2016-07-11 in RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian Citizen Detained in Israel - Complaint Filed With The UN HRC Working Group On Arbitrary Detention

Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel
Fax: 077-3179186
'
6133301 ",33407 "
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
July11,2016
WorkingGrouponArbitraryDetention
c/oOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights
UnitedNationsOfficeatGeneva,Switzerland
Byemail:wgad@ohchr.org,urgent-action@ohchr.org
InRE:ROMANZADOROVaUkrainiancitizendetainedinIsrael
DearSir/Madam:
Pleaseaccepttheattachedrequestforinvestigationandappropriateactionsbythe
WorkingGrouponArbitraryDetentioninthecaseofRomanZadorov.
RomanZadorov,aUkrainiancitizen,isdetainedunderthepretenseofconvictionin
thegruesomemurderof13.5yogirlTairRada,andalifesentence.However,
neitherVerdictnorSentencingaretobefoundintheNazarethDistrictCourtdockets,
andanArrestDecree,whichisrequiredbyIsraelilawforadmittingaconvictto
prison,ismissing.
Hiscaseisopinedbyvariousexperts,andbelievedbythevastmajorityoftheIsraeli
publictobeacaseofframingbypolice,falseprosecutionand/orconductof
sham/simulatedtrialbythecourts.IsraeliCriminalLawProfessorBoazSangero
wrote:"Convictionwithnorealevidence".SeniorLawProfessorMordechai
Kremnitzer(oneoftheleadersoftheIsraelDemocracyInstitute)wrote:"Conductof
theprosecutionisscary...theprosecutionisnotseekingthetruth...thejusticesystem
ismostlybusyprotectingitself..."
AsdetailedintheattachedRequest,thecaseofRomanZadorovprovidesevidenceof
widespreadincompetenceand/orcorruptionoftheIsraelijusticesystem,includingits
highestechelons.Therefore,instantrequestisalsocopiedtotheICCHague,where
competenceoftheIsraelijusticesystem,orlackthereof,isakeyissuein
considerationofcomplaints,pendingbeforethatcourt.
Forbrevitysake,Itriedtofocusonmainissues,butIwouldbegladtoprovide
additionalevidenceandrefertheWorkingGrouptoexpertsinspecificareas,oncean
investigationiscommenced.
Pleaseconfirmreceiptbyreturnemail.
__________________
JosephZernik,PhD
CC:Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, The International Criminal Court (ICC)
By email: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int
1/137
In RE: ROMAN ZADOROV a Ukrainian citizen detained by the State of Israel
Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o=HRANGO, ou,
email=joseph.zernik
@hra-ngo.org, c=IL
Date: 2016.07.11
11:25:34 +03'00'
Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel
Fax: 077-3179186
'
6133301 ",33407 "
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
In RE: ROMAN ZADOROV a Ukrainian citizen detained in Israel

1. Executive Summary
Request
Request for investigation and appropriate actions is filed with the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention in the case of ROMAN ZADOROV, a Ukrainian citizen, alleging that
he is arbitrarily detained in Israel with no lawful authority of the courts, following the
conduct of sham/simulated trial.
Allegations
Instant request alleges that ROMAN ZADOROV is arbitrarily detained under the pretense
of serving a life imprisonment sentence and pretense conviction in the 2006 gruesome
murder of 13.5 yo girl TAIR RADA. Neither Verdict nor valid Sentencing records are to
be found in the Nazareth District Court dockets, and an Arrest Decree, which is required
by Israeli law for admitting a convict to prison, is missing. It is further alleged that such
arbitrary detention is the outcome of framing by police, prosecutorial and judicial
misconduct - sham/simulated trial. The request alleges serious violations of domestic
law - detention with no valid, lawful authority of the courts, deprivation of the rights for
Due Process and Fair and Public Hearing, denial of access to valid judicial decision and
judgment records, and the issuance and publication of sham/simulated court records
instead; serious violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 2 and
Article 9; serious violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 9, and Article 14, and discrimination based on nationality, language, and/or
religion, as well as abuse originating in inadvertent political circumstance.
Overview
Following the December 2006 gruesome murder of 13.5 yo TAIR RADA, the evidence
shows that Israel Police Special Investigation Team, headed by YORAM AZULAY,
perverted the investigation, withheld, destroyed, and/or misrepresented the evidence.
Particularly notable is the negligence in failing to attempt the matching of voluminous
physical evidence from the crime scene fingerprints, DNA samples, hair samples,
footprints - to any other suspect, even after none of it matched ROMAN ZADOROV.
Students from the victim's school testified in court that they had knowledge regarding
the murder and its perpetrators, but police never followed up on such lines of
investigation. After reviewing the evidence with the help of a police veteran,
professional investigator, the victim's mother, ILANA RADA, petitioned the Supreme
Court for reopening the investigation. She did not and does not believe that ROMAN
ZADOROV was the murderer.
Close family relations between students and police have long been suspected as the
reason for the initial perversion of the investigation. Roman Zadorov on the other hand
was compromised, being Christian not Jewish, Ukrainian not an Israeli citizen, and
not a Hebrew speaker at the time.
The investigation was eventually centered on extracting a factually false confession
from ROMAN ZADOROV, which he recanted almost immediately.
Veteran senior Israel Police investigator ALEX PELEG repeatedly stated: There is no
evidence tying Zadorov to the crime scene, and the murder reenactment was
staged. Investigator HAIM SADOVSKY wrote a book on the case, titled, Framing the
Innocent. Senior Criminal Law professor BOAZ SANGERO later wrote: Conviction with
no real evidence.
2/137
In January 2007 North District Attorney MIRIT STERN and Chief Criminal Prosecutor
SHILA INBAR filed the indictment against Roman Zadorov. The indictment was based
almost entirely on the purported confession, and provided no motive for the murder.
The same District Attorney Office filed a few years earlier indictment against Arab
citizens in OLEG SHOYKHET's murder case based on false confessions. Under conditions
of law enforcement and the courts in Israel, Prof Sangero wrote: Confession: King of
evidence, or Cesar of false convictions? Senior Law Professor MORDECHAI
KREMNITZER wrote: Conduct of the prosecution is scary. It is not conduct of
Prosecution, which is seeking the truth... Regarding retaliation campaign by Chief
Prosecutor SHAI NITZAN against senior Forensic Expert, Dr MAYA FORMAN, who testified
for the Defense, Minister of Health YAEL GERMAN wrote: ...lacks legal foundation and
carries overarching and dangerous implications... blatant violation of Human Rights, the
fundamentals of law and justice... Law Professor YOAV DOTAN wrote: Dr Forman and
Mr Nitzan.
Criminal complaints, alleging police and prosecutorial misconduct were filed by various
parties, but were not investigated. Review by the Israel Bar Association of ethics
complaints against senior State Prosecution officers for tampering with the affidavit of
another senior forensic expert, Dr HEN KUGEL, was blocked by Attorney General
AVICHAI MANDELBLIT. Dr HEN KUGEL stated in interview with media: I am intimidated
by the State Prosecution. Review by Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, Judge
(ret) HILA GERSTEL of allegations of prosecutorial misconduct was blocked by then
Attorney General YEHUDA WEINSTEIN. Referring to the Attorney General's conduct,
former Justice Minister, senior Law Professor DANIEL FRIEDMAN stated in the Knesset's
Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee hearing: "The Attorney General cannot gag
the entire State and not let anybody voice an opinion".
Already during the trial, complaints of serious sex crimes were pending against Judge
YITZHAK COHEN, who headed the 3-judge panel. Police later recommended his
prosecution, and Judge Cohen resigned. However, to this date, the North District
Attorney Office has not filed an indictment. Investigation by Commissioner Gerstel of
police and prosecutorial misprision of felonies pertaining to Judge YITZHAK COHEN
during ROMAN ZADOROV's trial was blocked by Attorney General YEHUDA WEINSTEIN.
Review by Commissioner HILA GERSTEL of matters, related to the Zadorov case and the
relationship between the State Prosecution and the National Forensic Medicine
Institute , led to direct confrontation with Chief Prosecutor SHAI NITZAN and the State
prosecutors, who refused to acknowledge her oversight authority and launched an
indefinite strike. GERSTEL wrote that SHAI NITZAN is not telling the truth, but ended
up resigning. Attorney AVIGDOR FELDMAN wrote: ... in view of the State Prosecution's
claim in response to Judge Gerstel, that the Prosecution routinely does not file in court
professional opinions that contradict its position, I suddenly recalled all the cases,
where I interrogated Prof [YEHUDA-jz] Hiss and other servants [sic-jz] from the Institute,
who filed opinions, which amazingly matched the Prosecution's position, and affected
false convictions (in my view, which is not worth a dime). Presiding Justice MIRIAM
NAOR, on the other hand, explained the amazingly high conviction rate in Israel (by
some accounts close to 100%): High conviction rate in itself does not indicate an error,
since prior to it, we have the filter of the Prosecution, which reviews the cases, and does
not file an indictment in every case. Judge EFRAT FINK differed, writing Regarding
institutional problems, preventing correction of false convictions in Israel...
On September 14, 2010, Judges YITZHAK COHEN, ESTHER HELLMAN, and HAIM GALPAZ,
purportedly convicted ROMAN ZADOROV of murder and sentenced him to life in prison.
However, neither Verdict, nor valid Sentencing record appears in the trial court dockets.
Top Israeli Attorney AVIGDOR FELDMAN, ROMAN ZADOROV's pro bono Counsel, later
wrote that regardless of his efforts, he could only discover remnants of the judgment
records, which haven't been scattered by the wailing wind across the vast Jezreel
valley... Arrest Decree, which is required by Israeli law for admitting a convict to
3/137
prison, is missing. Nazareth District Court Chief Clerk OSHRAT AVICHEZER refuses to
certify, True Copy of the Original, any of the records in ROMAN ZADOROV's court file.
From October 2010 to December 2015, Israeli Supreme Court Justices YORAM
DANZIGER, YITZHAK AMIT, and ZVI ZYLBERTAL, conducted an appeal process, which
originated with no authentic judgment records of the Nazareth District Court, therefore
lacking authority and validity. Hearings were conducted, but Notices to Appear in Court
and transcript are missing. Decision records are of dubious validity: all are marked
subject to editing and phrasing changes, none is duly served, and no valid
certifications can be obtained. Conduct of the Supreme Court relative to attempts to
inspect Supreme Court judicial decision records was lacking in integrity. The appeal was
denied by split panel opinions.
In July 2016, Supreme Court Presiding Justice MIRIAM NAOR denied ROMAN ZADOROV's
request for a new, expanded panel hearing of the Appeal.
Denial of public access to judicial records to inspect and to copy
Public access to judicial decision records is guaranteed by domestic law, and was
declared in a 2009 Supreme Court Judgment, fundamental principle in any democratic
regime... constitutional, super-statutory... However, both the Nazareth District Court
and the Supreme Court conducted perverted judicial review process in response to
attempts to inspect judicial records in this case and denied access.
From 2007 to December 2009, the Zadorov trial court file was administered as a paper
court file (now held by the Supreme Court). Supreme Court Magistrate GILAD LUBINSKY
denied access to inspect the original paper decision records from the Nazareth District
Court under the reasoning of a jumble in the court file. Justice SALIM JOUBRAN has
failed so far to rule on an appeal, originating from LUBINSKY's decision, and the appeal
was falsely registered by the Supreme Court Closed, then re-opened following protest.
From January 2010, with the implementation of Net-HaMishpat case management
system, the trial court file was administered as an electronic court file. In the Nazareth
District Court, Judge ESTHER HELLMAN and Presiding Judge AVRAHAM AVRAHAM denied
access to electronic records, in collusion with Chief Clerk OSHRAT AVICHEZER and
District Attorneys MIRIT STERN and SHILA INBAR, through conduct lacking in integrity.
Presiding Judge AVRAHAM ruled: ... these are not requests to inspect, but an
investigation by the Requester of the validity and operations of Net-HaMishpat system
and various other claims relative to conduct of the judicial panel in instant court file. In
such matters, this Court shall not engage... Judge AVRAHAM further issued a threat of
imposing monetary penalties if efforts to exercise the Right to Inspect continued.
Regarding repeat request to inspect a Lawfully made Arrest Decree he finally ruled,
on its face the request appears cantankerous, useless... therefore denied. In a
secretive filing with the Court, Chief Prosecutor of the North District Attorney Office
SHILA INBAR wrote, the Requester is abusing the term 'Right to Inspect', and such right
should not be considered permission for anybody to bother the Courts and the Offices of
the Clerks... As far as the Respondent knows, the Requester has not been appointed
Ombudsman of the Courts, and nobody authorized him to conduct investigations and
reviews. Roman Zadorov never objected to the inspection, but the State Prosecution
did, alleging sensitive materials and invasion of individual privacy, and the Supreme
Court adopted such claims. It appears that the State Prosecution is invoking the Privacy
Right regarding conduct of the Israel Police and the State Prosecution itself. It is the
same claim that was made against publication of Commissioner GERSTEL's report damaging reputation of the State Prosecution. Claiming Privacy Rights for conduct of
Police and the Prosecution is antithetical to the right of Fair and Public Hearing.
General implications
Whereas the affair may have started as low-level police misconduct, for no fault of his
own Roman Zadorov has eventually become a pawn in high-level political power games.
Professor KREMNITZER wrote: ...in the Zadorov case.. If you add... the position of the
4/137
Supreme Court and the Attorney General in recent years, we are left with a justice
system, which is primarily occupied with protecting itself.
The case reflects general lack of integrity in Israeli court records and process following a
deliberate, systematic process over the past 15 years, which dismantled clerical duties
and obligations relative to the safeguard of court records and stripped any sign of
validity from the records themselves. Court records have been deliberately rendered
vague and ambiguous. In the aftermath, perversion of court records by judges and
conduct of sham/simulated judicial process have become commonplace. The most
notable case was Judge VARDA ALSHECH's Fabricated Protocols scandal. Such conduct
is extra-judicial conduct, which is not covered by any immunity, and should be deemed
serious criminality. Regardless, judges are not held accountable. Such circumstances
allegedly lead to generalized incompetence and/or corruption of the courts, where the
Israeli courts can no longer be deemed Courts of Record.
Corruption scandals have also rocked the top echelons of State Prosecution and Israel
Police: The Head of the National Anti Corruption and Organized Crime Unit MENASHE
ARBIV, Head of the National Fraud Investigation Unit EFRAIM BRACHA, former Tel-Aviv
District Attorney RUTH DAVID, and others have been implicated in major bribing
scandals. Senior justice system figures are routinely not held accountable. Inspection of
court records in major corruption scandals routinely produces evidence of conduct of
sham/simulated court process by judges. The system appears unable to address its
own corruption.
The use of sham/simulated records and sham/simulated judicial process is widespread
in Israel today: in the Detainees' Court sham/simulated judgments amount to largescale arbitrary detention, in the Magistrate Courts sham/simulated search and seizure
warrants, Draconian civil judgment, as well as restraining order, amounting to Prior
Restraint of Speech against political protest activists amount to stifling political rights,
in the Debtors' Courts sham/simulated accounting records and sham/simulated
magistrates' decision records amounting to large-scale looting of the debtors by banks,
attorneys, and magistrates, and in the Supreme Court denying protection of
fundamental rights. In 2009, US Ambassador to Israel JAMES CUNNINGHAM cabled to
the State Department a report, titled, Israel: Promised land for organized crime? The
report appears to have grossly underestimated corruption of government in Israel in
general, and corruption of the justice system in particular.
Conclusions
Roman Zadorov is arbitrarily detained by the Israeli Prison Service - with no lawfully
made Arrest Decree.
Roman Zadorov's trial by the Nazareth District Court should be deemed
sham/simulated process deprivation of Due Process and Fair and Public Hearing
which ended with neither lawful Verdict nor Sentencing record.
Roman Zadorov's appeal in the Israeli Supreme Court should be deemed lacking in
authority and validity from start to end originating with no valid judgment records
of the lower court, conducted with no valid records of the hearings, and where all
decisions records are of dubious validity.
Roman Zadorov's detention by the Israeli authorities allegedly violates articles of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, originates in Discrimination based on Nationality, Language, and/or
Religion, and in inadvertent political reasons.
Roman Zadorov's case reflects widespread incompetence and/or corruption of the
Israeli justice system, including its highest echelons, to a level that would be
recognized in criminology as Organized State Crime.
Filer: Joseph Zernik, PhD
5/137
2. Table of Contents
Document
Page
1. Executive Summary
2. Table of Contents
3. Model questionnaire to be completed by persons alleging arbitrary arrest or detention
4. Filer: Joseph Zernik, PhD
14
5. Request
15
6. Allegations
16
7. Overview
18
8. Key evidence
8.1 Roman Zadorov is arbitrarily detained by the Israeli Prison Service - with no
34
lawfully made Arrest Decree.

8.2 Roman Zadorov's trial by the Nazareth District Court should be deemed
sham/simulated process deprivation of Due Process and Fair and Public
Hearing which ended with neither lawful Verdict, nor Sentencing.
8.3 Roman Zadorov's appeal in the Israeli Supreme Court should be deemed lacking in
authority and validity from the start originating with no judgment records of the lower
court, conducted with no valid records of the hearings, and ending with decision
records of dubious validity. Conduct of the Supreme Court, relative to efforts to inspect
the Appeal court file disregarded Due Process and lacked in integrity.
8.4 Roman Zadorov's detention by the Israeli authorities should be deemed violation of
articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, originates in Discrimination based on Nationality, Language,
and/or Religion, and in inadvertent political reasons
8.5 Roman Zadorov's case reflects widespread incompetence and/or corruption of the
Israeli justice system.
9. Attachments
Attachment 9.1 Joseph Zernik, PhD Biosketch
Attachment 9.2 Zernik, J., Integrity, or lack thereof, in electronic record systems of the
Israeli courts, HRA-NGO submission for the UPR by UN HRC (2013)
Attachment 9.3 Zernik, J., New Fraudulent IT Systems in the Israeli Courts: Unannounced
Regime Change?, European Conference on E-Government (2015)
Attachment 9.4 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court
requests, decisions in attempt to inspect electronic judicial decision records
Attachment 9.5 Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal Israel Bar Association
complaint and Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision
Attachment 9.6 Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (1936 vs 2004)
Attachment 9.7 Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files (2003)
Attachment 9.8 State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court
requests, decisions in attempt to inspect paper judicial decision records
Attachment 9.9 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court
requests, decisions, related to inspection of court file records
Attachment 9.10 Background Document Regarding Electronic Signatures by the Ministry
of Justice, Law, Information & Technology Authority (ILITA) (updated September 2009)
Attachment 9.11 Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) request for a new trial in the
Supreme Court Notice and request to correct false electronic records
Attachment 9.12 Abuse of political activists by the Israeli courts
6/137
34
37
84
96
98
137
3 MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED BY PERSONS ALLEGING ARBITRARY

ARREST OR DETENTION1
I. IDENTITY
1. Family name:
ZADOROV
2. First name:
ROMAN
3. Sex:
Male
4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention):

