Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak in Russak-Aminoach v Porat - fraud and perversion of court records
Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak withheld the entire Russak-Aminoach v Porat court file from the Index of All Cases, with no foundation in the law. Now, she simply cannot understand what she is aksed for - according to fabricated "Post-it Decisions", which she issued in response on requests to inspect the court file...
Amnon Porat claims that he is a victim of fraud by Bank Leumi and its CEO Rakefet Russak Aminoach. Therefore, he started a prayer stand on the side-walk - praying for absolution of Rusak-Aminoach's robbery sins. In response, Rakefet is asking a restraining order - claiming Porat poses a "threat". Rafefet's claims are apparently based on what here 4 yo daughter heard from another 4 yo girl...
It is difficult to comprehend how a judge, who arrived from a "values" background - Kibbutz Sdeh Eliyahu, who studied law in a "values" law school - Bar Ilan University, whose experience was in a "values" workplace - the State Prosecution, and who was appointed to the bench less than a year ago - is already perpetrating Fraud Upon the Court and perversion of court records and court process like a pro...
The ""Post-it Decisions" are one of the cardinal fraudulent traits of Net-HaMishpat system, where judges routinely use them to perpetrate Fraud Upon the Court.
"Senior legal scholars" see conditions in the Israeli courts as "decline in formalism and increase in values", alternatively - "total jungle in the courts"... In plain language - widespread judicial incompetence and/or corruption. Until we jail some of criminal judges, it ain't going to stop!
READ THE COMPLETE POST: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/12/2016-12-12-judge-shlomit-ben-yitzhak-in.html
Figures 1: Amnon Porat demonstrates against Bank Leumi and Rakefet Russak -Aminoach; Bank Leumi CEO Rakefet Russak Aminoach; demonstrating against judicial corruption; Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak.
a
Moshe Menkin added a new video.
____
OccupyTLV, December 12 - request was filed in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court for duly signed and certified copies of Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak's "Post-it Decisions" in court file Russak-Aminoach v Porat.
A) Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak is perpetrating Fraud Upon the Court in court file Russak-Aminoach v Porat
הבקשה
שהוגשה היום, אומרת שה"החלטות בפתקית" אינן מראות כל סימן של אמיתות
(אותנטיות) ככתבי בית דין. לכן, אדם בר-דעת (פרט לשופטים ועורכי דין
ישראלים) לא יוכל לראות ב"החלטות בפתקית" של השופטת שלומית בן יצחק כתבי
בית דין אמתיים (אותנטיים) ותקפים. נהפוך הוא, אדם בר דעת יראה ב"החלטות
בפתקית" אלה חלק מן ההונאה על כס המשפט של השופטת שלומית בן יצחק.
מכיוון שהבקשות וההחלטות לגבי העיון בתיק זה נועדו להגשה לגורמים מחוץ למדינת ישראל, התבקשה השופטת שלומית בן -יצחק לספק העתקים חתומים ומאושרים כדין של ה"החלטות בפתקית". על פי נסיון העבר, הסיכויים לקבלת העתק חתום ומאושר כדין של החלטה בפתקית כלשהי הם אפסיים.
מכיוון שהבקשות וההחלטות לגבי העיון בתיק זה נועדו להגשה לגורמים מחוץ למדינת ישראל, התבקשה השופטת שלומית בן -יצחק לספק העתקים חתומים ומאושרים כדין של ה"החלטות בפתקית". על פי נסיון העבר, הסיכויים לקבלת העתק חתום ומאושר כדין של החלטה בפתקית כלשהי הם אפסיים.
השופטת
שלומית בן יצחק הנפיקה את ה"החלטות בפתקית" המפוברקות בתגובה לבקשות עיון.
בקשות העיון היו ברורות לחלוטין - הן ביקשו כל מסמך שהוא הבסיס החוקי
להעלמת תיק רוסק-עמינח נ פורת (64434-11-16) מרשימת התיקים.
ב"החלטה בפתקית" האחרונה - מיום 08 לדצמבר - השופטת שלומית בן-יצחק פשוט לא מבינה מה רוצים ממנה... (תמונה 3).
_____
B) "Post-it Decisions" are one of the key fraudulent traits of Net-HaMishpat case management system
"Post-it Decisions" are one of the key fraudulent traits of Net-HaMishpat case management system. Regardless of repeat requests, to this date no attempt has been successful to obtain a duly signed and certified copy of a "Post-it Decision".
Among the notable cases of fraud by judges through the issuance of "Post-it Decisions" are the following cases:
1. Judge David Rosen issued a fraudulent "Post-it Decision" on request to inspect that lawfully made judgment records of Olmert and Zaken in the Holyland corruption scandal.
