Discovering, archiving, and disseminating knowledge regarding abuse of the People by governments and corporations in the Medieval Digital Era//
גילוי, ארכיבאות, והפצת מידע על התעללות בציבור על ידי ממשלות ותאגידים בימי הביניים הדיגיטליים
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
Dr. Zernik alleges that the Judge Hila Gurevitz - Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari Affair represents a hybrid of two of the worst judicial corruption scandals of the past 2 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 issues at the center of the Affairs were related to collusion of the Attorneys with Judges, whom they had promoted in the Committee. In the Rachel Ben-Ari Affair - Judge Hila Gurevitz, Judge Revital Baum, and Judge Tal Paperny.
The similarity to the Varda Alshech Affair is related to the production of invalid records in Net HaMishpat and presenting them as valid and effectual court records.
Appendix 14: Haifa Family Court Judge Hila Gurevitz and the Qadi of Lydda
"The Smoking Gun and the Black Flag" - two copies of the Initial Inventory Report
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
עכשיו זה כבר ברור, האפוטרופוס הכללי [האפ"כ], לאורך ולרוחב שדרת הניהול ממוקם בלב הסממנים... האפ"כ הוא רשות שלטונית שהפכה לתאגיד [@תמיר מלמד יאהב את זה] סטטוטורי, והוא שולט במיליארדי ש"ח בכספים ומי יודע כמה מיליארדים במקרקעין...
האפוטרופוס הכללי אמור להיות מגינם של החלשים מכל בחברה -- החסויים והחסויות, יורשים ויורשות שהופכים למטרה נוחה להונאות פיננסיות. אבל תודות לעו"ד רחל בן-ארי, נוצר תיעוד יפה של מהותו האמתית של האפ"כ.
לצד מי יתייצב לדעתכם האפ"כ כשהוא נדרש לבחור בין עורכת דין ושופטת מושחתות לבין היורש החוקי?
לא זו אף זו, לפני 3 שנים נכנס לתוקפו תיקון 18 לחוק הירושה. לפי ויקיפדיה, האפ"כ עצמו יזם את התיקון. לפי תיקון זה, יורשים שהם בגירים וכשירים אחראים על הפיקוח על מנהלי העיזבון, והאפ"כ פטור מנטל הפיקוח. מעניין מי הצביע בעד התיקון הזה, שנראה כתיקון מטעם הפשע המאורגן במערכת החוק והמשפט... ההצדקה הייתה - הפחתת הביורוקרטיה...
בדיוק לפני שנה נתתי חוות דעת קצרה בועדת חוקה חוק ומשפט של הכנסת, בעניין בתי המשפט לענייני משפחה. בהתייחסות לפרשת ג'ואל בן-סימון בבית המשפט לענייני משפחה בירושלים, אמרתי: "בבתי המשפט לענייני משפחה אנו מוצאים סממנים של פשיעה מאורגנת...".
ח"כ, עו"ד, רב גלעד קריב כמעט חטף התקף לב: "אין גבול למה שתגידו על השופטים"? וכניגשתי ללחוץ את ידו (מעולם לא פגשתי אותו קודם לכן), הוא נמלט מפניי דרך דלת צדדית של אולם הישיבות כאילו נתקל בסטרא אחרא פנים אל פנים...
אני באמת מצטער, ח"כ, עו"ד, רב גלעד קריב, אם קשה לך להתמודד עם המציאות, אולי תלך הבייתה? אבל לשבת בכנסת ולנקוט בקו של הכחשה והדחקה אל מול שחיתות מדהימה של השופטים ועורכי הדין - הגילדה - זה לא מתקבל על הדעת!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
פרשת בן-ארי-גורביץ: (א) דרישה למענה מידי על בקשת עיון והעתקי מסמכים, (ב) התראה לפני נקיטת פעולה משפטית
LizMo@justice.gov.il, <GaliG@justice.gov.il>, <GiliH@justice.gov.il>, Mancal@justice.gov.il, Sar Mishpatim <Sar@justice.gov.il>
לכב'
האפ"כ עו"ד בן ציון פיגלסון
מנהלת מחוז חיפה והצפון עו"ד תרצה אלתר
בדוא"ל
הנידון: פרשת בן-ארי -- גורביץ: (א) דרישה למענה מידי על בקשת עיון והעתקי מסמכים, (ב) התראה לפני נקיטת פעולה משפטית
שלום רב,
מצ"ב בקשת עיון וקבלת העתקי מסמכים בעניין הטיפול בעיזבון אמי ז"ל, רבקה שמי צרניק (נפטרה 15.12.2022, ), שנשלחה ביום 2.7.2026. תשובתכם התבקשה בתוך 10 ימים.
