When a Los Angeles judge hid a court file, pertaining to Sharon Stone from the Index of All Cases, the Los Angeles Times found it worthy of reporting - concern regarding integrity of the court... Since for centuries the Index of All Cases has been recognized as the fundamental instrument for safeguard of competence and integrity of the courts. In Israel??? Judges do whatever they feel like - "total jungle in the court", "decline in formalism and increase in values", and/or straight forward judicial corruption - call it what you may... Until we get some of the criminal judges jailed, it won't stop...
READ MORE: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/12/2016-12-07-judge-ben-yitzhak-is-having.html
a
Figures: Amnon Porat demonstrating against Bank Leumi and Rakefet Russak-Aminoach; Bank Leumi CEO Rakefet Russak-Aminoach; demonstrator against judicial corruption; Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak.
Figure: From a video showing protest against Russak Aminoach on the court hearing date.
Moshe Menkin added a new video.
____
Regulations of the Courts-Inspection of Court Files (2003), Form 2; (Regulation 4(c))
Request to Inspect Court File
1. Requester’s Details
Full Name: Joseph Zernik, PhD
ID:
Address: PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Phone: None
2. Court File Details
Court and File #: 64434-11-16 in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court,
Parties: Rakefet Russak-Aminoach v Amnon Porat
Records sought for inspection:
a) Lawfully made and entered publication prohibition decree (sealing order), or any other judicial record, which is the legal foundation for withholding the data regarding instant court file from the Index of All Cases.
In case the requested records do not exist in instant court file, Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak is asked to explicitly state so in her decision on the Request to Inspect.
3. Purpose of the inspection and its justification
a) On December 05, 2016, the Requester filed the original Request to Inspect a lawfully made and entered publication prohibition decree (sealing order), or any other judicial record, which is the legal foundation for withholding the data regarding instant court file from the Index of All Cases.
b) On December 05, 2016, Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak issued a “Post-it Decision”, which is unsigned, was never duly served, and is inaccessible to the requester in the court file docket (since the entire court file is withheld from the Index of All Cases). Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak’s conduct relative to the Request to Inspect and the right to access court records is not unusual. Israeli judges, from the magistrate courts to the Supreme Court turned public access to court files, the right to access court files to inspect and to copy, and court process relative to requests to inspect into a joke. That – in disregards of the fundamentals of law and hifalutin repeat declarations by the Supreme Court, e.g., “a fundamental principle in any democratic regime… constitutional, supra-statutory… “ [Association for Civil Rights in Israel et al v Minister of Justice et al (5917/97)].
c) Such “Post-it Decision” says (Figure 1):
The hearing was conducted behind closed doors, for reasons that were determined during the hearing. Therefore, it is not permissible to inspect the court file.
a) On December 05, 2016, the Requester filed the original Request to Inspect a lawfully made and entered publication prohibition decree (sealing order), or any other judicial record, which is the legal foundation for withholding the data regarding instant court file from the Index of All Cases.
b) On December 05, 2016, Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak issued a “Post-it Decision”, which is unsigned, was never duly served, and is inaccessible to the requester in the court file docket (since the entire court file is withheld from the Index of All Cases). Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak’s conduct relative to the Request to Inspect and the right to access court records is not unusual. Israeli judges, from the magistrate courts to the Supreme Court turned public access to court files, the right to access court files to inspect and to copy, and court process relative to requests to inspect into a joke. That – in disregards of the fundamentals of law and hifalutin repeat declarations by the Supreme Court, e.g., “a fundamental principle in any democratic regime… constitutional, supra-statutory… “ [Association for Civil Rights in Israel et al v Minister of Justice et al (5917/97)].
c) Such “Post-it Decision” says (Figure 1):
The hearing was conducted behind closed doors, for reasons that were determined during the hearing. Therefore, it is not permissible to inspect the court file.
Figure 1: Rakefet Russak-Aminoach v Amnon Porat (64434-11-16) - Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak December 05, 2016 “Post-it Decision”.
_____
Such “Post-it Decision” fails to address the request to inspect, which does not pertain to inspection of the court file itself, but any record, which is the legal foundation for withholding the data regarding instant court file from the Index of All Cases. In many cases a hearing or hearings are conducted behind closed doors. However, the court file number and parties names are not withheld for the Index of All Cases. The “Post-it Decision fails to say anything regarding the existence, or nonexistence of sealing or prohibition of publication decree regarding the entire court file. For example, withholding a court case, pertaining to actress Sharon Stone from the Index of All Cases of the Los Angeles Court generated press coverage as reason for concern regarding integrity of the court… [1]
d) It is also evident that Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak was effectively noticed through the December 05, 2016 Request to Inspect regarding the withholding of instant court file data from the Index of All Cases. And yet, no corrective action was undertaken (Figure 2). Therefore, one should conclude that withholding instant court file data from the Index of All Cases is not the outcome of human error, but intentional conduct by Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak.
