Judge Hila Gurevitz and Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari - records and entries in Estate Administrators' appointment procedure
Triple Fraud Upon the Court:
1) Appointment of "Estate Administrators", while refusing to register them in the court file as "Estate Administrators",
2) Granting permission to submit applications in the case to legal entities that are neither registered as parties in the case, nor as Court-Appointed Fiduciaries, such as "estate administrators", "receivers", etc.,
3) Permitting the registration of submissions from such legal entities under the alternate names of other registered parties, starting on February 18, 2025.
Regarding the appointment of Estate Administrators, the Haifa Family Court is purportedly conducting its business pursuant to the latest regulations that the Judge has learned by hearsay.
What do these regulations say? What do they stipulate? It is difficult to know...
Judge Hila Gurevitz's version differs from that of Deputy Clerk Keren Peles. However, according to Judge Hila Gurevitz, Deputy Clerk Keren Peles was the source of the regulations by hearsay. A third version was provided by the Counsel for the Administration of the Courts, Adv. Barak Laizer.
Judge Hila Gurevitz, Deputy Clerk of the Court Keren Peles, and Counsel for the Administration of the Courts Barak Laizer are unanimous in one matter: All three refuse to provide a written source for the Rules of Court that they have fabricated.
At the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the Israeli court system continues its development in line with the trend of 'the decline of formalism and the ascendance of values'. The result was sometimes described as a 'total jungle in the courts'. Others described the result as 'signs of organized crime in the judicial system'...
In your browser: https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2025/06/2025-06-05.html
1. A request for instructions dated 18.2.2025, was filed in Estate File 11650-06-24 by the so-called "The Deceased's Estate Administrators", Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari and Adv. Yoav Salomon, who were not listed as "The Deceased's Estate Administrators" in the court file. Furthermore, they listed themselves at the top of the list of parties, and took on the party designation, "Applicants", thus becoming, according to the 2018 Civil Procedure Code, "Plaintiffs" in the main proceedings. The "Plaintiff" in the main proceedings, Mr. Uri Zernik, was falsely listed as "Respondent 1", etc.
2. A request for a formal order/decretal order, dated 29.4.2025 was also filed by the purported "The Deceased's Estate Administrators", who are not registered as "The Deceased's Estate Administrators" in the court file. The perversions are the same as those detailed in relation to the request for directions dated 18.2.2025, above. However, while the request for directions dated 18.2.2025 was registered under the name of the "Applicant" in the main proceedings, the request for a formal order/decretal order dated 29.4.2025 was registered under the name of "Respondent 2" in the main proceedings.
4. The Office of the Clerk did not reject the filings on behalf of the "Estate Administrators" who are not registered in the file. The Office of the Clerk accepted the applications for registration.
5. The application for instructions dated 18.2.2025, #56, submitted by the "Estate Administrators" who are not registered in the file, was registered as an application by the "Applicant" ("Plaintiff") in the main proceedings.
6. On the other hand, the request for a formal order, dated 29.4.2025, #66, was registered as a request by "Respondent 2" ("Defendant" in the main proceedings): "Confirmation of Opening a Request... On 29.4.2025, at 12:47, a request for a ruling was submitted, a request by Respondent 2, a request for a formal order in Estate File 11650-06-24... The request number is: 66" [underline added – J.Z.].
7. Rules of Court - Judge Hila Gurvitz's version:
Judge Hila Gurevitz's decision of 2/23/2025, #56, in response to Joseph Zernik's demand to erase the registration of the "Estate Administrators"'s perverted, 2/18/2025, "Request for Instructions" submission effectively rejects Joseph Zernik's demand to erase the document that was unlawfully filed and entered, pursuant to Rules of Court by hearsay:
"The manner in which the parties are defined in Net-HaMishpat system is the responsibility of the Office of the Clerk. This is not a judicial matter but a technical/administrative one... It should be noted that, according to information received from the Office of the Clerk, it may not be possible to define the same party in two hats."
8. Judge Hila Gurevitz February 23, 2025 decision implies that she has no intention of registering the purported appointments of Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Attorney Yoav Salomon as "estate administrators" in this case in the future.