הזמן הוא מעיקרו של העניין, שכן הונאת העיזבון עומדת לכאורה לפני מימושה הסופי.
קבלו בזאת את דרישתי למענה מידי על בקשת העיון וקבלת העתקי מסמכים.
קבלו בזאת את דרישתי גם כהתראה לפני נקיטת פעולה משפטית.
מצ"ב בקשת עיון וקבלת העתקי מסמכים בעניין הטיפול בעיזבון אמי ז"ל, רבקה שמי צרניק (נפטרה 15.12.2022, ת"ז ).
אינני יכול להגיש בקשת עיון זו מבלי להוסיף שאין דרך בה אוכל להסביר את העובדות בקשר להתנהלות האפ"כ ושלוחותיו בעניין זה, העולה בקנה אחד עם ישרה ותום לב. לא זו אף זו, נראה לי שעוד נכונו לאפ"כ עלילות בפרשה זו... ולא לכבודו.
One got to watch court file carefully, papers are just flying...
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
One got to watch court file carefully, papers are just flying...
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
"The Smoking Gun and the Black Flag" - two copies of the Initial Inventory Report
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
Badge of Fraud #38 is materially different from all previous Badges of Fraud. It appears that it could stand on its own, perhaps with a minor investigation, as a proven case of fraud. Moreover, it implicates as partners in the fraud the top management of the Administrator General, including Haifa and the North District Manager, Attorney Tamira Alter, and the Administrator General in person - Attorney Ben Zion Feigelson. As the affair evolves, activity around the Haifa Court increasingly shows indicia of organized criminality.
1. The Historical Court Model in Israel, including the Probate Jurisdiction: The Mandate-Era Rules of Court, 1936
Historically, in Europe, the administration of wills and estates was controlled by the church from the medieval era until the 19th century. Later, it was under the jurisdiction of secular probate courts. The field has been known for generations to be prone to fraud and corruption, or at times sophisticated white-collar crime and predatory asset diversion. The beneficiaries are frequently ordinary individuals unfamiliar with complex legal and judicial procedures; on the other hand, the abuse was often perpetrated by professionals.
In CA 153/77 Miriam Aloshvili v. Yosef Samuel, PD 32(1) 627,
Presiding Justice Meir Shamgar explains that
the model established in the Succession Law, 5725-1965, is based on
close and strict judicial supervision of the estate administrator by the
court. Shamgar describes in detail serious failures in the
conduct of an estate administrator under the auspices of the lower court
judge, and further explains:
The
need for ongoing supervision and guidance by the court is a consequence
of the distant historical experience, because originally, the role of
the estate administrator was rife with rampant abuses.
The fundamental court system, which was established under the British mandate, followed the model of the English common law courts, found in most English-speaking nations. Such a model is based on the two arms of the court: The Judicial Arm and the Clerical/Ministerial Arm of the Court jointly operating through a system of checks and balances [see, I. Scott Messinger, ORDER IN THE COURTS: A History of the Federal Court Clerk's Office (2002) The Federal Judicial Center, 2002].
The Judicial Arm is charged with adjudication, and benefits from immunities for actions that are part of adjudication. The Clerical Arm and, in particular, the Clerk of the Court is personally charged with the custody of all records and registers of the court. Those register, the Books of Court [ספרי היסוד של בית המשפט] were eventually fixed: The Index of All Cases, the Calendar of the Court, the Docket Books, the Judgment Book, the Appointment Book.