Figure 2: Rakefet Russak-Aminoach v Amnon Porat (64434-11-16) – attempt to access the court file in the Index of All Cases on December 06, 2016: “The user is not permitted to view the court file”.
______
e) As noted already in the original Request to Inspect, the withholding of instant court file data from the Index of All Cases is repeat of the phenomenon seen in Zion Keinan v Barak Cohen (11466-01-16) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Zion Keinan v Barak Cohen (11466-01-16) in the Tel-Aviv Magisrate Court – attempt to access the court file in the Index of All Cases on December 06, 2016: “The user is not permitted to view the court file”.
____
f) As noted already in the original Request to Inspect, the notice in Net-HaMishpat fails to refer to any lawful prohibition of publication, or sealing, and fails to provide the legal foundation for denial of public access to the fundamental data in the Index of All Cases – case number and parties’ names.
g) The Index of All Cases has been considered for centuries a Book of Court of the highest significance in any competent court, and a central instrument for the safeguard of competence and integrity of any court. There is no doubt that withholding by judges of court files from the Index of All Cases with no clear legal foundation would be deemed by international observers key evidence for incompetence and lack of integrity of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court. Such matter would be seen even more seriously, since the underlying matters in both above referenced court files is requests by senior bankers to deprive Freedom of Speech of individuals, who consider themselves victims of fraud by the banks.
h) And yet, experience shows that Israeli attorneys in general, and Attorney Barak Cohen in particular, accept such conduct by judges without any protest, perhaps as part of the culture, currently prevailing in the Israeli courts, which has been recently described by “senior legal scholars” as “a total jungle in the courts”. [2] In contrast, such conduct should be deemed in violation of fundamental Human Rights – the right for Fair Public Hearing and the right for Due Process.
i) Moreover, when the Requester filed the original Request to Inspect, he was told by the staff of the Office of the Clerk that the entire court file was “sealed”. Therefore, it could be concluded that there was a prohibition of publication decree in this court file. On the other hand, the Requester published in wide distribution relative to instant court file (see attached):
When Bank Leumi CEO Aminoach goes to the Tel-Aviv court - one should be concerned of fraud by the judge … [3]
Conditions where the prohibition of publication in this matter remains vague and ambiguous would also be deemed a cardinal sign of an incompetent court.
j) Therefore, I herein request again that Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak render a decision on the request itself, and make it clear whether a lawfully made and entered publication prohibition decree (sealing order), or any other judicial record exists, which is the legal foundation for withholding the data regarding instant court file from the Index of All Cases. In case the requested records do not exist in instant court file, Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak is asked to explicitly state so in her decision on the Request to Inspect.
4. Any direct or indirect relationship of the Requester to instant court file
The Requester has no relationship to instant court file. The Requester engages in academic research and academic publication and filing of reports with the UN regarding fraud in the Israeli courts. Special emphasis is given in such studies and reports to the use of fraudulent IT systems for such purposes.
Date: December 07, 2016 __________________
Joseph Zernik
j) Therefore, I herein request again that Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak render a decision on the request itself, and make it clear whether a lawfully made and entered publication prohibition decree (sealing order), or any other judicial record exists, which is the legal foundation for withholding the data regarding instant court file from the Index of All Cases. In case the requested records do not exist in instant court file, Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak is asked to explicitly state so in her decision on the Request to Inspect.
4. Any direct or indirect relationship of the Requester to instant court file
The Requester has no relationship to instant court file. The Requester engages in academic research and academic publication and filing of reports with the UN regarding fraud in the Israeli courts. Special emphasis is given in such studies and reports to the use of fraudulent IT systems for such purposes.
Date: December 07, 2016 __________________
Joseph Zernik
LINKS:
[1]Public records advocates are alarmed that a judge agreed to shield every aspect of the case -- including its very existence -- raising the possibility of other secret cases.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/24/local/me-secret-courts24
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/24/local/me-secret-courts24
[2] “A total jungle in the courts, do anything you can to avoid getting there”. Globes. [Hebrew]
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001153449
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001153449
[3] 2016-12-05 When Bank Leumi CEO Aminoach goes to the Tel-Aviv court - one should suspect fraud by the judge...
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/12/2016-12-05-bank-hapoalim-ceo-aminoach.html
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/12/2016-12-05-bank-hapoalim-ceo-aminoach.html
No comments:
Post a Comment