1
190/280
][Bilingual filing, English follows the Hebrew

Filed by fax to 04-6087930, on June 1, 2016,
502-07
:'
Human Rights Alert - NGO
" ,33407"
"joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org :
077-3179186 :
) (
-
,' , ,
) ( - )
(:
.1 27) ,2015 , ' (111 ,
, .
.2 , -
.
.3 , ,
, , " .
.4 , ,2016 , ""
, .
- .
.5
. 14
,2010 ,
,/ 25
.2014 , " "
- .
.6 ,
- , .
, .
, ,
.
191/280
1/3
_______________
'
,2016 , 01 ,
In the Nazareth Districrt Court

State of Israel v Roman Zadorov
502-07
Requester of Inspection: Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Fax: 077-3179186
Request for rendering a decision in re: Request to Inspect a Duly Made Arrest
Warrant (if it exists at all) in the Electronic Court File
I, Joseph Zernik, PhD, Requester of Inspection in instant court file, file herein my request
for rendering a decision regarding my request to inspect a duly made arrest warrant (if it
exists at all) in the electronic court file in Net-HaMishpat (IT system of the Court):
1. Starting on December 27, 2015, (Request No 111) I filed a series of requests to
inspect decisions, judgments, and arrest warrant in instant court file.
2. Instant court file was initially administered as a paper court file, and later as an
electronic court file in Net-HaMishpat IT system of the Court.
3. Regarding the paper court file, Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer says that it currently is
under the custody of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, I filed requests to inspect it in
the Supreme Court.
4. Regarding the electronic court file, around the middle of January, 2016, a perverted
"Decision" record by Judge Esther Hellman was published, which permitted
inspection of the judgment records in the electronic court file. I indeed exercised the
inspection of the judgment records in Net-HaMishpat in the Office of the Clerk of the
Nazareth District Court.
5. In contrast, the Nazareth District Court has never decided at all regarding my request
to inspect of the duly made Arrest Warrant. Such Arrest Warrant was supposed to be
rendered in the electronic court file, following the September 14, 2010 Sentencing,
which imposed on Roman Zadorov life imprisonment on murder conviction,
overlapping two year imprisonment on obstruction of investigation conviction, and/or
following the February 24, 2014 Supplemental Judgment. Such Arrest Warrant also
fails to appear in the Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system.
6. Therefore, I herein request that the Court render a decision on my request to inspect a
duly made Arrest Warrant (if it exists at all) in the electronic court file in Net2/3
192/280
HaMishpat. In case no such Arrest Warrant exists in the electronic court file, the Court
is requested to explicitly state so in its decision.
In compliance with the law and the fundamentals of Due Process, the Court should grant
instant request and render the its decision regarding my request to inspect a duly made
Arrest Warrant in the electronic court file.
______________
Today, June 01, 2015
Joseph Zernik, PhD Requester
3/3
193/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "

Avraham Post-it Decision on Request #127 - to inspect duly made
arrest warrant //
( 502/07)
- 127 '
The Decision was never duly served.
It fails to appear in the public Decisions Docket.
The Court failed to provide a signed and certified True Copy of the Original of this record,
which should be deemed sham/simulated court record.
June 02, 2016
Decision
Request 127 in court file 502-07
Judge Dr Avraham Avraham
____________________________________
On its face the request appears to be
cantankerous and useless. Therefore, I
found no room to grant it, and it is
denied.
1/1
194/280
195/280
][Bilingual filing, English follows the Hebrew

Filed by fax to 04-6087930, on June 2, 2016,
502-07
:'
" ,33407"
077-3179186 :
" , " , " "
02 ,2016 , (' )127

,' , ,
" , " , " " 02,
,2016 (' )127 ( )
-:
.1 01 ,2016 , (' )127
,
.
.2 , " " (' ,)127
" : .
, ( ". )1
" :1 " 02 ,2016 ,
196/280
. ,127 '
Figure 1: June 02, 2016 "post-it decision" by Judge Avraham Avraham on
request No 127 for rendering decision on requests to inspect duly made Arrest
Warrant in instant court file.
____
, " " .3
-- " " ,)(
.
, , , .4
," " , , , "
,)2004 - , (
.
. ,
_______________
'
,2016 , 02 ,
In the Nazareth Districrt Court

State of Israel v Roman Zadorov
502-07
Requester of Inspection: Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Fax: 077-3179186
Request for receipt of a duly signed and certified "True Copy of the Original" copy
of the June 02, 2016 Judge Avraham Avraham decision on Request (No 127) to
inspect duly made Arrest Warrant
I, Joseph Zernik, PhD, Requester of Inspection in instant court file, file herein my request
for receipt of a duly signed and certified "True Copy of the Original" copy of the June 02,
2016 Judge Avraham Avraham decision on Request (No 127) to inspect duly made Arrest
Warrant (if it exists at all) in the Electronic Court File:
1. On June 01, 2016, I filed my request (No 127) for rendering a decision on previous
requests to inspect a duly made Arrest Warrant in instant court file, since the Court
had never ruled on the matter itself in any of my previous requests.
197/280
2. Today, I received by fax a Judge Avraham Avraham's "post-it decision" on my request

(No 127), which says: "On its face, the request appears cantankerous and useless.
Therefore, I see no reason to grant it, and it is denied." (Figure 1)
3. Such "post-it decision" is unsigned, was received by fax with no authentication letter
by the Clerk of the Court, and fails to appear in the "Decisions Docket" tab in NetHaMishpat public access system of the Court.
4. Therefore, I herein request that the Court provide me (at my address indicated above),
a paper copy of the above referenced decision, duly signed by the judge, who
rendered it, and duly certified, "True Copy of the Original", by a duly appointed Chief
Clerk, pursuant to the Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), or by the
Magistrate of the Court.
In compliance with the law and the fundamentals of Due Process, the Court should grant
instant request
.
______________
Today, June 02, 2015
Joseph Zernik, PhD Requester
198/280
"
" ,33407" 6133301
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Fax: 077-3179186
[]Bilingual letter English follows the Hebrew
_________________________________________________________________________
22016 ,

050-6255470 :
04-6087930 :
: (" )502-07 :) ,)
,) .
7 . !
,
-.
, ,
.
, .
.
.
, - (
) , :

) ,
) ,
) .
.
,
'
June 2, 2016
Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer
Nazareth District Court
Phone: 050-6255470
By fax: 04-6087930
199/280
RE: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) inspection of: a) Arrest Warrant,
b) Responses by State Prosecution on my requests to inspect, c) Electronic
signature data on the judgment records.
Your response by fax within 7 days is kindly requested. Time is of the essence!
Dear Chief Clerk Avichezer:
I have previously filed requests to inspect judgment records and other records, listed
above, in Net-HaMishpat (IT system of the Court) in the above referenced court file.
Regarding the judgment records, Judge Esther Hellman indeed issued a decision,
permitting the inspection, and I exercised the inspection upon a visit to the Office of
the Clerk. During the same visit, I asked to inspect the electronic signature data, but
was denied access.
Repeat requests to inspect the above referenced records were never answered by a
decision on the matter itself. Instead, Judge Avraham Avraham repeatedly issued
decisions, which referred me to the Office of the Clerk.
Therefore, in order to avoid unnecessarily bothering of staff of the Office of the Clerk,
or any misunderstanding (since it is obvious that decisions in such matters are not
within their authority), I kindly request that you clarify:
Would I be permitted to inspect and to copy the following records in the Office of the
Clerk of the Nazareth District Court:
a) Arrest Warrant,
b) Responses by the State Prosecution on my requests to inspect,
c) Electronic signature data on the judgment records.
I would be grateful for your response in writing to the fax number listed above.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD Requester of Inspection
200/280

FiledbyfaxonJune4,2016,to:046087930

502-07
:'
" ,33407"
077-3179186 :

) (
-
,' , ,
) (
-:
.1 27) ,2015 , ' (111
, , .
.2 , -
.
.3 , ,
. , " .
.4 , ,2016 , ""
, .

- ) -
- (.
.5
) (
-.
.6 31 ,2012 ,
" " , :(
" " - .(
)
.(2001( -
, ,
, , .(
1/5

201/280
-
- , ,

.
.7 ,
. ,
:
,
)
, , "" ,
, (?
.8 ,
:( ,(
.
:
( ,
.