These books were kept in the office of the Clerk of the Court, and it was prohibited to take them out. They were available for public inspection at any time during the Office of the Clerk of the Court's opening hours. Judgments had to be produced in two copies: one for the court file and the other glued into the Judgment Book. The process of entering the Judgments into the Judgment Book included the stamping with the Seal of the Court and the signature of the Clerk of the Court or a Deputy.
Appointments of Estate Administrators, Receivers, and Legal Guardians were treated similarly to Judgments, but the appointment records were glued into the Appointment Book.
All papers, both pleadings by the parties and orders by the judges, had to go through the Office of the Clerk, which held the exclusive authority to enter them into the registry of the appropriate file, while registering the papers in the Dockets.
Naturally, being in charge of the filing system and the custody of the court files and the Books of Court, the Clerk of the Court was also the Head Notary of the Court, or Prothonotary. The Clerk of the Court delegated the authority to authenticate court records, "True Copy of the Original," to Deputies.
.
Images | Left: In some counties in the U.S., the County Clerk, who also serves as the Chief Clerk of all the County Courts, holds the title of Prothonotary. Right: The Prothonotary Warbler is a small bird found in marshes in the southeastern United States. Its name refers to its colors, similar to those of the gown worn by a medieval Clerk of the Court.
***
Under the Rules of Court, 1936 (from the British Mandate for Palestine period), the English common law court model was established in Palestine. Therefore, all appointments of Estate Administrators had to be glued into the Appointment Book - the Probate Register. The integrity of the system resulted from the independent functions of the two Arms of the Court: The Judge had to hear the case and sign an Appointment record. A copy of the Appointment record would go to the Clerk of the Court, who would examine, sign it and enter it into the Probate Register.
Rule 4 (Care of registers and records):
"The officers responsible for the proper maintenance of the registers
and records of the Courts shall be the officers in charge of the
respective registries..."
Rule 11 (The Probate Register):
"In all Courts having jurisdiction to issue grants of probate or
letters of administration or to make declarations of succession there
shall be maintained a register to be known as 'The Probate Register'..."
There were auxiliary institutions, some going back to the Ottoman period, and the autonomous status given then to the various religious groups.
2. The Succession Law, 5725-1965, and Establishing the Guardian General Administration
The British system underwent a major revision in the Succession Law, 5725-1965, to make it more resistant to fraud. Beyond the Office of the Clerk, an entire administration was built to supervise the Succession and Estate Administration matters, and it was combined with the office that administers the property of refugees - the Guardian General and Director of Inheritance Affairs.
The law established a specific authentication chain, aimed to make it more resistant to tampering and easier to supervise to make the system more resistant to imposters and thieves:
1. When filing the initial pleading in the Request to Appoint an Estate Administrator, the filer must pay a specific fee to the Office of the Clerk of the Family Court and another fee to the Guardian General. The fee to the Guardian General establishes the registration of the court action as one that the Guardian General is following, and in which he is listed as a Respondent.
2. Once the request to appoint an Estate Administrator process is complete, again, there are parallel actions in the office of the Clerk of the Court, and the Office of the Guardian General.
(a) The Clerk of the Court receives the Decree Appointing an Estate Administrator, closes the request to appoint an administrator file, and opens an Estate Administration file, in which the Decree Appointing an Estate Administrator is the first document, and in which all records pertaining to Estate Administration are filed. In this court file, an Officer of the Court, designated "Estate Administrator," is registered. The "Estate Administrator" files requests for instructions in this court file. The supervision by the Guardian General is exerted on this court file. The estate funds are distributed from this court file.
(b) The Guardian General receives from the Clerk of the Court service of a copy of the Decree Appointing an Estate Administrator. It triggers the opening of an Estate Administration Supervision file with the Guardian General.
3. During its tenure, the Estate Administrator files with the Guardian General (but not the Office of the Clerk of the Court) the Initial Inventory Report, the Periodic Financial Reports, and the Final Inventory Report. Until 2023, the Guardian General was charged with inspecting all the records of the Estate Administrators. When necessary, the Guardian General had broad investigative authority and could easily obtain court orders if there was a need to remove Estate Administrators and take over the Estate Administration.
