Photo | Adv. Tamira Alter, Director of the Haifa and Northern District of the Administrator General, Deputy Administrator General, and Registrar of Inheritance.
.
Executive Summary
Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari is a well-known attorney who has held senior appointments in the Bar Association and served two terms as a member of the Judicial Selection Committee. Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari is a true product of the system. Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari advertises herself as "90 years of legal excellence," as her grandfather was a well-known attorney in Haifa and a member of the first five Knessets. A recent review conducted by Joseph Zernik, PhD, LLB, shows that Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari allegedly forged legal documents that she submitted to the offices of the Administrator General, Haifa and North District. The essence of the forgeries is the creation of false representations that Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari was appointed as Estate Administrator for the late Rivka Zernik. The forgeries also include an affidavit, forgeries and fraud by a lawyer in an affidavit may result in relatively severe punishment. According to the heir, Joseph Zernik, Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari is engaging in fraud in the Haifa Family Court in collusion with Judge Hila Gurvitz , whose appointment Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari promoted. The obious questions are:
* Why did Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari need forgery, when Judge Hila Gurvitz was at her service ?
* How could forged documents be accepted for registration at the offices of the Administrator General?
* After receiving notification of the forgeries, will the Administrator General ensure that the forged documents are removed from the register?
Notice was given to Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari regarding the forgeries in the documents she submitted to the Administrator General as Fraud Letter #29: Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari was asked to explain and/or refute the allegations of forgery, fraud, and impersonating another person, which include criminal offenses.
Badges of Fraud is a legal and evidentiary doctrine intended for use in complex fraud cases. Even if there is no direct proof of fraud, the party against whom fraud is alleged is asked to explain and/or refute events that are perceived as "Badges of Fraud." If there is no explanation or refutation of such signs, the series of signs will be considered as a circumstantial proof of fraud, and the burden of proof and persuasion shifts to the party against whom fraud is alleged.
Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari is a sign of the times - corruption of judges and the legal profession in Israel.
Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari in the media
February 4, 2009, The Marker
Image | Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari: "... I trust myself, and I'm not a person who gets confused ... Power should be given to those who use it sparingly, and these are things that are clearly ingrained in me to an extreme degree."
January 12, 2023, from the Haifa local newspaper
Image | Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari demonstrating against judicial reform: "We are here in the name of Democracy, because they want to take it away from us, and that is the most dangerous thing... They are taking away our judicial independence in various ways..."
January 5, 2023, 103FM Radio
Image | "Judicial Reforms? 'The people should shout in the streets in protest'"
"Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari, a former member of the Judicial Selection Committee, expressed disgust with the Justice Minister's work plan: "I was sad to hear about it."
DUNS 100
Image | "What is the most significant move you have led recently?
Developing a new area of professionalism and expertise in the firm (inheritance, estates, and legal competence).
.
Notice to Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari regarding Fraud Letter #29
December 31, 2025
To
Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari
By email
Copies
Prof. Daniel Haimovitz, President of Ben-Gurion University and Chairman of the Committee of University Presidents,
Prof. Uri Sivan, President of the Technion,
Prof. Tamir Shefer, President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Prof. Ariel Porat, President of Tel Aviv University,
Prof. Aryeh Tzaban, President of Bar-Ilan University,
Prof. Gur Elroy, President of the University of Haifa,
Prof. Alon Chen, President of the Weizmann Institute of Science,
Prof. Ehud Grossman, President of Ariel University in Samaria,
Prof. Leo Currie, President of the Open University,
Mr. Ido Mazursky, Principal of the Real School,
Prof. Eliezer Shalev, President of Tel Hai Academic College,
Prof. Ilana Levenberg, President of Gordon Academy (Gordon College of Education),
Attorney Arna Lin, Founding Member, Judge Haim Cohen Center for Human Rights,
Audit Committee and Management of the National Consumer Council (government company),
The management of Ethos (municipal company),
Haifa Theater Management,
Mr. Avi Weiss, CEO of Channel 12 News.
Copies are sent to educational and public institutions as a preliminary appendix, for a formal request to suspend Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari from all positions and any status
in these institutions.
