Judge Oded Moreno refuses to decide on requets to inspect his decision to restrain me from entering Petah-Tikva, after he refused to answer on my right to inspect his signature during the hearing, and instructed me to file a separate request on the issue.
Read more: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2017/03/2017-03-02-repeat-urgent-pro-forma.html
Figure: Judge Oded Moreno, Petah-Tikva Magistrate Court.
_____
In the
Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court
State of Israel v Zernik (38086-02-17)
Requester: “Suspect” Joseph Zernik, PhD
Repeat urgent pro-forma request to inspect electronic
signature data on February 19, 2017 hearing protocol
“The
Suspect”, Joseph Zernik, PhD, files herein the request for inspection,
referenced above:
1. Instant request was initially filed on February 23, 2017,
but due to lack of clarity it is re-filed herein.
2. On the same day, Judge Oded Moreno issued a "post-it
decision" (Figure 1) - unsigned, which fails to appear in the public
docket, and has not been served to this date - which says: "See my
decision today in the same matter".
The other decision of the same day demanded that the "Suspect"
file his requests with attached Police Prosecution responses.
3. During the hearing, referenced above, the "Suspect"
repeated three times his request that Judge Oded Moreno clearly state: Will the
"Suspect" be permitted to inspect the electronic signature data on
the protocol and decision that would be generated in the hearing? Judge Moreno responded with three different
and contradictory responses, but avoided stating that the "Suspect"
would be permitted to inspect his electronic signature, if it existed at all. One of Judge Oded Moreno's responses was that
the "Suspect" should file a separate request to inspec. Therefore, Request to Inspect (No 2) was filed on
February 23, and therefore, it is re-filed today.
4. On March 01, 2017, Judge Oded Moreno issued another
"post-it decision" (Figure 2) - unsigned, which fails to appear in
the public docket, and has not been served to this date - which says: "The
various requests, which the Requester filed are immaterial. Similarly, they fail to show any factual or
legal claims, which may be reviewed and granted. The same applies to his request to correct the
days detention hearing protocol [sic-jz], since the protocol correctly reflects
that conduct of the court hearing and arguments made. In view of all the above – the Requester's
requests are denied". However, such
decision fails to explicitly address the Request to Inspect Electronic
Signature Data (No 2). Moreover, the
Request to Inspect makes simple and clear factual and legal claims.
תמונה מס' 1.
5. The "Suspect" has not received to this date the
Police Prosecution's response on the Request to Inspect (No 2), regardless of
his inquiries. Obviously, the "Suspect" is in no position to enforce
anything on the Police Prosecution. Therefore, regardless of his wish, the "Suspect"
is unable to file instant request with an attached Police Prosecution response.
6.
Party's
access to inspect decision records in his matter is provided in Regulations
of the Courts-Inspection of Court Files (2003), and the Supreme Court
declared the right to inspect - "a fundamental principle in any democratic
regime… constitutional, supra-statutory…" (Supreme Court 2009
Judgment – Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice 5917/97).
7.
The
"Suspect's" access to inspect the electronic signatures on a
decision, pertaining to me, was previously denied in this Court in State of
Israel v Klass et al
(63343-01-17), even after filing repeat requests to inspect and
appearing in the office of the Chief Clerk in attempt to exercise the right to
inspect. [1]
8.
As long as
the "Suspect's" access is denied to inspect Judge Moreno's electronic
signature on the above referenced protocol and decision, the
"Suspect" is denied the right to ascertain, whether it is a duly
signed, valid and enforceable court record, or an unsigned, invalid document
("draft"/sham/simulated court record). As explained in the protocol itself, such
conduct is known as "Shell Game Fraud". Israeli judges are accustomed
to such conduct today, and it is common in the Israeli courts, as documented in
Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision in the Varda Alshech "Fabricated
Protocols" scandal (88/12/Tel-Aviv District). [2]
Therefore,
Judge Oded Moreno is herein requested to order the Office of the Clerk to provide
the "Suspect" access to inspect the electronic signature data on the
February 19, 2017 "Protocol" and "Decision" in instant
court file.
The
Court, incompetent as it is, should urgently render a decision on instant
request.
Date: March 02, 2017 __________________
Joseph
Zernik, PhD - “The Suspect”
Pro
Se – unrepresented
LINKS:
[1] ] 2017-01-31 State of Israel v Klass et al (63343-01-17) ) in the Petah Tikvah Magistrate Court – Pro Forma Request (No 3) to inspect Judge Shalhevet Kamir-Wiess's electronic signature data on the January 29, 2017 "Protocol" and “Decision” records, if they exist at all //
מדינת ישראל נ קלס ואח' (63343-01-17 בבית המשפט השלום פ"ת – בקשה (מס' 3) למען הסדר הטוב לעיון בנתוני החתימה האלקטרונית של השופטת שלהבת קמיר-וייס על "פרוטוקול" ו"החלטה" מיום 29 לינואר, 2017 בתיק זה, אם הם קיימים בכלל
[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)
