Amona
and the Arlozorov Camp: Fraud and fabrications by Judge Eliyahu
Bachar, City of Tel-Aviv and others
In
Amona, Jewish
settlement
in Palestine,
the government showered NIS 150 m on forty families, and Attorney
General Mandelblit bent over backwards to fabricate legality of land
grabs and illegal construction. The camp in Alrozorov was built
pursuant to an agreement between the City of Tel-Aviv and the
protesters - as part of the eviction of the camp in Rothschild Ave in
2012. Now, the authorities offer the street-dwellers living in the
camp NIS 7,500 and try to enforce their eviction, which would end, as
one of them told me: "On the bench on the other side of the
street."
Also
in their attempts to evict the Arlozorov camp the authorities display
contempt of the law - Judge Eliyahu Bachar in collusion with the City
of Tel-Aviv, attorneys, "activist" Rotem and others
perpetrates Fraud Upon the Court - conduct of totally fabricated
court process and the publication of fabricated court records.
Such
conduct is explained by some
legal scholars, such as Prof Menachem Mautner, as “decrease in
formalism and increase in values”. However, other
“senior
legal scholars” have recently described the resulting conditions as
“total jungle in the courts”, where the judges act arbitrarily,
ignoring both the facts and the law…
From
the perspective of international observers, there is no doubt that
such conditions would be considered widespread incompetence and/or
corruption of the judges and
law enforcement in
Israel. \There
is one strange and striking difference between the
Amona
settlement
and
the Arlozorov Camp: In the Arlozorov Camp, the City of Tel-Aviv
wouldn’t
enforce the eviction on members of an Iraqi Muslim family, who are
not Israeli citizens. There is nothing new to
it. City of Tel-Aviv enforcement personnel have explained the
selective
and arbitrary enforcement by the fact that the Iraqis are “State
Persons” - a separate class, which is
above Israeli citizens and above the fabricated
law…
As
documented in the Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols”
scandal, the judges established in Israel a court system where judges
are permitted to perpetrate Fraud Upon the Court with no fear of the
law.
Until
we imprison some of the criminal judges, nothing will change!
READ
THE COMPLETE POST:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/12/2016-12-21-amona-v-occupytlv-fraud-and.html
Figure
1: Arbitrary and
selective enforcement - Protest tent in Volovelsky Garden: The signs
in front of the test protest judicial corruption - from fraud by
judges Hagai Brenner and Eitan Orenstein on self-immolated Moshe
Silman (to benefit the Social Security Administration), through fraud
by judges, including Daniel Beeri, on whistle-blower Rafi Rotem (to
cover up the Tax Authority corruption scandal), and ending with the
despicable fraud by judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and the
pretender Haim Galpaz on Roman Zadorov (to affect his false,
arbitrary arrest and prevent true investigation of Tair Rada's
murder). Judge Eliyahu Bachar is perpetrating Fraud Upon the
Court (to benefit the City of Tel-Aviv) in an attempt to evict the
camp.
_________
. 
Figure
2: Arbitrary
and selective enforcement - the Iraqi compound in Volovelsky
Garden: The Iraqi compound has been exempt from enforcement of
the fabricated law for ears. City enforcement staff explain
that the Iraqi family members, who are not Israeli citizens, are
"State Persons" - a class above Israeli citizens and above
the fabricated law...
____
. 
Figure
3:
Arbitrary
and selective enforcement - Amona: NIS 150 millions
for 40 families, and the Attorney General is bending over backwards
to fabricate legality of land grabs and illegal construction...
___
OccupyTLV,
December 20 – Request to Inspect Court File has been filed today in
the Tel-Aviv District Court in a petition by street dwellers from the
Arlozorov Camp. In parallel, demand was filed with the City of
Tel-Aviv to provide a duly signed and certified copy of a Judge
Eliyahu Bachar unsigned, uncertified “Post-it Decision” in the
same court file, which the City purports to be the legal foundation
for its actions. Together, the Request to Inspect and the demand
which was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv raise clear concerns that
Judge Eliyahu Bachar, City of Tel-Aviv and others engage in
perpetrating fraud under the pretense of court process, by
fabricating cour process and court records.
Fraud
Upon the Court has become an epidemic over the past decade. The best
known case is of course the Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated
Protocols” scandal. However, as stated in the Ombudsman of the
Judiciary decision in that case, Judge Varda Alshech’s conduct was
not unique at all, and is today routine in the court, following the
implementation of Net-HaMishpat IT system.