.
( " "
. ) ,(2003 )4(
) :(
, ,
.
.9 ) ( ,
, ,
.
.
.10 , , ,
) (
- .
) ( ,
.
, ,
, )
( -.
04 ,,2016 ,
_______________
'
2/5

202/280
-
IntheNazarethDistricrtCourt
50207
RequesterofInspection:
JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Email:joseph.zernik@hrango.org
Fax:0773179186
Repeatrequestforrenderingadecisioninre:RequeststoInspecttheaudit
data,regardingexecutionofelectronicsignatures(iftheyexistatall)onthe
judgmentrecordsininstantelectroniccourtfileinNetHaMishpat(ITsystem
ofthecourt)
I,JosephZernik,PhD,RequesterofInspectionininstantcourtfile,filehereinmy
repeatrequestforrenderingadecisioninre:RequeststoInspecttheauditdata,
regardingexecutionofelectronicsignatures(iftheyexistatall)onthejudgment
recordsininstantelectronicfileinNetHaMishpat(ITsystemofthecourt):
1. StartingonDecember27,2015,(RequestNo111)Ifiledaseriesofrequests
toinspectdulymadedecisions,judgments,andarrestwarrantininstantcourt
file.
2. Instantcourtfilewasinitiallyadministeredasapapercourtfile,andlateras
anelectroniccourtfileinNetHaMishpatITsystemoftheCourt.
3. Regardingthepapercourtfile,ChiefClerkOshratAvichezersaysthatit
currentlyisundercustodyoftheSupremeCourt.Accordingly,Ifiledrequests
toinspectitintheSupremeCourt.
4. Regardingtheelectroniccourtfile,aroundthemiddleofJanuary,2016,a
perverted"Decision"recordbyJudgeEstherHellmanwaspublished,which
permittedinspectionofthejudgmentrecordsintheelectroniccourtfile.
Indeed,inmyconsequentvisittotheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazareth
DistrictCourt,IreceivedprintoutsthejudgmentrecordsinNetHaMishpatin
instantelectroniccourtfile(sincesuchrecordsfailtoappearintheNet
HaMishpatpublicaccesssystem).
5. However,theNazarethDistrictCourthasneverruled,onthematteritself,on
myrepeatrequeststoinspectthetheauditdata,regardingexecutionof
electronicsignatures(iftheyexistatall)onthejudgmentrecordsinthe
electronicfileinNetHaMishpat.
6. TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012decisionregardingJudge
1/5

203/280
-
VardaAlshech'sfabricatedprotocolsmakesitcrystalclear:a)Thegraphic
signaturesonprintoutsofelectronicdecisionrecordsfromNetHaMishpat
lackanyvalidity,forceandeffect.b)Thevalidsignaturesonelectronic
decisionrecordsinNetHaMishpataretheelectronicsignatures,pursuantto
theElectronicSignatureAct(2001).c)Itisimpossibletodistinguishin
printoutsofelectronicdecisionrecordsfromNetHaMishpatbetweenvalid,
electronicallysigneddecisionrecordsandinvaliddecisionrecords,whichare
notdulysignedbyelectronicsignatures.d)Thedirectwaytodistinguish
betweenvalidandinvalidelectronicdecisionrecordsinNetHaMishpatisby
inspectingtheauditdataregardingexecutionsoftheelectronicsignaturesin
thesystem.
7. Obviously,thehandsignaturesofthejudicialauthoritiesareaccessibleand
visibletoanyperson,whoinspectsapapercourtrecordinapapercourtfile.
Subsequently,theheartofthematter,whichtheCourtisrequestedtoruleon
hereis:Isaperson,whoispermittedtoinspectanelectroniccourtrecordin
instantelectroniccourtfile,alsoinherentlypermittedtoinspecttheelectronic
auditdata,pertainingtoexecutionofelectronicsignaturesonthesame
electroniccourtrecord(sothatthepersonbeabletodistinguishwhetherthe
courtrecord,beinginspected,isadulymade,validcourtrecord,oronlya
void,notvoidabledraft,whichisnotadulymadecourtrecord)?
8. Inresponsetomypreviousrequestsonthismatter,JudgeAvrahamAvraham
issueddecision,whichreferredmeto:a)TheOfficeoftheClerk,b)TheLegal
DepartmentoftheAdministrationofCourts.
Regardingsuchreferrals,itshouldbenoted:
a)DuringmyvisittotheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,I
mettheCriminalDivisionHeadanddiscussedwithhimthequestionof
inspectingtheelectronicsignaturesauditdataininstantcourtfile.Hemadeit
abundantlyclearthathewouldnotpermitit,unlessthereisanexplicit
decisionoftheCourtinsuchmatter.
b)IclaimthatmyreferraltotheLegalDepartmentoftheAdministrationof
Courtslacksanyfoundationinthelaw.TheRegulationsoftheCourts
InspectionofCourtFiles(2003),Article4(b)explicitlysays,regarding
inspectionofaspecificcourtfilebyanonparty:(b)Requesttoinspectshall
befiledwithajudgeormagistratethatthecourtfilewasadjudgedby,andif
thatisnotpossible,withajudgeormagistrateassignedbythepresidingjudge
ofthatcourt.
9. Inotherjurisdictions(butnotintheStateofIsrael),refusalofacourtto
expedientlyruleonamotionpendingbeforeit,withnoreasonable
explanation,isconsideredaviolationoftheethicsrulesforjudges.Italsois
selfevidentthatselectiverefusaltoruleonmotionscancauseperversionof
2/5

204/280
-
courtprocess.
10. Therefore,IhereinrepeatmyrequestthattheCourtrenderadecision,
rulingonthematteritselfinmyrequesttoinspecttheauditdataofexecution
oftheelectronicsignatures(iftheyexistatall)onthejudgmentrecordsin
instantelectroniccourtfileinNetHaMishpat.Incasenoelectronicsignatures
exist(makingmyrequestmoot),theCourtisrequestedtoexplicitlystatesoin
itsdecision.
TheCourtshouldupholdthefundamentalsofjusticeanddueprocess,grant
instantrequestandrenderadecision,rulingonmyrequesttoinspecttheaudit
data,pertainingtoexecutionofelectronicsignatures(iftheyexistatall)onthe
judgmentrecordsininstantelectronicfileinNetHaMishpat(ITsystemofthe
court).
______________
JosephZernik,PhDRequester
Today,June04,2015
3/5

205/280
-

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2016-06-26 Zadorov affair: Secret, conspirative filing by State

Prosecutor Shila Inbar //
", :

