המחאה נגד היועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט והונאה של השופט עודד מורנו בנט-המשפט: מסתיר את החתימות האלקטרוניות
"הונאת משחק הצדפות" הפכה לשגרה בנט-המשפט - מערכת המידע של בתי המשפט שהותקנה בשנת 2010. פרשת "הפרוטוקולים המפוברקים" של ורדה אלשייך בשנת 2011 הייתה רק קדימון...
דיון שהחל בבקשה של המשטרה להרחקתי מפתח-תקווה ("פרובוקטור") ומהמחאה נגד היועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט, הפך לדיון באי-כשירותו של בית המשפט, וההונאה השגרתית של השופט עודד מורנו - בהסתרת החתימות האלקטרוניות על פרוטוקולים והחלטות מבעלי הדין.
קראו את הפוסט השלם: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2017/02/2017-02-21.html
תמונות: כנופיית שלטון החוק: היועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט מאתרג את המושחתים בצמרת השלטונית, מפקד משטרת פ"ת ברק
מרדכי מדכא את המחאה הציבורית נגד היועמ"ש מנדלבליט והשחיתות השלטונית, והשופט עודד מורנו עוסק בהונאה על כס המשפט, לתת לכל המסכת צביון של חוקיות...
תמונה: מדינת ישראל נ צרניק (38086-02-17) - "טיוטה" של החלטה של השופט עודד מורנו על הרחקה למשך שבועיים מפתח-תקווה והמחאה נגד היועמ"ש אביחי מנדלבליט, המבוססת על "נספח סודי" שהגישה משטרת ישראל לשופט. ה"טיוטא" כאן היא תדפיס שהנפיקה הקלדנית מיד בתום הדיון. החלטת נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים בפרשת "הפרוטוקולים המפוברקים" של ורדה אלשייך מבהירה: א) "החתימה הגרפית" שמדביקה הקלדנית על המסמך חסרת כל תוקף. ב) החתימה האלקטרונית התקפה מוסתרת מפני בעלי הדין, באי כוחם, והציבור ואין ביכולתם לדעת אם המסמכים חתומים ותקפים, או בלתי חתומים וחסרי כל תוקף. ג) התדפיס המונפק על ידי הקלדנית מיד עם תום הדיון הוא "טיוטא" בלבד, בלתי חתום וחסר כל תוקף. השופט מורנו נשאל שוב ושוב במהלך הדיון, האם תינתן ל"חשוד" גישה לבדוק: האם הפרוטוקול וההחלטה מדיון זה חתומים כדין? השופט עודד מורנו נתן שלוש תשובות שונות וסותרות על שאלות חוזרות אלה, אך סירב לומר שתינתן ל"חשוד" הזכות לוודא שהשופט עודד מורנו אינו עוסק בהונאה...
_____
OccupyTLV, February 21 - request for correction of draft protocol was filed with Judge Oded Moreno of the Petah-Tikva Magistrate Court. [1] The "draft" originated from a request by the Petah-Tikva Police for a restraining order, prohibiting me from entering the city of Petah Tikva and the protest against AG Avichai Mandelblit.
Immediately at the start of the hearing, I informed the court that it was incompetent and lacking in authority, since Judge Oded Moreno refused to answer: Would I be permitted to inspect his electronic signature data on the "protocol" and "decision" generated in such hearing? Absent access to the e-signature data, there is no way to ascertain, whether the records are merely "drafts", or valid and enforceable court records. Such conduct is known as "Shell Game Fraud"...
During the short hearing, Moreno provided three different and contradictory responses on the repeat question. However, he refused to state that a party in a case is permitted to know, whether the judge is perpetrating fraud upon the court.
The fraud in development, implementation and operation of Net-HaMishpat case management system was documeted in great detail in decision of the Ombudsman of the Judiciary in the Judge Varda Alshech "fabricated protocols" scandal. [2] Regardless, no corerective measures have been taken to this day...
