Judge Oded Moreno refuses to decide on requets to inspect his decision to restrain me from entering Petah-Tikva, after he refused to answer on my right to inspect his signature during the hearing, and instructed me to file a separate request on the issue.
Read more: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2017/03/2017-03-02-repeat-urgent-pro-forma.html
Figure: Judge Oded Moreno, Petah-Tikva Magistrate Court.
In the Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court
State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17)
Requester: “Suspect” Joseph Zernik, PhD
Repeat urgent pro-forma request to inspect electronic signature data on February 19, 2017 hearing protocol
“The Suspect”, Joseph Zernik, PhD, files herein the request for inspection, referenced above:
1. Instant request was initially filed on February 23, 2017, but due to lack of clarity it is re-filed herein.
2. On the same day, Judge Oded Moreno issued a "post-it decision" (Figure 1) - unsigned, which fails to appear in the public docket, and has not been served to this date - which says: "See my decision today in the same matter". The other decision of the same day demanded that the "Suspect" file his requests with attached Police Prosecution responses.
3. During the hearing, referenced above, the "Suspect" repeated three times his request that Judge Oded Moreno clearly state: Will the "Suspect" be permitted to inspect the electronic signature data on the protocol and decision that would be generated in the hearing? Judge Moreno responded with three different and contradictory responses, but avoided stating that the "Suspect" would be permitted to inspect his electronic signature, if it existed at all. One of Judge Oded Moreno's responses was that the "Suspect" should file a separate request to inspec. Therefore, Request to Inspect (No 2) was filed on February 23, and therefore, it is re-filed today.
4. On March 01, 2017, Judge Oded Moreno issued another "post-it decision" (Figure 2) - unsigned, which fails to appear in the public docket, and has not been served to this date - which says: "The various requests, which the Requester filed are immaterial. Similarly, they fail to show any factual or legal claims, which may be reviewed and granted. The same applies to his request to correct the days detention hearing protocol [sic-jz], since the protocol correctly reflects that conduct of the court hearing and arguments made. In view of all the above – the Requester's requests are denied". However, such decision fails to explicitly address the Request to Inspect Electronic Signature Data (No 2). Moreover, the Request to Inspect makes simple and clear factual and legal claims.
תמונה מס' 1.
5. The "Suspect" has not received to this date the Police Prosecution's response on the Request to Inspect (No 2), regardless of his inquiries. Obviously, the "Suspect" is in no position to enforce anything on the Police Prosecution. Therefore, regardless of his wish, the "Suspect" is unable to file instant request with an attached Police Prosecution response.
6. Party's access to inspect decision records in his matter is provided in Regulations of the Courts-Inspection of Court Files (2003), and the Supreme Court declared the right to inspect - "a fundamental principle in any democratic regime… constitutional, supra-statutory…" (Supreme Court 2009 Judgment – Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice 5917/97).
7. The "Suspect's" access to inspect the electronic signatures on a decision, pertaining to me, was previously denied in this Court in State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17), even after filing repeat requests to inspect and appearing in the office of the Chief Clerk in attempt to exercise the right to inspect. 
8. As long as the "Suspect's" access is denied to inspect Judge Moreno's electronic signature on the above referenced protocol and decision, the "Suspect" is denied the right to ascertain, whether it is a duly signed, valid and enforceable court record, or an unsigned, invalid document ("draft"/sham/simulated court record). As explained in the protocol itself, such conduct is known as "Shell Game Fraud". Israeli judges are accustomed to such conduct today, and it is common in the Israeli courts, as documented in Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision in the Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal (88/12/Tel-Aviv District). 
Therefore, Judge Oded Moreno is herein requested to order the Office of the Clerk to provide the "Suspect" access to inspect the electronic signature data on the February 19, 2017 "Protocol" and "Decision" in instant court file.
The Court, incompetent as it is, should urgently render a decision on instant request.
Date: March 02, 2017 __________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD - “The Suspect”
Pro Se – unrepresented
 ] 2017-01-31 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17) ) in the Petah Tikvah Magistrate Court – Pro Forma Request (No 3) to inspect Judge Shalhevet Kamir-Wiess's electronic signature data on the January 29, 2017 "Protocol" and “Decision” records, if they exist at all //
מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17 בבית המשפט השלום פ"ת – בקשה (מס' 3) למען הסדר הטוב לעיון בנתוני החתימה האלקטרונית של השופטת שלהבת קמיר-וייס על "פרוטוקול" ו"החלטה" מיום 29 לינואר, 2017 בתיק זה, אם הם קיימים בכלל
 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)