The Roman Zadorov affair exposed the corrupt Israeli justice system in an unprecedented manner. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shay Nitzan insist on their right to pervert the affidavit of an expert witness in a murder trial. The Supreme Court perverts a petition on the same matter, and anti-corruption NGO Ometz and its counsel Yuval Yoaz purportedly fail to notice that they have become full partners in the perversions... The obvious question is: What is due ethical conduct of an attorney who appears before a kangaroo court? The justice system is the crux of government corruption in Israel today. And the Zadorov affair - a prime example of despicable judicial corruption.
Read the complete post: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2017/04/2017-04-13-roman-zadorov-affair-supreme.html
Figures: Roman Zadorov - the Ukrainian Mendel Beillis in Israel. The Jew Mendel Beillis was accused a century ago in the murder of a Ukrainian boy. Only following intense international pressure he was released from false arrest and false conviction. Even law professors openly expressed their protest. Prof Boaz Sangero wrote: "Conviction with no real evidence". Prof Mota Kremintzer wrote: "Conduct of the State Prosecution in the Zadorov case is scary"... "when you add to it the position of the Supreme Court and conduct of the Attorney General, we are left with a justice system that is primarily busy defending itself". Prof Daniel Friedman wrote: "It is impossible that the Attorney General would say, the State is me. He cannot determine what the law of the land is, to shut up the entire state, and not allow anybody to express his opinion".
________
Figures: Supreme Court Justices Noam Solberg, Neal Hendel and Yoram Danziger are now shamelessly perverting a petition process in the Supreme Court.
__________
Figures: Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shay Nitzan insist on their right to pervert the affidavit of an expert witness in a murder trial, if the State Prosecution find it useful for its purpose... In parallel, Mandelblit and Nitzan prevent the investigation of criminal complaints against police, prosecutors and judges for their conduct in State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court.
______
OccupyTLV, April 14 - repeat request to exercise inspection of court records in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law was filed yesterday in the Supreme court in Ometz v Attorney General and State Attorney (5514/16).
The request is part of ongoing efforts to establish whether the Supreme Court is engaged in perverting court process in the petition. Fraud in the Israeli courts through perversion of court records is a well-known phenomenon.
A. The Supreme Court has perverted decisions and responses on requests to inspect court records in Ometz v Attorney General and State Attorney - hiding the records, which most likely are not authentic court records.
The efforts commenced with two requests to inspect:
Figure: Part of the printout from an unidentified IT system, which was sent, likely as a substitute for a "duly made Notice to Appear in Court". Summonses and notices to appear in court are foundation records for the validity of court process.
______
Figure: The end of the ultimate page (No 13) of an unsigned printout, titled "Protocol", which was mailed, presumably as a substitute for a "duly made Hearing Protocol". Issuance of unsigned protocols was central to the fraud by Judge Varda Alshech in the "Fabricated Protocols" scandal.
______
In response on such request, Supreme Court Justices Danziger, Hendel and Soldberg issued again a decision, which substitutes lawful inspection with "mail service" of the requested records. However, the records, which were received by mail were not due service, and were not authentic court records at all. Instead of "duly made Decision and Decree" again, unsigned printouts were mailed from IT system of the Court.
Figure: Signature box of the February 19, 2017 "Decision" record, and signature box of the "Decree" record of the same date, as received by mail from the Supreme Court as purported inspection of court records.
_______
The records, which were subject of the requests to inspect are fundamental records in due process. Absent such duly made court records, the entire petition process should be deemed simulated court process, or serious Fraud Upon the Court by all participants.
The same matter was clarified in the Judge Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal and Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision in the case. Judge Alshech claimed that she did not pervert court records - since they were not signed - merely "drafts". Indeed, there was no forgery or perversion there. However, surely there was Fraud Upon the Court.
Moreover, in his decision, Ombudsman of the Judiciary cites an interesting argument by Judge Varda Alshech - the Supreme Court resorts to the same conduct on a routine basis... and the Ombudsman's response on such argument: "She finds support in high places"...
B. The right to inspect - "a fundamental principle in any democratic regime"... "constitutional, supra-statutory"
As usual, the Supreme Court is good at preaching, but does not follow its own preaching...