Furthermore, the words of Judge Hila Gurevitz in this decision are seen as false and misleading.
"The definition of party designations in Net-HaMishpat is the responsibility of the Office of the Clerk. It is not a judicial matter, but a technical/administrative one...".
If so, why was there a need for a full court process, named "Request for Appointment of Estate Administrators"?
Furthermore, the transactions involved in the invalid entry of Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari's filing included adding parties and uniting parties and entities, matters subject to judicial decision pursuant to the Regulations of Civil Court Procedures, 2018, and the Regulations of the Family Court (Court Procedures), 2020.
Judge Hila Gurevitz's statement at the end of the decision above, "It is noted that according to the information received from the Office of the Clerk, it may not be possible to define the same entity in two hats," evates the February 23, 2025 decision to the distinction of depraved judicial clowning, which at the same time is also an apparent fraud and deceit.
9. Rules of Court - Deputy Clerk Keren Peles' version:
On March 3, 2025, the litigant acted in accordance with the direction of Judge Hila Gurvitz in her decision of February 23, 2025, #56, regarding the disclosure of the court rules applicable to the registration of the administrators of the Bennett estate: "The applicant must contact the responsible parties in the secretariat." In doing so, the litigant took a risk, since according to the rules of the court, which Judge Hila Gurvitz is deeply committed to, a written request to the secretariat is prohibited, it cannot be accepted for registration, and if it is accepted - it is subject to deletion and 700 NIS in expenses for the benefit of the State Treasury.
Amazingly! The request to the secretariat was not deleted, and the litigant was not charged with expenses for the benefit of the Medina Treasury. Although the request was not registered in the list of "Requests after closing", the litigant received a response from the Office of the Clerk.
The following is the March 23, 2025 request by Joseph Zernik, addressed to Deputy Clerk Keren Peles, RE: Entry of the appointment of Estate Administrators:
1. On 23.2.2025, I submitted a "Notice to the Court on behalf of Respondent 1, Dr. Yosef Zernik regarding an error in the registration of Request #56 - Nonconformity".
2. On the same day, Judge Hila Gurvitz Ovadia issued a decision refusing to correct the
perverted entry, reasoning that it was a technical/administrative matter, and that the matter should be referred to the Office of the Clerk.
3. The prohibition that Judge Hila Gurvitz declared on written communications with the Office of the Clerk lacks any basis in the law and must be considered a Constitutional tort, if not a Constitutional offense. Indeed, her intention is to place hurdles in access to the court and access to justice. Ultimately, it leads to the perversion of justice. A clerical "black flag" is flying over this lawless declaration.
4. Judge Hila Gurevitz added in the same decision:
"It is noted that, according to information received from the Office of the Clerk, it may not be possible to define the same party in two hats".
5. As a party in instant court file, and given the essential significance of the matter, I would like to know:
(a) Has anyone filed an application to register the appointment of Estate Administrators in this case? Has the application been denied? Is there a reference for its submission and denial?
(b) What is the source/reference for the information, "It may not be possible to define the same party in two hats"? Are there any procedures/work instructions/guidelines, etc., in which the above information is explicitly stated or provided, or is this an oral tradition?
6. I would appreciate your response without delay.
10. The response from Deputy Clerk Keren Peles arrived in the March 6, 2025 "Clerk's Notice":
".... The attorneys for the parties in the case cannot also be defined as Estate Administrators. The parties already exist in the case. Therefore, they cannot be defined as administrators of the estate from the perspective of the net."
11. On 9.3.2025, the party contacted the Keren Peles Court Secretary again, emphasizing that I had not received a response to his questions:
1. On 3.3.2025, my request was registered regarding the matter in question.
2. On 6.3.2025, the Secretariat's response was registered: "The parties' attorneys cannot be defined in the case as administrators of the estate." Thank you for the prompt response.
3. I have not yet received a response:
(a) Was a request submitted by someone to register the appointment of administrators of the estate in this case? Was it rejected from registration? Is there a reference for its submission and rejection?