[]
So, what is one to do, when the judges and the State prosecutors
violate the law in collusion with impunity, in order to withhold
evidence of Fraud Upon the Court by Nazareth District Judges
Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz, and in order to
continue the false imprisonment of Roman Zadorov?
It is obvious that the "Constitutional Revolution", championed by
Presiding Justice Aharon Barak was intended to establish the
supremacy of the courts over the legislature and the executive
branches, but when it comes to the constitutional right of the people
to keep a watchful eye on the courts, in order to prevent judicial
corruption, the Constitutional theory is inapplicable...
View in blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/06/2016-06-26-zadorov-affair-secret.html
Figure: Partners in Fraud Upon the Court in the Nazareth Distirict Court in the Zadorov
affair - Judges Avraham Avraham, Haim Galpaz, Esther Hellman, Yitzhak Cohen, and
1/14
206/280
senior State prosecutors Shila Inbar and Mirit Stern
_____
OccupyTLV,June26inavisittotheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazareth
DistrictCourttoday,finallythesecretfilingofNorthDistrictAttorney'sOffice
AttorneyShilaInbarfromlateJanuary2016wasdiscovered.Thefiling
pertainedtoaroutineattempttoinspectthepapercourtdecisions(original
records)inStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07).
Untiltoday,theNorthDistrictAttorneyOfficeandtheNazarethDistrictCourt
refusedtodulyservetheresponseoftheAttorney'sOfficeontheattemptto
inspect.Alsoacomplaint,filedwiththeCommissionerofProsecutorial
Oversightinthismatterwastonoavail...
Figure: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - the
secret January 26, 2016 filing by North District Attorney Office - Attorney Shila Inbar - on
2/14
207/280
request to inspect the paper decision records (original records ) in this case.
____
AttorneyShilaInbar'ssecretfilinginpartsays:
Thenatureoftherequestsisunclear,anditappearsthattheir
purposeistoestablishconspiracytheoriespertainingto
instantcourtfileand/orthejusticesystemingeneral...The
Requesteristryingtoabusetheterm"RighttoInspect"...The
RequesterhasnotbeenappointedOmbudsmanoftheCourts
yet...
TherefusalbyNorthDistrictStateAttorneyMiritSterntodulyservethe
responsewasthefoundationforacomplaintonFraud,PervestionofCourt
Process,andBreachofLoyalty,whichwasfiledwithCommissionerof
ProsecutorialOversightHilaGerstel.NorthDistrictAttorneyMiritStern
deniedarequesttobedulyservedAttorneyShilaInbar'sresponseunderfalse
claimthattherequestwasforinspectionof"investigationmaterials"...
3/14
208/280
Figure: February 21, 2016 response by North District Attorney Mirit Stern on request to
duly serve the January 26, 2016 response by North District Attorney Office - Attorney
Shila Inbar - on Pro-forma request to inspect the paper court decisions (original records)
in State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court. Attorney Stern
refused to duly serve the January 26, 2016 response under false pretense, that the
request was for inspection of "investigation materials". The false response was the
foundation for a complaint against Attorney Mirit Stern, filed with Commissioner of
Prosecutorial Oversight Hila Gerstel.
_____
Followingtoday'sreceiptofthecopyofAttorenyShilaInbar'sresponse,
requestwasfiledwithCommissionerofProsecutorialOversightJudge(ret)
HilaGersteltoclosethecomplaintagainstNorthDistrictAttorneyMiritStern.
Obviously,iftheCommissionerhasbeenunabletoreviewsuchsimple
complainttothisdate,theCommissioner'sofficeisalameduckatbest...With
it,itisalsoobvious,thattheZadorovaffairwhicheffectuallycausethe
dismantlingoftheCommissioner'soffice,isasensitivematter...Moreover,in
4/14
209/280
thiscase,theStateProsecutionandtheNazarethDistrictCourtwere
perpetratingthefraudincollusion...Obviously,asimplecomplaint,butone
thatisdifficulttodigest...
AlsoofinterestistheperversionofcourtrecordsbytheNazarethDistrictCourt
inthismatter:
A"scanned",fabricatedDecember27,2015DecisionbyJudgeEstherHellman,
onarequesttoinspectthejudgmentrecordsinStateofIsraelvRoman
Zadorov(502/07)wasdocketedas"RequestNo112".AndAttorneyShila
Inbar'sResponseontheRequesttoInspectthePaperDecisionRecords
(RequestNo118),wasdocketedasResponseonJudgeHellman'sDecision,
whichwasdocketedas"RequestNo112".
Soundsconfusing?
InthelegalparlanceoftheIsraeliSupremeCourtitiscalled"ajumble"...
AllofthismadeitdifficulttodiscovertheexistenceoftheStateProsecution
Responseandobtainitscopy.FilingrequeststoinspectintheIsraelicourtsis
somekindofapokergametherequesterofinspectionisnotpermittedto
evenviewthedocketofrequestsanddecisions,pertainingtotherequestto
inspect...
AnothereyeopeningcommentinAttorneyShilaInbar'sResponseis:
Overandbeyond,theResponderfullysupportsthecorrect
wordsoftheHonPresidingJudgeinhisJanuary25,2016
DecisioninRequestNo120.
5/14
210/280
Figure: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - Judge Avraham January 25, 2016
Decision on Request to Inspect paper decision records (original records). The Request
was conducted in patent violation of the law, which permits inspection in previously
published decision with no request process at all, and does not provide the judges any
discretion to adjudicate the matter.
____
RequestNo120pertainedtoattempttoexercisetherighttoinspect"lawfully
madearrestwarrant"and"lawfullymadejudgmentdocket".JudgeAvraham's
Decisionsays:
...thesearenotrequeststoinspect,butaninvestigationby
theRequesterofthevalidityandoperationsofNetHaMishpat
systemandvariousotherclaimsrelativetoconductofthe
judicialpanelininstantcourtfile.Insuchmatters,thisCourt
shallnotengage...
6/14
211/280
ItisnotdifficulttounderstandwhytheStateAttorneyOfficeandtheNazareth
DistrictCourtgotsosensitiveregardingtherequeststoinspectthepapercourt
fileitislikelytoproducethebestevidenceyetoftheFraudUpontheCourt
byJudgesYitzhakCohen,EstherHellmanandHaimGalpaz,whichlastyears
2007totheendof2010inconductofa"fabricated"/sham/simulatedtrial
againstRomanZadorov.
ItshouldbenotedthatconductoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,pertainingto
theRequesttoInspectthedecisionsinthepapercourtfile(originalrecords)
wasrepeatedwithsmallvariationsbytheIsraeliSupremeCourt.Alsothere
theJusticesengageinconductofrequeststoinspectofpreviouslypublished
decisionrecords,withnolawfulauthority.IntheSupremeCourt,the
Magistratedeniedtherighttoinspectthepapercourtdecisions(original
records)fromtheNazarethDistrictCourtunderthepretenseof"jumble"inthe
courtfile...AlsointheSupremeCourttheDistrictAttorneyrefusedtoduly
serveitsResponse.AndalsotheSupremeCourtrefusestoprovideacopyof
theDistrictAttorney'sResponseontheattempttoinspectthepapercourt
decisionrecords.ItislikelythattheResponsebytheDistrictAttorneyOffice
intheSupremeCourtisalongthesameconspiratorialveinoftheResponse
thatwasdiscoveredtodayintheNazarethDistrictCourt...
ConductoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,theSupremeCourt,andtheDistrict
AttorneyOfficeshowscollusionbetweenthejudgesandseniorprosecutorsin
withholdingevidenceofconductofJudgesYizhakCohen,EstherHellman,and
HaimGalpazintheZadorovtrialinNazareth.
Moreover:ConductoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,theSupremeCourtandthe
DistrictAttorneyshouldbedeemedseriousviolationofthelaw!
Thelawinthismatterisclear.
TheInspectionRegulations(2003),Regulation2(b)says:
2(b)Everypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisions,whichare
notlawfulyprohibitedforpublication.
ThematterwasalsoexplicitlyclarifiedinSupremeCourtPresidingJustice
DoritBeinisch2009Judgmentattheendofa12yearlongpetition
AssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelvMinisterofJustice(5917/97).The
SupremeCourtJudgmentsays:
Regulation2(b)expandsthepublic'srighttoinspectwithno
requirementoffilingarequestwiththeCourt,butonly
pertainingtocourtdecisions,andonlypertainingtodecisions,
whicharenotprohibitedforpublicationbylaw.
Thereisnorequirementoffilingarequest,pertainingtoinspectionof
decisions,whichhavealreadybeenpublished.Thejudgeshavenojurisdiction
7/14
212/280
anddiscretion,pertainingtotherighttoinspectdecisions,whichhavealready
beenpublished,andtheDistrictAttorneyOfficehasnoauthoritytoobjectto
theinspectionofdecisions,whichhavealreadybeenpublished.
The2009Judgmentalsosays,regardingtherighttoinspect:
Afundamentalprincipleinanydemocraticregime...
Constitutional,superstatutory...
Indeed,therighttoinspectcourtdecisionsisaConstitutionalrightalsoin
otherjurisdictions.Alandmarkdecisioninthismatter(theNixontapes)ofthe
USSupremeCourtexplainsthematterinthe"desireofthepeopletokeepa
watchfuleyeontheworkingofgovernmentagencies..."Governmentagencies
obviouslyincludethecourtsthemselves....
Therefore,itisalsoobviousthatthe"ConstitutionalRevolutioninIsrael"from
theschoolofPresidingJusticeAharonBarak,whichestablishedthesupremacy
ofthecourtsovertheexecutiveandthelegislativebranches,doesnotapply
whenitcomestothepeople'srighttokeepawatchfuleyeonthecourts,
inordertopreventjudicialcorruption...
So,whatisonetodo,whenthejudgesandtheStateprosecutorsviolatethe
lawincollusionwithimpunity,inordertowithholdevidenceofFraudUpon
theCourtbyNazarethDistrictJudgesYitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,and
HaimGalpaz,andinordertocontinuethefalseimprisonmentofRoman
ZadorovinabsolutecontemptoftheBasicLaw:HumanDignityandLiberty?
",:
":
,","
..."
,
,,,
?
,""
,
...
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/06/2016-06-26-zadorov-affair_26.html :
8/14
213/280
: ,
, , .
______
" 26 , ,
"
) ( ).(502/07
.
...
9/14
214/280
: ) - (502/07 26 ,2016 ,
," , ) (
..
_____
" :
,
/ ...
" " ... ...
,"
, , , .
"
, , " "...
10/14
215/280
: ," ,
) (
) (520/07 ."
26 ,2016 , , "
" . "
.
_______
" , ,
.
, ...
, , .
, , ...
, ...
:
11/14
216/280
"" 27 ,2015
) ,(502/07 " ' .112
)' ,(118
, .112
?
""...
, . ,

...
:
, '
25.1.2016 ' .120
12/14
217/280
: )- (502/07 25
,2016 , ) ( .
, ,
.
__________
120 " " "
" . :
... ,
- " .
...

, 2007 2009
""/ / . )
( .
. ,
) ( " " ...
.
.

...
, ,

, , .
: ,
!
.
) (2003:
)2( .