Regarding the right to inspect court records, the Supreme Court conducted for 12 years the petition Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice (5917/97). The petition ended with the 2009 Judgment by then Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinisch, which should be considered a public relations sermon regarding the right to inspect court records. In it Beinisch declares that the right to inspect court records is "a fundamental principle in any democratic regime"... "constitutional, supra-statutory". The Judgment also cites a long list of previous Supreme Court decisions, which declare the significance of the right to inspect court records for public trust in the court, for the perception of justice, etc, etc...
And yet, a series of attempts to inspect court records in the Supreme Court itself, particularly in the court files pertaining to the Roman Zadorov affair clearly document that the Supreme Court refuses to comply with the same lofty principles that it preached... It is also clear that the Supreme Court prevents access to court records in order to withhold evidence of judicial corruption.
C. What is due ethical conduct of an attorney who appears before a kangaroo court?
Figures: Attorney Yuval Yoaz and Ometz (an anti-corruption NGO) are the petitioners in this case, and purportedly represent truth and justice. However, the question must be raised: Does Attorney Yoaz fail to notice that he participates in a fabricated/simulated court process? Even if he previously failed to notice the fact, now, following the series of requests to inspect and the "service" of perverted court records in response, he must be aware of conduct of the Supreme Court in this case.
_____
Attorney Yuval Yoaz and Ometz (an anti-corruption NGO) are the petitioners in this case, and purportedly represent truth and justice. However, the question must be raised:
The fundamental question is:
D. The petition itself originates in a failed attempt by the State Prosecution to pervert the affidavit of expert witness Dr Chen Kugel, as part of a retaliation campaign again expert witness Dr Maya Forman, who showed that the prosecution against Roman Zadorov was based on false premises.
Figures: Two courageous physicians - Dr Maya Forman and Dr Hen Kugel provided truthful testimonies in the Roman Zadorov affair, and put pokes in the wheels of corrupt police, prosecution and judges... Health Minister Yael German (not an attorney) was named one of the Defendants in the Dr Maya Forman affair, and according to the legal theory of State Prosecutor Shay Nitzan and Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit was required to collude with the gang... Instead, German wrote regarding conduct of State Attorney Nitzan: "Is not right, and in my opinion lacking in legal foundation and carries overarching and dangerous consequences", ... serious violation of Human Rights, of fundamental principles, of law and justice, and there is no justification in the letters by the State Attorney and the Deputy Attorney General to justify such conduct".
_____
The matter in which the petition originates is particularly serious: Attempt by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shay Nitzan to establish in the Israeli courts a new commandment: Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor...
The State Prosecution tried, with support by the Attorney General, to pervert the affidavit of expert witness Dr Hen Kugel in the Roman Zadorov affair. That - after the State Prosecution provided by hearsay false and misleading information regarding Dr Kugel's opinion to the Nazareth District Court with no affidavit and no testimony at all... (and which the court adopted).
OccupyTLV, April 14 - repeat request to exercise inspection of court records in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law was filed yesterday in the Supreme court in Ometz v Attorney General and State Attorney (5514/16).
The request is part of ongoing efforts to establish whether the Supreme Court is engaged in perverting court process in the petition. Fraud in the Israeli courts through perversion of court records is a well-known phenomenon.
A. The Supreme Court has perverted decisions and responses on requests to inspect court records in Ometz v Attorney General and State Attorney - hiding the records, which most likely are not authentic court records.
The efforts commenced with two requests to inspect:
a) Request to inspect "duly made Notice to Appear in Court" and "duly made Hearing Protocol" pertaining to the February 14, 2017 court hearingIn response to the request, Supreme Court Justices Danziger, Hendel and Solberg issued a decision, which substitutes the inspection with "mail service" of the record ("to the degree that they exist"). However, the records, which were received by mail were not due service, and were not authentic court records. Instead of the "duly made Notice to Appear in Court" the Supreme Court mailed printout of an unidentified IT system, which is not a court record at all. Instead of a "duly made Hearing Protocol" - unsigned printout from IT system of the Supreme Court was mailed.
Figure: Part of the printout from an unidentified IT system, which was sent, likely as a substitute for a "duly made Notice to Appear in Court". Summonses and notices to appear in court are foundation records for the validity of court process.
