][BILINGUAL ENGLISH FOLLOWS THE HEBREW

03-9299546 : 21.2017 ,

)(38086-02-17

:" '

19 ,2017 ,

" ,' , :
.1 , , .
"" , ,
. .
, .
.2
.
: ?
,
, .
,
.
.3
, ,
- , ) ,"/ ( .
, " " . ,
.
.4 , - " " -
. ,
, .
, , ,
".

______________________ 21 ,2017 ,
' -"

][ "
:
 , " . ][
][ [.], " ] [ 2010-
"] [: [], ] [
[]." " " ,2013 "]" ,[:
][ ] [, ]
[ [].
][ .
. ][.
][ ] ,[. ] [ ] ,
[, " ] , [,
] [. , , ][ ,
" . ][
," , .
2
: ]
?[ . ] [ ,
, , ] [ ]
- - [.
] [ , ][.
] ? [
.
]
[.
:
. . .1/
.
.11.01.17

,
10- .
:
][ : ]?
? [ ][ ]
[.
]
, .

: ?
" ".

.

: [.

, 19.02.2017
.

" ,' .
3
, 1/
.4/

. 14 - .
, ,
.
. 19/02/2017 , " "
[]" "
_________________
,

In the Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court

StateofIsraelvZernik(380860217)

Requester:SuspectJosephZernik,PhD

NoticeofpervertedprotocolfortheFebruary19,2017hearing,andrequestforits
correction
TheSuspect,JosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinarequestforcorrectionoftheprotocol,
referencedabove:
1.DuringthehearingIspokeloudandclear,usedcarefullyphrasedsentences,dictationpace.
However,readingtheprotocoldraft,whichwashanddeliveredtome,showsthatthe
protocolisrepletewitherrorstothepointthatmywordsareunintelligible.Therefore,Ifile
hereintheindicatedcorrection[Englishversionshowsonlythecorrectedtext].
2.Thefilingofinstantcorrectionsdoesnotconstituteanyadmissionofcompetenceofthis
courtorvalidityoftheprotocolanddecision.Asspelledoutintheprotocolitselfduring
thehearingIrepeatedthreetimesmyrequestthatJudgeOdedMorenastate,whetherI
wouldbepermittedaccesstoinspecttheelectronicsignaturedataontheprotocoland
decision.JudgeMorenoansweredmyquestionswiththreedifferentandcontradictory
responses,butavoidedstatingthatIwouldbepermittedtoinspecthiselectronicsignature
data,ifitexistsatall.Accesstotheelectronicsignaturedatawasdeniedalreadyina
previoushearinginthisCourt,regardlessofrepeatwrittenrequestsandappearanceinthe
officeoftheChiefClerkinanefforttoexercisetherighttoinspect.
3.SinceIamdeniedtherighttoinspectJudgeOdedMorenossignatureontheprotocol,Iam
deniedtheabilitytodistinguish,whetheritisadulysigned,validandenforceablecourt
record,oranunsigned,invalidpaper(draft,simulatedcourtrecord).Asstatedinthe
protocolitself,suchconductisconsideredshellgamefraud.Therefore,therequestfor
correctionisfiledonlytodocument,whattranspiredduringthehearingininstantcourtfile.
4.Additionally,inspectionofthepublicrecordsinNetHaMishpat[casemanagementsystem]
showsthatwhilethecaseislistedOpentothePublicunsealednodecisionorjudgment
wasenteredinthedockets.Themaintenanceofinvaliddockets,ordoublebooksfor
dockets,rendersthisCourtpatentlyincompetentcourtaswell.
TheCourt,incompetentasitis,shouldcorrecttheprotocol,sothatitfaithfullyreflectwhat
transpiredinthehearing,referencedabove.

Date:February21,2017 __________________
 JosephZernik,PhDTheSuspect
ProSeunrepresented

Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court

State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17) February 19, 2017

Police file 76801/2017

The Hon Judge Oded Moreno

Requester: State of Israel

v
Suspect: Joseph Zernik, ID 053625596

Present:
Counsel for Requester Attorney Commander Alex Weisbord
The Suspect was brought by the Prison Service.

Protocol

The Court offers the Suspect representation by Public Defender Attorney Oren Shefkman.

Suspect:
I am unrepresented, I am not an attorney and I have no legal training. However, my expertise in
related areas has been recognized by the international community. A report, which I filed, was
incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council report in the US in 2010, with the UN staff comment:
Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.
Another report was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council report on Israel in 2013, with UN
staff comment: Lack of integrity in the records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the
detainees courts in Israel.
Conduct of the policemen, who detained me during a fully lawful protest, was blatant violation of
fundamental rights.
Claims of the Police Prosecution [in Israel police prosecutes jz] are false. Many people were
present, as well as media, and it can be easily proven.
And this Court is patently incompetent: Two weeks ago I was brought to this Court as a Suspect.
Hearing was conducted in my absence, an attorney appeared as my counsel without my knowledge
and without my consent, with no certificate of counsel and with no statement on the record regarding
representation. Later, I was hand-delivered a printout of a draft Court Protocol, where it said that I
was present in the hearing, and that Attorney Daniel Hacklai was my counsel. Still later, the Judge
issued decisions, which stated that I was kept out of the hearing for lack of room, and that Attorney
Hacklai told her that he was my counsel. However, none of it appears in the Protocol.
The fundamental question is: Will this Court let me inspect the electronic signature data on todays
protocol and decision? We all know the Judge Varda Alshech fabricated protocols scandal, and we
know that judges issue fabricated decisions in the courts, while parties, counsel and the public are
not able to distinguish in Net-HaMishpat [case management system of the court jz] between duly
signed, valid court records and unsigned, invalid drafts. The Judge in the previous hearing denied
my access to inspect her signatures, and that renders this Court patently incompetent.
Will I be permitted to inspect the electronic signature on the protocol and decision from todays
hearing? If not, how do you explain that as a competent court?
The Judge
The decision on this question will appear in the protocol.
Counsel for the Requester is placed under oath:
I repeat my request. I file herein a secret appendix. Filed and marked BM/1.
I file the investigation file for the Courts review.
I refer the Court to the Protocol of the previous hearing on January 11, 2017. Since that hearing,
leading representatives of the protest have reached through negotiation with police regarding ongoing
protest an agreement on the location, which balances the right of the participant to protest and the
right of the residents for quiet and privacy. In contrast with such agreements, the Suspect proceeded
as it appears, while creating noise, into the heart of a residential neighborhood, and after being asked
by police for about 10 minutes to return to the location of the protest, he refused, and therefore he had
to be detained.
The Suspect:
I repeat my question: Is this a competent Court? Will I be permitted to inspect the electronic signature
data on the protocol and decision from todays hearing? If not, from my perspective this Court is
incompetent, and I will not address the claims of the Prosecution.
The Judge:
The Suspect may file a separate motion in this matter. I have no intention to address this issue in
todays court hearing.
The Suspect:
I again ask: Will I be permitted to inspect the electronic signature data on todays protocol and
decision? Hiding the signatures on court records from parties in a case is fraud, of the type which is
known as Shell Game Fraud.
The Judge:
The Suspect may review the law on this matter.
The Suspect:
The law is clear on this matter: It is the right of a party to inspect the decision records in his matter.
Decision
At bar is a request to release the Suspect under restraining condition, after he was detained on
February 19, 2017 on suspicion of committing interference with a policeman performance of duties,
and making noise or disturbing the rest.
In the background, it should be noted that that the matter pertains to a Suspect, who appears before
the Court after he demonstrated in front of Attorney General Dr Avichai Mandelblits home in the past
as well.
Review of the investigation file shows a reasonable suspicion, but no cause for detention. In this
matter I refer to records marked BM/1 to BM/4.
The request for the Suspects release under restraining conditions was brought before this Court after
the Suspect refused to sign it in the Police Station and to cooperate. The requested conditions are
restraining from appearance in the City of Petah-Tikva for only 14 days. Such conditions are more
than measured under the circumstances, and the Court herein gives it the power of a decision, under
which the Suspect shall be released.
Rendered and noticed today, February 19, 2017 in the presence of those listed present.
[pasted graphic signature]
______________________
Oded Moreno, Judge