Figure 4: State of Israel v Zerni (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court - Holyland corruption scandal - Judge David Rosen's fraud in "Post-it Decision": He cannot permit inspection of lawful (electronic) judgment records pertaining to Olmert and Zaken, since they were "physically removed to the Supreme Court as part of the appeal process"... However, Judge David Rosen refuses to provide a duly signed and certified copy of the fraudulent March 18, 2015 "Post-it Decision"...
______
2. Kidge Avraham Avraham issued fraudulent "Post-it Decisions" in response on requests to inspect the electronic signature data (which do not exist) of the fake judgment records, and lawfully made Arrest Decree (which does not exist), pertaining to Roman Zsadorov
a
תמונה 5: מדינת ישראל נ רומן זדורוב (502-07) בבית המשפט המחוזי נצרת - השופט אברהם אברהם בהונאה ב"החלטה בפתקית" - מאיים בתגובה על בקשות חוזרות לעיון בנתוני החתימות האלקטרוניות (אם הן קיימות בכלל) על "הכרעת הדין" ו"גזר הדין" המפוברקים של רומן זדורוב...
____
תמונה 6:
מדינת ישראל נ רומן זדורוב (502-07) בבית המשפט המחוזי נצרת - השופט אברהם
אברהם בהונאה ב"החלטה בפתקית" - מודה בפועל שאין לרומן זדורוב "פקודת מאסר
עשויה כדין" - הנדרשת בדין לקבלת נידון למאסר...
תמונה 7: חוה קליין נ לורי שם-טוב ומוטי לייבל (621-02-16) בבית המשפט השלום ת"א – "פסק
דין בפתקית" של הרשם אבי כהן מיום 17 לאפריל, 2016, שגזר כביכול פסק דין
של 800,000 ש"ח לטובת עורכת הדין חווה קליין - יותר מפי 10 מסמכותו בחוק... .
Figure 1: Rakefet Russak-Aminoach v Amnon Porat (64434-11-16) - Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak December 05, 2016 “Post-it Decision”.
Figure 2: Rakefet Russak-Aminoach v Amnon Porat (64434-11-16) - Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak December 05, 2016 “Post-it Decision”.
____
3. הרשם אבי כהן הנפיק "פסק דין" הונאתי וחסר סמכות ב"החלטה בפתקית" על לורי שם טוב ומוטי לייבל
____
4. השופט עודד מודריק הנפיק "החלטות בפתקית" הונאותיות על בקשות עיון בפסק דין עשוי כדין (שאינו קיים) לגבי יאשיהו פינטו בפרשת פינטו-ברכה-ארביב
תמונה 8: מדינת ישראל נ פינטו (43357-09-14) בבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א.
על בקשה לקבלת העתק חתום ומאושר של "החלטה בפתקית" הדוחה בקשה לעיין בכתב
"הכרעת הדין" שאינו בנמצא בתיק פינטו, הנפיק השופט עודד מודריק "החלטה
בפתקית" נוספת, בלתי חתומה, בלתי מאומתת, שמעולם לא הומצאה כדין. החלטה זאת
התקבלה בפקס ממכונת פקס בלתי מזוהה... ההחלטה פותחת: "1. החלטותי ניתנות בדרך ובאופן שאני סבור שמותר לי לנקוט בהם".
Following is the request for duly signed and certified copies of Judge Shlomit Ben-Yizhak's "Post-it Decisions.
Tel-Aviv
Magistrate Court
Rakefet
Russak-Aminoach v
Amnon Porat
64434-11-16
Requester:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human
Rights Alert - NGO
PO
Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Email:
joseph.zernik
Fax:
077-3179186
Request
for duly signed and certified copies of Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak
“Post-it Decisions” on requests to inspect instant court
file
I,
Requester of Inspection in instant court file, file herein request
for a duly signed and certified copies of two (2) Judge Shlomit
Ben-Yitzhak “Post-it Decisions” on requests to inspect instant
court file, referenced below:
A.
Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak’s “Post-it Decisions” on the
requests to inspect in instant court file would not be deemed by a
reasonable person authentic, valid court records .
-
In response on the original request to inspect a lawfully made and entered record of 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, Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak issued the December 05, 2016, “Post-it Decision”.The December 05, 2016 “Post-it Decision”:(a) Fails to show any sign of authenticity - is unsigned, uncertified, has never been 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).(b) Such “Post-it Decision” says (Figure 1):
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 December 05
“Post-it Decision” fails
to say anything regarding the existence, or nonexistence of sealing
or prohibition of publication decree regarding the entire court file.
In a similar situation,
withholding of
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]
-
In response on the repeat 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, Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak issued the December 08, 2016, “Post-it Decision”.The December 08, 2016 “Post-it Decision”:(a) Fails to show any sign of authenticity - is unsigned, uncertified, has never been 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).(b) Such “Post-it Decision” says (Figure 2)The repeat request is unclear, and the claim in paragraph (d) on page 2 is unclear as well. My previous decision stands as it is.
Figure 2: Rakefet Russak-Aminoach v Amnon Porat (64434-11-16) - Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak December 05, 2016 “Post-it Decision”.
_____
Such
“Post-it Decision” again
fails to address the request
to inspect, which pertains
to inspection of
any record, which is the legal foundation for withholding
the data regarding instant court file from the Index of All Cases.
-
For all the reasons above, a reasonable person (except for Israeli judges and attorneys) would not deem such “Post-it Decisions” a valid and authentic court records. On the contrary, a reasonable person would deem such “Post-it Decisions” invalid, simulated court record, part of Fraud Upon the Court by Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak.
-
Moreover, a reasonable person would deem Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak’s responses on the Requests to Inspect tacit admission that there is no lawful sealing of instant court file, and that withholding it from the Index of All Cases is perpetrated unlawfully, as described in the attached publication:
2016-12-07
Judge Ben Yitzhak is having problems explaining her conduct re: Bank
CEO Rakefet [2]
B.
Duly signed and certified copies are requested for filing with
international forums
-
The requests and decisions, pertaining to inspection of instant court file, were intended for filing with international forums. Therefore, I herein request that Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak order the Office of the Clerk to provide me by mail copies of the above referenced “Post-it Decisions”, which would be deemed admissible by international forums pursuant to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961). Namely – duly signed by Judge Shlomit Ben-Yitzhak and duly certified by a lawfully appointed Chief Clerk, or the Magistrate of the Court.
-
Certification by a duly appointed Chief Clerk:(a) The Regulations of the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004, Regulation 6a, says:
The
Chief Clerks of the courts are authorized certify that a copy of a
court record is true copy of the original in the court file.
-
Certification by the Magistrate of the Court:The Courts Act 1984, Article 105(a) says:
(b)
The
State Service Administration
publication
“Basic Principles in Employment of Senior Staff in the State
Service” (2004), [2]
pp 9-11, outlines
the various ways that lawful appointment in the State Service is
documented.
(c)
Administration of
Courts’ responses
on a Freedom of Information
requests, pertaining to the
“Chief Clerks” of the various courts have so far failed to
generate any documentation of lawful appointment of any “Chief
Clerk”.
Therefore,
insofar as the requested certification is signed by the
“Chief
Clerk” of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, I herein request that it
be accompanied by documentation of lawful appointment of that person
as “Chief Clerk”.
105(a)
The Magistrate of the Court of the Supreme Court, the District Court,
and the Magistrate Court shall serve in any authority that was vested
in the Chief Clerk of the respective court, and perform any duty
assigned to the Chief Clerk.
-
Forgery of certification by lawfully unauthorized persons:The Court is explicitly requested that the certification not be signed by an unauthorized person, such as “The Judge’s secretary”. In a competent court, the certification of court records by lawfully unauthorized persons would be deemed forgery.
-
Certification language:(a) The certification language should be that, which is explicitly provided in the above referenced Regulation, “True Copy of the Original”.(b) The Court is explicitly requested to avoid the use of perverted certification language, such as, “Copying is True to the Original”.
-
Name and authority of the certifier:(a) The name and authority of the certifier should appear on the face of the record.(b) The Court is explicitly requested to avoid the certification by an unauthorized person “on behalf” of the Chief Clerk or the Magistrate of the Court. The latter court officers are not permitted by law to delegate their authority to certify court records.
Therefore,
in case there is no lawfully appointed Chief Clerk in the Tel-Aviv
Magistrate Court, the “Post-it Decision” records may be duly
certified by the Magistrate of the Court.
C.
Refusal to provide duly signed and certified, and/or providing
perverted court records
-
As stated above, the duly signed and certified copies of the above referenced “Post-it Decisions” are requested in order to duly issue of Apostilles in compliance with the Regulations for Execution of the Hague Apostille Convention (1977) and Guidelines of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the Convention, for their filing outside the State of Israel.
-
Therefore, refusal of the Court to provide duly signed and certified copies of the “Post-it Decisions”, referenced above, or providing perverted and/or forged court records, are likely to be deemed additional evidence of Fraud Upon the Court by Judge Shlomit Ben Yitzhak in instant court file.In accordance with the fundamentals of law and justice, a competent Court should provide duly signed and certified copies of its own decisions.
Today,
December 12, 2016 ______________
Joseph
Zernik, PhD – Requester of Inspection
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.
קישורים
[1] סודיות תביעה אזרחית נגד שרון סטון מעלה חששות. לוס אנג’לס טיימס
תומכי פומביות הדיון נזעקים לאחר ששופט הסכים להעלים כל עניין לגבי התיק – כולל עצם קיומו -המעלה את האפשרות של קיום תיקים סודיים אחרים.
[2] 2016-12-07 השופטת שלומית בן יצחק מתקשה להסביר את התנהלותה בעניין רקפת... 
No comments:
Post a Comment