המחאה נגד היועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט והונאה של השופט עודד מורנו בנט-המשפט: מסתיר את החתימות האלקטרוניות
"הונאת משחק הצדפות" הפכה לשגרה בנט-המשפט - מערכת המידע של בתי המשפט שהותקנה בשנת 2010. פרשת "הפרוטוקולים המפוברקים" של ורדה אלשייך בשנת 2011 הייתה רק קדימון...
דיון שהחל בבקשה של המשטרה להרחקתי מפתח-תקווה ("פרובוקטור") ומהמחאה נגד היועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט, הפך לדיון באי-כשירותו של בית המשפט, וההונאה השגרתית של השופט עודד מורנו - בהסתרת החתימות האלקטרוניות על פרוטוקולים והחלטות מבעלי הדין.
קראו את הפוסט השלם: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2017/02/2017-02-21.html
תמונות: כנופיית שלטון החוק: היועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט מאתרג את המושחתים בצמרת השלטונית, מפקד משטרת פ"ת ברק
מרדכי מדכא את המחאה הציבורית נגד היועמ"ש מנדלבליט והשחיתות השלטונית, והשופט עודד מורנו עוסק בהונאה על כס המשפט, לתת לכל המסכת צביון של חוקיות...
תמונה: מדינת ישראל נ צרניק (38086-02-17) - "טיוטה" של החלטה של השופט עודד מורנו על הרחקה למשך שבועיים מפתח-תקווה והמחאה נגד היועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט, המבוססת על "נספח סודי" שהגישה משטרת ישראל לשופט. ה"טיוטא" כאן היא תדפיס שהנפיקה הקלדנית מיד בתום הדיון. החלטת נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים בפרשת "הפרוטוקולים המפוברקים" של ורדה אלשייך מבהירה: א) "החתימה הגרפית" שמדביקה הקלדנית על המסמך חסרת כל תוקף. ב) החתימה האלקטרונית התקפה מוסתרת מפני בעלי הדין, באי כוחם, והציבור ואין ביכולתם לדעת אם המסמכים חתומים ותקפים, או בלתי חתומים וחסרי כל תוקף. ג) התדפיס המונפק על ידי הקלדנית מיד עם תום הדיון הוא "טיוטא" בלבד, בלתי חתום וחסר כל תוקף. השופט מורנו נשאל שוב ושוב במהלך הדיון, האם תינתן ל"חשוד" גישה לבדוק: האם הפרוטוקול וההחלטה מדיון זה חתומים כדין? השופט עודד מורנו נתן שלוש תשובות שונות וסותרות על שאלות חוזרות אלה, אך סירב לומר שתינתן ל"חשוד" הזכות לוודא שהשופט עודד מורנו אינו עוסק בהונאה...
OccupyTLV, February 21 - request for correction of draft protocol was filed with Judge Oded Moreno of the Petah-Tikva Magistrate Court.  The "draft" originated from a request by the Petah-Tikva Police for a restraining order, prohibiting me from entering the city of Petah Tikva and the protest against AG Avichai Mandelblit.
Immediately at the start of the hearing, I informed the court that it was incompetent and lacking in authority, since Judge Oded Moreno refused to answer: Would I be permitted to inspect his electronic signature data on the "protocol" and "decision" generated in such hearing? Absent access to the e-signature data, there is no way to ascertain, whether the records are merely "drafts", or valid and enforceable court records. Such conduct is known as "Shell Game Fraud"...
During the short hearing, Moreno provided three different and contradictory responses on the repeat question. However, he refused to state that a party in a case is permitted to know, whether the judge is perpetrating fraud upon the court.
The fraud in development, implementation and operation of Net-HaMishpat case management system was documeted in great detail in decision of the Ombudsman of the Judiciary in the Judge Varda Alshech "fabricated protocols" scandal.  Regardless, no corerective measures have been taken to this day...
All Israeli legal scholars, attorneys and judges purportedly fail to notice that in the transition to electronic court file management, Israeli courts were transformed into an electronic fraud machine...
Conduct of the Israeli courts today is patent violation of the right for Due Process and for Fair and Public Hearing.
 2017-02-21 State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17) – Notice of perverted protocol for the February 19, 2017 hearing, and request for its correction //
מדינת ישראל נ צרניק (38086-02-17) – הודעה על פרוטוקול משובש לדיון מיום 19 לפברואר, 2017, ובקשה לתיקונו
 2012-05-31 Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols” scandal – Israel Bar Association complaint and Ombudsman of the Judiciary May 31, 2012 decision (12/ 88 /Tel-Aviv District)
פרשת הפרוטוקולים המפוברקים של ורדה אלשייך – תלונת לשכת עורכי הדין והחלטת נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים (12/88/מחוזי תל-אביב)
Following is the complete request:
In the Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court
State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17)
Requester: “Suspect” Joseph Zernik, PhD
Notice of perverted protocol for the February 19, 2017 hearing, and request for its correction
“The Suspect”, Joseph Zernik, PhD, files herein a request for correction of the protocol, referenced above:
1. During the hearing I spoke loud and clear, used carefully phrased sentences, dictation pace. However, reading the protocol “draft”, which was hand-delivered to me, shows that the protocol is replete with errors to the point that my words are unintelligible. Therefore, I file herein the indicated correction [English version shows only the corrected text].
2. The filing of instant corrections does not constitute any admission of competence of this court or validity of the protocol and decision. As spelled out in the protocol itself – during the hearing I repeated three times my request that Judge Oded Morena state, whether I would be permitted access to inspect the electronic signature data on the protocol and decision. Judge Moreno answered my questions with three different and contradictory responses, but avoided stating that I would be permitted to inspect his electronic signature data, if it exists at all. Access to the electronic signature data was denied already in a previous hearing in this Court, regardless of repeat written requests and appearance in the office of the Chief Clerk in an effort to exercise the right to inspect.
3. Since I am denied the right to inspect Judge Oded Moreno’s signature on the protocol, I am denied the ability to distinguish, whether it is a duly signed, valid and enforceable court record, or an unsigned, invalid paper (“draft”, simulated court record). As stated in the protocol itself, such conduct is considered “shell game fraud”. Therefore, the request for correction is filed only to document, what transpired during the hearing in instant court file.
4. Additionally, inspection of the public records in Net-HaMishpat [case management system] shows that while the case is listed “Open to the Public” - unsealed – no decision or judgment was entered in the dockets. The maintenance of invalid dockets, or double-books for dockets, renders this Court patently incompetent court as well.
The Court, incompetent as it is, should correct the protocol, so that it faithfully reflect what transpired in the hearing, referenced above.
Date: February 21, 2017 __________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD - “The Suspect”
Pro Se - unrepresented
Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court
State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17) February 19, 2017
Police file 76801/2017
The Hon Judge Oded Moreno
Requester: State of Israel
Suspect: Joseph Zernik, ID 053625596
Counsel for Requester Attorney Commander Alex Weisbord
The Suspect was brought by the Prison Service.
The Court offers the Suspect representation by Public Defender Attorney Oren Shefkman.
I am unrepresented, I am not an attorney and I have no legal training. However, my expertise in related areas has been recognized by the international community. A report, which I filed, was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council report in the US in 2010, with the UN staff comment: “Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.” Another report was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council report on Israel in 2013, with UN staff comment: “Lack of integrity in the records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees’ courts in Israel”.
Conduct of the policemen, who detained me during a fully lawful protest, was blatant violation of fundamental rights.
Claims of the Police Prosecution [in Israel police prosecutes – jz] are false. Many people were present, as well as media, and it can be easily proven.
And this Court is patently incompetent: Two weeks ago I was brought to this Court as a “Suspect”. Hearing was conducted in my absence, an attorney appeared as my counsel without my knowledge and without my consent, with no certificate of counsel and with no statement on the record regarding representation. Later, I was hand-delivered a printout of a “draft” Court Protocol, where it said that I was present in the hearing, and that Attorney Daniel Hacklai was my counsel. Still later, the Judge issued decisions, which stated that I was kept out of the hearing for lack of room, and that Attorney Hacklai told her that he was my counsel. However, none of it appears in the Protocol.
The fundamental question is: Will this Court let me inspect the electronic signature data on today’s protocol and decision? We all know the Judge Varda Alshech “fabricated protocols” scandal, and we know that judges issue “fabricated” decisions in the courts, while parties, counsel and the public are not able to distinguish in Net-HaMishpat [case management system of the court – jz] between duly signed, valid court records and unsigned, invalid “drafts”. The Judge in the previous hearing denied my access to inspect her signatures, and that renders this Court patently incompetent.
Will I be permitted to inspect the electronic signature on the protocol and decision from today’s hearing? If not, how do you explain that as a competent court?
The decision on this question will appear in the protocol.
Counsel for the Requester is placed under oath:
I repeat my request. I file herein a secret appendix. Filed and marked BM/1.
I file the investigation file for the Court’s review.
I refer the Court to the Protocol of the previous hearing on January 11, 2017. Since that hearing, leading representatives of the protest have reached through negotiation with police regarding ongoing protest an agreement on the location, which balances the right of the participant to protest and the right of the residents for quiet and privacy. In contrast with such agreements, the Suspect proceeded as it appears, while creating noise, into the heart of a residential neighborhood, and after being asked by police for about 10 minutes to return to the location of the protest, he refused, and therefore he had to be detained.
I repeat my question: Is this a competent Court? Will I be permitted to inspect the electronic signature data on the protocol and decision from today’s hearing? If not, from my perspective this Court is incompetent, and I will not address the claims of the Prosecution.
The Suspect may file a separate motion in this matter. I have no intention to address this issue in today’s court hearing.
I again ask: Will I be permitted to inspect the electronic signature data on today’s protocol and decision? Hiding the signatures on court records from parties in a case is fraud, of the type which is known as “Shell Game Fraud”.
The Suspect may review the law on this matter.
The law is clear on this matter: It is the right of a party to inspect the decision records in his matter.
At bar is a request to release the Suspect under restraining condition, after he was detained on February 19, 2017 on suspicion of committing interference with a policeman performance of duties, and making noise or disturbing the rest.
In the background, it should be noted that that the matter pertains to a Suspect, who appears before the Court after he demonstrated in front of Attorney General Dr Avichai Mandelblit’s home in the past as well.
Review of the investigation file shows a reasonable suspicion, but no cause for detention. In this matter I refer to records marked BM/1 to BM/4.
The request for the Suspect’s release under restraining conditions was brought before this Court after the Suspect refused to sign it in the Police Station and to cooperate. The requested conditions are restraining from appearance in the City of Petah-Tikva for only 14 days. Such conditions are more than measured under the circumstances, and the Court herein gives it the power of a decision, under which the Suspect shall be released.
Rendered and noticed today, February 19, 2017 in the presence of those listed present.
[pasted “graphic signature”]
Oded Moreno, Judge