20170523Anonymous(ShukiMishol)vStateofIsrael(1322/17)Request

(No12)forClarificationsofMagistrateLiamBenmelechsMay11,2017
Decisiononrequesttoinspectlawfullymadearrestwarrant//
(12')(1322/17)()
,2017,11

 ][Bilingual record English below
_________________________________________________________________________

1322/17 )(

:'
"
,33407
0773179186:
"joseph.zernik@hrango.org:

,,
:
.""
.1"".
.211,2017,) .(1
:
,
.
.3:
()
""(,,
).(2.
.
("".
,,

.

1/16

 .111.2017,

.2.
____

.""

2/16

 .430,2017,)'
'(.:
(2003))2(:
".,2009
') (5917/97
.
,":,
...,,)
(
,.
30"".
.5,
05,2017,)(,
)(,""
,),(3.

".3")"(1322/17"
05.10:2017,23.4.2017
,10:00",,,
..."",
,:".
_____
3/16

 .611,2017,":
14".

)(.
.
.
.7,
,,"",
.
.
.8,1974,:

.31,,

6;
.
][,",1971,:

.2,

.

.3
.
.9
.,06)2016,(,
"""):,
():(4
"/
"!.

.4//
06,2016,.
_____
4/16

 .10,
,,
.,.
.11,,
,
,.
.12,
09,2017,.
.13,16,2016,
.
.,,"
.14,
.",
"".,

.
.15,
:...

. ,
.2002,
112017,,"",

.16 11,2017,
05,2017,,
,",".
,)2002.(5
,,,
")(,"")
(.,
,
"".,
.

5/16

.5,2002."
",,,
".,
)(

____
.17""..
".(1554/16)
10,2016,05.2016,
"",08,2016,
,
"",.
.18"""
".11
/88/12)2012,"(
"".,,
,,
"".:"
.19,
,.

/.
.,,
,":
:32.48
32.48
)(
,,,
,:
)(1,
)(2:
(A;
6/16

 (B,
.
)(
.
)(,:
)(1.
)(2
.
)(,,
,,,
,,
)(.
)()(,,
.ClassAmisdemeanor
)(,
,)statejailfelony(.
,,
.,,
,,
.[IMPUNITY]
.
.20.
,,:
((1582/02,9073/01)
.
"",
.
((7939/10)
(50207)
"".
.
(""(5514/16),
.
,
,.
,)(.
,,
,,.

7/16

 ____________ 2017,22,
,'

_____

IntheSupremeCourtoftheStateofIsrael

AnonymousvStateofIsrael 1322/17

RequesterofInspection:
JosephZernik,PhD
OccupyTLV
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
Email:joseph.zernik@hrango.org

ZadorovvStateofIsrael 7939/10
Requester:JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Email:joseph.zernik@hrango.org

Fax:0773179186

ResponseonMagistrateLiatBenmelechsdecisiononrequesttoinspect
lawfullymadearrestwarrantininstantcourtfile.
TheRequesterofInspectionininstantcourtfile,JosephZernik,PhD,filesherein
responseonMagistrateLiatBenmelechsdecisiononrequesttoinspectlawfullymade
arrestwarrantininstantcourtfile:
A.Denialofaccesstoinspectdulymadeprohibitionofpublicationdecree[gag
order]andunlawfulimpositionofsealingoninstantcourtfile
1. Instantcourtfileappearsunlawfullysealedseriousviolationoftherightforfair
andpublichearing.
2. TheMay11,2017MagistrateLiatBenmelechdecisionhasnotbeendeliveredtome
tothisdate(Figure1).Suchdecisionsaysrelativetolawfullymadeprohibitionof
publicationdecree:
Relativetotherequesttoinspectalawfullymadepublicationprohibitiondecrees,
Ishallindicate,thattheRequestersnamewassealedatthetimeofcommencing
theprocess,sincethelowercourtconductedtheprocessbehindcloseddoors.
3. SuchstatementbyMagistrateLiatBenmelechislackingfundamentalintegrityin
mattersoffact:
8/16

 a)ItgeneratestheimpressionthatonlyrequesterShukiMisholsnamewassealed
(byunlawfullynaminghimanonymous),wheninfacttheentirecourtfileis
unlawfullyhiddenfrompublicaccesstothisdate(Figure2).MagistrateLiat
Benmelechalsofailedtocorrectsuchunlawfulsealingtothisdate.Thatafterin
factadmittingthatthereisnolawfulsealingofinstantcourtfile.
b)Thestatement,thelowercourtconductedtheprocessbehindcloseddoorsis
basedonfalsehood.TheAppellantininstantcourtfileMrShukiMisholwrote
tomepriortohisadmissionintoprison,andIconfirmeditindatabases,thatall
relatedcriminalprocessesinlowercourtswereconductedinopencourt.

Figure1.MagistrateLiatBenmelechMay11,2017decision,asreceivedbyfaxbyShui
Misholscounsel,AttorneyMenachemRubinstein.
____

9/16

Figure2.InstantcourtfilecontinuestobeunlawfullysealedintheSupremeCourts
publicaccesssystem.Indexsearchbycourtfilenumber1322/17showsnopartynames,
statinginsteadSealed.Noadditionaldatacanbeaccessed.
____
B.Denialofaccesstoinspectlawfullymadearrestwarrant.
4.OnApril30,2017,Ifiledanurgentproformarequest(enteredasRequestNo8)to
inspectlawfullymadearrestwarrantpertainingtoappellantMishol.Thelawinthe
matterisclearcut:TheRegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003),
Regulation2(b)says:Anypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisions,whicharenot
lawfullyprohibitedforpublication.Moreover,the2009SupremeCourtJudgment
inAssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelvMinisterofJusticeetal(5917/97)explicitly
statesthatthatthereisnorequirementforfilingarequesttoinspectcourtdecisions,
whicharenotlawfullyprohibitedforpublication.Furthermore,thesameJudgment
declarestherighttoinspect:Afundamentalprincipleinanydemocraticregime
constitutional,suprastatutory...Regardless,myextensiveexperienceovertheyears
showsthattheofficesoftheclerksofthecourts(includingtheSupremeCourt)
refusetocomplywiththelaw,anddemandajudicialdecisiontopermitinspection.
Therefore,theApril30requestwasfiledasaproformarequest.
5.TherequesttoinspectalawfullymadearrestwarrantwasfiledsincetheApril05,
2017JusticeUriShohamdecision,pertainingtoAnonymous(whoisAppellant
ShukiMishol),assent(simulatedservice)toShukiMisholscounsel,appearsasa
perverted,invalid,unenforceablearrestwarrant(Figure3),intendedto
fraudulentlydepriveapersonofLiberty.

10/16

Figures3.AnonymousvStateofIsrael(1322/17)intheSupremeCourtApril05,
2017JusticeUriShohamDecision:10.InsumTheRequestershallappearon
April23,2017by10:00aminNitzanPrisonforservinghissentence,orpursuantto
decisionbythePrisonService,carryinganIDorapassport,andacopyofinstant
decision...TheDecisionfailstonametheperson,whoshallbeimprisoned,is
unsigned,andbearsthedisclaimer:subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges.
_____
6.MagistrateBenmelechMay112017Decisionsaysinthisregard:Thepartiesshall
filetheirresponsesontherequesttoinspectanarrestwarrantwithin14daysfrom
serviceofinstantdecision.ThelawoftheStateofIsraeldoesnotprovide
MagistrateLiatBenmelechtheauthoritytoadjudicatetheaccesstoinspectalawfully
madearrestwarrant(ifitexistsatall)ininstantcourtfile.Obviously,theparties
havenorighttoobjectaswell.Suchdecisioninpracticedelayedtheexerciseofthe
inspectionuntilafterShukiMisholsadmissiontoprison.
7.Thereisnodoubtthatsuchconductarbitrarydetentionthroughtheissuanceofa
perverted,invalidarrestwarrant,combinedwiththeimpositionofunlawfulsealing,
shouldbedeemedcontrarynotonlytothefundamentalsofademocraticregime,
butalsothefundamentalsofHumanDignityandLibertyandFairandPublicHearing.
C.SendingandadmittingShukiMisholtoprisonwithnolawfullymadearrest
warrant
8.TheRegulationsofCriminalCourtProcedure(1974),Article31says:
ExecutionDecreeandArrestWarrant
31.OnceSentencingwasrenderedtheJudge/sortheMagistrateshallissue,
pursuanttorequestbyaparty,Decreewhichshallspecifythatwhichrequires
execution,pursuanttothesentencing,andincaseprisonsentencewas
imposed,anarrestwarrantshallberendered,pursuanttoForm6inthe
Appendix;suchdecreeandwarrantshallbesignedbytheJudge/sorthe
MagistrateoftheCourtandshallserveastheauthorizationforanyState
agencyfortheexecutionofthesentence.
ThePrisonsAct(1971),isclearaswell,explicitlysaying:
AdmissionofPrisoners
11/16

 2.Apersonshallnotbeadmittedtoprison,unlesspursuanttoanarrestwarrant
ordetentionwarrant,whichwasbroughtwithhim
Identification
3.ThePrisonDirectorshallverifythatthewarrantissignedbytheappropriate
authorityandislawfullymade,andthattheprisoneristhepersonnamedinit.
9.AlreadytwoyearagoIfiledaFOIArequestonthePrisonServiceregarding
admissionofprisonersprocedures.TheJanuary06,2016response(ayearlate),by
EtiGrover,CoordinatorofComplaintsandPublicInquiries,PrisonService(invalid,
unsigned,notbyaFOIAOfficer)says(Figure4):
WehereininformyouthatthereferenceforimprisonmentinthePrisonServiceis
anarrestwarrant/detentionwarrant,signedbyajudgeoriginalonly!

Figure4.January06,2016sham,invalid,falseandmisleadingFOIAresponseon
request,whichwasdulyfiledandpaidforonMarch15,2015,pertainingto:a)
Admissionproceduresfollowingimplementationofelectronicrecordsinthecourts,b)
AppointmentrecordofthePrisonServiceFOIAOfficer.Theunsignedresponsesays:"To
JosephZernik,PhD,DearSir:Followingyourinquiry,wehereininformyouthatthe
referenceforimprisonmentinthePrisonServiceisanarrestwarrant/detention
warrant,signedbyajudgeoriginalonly!RegardingFOIAOfficerthereisa
permanentelementinthePrisonServiceLegalBureau,whoisappointedforthe
FreedomofInformationAct.FYI.Truly,EtiGover,InquiriesandComplaints
Coordinator,PrisonService.
_____
10.Therequests,whichIfiledwiththeSupremeCourtininstantcourtfile,alsoserved
asnoticestotheSupremeCourtingeneral,andtoJusticeUriShohaminparticular,
regardingtheseriousperversionpertainingtothearrestwarrantininstantcourtfile.
Therefore,thecircumstancesshouldbedeemedrefusaltocorrectsuchperversion.
11.Inparallel,IsentnoticestoGovernorofthePrisonServiceOfraKlinger,which
warnedherregardingtheperversionofthearrestwarrant,pertainingtoShukiMishol,
andaskedhertoupholdthelawpertainingtoadmissionofprisonersingeneral,and
AppellantShukiMisholinparticular.

12/16

12.AccordingtoShukiMishol,duringhisMay09,2017appearancebeforethePrison
ServiceAdmissionsCommittee,herequestedtoinspectalawfullymadearrest
warrant,buthisrequestwasdenied.
13.Regardlessofalltheabove,ShukiMisholwasadmittedtoprisononMay16,2016
withnolawfullymadearrestwarrant.
D.ShukiMishol,RuthDavid,RonelFisherandcorruptionoftheTaxAuthorityand
theTelAvivDistrictAttorneyOffice.
14.AppellantShukiMisholisaformerseniorTaxAuthorityOfficer,andthemost
senioramongthewhistleblowersthere.Mishollaterbecamevictimofabusebythe
justiceandlawenforcementsystemingeneral,andformerTelAvivDistrictAttorney
RuthDavidandherpartnerAttorneyRonelFisherinparticular.Therefore,the
circumstances,documentedininstantcourtfile,appearasextensionofthe
persecutionofTaxAuthoritywhistlebloerShukiMisholbythejusticesystem.
15.Therefore,MagistrateLiatBenmelechsconductshouldalsobedeemeddirect
extensionofwhatProfMotaKremnitzerwroteintheRomanZadorovaffair:Conduct
oftheStateAttorneyisscarywhenweaddtoitthestandoftheSupremeCourtand
conductoftheAttorneyGeneralinrecentyears,weareleftwithajusticesystem,
whichisprimarilydefendingitself.
E.TheSupremeCourtsdecisionsince2002ingeneral,andMagistrate
BenmelechsMay11,2017Decisioninparticular,aremerelydrafts,andthere
isnowaytoappeartheMagistratesdecisionininstantcourtfile.
16.TheMay11,2017MagistrateLiatBenmelechDecision,justlikeJusticeUriShoham
April05,2017Decision,wasfaxedunsigned,withnoauthenticationletterorany
othersignofauthenticationbytheOfficeoftheClerk,bearingthedisclaimer,subject
toeditingandphrasingchanges.SuchconductistypicaloftheSupremeCourtsince
2002(Figure4).Thereisnodoubtthatareasonablepersonwoulddeemsuchrecord,
assent,asimulatedcourtrecord,fabricated(astermedbyIsraelimedia),ordraft
(astermedbyIsraelijudges).Myextensiveexperienceinrecentyearsalsoindicates
thatthereisnowaytoobtainfromtheSupremeCourtadulysignedandcertified,
TrueCopyoftheOriginalrecordofanySupremeCourtDecision.Therefore,thereis
nowaytooriginateanappealfromtheMagistratesDecision.

Figure4.InMarch2002,thetemplateofallSupremeCourtsdecisionwaschanged.
ThecertificationTrueCopyoftheOriginal,andanymentionoftheChiefClerkwere
13/16

removed,andthedisclaimer,subjecttoeditingandphrasingchangeswasadded.
SupremeCourtPresidingJusticesAsherGrunisandMiriamNaor,aswellasthe
AdministrationofCourts(FOIArequest),refusetoexplainthelegalfoundationforsuch
avastchangeintheSupremeCourtsrecordsunderPresidingJusticeAharonBarak.
____
17.ThetransformationoftheSupremeCourtsdecisionrecordsintodraftswasagain
recentlydocumentedinY.Sh.EvenIsraelLTDvShulmanetal(1554/16).Inthis
courtfile,theSupremeCourtrenderedonApril10,2016adecision,whichappeared
asajudgment,andadecisionwhichappearedasdiametricallyoppositejudgmenton
June05,2016.Oncethestorywaspublishedbymediaasascandal,theSupreme
CourtissuedaJune08,2016decision,whichclarifiedthattheSupremeCourt
reservestherighttodeemitsowndecisionsdrafts,aftertheirpurportedservice.
18.ThetransformationoftheSupremeCourtsdecisionrecordsintodraftswasalso
documentedintheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal.The
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay11,2012Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)
explicitlystatesthatbothJudgeVardaAlshechandtheOmbudsmanfoundher
protocolstobedrafts.Moreover,thedecisioncitesJudgeVardaAlshech,who
claimedinherowndefense,thatherconductwasnotdifferentthanthatofthe
SupremeCourt,whichissuesitsdecisionssubjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges.
TheOmbudsmanresponds:Sheusesahigherauthorityasareference
19.ConductoftheSupremeCourt,relativetoissuingperverted,invaliddecision
records,whichstartedunderthetenureofPresidingJusticeAharonBarak,isnotan
originalIsraeliinvention.Suchconductiswellknownworldwideforcenturiesas
issuingsimulatedcourtrecordsandsimulatingcourtprocessacardinalsignof
incompetentand/orcorruptcourts.IhaventfoundintheIsraeliPenalCodea
definitionofsuchcriminality.Therefore,forexplanationpurposeonly,Iciteherethe
relevantarticleoftheTexasPenalCode:
32.48.SIMULATINGLEGALPROCESS.
(a)Apersoncommitsanoffenseifthepersonrecklesslycausestobedeliveredto
anotheranydocumentthatsimulatesasummons,complaint,judgment,orother
courtprocesswiththeintentto:
(1)inducepaymentofaclaimfromanotherperson;or
(2)causeanotherto:
(A)submittotheputativeauthorityofthedocument;or
(B)takeanyactionorrefrainfromtakinganyactioninresponsetothe
document,incompliancewiththedocument,oronthebasisofthedocument.
(b)Proofthatthedocumentwasmailedtoanypersonwiththeintentthatitbe
forwardedtotheintendedrecipientisasufficientshowingthatthedocument
wasdelivered.
(c)Itisnotadefensetoprosecutionunderthissectionthatthesimulating
document:
(1)statesthatitisnotlegalprocess;or

14/16

 (2)purportstohavebeenissuedorauthorizedbyapersonorentitywho
didnothavelawfulauthoritytoissueorauthorizethedocument.
(d)Ifitisshownonthetrialofanoffenseunderthissectionthatthesimulating
documentwasfiledwith,presentedto,ordeliveredtoaclerkofacourtoran
employeeofaclerkofa
courtcreatedorestablishedundertheconstitutionorlawsofthisstate,thereisa
rebuttablepresumptionthatthedocumentwasdeliveredwiththeintent
describedbySubsection(a).
(e)ExceptasprovidedbySubsection(f),anoffenseunderthissectionisaClass
Amisdemeanor.
(f)Ifitisshownonthetrialofanoffenseunderthissectionthatthedefendant
haspreviouslybeenconvictedofaviolationofthissection,theoffenseisastate
jailfelony.
AddedbyActs1997,75thLeg.,ch.189,3,eff.May21,1997
Suchconductisconsideredextrajudicial,criminalconduct,whichisnotcoveredby
anyjudicialimmunity.However,asdocumentedintheJudgeVardaAlshechscandal,
intheJudgeHilaCohenscandal,andinanumberofothercases,theIsraelijustice
andlawenforcementsystemestablishedanorm,accordingtowhichjudgesare
permittedtoengageinsuchconductwithimpunity.
F.TheSupremeCourthasrecentlybeendenyingaccesstoinspectrecordsthrough
contemptofthelaw
20.Overtheyears,IhaveinspectednumerousSupremeCourtfilesaspartofmy
academicresearch.However,overthepastcoupleofyears,accesstoinspect
previouslypublisheddecisionshasbeendenied,throughcontemptofthelaw:
a)FrancoSidietalvAuthoritypursuanttotheHandicappedbyNaziPersecutionAct
(9073/01,1582/02)inthesecourtfilesitisevidentthattherecords,whichare
publishedintheelectronicaccesssystemarefabricated.TheSupremeCourtdenied
accesstoinspectwiththereasoningthatthefileshadbeenshredded,butrefused
toprovidethereference,prescribedbylawforshreddingcourtfiles:publicationin
theStateRegisterandShreddingProtocol.
b)RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)MagistrateGileadLubinskydenied
accesstoinspecttheoriginalpapercourtdecisionsinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(50207)whichwasthenintheSupremeCourtscustodywiththereasoningofa
jumbleinthecourtfile.InStateofIsraelvRomanZadorovitisalsoclearthat
decisionrecordswerefabricatedbytheNazarethDistrictCourt.
c)OmetzvAttorneyGeneraletal(5514/16)JusticesYDanziger,NHendelandN
SolbergdenyaccesstoDecisionandConditionalDecreewithnoreasoningatall.
It may be assumed that Magistrate Liat Benmelechs purpose in usurping judicial authority
regarding inspection of the arrest warrant in instant court file is intended to deny lawfully
permitted inspection. However, it remains to be seen, whether she would provide an original
and creating reasoning, beyond those, listed above (a-c).

15/16

 Regardless, there is no doubt that denial of public access to a lawfully made arrest warrant,
pertaining to a whistle-blower, while he is confined, marks a new low point, the like of which
has not been seen yet.

Today,May22,2017 ______________
JosephZernik,PhDRequesterofInspection
InProSeunrepresented

16/16