RE: Badges of Fraud -- Fraud Notice #29 to Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari regarding forgery and fraud in the "Estate Inventory of the Late Rivka Zernik," which she filed with the Administrator General (Public Guardian) office on January 28, 2025
Dear Adv. Ben-Ari,
Notice is given to you that forgeries identified in the "Estate Inventory of the Late Rivka Zernik," which you filed with the Administrator General (Public Guardian) office on January 28, 2025, have been jointly recorded as Fraud Notice #29 among the Badges of Fraud that allegedly appear in your conduct.
You are invited to respond by January 7, 2026, explaining and/or refuting the facts and conclusions regarding Fraud Notice #29 among the Badges of Fraud.
Fraud Notice #29 is being copied to the heads of universities and other institutions where you serve as legal advisor or in any other position, according to your office's publications, as a preliminary attachment to a formal request to suspend you from any appointment and any position in such institutions.
The doctrine of Badges of Fraud originated in English law. The doctrine states that in complex fraud cases, the accumulation of signs of fraud that the suspect does not explain or plausibly refute can constitute circumstantial evidence of fraud and even shift the burden of proof and persuasion to the defendant. See, the ruling of Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen in Civil Appeal 8482/01 Bank Igud LeIsrael Ltd. v. Sandowski P.D. 55 ( 5) 776 (2003), " When a number of signs of fraud are discovered... it is possible to infer from them an intention to defraud, and the burden shifts to the defendant to explain the conduct."
As someone who has known you since childhood, it is difficult for me to understand how you developed into what you are today. I tried to explain the situation to myself as a phenomenon that had only recently begun. Indeed, you published that your office only recently developed activity in the family courts, whose corruption is notorious. However, I find it difficult to believe that a person can fundamentally change his character at close to 70. Also, the judges involved in the Haifa Family Court case were appointed to their judicial positions during your tenure as a member of the Judicial Selection Committee: Judge Hila Gurevitz, in 2012; Judge Revital Baum, in 2009 (as a magistrate) and in 2012 (as justice of the peace); and Judge Tal Paperny, in 2013. In other words, more than ten years ago, you promoted the appointments of questionable judges in the Haifa district, and they are now partners in your actions.
Therefore, the more likely interpretation is that over the years, you developed a dual professional personality: On the one hand, you inherited from your father the reputation and position of legal advisor to the Technion, and expanded it to advise other academic institutions. On the other hand, you developed skills similar to those of Efi Naveh and Judge Varda Alsheikh.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik PhD, LLB
.
Fraud Notice #29 - Forgery and fraud in the "Estate Inventory of the Late Rivka Zernik," which Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari filed with the Administrator General (Public Guardian) office on January 28, 2025
An investigation into the affair raises serious concerns that a network of senior institutional lawyers, both within and outside the public service, assisted Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari in her alleged criminality.
A. The alleged fraud in the Estate Inventory registered in the Haifa and Northern District offices of the Administrator General: Filing a "Short-form Judgment - Appointment of Estate Administrators" instead of an "Order in Rem for the Appointment of the Estate Administrators," and a falsified affidavit
(1) Acceptance for registration
On January 30, 2025, an "Estate Inventory" was registered by the Administrator General's office, Haifa and Northern District, filed on January 28, 2025, by Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari (License #10741) and Attorney Yoav Solomon (License #9471).
The Estate Inventory registration required the opening of an Estate file in this case. The file should have been opened with the service of the "Order in Rem for the Appointment of the Estate Administrators" by the Clerk of the Court to the Administrator General, as provided by Regulation 39(e) of the Inheritance Regulations, 1998. However, in this case, no such service was produced for the simple reason that there is no "Order in Rem for the Appointment of the Estate Administrators" in this case.
.
The questions that beg to be answered are :
( a ) Was the case opened according to any standard procedure in the Administrator General's offices? Or was it an exception to the standard procedures?
( b ) Who approved the opening of the case under the above circumstances ?
( c ) Was the opening of the Estate file under the above circumstances based on the "Short-form Judgment - Appointment of Estate Administrators" presented by Adv. Ben-Ari in the "Estate Inventory"?