5. Nationality/Nationalities:
UKRAINE
6. (a) Identity document (if any):
Notavailable
(b) Issued by:
Notavailable
(c) On (date):
Notavailable
(d) No.:
Notavailable
7. Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention):
Handyman.constructionworker
8. Address of usual residence:
Katzrin,GolanHeights(underIsraelioccupation)
II. ARREST2
1. Date of arrest:
December2006
2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible):
Hisresidence
3. Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out:
IsraelPolice
4. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority?
Unknown
5. Authority who issued the warrant or decision:
SinceSeptember14,2010(purportedconvictiondate):
a)NolawfulConviction,nolawfulSentencingrecordsaretobefoundintheCourt
dockets.
b)Warrantlessdetention:ArrestDecree,whichisrequiredbyIsraelilawforadmitting
aconvicttoprisonismissing.
6. Reasons for the arrest imputed by the authorities:
LifeimprisonmentsentencefollowingconvictionintheDecember6,2006murderof
13.5yogirlTairRada
7. Legal basis for the arrest including relevant legislation applied (if known):
1
This questionnaire should be addressed to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, 8-14 avenue de la Paix, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland, fax No.(41)
(0) 22 917.90.06, E-mail: wgad@ohchr.org; and, urgent-action@ohchr.org.
A separate questionnaire must be completed for each case of alleged arbitrary arrest or detention. As far as possible, all
details requested should be given. Nevertheless, failure to do so will not necessarily result in inadmissibility of the
communication.
2
For the purpose of this questionnaire, arrest refers to the initial act of apprehending a person. Detention means
and includes any deprivation of liberty before, during and after trial. In some cases, only section II or III may be
applicable. Nonetheless, whenever possible, both sections should be completed.
7/137
ThereisnolegalbasisforthearrestsinceSeptember14,2010thepurported
convictiondate.ThereisnoArrestDecree,whichisrequiredbyIsraelilawfor
admittingaconvicttoprison.
III. DETENTION
ItisallegesthatROMANZADOROVisarbitrarilydetainedunderthepretenseofservingalife
imprisonmentsentencefollowingpretenseconvictioninthe2006gruesomemurderof13.5yogirl
TAIRRADA.Itisfurtherallegedthatsucharbitrarydetentionistheoutcomeofframingbypolice,
prosecutorialandjudicialmisconductamountingtoconductofasham/simulatedtrial.
1. Date of detention:
December2006January2007:asamurdersuspect
January2007September2010:asadefendantincriminalprocess
September2010present:asapurportedmurderconvict
2. Duration of detention (if not known, probable duration):
About10years
3. Forces holding the detainee under custody:
Israelilawenforcement:PrisonService
4. Places of detention (indicate az
ShitaPrison,Israel
5. Authorities that ordered the detention:
Underthecircumstances,detailedininstantRequestforInvestigation,atpresent
thereisnovalidorderbytherequiredauthority(court)forthedetentionofRoman
Zadorov.
6. Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities:
December2006January2007:murdersuspect
January2007September2010:defendantincriminalprocess
September2010present:purportedmurderconvict
7. Legal basis for the detention including relevant legislation applied (if known):
AsdetailedininstantRequestforInvestigation,thereisnolegalbasisforthe
detention,sincethereareneitherlawfulConviction,norSentencingrecords,and
ArrestDecree,whichisprescribedbyIsraelilawforadmittingaconvicttoprison,is
missing.
IV. Describe the circumstances of the arrest.
V. Indicate reasons why you consider the arrest and/or detention to be arbitrary 3. Specifically provide details on whether:
(i)The basis for the deprivation of liberty is authorized by the Constitution or the domestic law
Domesticlaw:Itisallegedthatthereisnoauthorizedbasisforthedeprivationof
liberty:
1. ThepurportedSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingfailtoappearinCourt
dockets.
2. AttorneyAvigdorFeldman,thenRomanZadorov'sDefenseCounsel,wrotethathe
failedinhiseffortstodiscoverZadorov'sjudgmentrecords,heonlyfound
3
Copies of documents that prove the arbitrary nature of the arrest or detention, or help to understand the specific
circumstances of the case, as well as any other relevant information, may also be attached to this questionnaire.
8/137
remnantsofthejudgmentrecords,whichhaven'tbeenscatteredbythewailing
windacrossthevastJezreelvalley...
3. ArrestDecree,whichrequiredbyIsraelilawforadmittingaconvicttoprison,is
missing.
4. TheIsraelicourtsdenyaccesstojudicialdecisionrecords,whichwouldprovide
furtherdetailsofconductoftheNazarethDistrictCourtinZadorov'scase.The
RegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003),Regulation2(b)says:
Anypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisions,whicharenotlawfully
prohibitedforpublication.
Thematterwasalsoexplicitlystatedinthe2009JudgmentbyPresidingJustice
DoritBeinischattheendofthe12yearlongpetitionAssociationforCivilRightsin
IsraelvMinisterofJustice(5917/97).The2009Judgmentsays:
Regulation2(b)expandsthepublic'srighttoinspectwithno
requirementforfilingarequestwiththeCourt,butonlypertainingto
decisionsoftheCourt,andonlypertainingtodecisionsthatarenot
prohibitedforpublicationbylaw.
AlthoughthereisnoconstitutionintheStateofIsrael,the2009Judgmentalso
declaredtherighttoinspectjudicialrecords:
Afundamentalprincipleinanydemocraticregime...constitutional,
superstatutory...
Incontrast,inZadorov'scase:
a) PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourtrefusesto
ruleonproformarequesttoinspecttheelectronicsignatureexecutiondataof
theelectroniccourtrecords,iftheyexistatall.
b) PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourtdenieda
proformarequesttoinspecttheArrestDecreethroughand
invalid/sham/simulateddecisionrecordunderthereasoningthattherequest
wascantankerous,useless,therebytacitlyadmittingthatnoArrestDecree
existedatall.
c) ChiefClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourtrefusestocertifyanyrecordsinthe
courtfile,TrueCopyoftheOriginal.
d) Inadubiousjudicialprocess,SupremeCourtMagistrateGiladLubinskydenied
ProformaRequesttoinspecttheoriginalpaperdecisionrecordsfromthe
Nazarethtrial(nowheldbytheSupremeCourt),withthereasoningofa
jumbleinthecourtfile
e) NorulinghasbeenrenderedtothisdatebytheSupremeCourtonanappeal,
originatinginMagistrateLubinsky'sdecision,denyingaccesstoinspectthe
originalpaperdecisionrecordsofthetrialcourt,andtheAppealcourtfileis
falselyregisteredClosed,pursuanttoJudgment,wherenojudgmentor
decisiononthematteroftheappealhasbeenrendered.
9/137
f) IsraeliSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeMiriamNaorrefusestoperformher
duties,pursuanttotheRegulationsoftheCourtInspectionofCourtFiles
(2003),Regulation6(b)andestablishproceduresforinspectionofcourt
decisionsintheSupremeCourt(whichrequiresnorequestforinspection,
pursuanttoaSupremeCourt2009judgment).
g) InspectionoftheIsraeliSupremeCourtZadorovAppealpapercourtfile
(originalrecords)showsthattheAppealwasconductedforfive(5)years
withoutthefilingofauthenticConvictionandSentencingrecordsofthe
NazarethDistrictCourt,inwhichtheAppealpurportedlyoriginated.Thereare
novalidrecordsofthehearingsintheappeal,andalldecisionrecordsareof
dubiousvalidity.
(ii)The reason the individual has been deprived of liberty is a result of the exercise of his or her rights or freedoms
guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States
parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights?
Probablyimmaterialinthiscase.
(iii)The international norms relating the right to a fair trial have been totally or partially observed, specifically, articles 9
and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 9 and 14 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights:
Article9normswereandareallegedlydisregardedthrougharbitraryarrest,
detention:
RomanZadorovisheldunderarbitrarydetention,withneitherlawful,valid
andenforceableConviction,Sentencing,norArrestDecree.
Article10normswereandareallegedlydisregarded,relativetoafairandpublic
hearing:
TheNazarethDistrictCourtconductedsham/simulatedcourtprocesswith
invalidrecords.
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourtdeniedPro
formaRequesttoinspecttheArrestDecreethroughasham/simulateddecision
recordunderthereasoningthattherequestwascantankerous,useless,
therebytacitlyadmittingthatnoArrestDecreeexistedatall.
SupremeCourtMagistrateGuyShanideniedaccesstoinspecttheoriginal
paperdecisionrecordsoftheNazarethDistrictCourt(nowheldbythe
SupremeCourt)underthereasoningofajumbleinthecourtfile.
JusticeSalimJoubranfailedtoruleonappealfromMagistrateLubinsky
Decision,denyingaccesstoinspecttheNazarethCourtfile,andtheAppealis
nowfalselyregisteredClosed,pursuanttoJudgment,whereasnojudgment
ordecisionhavebeenrenderedonthematter.
InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights:
Article9normswereandareallegedlydisregardedthrougharbitraryarrest,
detention,anddisregardofprocedureasareestablishedbylaw.
10/137
Article14normswereandareallegedlydisregardedastoequalbeforethecourts
andtribunals,afairandpublichearingbyacompetent,independentandimpartial
tribunal,anyjudgmentrenderedinacriminalcaseorinasuitatlawshallbemade
public,Nottobecompelledtotestifyagainsthimselfortoconfessguilt.
(iv)In the case of an asylum seeker, migrant or refugee who has been subjected to prolonged administrative custody, if
he or she has been guaranteed the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy?
Probablyimmaterialinthiscase.
(v) The individual has been deprived of his or her liberty for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or
social origin; language; religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; or disability or
other status which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights?
ItisallegedthatRomanZadorov'sabusebytheIsraelilawenforcementandjustice
systemwasandislikelytoberelated,atleastinpart,tothefactthattothebestof
myknowledgeRomanZadorovis,oratleastwasatthetimeoftheinvestigation,
indictmentand/ortrialintheNazarethDistrictCourtChristiannotJewish,
UkrainiannotanIsraelicitizen,andnotaHebrewspeaker.
1. RomanZadorov'sinvestigation,wherehepurportedlyconfessed,wasconductedin
Hebrew,althoughhedidnotspeakHebrew,whiledomesticlawrequires
investigationinalanguagethatthesuspectunderstands.
TheCriminalCourtProcedureActInvestigationofSuspects(2002),Article2,says:
2.Investigationofasuspectshallbeconductedinhislanguage,orina
languagethatthesuspectknowsandspeaks,includingsignlanguage.
Accordingtocriminalcomplaints,whichwerefiledwiththeAttorneyGeneral,
almostallpoliceinvestigationrecordingsandconversationswiththeprison
informer,whichwerefiledinCourt,weretranslatedfromRussiantoHebrewby
professionaltranslationservices.Incontrast,thecriticalconversationswiththe
prisoninformeronthedayofthepurportedprisonconfessionand
reenactment,aswellastheinvestigationonthecriticaldayofthepurported
confessionweretranslatedbythepolicementhemselves.Thecomplaints,filed
withtheAttorneyGeneral,allegedthatthetranslationsbypolicewerefalseand
misleading.
2. RomanZadorov'sabuseoriginatesinpartininadvertentpoliticalreasons:
Fornofaultofhisown,RomanZadorov'scasehasbecomeapawninhighlevel
politicalpowergames.Thecaseanditsramificationshavebynowmushroomed
intocircumstances,wherethejusticesystemisprimarilyoccupiedwithprotecting
itself.
Changes,whichhavebeenintroducedinadministrationoftheIsraelicourtsover
thepastdecade,havemadetheissuanceofsham/simulateddecisionsbyjudgesa
routine,whichthejudiciaryisunwillingtoadmitorcorrect.
InthebroaderperspectiveitisallegedthattheRomanZadorovaffairandits
variousramificationsreflectsystemwideincompetence,relativetolackof
accountabilityoftheStateProsecution,andrefusaltocorrectoffalseconvictions.
AnacademicpublicationinaHebrewlegalperiodical,coauthoredbyIsraeli
11/137
JudgeEfratFink,istitled,Regardinginstitutionalproblems,preventingcorrection
offalseconvictionsinIsrael(Ma'aseiMishpat,Vol5,p193,2013).
VI. Indicate internal steps, including domestic remedies, taken especially with the legal and administrative authorities,
particularly for the purpose of establishing the detention and, as appropriate, their results or the reasons why such steps
or remedies were ineffective or why they were not taken. 4
Briefly,internalsteps,takenbytheFilerofinstantRequestandothers,included:
1. PetitionstotheSupremeCourtbythevictim'sparentsandbyprofessional
investigators,tocompelpolicetoreopentheinvestigationwerealldenied.
2. Complaintstovariousauthorities,includingtheAttorneyGeneralandthe
CommissionerofProsecutorialOversight,regardingpoliceand/orprosecutorial
misconductwerenotinvestigated.
3. Separatecivilaction,whereseniorforensicexpertDrMayaFormansuedtheState
authorities,includingtheChiefStateProsecutor,intheTelAvivLaborCourtfor
retaliationandharassmentintheaftermathofhertestimonyinfavorofRoman
ZadorovendedwithajudgmentinfacorofDrForman.
4. EthicscomplaintswerefiledagainstseniorStateProsecutorsbytheIsraeli
MovementforGovernanceandDemocracywiththeIsraelBarAssociation,
claimingtamperingwiththetestimonyofseniorforensicexpertDrHenKugel,
whoalsotestifiedinfavorofRomanZadorovreviewofthecomplainswas
blockedbytheAttorneyGeneral.
5. Attemptstoinspectthejudicialrecords,whichpurportedlyprovidetheauthority
forthedetentionweredeniedbytheNazarethDistrictCourtandtheIsraeli
SupremeCourt.However,thepartialaccess,whichwasmaterialized,generated
sufficientevidencetoleadareasonablepersontothefollowingconclusions:
a)RomanZadorovwassubjectedtosham/simulatedcourtprocessintheNazareth
DistrictCourt,andthetrialendedwithneitherVerdictnorSentencing.
b)ThereisnoArrestDecree,whichisprescribedbyIsraelilawforexecutionofa
prisonsentenceafterconviction.
b) TheNazarethDistrictCourtandtheIsraeliSupremeCourtareengageddenial
ofaccesstocourtrecordsindisregardofdomesticlaw.Suchconductallegedly
amountstowithholdingfurtherevidenceoftheconductofsham/simulated
courtprocessintheNazarethDistrictCourt.
VII. Full name, postal and electronic addresses of the person(s) submitting the information (telephone and fax number, if
possible).5
InstantRequestforInvestigationisfiledwithoutauthorizationorknowledgeof
RomanZadorov,hisfamily,orhiscounsel.Concernwasthatanyinvolvementor
cooperationbysuchpartiesininstantRequestforInvestigationwouldbeseenbythe
Israeliauthoritiesashostile,andonlyaggravatehissituation.
4
Note that the Methods of Work of the Working Group do not require exhaustion of all available domestic remedies for
the communication to be admissible for consideration by the Working Group.
If a case is submitted to the Working Group by anyone other than the victim or his family, such a person or
organization should indicate authorization by the victim or his family to act on their behalf. If, however the
authorization is not readily available, the Working Group reserves the right to proceed without the authorization. All
details concerning the person(s) submitting the information to the Working Group, and any authorization provided by
the victim or his family, will be kept confidential.
12/137
Filer:JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlert(NGO)
Email:joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Fax:++773179186
POBox33407,TelAviv
ISRAEL
Date:
July11,2016
Signature:
JosephZernik,PhD*
*Theentiredocumentiselectronicallysignedatthetoprightcornerofthecover
letter.
13/137
4.Filer:JosephZernik,PhD
Inrecentyearsmyexpertise,relativetofraudincourtrecordsinIsrael,in
California,andintheUS(federal),hasbeeninternationallyrecognized(Attachment
9.1).
AtextbookonMachineLearninglistsHumanRightsamongNotableusesofData
mining,basedonmyacademicpublications:
Dataminingofgovernmentrecordsparticularlyrecordsofthejusticesystem
(i.e.,courts,prisons)enablesthediscoveryofsystemichumanrights
violationsinconnectiontogenerationandpublicationofinvalidorfraudulent
legalrecordsbyvariousgovernmentagencies.
Similarly,IhavebeenrecentlyinvitedtocontributeachapterinanEnglishtextbook
onegovernment,tobepublishedbySpringer.Thechapterwillcomparethecase
managementsystemsofthecourtsinvariousjurisdictionsandcriticallyreviewof
theirvalidityandintegrity.
Reports,whichIauthoredhavebeenincorporatedintothree(3)UNHumanRights
CouncilUPRStaffReports:
a)TheUnitedStates(2010),withthenote:Corruptionofthecourtsandthelegal
professionanddiscriminationbylawenforcementinCalifornia;
b)TheStateofIsrael(2013)withthenote:Lackofintegrityintheelectronicrecords
ofthesupremecourt,thedistrictcourtsandthedetaineescourtsinIsrael
(Attachment9.2),and
c)TheUnitedStates(2015)withthenote:HRANGOrecommendedrestoringthe
integrityoftheITsystemsofthecourts,underaccountabilitytotheCongress,with
thegoalofmakingsuchsystemsastransparentaspossibletothepublicatlarge.
MyanalysisoffraudincourtrecordsinCaliforniawassupportedbyleadingUSfraud
experts.ThemostnotableamongthemisMrJamesWedick,formerFBISpecial
Agent,whoislikelytobetheNo1fraudexpertintheUStoday.MrWedickwas
commendedforhiscontributiontolawenforcementbytheUSAttorneyGeneral,FBI
Director,andtheUSCongress.
TheevidenceininstantRequestforInvestigation,allegingFraudUpontheCourtin
caseofRomanZadorov,bothintheNazarethDistrictCourtandintheIsraeli
SupremeCourt,isconsistentwithevidence,whichwaspresentedintheHuman
RightsAlertsubmissionforthe2013UNUPRofHumanRightsintheStateofIsrael.
Similarevidenceissummarizedinanacademicreport,whichwaspublishedinthe
2015EuropeanConferenceonEGovernment(ECEG),subjecttopeerreviewby
seniorinternationalITexperts,titled:NewFraudulentITSystemsintheIsraeli
Courts:UnannouncedRegimeChange?(Attachment9.3).
BoththeUPRandtheECEGreportsdocumentsystematicremovalofvalidity,
authenticity,forceandeffectfromIsraelicourtrecordsoverthepast15years.
Iamnotanattorney,andIhavenolegaleducation.Therefore,reviewersofinstant
RequestforInvestigationareaskedtofocusonthefacts,producedhereasevidence,
anddisregardthereferencetolegalauthorities,incasetheyareerroneous.
14/137
5.Request
TheWorkingGrouponArbitraryDetentionishereinrequestedtoapplyanyandall
measureswithinitsmandatetoaffectjusticeforRomanZadorov:
1. Todulyandexpedientlyinvestigatetheallegationsofdeprivationofliberty,
imposedarbitrarilyorotherwiseinconsistentlywiththerelevantinternational
standardssetforthintheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsorinthe
relevantinternationallegalinstrumentsacceptedbythetheStateofIsrael
concerned;
2. ToseekandreceiveinformationfromthegovernmentoftheStateofIsraeland
intergovernmentalandnongovernmentalorganizations,andreceive
informationfromRomanZadorov,hisfamily,hisrepresentativesand/or
others,whoarefamiliarwiththefactsinthismatter;
3. Toactoninformationsubmittedtoitsattentionregardingtheallegedarbitrary
detentionofRomanZadorovbysendingurgentappealsandcommunicationsto
thegovernmentoftheStateofIsraeltoclarifyandtobringthecasetotheir
attention;
4. ToconductafieldmissionupontheinvitationofthegovernmentoftheState
ofIsrael,inordertounderstandbetterthesituationprevailinginIsrael,aswell
astheunderlyingreasonsfortheallegedarbitrarydeprivationoflibertyof
RomanZadorov;
5. Toformulatedeliberationsonissuesofageneralnatureinordertoassistthe
StateofIsraeltopreventandguardagainstthepracticeofarbitrarydeprivation
oflibertyandtofacilitateconsiderationoffuturecases;
6. TopresentthecaseofRomanZadorovinitsannualreporttotheHumanRights
Council,includingitsfindings,conclusionsandrecommendations.
Furthermore,theWorkingGroupinfulfillingitsmandate,isencouraged:
1. Toworkincooperationanddialoguewithallthoseconcernedinthecaseof
RomanZadorov,andinparticularwiththeStateofIsrael;
2. ToworkregardingthecaseofRomanZadorovincoordinationwithother
mechanismsoftheHumanRightsCouncil,withothercompetentUnited
Nationsbodiesandwithtreatybodies,bearinginmindtheroleoftheOfficeof
theUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRightsinsuch
coordination;]
3. Tocarryoutitstaskwithobjectivityandindependence.
15/137
6.Allegations
ItisallegesthatROMANZADOROVisarbitrarilydetainedunderthepretenseof
servingalifeimprisonmentsentencefollowingconvictioninthe2006gruesome
murderof13.5yogirlTairRada.However,neitherConviction,norSentencing
recordsarefoundinthecourtdockets,andArrestDecree,whichisprescribedby
Iraelilawforadmittingaconvicttoprison,ismissing.Itisfurtherallegedthatsuch
arbitrarydetentionistheoutcomeofframingbypolice,prosecutorialandjudicial
misconductamountingtoconductofasham/simulatedtrial.
6.1Domesticlaw
6.1.1Therewasandthereisnoauthorizedbasisforthedeprivationoflibertyof
RomanZadorov:
a. ThepurportedSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsfailtoappear
incourtdockets.
b. TheNazarethDistrictCourtfailedtodulyrenderanArrestDecree,whichis
prescribedbyIsraelilawforadmittingaconvictintoprison.
c. CommandersoftheShitaPrisondetainRomanZadorov,aspurportedexecutionof
alifeimprisonmentsentence,withnoArrestDecree,indisregardofdomesticlaw.
6.1.2RomanZadorovwasandisdeniedDueProcessthroughtheconductof
NazarethDistrictCourtandtheIsraeliSupremeCourt.
a. EvenunderthelimiteddegreetowhichtherightforDueProcessisrecognizedby
theIsraelicourts,suchrightwasseriouslydeniedbytheNazarethDistrictCourt
whichfailedtodulyenterVerdictandSentencingrecordsattheendofthetrial.
b. TheIsraeliSupremeCourtconductedanappealprocesslackingvalidityand
authoritywithnoauthenticVerdictand/orSentencingrecordsoftheNazareth
DistrictCourt,inwhichtheappealpurportedlyoriginated.
c. JusticesoftheIsraeliSupremeCourtfailedtodulyansweronStatementof
DisqualificationforaCause,relatedtothedenialofaccesstoinspecttheSupreme
CourtAppealcourtfile.Nevertheless,thesameJusticescontinuedtoadjudicate
theAppealwithnolawfulauthority.
6.1.3TheNazarethDistrictCourtandtheIsraeliSupremeCourtdenyaccessto
decisionrecordsindisregardofaconstitutionalright,pursuanttodomesticlaw.
a. TheNazarethDistrictCourtdeniesaccesstocourtrecords,andpervertedcourt
recordsandcourtprocessinitsconductrelativetolawfulattemptstoinspect
judicialdecisionrecords.
b. TheSupremeCourtdeniesaccesstocourtrecordsandpervertedcourtprocessin
responsetolawfulattemptstoinspectjudicialdecisionrecordsinthepapercourt
fileoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,nowheldbytheSupremeCourt.
6.1.4RomanZadorovcasereflectswidespreadincompetenceand/orcorruptionof
theIsraelijusticesystem,includingitshighestechelons.
ChangesthathavebeendeliberatelyandsystematicallyintroducedinIsraelilaw
andinadministrationofthecourtsoverthepast15yearshaverenderedcourt
16/137
recordsandcourtprocessvagueandambiguous.Theoutcomehasbeen
repeatedlydocumentedintheissuingbyjudgesofsham/simulated/draftcourt
records,whilemisleadingparties,counselandthepublicatlargetobelievethat
theyarevalidandeffectualcourtrecords.
6.2UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights:
Article9normswereandaredisregardedthrougharbitraryarrest,detention:
RomanZadorov'sarbitrarydetentionisperpetratedunderthecoloroflawwithout
thefundamentallegalauthorityforthedetention.
Article10normsweredisregarded,relativetoafairandpublichearing:
RomanZadorov'sarbitrarydetentionisperpetratedunderthecoloroflawthrough
denialofDueProcessandfairandpublichearing.
6.3InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights:
Article9normswereandaredisregardedthrougharbitraryarrest,detention,and
disregardofprocedureasareestablishedbylaw.
RomanZadorov'sarbitrarydetentionisperpetratedunderthecoloroflawwithout
thefundamentallegalauthorityforthedetention.
Article14normswereandaredisregardedastoequalbeforethecourtsand
tribunals,afairandpublichearingbyacompetent,independentandimpartial
denialofDueProcessandfairandpublichearing.
6.4Discriminationbasedonnationality,language,religion
6.5RomanZadorov'songoingabuseoriginatesinpartininadvertentpoliticalreasons
Fornofaultofhisown,RomanZadorovhasbecomeapawninhighlevelpower
games.Thecaseanditsramificationshavebynowevolvedintocircumstances,where
thejusticesystemisprimarilyoccupiedwithprotectingitself.
InthebroaderperspectiveitisallegedthattheIsraelijusticesystemisincompetent,
relativetocorrectionoffalseconvictions.AnacademicpublicationinaHebrewlegal
periodical,coauthoredbyIsraeliJudgeEfratPink,istitled,Regardinginstitutional
problems,preventingcorrectionoffalseconvictionsinIsrael(MaaseiMishpat,Vol5,
p193,2013).
17/137
7.Overview
Note:ThissectioniscopiedwithmodificationsfromtheEnglishWikipediaentry
RomanZadorov,ofwhichIwastheprimaryauthor.Theentrytriedtorelyasmuch
aspossibleonEnglishreferences,althoughmanymorereferencesareavailablein
Hebrew.Itisnoteworthythatsomeofthekeyreferences,regardingconductofthe
StateProsecution,AttorneyGeneral,andCommissionerofProsecutorialOversight,
regardingopinionsofseniorIsraelilegalexperts,pertainingtoRomanZadorov'scase
anditsramifications,regardingtheStateProsecutors'strikeandtheresignationofthe
CommissionerofProsecutorialOversight,arelargelymissingfromEnglisheditionsof
Israelimedia.
Roman Zadorov
Roman Zadorov (Ukrainian: ) is a Ukrainian citizen, who is serving a life sentence in
Israel for the 2006 murder of Tair Rada. His prosecution and conviction were opined by various experts a
case of framing by police, false prosecution and false conviction. Israeli Criminal Law Professor Boaz
Sangero wrote: "Conviction with no real evidence". Mordechai Kremnitzer (Professor Emeritus of
International Law at Hebrew University, one of the leaders of the Israel Democracy Institute) wrote:
"Conduct of the prosecution is scary... the prosecution is not seeking the truth... the justice system is
mostly busy protecting itself..." The case is unprecedented in positioning senior legal experts, senior
forensic medical experts, the Israel Medical Association, the Israeli Ministry of Health (Israel), NGOs and
the public at large against various types of wrongdoing by the justice system. [1]
1 Murder and initial investigation

In December 2006, 13 year-old Tair Rada reportedly decided to skip the last period of the school-day.
She stayed outside in the school yard with friends for a while, before going back into the high-school
building to get a drink of water. She was lastly seen by several students going up a staircase leading to
the mid-floor of 10th grade classes. Later that afternoon, when she failed to return home, her mother
contacted the police, and a search throughout the town began. Later that evening around 7pm, she was
found murdered in a locked stall in the girls' bathroom - her throat slit twice and multiple additional cuts to
her face, torso, and hands.
According to news reports from the evening of the murder, police initially estimated teens from the school
were involved. That line of investigation was abandoned soon after.
On the night of the murder, police detained a homeless person as a suspect. Three days later police
detained the school gardener as well. Both were released 2 days later due to the fact they weren't at, or
near the school on that day, and their alibis were confirmed. [2]
On December 11, police detained Roman Zadorov, and a grueling interrogation began. During the
investigation, Zadorov was rushed to emergency room.
On December 19, only 2 weeks after the murder, police announced in a press conference during TV 8pm
evening prime time evening news that Zadorov was held as the most likely suspect, and that he had
18/137
confessed and reenacted the murder (over an hour before the reenactment was even finished). [3] A day
later, his attorney announced that Roman Zadorov had recanted any such confession. [4]
The motive for the murder, as initially stated by the police, was insults hurled at Roman Zadorov after he
denied Tair's request for a cigarette. Both her family and friends however, stated that not only did she not
smoke, but she couldn't even stand the smell of cigarettes. They also stated that rude behavior and
cursing were very uncharacteristic of her. That motive was dropped. Police later claimed that the motive
was sexual abuse Zadorov suffered by female classmates when he was an 8 years old in the Ukraine,
which caused a rage fit after he suffered continuous pestering by the school's students during his work,
but that could not be confirmed. Eventually, no motive for the murder was stated in the purported court
judgment.[5]
2 Indictment and trial

2.1 Alibi
The time of murder was initially determined to be between 1:20PM (the time Tair was last seen - going up
the staircase leading to the girls' bathroom) and 1:30PM (time of the earliest testimonies of girls, who
were in the bathroom - but claimed to have seen or heard nothing), though an estimated time of death
was never included in the pathologist's report. However, Zadorov was at the school gate on the phone
with his employer starting from 1:23:09 pm according to cellphone records, and 2 security guards saw
him during that whole time span. Roman Zadorov was waiting for his employer to bring him tile cement
and only went back into the school after 1:30PM. Two investigators can be seen in interrogation footage
discussing the problem of Zadorov's alibi - he had not been seen by dozens of kids sitting around the
route from the school gate to the staircase leading to the girls' bathroom around the time Tair was last
seen going up the staircase, and students sitting near the staircase claimed they didn't see anyone
following her up the staircase. The time of murder was later modified, and claimed to be between 1:30pm
and 2pm. A little after 2pm Zadorov was sighted in the school cafeteria, looking calm as usual. He
continued his work as usual till 5:30pm before going home.
The prosecution and police witnesses presented the time, stated by various students as being later than
stated in the initial students' testimonies to police (as well as instructing student witnesses to do the same
in their court testimonies), and displayed irrelevant pictures of the area around the staircase, where the
students who saw Tair going up to the mid-floor were sitting, claiming that they couldn't have possibly
seen her properly, nor anyone following her, to back up their claims.
2.2 Confession and Reenactment

Both Roman Zadorov's purported confession and the reenactment included false and incorrect
information, including, but not limited to the location of the murder, the way the murder was committed,
the position in which the body was found. Incorrect details (including ones only the murderer should have
known) can be seen, being taught to Roman Zadorov by the investigators according to what they
believed at the time, in the interrogation footage (a reason crucial details were never even mentioned in
the confession and reenactment). The reenactment video can be easily revealed to be heavily staged.
Zadorov can be seen leading officers towards the wrong bathroom in the upper floor, before being
stopped midway by a detective tinkering with the handcuffs, then being led to the correct bathroom. The
19/137
throat slashing can be seen exhibited on the wrong side of the victim's body. Seven (7) blows to the head
were never mentioned (the autopsy report, which revealed the hemorrhage focal points on the head, was
obtained only after the reenactment). A post mortem slash to the left wrist can be seen displayed as a
defense wound to the back of the right wrist. Exiting from the bathroom stall, was initially reenacted as
simply walking away, before Zadorov was ordered to reenact it at a later time, bracing the walls on both
sides of the bathroom stall and leaping over the locked door. However, partial foot prints (which did not
match Zadorov) found on the toilet seat, the toilet tank, and the wall between bathroom stalls no. 2 and 3
suggest that jumping to the next over stall, not over the door, was the killer's escape route.
2.3 DNA
Initially, the Israel Police leaked to the press that DNA samples from the crime scene matched Zadorov. [6]
DNA profiling results and other "mounting evidence" were also cited by the Judge in Zadorov's remand to
custody, based on a sealed police report, which was presented to the Judge. [7] Later, the indictment was
filed with no DNA evidence linking Zadorov to the crime, as none were ever found. [8]
Israeli media reported following the filing of the indictment:
Roman Zadorov may have been indicted on suspicion of killing 13 year-old Katzrin student Tair
Rada based on a DNA sample which police failed to produce... [9]
The State Prosecution explained the filing of the indictment with no DNA evidence or laboratory test
results as follows:
The fact that the prosecution filed an indictment, based on substantial existing evidence,
implicating Zadorov, without waiting for the U.S. DNA lab results, shows there is sufficient
evidence tying him to the murder, and the case isn't based wholly on this issue [DNA test results].
[10]
Eventually, the claim of DNA profiling, matching Zadorov, was dropped. Israeli Police never tried to match
DNA samples from the scene to anyone other than Tair Rada and Roman Zadorov. [11]
2.4 Shoe imprints

Shoe imprints, found in the blood in the bathroom stall, matched youth-size shoes (though they did not
match Tair's). The imprints were much smaller than shoes that Roman Zadorov could possibly wear.
Neither the police nor the prosecution attributed them to anyone else. No reference samples were ever
taken from anyone else for comparison.
The police and the prosecution claimed in court that blood stains on Tair's pants were Zadorov's shoe
imprints. However, in court they presented grossly modified images of the evidence to support their
claims.
UK shoe imprint expert Dr. Guy Cooper testified in 2009 that the stains could not be considered
Zadorov's shoe imprints, if shoe imprints at all. [12] His testimony was dismissed by the Court.
FBI veteran, shoe imprint expert William Bodziak, also claimed in his 2013 testimony that these stains
could not be determined to be Zadorov's shoe imprints, if shoe imprints at all. His testimony was also
dismissed by the Court.
20/137
Another opinion of the same Israel Police shoe imprint expert has been recently rejected by the Israeli
Supreme Court in another false murder conviction case. [13]
2.5 Hairs
Dozens of long dark hairs were discovered in the murder scene, including over a dozen in Tair's hand.
They did not match Roman Zadorov, and several did not match Tair either. There are at least 3 hairs
known to match neither Tair, nor Roman Zadorov, and these hairs did not match each other either. No
reference samples were ever taken from anyone else for comparison. [14]
2.6 Fingerprints
Over 60 fingerprints were found in the murder scene, some in blood. None matched Tair or Roman
Zadorov. Neither the police nor the prosecution ever explained their origin. No reference samples were
ever taken from anyone else for comparison.
2.7 Other biological evidence

A total of 150 biological samples from the crime scene were tested, but none matched Roman Zadorov.
No reference samples were ever taken from anyone else for comparison.
2.8 Murder weapon

The murder weapon, according to the confession and reenactment was a smooth-blade utility knife.
However, it was never found. In his purported confession, Roman Zadorov said that he had placed it
under the tiles that he had been laying that day. The tiles were removed, but the knife was never found.
Moreover, two senior forensic medical experts later testified that the murder was committed using a
serrated blade, not a smooth-blade, based on the nature of the cut on Tair's chin. Their testimonies were
dismissed by the Court as irrelevant.
According to several forensic medical experts' opinion, the murder was committed by a left-handed
person, while Roman Zadorov is right-handed. The prosecution dismissed the opinions as irrelevant.
2.9 Cellular devices

Existing evidence makes it obvious that Roman Zadorov on the one hand, and youths who according to
their own testimonies were present in the bathroom around the murder time on the other hand, all carried
cellular devices. It is also obvious that police has access to a database that would make it possible to
ascertain the time and location of these devices. However, police never presented the data in court, and
the Defense never asked for it.
2.10 Other
All of Roman Zadorov's effects were tested, but none showed positive results for blood. Nothing else
connecting Roman Zadorov to the murder scene, or vise versa, other than the contested shoe imprints
were ever found.
3 Students in Tair's high school

Tair had been on bad terms with some girls in the high school for several years prior to the murder.
According to testimonies, she was under social boycott by certain girls in the school for some 3 years. In
21/137
the days prior to the murder she expressed in school fear for her life. Earlier, she had also asked to be
switched classes.
According to testimonies by teachers, students in the high school had prepared posters on the day
following the murder, which said, "Tair, your day has come!"
Media report in the early days after the murder criticize the Israel Police for searching for the murderer
through the vast areas of the Golan Heights and the Galilee, instead of focusing on suspects within the
school building itself. The same report even goes as far as suggesting that the Israel Police should start
from the students' online chat room. Indeed, the chat room included notes by students, who claimed to
have information about the murder, who claimed that threats were issued against anybody who would
cooperate with police...
One of the students later testified in Court that she saw under the bathroom stall, where the murder was
committed, Tair's Puma shoes, youth-size Allstar shoes and blood. Another student's testimony implied
that she knew more, "but repressed it"... Yet another student stated that "at our age, we don't tell on
others"...
A long list of students went through the bathroom around the murder time, while Tair apparently struggled
with the murderers, and some of them even noticed highly suspicious circumstances, but none ever said
a word to anyone.
In police investigation and in court testimonies later on, it was again stated that word was spread
immediately after the murder among the high school students that anybody who would say anything
about the murder would suffer consequences. No effort was made by police to follow up on such critical
matters. During the trial, even the Nazareth District Court reprimanded the Israel Police for failing to
follow up on investigation of a student, who stated that there were students who knew, who the
murderers were...
Tair's mother stated on various occasions that she didn't believe that Roman Zadorov was the murderer,
and that she believe that the true murderers were "from Tair's world". At other times, she alluded more
directly that the murderers were high school students.
Online social network groups, who support Roman's cause, published the names of the students, who
were most closely involved in the affair, and also information about close family relations of some of them
with both senior and junior Israel Police personnel. Israel Police took action to remove such references
from the social networks.
Claims were made that the information published online and by media, amounted to persecution of the
girls.[15] In May 2016, an attorney representing two of the female students, Nufar Ben David and Lee
Lahyani issued a letter to leaders of Roman Zadorov's support groups a warning prior to filing a lawsuit
letter, demanding an apology, adequate monetary compensation, and a promise to cease defamatory
publication. In response, recipients of the demands and threat published on June 4, 2016 a statement,
rejecting the demands, saying that they would be happy to be sued, since it would finally provide an
opportunity to review the before a court the evidence and the validity of their claims.
22/137
In a 2016 interview, Ilana Rada, Tair's mother, recounted events of December 19, 2006, referring to a
female student, who was a relative of a retired senior law enforcement/political figure:
You embrace the police, you trust them, you see them as family. During the Shiva [ritual seven
mourning days] police briefed us, took me to show me the progress in the investigation. Already
then I heard things, which were related to conduct of various involved persons, like the youths
and others. I went along with it... I picked up the phone and called the investigation team and
asked them to come over. They came, and the atmosphere was relaxed. I inquired regarding
their working methods in the investigation. How they narrowed down a large body of evidence
and numerous individuals who were investigated to anything that could allow them to focus and
resolve the mystery. They explained to me that it was all focused on Tair's class, the dance
classes, and her age group in school. They explained to me that they investigated day and night
every male and female student, and anybody who was involved in any manner. Then I named
one of the female students, A, and then all of a sudden quiet. They asked, 'who is she?', and
then the most senior investigator got up and asked me if I had visited a medium... then they got
up with unease. 'Let us go and check'. And this was after they had boasted that they had
investigated anything that moved. How come you have never checked this girl, who was in the
dance class and the same age group in school? Not a word was mentioned regarding Zadorov. I
had no idea that a murder suspect had been detained. Police left, and two hours later a
photojournalist arrived, who told us that the murderer had been caught. I did not believe it. I told
him that the investigation team had just left my house, and that they never said anything about it.
The photojournalist says to me: 'At 6:00pm you are invited to a town-hall meeting, and at 8:00 pm
there is a press conference, and Zadorov murdered your daughter.' I told him: 'Where is this
delusional story coming from? You are relying on rumors'. I was shocked. I wanted to bury
myself. [16]
4 Judicial process
Trial commenced in January 2007 with the filing of the indictment in the Nazareth District Court,
followed by the September 2010 initial conviction, October 2010 filing of Zadorov's appeal in
the Supreme Court of Israel, March 2013 remand to the Nazareth District Court for additional review
of the evidence, and February 2014 supplemental judgment by the Nazareth District Court- again
convicting Zadorov. On December 23, 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court denied Zadorov's appeal by a 2 to
1 decision of a panel of three justices. Zadorov's team immediately asked for a new hearing by an
expanded panel.
No signed confession was filed with the indictment. Zadorov refused to sign the confession, dictated by
police. However, police officers testified that he confessed in investigation that he had committed the
murder. Zadorov continued to deny any confession throughout the trial. [17]
No motive for the murder was provided in the indictment.
The 456 page, September 2010 conviction by a three-judge panel headed by Judge Yitzhak Cohen then Presiding Judge of the Nazareth District Court was read out in a dramatic open court hearing. It
stated that there was no doubt that Roman Zadorov was the murderer, and that his testimony was full of
23/137
lies and manipulations. Therefore, Roman Zadorov was further convicted on obstruction police
investigation.[18] The lack of any motive for the murder was found no object by the judges. [19]
However, to this date neither the authentic September 2010 Conviction nor the authentic September
2010 Sentencing records of the Nazareth District Court have been discovered. The conviction record is
entirely missing from the Nazareth Court's electronic case management system, and the sentencing
record, which appears in the system, is missing the signature of Judge Haim Galpaz. Furthermore,
neither the Conviction nor the Sentencing record was duly entered in the Court's "Judgments Docket".
Inspection of the paper court file (original records) of the Supreme Court appeal case revealed that no
authentic judgment records of the Nazareth District Court was filed with the Notice of Appeal, in disregard
of the law. Top defense lawyer Avigdor Feldman, who joined the case pro bono in 2014, late in the appeal
process, and who is known for his dark humor, wrote in December 2015, while the appeal was still
pending before the Supreme Court, that his efforts to discover the judgment records failed, and he could
only discover remnants of the judgment records, which haven't been scattered in the wailing wind across
the vast Jezreel Valley (which Nazareth overlooks). [20]
Arrest Decree, which is required by Israeli law for the admission of a convict into prison, following a
prison sentence, is also missing from the Nazareth District Court file.
In March 2013, the Supreme Court of Israel remanded the case back to the Nazareth District Court for
rehearing of evidence by expert witnesses, as requested by Zadorovs lawyers:
William Bodziak, a world-renowned forensics expert - regarding the footprint found on the
clothes of the murdered girl, and
Dr. Maya Forman, a pathologist/forensic expert - regarding the murder weapon and the
trauma injuries found on her head.
Key evidence, related to the murder knife and shoe imprints, key issues in this case, were not settled.
[21]
Following the March 2013 remand of the case by Supreme Court of Israel to the Nazareth District Court,
the Jerusalem Post published a special editorial, saying in part:
The courts intervention must be welcomed by all Israelis who care to see justice served and
that without presuming to opine on Zadorovs guilt or innocence. From the outset too much in this
case aroused extreme discomfort about both police and prosecution conduct. Their strident
opposition to reviewing the case, despite the possibility that exculpatory evidence might be
presented, should in itself prompt more than a few troubling questions... The heightened publicity
intensified the ambition of officers and prosecutors to produce results and score prestige points.
The three judges who convicted Zadorov in 2010 fully subscribed to the prosecutions version
and ascribed ostensible uncertainties to doubts sown tendentiously by irresponsible journalists.
But focus on the press is too facile. The police is hardly innocent. It and the prosecution are
serially the most egregious of leakers. Often we learn of what transpired during interrogations
while suspects are still being grilled. In the Rada case, the police had only itself to blame for the
prodigious innuendo exacerbated by its one-sided leaks and the paucity of supporting physical
evidence... In the Zadorov instance, too many doubts have lingered, including the problematic
24/137
confession and reenactment by a suspect who barely spoke Hebrew. The handling of forensic
evidence was sloppy in the extreme and some potentially critical clues were altogether neglected
because of fixation on Zadorov. Worst of all was the jarring refusal by the prosecution to take
account of exculpatory DNA evidence and to reevaluate other apparent gaps in its forensic data.
That never seemed to square with elementary fairness. In the final analysis, the buck stops with
the police. Trustworthy academic studies indicate that in this country, whenever police
investigators deem someone guilty, the odds are even higher than elsewhere that person will not
get off. In major felony trials, judges accept the police premise 98 percent of the time. This puts
special onus on both policemen and prosecutors to clean up their acts. [22]
In February 2014, the Nazareth District Court returned a Supplemental Judgment, again convicting
Zadorov. The Nazareth District Court rejected international expert opinions, which contradicted the Israel
Police expert, relative to the matching of a shoe imprint on the victim's pants with Zadorov's shoe. The
Israel Police expert showed in court modified images to justify his opinion. One of the international
experts said it could not even be clearly determined to be a shoe imprint. The other said it could not be
identified as Zadorov's shoe imprint. The purported shoe imprint was the only physical evidence,
purportedly tying Zadorov to the murder scene.[23]
In January 2014, prior to the issuance of the Supplemental Judgment, senior criminal law professor Boaz
Sangero wrote: When will Roman Zadorov be acquitted? Sangero noted in part:
The [original] judgment is unconvincing relative to the guilt of the defendant. The conviction was
primarily based on a problematic confession and on the testimony of a policeman, considered an
expert on shoe imprints, who claimed that there was a match between Zadorov's show and the
shoe imprint on the victim's pants. As I showed, Zadorov's confession had the typical traits of a
false confession...[24]
In February 2014, following the Supplemental Judgment, Professor Sangero further stated in media
interviews: "I cannot explain Zadorov's repeat conviction". Such lack of deference to the judgment of the
court by a law professor is unprecedented in Israel. [25]
The December 23, 2015 denial of the appeal by the Supreme Court of Israel was rendered by a 2:1 split
panel. The Jerusalem Post summed up the controversy and the Supreme Court's decision as follows:
The case captivated the media and public. It was a tragic, small-town murder that, from the
beginning, was dogged by rumors, including that local teenagers had killed Rada and the town or
teachers had covered it up, finding an easy fall guy in Zadorov, an immigrant from the former
Soviet Union... The 300-page majority opinion upholding the conviction on Wednesday, which
included justices Isaac Amit and Zvi Zylbertal, found three major grounds for its decision, despite
the disputes over the shoe prints and the knife. Aspects of Zadorovs confession while under
arrest to a confidential informant, of his confession to interrogators and his participation in
reenacting aspects of the crime were decisive, wrote the court. [26]
The Supreme Court's denial of the appeal failed to settle the case. Zadorov's team immediately asked for
a new hearing by an expanded panel, the request is still pending before the Supreme Court (June 2016).
Public support for Zadorov tripled within days following the Supreme Court's decision.
25/137
The Zadorov court file in the Nazareth District Court was administered from 2007-2009 as a paper court
file, and from January 2010 on as an electronic court file. However, as of June 2016:
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham of the Nazareth District Court refuses to rule on repeat
requests to inspect the electronic signature execution data. Effectively access is denied to data,
pertaining to authenticity of the judgment records. In other cases in recent years, judges were
documented issuing sham/simulated decision records, which are electronically unsigned, and
therefore are invalid on their face.
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham of the Nazareth District Court issued an unsigned decision,
denying access to inspect the Arrest Decree, required by Israeli law for admitting a convict to
prison, stating that the request was cantankerous, useless, tacitly admitting that no such record
existed.
The Supreme Court denies access to inspect the Nazareth District Court paper decisions
(original records, which the Supreme Court now holds), with the reasoning of a "jumble" in the
paper court file, while in other cases judges were documented issuing sham/simulated, paper
decision records, which are missing hand-signatures, and therefore are invalid on their face.
Such conduct by the Nazareth District Court and the Supreme Court disregards the Regulations of
Inspection (2003), which provide that "any person is permitted to inspect decisions that are not prohibited
for publication by law", and the 2009 Judgment of the Supreme Court in the petition Association of Civil
Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice (5917/97), which declared the right to inspect decision records "a
fundamental principle in any democratic regime... constitutional, super-statutory..." Such conduct by the
Nazareth District Court and the Supreme Court raises concerns that the judiciary is engaged in
withholding evidence of the scope of Fraud Upon the Court in the Nazareth District Court trial.
The case of Roman Zadorov raised widespread concerns of prosecutorial misconduct, lack of oversight
of the State Prosecution, false convictions in general, and reluctance of the Israeli courts to reverse false
convictions.[27]
One July 5, 2016, Supreme Court Presiding Justice Miriam Naor denied Roman Zadorov's request for a
new hearing of the appeal by an expanded panel.
5 Judge Yitzhak Cohen affair

By September 2014, Presiding Judge Yitzhak Cohen of the Nazareth District Court, who twice convicted
Roman Zadorov, left on vacation, and by November 2014 he resigned, after police recommended his
prosecution on sex crimes in chambers against a female attorney and sex crimes against minors.
In parallel, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni ordered investigation against senior figures in the Israel Police and
State Prosecution relative to suspicions of cover-up of Judge Cohen suspected sex crimes. Credit for
exposing the case, while Cohen was a candidate for a Supreme Court Justice was given to social media.
[28][29]
Media later reported that Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein instructed Commissioner of Prosecutorial
Oversight Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel to stop the cover-up investigation.
26/137
As of this date (June 2016) the State Prosecution has failed to file an indictment in the case of Judge
Yitzhak Cohen. Based on past performance, it is doubted that such indictment would ever be filed.
Regardless of ample evidence of widespread judicial corruption, and evidence of other types of
criminality by judges, during Israel's close to 70 year history, no judge has ever been convicted on crimes
committed during his tenure as a judge, and only one judge was prosecuted for corruption (in the 1960's).
6 Conduct of the State Prosecution, Dr Forman and Dr Kugel affairs

Regarding the Zadorov affair, Law Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer wrote in October 2014: "Conduct of
the prosecution is scary... the State Prosecution is not seeking the truth... the justice system is mostly
busy protecting itself..."[30] His comments were published in the wake of the Tel-Aviv Labor Court
judgment in the lawsuit of senior forensic medical expert Dr Maya Forman against the State of Israel,
Ministry of Health and others. Her case originated in the Roman Zadorov affair, but became an entirely
separate scandal, which was described by Israeli media as persecution, settlement of accounts, and a
retaliation campaign by Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan against Dr Forman for her professional,
honest, expert testimony in favor of Roman Zadorov.[31]
The State Prosecution first fought to prevent Dr Forman from testifying in the Nazareth court in Roman
Zadorov's case.[32] Dr Forman eventually testified for Zadorov in the Nazareth District Court, and her
expert testimony, that the murder was committed using a serrated knife, not a smooth-edged Japanese
knife, as claimed by the State Prosecution, and as purportedly admitted by Zadorov, dealt a major blow to
the State Prosecution case. It undermined the integrity of both the contested confession and
reenactment. Review of the evidence regarding the knife was a central issue in the March 2013 Remand
to the Nazareth District Court by the Supreme Court.
In its February 2014 Supplemental Judgment the Nazareth District Court not only rejected Dr Forman's
expert testimony, but also heavily criticized her professional conduct. In the aftermath, Chief State
Prosecutor Shai Nitzan, who claimed that he was backed by Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, tried to
impose professional restrictions on Dr Forman and to prohibit her from further appearances in courts as
an expert witness effectively crippling her professional employment.
The resulting labor dispute became an unprecedented scandal, with the Israeli Medical Association
joining as a Friend of the Court, strongly supporting Dr Forman. Moreover, while the Israeli Ministry of
Health was named Defendant in the labor dispute, Minister of Health Yael German wrote a public letter to
the Attorney General, stating that his conduct against Dr Forman lacks legal foundation and carries
overarching and dangerous implications... blatant violation of Human Rights, the fundamentals of law and
justice...
The case in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court then generated another separate scandal, when the State
Prosecution tried to solicit an affidavit in support of its position from another senior forensic medical
expert in the State Forensic Institute, Dr Chen Kugel. Dr Kugel provided the State Prosecution a curveball affidavit, which for the first time disclosed that he also supported Dr Forman's professional opinion
that the murder was committed using a serrated knife. Dr Kugel never testified in the Nazareth District
Court trial. However, the State Prosecution made false representations to the Nazareth District Court,
suggesting that Kugel supported the Prosecution's position regarding the knife. The Nazareth District
Court admitted such expert opinion by hearsay, and even relied upon it in the purported Conviction.
27/137
Dr Kugel's affidavit in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court also strongly objected to any professional restrictions on
an expert, i.e., Dr Forman, who provided an honest, professional opinion in court, as a dangerous
precedent.
The State Prosecution first tried to gag Dr Kugel, and prevent his affidavit from being filed. Then, the
State Prosecution tried to heavily edit his affidavit. Eventually, Dr Kugel's affidavit was filed, unmodified,
both in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court and in Zadorov's appeal in the Supreme Court. Furthermore, both the
original affidavit and the affidavit, as edited by the State Prosecution, were published, causing a new
wave of criticism against the State Prosecution: Experts raised concerns that the Prosecution's conduct
relative to Dr Kugel's affidavit amounted to tampering with a witness.[33]
In the wake of Dr Forman victory in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court, [34] senior law professor and former dean of
the Hebrew University Law School Yoav Dotan wrote: "Dr Forman and Mr Nitzan. [35] In his opinion article,
Prof Dotan emphasized the wider implications of the entire affair, which undermined due process. Prof
Dotan also criticized the extreme concentration of power by the State Prosecution and its lack of
accountability, supporting the ongoing calls for a major reform in the offices of Attorney General and Chief
State Prosecutor.
The Dr Forman and Dr Kugel scandals expanded into a heated debate over integrity, or lack thereof in
conduct of the State Prosecution, the lack of accountability for wrongdoing by the State Prosecution, and
resistance of the State Prosecution to any civilian oversight. [36] [37][38]
Also In the wake of Dr Forman's victory in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court, Commissioner of Prosecutorial
Oversight, Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel, issued in December 2015 a scathing report, effectively finding that
the State Prosecution engaged in tampering with witnesses and perverting/obstruction of justice. Chief
State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan objected to Gerstel's report, claiming that Gerstel overstepped her
authority.
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein issued an opinion, supporting Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan that the State Prosecution had the right to change public service employees' affidavits. In this case change the affidavit of a public service employee, who is a forensic expert, appearing in criminal murder
case.[39]
Based on Gerstel's report, criminal complaints were filed in December 2015 by the Israeli Governance
and Democracy Movement (NGO) against three senior prosecutors, alleging tampering with a witness
and attempt to pervert and obstruct justice. There is no evidence that the criminal complaint was duly
processed.
December 2015, Dr Hen Kugel, stated in an interview with media: "I am intimidated by the State
Prosecution". [40]
The case also raised again the issue of lack of integrity in the State Forensic Medical Institute before Dr
Forman and Dr Kugel joined it. Prof Sangero wrote: For decades the Israel Police and the State
Prosecution dominated the Institute. Monopoly of police and the prosecution over scientific evidence has
been established, and the evidence has been used almost exclusively to support convictions.
28/137
Partly in the wake of the Dr Forman and Dr Kugel affairs, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Judge
(ret) Hila Gerstel reviewed the relationships between the State Prosecution and the State Forensic
Institute, and generated a report, which was due for publication in April 2016. However, in late March
2016, eleven senior prosecutors filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking to prohibit the publication
of the report, claiming that it would "damage our reputation".
[41]
Following the failure to investigate the criminal complaints against the three senior State Prosecutors,
regarding their conduct relative to Dr Kugel's affidavit, the Israeli Governance and Democracy
Movement (NGO) filed with the Israel Bar Association an ethics complaint against the same
Prosecutors. In May 2016, Attorney Avichai Mandelblit (who by then replaced Yehuda Weinstein in that
office) used his authority and blocked the Bar complaint process.
Upon review, conduct of the Israeli State Prosecution relative to Dr Maya Forman and Hen Kugel may be
deemed harassment, intimidation, retaliation against witnesses, or tampering with witnesses conduct
that is often associated with organized crime.
7 Prosecutors' strike, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight resignation

Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel's review of conduct of the State
Prosecution, related to the case of Roman Zadorov, generated ever growing tension between her and the
State Prosecution. In December 2015, Commissioner Gerstel issued a letter, which was described by
media rare in its severity, stating that Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan is not saying the truth, and
that his report to the Attorney General, regarding the Dr Forman affair, was full of falsifications and
untruths. [42]
On April 4, 2016, a few days after filing the petition to block the publication of Commissioner Gerstel's
report regarding the State Prosecution-Forensic Institute relationship, the State Prosecutors' Union
declared an a strike for an indefinite period, protesting the authority of Commissioner Gerstel to oversee
their conduct.
On April 18, 2016, facing the State Prosecutors' strike and the petition, and realizing that she couldn't
generate sufficient backing from Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked,
Commissioner Gerstel resigned. [43] By June 2016, Chair of the State Prosecutors' Union referred in an
interview to Commissioner Gerstel as "a pirate",
[44]
the Commissioner's report on the Forensic Institute
has not been published to this date (June 2016), and fate of the petition, as well as the future of the office
of Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight remain unclear.
In an early June 2016 the Knesset's Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee conducted a hearing
regarding the future of the office of Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight. Appearing before the
Committee, and referring also to Attorney General Mandelblit's blocking the Israel Bar Association's
review of the complaint against the three senior State Prosecutors, former Justice Minister, Professor
Daniel Friedman stated "The Attorney General cannot gag the entire State, and not let anybody voice an
opinion".[45]
8 Parents, public, and media

The victim's parents, whose representative, a private investigator and former police officer, was permitted
to inspect the complete police investigation materials, did not believe that Roman was the murderer.
29/137
Already in early 2007 the parents filed a petition against the Israel Police with the Israeli Supreme Court
for a mandate to re-open of the murder investigation, claiming that conduct of the Israel Police was
"extremely unreasonable" in this case. The petition was summarily denied. [46] [47] [48]
In 2010, Tair's mother told media: As far as I'm concerned, anything to do with the court, the prosecution
and the police is pure delinquency. They abandoned my daughter." On various other occasions she
explicitly stated that she believed that her daughter was killed by students in the school. [49]
In 2011, investigators Haim Sadovsky and Doron Beldinger filed another petition with the Supreme Court
against the Israel Police, also asking that the Supreme Court mandate re-opening of the police
investigation in this case. Their petition was also denied.
In December 2014, a group of activists, who closely followed the case, filed with the Attorney General
criminal complaints against the Israel Police investigation team for obstruction of the investigation and
fabrication of evidence, and separately against the State Prosecution team - for fraud in the court.
In December 2015, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel issued a decision,
stating that Chief State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan failed for a year to investigate the complaint against the
prosecution, which alleged fraud in the courts in Roman Zadorov's case.
Unprecedented Israeli public support for Roman Zadorov's cause and for honest investigation of Tair
Rada's murder has evolved into more than a quarter million members in online support groups, routinely
following the case, publishing and discussing the evidence and conduct of the justice system.
The Nazareth District Court 2014 Supplemental Judgment was also unusual in its criticism of media
coverage in this case. There is no doubt that media coverage in this case was central in exposing the
ludicrous conduct of the Israeli Police, the State Prosecution, and the courts themselves. Ongoing TV,
radio, and print coverage of the case are unprecedented, both in scope and in the manner in which they
openly challenge of the courts.
The prosecution hoped that the denial of the appeal in December 2015 would bring such public criticism
to an end. However, the effect of the denial of the appeal in December 23, 2015 was paradoxical. Within
2448 hours, public support for Zadorov approximately tripled. By mid January, 2016, in a nation of 8
millions, there were almost 250,000 members in online Zadorov Support groups (one Facebook group
alone - "All the Truth regarding the Murder of Tair Rada" - had a member count of 214,445 on January 9,
2016),[50] and demonstrations were held in Tel-Aviv central square in support of justice for Roman
Zadorov and renewed investigation of Tair Rada's murder. An international Avaaz petition was launched,
calling upon Israeli President Rivlin to pardon or commute Roman Zadorov's sentence. The petition was
endorsed by notable US Rabbi Michael Lerner, by notable US public intellectual Professor Noam
Chomsky, and by veteran FBI agent and whistle-blower Coleen Rowley.
In a mid January 2016 Knesset Oversight Committee hearing, it was exposed that the Israel Police
obtained a court decree and tried to confiscate all materials obtained by Arutz 7 investigative journalism
program "Uvdah" regarding misconduct in the State Forensic Institute. According to "Uvdah" journalist
Omri Essenheim, a policeman had appeared in their editorial offices and demanded to obtain any
materials that had been collected as part of their investigative journalism work relative to conduct of the
30/137
State Forensic Institute. The editorial staff refused to comply with police demands. Mr Essenheim added:
"In the Zadorov affair the State Prosecution acted contrary to its stated mission of seeking the truth."
[51]
In early 2016, a four part TV series was aired, "Shadow of the Truth", reviewing the Tair Rada
murder/Roman Zadorov conviction affair. It caused a major media storm. Chief State Prosecutor Shai
Nitzan stated in a widely reported public appearance that media conduct in this case was "a danger to
democracy". His statement generated numerous opposing opinions by legal experts and media
personalities alike.
9 References
1. Zernik, Joseph. "The Zadorov Affair: False murder conviction of a Ukrainian exposed massive corruption of
the Israeli justice system". OpEdNews. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
2. Einav, Hagai. "Golan murder: Second suspect released". YNet News. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
3. Eli Ashkenazi, Jack Khoury and Jonathan Lis. "Suspect Tells Police: I Killed Her in School
Bathroom". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
4. REBECCA ANNA STOIL. "Tair-Rada-suspect-retracts-confession". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved January

9, 2015.
5. Eli Ashkenazi. "Construction Worker Indicted for Murder of Teenage Girl". Haaretz daiy. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
6. Eli Ashkenazi and Jack Khoury. "New Evidence Against Roman Zadorov: DNA and Footprints on Victim's
Clothing". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
7. Jack Khoury. "Judge Extends Remand of Suspect in Teen Murder, Says Evidence Mounting". Haaretz daily.
Retrieved January 9, 2015.
8. Eli Ashkenazi and Jack Khoury. "DNA Evidence Not In, but Prosecution Still Plans to Indict Zadorov
Tomorrow". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
9. JPOST.COM STAFF. "'Police fail to produce DNA test in Zadorov case'". The Jerusalem Post.
10. Eli Ashkenazi. "Police Show Video of Suspect Re-enacting Murder of Tair Rada". Haaretz daily.
11. REBECCA ANNA STOIL. "Report: Zadarov DNA tests inconclusive". The Jerusalem. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
12. Eli Ashkenazi. "British Expert: Shoe Prints on Slain Golan Teen Rada Were Not Those of Accused
Killer". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
13. Eli Ashkenazi. "FBI Expert Disputes Key Evidence in Conviction for 2006 Schoolgirl Murder". Haaretz daily.
14. Eli Ashkenazi. "Police Show Video of Suspect Re-enacting Murder of Tair Rada". Haaretz daily.
15. Coby Ben-Simhon. "Murder Will Out". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
16. "Interview with Ilana Rada". Israel Hayon (Hebrew). February 12, 2016.
31/137
17. Eli Ashkenazi. "Suspected Killer of Kaztrin Teen Retracted Second Confession". Haaretz daily.
18. Eli Ashkenazi. "Zadorov Convicted in Tair Rada Murder, Gets Life in Prison". Haaretz daily.
19. Eli Ashkenazi. "No Motive Needed to Prove Guilt, Say Nazareth Judges". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
20. Avigdor Feldman. "Cadavers, Stench, and Strong Formaldehyde Odor". HaMakom. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
21. TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF. "Court to hear new testimony in Tair Rada murder case". The Times of Israel.
22. "Editorials: The Zadorov case". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
23. Ahiya Raved. "Court upholds Zadorov's conviction in teen girl's murder". YNet News. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
24. Boaz Sangero. "When would Roman Zadorov be acquitted?". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
25. "Interview with Prof Boaz Sangero". Israel Broadcasting Authority, Channel 1. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
26. Revital Hovel. "Supreme Court upholds conviction of Roman Zadorov for 2006 murder of teen Tair
Rada". The Jurusalem Post. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
27. Ayelett Shani. "How You Could Land in Jail for Committing No Crime". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
28. Mazal Mualem. "Did Israel's judicial system cover up sex scandal?". Al-Monitor. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
29. Revital Hovel. "Israeli Judge Resigns Over Sex Crime Allegations". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
30. Revital Hovel and Ronni Linder-Gantz. "Professor Motta Kremnitzer:"Conduct of the State Prosecution in
the Zadorov case is scary".". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
31. Revital Hovel. "Public Defender Accuses State of Vengefulness". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
32. Revital Hovel. "Chief Pathologist Barred From Retrial on 2006 Murder of Israeli Teen.". Haaretz daily.
33. Revital Hovel. "Chief Pathologist: State Is Gagging Doctors in Trial". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January
9, 2015.
34. Revital Hovel and Ronny Linder-Ganz. "Controversial Coroner Wins Legal Battle With State Prosecutors
Office". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
35. Yoav Dotan. "Dr Forman and Mister Nitzan". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
36. Revital Hovel. "Former Justice Dorit Beinisch Slams Oversight of State Prosecution". Haaretz daily.
37. Ronny Linder-Ganz and Revital Hovel. "Israeli State Prosecutor Admits He Went Too Far in Blocking Chief
Pathologist Appointment". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
32/137
38. Sharon Pulwer. "Attorney General Quizzes Legal Watchdog Over Exceeding Authority". Haaretz daily.
39. Sharon Pulwer. "Attorney General Backs State's Right to Change Officials' Affidavits". Haaretz daily.
40. Sharon Pulwer. "Head of the State Forensic Institute to "Uvda": "I am intimidated by the State
Prosecution"". Mako (Hebrew). Retrieved December 24, 2015.
41. Sharon Pulwer. "11 Prosecutors petitioned the Supreme Court to block publication of the Forensic Institute
report". Haaretz daily (Hebrew). Retrieved March 31, 2016.
42. "Rare in its severity letter by Ombudswoman of the Prosecution regarding Chief State Prosecutor Shai
Nitzan - 'is not telling the truth'". Nana (Hebrew). Retrieved December 21, 2015.
43. "Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Gerstel resigned on the background of fight with State
Prosecutors". Haaretz daily (Hebrew). Retrieved April 18, 2016.
44. "The Prosecutor who caused Gerstel's resignation: "In order to fix things, you don't create a pirate
agency"". Calcalist (Hebrew). Retrieved June 05, 2016.
45. "Prof. Daniel Friedman: he Attorney General cannot gag the entire State, and not let anybody voice an
opinion". Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee News. Retrieved June 8, 2016.
46. Eli Ashkenazi and Haaretz Correspondent. "Rada Family Calls for Panel of Inquiry Into Daughter's
Murder". Haaretz daily. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
47. JPOST.COM STAFF. "Rada family petitions Court for details on murder". The Jerusalem Post.
48. Eli Ashkenazi. "Parents of Murdered Golan Teen Petition Court to Reopen Probe". Haaretz daily.
49. JPOST.COM STAFF. "Ilana Rada: Zadarov didn't kill my daughter". The Jerusalem Post.
50. "All the Truth about the Murder of Tair Rada". Facebook. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
51. Hizki Ezra. "Israel Police tried to confiscate Uvdah investigative journalism materials Attorney General
Backs State's Right to Change Officials' Affidavits". Arutz 7. Retrieved January 11, 2015.
33/137
8.Keyevidence
TheevidenceindicatesthatRomanZadorovisarbitrarilydetainedunderthepretense
ofservingalifeimprisonmentsentencefollowingpretenseconvictioninthe2006
gruesomemurderof13.5yogirlTAIRRADA.Neitherthe2010Conviction,northe
Sentencingrecordaretobefoundinthetrialcourtdockets.ArrestDecree,whichis
prescribedbyIsraelilawforadmittingaconvicttoprison,ismissing.
TheevidencefurtherindicateslackofintegrityofthePrisonService,NorthDistrict
AttorneyOffice,theNazarethDistrictCourt,andtheSupremeCourt,relativeto
attemptstoinspectjudicialrecords,pertainingtoRomanZadorov.
8.1RomanZadorovisarbitrarilydetainedbytheIsraeliPrisonServicewithno
lawfullymadeArrestDecree.
a. TheNazarethDistrictCourtfailedtodulyrenderanArrestDecree,whichis
requiredforthelawfulexecutionofaprisonsentence.
TheRegulationsofCriminalCourtProcedure(1974),Article31says:
31.OnceSentencingwasrenderedtheJudge/sortheMagistrateshall
issue,pursuanttorequestbyaparty,Decreewhichshallspecifythat
whichrequiresexecution,pursuanttotheSentencing,andincaseprison
sentencewasimposed,anArrestDecreeshallbeissued,pursuantto
Form6intheAppendix;suchDecreeandOrdershallbesignedbythe
Judge/sortheMagistrateoftheCourtandshallserveasthe
authorizationforanyStateagencyfortheexecutionofthesentence.
TheAppendixtotheRegulationsprovidesForm6foruseindraftinganarrest
decreeafterentryofaprisonsentence(Figure1).
(31 )6
/
/
/

:

()

.
()
.
_
______________________
a.
34/137
Form 6 (Regulation 31)

In the __________Court
In __________
Criminal Appeal __________
Criminal Trial __________
Plaintiff/Appellant __________
v
Defendant/Respondent __________
Arrest Decree
To: __________
You are herein ordered to arrest __________ (name)
Who was convicted on the charge of __________
And deliver him with instant Arrest Decree to the Warden in the prison, so
that he be imprisoned for the period of __________, pursuant to the law.
(Notes)
Instant Arrest Decree serves as the authorization for any one who duly
executes the above stated prison sentence.
__________
__________
__________
(date)
(Seal of the Court) Personal Stamp
b.
Figure 1: Arrest Decree (akin to a writ of execution following a prison sentence) Form 6,
pursuant to Article 31, in the Appendix to Regulations of Criminal Court Procedure (1974). a.
Hebrew original; b. English translation.
NosuchArrestDecreepertainingtoRomanZadorovappearsinNetHaMishpat
publicaccesssystem.
Formonths,theNazarethDistrictCourtunlawfullydeniedattemptstoinspectthe
electroniccourtfileineffortstodiscovertheArrestDecree,pertainingtoRoman
Zadorov,orascertainwhetheritexistedatall(Attachment9.4).Finally,Presiding
JudgeAvrahamAvrahamissuedtheJune2,2016unsignedPostitDecision(Figure
2),whichwasneverdulyserved,andwhichwasnotenteredinNetHaMishpat
publicaccesssystemDecisionsDocket.
Figure 2: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court June 2, 2016
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham unsigned Post-it Decision on Request #127 (Attachment
9.4) for rendering a decision, regarding access to inspect a duly made Arrest Decree,
pertaining to Roman Zadorov. The record says: On its face, such request appears to be
cantankerous and useless. Therefore, I find no room to grant it, and it is denied. Request was
35/137
filed for a duly signed and certified, True Copy of the Original, copy of this record, but it has
not been provided to this date. Such Post-it Decision should be deemed sham/simulated court
record.
TheJune2,2016JudgeAvrahamPostitDecisionsays:
Onitsface,suchrequestappearstobecantankerousanduseless.
Therefore,Ifindnoroomtograntit,anditisdenied.
TheJune2,2016JudgeAvrahamPostitDecisionshouldbedeemedsham/
simulated,invalidcourtrecord.However,therecordshouldalsobeconsideredtacit
admissionbyJudgeAvrahamthatnolawful,validArrestDecreehaseverbeen
entered,pertainingtoRomanZadorov,and/orthatJudgeAvrahamengagedin
unlawfuldenialofpublicaccesstojudicialrecordsinRomanZadorov'scase.
b. CommandersoftheShitaPrisondetainRomanZadorov,aspurportedexecutionof
alifeimprisonmentsentence,withnoArrestDecree,indisregardofdomesticlaw.
ThePrisonsOrder(1971),Articles2,3say:
2. Apersonshallnotbeadmittedtoprison,unlesspursuanttoanArrest
DecreeorDetentionDecree,whichwasbroughtwithhim...
3. ThePrisonDirectorshallverifythattheDecreeissignedbythe
appropriateauthorityandislawfullymade,andthattheprisoneris
thepersonstatedinit.
FreedomofInformationrequestwasfiledwiththePrisonService,pertainingto:
(a)Lawfullymadearrestdecree,pertainingtoRomanZadorov.
(b)Thetechnicalcapabilityofprisoncommanderstoverifythatanarrestdecreeis
lawfullymadeandvalid,whenitisissuedasanelectronicrecordinNet
HaMishpat,whereanelectronicsignatureisrequired.
ThePrisonServicefailedtodulyrespondonsuchFreedomofInformationrequest.
ItisallegedthattheShitaPrisoncommandersarbitrarilydetainRomanZadorov
withoutanylawfullymadeArrestDecree,indisregardofdomesticlaw.
Moreover,asdocumentedintheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary2012Decisioninthe
JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal(section8.5,Attachment9.5),
todayparties,counsel,andthepublicatlargehavenowaytodistinguish,whether
arrestdecrees,whichareissuedaselectronicrecordsinNetHaMishpat,arevalid,
electronicallysigned,enforceablecourtrecords,orjustinvaliddrafts.Itisalleged
thatlikewise,today,prisondirectorsinIsraelhavenowaytodistinguishbetweenan
electronicallysigned,validarrestdecree,andanunsigned,invalid,sham/simulated
draft.
Obviously,suchconditionsopenthewayforwidespread,unlawfuldeprivationof
Liberty.
36/137
8.2RomanZadorov'strialbytheNazarethDistrictCourtshouldbedeemed
sham/simulatedprocessdeprivationofDueProcessandFairandPublic
HearingwhichendedwithneitherlawfulVerdictnorSentencingrecord.
BoththeSupremeCourtandtheNazarethDistrictCourtdeniedaccesstothe
trialcourtjudicialdecisionrecords.
WhileRomanZadorov'sAppealwasstillpendingbeforetheSupremeCourt,top
IsraelicriminaldefenseattorneyAvigdorFeldman,thenRomanZadorov'sprobono
Counsel,wrotethathiseffortstodiscoverZadorov'sjudgmentrecordswere
unsuccessful.Heonlymanagedtodiscoverremnantsofthejudgmentrecords,which
haven'tbeenscatteredinthewailingwindacrossthevastJezreelValley(which
NazarethDistrictCourtoverlooks).
Therequirementofenteringwritten,signeddecisionsandjudgmentsisclearlystated
intheRegulationsofCivilCourtProcedure(1984).
TheRegulationsofCivilCourtProcedure(1984),Article190(a)says:
190(a)Attheendofahearinginanyprocess,orassoonaspossible
afterwards,underthecircumstances,thecourtshallrenderjudgmentor
otherdecision,accordingtothematterinbar;thedecisionshallbein
writing,andshallbesignedbythejudgeswhoofthesittingcourt.
IcouldnotfindthecorrespondingprovisionsintheCriminalCourtProcedureAct
(1982),ortheRegulationsofCourtProcedure(1974).However,Iassumethatsimilar
requirementsareprescribedincriminalprocedures,asafundamentalinany
competentCourtofRecord,whichupholdstherightforDueProcess.
AspartofthetransitionoftheIsraelicourttoelectroniccourtfileadministration,the
trialcourtfileintheNazarethDistrictCourtwasadministeredasapapercourtfile
fromitscommencementinJanuary2007untilDecember2009,andasanelectronic
courtfilesinceJanuary2010.Therefore,the2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsare
electronicrecords,andlikewisethe2014SupplementalJudgmentrecord.
Therequirementofsigningelectronicrecordbylawfulelectronicsignatures,andthe
invalidityofelectronicrecords,whicharenotelectronicallysigned,isclearlystatedin
theRegulationsofCivilCourtProcedure.
TheRegulationsofCivilCourtProcedure(1984),Article215e.(a),(c),(d).says:
215e.(a)Anelectroniccourtrecord,whichrequiresasignature,andan
affidavitthatiselectronicallytransmitted(hereinafterelectronic
affidavit)shallbe,eachwithitsexhibits,electronicallysigned...
(c)NotwithstandingRegulation(a),itispermittedtoelectronicallyfile
incourt(1)Anaffidavitthatwashandsignedbytheaffiantandthe
personadministeringtheaffidavit,aslongasitwasfiledunderthe
electronicsignatureofthefilingparty.
(2)Anaffidavit,whichwashandsignedbytheaffiantandelectronically
signedbythepersonadministeringtheaffidavit.
(d)Anelectroniccourtrecord,whichdoesnotsatisfyinstant
Regulations,orinstructionsoftheDirectoroftheAdministrationof
37/137
Court,pursuanttoinstantchapter,orthatwasreceivedincompleteof
defective,shallnotbeenteredbytheOfficeoftheClerk,andnoticeshall
besenttothefilerinthemannerinstructedbytheDirectorofthe
AdministrationofCourts.
competentCourtofRecordunderelectronicadministrationofcourtfiles.
ItisgenerallyallegedthatthemannerinwhichtheElectronicSignatureAct(2001)
wasimplementedbytheIsraelicourtswascentraltosystemicrenderingofelectronic
courtrecordsvagueandambiguousseriousviolationofDueProcess(seesection
8.5).
Regardless,thereisnoVerdictrecordandnovalidSentencingrecordoftheNazareth
DistrictCourtinthetrialcourtdockets.Itisfurtherallegedthatthe2014
SupplementalJudgmentrecordisofvagueandambiguousvalidity,aslongasthe
NazarethDistrictcourtcontinuestodenyaccesstotheelectronicsignatureexecution
data(seebelow).
TherightforDueProcesshasbeenrelativelylatetoberecognizedbytheIsraeli
courts.Eventoday,itislargelyseenaspartofproceduralissues,incontrastwith
materialissues(seesection8.5).Nevertheless,evenundersuchcircumstances,
conductoftheNazarethDistrictCourtshouldbedeemedseriousdenialoftheright
forDueProcess:TheNazarethDistrictCourtfailedtoenterverdictandsentencing
records,failedtoenteranArrestDecree,andmaintainsdubiousrecordsanddouble
booksfortheDecisionsDocketinthiscase.Suchconductrenderstheentirejudicial
processvagueandambiguous,ifnotpatentlyinvalid,andthereforeshouldbe
deemedseriousviolationofDueProcessaswellasFairandPublicHearingrights.
a. TheSeptember14,2010readingoftheVerdictandSentenceinopencourt
remainsvagueandambiguousunderprevailingconditionsintheIsraelicourts.
OnSeptember14,2010,inacourthearingthatwaswidelycoveredbymedia,Verdict
andSentencinginRomanZadorov'strialwereread.However,underconditions,
todayprevailingintheIsraelicourts,suchreadingcannotbedeemedbinding.
TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary2012AnnualReportdocumentscurrentcustomsin
Israelicourtinthismatter.Onpages612theOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary2012
AnnualReportsays:
CorrectionofDecisionsandProtocolMaintenance
TheOmbudsmandeterminedthatwhenajudgereadsadecisioninthe
courtroom,hehasnoauthoritytochangeitafterwards,andprovisionsof
theCourtsAct(1984),Article81(a),applyinthismatter.Therefore,
evenifoneadoptsthelinimentapproachincourtrulings,thatthecourt
hasnoobligationtoheartheparties'positionspriortomaking
correctionspursuanttoArticle81(a),anditisonlyrecommended,there
38/137
isnoexemptionforthejudgefromrenderingareasoneddecisionfor
anysuchcorrections,asprescribedbyArticle81(a).
Thecaseinvolvedcorrectionsbythejudgewithouthearingtheparties'
positionsandwithoutanyreasoning.Itisalsonotpossibletoclaimthat
thecourtwasauthorizedtomakematerialchanges,sincethecourt
hearingwasnotterminatedandthematterwasstillunderitsdiscretion,
anditwaspermittedtoreconsideritandchangethedecision.Underthe
circumstances,thedecisionsandjudgmentwereairedinthethefirst
versionoftheprotocolduringthecourthearing,andhisworkwas
completedoncethecounselleftthecourtroom,andtheyweredeprived
oftheability,accordingtoacceptedcustom,topointouttothecourtany
errorincorrectingthedecision.Thecomplaintwasfoundjustified.
(Ournumbers88/12,106/12,144/12,120/12,DistrictCourts).
OneshouldrealizethattheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryhasnoenforcement
authority.Therefore,whilehedocumentshispositiononthematter,infacthealso
documentsthattheIsraelijudgestodayholdtheoppositeposition.
Conditions,wherethereadingofdecisionorjudgmentinopencourtarenotheld
bindingmustcauseconcernregardingDueProcessingeneral,andcompetenceofthe
Israelicourts.
b. CalendardataoftheSeptember14,2010hearingisdubiousand/orinvalid.
TheCalendardatabelowisfromNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystem.
a.
39/137
b.
c.
40/137
d.
Figure 3. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court Calendar
data, pertaining to the September 14, 2010 hearing. a. Court Calendar: provides only cumulative
numbers of hearings per judge per hearing type, but no case numbers; b. Case Calendar: lists
9:00-9:30 Verdict hearing, 9:30-10:00 Sentencing hearing; c. Personal Judge Calendar Yitzhak Cohen: lists 9:000 Verdict hearing, 9:30 Sentencing hearing; d. Personal Judge
Calendar Esther Hellman: lists seven (7) different case hearings for 9:00 and 10:00 am, all of
which took place, including Zadorov's case; Personal Judge Calendar Haim Galpaz does not
exist at all.
TheCourtCalendarisvagueatbestitprovidesnocasenumberofcaptions,only
cumulativehearingnumbersperjudge.
TheaCaseCalendarindeedlisttheSeptember14,2010hearing.
PersonalJudgeCalendarforJudgeYithakCohenliststheRomanZadorovcaseas
theonlyhearingfrom9:00to10:30am.
PersonalJudgeCalendarforJudgeEstherCohenlistsatotalof7differentcase
hearingsat9:00and10:00am,includingRomanZadorov'scase,allofwhichare
markedashavingbeenconducted.
PersonalJudgeforJudgeHaimGalpaz(whoheldanemeritusstatusatthetime)
doesnotexistatall.
Inshort:TheCalendardata,pertainingtotheSeptember14,2010hearingisvague
andambiguous,ifnotpatentlyinvalid.
Forgenerations,CourtCalendarshavebeenrecognizedfundamentalBooksof
Court,definingthelawfulconductofthecourt.CourtCalendarsareakey
instrumentinpreventingtheconductofsham/simulatedcourthearings.Acourt,
wherethecalendardataisvagueandambiguousand/orinvalidshouldbedeemed
incompetentcourt.
41/137
c. NoSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsareenteredinthetrial
courtJudgmentsDocket.
ReviewofNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystemrevealsthattheSeptember14,
2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsaremissingfromtheJudgmentsDocket,andthe
2014SupplementalJudgmentisenteredas "Instruction to file Certificate of
Counsel for Defendants" (Figure 4).
Figure 4: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - Judgments
Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system - fails to show entry of the 2010 Verdict and
Sentencing records. The 2014 Supplemental Judgment was entered in the Judgments Docket as
"Instruction to file Certificate of Counsel for Defendants".
Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham, Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer, and the Administration of
Courts refuse to answer:
(i) Who is authorized and who holds the duties to enter judgments under the Judgment
Docket in Net-HaMishpat in the Nazareth District Court?
(ii) Does the entry of a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment, Verdict, or
Sentencing indicate that it is indeed a duly made, valid and effectual judgment in the
corresponding court file?
(iii) Does the failure to enter a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment, Verdict,
or Sentencing indicate that it is not a duly made, valid and effectual judgment in the
corresponding court file?
the Regulations of the Courts-Registration Office (1936) from the British Mandate in Palestine
period provided the duties and obligations of the Chief Clerk relative to safeguard of integrity of
court files and records, and the requirements for maintaining dockets and judgment index.
The Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), promulgated in conjunction with
transition to administration of electronic court files, voided the 1936 Regulations, the duties of
the Chief Clerk, and the requirements to maintain dockets, enter judgments and maintain
Judgment Index (section 8.5, Attachment 9.6). Based on these issues alone, the Israeli courts
today should be deemed incompetent courts. Surely they cannot be deemed Courts of Record.
ThereisnolistingatalloftheSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsin
theJudgmentsDocketoftheRomanZadorovcase,andthedocketingofthe2014
SupplementalJudgmentisvagueandambiguous,ifnotpatentlyinvalid.
42/137
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamandChiefClerkOshratAvichezeroftheNazareth
DistrictCourtrefusetoansweroninquiries,andtheAdministrationofCourtsrefuses
toansweronFreedomofInformationRequests:
(i) Whoisauthorizedandwhoholdsthedutiestoenterjudgmentsunderthe
JudgmentDocketinNetHaMishpatintheNazarethDistrictCourt?
(ii) DoestheentryofacourtrecordintheJudgmentDocketasJudgment,
Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisindeedadulymade,validand
effectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
(iii)DoesthefailuretoenteracourtrecordintheJudgmentDocketasJudgment,
Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisnotadulymade,validandeffectual
judgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
ItshouldbenotedthattheRegulationsoftheCourtsRegistrationOffice(1936),
promulgatedundertheBritishMandateinPalestine,chargedtheChiefClerkofthe
Courtwiththesuperiormaintenanceofthefilesandregistrationsofthecourt,and
alsoprescribedtheaccurateentryofdecisionsandjudgmentsinvariousBooksof
Court.
The1936RegulationswerevoidedandreplacedbythenewRegulationsoftheCourts
OfficeoftheClerk(2004)inconjunctionwiththeIsraelicourts'transitionoverthe
pastdecadetoelectroniccourtfileadministration.ThenewRegulationsfailto
prescribethedutiesoftheChiefClerk,relativetointegrityofcourtfilerecordsand
entryofdecisionsandjudgments.Moreover,itentirelyfailstoprescribethe
registrationofentryofdecisionsandjudgments(section8.5andAttachment9.6).
Forgenerations,JudgmentBookand/orJudgmentIndexhasbeenconsidereda
fundamentalBookofCourt,definingtheoutcomeofcourtactions.Suchwasthe
caseintheStateofIsraelaswell,until2004.
Acourt,wherethereisnovalidentryofjudgmentsandnoJudgmentBookand/or
JudgmentIndexshouldbedeemedpatentlyincompetent.
d. TheSeptember14,2010VerdictfailstoappearinthetrialcourtDecisionsDocket,
andonlyadefective,invalidSentencingrecordappears.
ReviewoftheNazarethDistrictCourtDecisionsDocketinNetHaMishpatpublic
accesssystemshowsonSeptember14,2010,anentryof"Decision".Suchentry
usedtobelinkedtoadefectiverecordoftheSeptember14,2010Sentencing(Figure
6).However,byearlyJuly2016,therecorddisappeared,andtodayonlya"General
Error"messageappearsunderthisentry(Figure6).ByJuly10,2016,thelinktothe
defectiveSentencingrecordwasrestored.
TheSeptember14,2010VerdictfailstoappearintheDecisionsDocketatall.
43/137
Figure 5: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - Decisions
Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system - page 3, covering the period of September
2010, includes an enty of September 14, 2010 Decision, which used to be linked to a defective
Sentencing record. However, by early July 2016, it is linked to a General Error message
(Figure 6), and fails to show any record at all. The September 14, 2010 Verdict record fails to
appear in the Decisions Docket at all.
TheDecisionsDocketalsofailstolistnumerousotherdecisions.
Acourt,wherethereisnovalidDecisionsDocket,shouldbedeemedofdubious
competence.
e. Two(2)differentrecords,relatedtotheSeptember14,2010Verdictwere
discoveredoutsidethetrialcourtdockets,bothoftheminvalidrecords.
Tworecords,relatedtotheSeptember14,2010Verdictwerediscoveredduring
inspectionofcourtrecordsintheNetHaMishpatOfficeoftheClerkaccessandin
theSupremeCourtappealpapercourtfile(Figure6).Bothappearasprintoutsfrom
NetHaMishpat,bothappearinvalidontheirfaces.Moreover,theyaredifferentfrom
eachother.
44/137
a.
45/137
b.
Figure 6: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - two (2)
records, related to the September 14, 2010 Verdict record: a. During the January 2016 inspection
of the records in Net-HaMishpat Office of the Clerk access a version was discovered, showing
negative images of two judges' "graphic signatures", but missing the signature of Judge Haim
Galpaz. Since the record fails to appear in the Judgments Docket and also fails to appear in the
Decisions Docket, it should be deemed a draft (which according to the Ombudsman of the
Judiciary Decision, pertaining to the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal, the
Office of the Clerk was not permitted to print out and provide to the public). b. During
inspection of the paper court file in the Supreme Court, another version was discovered, which
was filed as an attachment to the Notice of Appeal. It appears as a printout from Net-HaMishpat
as well, and it probably dates from September-October 2010 (between the date of the Verdict
hearing and the date of filing of the Notice of Appeal). However, it shows no graphic signatures
at all. Also the total page numbers and the page layouts are different between the two versions.
46/137
Such differences between the 2010 and 2016 versions of the Verdict record, invalid as they are,
raise further concerns of alternations and/or adulterations of this record. Surely, the 2010 record
was not an electronically signed record, if it was later altered. In short, neither is a valid,
authentic court record.
Bothversionsofthe2010Verdictrecordarepatentlyinvalid.The2016versionis
missingJudgeHaimGalpazsignature,andshowsnegativeimagesofthesignaturesof
thetwootherpaneljudges.Theearlierversion,datingfromSeptemberOctober
2010,showsno"graphicsignatures"atall.Alsothetotalpagenumbersandpage
layoutsdifferbetweenthetwoversions.
ThedifferencebetweenthesetwoprintoutsfromNetHaMishpatmustraiseconcerns
ofalternationsand/oradulterationsofthisrecord.Surely,the2010recordwasnot
anelectronicallysignedrecord.
f. Four(4)versionsoftheSeptember14,2010Sentencingrecordwerediscovered
outsidethetrialcourtdockets,allofthemdefective,invalidrecords.
FourversionsoftheSeptember14,2016Sentencingrecordhavebeendiscoveredto
thisdate,allofthemdefectiverecords(Figure7).
a.
47/137
b.
48/137
c.
49/137
d.
Figure 7: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - four (4)
records of the September 14, 2010 Sentencing record: a. Staring in early July 2016, the link in
the Decisions Docket of the Nazareth District Court showed only a "General Error" message, later
in July 2016, the link was restored. b. Until June 2016, the Decisions Docket linked to a defective
record, showing "graphic signatures" of two judges only. The signature of Judge Haim Galpaz
was missing from the record. c. During inspection in January 2016 of the records in NetHaMishpat Office of the Clerk Office access another version was discovered, showing
negative images of two judges' "graphic signatures", but again missing the signature of Judge
Haim Galpaz. d. During inspection of the paper court file in the Supreme Court, a printout from
Nevo Publishing LTD was discovered, which was filed as an attachment to the Notice of Appeal,
instead of an authentic court record.
The disappearance of the Sentencing record from the Nazareth District Court's Decisions Docket
in early July 2016 remains inexplicable.
50/137
RegardingtheSentencingrecord,whichnowappearsintheDecisionsDocket,it
shouldbenoted:
(i)TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecisionintheVardaAlshechFabricated
Protocolsscandalexplainsindetailtheprocessingofvalid,orinvalidjudicial
decisionrecords(paragraph21):
Attheendofthehearing,thetranscriptionistperformsintheWord
documenttwoadditionalfunctions:GraphicSignatureandEnd
Hearing.
Thetranscriptionist,whensoorderedbythejudge,canprintoutacopy
oftheprotocolpriortotheexecutionoftheEndHearingaction,sothat
thepartiesleavethecourtroomwithacopyoftheprotocol.Afterthe
executionoftheEndHearingfunction,theWorddocumentisclosed
andfiledintheProtocolFolderasadraft.Thejudgethenentersthe
ProtocolFolderandexecutestheelectronicsignatures.Theexecutionof
theelectronicsignaturetransformstheelectronicfilefromdrafttofinal
record,inthesensethatitislockedfromanyfurtherchanges...The
ProtocolApplicationtaskappearsintheOfficeoftheClerkonthe
hearingdate.IfthetheclerkattemptstoperformtheProtocol
Applicationpriortotheelectronicsigningoftheprotocoldraftbythe
judge,hewouldgetawarningmessagethattheprotocolisnotsigned
yet,andthesystemwouldpreventthecompletionoftheProtocol
Application.
However,theprintingofaDraftProtocolbytheOfficeoftheClerkis
possible,byenteringtheProtocolFolderinsteadofusingtheProtocol
Application.Undersuchcircumstancesthereisnopromptwarningthe
clerkthattheprotocolisunsigned...
Therefore,aSentencingrecords,wherethegraphicsignatureofJudgeHaim
Galpzaismissing,shouldbedeemedarecordthatwasneverdulycompleted.
(ii)Undersuchcircumstances,itcanalsobeassumedwithhighlevelofcertaintythat
theSentencingrecordwasneverelectronicallysignedbyJudgeHaimGalpaz,and
thereforeismerelyadraft.
(iii)Itislikelythatforsuchreason,therecordwasalsoneverenteredinthe
JudgmentsDocket.
(iv)TherefusalofPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamtopermitinspectionofthe
electronicsignatureexecutiondataoftherecordonlyconfirmssuchconclusions.
(v)Regardless,aSentencingrecordwithnoVerdictrecordappearingeitherinthe
DecisionsDocketortheJudgmentsDocketshouldbedeemedvoid,notvoidable.
Thefailuretofindavalidrecordofthe2010Sentencing,andthediscoveryof
multipleinvalidrecords,pertainingtoaSentencingrecordinamurdertrial,must
raiseconcernsregardingcompetenceoftheCourt.
51/137
g. Accesstojudicialdecisionrecords,whicharenotlawfullyprohibitedfor
publication,ispermittedbyIsraelilawto"everyperson"
SincethedocketdatainNetHaMishpatwaspatentlyinvalidandkeyrecordswere
missing,alengthyprocesswasundertaken,inefforttoinspectdecisionandjudgment
recordsinRomanZadorov'strialandappealcourtfiles.
IsraelilawtheRegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003),Regulation
2(b))says(Attachment9.7):
Anypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisions,whicharenotlawfully
prohibitedforpublication.
Regulation6(b)prescribesthedutyofthePresidingJudgeofeachcourttoestablish
theproceduresforinspectionofsuchrecords.Regulation6(b)says:
6(b)PresidingJudgeoftheCourtshallestablishtheinspection
proceduresandtimeofinspectionincourtfileswherehepresides.
Thematterisfurtherelaboratedina2009JudgmentbyPresidingJusticeDorit
Beinischattheendofthe12yearlongpetitiononthequestionofpublicaccessto
courtrecordsAssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelvMinisterofJustice(5917/97).
RegardingRegulation2(b),the2009Judgmentsays:
Regulation2(b)expandsthepublic'srighttoinspectwithno
requirementforfilingarequestwiththeCourt,butonlypertainingto
decisionsoftheCourt,andonlypertainingtodecisionsthatarenot
prohibitedforpublicationbylaw.
AlthoughthereisnoconstitutionintheStateofIsrael,the2009Judgmentfurther
declarestherighttoinspectjudicialrecords:
afundamentalprincipleinanydemocraticregime...constitutional,
superstatutory...
The2009Judgmentalsoincludesvariousdeclarations,pertainingtothesignificance
ofpublicaccesstocourtrecords:
...developingjudicialstandardsandproceduresforinspectingcourtfile,
inordertomaterializeinthebestmannertheprincipleofPublic
Hearing...
...inthesafeguardoftheprincipleofPublicHearinglies,obviously,one
oftheprimaryguaranteesforvalidityofthejudicialprocess,bothin
affectingjusticeandestablishingthetruthinpractice,andinthe
appearanceofjusticetothepublicatlarge...[StateofIsraelvVielner
353/88andadditionalreferencestoIsraelicourtdecisions]
...theprincipleofPublicHearingismeanttoguaranteethatinformation
regardingwhattranspiredinthecourtroomandconductofthejudicial
authoritiesbeopentothepublicandenabletransparency,openness,and
publiccriticism.Therefore,theprincipleofPublicHearingshouldbe
deemedamandatoryprerequisiteforvalidityoftheentirejusticesystem
andensuringpublictrustinit...
...theimportanceofthisprincipleisincreatingpublictrustinpublic
52/137
authoritiesingeneralandinthecourtsinparticular,sinceitcontributes
togeneratingtheappearanceofjusticeinamannerthatpromotesuch
trust...
Thesameprinciplewascrystallizedinthealandmark1978decisionoftheUS
SupremeCourt,pertainingtotheNixontapes,whichreaffirmedthecommonlaw
rightofpublicaccesstoinspectandtocopyjudicialrecords.[6]Thatrulingfindsthe
interestcompellingsuchrightinthecitizen'sdesiretokeepawatchfuleyeonthe
workingsofpublicagencies.Obviously,oneofthecriticalpublicagenciesinthis
regardarethecourtsthemselves.
h. Spliteffortstoinspectthetrialcourtrecords:Thetrialcourtfilewasadministered
from20072009asapapercourtfile,andfrom2010tothepresentasan
electroniccourtfile.
RomanZadorov'strialintheNazarethDistrictCourtfrom2007to2014overlapped
theimplementationofNetHaMishpatcasemanagementsysteminthatcourtat
theendof2009.Therefore,inspectionoftheRomanZadorovtrialcourtrecords
eventuallyinvolvedsplitefforts:
From2007toDecember2009,thecourtfilewasadministeredasapapercourt
file,andthevastmajorityofdecisionrecordsinRomanZadorov'strialwereissued
aspaperrecords,whichshouldhavebeensignedbyhandsignatures.
Onlypartofthedecisionrecordsandprotocols,whichwereoriginallyissuedas
paperrecordsaretodaydisplayedinNetHaMishpat.Moreover,thedisplayed
paperdecisionrecordsarenotevenscansofthehandsignedrecords,but
unsigneddisplayrenditions(Figure8).Therefore,thereisnowaytoascertain,
basedonsuchdisplayrenditions,whethertheoriginalpaperrecordsareofthe
samecontentastherecordsthataredisplayedtoday,andwhethertheoriginal
paperrecordsaresigned,validrecords,orunsigned,sham/simulatedcourt
records.
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
53/137
Figure 8. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) electronic display rendition in NetHaMishpat (case management system of the Court) of a January 1, 2008 decision record by
Judge Yitzhak Cohen, which was originally issued as a paper decision record. The decision record
was supposed to be hand-signed by the judge. The electronic display rendition, which is today
provided in Net-HaMishpat is not even a scan of the hand-signed record, but an unsigned record.
Obviously, it is not an authentic court record, and there is no way to ascertain that the
corresponding authentic court record exists at all.
Inothercourtfiles,bothinthelowercourtsandintheSupremeCourt,ithasbeen
repeatedlydocumentedthatjudgesissuedunsignedpaperdecisionrecords,which
werefalselyrepresentedasvaliddecisionrecords.Inyetothercases,theunsigned,
electronicdisplayrenditionsofpaperdecisionrecordswereadulterated,anddo
notreflecttheoriginalpaperrecords(seebelowandsection8.5).
AfterinitialattemptstoaccessthepapercourtfileintheNazarethDistrictCourt,I
wasfinallyinformedbyChiefClerkOshratAvichezerthatthepapercourtfilewas
heldintheSupremeCourtundertheRomanZadorovappealcourtfileRoman
ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourt.Therefore,subsequent
effortstoaccesstheoriginal,paperjudicialdecisionrecordswereconductedinthe
SupremeCourtundertheappealcourtfile.
54/137
FromJanuary2010tothepresent,thecourtfileisadministeredasanelectronic
courtfile,anddecisionrecordsareelectronicrecords,whichshouldhavebeen
signedbyelectronicsignatures,pursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001)
(seesection8.5).
Thepublicationofsham/simulatedcourtrecordhasbeenrepeatedlydocumented
aswell.ThemostnotoriouscaseistheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricated
Protocolsscandal(Attachment9.5).
i. TheSupremeCourtdeniedaccesstothepaperjudicialdecisionrecordsofthetrial
court,andpervertedcourtrecordsandcourtprocessinresponsetotheinspection
attempts.
Giventhatthe2009JudgmentoftheSupremeCourtexplicitlystatedthattherewas
norequirementforanyrequestprocess,initially,inquirieswerefiledwithPresiding
JusticeoftheSupremeCourt,toperformherduties,pursuanttoRegulation6(b),and
establishinspectionproceduresforsuchrecords.PresidingJusticeMiriamNaorfailed
torespond.
Therefore,onApril11,2016theinitialProformaRequesttoInspectCourtFilewas
filedundertheSupremeCourtappealfileZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)
(Attachment9.8).ThefilingstatedthatitwasfiledpursuanttotheRegulationsofthe
CourtInspectionofCourtFiles(2003),Regulation2(b),whichstatesthatAny
personispermittedtoinspectdecisionrecordswhicharenotlawfullyprohibitedfor
publication.Thefilingalsostatedthattherequestwasfiledunderduress,sincethe
SupremeCourtPresidingJusticeMiriamNaorfailedtoperformherdutiesand
establishinspectionprocedures,pursuanttoRegulation6(b),evenafterrepeat
requests.
Therequestwasalsodeliberatelylimitedtopreviouslypublisheddecisionrecords,
inordertoeliminateanypossibleobjectiontotheinspection.
Regardless,onApril14,2016MagistrateoftheSupremeCourtissuedadecision
record,whichallegedlyusurpedtheauthorityforadjudicationandjudicialdiscretion
inthismatter,andsolicitedresponsesbytheparties(Figure9).TheMagistrate's
decisionexplicitlyreplacedtheProformaRequest,pursuanttoRegulation2(b),with
aRequest(intendedforrecordsotherthanunsealeddecisions)pursuantto
Regulation4(Attachments9.7,9.8).
ThevalidityoftheMagistrateDecisionrecordisdubious:
LikeallSupremeCourtdecisionrecordssince2002itbearsthedisclaimer,
subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges(seesection8.5).
LikeallSupremeCourtdecisionsinrecentyears,itwasnotdulyserved.
ThereisnowaytoobtainvalidcertificationofSupremeCourtdecisionsinrecent
years(seesection8.4).
55/137
a.
56/137
[Coat of Arms of the State of Israel]

In the Supreme Court in Jerusalem
Criminal Appeal 7939/10
Before:
The Hon Magisrate Guy Shani
Requester of Inspection: Joseph Zernik, PhD
Appellant:
Roman Zadorov's
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
Request to Inspect Court File
Request was filed to inspect the paper court file State of Israel v Roman
Zadorov (502/07) from the Nazareth District Court.
The parties shall file their responses, pursuant to the Regulations of the
Courts Inspection of Court Files (2003), Regulation 4.
The responses shall be filed within 14 days from service of instant
decision. The Office of the Clerk shall serve on the parties the Request together
with instant Decision.
Rendered today, April 14, 2016.
[no form of signature]
Guy Shani, Judge
Magistrate
__________________________________
Issue subject to editing and phrasing changes 100979390_D59.doc
Information Center, Tel: 077-1705555, Internet site: www.court.gov.il
b.
Figure 9. Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) Criminal Appeal in the Supreme Court
April 14, 2016 Decision by Magistrate of the Supreme Court on Prof-forma Request to Inspect
previously published decision records from the Nazareth District Court paper court file State of
Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) (original records). a. Hebrew original; b. English translation.
Such decision replace the Pro-forma Request, which was explicitly filed pursuant to Regulation
2, which requires no request process, and which provides the judges neither jurisdiction, nor
discretion, pertaining to public access to unsealed decision records, with request process
pursuant to Regulation 4, which pertains to other types of court file records, and which provides
judges jurisdiction and discretion. This Supreme Court decision record, as usual, is unsigned,
bears the disclaimer subject to editing and phrasing changes, and was never duly served.
Therefore, its validity remains vague and ambiguous.
OnApril19,2016,AppealwasfiledintheSupremeCourtZernikvStateofIsrael
(3919/16),originatingintheMagistrateApril14,2016Decision,claimingthatthe
Magistrate'sdecisionlackedlawfulauthority,andwasissuedasusual,througha
vagueandambiguousjudicialrecord(Attachment9.8).
OnMay4,2016,JusticeSalimJoubranissuedDecisiondenyingtheAppeal,finding
thatjudgeshadtheauthoritytoadjudicatetherighttoinspectpreviouslypublished
decisions,pursuanttoRegulation4(Attachment9.8).
TheJune2,2016,SupremeCourtMagistrateLubinskyDecisiondeniedaccessto
inspectthepreviouslypublished,originalpaperdecisionrecordsinthepapertrial
courtfilefromtheNazarethDistrictCourt(Attachment9.8).
ThedenialwasreasonedinajumbleintheNazarethDistrictCourtfile,and
57/137
suggestedthatinspectionshouldinsteadbeperformedoftheinvalid,unsigned,
electronicdisplayrenditionsofthesamerecordsinNetHaMishpat.
OnJune9,2016,AppealwasagainfiledintheSupremeCourtZernikvZadorovand
StateofIsrael(4650/16),originatingintheJune2,2016Magistratedecision,
denyingaccesstothepreviouslypublished,originalpaperdecisionrecordinthe
NazarethDistrictCourtpapercourtfile(Attachment9.8).
TheAppealinpartsays:
1.Disorderandjumbleareaparticularlyoddreasonsfordenyingthe
righttoinspect:
a)Theydocumentpatentlyincompetentconductbythecourts,relative
toaseriouscrimecase,whichhasstirredtheIsraelipublicforsome
tenyears.
b)TheMagistrateproceededtomakedoublespeculation,relativeto
myexposuretosensitivematerials,iftheyexistatall.Thecourt
fileisnotsealed,exceptforsmallnumberofrecords.Inacompetent
court,lawfullysealedrecordsshouldbeclearlymarkedassuch.And
ifthathasnotbeendonetothisdateitshouldbedonenow.
c)Giventheintensepublicinterest,andtheincessantpublicstir
relativetothiscase,thesensitivematerialshavealreadybeen
publishedbymediaandintheInternet.OntheInternet,onecan
probablyfindtodayinvestigationmaterialsfromthiscaseaboveand
beyondthosethatareincludedinthepapercourtfileitself.
d)FollowingasimilarrequesttoinspecttheSupremeCourtappeal
courtfile(alsoapapercourtfile),whichalsopertainedonlyto
decisionrecords,Iwaspermittedtoinspecttheentirecourtfile,
twice.Inthiscase,theappealcourtfilealsoincludesinvestigation
materials.Therefore,itisobviousthattheSupremeCourtpreviously
sawnohurdleinmyexposuretopurportedlysensitivematerialsin
thiscase.However,boththenandnowIhavenointerestin
inspectinganymaterialsbeyondauthenticdecisionrecords.
e)Itispossibletodevisesimpleandeasy,adequatesolutionsforthe
requestedinspection:Forexample,ifsoasked,Iwouldbegladto
signacommitmenttoneithercopynorpublishanymaterials,except
forpreviouslypublisheddecisionrecords,whicharenotlawfully
prohibitedforpublicationtheonlyandexplicitpurposeofthe
requestedinspection.
f)Asonewhoisexperiencedininspectionofcourtfiles,including
paperfilesofvariouscourts,itisobvioustomethatIcouldeasily
sortoutthedecisionrecordsfromothermaterialsintheboxesofthe
Nazarethpapercourtfilewithinoneday'swork,sincetheirtemplate
isdistinctlydifferentfromthatofotherrecords.Iwouldbegladto
performsuchworkunderthesupervisionofstaffoftheOfficeofthe
Clerk,toascertainthatIamnotinspectinganymaterialsotherthan
58/137
permitteddecisionrecords.Additionally,Icouldbringwithmealist
ofalldecisionrecords,whichhavebeenpreviouslypublished(and
theCourtobviouslyshouldhavesuchlistaswell).Thus,clerk'soffice
staffwouldbeabletoeasilydistinguishbetweenpreviously
publishedrecords,andrecordsthatmaybeprohibitedfor
publication.
2.Worseyet:BasedontheMagistrate'sdecision,itisobviousthatthe
SupremeCourt,whichfor5yearsconductedprocessintheappeal
courtfile,andwroteanexceptionallylonganddetailedJudgment
hundredsofpagesreferringtovariousdecisionsoftheNazareth
DistrictCourt,didsowithouteverinspectingtheoriginalrecordsin
theNazarethpapercourtfile,andwithoutestablishingwhich
decisionsareauthentic,andwhichareonlyfabricated/sham/
simulated/drafts(seebelow).
3.TheMagistrate'sdecisionalsosays:
Itisnotsuperfluoustoaddthatpetitionispendingbeforethis
Courtforrehearingthejudgmentintheappeal(1329/16).
Ifnotforthepurposeoftherequestedinspection,thensurelythescope
ofperversionsintheNazarethcourtfile(seesectionsDetseq,below)
shouldbeinspectedaspartofreviewoftheabovereferencedpetition.
TheRequesterclaimsthatreviewofthescopeoftheperversionsinthe
Nazarethcourtfilewouldleadtoaninevitableconclusion:Court
processintheNazarethDistrictCourtshouldbedeclaredvoidnot
voidable,andinvestigationofTairRada'smurdershouldbereopened.
WhereastheoriginalProformaRequesttoInspectprovidednojustificationforthe
inspection,statingthatnosuchjustificationwasrequiredbyRegulation2(b),the
AppealexplicitlyclaimedtheconcernsofFraudUpontheCourtintheNazareth
DistrictCourtthroughtheissuanceofsham/simulatedunsigneddecisionrecords,and
providedtheevidencetosupportsuchconcerns:
(a) TheinvalidSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsinthetrialcourt
file,thefailuretodulyentersuchrecordsintheJudgmentsDocket,themissing
ArrestDecree,andthedenialofaccesstoinspectelectronicsignaturesexecution
dataintheNazarethDistrictCourtelectroniccourtfile(seebelow),and
(b)Evidencefromdecisionrecordsinanother,unrelatedpapercourtfile,wherethe
practiceofconductingsham/issuingcourtprocessbyissuingunsignedpaper
decisionrecordswasfullydocumentedRotemvBaramandStateofIsrael
(7320204)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourt.
Rafi Rotem v Eyal Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court
The civil lawsuit in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) originated in the
Tax Authority corruption scandal. Rotem served as a senior Investigation Officer in
the Tax Authority, and was given excellent periodic reviews and commendation
letters for his work there. However, once he filed complaints of suspected
59/137
corruption in the Tax Authority, a years long retaliation campaign against him was
launched. As part of such campaign, his Supervisor, Baram, told Rotem's co-workers
that Rotem was a psychiatric case and a crime figure. Such words were the
foundation of the liable lawsuit. Although such conduct by Baram was proven in
court, the claims were purportedly denied.
Inspection of the paper court file showed that Judge Shoshana Almagor (then in the
Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court) and others conducted fabricated/ sham/simulated court
process, which included issuing of fabricated/sham/ simulated court records
(Figure 10).
Numerous media reports were published regarding conduct of the justice system vis
a vis the Tax Authority corruption scandal in general, and vis a vis Rafi Rotem in
particular, among others - For a decade the courts have been abusing a justice
crusader...
60/137
a.
61/137
b.
62/137
c.
Figure 10: Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court
selection from records that were discovered upon inspection of the paper court file: a. July 20,
2004 letter by Senior Deputy to Tel-Aviv District Attorney Menachem Mizrahi (today a judge). The
unsigned letter refuted Rotem's claims regarding corruption in the Tax Authority and its
investigation, was filed by the Defendants and was admitted by the Court as key evidence. Ruth
63/137
David, then Tel-Aviv District Attorney, was later indicted on corruption related charges. Mizrahi
today is a Magistrate Court Judge. b. December 5, 2005 Judge Dalia Mark decision granting
request by Defendant State of Israel and ordering removal of evidence, which had been filed by
Plaintiff Rotem. The decision was issued as a letter to the District Attorney Office. The letter was
found in the paper court file unsigned, with no evidence of its due entry or service on the
parties. c. July 16, 2006 unsigned Judge Shoshana Almagor protocol and decision - on hearing of
the evidence. Like many other decision records in the court file, it was discovered unsigned, with
no Seal of the Court, and no evidence of its due entry or service on the parties.
Additionally,onJune15,2016,DisqualificationforaCausewasfiledagainstJustice
SalimJoubran,claimingthathehadalreadydemonstratedinhisMay4,2016
Decisionhissupportforusurpationbyjudgesoftheadjudicationauthority,pertaining
tothepublic'srighttoinspectpreviouslypublisheddecisionrecords,indisregardof
thelaw(Attachment9.8).
TheDisqualificationforaCauseinpartsays:
Thecircumstances,outlinedhere,creatematerialandseriousconcern
regardingcompetenceoftheSupremeCourttheultimatejudicial
authorityintheStateofIsrael,andregardingwidespreadviolationofthe
lawsoftheStateofIsraelbyjusticesoftheSupremeCourt...
TheSupremeCourtshouldupholdthelawoftheStateofIsrael,the
fundamentalsoflawandjustice,shouldgrantinstantStatementof
Disqualification,andgrantaccesstoinspectthecourtdecisions,which
havebeenpublished,inthepapercourtfile(originalrecords)Stateof
IsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt.Tothe
degreethattheSupremeCourtandthejudgesoftheStateofIsraelhave
secretlydecidedonregimechangeandvoidingthelawofthelandthey
shouldprovidenoticetosucheffecttothepublicatonce.
OnJune26,2016,JudgeSalimJoubranDecisionwaspublishedontheSupreme
CourtITsystem(asusual,unsigned,uncertified,subjecttoeditionandphrasing
changes),denyingtheDisqualificationforaCause.SincetheSupremeCourtnever
dulyservesitsdecisionsinrecentyears,onecannotexpectJusticeJoubran'sDecision
tobedulyservedeither.Itsvalidityremainsvagueandambiguous.
ByJune30,2016,theappealZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael(4650/16)was
listedClosed,pursuanttoJudgment,althoughnoJudgmentordecisionhasbeen
renderedonthematteroftheappealitselftothisdate(Figure11).
64/137
Figure 11: Joseph Zernik v Roman Zadorov and State of Israel (4650/16) in the Supreme Court
appeal of Magistrate Lubinsky decision denying access to inspect the paper (original) court
records in State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court June 30, 2016 data
from the public access system of the Supreme Court: General Details File Status: closed;
Manner of Closing: Judgment following review. In this court file no decision or judgment has
been rendered on the the matter of the appeal to this date.
Requestforrenderingadecisionwasfiledundertheappealcourtfile.Additionally,
inquirywasfiledwithSupremeCourtChiefClerkIditMelul,tocorrectthefalsedata
intheSupremeCourt'sITsystem,andinformtheChamberofJusticeJoubranofit
(Attachment9.8).
ByJuly7,2016,theappealfilewasagainlistedopen,butnodecisionhasbeen
renderedontheappeal.
Figure 12:
Joseph Zernik v Roman Zadorov and State of Israel (4650/16) in the Supreme Court
appeal of Magistrate decision denying access to inspect the paper (original) court records in
State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court July 07, 2016 data from the
public access system of the Supreme Court: General Details File Status: open.
ThedispositionoftheappealremainsunknownatthetimeoffilinginstantRequest
withtheWorkingGroup.
j. TheNazarethDistrictCourtdeniedaccesstojudicialdecisionrecords,and
pervertedcourtrecordsandcourtprocessinresponsetoeffortstoinspectjudicial
decisionrecords.
65/137
LikeSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeMiriamNaor,PresidingJudgeAvraham
AvrahamoftheNazarethDistrictCourtrefusedtoperformhisduties,pursuantto
Regulation6(b),andfailedtoestablishproceduresforinspectionofunsealeddecision
recordsoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,regardlessofrepeatrequests.
Inresponsetorepeatrequeststoestablishsuchprocedures,JudgeAvrahamreferred
theRequestertotheOfficeoftheClerk(wherestaffrefusedtopermitinspection
withoutjudicialdecision)andtheLegalDepartmentoftheAdministrationofCourt
(whichholdsnoauthorityinthematter).
Therefore,startingDecember27,2015,ProformaRequeststoInspectwere
repeatedlyfiledunderduress.Suchrequestsexplicitlystatedthattheywerefiled
sincethePresidingJudgefailedtoperformhisdutiesandestablishinspection
procedures.Therequestsalsoexplicitlystatedthatinfactnorequestandno
justificationwererequiredforsuchinspection,pursuanttoRegulation2(b)ofthe
RegulationsofInspection,whichsays,Everypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisions,
whicharenotlawfullyprohibitedforpublication(Attachment9.8).
TheinitialProformaRequestpertainedto:a)LawfullymadeJudgments,b)Lawfully
madeJudgmentsDocket,andc)LawfullymadeArrestDecree.
AswasthecaseintheSupremeCourt(andinallothercourts,whereinspectionhas
beenattemptedonaroutinebasisinrecentyears)JudgeEstherHellmanusurpedthe
authorityforadjudicationandjudicialdiscretiononthematter,andsolicitedresponse
bytheStateProsecution(butnotbyRomanZadorov).
JudgeHellman'sDecember27,2015andJanuary12,2016decisionrecords(Figure
13)provideduniqueexamplesofperversion,throughtheissuanceofinvaliddecision
recordsinNetHaMishpat.Asusual,suchrecordswereneverdulyserved.
TheJanuary12,2016decisionpermittedaccesstotheVerdictandSentencing
records(albeit,asitturnedoutnotlawfullymadeones),aswellastheIndictment
record(whichhadnotbeenrequested).JudgeHellmanfailedtoaddressinany
mannertheinspectionofa)lawfullymadeJudgmentsDocket,andb)lawfully
madeArrestDecree.
66/137
a.
67/137
b.
Figure 13: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court serious
crime two sham/simulated decision records, which were generated by Judge Esther Hellman in
68/137
response to Pro-forma Requests to inspect duly made Judgment records, Judgments Docket, and
Arrest Decree. The decision records, shown here, are paper records, which were scanned into
Net-HaMishpat, instead of valid electronic records. The valid signatures on paper records are
hand-signatures. However on these two paper records, invalid graphic signatures are pasted.
Additional details are perverted in each record, as detailed below.
a. December 27, 2015 record, which was generated in response to the original Pro-forma
Request to inspect (No 111): At the top of the record, incorrect reference was entered - Request
No 11. In contrast, in Net-HaMishpat - court case management system, the record, which is
purported to be a decision record, this record was docketed as Request No 112. The record
says: To the best of my knowledge, the records, inspection of which is requested, verdict and
sentencing records, have been published by databases, and there should be no reason to
prohibit their inspection. The same pertains to the indictment its inspection should not be
prohibited. For caution's sake, the State Prosecution is requested to provide its response by
December 31, 2015. The record solicits response by the State Prosecution and initiates an
adjudicative process, pertaining to inspection of judgment records, which had been published,
and which domestic law permits any person to inspect.
b. A record, which was issued around January 12, 2016, and which was generated in response to
a request (No 113) to correct the perverted December 27, 2015 decision record, and a request
(No 114) to render decision on inspection: At the bottom of the record, an incorrect date was
provided as part of the signature box June 12, 2016. The record says: Given the arguments of
the request, and the lack of response, I order that the Requester is permitted to inspect the
following records: Indictment, Verdict, Sentencing. Parenthetically, regarding claims in additional
request by the Requester, instant decision, like the previous one, are valid for any purpose, even
though it is scanned into the Net system for technical reasons. This record permitted access
to the Indictment record, which had never been requested, but failed to address, and therefore
effectively denied access to a) Lawfully made Judgments Docket, b) Lawfully made Arrest Decree
(both of which do not exist). This decision record also tries to confuse the difference between
electronically signed, valid electronic record and invalid records, which is scanned into Net
system due to technical problems. Inspection shows that during the same period, routine
electronic records were generated in other court files in Net-HaMishpat in the Nazareth District
Court.
FollowingJudgeHellman'sJanuary12,2016Decision,copiesofpurported
September14,2010VerdictandSentencingandFebruary24,2014Supplemental
JudgmentrecordswereobtainedfromtheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrict
Court(Figure14).
69/137
a.
70/137
b.
71/137
c.
Figure 14: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - signature
boxes on the judgment records, which were discovered during inspection of the electronic court
file in Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the court) in the Office of the Clerk in
January 2016: a) September 14, 2010 Verdict; b) September 14, 2010 Sentencing"; c) February
24, 2014 Supplemental Judgment.
The 2010 records are missing any form of signature by Judge Haim Galpaz. For the other two
judges of the panel - Yitzhak Cohen and Esther Hellman the invalid "graphic signatures" are
presented as negative images. Such signatures have never been discovered to this date on any
of the numerous decisions and judgments in Net-HaMishpat, which have been inspected.
The 2014 Supplemental Judgment is of vague and ambiguous validity, as long as Presiding Judge
Avraham Avraham denies access to inspection of the electronic signature execution data (if they
exist at all). As detailed in the Ombudsman of the Judiciary 2012 Decision in the Judge Varda
72/137
Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal (Attachment 9.3): a. The graphic signatures, which are
visible on Net-HaMishpat records are invalid, of no consequence at all. b. There is no way to
distinguish between electronically signed, valid court record and unsigned, invalid records, which
is merely a draft. c. Israeli judges routinely issue in Net-HaMishpat electronically unsigned,
invalid records, which they consider merely drafts, but mislead unwitting parties, counsel, and
the public to accept their authority, since they cannot distinguish the lack of validity and effect
of such records. The 2010 Verdict and Sentencing were also never duly entered (Figure 4), and
inexplicable differences between the Verdict record shown here, obtained in January 2016, and
the one filed in October 2010 with the Notice of Appeal in the Supreme Court (Figures 6,7)
raise concerns that the Verdict record was also altered and/or adulterated between these two
dates.
InviewoftheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecisionintheJudgeVardaAlshech
FabricatedProtocolsscandal(Attachment9.5),themostlikelyexplanationforthe
unusualrecords,whichwerereceived,isthatstaffoftheOfficeoftheClerkprinted
outtheSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsfromadraftsfolder.
TheOmbudsmanexplicitlystatesthatsuchconductisnotpermitted.Inviewofthe
explicitrequesttoinspectlawfullymadejudgmentrecords,suchconductshouldbe
deemedfalseandmisleading.
Later,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamtookoveraddressingtherepeatattemptsto
exercisetheRighttoInspect.Eventually,JudgeAvrahamissuedtheMarch02,2016
PostitDecision,whichthreatenstheRequester,attemptingtoexercisea
constitutionalrightwithimpositionofmonetarypenalties,ifhedoesnotceasesuch
attempts(Figure15).
Figure 15: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court serious
crime Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham February 3, 2016 Post-it Decision on Request
#123 - part of a series of requests, attempting to exercise the right to inspect judicial decision
records in the court file. The Decision says: The Requester does not cease bothering the Court
and wasting the Court's time with futile requests that amount to nothing. If he continues to file
similar requests, I will consider imposing on him expenses to the benefit of the State Treasury.
The Post-it Decision is unsigned, unauthenticated, was never duly served, and fails to appear
in Net-HaMishpat - public access system Decisions Docket. On the same date, request was
filed to provide the Requester a duly signed and certified, True Copy of the Original, copy of
this Post-it Decision record. No response has been received to this date. This decision record
should also be deemed a sham/ simulated court record.
Onthesamedatethatthethreateningdecisionwasrendered,requestwasfiled,
askingtheNazarethDistrictCourttoprovideasignedandcertified,TrueCopyofthe
Original,copyofthethreateningPostitDecisionrecord.Noresponsehasbeen
receivedfromthecourtonsuchrequesttothisdate.
73/137
TheFebruary03,2016JudgeAvrahamPostitDecisionshouldbedeemeda
sham/simulatedcourtrecordandFraudUpontheCourt,attemptingtodeprivea
personoftherighttoinspectjudicialdecisionrecords.Itisalsopartofapatternof
denialofRomanZadorov'srightsforDueProcessaswellasFairandPublicHearing.
OnJune2,2016,JudgeAvrahamissuedanotherPostitDecision,denyingaccesstoa
lawfullymadeArrestDecree(Figure2),tacitlyadmittingthatitdidnotexistatall.
Regardlessofrepeatrequestsovermonths,JudgeAvrahamAvrahamrefusestothis
datetoruleoninspectionoftheelectronicsignatureexecutiondata(ifsuch
signaturesexistedatall)oftheVerdict,Sentencing,andSupplementalJudgment
recordswithnoexplanationatall(Attachment9.4).
ChiefClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourtrefusedtorespondonrepeatrequeststo
certifyTrueCopyoftheOriginaltheJudgmentrecordsoranyotherrecordsinthe
RomanZadorovcourtfile.CopyoftheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecisioninthe
JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalwasattachedtotheJune26,
2016requestforcertification,filedwiththeChiefClerk(Attachment9.4).The
OmbudsmandecisionreviewsingreatdetailthedutyoftheClerktoascertainthat
electronicjudicialdecisionrecordsaredulyelectronicallysignedbeforeissuingthe
certification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal.TheJune26,2016requestalsoprovidedan
explicitwarningtotheChiefClerkagainstcertifyingelectronicallyunsignedrecord,
claimingthatsuchconductamountstofraud,perversionofcourtrecords,andbreach
ofloyalty.Inviewoftheregulations,pertainingtofilingofelectroniccourtrecord
(section8.5),suchwarningmayberelatedtothedisappearanceofthesham
September14,2010SentencingrecordfromtheDecisionsDocketintheearlydaysof
July2016.
AlreadyduringJune2016filingoftherequestforcertification,seniorstaffmembers
oftheOfficeoftheClerktriedtoclaimthattheRequesterhadnostandingtorequest
suchcertification.Therefore,additionalclarificationwasfiledwiththeChiefClerk,
pertainingtotherighttoobtainthecertificationofrecords(if,andonlyiftheyare
valid,enteredcourtrecords,dulyelectronicallysignedAttachment9.4)
k. Duringattemptstoexercisetherighttoinspectjudicialdecisionrecords,the
NazarethDistrictCourtallegedlycolludedwiththeStateProsecutioninadditional
denialofDueProcessandFairandPublicHearing.
Alreadythesham/simulatedDecember27,2015JudgeEstherHellmanDecision
(Figure13),pertainingtotheoriginalProformaRequesttoInspect,isnotableforthe
factthatitsolicitedonlytheStateProsecution'sresponse,butnotRomanZadorov's.
Later,boththeProsecutionandtheCourtrefusedtoservetheResponseonthe
RequesterofInspection.
Alsoacomplaint,filedwiththeCommissionerofProsecutorialOversightinthis
matter,wastonoavail.
ConductoftheProsecutionandtheNazarethDistrictCourt,relativetothe
Prosecution'sResponse,producedsomeoftheclearestevidenceofcollusionofthe
ProsecutionandtheCourtinallegedmisconduct.
74/137
DuringavisittotheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourtonJune26,
2016,theJanuary26,2016ResponsebytheNorthDistrictAttorneyOfficeonthe
RequeststoInspectwasfinallydiscovered(Figure16).
a.
75/137
In the Nazareth District Court
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Serious Crime 502/07

Request No 118
Requester:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
v
Respondents:
1. Roman Zadorov
2. State of Israel
Response by Respondent 1
The Requester files on a daily basis requests to inspect various materials from
the court file, some of them were forwarded for response by the State.
The nature of these requests is unclear, but it appears that they are meant to
establish some conspiracy theories regarding instant court file, or the justice
system in general.
There is no relationship whatsoever between the request and the claims,
regarding the technical form of the records, and claims, pertaining to to the
evidence and conviction, which are mostly based on baseless rumors and
theories.
In general, the Responder has no position, regarding the question, whether the
Requester or others should be permitted to inspect the court decisions, which
have been published, and are open to public inspection.
With it, it should be noted that the Requester is abusing the Right to Inspect,
and such right should not be considered permission for anybody to bother the
Courts and the Offices of the Clerks, in a manner that they would not be able to
perform their duties, and for futile reasons.
As for as the Respondent knows, the Requester has not been appointed
Ombudsman of the Courts, and nobody authorized him to conduct investigations
and reviews.
Beyond that, the Responder fully supports the correct words of the Hon Presiding
Judge in his January 25, 2016 Decision on Request No 120.
[graphic signature]
___________________
Attorney Shila Inbar
Area Director (criminal)
North District Attorney Office
b.
Figure 16: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - the
secretive January 26, 2016 Response by North District Attorney Office - Attorney Shila Inbar - on
Pro-forma Request to Inspect the paper decision records (original records ) in this case, which
was discovered only on June 26, 2016. Both the Prosecution and the Court refused to duly serve
the Response on the Requester of Inspection. Moreover, the Response was effectively hidden.
Although it is marked Response on Request No 118, it was docketed as Response on Request No
112. Request No 112 itself was no request at all either, but false docketing of Judge Esther
Hellman's sham/simulated December 27, 2015 Decision on Request No 111 (Figure 7a.). Given
that the request to inspect process is conducted in the Israeli courts as some kind of a poker
game, where the Requester is not permitted access even to the docket of requests and decisions
in the ancillary process of request to inspect, such docketing made it difficult to discover even
the mere existence of the Prosecution's Response. a. Original Hebrew record; b. English
translation. (Note: The record is undated, except for the fax transmission header, not shown
here).
AttorneyShilaInbar'ssecretiveResponsefilinginpartsays:
Thenatureoftherequestsisunclear,anditappearsthattheirpurposeis
toestablishconspiracytheoriespertainingtoinstantcourtfileand/orthe
justicesystemingeneral...TheRequesteristryingtoabusetheterm
"RighttoInspect"...AsforastheRespondentknows,theRequesterhas
notbeenappointedOmbudsmanoftheCourts,andnobodyauthorized
76/137
himtoconductinvestigationsandreviews.
Furthermore,theProsecution'sResponsefilingonRequestNo118wasdocketedby
theCourtasResponseonRequestNo112.RequestNo112itselfwasnorequestat
alleither,butfalsedocketingofJudgeEstherHellman'ssham/simulatedDecember
27,2015DecisiononRequestNo111(Figure13).Giventhattherequesttoinspect
processisconductedintheIsraelicourtsassomekindofapokergame,wherethe
Requesterisnotpermittedaccesseventothedocketofrequestsanddecisionsinthe
ancillaryprocessofrequesttoinspect,suchdocketingmadeitdifficultforthe
RequestertodiscovereventhemereexistenceoftheProsecution'sresponse.
Moreover,inresponsetorequest,addressedtoNorthDistrictAttorneyMiritStern,to
dulyservedtheResponseontheRequester,NorthDistrictAttorneyMiritSternmailed
afalseandmisleadingreplyletter(Figure17).
Theletterfalselystatesthattherequestwasforinspection"investigationmaterials"
andthattheNorthDistrictAttorneyOffice"willnotbeabletoassistyouinthis
matter"[ofprovidingtheAttorneyOfficeresponses,filedinCourt].
77/137
a.
78/137
State of Israel
Ministry of Justice
North District Attorney Office
February 21, 2016
TO: Attorney [sic-jz] Joseph Zernik
PO Box 33407
Tel-Aviv 6133301
Dear Colleague:
RE: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) your request to be provided copies of
the Prosecution's response on Request to inspect
Your February 3, 2016 letter
I herein confirm receipt of your letter, referenced above.
In your inquiry, you requested to be provided copies of all the Prosecution's
responses on your requests to inspect various investigation materials. Since you
have filed various requests to agencies other than the North District Attorney Office,
we will not be able to assist you in this matter. You need to inquire with the relevant
agency, which responded on your request, or alternatively, inquire with the Court.
Respectfully,
[hand signature]
___________________
Attorney Mirit Stern
North District Attorney
__________________________________________________
North District Attorney Office, 9 HaGilboa Street, Nazareth, Tel: Fax:
b.
Figure 17: February 21, 2016 response by North District Attorney Mirit Stern on request to duly
serve the January 26, 2016 response by North District Attorney Office - Attorney Shila Inbar - on
Pro-forma request to inspect the paper court decisions (original records) in State of Israel v
Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court. Attorney Stern refused to duly serve the
January 26, 2016 response under false pretense, that the request was for inspection of
"investigation materials". It should be noted that Attorney Mirit Stern's letter is missing the
reference number, required in official State correspondence. Attorney Mirit Stern also refused to
answer on inquiries, whether her February 21, 2016 was authentic State agency communication,
and to correct the false and misleading content of her response. Attorney Mirit Stern's false and
misleading response was the foundation for a complaint against Attorney Mirit Stern, filed with
Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Hila Gerstel. From the start, the Prosecutorial
Oversight Office appeared unable to review the complaint, and following the June 26, 2016
discovery of the Prosecution's response, the Prosecutorial Oversight Office was asked to close
the complaint. a. Hebrew original; b. English translation.
TheresponsebyNorthDistrictAttorneyMiritSternisnotablymissingareference
number,requiredinofficialStateagenciescorrespondence.Therefore,itisalso
suspectedassham/simulated,"offtherecord"Stateagencycorrespondence.
NorthDistrictAttorneyMiritSternalsofailedtorespondonrepeatrequeststoclarify,
whetherherFebruary21,2016letterwasauthentic,ontherecordcommunicationby
theNorthDistrictAttorneyOffice,andtocorrectitsfalseandmisleadingcontent.
79/137
ItshouldbenotedthatthepersonsinvolvedinsuchdishonestconductareNorth
DistrictAttorneyMiritSternandShilaInbar,senior,powerfulofficersoftheIsraeli
justicesystem(inrecentmediareports,theywereportrayedassomeofthemost
powerfulandfearinducingStateofficers...)andtheones,whosignedtheindictment
againstRomanZadorov.AndcolludingwiththemisPresidingJudgeofaDistrict
Court...
ItisallegedthatconductoftheNazarethDistrictCourtandtheNorthDistrict
AttorneyOfficeinthismatterinitselfshouldbedeemedviolationoftherightforDue
ProcessandtherightforFairandPublicHearing.
TheFebruary21,2016NorthDistrictAttorneyMiritSternletterwasthefoundation
foracomplaintonFraud,PerversionofCourtProcess,andBreachofLoyalty,which
wasfiledwithCommissionerofProsecutorialOversightHilaGerstel.The
Commissioner'sOfficeappearedunabletoreviewthecomplaint,andwaseventually
askedtocloseit,followingtheJune26,2016discoveryoftheJanuary26,2016
Response.
ConductoftheCommissionerofProsecutorialOversightOfficerelativetothe
complaint(notdetailedhereforbrevity'ssake)mayreflectthelamestateofthat
Office,followingtheStateProsecutors'strike,partoftheirrefusaltorecognizethe
Commissioner'soversightauthorityandtheCommissioner'sconsequentresignation
(see:7.Overview).
AnotherinsightfulstatementinProsecutorShilaInbar'sResponseontheRequeststo
Inspectsays:
Beyondthat,theResponderfullysupportsthecorrectwordsoftheHon
PresidingJudgeinhisJanuary25,2016DecisiononRequestNo120.
RequestNo120(Attachment9.4)ispartofaseriesoffollowuprequests,filedafter
theinitialProformaRequesttoInspect,inanefforttoexercisetheconstitutional
righttoinspectjudicialdecisionrecords.RequestNo120specificallypertainedto
inspectionofa"lawfullymadeArrestWarrant"and"lawfullymadeJudgmentDocket".
JudgeEstherHellmanandPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahampersistentlyrefusedto
ruleonthesematters,evidently,becausenosuchrecordsexistedatall.
80/137
Figure 18: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - Judge Avraham January 25, 2016
Decision on Request No 120, to Inspect "lawfully made Arrest Warrant" and "lawfully made
Judgment Docket". Presiding Judge Avraham January 25, 2016 Decision says: The Requester
repeats his requests, whose subject, purportedly, is inspection of records. However, these are
not requests to inspect, but an investigation, conducted by the Requester, pertaining to validity
of the operation of Net-HaMishpat system, and an array of claims, pertaining to conduct of the
judicial panel in instant court file. In such matters this Court shall not engage. I previously
referred him, and I again refer him to the Legal Department of the Administration of Courts for
answers on his questions. It should be noted that the January 25, 2016 Judge Avraham
decision, like all other decisions of the Nazareth District Court have never been duly served, and
there is no way to ascertain whether they are valid judicial records or just sham/simulated court
records absent access to inspect the corresponding electronic signature execution data, which
the Nazareth District Court denies.
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamJanuary25,2016DecisiononRequestNo120
81/137
(Figure18)inpartsays:
...thesearenotrequeststoinspect,butaninvestigationbytheRequester
ofthevalidityandoperationsofNetHaMishpatsystemandvariousother
claimsrelativetoconductofthejudicialpanelininstantcourtfile.In
suchmatters,thisCourtshallnotengage...
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahahmJanuary25,2016Decisionalsostates:
Ipreviouslyreferredhim,andIagainreferhimtotheLegalDepartment
oftheAdministrationofCourtsforanswersonhisquestions.
RequestNo121,whichwasconsequentlyfiled,challengedPresidingJudgeAvraham's
referraltotheLegalDepartmentoftheAdministrationofCourts,aslackinglegal
foundation.TheRegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003)explicitly
providethatinspectionofcourtfilesshallbeaddressedbythecourtholdingthecourt
file.Additionally,staffoftheOfficeoftheClerkrefusedtopermitanyinspection
withoutexplicitjudicialdecision.
ThestatementsintheJanuary25,2016JudgeAvrahamDecision(andotherdecisions
aswell)andintheJanuary26,2016ProsecutorShilaInbarResponse,thatthe
RequesterofInspectionhadnorighttolookintoconductoftheCourt,arestriking,
representingperceptionsofthecourtsandthejudicialprocesswhichareforeignto
bothdomesticandinternationallaw.
ProsecutorShilaInbar'sresponsealsoincludesthefollowingnotablestate:
Thereisnorelationshipwhatsoeverbetweentherequestandtheclaims,
regardingthetechnicalformoftherecords,andclaims,pertainingtotothe
evidenceandconviction...
SuchstatementtriestodissociateDueProcessandvalidcourtrecordsfromvalidity
andeffectoftheconviction.ItreflectsthetypicalapproachbyIsraelijudgesandthe
legalprofession,whereDueProcessismerelyproceduralmatters,andnot
material.
Combined,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham'sJanuary25,2016Decision,
ProsecutorShilaInbar'sJanuary26,2016secretiveResponse,andDisrictAttorney
MiritSternFebruary21,2016letterreflecttheirjointrefusaltoacceptthe
fundamentalsoftherightforFairandPublicHearingingeneral,andtheRightto
InspectJudicialDecisionRecordsinparticular.Theyalsoraiseconcernsthatthey
wereandarecolludinginwithholdingevidenceofjudicialmisconductrelativeto
RomanZadorov.
ConductoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,theSupremeCourt,andtheProsecution,
documentedhere,shouldbedeemedeffectivelywithholdingevidenceregardingthe
natureoftheconductofJudgesYitzhakCohen,EstherHellman,andHaimGalpazin
theRomanZadorovtrialinNazareth.
SuchconductstandsinpatentdisregardwiththeloftydeclarationsoftheIsraeli
SupremeCourt,pertainingtoconstitutionalrightsandConstitutionalRevolution
inIsrael,whichparticularlyreferredtotheBasicLaw:HumanDignityandLiberty.
82/137
l. TheNazarethDistrictCourt,theSupremeCourt,andtheDistrictAttorney
colludedindenyingtheabilitytoascertainthatvaliddecisionorjudgmentrecords
wereissuedbythetrialcourtinRomanZadorov'strial.
Combined,theNazarethDistrictCourtandtheSupremeCourthaveconsistently
actedinamannerthatpreventsanyabilityoftheRequesterofInspectionandthe
publicatlargetoascertain,whetheranyofthedecisions,issuedbytheNazareth
districtCourtinRomanZadorov'strialarevalidandeffectualjudicialrecords,oronly
sham/simulatedjudgmentrecords.
TheNazarethDistrictCourtdeniedwithnoexplanationatallaccesstotheelectronic
signatureexecutiondata(iftheyexistatall).
TheNazarethDistrictCourthasnotprovidedtothisdateanysignedandcertified,
TrueCopyoftheOriginaldecision,regardlessofrepeatrequests.
TheSupremeCourtdeniedaccesstotheoriginalpaper(original)decisionrecords
fromtheNazarethDistrictCourt,whichwouldshow,whethertheyweresignedor
not,andwhethertheyareidenticaltothose,whichwerepublishedaselectronic
renditions.
Regardless,itisallegedthatsufficientevidencewasdetailedabovetoconcludethat
inthecaseofRomanZadorov,theNazarethDistrictCourtconductedsham/simulated
courtprocess.
83/137
8.3RomanZadorov'sappealintheIsraeliSupremeCourtshouldbedeemed
lackinginauthorityandvalidityfromthestartoriginatingwithno
judgmentrecordsofthelowercourt,conductedwithnovalidrecordsofthe
hearings,andendingwithdecisionrecordsofdubiousvalidity.Conductof
theSupremeCourt,relativetoeffortstoinspecttheappealcourtfile
disregardedDueProcessandlackedinintegrity.
a. InRomanZadorov'scase,theSupremeCourtconductedanappeal,which
originatedwithnojudgmentrecordsofthelowercourt,andthereforeshouldbe
deemedlackinginauthorityandvalidityfromthestart.
Therequirementoffilingauthenticatedjudgmentrecordsofthelowercourtwiththe
noticeofappealisclearlystatedintheRegulationsofCivilCourtProcedure(1984).
TheRegulationsofCivilCourtProcedure(1984),Article419says:
419.Followingaretherecordsthatshallbeattachedtoanappeal
record:
(1)Copiesofphotocopiesofdecisionsofthelowercourts,pertainingto
thesamematter,whicharecertifiedbytheMagistrateortheChiefClerk
ofthelowercourt,ortheAttorneyGeneral,orhiscounsel.
Similarprovisionsarefoundinothernationsandjurisdictions.Itisafundamental
ruleincompetentCourtsofRecord.
competentCourtofRecord.
From2010to2015,theSupremeCourtconductedanappealprocess,inwhichno
authenticVerdictandSentencingrecordsoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,inwhichthe
appealpurportedlyoriginated,werefiledwiththeNoticeofAppeal.Inspectionofthe
SupremeCourtAppealpapercourtfile(originalrecords)revealedthatinsteadof
authenticVerdictandSentencingrecordsoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,onlyinvalid
recordswerefilewiththeNoticeofAppeal(Figure19).Anunsignedprintout,which
maybeanearlyversionfromNetHaMishpat,wasfiledinsteadofavalid,authentic
2010Verdictrecord,andaprintoutfromNevoPublishing,LTDnotacourtrecordat
all,wasfiledinsteadofavalid,authentic2010Sentencingrecord.
Itisallegedthatanappealprocess,wherethereisnoauthenticdecisionorjudgment
recordofthelowercourt,fromwhichitoriginates,isajudicialprocess,whichlacks
anyauthorityandvalidity.
84/137
a.
85/137
b.
Figure 19: Roman Zadorov v State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (7939/10) Criminal Appeal - in
the Israeli Supreme Court: Records, which were discovered during inspection of the Supreme
Court paper court file (original records). Instead of authentic judgment records of the Nazareth
District Court, the attachments to the Notice of Appeal include: a. September 14, 2010 Verdict
record - an unsigned, uncertified printout from an unknown source, which is patently not a valid,
authentic court record. This printout appears on its face as a printout from Net-HaMishpat, but is
different from the printout, which was obtained from Net-HaMishpat during inspection of the
electronic court file in 2016 (Figure 1a): The ultimate pages of the Verdict record in the
Supreme Court's Notice of Appeal are numbered 455-456, whereas the record, discovered in
January 2016 ends in pages 503-504. The page layout is different (the 2010 record shows no
line numbers, line format is different), and the 2010 printout is missing the negative form
graphic signatures - it shows no signatures at all. Therefore, concerns are raised of alteration
and/or adulteration of the September 14, 2010 Verdict record in Net-HaMishpat, invalid as it is,
between September-October 2010 and January 2016. b. September 14, 2010 "Sentencing
record - a printout from Nevo Publishing, LTD, which is not a court record at all.
86/137
b. In Roman Zadorov's case, the Supreme Court conducted an appeal, with no valid records of the
hearings, therefore depriving Due Process and Fair and Public Hearing rights.
Review of the Supreme Court public access system shows that five (5) hearings were conducted in
Roman Zadorov's appeal (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Roman Zadorov v State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (7939/10) Criminal Appeal
During inspection of the Supreme Court Hearings list from the public access system of the
Court shows that five (5) hearings were conducted.
However,duringinspectionoftheSupremeCourtpapercourtfile(originalrecords),
noNoticetoAppearinCourtandnoProtocol(transcript/minutes)ofsuchhearings
werediscovered.
Suchfindingsarenotunusual.InspectionofnumerousSupremeCourtfilesinrecent
yearshaveestablishedthatwhiletheIsraeliSupremeCourtholdsitspapercourtfiles
tobetheauthoritativerecords,theyholdnotrecordsofthehearingsoftheSupreme
Court.Asdetailedbelow(section8.5),theProtocolrecordsaremaintainedas
unsignedelectronicrecords,andtheNoticestoAppearinCourtareselfeliminating
electronicrecords.
SuchconductrendersallhearingsoftheIsraeliSupremeCourtinformal,offthe
record(asIsraelijudgesliketorefertosuchhearings),otherwisesham/simulated
hearings.
SuchconductmustalsoraiseconcernthattheIsraeliSupremeCourtisnota
competentcourtofrecord.
c. InRomanZadorov'scase,theSupremeCourtconductedanappeal,withvague
andambiguousdecisionrecords,thereforedeprivingDueProcessandFairand
PublicHearingrights.
87/137
ReviewofthepapercourtfilealsorevealedthatasisthecasewithallSupremeCourt
decisionrecordssince2002,therecordsinRomanZadorov'sappealaremarked
subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges,andarenotcertified(seesection8.5).
RecenteventsintheEvenIsraelcasealsoindicatesthattheSupremeCourtreserves
therighttoretroactivelydeclareitsdecisionsdrafts(seesection8.5).
SuchfindingssupporttheconclusionthatinRomanZadorov'sappeal,theIsraeli
SupremeCourtdeniedDueProcessrights.
d. ConductoftheSupremeCourt,relativetoeffortstoinspecttheappealcourtfile
demonstratedadditionaldenialofDueProcessandlackofvalidityofcourt
records.
EffortstogainaccesstoinspectthedecisionrecordsintheAppealpapercourtfile
(originalrecords)oftheIsraeliSupremeCourtrequiredmonthsofelaboraterepeat
attempts(Attachment9.9).Incontrast,thelawonthematterisclearnorequestis
requiredatall,andanypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisionrecords,whicharenot
lawfullyprohibitedforpublication(section8.2).
OnMarch23,2015theinitialRequesttoInspectwasfiled.
TheinterimMarch30,2015DecisionontheRequesttoInspectandresponsesbythe
partieswereneverservedontheRequestertoInspecttheCourtFile.
Therefore,onApril21,2015,RequestforDueProcesswasfiledwiththeSupreme
Court,askingforserviceofresponsesanddecisions.
Regardless,theApril27,2015Decision,denyingtheMarch23,2015Requestto
InspectCourtFile,wasneverservedontheRequesteraswell.Also,asusual,all
SupremeCourtdecisionssince2002arepublishedintheSupremeCourt'sITsystem
unsigned,uncertified,bearingthedisclaimer,subjecttoeditingandphrasing
changes.
Therefore,onMay3,2015,RequestforasignedandcertifiedcopyoftheApril27,
2015Decisionwasrequested.GivenpastperversionofcertifiedSupremeCourt
records,therequestwasdetailedinitsspecifications.
Therequestinpartsays:
Therefore,theCourtishereinrequestedtoprovideacopy,oftheApril
27,2015Decision:a)Bearingsignaturesofthejudicialauthorities,and
b)Authenticatedbycertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,byaduly
appointedChiefClerk,orMagistrateoftheCourt,pursuanttothe
RegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004),andtheHague
ApostilleConvention(1961).
OnMay4,2015,afaxwasreceivedfromtheSupremeCourt,purportedlyresponse
ontheMay3,2015Request(Figure21).However,thedocument:
(i) Wasreceivedbyfax,notavalidrecordforcertificationpurposes;
(ii)Bearsnosignatureofthejudges;
88/137
(iii)BearscertificationbyanunauthorizedpersonnotChiefClerkoftheSupreme
Court,
(iv)Bearspervertedcertificationlanguageinsteadof"TrueCopyoftheOriginal"it
says"Copyingistruetotheoriginal".
May 4, 2015 fax, received from the Supreme Court as purported response for providing a duly
signed and certified copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision, denying access to inspect. The
document is patently invalid: (I) Was received by fax, not a valid record for certification
purposes; (ii) Bears no signature of the judges; (ii) Bears certification by an unauthorized person
- not Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. And (iii) Bears perverted certification language - instead
of "True Copy of the Original" it says - "Copying is true to the original".
AlsoonMay3,2015,repeatRequesttoInspectwasfiled,limitedtopreviously
publisheddecisionrecords,pursuanttoRegulation2(b).
TherepeatRequesttoInspectwasdeniedaswell,againthroughaninvalid,dubious
decisionrecords.
Repeatrequestforprovidingadulysignedandcertifiedcopyofdecisionswasagain
filed,specifyingindetailthedefectsinthepreviouslyobtainedrecord.
Thistime,theresponsewasindeedbymail,butagainaninvalidrecord(Figure22).
89/137
copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision, denying access to inspect, which was received by mail in
response to repeat request for a certified copy of the Decision, as purported certified Supreme
Court record. The document is patently invalid: (i) The purported certification was executed on a
fax (presumably from chambers to the Office of the Clerk) copy of the record; (ii) Bears
certification by an unauthorized person - not Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. And (iii) Bears
perverted certification language - instead of "True Copy of the Original" it says - "Copying is true
to the original".
However,therecordwasagainpatentlyinvalid:
(i)Thepurportedcertificationwasexecutedonafax(presumablyfromchambersto
theOfficeoftheClerk)copyoftherecord;
(ii)BearscertificationbyanunauthorizedpersonnotChiefClerkoftheSupreme
Court,and
(iii)Bearspervertedcertificationlanguageinsteadof"TrueCopyoftheOriginal"it
says"Copyingistruetotheoriginal".
OnMay26,2015,StatementofDisqualificationforaCausewasfiledintheSupreme
CourtagainstJusticeDanziger,Amit,andZylbethal,relativetotheirconductinthe
AncillaryProcessofRequeststoInspect,pertainingtotheirfailureandrefusaltoduly
providevalidrecordsoftheirdecisionswhichundulydeniedaccesstoinspectcourt
fileandpreviouslypublishedjudicialrecords.
TheOfficeoftheClerkinitiallyrefusedtoacceptthefilingoftheDisqualificationand
eventuallyfalselyregisteredisasfiledbyRomanZadorov.
TheMay28,2015Decisionrecord,denyingtheDisqualificationforaCause(Figure
23)waspublishedontheSupremeCourt'spublicaccesssystem,butneverduly
90/137
served.Asusual,therecordisunsigned,uncertified,subjecttoeditingandphrasing
changes.Italsofailedtoprovidereasoningforthedenial,asprescribedbylaw.
May 28, 2015 Decision, denying Disqualification for a Cause, as published in the Supreme
Court's public access system unsigned, unreasoned, subject to editing and phrasing changes.
The Decision was never duly served. The Decision says: After we reviewed the request and all
its justification, we reached the conclusion that there is no room to grant it, and it is denied.
TheMay28,2015Decision,denyingDisqualificationforaCausesays:
Afterwereviewedtherequestandallitsjustification,wereachedthe
conclusionthatthereisnoroomtograntit,anditisdenied.
OnJune3,2015Requestwasfiledfornew,reasoneddecisionontheStatementof
Disqualification.
OnJune3,2015,alsoRequestwasagainfiledforcertificationofSupremeCourt
records,boththeApril27,2014Decision,denyingaccesstoinspect,andtheMay28,
2015Decision,denyingDisqualificationforaCause.TheRequestwasaddressedthis
timetoSupremeCourtMagistrate.TheRequestnotesthatpreviousattemptsto
obtainvalid,dulycertifiedcopiesofdecisionrecordsfailed.Italsoincludesacopyof
FreedomofInformationresponse,whichshowsthatSupremeCourtChiefClerkIdit
Melulholdsnovalidappointment,pursuanttotheRegulationsofStateService(likeall
ChiefClerksintheIsraelicourts,whoseappointmentshavebeenexaminedin
recentyears).TheRequestwasfiledpursuanttoIsraelilaw,whichauthorizesthe
MagistrageoftheCourttoperformthedutiesoftheChiefClerk.
NodecisionbythepanelwasissuedinresponsetotheRequestforanewreasoned
decisionontheDisqualificationforaCause.
OnJune14,2015,SupremeCourtMagistrateLubinskyissuedadecision,refusingto
certifydecisionsofthe3JusticepanelinRomanZadorov'sappeal(Figure24).
91/137
June 14, 2015 Magistrate Lubinsky Decision, refusing to certify Supreme Court decision records
in Roman Zadorov's appeal court file. The Decision says: By law, and as is customary in this
Court, certification of a copy of a judicial decision record, True to the Original, is generally
provided by the Chief Clerk. So shall be done also in the case at bar. 2. Review with the Office of
the Clerk shows that during input, the Disqualification for a Cause was indeed entered in the
case management system as one filed by Appellant (and not by the Requester of Inspection),
by error. Following the Request, referenced above, the error was corrected... The Decision
lacks in integrity, since: (i) It ignored the evidence, provided with the Request, that Chief Clerk
Idit Melul holds no lawful appointment, and therefore lacks the authority to certify court records,
and (ii) It is false on customary and generally - as shown here, previous attempts to obtain
certifications were signed by persons other than the Chief Clerk.
MagistrateLubinskyJune14,2015Decisionsays:
1.Bylaw,andasiscustomaryinthisCourt,certificationofacopyofa
judicialdecisionrecord,TruetotheOriginal,isgenerallyprovided
bytheChiefClerk.Soshallbedonealsointhecaseatbar.
2.ReviewwiththeOfficeoftheClerkshowsthatduringinput,the
DisqualificationforaCausewasindeedenteredinthecase
managementsystemasonefiledbyAppellant(andnotbythe
RequesterofInspection),byerror.FollowingtheRequest,referenced
above,theerrorwascorrected...
TheMagistrateDecisionlacksinintegrity,since:
(i)Itignoredtheevidence,providedwiththeRequest,thatChiefClerkIditMelul
holdsnolawfulappointment,andthereforelackstheauthoritytocertifycourt
records,and
(ii)Itisfalseoncustomaryandgenerallyasshownhere,previousattemptsto
obtaincertificationsweresignedbypersonsotherthantheChiefClerk.
Conditions,whicharedocumentedhereintheIsraeliSupremeCourthavebeen
repeatedlydocumentedinvariousothercourts:Those,whoappearasChiefClerk
92/137
holdnolawfulappointment.Theyrefusetocertifyjudicialdecisionrecords,and
others,unauthorizedcourtpersonnelprovideinvalidcertificationofinvalidrecords.
ThematerisalsodiscussedintheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecisionintheJudge
VardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal(Attachment9.5)(seealsosection
8.5).
OnAugust19,2015,inthewakeofsuchseriesofrequestsanddecisionsinRoman
Zadorov'sappeal,UrgentRequestwasfiledwithSupremeCourtPresidingJustice
MiriamNaortoappointanewpanelintheappealcourtfile,atleastfortheAncillary
ProcessofRequeststoInspect(Attachment9.9).
OnAugust20,2015,surprisingdecisionwasreceivedbyfax,permittingthe
inspection(Attachment9.9).
TheensuinginspectionuncoveredthefundamentallackofintegrityinRoman
Zadorov'sappealcourtfile,detailedabove.
OnOctober07,2015,PresidingJusticeMiriamNaorwasagainpressedwitha
RequesttorenderadecisionontheUrgentRequesttoappointanewpanel.The
Requestemphasizedthatbylaw,thepanelwasprohibitedfromfurtheradjudication
inthecase,sinceitfailedtorenderareasoneddecision,andalsofailedtodulyserve
and/orprovideadulysignedandcertifiedcopyoftheirdecisiononthe
DisqualificationforaCause.
OnOctober12,2015PresidingJusticeMiriamNaorDecisionontheRequestto
appointanewpanelwaspublishedintheSupremeCourtpublicaccesssystem
(Figure25).
TheOctober12,2015PresidingJusticeMiriamNaorDecisioninpartsays:
2.OnAugust19,2015,adaypriortothepanelrenderingitsdecision,
permittinginspectionoftheappealcourtfile,theRequestfiledanother
Request(aspartoftheprocess,referencedabove),whichwasaddressed
tothePresidingJustice,whereheaskedtoorderappointmentofanew
panelfordecidingonthenew(limited)RequesttoInspectininstant
courtfile,alternativelytoappointanewpanelfortheentireappeal
process.Duetoaproblem,theRequestwasnotforwardedtomyreview
afteritsfiling.OnOctober7,2015,theRequesterfiledRequestfor
RenderingaDecision,wherehepressedthatIorderthedisqualification
ofthepanel.
PresidingJusticeNaorfurtherdeniedtherequest,reasoningthattheRequesterfailed
tofileanappealwithinthetimeprescribedbylawfromthepanel'sdecisiononthe
StatementofDisqualification.
JusticeNaorentirelyfailstoaddressthetrueissues,underlyingtheRequestfor
AppointmentofaNewPanel:
(i)ThefailureofthepaneltorenderareasoneddecisiononDisqualificationfora
Cause.
(ii)Thefailuretodulyissue,dulyserve,and/ordulycertifyvalidcourtrecordsboth
ontheRequeststoInspectandtheDisqualificationforaCause.
93/137
(iii)Thefactthattherewasnoappealablecourtdecisioninthiscasethepanel
failedtoprovideasignedandcertifiedcopyofitsdecision.Infact,Presiding
JusticeNaor'sdecisionrepresentsthestateofaffairsintheIsraelicourtstoday
compellingpartiestoacceptaslawful,validjudicialdecisionsvagueand
ambiguousrecordsindisregardofprovisionsofthelaw.
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaorOctober12,2015Decisionwasneverservedeither,
anduponsubsequenttwo(2)inspectionsoftheoriginalpapercourtfileitwas
discoveredtobeunsignedsham/simulatedjudicialdecisionrecord(draft)
(Attachment9.9).
AttemptstoobtainacertifiedcopyofPresidingJusticeMiriamNaorOctober12,2015
Decisionwerefutile.
OnNovember22,2015,AppealwasfiledfromMagistrateLubinsky'sdecision,which
refusedtocertifyJusticeNaor'sOctober12,2015decision,referringtheRequester
insteadtoanunnamedChiefClerk.FilingsofthisnatureintheSupremeCourt
repeatedlynotedthatvagueandambiguousnatureofSupremeCourtrecordsin
general,andinRomanZadorov'sappealinparticular.
TheappealwassealedbytheOfficeoftheClerkuponfiling,andlistedasAnonv
Anon(7930/15).TheOfficeoftheClerkclaimedthatthesealingwasautomatically
appliedbytheSupremeCourt'sITsystem.Requestwasconsequentlyfiled,toservea
lawfulsealingorder,alternativelytoremoveunlawfulsealing.Nodecisionwas
renderedontheRequest,butafaxwaseventuallyreceivedfromtheOfficeofthe
Clerk,indicatingthatthesealingwasremoved.Indeed,thecasewaslaterlistedas
JosephZernikvStateofIsrael(7930/15),andintheJudgmentrecordJosephZernikv
RomanZadorovandStateofIsrael(7930/15)(Attachment9.9).
TheappealwasdeniedbyJusticeJoubran.TheNovember29,2015JusticeJoubran
Judgmentinpartsays:
5. InhisAppeal,theAppellantclaimsthatthereisroomforconcernthat
hisreferraltotheChiefClerkofthisCourtwithoutstatinghername
isfalseandmisleading,sinceaccordingtohisopinion,MsIdit
Melul,whooccupiestheoffice,operateswithnolawfulappointment,
andeffectivelywithnoauthority.Therefore,theAppellantasksin
instantAppealthattheCourtnametheChiefClerkandpresent
documentationofherlawfulappointment.Secondly,theAppellant
notesthatheexercisedonOctober20,2015hisrighttoinspectthe
papercourtfileintheMainProcess, andfoundoutthattheOctober
12,2015Decisionwasunsigned.Therefore,theAppellantbelieves
thatthereisnovalid,signedoriginalrecordoftheDecisioninthe
courtfile,fromwhichaTrueCopyoftheOriginalcanbecertified.
Finally,theAppellantclaimsthattheMainProcesswasconducted
withnoauthority,sincetheNoticeofAppealwasfiledwithnosigned
andcertifiedcopiesoftheDistrictCourtJudgments,inwhichthe
Appealoriginated.
94/137
6. TheAppealshouldbedenied.First,itshouldbeemphasizedthatthe
AppealisontheOctober25,2015MagistrateDecision,andonit
alone.Thesubjectmatterofthatdecision,asstatedabove,isthe
Appellant'srequesttoobtainasignedandcertifiedcopyofthe
October12,2015PresidingJusticeDecision.Therefore,thereisno
roomtoreviewwithininstantAppealtheAppellant'sclaimsregarding
validityoftheMainProcess,whichwerenotpartoftheMagistrate
Decision,fromwhichinstantAppealoriginated.
7. Alsoastothematteritself,IdonotaccepttheAppellant'sclaims.His
requesttoobtainacopyofthePresidingJudgeDecisionwasnot
denied,sincehewasreferredintheMagistrateDecisiontotheChief
ClerkofthisCourttoobtainhiswish.However,hechosenottodoso,
anddespitethis,heraisesclaimsregardingthevalidityofthe
appointmentoftheChiefClerkandthevalidityofthePresiding
JusticeoftheCourtbasedoninspectionofoneofthepapercourtfiles
oftheCourt.Undersuchcircumstances,Ifindnoroomtograntthe
Appeal.
8. Tosum,theAppealisdenied.
TheJusticeJoubranJudgmentwasnotdulyserved,ispublishedunsigned,subjectto
editingandphrasingchanges.
Thesequenceofevents,outlinedabove,providesadditionalevidenceofconditionsin
theIsraelicourtsinrecentyears:Thereisnowaytoobtainvalidcourtrecords.Any
truesignofauthenticityissystematicallyremoved.
TheevidencealsoindicatesthattheSupremeCourtwasdeliberatelyconductingan
invalidprocedure,relativetotheRequesttoInspect,therefore,deprivingDueProcess
andFairandPublicHearinginRomanZadorov'sappeal.
95/137
8.4RomanZadorov'sdetentionbytheIsraeliauthoritiesshouldbedeemed
violationofarticlesoftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,the
InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,originatesin
DiscriminationbasedonNationality,Language,and/orReligion,andin
inadvertentpoliticalreasons
a. Allegedv
iolationofarticlesofthe
UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights
(i)Article9normswereandaredisregardedthrougharbitraryarrest,detention
ItisallegedthatRomanZadorov'sarbitrarydetentionisperpetratedunderthecolor
oflawthroughFraudUpontheCourtwithoutthefundamentallegalauthorityforthe
detention.
Keyevidenceisprovidedabove,relativetofailuretorenderdulysigned,validVerdict
andSentencingrecords,failuretodulyenterthem,andfailuretodraft,sign,and
enteranArrestDecree,whichisrequiredbydomesticlawforadmittingaconvictto
prison.
(ii)Article10normsweredisregarded,relativetoafairandpublichearing
Fairhearingwasdeniedthroughpoliceandprosecutorialmisconduct,outlinedabove
(Overview,section7.)
FraudUpontheCourtanddenialofDueProcessandFairandPublicHearing.
BoththeNazarethDistrictCourtandtheIsraeliSupremeCourtareengagedinthe
denialofaccesstoinspectjudicialdecisionrecordsindisregardofthedomesticlaw
(section8.1,8.2,8.3,8.5).
b. AllegedviolationoftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights
Article9normswereandaredisregardedthrougharbitraryarrest,detention,and
disregardofprocedureasareestablishedbylaw.
Seesection8.2,above.
Article14normswereandaredisregardedastoequalbeforethecourtsand
tribunals,afairandpublichearingbyacompetent,independentandimpartial
Seesection7,andsections8.18.3,8.5.
c. AllegedDiscriminationbasedonNationality,Language,and/orReligion
RomanZadorov'sabusebyIsraelilawenforcementandthejusticesystemisrelated,
atleastinpart,todiscriminationbasedonnational,language,religion,and/or
conductwhichaimstowardsorcanresultinignoringtheequalityofhumanrights.
96/137
RomanZadorov'sinvestigation,wherehepurportedlyconfessed,wasconductedin
Hebrew,althoughhedoesnotspeakHebrew,whiledomesticlawrequires
investigationinalanguagethatthesuspectunderstands.
TheCriminalCourtProcedureActInvestigationofSuspects(2002),Article2,says:
2.Investigationofasuspectshallbeconductedinhislanguage,orina
languagethatthesuspectknowsandspeaks,includingsignlanguage.
RomanZadorov'spurportedconfessiontoapaid,criminalprisoninformerwasbased
onrecordingofaconversationinRussian.
Accordingtocriminalcomplaints,filedwiththeAttorneyGeneral,almostallpolice
investigationrecordingsandconversationswiththeprisoninformer,whichwerefiled
inCourt,weretranslatedfromRussiantoHebrewbyprofessionaltranslationservices.
Incontrast,theinvestigationonthecriticaldayofthepurportedconfession,andthe
criticalconversationswiththeprisoninformerpurportedprisonconfessionand
reenactmentweretranslatedbythepolicementhemselves.Thecomplaints,filed
withtheAttorneyGeneral,allegedthatthetranslationsbypolicewerefalseand
misleading.
d. Allegeddiscriminationbasedoninadvertentpoliticalreasons
Fornofaultofhisown,RomanZadorov'scaseanditsramificationshavebynow
mushroomedintocircumstances,wherethejusticesystemisprimarilyoccupiedwith
protectingitself,creatingamajorinternalpoliticalturmoilinIsraeland
unprecedentedpowergameswithinthejusticesystem(seesection7)
97/137
8.5RomanZadorov'scasereflectswidespreadincompetenceand/orcorruption
oftheIsraelijusticesystem.
TheconductoftheNazarethDistrictCourtandtheIsraeliSupremeCourt,outlined
above,isnotuniqueatall.Itisallegedthatitreflectswidespreadincompetence
and/orcorruptionoftheIsraelijusticesystem,includingitshighestechelons.
CoordinatedchangesthathavebeensystematicallyintroducedinIsraelilawandin
administrationoftheIsraelicourtsoverthepast15yearshavedeliberatelyrendered
courtrecordsandcourtprocessvagueandambiguous.Theoutcomehasbeen
repeatedlydocumentedintheissuingbyjudgesandbytheAdministrationofCourts
ofsham/simulated/draftcourtrecords,whilemisleadingparties,counselandthe
publicatlargetobelievethattheyarevalidandeffectualcourtrecords.
a. DueProcessinIsraelilawandtheIsraeliConstitutionalRevolution
ThecaseofAmosBaranesisparticularlyinstructiveregardingthecaseofRoman
ZadorovandthestateofDueProcessintheIsraelicourts.AmosBaraneswasfalsely
imprisonedinIsraelfrom19751983,underthepretenseofconvictioninthemurder
of19yearoldRachelHeller.Theconvictionwasbasedonfalseconfession,extracted
throughphysicalpressureandbrutality,andwhichBaranesdeniedincourt,on
framingbypolice,andonprosecutorialmisconduct.
In1999,PublicDefenderDavidWeinerfiledRequestforaNewTrialunderAmos
BaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99)intheIsraeliSupremeCourt.Itwasthe4th
RequestforaNewTrial,pertainingtoAmosBaranes,followingcourttrialand
appeals.Intherequest,PublicDefenderWeinerdetailedthecoordinatedmisconduct
ofpoliceandtheprosecution,whichwentonforyears.AttorneyWeinersummarized
it:Theystoodasafortifiedwall...toconcealthetruth...ThenAttorneyGeneral,
todaySupremeCourtJustice,ElyakimRubinsteinwasnamedoneoftheRespondents.
RubinsteinopposedtheRequestforaNewTrial.
InMarch2002,JusticeDaliaDorneroftheIsraeliSupremeCourtgrantedtheRequest
foraNewTrial,basedontheargumentofviolationoftherightforDueProcess.
InherMarch14,2002landmarkdecision,JusticeDronersays:
34.BasicLaw:HumanDignityandLiberty(hereinafter:theBasicLaw),
whichwasenactedin1992,providedastatusofaConstitutionalbasic
righttoaperson'srightforafaircriminalprocess.Thatprimarily
underArticle5oftheBasicLaw,whichestablishestherightforLiberty,
andArticles2and4oftheBasicLaw,whichestablishtherightfor
HumanDignity.TheBasicLawprescribesinArticle11thatall
governmentauthoritiesthelegislative,theexecutiveandthejudicial
upholdtherightsestablishedinit.Therefore,todaythelegislatorand
surelythecourtarenotfreeasinthepasttochoosethebalancing
pointbetweentherightforfaircriminalprocessandtheprincipleof
finalityofhearing.ThenewlyestablishedConstitutionalstatusofthe
rightforFairProcess,requiresthereforereexaminationofthebalance
betweenitandtheprincipleoffinalityofhearing,ascertainingthatthe
98/137
balanceaccuratelyreflectstherespectableConstitutionalstatusofthe
rightforFairProcess.ReferringtotheeffectoftheBasicLawoncriminal
process,BoazOkonandOdedShahamwrote:
BasicLaw:HumanDignityandLibertyfundamentallychangedthe
arrayofrightsincriminalmatters.ThehumanrightforLibertywas
established.Ithasmaterialeffectoncriminalprocess,where
perhapsmorethananywhereelseinthelawitviesforseniority.
Withit,therightforDueProcesswasestablished.Theimplicationis
achangeinthepyramidofvalues.Criminalcourtprocedureshave
moveduponegrade[thetermusedinHebrewregardingannual
graduationinelementaryschoolandhighschoolbutnot,for
example,inhighschoolgraduationjz].Fromaproceduralbranch,
theyhavebeentransformedintoacentralinstrumentintheserviceof
thebasicConstitutionalright.IftherightsoftheDefendantin
criminaltrialwerederivedtothisdatefromtheprovisionofCourt
Procedure,fromnowon,provisionsofCriminalCourtProcedurewill
bederivedfromHumanRights,whichareprotectedincriminal
process.
Ofnote,intheabovepassages,JusticeDornerfailstodistinguishbetweenDue
ProcessandFairandPublicHearing,reflectingconfusiononsuchbasictermseven
byanIsraeliSupremeCourtjusticeintheearly2000s...Thechoiceofthephrase
moveduponegradeindescribingthestatusoftherightforDueProcessinIsraeli
lawisalsoastounding.Furthermore,thedecisionrecognizestherightforDue
Processonlyincriminalprocedure.
EvenwithinsuchlimitedinterpretationoftherightforDueProcess,conductofthe
IsraelicourtsinRomanZadorov'scase,including,butnotlimitedtothemissing
VerdictandSentencingrecords,andthemissingArrestDecreemustbedeemed
seriousviolationsofDueProcessinDomesticLaw.
ThelandmarkJusticeDorner2002DecisionalsoreferstoaConstitutionalright,
whereasthereisnoconstitutionintheStateofIsrael.SuchwordingbytheSupreme
CourtshouldbeviewedinthecontextoftheConstitutionalRevolution,aterm
coinedbyPresidingJusticeAharonBarak(inoffice19952006).[7]Itwas
purportedlybasedonthenewlyenactedBasicLaws,particularlytheBasicLaw:
HumanDignityandLiberty.ThemaineffectofsuchConstitutionalRevolutionwas
assertingthesupremacyofthejudiciaryoverthelegislativeandexecutivebranches.
Barak'sactionsinthisregardwerecomparedtotheauthorityassertedin1803bythe
USSupremeCourtunderChiefJusticeJohnMarshallinMarburyv.Madison.
BarakisoftenadvertisedinIsraelasachampionofHumanRights.However,others
sawhisjudicialconductdifferently.Forexample,USJudgeRichardPosnerwrites:[ 8]
A Constitutional Revolution: Israel's Basic Laws by Aharon Barak, eYLS
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3697/
7
Enlightened Despot by Richard Posner, April 23, 2007, New Republic

https://newrepublic.com/article/60919/enlightened-despot
8
99/137
Butalthoughhe[BarakJZ]isfamiliarwiththeAmericanlegalsystem
andsupposeshimselftobeinsomesortofsyncwithliberalAmerican
judges,heactuallyinhabitsacompletelydifferentand,toan
American,aweirdlydifferentjuristicuniverse.Ihavemydifferences
withRobertBork,butwhenheremarked,inareviewofTheJudgeina
Democracy,thatBarak"establishesaworldrecordforjudicialhubris,"he
cameveryclosetothetruth.
TheevidencehereprovidesanentirelydifferentperspectiveonAharonBarak's
conductandimpactonIsraelilawandtheIsraelicourts:DuringAharonBarak's
tenureasPresidingJustice,theIsraelijudiciaryimplementedchangesinthecourts,
whichsystematicallystrippedcourtrecordsandcourtprocessofanyvalidityand
effect,underminingDueProcesstothepointthattheIsraelicourtstodayshouldnot
bedeemedcompetentCourtsofRecord.
b. UnderminingDueProcess,competenceand/orintegrityoftheCourtsofoverthe
past15years
Asdemonstratedabove,relativetotheConstitutionalrighttoinspectdecision
recordsandthedenialofaccesstoinspectjudicialdecisionrecordsinRoman
Zadorov'scase,theloftydeclarationsoftheIsraeliSupremeCourtregardingthe
ConstitutionalrightsarenotmatchedbytheSupremeCourt'sownconduct.
Duringthedecadeof20002010,theIsraelicourtswereprofoundlytransformedin
conjunctionwiththetransitiontoelectronicadministrationofthedistrictand
magistratecourtsandimplementationofnewITsystemsintheSupremeCourt.Such
processincluded:
(i)EnactmentandimplementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct(2001);
(ii)ChangesinITsystemandOfficeoftheClerkoftheSupremeCourt(2002);
(iii)PromulgationofnewRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004),and
(iv)DevelopmentandimplementationofNetHaMishpatcasemanagementsystem
(developmentstarted~2000,implementationcompletedin2010).
Thesechangesarecriticalforunderstandingthevagueandambiguousnatureof
courtrecordsinthecaseofRomanZadorovwhichshouldbedeemedserious
deprivationofDueProcessaswellasFairandPublicHearing,amountingtoconduct
ofsham/simulatedtrial.
c. InvalidimplementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct
(2001)
Today,allIsraelidistrictandmagistratecourtsareadministeredthroughelectronic
filesandrecords.Regardless,novisibleelectronicsignaturecanbefoundonany
courtrecords.ThenotionofinvisiblesignaturestheEmperor'sNewClothes
defiescommonsenseandtheessenceofasignatureasymbolaffixedwiththeintent
toacceptresponsibility.
SuchinvalidimplementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct(2001)extendsfar
beyondthecourts(Figure25).
100/137
Figure 25. Implementation of invisible electronic signatures: Unsigned signature box of the
Annual Report (2006-7) by Attorney Yoram Hacohen, Magistrate of Certifying Authorities
pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), submitted to the Knesset and the Minister of
Justice, as published online by the Ministry of Justice. The signature box says: Truly, Yoram
Hacohen, Advocate, Magistrate of Databases, Justice Technology and Information Authority
(Originally signed by a secure electronic signature) [red in the original - JZ]. The Ministry of
Justice denied a Freedom of Information request for a copy of the same record, including a visible
electronic signature, claiming that the electronic signature of a government officer is a private
instrument.
TheMagistrateofCertifyingAuthorities,pursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct
(2002),isaseniorjusticesystemofficerattherankofdistrictjudge,whoischarged
withimplementationoftheElectronicSignatureActandsafeguardingtheintegrityof
theStateelectronicsignaturessystem.Bylaw,hesubmitsanannualreporttothe
KnessetandtheMinisterofJustice.However,asshowninFigure25,evensuch
report,submittedtotheKnessetandtheMinisterofJustice,bearsaninvisible
electronicsignature.
ThecurrentstateofaffairsintheIsraelicourts,followingsuchimplementationofthe
ElectronicSignatureAct(2001)inNetHaMishpat,isbestdocumentedintheMay31,
2012OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecisionintheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricated
Protocolsscandal(Attachment9.5).Thedecisionprovidesdetaileddiscussionof
thetechnicalmodeofoperationofNetHaMishpat,executionofelectronicsignatures,
andcertificationofcourtrecords.Thestateofaffairs,documentedintheOmbudsman
Decisioncanbesummarizedasfollows:
(i) ThevisiblegraphicsignaturesonelectronicrecordsinNetHaMishpatareofno
validityandeffectatallmerelysomeformofmisleadingdecoration(butitisa
necessarystepinterminationofarecordbythetranscriptionist).
(ii) ElectronicdecisionrecordsinNetHaMishpat,whicharenotelectronically
signed,areinvalid,lackforceandeffectmerelydrafts.
(iv)InNetHaMishpat,thereisnowayforparties,counsel,orthepublicatlargeto
distinguishbetweenavalid,effectual,electronicallysignedrecordandaninvalid,
electronicallyunsignedrecord(draft).
(v)Judgesroutinelyissueinvalid,electronicallyunsignedrecords(drafts)inNet
HaMishpat,whilemisrepresentingthemtoparties,counselandthepublicatlarge
asvalidandeffectualcourtrecords.
(vi)Authenticationofelectronicallysigneddecisionrecordsshouldbeexecutedby
lawthroughcertificationTrueCopyoftheOriginalbytheChiefClerkofthe
Court.
101/137
(vii)Unauthorized,untrainedstaffofthecourts,whoarenotfamiliarwiththe
significanceofelectronicsignatures,anddonotknowhowtoascertainthata
decisionrecordiselectronicallysigned,routinelyandfalselycertifyunsigned,
invalidelectronicrecordsinNetHaMishpat,TrueCopyoftheOriginal.
TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecisionreflectsconditionsintheIsraelicourtsa
fulldecadeafterenactmentoftheElectronicSignatureAct.
TheOmbudsmanDecisionandtheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocols
scandalprovideevidencethatthecurrentstateofaffairsisnottheoutcomeofhuman
error,butdeliberateactionsbythejudiciaryoverthepastdecade,torendercourt
recordsvagueandambiguous,ifnotdeliberatelyfraudulent.
Forexample,theOmbudsmannotesthatinitially,courtrecordswhichwerenot
electronicallysigned,werewatermarkeddrafts,orunsigned,butthatjudges
demandedtheremovalofsuchwatermarks.Furthermore,theOmbudsman
recommendstherestorationofsuchwatermarks.Hisrecommendationhasnotbeen
implementedtothisdate.
Moreover,theOmbudsmanDecisiondocumentsthatbySeptember2011(issuance
dateoftheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocols),thewatermarkshadbeen
removedfromNetHaMishpatintheTelAvivDistrictCourt(Figure26).However,
recordsfromtheHaifaMagistrateCourtdocumentthatbyApril2013(issuancedate
ofJudgeEsperanzaAlonFabricatedProtocol),thewatermarkswerestillinplacein
NetHaMishpatintheHaifaMagistrateCourt(Figure26).
Thefactthatsuchcriticalfeatures,pertainingtosecurityandintegrityofrecords,
werealteredintheNetHaMishpatplatformonlocalbasisintheTelAvivDistrict
Courtbyjudges'request,isentirelyinconsistentwithintegrityindevelopmentand
maintenanceofanationalcasemanagementsystemforthecourts.
Combined,thecaseofJudgesVardaAlshechandEsperanzaAlonalsodemonstrate
thefutilityoftheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary.Regardlessofamajorscandaland
theOmbudsmanDecision,JudgeEsperanzaAlondidnothesitatetoengageinthe
exactsameconductasJudgeVardaAlshech1.5yearslater.
CriminalcomplaintwasfiledagainstJudgeEsperanzaAlon,allegingfraudfromthe
bench,perversionofcourtrecordsandcourtprocessmatter.However,justasJudge
VardaAlshechhadneverbeenheldaccountable,itisunlikelythatJudgeEsperanza
Alonwouldbeheldaccountable.Withit,theIsraelijusticesystemhasestablishedthe
standard:Judgesarepermittedtoengageinfraudfromthebenchthroughperversion
ofelectroniccourtrecords.
102/137
a.
103/137
b.
Figure 26. a. Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623/00) in the Tel-Aviv District Court one of
the September 12, 2011 sham/simulated Protocol records, which were generated by Judge Varda
Alshech, and was employed for retaliation against an Attorney through the Administration of
Courts. As determined by the Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (Attachment 9.5), the
record was merely a draft, since it was never electronically signed. However, the watermarks,
indicating such fact, had been removed from Net-HaMishpat system in the Tel-Aviv District Court
by that time. The record was unlawfully certified True Copy of the Original by the Judge's
secretary. b. In re: Conservatee RS (1829-06-10) in the Haifa Magistrate Court April 4, 2013
sham/simulated Protocol record - one of a series of sham/simulated court records, which were
generated by Judge Esperanza Alon over a period of several months in this case, related to realestate transactions. The protocol record perverted even the name of persons, who were present
in the hearing and their party designations, and Judge Esperanza Alon refused to correct the
record. The record also documents the conduct of a sham/simulated court hearing ("informal, off
the record" - as Israeli judges like to call it) without prior notice to the parties. The record is
patently invalid, since it bears the watermark "Not Signed Yet". The record was unlawfully
certified by "the Judge's secretary".
104/137
Yetfurtherunreasonableambiguityregardingimplementationofelectronicsignatures
incourtrecordsisdocumentedintheBackgroundDocumentRegardingElectronic
Signatures(updatedSeptember2009)bytheMinistryofJustice,IsraeliLaw,
Information&TechnologyAuthoritytheStateagencychargedwithimplementing,
regulating,andenforcingthelaw(Attachment9.10).
Thedocumentexplicitlystatesthatjudgmentrecordsofthecourtsarenotpermitted
beelectronicallysigned,pursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001).However,
suchstatementlacksfoundationinthelaw,andthereference,providedinthe
documentitselfisincorrect.
Oneishardpressedtobelievethatsuchstateofaffairsistheoutcomeofhumanerror
inanation,whichpridesitselfonthehighvolumeofhitechactivity,whichrefersto
itselfasstartupnation,wheresomeoftheinventorsofbasicencryptionalgorithms
reside,whereleadingITsecuritycompanieswerefounded,whichisintheforefront
ofcyberwarandelectronicsurveillance,andwheresuchexpertswereinvolvedinthe
implementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct,partofacostly,nationallevel,multi
yearproject.
ImplicationsintheRomanZadorovcase:
RomanZadorov'strialcourtrecordswereadministeredaselectronicrecordsstarting
inJanuary2010.Therefore,the2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsshouldhave
beenenteredintheelectroniccourtfile,andelectronicallysigned.
Likewise,decisionrecords,pertainingtotheattemptstoinspectthecourtfilerecords,
shouldhavebeenenteredintheelectroniccourtfile,andelectronicallysigned.
TheoriginalDecember27,2015ProformaRequesttoInspect,filedintheNazareth
DistrictCourt,explicitlyaskedtoinspectlawfullymadejudgmentrecords
(Attachment9.4).JudgeEstherHellman'sJanuary12,2016Decision(aperverted
electronicdecisionrecordinitsownsake)purportedlypermittedinspectionof
judgmentrecordsintheOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourt(Figure
13).UponappearanceintheOfficeoftheClerkinattempttoexercisetheinspection,
printoutsofelectronicVerdictandSentencingrecordswereprovidedfromNet
HaMishpat(Figure14).
Therecords,whichwereprovidedwerenotlawfullymadejudgmentrecords,but
draftsatbest,ifnotpatentfraud.Thesewerenotelectronicallysignedrecords,and
theyfailtobeenteredintheNetHaMishpatelectroniccourtfile,eitherinthe
DecisionsDocket,orintheJudgmentsDocket,theChiefClerkrefusestocertifythem
TrueCopyoftheOriginal,andPresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamdeniesaccessto
inspecttheir(missing)electronicsignatures.
Atthesametime,PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamandNorthDistrictAttorney
MiritSternseniorStatejusticeofficersareinfullagreementthatlawfulrequests
toinspectareabuseoftheRighttoInspect,whichamounttounauthorized
investigationoftheCourt'sconductinRomanZadorov'scase...
ItremainsunclearwhatthehistoryofthepervertedSeptember14,2010Verdictand
105/137
Sentencingrecordsis:
WhereandbywhomwastheearlyprintoutoftheVerdictrecord,missingthe
graphicsignatures(filedinOctober2010intheSupremeCourtbyAttorneys
SpiegelandSpiegelwiththeNoticeofAppeal),generated?
Whenandbywhomwerethenegativeformgraphicsignaturesaddedtothe
records,asseenintherecentprintouts(providedinJanuary2016bytheOfficeof
theClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourtduringinspection)?
Whoandwhyremovedthe2010SentencingrecordfromtheDecisionsDocketin
earlyJuly2016?
Onemayguessthattheanswertothefirsttwoquestionsisrelatedthequestionofthe
timingofremovaloftheDraftwatermarksfromNetHaMishpatsysteminthe
NazarethDistrictCourt.
Onemayguessthattheanswertothethirdquestionisrelatedtothewarningnotice,
whichwasfiledwithChiefClerkOshratAvichezerinlateJune2016,regardingfraud,
perversionofcourtrecordsandbreachofloyalty,pertainingtherecordsinRoman
Zadorov'scase.
Theanswertothesequestionsmayalsoberelatedtoanymodifications,whichhave
beenintroducedinNetHaMishpatplatformonalocalbasisbyspecialrequestsofthe
Nazarethjudges...
d. UnderminingintegrityoftheSupremeCourtrecordsandOfficeoftheClerk
(March2002)
(i)EliminatingthestandardcertificationoftheSupremeCourtdecisionrecords
InMarch2002,profoundandinexplicablechangeswereintroducedintheSupreme
CourtITsystemandthetemplateofalldecisionrecords(Figure27):
PriortoMarch2002,allrecords,whichwerepublishedintheITsystem,showed
thecertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ShmaryahuCohenClerkofthe
Court,withreferencetoanelectronicfile(probablysecuredunderauthorityof
theClerkoftheCourt).
AfterMarch2002,thecertificationandanyreferencetotheClerkoftheCourt
wereremoved.WorseyetadisclaimerwasaddedVersionsubjecttoeditingand
phrasingchanges.
106/137
Figure 27. Changes in the IT system of the Supreme Court ~ 2002. Left: Until early 2002, all
electronic decisions of the Supreme Court carried the certification, True Copy of the Original,
by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen. Right: Since early 2002, the certification statement
and any other reference to a chief clerk were omitted. On the contrary, the disclaimer subject
to editing and phrasing changes was added.
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaor,herpredecessorAsherGrunisrefusedtoansweron
inquiries,andtheAdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoansweronFreedomof
Informationrequests:
Underwhoseauthorityweresuchchangesintroduced?
Whatisthelegalfoundationforsuchchanges?
Regardless,onecanassumethatsuchchangeswereintroducedbyconsent,ifnotby
initiativeofthenPresidingJusticeAharonBarakfatheroftheConstitutional
Revolution.
SuchchangeseffectivelyinvalidateallSupremeCourtrecordssinceMarch2002,and
transformedthemintosham/simulatedcourtrecords,ordraftsastheyaretermed
byIsraelijudges.SuchconductisinconsistentwithconductofacompetentCourtof
Record.
Theseresultingconditions,nowprevailingintheSupremeCourthavebeenagain
recentlydemonstratedinthecaseofEvenIsraelvShulman(1554/16)civilappeal
intheSupremeCourt.
Even-Israel v Shulman (1554/16) civil appeal in the Supreme Court
In this case, the Supreme Court initially issued an April 10, 2016 Decision in favor of
one party, then inexplicably reversed it in its June 5, 2016 Decision without any Due
Process of law. After the incident was widely published by media, the Supreme Court
issued the June 8, 2016 Decision, stating that the original decision was only a
draft (Figure 28).
The case was reported by media as follows: [9]
A judgment entered in error: Where did the records
disappear from the Supreme Court file?
First it was claimed that the file was transferred to the archive, but
after the attorneys were permitted to inspect the paper court file, it
turned out that records were missing in it. The first judgment is
2016-06-21 A judgment entered in error: Where did the records disappear from the
Supreme Court file? Walla News
http://news.walla.co.il/item/2972169
9
107/137
missing, and also the certificates of its service. The parties consider
going to the police. The Administration of Court does not respond.
New details were exposed today (Tuesday), which shed light on the
case, which was published on the day before yesterday in Walla News,
where in an exceptional conduct, the Supreme Court issued a new
decision, which ignored it previous decision in the same court file. As
published, about two months ago, the appeal was denied by one Justice
the decision was published in the Supreme Court site, and was also
mailed to the parties but about a week ago the Court issued a new
decision, by a 3-justice panel, which reversed the old decision, and the
original decision was removed from the Supreme Court site, simply
vanished. Now it turns out that also in the paper court file, records are
missing, as if the first judgment never existed at all.
Once the new judgment was issued, the attorneys asked to inspect the
paper court file, but were told that it was transferred to the archive an
extremely unusual response, given that a decision was rendered only a
day earlier. After they persisted, they were permitted to inspect the
paper court file, where the records are missing in a manner that raises
suspicion that they were deliberately removed. Consequently, the
parties are considering going to the police to ask for investigation of
the matter.
In parallel to the inexplicable reversal, the original, April 10, 2016 Decision
disappeared from the Decisions Docket in the public access system of the Supreme
Court, and according to the media report, copied above, also the paper (original)
decision record was removed from the paper court file with no Due Process of law.
However, the issuance of the original April 10, 2016 Decision is still documented
under the Events tab (Figure 28).
a.
108/137
b.
109/137
c.
Figure 28. Even-Israel v Shulman (1554/16) civil appeal in the Supreme Court: a. Events on June 25, 2016, still shows the April 30, 2016 assignment of the case to a Justice (singular), the
April 10, 2016, release of the decision, and April 11, 2016 mailing of the decision to the
parties. b. The Decisions Docket (June 25, 2016 printout) fails to show any longer the April 10,
2016 Decision. c. The June 08, 2016 Decision, issued following media reports of the incident and
110/137
request by Counsel to reinstate the original decision, says: It was an error, a draft that was
prematurely sent. The Judgment is the one, which was rendered by the 3-justice panel on June
05, 2016. The request is denied. Rendered on June 08, 2016. The June 08, 2016 record, as
usual, shows the footnote disclaimer: Version subject to editing and phrasing changes.
(ii)EliminatinglawfullyappointedChiefClerk,andrefusaltoprovidevalidcertification
EventsofMarch2002intheSupremeCourttookplaceinconjunctionwiththe
unexpecteddeathinofficeofthenChiefClerkShmaryahuCohen.
FreedomofInformationresponsesbytheAdministrationofCourtsdocumentedthat
MsSarahLifschitz,whoappearedasChiefClerkfrom20022013,andMsIdit
Melul,whoappearsasChiefClerktoday,holdnolawfulappointment.
PursuanttoDomesticLaw,theChiefClerkistheoneauthorizedtocertifycourt
recordsTrueCopyoftheOriginal,andtheMagistrateoftheCourtisalso
authorizedtoperformtheChiefClerk'sduties.
Asdocumentedabove,relativetoeffortstoinspectRomanZadorov'sappealpaper
courtfileintheSupremeCourt,ithasbecomepracticallyimpossibletoobtainvalid
certificationofSupremeCourtdecisionrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal.Instead,
perverted(e.g.CopyingisTruetotheOriginal)certificationisprovidedby
unauthorizedpersons(Figures21,22).
ConductoftheSupremeCourt,relativetotherefusaltodulycertifydecisions,
pertainingtoeffortstoinspectRomanZadorov'sappealcourtfile,andgenerating
falsecertifications,wasnotunique.Thesameconducthasbeenrepeatedly
documentedinvariouscourtfilesinrecentyears(Figure29).
Figure 29. Macmull v Bank of Israel and State of Israel (3518/08) - simulation and/or forgery of
certifications of Supreme Court decision record. a. June 1, 2008 Decision in . The petition
originated in fraud by a bank on Debtor Macmull in the Jerusalem Debtors' Court, and refusal of
Bank of Israel to perform its duties as banking regulator. The petition was summarily denied. The
signatures of the justices are all in wet ink, in the form (-), and in the same hand-writing as
the signature of Sarah Lifschitz Chief Clerk. The certifying statement is invalid - Copying is
True to the Original - instead of True Copy of the Original. Sarah Lifschitz was not duly
appointed Chief Clerk. The footnote says: Duplicate subject to editing and phrasing changes.
SuchconductisinconsistentwithconductofacompetentCourtofRecord.
111/137
(iii)EliminatingvalidNoticetoAppearinCourtandhearingprotocols
AspartofthechangesintheadministrationoftheSupremeCourt,todayallhearings
areconductedwithnolawfulNoticetoAppearinCourt,andwithnolawfulprotocols
(transcripts/minutes):
(1)NoNoticetoAppearinCourtrecordsaremaintainedintheSupremeCourtpaper
courtfilesanylonger.AccordingtothestaffoftheOfficeoftheClerktheNotice
toAppearinCourtisaselfeliminatingelectronicrecord,whichistemporarily
maintainedintheSupremeCourtITsystem,butdisappearsfromthesystemafter
thehearingdate.
(2)NoprotocolsaremaintainedintheSupremeCourtpapercourtfilesthe
protocolsaremaintainedasunsignedworkprocessingfilesintheSupremeCourt
ITsystem.
Suchconditions,whicharenottheroutineintheSupremeCourt,infactrenderall
SupremeCourthearingssham/simulatedhearings,andareinconsistentwithconduct
ofacompetentCourtofRecord.
CurrentpracticeswerebestdocumentedinthecaseofMotiAshkenzai+76othersv
DirectoroftheEnforcementandCollectionAuthorityandMinisterofJustice(2300/11)
petitionforaconditionaldecreeintheSupremeCourt.
Moti Ashkenazi+76 others v Director of the Enforcement and Collection Authority
and Minister of Justice (2300/11) petition for a conditional decree in the Supreme
Court
In this case war-hero Ashkenazi and others petitioned the Supreme Court, sitting as
High Court of Justice (national tribunal for protection of rights) to protect their Due
Process rights in the Debtors' Courts.
The Israeli debtors' courts are managed as administrative courts under the Ministry
of Justice. Fraud in collection procedures of the Debtor's Court has been repeatedly
documented, including a recent State Ombudsman report. Debtors are routinely
charged unlawful usury interest rates, debtors' payments are not properly credited
to their accounts, and at time entirely fictitious debts are collected.
The Ashkenazi petition was limited to one issue: Arbitrarily termination by the
Debtors' Courts of service to the debtors of any decision, which was longer than 17
lines. At the same time, attorneys for the debt-holders continued to receive
electronic notice and service uninterrupted (almost 100% of the debtors are in pro
se, while almost 100% of the debt holders are represented by counsel).
In the Ashkenazi petition, Supreme Court 3-justice panel, headed by Supreme Court
Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, conducted for about 4 years preliminary
proceedings with no foundation in the law. Two judgments were listed in the
Decisions Docket of such preliminary proceedings. The first Judgment is said by
the Petitioners' Counsel not to be a Judgment. The second Judgment, issued on
June 03, 2014, ordered the erasing of the petition.
During the years of the Petition, State Counsel claimed first, that the failure to serve
the debtors was the result of computer problems. Later, he claimed that it resulted
from shortage in supply of the correct-size envelopes. Finally, he claimed that a new
IT system was under development for the Debtors' Courts, and therefore, the
problem would be resolved.
112/137
Several hearings were purportedly held in this case, and the Supreme Court IT
system lists the issuing and mailing of Notices to Appear in Court. However,
inspection of the Supreme Court paper court file (original records) failed to discover
any Notice to Appear in Court and any protocol (transcript/minutes) or other record
of the hearings.
Staff of the Office of the Clerk explained:
(i) No Notice to Appear in Court records are maintained in the Supreme Court paper
court files any longer. According to the staff of the Office of the Clerk the Notice
to Appear in Court is a self-eliminating electronic record, which is temporarily
maintained in the Supreme Court IT system, but disappears from the system
after the hearing date. The Notice to Appear in Court also showed invalid
signature.
(ii) No protocols are maintained in the Supreme Court paper court files the
protocols are maintained as unsigned work-processing files in the Supreme Court
IT system.
a.
113/137
b.
Figure 30: Moti Ashkenzai+76 others v Director of the Enforcement and Collection Authority
and Minister of Justice (2300/11) petition for a conditional decree in the Supreme Court hearing records: a. Notice to Appear in Court for a September 10, 2012 Hearing as received by
fax by Counsel for the Petitioners. The record is registered issued under the Events tab in the
Supreme Court IT system. However, all records of Notices to Appear in Court are missing from
this and other Supreme Court paper court files. According to staff of the Office of the Clerk, these
are self-eliminating electronic records, which are maintained in the Supreme Court IT system,
but disappear after the hearing date. The record is missing a valid signature. It shows a
graphic signature of Sarah Lifschitz. Under the signature line only signature is written, with
no name or position title. Sarah Lifschitz appeared as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court from
2002 to 2013. However, Freedom of Information response revealed that she held no lawful
appointment for such office. b. Final page of the purported July 21, 2011 Hearing Protocol - the
record is an unsigned word-processing file, maintained in the Supreme Court IT system. There
are no protocol records in the paper court file.
(iv)Falsificationanddisappearanceofcourtfilesanddecisionrecords
ComprehensivedataminingofITsystemoftheIsraeliSupremeCourtalsoshowsthat
followingtheMarch2002event,numerouselectronicdecisionrecordswere
retroactivelyfalsified.ItappearsthatasseeninthecaseofEvenIsraelvShulman
(1554/16),inparalleltofalsificationoftheelectronicrecords,theoriginalpaper
courtrecordsweredestroyed,indisregardofthelaw,pertainingtoshreddingof
courtfiles.
Thematterisdocumentedinthetwocasesbelows.
Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) Request for a a New Trial in the
Supreme Court
In the landmark case of Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) Request for a a
New Trial in the Supreme Court, originated in the long-term false imprisonment of
Amos Baranes after being framed by police and falsely prosecuted. Review of the
electronic records indicated that a series of electronic decision records were
falsified. In that case, access to inspect the paper court file was eventually
materialized (for brevity's sake, important details, with implications to the case of
Roman Zadorov are not recorded here).
During inspection of the paper court file (original records) it turned out that the
paper decision records, corresponding to the suspect electronic decision records
were missing from the paper court file.
Notice was filed with Presiding Justice Miriam Naor, with Request to delete from the
Supreme Court IT system the falsified electronic decision records, for which there
are no original paper decision records (Attachment 9.11). Regardless of the
request, pressing the rendering of decision, Presiding Justice Naor has not ruled on
the Request to this date.
Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act

