Appendix 15: Central to the alleged fraud - simulated court records in Net HaMishpat: 1. Invalid October 9, 2024, "Protocol", and 2. Invalid December 1, 2024, Psikta
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-15-central-to-fraud-simulated.html
Introduction and Index of Appendices:
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appeal-for-review-of-rachel-ben-aris.html
Appeal filed with Prof. Uri Sivan, President of the Technion, and Prof. Daniel Chamovitz, Chair of VERA:
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/2026-07-17-technion-israel-institute-of.html
Dr. Zernik alleges that in EF 11650-06-24 in the Haifa Court, Rachel Ben-Ari, Technion, and VERA Legal Counsel, and Judge Hila Gurevitz, whose judicial appointment Rachel Ben-Ari promoted in the Judicial Selection Committee, are jointly running Fraud Upon the Court. The Legal Counsel in a publicly funded institution like the Technion is charged with oversight of all institutional matters (except for the core academic activity) and the safeguard of their integrity and legality.
Dr. Zernik's position is that it is unthinkable that an attorney who is involved in perpetrating fraud in the court would continue to hold the position of Legal Counsel for the Technion.
Dr. Zernik argues that, based on VERA's Chair, Prof. Daniel Chamovitz's statements regarding the role of research universities in society, and the principled, vocal opinions of the University Headsin public discourse regarding the justice system, the Technion and VERA must be held to their own standards. The fact that the Haifa Court is corrupt, and that there is an effective impunity policy for judges, does not provide the Technion the permit to continue to employ as General Counsel and attorney with a record like Rachel Ben-Ari's.
The court action began with a filing by Attorney Yoav Salomon, without a Power of Attorney, an Affidavit by Plaintiff, a summons, or a Probate Order defining the Heirs, etc. Also missing was the Judicial Clerk certificate required to open the court file. It was obvious that such a filing should have been rejected, and it was clear that the Judge was involved.
Attorney Yoav Salomon's client was listed as Plaintiff and Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari's client was listed as Defendant 2, but Ben-Ari made a point of sending a message, notifying Dr Zernik that the court action was a "joint enterprise" of Ben-Ari and Salomon, regardless of the way they chose to designate their clients.
Dr. Zernik alleged that the Judge Hila Gurevitz–Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari Affair represents a hybrid of two of the worst judicial corruption scandals of the past two decades in Israel: the Judge Varda Alshech Affair and the Effi Naveh Affair.
The similarity to the Effi Naveh Affair is obvious. In both cases, the central figures are past or present senior officers of the Israel Bar Association who represented the Bar on the Judicial Selection Committee. In both cases, the central issues involved collusion between attorneys and judges whom those attorneys had helped promote on the Committee—specifically, in the Rachel Ben-Ari Affair, Judges Hila Gurevitz, Revital Baum, and Tal Paperny.
The similarity to the Varda Alshech Affair lies in the production of invalid records in Net HaMishpat and their presentation as valid and effective court records.
However, there is a major difference between the Gurevitz–Ben-Ari Affair and the Varda Alshech Affair: in the Varda Alshech Affair, all those involved were caught off guard and confused by their inability to distinguish between inauthentic and what they assumed were authentic court records.
In contrast, in the Gurevitz–Ben-Ari Affair, Dr. Zernik predicted months in advance what was coming... Immediately after reading the initial pleading, he notified the parties, counsel, and Judge Gurevitz that they appeared intent on perpetrating Fraud Upon the Court.
The discussion below focuses on 2 records:
1. Invalid October 9, 2024 "Protocol", and
2. Invalid December 1, 2024 "Psikta" [Declarant Order].
These records mark the transition from procedural Fraud Upon the Court to substantive fraud regarding the Estate funds.
1. October 9, 2024 Event at the Haifa Court
Judge Hila Gurevitz and Rachel Ben-Ari refer to it as a Court Hearing. However, it can be considered at best an "informal, off-the-record" Court Hearing.
At the outset, Judge Gurevitz stated that there were recording devices in place and asked not to touch the microphones.
After the hearing was over, she handed out the a one and a half page "Protocol".
Family Court in Haifa
Probate Case 11650-06-24 Zernik v. Zernik et al.
Date: October 09, 2024
Before: Honorable Judge Hila Gurevitz Ovadia
In the Matter of: Estate of the late Rivka Zernik, of blessed memory
Applicant: Yosef Zernik
v.
Respondents:
Uri Zernik
Dror Zernik
Present:
Counsel for Applicant: Adv. Shelly Bar
Applicant: In person
Counsel for Respondent 1: Yoav Solomon
Respondent 1: No appearance
Counsel for Respondent 2: Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari
Respondent 2: No appearance
Protocol
Decision
Within the framework of a pilot program conducted by the court system and pursuant to Section 68A of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984, I order that the hearing be documented by means of recording. The recording will be made available to the parties on the "Net HaMishpat" website. The parties are permitted to order a transcript of the recording, insofar as they wish to do so, via the "Net HaMishpat" website. The parties shall not bear the costs of the recording or the transcript, provided that the transcript is ordered by the court.
Rendered and announced today, 7 Tishrei 5785, 09/10/2024, in the presence of those attending.
(Signature)
Hila Gurevitz Ovadia, Judge
After recess.
The point here is that Israeli law requires the Judge to produce a detailed Protocol of every court hearing. The judges don't like the concept, because when they run a court hearing with no protocol, and render decisions or judgments in it, it becomes very difficult to appeal from an undocumented hearing.
In 2017, the Administration of the Courts ran an experiment in which the protocols were not automatically produced. Insstead, initially only a voice recording was produced, and only if one of the parties asked for a protocol, the formal protocol was produced.
No comments:
Post a Comment