(2) The alleged fraud in the "Estate Inventory" registered in the Administrator General's office: "Short-form Judgment - Appointment of Estate Administrators" was presented as the "Order in Rem for the Appointment of the Estate Administrators" that constitutes the lawful appointment of Estate Administrators
Image | Head of Page 1 of the Estate Inventory statement filed by Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Adv. Yoav Salomon in the office of the Administrator General on 28.1.2025, and recorded on 30.1.2025: "We, Rachel Ben-Ari, Esq ... Yoav Salomon, Esq, names of the Estate Administrators, who serve according to an Order in Rem (binding against all third parties) issued by the Haifa Family Court (Estate File 11650-06-24) on December 1, 2024 (attached as "Appendix 1")..." [bold and underline in the original - jz].
.
Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon introduced themselves at the top of Page 1 of the Estate Inventory as administrators of the Estate of the late Rivka Shami Zernik,
"We, Rachel Ben-Ari, Esq ... Yoav Salomon, Esq, names of the Estate Administrators, who serve according to an Order in Rem (binding against all third parties) issued by the Haifa Family Court (Estate File 11650-06-24) on December 1, 2024 (attached as "Appendix 1")..." [bold and underline in the original - jz].
.
In the "Table of Contents" of the appendices to the Estate Inventory, on page 5, Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Adv. Yoav Salomon again wrote:
"Appendix 1 - Order in Rem (binding against all third parties) appointing Estate Administrators."
Image | Page 5 of the Estate Inventory statement submitted by Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Adv. Yoav Salomon to the offices of the Administrator General on 28.1.2025, and recorded on 30.1.2025: "Table of Contents," "Appendix 1 - Order in Rem (binding against all third parties) appointing Estate Administrators."
.
However, the document that appears in Appendix 1 to the Estate Inventory statement is not an "Order in Rem (binding against all third parties) appointing Estate Administrators," but rather a "Short-form Judgment - Appointment of Estate Administrators," dated 1.12.2024.
In other words, the two advocates substituted the Order in Rem, which constitutes the lawful appointment of an estate administrator, with a "Short-form Judgment" dated December 1, 2024, which is invalid in the absence of the "Order in Rem."
.
Image | "Order in Rem (binding against all third parties) for the appointment of an Estate Administrator" (Form 10): The Order in Rem is the document that constitutes the lawful appointment of an Estate Administrator under the Inheritance Law and the Inheritance Regulations. The order also references provisions of the law and regulations regarding the Estate Inventory and Financial Reports that the Estate Administrator must provide to the heirs.
Image | "Short-form Judgment - Appointment of Estate Administrators" -- a garbled and invalid document generated by Judge Hila Gurevitz, Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Adv. Yoav Salomon, which was filed as Appendix 1 to the "Estate Inventory," and was identified and referred to as "Order in Rem for the Appointment of Estate Administrators." The "Short-form Judgment - Appointment of Estate Administrators" was also presented to the banks and the Land Registry and accepted by them as purported documentary evidence of the lawful appointment of the Estate Administrators, in violation of the law.
.
Furthermore, the manner in which attorneys Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon falsely presented the "Short-form Judgment" as an "Order in Rem" suggests the intent of deceit. The two of them knew, or should have known, that they were not legally appointed, and acted to conceal the lack of an order appointing them as legal estate administrators.
The refusal to provide me, as an heir, with a copy of the Estate Inventory, in disregard of the law, which mandates providing the Estate Inventory to the heirs within 60 days after their appointment, and in disregard of my repeated requests, is apparently related to the same matter. The two advocates were probably concerned, and rightly so, that if they provided me with a copy of the Estate Inventory, I would immediately recognize the fraud.
The production of any document by Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Adv. Yoav Salomon to the office of the Administrator General cannot remedy the Clerk of the Court's failure to serve the Administrator General with the Order in Rem.
Service of records by the Clerk of the Court, as prescribed by law, is a distinct means of authentication known for centuries. Such service is intended to prevent acts of fraud of the type allegedly before us.
.
As soon as it was filed as a draft in Estate File 11650-06-24 in the Haifa Family Court, before it was purportedly signed by Judge Hila Gurvitz, I objected to the "Short-form Judgment - Appointment of Estate Administrators". I filed and re-filed my objection. I argued then, and I argue today, the "Short-form Judgment - Appointment of Estate Administrators" is an act of fraud:
The ruling in the Short-form Judgment is not based on a previous decision or judgment, and therefore is not valid as a Short-form Judgment.
The ruling begins, "... I decide as follows," indicating that it is a de novo decision and not a Short-form Judgment.
There is no "Protocol [minutes - jz] of the October 9, 2024 hearing" in which "the agreement among the heirs of the deceased was recorded", as stated in the opening of the Short-form Judgment.
In retrospect, following the event on October 9, 2024, which, according to Judge Hila Gurevitz, was a court hearing in a court of the State of Israel, Judge Hila Gurevitz tried to force me, Joseph Zernik, to accept audio tapes as court records, i.e., the hearing Protocol, pursuant to the "Court's Pilot Experiment". This attempt to force acceptance of invalid documents as court records should be seen as part of the general characteristic of this court file - routine corruption of the documents, rendering them invalid.
As in other events of this nature, I asked Judge Hila Gurevitz for a written source for the court procedures that she claimed existed, i.e., "the court's pilot experiment". As in other events of this nature, Judge Gurevitz refused to provide a written source for the court procedures that she faked.
Following various inquiries that took about two months, I obtained a legal position paper from the Administration of the Courts – an audio tape could not be used as a Protocol. If any of the parties requested a lawful Protocol, the judge had to prepare one pursuant to mandatory Procedure 03-14 of the Administration of Courts. However, Judge Hila Gurevitz stubbornly refused to prepare such a Protocol.
Her "ruling" does not reflect an "agreement among the heirs of the deceased ." The normative way to submit requests by consent is for the consenting parties to sign. This is not how Judge Hila Gurvitz acted. She ordered the opposing party's lawyers to prepare her "ruling" and did not require my signature as evidence of my consent. As is their custom, the lawyers also did not submit an affidavit with the proposal for her "ruling." At the same time, I repeatedly clarified, in writing, my opposition to her "ruling." First and foremost - due to the lack of an obligation to uphold the Estate Distribution Agreement among the heirs according to her "ruling," or any law of the State of Israel for that matter. I described the submission of the "ruling" by attorneys Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon to Judge Hila Gurevitz for approval as an act of fraud.
The "ruling" also does not mention the duties of the Estate Administrators under the Inheritance Law, 1965, listed in the Order in Rem appointing an Estate Administrator, namely: "to provide the heirs, on the dates specified for this purpose, the Estate's inventory and financial reports according to the Inheritance Law, 1965, and the regulations amended thereunder " ... Indeed, the purported Estate Administrators, Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Adv. Yoav Solomon, have stubbornly refuse to provide me, one of the heirs, the mandated reports, despite my repeated requests.
The "ruling" does not mention the obligations of the estate administrators, Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Attorney Yoav Solomon, under the "Estate Distribution Agreement among the Heirs pursuant to Section 110 of the Inheritance Law, 1965," dated August 28, 2023, which was approved by the court on December 13, 2023. Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Attorney Yoav Solomon drafted the Agreement, and they were appointed therein, at their request, as appointees and trustees for a fee to execute the Agreement. As they themselves explained in their submission to the court on November 4, 2024, the "ruling" was intended to purportedly release them from their obligations under the "Estate Distribution Agreement.
At the same time, in section 4.3 of the "ruling" a payment of NIS 30,000 + VAT was determined for each of the two advocates, which was a payment according to the Distribution Agreement for their work in implementing that Agreement, and not a payment according to the accepted method for determining and paying the fees of Estate Administrators ... In short, they are violating the Distribution Agreement, except for collecting their fees for work that they did not do.
The provisions of her "ruling" in Section 3 are contrary to the laws of the State of Israel. Judge Hila Gurvitz creates a false representation that her "ruling" is valid vis-à-vis third parties, such as the banks, for the legal appointment of Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Attorney Yoav Salomon as Estate Administrators. The legal basis for the appointment of Estate Administrators is the "Order in Rem" for the appointment of Estate Administrators ."
The provisions of the " judgment " in Section 2 are contrary to the laws of the State of Israel , and are also a serious violation of the human rights of the heir , Yosef Tzurnik , according to Section 16 , Part 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( done in New York on December 16, 1966, signed by the State of Israel on December 19, 1966, entered into force in the State of Israel on January 3, 1992 ), which states : " Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law ." Section 2 of her "ruling" is based on the purported Judge Hila Gurevitz' decisions dated June 25, 2024 and October 9, 2024, at the request of Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Attorney Yoav Salomon - to revoke any recognition of me as an autonomous legal personality, insofar as I am not represented by an advocate... This, while Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari advertises that she headed the Haifa branch of the Association for Civil Rights, and that she was one of the founders and members of the Judge Haim Cohen Center for the Defense of Human Rights ... and while Attorney Yoav Salomon includes a quote from President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in the signature of each of his emails ... The emancipation of black slaves and their recognition as legal persons was a fundamental issue in the Civil War and the Reconstruction period (1865–1877) ...
The Post-it Decision that appears in the lower left corner of the "ruling" in lieu of a signature is not a standard signature. The invisible electronic signature on the decision is not a signature on the document itself. Therefore, the signature on the note, to the extent it exists, verifies only the note's content. The content of the note is a testimony about a signature. However, this type of testimony, which is notarial testimony regarding a judge's signature, is not within the jurisdiction of the judges. It is the jurisdiction of the Chief Secretary. In any case, no person is authorized to testify to a notarial testimony regarding his own signature, including a notary.
Her "ruling" should be deemed an act of forgery, the product of collaboration among Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari, Yoav Salomon, and Judge Hila Gurevitz.
The affair presents a multi-layered fraud over the past two years. The "Short-form Judgment" represents the juncture, where the procedural fraud - conducting proceedings in Case No. 11650-06-24 as a fictitious court file, which has nothing to do with the laws of the State of Israel, is realized as the substantial fraud - stealing heir Joseph Zernik's share of the Estate's funds. Indeed, this was the stated goal starting in early May 2024.
.
The plausible explanation for the Short-form Judgment and all the other facts related to the proceedings in Estate File 11650-06-24 is that Judge Hila Gurevitz, Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari, and Attorney Yoav Salomon held themselves exempt in this case from compliance with the laws of the State of Israel, while posing as advocates and a judge of the State of Israel, operating under the Haifa Family Court.
In other words, Estate File 11650-06-24 should be seen as a "fictitious file" as defined in a publication by the Research Department of the Administration of Courts: Keren Winshel Margal, Talia Yehuda, and Aviv Shirtz "Reliability of File Opening and Closing Data in 'Net-Hamishpat' System," Research Department of the Administration of Courts (June 2011).
.
I.e,
The key allegation is that Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Judge Hila Gurevitz are conducting fictitious proceedings in the Haifa Family Court, using fictitious documents in a fictitious court file in Net Hamishpat (the court's case management system).
Image | "Short-form Judgment" by Judge Gurevitz dated January 16, 2024, Estate File 23208-09-23: Request for Approval of an Agreement among Heirs. An example of a standard "Short-form Judgment" by the same judge in the same year.
.
The "Short-form Judgment" is not an order, but it was presented as such to the Administrator General, to the banks, and to the Land Registry. This act undermines public trust in judicial documents.
The Appointment Order in Rem is the legal document that establishes the status of the estate's administrator. According to the Inheritance Law and its regulations, the appointment must be made by an official "Order in Rem" ( prepared according to Form 10, Regulation 37(a) ), which specifies the identity of the Administrator, the term of appointment ( two years for a permanent administrator and six months for a temporary one, unless otherwise specified) and the scope of his powers. Without a formal order, even a person named as the Estate Administrator in the will is not authorized to act on behalf of the Estate.
XXX
Its "ruling" cannot stand on its own, change the provisions of the order or replace it with respect to third parties who require its reliance on a valid appointment.
.
