2016-08-08 ROMAN ZADOROV: Criminal complaint against former judge Yitzhak Cohen, Judges Esther Hellman, Avraham Avraham - filed with Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit // פרשת רומן זדורוב: תלונה פלילית נגד השופט לשעבר יצחק כהן, השופטים אסתר הלמן ואברהם אברהם - הוגשה ליועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט

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: 2016.08.08
13:36:32 +03'00'
Joseph Zernik, PhD

'
PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel
6133301 ",33407 "
Fax: 077-3179186 Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
2[BilingualfilingEnglishfollowstheHebrew]
,:
,,
,,,,
"
':
HumanRightsAlertNGO
"
TheRomanZadorovaffair:CriminalComplaintagainstformerJudgeYitzhak
Cohen,JudgeEstherHellman,JudgeAvrahamAvrahamfromtheNazareth
DistrictCourtoffraud,perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofcourtprocess
andbreachofloyalty,andRequestforitsimmediateinvestigation,whichare
filedwithAttorneyGeneralAvichaiMandelblit
Complainant:
JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlertNGO
OccupyTLV
1/115
, -
TableofContents

Page
#
1.
"
Notice of filing complaint with Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, and request for
instructing its immediate investigation
3
4
2.
, ,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Criminal complaint against former Judge Yitzhak Cohen, Judge Esther Hellman, and
Judge Avraham Avraham of the Nazareth District Court, filed with the Attorney General
Avichai Mandelblit:
a. Introduction
b. Complainant
c. Suspects
d. Suspects' alleged criminal offenses
e. Brief chronology
f. Evidence
g. The Zadorov affair and its ramifications reflect fundamental failure of the justice
system
h. Conclusion
3.
6
9
10
10
11
13
55
55
57
57
61
62
62
63
66
113
113
Attachments
2/115
, -
)Human Rights Alert (NGO
'
" ,33407" 6133301
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Fax: 077-3179186
Bilingual filing English follows the Hebrew
082016,
,2991010
'026466521/2:026467001:
pniyot.tzibur@justice.gov.il:
:,
,,
,,
14,45,
)("1958
,
,,,
.
.
,,
,".
,
,,,
./
)"(502/07.
,
,,
.
.
,""
)(.,
.
",
)(
.
3/115
- ,
,,
.
,,
...
,
_________________
*'
6133301",33407"
joseph.zernik@hrango.org:"
*
August08,2016
AttorneyGeneralAvichaiMandelblit
MinistryofJustice
29SalahaDinSt,Jerusalem91010
Tel:026466521/2Fax:026467001
Bycertifiedmailandbyemail
RE:RomanZadorovaffaircriminalcomplaintagainstformerJudgeYitzhak
Cohen,JudgeEstherHellman,andJudgeAvrahamAvrahamoftheNazareth
DistrictCourtoffraud,perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofcourtprocess,
andbreachofloyalty,andrequesttoinstructitsimmediateinvestigation
Ihereinrequestconfirmationofreceiptwithin14daysandresponsewithin45days,
pursuanttotheAdministrativeProcedureReformAct(1958)
DearAttorneyGeneralMandelblit:
Ihereinfilethecomplaint,referencedabove,againstformerJudgeYitzhakCohen,
JudgeEstherHellmanandJudgeAvrahamAvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourtin
theRomanZadorovaffair,andrequestthatyouinstructitsimmediateinvestigation.
RomanZadorov,aUkrainiancitizen,isconfinedbytheauthoritiesoftheStateof
Israel,purportedlyservingalifesentence,followinghispurportedconvictioninthe
murderofTairRada.Thefundamentalclaimininstantcomplaintisthatthe
evidenceshowsthatRomanZadorovisconfinedunderarbitrarydetentionwithno
lawfullymadeVerdict,andwithnolawfullymadeSentencing,andwithnolawfully
madeArrestDecree,followingtheconductofsham/simulatedcourtprocessovera
4/115
, -
numberofyearsinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrict
Court.
AsdetailedintheComplaintitself,thereisclearandmaterialconcernregarding
conflictsofinterestbytheAttorneyGeneral,theChiefStateProsecutorandsenior
officersoftheStateProsecutionandtheIsraelPoliceregardinginvestigationof
instantComplaint.
Inaddition,itremainsunclearthatthereisanyjudicialauthorityintheStateof
Israel,whichisnottaintedbymaterialconflictsofinterest,whichcouldadjudicate
suchmatter,ifnecessary.
InstantComplaint,originatesinamatterpertainingtoHumanDignityandLiberty
thefoundationofthepurported"ConstitutionalRevolution"inIsraelilaw(according
toAharonBarakandtheIsraeliSupremeCourt).Therefore,seriousconcernisraised
thattheZadorovaffairamountstoaconstitutionalcrisisintheStateofIsraela
nationwithnoconstitution.
Forallthereasons,indicatedabove,yourresponseandresponsesbyotherauthorities
oninstantcomplaintshouldbeclearanddetailedenough(aselaboratedinthe
IntroductiontotheComplaintitself)inordertoenablecomprehending,howthe
Israelijusticesystemaddressedthematter.Suchresponseiscriticalforstrengthening
trustinthejusticesystem,bothbytheIsraelipublicandbyinternationalbodies.
Overall,theevidenceindicatesthattheaffairofUkrainianRomanZadorovinIsraelis
amirrorimageoftheaffairofJewishMendelBeilisintheUkraineacenturyago...
Truly,
__________________
JosephZernik,PhD*
POBox33407,TelAviv6133301
Email:joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
*Theentiredocumentiselectronicallysigned,usingavisibleelectronicsignaturesin
theupperrightcorneroftheopeningpageofinstantdocument.
5/115
, -
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
'
6133301 ",33407 "
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
[BilingualfilingEnglishfollowstheHebrew]
,
,,
,,
.
,.1
,.
,
.
,,'
)
'[1].(
1
2016-07-11 In RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian citizen detained in Israel Complaint filed
with the UN HRC - Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5YTcxZGJENnN1QmM
Attachment 9.1 Joseph Zernik, PhD Biosketch
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5M1o2UHZHaWJmYU0
Attachment 9.2 Zernik, J., Integrity, or lack thereof, in electronic record systems of the Israeli
courts, HRA-NGO submission for the 2013 UPR by UN HRC.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5aGI4dEtsbGExQWc
Attachment 9.3 Zernik, J., New Fraudulent IT Systems in the Israeli Courts: Unannounced
Regime Change?, European Conference on E-Government (2015)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5QlRaTGNHTVR4UFU
Attachment 9.4 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court
requests and decisions pertaining to efforts to access electronic judicial decision records to
inspect and to copy.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5Y0dMdm8wVHBzbkk
Attachment 9.5 Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal Israel Bar Association
complaint and Ombudsman of the Judiciary May 31, 2012 decision (12/ 88 /Tel-Aviv District)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5SUZuQlU5eXVIc2M
Attachment 9.6 Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk 1936, 2004
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cTNMWVh3QUpNVFk
Attachment 9.7 Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5YVJZdGpTZTN6MDQ
Attachment 9.8 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court requests and decisions regarding attempt to access paper judicial decision records to inspect
and to copy: a) Zadorov v State of Israel(7939) in the Supreme Court; b) Zernik v State of
Israel (3319/16) in the Supreme Court; c) Zernik v Zadorov and State of Israel(4650/16) in
the Supreme Court
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5R1JLck5wcHBDWEE
Attachment 9.9 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court - requests
and decisions regarding attempt to access the appeal court file records to inspect and to copy
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5dDJvb1NWVkNmcUE
Attachment 9.10 Background Document Regarding Electronic Signatures by the Ministry of
Justice, The Israeli Law, Information & Technology Authority (ILITA) (updated September 2009)
6/115
, -
,,,
/,.
.2,,,
,.
,,
,,
.(502/07)
,.
,,
,
,
,
.
,,,
.
.3,,
:(502/07)
,,
,,.
:
)(,,,/
")"(?
)(20072009.
02,2016,(7939/10)
"".
'(4650/16)
".
,,
,,
.
)2010()
(.
)(.
,"".
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5Rjh4YTd5UkQ1TWM
Attachment 9.11 Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) request for a new trial in the
Supreme Court Notice and request to correct false electronic records.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5Qjd2MmNXVGw0OEk
Attachment 9.12 Abuse of political activists by the Israeli courts
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5ejh1cF9oT3dRU1E
7/115
- ,

.:
""88/12)
(,,
)(,,,
/,[2].,
,
")"
,
(.
:
,,
.
.
(502/07)
:,
.
,
(502/07)
/.
,.
.4,,
")
(:
)()"(502/07
01,2010,,
)(,.
)()"(502/07
)(,
01.2010
)()"(502/07
/
""""14,2010,.
)()
(502/07:
Attachment9.5JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalIsraelBarAssociation
)complaintandOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012decision(12/88/TelAvivDistrict
2
8/115
- ,
)(i
""""?
)(ii""",",/""
""""
?
)(iii""",",/""
""""
?
)()
(502/07:
)(i
?
)(ii14
?2010,
)(,/,
)(502/07
,,14,2010,
)(.
.
)(:",
"",?
"
)(,
.
.
.5',
[3].",
.'[4]
'1".FBI,
,,FBI"
.
",
:
"(2010)"":
,".

James Wedick
9/115
- ,
(2013)"":
,
".
"(2015)"":
HumanRightsAlert
".
""
.
)(:
),,(
,.(2012)
(EuropeanConferenceonEGovernment2015),
,:
?
""
"".
,.,
,
.,
,,
.,
,.
.
.6:
.
.
.
,.
.
.7
)"(502/07,,
,/,
"",.
,"
,.
.
10/115
- ,

)"(502/07:
)(;
)(;
)(;
)(.
.8
)()"(502/07
/,"",
.
,.
)"(502/07:
)(;
)(
)(;
)(.
.9
)"(502/07
",.
)"(502/07:
)(;
)(;
)(.
.
.10,,,
,
.
/,
.
,"
.
,,
.
,':
.
,.
.11:
11/115
- ,
062006,,",13.5"
) (i
.
06,200616,2007,
)(ii
..
,.
,'
':?
,,
,:
""
",...
,"(20092015)
.
)(.
.
162007,
) (iii
)".(502/07
,.,,2003
,
..
,,
.
.
)(iv20072009
,,
/")"(.,
.
",,
).(1
,.
"".
.
)(v2010.
/.
)
(,"")(,
)(,
..
.
)(vi142010,"""".
,.,
12/115
- ,
,142010,
,
.
.
142010,,
) (vii
,.,
.,
.
/.
282010,
) (viii
(7939/10).
.,(5)
)(.
.
.
242014,"")
) (ix
(502/07,,
.,
.
.
192014,
) (x
.
.,
.)(
,
,.
".
.
232015,
) (xi
.(7939/10)
.
2015
)(xii
,,
.,
20072010
.(502/07)
.
13/115
- ,
( (502/07)2007
2009/")"(,

"".
.1220072009,
/
(502/07).:
)(i,
;
)(ii
".
,.
,,,
).(1
)(iii
,,
.
.
,.
,
..
.
)(iv/
",
)'',(5964)
.(4650/16(7320204)
"..
,
"".
)(v
)(.
.13,,,
.,
,
)(
.
14/115
- ,
15/115
- ,
:1(502/07))
(01,2008,.
.,
,,.)(,
,.
(502/07)
(
14 2010 ,
- .
.1414,2010,,
,
.(502/07),
,
.
.15"2012
.612"2012:
16/115
- ,
,,
,)81(
][".1984,
,
)81(,
"")81(.
.,
,"",
.,
,,
,,
.),144/12,106/12
,88/12(.
.,
",
.
.16,
,
,
.
(502/07)
(
142010,14,2010,

,/,.
.17):(2
)(i
,
.
)(ii14.2010,
)(iii
9:00.10:30
)(iv
(7)9:00,10:00
,"".
) (v)
(.
17/115
- ,
18/115
- ,
.
:2(502/07)
14.2010,. :,
..:9:009:30
9:3010:00,;.
:9:009:30,;.
:(7)
9:00,10:00"";.
:.
19/115
- ,
.18:14,2014,,,
/.
.19,"",
.
/.,,,
/.
.20,,/
14,2014,,,
(4502/07)
.
.21,:
)(i)()(
,,
?2010
)(ii14
?2010,?
14,2010,
"""
(
(502/07)""
.22
132010,"",
2014"").(3
:3(502/07)""
.2010
2014"".
,,
:
20/115
- ,
)(i"
"""?
)(ii""",",/"""
"""?
)(iii""",",/"""
"""?
(1936)
" ",.,
,(2004),
,1936,
.,.
.(COURTSOFRECORD)
.23,,
)(:
)(i
""""?
)(ii""",",/"""
"""?
)(iii""",",/""
""""
?
.24(1936)
"",
"".
1936(2004)
.
,
[5].
.25""/"""",
.
.2004
.26""/"
".
.27"",,/
,,
(4502/07)
.
.28,:
)(
""?2010
21/115
- ,
( 14,2010,(502/07)
"",
"""".
.29""
):(4
)(i14,2010,"
".
)(ii14,2010,"""".
).(6
,2016,,""
).(610,2016,
"".
:4(502/07)""
,3,2010,""
14.2010,.,2016
,"".
.14,2010,"
".
.30"".
.31,""
.
.32"",,/
14,2014,
,,
(4502/07).
22/115
- ,
.33,:
)(i)(,
""?2010
)(ii)(,
)(""
?
(2)14,2010,
(
.
.3414,2010,
:)
(502/07,
)((7939/10)
).(6,
.,
/2010.2016
23/115
- ,
24/115
- ,
1.
.
:5(502/07)(2)
14:2010,.)(
,(7939/10).2010
.""..
.2016
"".
.
,.
,,,/
2010,2016.
,)(.
25/115
- ,
.35.
2016"","
".
)(2010
"".,,
.
.36,
/2010.2016,
2010,".
.37,,/14
,2014,,,
,
(502/07).
.38,
14:2010,
)(i/2010?2016
?
)(ii),
(
?2016
)(iii)(.
.39,/,
,.
(4)14,2010,
(
,.
.40(4)14,2010,,
).(6
26/115
- ,
27/115
- ,
28/115
- ,
.
:6(502/07)(4)
14:2010,.,2016,""
"".,2016
..,2016,"
"...
,,
.
..)(
(7939/10),"
,"",.
.41"",2016,
,.
29/115
- ,
.42)(,"",
:
)(i""
):(21
29.02.12:
,,
Word,.
,
:Word,.,
.,
Word:.,
/,Word
,.
Word
.
.
,
.
,
,
.,"
.
.
.,
:
.
,
.
".
,,"
",.
)(ii,,
,/
)"(.
)(iii
)(.
)(v,,.
.43,2010
,
.
30/115
- ,
.44,,/14
,2010,,,
,
(502/07).
.45,
:2010
)(i"",2016,
?
)(ii""
?
)(ii),
(
?2016
)(iii)(
.
(iv)",""?
?
14,2010,/
'(
,
.46,(1974)31:
.31,,
,
6;
.
6
).(7
) 6 (31
/
/
/

:

)(

.
)(
.
_
______________________
31/115
- ,
:7,(1974);6
.
,6,
,
.(502/07)
.47,(1971)3,2:
.2,
.
.3
.
.48
/.
.
,""02)2016,
.(8":
.
.
",,
"".""
.""/
)"(.
,
/.
:8(502/07)"02
,2016,,'127
/.:
..
,,"".
"",.
""/)"(.
32/115
- ,
.49,)(
14,2010,,
.
/,(1992)
.
.50
,,
(4502/07).
.51,""022016,,
,,,
)
(4502/07.
.52,
/
142010,,
.
)(
'(
"",,"
...,"
.53""""
,
.
.54.,(2003))2(
[6]:
.
.55)6(:
)6(
.
.56200912
'':(5917/97)
)2(
,,
].[
.57,2009:
...,...
.582009
,:
Attachment9.7RegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles
6
33/115
- ,
",,
,,
,"
"
,
.,
,
,
.
.59",1978
.
,[7].
"
".,""
.
:2007
'(
2009,2010.
.60(502/07)
.,
:
20072009,
,.
.,
,))(RENDITIONS
.(1,,
,
,,/
)(.
,,
.,,
/[8].
(502/07)
,
)Nixonv.WarnerCommunications,Inc.435U.S.589(1978
8',8.5
34/115
- ,
.(7939/10),"
,.
2010,
)(,
,[9].(2001)
/)"(
.
""[10].
( )(
".
.61,"2009
.,
)6'(,,
..
.62,,112016,"
.
(7939/10)[11].
)2(,,"
".
,,
)6(.
.
.63,142016,,
,
).(9,
)2([12].4
9
',8.5
)complaintandOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012decision(12/88/TelAvivDistrict
10
Attachment9.8StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtrequests
anddecisionsregardingattempttoaccesspaperjudicialdecisionrecordstoinspectandto
copy:a)ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939)intheSupremeCourt;b)ZernikvStateof
Israel(3319/16)intheSupremeCourt;c)ZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael(4650/16)inthe
SupremeCourt
11
20160711InRE:RomanZadorovUkrainiancitizendetainedinIsraelComplaintfiledwith
theUNHRCWorkingGrouponArbitraryDetentionAttachment9.7RegulationsoftheCourts
InspectionofCourtFile
12
35/115
- ,
SupremeCourt
36/115
, -
:9(7939/19)14,2016,

(502/07),
.,)2(
,(2003),4",.
,,"",
.,.
.64192016,)
(3919/1614.2016,
,,[13].
.6504,2016,,
,4
[14].
.66022016,,
.
"".
)(,
,,.
.6709,2016,02.2016,
:
.12"",
:
.
.
.,,
,.
,.
.
.
.,
"".
,
.
.)
(,,
,.
.
13
copy:a)ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939)intheSupremeCourt;b)ZernikvStateofIs
rael(3319/16)intheSupremeCourt;c)ZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael(4650/16)inthe
SupremeCourt
Ibid
37/115
- ,
14
"".
.
.,:
,,
,,
.
.,,
,
.,
.,
)
(,.
,
,,.
.13:,
,
,
,
,,
""///)(.
.14:
,
)".(1329/16
,
)(
".,
:
,
".
.68,
)2(.
/)"(,.
:
)(i
14,2010,,"
",,
)(.
)(ii,/
(7320204),".
"(
38/115
- ,
,
.
.69,
)6(
,(2003)
.
,)
(
)(.
.70,27,2015,
.
.
,
)2(.
.71:(,(
,(/.
.72)
(,
,
)(.
.73
27,2015,12)2016,.(10
,10
/)"(.
.74122016,
)(,)
(.:(
"",(/.
39/115
- ,
40/115
- ,
.
:10(502/07)
/,
41/115
- ,
, "",.
,,.
"".
:
.27,2015,)'
:(111'.11,,
,,"'.112:,
,,,
..,
31.2015,
....,
)
(,"".
,
...
.12,2016,)'(113
27,2015,)'(114:
12.2016,:,
:,,.,
,,,,
"".,
,,:.""
,...
,,,"""
".
.,,
.
.75272015,
12,2016,,,
(502/07)
.
.7612,2016,
,
14,2010,24
)2014,.(11
42/115
- ,
43/115
- ,
44/115
- ,
.
:11(502/07)
,.2016,.
14;2010,.14;2010,.
24.2014,2010"".
,,".
.2014
"".,
)(.
"",
",
.,,
45/115
- ,
,,"."
","""".
,,
,".""","",
.
"".,
/)"(.
.77"
"[15],
,""
/)",(.
,,
,,,
(502/07)
.
.78,""03,
,2016,
"").(12""
/)"(,,
"",,
.
,,,,
,
(502/07).
:12()"03
,2016,,'123
.:
,.,
]["."",
,,"".,
..
/)"(.,
Attachment9.5JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalIsraelBarAssociationcom
)plaintandOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012decision(12/88/TelAvivDistrict
15
46/115
- ,
,,,
.
.7902,2016,"",
"").(2
/
/
)"(14.2010,
.80""022016,
,,,,
)
(502/07.
.81,
)(
14,2010,24,
[16].(2014
)(
(502/07).
.82
""
).(502/07
""26
,2016,"[17].
"".
262016,,
,,.
[18],
.83,2016,
,
.,
,)
([19].
anddecisionspertainingtoeffortstoaccesselectronicjudicialdecisionrecordstoinspectandto
copy.
16
Ibid
17
188.5
Attachment 9.4 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court requests and decisions pertaining to efforts to access electronic judicial decision records to inspect and to copy.
47/115
- ,
19
.84/
(502/07)
/)"(,
,.
.85,
(502/07)
,,
,
(502/07).
"(
,,
.
.86/)"(27
),2015,(11
,.,
,.
,,)(
.
26)2016,.(13
48/115
- ,
:13(502/07)
"262016,)'
.(11826,2016,
,.
,'.112'112,
/)"('111
)7(.,
,
.
.87,,,
:
,
/...
49/115
- ,
""...,
...
.88
(502/07)
.
.89,'118
'.112'112,
/)"(
')111.(10
,
,
.
.90,26,2016,
,
.
).(14"",
""]
[.
50/115
- ,
:1421,2016,
"26,2016,
(502/07).
26,2016,,
"".
,.
21,2016,)(,
.
51/115
- ,
)(.
,212016,,
.
.91,",
.
21,2016,
)(,,
.
.92
:
,
25,2016,.120
.93120,,
""[20].
120
.
,,.
,.
20
copy.
52/115
- ,
':15)"(502/07
25,2016,',120"
","".
: ,,,,,
,
"..,
".
25,2016,
,,
,/)"(,
.
.94,25
,2016,':120
53/115
- ,
,,,,
,
,".
.,
.
.95',121,""
"".
(2003)
.,:
.
.96252016,
)"(,"26
,2016,
,,
,.
.
.97":
,
,
.
,
)(,,
.,
"".
.98,25,
,2016"26,2016,
"21,2016,
,
.(502/07)
.99""
)
(,
,
.
.100
"","","".
"( ,,
,,
.,
.
54/115
- ,
.101,,,
,
:
)
(,,
.
""
(502/07)
.
)
(
.
""
,
.