2009 12 -
)" .(5917/97 :
)2(
,
, .
.
,
...
2009 :
... ,-...
, .
" ) (
" ...
...
13/14
218/280
, " " ,
,
...
"" ,
, , ,
: ?
14/14
219/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
- Request for Certification of Judicial Decision Records, which was filed with
Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer //
( 502/07 )"
,
1/1
220/280
"
" ,33407" 6133301
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Fax: 077-3179186
][Bilingual record English follows the Hebrew
262016,
,
:)"(502/07
",",
,
,
,",
,,:
(1142010,
,,.
(2142010,
,,.
(3242014,
,,.
(4272015,
.
(5122016,
.
(6032016,
.
(7022016,
.
(1,(2004))6(,:
6 .
.
:",
,:","",",
'.
",",
.
1/12
221/280
(2""",
,,(1984),105
:
) .105(
,
.
(3/88/12)"(31
,2012,"",
,:
(:
19
)
(,"
".
("":
21
.,
:
,.,
,
.,"
".
36
114/14:
/,
,...
67/09:
,,
...
,"",
.
37
,,
""...
38
""
""""...
...
:
"",
,,,
,.
2/12
222/280
:
.
,
'
:
.(
,2012,31("/88/12)(
""
June25,2015
OshratAvichezer,ChiefClerk
Handdelivery
RE:StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(seriouscrime502/07)requestfor
certificationofdecisionandjudgmentrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,if
andonlyiftheyarelawfullysignedbyelectronicsignatures,andarelawfully
permittedtobecertified
DearChiefClerkOshratAvichezer:
Ihereinrequestcertifiedcopies,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,oftheattachedrecords,
ifandonlyiftheyarelawfullysignedbyelectronicsignature,andarelawfully
permittedtobecertified:
1) September14,2010Verdictifandonlyifitislawfullysignedbyelectronic
signaturesofJudgesYitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,andHaimGalpaz.
2) September14,2010Sentencingifandonlyifitislawfullysignedbyelectronic
signaturesofJudgesYitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,andHaimGalpaz.
3) February24,2014SupplementalJudgmentifandonlyifitislawfullysignedby
electronicsignaturesofJudgesYitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,andBenjamin
Arbel.
4) December27,2015DecisionbyJudgeEstherHellmanifandonlyifitislawfully
signedbyelectronicsignatureofJudgesEstherHellman.
5) January12,2016DecisionbyJudgeEstherHellmanifandonlyifitislawfully
signedbyelectronicsignatureofJudgesEstherHellman.
6) February03,2016PostitDecisionbyJudgeAvrahamAvrahamifandonlyifitis
lawfullysignedbyelectronicsignatureofJudgesAvrahamAvraham.
7) June02,2016PostitDecisionbyJudgeAvrahamAvrahamifandonlyifitis
lawfullysignedbyelectronicsignatureofJudgesAvrahamAvraham.
Pleasemakesuretolawfullyissuethecertification
3/12
223/280
1) InstantrequestisfiledpursuanttotheRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeofthe
Clerk(2004),Article6(a),whichsays:
6a.TheChiefClerksofthecourtsareauthorizedtocertifythatacopyof
acourtrecordisatruecopyoftheoriginalcourtrecordinthecourtfile.
Ihereinrequestthatthelanguageofthecertificationbeasprovidedinthe
Regulations:TrueCopyoftheOriginal,andnotanyinvalidvariations,suchas:
TrueCopying,CopyingisTruetotheOriginal,CorrectCopy,etc.
Ihereinrequestthatyournameandyourposition,ChiefClerk,appearonthe
certificationwithyourhandsignatureandthedate.
2) Incaseyoudonotholdalawfulappointment,pursuanttotheRegulationsofState
ServiceasChiefClerk,Ihereinrequestthatyouimmediatelyrefermetothe
MagistrateoftheCourt,pursuanttotheCourtsAct(1984),Article105,which
says:
105.(a)TheMagistrateoftheCourtshallserveinanyauthoritythatwas
providedtothechiefclerksoftheSupremeCourt,thedistrictcourts,and
themagistratecourts,andperformanyoftheirduties.
3) AttachedhereinisacopyoftheMay31,2012OmbudsmanoftheJudiciary
Decision(12/88/TelAvivDistrict)intheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricated
Protocolsscandal,whichdealsindetailwiththeprocedureofcertifyingelectronic
decisionrecordsTrueCopyoftheOriginal:
a)Producingtheprotocol:
Paragraph19
PursuanttotheWorkGuidelinesprintingtheprotocoloutoftheProtocolFolder
(asdonebythesecretary)isprohibited,anditshouldbeprintedoutonlyafteritis
electronicallysigned,whichisperformedthroughoperatingtheProtocol
ApplicationoftheOfficeoftheClerk.
b)StampingTrueCopyoftheOriginal:
Paragraph21
Itisimpossibletodistinguishbetweenaprotocolthatisgraphicallysignedanda
protocolthatiselectronicallysignedoncetheprotocolwasprintedout.Withit,
thereareseveralwaystodistinguishbetweenthemintheelectronicfileinNet
HaMishpat:TheelectronicallysignedprotocolshowstheStatecoatofarmsin
color,whilethegraphicallysignedprotocoldoesnot.Additionally,theTasksline
oftheprotocolinNetHaMishpatiscoloredingreenwhentheprotocolis
electronicallysigned,andinblackwhenitisadraft.Furthermore,thereis
documentationoftheexecutionoftheelectronicsiganatureintheProtocol
Eventsfolderinthesystem.
Paragraph36
WorkGuideline114/14says:
Onceajudicialdecision/judgmentwasrenderedinthecourtfile,which
iselectronicallysigned,theOfficeoftheClerkshallacttoprovideparties
withcertifiedcopies...
WorkGuideline67/09says:
4/12
224/280
OnceapersonarrivesattheOfficeoftheClerkwithacopyofthecourt
record,thestaffoftheOfficeoftheClerkshallexaminethecopypriorto
itscertification...
Itisunequivocallyprohibitedtostampaprotocol,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,if
theoriginalisnotshownordisplayedbeforethestaffoftheOfficeoftheClerk.
Paragraph37
Therefore,intheabsenceofanelectronicallysignedprotocol,thereisnoroomto
stampit,TrueCopyoftheOriginal...
Paragraph38
Thestaff,whoimplementedNetHaMishpat,didnotteachthestaff[oftheOffice
oftheClerkjz]thedifferencesandimportancebetweenprintingoutaprotocol
throughtheProtocolApplicationandthroughtheProtocolFolder...Now,
WorkGuidelineshavebeenissuedandtheimportanceofbeingcarefulaboutthe
electronicsigantureswasexplained...
Warning:
Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,Iwouldconsiderthestampingoftherecords,
TrueCopyoftheOriginal,incasethattheyarenotelectronicallysigned,seriously
misleading,andIwillacttoapplythelawinthismatterunderallegationsofFraud,
PerversionofCourtRecords,andBreachofLoyalty.
Payment:
Ishalldulypayonthespotforthecertifiedcopies.
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
Attached:
a)Copiesoftherecords,certificationofwhichisrequested.
b)TheMay31,2012OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)
intheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal.
5/12
225/280
1)20100914StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)Verdict
(1)"(502/07142010,
6/12
226/280
2)20100914StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)Sentencing
2010,14(502/07)"(2
7/12
227/280
3)20140224StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)Supplemental
Judgment
2014,24(502/07)"(3
8/12
228/280
4)20100914StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)
(4)"(502/07272016,
9/12
229/280
5)20160112DecisionbyJudgeEstherHellman
(5122016,
10/12
230/280
6)20160203PostitDecisionbyJudgeAvrahamAvraham
(6032016,
11/12
231/280
7)20160602PostitDecisionbyJudgeAvrahamAvraham
(7022016,
12/12
232/280

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2012-05-31 Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) by Ombudsman of the Judiciary

Eliezer Goldberg on complaints against Judge Varda AlSheikh in the
Reconstructed Protocol affair//
, "( /88/12)
" " ,2012 , 31
[]
JudgeVardaAlshechreconstructedprotocols,JusticeEliezerGoldebrgwrote
alandmarkdecision,exposingthefraudindevelopmentandoperationofNet
HaMishpatITsystemoftheIsraelidistrictandmagistratecourts.
____
Englishtranslationisprovidedonlyforpartsofthedecision,whichpertaintothe
developmentandoperationofNetHaMishpatandconductofjudgesandclericalstaff
relativetotheproduction,filing,service,andcertificationofjudicialrecords.
Thedecisiondocumentsingreatdetailthefailureofallsuchprocedures,whichwere
establishedincourtsinWesternnationscenturiesago,andwhichwereestablished
alsointheStateofIsraelfrom1936to2004,underRegulationsoftheCourts
RegistrationOffice(1936),promulgatedundertheBritishruleperiod...[1]TheBritish
Regulationswerevoidedin2004,concomitantlywiththeinitiationofdevelopmentof
NetHaMishpatandthetransitiontoecourtsinIsrael.NewRegulationsoftheCourts
OfficeoftheClerk(2004)werepromulgatedinstead...[2]
ThetwoprotocolsVersionAandVersionBandtheinvalidgraphicsignatureson
them,canbeviewedintheattachmentstothecomplaint,[3]filedwiththe
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciarybytheIsraelBarAssociation,whichisthesubjectofthe
decisionprovidedhere.
LINKS:
[1]19360000RegulationsoftheCourtsRegistrationOffice(1936)
[2]20040000RegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004)
1/2
233/280
[3]20120126ComplaintagainstJudgeVARDAALSHEIKHintheReconstruct
Protocolaffair,filedbyIsraelBarAssociation,TelAvivRegionalChairmanEfiNaveh,
toJusticeMinisterYaakovNeeman,SupremeCourtPresidingJusticeDoritBeinisch,
andOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldberg,includingVersionAandVersionB
oftheprotocol,andComplaintagainstAttorneyArgaz,filedbyProfessionalAdvisor
oftheAdministrationofCourtsBarakLaseronbehalfofJudgeVardaAlSheikh//
Hebrew Wikipedia
The Reconstructed Protocols Affair
In June 2012 Justice Eliezer Goldberg, Ombudsman of the Judiciary, determined that
Judge Alshech perpetrated 36 technical and material changes in the protocol [minutes
jz] of a hearing she had conducted, in order to make the conduct of an attorney, against
who she filed a complaint, appear more severe. Following the Ombudsman's decision,
the President of the Israel Bar Association and the heads of the 5 Districts approached
Minister of Justice Yaakov Neeman and Presiding Justice Asher Grunis in demand to
remove Alshech from the bench. On July 27, 2012 Alshech announced her resignation
from her position as Chairwoman of the Judges Association. Presiding Justice Asher
Grunis decided to issue a serious warning against Alshech in her personal file as the only
sanction. He made it clear that he saw the matter seriously, and warned her against
repeating such conduct. However, he decided not to apply his authority according to
Base Law: The Judiciary, Article 7(4), which allows opening process for her impeachment.
Iin part, he took into account the fact that she was a very experienced and senior judge.
Following Presiding Justice Grunis's decision, the President of the Israel Bar Association
and heads of the 5 Districts approached Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman in demanding
that he use his authority and file a complaint with the Judicial Disciplinary Court and
demand her impeachment. A joint conference of Minister of Justice Neeman and the
leadership of the Israel Bar Association led to a compromise, based on Presiding Justice
serious warning to Alshech.
Note: Regardless, Alshech was later caught repeating the same conduct...