(b) What is the source/reference for the information, "The parties' counsel cannot be defined in the case as Estate Administrators"? Are there any procedures/work instructions/instructions, etc., in which the above information is explicitly stated or provided, or is this an oral tradition?
(c) Under whose authority was permission granted to register the submissions of the "Estate Administrators" in this case under "Applicant - Uri Zernik"?
4. I would appreciate your response without delay.
12. The March 9, 2025 application was not received favorably. It was rejected from registration:
"Notice of rejection of filing. A legal document submitted by you on 09/03/2025, reference number 25081489, in case number 11650-06-24, is hereby returned for the reason: "Nonconforming / incompatible / incorrect document, the Office of the Clerk does not respond to written communications. Please contact the public service or the information center to receive an answer to all questions."
13. Rules of Court - Version of the Counsel for the Courts Administration, Adv. Barak Laizer
In his letter dated 19.3.2025, Adv. Barak Laizer provides a version that is substantially different from the version of Judge Hila Gurvitz and the version of the Deputy Clerk of the Court Keren Peles.
It should be noted that Adv. Barak Laizer (today he is also a candidate for appointment to a judicial position) was recognized as an expert in this type of matter, in more than one way, in the decision of the Ombudsman for Judges, Judge (retired) Eliezer Goldberg 88/12/Tel Aviv District (31.5.2012) in the matter of Judge Varda Alsheich ("The Affair of the Fabricated Protocols").).1
לגרסתו של עו"ד ברק לייזר, קיימת האפשרות לרשום את מנהלי העיזבון בנט המשפט, אולם רישום כזה יגביל את פעולותיהם.
כמו השופטת הילה גורביץ, וכמו מזכירת בית משפט קרן פלס, גם עו"ד ברק לייזר סירב לענות על בקשה למסור מקור כתוב כלשהו לכללי בית המשפט (Rules of Court) החדשים.
כמו השופטת הילה גורביץ, וכמו מזכירת בית משפט קרן פלס, גם עו"ד ברק לייזר סירב לענות על בקשה למסור מקור כתוב כלשהו לכללי בית המשפט (Rules of Court) החדשים.
(א) "אי בהירות במעמדם של באי כוח"
"בפנייתך העלית טענות בדבר אי – בהירות במעמדם של באי הכח בתיק. יובהר כי מינוי מנהלי עיזבון נעשה בהתאם להוראות חוק הירושה, התשכ"ה – 1965 והתקנות הרלוונטיות, על בסיס החלטה שיפוטית מפורשת. החלטת בית המשפט הינה המקור הסמכותי למינוי, והיא המעניקה את הסמכות והמעמד הפרוצדורלי למנהלי העיזבון. מנהלי עיזבון פועלים בהתאם להחלטות בית המשפט ובמסגרתה סמכויות המוקנות להם בחוק. התואר 'מנהל עיזבון' – הניתן לבא הכח, נגזר מתפקידו הפורמלי כפי שנקבע בהחלטת בית המשפט ואין בו כדי להעיד על אי סדרים כלשהם בהליך."
The issue does not concern the ambiguity regarding the status of the attorneys in the case. Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari submitted a power of attorney on behalf of her client. Attorney Yoav Salomon did not submit a proper Certificate of Counsel and refused to amend and submit a proper power of attorney. Judge Hila Gurvitz issued written threats against a litigant who filed a motion to dismiss out of hand regarding the failure to submit a proper Certificate of Counsel, if he insisted on his right to a hearing on the motion.
The issue concerns the ambiguity regarding the status of the so-called Estate Administrators, whose questionable appointment was not recorded in the court file. The problem begins with the absence of an express judicial decision appointing them by virtue of the provisions of the Inheritance Law, 5725 – 1965, and the relevant regulations. Hence the clear concern that the intention of Judge Hila Gurvitz and Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari is to allow them to act outside the framework of powers granted to estate administrators who were duly appointed.
A second reading clarifies Attorney Barak Laizer's intention - there is nothing to talk about here about the status of the "estate administrators" in the case. Indeed, they are not recognized in the case as estate administrators...
b) Failure to register "Estate Administrators"
"As for your claim regarding the manner of registering Estate Administrators in the Net-e-Mishpat system, we would like to note that the Net-e-Mishpat system is a case management system. Technically, there is an option in the Net-e-Mishpat system to add an 'Estate Administrator' type of entity to the procedure. However, this option is usually not implemented in the Net-e-Mishpat system due to technical difficulties that affect the ability of entities to act in the case; since defining an attorney as an Estate Administrator may technically deprive him of the ability to perform actions as a Counsel of Record in the computerized case - this is because an Estate Administrator has different powers than an Counsel of Record.
The choice not to register an entity as an estate administrator in the Net-e-Mishpat system is at the discretion of the Judge and the Office of the Clerk. It is important to emphasize that this choice does not affect the legal validity of the appointment of an Estate Administrator.
The authority and status of the Estate Administrators derive solely from the judicial decision that appointed them, and not from their registration or its absence in the computerized system, which constitutes an administrative action that is not a condition for the validity of an appointment or the legal status of a party in the procedure. Indeed, every judicial decision acquires legal validity upon its proper signing by the person making it, regardless of the manner in which it is presented in one computerized system or another."
14. The letter from Attorney Yehuda Yaish from the Legal Bureau of the Administration of Courts, dated April 2, 2024, was seen as a reinforcement and repetition of the position of Attorney Barak Laizer:
"The status and powers of the Estate Administrator are derived exclusively from the judicial decision. This decision is the formal and essential source in every procedure and proceeding regarding the powers of the estate administrator, and it is, in fact, the one that anchors this status in the proceeding.
It is important to emphasize that registration in Net-HaMishpat' system is not a condition for the validity of the appointment, and non-registration does not nullify or impair the legal status as an estate administrator. The validity of the appointment is based solely on the judicial decision.
As for the registration process itself, this is carried out by the Office of the Clerk, by defining the Estate Administrator as an "assisting" proxies in the procedure in Net-HaMishpat system. We would like to draw your attention to a fundamental distinction between the definition of "Estate Administrator" and "Counsel of Record" in the system. Therefore defining a proxy as an Estate Administrator may limit the ability to view and perform actions in the file, since the powers of the Estate Administrator are limited in relation to the Counsel of Record. Therefore, such a definition may significantly impair the performance of actions in the electronic file."
Summary
1. Judge Hila Gurvitz conducts proceedings in which the basic procedures are supposedly determined according to the Rules of Court, hearsay, hidden, secret, disclosed ad hoc, and retroactively.
2. Additional examples of this type of conduct include: (a) the case of the ban starting on November 3, 2024 on submissions to the Bennett Justice Secretariat, or on any written communication with the Secretariat, (b) the case of the hearing on October 9, 2024 (the essence of which requires investigation according to the submitter), and (c) “transcript” as a “protocol” “according to the procedures”, “including procedure 03-14” (decision of December 1, 2024).
3. The Administration of Courts is the one that developed, standardized, and operates Net HaMishpat case management system, accountable to the Minister of Justice.
4. The court administration is the one that established and implemented the secrecy policy that pervades the court system, especially the secrecy regarding the Rules of Court embedded in the court system, all of this - under the auspices of the Supreme Court.
5. The Administration of Courts is assisting Judge Hila Gurevitz to conduct proceedings according to so-called legal procedures, which are perceived as being contrary to common sense, contrary to the conduct of a competent court, and without any written source.
6. The Administration of Courts is assisting Judge Hila Gurvitz to conduct proceedings that are perceived as ongoing judicial fraud, which is also a substantive fraud such as embezzlement and theft of estate funds.
7. The entire phenomenon is seen, due to its scope, the number of incidents and the duration in years - as "institutional corruption". That is, corruption that is not limited to certain people, but has become part of the organizational culture. Institutional corruption can exist as non-criminal conduct. However, in other cases it is a sign of organized crime.
Links
1. Decision of the Ombudsman for Judges Judge (Retired) Eliezer Goldberg 88/12/Tel Aviv District (31.5.2012) in the matter of Judge Varda Alsheich ("The Fabricated Protocols Affair").