The
Arlozorov Camp street dwellers’ petition appears as a case that is
likely to feature in the upcoming Periodic Review of Human Rights in
Israel by the UN Human Rights Council, since the case shows a
combination of ingredients, pertaining to fundamental rights:
-
Denial of street dwellers’ right for a shelter (one cannot even talk about “housing” in this case);
-
Denial of the right to protest;
-
Incompetence and/or corruption of the Court in conducting totally fabricated court process;
-
Threats and extortion by the City of Tel-Aviv, based on fabricated court records;
-
Threats and extortion by the City of Tel-Aviv, in attempt to compel people to accept the authority of social worker “Yigal” with no foundation in the law;
-
Arbitrary and selective enforcement by the City of Tel-Aviv – only on Israeli citizens, but not on Iraqi citizens, who the City considers “State Persons”...
The
request to inspect in court file Russov
et al v City of Tel-Aviv et al
(18790-10-14)
in
the Tel-Aviv District Court
[1]
The
Request to Inspect attempts to discover fundamental records that
would make it possible to discern the foundations of Due Process and
conduct of a competent court in this court file. At present, it is
impossible to tell, who the parties are, what is the foundation for
their standing in the matter in this court file, who the “Counsel”
are, and what the foundation for their authority as such is, and what
the foundation is for the purported authority of the Court,
pertaining to persons who were not parties to the court process at
all, in matters that were not reviewed by the Court…
The
Request seeks:
a)
Any and all records that clarify, who the person are, who are
lawfully designated “Petitioners” in instant court file as of
November 24, 2016, how such persons were added or subtracted from the
“Petitioners” list in instant court file.
b)
Any and all records which clarify, who “Others
A”
are - persons who are not “Petitioners”, but are listed in the
“Binding List” - what their lawful standing is in instant court
file, and
what is the source of court authority pertaining to them in instant
court file, as
of November 24, 2016.
c) Any
and all records which clarify, who “Others
B”
are – persons who are street dwellers, live in the camp (“Garden
Dwellers”),
and
are
not “Petitioners”, and
are
not listed in the “Binding List” - what their lawful standing is
in instant court process, and what the foundation for the Court’s
authority is pertaining
to them, as
of November 24, 2016.
d)
Any and all records, which were duly entered in instant court file,
and which are Certificate of Counsel of any of those, who appeared as
“Counsel for Petitioners” in instant court file, including but
not limited to Hagai Kalai, Dalia Bin-Nun, and Yaniv Moyal, provided
to them by any person.
e)
Any
and all other
records
– such
as protocols or judicial decisions –
which were duly entered in instant court file, and which are the
foundation for the authority as
“Counsel for Petitioners” of
those, who appeared as “Counsel for Petitioners”
in instant court file, including but not limited to Hagai Kalai,
Dalia Bin-Nun, and Yaniv Moyal.
f) Any
and all records, which are the foundation for the authority of those,
who appeared as “Counsel for Petitioners” to represent Others A
and Others B.
g)
Any and all records, which show the date of filing
by Counsel and
the lawful entry by
the Office of the Clerk of
the
Request for Approval of “Outline
for Departure from Volovelsky Garden”.
h)
Data
of Judge Eliyahu Bachar’s electronic
signature pursuant
to the Electronic
Signature Act
(2001) on the November 24, 2016 “Post-it Decision”,
which was pasted
on the face of “Outline
for Departure from Volovelsky Garden”.
i)
Lawfully made and entered Judge Eliyahu Bachar’s Decision record,
which authorizes the
opening of a trust account by “Counsel for Petitioners”.
To
the degree that any of the requested records do not exist in instant
court file, the Court is requested to explicitly state so in its
decision on instant Request to Inspect.
The
Request to Inspect sums up:
Based
on all the above, it is obvious that the Requester of Inspection is
trying to clarify through the inspection perplexities and serious
concerns regarding instant court process:
(1)
Where persons, who were not and/or are not street dwellers living
in the
protest camp, were listed as Petitioners in a matter, where they have
no direct standing at all.
(2)
Where apparently Others A also participated – who
were
not Petitioners, but are on the “Binding List” - in an unclear
standing. It
is likely that also
among them there are persons who were not and/or are not street
dwellers and/or dwellers of the camp as of November 24, 2016.