36 , , 2012
. " ,
,
2012 27- .
. "
, ,
:( 4) 7 ,
", . , , ,
,
.
, "
.
#
Document
Page
1.
20120531Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)byOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldbergon
complaintsagainstJudgeVardaAlSheikhintheReconstructedProtocolaffairEnglishtranslation//
,31,("/88/12)
"" ,2012
2.
20120531Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)byOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldbergon
complaintsagainstJudgeVardaAlSheikhintheReconstructedProtocolaffairHebreworiginal//
,31,("/88/12)
"" ,2012
15
2/2
234/280
[coat of arms state of israel]

Office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary
Chambers of Ombudsman Eliezer Goldberg
Supreme Court Justice (ret)
May 31, 2012
Ref: 88/12 Tel-Aviv District Court
Personal-Confidential-For the
addressees only
Complainants:
1. Attorney Effy Naveh, Chairman of the Tel-Aviv & Center

District, Israel Bar Association
2. Attorney Haim Arbel
3. Ometz-NGO (Citizens for Justice and Integrity in
Government)
4. Attorney Rafael Argaz
Subject of the Complaints: The Hon Judge Varda Alshech

Assistant Presiding Judge
Tel-Aviv District Court
Bankruptcy (1623/00) 1
Matter:
Complaints received on 2012-01-26; 2012-02-02; 2012-02-07;

2012-02-20 (in order of the Complainants)
DECISION
1. Four complaints were filed with the Ombudsman against the Hon Judge Varda
Alshech, Assistant Presiding Judge, Tel-Aviv District Court, pertaining to a hearing,
conducted by her on 2011-09-12 in Bankruptcy file 1623/00 (hereinafter the
hearing)... 2
1 The Ombudsman does not state the file caption: Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver.
The involvement of the largest bank in Israel in this scandal is significant. Judge
Alshech presided over the years in the largest corporate bankruptcy, dissolution,
and haircut cases.
2 Copy of the Complaint by Attorney Effy Naveh, Israel Bar Association, which
includes as attachments copies of the two Protocols, Version A and Version B can be
found in the link below. The records show the graphic signatures on the records,
and the stamp True Copy of the Original on Version A.
2012-01-26 Complaint against Judge VARDA ALSHEIKH in the Reconstruct
Protocol affair, filed by Israel Bar Association, Tel-Aviv Regional Chairman Effy
Naveh, to Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, Supreme Court Presiding Justice Dorit
Beinisch, and Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg, including Version A
and Version B of the protocol, and Complaint against Attorney Argaz, filed by
Professional Advisor of the Administration of Courts Barak Laser on behalf of
Judge Varda Alshech
235/280

