Sunday, July 19, 2026

Appendix 10: The Haifa Court is Unable to Collect False Punitive Charges in TE 11650-06-24

Appendix 10: The Haifa Court is Unable to Collect False Punitive Charges in TE 11650-06-24

Appeal to Prof. Uri Sivan, President of the Technion, and Prof. Daniel Chamovitz, Chair of VERA, in re: Review of Rachel Ben-Ari's competence as Legal Counsel

In browser:  https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appendix-10-haifa-court-is-unable-to.html

The overall claim is that Rachel Ben-Ari is a central figure in a simulated court action in the Haifa Family Court. The simulation of court process is obviously a criminal enterprise, which requires the cooperation of various office holders in the court. 
There is no specific criminal offense of this type in the Israeli penal law. In other places it is specifically defined. For example, Article 32.48 of the Texas Penal Code  - Simulating Legal Process, is short and simple: The elements of the offense include: 1. The production of documents that mimic court records, but have no validity, force and effect. 2. Serving or delivering such documents to others in order that such others will accept them as valid and enforceable court records, and will obey them (e.g., pay money, do or avoid doing certain actions).
As part of the simulation in the Haifa Court, it is alleged that Rachel Ben-Ari is impersonating an Estate Administrator with no lawful appointment. Rachel Ben-Ari has managed to gain control of an Estate of NIS 5-6 million using a paper she drafted and that Judge Hila Gurevitz purportedly signed for her.
Hila Gurevitz, who appears as a Judge in this case (allegedly a simulated judge in a simulated court file), is unhappy with Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik. To show her displeasure, she imposed on him as of July 2026 some NIS 20,000-30,000 in "expenses to benefit the State Treasury". 
Imposing charges of such sums is extreme. Moreover, it is abuse of discretion in the sense that the charges are punitive in nature, but Judge Hila Gurevitz avoids running a punitive procedure, which would require further documentation of her conduct... 
The surprise, at this point, is that Hila Gurevitz is unable to generate charges for collection by the Israeli government Collection Center from this court file... Administrators and IT personnel were consulted, to no avail.
 
A. Imposing the punitive charges as "expenses to benefit the State Treasury" 
.
Event #52, January 20, 2025 -  Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik's repeat Notice of Inspection of Court File
The litigant's right to inspect his court file is a fundamental right. It's denial amounts to denial of access to the court. 
.
Event #52, January 20, 2025 -  Judge Hila Gurevitz's Decision - Denial of the right to inspect, and Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik,is charged  NIS 700 in expenses to benefit the State Treasury.
Since the initiation of the process in this court file, Judge Hila Gurevitz was trying to prevent any record being created in Net HaMishpat of denial of access. In the process, she created rules and regulations that have no foundation in the law. 
 
 
Event #59, March 2, 2025 -- Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik's repeat demand:
That Judge Hila Gurevitz present a reference for her authority in EF 11650-06-24, and 
That Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon cease and desist any action in the Estate until their appointment is duly entered.
 
Event #59, March 3, 2025 --  Judge Hila Gurevitz's Decision 
Judge Gurevitz never provided the requested reference for her assignment in EF 11650-06-24, and charged Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik, NIS 2,500 in expenses to benefit the State Treasury. 
Event #61, March 11, 2025 -- Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik's Request for Clarification, in re: Special registered mail shipments from the Court to Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari
The shipments do not match the schedule of service to other parties in the case. Moreover, Rachel Ben-Ari receives service by email as well. 
 
Event #61, March 13, 2025 -  Judge Hila Gurevitz's Decision
Judge Gurevitz never provided any explanation for the special registered mail shipments to Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari. She issued a special decision, denouncing Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik, and charged him NIS 5,000 in expenses to benefit the State Treasury.
Judge Gurevitz decided to publish her decision in this matter, which did not stop her from keeping the decision title corrupted as usual: Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik was listed first among the parties, as Plaintiff.
 
Event #63, March 16, 2025 - Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik's Notice 

Zernik filed notice with the Court that his false listing as Plaintiff in published records was perceived by him slanderous. All his friends and acquaintances had known his opinion regarding the Family Courts for years. Therefore, official notice listing him as a person that initiated action in a Family Court of the State of Israel was slanderous.

.

B. Inability to generate charges for collection through the Government Collection Center 

1) No Event #, May 25, 2025 Notice by Deputy Clerk Hagit Lasri Ben Hamo

Of note, the Office of the Clerk treated the charges as "Fines", which was legally false. Had Judge Gurevitz imposed charges as "Fines" she would have been compelled to use a different more complex procedure. The charges were strictly imposed as 'expenses,' i.e., reimbursement. Obviously it was a false designation, since the charges were of punitive nature.

 

Translation 

Notice by the Clerk 

Re: Creation of Fine Obligation

In this case, a technical glitch occurred, and it was not possible to update the fines imposed within its framework on Mr. Zernik. (Documentation of Meital’s handling can be viewed in the case notes). Following discussions with the Management representative and the IT representative, we were requested to apply to the Judge and request that a decision be issued ordering the unified collection of the fines and confirming that they are in effect as of this date.

Issued on date 27 Iyar 5785, May 25, 2025. 

Hagit Lasri Ben-Hamo, Department Manager

.