(3)
Where the Court claims authority of the process in instant court file
on Others B, who are dwellers of the camp (Garden Dwellers), and are
not Petitioners and are not Others
A (on
the “Binding List”).
(4)
Where attorney appeared as “Counsel” - both for Petitioners and
for Others A, but the source of their authority as Counsel for either
Petitioners or Others A is
unclear.
(5)
Where an “activist” name “Rotem”, who says that his is
Attorney Dalia Bin-Nun’s son, participated
in
an unclear designation,
which appears central to perversion of court process in instant court
file.
(6)
Where attorneys purportedly consented (as
purported
“Counsel” for Petitioners and Others A)
to the “Outline”. That -
when the
attorneys, Petitioners, and Others A
all
benefit
from payments from the City of Tel-Aviv. Such
consent purportedly is the basis for the
deprivation of the fundamental rights of Others B (street
dwellers, who are
“Garden Dwellers”,
but are not Petitioners and are not on the “Binding List”).
(7)
Where the Court purportedly approved an “Outline”, which is
blatantly invalid and unreasonable as part of instant court process.
(8)
Where the “Outline” was purportedly approved by Judge Eliyahu
Bachar through a “Post-it Decision”, which is unsigned and
uncertified, and cannot possibly be deemed a valid, effectual and
enforceable court record – and the City of Tel-Aviv employs it for
exerting threats and extortion.
(9)
Where the
Court purportedly provided approval to “Counsel”, whose authority
is unclear, to establish a Trust Account for persons, whose standing
in this court process is unclear, based on an invalid “Outline”,
approved through an invalid “Post-it Decision”, and another
judicial decision, which could not be so far discovered in the court
file.
(10)
Where purported “Counsel”, Petitioners, Others A and others
purportedly provided their consent, and Judge Eliyahu Bachar
purportedly provided his approval to the deprivation of the right to
protest of another, or Others B – who are not part of this court
process – and a matter that was not part of this court process at
all.
(11)
Where the City of Tel-Aviv no engages in threats and extortion,
purportedly based on the “Post-it Decision”, in an effort to
coerce persons, who were not part of the court process, to consent to
treatment by a particular Social Worker, and retroactively become
part of instant court process.
Therefore,
serious concerns arise that the process and records in instant court
file fundamentally lack legal foundation, and reflect the conduct of
a blatantly incompetent court – such as described by “senior
legal scholars” as “total jungle in the courts”.
The
Request to Inspect states that the fact that an “Outline” was
filed (if it were filed) in court by agreement of attorneys does not
eliminate Judge Bachar’s duty to review, whether such agreement
among such purported “counsel”, falls within the boundaries of
the law, fairness, reason, and adequacy. In this regard, example was
provided from a case that was widely reported worldwide following the
2008 banking crisis. In a case in the US Court in New York, counsel
for the SEC and Bank of America appeared before a federal judge and
asked his approval for a “Settlement”. The case originated in
the unlawful taking by bank executives of USD 5.8 billions of
shareholders’ funds. The “Settlement” did not require the
executive to pay back a single cent to the shareholders, but required
the payment of a USD 33 million fine by the shareholders (victims of
the unlawful taking) to the SEC. Judge Jed Rakoff rejected the
“Settlement” and wrote:
When,
however, as in the case of a typical consent judgment, a ... agency
seeks to prospectively invoke the Court’s own... power... the
resolution has aspects of a judicial decree and the Court is
therefore obliged to review the proposal a little more closely, to
ascertain whether it is within the bounds of fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy…
The
Request to Inspect states that the Requester of Inspection is neither
an attorney, nor a legal scholar. However, his expertise in
analyzing fraud in the courts has been internationally recognized:
Over
the past decade I have gained expertise in analysis of IT systems and
data mining of the court in Israel and beyond:a)
Three
reports, which I filed with the UN Human Rights Council, were
incorporated in the Professional Staff Reports of the
Human Rights Council:
- Regarding the United States (2010), with the note: “Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California”;
- Regarding the State of Israel (2013) with the note: “Lack of integrity in the electronic records of the supreme court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel”, and
- Regarding the United States (2015) with the note: “HRA NGO recommended restoring the integrity of the IT systems of the courts, under accountability to the Congress, with the goal of making such systems as transparent as possible to the public at large.”