The Protocol in Net-HaMishpat System
Date of the hearing and production of the Protocol
18. On 2012-05-06 I received by email from the Hon Judge a printout from NetHaMishpat system, which lists Protocol Events, pertaining to the State Receiver's
Motion, heard on 2011-09-12, as stated above. The printout shows that on the date of
the Hearing Decisions were rendered by the Hon Judge on the State Receiver's
Motion at 9:44 and 9:56. At 10:21 Stop Hearing Event was registered, at 10:27
Continue Hearing Event was registered, and at 11:27 End Hearing Event was
registered.
In his 2012-05-01 letter, Attorney Laser states that examination, conducted at the
request of the Ombudsman, showed that the Protocol was first created on 2011-09-12
at 8:30, and that it was re-opened for editing on the same date at 10:27. 3
It is therefore possible to ascertain that after the Heating was concluded at 10:21, the
Hon Judge edited it for an hour, between 10:27 and 11:27.
Production of the Protocol
19. In her responses, dated 2012-02-05 and 2012-02-12, the Hon Judge conveys that
there are no two versions of the Protocol. Version A is a Draft Protocol, which her
secretary provided to Attorneys Arbel and Argaz by mistake, at their request, and
Version B is an Official Protocol, which was electronically signed by her after
being proofread. 4
judgeusinganelectronicsignature,itisadraftprotocol,whichismaintained
intheProtocolsFolderofthesystem...
Sincethescannedgraphicsignatureofthejudgeappearsalsoonthedraft,a
printoutofthedraftandaprintoutoftheelectronicallysignedprotocollook
thesame,andthereisnowaytodistinguishbetweenthem.Therefore,
accordingtoofficeprocedures,aprotocolshouldnotbeprintedoutfromthe
ProtocolsFolder(asdonebyhersecretary),butonlyaftertheyitwas
electronicallysigned,byexecutingtheProtocolApplicationbytheOfficeof
3 Attorney Barak Laser is Senior Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts. His
conduct in this case and others is dubious. First, he colluded with Judge Alshech in
filing the semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Argaz, based on a falsified court
record (and Attorney Laser was one of the only persons to have access to system at
the level that permitted him to know that it was an invalid, unsigned record as
well.). Later, he provided to the Ombudsman incriminating information against
Judge Alshech. His conduct in this case and others has never been scrutinized.
4 All underlines in the original jz
236/280
theClerk.5
Moreover,corrections,whichareimplementedinaprotocolafteritwas
electronicallysigned,wouldgenerateinthesystemanewversion,named
CorrectedProtocol,alongsidetheoriginalversionoftheprotocol.In
contrast,changesinaprotocolthatwasnotelectronicallysignedarenot
recordedandsavedasseparateversions,andalleditingissavedunderthe
sameelectronicfileoftherecord.Theexaminationshowsthatinthiscase,
theHistorylistingofthesystemlistsnopreviousversionsoftheProtocol,
onlyoneversion,whichisVersionB,whichwasfiledwiththeComplaintto
theIsraelBarAssociation.6
AstothecorrectionsmadeintheProtocolthemselves,theHonJudgestates
thatsincetheHearingwasstormyandwasofteninterrupted,thetranscriber
didnothaveachancetorecordeverythingthatwassaid.She(theHon
Judge)thereforeinformedthepartiesthattheProtocolwouldbeprovidedto
themattheendofthebusinessdayattheOfficeoftheClerk....Regardlessof
hernotice,AttorneysArbelandArgazwentdowntotheOfficeoftheClerk,
wheretheyinformedhersecretarythattheywerecomingfromthe
courtroom,andtheydidnotreceivetheProtocol.Thesecretary,whowas
burdenedwithservicetothepublic,madeanerror,enteredNetHaMishpat
systeminthewrongway,andprintedoutforthemfromtheProtocolFolder
whatwasonlyaDraftProtocol.Additionally,andcontrarytooffice
procedures,thesecretarycertifiedtheDraftProtocolTrueCopyofthe
Original,althoughtherewasnoOriginalbeforeher.7
5
The information provided here shows that some effort was made to simulate in NetHaMishpat the operations of a competent Office of the Clerk. Namely, the Judge
writes, the judicial record and electronically signs it. Only after that, the Office of
the Clerk is supposed to execute the Protocol Application, which in fact enters the
signed protocol into the public Decisions Docket. However, the Ombudsman's
decision also documents in great detail that none of it is performed in practice. In
fact, the implementation of Net-HaMishpat was equivalent to abolishing the Office
of the Clerk and its duties and authorities relative to the maintenance and integrity
of the records. The Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), were
accordingly changed, to abolish the legal duties and authorities of the Chief Clerk
relative to the maintenance and integrity of the records,
6 The essence of the Complaints against Judge Alshech was that she falsified a court
record in order to file with the Israel Bar Association the semi-criminal complaint
against Attorney Argaz.
7 This paragraph contains important information. It shows at once that Judge
Alshech and the Ombudsman are familiar with what are honest procedures
regarding the filing and certification of court records, and that such procedures are
in fact not upheld since the introduction of Net-HaMishpat. As the Ombudsman later
comments, contrary to what Alshech describes as an error by her secretary, her
conduct was typical: Judges do not electronically sign the records in Net-HaMishpat,
and unauthorized staff, untrained and uninformed, relative to the significance of
electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat, delivers such record so parties and counsel
as valid court records. Additionally, the routine certification in the courts, as in this
case, is by unauthorized persons. The Regulations of the Courts Office of the
Clerk (2004) establish the Chief Clerk as the person, who is authorized to certify
court records. Here an authorized judge's secretary certifies uncertifiable court
237/280
NottoolongaftersheelectronicallysignedtheProtocol,hersecretarysentthe
entirerecord[VersionBEG]totheparties.8
TheHonJudgeemphasizedthatnoneoftheattorneysfiledarequestfor
correctionoftheProtocol,orarequestforclarification,inordertocorrectthe
situation.TheyrecalledtoaddresstheissueonlyaftertheIsraelBar
AssociationapproachedAttorneyArgaz.
20. My inquiries with the Director of the Administration of Courts, asking for his
comments on the computer system perspective of production of the Protocol, were
answered by copies of email correspondence between the computer system personnel
and the Hon Judge, which were provided for my review, in letters by Attorney Barak
Laser to the Ombudsman, in a 2012-02-29 letter by Mr Yarden Yardeni, Director of
the Net-HaMishpat project in the IT Systems and Computers Wing of the
Administration of Courts, to Attorney Barak Laser. 9
21. Inhis20120229letter,MrYardenYardeniwrites:
Onagivenhearingdate,thecourttranscriberopensanewelectronic
protocolfile,whichopensaprotocoltemplateWorddocument.Inorderto
starteditingtherecord,thetranscriberhastoperformtwofunctionsinthe
Wordrecord:AddPersonsPresent,andStartHearing.Untilthese
functionsareperformed,itisimpossibletoedittherecord.TheStart
HearingactiontriggerstheProtocolApplicationtaskfortheOfficeofthe
Clerk.10Attheendofthehearing,thetranscriberperformsintheWord
documenttwoadditionalfunctions:GraphicSignatureandEndHearing.
records on a routine basis.
8 This sentence is further detailing of the sequence of events by Judge Alshech.
Below, it turns out to be false: The Protocol record was never electronically signed.
However, this sentence also documents the breakdown of lawful service procedures
following the implementation of Net-HaMishpat. A secretary (unauthorized staff)
sent by mail an unsigned, invalid court record, in lieu of lawful service of a signed,
valid court record, accompanied by an authentication letter by the Office of the
Clerk.
9 Regarding Mr Yarden Yardeni, see a separate complaint to the Ombudsman of the
Judiciary, which was also found justified. The Complaint pertained to ex parte
communications by Judge Kafah and Mr Yardeni, which Judge Kafah denied, in a
case related to lack of integrity in Net-HaMishpat as well.
http://magazine-consumer.com/tag/%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%93/
10 Again, showing the initial implementation of correct functions of the Office of the
Clerk in Net-HaMishpat, but failure to perform them in reality. Once the protocol is
completed and electronically signed by the judge, the Office of the Clerk is
supposed to enter the protocol into the docket. However, such functions are not
performed in majority of court files in Net-HaMishpat. The vast majority of
protocols in Net-HaMishpat are apparently never electronically signed. As a result,
the vast majority of protocols in court cases in Net-HaMishpat fail to appear in the
docket, resulting in double-books: There is one public docket and another docket
used by the court, which includes the unsigned protocols.
238/280
Thetranscriber,whensoorderedbythejudge,canprintoutacopyofthe
protocolpriortotheexecutionoftheEndHearingaction,sothattheparties
leavethecourtroomwithacopyoftheprotocol.11Aftertheexecutionofthe
EndHearingfunction,theWorddocumentisclosedandfiledintheProtocol
Folderasadraft.ThejudgethenenterstheProtocolFolderandexecutesthe
electronicsignatures.Theexecutionoftheelectronicsignaturetransformsthe
electronicfilefromdrafttofinalrecord,inthesensethatitislockedfromany
furtherchanges...TheProtocolApplicationtaskappearsintheOfficeofthe
Clerkonthehearingdate.IfthetheclerkattemptstoperformtheProtocol
Applicationpriortotheelectronicsigningoftheprotocoldraftbythejudge,
hewouldgetawarningmessagethattheprotocolisnotsignedyet,andthe
systemwouldpreventthecompletionoftheProtocolApplication.
However,theprintingofaDraftProtocolbytheOfficeoftheClerkispossible,
byenteringtheProtocolFolderinsteadofusingtheProtocolApplication.
Undersuchcircumstancesthereisnopromptwarningtheclerkthatthe
protocolisunsigned.
Itisimpossibletodistinguishbetweenagraphicallysignedprotocolandan
electronicallysignedprotocoloncetherecordhadbeenprinted.Withit,in
theelectronicfilesinNetHaMishpatsystemthereareseveralwaysto
distinguishbetweenthem:Theelectronicallysignedprotocolshowsthecoat
ofarmsoftheStateofIsraelincolor,whilethegraphicallysignedprotocol
showsitwithnocolors.Additionally,thetasklineofagivenprotocolappearss
ingreenoncetheprotocoliselectronicallysigned,andinblackaslongasitis
adraft.Additionally,thereisdocumentationoftheexecutionofelectronic
signatureintheProtocolEventsfolderinthesystem.12
No electronically signed Protocol was discovered
22. Following the receipt of the Hon Judge dated 2012-02-05 and 2012-02-12, we
received the 2912-03-01 letter by Attorney Barak Laser to the Ombudsman, where I
was surprised to find the following:
"We discovered that there is only one version of the 2011-09-12 Hearing Protocol, a
version that is still not electronically signed... Under such circumstances, the
discovery of only one version of the Hearing Protocol, subject of the Complaints,
11 Here, the statements by mr Yardeni become false and misleading. The paper
provided under such circumstances to the parties is not a copy of the protocol, as
explained by Judge Alshech and the Ombudsman, it is merely a Draft Protocol,
albeit, parties, counsel, and the public at large cannot distinguish the fact that it is
an unsigned, invalid court record, bearing only a graphic signature.
12 It should be noted that regardless of numerous requests in various courts and
directly to the Administration of Courts, they courts absolutely refuse to permit
inspection of the electronic signature data of judicial records, even by a party in the
case. Therefore, the courts effectively refuse to permit a party to ascertain,
whether a judicial record is a signed, valid record, or an unsigned, invalid record.
There is no way to explain such conduct, which is consistent with honesty and
integrity of the courts.
239/280
indicates that there is no prior signed version of the Protocol. [Bold added- EG]
Also a 2012-02-27 letter by Attorney Barak Laser to the Hon Judge, which was
provided for mky review, indicates: There is only one version of the 2011-09-12
Hearing Protocol, a version, which is still not electronically signed in the system.
[Bold added- EG]
The same matter is also indicated in Attorney Barak Laser's 2012-04-15 letter, which
says: According to the examination, the protocol, which is the subject of your
inquiry, was not electronically signed... The Hearing Protocol is still filed as a Draft
Protocol in the Protocol Folder.
23. On 2012-03-13 I asked the Hon Judge to address the fact that there is no
electronically signed version of the Protocol, and to clarify how such fact stands
relative to her responses on the Complaints.
24. The Hon Judge responded on my letter on 2012-03-15:
"I operated the signature option after I proofread the Protocol. If, and to the degree
that there was some problem or failure of the system, and my signature was not
executed by the system, and the record remained unsigned, it should be considered a
computer system failure, which should be addressed by computer systems personnel,
who are experts on such matters. I know for sure that I signed the Protocol. Such is
my practice since we have been working with the system, and I have not changed my
practice in this case either. [Bold, underline in the original EG] 13
25. On 2012-03-19 I inquired with the Director of Administration of Courts, whether
the finding that there is no electronically signed Protocol to this date, can be settled
with the claim by the Hon Judge, that she executed the electronic signature function.
The response was by Attorney Barak Laser's 2012-04-15 letter, which says: We have
no information regarding such failure today or in the past.
I have not found that the Hon Judge filed any alert regarding such failure, when she
discovered that Version B was not electronically signed.
26. In my 2012-05-03 meeting with the Hon Judge, I asked her why she stated that
Version B of the Protocol was electronically signed, and why she failed to state that
there was no electronically signed record, as described above.
She said:
"If I did not write I was wrong... I don't know why I didn't write to you... I was
focused on the Complaint. When you get a bomb dropped on your head, you focus on
what is there.
13 The entire story of course does not add up. If the Protocol was not signed
electronically, it should have been impossible to add it to the public docket, and
likewise, it should have been impossible to duly execute the Service Application
(see below). Therefore, the case shows that beyond keeping the records unsigned,
the courts routinely bypass the other procedures, set in place for centuries in
honest courts, namely due service, and the maintenance of honest dockets.
240/280
In a 2012-05-06 letter, sent to me by the Hon Judge following our meeting, she
writes:
"Another point that bothered me was the fact that it was painted as if I deliberatively
tried to be imprecise regarding the date, starting which, purportedly, I knew that the
Protocol was never signed. I admit that the period that I experienced (and still am
experiencing) is not the easiest... I had no intention to deliberately hide any
information, things were done honestly, at a time of great emotional storm.
27. She also informed me in her 2012-05-06 letter, referenced above, that she had
conducted another review with her secretary, which showed that Version B of the
Protocol (which she stated that she sent to the parties at the end of the day), was
printed out from the same place that she printed out Version A, which she provided to
Attorneys Arbel and Argaz, that is, from the Protocols Folder, and not from the
Protocol Application task. 14
Indeed, such statement is consistent with the fact that no electronically signed
Protocol exists.
28. I don't find it necessary to get into further details of the investigation in this
matter, and I would sum it up, that today, as before, there is no evidence of a
computer failure, which prevents the execution of an electronic signature on this
Protocol record, and the evidence before me makes it possible to determine, that the
Hon Judge had never electronically signed the Hearing Protocol, Version B, prior to
its submission to the filing of the Complaints with the Ombudsman, and that she
knew about it prior to the filing of the Complaints (once the affair was published by
media).
All that is left for me to say is that the concerns that I raised with the Hon Judge
during my meeting with her has not been addressed.
Printing the Protocol and providing it to the parties
29. In his Complaint, Attorney Argaz claimed that at the end of the Hearing, the Hon
Judge referred the parties to the Office of the Clerk for receipt of the Protocol.
According to the Hon Judge, she informed the parteis at the end of the Hearing that
they would be able to get the Protocol in the Office of the Clerk at the end of the day.
30. In this matter I determine that even if the Hon Judge informed the parties as she
states (since I cannot ascertain, given the conflicting versions in this matter), I cannot
accept her position, that Attorneys Arbel and Argaz went to the Office of the Clerk to
get the copy of the Protocol at the end of the Hearing out of bad faith motives.
14 Here again, there is documentation that following the implementation of NetHaMishpat, unauthorized staff executes false service of unsigned, invalid court
records. However, the recipients cannot distinguish such facts.
241/280
31. The Hon Judge attached to her 2012-05-12 response a letter, written by her
secretary, Ms Hagit Kostiner, dated 2012-01-26, where she detailed how she
produced the Protocol for Attorneys Arbel and Argaz, honestly, and without any
knowledge that that Protocol was signed graphically, but not electronically.
According to the secretary: 15
"Only after the fact I was informed that I should not have produced the Protocol out
of the Protocol Folder, but only by execution of the Protocol Application, and
likewise, that the certification True Copy of the Original, which I gave them, was
not on an authentic protocol (electornically signed) but on draft protocol and
decisions (such that need to pass through proofreading prior to electronic signature).
To the best of my memory, and most likely also in this case, I placed the Protocol in
an envelope and mailed it to the parties at the end of the day. 16
32. In her 2012-02-26 letter to the Ombudsman Ms Kostiner writes:
"It is not customary to mail copies of the protocols, unless the judge writes at the end
of the protocol The Office of the Clerk shall mail copies [there is not such
comment in instant Protocol- EG] 17 As stated, it is customary to send copies to all
parties by mail... There is no Certificates of Service [in Net-HaMishpat system
EG] 18 In an additional letter, dated 2012-04-01, Ms Kostiner clarifies: Regarding
your question today, I don't remember whether I sent the Protocol by mail... Most
likely I placed the Protocol in an envelope and mailed it to the parties at the end of
the day, when I received it, if so asked (by a note from the parties), because such is
my practice... I sent by mail with no Certificate of Service. Therefore, the
nonexistence of Certificates of Service cannot lead to the conclusion that the Protocol
was not mailed out by me.
33. In his 2012-04-15 letter to the Ombudsman, Attorney Barak Laser says:
There is no documentation, indicating whether the Protocol was printed, and how.
When service is executed through the system, then there is documentation of it. A
protocol that was not electronically signed cannot be electronically served through
the system, only on paper. In the paper court file there is no documentation that the
Protocol was delivered or sent to any of the parties. However, it should be noted that
15 This episode again shows the invalidity in design and operation of Net-HaMishpat:
Unauthorized, untrained, uninformed personnel performs false certification, false
service, and provides false records to parties and counsel, without even being
aware of the difference between authentic and unauthentic court record, or the
significance of honest service and certification procedures for integrity of the
courts. In contrast, it is obvious that the judges know exactly what is right and
what is wrong...
16 The secretary here admits that she routinely executes false service procedure of
false court records...
17 As stated here, it should also be noted that Israeli judges have stopped using the
proper legal terms serve and service, relative to their own judicial records.
Instead they use today invalid legal terms: Mail, forward, inform, etc.
18 Here there is documentation of major failure in integrity of Net-HaMishpat in
maintaining copies of Certificates of Service.
242/280
it is possible that the Protocol was mailed out by regular mail, following guidelines to
the staff, following the 2011 Saving on Mail initiative, and therefore, there si no
documentation of the mailing of the Protocol.
34. In his Complaint, Attorney Argaz notes that he figured out the difference between
the two versions of the Protocol, only after the Bar Association asked for his response
on the Complaint, filed against him by the Administration of Courts. 19
...
35. Given that both Counsel for the State Receiver and Attorney Arbel received from
the Court Version B of the Protocol, there is no reason to doubt the statement by Ms
Kostiner, that she mailed to the parties at the end of the day Version B of the Protocol.
...
Certification of Version A in the Office of the Clerk True Copy of the Original
36. As stated, Version A of the Protocol record, which was provided to Attorneys
Arbel and Argaz in the Office of the Clerk, was stamped True Copy of the Original
by the Hon Judge's secretary. In her 2012-02-05 response, the Hon Judge States:
This action by the attorneys shows their dishonest intention. They were holding a
record, which appeared to be signed by me, graphically, why did they ask for it... to
be certified True Copy of the Original? Only the attorneys can resolve this issue. 20
She attached to her response Office Procedure Instruction 114/10 of the
Administration of Courts, Stamping True Copy of the Original on Printouts of
Judgments and Office Procedure Instruction 67/09 The Use of True Copy of the
Original Stamp.
Office Procedure Instruction 114/10 says:
"In the era of electronic court files, judgments are signed by secure, certified
electronic signature, pursuant to the E-sign Act (Article 6b and the Second
Supplement), a judgment record, signed by a secure electronic signature, is not
deemed an original court record. From the statement above, it is originates, that
printouts of electronically signed judgments, are not deemed original records, and
should be stamped as detailed in instant Instruction... Once a decision or judgment
were rendered in the court file, which is signed by a secure electronic signature, the
19 It should be noted, that according to the procedures in Israel, the Complaint to the
Bar Association was not field directly by Judge Varda Alshech, but by the
Administration of Courts, more specifically - by Attorney Barak Laser. Therefore,
the only two parties, who had access to system data, which showed that Version B
of the Protocol was never electronically signed, colluded in filing a semi-criminal
complaint, based on an invalid, unsigned judicial record. At the same time, neither
Attorney Argaz, nor the Israel Bar Association, which was supposed to review the
Complaint, could distinguish that it was based on an invalid, unsigned judicial
record...
20 This is one of the strangest arguments by Judge Alshech, who as stated above, was
a prominent Israeli judge, who handled some of the most complicated, largest
corporate court cases...
243/280
Office of the Clerk shall act to transfer certified copies to the parties, as detailed
herein: 3.1 Print the required number of copies. 3.2 Stamp each copy True Copy of
the Original. 21
These statements are also consistent with Attorney Barak Laser's 2012-05-01 letter to
the Ombudsman:
"The printout of an electronic message, which is electronically signed, is deemed,
pursuant to the E-sign Act (2001), Article 6(b), a copy.
Office Procedure Instruction 67/09 says:
"Once a person appears in the Office of the Clerk, holding a copy of a court record,
the staff member shall act as follows, to inspect the record, prior to its stamping:
Offices of the Clerks, which are administered through Net-HaMishpat system...
Locate the original record in the electronic court file, and stamp it True Copy of the
Original. 22
37. Obviously, absent an electronically signed Protocol, Version A, which was

provided to Attorneys Arbel and Argaz in the Office of the Clerk, shouldn't have
been stamped True Copy of the Original...
Attorney Arbel explained in his 2012-04-09 letter to the Ombudsman, why he asked
for stamping [certification] on the Protocol: I needed an lawfully authenticated
Protocol, in order to file my appeal with the Supreme Court, which was indeed
filed... 23
Failures relative to the Protocol computers, Office of the Clerk, and Judges
38. Chronological Report of the Events, dated 2012-03-21, which was prepared by
21 It should be noted that the Instructions cited here, and other documents, obtained
through Freedom of Information requests and other communications with the
courts, all fail to state that the law authorizes only the Chief Clerk to certify court
records. In practice, for almost a decade, unauthorized persons routinely certify
court records.
22 Instruction 67/09, cited here, fails to state: a) who is authorized to perform the
certification? b) How is that person to ascertain that the record is electronically
signed? c) Where in the electronic court file should the record be located ? (e.g.,
The Protocols Folder vs the public Decisions Docket)
23 It should be noted that Attorney Arbel and Attorney Argaz were fully informed of the
significance of certified authentication on a court record that was to be filed in
another legal process here an appeal. But judge Alshech and Attorney Barak
Laser filed a semi-criminal complaint with the Israel Bar Association, using an
printout of the Protocol, Version B (which as we now know was never electronically
signed) and which was never certified. And the Israel Bar Association accepted the
filing of such complaint. This issue, which is critical relative to the deceit in Judge
Alshech conduct, is never questioned by the Ombudsman... Accordingly, Judge
Alshech and Attorney Barak Laser never had to explain their conduct, relative to
filing a semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Argaz, based on an unsigned,
uncertified court record.
244/280
the Internal Audit Wing, Administration of Courts, was provided for my review. The
record says:
" Investigation Results: 24 On 2011-09-12 Hearing was conducted on Motion #3 in
Court File Bankruptcy 1623/00 in the Courtroom of Judge Varda Alshech in the TelAviv District Court...
The secretary thought that by printing out a copy of the Protocol from NetHaMishpat, she was in fact printing a copy of an original, and therefore, she stamped
it True Copy of the Original. She stated that the persons, who trained the staff,
during the implemetnation of Net-HaMishpat, never taught the staff regarding the
various ways of printing out records, the differences and their significance between
printing out a copy through Protocol Application and printing it out from the
Protocol Folder... According to the Director of the Bankruptcy Division and
according to the secretary, all the employees used to print out protocols also through
the Protocols Folder... According to the secretary, until this case, some of the
judges were not aware of the significance of electronic signatures, and therefore
would not electronically stamp their completed protocols. That was the case also in
this court file one can see in Net-HaMishpat that the Hearing Protocol has never
been electronically signed by the Judge to this day... 25 According to the secretary,
during the time of the incident, she was not aware that there was any difference
between a graphic signature and an electronic signature. Since some of the judges
routinely failed to use electronic signatures, the staff was blocked by the system, and
could not perform the Protocol Application on protocols. Therefore, the trainers,
who implemented Net-HaMishpat taught them how to circumvent the system by
printing out protocols through the Protocols Folder. According to the Computers
Wing, originally protocols were water-stamped DRAFT, if they were printed prior
to being electronically signed by the judge. However, pursuant to demands by the
judges, the water-stamp was removed. The judges claimed that it slowed down the
transition between court file. 26 According to Mr Yarden Yardeni from the
Computers Wing, even today he encounters cases of judges who fail to sign their
protocols by electronic signatures...
39. There is noting I can add but join the recommendations of the above cited report
whole-heartedly. Judges should be instructed, as soon as possible, regarding the
importance of electronically signing their protocols and decisions (see in this context
Regulations of Civil Procedure (1984), Article 190(a), which says: Decisions shall
24 The Internal Audit report in fact documents that the circumstances surrounding the
Reconstructed Protocol were not unique at all. Judges routinely fail to
electronically sign their decision records. The records are routinely not processed
through the system into due docketing and service.
25 These statements of course stand contrary to the explanation previously provided
to the Ombudsman by Judge Alshech and her secretary. The notions that judges in
the most central and influential district court in Israel, did not understand the
meaning of the E-sign Act (2001) ten (10) years after its enactment, is ludicrous.
26 The statements here, regarding the training of staff to produce copies of unsigned,
invalid court records, and the demand by the judges to remove the water-stamp
DRAFT from unsigned records, are some of the most disturbing evidence of
centrally orchestrated fraud in design and operation of Net-HaMishpat.
245/280
be in writing, singed by the judges who adjudged), and train judges and staff
regarding the manner in which decisions should be produced in Net-HaMishpat, and
restoring the water-stamp DRAFT should be considered, even if it places some
burden (as claimed) on the judges. 27
The corrections in the Protocol
The nature of the corrections
40. In her responses on the Complaints, the Hon Judge indicates that the majority of
the corrections in the Protocol are proofreading corrections, completion of truncated
sentences, punctuation, spelling, deletions and errors in transcription... ... if all
correction are reversed, and the Draft Protocol is restored, except for unedited and
deficient Hebrew, nothing material would be changed!!!
41. I hold that even if majority of the differences between the versions... are only
matters of editing and phrasing... certain corrections should be deemed material.
44. It is impossible not to be impressed that the above listed corrections made the
circumstances more severe, compared with Version A, for filing the complaint with
the Israel Bar Association.
...
85. In conclusion, the Complaints are found justified, based on paragraphs . above.
[hand signature]
_____________
Eliezer Goldberg
Ombudsman of the Judiciary
CC: Complainants
The Hon Judge Varda Alshech
The Hon Presiding Judge Devora Berliner, Tel-Aviv District Court
The Hon Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, Supreme Court
Prof Yaakov Neeman, Minister of Justice
The Hon Judge Moshe Gal, Director of the Administration of Courts
27 Even today (2006) four (4) years after the rendering of the Ombudsman's report,
after the Internal Audit Report, none of the recommendation has been throughly
implemented. Judge refuse to produce electronically signed record on a routine
basis, courts refuse to lawfully serve their records, and invalid records are routinely
certified True Copy of the Original... The refusal to correct the failures is supports
the conclusion of centralized, organized fraud in the design and operation of NetHaMishpat.
246/280
247/280
248/280
249/280
250/280
251/280
252/280
253/280
254/280
255/280
256/280
257/280
258/280
259/280
260/280
261/280
262/280
263/280
264/280
265/280
266/280
267/280
268/280
269/280
270/280
271/280
272/280
273/280
274/280
275/280
276/280
277/280
"
" ,33407" 6133301
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Fax: 077-3179186
][Bilingual record English follows the Hebrew
272016,
,
046087930:
:)"(502/07,
,","
,
,,
,:
(145,
)(,",1958)2(,:
).2(,,,
,
.
(2,,
",",
.
(3,
,.,:
( .
,67/09:
,...
"",.
( ,
),(502/07
,114/14":/,
,....
('13,:
,
"",
""
)(,":19
)(
,"".
,
1/3
278/280
'
June27,2015
OshratAvichezer,ChiefClerk
Byfax:046087930
RE:StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(seriouscrime502/07)clarifications
regardingmyinquiry,addressedtoyou,deliveredyesterdayintheOfficeofthe
Clerk,pertainingtocertificationofdecisionandjudgmentrecords,TrueCopy
oftheOriginal
DearChiefClerkOshratAvichezer:
FollowingmyvisityesterdaytotheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,
whereIfiledaninquiry,addressedtoyou,inthematterreferencedabove,andissues
raisedbystaffoftheOffice,Ihereinclarify:
1) Ihereinrequestyourwrittenresponsewithin45days,pursuanttotheReformof
AdministrativeProcedureAct(1958),Article2(a),whichsays:
2.(a)Onceapublicserviceemployeeisinquired,inwriting,toemploy
authority,providedtohimbylaw,heshallexpedeintlydecideinthe
matterandinformtheinquirerinwriting,butnolaterthan45daysfrom
thedayofinquiry.
2) Regardingtheclaim,thatthereisarequirementoffilingarequestforjudicial
decision,instructingyoutoprovidecertifiedcopies,"TrueCopyoftheOriginal"
incasethatisyourpositionaswell,Irequestthatyouprovidethecorresponding
legalreference.
3) Regardingtheclaim,thatIhavenostandingtoobtaintherequestedcertified
copiesincasethatisyourpositionaswell,Irequestthatyouprovidethe
correspondinglegalreference.Additionally,pleasenote:
a) WorkGuidelinesoftheAdministrationofCourtsarenotlegalreferences,but
myinquirycitesWorkGuideline67/09,whichsays:"Onceananonymous
personarrivedintheOfficeoftheClerk,carryingacopyofacourtrecord..."
Thereisnodoubtthatmystanding,relativetothecourtrecords,certification
ofwhichIrequested,isatleastthatofan"anonymous",pursuanttoWork
Guideline67/09.
b) Relativetosomeoralloftherecords,Ialsohavethestandingofapartyinthe
ancillaryprocessofRequesttoinspectinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07),pursuanttoWorkGuideline114/14,whichsays:"Onceajudicial
decision/judgmentwasrenderedinthecourtfile,whichiselectronically
signed,theOfficeoftheClerkshallproceedtoprovidecertifiedcopiestothe
parties..."
2/3
279/280
c) RelativetorecordsNo13inmyinquiry,whicharejudgmentrecords:Such
recordswerepurportedlyprovidedtomepursuanttoajudicialdecision.
However,thereisreasonableroomforconcernthatprovidingmewithsuch
recordsdidnotdulyaddressmyrequest,whichwasfor"lawfullymade"
judgmentrecords,andalsothatitstoodcontrarytotheOmbudsmanofthe
JudiciaryDecisionintheJudgeVardaAlshech"FabricatedProtocols"scandal
(theAttachmenttomyinquiry),paragraph19:"PursuanttotheWork
Guidlines,onemustnotprintoutprotocolsfromtheProtocolsFolder(asdone
byhersecretary),butonlyafterbeingelectronicallysigned,fromthe"Protocol
Application"taskoftheOfficeoftheClerk".
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
3/3
280/280

2016-07-11 Attachment 9.4 in RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian Citizen Detained in Israel - Complaint Filed With The UN HRC Working Group On Arbitrary Detention

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2016-07-11 Attachment 9.4 in RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian Citizen Detained in Israel - Complaint Filed With The UN HRC Working Group On Arbitrary Detention

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Request #111 - to inspect

2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on

2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on

2016-01-11 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Request # 113 - for

2016-01-11 ZADOROV affair: Where are the Nazareth court judgments?

2016-01-12 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on a) 19

2016-01-12 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge Hellman Decision on on 22

11. 2016-01-19 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Inspection: Verdict,

15. 2016-01-20 ZADOROV AFFAIR: Crooks of the Nazareth District Court

16. 2016-01-21 Zadorov Affair: Attorney Avigdor Feldman's commendation, regarding Dr

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2015-12-27 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2016-01-12 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

)Human Rights Alert (NGO

Joseph Zernik, PhD

2016-01-11 ZADOROV affair: Where are the Nazareth court judgments? //

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

[Coat of Arms of the State of Israel]

State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07)

Presided by: The Hon Judge Esther Hellman's

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

January 12, 2016 perverted, fabricated Judge Esther Hellman's

January 12, 2016 perverted, fabricated Judge Esther Hellman's

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

[BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW]

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

1 2010-09-14 Verdict - page 3-4, 502-504 of Protocol

2 2010-09-14 Sentencing - page 1-2 of Protocol

3 2014-02-24 Supplemental Judgment - pages 1-2, 61, 66, 71-72

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2016-01-20 ZADOROV AFFAIR: Crooks of the Nazareth District Court //

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2016-10-21 Zadorov Affair: Attorney Avigdor Feldman's response, regarding

Figures: Prof Uzzi Ornan, Attorney Avigdor Feldman

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2016-10-21 Zadorov Affair: Prof Uzzi Ornan's response, regarding crooked

Figures: Prof Uzzi Ornan, Attorney Avigdor Feldman

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2016-01-21 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) Judge

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

. " "" , " ,/ " " " " "

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

][BILINGUAL FILING ENGILSH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Figure:Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham's fabricated January 25, 2016

2016-01-25 Response by State Prosecutor, Attorney Shila Inbar on Request #118

)Human Rights Alert (NGO

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2016-01-27 Zadorov affair: Attorney Hosni Zoa'bi is asked to opine on