b.
Figures:
a. Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24 and January 25, 2016, fabricated
“Decision” records, pertaining to inspection of electronic
signature
data of Zadorov's “Verdict” and “Sentencing” records, and
inspection of Zadorov's Arrest Warrant and Judgment Index (if they
exist at all), were never duly entered in the “Decisions Docket”
in Net-HaMishpat – a cardinal sign of “Decision” records, on
which the electronic signature application in Net-HaMishpat has never
been executed. b.
Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's
fabricated
January 24, 2016 “Decision” record, which was never duly entered
in the “Decisions Docket”, and which was faxed with no
Certificate of Service (authentication) – a cardinal sign of a
record, on which the due service application in Net-HaMishpat has
never been executed. Content of the “Decision” record is
misleading and stands contrary to the law – effectively denying
inspection of the electronic signature data of the “Verdict” and
“Sentencing” records (if they exist at all).
________
The
request to inspect the electronic signature data (if they exist at
all) Zadorov's “Verdict” and “Sentencing” record was served
yesterday morning. By the afternoon,
Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's perverted
and
misleading “Decision” record was received by fax.
Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record is
invalid and misleading on its face:
• Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record fails to appear in the “Decisions Docket”
in Zadorov's file in Net-HaMishpat – a cardinal sign of a decision
records on which the electronic signature application
in Net-HaMishpat
has never been duly executed.
• Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record was
transmitted with no Certificate of Service (authentication) – a
cardinal sign of a decision record, on which the service application
in Net-HaMishpat has never been duly executed.
Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record is
misleading in its content:
• Judge
Avraham never decided on the inspection of the electronic signature
data in Zadorov's court file. The words “electronic signatures”
never appear in the decision record at all.
• Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record says
in its first part: “As far as the Requester asks to inspect a court
file, he shall appear in the Office of the Clerk, where he shall be
instructed how to act in order to gain inspection”. The Requester
had appeared in the Office of the Clerk on January 19, 2016, and
discussed the matter with Head of the Criminal Division. It had been
made absolutely clear that no access to the electronic signature data
would be permitted without explicit decision of the Court.
• Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record says
in its second and fiinal part: “As far as the Requester has
grievances pertaining to Net-HaMishpat system, I refer him to the
Legal Department of the Administration of Courts.” The Requester
filed a request to inspect, and not “grievances pertaining to
Net-HaMishpat system”. The Legal Department of the Administration
of Courts is not an authority for deciding a request to inspect. The
Court is the correct authority in such matter.
Therefore,
Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record should
be deemed false, invalid record, which misleads the Requester, and
attempt to engage the Requester in futile efforts.
The
need to request inspection of the electronic signature data arose,
since in Net-HaMishpat, the judges implemented invisible electronic
signatures - “The Emperor's New Clothes”... Following the
enactment of the Electronic
Signature Act (2001)
and the transition to electronic administration of court files in
Net-HaMishpat (circa 2009-2010), the electronic signatures became
authoritative. With it, Decision of the Ombudsman of the Judiciary
in Judge Varda AlSheikh's “Reconstructed Protocol” affair
documented in detail fraud methods, through which judges issue in
Net-HaMishpat judicial records, which are not signed at all, but
parties, their counsel, and the public cannot discern such fact.
Such records are considered by the judges “drafts”. However,
their publication and transmission to parties as valid court records
should be deemed publication
of simulated court records and obstruction of justice – serious
criminal conduct.
Following
the receipt of Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record, request
for rendering due decision on request (No 119) to inspect electronic
signature data was filed on January 25, 2016. The January 25, 2016
request detailed the defects in Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's January 24, 2016
“Decision” record, and
asked for the issuance and entry of a valid and effectual decision
record on the request to inspect electronic signature data.
C.
Request to inspect duly made “Arrest Warrant” and “Judgment
Index”
Figure:
One of the striking perversions in the Zadorov court file is the
failure to enter the September 14, 2010 “Verdict” and
“Sentencing” records, which purportedly were the foundation for a
5-year long appeal in the Israeli Supreme Court...
_____
Inspection
of the duly made “Arrest Warrant” and “Judgment Index” had
been requested already in the original December 27, 2015 request to
inspect in Zadorov's court file. However, Judge Esther Hellman's
January 12, 2016 fabricated “Decision” record (which, among other
fraudulent features, was produced on a fake letterhead, failing to
show the name of the Nazareth District Court in its masthead) failed
to refer to such records at all.
•
Arrest
Warrant:
Israeli law, like the law in other civilized nations, says that no
person shall be admitted to prison without a duly made
arrest/detention warrant. Therefore, the question begs to be asked:
Based on what record is Roman Zadorov held today in prison?
•
Judgment
Index:
Valid
and reliable entry of judgments is a fundamental characteristic of
honest and competent courts since the late middle ages... A court
where there is no registry of judgments would not doubt be deemed an
incompetent or corrupt court. In contrast, in the Zadorov court file
there is no entry in the Judgment Index of the September 14, 2010
“Verdict” and “Sentencing” records. And the evidence clearly
shows that such records were never valid and effectual court records,
but only simulated court records – fraud upon the court, upon the
Defendant and upon the public at large.
It
should also be noted that Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham has
failed to respond to repeat requests over recent months to clarify
the procedures for entry and registration of judgments in the
Nazareth District Court.
Such
requests said in part:
a.
Who lawfully holds the authority and the duty to register judgments
of the Nazareth District Court under the “Judgments” tab in
Net-HaMishpat?
b.
Does the registration of a court record as a
“Judgment”,
“Verdict” and/or “Sentencing” under the “Judgments”
tab in Net-HaMishpat say that it is indeed a lawfully
valid and effectual judgment in the respective court file?
c.
Does the lack of registration of a court record as a “Judgment”,
“Verdict” and/or “Sentencing” under the “Judgments” tab
in Net-HaMishpat say that it is NOT indeed a lawfully valid and
effectual judgment in the respective court file?
Vagueness
and ambiguity regarding the lawful
existence, validity and effect of judgments in any court, and in
particular judgments pertaining to conviction and life imprisonment
in a murder case, would no doubt raise serious
concerns regarding competence
of the respective court and the
safeguard
of fundamental
Human Rights.
In
contrast, today Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham has
swiftly answered on a request filed this morning to inspect Zadorov's
Arrest Warrant and Judgment Index. Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham has
again issued a perverted “Decision” record, which fails to appear
in the “Decisions Docket” and which was transmitted by fax with
no Certificate of Service (authentication) – in total disregard of
the Request
for Due Process, which was also filed earlier this morning.
Figure:
Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's
fabricated
January 25,
2016 “Decision” record, which was never duly entered in the
“Decisions Docket” - a
cardinal sign of a record, on which the electronic signature
application in Net-HaMishpat had never been executed,
and which was faxed with no Certificate of Service (authentication) –
a cardinal sign of a record, on which the due service application in
Net-HaMishpat had
never been executed. Content of the “Decision” record is
misleading and stands contrary to the law, with
dire implications for Civil and Human rights in Israel -
denying
public access to inspect court judgments and arrest warrants in
criminal prosecution court files.
__________
In
today's fabricated “Decision” record, pertaining to the request
to inspect Zadorov's Arrest Warrant and Judgment Index entries (if
they exist at all), Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham
says:
The
Requester again files requests, whose subject, purportedly, is
inspection of court records, but these are not requests to inspect
court records, but investigation, which the Requester is conducting
regarding validity of the operation of Net-HaMishpat system, and a
long list of grievances regarding conduct of the judicial panel in
instant court file. In
such matters
this Court shall not engage...
Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham
leaves
no room for a doubt that inspection of the requested records, or
knowledge of their nonexistence
would provide additional evidence regarding the fraud in conduct of
Judges Cohen, Hellman and Galpaz. However, Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham
fails
to clarify a simple, central issue: What is the foundation in the law
to his determination that such requests to inspect court records “are
not requests to inspect court record”?
Presiding
Judge Avraham Avraham's
statement, “In
such matters
this Court shall not engage...” is
at least perplexing. The public's right to inspect court records has
long been recognized as aimed at enabling
the public “to keep as watchful eye on
the workings of public agencies”.
[]
Obviously, through his own criminal conduct, Judge Avraham Avraham
is engaged in obstructing discovery of additional evidence of the
criminality of Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz.
Serious
implications of the Roman Zadorov case and conduct of the Nazareth
District Court judge regarding Human Rights and the nature of regime
in Israel.
Following
several weeks, during which Judge Esther Hellman engaged in the
issuance of simulated court records and fraud in addressing requests
to inspect the Zadorov court file, somehow Presiding Judge Avraham
Avraham has now decided to enter the matter himself. However, there
is no document of re-assignment of the case to Presiding Judge
Avraham, or any explanation for his taking over of the case.
Consequently,
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham has issued over the past couple of
days two fabricated “Decision” records, where he unlawfully
denied the right to inspect judicial decisions – a right prescribed
by law to “any person”, and a right, which the Israeli Supreme
Court declared, “a fundamental principle of a democratic regime”,
and “a constitutional, supra-statutory right”. Absent the right
to inspect judgment and arrest warrant records, there is no way for
the public to safeguard against arbitrary and capricious, tyrannical
imprisonment of persons by State agencies.
Therefore,
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham is engaged
in bullying, criminal and cheeky conduct in
the Zadorov case.
However,
the evidence already discovered, makes it absolutely clear: Judges
Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz engaged in perversion
of court records, obstruction of justice, and conduct of simulated
court trial in the case of Roman Zadorov. Their intention was to
mislead the Defendant and the public that Zadorov was duly convicted
in the murder of Tair Rada, and that he was duly sentenced to life in
prison. However, lawfully executed “Verdict” and “Sentencing”
records were never executed by the Court and never entered in this
court file.
The
outcome of such criminality is the long-term, false imprisonment of
an innocent person.
The
findings also again document
the fundamental fraud in development and operation of Net-HaMishpat –
the new case management system of the Israeli courts. Previous
publication of the findings in this case has prompted unprecedented
support messages from computer science and linguistics professor Uzzi
Ornan and from notable criminal defense attorney Avigdor Feldman.
Conduct
of Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, Haim Galpaz – and now also
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham – should be deemed fraud,
perversion of court records, obstruction of justice, and breach of
loyalty.
Conduct
of the Nazareth District Court shows contempt of Basic
Law: Human Dignity and Liberty
and contempt of fundamental Human Rights. Conduct of Judges of the
Nazareth District Court is typical of courts of police states and
dark regimes.
LINKS
TO RECENT COURT RECORDS:
Below
READ
MORE:
[1] 2016-01-20 ZADOROV
AFFAIR: Crooks of the Nazareth District Court //
[2]
2016-01-21 ISRAEL: Prof Uzzi Ornan's response, re: Crooked judges //
[3]
2016-10-21 Attorney Feldman's response, regarding Zadorov affair and
crooked judges
[4]
2016-01-25 ZADOROV Affair: Crooked judges of the Nazareth District
Court //