All Israeli legal scholars, attorneys and judges purportedly fail to notice that in the transition to electronic court file management, Israeli courts were transformed into an electronic fraud machine...
Conduct of the Israeli courts today is patent violation of the right for Due Process and for Fair and Public Hearing.
Links:
קישורים:
[1] 2017-02-21 State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17) – Notice of perverted protocol for the February 19, 2017 hearing, and request for its correction //
מדינת ישראל נ צרניק (38086-02-17) – הודעה על פרוטוקול משובש לדיון מיום 19 לפברואר, 2017, ובקשה לתיקונו
[2] 2012-05-31 Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols” scandal – Israel Bar Association complaint and Ombudsman of the Judiciary May 31, 2012 decision (12/ 88 /Tel-Aviv District)
פרשת הפרוטוקולים המפוברקים של ורדה אלשייך – תלונת לשכת עורכי הדין והחלטת נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים (12/88/מחוזי תל-אביב)
Following is the complete request:
In the
Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court
State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17)
Requester: “Suspect” Joseph Zernik, PhD
Notice of perverted protocol for the February 19, 2017
hearing, and request for its correction
“The Suspect”, Joseph Zernik, PhD, files herein a
request for correction of the protocol, referenced above:
1. During the hearing I spoke loud and clear,
used carefully phrased sentences, dictation pace. However, reading the protocol “draft”, which
was hand-delivered to me, shows that the protocol is replete with errors to the
point that my words are unintelligible. Therefore, I file herein the indicated
correction [English version shows only the corrected text].
2.
The filing of instant corrections does not constitute any admission of
competence of this court or validity of the protocol and decision. As spelled out in the protocol itself –
during the hearing I repeated three times my request that Judge Oded Morena
state, whether I would be permitted access to inspect the electronic signature
data on the protocol and decision. Judge Moreno answered my questions with
three different and contradictory responses, but avoided stating that I would
be permitted to inspect his electronic signature data, if it exists at all.
Access to the electronic signature data was denied already in a previous
hearing in this Court, regardless of repeat written requests and appearance in
the office of the Chief Clerk in an effort to exercise the right to inspect.
3.
Since I am denied the right to inspect Judge Oded Moreno’s signature on the
protocol, I am denied the ability to distinguish, whether it is a duly signed,
valid and enforceable court record, or an unsigned, invalid paper (“draft”,
simulated court record). As stated in the protocol itself, such conduct is
considered “shell game fraud”.
Therefore, the request for correction is filed only to document, what
transpired during the hearing in instant court file.
4.
Additionally, inspection of the public records in Net-HaMishpat [case
management system] shows that while the case is listed “Open to the Public” -
unsealed – no decision or judgment was entered in the dockets. The maintenance of invalid dockets, or
double-books for dockets, renders this Court patently incompetent court as
well.
The Court, incompetent as it is, should correct the
protocol, so that it faithfully reflect what transpired in the hearing,
referenced above.
Date: February 21, 2017 __________________
Joseph
Zernik, PhD - “The Suspect”
Pro
Se - unrepresented
Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court
State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17) February
19, 2017
Police file 76801/2017
The Hon Judge Oded Moreno
Requester: State of Israel
v
Suspect: Joseph Zernik, ID 053625596
Present:
Counsel for Requester Attorney
Commander Alex Weisbord
The Suspect was brought by the Prison
Service.
Protocol
The Court offers the Suspect
representation by Public Defender Attorney Oren Shefkman.
Suspect:
I
am unrepresented, I am not an attorney and I have no legal training. However,
my expertise in related areas has been recognized by the international
community. A report, which I filed, was
incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council report in the US in 2010, with
the UN staff comment: “Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and
discrimination by law enforcement in California.” Another report was incorporated into the UN
Human Rights Council report on Israel in 2013, with UN staff comment: “Lack of
integrity in the records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the
detainees’ courts in Israel”.
Conduct
of the policemen, who detained me during a fully lawful protest, was blatant
violation of fundamental rights.
Claims
of the Police Prosecution [in Israel police prosecutes – jz] are false. Many
people were present, as well as media, and it can be easily proven.
And
this Court is patently incompetent: Two weeks ago I was brought to this Court
as a “Suspect”. Hearing was conducted in
my absence, an attorney appeared as my counsel without my knowledge and without
my consent, with no certificate of counsel and with no statement on the record
regarding representation. Later, I was hand-delivered a printout of a “draft”
Court Protocol, where it said that I was present in the hearing, and that
Attorney Daniel Hacklai was my counsel.
Still later, the Judge issued decisions, which stated that I was kept
out of the hearing for lack of room, and that Attorney Hacklai told her that he
was my counsel. However, none of it appears in the Protocol.
The
fundamental question is: Will this Court let me inspect the electronic
signature data on today’s protocol and decision? We all know the Judge Varda
Alshech “fabricated protocols” scandal, and we know that judges issue
“fabricated” decisions in the courts, while parties, counsel and the public are
not able to distinguish in Net-HaMishpat [case management system of the court –
jz] between duly signed, valid court records and unsigned, invalid
“drafts”. The Judge in the previous
hearing denied my access to inspect her signatures, and that renders this Court
patently incompetent.
Will
I be permitted to inspect the electronic signature on the protocol and decision
from today’s hearing? If not, how do you explain that as a competent court?
The
Judge
The
decision on this question will appear in the protocol.
Counsel
for the Requester is placed under oath:
I
repeat my request. I file herein a
secret appendix. Filed and marked BM/1.
I
file the investigation file for the Court’s review.
I
refer the Court to the Protocol of the previous hearing on January 11, 2017.
Since that hearing, leading representatives of the protest have reached through
negotiation with police regarding ongoing protest an agreement on the location,
which balances the right of the participant to protest and the right of the
residents for quiet and privacy. In
contrast with such agreements, the Suspect proceeded as it appears, while
creating noise, into the heart of a residential neighborhood, and after being
asked by police for about 10 minutes to return to the location of the protest,
he refused, and therefore he had to be detained.
The
Suspect:
I
repeat my question: Is this a competent Court? Will I be permitted to inspect
the electronic signature data on the protocol and decision from today’s
hearing? If not, from my perspective this Court is incompetent, and I will not
address the claims of the Prosecution.
The
Judge:
The
Suspect may file a separate motion in this matter. I have no intention to
address this issue in today’s court hearing.
The
Suspect:
I
again ask: Will I be permitted to inspect the electronic signature data on
today’s protocol and decision? Hiding
the signatures on court records from parties in a case is fraud, of the type
which is known as “Shell Game Fraud”.
The
Judge:
The
Suspect may review the law on this matter.
The
Suspect:
The
law is clear on this matter: It is the right of a party to inspect the decision
records in his matter.
Decision
At
bar is a request to release the Suspect under restraining condition, after he was
detained on February 19, 2017 on suspicion of committing interference with a
policeman performance of duties, and making noise or disturbing the rest.
In
the background, it should be noted that that the matter pertains to a Suspect,
who appears before the Court after he demonstrated in front of Attorney General
Dr Avichai Mandelblit’s home in the past as well.
Review
of the investigation file shows a reasonable suspicion, but no cause for
detention. In this matter I refer to records marked BM/1 to BM/4.
The
request for the Suspect’s release under restraining conditions was brought
before this Court after the Suspect refused to sign it in the Police Station
and to cooperate. The requested conditions are restraining from appearance in
the City of Petah-Tikva for only 14 days. Such conditions are more than
measured under the circumstances, and the Court herein gives it the power of a
decision, under which the Suspect shall be released.
Rendered
and noticed today, February 19, 2017 in the presence of those listed present.
[pasted
“graphic signature”]
______________________
Oded
Moreno, Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment