Appendix 39 | Request for summary dismissal for failure to issue and file summons (September 1, 2024, #15), alleged civil deceit in Decision denying the request (September 11, 2024, #15)
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/08/appendix-39-request-for-summary.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
Image | L. Presiding Justice Shimon Agranat's the Qadi of Lydda ruling R. Judge Hila Gurevitz
Introduction
The motion for summary dismissal was true to its title—a denial of the court's authority. Judge Hila Gurevitz addressed it true to form: through alleged civil deceit.
I am the Defendant (Respondent 1) in this action. However, Judge Hila Gurevitz designated me as the Plaintiff, and then argued against her own strawman: that a motion for dismissal due to a missing summons is intended for use by a Defendant, not a Plaintiff, and that it was my unrepresented status and ignorance that led me to file the wrong motion...
In paragraph 25 of the motion, I cited the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018, regarding the purpose of serving an initial pleading with a summons—namely, to establish the authority of the court.
Details like that, however, do not stop Judge Hila Gurevitz from inventing her own version of the regulations and the law of the land.
Neither the First Nor the Last
The first instance of this type of conduct by Judge Hila Gurevitz against me occurred on January 15, 2023, just a month after my mother passed away. I did not even know her name at the time. She entered a decision against me without authority in AP 1829-06-10. There is no legitimate explanation for her appearance in that case file, unless it was at the request of an outside party...
Such conduct has continued unabated from January 15, 2023, to this day.
Not an "Error"
In November 2024, I filed a motion for judicial disqualification against Judge Hila Gurevitz, detailing several actions of this nature, including her January 15, 2023 decision and the September 11, 2024 decision shown here.
Her December 1, 2024 decision denying disqualification resorted to the exact same tactic once again [see - Appendix 41]:
As for mislabeling me as the Plaintiff instead of the Defendant, she claimed that because I am unrepresented, I failed to understand that I was the "Plaintiff" in that specific motion... Needless to say, this twisted logic holds no weight.
As for the January 15, 2023 decision, she seemed to deny that it ever occurred, or alternatively, implied that it lacked validity by stating the objective fact: case AP 1829-06-10 had been assigned to Judge Revital Baum since February 24, 2021.
In response to the reckless reliance on this type of judicial conduct, I filed formal notices with Judge Hila Gurevitz asserting that she must be subject to the principle established by Presiding Justice Shimon Agranat in the Qadi of Lydda ruling:
"An adjudication tainted with [civil] fraud on the part of the judge... is capable of negating judicial authority from its foundation; therefore, exemption [from criminal liability] does not apply to the aforementioned act of adjudication."
— Criminal Appeal 26/66 Taher Ibn Muhammad Hamad v. Attorney General, PD 20(3) 057 (1966)
Unfortunately, the Qadi of Lydda ruling remains a dead letter. Judges continue to engage in fraudulent conduct at will—with Judge Varda Alshech standing as Exhibit A.
---------------
September 1, 2024 Request for summary dismissal for failure to issue and file summons, #15
Translation
Date of Signing: September 1, 2024
In the Family Court in Haifa
Case No. 11650-06-24
Before: Her Honor Judge Hila Gurevitch Ovadia
In the Matter of:
Estate of the late Rivka Zernik, ID 00645846
And in the Matter of:
Uri Zernik, ID 51135325
Represented by Counsel Yoav Salomon, Adv. (License No. 9471)
2 Shibat Zion St., Haifa 3309401
Tel: 04-8554434 | Fax: 04-8555805 | Email: mail@asc.co.il
Applicant
And in the Matter of:
Yosef Zernik, ID 053625596
9 Kfar Giladi St., Tel Aviv; P.O. Box 33407, Tel Aviv
Tel: 054-7293992 | Fax: 077-3179186 | Email: 123456xyz@gmail.com
Dror Zernik, ID 65203887
Represented by Rachel Ben-Ari (Bar-Rav-Hay), Adv.
Beit Adam - 15 Ma'alat HaShachrur, Haifa
Tel: 04-8371505 | Fax: 04-8370231 | Email: sigals@bf-law.co.il
The Attorney General
At the Offices of the Administrator General, Ministry of Justice
15 Pal'am St., Haifa
Tel: 04-6467567 | Email: apac-haifa@justice.gov.il
Respondents
Motion for Leave and Motion on Behalf of Respondent 1 for Summary Dismissal of the Application to Appoint Estate Administrators for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction over Respondent 1
Respondent 1 hereby submits a motion for leave and a motion for summary dismissal of the application for the appointment of estate administrators due to the absence of the Court's personal jurisdiction over Respondent 1, resulting from a flaw in serving the initial pleading in this case without a summons to court. Respondent 1, who is not an attorney, became unrepresented following unusual events surrounding the submission of the application for the appointment of estate administrators and the opening of the instant case. This motion is submitted concurrently with the response pleading during the court recess, prior to the Court initiating proceedings on the application for appointing estate administrators itself.
The Court is requested to adjudicate and decide on the issue of jurisdiction before deliberating on Respondent 1's response to the initial pleading. Respondent 1’s response to the initial pleading presents additional severe defects in the application to appoint estate administrators, and accordingly, preliminary grounds for threshold dismissal of the application, or alternatively, an order instructing the Applicant to submit an amended initial pleading.
The Court is requested to dismiss the application to appoint estate administrators on a summary basis for lack of personal jurisdiction arising from serving the initial pleading without a summons.
Motion for Leave Pursuant to Regulation 28 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 (hereinafter – "Civil Procedure Regulations 2018")
Respondent 1, who is not an attorney, became unrepresented following unusual events surrounding the submission of the application to appoint estate administrators and the opening of this file, as detailed in paragraphs 9–21 and 28–32 below.
This notice is submitted alongside the response pleading during court recess and prior to the Court commencing proceedings on the application itself.
See paragraphs 12–13 of the decision by Her Honor Judge E. Lindenstrauss in CC (District Court Nazareth) 52816-03-21 A.A. Abu Raas Building and Development Works Ltd. v. Oren Architect (Jan 13, 2022):
"Defendant 3's motion to decide this question was filed... merely 3 weeks after submitting his statement of defense and prior to any hearing on the claim. Under these circumstances and according to Regulation 28 of the new regulations, it is appropriate to hear the claim of lack of jurisdiction."
See also paragraphs 32–34 of the judgment of Her Honor Judge S. Matza in CC (Magistrates Court Haifa) 1953-06-21 Gymnasia – High Schools Named After Goldner Ltd. v. Haifa Municipality (Oct 5, 2022):
"32. The Plaintiffs raised an additional claim... Where a court concludes that remedies sought are outside its subject-matter jurisdiction, it shall not hear the proceeding...
33. Therefore, since subject-matter jurisdiction can be addressed at any stage of the proceeding, delay by the Municipality in filing the motion to dismiss... does not justify hearing a claim outside this court's jurisdiction...
34. Nevertheless, I have not seen fit to order the rejection of the claim as requested by the Municipality, but rather to order its erasure..."
The Court is requested to decide on this motion before deliberating on Respondent 1’s response to the initial pleading, which presents further severe defects and preliminary grounds for dismissal or an order to file an amended pleading.
Grounds for the Application
Factual Background
On August 28, 2023, an agreement was signed between the beneficiaries. In the months prior, regular communication occurred between counsel for the Applicant and Respondent 2 and Respondent 1 directly (not through Applicant 1's counsel, but with his knowledge).
On December 13, 2023, the agreement was approved by the Court in Estate File 23208-09-23 Zernik et al. v. The Administrator General.
On December 24–25, 2023, less than two weeks after approval, Respondent 2 re-declared his refusal to fulfill sections 8–10 of the agreement as written. Respondent 2’s frustration of the distribution agreement peaked in May 2024 when he declared the agreement void.
Beginning in April 2024, counsel for Respondent 1, Adv. Yair Schiber, also acted to frustrate the agreement, appearing to substitute his duty of loyalty to his client with loyalty to the Applicant’s counsel, Adv. Yoav Salomon. Respondent 1 cannot explain Adv. Schiber's conduct, particularly between June 2–13, 2024.
Between April 25 and May 2, 2024, Respondent 1 maintained friendly communications with counsel for the Applicant and Respondent 2 regarding the disconnect created by his lawyer, Adv. Schiber, and efforts to restore contact.
On June 2, 2024, Applicant’s counsel sent a "draft" to counsel for Respondents 1 and 2, prepared for filing in Estate File 23208-09-23.
On June 2–4, 2024, Applicant’s counsel requested Respondent 1’s counsel to state Respondent 1’s position. Respondent 1’s counsel did not contact Respondent 1 at all regarding this matter or any other.
On June 5, 2024, Applicant’s counsel submitted the motion in File 23208-09-23, but it was rejected for filing. He then re-submitted it as an initial pleading in a new file, where it was accepted despite severe flaws—namely, the lack of a legal summons.
On June 5, 2024, after the new case was opened, Applicant’s counsel served the application to Respondent 1's counsel via email with a "Case Opening Confirmation", but without a summons.
The court secretariat also served the application via registered mail with a cover letter signed by "Hagit Lasri Ben Hamo, Section Head". It was again served without a summons.
On Thursday, June 6, 2024, at 16:00, Respondent 1 received a phone call from his counsel after a disconnect of at least 1.5 months. His counsel inquired about his position on the "draft". His counsel concealed the fact that the application had already been filed and served the previous day. Respondent 1 replied that he had no stance yet as he had not seen the "draft" and asked for it to be sent. The call ended at 16:05.
At 16:06 on June 6, 2024: a) Respondent 1 emailed his counsel asking for the draft; b) Counsel sent an email attaching the June 2 draft without text; c) Counsel emailed Applicant's counsel: "We agree."
Applicant’s counsel immediately submitted this email as "Notice of Consent by Respondent 1". It was registered on Sunday, June 9, 2024 (Motion 1).
On June 13, 2024, Respondent 1 discovered that "consent" on his behalf was recorded. He went directly to his attorney's office. Counsel had no proper explanation but insisted his actions were for Respondent 1's benefit and that Adv. Salomon was an honest person.
On June 14, 2024, Respondent 1 filed an urgent motion to withdraw consent (Motion 1).
On June 16, 2024, Respondent 1 filed a notice of termination of representation by Adv. Yair Schiber (Motion 2).
On June 16, 2024, Her Honor Judge H. Gurevitch Ovadia issued a note decision on the application: "The Applicant shall serve the motion and this decision on the beneficiaries and AG representative. Response due within 30 days of service..."
On June 16, 2024, Applicant's counsel served a copy of the application with the note decision to Respondent 1.
When Respondent 1 requested copies of the June 5 service records from Adv. Schiber, he received no response.
Legal Arguments
Regarding initial service, Regulation 158 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 2018 explicitly anchors its purpose:
"158. (a) The purpose of service is to bring the contents of a document to the knowledge of the recipient... and regarding the first pleading submitted – also to subject the defendant to the court's jurisdiction."
Serving a legal summons (summons) establishes jurisdiction and ensures procedural certainty—a long-standing principle of common law. Supreme Court Justices E. Grosskopf, Y. Amit, and D. Mintz reconfirmed that acquiring jurisdiction relies on proper service of the summons (see Rada Electronic Industries Ltd., Passberg, and Baum & Tabeka).
Regulation 10(13) requires a statement of claim to include a summons. While Amendment 2 exempted direct service to an attorney, Regulation 11(a) of the Family Court (Procedure) Regulations, 5781-2020, strictly requires a summons without exceptions.
Therefore, neither service on June 5, 2024 (by email or registered mail) was lawful due to the absent summons. The Court did not acquire jurisdiction over Respondent 1.
Furthermore, service failed to achieve notice since Adv. Schiber concealed the court filing from Respondent 1 during their phone call.
Worse, Adv. Schiber misrepresented that the Applicant was still working on a "draft" and misrepresented Respondent 1’s position to Applicant’s counsel.
Respondent 1, a non-lawyer, presents the facts and leaves the legal characterization of counsel's conduct to the Court.
Legal scholars (Baum & Tabeka, p. 169) note that where an attorney misleads service, costs may be imposed personally against counsel for obstructing judicial proceedings.
Applicant’s counsel was aware of the unusual breakdown in communications and should have sought a lawful remedy.
The Court’s note decision of June 16, 2024, cannot substitute for a summons or cure the initial jurisdictional defect.
Modern jurisprudence prioritizes the "Service Rule" over the "Knowledge Rule" for initial pleadings, limiting knowledge-based jurisdiction to rare exceptions.
Metadata analysis reveals that Applicant’s counsel removed required template details, including the summons, causing procedural ambiguity.
Empirical research on the Net HaMispat system emphasizes that valid file initiation requires automatic issuance of summonses and response deadlines.
In this case, no automatic summons or response activity was registered under the "Party Activities" tab in the system, reflecting procedural uncertainty.
Conclusion
The Court is requested to dismiss the application to appoint estate administrators on a summary basis for lack of personal jurisdiction over Respondent 1 due to service of the initial pleading without a court summons.
(Affidavit of Respondent 1 attached on Page 8)
Date: September 1, 2024
(Signed) Dr. Yosef Zernik, Respondent 1
Affidavit
In the Family Court in Haifa
Case No. 11650-06-24
Applicant: Uri Zernik (ID 051135325)
-vs-
Respondent 1: Yosef Zernik (ID 053625596)
I, the undersigned, Yosef Zernik, ID 053625596, after being warned to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under penalty of law, hereby declare as follows:
I am Respondent 1 in this matter.
This affidavit is given in support of the Motion for Leave and Motion for Summary Dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction in File 11650-06-24.
The contents of the motion are within my personal knowledge.
I declare that the name above is my name, the signature below is my signature, and the content is true.
(Signed) Yosef Zernik
Certification
I, the undersigned, Attorney Oshrat Vilnai (License No. 90787), hereby certify that on September 1, 2024, Yosef Zernik appeared before me, identified by ID 053625596, and after being duly warned, signed the above affidavit in my presence.
Date: September 1, 2024
(Signed & Stamped) Oshrat Vilnai, Adv., 33 Rothschild Blvd., Tel Aviv
Hebrew Original
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
September 11, 2024 Decision denying request for summary dismissal for failure to issue and file summons, #15
Translation
הנה תרגום המסמך המשפטי לאנגלית:
In the Family Court in Haifa
Case No. 11650-06-24 Zernik v. Zernik et al.
Before:
Her Honor Judge Hila Gurevitch Ovadia
In the Matter of:
Estate of the late Rivka Zernik, ID
The Applicant:
Yosef Zernik, ID
- v. -
The Respondents:
Uri Zernik, ID
Represented by Counsel, Adv. Yoav Salomon
Dror Zernik, ID
Represented by Counsel, Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari (Bar-Rav-Hay)
Motion No.: 15
DECISION
The Applicant filed a motion for summary dismissal. I have found it appropriate to deny the motion without requesting a response.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the initial pleading being served without a summons—even if there were merit to them (which has not yet been proven)—do not constitute a defect that goes to the root of the proceedings or a defect that prejudiced any substantive or procedural right of the Applicant. The deadline for filing the Applicant’s response was set, and was even extended at his request. There is also no dispute that the Applicant is aware of the proceeding. Given this, both purposes that a summons is intended to serve have been fulfilled: a deadline to file a response was set, and the parties are aware of the proceeding.
It is also clear that this is not a situation where Respondent 1 does not submit to the jurisdiction of the court—its authority.
For the sake of clarification, the Applicant refers in his motion to Regulation 158(a) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018, as well as Regulation 10(13) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018, which provide that a statement of claim shall include a summons in its first part, unless the defendant is represented. It is argued that Regulation 11(a) of the Family Court (Procedure) Regulations, 5781-2020, does not permit an exemption from a summons, meaning there is an obligation to attach a summons in claims filed in the Family Court. It is argued that in the case at hand, summonses were not attached, and therefore the court did not acquire jurisdiction over Respondent 1.
It is important to note in this context that the Applicant is unrepresented and, therefore, apparently misinterprets the question of the court’s authority/jurisdiction. A summons is intended for a defendant, not an applicant/plaintiff. It is clear that Respondent 1, having turned to the court, submits to the authority of the court to which he turned. The term "jurisdiction/authority" (marut) in the regulations relates to the question of whether or not the court possesses legal authority.
Page 1 of 2
In the Family Court in Haifa
Case No. 11650-06-24 Zernik v. Zernik et al.
In addition to the above, it should be noted that the Applicant is connected to the "Net HaMishpat" system, viewed the filed pleading less than 48 hours after its submission, and has also filed several motions/responses/notices to date—so the "Knowledge Rule" has been satisfied.
Furthermore, the Family Court possesses the authority to deviate from procedural rules whenever necessary for the sake of justice. Under the circumstances here, where the matter involves the implementation of an estate distribution agreement, and all three beneficiaries who are parties to the proceeding agree that an estate administrator needs to be appointed for this reason—with the dispute being solely over the identity of the estate administrator—dismissing the claim would not only fail to advance a resolution to the conflict, but would complicate, prolong, and cause unnecessary expenses to the parties.
The Secretariat shall serve this decision to the parties and close the motion.
Publication is permitted subject to the omission of identifying details and following proofreading and editing corrections.
Given today, 8th of Elul 5784, September 11, 2024, in the absence of the parties.
(Signed)
Hila Gurevitch Ovadia, Judge
Page 2 of 2
Hebrew Original
/