4. At the end of his/her tenure, the Estate Administrator files a financial report and a Final Estate Inventory [פרטה] with the Guardian General. Report of completing the Estate Administration work is typically required for the Court releasing the administrator and determining his/her fees.
3. Revoking the notarial authority of the Clerk of the Israeli Supreme Court, 2002
On March 7, 2002, Clerk of the Supreme Court Shmaryahu Cohen died inside the courthouse of a sudden heart attack. Some outlets reported that it was during a ceremony after hours. Some rumors said that he was fired on that day. It was rumored that there was some dispute between him and Supreme Court Presiding Justice,
Regardless, upon his death, the certification "True Copy of the Original, Clerk of the Court, Shmaryahu Cohen" which appeared on all Supreme Court judicial records, disappeared. In its place, the disclaimer appeared "This version is subject to editing and phrasing changes." The disclaimer remained the permanent feature of Supreme Court judicial records until 2018.
What the change in the footnote represented was the loss of the notarial authority of the Clerk of the court, and direct access to the justices to enter decisions in the court files. In fact, it amounted to abandoning the traditional model of the English courts with its two arms.
In a 2013 submission to the UN Human Rights Council, Dr. Zernik showed that such changes were accompanied by a wave of "fabrications" - what appeared to be after the fact changes to judicial records.
In 2018, Dr. Zernik sent a request to Supreme Court Presiding Justice Esther Hayut for the disclaimer to be removed. Hayut granted his request and he received a thank you note from her bureau.
4. Initiating intensive development of Net HaMishpat, 2003-2007
The idea, or the need to switch to paperless courts had been considered since the 1990s. However only in 2003 the Administration of the Courts initiated the intensive development. By 2007, a beta version was up and running. It means that the general architecture and key features of the system were all determined and developed under the tenure of Aharon Barak as Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court and his protege' Boaz Okon as Director of the Courts.
Of note, the Israeli Administration of the Courts is an affiliate unit of the Ministry of Justice, and not by chance. The affiliation was created as a deliberate interpretation of the Separation of the Branches of Government. Therefore, the entire project of development and implementation of Net HaMishpat was funded through the Ministry of Justice. Each of the Justice Ministers since 2003 should be held under Individual Ministerial Responsibility for Net HaMishpat. However, it appears that a succession of Justice Ministers didn't exert even the appearance of oversight.
5. Revoking the Rules of Court, 1936, and promulgating of the Courts Regulations (Office of the Clerk) - 2004
Development of Net HaMishpat had to generate interesting questions related to designing the detailed specifications of Net HaMishpat. Unfortunately, we will never know what these questions were, and how they were addressed. The entire project was conducted below the radar.
In 2004, the British Rules of Court, 1936, which provided great detail about the way the Office of the Clerk must run, were revoked and replaced by the Courts Regulations (Office of the Clerk), 5765-2004, which said close to nothing about the operations in the Office of the Clerk, authorities and permission in handling court records.
Automated System [Mechanized System]
5. Any provision of these regulations shall be executed within the automated system of the courts and by electronic means, mutatis mutandis [with necessary adaptations], if so directed by the Director of the Courts.
Therefore, the missing regulations need to be found in the code of Net HaMishpat, as directed by the Director of the Courts.
We do know that the project was now driven by the new model for court operations, developed starting 2002 in the Israeli Supreme Court. To whit, the 2004 initial version of the new regulations never mentioned the Clerk of the Court. However, a year later, an amendment recreated the office:
Copies of Documents
6A. The Clerks of the Courts are authorized to certify that a copy of a court record is a true copy of the original in the court file.
Meanwhile, in the European Union
During the same years, the member States of the EU were launching similar projects. However, here the approach was different:
On September 18, 2002, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution Res(2002)12, in which it established the CEPEJ (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice).Notable contributions were made by Dr. Dory Reiling, a retired Dutch judge, who had become a leading European expert on the subject, Marco Fabri and Francesco Contini, first through the European Commission–funded JEDI (Judicial Electronic Data Interchange in Europe) and later through CEPEJ.
In 2002-2005, Reiling and her colleagues established the framework:
CMS Code = Procedural Rule: Software pathways enforce procedural rules; therefore, CMS design is a constitutional issue, not merely an IT or administrative one.
Governance: Judicial IT must be validated and controlled under strict constitutional rules, not unreviewable executive/vendor discretion.
Registry Integrity: Without formal specifications, independent validation, and non-repudiable audit logs, an electronic court registry loses its legal validity and destroys public trust.
5. Introducing Net HaMishpat, 2010
In 2010, Net HaMishpat was implemented in the District and Magistrate's Courts. In parallel, the State ombudsman published Report 70b on the Ministry of Justice: "Actions and processes for computerization of the courts." A retired judge himself, he notes: The project was based on outsourcing to corporate vendors with no legal tender, contracts were signed with no specification, no core management by State employees was in place, the system was accepted with no independent examination and validation by State employees.
The State Ombudsman sums up the issue: "The system was developed with no representation of the public interest" (???).
He left us with the enigma: "Whose interests are represented in Net HaMishpat???"
Separately, on April 28, 2010, Dr Zernik returns to Israel, days after a double filing: 1. In the U.S. Supreme Court, a Motion to Intervene in the Habeas Corpus petition of 70-year old Attorney Richard Fine, who had been kidnapped by the Los Angeles County Sheriff and was held in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, after exposing data showing that all judges in Los Ange.
2. Submission to the UN Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review [UPR] of the United States. Having no formal training and no experience in the relevant fields of law, computer science and international relation, he focused entirely on Los Angeles County, and only two subjects: (a) Large-scale, long-term false imprisonment of minorities, following false convictions and false indictments, and (b) Criminal networks of bankers, judges and attorneys.
By the time the UPR reports were published, he was sitting in a cafe' at Rosa Luxemburg Platz in Berlin. By count, some 50% of the stakeholders submissions never made it to the final reports, althuogh some of them were written by the legal department of fully funded NGOs. The Human Rights Alert-NGO submission made it into the final report, as a one-sentence summary and a link to the full report in the U.N. archive: "... corruption of the courts and the legal profession, and discrimination by law enforcement in a California".
6. Amendment 18 goes into Effect, 2023
Amendment 18 to the Succession Law, 5725-1965, included two critical changes to the law:
1. It relieved the Guardian General from any regulatory/supervision duties in cases where the heirs were competent adults. The burden of regulating estate administrtors was transferred to the heirs. No investigation or enforcement powers were transferred, creating a deliberately compromised regulatory framework in system where by estimate some 5% of the GDP pass on a yearly basis.
2. It prescribed that estate administrators file the Inventory Financial Reports as electronic files through a dedicated system.
PART II: JUDGE HILA GUREVITZ AND ATTORNEY RACHEL BEN-ARI SET OUT TO SUBVERT THE SYSTEM
authentication anchor was materialized in a system of absolute, transparent physical control. The rules explicitly mandated that the court's administrative core be controlled by the Clerk of the Court, who was responsible for the maintenance of court records and registries, and accordingly, authorized to certify their authenticity. Therefore, the records and sub. be subject to unyielding clerical custody. To establish the personal authority and accountability of the Clerk of the Court for the integrity and validity of records, the rules mandated the following:
administration,
legal systems historically erected rigorous, physical authentication
barriers to prevent the illicit diversion of assets through the
introduction of simulated estate administrators.
The procedural mechanics were absolute: an appointment of an estate administrator derived its validity not from a piece of paper carried by an attorney, but from the mandatory entry within the official ledger under the direct oversight of the Clerk of the Court. This centralized, transparent, and non-negotiable paper record effectively neutralized institutional duplicity; the Office of the Clerk could not maintain a double standard or track hidden files, because the ledger represented a singular, unalterable baseline of truth open to public inspection.
2. The 2004 Digital Transition: The Unconstitutional Origins of "Code is Law"
In 2004, this historic framework of transparency was systematically dismantled to pave the way for the computerized case management system known as "Net HaMishpat" (The Net of Justice). Under the direction of Presiding Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak and Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, the legacy paper safeguards were replaced by the Regulations of Courts (Clerks in Courts and Labor Courts), 2004.
Crucially, Regulation 5 of the 2004 regulations introduced a sweeping delegation of power:
Automated System
5. "Every provision of these regulations shall be executed within the automated system of the courts and by electronic means, mutatis mutandis, if the Director of the Courts has so directed.
מערכת ממוכנת
5. "כל הוראה מתקנות אלה יש לקיים במערכת ממוכנת של בתי המשפט ובאמצעים אלקטרוניים, בשינויים המחויבים, אם הורה כך מנהל בתי המשפט.
This regulation effectively granted the Director of the Courts—a sitting judge—unilateral authority to adjust and substitute statutory court procedures to match computerized code. This delegation was fundamentally unconstitutional, violating the core principle of the separation of powers by allowing the judiciary to promulgate its own operational regulations without transparent oversight. It codified the dangerous doctrine of "Code is Law," completely hidden from the public eye.
This opaque approach stood in sharp contrast to contemporaneous global standards. Between 2002 and 2005, European Union institutions published extensive policy blueprints on building court Case Management Systems (CMS), explicitly warning that the transition to electronic courts was an issue of the highest constitutional concern that requires strict public oversight, absolute transparency, and democratic participation. In Israel, this warning was entirely ignored.
3. The Modern Automated Safeguard and Its Deliberate Evasion
To compensate for the elimination of physical ledgers, the modern framework established by the Succession Law, 1965 and the Succession Regulations, 1998 created a digital authentication loop. Under this framework, the Office of the Clerk is statutorily mandated to autonomously transmit (serve) any validly executed "Decree for Appointment of Estate Administrator" (Form 10 in the Regulations) directly to the Administrator General (Official Receiver / "Apafch") via integrated electronic channels.
The Administrator General cannot legally initiate an estate supervision file unless it receives this automated electronic service from the court system. This structural barrier ensures that no private attorney can unilaterally insert themselves into an estate without a validated, system-generated judicial mandate.
In the current matter, because the court system never issued an automated electronic service of a valid Form 10, the Office of the Clerk did not recognize any appointment. Instead, Deputy Clerk Keren Peles merely received and filed documents submitted by Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari under standard party designations, exposing the fact that no official court-sanctioned estate file was ever launched.
4. The Shift from Subtle White-Collar Manipulation to Coercive Process Simulation
White-collar fraud in judicial settings typically relies on "elegant," imperceptible procedural maneuvers, designed to keep the target unaware until the asset diversion is irreversible. In the instant matter, upon the immediate opening of Case No. 11650-06-24, the primary pleadings submitted by Attorneys Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon were immediately identified by the lawful heir as structurally defective, constituting a prima facie declaration of intent to conduct proceedings for appearance's sake. Because the Israeli legal community appears in denial of the existence of such conduct, Dr. Zernik defined it pursuant to the offense in the Texas Penal Code, Article 32.48 — Simulating Legal Process.
Having their initial strategy instantly compromised by rigorous legal exposure, the legal actors were forced to abandon subtle manipulation and pivot to brutal tactical coercion. Merely forty-eight hours after the initialization of the proceedings, the actors filed an aggressive motion seeking to entirely strip the lawful heir of his autonomous legal personality under the equity law doctrine of "Cy Près" ("approximate performance")—a legal argument that is entirely nonsensical in this context, executed under the assumption that Dr. Zernik would be incapable of figuring it out.
Revoking the recognition of a person's autonomous legal personality is a severe legal act. Both the judge and the attorneys had to know that it could be done only pursuant to the strict protective procedures prescribed in the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law, 1962 and corresponding regulations. Furthermore, this conduct violates absolute international prohibitions against the arbitrary stripping of legal personality, as codified under Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (ratified by Israel in 1991, effective 1992).
5. The Standard of Deceit [Tarmit] and Judicial Misconduct
Consequently, this conduct constitutes a severe act of Misrepresentation and Frivolous Argument, in direct violation of Rule 34A of the Israel Bar Rules (Ethics), 1986. Given the intended outcome, which was fully realized, this act constitutes Fraud upon the Court, Deceit under Serious Circumstances, and Perversion of Justice on the part of the attorneys.
On the part of Judge Hila Gurevitz, this conduct constitutes Fraud upon the Court, Perversion of Justice, Deceit, Breach of Trust, Judicial Misconduct, and an Abuse of Discretion [Ultra Vires]. First and foremost, this represents an act of Tarmit (Civil Deceit) on the part of Judge Gurevitz. The standard of proof required to establish this civil deceit is far from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"; pursuant to established case law, it sits above a mere Preponderance of the Evidence, at the standard of Clear and Convincing Evidence.
This was far from being an isolated incident. The first instance of such conduct by Judge Hila Gurevitz against Dr. Zernik occurred a year and a half earlier, merely a month after his mother passed away. On January 15, 2023, Judge Gurevitz entered court file AP 1829-06-10—a file lawfully assigned to a different judge, Judge Revital Baum—and entered an offending decision that was intentionally withheld from service to this day, regardless of repeat requests. Dr. Zernik had no prior interaction with Judge Gurevitz, and didn't even recognize her name. In fact he had nothing to do with the Haifa Court in the previous 6 years. The January 15, 2023, incident demonstrates that Judge Hila Gurevitz was acting as a targeted sabotage directed by external actors. The most plausible suspect was Hila Gurevitz's best friend - Judge Esperanza Alon [see Appendix 3]
Therefore, the historic precedent established by Presiding Justice Shimon Agranat in the Qadi of Lydda Ruling (CA 26/66 Taher Ibn Muhammad Hamad v. The Attorney General, PD 20(3) 57) applies directly to her:
"A judicial act tainted by fraud on the part of the judge... deprives the judicial authority at its core, and therefore the exemption [from criminal liability for a judicial officeholder] does not apply to such a judicial act."
מעשה השפיטה שהיה נגוע בתרמית מצד השופט...יש בו כדי לשלול את הסמכות השיפוטית מעיקרה ולפיכך אין הפטור [מאחריות פלילית לנושא משרה שיפוטית] תופס במעשה שפיטה כנ"ל.
Accordingly, because her judicial acts were infected by civil deceit, all her judicial acts in relation to Dr. Joseph Zernik should be held voidnot voidable, and her judicial immunity from criminal indictment must be revoked. The emerging picture points directly to indicia of organized crime operating within the court information systems.
PART II: FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF EXHIBIT #11 / APPENDIX #1
In the Family Court Case No. 11650-06-24 – Secondary File in the Estate of the Deceased
Haifa
In the Matter of: The Estate of the Deceased Rivka Zernik, z"l, ID 000645846
In the Matter of:
Uri Zernik
Attorney Yoav Salomon - has not filed a Power of Attorney to this day.
- v -
Yosef Zernik — Respondent 1
Pro Se
Dror Zernik
By Atty. Rachel Ben-Ari (Bar-Rav-Hai) — Respondent 2
Counsel for the Attorney General, Haifa — Respondent 3
Subject: Notice to the Office of the Clerk Regarding:
Atty. Rachel Ben-Ari and the Administrator General: The Smoking Gun and the Black Flag.
Atty. Rachel Ben-Ari and the Powers of Attorney Purportedly Obtained Through Fraud in Accordance with the August 28, 2023, Estate Distribution Agreement.
Summary:
Respondent 1 hereby submits a notice to the Office of the Clerk regarding: 1. Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and the Administrator General: The smoking gun and the black flag, 2. Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and powers of attorney she purportedly obtained through fraud in accordance with the August 28, 2023, Estate Distribution Agreement. Instant Notice does not constitute a motion for a judicial decision; it is submitted for the sake of proper order and the completeness of the matters documented in instant case file, and is therefore exempt from court fees. Instant Notice does not constitute a "lawsuit," or anything remotely close to it. In the event that the registration of instant Notice is rejected for one reason or another, the Court is requested to strictly adhere to the statutory provisions concerning the lawful rejection and documentation of such a rejection.
English Translation of Court Notice – Page 3
The following morning, June 25, 2024, Judge Hila Gurevitz or someone on her behalf coded the "motion" as – "Granted."
The rest is clear; one can figure it out.
Conclusion:
11. The Court is requested to record this notice to the Office of the Clerk regarding: (1) Atty. Rachel Ben-Ari and the Administrator General: The smoking gun and the black flag, 2) Atty. Rachel Ben-Ari and powers of attorney she purportedly obtained through fraud in accordance with the estate distribution agreement dated August 28, 2023. This notice does not constitute a motion for a judicial decision; it is submitted for the sake of proper order and the completeness of the matters documented in instant case file, and is therefore exempt from court fees. This notice does not constitute a "lawsuit," or anything remotely close to it. In the event that this notice is rejected from registration, for one reason or another, the Court is requested to strictly adhere to the statutory provisions concerning the lawful rejection and documentation of such a rejection.
Dated: June 24, 2024
Appendices:
No. 1: Atty. Rachel Ben-Ari and the Administrator General: The Smoking Gun and the Black Flag.
No. 2: Atty. Rachel Ben-Ari and powers of attorney she purportedly obtained through fraud in accordance with the Estate distribution agreement dated August 28, 2023.
Signed,
Yosef Zernik, PhD, LLB, Respondent 1
/
Images | Left: Page 1 of the perverted document, claimed to be the Initial Inventory Report, which was mailed to Dr Zernik by Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari. Right: Page 1 of the same document, which was emailed to Dr Zernik by the Guardian General, who had received it from Rachel Ben-Ari.
/
Evidentiary Analysis of the Submission Bypass
:
Circumvention of Systemic Controls: Because the court system never transmitted a valid electronic Form 10 to the Administrator General, there was no digital file open to receive documents. To bypass this automated validation gatekeeper, the actors generated an off-system paper document and manually walked it into the physical office.
The Manual Verification Proof: The dark photocopy, physical staple punctures, and manual ink stamp "RECEIVED" (rather than a system-generated electronic confirmation) mathematically prove an off-system insertion. This manual entry was executed because the central computer system would have rejected the unverified "Psikta".
Deliberate Removal of the Perjury Safeguard: As documented in the attached deficiencies list, the affidavit attached to this inventory shows that the actors deliberately deleted the word "complete" from their verification statement. By replacing it with disclaimers of uncertainty, they rendered the entire inventory legally useless and insulated themselves from perjury.
Total Fiduciary Default: The inventory completely fails to log a dedicated estate trust account. Instead, it references ancient, private bank accounts that remain under private custody, allowing Attorney Ben-Ari to hide the location, volume, and usage of millions of shekels from the lawful heir for over 18 months.
PART III: CHRONOLOGY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL SILENCE
(Cross-Referenced with official Pre-Litigation Notices)
The interaction with the management of the Administrator General reflects an active effort to suppress statutory audit trails:
January–October 2025: Inspector Samer Heib transmits the paper copy of the inventory, inadvertently revealing the manual "RECEIVED" stamp and explicitly stating that the file was completely separated from standard automated supervision channels.
February 2026: The exact moment Dr. Zernik presented formal questions demanding the identity of the official who authorized this manual paper insertion and the tracking number of the file, the entire administrative apparatus enacted an absolute communications blackout.
July 2, 2026: To break the illegal stonewalling, Dr. Zernik served a formal, statutory "Notice of Inspection and Request for Copies" (Bakashat Iyun), under affidavit. The Administrator General's office refused to respond, intentionally violating their statutory obligations under administrative law.
July 19, 2026: Following continued statutory default, a formal "Notice of Intent to Initiate Legal Action" (Hatra'a Lifnei Pe'ula Mishpatit) was officially served upon the Administrator General, Ben-Zion Fiegelsohn, and Haifa District Director Tamira Alter.
This prolonged silence is not passive bureaucratic delay; it is a calculated administrative intervention driven by a fear of self-incrimination, designed to protect an off-system, fraudulent operation from formal legal exposure.
. 
.
.
/