,,.
,,
.
.102,,,
/
),(502/07
/
.
./
.103,,
")'(.
,):(,(2001)
)(),(2002)(
(1936)),(2004)(
)
.(2010
.
.104,
,,,
.,
.
55/115
- ,
.105,
,)(
"".
,
,'
',/
")"(.
.106,
,:
)()"(502/07
01,2010,,
)(,.
)()"(502/07
)(,
01.2010
)()"(502/07
/
""""14,2010,.
)()
(502/07:
)(i
""""?
)(ii""",",/""
""""
?
)(iii""",",/""
""""
?
)()
(502/07:
)(i
?
)(ii14
?2010,
)(,/,
)(502/07
,,14,2010,
)(.
.
)(:",
"",?
56/115
- ,
,.107
.
,/
(502/07)"/
.
...
:
_________________
'
6133301",33407"
joseph.zernik@hrango.org:"
,2016,08,
CriminalcomplaintagainstformerJudgeYitzhakCohen,JudgeEstherHellman,
andJudgeAvrahamAvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourtoffraud,
perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofcourtprocessandbreachofloyalty
A.Introduction
1.Forbrevity'ssake,instantcomplaintpresentsonlykeyevidenceofthefelonies
attributedtothesuspects.Withit,theComplainantclaimsthatinstantComplaint
includessufficientfoundationforthedecisiontoinitiateacriminalinvestigation,
andIhereinrequesttoadddocumentaryevidenceandtestimonyinthecourtsof
suchinvestigation.
FurtherdetailsareprovidedinAttachmentAtoinstantComplaintwhichisa
Complaint,whichwasfiledwiththeUNHumanRightsCouncilWorkingGroupon
ArbitraryDetention.[21]AttachmentAalsodetailsmisconductofvariousothersin
instantmatter,fromIsraelPolicepersonnel,throughseniorStateProsecution
21
2016-07-11 In RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian citizen detained in Israel Complaint filed with the UN HRC
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5YTcxZGJENnN1QmM
Attachment 9.2 Zernik, J., Integrity, or lack thereof, in electronic record systems of the Israeli courts, HRANGO submission for the 2013 UPR by UN HRC.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5aGI4dEtsbGExQWc
Attachment 9.3 Zernik, J., New Fraudulent IT Systems in the Israeli Courts: Unannounced Regime
Change?, European Conference on E-Government (2015)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5QlRaTGNHTVR4UFU
Attachment 9.4 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court requests and
decisions pertaining to efforts to access electronic judicial decision records to inspect and to copy.
57/115
, -
officers,Directorsand/orCommandersoftheShitaPrison,othersintheNazareth
DistrictCourtandtheSupremeCourt.
2.However,instantComplaintisfocusedonlyonconductofformerJudgeYitzhak
Cohen,JudgeEstherHellman,andJudgeAvrahamAvraham.Thecoreofinstant
Complaintpertainstotheirconductonthebench,whichisclaimedtobefraud,
perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofcourtprocess,andbreachofloyalty
conductofsham/simulatedcourtprocessunderStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07).Suchconductisconsideredseriouscriminalityandextrajudicial
conduct,whichisnotcoveredbyanyjudicialimmunity.
However,similarcasestheJudgeHilaCohenaffair,theJudgeVardaAlshech
affair,complaintswhichwerefiledagainstJudgesHagaiBrennerandEitan
OrensteininthecaseofselfimmolatedMosheSilmanzl,andacomplaintthatis
nowpendingagainstJudgeEsperanzaAlonallraiseseriousconcernsthatthe
Israelijusticesystemestablisheditsownextrastatutorynorms,wherebysuch
conductisnotcriminalityatall.
Therefore,instantComplaintisaimedinparttoexaminewhethertheIsraelijustice
systemisready,willing,abletoaddresssuchconductbyjudges.
3.Thecomplaintalsoclaimsthatthecourtsareengagedinwithholdingofevidence
inthismatter:StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrict
Courtismostlyopentothepublicunsealedcase,andpurporteddecisions,
protocols,andjudgmentsoftheNazarethDistrictCourtinthecourtfile,whichare
thesubjectofinstantcomplaint,werepublishedalongtimeago.However,the
courtsengageindenialofpublicaccesstorecords,whichwouldenableto
distinguisharethereanyauthentic,valid,andenforceablejudicialrecordsinthis
Attachment 9.5 Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal Israel Bar Association complaint and
Ombudsman of the Judiciary May 31, 2012 decision (12/ 88 /Tel-Aviv District)
Attachment 9.8 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - requests and
decisions regarding attempt to access paper judicial decision records to inspect and to copy: a) Zadorov v
State of Israel(7939) in the Supreme Court; b) Zernik v State of Israel (3319/16) in the Supreme Court; c)
Zernik v Zadorov and State of Israel(4650/16) in the Supreme Court
Attachment 9.9 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court - requests and decisions
regarding attempt to access the appeal court file records to inspect and to copy
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5dDJvb1NWVkNmcUE
Attachment 9.10 Background Document Regarding Electronic Signatures by the Ministry of Justice, The
Israeli Law, Information & Technology Authority (ILITA) (updated September 2009)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5Rjh4YTd5UkQ1TWM
Attachment 9.11 Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) request for a new trial in the Supreme Court
Notice and request to correct false electronic records.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5Qjd2MmNXVGw0OEk
Attachment 9.12 Abuse of political activists by the Israeli courts
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5ejh1cF9oT3dRU1E
58/115
, -
courtfile,oronlysham/simulatedcourtrecords(draftsaccordingtoIsraeli
judges):
Thepapercourtfile(20072009)istodayheldbytheSupremeCourt.Magistrate
GiladLubinskyJune02,2016DecisionunderZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)
deniedaccesstoinspecttheoriginalrecordsofdecisionsandprotocolsinthe
papercourtfileundertheincrediblereasoningofajumbleinthepapercourt
file.AndJusticeSalimJoubrandeniedtheappealZernikvZadorovandStateof
Israel(4650/16)fromMagistrateLubinskysDecision.
Regardless,sincetheStateofIsraelispartytothecourtfile,itishopedthatthe
SupremeCourtwouldnotdenytheStateProsecution'saccesstoinspectthepaper
courtfile.
Theelectroniccourtfile(2010tothepresent)isadministeredinNetHaMishpat
casemanagementsystemintheNazarethDistrictCourt.However,theNazareth
DistrictCourthasrefusedformonthstoruleonProformarequeststoinspectthe
electronicsignatureexecutiondata(iftheyexistatall)ofdecisionsandjudgments
intheelectroniccourtfile,andtheevidenceshowsthattheNorthDistrictAttorney
OfficeapprovesofsuchconductbytheCourt.
ItisalsounclearthattheinvestigativeauthoritiesofinstantComplaintwouldbe
granteddirectaccesstotheelectronicsignatureexecutiondatainthecourtfile.
Forexample:The2012OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecision(88/12TelAviv
District)intheJudgeVardaAlshech"FabricatedProtocols"scandaldocumentsthat
NetHaMishpatdoesnotenableparties,counsel,andthepublicatlargeto
distinguishbetweenauthentic,validandenforceablecourtrecords,and
sham/simulatedcourtrecords.[22]Moreover,theOmbudsman'sDecisionalso
documentsthattheOmbudsmanhimselfwasnotprovideddirectaccesstothe
datainNetHaMishpat,andthathehadtorelyinsuchmatterononinformation
thatwasprovidedtohimbytheAdministrationofCourtsAttorneyBarakLaser
(whileitwasclearthatAttorneyBarakLaserandtheAdministrationofCourtshad
materialconflictsofinterestinthematterunderinvestigation).
Inshort:Themeticulousmaintenanceofvaguenessandambiguityrelativetothe
validityofdecisionandjudgmentrecordsinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt,bothinthepaperandtheelectroniccourt
files,isacentralissueininstantComplaint.Thevagueandambiguousnatureof
thecourtrecordsinthiscaseshouldbedeemedseriousviolationsoftherightsfor
DueProcessandforFairandPublicHearinginitself.
Conditions,wherethecourtsmaintainvaguenessandambiguityregardingvalidity
ofdecisionandjudgmentrecordinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)
shouldbedeemedfraudinitself:SuchfraudistermedbyfraudexpertsShellGame
Fraud,orConfidenceTrick.
complaintandOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012decision(12/88/TelAvivDistrict)
22
59/115
, -
Regardless,instantComplaintpresentscredibleevidencethattherecordsand
entriesinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt
aresham/simulatedcourtrecordsandentries.Thisisalsothebasisfortheclaimof
fraudonthebench,perversionofcourtrecordsandperversionofcourtprocess.
4.GiventheseriousnessofinstantComplaint,anditsseriousimplicationsregarding
theIsraelijusticesystemingeneral,theinvestigativeauthoritiesshouldpublicly
report(ifitwouldbeinvestigatedatall):
a) FromthepapercourtfileStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)
photocopiesofalldecisionsandprotocolspriortoJanuary01,2010,whichare
notlawfullyprohibitedforpublication,astheyappearinthepapercourtfile
(originalrecords),whethertheyaresignedorunsigned.
b) FromtheelectroniccourtfileStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inNet
HaMishpattheelectronicsignatureexecutiondata(iftheywereexecutedat
all)onalldecision,protocolandjudgmentrecordslaterthanJanuary01,2010.
c) FromtheelectroniccourtfileStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inNet
HaMishpattheauditdata,whichshowwhenandbywhomalterationsand/or
adulterationswereintroducedintheelectronicrecordsoftheSeptember14,
2010VerdictandSentencing,from2010tothisdate.
d) Authoritativeresponseregardingduemaintenanceoftheelectroniccourtfile
StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtinNet
HaMishpatentryofjudgments:
(i)Whoisauthorizedandwhoholdsthedutytoenterjudgmentsunderthe
JudgmentDocketinNetHaMishpatintheNazarethDistrictCourt?
(ii)DoestheentryofacourtrecordintheJudgmentDocketasJudgment,
Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisindeedadulymade,validand
effectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
(iii)DoesthefailuretoenteracourtrecordintheJudgmentDocketas
Judgment,Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisnotadulymade,
validandeffectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
e) Authoritativeresponseregardingduemaintenanceoftheelectroniccourtfile
HaMishpatmaintenanceofcalendars:
(i)Whoisauthorizedandwhoholdsthedutytomaintainvalid,honest
calendarsinNetHaMishpatintheNazarethDistrictCourt?
(ii)WhoandwhenmadetheentriesintheCourtCalendarofJudgeEsther
HellmanforSeptember14,2010?
f) LawfullymadeArrestDecree,oranyotherjudicialrecordfromStateofIsraelv
RomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt,whichwasthelawful
foundationfortakingRomanZadorovintocustody,asapurportedconvict,on
September14,2010,andforhisconfinementtothisdate(iftheexistatall).
AlternativelyaclearstatementthatnosuchrecordsexistpertainingtoRoman
Zadorov.
60/115
, -
g) Anauthoritativeansweron:Whocontrolsthepublicationofcourtrecordsby
NevoPublishing,LTD,andwhatisthesourceofcourtrecords,whichare
publishedbythisenterprise?
Failuretopubliclyreportontheabovelistedmattersinthecourseofinvestigation
ofinstantComplaintmustraiseseriousconcernsregardingintegrityofthe
investigation(ifitwouldbeinvestigatedatall),integrityandcompetenceofthe
Israelijusticesystemtoday.
B.Complainant
5.JosephZernik,PhDoverthepastdecadeIhavespecializedinstudyingfraudby
judges,attorneysandothersinthecourtsinIsraelandbeyond.Myexpertisehas
beenrecognizedbyUSfraudexperts,whichissuedreportsinsupportofmy
findings,themostnotableofthemisMrJamesWedick,formerFBISpecialAgent
whoislikelytobetheNo1fraudexpertintheUStoday.MrWedickwas
commendedforhiscontributiontolawenforcementbytheAttorneyGeneral,FBI
Head,andtheUSCongress.
Myexpertiseinfraudinthecourtswasrecognizedalsobythreereports,whichI
filedwiththeUNHumanRightsCouncil,andwhichwereincorporated,subjectto
ProfessionalStaffreviewintheperiodicnationalreportsoftheCouncil:
UnitedStates(2010)myreportwasincorporatedintotheCouncil'sfinalreport
withthenote:Corruptionofthecourtsandthelegalprofessionand
discriminationbylawenforcementinCalifornia.
Israel(2013)myreportwasincorporatedintotheCouncil'sfinalreportwiththe
note:LackofintegrityintheelectronicrecordsystemsoftheSupremeCourt,
thedistrictcourtsandthedetaineescourtsinIsrael.
UnitedStates(2015)myreportwasincorporatedintotheCouncil'sfinalreport
withthenote:HRANGOrecommendedrestoringtheintegrityoftheIT
systemsofthecourts,underaccountabilitytotheCongress,withthegoalof
makingsuchsystemsastransparentaspossibletothepublicatlarge.
MyexpertisewasalsorecognizedinatextbookonMachineLearning,wheremy
academicpublicationsarecitedasaparagraph,whichdescribestheuseofdata
mininginstudyingHumanRightsasaNotableUse(Iamapparentlythefirstwho
publishedinthisparticularfield):
Dataminingofgovernmentrecordsparticularlyrecordsofthejustice
system(i.e.,courts,prisons)enablesthediscoveryofsystemichuman
rightsviolationsinconnectiontogenerationandpublicationofinvalidor
fraudulentlegalrecordsbyvariousgovernmentagencies.
Myexpertiseinthisfieldwasalsorecognizedbypublicationsinperiodicalsand
conferencesinthecorrespondingfields,includingtheWorldCriminologyCongress
(2012).Ahighlyrankedconferenceonegovernment(ECEG2015)publishedmy
study,subjecttodoublepeerreview,titledFraudulentnewITsystemsintheIsraeli
courtsunannouncedregimechange?
61/115
, -
Recently,Ihavealsobeeninvitedtowriteachapteronecourtsandhumanrights
inatextbookonegovernment,tobepublishedbySpringer.
Iamnotanattorney,andIhavenoformallegaleducation.Therefore,Ididnot
writeinthecomplainttherelevantarticlesofthecriminalcode,andpoliceisasked
toaddthemafterinvestigatingthecomplaint.RelativetoCourtProcedures,I
referredtoarticlesintheCriminalCourtProcedurelaw.Insomeothercases,where
Icouldntfindtherelevantarticle,IcitedtheCivilCourtProcedurelaw.Eitherway,
incasethecitationsofspecificarticlesisincorrect,thereadersareaskedtoignore
them.
C.Suspects
6.Theindividuals,whosefeloniousconductintheRomanZadorovaffairisallegedin
instantComplaintare:
a.FormerJudgeYitzhakCohen;
b.JudgeEstherHellman;
c.JudgeAvrahamAvraham;
JudgeHaimGalpazhassincepassedaway,andthereforeisnotpartofinstant
complaint.
D.Suspects'allegedcriminalconduct
7.TheevidenceindicatesthatthesuspectsYitzhakCohenandEstherHellman
engagedinthemainprocessinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)in
perversionofcourtrecordsdecisions,protocols,VerdictandSentencing,by
issuingsham/simulatedcourtrecords,whicharedeemedbythejudgesonly
drafts,butareperceivedbyothersasvalidandenforceablecourtrecords.In
doingso,theyalsoengagedinperversionofcourtprocessbyconducting
sham/simulatedcourtprocessmisleadingtheDefendantandthepublicatlargeto
believethatRomanZadorovwasprosecutedpursuanttothelawoftheStateof
Israel,wasconvictedofthemurderofTairRadapursuanttothelawoftheStateof
Israel,andwassentencedtolifeinprisonpursuanttothelawoftheStateofIsrael.
ThroughsuchconducttheyhavecausedtheconfinementofRomanZadorovtothis
dateaspurportedservinglawfullifeprisonsentence.
ThroughsuchconducttheyaffectedtheconfinementofRomanZadorovtothisday
aspurportedservinglifeinprisonsentence,pursuanttothelawoftheStateof
Israel.
TheoffensesthatareattributedtoYitzhakCohenandEstherHellmaninthemain
processinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt
are:
(a)Fraudfromthebench;
(b)Perversionofcourtrecords;
(c)Perversionofcourtprocess,and
(d)Breachofloyalty.
62/115
, -
8.TheevidenceindicatesthatsuspectsEstherHellmanandAvrahamAvraham
engagedintheancillaryprocess(ProformaRequeststoInspect)inStateofIsraelv
RomanZadorov(502/07)inperversionofcourtrecordsbyissuing
sham/simulatedcourtrecords,whicharedeemedbythejudgesmerelydrafts,but
arefalselyperceivedbyothersasvalidandenforceablecourtrecords.Throughsuch
conducttheyalsoengagedinperversionofcourtprocessbyconducting
sham/simulatedcourtprocessbymisleadingtheRequesterofInspectionandthe
publicatlargethatRequeststoInspectwereconductedpursuanttothelawofthe
StateofIsrael,andthataccesstoinspectcourtrecordswasdeniedpursuanttothe
lawoftheStateofIsrael.Throughsuchconducttheyacttothisdatetowithhold
evidenceofconductofYitzhakCohenandEstherHellmaninthemainprocessof
thetheabovereferencedcourtfile.
ThecriminaloffensesthatareattributedtosuspectsEstherHellmanandAvraham
Avrahamintheancillaryprocess(ProformaRequeststoInspect)inStateofIsraelv
RomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtare:
(a)Fraudfromthebench;
(b)Perversionofcourtrecords;
(c)Perversionofcourtprocess,and
(d)Breachofloyalty.
9.TheevidenceindicatesthatsuspectAvrahamAvrahamalsoengagedinthecourse
ofattemptstoinspectStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazareth
DistrictCourtinwithholdingevidenceofconductofthejudicialpanelinthemain
processintheabovereferencedcourtfile,andinthreatsattemptingtoprevent
inspectionoftheabovereferencedcourtfile.
TheoffensesthatareattributedtosuspectAvrahamAvrahamintheancillary
processofrequeststoinspectinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)are:
(a)Misprisionoffelonies;
(b)Withholdingofevidenceoffelonies,and
(c)Threatsandextortion.
E.Briefchronology
10.Areasonableperson,whowouldreviewtheextensivematerialsthatwere
publishedintheRomanZadorovaffairanditsramifications,whicharethe
backgroundtoinstantComplaint,wouldmostlikelyreachtheconclusionthatthe
affairstartedinperversionofthepoliceinvestigationoftheTairRadamurder.Such
perversionismoststrikinginthefailuretoperformbasicexaminationsineffortsto
matchthephysical/scientificevidencefromthecrimescenetoanyothersuspect,
evenafternoneofthemmatchedRomanZadorov.Suchperversionisalsostriking
inthefailuretofollowuponinvestigationofyouthsfromthevictimsschool,
includingthose,wholatertestifiedincourtthattheyheldinformationregardingthe
murder.
63/115
, -
Fromthere,thesnowballstartedrolling,leadingtomisconductandabuseof
authoritybyhigherandhigherofficersofthejusticesystem.Suchprocessbrought
ustothecurrentstate,whichwassummarizedbyProfMotaKremnitzer,who
wrote:
Weareleftwithajusticesystem,whichisprimarilyoccupiedwith
defendingitself.
Regardless,instantcomplaintisfocusedonlyonconductofthenamedsuspects.
11.Followingisbriefchronologyoftheaffair:
(i)OnDecember06,2006TairRada,13.5wasmurderedinthetoiletsofher
schoolinKatzrin,GolanHeights.
(ii)FromDecember06,2006toJanuary16,2007andlatertheIsraelPolicewas
investigatingthecrime.DuringhisinvestigationRomanZadorovwasrushedto
emergencyroom.DuringsuchinvestigationRomanZadorovconfessedthe
crime,accordingtopolice,buthedenieditincourt.Givenconditionsoflaw
enforcementandthecourtsinIsrael,ProfBoazSangerowrote:Confession
Kingofevidence,orCesaroffalseconvictions?
Examinationofthevastvolumeofinformationthatwaspublishedinthiscase
wouldlikelyleadareasonablepersontotheconclusionthatyouthsatleasthold
importantevidenceregardingthecircumstancesofthemurder.Forexample:
NoaHisdaidaughteroftwopolicepersonstestifiedincourt:atouragewe
don'ttellonpeople,andwhenaskedregardingtheidentityofthemurderer(s)
shetestified:Idon'tremember,Isuppressedit...,AvivAharonovichnieceof
YitzhakAharonovich,thenMemberofKnessetandretiredseniorpoliceofficer,
later(20092015)MinisterofInternalSecuritytestifiedincourtthatshesaw
Allstarshoesandbloodinthetoiletaroundthetimeofthemurder.NufarBen
DaviddaughterofIsraelPoliceintelligenceofficer(ret)whoapparentlyholds
informationregardingthemurder.
ConductoftheIsraelPoliceisnotpartofinstantcomplaint.
(iii)OnJanuary16,2007NorthDistrictAttorneyofficefiledtheindictment
underStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07).Theindictmentwasmostly
basedonpurportedconfessionbyZadorov,whichhedeniedincourt.Inanother
case,in2003,theNorthDistrictAttorneyofficefiledindictmentinthecaseof
theOlegShoyhet'smurderagainstthreeArabcitizens,basedontheirpurported
confession,whichlaterturnedouttobefalse.Alreadyonthedateoffilingthe
indictmentmany,includingthemurdervictim'sparentopinedthatthe
indictmentwasfalse,andthatRomanZadorovwasnotthetruemurderer.
ConductoftheProsecutionisnotpartofinstantcomplaint.
(iv)Fromthedateoffilingtheindictmentin2007andtotheendof2009the
courtfilewasadministeredasapapercourtfile.Instantcomplaintallegesthat
thejudicialpanelengagedinconductingsham/simulated/fabricatedcourt
process.Thedecisionrecordsfromthepapercourtfilewerelaterpublishedin
NetHaMishpat(casemanagementsystem),butonlyasdisplayrenditions,which
areunsignedandarenotvalidcourtrecords(Figure1).Thepapercourtfile
64/115
, -
fromtheNazarethDistrictCourtistodayheldbytheSupremeCourt,whereit
wastransferredduringtheappealinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10).The
SupremeCourtdeniedaccesstoinspecttheoriginalpaperdecisionrecords
undertheincrediblereasoningofajumbleinthecourtfile.
ConductoftheSupremeCourtisnotpartofinstantComplaint.
(v)FromJanuary2010andtothisdatethecourtprocesshasbeenadministered
inanelectroniccourtfile.Theevidenceintheelectroniccourtfileindicates
conductofsham/simulatedcourtprocess.However,JudgesEstherHellmanand
AvrahamAvrahamdenyaccesstotheelectronicsignatureexecutiondata(ifthey
wereexecutedatall),todulymadeJudgmentDocket(whichapparentlydoes
notexist)andtodulymadeArrestDecree(whichapparentlydoesnotexist)
buttheyfailedtoindicatethatsuchrecordsdonotexist,allegedlyinorderto
withholdevidenceofconductofthejudicialpanelinthecourtfile.
ConductoftheAdministrationofCourts,relativetodevelopmentandoperation
ofNetHaMishpatsystemisnotpartofinstantComplaint.
(vi)OnSeptember14,2010purportedlyreadingofVerdictandSentencing
wasconductedinopencourt.Thehearingwasextensivelycoveredbymedia,
giventheintensepublicinterestinthiscase.Theevidenceshowsthatthe
hearingwasnotdulyregisteredintheCourtCalendar,thatnolawfullymade
VerdictandSentencingrecordswereenteredonoraboutSeptember14,2010,
andnosuchrecordswereenteredintheJudgmentDocketinNetHaMishpatto
thisdate.
ConductoftheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourtisnotpartof
instantComplaint.
(vii)OnSeptember14,2010RomanZadorovwastakenbackintoconfinement,
tothebestofmyknowledgeintheShitaPrison,thistimeasapurportedConvict.
TheevidenceshowsthatnolawfullymadeArrestDecree,whichisprescribedby
law,wasrenderedfollowingthepurportedrenderingoftheVerdictand
Sentencing.Therefore,RomanZadorovshouldbedeemedunlawfullyconfined.
ConductoftheShitaPrisonDirectorsand/orCommandersisnotpartofinstant
complaint.
(viii)OnOctober28,2010NoticeofAppealwasfiledbyAttorneysSpiegeland
SpiegelonbehalfofRomanZadorovunderRomanZadorovvStateofIsrael
(7939/10)intheSupremeCourt.TheNoticewasfiledwithnolawfullysigned
andcertifiedcopiesofthepurportedVerdictandSentencingrecordsofthe
NazarethDistrictCourt.Later,theSupremeCourtconductedforfive(5)years
anappearwithnoauthenticjudgmentrecordsoftheDistrictCourt.Conductof
suchappealprocessshouldbedeemedlackinginauthorityandvalidityfromits
foundation.
ConductoftheSupremeCourtisnotpartofinstantcomplaint.
(ix)OnFebruary24,2014SupplementalJudgmentwasrenderedinStateof
IsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtbythepanelof
JudgesYitzhakCohen,EstherHellmanandBenjaminArbelasanelectronic
65/115
, -
record.Thenatureofsuchelectronicrecordremainsvagueandambiguous,since
accesstotheelectronicsignatureexecutiondataisdenied.
ConductofJudgeBenjaminArbelisnotpartofinstantcomplaint.
(x)OnDecember23,2015JudgmentwasrenderedinRomanZadorov'sappeal
intheSupremeCourtunderZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10).
ConductoftheSupremeCourtisnotpartofinstantcomplaint.
(xi)From2015andtothisdateIhavebeenengagedinattemptstoexercisethe
righttoinspectdecisionsandjudgments,whichhavebeenpreviouslypublished,
bothintheNazarethDistrictCourtandintheSupremeCourtfiles,pertainingto
RomanZadorov.InstantcomplaintallegesthatduringsucheffortsJudges
EstherHellmanandAvrahamAvrahamengagedinperversionofcourtrecords
andcourtprocessinordertowithholdevidenceofconductofthepanelof
YitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,andHaimGalpazfrom20072010inStateof
IsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
F.Evidence
DecisionsandprotocolsinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07)paper
courtfilearesuspectedsham/simulatedrecords,butaccesstoinspectisdenied
underthereasoningofajumbleinthecourtfile.
12.From2007toDecember2009whilethecasewasadministeredasapapercourt
file,itissuspectedthatYitzhakCohen,EstherHellmanpervertedcourtrecordsand
conductedsham/simulatedcourtprocessunderStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.Suchsuspicionsarebasedon:
(i)Thefindingsintheelectroniccourtfile,whichindicatethatthelaterpartofthe
judicialprocesswasperverted;
(ii)Theunreasonabledenialofaccesstoinspectthedecisionandprotocolsrecords
inthepapercourtfileundertheincrediblereasoningofajumbleinthecourt
file.Thevastmajorityofthedecisionsandprotocolsinthepapercourtfilewere
publishedalongtimeago,andsomeofthemtodayappearinNetHaMishpat.
However,therecordsfromthepapercourtfile,astheyappearinNetHaMishpat
areonlyelectronicdisplayrenditions,unsignedandinvalid(Figure1).
(iii)Thefactthatmanyormostofthejudicialrecordsduringthisperiodwere
renderedbyJudgeYitzhakCohenasasolejudge,whilehewascompromised,and
exposedtoextortionbytheStateProsecutionandIsraelPolice,followingthefiling
ofcomplaintsonserioussexcrimesagainsthim.Eventually,suchcomplaintsled
tohisresignationaftertheZadorovtrialwascompleted.However,regardlessof
PolicerecommendationthatCohenbeprosecuted,theNorthDistrictAttorney
officehasfailedtotakeactionsofar.Accordingtomediareports,investigationby
theCommissionerofProsecutorialOversightJudge(ret)HilaGerstelofsuspected
misprisionofJudgeCohen'sfeloniesbyPoliceandtheProsecutionduringthe
Zadorovtrialwasinitiated.However,itwasblockedbytheAttorneyGeneral.
a)
66/115
, -
(iv)Similarconductperversionofcourtrecordsandtheconductof
sham/simulatedcourtprocessinapaperwasdocumentedinthecomplaint,
whichwasfiledwiththeUNHumanRightsCouncilWorkingGrouponArbitrary
Detention(AttachmentA,pp5964),andalsointheappealZernikvZadorov
andStateofIsrael(4650/16).TheexampleisfromRafiRotemvEyalBaramand
StateofIsrael(7320204)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourt.Thecaseoriginated
intheTaxAuthoritycorruptionscandal.Referringtothetreatmentofwhistle
blowerRafiRotembythecourts,amediareportsays:Ithasbeenadecadethat
thecourtshavebeenabusingajusticecrusader.
(v)CollusionbythejudgesandseniorofficersoftheStateProsecutionindenialof
accesstothecourtrecordsthroughblatantviolationsofDueProcess(seebelow).
13.Ontheotherhand,theAttorneyGeneralandtheStateProsecution,asapartyto
thecase,havetherighttoaccesstheoriginalrecordsinthepapercourtfile.
Therefore,aspartoftrueinvestigationofinstantcomplaint,theinvestigative
authoritiesshouldpublishphotocopiesofalldecisionandprotocolrecords(which
arenotlawfullysealed)regardlessofwhethertheyaresignedorunsignedinthe
originalrecords.Suchpublicationoftheoriginalrecordsisquintessentialfor
removingdoubtsinthismatter,andtoestablishtrustinthejudicialprocess,
pertainingtoRomanZadorov,andinintegrityoftheinvestigationofinstant
Complaint.
67/115
, -
Figure 1. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) electronic display rendition in

Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the Court) of a January 1, 2008 decision
record by Judge Yitzhak Cohen, which was originally issued as a paper decision record.
The decision record was supposed to be hand-signed by the judge. The electronic
display rendition, which is today provided in Net-HaMishpat is not even a scan of the
hand-signed record, but an unsigned record. Obviously, it is not an authentic court
record, and there is no way to ascertain that the corresponding authentic court record
exists at all.
b)
TheSeptember14,2010readinginopencourtofthepurportedVerdictand
Sentencingremainsvagueandambiguousunderconditions,prevailingtodayin
theIsraelicourts.
14.OnSeptember14,2010,acourthearingwasheldintheNazarethDistrictCourt,
whichwaswidelycoveredbymedia,wheretheVerdictandSentencinginRoman
Zadorov'scaseinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)werepurportedlyread.
However,underconditions,todayprevailingintheIsraelicourts,suchreading
cannotbedeemedfinalityofjudicialprocessasdetailedbelow.
68/115
, -
15.TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary2012AnnualReportdocumentscurrent
customsandconductofIsraelijudgesinsuchmatters.Onpages612,the
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciary2012AnnualReportsays:
CorrectionofDecisionsandProtocolMaintenance
TheOmbudsmandeterminedthatwhenajudgereadsadecisioninthe
courtroom,hehasnoauthoritytochangeitafterwards,andprovisionsof
theCourtsAct(1984),Article81(a),applyinthismatter.Therefore,
evenifoneadoptsthelinimentapproachincourtrulings,thatthecourt
hasnoobligationtoheartheparties'positionspriortomaking
correctionspursuanttoArticle81(a),anditisonlyrecommended,there
isnoexemptionforthejudgefromrenderingareasoneddecisionfor
anysuchcorrections,asprescribedbyArticle81(a).
Thecaseinvolvedcorrectionsbythejudgewithouthearingtheparties'
positionsandwithoutanyreasoning.Itisalsonotpossibletoclaimthat
thecourtwasauthorizedtomakematerialchanges,sincethecourt
hearingwasnotterminatedandthematterwasstillunderitsdiscretion,
anditwaspermittedtoreconsideritandchangethedecision.Underthe
circumstances,thedecisionsandjudgmentwereairedinthethefirst
versionoftheprotocolduringthecourthearing,andhisworkwas
completedoncethecounselleftthecourtroom,andtheyweredeprived
oftheability,accordingtoacceptedcustom,topointouttothecourtany
errorincorrectingthedecision.Thecomplaintwasfoundjustified.
(Ournumbers88/12,106/12,144/12,120/12,DistrictCourts).
OneshouldrealizethattheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryhasnoenforcement
authority.Therefore,whilehedocumentshispositiononthematter,infacthealso
documentsthattheIsraelijudgestodayholdtheoppositeposition.
16.Conditions,wherethereadingofadecisionorajudgmentbyajudgefromthe
benchinopencourtarenotheldbindingandfinal,mustcauseconcernregarding
DueProcessandFairandPublicHearing,furthermoreregardingcompetenceof
theIsraelicourts.
c)
CalendardataoftheSeptember14,2010hearinginStateofIsraelvRoman
Zadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtaredubious,invalidand/or
false,andraisesuspicionsregardingvalidityofthehearingandcompetenceof
theCourt.
17.TheCalendardatabelowarefromNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystem(Figure
2):
(i)TheCourtCalendarisvagueatbestitprovidesnocasenumbersofcaptions,
onlycumulativenumberspertainingtohearingsperjudge.
(ii)TheCaseCalendarindeedliststheSeptember14,2010hearing.
(iii)DailyPersonalJudgeCalendarforJudgeYithakCohenindeedliststhe
RomanZadorovcaseastheonlyhearingfrom9:00to10:30am.
69/115
, -
(iv)DailyPersonalJudgeCalendarforJudgeEstherCohenlistsatotalof7
differentcasehearingsbetween9:00and10:00am,includingRomanZadorov's
case,allofwhicharemarkedconducted.
(v)DailyPersonalJudgeforJudgeHaimGalpaz(whoheldanemeritusstatusat
thetime)doesnotexistatall.
a.
70/115
, -
b.
c.
71/115
- ,
d.
Figure 2. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court
Calendar data, pertaining to the September 14, 2010 hearing. a. Court Calendar:
provides only cumulative numbers of hearings per judge per hearing type, but no case
numbers; b. Case Calendar: lists 9:00-9:30 Verdict hearing, 9:30-10:00 Sentencing
hearing; c. Personal Judge Calendar - Yitzhak Cohen: lists 9:000 Verdict hearing,
9:30 Sentencing hearing; d. Personal Judge Calendar Esther Hellman: lists
seven (7) different case hearings for 9:00 and 10:00 am, all of which took place,
including Zadorov's case; Personal Judge Calendar Haim Galpaz does not exist at all.
18.Inshort:TheCalendardata,pertainingtotheSeptember14,2010hearingare
dubious,invalidand/orfalse.
19.Forgenerations,CourtCalendarshavebeenrecognizedfundamentalBooksof
Court,definingthelawfulconductofthecourt.CourtCalendarsareakey
instrumentinpreventingtheconductofsham/simulatedcourthearings.Acourt,
wherethecalendardataarevagueandambiguous,invalid,and/orfalsewould
undoubtedlybedeemedanincompetentcourt.
20.Thedubious,invalidand/orfalseCalendardatafortheSeptember14,2010
hearingshouldbedeemedpartoftheevidenceforconductofsham/simulatedcourt
process,fraud,perversionofcourtprocessbyJudgesYitzhakCohenandEsther
HellmaninStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
21.Aspartoftrueinvestigationofinstantcomplaint,theinvestigationauthorities
shouldpubliclyreport
(i)Who(ifany)wasauthorizedandwho(ifany)heldthedutytomaintaintrue,
validCourt,CaseandPersonalJudgeCalendarsinNetHaMishpatintheNazareth
DistrictCourtin2010?
72/115
, -
(ii)WhoandunderwhatauthorityenteredthedatainEstherHellmansPersonal
JudgeCalendar?Whenweretheseentriesmade?
d.
NoSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsareenteredinthetrial
courtJudgmentsDocketinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07)inthe
NazarethDistrictCourtinNetHaMishpat.
22.ReviewofthedatainNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystemindicatesthatthe
September14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsaremissingfromthe
JudgmentsDocket,andthe2014SupplementalJudgmentisenteredas
"Instruction to file Certificate of Counsel for Defendants" (Figure 3).
Figure 3: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court Judgments Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system - fails to show entry of the
2010 Verdict and Sentencing records. The 2014 Supplemental Judgment is entered in
the Judgments Docket as "Instruction to file Certificate of Counsel for Defendants".
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham, Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer, and the Administration
of Courts refuse to answer:
(i) Who is authorized and who holds the duties to enter judgments under the
Judgment Docket in Net-HaMishpat in the Nazareth District Court?
(ii) Does the entry of a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment,
Verdict, or Sentencing indicate that it is indeed a duly made, valid and effectual
judgment in the corresponding court file?
(iii) Does the failure to enter a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment,
Verdict, or Sentencing indicate that it is not a duly made, valid and effectual
judgment in the corresponding court file?
The Regulations of the Courts-Registration Office (1936) from the British Mandate in
Palestine period provided the duties and obligations of the Chief Clerk relative to
safeguard of integrity of court files and records, and the requirements for maintaining
dockets and judgment index.
The Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), promulgated in conjunction
with transition to administration of electronic court files, voided the 1936 Regulations,
the duties of the Chief Clerk, and the requirements to maintain dockets, enter
judgments and maintain Judgment Index. Based on these issues alone, the Israeli
courts today should be deemed incompetent courts. Surely they cannot be deemed
Courts of Record.
73/115
, -
23. PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham,ChiefClerkOshratAvichezeroftheNazareth
DistrictCourt,andtheAdministrationofCourts(FreedomofInformationrequest)
refusetoanswer:
Judgment,Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisnotadulymade,valid
andeffectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
24.ItshouldbenotedthattheRegulationsoftheCourtsRegistrationOffice(1936),
promulgatedundertheBritishMandateinPalestine,chargedtheChiefClerkofthe
Courtwiththesuperiormaintenanceofthefilesandregistrationsofthecourt,
andalsoprescribedtheaccurateentryofdecisionsandjudgmentsinvariousBooks
ofCourt.
The1936RegulationswerevoidedandreplacedbythenewRegulationsofthe
CourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004)inconjunctionwiththeIsraelicourts'transition
overthepastdecadetoelectroniccourtfileadministration.ThenewRegulations
failtoprescribethedutiesoftheChiefClerk,relativetointegrityofcourtfile
recordsandentryofdecisionsandjudgments.Moreover,theyentirelyfailto
prescribetheregistrationofentryofdecisionsandjudgments.[ 23]
25.Forgenerations,JudgmentBookand/orJudgmentIndexhavebeenconsidereda
fundamentalBookofCourt,whichdefinetheoutcomeofauthorizedcourtactions.
SuchwasthecaseintheStateofIsraelaswell,until2004.
26.Acourt,wherethereisnovalidentryofjudgmentsandnoJudgmentBook
and/orJudgmentIndexshouldbedeemedpatentlyincompetentcourt.
27.Thedubious,invalidand/orfalseJudgmentDocketdatashouldbedeemedpart
oftheevidenceofconductofsham/simulatedcourtprocess,fraud,perversionof
processbyJudgesYitzhakCohenandEstherHellmaninStateofIsraelvRoman
Zadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
28.Aspartoftrueinvestigationofinstantcomplaint,theAttorneyGeneralshould
state:Who(ifany)wasauthorizedandwho(ifany)heldthedutytoenterthe
judgmentsintheJudgmentDocketinNetHaMishpatintheNazarethDistrictCourt
in2010?
e.
23
TheSeptember14,2010VerdictfailstoappearinthetrialcourtDecisions
DocketinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07)intheNazarethDistrict
Court,andonlyadefective,invalidSentencingrecordappearsinthedocket.
74/115
, -
29.ReviewoftheNazarethDistrictCourtDecisionsDocketinNetHaMishpat
publicaccesssystemshows(Figure4):
(i)TheSeptember14,2010VerdictfailstoappearintheDecisionsDocketatall.
(ii)TheSeptember14,2010Sentencingrecordappearedasadefectiverecordonits
face,withthedocketingtext"Decision"(Figure6).ByearlyJuly2016,the
recorddisappeared,andonlya"GeneralError"messageappearedunderthisentry
(Figure6).ByJuly10,2016,thelinktothedefectiveSentencingrecordwas
restored.
Figure 4: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system - page 3, covering the period
of September 2010, includes an enty of September 14, 2010 Decision, which used to
be linked to a defective Sentencing record. However, by early July 2016, it is linked to a
General Error message, and fails to show any record at all. The September 14, 2010
Verdict record fails to appear in the Decisions Docket at all.
30.TheDecisionsDocketalsofailstolistnumerousotherdecisions.
31.Acourt,wherethereisnovalidDecisionsDocket,shouldbedeemedofdubious
competenceatbest.
32.Thedubious,invalidand/orfalsedataintheDecisionsDocket,pertainingtothe
September14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsshouldbedeemedpartofthe
evidenceofconductofsham/simulatedcourtprocess,fraud,perversionofprocess
byJudgesYitzhakCohenandEstherHellmaninStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
33.AspartoftrueinvestigationofinstantComplaint,theinvestigationauthorities
shouldpubliclyreport:
(i)Who(ifany)wasauthorizedandwho(ifany)heldthedutytomaintaintrue
75/115
, -
andvalidDecisionsDocketinNetHaMishpatintheNazarethDistrictCourtin
2010?
(ii)Who(ifany)isauthorizedandwho(ifany)holdsthedutytoremoveany
unauthentic,invalidjudicialrecordsfromtheDecisionsDocketininNetHaMish
patintheNazarethDistrictCourttoday?
f.
Two(2)differentversionsoftheSeptember14,2010Verdictwerediscovered
outsidethetrialcourtdockets,bothofthempervertedandinvalidrecords.
34.TwoversionsoftheSeptember14,2010Verdictwerediscoveredduring
inspectionofcourtrecords:ThefirstintheNetHaMishpatOfficeoftheClerk
accessinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502q07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt;
thesecondintheSupremeCourtappealpapercourtfileRomanZadorovvStateof
Israel(7939/10)(Figure6).BothversionsappearasprintoutsfromNet
HaMishpat,bothappearperverted,invalidrecordsontheirfaces.Moreover,they
aredifferentfromeachother,factthatraisessuspicionsthattherecordswere
alteredand/oradulteratedbetween2010and2016.
76/115
, -
a.
77/115
- ,
b.
Figure 5: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - two
(2) versions of the September 14, 2010 Verdict record: a. A version, which was
discovered during inspection of the paper court file (original records) in the Office of the
Clerk of the Supreme Court in Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10), and which
was filed with the Notice of Appeal in October 2010. The record appears as a printoout
from Net-HaMishpat. On this version, no graphic signatures appear at all. b. A
version, which was discovered during the January 2016 inspection of the records in NetHaMishpatOffice of the Clerk access in the Nazareth District Court. On this version only
two (2) graphic signatures appear of Judges Yitzhak Cohen and Esther Hellman
both in a negative form. Signature of Judge Haim Galpaz is missing.
Moreover, the two versions differ in the number of pages and the line lengths. Such
differences between the versions, both of which appear as printouts from Net-
78/115
, -
HaMishpat, raise clear suspicion that alterations and/or adulterations were introduced in
this record between October 2010 and January 2016. Therefore, it is also obvious that
the record was not electronically signed. Combined, all of the above makes it obvious
that neither of the two versions is an authentic court record.
35.Bothversionsofthe2010Verdictrecordarepatentlyinvalid.The2016version
ismissingJudgeHaimGalpazsignature,andshowsnegativeimagesofthe
signaturesofthetwootherpaneljudges.Theearlierversion,datingfrom
SeptemberOctober2010,showsno"graphicsignatures"atall.Alsothetotalpage
numbersandpagelayoutsdifferbetweenthetwoversions.
36.Thedifferencebetweenthesetwoversions,bothofwhichappearasprintouts
fromNetHaMishpat,mustraisesuspicionsofalternationsand/oradulterationsof
thisrecord.Surely,the2010recordwasnotanelectronicallysignedrecord,ifit
waslateraltered.
37.Theperverted,invalidand/orfalseSeptember14,2010Verdictrecordsshould
bedeemedpartoftheevidenceofconductofsham/simulatedcourtprocess,fraud,
perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofcourtprocessbyJudgesYitzhakCohen
andEstherHellmaninStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazareth
DistrictCourt.
38.AspartoftrueinvestigationofinstantComplaint,theinvestigationauthorities
shouldpubliclyreport,relativetotheSeptember14,2010Verdictrecords:
(i)Whatwerethealterationsand/oradulterations,whichwereintroducedinthe
Verdictrecordbetweentheyears2010and2016?Bywhomandwhenwere
suchchangesintroduced?
(ii)WhereinNetHaMishpat(e.g.DraftfromtheProtocolsFolder,notthrough
theProtocolApplicationtask)wastheversion,whichwasdiscoveredduring
inspectionintheNazarethDistrictCourtin2016,printedoutfrom?
(iii)Detailedelectronicsignaturesexecutiondata(iftheywereexecutedatall)on
theVerdictrecord.
39.There is no doubt thatacourt,whereafterthefactalterationsamd/or
adulterationsareintroducedintherecords,inparticularVerdictinamurdertrial
ispatentlyapatentlyincompetentcourt.
g.
Four(4)versionsoftheSeptember14,2010Sentencingrecordwere
discovered,allofthemdefective,invalidrecords.
40.Four(4)versionsoftheSeptember14,2016Sentencingrecordhavebeen
discoveredtothisdate,allofthemdefectiverecords(Figure6).
79/115
, -
a.
b.
80/115
- ,
c.
81/115
- ,
d.
Figure 6: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court four (4) versions of the September 14, 2010 Sentencing record: a. Staring in early July
2016, the link in the Decisions Docket of the Nazareth District Court showed only a
"General Error" message, later in July 2016, the link was restored. b. Until June 2016,
the Decisions Docket linked to a defective record, showing "graphic signatures" of two
judges only. The signature of Judge Haim Galpaz was missing from the record. c.
During inspection in January 2016 in Net-HaMishpat Office of the Clerk Office access
another version was discovered, showing the graphic signatures of Judges Yitzhak
Cohen and Esther Hellman in the negative form, but again missing the signature of
Judge Haim Galpaz. d. During inspection of the paper court file in the Supreme Court
(original records) in Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) a printout from Nevo
Publishing LTD was discovered, which is not a court record at all, and which was filed
as an attachment to the Notice of Appeal, instead of an authentic court record.
82/115
, -
41.ThedisappearanceoftheSentencingrecordfromtheDecisionsDocketinearly
July2016,anditreappearancelateronremaininexplicable.
42.RegardingtheSentencingrecord(partofaProtocolrecord),whichnowappears
intheDecisionsDocket,itshouldbenoted:
(i)TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecisionintheVardaAlshechFabricated
Protocolsscandalexplainsindetailtheprocessingofvalid,orinvalidjudicial
decisionrecords(paragraph21):
InhisFebruary29,2012letter,MrYardeniwrites:
Duringahearing,thecourttranscriptionistopensanewprotocolfrom
theelectronicfile,anactionwhichopensanewWorddocument,based
ontheProtocolTemplate.Inordertostarteditingtherecord,the
transcriptionistmustperformtwoactionsintheWorddocument:Add
ThosePresent,andStartofHearing.Untilperformanceofthesetwo
actions,thereisnowaytoedittheProtocolTemplate.
Attheendofthehearing,thetranscriptionistperformsintheWord
documenttwoadditionalfunctions:GraphicSignatureandEnd
Hearing.
Thetranscriptionist,whensoorderedbythejudge,canprintoutacopy
oftheprotocolpriortotheexecutionoftheEndHearingaction,sothat
thepartiesleavethecourtroomwithacopyoftheprotocol.Afterthe
executionoftheEndHearingfunction,theWorddocumentisclosed
andfiledintheProtocolFolderasadraft.Thejudgethenentersthe
ProtocolFolderandexecutestheelectronicsignatures.Theexecutionof
theelectronicsignaturetransformstheelectronicfilefromdrafttofinal
record,inthesensethatitislockedfromanyfurtherchanges...The
ProtocolApplicationtaskappearsintheOfficeoftheClerkonthe
hearingdate.IfthetheclerkattemptstoperformtheProtocol
Applicationpriortotheelectronicsigningoftheprotocoldraftbythe
judge,hewouldgetawarningmessagethattheprotocolisnotsigned
yet,andthesystemwouldpreventthecompletionoftheProtocol
Application.
However,theprintingofaDraftProtocolbytheOfficeoftheClerkis
possible,byenteringtheProtocolFolderinsteadofusingtheProtocol
Application.Undersuchcircumstancesthereisnopromptwarningthe
clerkthattheprotocolisunsigned...
Therefore,bothversionsoftheSentencingrecords,wherethegraphicsignature
ofJudgeHaimGalpazismissing,shouldbedeemedrecordsthatwereneverduly
completed.
(ii)Undersuchcircumstances,itcanalsobeassumedwithhighlevelofcertainty
thatbothversionsoftheSentencingrecordswereneverelectronicallysigned,at
leastbyJudgeHaimGalpaz,andthereforearemerelydrafts.
83/115
, -
(iii)TherefusalbyPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamtopermitinspectionofthe
electronicsignatureexecutiondataoftherecordonlysubstantiatessuch
conclusions.
(iv)Regardless,aSentencingrecordwithnovalid,correspondingVerdictrecord
shouldbedeemedvoid,notvoidable.
43.Thefailuretodiscoveravalidrecordofthe2010Sentencing,andthediscoveryof
multipleinvalidversionsofaSentencingrecordinamurdertrial,mustraiseserious
concernsregardingincompetenceoftheNazarethDistrictCourt.
44.Theperverted,invalidand/orfalseSeptember14,2010Sentencingrecords
shouldbedeemedpartoftheevidenceofconductofsham/simulatedcourtprocess,
fraud,perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofprocessbyJudgeYitzhakCohen
andJudgeEstherHellmaninStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inthe
NazarethDistrictCourt.
45.InthecourseoftrueinvestigationofinstantComplaint,theinvestigation
authoritiesshouldpubliclyreport,relativetotheSeptember14,2010Sentencing
records:
(i)WhatistheexplanationforthedisappearanceofSentencingrecordfromthe
DecisionsDocketinearlyJuly2016,anditslaterreappearance?
(ii)Whatistheexplanationforthedifferencesbetweentheversionthatwas
discoveredintheDecisionsDocketandtheversionthatwasdiscoveredduring
inspectionintheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourt?
(iii)WhereinNetHaMishpat(e.g.draftsintheProtocolsFolder,notthroughthe
ProtocolApplicationtask)wastheversion,whichwasdiscoveredduring
inspectionintheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,printedfrom?
(iii)Detailedelectronicsignaturesexecutiondata(ifany)ontheSentencingrecord.
(iv)WhocontrolsthepublicationofcourtrecordsbyNevoPublishingLTD?What
isthesourceoftherecordsthattheypublish?
h.
FollowingthepurportedentryoftheSeptember14,2010Sentencing,noduly
madeArrestDecreeand/orArrestWarrantwererendered,whichare
prescribedbyIsraelilawforthelawfulexecutionofaprisonsentence.
46.TheRegulationsofCriminalCourtProcedure(1974),Article31says:
31.OnceSentencingwasrenderedtheJudge/sortheMagistrateshall
issue,pursuanttorequestbyaparty,Decreewhichshallspecifythat
whichrequiresexecution,pursuanttotheSentencing,andincaseprison
sentencewasimposed,anArrestDecreeshallbeissued,pursuantto
Form6intheAppendix;suchDecreeandOrdershallbesignedbythe
Judge/sortheMagistrateoftheCourtandshallserveasthe
authorizationforanyStateagencyfortheexecutionofthesentence.
Form6intheAppendixtotheRegulationsprovidesthelanguageoftheArrest
Decree,whichisprescribedbylawfortheexecutionofaprisonsentence(Figure
7).
84/115
, -
(31 )6
/
/
/

:

()

.
()
.
_
______________________
a.
Form 6 (Regulation 31)

In the __________Court
In __________
Criminal Appeal __________
Criminal Trial __________
Plaintiff/Appellant __________
v
Defendant/Respondent __________
Arrest Decree
To: __________
You are herein ordered to arrest __________ (name)
Who was convicted on the charge of __________
And deliver him with instant Arrest Decree to the Warden in the prison, so
that he be imprisoned for the period of __________, pursuant to the law.
(Notes)
Instant Arrest Decree serves as the authorization for any one who duly
executes the above stated prison sentence.
__________
__________
__________
(date)
(Seal of the Court) Personal Stamp
b.
Figure 7: Arrest Decree (akin to a writ of execution following a prison sentence)

Form 6, pursuant to Article 31, in the Appendix to Regulations of Criminal Court
Procedure (1974). a. Hebrew original; b. English translation.
Tothebestofmyknowledge,Form6wasimplementedinNetHaMishpatsystem,
inordertoenableitsrenderingintheelectroniccourtfile,butnoArrestDecreehas
beendiscoveredtothisdateintheelectroniccourtfileStateofIsraelvRoman
Zadorov(502/07).
85/115
, -
47.ThePrisonsOrder(1971),Articles2,3say:
2. Apersonshallnotbeadmittedtoprison,unlesspursuanttoanArrest
DecreeorDetentionDecree,whichwasbroughtwithhim...
3. ThePrisonDirectorshallverifythattheDecreeissignedbythe
appropriateauthorityandislawfullymade,andthattheprisoneris
thepersonstatedinit.
48.RepeatRequeststoInspecthavebeenfiledintheNazarethDistrictCourtfor
abouthalfayear,pertainingtoadulymadeArrestDecreeand/orArrestWarrant,
pertainingtoRomanZadorov.Initially,JudgeEstherHellmanandJudgeAvraham
Avrahamsystematicallyrefusedtoruleonthismatter.
Finally,JudgeAvrahamAvrahamissuedtheJune02,2016PostitDecision
(Figure8).SuchPostitDecisionsays:
Onitsface,suchrequestappearstobecantankerousanduseless.
Therefore,Ifindnoroomtograntit,anditisdenied.
SuchPostitDecisionisunsigned,wasneverdulyserved,failstoappearinthe
DecisionsDocket.RequesttoprovideadulysignedandcertifiedTrueCopyofthe
Originalcopyoftherecordwasneveranswered.SuchPostitDecisionshouldbe
deemedsham/simulated(Draft)courtrecord.
Withit,suchrecordshouldbedeemedadmissionbyJudgeAvrahamAvrahamthat
anArrestDecreeand/orArrestWarrant,pertainingtoRomanZadorov,hasnever
beenrendered,followingthepurportedsentencing,indisregardofthelaw.
Figure 8: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court
June 2, 2016 Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham unsigned Post-it Decision on Request
#127 (Attachment 9.4) for rendering a decision, regarding access to inspect a duly
made Arrest Decree, pertaining to Roman Zadorov. The record says: On its face, such
request appears to be cantankerous and useless. Therefore, I find no room to grant it,
and it is denied. Request was filed for a duly signed and certified, True Copy of the
Original, copy of this record, but it has not been provided to this date. Such Post-it
Decision should be deemed sham/simulated court record.
49.Therefore,RomanZadorovshouldbedeemedaperson,whowasadmittedon
September14,2010tocustodybytheShitaPrisonDirectorand/orPrison
Commanderwithnofoundationinthelaw,andapersonwhoisheldtothisdateby
86/115
, -
theauthoritiesoftheStateofIsraelwithnofoundationinthelawinarbitrary
detention.
TheconfinementofRomanZadorovaspurportedservingalifeprisonsentencewith
nodulymadeArrestDecreeand/orArrestWarrantshouldbedeemedserious
violationofBaseLaw:HumanDignityandLiberty(1992),andalsoseriousviolationof
HumanRightsinInternationalLaw.
50.ThemissingdulymadeArrestDecreeshouldbedeemedpartoftheevidenceof
conductofsham/simulatedcourtprocess,fraud,perversionofprocessbyJudge
YitzhakCohenandJudgeEstherHellmaninStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
51.TheJune02,2016JudgeAvrahamAvrahamPostitDecisionshouldalsobe
deemedpartoftheevidenceoffraud,perversionofcourtrecords,perversionof
process,misprisionoffelonies,andwithholdingofevidenceoffeloniesbyJudge
AvrahamAvrahaminStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazareth
DistrictCourt.
52.InthecourseoftrueinvestigationofinstantComplaint,theinvestigation
authoritiesshouldpubliclyreport:Whatwasthelegalreferenceforadmitting
RomanZadorovintocustodybytheShitaPrisonDirectorand/orPrisonCommander
onSeptember14,2010,aspurportedConvictforlifeimprisonment,andwhatisthe
legalreferenceforhisconfinementtothisdate?
i)
Accesstooriginaldecisionrecords(whicharenotlawfullysealed)ispermitted
bylawtoanyperson,doesnotrequirethefilingofanyrequest,andtheRight
toInspectisafundamentalprincipleinanydemocraticregime
constitutional,suprastatutory...
53.SincethedocketdatainNetHaMishpatispatentlyinvalidandkeyrecordsare
missing,alengthyprocesswasundertaken,inefforttoinspectdecisionand
judgmentrecordsinRomanZadorov'strialandappealcourtfiles.
54.IsraelilawinthismatteriscleartheRegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionof
CourtFiles(2003),Regulation2(b))says:[24]
Anypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisions,whicharenotlawfully
prohibitedforpublication.
55.AndRegulation6(b)says:
6(b)PresidingJudgeoftheCourtshallestablishtheinspection
proceduresandtimeofinspectionincourtfileswherehepresides.
56.Thematterisfurtherelaboratedinthe2009JudgmentbyPresidingJusticeDorit
Beinischattheendofthe12yearlongpetitiononthequestionofpublicaccessto
courtrecordsAssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelvMinisterofJustice(5917/97):
Regulation2(b)expandsthepublic'srighttoinspectwithno
requirementforfilingarequestwiththeCourt,butonlypertainingto
24
87/115
, -
decisionsoftheCourt,andonlypertainingtodecisionsthatarenot
prohibitedforpublicationbylaw.
57.AlthoughthereisnoconstitutionintheStateofIsrael,the2009Judgmentfurther
declares,pertainingtotherighttoinspectjudicialrecords:
afundamentalprincipleinanydemocraticregime...constitutional,
superstatutory...
58.The2009Judgmentalsoincludesvariousdeclarations,pertainingtothe
significanceofpublicaccesstocourtrecords,anddeclarationsonthesamesubject
inolderdecisionsoftheSupremeCourt:
...inthesafeguardoftheprincipleofPublicHearinglies,obviously,one
oftheprimaryguaranteesforvalidityofthejudicialprocess,bothin
affectingjusticeandestablishingthetruthinpractice,andinthe
appearanceofjusticetothepublicatlarge...[StateofIsraelvVielner
353/88andadditionalreferencestoIsraelicourtdecisions]
publichearingisoneofthefundamentalsofjusticeinthejudicial
process...
...theprincipleofPublicHearingismeanttoguaranteethatinformation
regardingwhattranspiredinthecourtroomandconductofthejudicial
authoritiesbeopentothepublicandenabletransparency,openness,and
publiccriticism.Therefore,theprincipleofPublicHearingshouldbe
deemedamandatoryprerequisiteforvalidityoftheentirejusticesystem
andensuringpublictrustinit...
...theimportanceofthisprincipleisincreatingpublictrustinpublic
authoritiesingeneralandinthecourtsinparticular,sinceitcontributes
togeneratingtheappearanceofjusticeinamannerthatpromotesuch
trust...
59.Thesameprinciplewascrystallizedinthealandmark1978decisionoftheUS
SupremeCourt,pertainingtotheNixontapes,whichreaffirmedthecommonlaw
rightofpublicaccesstoinspectandtocopyjudicialrecords.[25]Thatrulingfinds
theinterestcompellingsuchrightinthecitizen'sdesiretokeepawatchfuleyeon
theworkingsofpublicagencies.Obviously,oneofthecriticalpublicagenciesin
thisregardarethecourtsthemselves.
j)
Spliteffortstoinspectthetrialcourtrecords:Thetrialcourtfilewas
administeredfrom20072009asapapercourtfile,andfrom2010tothe
presentasanelectroniccourtfile.
60.CourtprocessinRomanZadorov'strialintheNazarethDistrictCourtStateof
IsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)overlappedtheimplementationofNet
25
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
88/115
, -
HaMishpatcasemanagementsystemintheNazarethDistrictCourtattheendof
2009.Therefore,inspectionoftheRomanZadorovtrialcourtrecordseventually
involvedsplitefforts:
From2007toDecember2009thecourtfilewasadministeredasapapercourt
file,andthevastmajorityofdecisionrecordsinRomanZadorov'strialwereissued
aspaperrecords,whichshouldhavebeensignedbyhandsignatures.
Onlypartofthedecisionrecordsandprotocols,whichwereoriginallyissuedas
paperrecordsaretodaydisplayedinNetHaMishpat.Moreover,thedisplayed
paperdecisionrecordsarenotevenscansofthehandsignedrecords,but
unsigneddisplayrenditions(Figure1).Therefore,thereisnowaytoascertain,
basedonsuchdisplayrenditions,whethertheoriginalpaperrecordsareofthe
samecontentastherecordsthataredisplayedtoday,andwhethertheoriginal
paperrecordsaresigned,validrecords,orunsigned,sham/simulatedcourt
records(Drafts).
Inothercourtfiles,ithasbeenrepeatedlydocumentedthatjudgesissued
unsignedpaperdecisionrecords,whichwerefalselyrepresentedasvaliddecision
records.Inyetothercases,theunsigned,electronicdisplayrenditionsofpaper
decisionrecordswereadulterated,anddonotreflecttheoriginalpaperrecords.
[26]
FollowinginitialattemptstoaccessthepapercourtfileintheNazarethDistrict
Court,IwasfinallyinformedbyChiefClerkOshratAvichezerthatthepapercourt
filewasheldintheSupremeCourtundertheRomanZadorovappealcourtfile
RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourt.Therefore,
subsequenteffortstoaccesstheoriginal,paperjudicialdecisionrecordswere
conductedintheSupremeCourtundertheappealcourtfile.
FromJanuary2010tothepresent,thecourtfileisadministeredasanelectronic
courtfile,anddecisionrecordsareelectronicrecords,whichshouldhavebeen
signedbyelectronicsignatures,pursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001).
[27]
Thepublicationofsham/simulatedcourtrecordhasbeenrepeatedlydocumented
aswell.ThemostnotoriouscaseistheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricated
Protocolsscandal.[28]
k.
TheSupremeCourtdeniesaccesstotheoriginalpaperjudicialdecisionrecords
oftheNazarethDistrictCourtundertheincrediblereasoningofajumblein
thecourtfile.
26
SeeAttachmentA,Section8.5
27
SeeAttachmentA,Section8.5
complaintandOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012decision(12/88/TelAvivDistrict)
28
89/115
, -
61.Giventhatthe2009JudgmentoftheSupremeCourtexplicitlystatesthatthere
wasnorequirementforanyrequestprocess,initially,inquirieswerefiledwith
PresidingJusticeoftheSupremeCourt,toperformherduties,pursuantto
Regulation6(b),andestablishinspectionproceduresforsuchrecords.Presiding
JusticeMiriamNaorfailedtorespond.
62.Therefore,forlackofalternative,onApril11,2016theinitialProformaRequest
toInspectCourtFilewasfiledundertheSupremeCourtappealfileZadorovv
StateofIsrael(7939/10).[29]Thefilingstatedthatitwasfiledpursuanttothe
RegulationsoftheCourtInspectionofCourtFiles(2003),Regulation2(b),which
statesthatAnypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisionrecordswhicharenot
lawfullyprohibitedforpublication.Thefilingalsostatedthattherequestwasfiled
underduress,sincetheSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeMiriamNaorfailedto
performherdutiesandestablishinspectionprocedures,pursuanttoRegulation
6(b),evenafterrepeatrequests.Therequestwasalsodeliberatelylimitedto
previouslypublisheddecisionrecords,inordertoeliminateanypossibleobjection
totheinspection.
63.Regardless,onApril14,2016MagistrateoftheSupremeCourtissuedadecision
record,whichallegedlyusurpedtheauthorityforadjudicationandjudicial
discretioninthismatter,andsolicitedresponsesbytheparties(Figure9).The
Magistrate'sdecisionexplicitlyreplacedtheProformaRequest,pursuantto
Regulation2(b)inspectionbyright,withaRequest(intendedforrecordsother
thanunsealeddecisions)pursuanttoRegulation4inspectionsubjecttojudicial
discretion.[30]
29
Supreme inspection attachment
30
Attachment9.7RegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFile
SupremeCourt
90/115
, -
a.
91/115
- ,
[Coat of Arms of the State of Israel]

In the Supreme Court in Jerusalem
Criminal Appeal 7939/10
Before:
The Hon Magisrate Guy Shani
Requester of Inspection: Joseph Zernik, PhD
Appellant:
Roman Zadorov's
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
Request to Inspect Court File
Request was filed to inspect the paper court file State of Israel v Roman
Zadorov (502/07) from the Nazareth District Court.
The parties shall file their responses, pursuant to the Regulations of the
Courts Inspection of Court Files (2003), Regulation 4.
The responses shall be filed within 14 days from service of instant
decision. The Office of the Clerk shall serve on the parties the Request together
with instant Decision.
Rendered today, April 14, 2016.
[no form of signature]
Guy Shani, Judge
Magistrate
__________________________________
Issue subject to editing and phrasing changes 100979390_D59.doc
Information Center, Tel: 077-1705555, Internet site: www.court.gov.il
b.
Figure 9. Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) Criminal Appeal in the
Supreme Court April 14, 2016 Decision by Magistrate of the Supreme Court on Profforma Request to Inspect previously published decision records from the Nazareth
District Court paper court file State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) (original
records). a. Hebrew original; b. English translation.
Such decision replace the Pro-forma Request, which was explicitly filed pursuant to
Regulation 2, which requires no request process, and which provides the judges neither
jurisdiction, nor discretion, pertaining to public access to unsealed decision records,
with request process pursuant to Regulation 4, which pertains to other types of court
file records, and which provides judges jurisdiction and discretion. This Supreme Court
decision record, as usual, is unsigned, bears the disclaimer subject to editing and
phrasing changes, and was never duly served. Therefore, its validity remains vague
and ambiguous.
64.OnApril19,2016,AppealwasfiledintheSupremeCourtZernikvStateof
Israel(3919/16),originatingintheMagistrateApril14,2016Decision,claiming
thattheMagistrate'sdecisionlackedlawfulauthority,andwasissuedasusual,
throughavagueandambiguousjudicialrecord.[31]
31
copy:a)ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939)intheSupremeCourt;b)ZernikvStateofIs
rael(3319/16)intheSupremeCourt;c)ZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael(4650/16)inthe
SupremeCourt
92/115
, -
65.OnMay4,2016,JusticeSalimJoubranissuedDecisiondenyingtheAppeal,
findingthatjudgeshadtheauthoritytoadjudicatetherighttoinspectpreviously
publisheddecisions,pursuanttoRegulation4.[32]
66.OnJune2,2016,SupremeCourtMagistrateLubinskyissuedadecision,which
deniedaccesstoinspectthepreviouslypublished,originalpaperdecisionrecordsin
thepapertrialcourtfilefromtheNazarethDistrictCourt.Thedenialwasreasoned
inajumbleintheNazarethDistrictCourtfile,andsuggestedthatinspection
shouldinsteadbeperformedoftheinvalid,unsigned,electronicdisplayrenditions
ofthesamerecordsinNetHaMishpat.
67.OnJune9,2016,AppealwasagainfiledintheSupremeCourtZernikvZadorov
andStateofIsrael(4650/16),originatingintheJune2,2016Magistratedecision,
denyingaccesstothepreviouslypublished,originalpaperdecisionrecordinthe
NazarethDistrictCourtpapercourtfile.
TheAppealinpartsays:
12.Disorderandjumbleareaparticularlyoddreasonsfordenyingthe
righttoinspect:
a)Theydocumentpatentlyincompetentconductbythecourts,relative
toaseriouscrimecase,whichhasstirredtheIsraelipublicforsome
tenyears.
b)TheMagistrateproceededtomakedoublespeculation,relativeto
myexposuretosensitivematerials,iftheyexistatall.Thecourt
fileisnotsealed,exceptforsmallnumberofrecords.Inacompetent
court,lawfullysealedrecordsshouldbeclearlymarkedassuch.And
ifthathasnotbeendonetothisdateitshouldbedonenow.
c)Giventheintensepublicinterest,andtheincessantpublicstir
relativetothiscase,thesensitivematerialshavealreadybeen
publishedbymediaandintheInternet.OntheInternet,onecan
probablyfindtodayinvestigationmaterialsfromthiscaseaboveand
beyondthosethatareincludedinthepapercourtfileitself.
d)FollowingasimilarrequesttoinspecttheSupremeCourtappeal
courtfile(alsoapapercourtfile),whichalsopertainedonlyto
decisionrecords,Iwaspermittedtoinspecttheentirecourtfile,
twice.Inthiscase,theappealcourtfilealsoincludesinvestigation
materials.Therefore,itisobviousthattheSupremeCourtpreviously
sawnohurdleinmyexposuretopurportedlysensitivematerialsin
thiscase.However,boththenandnowIhavenointerestin
inspectinganymaterialsbeyondauthenticdecisionrecords.
e)Itispossibletodevisesimpleandeasy,adequatesolutionsforthe
requestedinspection:Forexample,ifsoasked,Iwouldbegladto
signacommitmenttoneithercopynorpublishanymaterials,except
forpreviouslypublisheddecisionrecords,whicharenotlawfully
prohibitedforpublicationtheonlyandexplicitpurposeofthe
32
Ibid
93/115
, -
requestedinspection.
f)Asonewhoisexperiencedininspectionofcourtfiles,including
paperfilesofvariouscourts,itisobvioustomethatIcouldeasily
sortoutthedecisionrecordsfromothermaterialsintheboxesofthe
Nazarethpapercourtfilewithinoneday'swork,sincetheirtemplate
isdistinctlydifferentfromthatofotherrecords.Iwouldbegladto
performsuchworkunderthesupervisionofstaffoftheOfficeofthe
Clerk,toascertainthatIamnotinspectinganymaterialsotherthan
permitteddecisionrecords.Additionally,Icouldbringwithmealist
ofalldecisionrecords,whichhavebeenpreviouslypublished(and
theCourtobviouslyshouldhavesuchlistaswell).Thus,clerk'soffice
staffwouldbeabletoeasilydistinguishbetweenpreviously
publishedrecords,andrecordsthatmaybeprohibitedfor
publication.
13.Worseyet:BasedontheMagistrate'sdecision,itisobviousthatthe
SupremeCourt,whichfor5yearsconductedprocessintheappeal
courtfile,andwroteanexceptionallylonganddetailedJudgment
hundredsofpagesreferringtovariousdecisionsoftheNazareth
DistrictCourt,didsowithouteverinspectingtheoriginalrecordsin
theNazarethpapercourtfile,andwithoutestablishingwhich
decisionsareauthentic,andwhichareonlyfabricated/sham/
simulated/drafts(seebelow).
14.TheMagistrate'sdecisionalsosays:
Itisnotsuperfluoustoaddthatpetitionispendingbeforethis
Courtforrehearingthejudgmentintheappeal(1329/16).
Ifnotforthepurposeoftherequestedinspection,thensurelythe
scopeofperversionsintheNazarethcourtfile(seesectionsDetseq,
below)shouldbeinspectedaspartofreviewoftheabovereferenced
petition.TheRequesterclaimsthatreviewofthescopeofthe
perversionsintheNazarethcourtfilewouldleadtoaninevitable
conclusion:CourtprocessintheNazarethDistrictCourtshouldbe
declaredvoidnotvoidable,andinvestigationofTairRada'smurder
shouldbereopened.
68.WhereastheoriginalProformaRequesttoInspectprovidednojustificationfor
theinspection,statingthatnosuchjustificationwasrequiredbyRegulation2(b),
theAppealexplicitlyclaimedtheconcernsofFraudUpontheCourtintheNazareth
DistrictCourtthroughtheissuanceofsham/simulatedunsigneddecisionrecords,
andprovidedtheevidencetosupportsuchconcerns:
(i) TheinvalidSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsinthetrialcourt
file,thefailuretodulyentersuchrecordsintheJudgmentsDocket,themissing
ArrestDecree,andthedenialofaccesstoinspectelectronicsignaturesexecution
dataintheNazarethDistrictCourtelectroniccourtfile(seebelow),and
(ii)Evidencefromdecisionrecordsinanother,unrelatedpapercourtfile,wherethe
practiceofconductingsham/issuingcourtprocessbyissuingunsignedpaper
94/115
, -
decisionrecordswasfullydocumentedRotemvBaramandStateofIsrael
(7320204)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourt.
l.
JudgesEstherHellmanandAvrahamAvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourt
deniedaccesstorecordsintheelectroniccourtfile.Theevidenceindicates
perversionofrecordsandprocessintherequeststoinspect.
69.LikeSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeMiriamNaor,PresidingJudgeAvraham
AvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourtrefusedtoperformhisduties,pursuantto
Regulation6(b),andfailedtoestablishproceduresforinspectionofunsealed
decisionrecordsoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,regardlessofrepeatrequests.
Instead,inresponsetorepeatrequeststoestablishsuchprocedures,JudgeAvraham
referredtheRequestertotheOfficeoftheClerk(wherestaffrefusedtopermit
inspectionwithoutjudicialdecision)andtheLegalDepartmentofthe
AdministrationofCourt(whichholdsnoauthorityinthematter).
70.Therefore,startingDecember27,2015,ProformaRequeststoInspectwere
repeatedlyfiledunderduress.Suchrequestsexplicitlystatedthattheywerefiled
sincethePresidingJudgefailedtoperformhisdutiesandestablishinspection
procedures.Therequestsalsoexplicitlystatedthatinfactnorequestandno
justificationwererequiredforsuchinspection,pursuanttoRegulation2(b)ofthe
RegulationsofInspection,whichsays,Everypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisions,
whicharenotlawfullyprohibitedforpublication(Attachment9.8).
71.TheinitialProformaRequestpertainedto:a)LawfullymadeJudgments,b)
LawfullymadeJudgmentsDocket,andc)LawfullymadeArrestDecree.
72.AswasthecaseintheSupremeCourt(andinallothercourts,whereinspection
hasbeenattemptedonaroutinebasisinrecentyears)JudgeEstherHellman
usurpedtheauthorityforadjudicationandjudicialdiscretiononthematter,and
solicitedresponsebytheStateProsecution(butnotbyRomanZadorov).
73.JudgeHellman'sDecember27,2015andJanuary12,2016decisionrecords
(Figure10).Forreasons,whicharedetailedinthelegendtoFigure10,such
recordsshouldbedeemedsham/simulated(Draft)courtrecords.
74.TheJanuary12,2016perverteddecisionrecordpurportedlypermittedaccessto
theVerdictandSentencingrecords(albeit,asitturnedoutnotlawfullymade
ones),aswellastheIndictmentrecord(whichhadnotbeenrequested).Judge
Hellmanfailedtoaddressinanymannertheinspectionofa)lawfullymade
JudgmentsDocket,andb)lawfullymadeArrestDecree.
95/115
, -
a.
96/115
- ,
b.
serious crime two sham/simulated decision records, which were generated by Judge
Esther Hellman in response to Pro-forma Requests to inspect duly made Judgment
97/115
, -
records, Judgments Docket, and Arrest Decree. The decision records, shown here, are
paper records, which were scanned into Net-HaMishpat, instead of valid electronic
records. The valid signatures on paper records are hand-signatures. However on these
two paper records, invalid graphic signatures are pasted. Additional details are
perverted in each record, as detailed below.
a. December 27, 2015 record, which was generated in response to the original Proforma Request to inspect (No 111): At the top of the record, incorrect reference was
entered - Request No 11. In contrast, in Net-HaMishpat - court case management
system, the record, which is purported to be a decision record, this record was
docketed as Request No 112. The record says: To the best of my knowledge, the
records, inspection of which is requested, verdict and sentencing records, have been
published by databases, and there should be no reason to prohibit their inspection. The
same pertains to the indictment its inspection should not be prohibited. For caution's
sake, the State Prosecution is requested to provide its response by December 31,
2015. The record solicits response by the State Prosecution and initiates an
adjudicative process, pertaining to inspection of judgment records, which had been
published, and which domestic law permits any person to inspect.
b. A record, which was issued around January 12, 2016, and which was generated in
response to a request (No 113) to correct the perverted December 27, 2015 decision
record, and a request (No 114) to render decision on inspection: At the bottom of the
record, an incorrect date was provided as part of the signature box June 12, 2016. The
record says: Given the arguments of the request, and the lack of response, I order that
the Requester is permitted to inspect the following records: Indictment, Verdict,
Sentencing. Parenthetically, regarding claims in additional request by the Requester,
instant decision, like the previous one, are valid for any purpose, even though it is
scanned into the Net system for technical reasons. This record permitted access to
the Indictment record, which had never been requested, but failed to address, and
therefore effectively denied access to a) Lawfully made Judgments Docket, b) Lawfully
made Arrest Decree (both of which do not exist). This decision record also tries to
confuse the difference between electronically signed, valid electronic record and invalid
records, which is scanned into Net system due to technical problems. Inspection
shows that during the same period, routine electronic records were generated in other
court files in Net-HaMishpat in the Nazareth District Court.
75.TheJudgeEstherHellmanDecember27,2015andJanuary12,2016Decision
recordsshouldbedeemedpartofevidenceoffraud,perversionofcourtrecords,
perversionofprocess,andwithholdingofevidenceoffraudinStateofIsraelv
RomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
76.FollowingJudgeHellman'sJanuary12,2016Decision,copiesofpurported
September14,2010VerdictandSentencingandFebruary24,2014Supplemental
JudgmentrecordswereobtainedfromtheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazareth
DistrictCourt(Figure11).
98/115
, -
a.
99/115
- ,
b.
100/115
- ,
c.
Figure 11: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court signature boxes on the judgment records, which were discovered during inspection of
the electronic court file in Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the court) in
the Office of the Clerk in January 2016: a) September 14, 2010 Verdict; b) September
14, 2010 Sentencing"; c) February 24, 2014 Supplemental Judgment.
The 2010 records are missing any form of signature by Judge Haim Galpaz. For the
other two judges of the panel - Yitzhak Cohen and Esther Hellman the invalid "graphic
signatures" are presented as negative images. Such signatures have never been
discovered to this date on any of the numerous decisions and judgments in NetHaMishpat, which have been inspected.
The 2014 Supplemental Judgment is of vague and ambiguous validity, as long as
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham denies access to inspection of the electronic
101/115
, -
signature execution data (if they exist at all). As detailed in the Ombudsman of the
Judiciary 2012 Decision in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal
(Attachment 9.3): a. The graphic signatures, which are visible on Net-HaMishpat
records are invalid, of no consequence at all. b. There is no way to distinguish between
electronically signed, valid court record and unsigned, invalid records, which is merely a
draft. c. Israeli judges routinely issue in Net-HaMishpat electronically unsigned, invalid
records, which they consider merely drafts, but mislead unwitting parties, counsel,
and the public to accept their authority, since they cannot distinguish the lack of
validity and effect of such records. The 2010 Verdict and Sentencing were also never
duly entered (Figure 4), and inexplicable differences between the Verdict record shown
here, obtained in January 2016, and the one filed in October 2010 with the Notice of
Appeal in the Supreme Court (Figures 6,7) raise concerns that the Verdict record was
also altered and/or adulterated between these two dates.
77.InviewoftheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecisionintheJudgeVardaAlshech
FabricatedProtocolsscandal,[33]themostlikelyexplanationfortheunusual
records,whichwerereceived,isthatstaffoftheOfficeoftheClerk,isthattheyare
Draftssham/simulatedcourtrecords(DraftsfromtheProtocolsFolder,not
throughtheProtocolsApplicationtask).Inviewoftheexplicitrequesttoinspect
lawfullymadejudgmentrecords,suchconductshouldbedeemedpartofthe
evidenceoffraud,perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofprocess,andbreachof
loyaltybyJudgeEstherHellmaninStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inthe
NazarethDistrictCourt.
78.Later,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamissuedtheFebruary03,2016Postit
Decision,wherehethreatenedtheRequester,attemptingtoexercisea
constitutionalrightwithimpositionofmonetarypenalties,ifhedoesnotcease
suchattempts(Figure12).TheJudgeAvrahamAvrahamPostitDecisionshould
bedeemedsham/simulatedcourtrecord(Draft),sinceitisunsigned,wasnot
enteredintheDecisionsDocket,wasneverdulyserved,andJudgeAvraham
Avrahamfailedtorespondonarequesttoprovideadulysignedandcertifiedcopy
ofthedecisionrecord.Suchrecordshouldbedeemedpartoftheevidenceoffraud,
perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofprocess,threatsandextortion,misprision
offelonies,andwithholdingevidenceoffeloniesbyJudgeAvrahamAvrahamin
StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
Attachment9.5JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalIsraelBarAssociationcom
plaintandOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012decision(12/88/TelAvivDistrict)
33
102/115
, -
serious crime Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham February 3, 2016 Post-it Decision
on Request #123 - part of a series of requests, attempting to exercise the right to
inspect judicial decision records in the court file. The Decision says: The Requester
does not cease bothering the Court and wasting the Court's time with futile requests
that amount to nothing. If he continues to file similar requests, I will consider imposing
on him expenses to the benefit of the State Treasury. The Post-it Decision is
unsigned, unauthenticated, was never duly served, and fails to appear in Net-HaMishpat
- public access system Decisions Docket. On the same date, request was filed to
provide the Requester a duly signed and certified, True Copy of the Original, copy of
this Post-it Decision record. No response has been received to this date. This decision
record should also be deemed a sham/ simulated court record.
79.OnJune02,2016,JudgeAvrahamAvrahamissuedanotherPostitDecision,
whichdeniedtheproformarequesttoinspectadulymadeArrestDecree(Figure
2).SuchrecordshouldbedeemedatacitadmissionthatnodulymadeArrest
Decreeand/orArrestWarrant,pertainingtoRomanZadorovsarrestfollowingthe
purportedentryofthesham/simulatedSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencing.
80.TheFebruary03,2016JudgeAvrahamPostitDecisionshouldbedeemedpartof
theevidenceoffraud,perversionofcourtrecords,perversionofprocess,misprision
offelonies,andwithholdingevidenceoffeloniesbyJudgeAvrahamAvrahamin
StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
81.Regardlessofrepeatrequestsovermonths,JudgeAvrahamAvrahamrefusesto
thisdatetoruleoninspectionoftheelectronicsignatureexecutiondata(ifsuch
signaturesexistedatall)oftheVerdict,Sentencing,andSupplementalJudgment
recordswithnoexplanationatall.[34]JudgeAvrahamAvrahamsrefusaltorule
regardingaccesstotheelectronicsignatureexecutiondata(iftheywereexecutedat
all)shouldbedeemedmisprisionoffeloniesandwithholdingofevidenceoffelonies
inStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
82.ChiefClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourtrefusedtorespondonrepeatrequests
tocertifyTrueCopyoftheOriginaltheJudgmentrecordsoranyotherrecordsin
StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07).CopyoftheOmbudsmanofthe
JudiciarydecisionintheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalwas
copy.
34
103/115
, -
attachedtotheJune26,2016requestforcertification,filedwiththeChiefClerk.
[35]TheOmbudsmandecisionreviewsingreatdetailthedutyoftheClerkto
ascertainthatelectronicjudicialdecisionrecordsaredulyelectronicallysigned
beforeissuingthecertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal.TheJune26,2016
requestalsoprovidedanexplicitwarningtotheChiefClerkagainstcertifying
electronicallyunsignedrecord,claimingthatsuchconductamountstofraud,
perversionofcourtrecords,andbreachofloyalty.[36]
83.AlreadyduringJune2016filingoftherequestforcertification,seniorstaff
membersoftheOfficeoftheClerktriedtoclaimthattheRequesterhadnostanding
torequestsuchcertification.Therefore,additionalclarificationwasfiledwiththe
ChiefClerk,pertainingtotherighttoobtainthecertificationofrecords(if,andonly
iftheyarevalid,enteredcourtrecords,dulyelectronicallysigned).[37]
84.TherefusaloftheChiefClerktocertifyanyofthedecisionandjudgmentrecords
inStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)shouldalsobedeemedpartofthe
evidencethatsuchrecordsareonlysham/simulatedrecords(Drafts),andnot
valid,dulymadecourtrecords.
85.Therefore,therefusaloftheChiefClerktocertifyanyofthedecisionand
judgmentrecordsinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)shouldalsobe
deemedpartoftheevidenceoffraud,perversionofcourtrecords,perversionof
process,andbreachofloyaltybyformerJudgeYitzhakCohen,JudgeEsther
Hellman,andJudgeAvrahamAvrahaminStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)
intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
m.
TheevidenceindicatescollusionbetweenjudgesoftheNazarethDistrictCourt
andseniorStateProsecutionofficersindeprivationofDueProcessandFairand
PublicHearingduringtheattemptstoinspectcourtrecords.
86.Alreadythesham/simulatedDecember27,2015JudgeEstherHellmanDecision
(Figure11),pertainingtotheoriginalProformaRequesttoInspect,isnotablefor
thefactthatitsolicitedonlytheStateProsecution'sresponse,butnotRoman
Zadorov's.Later,boththeProsecutionandtheCourtrefusedtoservetheResponse
ontheRequesterofInspection.
Alsoacomplaint,filedwiththeCommissionerofProsecutorialOversightinthis
matter,wastonoavail.
35
Ibid
8.536
37
Attachment 9.4 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court re-
quests and decisions pertaining to efforts to access electronic judicial decision records to inspect and to copy.
104/115
, -
ConductoftheProsecutionandtheNazarethDistrictCourt,relativetothe
Prosecution'sResponse,producedsomeoftheclearestevidenceofcollusionofthe
ProsecutionandtheCourtinallegedmisconduct.
TheStateProsecutionresponseontheRequeststoInspectwasfinallydiscovered
duringtheJune26,2016visittotheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrict
Court(Figure13).
a.
105/115
, -
In the Nazareth District Court
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Serious Crime 502/07