______
Figure: The end of the ultimate page (No 13) of an unsigned printout, titled "Protocol", which was mailed, presumably as a substitute for a "duly made Hearing Protocol". Issuance of unsigned protocols was central to the fraud by Judge Varda Alshech in the "Fabricated Protocols" scandal.
______
b) "Pro-forma Request" to inspect "duly made February 19, 2017 Decision and Decree"The request was filed as a "pro-forma request" - since pursuant to Israeli law, "any person is permitted to inspect decisions that are not lawfully prohibited for publication". There is no requirement for filing a request for such inspection. However, experience of recent years shows that in practice, the Offices of the Clerks of the various courts deny access to inspect decisions and judgments that are not lawfully prohibited for publication, in patent disregard of the law.
In response on such request, Supreme Court Justices Danziger, Hendel and Soldberg issued again a decision, which substitutes lawful inspection with "mail service" of the requested records. However, the records, which were received by mail were not due service, and were not authentic court records at all. Instead of "duly made Decision and Decree" again, unsigned printouts were mailed from IT system of the Court.
Figure: Signature box of the February 19, 2017 "Decision" record, and signature box of the "Decree" record of the same date, as received by mail from the Supreme Court as purported inspection of court records.
_______
The records, which were subject of the requests to inspect are fundamental records in due process. Absent such duly made court records, the entire petition process should be deemed simulated court process, or serious Fraud Upon the Court by all participants.
The same matter was clarified in the Judge Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal and Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision in the case. Judge Alshech claimed that she did not pervert court records - since they were not signed - merely "drafts". Indeed, there was no forgery or perversion there. However, surely there was Fraud Upon the Court.
Moreover, in his decision, Ombudsman of the Judiciary cites an interesting argument by Judge Varda Alshech - the Supreme Court resorts to the same conduct on a routine basis... and the Ombudsman's response on such argument: "She finds support in high places"...
B. The right to inspect - "a fundamental principle in any democratic regime"... "constitutional, supra-statutory"
As usual, the Supreme Court is good at preaching, but does not follow its own preaching...
Regarding the right to inspect court records, the Supreme Court conducted for 12 years the petition Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice (5917/97). The petition ended with the 2009 Judgment by then Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinisch, which should be considered a public relations sermon regarding the right to inspect court records. In it Beinisch declares that the right to inspect court records is "a fundamental principle in any democratic regime"... "constitutional, supra-statutory". The Judgment also cites a long list of previous Supreme Court decisions, which declare the significance of the right to inspect court records for public trust in the court, for the perception of justice, etc, etc...
And yet, a series of attempts to inspect court records in the Supreme Court itself, particularly in the court files pertaining to the Roman Zadorov affair clearly document that the Supreme Court refuses to comply with the same lofty principles that it preached... It is also clear that the Supreme Court prevents access to court records in order to withhold evidence of judicial corruption.
C. What is due ethical conduct of an attorney who appears before a kangaroo court?
_____
Attorney Yuval Yoaz and Ometz (an anti-corruption NGO) are the petitioners in this case, and purportedly represent truth and justice. However, the question must be raised:
Does a competent and experienced attorney like Yuval Yoaz fail to realize that he participates in a simulated/fake court process, which in fact is serious Fraud Upon the Court, no less than the subject matter of the petition?Even if he previously failed to notice the fact, now, following the series of requests to inspect and the "service" of perverted court records in response, he must be aware of conduct of the Supreme Court in this case.
The fundamental question is:
What is due ethical conduct of an attorney who appears before a kangaroo court?Under the circumstances now created, Ometz and Attorney Yoaz should be considered full, knowing participants in the fraud in conduct of the petition, Ometz v Attorney General and State Attorney.
D. The petition itself originates in a failed attempt by the State Prosecution to pervert the affidavit of expert witness Dr Chen Kugel, as part of a retaliation campaign again expert witness Dr Maya Forman, who showed that the prosecution against Roman Zadorov was based on false premises.
