Appendix 28 | Impunity for judges in Israel: unofficial policy with no legal foundation
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appendix-28.html
Index of Appendices and Biosketch, Joseph Zernik, PhD, LLB
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appeal-for-review-of-rachel-ben-aris.html
Rachel Ben-Ari's competence as General Counsel - Appeal Filed with Prof. Uri Sivan, Technion President, and Prof. Daniel Chamovitz, Chair of VERA and Ben Gurion University President
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/2026-07-17-technion-israel-institute-of.html
The IMPUNITY policy is hardly ever part of public discourse in Israel. One notable exception was a 2006 interview with Justice Mishael Cheshin shortly before he passed away. He served not long before that as Chair of the judicial panel in the case of Judge Hila Cohen from Haifa. In 2006, she was caught writing protocols for fictitious hearings... In that interview Cheshin spoke freely about IMPUNITY, displaying a world view that was very far from that which is expected of a justice. Aloni-Sadovnik's commentary on that interview remains one of the few references for this issue in the print media in Israel.
The correspondence with the FOIA Officer of the Ministry of Justice provides documentation of how the IMPUNITY policy is implemented in practice. As part of a policy of IMPUNITY for judges, there are efforts to undermine criminal complaints in which judges are named as suspects at every level of the system. Policemen, fraud investigators, FOIA officers at the Ministry of Justice, prosecutors -- they all appear to be engaging in illegal/criminal conduct in their efforts to undermine law enforcement on judges.
Roni Aloni-Sadovnik "Justice Mishael Cheshin's Pandora's box", Yediot (2006).
Translation
Mishael Cheshin’s Pandora’s Box
What severe cases worse than falsifying protocols is he talking about – bribery,
theft, or fixing trials for cronies? The public no longer knows
By Roni Alloni-Sadovnik | Published: 04.06.06, 09:58
We must thank Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin, who opened Pandora’s box
regarding Israel’s judges. Retirement interviews given by the retired judge exposed dark
opinions that were hidden from the public eye, reinforcing the feeling that the practice
whereby judges in Israel do not give interviews during their tenure is not only arbitrary, but
dangerous to democracy.
Anyone who has read even a single ruling by Justice Cheshin cannot help but appreciate the
depth and courage that characterized both his essence and his purpose. Yet, at the same
time, a harsh reality was revealed showing that at the core of the belief that some are "more
equal than others," even if they stray, they must not be judged. They are above us, the
nobility of judges.
Cheshin was asked his opinion on the dismissal of Judge Hila Cohen, who was caught
falsifying protocols. His answer was astonishing and infuriating: "I sat in disciplinary
hearings of previous significance. They simply weren't leaked. There were far worse cases
that ended in nothing, ended with a warning and nobody knows, doesn't hear. That's how
things should end, because the moment you publish a thing like that - at that very moment
the judge is burned."
From these clear words, it emerges that there are judges in Israel who believe they are
above the law. He himself testifies that his desk at the Disciplinary Court for Judges dealt
with cases far more severe and serious than protocol falsification. What could be worse
than a judge falsifying documents? Taking a bribe? Fixing a trial for cronies? A judge who
stole? Or perhaps a judge who fled the scene of a hit-and-run accident?
The most desirable method, in Cheshin’s opinion, is to prevent public transparency
regarding judicial corruption. For if the severe cases ended with a warning from the
Committee of Judges, it means those things actually happened, and that same judge indeed
committed the act. Does the public not have the right to know these facts?
Thanks to Justice Cheshin's unrestrained outspokenness, Pandora's box regarding Israel's
judges has finally been opened for us. The rigid walls with which judges surrounded
themselves against public criticism have recently exposed a series of scandals, chief among
them the widespread nepotism in the judicial system and the Ministry of Justice: wives of
judges receiving meteoric promotions, turning a blind eye to failures of judges close to the
Supreme Court, tailoring tenders for children of senior officials in the system, and a fast-
track promotion path for those favored by the Supreme Court.
This affair demands two urgent actions: full transparency must be required for all
disciplinary rulings regarding judges; the public's right to know starts right there - with
those who administer justice. Second, the judicial system must adapt itself to the
information technology age, allowing openness toward the public and respecting the
public's right to know the people behind the black robe.
July 30, 2026 Demand for a due FOIA response
Translation
להלן תרגום המכתב לאנגלית:
July 30, 2026
Adv. Yaron Yamin, Head of the Freedom of Information Unit
Ministry of Justice
Re: Response to Freedom of Information Request dated July 7, 2026, Ref: 2015-26-0550
Please accept this letter as a Notice of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
Dear Sir,
Please accept this submission as a demand for a proper response to the referenced Freedom of Information request, in lieu of the Ministry of Justice’s response dated July 27, 2026 [attached – Annex 1].
The concern arising upon reading the response (which I hope proves unfounded) is that it constitutes an evasive, improper reply. The request pertains to information regarding the handling of criminal complaint PLA 254418-2025, in which Judge Hila Gurevitch was listed as a suspect, and which was submitted to the Attorney General on June 5, 2025, along with a request to order the opening of an investigation and a demand for equal protection under the law. The request concerns information generated within the Ministry of Justice across its various units after the complaint and the demand for protection reached the Attorney General’s Office. This request does not pertain to information generated by the Israel Police.
The concern arising upon reading the response (which I hope proves unfounded) is that we are witnessing a repeat performance of what we observed last year regarding the request for information concerning the handling of criminal complaint PLA 223561-2016, in which Judge Esperanza Alon—a close friend of Judge Hila Gurevitch—was listed as a suspect.
Last year, it took 3 months or more to locate the complaint, which ultimately ended up buried in the archives ("geniza"). However, from the numerous unaddressed inquiries regarding the complaint against Judge Alon prior to submitting the Freedom of Information request—whether to the Attorney General, the State Attorney, or the Deputy State Attorney (Criminal Affairs)—a hypothesis emerged that alongside filing the matter in the "geniza", the information was deleted from other information systems. Furthermore, an active practice of non-response to inquiries is being conducted, appearing to contravene the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Amendment (Decisions and Statement of Reasons) Law, 5719-1958.
All the aforementioned actions appear to be part of an unofficial policy of impunity toward judges. As a lawyer, there is no need to elaborate that such a policy has no basis in law and cannot have any legal basis. Among criminologists and human rights organizations, such a policy is considered corrupt and corrupting due to its inevitable outcome—abandoning those harmed by the actions of public officials and withholding protection and/or remedy. In doing so, a policy of impunity toward judges becomes a policy that subverts the rule of law, equality before the law, and human rights. The State of Israel has even committed to refraining from such a policy under Articles 2(3)(a)–(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted in 1966, entered into force in Israel in 1992).
The criminal complaint regarding Judge Esperanza Alon provided a clear example of this matter. And since protection and remedy were withheld from me in the Alon matter, I am now exposed to harm by her close friend, Gurevitch. The response dated July 27, 2026, raises concerns (which I hope prove unfounded) of a fairly transparent attempt to avoid any reference to the Ministry of Justice’s handling—or lack thereof—starting from the Office of the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, regarding criminal complaint 254418-2025, in which Judge Hila Gurevitch was listed as a suspect.
We are now at the end of this affair, which is likely unprecedented in the history of Israeli courts: in its duration (beginning in 2013!), in its scope (currently involving several judges in Haifa, the secretariat and district administration, the Legal Department of the Courts Administration, top officials of the Administrator General in the Haifa District and national management, legal departments of major banks, the Haifa Land Registry, and last but not least—Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari), in the conduct of sham proceedings on Net HaMishpat (for example, in Family Case 11650-06-24, Judge Hila Gurevitch imposed "costs in favor of the State Treasury" on Respondent 1, Joseph Zernik, totaling 20,000–30,000 NIS to date; however, even after consultations with "secretarial and IT personnel," she failed to create a valid, enforceable debt from this court file that transfers to the Ministry of Justice's Collection Center...), and in its granular documentation (your humble servant views this as a personal mission for the public benefit).
Time is of the essence. Once the transfer of funds is completed, heavy, severe, or irreparable harm will be caused to me.
Therefore, I request that you answer without further delay:
What was the fate of criminal complaint 254418-2025 after it reached the Office of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara? Was it processed in any way in the Attorney General’s Office? Was it referred to State Attorney Amit Aisman? Did he refer it to Deputy State Attorney (Criminal Affairs) Efrat Greenbaum? Was the complaint handled by Adv. Moriah Green from the Deputy’s Office?
Was criminal complaint 254418-2025 buried in the archives ("geniza")? On what date? By whose decision? Is there supporting documentation? What is listed as the grounds for archival?
I request your response by August 3, 2026. Time is of the essence.
Sincerely,
Joseph Zernik, PhD, LLB
...
July 27, 2026 FOIA response by Ministry of Justice
Translation
Head Of The Public Information Division
File No. 2015-26-0550
Jerusalem, 13th of Av, 5786
July 27, 2026
Subject: Partial Response to Request for Information Under the Freedom of Information Law
Reference: Your inquiry dated 07/2026
In response to your referenced request under the Freedom of Information Law, 5758-1998 (hereinafter - the Law or Freedom of Information Law), I hereby reply as follows:
In your application, you request to receive, inter alia, all information regarding the handling of criminal complaint PLA 254418-2025, all as detailed at length in your application.
After examining your request with the relevant officials in the Ministry, I reply that the requested information was generated by another public authority, namely the Israel Police.
You may pursue your inquiry directly with the Officer in Charge of Making Information Available to the Public at the Police at the email address: Israel Police Freedom of Information. Therefore, your request is rejected pursuant to Section 8(5) of the Freedom of Information Law.
You may appeal against this decision in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Courts Law, 5760-2000.
Deputy Director of the Freedom of Information Unit
Ministry of Justice
...
...
July 7, 2026 FOIA request: processing complaint by the Attorney General
Translation
להלן תרגום עמוד 2 של המסמך לאנגלית:
Decision - Yosef Zernik - Response from the Ministry of Justice dated July 27, 2026, requested:
Ministry of Justice
Ministry Of Justice
Head Of The Public Information Division
joseph.zernik@hango.org
File No. 2015-26-0550
Jerusalem, 13th of Av, 5786
July 27, 2026
Subject: Partial Response to Request for Information Under the Freedom of Information Law
Reference: Your inquiry dated 07/2026
In response to your referenced request under the Freedom of Information Law, 5758-1998 (hereinafter - the Law or Freedom of Information Law), I hereby reply as follows:
In your application, you request to receive, inter alia, all information regarding the handling of criminal complaint PLA 254418-2025, all as detailed at length in your application.
After examining your request with the relevant officials in the Ministry, I reply that the requested information was generated by another public authority, namely the Israel Police.
You may pursue your inquiry directly with the Officer in Charge of Making Information Available to the Public at the Police at the email address: Israel Police Freedom of Information. Therefore, your request is rejected pursuant to Section 8(5) of the Freedom of Information Law.
You may appeal against this decision in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Courts Law, 5760-2000.
Appendix 2 - Freedom of Information Request dated July 7, 2026
30/07/2026, 11:03
[Signed/Note] Director of the Public Information Division, Ministry of Justice
3 of 8
https://vefpostur.1984.is/?_task=mail&_safe$=1&$_uid...
Yosef Z.
Joseph Zernik
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Tel Aviv
054-7293992 | 077-3179186
July 7, 2026
To:
Adv. Yaron Yamin
Officer in Charge of Making Information Available to the Public, Ministry of Justice
Via the Freedom of Information Unit Portal
By Email: hofesh.meida@justice.gov.il
Subject: Freedom of Information Request - Handling of Criminal Complaint PLA 254418-2025 and Its Outcomes, including Notice Regarding Conflicts of Interest of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, and Demand for Equal Protection Under the Law for the Applicant and Fulfillment of the Duty to Prevent Crime
Dear Officer in Charge under the Freedom of Information Law,
I hereby submit the following request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, 5758-1998:
1. Applicant Details
Name: Dr. Yosef Zernik, ID 053625596
Address: P.O. Box 33407, 6133301, Israel
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org | Fax: 077-3179186
Citizenship: Citizen
2. Background
(a) My late mother, Rivka Shemi Zernik, passed away on December 15, 2022, ID 0000645846.
(b) On August 28, 2023, an agreement was signed among the heirs for the distribution of the estate. The agreement was drawn up by attorneys Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon, who were appointed in the agreement as trustees and managers for executing the agreement.
(c) On December 13, 2023, the agreement was approved by the Family Court in case 23208-09-23 as an integral part of the probate order issued regarding the deceased. Case 23208-09-23 is the main estate file in this case, pursuant to Regulation 11 of the Succession Regulations, 5758-1998.
(d) Distribution of the estate contrary to the provisions of the agreement and contrary to the provisions of the will appears to be the objective of attorneys Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon. This objective appears to guide their actions detailed below.
Badges of Fraud Surrounding the Submission of the Application for Appointment of Estate Administrators
(e) On June 5, 2024, Adv. Yoav Salomon filed in the Family Court in Haifa, in case TE 11650-06-24, an application for the appointment of estate administrators, in which he listed me as "Respondent 1". The application was filed on behalf of the "Applicant" - heir A. Z. - but without proper power of attorney to Adv. Yoav Salomon and without an affidavit from the applicant. The two refused to correct the defects, and motions for summary dismissal triggered threats against me from Judge Hila Gurevitch. Proper power of attorney and applicant affidavit have not been filed in the case to date, to the best of my knowledge. However, Judge Hila Gurevitch prevents my access to the file and to the court, so I am unable to know the exact contents of the pleadings in the file.
(f) On June 5, 2024, upon filing the first pleading and opening the file, Adv. Yoav Salomon and Rachel Ben-Ari did not record the mandatory link, under Regulation 11 of the Succession Regulations, 5758-1998, between TE 11650-06-24 as the main estate file and TE 23208-09-23 as a secondary file. This failure may be critical to the distribution of the estate contrary to the distribution agreement. Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Adv. Yoav Salomon refuse to this day to correct this failure, and they even provided a false and misleading explanation for their refusal, which itself should be seen as a fraudulent act.
...
Translation
להלן תרגום הקטע לאנגלית:
On June 6, 2024, Adv. Yoav Salomon filed a purported "consent" on my behalf in TE 11650-06-24, without a power of attorney from me, without my consent, and without my knowledge. I was not yet aware of the filing of the action, a matter that was concealed from me. Adv. Yoav Salomon received the purported "consent" from Adv. Yair Shiber, whom he solicited to submit a "consent" as aforesaid in my name. Adv. Yoav Salomon registered Adv. Yair Shiber as my counsel, without a power of attorney, without my knowledge, and without my consent. Adv. Yair Shiber had no authority whatsoever to represent me in legal proceedings, as explicitly agreed between us a year prior.
Recording false and misleading "consents" on my behalf became a recurring theme in the proceedings in TE 11650-06-24.
The Routing Data of the Case to Judge Hila Gurevitch are Disrupted and Her Authority is Questionable
The file is held to this day by Judge Hila Gurevitch; however, an issue requiring examination in its own right is whether she holds the file under lawful authority or not. For on June 5, 2024, irregular routing data were recorded in TE 11650-06-24: to Judge Tal Paperni for approximately 2 minutes (11:25:46–11:27:51), and to Judge Hila Gurevitch for 24 seconds (11:27:27–11:27:51), and nothing more. My attempts to clarify the routing data triggered irregular responses from Judge Hila Gurevitch.
In the related case, AP 1829-06-10, Judge Hila Gurevitch appeared from January 15, 2023 (a month after my late mother's passing) until the end of September 2024. Her actions in case AP 1829-06-10 appeared to be malicious acts committed through abuse of authority, or in other words, actions suspected of being tainted by fraud or deceit. These actions appeared to be a direct continuation of the actions of Hila Gurevitch's close friend – Judge Esperanza Alon, which were the subject of criminal complaint PLA 223561-2016.
In early October 2024, Judge Hila Gurevitch vanished from AP 1829-06-10, and Judge Revital Baum appeared and began issuing decisions in the file. Immediately following Judge Revital Baum's first decision in October 2024, I requested that she explain the transfer of the file from hand to hand. She had no adequate explanation. When I asked Judge Hila Gurevitch to explain her appearance and actions in AP 1829-06-10, she replied in a decision dated December 1, 2024, in TE 11650-06-24, stating that AP 1829-06-10 had been assigned to Judge Revital Baum since February 2021.
Fictitious Proceedings in TE 11650-06-24
Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari, a legal public figure, sent me a message shortly after the opening of TE 11650-06-24, stating that the filing of the application for the appointment of estate administrators was a "joint initiative" of hers and Adv. Yoav Salomon. This, despite Adv. Yoav Salomon's client being listed as the "Applicant," and Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari's client being listed as "Respondent 2." In other words, even the designations of the parties in the initial pleading could serve as evidence of an intent to obstruct proceedings.
Shortly after the initial pleading was filed, I submitted a notice to the parties, their counsel, and Judge Hila Gurevitch, stating that the initial pleading appeared to be a "declaration to all court attendees of the intent to conduct simulated legal proceedings." The term "conducting simulated legal proceedings" is not common in Israeli legal parlance. Therefore, in said notice, I defined it according to the criminal offense under Section 32.48 of the Texas Penal Code: Simulating Legal Process. Under Israeli law, criminal offenses of this type may fall under fraud, obstruction of justice, fraud and breach of trust, among others. In my view, offenses of this kind are widespread in the courts of the State of Israel, yet the legal sector appears to live in repression and denial of the phenomenon.
Denial of Access to the Court, Fictitious Files, and "Costs to the State Treasury"
In TE 11650-06-24, Judge Hila Gurevitch and Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari are conducting simulated legal proceedings in which my access to the court file and to the court itself has been completely blocked. I am barred from reviewing the court file, as well as from filing any document with the court. It is not impossible that an examination would reveal this to be an unprecedented case in the history of the courts of the State of Israel.
Two days after the proceedings commenced, the judge and the attorneys began blocking my access to the file and the court. This constitutes a series of steps lacking any basis in law, which should be regarded as criminal offenses in their own right.
(1) "Cy-près execution": On June 24, 2024, Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari filed a motion seeking to deny my recognition as an autonomous legal personality, thereby depriving me of my right to express my position regarding the distribution of the estate. The legal argument raised by Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari to justify the act was "cy-près execution" (doctrine of approximation).
...
Translation
להלן תרגום הקטע לאנגלית:
...in equity. The following morning, June 25, 2024, Judge Hila Gurevitch recorded Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari's motion in Net HaMispat as "Received." To the best of my knowledge, no written or signed decision was issued on the matter (in the absence of access, I cannot know what pleadings are in the file). No reasoned decision was given on the matter. No decision on the matter was pronounced in my presence. No service was rendered, and no notice was given regarding a decision on the matter. It appears that Judge Hila Gurevitch and Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari expected me to file an application for leave to appeal after every such act of alleged fraud. Furthermore, Judge Hila Gurevitch appeared to be engaged in cultivating a fertile ground for decisions by the Haifa District Court sitting as an Appellate Family Court, which could have established guiding precedents on critical issues, such as the innovation of omitting the writing and signature requirements for decisions and judgments under the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018. When I disappointed them and did not appeal, Judge Hila Gurevitch viewed these actions as "final decisions." I, on the other hand, view the aforementioned decision as "final fraud."
The burden of dealing with these actions should not be placed on the citizen. Law enforcement against judges is the Attorney General's responsibility. On the other hand, maintaining functional courts is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. The Attorney General and the Minister of Justice occupy themselves with detached public discourse regarding the judicial system. However, in matters such as the "black hole" and the "total jungle" in the Family Courts, the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice appear to be in complete agreement – inaction and abandonment of the state's citizens to the hands of wrongdoers, plunderers, and criminals under a false flag of the law!
(2) Costs to the State Treasury: In the proceedings in TE 11650-06-24, Judge Hila Gurevitch expresses her dissatisfaction with me by imposing "costs to the State Treasury." For example, she allows Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari, a ostensible estate administrator, to violate statutory provisions regarding estate administrators. The law and regulations mandate the submission of an affidavit with every motion for instructions. Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari has not submitted even a single affidavit to date. When I filed an objection and demanded the dismissal of the motion for instructions that was submitted without an affidavit, Judge Gurevitch ruled that the motion for instructions should be approved. At the same time, she ordered me to pay NIS 1,500 in "costs to the State Treasury." Following such an order, a payment voucher arrives from the court secretariat, and if the charge is not paid within a short time, it is transferred for collection to the Collection Center of the Enforcement and Collection Authority.
In my view, the integrity of the payment vouchers sent by the secretariat was questionable, as they appeared to confuse "costs to the State Treasury" with "fines without a beneficiary." The clear concern was that funds collected as "costs to the State Treasury" would become "ownerless" money that the court would dispose of at will. Therefore, I preferred to pay to the Collection Center. However, it then transpired that the court has no way of creating authentic obligations in the Collection Center based on Judge Hila Gurevitch's decisions in TE 11650-06-24. The total amount of obligations to date is NIS 20,000–30,000! Not a single Agora has been paid.
This matter must be thoroughly investigated, as it contains: (a) Evidence supporting my contention regarding the conduct of simulated proceedings under the court's roof, (b) An entire world hidden from the public eye in the operation of the courts -- the electronic classification of case files.
A Criminal Complaint Was Filed a Year Ago, Along With a Request to the Attorney General to Order an Investigation and a Demand for Protection
On June 5, 2025, I filed a criminal complaint with the Fraud Investigations Fraud Unit at the Tel Aviv District Headquarters of the Israel Police, which was registered as PLA 254418-2025.
On the same day, June 5, 2025, I submitted a request to Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to act for my protection against criminal acts directed against me, which are allegedly taking place under the roof of the Haifa Court as simulated legal proceedings. Furthermore, I demanded that she order the opening of a criminal investigation in PLA 254418-2025. This is because, under Israeli law, the Attorney General holds sole and exclusive authority to order the opening of a criminal investigation against a judge or the filing of an indictment.
To date, I have received no notification regarding the handling of PLA 254418-2025 or its outcomes.
Acts Amounting to Crime Allegedly Continue to Be Committed Under the Roof of the Haifa Court
In the meantime, actions that I contend constitute fraud under aggravating circumstances, fraud and breach of trust, forgery, and more continue to be carried out under the roof of the Haifa Court as part of simulated legal proceedings.
(1) Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari has failed to provide me with a lawful inventory to date. (2) Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari has failed to provide me with a lawful financial report to date. (3) Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari has failed to provide a response to my questions regarding the administration to date.
...
Translation
...the estate, and regarding her refusal to submit a lawful inventory and financial report. In doing so, Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari violates the three basic duties of an estate administrator toward the heirs under the Succession Law, 5725-1965.
Alleged Forgery of the Inventory and Involvement of the Administrator General
Recently, I discovered that Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari submitted an allegedly forged inventory to the Administrator General (AG), which is held by the AG in a manner exceeding the scope of the law. The law and regulations stipulate that estate administrators must submit the inventory and financial reports to the AG through the designated online electronic platform. Clear forensic signs indicate that the inventory was submitted to the AG as a paper document, stamped with a manual "Received" stamp, and subsequently scanned in the AG's offices.
The law and regulations stipulate that estate administrators must submit the inventory to the heirs together with confirmation of service of the inventory to the AG. Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari sent me the inventory without confirmation of service to the AG. Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and the AG did not respond to repeated requests to produce the confirmation of service.
Conversely, the AG provided me with the allegedly forged inventory document in response to my request to receive copies of the documents retained in the estate administration file at the AG. However, various officials at the AG completely failed to answer for 4 months my demands to clarify how the document reached the AG and what its registry status is.
Why did Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari need to submit an inventory to the AG? Although Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari acts as an ostensible estate administrator, she will likely want, at the end of the affair, to give the entire affair a seal of approval on behalf of the AG. For this purpose, false documentation of the estate administration must be created.
Why did Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari need to disrupt the method of submitting the inventory to the AG? Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari did not pay the mandatory fee to the AG upon filing the application for the appointment of estate administrators. Therefore, the application should not have been among the applications registered with the AG. The court secretariat did not serve the AG with the purported appointment letter of Rachel Ben-Ari as "estate administrator." This is because the court secretariat does not recognize Rachel Ben-Ari as the estate administrator. Consequently, an "estate administration file" should not have existed at the AG at all. In this situation, the electronic platform does not recognize Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari or the estate she allegedly manages. There was no way Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari could have uploaded the documents via the dedicated platform.
Conflicts of Interest: Will the Attorney General Investigate Herself?
The Director of the AG Office, Haifa and Northern District, Adv. Tamira Alter, firmly rejected my request that she examine the inventory sent to me from her offices, and should she conclude that it is a forged document, delete it from the documents retained in the AG offices. An appeal to the Administrator General, Adv. Ben-Zion Figelson, was also to no avail.
Additional evidence to be sent today or tomorrow to the Police and the Attorney General will detail the above matters. The alleged involvement of the AG in the claimed fraud by Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Judge Hila Gurevitch creates a severe conflict of interest: on the one hand, the Attorney General holds sole responsibility and authority to decide on ordering the police to open an investigation into this affair due to the involvement of judges. On the other hand, due to the involvement of the AG, who is notoriously the Attorney General's representative, a conflict of interest arises that prevents the Attorney General from making decisions in this affair. The applicant is unaware of any legal way out of this situation.
3. Requested Information
Any information as defined in Section 2 of the Freedom of Information Law, 5758-1998, and in particular procedural documents, work instructions, etc.:
(a) Any information regarding the handling of criminal complaint PLA 254418-2025, in which Judge Hila Gurevitch and Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari were recorded as suspects, from the date of its submission on June 5, 2025, to date, including the various offices through which the complaint passed, decisions made, including copies of decisions signed by the decision-makers.
(b) Any information regarding an examination or investigation by the police conducted during the period from the date of submission of criminal complaint PLA 254418-2025 on June 5, 2025, to date.
(c) All investigative materials that formed the basis for the decision regarding the handling of the complaint.
...
Translation
(d) Please refrain from sending letters such as the letter from Adv. Moria Green dated March 30, 2025, regarding the archiving of the complaint in PLA 223561-2016, as a response to this Freedom of Information request. Letters of this type appear to be acts of deception and/or fraud by senior officials in the State Attorney's Office, and do not reflect honor upon state institutions.
4. Payment
On the government unit's website, confirmation number: 154533525.
Sincerely,
Yosef Zernik PhD, LLB
No comments:
Post a Comment