b) A textbook on "Machine Learning" cites my papers in academic periodicals in a paragraph which describes the application of data-mining to Human Rights research among "Notable uses", and summarized it as follows:
Data mining of government records - particularly records of the justice system (i.e., courts, prisons) - enables the discovery of systemic human rights violations in connection to generation and publication of invalid or fraudulent legal records by various government agencies.
c) In this area I also published research in periodical and international academic conferences, including the World Criminology Congress (2012).
d) In a highly ranked conference on e-government (European Conference on E-government – 2015) my research was published, subject to double peer review, titled: “Fraudulent new IT systems in the Israeli courts – unannounced regime change?”
Demand was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv for a duly signed and certified copy of Judge Eliyahu Bachar’s “Post-it Decision”. [2]
In parallel, demand was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv to obtain a duly signed and certified copy of the Judge Eliyahu Bachar November 24, 2016 “Post-it Decision” (Figure 4), which the City purports to enforce. The law requires the service of duly signed and certified court order for enforcement.
The fabrication of invalid court records for enforcement purposes is well-known worldwide for generations as a criminal method, which is known as “simulating court process”. That was also the foundation of criminal conduct by Judge Varda Alshech in the “Fabricated Protocols” scandal. However, Israeli judges and the Attorney General have introduced new and amazing standards – where judges are permitted to engage in Fraud Upon the Court without any
fear of the law.
Figure 4: Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv et al (18790-10-14) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – ridiculous fraud by Judge Eliyahu Bachar: Unsigned, uncertified “Post-it Decision”, which was emailed by City of Tel-Aviv as the legal foundation for its enforcement actions. The “Post-it Decision” purports to approve the “Outline”, where there is no way to discern, who the parties are, who were lawfully authorized as “Counsel”, and what is the foundation for the Court’s authority on person, who were not party to the court process at all, and/or had no standing in the matter reviewed in court. The “Post-it Decision” is one of the cardinal fraudulent features of Net-HaMishpat system.
____
The obvious concern is that Judge Eliyahu Bachar, City of Tel-Aviv and others engaged in perpetrating fraud and fabrications in the Court, following the style of Judge Varda Alshech...
The Demand, which was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv provides a collection of fabricated court records from various court files, which were used to defraud. The Demand, which was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv notes that the example, which is most similar to the situation in the Street Dwellers’ petition is the ridiculous fraud in Senior Magistrate Avi Cohen’s “Post-it Decision” in Attorney Hava Klein v Lori Shem Tov and Moti Leybel (Figure 5).
Figure
5:
Hava
Klein v Lori Shem Tov and Moti Leybel (621-02-16)
in
the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court – ridiculous fraud by Senior
Magistrate Avi Cohen. The
April
17, 2016 “Post-it Judgment” purported to award Attorney Hava
Klein NIS 800,000 – over 10-fold higher than Magistrate
Cohen’s
authority by law… The
Request to Inspect, which was filed with Judge Eliyahu Bachar today
notes that the fraud in this case is remarkably similar to the fraud
by Judge Eliyahu Bachar in the street dwellers’ petition under
Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv et al.
____
Already in the UN Human Rights Council Periodic Report on Human Rights in Israel (2013) it is noted that the “Post-it Decision” instrument is one of the remarkable fraudulent traits of Net-HaMishpat system. Such decisions are unsigned, and are not entered in the public docket.
Experience of recent years shows that the chances of obtaining a duly signed and certified copy of a “Post-it Decision” in an Israeli court are null.
LINKS:
[1]
2016-12-20 Alex Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv et al (18790-10-14) in the Tel-Aviv Court for Administrative Matters – Request (No 52) to Inspect Court File //
אלכס רוסוב ואח’ נ עיריית ת"א ואח’ (18790-10-14) בבית המשפט לעניינים מנהליים,ת"א – בקשה (מס’ 52) לעיון בתיק בית המשפט
[2]
2016-12-20 OccupyTLV: Notice to cease and desist and demand for a duly signed and certified copy of court decision - delivered to City of Tel-Aviv //
מאהל המחאה ת"א: הודעה לחדול מפעולות נגד המאהל ודרישה להעתק חתום ומאושר של החלטת בית המשפט – נמסרה לידי עיריית ת"א
No comments:
Post a Comment