Roman Zadorov, a Ukrainian citizen, is held by the Israeli authorities, purportedly serving a life sentence, after purportedly being convicted in the murder of Tair Rada. However, no valid records of Verdict and Conviction are to be found... Attorney Avigdor Feldman, then his counsel in an appeal before the Supreme Court, wrote that Zadorov's judgment records were lost in the wailing wind across the Jezreel valley...
The fraud is based on publishing invalid electronic records, while denying access to valid records. Judge Yitzhak Cohen was compromised and vulnerable to extortion, after complaints of sex crimes were filed against him. Police and the State Prosecution were eager to frame Roman Zadorov for murder. And Judge Cohen, in collusion with Judges Esther Hellman and Haim Galpaz, appeased them by fabricating a sham/simulated trial with no valid records. The State Prosecution claims that these are only "technical issues"...
Now, the Nazareth District Court and the Supreme Court engage in withholding the evidence of such donduct...
Conduct of the Supreme Court and the Nazareth District Court regarding attempts to inspect the court records in itself shows patent violations of the right for Due Process and Fair and Public Hearing.
The Roman Zadorov affair is a mirror image of the Mendel Baillis affair in the Ukraine a century ago. Both there and here, judges are the crux of the corruption!
View in blog English version: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/07/2016-07-28-jumble-in-zadorov-file.html
____
OccupyTLV, July 28 - two Notices of Inspection were filed today with the Supreme Court in court files pertaining to Roman Zadorov.
The Supreme Court and the Nazareth District Court deny access to the records through conduct that in itself documents patent violations of the rights for Due Process and Fair and Public Hearing.
a. Notice of Inspection in the electronic data in Zernik v Zadorov and State of Israel (4650/16) [1]
The Notice of Inspection pertains to the names and autority of those who entered the false data in the Supreme Court's IT system in this court file.
Strange things are taking place in this appeal court file. First it was listed "Closed", pursuant to "Judgment", while no judgment had been rendered.
These false data, regarding the file being "Closed", and the manner of closing "Judgment following review", was corrected following inquiry with the Chief Clerk.
Other false data pertain to rejection from filing of a Request for Rendering a Judgment, under the reasoning "Judgment was rendered".
These false data have not been corrected, regardless of repeat inquiries with the Chief Clerk.
In the meanwhile, it appears that Justice Salim Joubran is in no hurry to rule on this appeal...
This appeal, now pending before the Supreme Court, originates in decision by Supreme Court Magistrate Gilad Lubinsky, which denied access to inspect the original trial court paper decision records under the reasoning of a "jumble" in the court file. [2] Magistrate Lubinsky decided that instead of inspection of the original, authentic court records, only inspection of unsigned, electronic display renditions would be permitted.
The law in this matter is clear. The Regulations say that:
Every person is permitted to inspect decisions that are not lawfully prohibited for publication.Judgment in petition of the Association for Civil Right in Israel v Minister of Justice further spells out that there is no requirement even to file a request in order to inspect unsealed decisions. Moreover, the Judgment includes numerous lofty statements, such as that the right to inspect is:
A fundamental principle in any democratic regime... constitutional, super-statutory...The appeal claims that the reasoning of “a jumble" in the court file is feeble and perplexing as an excuse for denying a constitutional right. Moreover, such reasoning raises serious concerns regarding competence of the Supreme Court, which purportedly conducted for 5 years an appeal from such court file, and at the time of filing the request to inspect, was ready to rule on a pending request for a new hearing by an expanded panel...
The appeal further claims that Magistrate Lubinsky's conduct amounts to withholding of evidence of serious fraud upon the court – through the conduct of sham/simulated trial - in the Nazareth District Court by Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz.
Such fraud is not uncommon in the Israeli courts in recent years:
The appeal also notes that conduct of Supreme Court Magistrate Lubinsky, who denied access to the original, authentic court records, and permitted only access to unsigned, electronic display renditions instead, is considered by fraud experts - “Shell Game Fraud”, or “Confidence Trick”.
b. Notice of Inspection in State Prosecution responses on request to inspect the original decision records in the paper court file of the Nazareth District Court - State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - now held by the Supreme Court under the appeal court file - Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10). [3]
This notice of inspection pertains to the responses, which were filed by the State Prosecution's attorney Tamar Borenstein, on requests to inspect the original decision records in the paper court file. Service of opposing party response on the requester is a fundamental of Due Process. However, both the State Prosecution and the Supreme Court refuse to this date to duly serve the State Prosecution's responses. The Office of the Clerk also denied access to inspect the responses during a previous visit to the Supreme Court...
One may guess that the refusal to permit inspection of the State Prosecution's responses results from the fact that Attorney Tamar Borenstein's responses are of similar conspiratorial nature, to those which were filed by the State Prosecution attorney Shila Inbar in the Nazareth District Court...
Events in the Nazareth District Court were surprisingly similar. The Court provided access to invalid electronic records, but Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham denied access to the electronic signature (evidently missing) data, which would show whether the records are authentic, or only “drafts”. There too, Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham conducted secret consultation with the State Prosecution in this matter...
Figure 2: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - the secret January 26, 2016 filing by North District Attorney Office - Attorney Shila Inbar - on request to inspect the paper decision records (original records ) in this case.
Such fraud is not uncommon in the Israeli courts in recent years:
- The appeal notes that similar fraud was documented in an electronic court file by Ombudsman of the Judiciary in Judge Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal. Moreover, the Ombudsman's decision documented that Judge Alshech's conduct was not unique at all, and is common among judges today.
- The appeal provides evidence of similar fraud, which was documented during inspection of the paper court file in the case of Rafi Rotem v Baram and State of Israel. The case originated in the Tax Authority corruption scandal. Regarding conduct of the courts relative to Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem media reported "The courts have been abusing a justice crusader for over a decade". And Supreme Court Justice Mazuz, then former Attorney General, expressed his disappointment with conduct of the courts in the Tax Authority scandal as well...
The appeal also notes that conduct of Supreme Court Magistrate Lubinsky, who denied access to the original, authentic court records, and permitted only access to unsigned, electronic display renditions instead, is considered by fraud experts - “Shell Game Fraud”, or “Confidence Trick”.
b. Notice of Inspection in State Prosecution responses on request to inspect the original decision records in the paper court file of the Nazareth District Court - State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - now held by the Supreme Court under the appeal court file - Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10). [3]
This notice of inspection pertains to the responses, which were filed by the State Prosecution's attorney Tamar Borenstein, on requests to inspect the original decision records in the paper court file. Service of opposing party response on the requester is a fundamental of Due Process. However, both the State Prosecution and the Supreme Court refuse to this date to duly serve the State Prosecution's responses. The Office of the Clerk also denied access to inspect the responses during a previous visit to the Supreme Court...
One may guess that the refusal to permit inspection of the State Prosecution's responses results from the fact that Attorney Tamar Borenstein's responses are of similar conspiratorial nature, to those which were filed by the State Prosecution attorney Shila Inbar in the Nazareth District Court...
Events in the Nazareth District Court were surprisingly similar. The Court provided access to invalid electronic records, but Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham denied access to the electronic signature (evidently missing) data, which would show whether the records are authentic, or only “drafts”. There too, Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham conducted secret consultation with the State Prosecution in this matter...
____
Attorney Shila Inbar's secret filing in the Nazareth District Court in part says:The nature of the requests is unclear, and it appears that their purpose is to establish conspiracy theories pertaining to instant court file and/or the justice system in general... The Requester is trying to abuse the term "Right to Inspect"... The Requester has not been appointed Ombudsman of the Courts yet...
Furthermore, North District Attorney Mirit Stern denied a request to be duly served Attorney Shila Inbar's response under false claim that the request was for inspection of "investigation materials"...
Figure 3: February 21, 2016 response by North District Attorney Mirit Stern on request to duly serve the January 26, 2016 response by North District Attorney Office - Attorney Shila Inbar - on Pro-forma request to inspect the paper court decisions (original records) in State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court. Attorney Stern refused to duly serve the January 26, 2016 response under false pretense, that the request was for inspection of "investigation materials". The false response was the foundation for a complaint against Attorney Mirit Stern, filed with Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Hila Gerstel.
_____
Figure 4: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - Judge Avraham January 25, 2016 Decision on Request to Inspect paper decision records (original records). The Request was conducted in patent violation of the law, which permits inspection in previously published decision with no request process at all, and does not provide the judges any discretion to adjudicate the matter.
____
Attorney Shila Inbar's secret filing in the Nazareth District Court also approves of Judge Avraham's previous decision to deny access in Request No 120.
Request No 120 pertained to attempt to exercise the right to inspect "lawfully made arrest warrant" and "lawfully made judgment docket". Judge Avraham's Decision says:Attorney Shila Inbar's secret filing in the Nazareth District Court also approves of Judge Avraham's previous decision to deny access in Request No 120.
... these are not requests to inspect, but an investigation by the Requester of the validity and operations of Net-HaMishpat system and various other claims relative to conduct of the judicial panel in instant court file. In such matters, this Court shall not engage...
Incredibly, all the fundamentals of valid court trial are missing in this case...
The relationships between the court and the State Prosecution, both in Nazareth and in the Supreme Court show close collusion, but raise questions as to who controls the situation: The judges, or the prosecutors...
The relationships between the court and the State Prosecution, both in Nazareth and in the Supreme Court show close collusion, but raise questions as to who controls the situation: The judges, or the prosecutors...
Regardless of conduct of the Nazareth District Court and the Supreme Court, the evidence which has so far been discovered shows that Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman and Haim Galpaz conducted a sham/simulated trial on Roman Zadorov in the Nazareth District Court.
Complaint was filed with the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and was joined by Roman Zadorov's wife Olga Grishaev. [4,5] The complaint concludes:
- Roman Zadorov is arbitrarily detained by the Israeli Prison Service - with no lawfully made Arrest Decree.
- Roman Zadorov's trial by the Nazareth District Court should be deemed sham/simulated process -- deprivation of Due Process and Fair and Public Hearing -- which ended with neither lawful Verdict nor Sentencing record.
- Roman Zadorov's appeal in the Israeli Supreme Court should be deemed lacking in authority and validity from start to end -- originating with no valid judgment records of the lower court, conducted with no valid records of the hearings, and where all decisions records are of dubious validity.
- Roman Zadorov's detention by the Israeli authorities allegedly violates articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, originates in Discrimination based on Nationality, Language, and/or Religion, and in inadvertent political reasons.
- Roman Zadorov's case reflects widespread incompetence and/or corruption of the Israeli justice system, including its highest echelons, to a level that would be recognized in criminology as "Organized State Crime".
The Roman Zadorov case in Israel is a mirror image of the Mendel Beilis affair in the Ukraine a century ago... [6]
LINKS
[1]
[2] 2016-06-09 Joseph Zernik v Roman Zadorov and State of Israel (4650/16) in the Supreme Court – appeal of Magistrate decision
יוסף צרניק נ רומן זדורוב ומדינת ישראל (4650/16) ערעור על החלטת רשם מיום 09 ליוני, 2016
[4] 2016-07-11 In RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian citizen detained in Israel - complaint and request for investigation by the UN HRC Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
[5] 2016-07-14 Supplemental letter - Ms Olga Grishaev joins the complaint
[6] 2016-07-12 ROMAN ZADOROV - the Israeli Mendel Beilis