Figures: Two courageous physicians - Dr Maya Forman and Dr Hen Kugel provided truthful testimonies in the Roman Zadorov affair, and put pokes in the wheels of corrupt police, prosecution and judges... Health Minister Yael German (not an attorney) was named one of the Defendants in the Dr Maya Forman affair, and according to the legal theory of State Prosecutor Shay Nitzan and Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit was required to collude with the gang... Instead, German wrote regarding conduct of State Attorney Nitzan: "Is not right, and in my opinion lacking in legal foundation and carries overarching and dangerous consequences", ... serious violation of Human Rights, of fundamental principles, of law and justice, and there is no justification in the letters by the State Attorney and the Deputy Attorney General to justify such conduct".
_____
The matter in which the petition originates is particularly serious: Attempt by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shay Nitzan to establish in the Israeli courts a new commandment: Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor...
The State Prosecution tried, with support by the Attorney General, to pervert the affidavit of expert witness Dr Hen Kugel in the Roman Zadorov affair. That - after the State Prosecution provided by hearsay false and misleading information regarding Dr Kugel's opinion to the Nazareth District Court with no affidavit and no testimony at all... (and which the court adopted).
(a
(b
(c
Figures: a) Dr Hen Kugel's Affidavit in the Roman Zadorrov affair, after perversion by the State Prosecution. b) Email by State Prosecutor Dorit Yifrah, attempting to pervert Dr Kugel's affidavit. c) Dr Kugel's email response.
____
In
the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
Ometz
Movement v Attorney General, State Attorney
et al 5514/16
Requester
of Inspection: Joseph Zernik, PhD
Repeat
request
to
exercise
inspection
in
compliance with
the letter and the spirit of the law
Requester
of Inspection, Joseph Zernik, PhD, files herein the above referenced
request:
A.
“Pro-forma”
Request
(No
13) – to inspect duly made Decision and Decree
1.
On March 21 2017, decision was published, pertaining to my “Pro-form
Request” (No 13) – to inspect duly made February 19, 2017
Decision and Decree. Such Decision says: “The Office of the Clerk
shall serve on the Requester – by mail – the Decision and the
Decree...”
2.
Today, I received by mail a letter from the Supreme Court, including
unsigned records with no authentication letter (Figures
1).
The letter also included the Supreme Court’s March 21, 2017
Decision on Request No 13 (also unsigned).
Therefore,
it may be surmised that
the letter was mailed as purported execution of the March 21, 2017
Decision, granting the request to inspect the
February 19, 2017 Decision and Decree.
B.
Request (No
12)
– to inspect Notice to Appear in Court and Hearing Protocol
3.
On
March 16, 2017, Supreme
Court decision was published, pertaining to my Request
(No 12) – to inspect “duly made Notice to Appear in Court” and
“duly made February 14, 2017 Hearing Protocol”. The Decision
says: “We order the Office of the Clerk to serve the Requester of
Inspection, by mail, the Notices
to Appear in Court for the February 14, 2017 Hearing, if they exist,
and the February 14, 2017 Hearing Protocol”.
4.
Later, I received by certified mail from the Court
unidentified and unauthenticated records, which on their faces did
not appear as authentic court records, with
no authentication letter.
5.
On
March 30, 2017, I filed Request
(No
16)
for due service of the above referenced (paragraph
3) records.
No
decision has been rendered on the
Request
yet.
C.
Request
(No
17)
– to exercise
inspection in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law
(entered as “Request to be informed regarding state of the court
file”)
6.
Following
the receipt by mail of invalid records, as purported “inspection”
of “duly made Notice to Appear in Court” and “duly made
February 14, 2017 Hearing Protocol”,
I
filed the original Request
(No
17)
– to exercise
inspection in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law.
7.
Now,
following the receipt by mail of invalid records as purported
“inspection” of the “duly
made February 19, 2017 Decision and Decree”, the
request to exercise inspection in compliance with the letter and the
spirit of the law
– by appearing in the Office of the Clerk and inspecting the
original records in the court’s
paper
file itself - should be deemed doubly justified.
Therefore,
I herein again
request
to exercise the Right
to Inspect
in
compliance with
the letter and the spirit of the law – by appearing in the Office
of the Clerk and inspecting the original records in the court’s
paper
file.
The
Supreme Court should uphold the Right to Inspect faithful to the
letter and the spirit of the law.
Today,
April
13,
2017 __________________
Joseph
Zernik, PhD – Requester of Inspection
Pro
Se - unrepresented