Request No 118
Requester:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
v
Respondents:
1. Roman Zadorov
2. State of Israel
Response by Respondent 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for as the Respondent knows, the Requester has not been appointed
Ombudsman of the Courts, and nobody authorized him to conduct investigations
and reviews.
Beyond that, the Responder fully approves 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
b.
Figure 13: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court the secretive January 26, 2016 Response by North District Attorney Office - Attorney
Shila Inbar - on Pro-forma Request to Inspect the paper decision records (original
records ) in this case, which was discovered only on June 26, 2016. Both the Prosecution
and the Court refused to duly serve the Response on the Requester of Inspection.
Moreover, the Response was effectively hidden. Although it is marked Response on
Request No 118, it was docketed as Response on Request No 112. Request No 112
itself was no request at all either, but false docketing of Judge Esther Hellman's
sham/simulated December 27, 2015 Decision on Request No 111 (Figure 7a.). Given
that the request to inspect process is conducted in the Israeli courts as some kind of a
poker game, where the Requester is not permitted access even to the docket of
requests and decisions in the ancillary process of request to inspect, such docketing
made it difficult to discover even the mere existence of the Prosecution's Response. a.
Original Hebrew record; b. English translation. (Note: The record is undated, except for
the fax transmission header, not shown here).
87.AttorneyShilaInbar'ssecretiveResponseinpartsays:
Thenatureoftherequestsisunclear,anditappearsthattheirpurposeis
toestablishconspiracytheoriespertainingtoinstantcourtfileand/orthe
106/115
, -
justicesystemingeneral...TheRequesteristryingtoabusetheterm
"RighttoInspect"...AsforastheRespondentknows,theRequesterhas
notbeenappointedOmbudsmanoftheCourts,andnobodyauthorized
himtoconductinvestigationsandreviews.
88.SuchresponseshouldbedeemedpartoftheevidenceofcollusionbyseniorState
ProsecutionofficersandjudgesoftheNazarethDistrictCourttoengagein
withholdingofevidenceoffraudandperversionofrecordsandprocessinStateof
IsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.
89.Furthermore,theProsecution'sResponsefilingonRequestNo118wasdocketed
bytheCourtasResponseonRequestNo112.RequestNo112itselfwasnorequest
atalleither,butfalsedocketingofJudgeEstherHellman'ssham/simulated
December27,2015DecisiononRequestNo111(Figure10).Giventhattherequest
toinspectprocessisconductedintheIsraelicourtsassomekindofapokergame,
wheretheRequesterisnotpermittedaccesseventothedocketofrequestsand
decisionsintheancillaryprocessofrequesttoinspect,suchdocketingmadeit
difficultfortheRequestertodiscovereventhemereexistenceoftheProsecution's
response.
90.Moreover,inresponsetorequest,addressedtoNorthDistrictAttorneyMirit
Stern,todulyservedtheResponseontheRequester,NorthDistrictAttorneyMirit
Sternmailedafalseandmisleadingreplyletter(Figure14).Theletterfalselystates
thattherequestwasforinspection"investigationmaterials"andthattheNorth
DistrictAttorneyOffice"willnotbeabletoassistyouinthismatter"[ofproviding
theAttorneyOfficeresponses,filedinCourt].
107/115
, -
a.
108/115
- ,
State of Israel
Ministry of Justice
North District Attorney Office
February 21, 2016
TO: Attorney [sic-jz] Joseph Zernik
PO Box 33407
Tel-Aviv 6133301
Dear Colleague:
RE: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) your request to be provided copies of
the Prosecution's response on Request to inspect
Your February 3, 2016 letter
I herein confirm receipt of your letter, referenced above.
In your inquiry, you requested to be provided copies of all the Prosecution's
responses on your requests to inspect various investigation materials. Since you
have filed various requests to agencies other than the North District Attorney Office,
we will not be able to assist you in this matter. You need to inquire with the relevant
agency, which responded on your request, or alternatively, inquire with the Court.
Respectfully,
[hand signature]
___________________
Attorney Mirit Stern
North District Attorney
__________________________________________________
North District Attorney Office, 9 HaGilboa Street, Nazareth, Tel: Fax:
b.
Figure 14: 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 judicial records in State of Israel v
Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court. Attorney Stern responded by a false
and misleading letter, stating that the inquiry pertained to inspection of "investigation
materials". It should be noted that Attorney Mirit Stern's letter is missing the reference
number, required in official State correspondence. Attorney Mirit Stern also refused to
answer on inquiries, whether her February 21, 2016 letter was authentic communication
of her office, and to correct the false and misleading content of her letter. Attorney Mirit
Stern's false and misleading response was the foundation for a complaint against
Attorney Mirit Stern, filed with Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, Judge (ret) Hila
Gerstel. However, by the time the complaint was filed, the office of the Commissioner
was already in such state that it was clear that it was unable to address such complaint.
Following the June 26, 2016 discovery of the Prosecution's response, the Prosecutorial
Oversight Office was asked to close the complaint. a. Hebrew original; b. English
translation.
91.TheresponsebyNorthDistrictAttorneyMiritSternisnotablymissingareference
number,requiredinofficialStateagenciescorrespondence.Therefore,itisalso
suspectedassham/simulated,"offtherecord"Stateagencycorrespondence.North
DistrictAttorneyMiritSternalsofailedtorespondonrepeatrequeststoclarify,
109/115
, -
whetherherFebruary21,2016letterwasauthentic,ontherecordcommunication
bytheNorthDistrictAttorneyOffice,andtocorrectitsfalseandmisleadingcontent.
92. AnotherinsightfulstatementinProsecutorShilaInbar'sResponseonthe
RequeststoInspectsays:
Beyondthat,theResponderfullyapprovesthecorrectwordsoftheHon
PresidingJudgeinhisJanuary25,2016DecisiononRequestNo120.
93.RequestNo120ispartofaseriesoffollowuprequests,filedaftertheinitialPro
formaRequesttoInspect,inanefforttoexercisetheconstitutionalrighttoinspect
judicialdecisionrecords.[38]RequestNo120specificallypertainedtoinspection
ofa"lawfullymadeArrestWarrant"and"lawfullymadeJudgmentDocket".Judge
EstherHellmanandPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahampersistentlyrefusedtorule
onthesematters,evidently,becausenosuchrecordsexistedatall.
38
copy.
110/115
, -
Figure 15: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - Judge Avraham January 25, 2016
Decision on Request No 120, to Inspect "lawfully made Arrest Warrant" and "lawfully
made Judgment Docket". Presiding Judge Avraham January 25, 2016 Decision says: The
Requester repeats his requests, whose subject, purportedly, is inspection of records.
However, these are not requests to inspect, but an investigation, conducted by the
Requester, pertaining to validity of the operation of Net-HaMishpat system, and an
array of claims, pertaining to conduct of the judicial panel in instant court file. In such
matters this Court shall not engage. I previously referred him, and I again refer him to
the Legal Department of the Administration of Courts for answers on his questions. It
should be noted that the January 25, 2016 Judge Avraham decision, like all other
decisions of the Nazareth District Court have never been duly served, and there is no
way to ascertain whether they are valid judicial records or just sham/simulated court
records absent access to inspect the corresponding electronic signature execution data,
which the Nazareth District Court denies.
94.PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamJanuary25,2016DecisiononRequestNo
120(Figure15)inpartsays:
...thesearenotrequeststoinspect,butaninvestigationbytheRequester
ofthevalidityandoperationsofNetHaMishpatsystemandvariousother
claimsrelativetoconductofthejudicialpanelininstantcourtfile.In
suchmatters,thisCourtshallnotengage.Ipreviouslyreferredhim,andI
againreferhimtotheLegalDepartmentoftheAdministrationofCourts
foranswersonhisquestions.
95.RequestNo121,whichwasconsequentlyfiled,challengedPresidingJudge
Avraham'sreferraltotheLegalDepartmentoftheAdministrationofCourts,as
lackinglegalfoundation.TheRegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles
(2003)explicitlyprovidethatinspectionofcourtfilesshallbeaddressedbythe
courtholdingthecourtfile.Additionally,staffoftheOfficeoftheClerkrefusedto
permitanyinspectionwithoutexplicitjudicialdecision.
96.ThestatementsintheJanuary25,2016JudgeAvrahamDecision(andother
decisionsaswell)andintheJanuary26,2016ProsecutorShilaInbarResponse,
thattheRequesterofInspectionhadnorighttolookintoconductoftheCourt,are
striking,representingperceptionsofthecourtsandthejudicialprocesswhichare
foreigntobothdomesticandinternationallaw.
97.ProsecutorShilaInbar'sresponsealsoincludesthefollowingnotablestate:
Thereisnorelationshipwhatsoeverbetweentherequestandtheclaims,
regardingthetechnicalformoftherecords,andclaims,pertainingtoto
theevidenceandconviction...
SuchstatementtriestodissociateDueProcessandvalidcourtrecordsfromvalidity
andeffectoftheconviction.ItreflectsthetypicalapproachbyIsraelijudgesandthe
legalprofession,whereDueProcessismerelyproceduralmatters,andnot
material.
98.Combined,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sJanuary25,2016Decision,
ProsecutorShilaInbar'sJanuary26,2016secretiveResponse,andDisrictAttorney
MiritSternFebruary21,2016letterreflecttheirjointrefusaltoacceptthe
fundamentalsoftherightforFairandPublicHearingingeneral,andtheRightto
111/115
, -
InspectJudicialDecisionRecordsinparticular.Theyshouldalsobedeemed
collusioninwithholdingofevidenceofperversionofcourtrecordandcourtprocess
inStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07).
99.ItshouldbenotedthatthepersonsinvolvedinsuchdishonestconductareNorth
DistrictAttorneyMiritSternandShilaInbar,senior,powerfulofficersoftheIsraeli
justicesystem(inrecentmediareports,theywereportrayedassomeofthemost
powerfulandfearinducingStateofficers...)andtheones,whosignedthe
indictmentagainstRomanZadorov.AndcolludingwiththemisPresidingJudgeofa
DistrictCourt...
100.Obviously,suchconductstandsinpatentdiametricoppositiontothelofty
declarationsoftheIsraeliSupremeCourt,pertainingtoconstitutionalrightsand
ConstitutionalRevolutioninIsrael,whichparticularlyreferredtotheBasicLaw:
HumanDignityandLiberty.
n.
TheNazarethDistrictCourt,theSupremeCourt,andtheStateProsecution
colludedinwithholdingevidenceregardingvalidity,orlackthereof,ofjudicial
records,issuedbytheNazarethDistrictCourt,pertainingtoRomanZadorov.
Regardless,sufficientevidencehasbeenaccumulatedtoprovetheinvalidityof
therecordsandprocess.
101.Jointly,theNazarethDistrictCourt,theSupremeCourt,andtheState
ProsecutionhaveconsistentlyactedtopreventtheabilityoftheRequesterof
Inspectionandthepublicatlargetoascertainthevalidity,orlackthereof,ofthe
judicialrecord,whichwereissuedbytheNazarethDistrictCourt,pertainingto
RomanZadorov.
TheNazarethDistrictCourtdeniedaccesstoinspecttheelectronicsignature
executiondata(iftheywereexecutedatall)withnoexplanationatall.Italso
refusedtoclearlyruleonrequeststoinspectalawfullymadeArrestDecree(if
itexistedatall).
TheNazarethDistrictCourtalsofailedtoprovidetothisdateanyTrueCopy
oftheOriginalrecordofdecisionorjudgmentinStateofIsraelvRoman
Zadorov(502/07),regardlessofrepeatrequests.
TheSupremeCourtdeniedaccesstosigned,originaldecisionrecords(ifthey
existatall)inthepapercourtfilefromtheNazarethDistrictCourtunderthe
incrediblereasoningofajumbleinthecourtfile.
TheSupremeCourtalsofailedtoprovidetothisdateanyTrueCopyofthe
Originalrecordofdecision,pertainingtothevariousrequesttoinspect
processes,regardlessofrepeatrequests.
TheStateProsecutionfiledsecretiveresposnsebothintheNazarethDistrict
CourtandintheSupremeCourt,andrefusedtoservethemontheRequesterof
Inspection,inpatentviolationofthefundamentalsofDueProcess.
Conditions,wheretheDefendant,hiscounsel,andthepublicatlargehaveaccess
onlytovagueandambiguousjudicialrecords,shouldbedeemedseriousviolationof
therightforDueProcessandtherightforFairandPublicHearing.
112/115
, -
102.Regardless,ComplainantininstantComplaintclaimsthatsufficientdirectand
indirectevidencewasassembled,outlinedabove,toleadareasonablepersonto
concludethatformerJudgeYitzhakCohenandJudgeEstherHellmanofthe
NazarethDistrictCourtconductedsham/simulatedcourtprocessinmainprocessin
StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07),andadditionally,thatJudgeEsther
HellmanandJudgeAvrahamAvrahamconductedsham/simulatedcourtprocessin
theancillaryprocessofrequeststoinspectinthesamecourtfile.
G.
TheZadorovaffairanditsramificationsreflectwidespreadincompetence
and/orcorruptionofthejusticesystem
103.Forbrevity'ssake,suchmatterswouldnotbedetailedhere,buttheyare
detailedintheComplaint,whichwasfiledwiththeUNHumanRightsCouncil.Such
mattersincludechangesintheadministrationofcourtsinIsraelduringtheprevious
decade,including:a)ImplementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct(2001),b)
ChangesinITsystemsoftheSupremeCourt(2002),c)AbolishingtheRegulations
oftheCourtsRegistrationOffice(1936)andpromulgationoftheRegulationsofthe
CourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004),d)DevelopmentandimplementationofNet
HaMishpatinthedistrictandmagistratecourts,completedaround2010.
H. Conclusions
104.Itremainsunclearthatthereisanyauthorityinthejusticesystemthatisnot
taintedinmaterialconflictofinterestregardinginstantComplaint,anditremains
unclearthatthejusticesystemisready,willing,abletoaddresssuchComplaint.
Therefore,conditionsthatwereestablishedintheRomanZadorovaffairshouldbe
deemedconstitutionalcrisisinanationwithnoconstitution.
105.IfatrueinvestigationofinstantComplaintisconducted,theinvestigation
authoritiesshouldfollowtheexamplesetbytheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryin
theJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal,regardingstandardsoftrue
investigationofjudicialconduct.InhisMay31,2012Decision(88/12TelAviv
District),theOmbudsmandetailedthetimelineofchangesintheelectronicrecords
inNetHaMishpat,andalsothefactthattheelectronicsignatureshadbeenexecuted
neitheronVersionA,noronVersionBoftheprotocol,andbothwereinfactmerely
drafts.[39]
106.InviewoftheseriousnessofinstantComplaintandtheseriousimplicationsit
holds,relativetotheIsraelijusticesystem,inthecourseoftrueinvestigationof
instantComplaint,theinvestigationauthoritiesshouldpubliclyreport:
a) FromthepapercourtfileStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)
photocopiesofalldecisionsandprotocolspriortoJanuary01,2010,whichare
notlawfullyprohibitedforpublication,astheyappearinthepapercourtfile
(originalrecords),whethertheyaresignedorunsigned.
39
Attachment 9.5 Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal Israel Bar Association complaint and
Ombudsman of the Judiciary May 31, 2012 decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District)
113/115
, -
b) FromtheelectroniccourtfileStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inNet
HaMishpattheelectronicsignatureexecutiondata(iftheywereexecutedat
all)onalldecision,protocolandjudgmentrecordslaterthanJanuary01,2010.
c) FromtheelectroniccourtfileStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inNet
HaMishpattheauditdata,whichshowwhenandbywhomalterationsand/or
adulterationswereintroducedintheelectronicrecordsoftheSeptember14,
2010VerdictandSentencing,from2010tothisdate.
d) Authoritativeresponseregardingduemaintenanceoftheelectroniccourtfile
HaMishpatentryofjudgments:
Judgment,Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisnotadulymade,
validandeffectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
e) Authoritativeresponseregardingduemaintenanceoftheelectroniccourtfile
HaMishpatmaintenanceofcalendars:
(i)Whoisauthorizedandwhoholdsthedutytomaintainvalid,honest
calendarsinNetHaMishpatintheNazarethDistrictCourt?
(ii)WhoandwhenmadetheentriesintheCourtCalendarofJudgeEsther
HellmanforSeptember14,2010?
f) LawfullymadeArrestDecree,oranyotherjudicialrecordfromStateofIsraelv
RomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt,whichwasthelawful
foundationfortakingRomanZadorovintocustody,asapurportedconvict,on
September14,2010,andforhisconfinementtothisdate(iftheexistatall).
AlternativelyaclearstatementthatnosuchrecordsexistpertainingtoRoman
Zadorov.
g) Anauthoritativeansweron:Whocontrolsthepublicationofcourtrecordsby
NevoPublishing,LTD,andwhatisthesourceofcourtrecords,whichare
publishedbythisenterprise?
Failuretopubliclyreporttheabovelistedrecordsanddatainthecourseof
investigationofinstantComplaintmustraiseseriousconcernsregardingintegrity
oftheinvestigation(ifitwouldbeinvestigatedatall),integrityandcompetenceof
theIsraelijusticesystemtoday.
107.Failuretoclearlyaddressaspartofinvestigationofinstantcomplaintthe
matters,listedabove,wouldraiseclearconcernthattheAttorneyGeneralis
colludingwiththecourtsandtheStateProsecutioninwithholdingevidenceof
seriouscriminalitybyseniorjusticeofficersoftheStateofIsrael.
114/115
, -
Failuretoclearlyaddressaspartofinvestigationofinstantcomplaintthematters,
listedabove,wouldalsoexacerbatethepatentconcernsregardingwidespread
incompetenceand/orcorruptionoftheIsraelijusticesystemandarbitrarydetention
ofRomanZadorov.
TheaffairoftheUkrainianRomanZadorovisamirrorpictureoftheaffairofthe
JewishMendelBeilisintheUkraineacenturyago...
Today.August8,2016
______________________
JosephZernik,PhD*
POBox33407,TelAviv6133301
Email:joseph.zernik@hrango.org
*Theelectroniccomplaintrecordissignedusingavisible,secure,butuncertified
electronicsignatureattheupperrighthandcornerofthefacepage.Apapercopy,
bearingahandsignatureissenttotheAttorneyGeneralbycertifiedmail.
115/115
, -

Enviado por

Dados do documento

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

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

)Human Rights Alert (NGO

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Bilingual filing English follows the Hebrew

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Attachment 9.1 Joseph Zernik, PhD Biosketch

Figure 1. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) electronic display rendition in

Form 6 (Regulation 31)

Figure 7: Arrest Decree (akin to a writ of execution following a prison sentence)

Attachment 9.7 Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978)

Supreme inspection attachment

[Coat of Arms of the State of Israel]

In the Nazareth District Court

Serious Crime 502/07

Você também pode gostar