Section 78 (a) to the Inheritance Law, 1965, and Regulation 37(a) to the Inheritance Regulations, 1998 T.A. (Shalom Tel Aviv - Jaffa ) 5650/99 Attorney Michael Fox in the matter of the estate of the late Baroness Batsheva de Rothschild v . Bat - Dor Association (June 28, 1999). .
From a procedural point of view , the appointment order is a prerequisite for opening an estate file in court and for recording a note regarding the appointment in registers maintained by law ( such as a taboo ).
.
Regulation 40(A1) to the Inheritance Regulations, 1998.
Regulation 39(b) to the Inheritance Regulations, 1998.
.
Third parties, in particular financial institutions and the Land Registry , are obliged to act in accordance with a “ valid appointment order .” While its “ jurisprudence ” can facilitate the understanding of the executive orders , it does not replace the The order . If the appointment order expires ( for example, after two years ), the " jurisdiction " cannot extend it , and the third parties will require a formal extension order from the court .
.
T.A. ( Jerusalem Family ) 46045-03-24 Y. B. , Attorney , Administrator of the Estate v. The General Guardian of the Jerusalem District and Others (March 17, 2025).
Regulation 10A (A) (1) to the Enforcement Regulations, 1979.
.
( 3 ) The alleged fraud in the " Estate Details " recorded in the APC offices : fraud in the affidavit and tampering with the affidavit
.
It should be emphasized that the affidavit that was discovered in the private file submitted by Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Attorney Yoav Salomon to the Probate Court is the only affidavit discovered to date in which they signed as Estate Administrators.
They were very careful, and avoided submitting affidavits with the applications, contrary to the provisions of the inheritance regulations. Judge Hila Gurvitz assisted them and rejected my demands to dismiss the applications that were submitted.
Without affidavits.
In addition, Attorneys Ben-Ari and Solomon knowingly changed the wording of the affidavit in Form 11 (Rule 38, Estate Details) of the Inheritance Regulations:
(a) The word "complete" was omitted from the wording of the affidavit ("I hereby declare that the above privatization is complete and reflects the full assets and liabilities of the estate...");
(b) A clause regarding future non-disclosure was added.
.
Image | The garbled affidavit submitted by Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Attorney Yoav Salomon with the privatization to the APC , Haifa and Northern District . The authentic text of the affidavit in Form 11 ( Rule 39), below . The affidavit itself should be seen as evidence of the offense of impersonation , receiving something by fraud , forgery , and more . Confirmation of the affidavit is shown on the next page.
.
Image | The authentic affidavit in Form 11 ( Rule 39) Estate Details.
Image | Certification of the corrupt affidavit filed in the office of the Administrator General by Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Attorney Yoav Solomon with the Estate Inventory.
.
As mentioned , in addition to the tampering with the affidavit , the " ruling " was attached to the " estate details " as a misrepresentation of an " order ".
Thus, a document was submitted to the General Guardian that was not legally valid, and even misleading, but was accepted for registration, in other words – a clear failure of administrative supervision.
B. Judge Hila Gurevitz secretly initiated alleged fraudulent acts in this affair a year and a half prior to initiating court actions in Estate File 11650-06-24
.
The accusations leveled here against Judge Hila Gurvitz may sound outrageous .
At the same time , it must be remembered that we are dealing with the family courts . These were declared in July 2025 by the Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution , Law and Justice Committee , MK Attorney Simcha Rotman – " The family courts are the black hole of the legal system ."
About 10 years ago , the opinion of Prof. Dafna Hecker (Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University) was published by Chen Maanit, " Family Courts : ' There is a jungle in the courts . Do everything to avoid ending up there '" Globes (2016):
" At least in my field [ family law - H. M. ], and I hear in other fields as well , we are in an era of declining values and rising chaos . If judges do not obey the law and do not respect precedents of higher courts - why does it continue to be called ' trial '?... So what is this thing that calls itself a trial , but is conducted arbitrarily according to the absolute discretion of those sitting on the throne ? ... We are prisoners of a system that has forgotten that it is a judicial system . ... The damage is terrible and frightening . They did everything to avoid going to court - there is no trial there ! "
.