2) No Event #, May 25, 2025 Notice by Judge Hila Gurevitz

 

Translation

25/05/2025 | 27 Iyar 5785   Decision

Case 11650-06-24

Judge Hila Gurevitz Ovadia

The Clerk of the Court announced that due to a technical error, the obligation was not updated upon implementation of the decisions, and the charge was not transferred to the Center for Fine Collection. It was reported that there is a need to give a decision regarding the validity of the previous obligations that were ruled. Accordingly, and per the Secretariat’s request, it is clarified that the charge imposed on Defendant 1 – Mr. Yosef Zernik, in expenses as detailed below, is in force:

  1. Decision dated 20/01/2025 in the amount of 700 NIS; Motion 52

  2. Decision dated 13/03/2025 in the amount of 5,000 NIS; Motion 61

  3. Decision dated 03/04/2025 in the amount of 5,000 NIS; Motions 62, 63.

The Clerk of the Court shall implement and update the charge row accordingly and serve the decision to the parties and the estate administrators.

                                                                         *** Digitally Signed ***

 Note

The inscription at the lower left corner of the yellow "Post-it" Decision reads, "***Digitally signed***". 

The automatic green seal, "True Copy", and below it, the light blue shield with the inscription, "This record is digitally signed.

There is no "Digital Signature" defined in the Israeli Electronic Signature Law, 2001. Therefore, the inscriptions may refer to some other forms of signature.


3) June 4, 2025, Payment Voucher issued by the Office of the Clerk

 

Translation 

Haifa Family Court

Estate File 11650-06-24               June 4, 2025 

Notice of Charges of Expenses to benefit the State Treasury 

Your payment is demanded:

Type                             Activity                               Total demanded

Expenses to benefit        Formation of a                         NIS 10,700.00

the State Treasury         Fine with no beneficiary

... last date for payment June 24, 2025. A payment that is not paid on time is transferred for collection by the Collection Center.  

.

C. Further charges imposed on Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik 

Event #70, June 30, 2025 - Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik's Request for Clarification, in re: Revocation of autonomous person status
Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik filed a request for clarifications, in re: Judge Hila Gurevitz's decisions to revoke his recognition as an autonomous legal person. 

The two purported decisions—one dated June 25, 2024, and the second from the hearing on October 9, 2024—deviate from the required form for recording decisions due to the absence of a signed written document (even if not strictly required under the Regulations of Civil Procedure 2018, reasoning and service/delivery are required).

Furthermore, they are contrary to the laws of the State of Israel, Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and Article 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

The request also noted that such actions were perpetrated by the courts in the Southern States after the Civil War, as a method to re-enslave the freed slaves. In response, the U.S. Congress enacted between 1865-1870 acts such as "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law" and "Conspiracy against Rights". Such acts were aimed at law and justice officers, and the maximum penalty was Capital Punishment

Would Judge Hila Gurevitz clarify whether she considers these two acts valid decisions of the Court? 

  

Event #70, July 6, 2025 - Judge Hila Gurevitz's Decision

 

Gurevitz  imposed a "Blocking Decree" on filing in court by Respondent 1, a charge of NIS 6,000 in "expenses to benefit the State Treasury", and NIS 25,000 Deposit for future expenses.

Event #72, July 23, 2025 -- Request for Instruction by "Estate Administrators" 

The request was entered under Respondent 2, Dror Zernik, since there are no "Estate Administrators" defined in the court file. The request asked permission to pay certain expenses from the Estate funds, and to be exempt from filing further requests for instructions.

Event #72, July 28, 2025 -- Response by Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik

Joseph Zernik's response: The request failed to include an affidavit by the "Estate Administrators" as prescribed by law. Therefore, the request should be summarily dismissed.

Event #72, July 29, 2025, AM --  Decision by Judge Hila Gurevitz

Gurevitz decided that the requested payments were permitted. NIS 1,500 in "expenses to benefit the State Treasury" were imposed on Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik, since his conduct demonstrated lack of trust in the attorneys.

Event #72,  July 29, 2025, ~15:00 -- all papers under Event #72 disappeared.

See further details under Appendix 12: The history of Event #72.   

D. Conclusions 

Judge Hila Gurevitz is allegedly engaged in an extensive plot of Fraud Upon the Court, where Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari is a central figure.

As part of this allegedly criminal plot, there is a need to silence Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik. Imposing still charges was one of the ways that Judge Hila Gurevitz tried to silence him.

As of July 2026, Judge Hila Gurevitz was unable to generate charges from EF 11650-06-24 and transfer them for collection in the government's collection center.

From day one, Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik, claimed that this court action amounts to a simulation, or a fictitious litigation. One of the ways to administer such fictitious action may involve the use of inherently fictitious electronic files in Net HaMishpat. The designation of "Fictitious Files" in Net HaMishpat first appeared in a publication by the Research Department of the Administration of Court in 2011. The reference there was to court files of type TLA [תל"א] and TLP [תל"פ].[1] This issue deserves a separate investigation, since it is an entire level of specifications of court files, which may be critical to the conduct of the process, which is hidden from the public. Yet another reason whey the system must be independently examined by State employees under the appropriate authorizations.

A separate issue that deserves attention is the designation of funds, which are collected by the courts. Judge Hila Gurevitz designated the charges as "expenses to benefit the State Treasury". However, the vouchers that were produced by the Office of the Clerk converted the charges into "fines with no beneficiary." "Expenses" are reimbursement, a clearly non-punitive payment. "Fines" on the other hand are clearly of punitive nature. And with "no beneficiary" it is anybody's guess, where the money ends up.

 

 

 

No comments: