2016-11-06 State of Israel v Rafi Rotem: Judge Daniel Beeri fabricates out of control!

State of Israel v Rafi Rotem: Judge Daniel Beeri fabricates out of control!
Judge Daniel Beeri conducted an October 06, 2016 "Reading of the Verdict" hearing, which appeared on its face an "informal, off the record" hearing, or what is known as sham/simulated court hearing.  To this date, there is no trace in court records of the existence of a "Protocol" (minutes) record for the hearing.  Later, request to inspect was filed, pertaining to the Protocol record, if it at all existed...  In response, Judge Daniel Beeri issued a secretive "Post-it Decision", which was unlawfully classified "Sealed to the Public".  Judge Daniel Beeri continues the maintenance of double books for "Decisions Docket" in this court file.  An urgent request, which was filed today, sums, that the complete records and process in this court file raise serious concerns of violations of fundamental rights: a) Due Process - pursuant to the International Civil and Political Rights Convention (1966), and b) Fair and Public Hearing - pursunant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).  The records and process in this case also raise serious concerns regarding competence of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court.  "Senior Legal Scholars", cited by media, consider it "decline in formalism and increase in values", alternatively - "total jungle in the courts".  A layperson sees in it widespread incompetence and/or corruption of the judges in Israel.
READ MORE: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/11/2016-11-06-state-of-israel-v-rafi-rotem.html

Hebrew version:

מדינת ישראל נ רפי רותם: השופט דניאל בארי מפברק בלי לדפוק חשבון!

http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/11/2016-11-06.html
2016-10-31 מדינת ישראל נ רותם: האם השופט דניאל בארי פברק את דיון השמעת הכרעת הדין?http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/10/2016-10-31.html 

   

Figures: Judge Daniel Beeri - is he engaged in fraud from the bench on whislte-blower Rafi Rotem?

 _____

OccupyTLV, November 06 - an urgent request has been filed in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court today in State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1704-02-13). The request dwells on conduct of Judge Daniel Beeri in this court file, which raises serious concerns regarding both the October 06, 2016 "Reading of Verdict" hearing - for which no protocol is to be found yet, and the request to inspect a lawfully made and entered OOctober 06, 2016 Hearing Protocol, where Judge Daniel Beeri purportedly convicted Rotem on a series of charges, mostly related to "insulting public service employees". Following the purported conviction, law professor Moshe HaNegbi wrote: "A heroe, not a cconvict". And journalist Calman Liebeskind had written earlier: "It has been a decade that the courts have been abusing a justice crusader: There are no judges in Jerusalem: A decade of the Tax Authority scandal, and the whistle-blower, Rafi Rotem was let dispossessed.
The urgent request, which has been filed today, says in sum, that the entire body of records in this proces raises serious concerns of violations of fundamental rights:
a) Due Process - pursuant to the International Civil and Political Rights Convention (1966), and
b) Fair and Public Hearing - pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
The records and process in this case also raise serious concerns regarding competence of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court. "Senior Legal Scholars", cited by media, consider it "decline in formalism and increase in values", alternatively - "total jungle in the courts". A layperson sees in it widespread incompetence and/or corruption of the judges in Israel.

___________________________  ___________________________ 

Following is the full Urgent Request, filed today:

                           Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court

State of Israel v Rafael Rotem                1074-02-13

Requester:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Fax: 077-3179186

Urgent request: a) For rendering a decision on PRO FORMA Request (No 45) to Inspect a lawfully made and entered October 06, 2016 Protocol of “Reading the Verdict” hearing; b) Providing additional "Justification" for the Request, and c) Correcting of unlawful sealing of November 01, 2016 "Post-it Decision" on the above referenced Request to Inspect

 
The Requester of Inspection, Joseph Zernik, PhD, files herein an urgent request: a) For rendering a decision on PRO FORMA Request (No 45) to Inspect a lawfully made and entered October 06, 2016 Protocol of “Reading the Verdict” hearing; b) Correction of unlawful sealing of November 01, 2016 "Post-it Decision" on the above referenced Request to Inspect:

General
1. The Requester of Inspection filed on October 31, 2016, Request to Inspect a lawfully made and entered October 06, 2016 Protocol of “Reading the Verdict” hearing.  The Request says that the October 06, 2016 hearing was "Open to the Public", was not sealed.  On its face that hearing appeared as "informal, off the record" hearing. The Request also states that in contrast with other protocol records in instant court file, the October 06, 2016 hearing protocol was not listed as "existing" in the "Case Calendar" tab in Net-HaMishpat [case management system of the Court – jz].
2. Inspection on November 06, 2016 shows that a "Post-it Decision" by Judge Daniel Beeri, pertaining to the Request to Inspect, appeared on November 01, 2016 in Net-HaMishpat – Office of the Clerk access – but was not duly served, noticed, and was unlawfully classified as "Sealed to the Public".
3. The October 06, 2016 hearing Protocol fails to be listed to this day (November 06, 2016).
4. The current circumstances of failure to enter the "Reading of Verdict" hearing protocol, together with the publication of a "Verdict" record of the same day, created a vague and ambiguous legal status, pertaining to validity and enforceability of the November 06, 2016 "Verdict".  Creating such circumstances, and more so – failure to correct it after the court was noticed – would not doubt be seen as serious violations of the following fundamental rights.  Moreover, the handling by the Court of a routine request to inspect, also suggests serious violations of the following fundamental rights:

a) “Due Process”, pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and
b) “Fair Public Hearing”, pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

a) Urgent request for rendering a decision on PRO FORMA Request (No 45) to Inspect a lawfully made and entered October 06, 2016 Protocol of “Reading the Verdict” hearing
5. The Request to Inspect also explains that in this case, of a “ Reading the Verdict” hearing, the conduct of a formal, on the record hearing and entering of a hearing Protocol are inseparable from the “Verdict” record – providing its authentication.
6. The current circumstances of failure to enter a “Protocol” for the October 06, 2016 “Reading the Verdict” hearing, together with the publication of a “Verdict” record of the same day, generated a vague and ambiguous legal status, relative to validity and enforceability of the October 06, 2016 “Verdict”.  Creating such conditions, and even more so – failing to correct it after the Court was noticed – would no doubt be deemed a serious violation of the fundamental rights.
7. Therefore, in order to safeguard the Defendant's and the Public's rights, Judge Daniel Beeri is asked to urgently render a decision on the Request to Inspect.
 

b) Providing additional "Justification" for the Request
8.     The Request to inspect was filed pursuant to the Regulations of the Courts – Inspection of Court Files (2003), Regulation 2(b), and the Supreme Court 2009 Judgment in Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice et al ( 5917/97) .
9. The Regulations of the Courts – Inspection of Court Files (2003), Regulation 2(b) says:

Every person is permitted to inspect decisions and judgments, which are not lawfully prohibited for publication”.

Instant court file is not sealed, and the requested record was already published (albeit  - as an electronic display rendition of not validity) in IT system of the Supreme Court.  Therefore, there should not have been a requirement for filing instant Request, and accordingly, it is titled “Pro Forma Request”.
10. The Supreme Court 2009 Judgment in Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice et al ( 5917/97) further interprets Regulation 2(b):

Regulation 2(b) expands the public’s right to inspect with no requirement for filing a request. However, only pertaining to court decision records, and only pertaining to those that are not lawfully prohibited for publication.

11. The above referenced 2009 Judgment also adds a plethora of declarations relative to the merit and significance of the right to inspect, including:

A fundamental principle in any democratic regime… Constitutional, supra-statutory…
The significance of this principle is in generating public trust in public authorities in general, and in the courts in particular, since it contributes to generating the appearance of a process which promotes justice, in a manner that furthers such trust.

12.  The Regulations of the Courts, – Inspection of Court Files (2003), Regulation 6b) says:

Presiding Judge of the Court shall establish the procedures and times for inspecting court files in the Court, where he presides.

Establishing of inspection procedures and their times by Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, pursuant to Regulation 6(b), above, would have made the need to file instant request superfluous.  However, regardless of repeat inquiries, then Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court refused to comply with the law in this regard, and has failed to establish such inspection procedures to this date.
13. The importance of the common law Right to Inspect and to Copy Court Records, is likewise justified in a landmark ruling of the US Supreme Court: “to fulfill the citizen's desire 'to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies”. [i] Obviously, the Court is the first among such public agencies.
 

c) Urgent request for correcting of unlawful sealing of November 01, 2016 "Post-it Decision" on the above referenced Request to Inspect
14. Inspection on November 06, 2016, shows that Judge Daniel Beeri issued on November 01, 2016 a "Post-it Decision" on the above referenced Request to Inspect. The  "Post-it Decision" (Figure 1) says:

           For response by parties within 7 days.

Figure 1: November 01, 2016 "Post-it Decision: by Judge Daniel Beeri.

15. The "Post-it Decision" was neither served nor noticed to the Requester of Inspection (and most likely also not to Defendant Rafi Rotem).
16. The "Post-it Decision" fails to appear in the "Decisions Docket" in the public access system (where to this date there are only 07 decisions entered), but appears in the "Decisions Docket" in the Office of the Clerk access system (where to this date 48 decisions are entered) (Figure 2).
There is no need to elaborate that the maintenance of double-books for Decision Dockets in criminal proceedings, so that the Defendant and the public are selectively denied access to judicial decisions, would be deemed conduct of patently incompetent court, and patent violation of fundamental rights.

(a)

(b)
Figure 2:  "Decisions Dockets": (a) Public access; (b) Office of the Clerk access.
17.  Additional inspection shows that the "Post-it Decision" was tagged in Net-HaMishpat: "Rendered ex parte", was not tagged: "Shall be served on opposing side", and was tagged: "Sealed to the public, open to the parties".

Figure 3: "Instructions – Details" of the November 01, 2016 "Post-it Decision": It was tagged in Net-HaMishpat: "Rendered ex parte", was not tagged: "Shall be served on opposing side", and was tagged: "Sealed to the public, open to the parties".

18. There is no need to elaborate why Judge Daniel Beeri's conduct, relative to the Request to Inspect, enhances concerns of undue judicial conduct in instant criminal proceedings, and serious violations of fundamental rights.

In sum
1. Judge Daniel Beeri should urgently permit access to inspect a lawfully made and entered Protocol of the October 06, 2016 "Reading of Verdict" Hearing – if it exists at all.
2. Judge Daniel Beeri, of his own volition, should immediately act to correct the striking perversions of ongoing process in this court file.
3. The records and process in instant court file raise serious concerns of violations of fundamental rights:
a) “Due Process”, pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and
b) “Fair Public Hearing”, pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
4. In addition, the records and process  in intant court file raise serious concerns regarding lack of competence of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court.
Date: November 06, 2016    

__________________

  Joseph Zernik, PhD
 Requester of Inspection