The case we are dealing with is presented here from the narrow perspective of relevance to the APC only . It began in the years 2010-2013 and prohibited acts of other judges, mainly in the related guardianship case : APC 1829-06-10 . The purpose of these actions was to smuggle assets from my mother's estate in order to deprive or exclude me from her estate . To this end , they took measures without legal basis to prevent me from having the right to inspect it .
After a lull of years , the affair was revived with the passing of my late mother on December 15, 2022.
Only after the death of my late mother , did I discover her joint and mutual will, which had been hidden from me until that day ( and was not even submitted to the registrar of inheritance matters after the death of my late father ) . This will was the reason for the inappropriate activity in the guardianship of my late mother . Therefore , on January 11, 2022, I filed notices of review ( not requests for review ) of a first-degree relative and heir of the deceased , in three related guardianship cases :
1. A.P. 1829-06-10 - Request for the appointment of a guardian ,
2. A.P. 25607-03-13 – Request for the appointment of an additional guardian ,
3. A.P. 52646-02-21 – Request for approval of a financial transaction in the name of a Conservatee.
.
As it later turned out, the three cases were formally referred/routed to Judge Revital Baum , starting from the date the third case was opened: 24.2.2021. However, while Judge Revital Baum also held de facto control in the first two cases, control of the third case remained with Judge Esperanza Alon , who moved to serve in the District Court starting in 2015. Judge Esperanza Alon is the one who allegedly committed criminal acts in A.P. 1829-06-10 in 2013, and she felt the need to treat this case as a personal matter... and as the reporters in this case indicate, the Net-Mishpat system and the secretariat allowed this situation to happen.
In the last two cases, I received decisions within one to three days , without any contact with other parties . Their wording was short and simple : " As requested , the son and one of the heirs of Hashel " A. " They were given by Judge Revital Baum . Indeed , with the opening of the case in 2021, all family cases were referred to Judge Revital Baum according to the rule : " One family - one judge ."
.
In the first case , A.P. 1829-06-10 , however , no decision was presented to me . After several days , I contacted the Courts Administration Information Center several times , at different times .
.
It turned out that a decision was made in the APA on 1829-06-10 , but not by Judge Revital Baum , but by Judge Hila Gurvitz . I did not know their names , and they did not tell me anything . However, despite repeated requests , the decision dated 15.1.2023 has not been provided to me to this day .
.
Subsequently, Judge Hila Gurvitz appeared in the A.P. 1829-06-10 for almost two years , until September 30, 2024. During this period, about a dozen decisions were issued in her name , lacking any basis in law and sometimes false . Their purpose was one - to prevent the right to review .
.
As it later turned out, on January 11, 2023, Judge Esperanza Alon transferred control of the 1829-06-10 A.P. to her close friend, Judge Hila Gurvitz, although the official routing remained in the name of Judge Revital Baum . Judge Revital Baum must of course be seen as an accomplice to these acts, even if by omission.
.
The conduct of Judge Hila Gurvitz in Appeal No. 1829-06-10 was one of the matters in the motion to quash filed in Appeal No. 11650-06-24. In the decision rejecting the motion to quash , Judge Hila Gurvitz interwoven blatantly false statements with simple factual matters . Regarding her conduct in A.P. 1829-06-10 , her response was read as a kind of denial that appeared in A.P. 1829-06-10. In general: the case had been referred to Judge Revital Baum since February 2021... See, Appendix A) Request dated 7.8.2025 , # 77 , for clarification regarding false statements in a decision that rejected the disqualification request in A.P. 11650-06-24 – Appendix 5, b ) Decision dated 19.8.2025, #77, for clarification regarding false statements in a decision that rejected the disqualification request in A.P. 11650-06-24 – Appendix 6.
.
The obvious conclusion is that , according to Judge Hila Gurevitz's worldview , when she appears in the absence of any authority , she has no tort or criminal liability for her actions . Since she most likely has no legal direction and no authority either ( she refused to respond to requests on this subject ) , it is reasonable to assume that she acts according to the same worldview - that she has no tort or criminal liability for her actions .
[end]