(1582/02) civil appeal in the Supreme Court
The case of Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to Handicapped by Nazi
Persecution Act (1582/02) originated from denial of reparation payments by the
114/137
Israeli government to Holocaust survivors from funds established by the German

government. It is one of many Supreme Court files, which show patent falsification
of the electronic records (Figure 31).
Figure 31. Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi
Persecutions Act (1582/02) civil appeal in the Supreme Court - falsification of Supreme Court
electronic decision records: The signature and certification box of Supreme Court decision in
part says: Issued this date, February 14, 2007. Boaz Okon, Magistrate. This duplicate is subject
to editing and phrasing changes. Shmaryahu Cohen Chief Clerk. By February 2007, Boaz
Okon was no longer Magistrate of the Supreme Court for some 5 years, and Shmaryahu Cohen
was not among the living for the about five years. Numerous other records of the same nature
were discovered. The Supreme Court denied access to inspect the paper court file in this case,
claiming that the paper court file was shredded. However, regardless of repeat requests, the
Supreme Court refused to provide the documentation that is required by the Regulations of the
Archive (1968) for shredding of court files.
In this case, the Supreme Court denied access to inspect the paper court records
through various patent violations of Due Process. Eventually, the Supreme Court
Magistrate claimed that the court file was shredded, but refused to provide the
documentation of court file shredding, prescribed in the Regulations of the Archives.
UNreportsonStrengtheningJudicialIntegrityagainstCorruptionnotetheunlawful
disappearanceofcourtrecordsasoneofthehallmarksofincompetentand/orcorrupt
courts.
Theunlawfuldisappearanceofcourtrecordsisinconsistentwithconductof
competentCourtsofRecords.
ImplicationsinRomanZadorov'scase
TheSupremeCourtconductedfor5yearsanappealprocessinRomanZadorovv
StateofIsrael(7939/10)originatinginnovalid,authenticjudgmentrecordsofthe
NazarethDistrictCourt.
Itisimpossibletoascertain,weatherjusticesoftheSupremeCourtdeemedanyof
theirdecisionsintheappealvalidcourtrecords,oronlydrafts.
IntheprocessofRequeststoInspectinRomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10),
115/137
goodevidencewasproducedthattheJusticesweredeliberatelyconducting
sham/simulatedcourtprocessthroughtheissuanceofsham/simulatedcourtrecords,
includingPresidingJusticeMiriamNaor(Appendix9.9).Asnotedintheappeals,
originatingfromtheattemptstoinspectthepapercourtfileStateofIsraelvZadorov
(502/07),heldbytheSupremeCourt:ZernikvStateofIsrael(3919/16)andZernikv
ZadorovandStateofIsrael(4650/16),theSupremeCourtrefusedtoprovidevalid
certificationofitsowndecisionsinthiscase,onlyfalsecertificationswereprovided.
AnumberofhearingswereconductedinthepurportedRomanZadorov'spurported
appealprocess,butnorecordsofNoticetoAppearinCourtandnorecordofHearing
Protocolwasdiscoveredduringinspectionofthepapercourtfile.Allsuchhearings
shouldbedeemedsham/simulatedcourthearings.
e. NewRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk
(2004)
ImplementationofITsystemsofanycourtamountstoaseachangeinoperationsof
theOfficeoftheClerk.HarvardLawProfessorLarryLessigwroteonsimilarmatters,
TheCodeinLaw,andtheLawinCode.[10]
Thechangesincourtprocedures,relatedtoimplementationofthenewITsystemsof
theIsraelicourtshavenotbelegislatedorpromulgated.However,inconjunction
withthetransitiontoelectroniccourtfileadministrationanddevelopmentofNet
HaMishpat,theoldRegulationsoftheCourtsRegistrationOffice(1936)werevoided,
andnewRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004)werepromulgated
underthetenureofPresidingJusticeAharonBarakandtheshorttenureofJustice
MinisterTommyLapid,hiscloseassociate(Attachment9.7).
The1936Regulationsarenotedfortheirdetailedspecificationoftheoperationsof
theOfficeoftheClerk:
Article4: SpecifiedthedutiesandobligationsoftheChiefClerksuperior
maintenanceofthefilesandregistrationsofthecourt
Article5: RequiredthemaintenanceofBooksofCourtincivilcases,includingan
IndexofAllCases,andtheregistrationofdateofentryofjudgmentand
abstractofjudgmentforeachcase.
Article7: Specifiedtheexactmannerofmaintenanceofacivilcourtfile,
includingtherequirementtomaintainsummonsesandcertificatesofservice.
Article8: Requiredsimilarmaintenanceofcriminalcourtfilesandcriminal
judgmentsregistration.
Article12:RequiredthemaintenanceofJudgmentBooks,wheresignedand
certifiedcopiesofalljudgmentsareglued.
Article16:Requiredtheinscriptionoftheclerk'sinitials,whoenteredeachrecord,
includingjudicialdecisionsandjudgmentrecords,onthefaceoftherecord.
Article17:ProvidedtheauthorityoftheChiefClerktocertifycourtrecords.
The2004Regulations,incontrast,arenotedfortheirbrevityandlackofdetails:
10
Lessig, L. The Code in Law, and the Law in Code, (2000) [online] Harvard Law School
116/137
ThedutiesandobligationsoftheChiefClerk,relativetointegrityofcourtfiles
andcourtrecordsarenevermentionedatall.
Therequirementtoenterregistrationofalljudgments,andmaintaina
JudgmentBook(orIndexofJudgments)isnevermentionedatall.
Thedutiesoftheclerkstoinscribetheirinitialsonanyrecordthatwasentered,
includingjudicialdecisionandjudgmentrecordsisnevermentioned.Infact,
therequirementtomaintaindocketswasabolished.
Article5: DelegatedtotheDirectoroftheAdministrationofCourtstheauthority
tointroduceanynecessarychangesintheRegulationsintheprocessof
implementingelectronicsystems.
Article6a:Anamendmentwaspromulgatedayearlater,whichauthorizedthe
ChiefClerktocertifycourtrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal.
Article5shouldbedeemedinviolationoftheprincipleofSeparationofPowers,since
itdelegatestothejudiciarythepromulgationofregulationsofthecourts.Thesame
articleshouldalsobedeemedinviolationoftheprincipleofPublicityoftheLaw,
sincetheAdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoansweronFreedomofInformation
request,whichaskedforspecificationofthenecessarychanges,whichwere
introducedintheregulationsbytheDirectoroftheAdministrationofCourts.
Overall,the2004Regulationscreatedcourtswherethereisnopublicregulations,
whichgoverntheoperationsoftheofficesoftheclerks,wheretheAdministrationof
CourtshavecreatedproceduresandWorkGuidelines,whicharekeptsecret,where
therearenodefinedclericalduties,relativetothesafeguardofintegrityofcourtfile
records,norequirementtomaintaindockets,andnorequirementtoenterand
registertheentryofjudgments,eithercivilorcriminal.
Needlesstosay,suchcircumstancesareinconsistentwithconductofcompetent
CourtsofRecord.
ThereisnovalidDecisionsDocketinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)inthe
NazarethDistrictCourt.ThedocketinNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystemis
partial,manydecisionsarenotlisted.Moreover,itisobviousthatatleastsomeofthe
decisionrecords,whichappearinthedocket,aresham/simulatedcourtrecords.
ThereisnovalidJudgmentsDocketinStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)in
theNazarethDistrictCourt.Noneoftheseveralinvalidversionsofthe2010Verdict
andSentencingrecordsisentered,eitherintheJudgmentDocket,orintheDecisions
Docket.
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvraham,ChiefClerkOshratAvichezerandthe
AdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoanswer:
(i)Whoisauthorizedandwhoholdsthedutiestoenterjudgmentsunderthe
JudgmentDocketinNetHaMishpatintheNazarethDistrictCourt?
117/137
(ii)DoestheentryofacourtrecordintheJudgmentDocketasJudgment,
Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisindeedadulymade,validand
effectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
(iii)DoesthefailuretoenteracourtrecordintheJudgmentDocketasJudgment,
Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisnotadulymade,validandeffectual
judgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
f. DevelopmentandimplementationofNetHaMishpat(completed2010)
TheimplementationofNetHaMishpatfinalizedthechangesintheadministrationof
theIsraelicourtsoverthepastdecade.
Asnotedabove:NetHaMishpattransformedtheIsraelidistrictandmagistratecourts
intoelectroniccourtfilesadministration.Someofthemostnotableinvalidfeatures
ofthesystem,andaccordinglyoperationsofthecourtswereoutlinedabove:
(i)InvisibleelectronicsignaturesTheEmperor'sNewClothesoutlinedabove.
(ii)NoaccountabilityoftheChiefClerkforintegrityoftherecordsoutlineabove.
(iii)NorequirementtoenterdecisionsandjudgmentsandtomaintainvalidDecision
DocketsorJudgmentIndex.
AslaterdocumentedintheStateOmbudsmanAnnualReport60b(2010)
(Attachment9.2),thesystemwasdevelopedandimplementedoutofcompliance
withdomesticlawandbindinggovernmentprocedures:
(i)DevelopmentcontractsweresignedwithcorporationbytheAdministrationof
Courtwithnolegaltender.
(ii)Developmentcontractsweresignedwithnowrittenspecifications.
(iii)DevelopmentwasconductedwithnocoremanagementbyaStateemployee.
(iv)Thesystemwasimplementedwithnopriorindependentexaminationand
validationbyaStateemployee.
(v)Intheprocess,unknownnumberofSmartIDcardswereissuedtounknown
persons.
(vi)Intheprocess,serversofthecourtwereremovedfromthecustodyoftheOffices
oftheClerkstothecustodyofcorporations.
Inaddition,intheaftermathofsuchchanges,itremainsunclear,whoholdsthe
ultimateadministrativeauthorityfortheserversofthevariouscourts,andwhois
chargedwiththeirsecurity.TheShinBet(GeneralSecurityService),ischargedwith
securityofcriticalStateITsystems.Inresponsetoinquiry,itansweredthatitwas
chargedwithsecurityofITsystemsofthecourts.
TheAdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoansweronaFreedomofInformationrequest:
WhoistodaychargedwithsecurityofITsystemsoftheIsraelicourts?
Whotodayholdstheultimateadministrativeauthorityforthesystemofeach
court?
ThereisnodoubtthatthetransitionoftheIsraelicourtstoelectroniccourtfile
administrationmadetheconductofsham/simulatedcourtprocessmucheasier.
118/137
RoutineinspectionofcourtrecordsinNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystemand
attemptstoinspectcourtrecordsintheOfficeoftheClerkhasproducednumerous
examplesofinvalidityand/orfraudincourtrecordsinthedistrictandmagistrate
courts,whereNetHaMishpatisimplemented.
Mostnotoriousandmostlikelytobepervertedarecasesthatoriginateinvarious
typesofcorruptionofgovernmentauthorities.
State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal trial of the Holyland corruption
scandal - in the Tel-Aviv District Court
The Holyland corruption scandal is one of the worst in the history of the State of
Israel. It involved bribing by developers of State officers, including former Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert and his personal secretary Shulamit Zaken.
The case was tried under State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv
District Court. 16 persons were listed as Defendants, and the case generated
intensive media coverage. The case was later appealed by various Defendants in
the Supreme Court
According to media reports, Tel-Aviv District Judge David Rosen convicted Ehud
Olmert and sentenced him to a six year prison term, which was later mostly
reversed by the Supreme Court. The chronology of the case according to media:
January 2012: Indictment filed by the Tel-Aviv District Attorney Office.
March 31, 2014: Verdict rendered, all convicted.
May 13, 2014: Sentencing was issued for most Defendants, including Olmert,
ordering start of prison terms on September 1, 2014. Haaretz daily published the
entire unsigned sentencing court record (over 50 pages).
May 15, 2014: Following a last minute plea bargain deal, Shula Zaken was
separately sentenced to 11 months prison term. Haaretz daily published the
entire 45-page Protocol, which fails to appear in the Decisions Docket in NetHaMishpat public access - in this case. The "Protocol" ends with a "Decision",
which states: "Decision will be rendered later today."
June 11, 2014: Avraham Feiner was separately sentenced to public service.
June 19, 2014: Uri Lupoliansky was separately sentenced to prison.
July 15, 2014: Shula Zaken started serving her prison term.
July 29, 2014: Ehud Olmert's prison terms was stayed by Chief Justice Asher
Grunis until hearing of the appeal in September 2014.
September 15, 2014: Ehud Olmert's prison terms was again stayed by Justice
Noam Solberg until decision in the appeals.
December 29, 2015: The Supreme Court reversed Judge David Rosen on Ehud
Olmert's central bribing conviction and reduced the sentence to 1.5 years,
overlapping the sentence in another corruption conviction.
Review of the case in Net-HaMishpat and lengthy inspection efforts, both in the TelAviv District Court and in the supreme Court, revealed pervasive perversion of
records of the Tel-Aviv District Court, in striking difference with the records of other
cases, tried by Judge David Rosen. The manner of perversion of various records in
this case shows unseal creativity (Figures 32-35):
Double books for decision dockets - most of the court decisions fail to appear in
the public docket in Net-HaMishpat.
119/137
Many of the records, which appear in the Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat are
patently invalid unsigned, truncated, etc.
The Verdict record was not entered in the Judgments Docket, and the record that
was entered Decisions Docket is patently invalid.
Some of the Sentencing records, which were entered in the Judgments Docket
are patently invalid and/or were entered under false docketing text.
No valid Arrest Decree was discovered for Shula Zaken, although she was
already imprisoned at that time.
The Administration of Courts, which appears to often act as a partner in such
matters, released to media a sham/simulated Verdict record.
The Supreme Court conducted a criminal appeal with no valid judgment records
of the District Court.
Shulamit Zaken's property was taken, purportedly as execution of sentencing,
based on a fraudulent Criminal Levy Decree (akin to Writ of Execution) one of
the most elaborate fraudulent court records ever discovered.
Judge David Rosen response on Request to Inspect made it clear that he did not
consider the judgment records in Net-HaMishpat lawfully made judgment
records.
In this case, as in the Roman Zadorov case, upon review of the records, a
reasonable person would conclude that Judge David Rosen and the State
Prosecution colluded in the fraud, while Shulamit Zaken's Counsel acquiesced.
The central role of the Administration of Court in perpetrating sham/simulated
judicial process was again documented in this case.
Nevo Publishing LTD appears to be again a partner in the publishing of
sham/simulated court records.
One is hard pressed to believe that professional legal reporters, who covered the
case, noticed none of it.
120/137
a.
b.
Figure 32: State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal trial of the Holyland corruption
scandal - in the Tel-Aviv District Court Decisions Dockets in a case that is defined open to the
121/137
public, unsealed: a. The Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system on April
06, 2015, showed 63 decisions, many of them patently perverted. b. The Decisions Docket in
Net-HaMishpat Office of the Clerk access - on March 22, 2015, showed 523 decisions. Both
versions of the Decisions Docket fail to include a valid records of the Defendants Ehud Olmet and
Shulamit Zaken's Verdict and Sentencing, as tacitly admitted by Judge David Rosen, in response
to Request to Inspect (Figure 33-37).
a.
b.
122/137
c.
d.
123/137
e.
Figure 33: State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal trial of the Holyland corruption
scandal - in the Tel-Aviv District Court Judgments Docket and its entries. 16 Defendants are
named in the case, including former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (#8) and his personal secretary
Shulamit Zaken (#9). As tacitly admitted by Judge David Rosen in his March 18, 2015 Post-it
Decision (Figure 36), none of the records in Net-HaMishpat is a lawfully made judgment:
a. The Judgment Docket shows four entries. It fails to show any Verdict record.
b. 2014-06-19 Docketing Text - Sentencing dated June 19, 2014, rendered by David Rosen:
10 page record, titled: Sentencing Defendant 6. The record ends with a standard signature
box, including a graphic signature.
c. 2014-06-09 Docketing Text - Instruction to Public Service Supervisor in the Prison Service to
file an updated opinion in re: Feiner: 6 page record, titled: Sentencing of Defendant 11.
d. 2014-05-15 Docketing Text - Instruction to Defendant 8 to file bail/bond: 5 page record,
titled: Sentencing of Defendant 9 [Zaken-jz]. The record ends with a standard Net-HaMishpat
signature box, including a graphic signature.
e. 2014-05-13 Docket Text - Instruction to Public Service Supervisor in the Prison Service to
file updated opinion in re: Feiner Avraham: 64 page record, titled: Sentencing of Defendants 1,
2, 5, 7, 8 [Olmert-jz], 10, 12, 14, 15, 16. The record ends with no signature box at all, not even
the name of Judge David Rosen.
The Judgments Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system - fails to show any
Verdict record. The Judgments Docket lists four records:
(i) 2014-06-19: Sentencing dated June 19, 2014, rendered by David Rosen.
(ii) 2014-06-09: Instruction to Public Service Supervisor in the Prison Service to file
an updated opinion in re: Feiner.
(iii) 2014-05-15: Instruction to Defendant 8 to file bail/bond.
(iv) 2014-05-13: Instruction to Public Service Supervisor in the Prison Service to file
updated opinion in re: Feiner Avraham.
The May 13, 2014 record, which is titled, Sentencing of Defendants 1, 2, 5, 7, 8
[Olmert-jz], 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, ends with no signature box at all, not even the
name of Judge David Rosen.
124/137
Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv District Court and the Administration of Courts
refused to answer:
(i) Who is authorized and who holds the duties to enter judgments under the
Judgment Docket in Net-HaMishpat in the Tel-Aviv District Court?
(ii) Does the entry of a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment,
Verdict, or Sentencing indicate that it is indeed a duly made, valid and
effectual judgment in the corresponding court file?
(iii) Does the failure to enter a court record in the Judgment Docket as
Judgment, Verdict, or Sentencing indicate that it is not a duly made, valid
and effectual judgment in the corresponding court file?
As shown below, multiple versions of the Verdict record were discovered, all of them
invalid records (Figure 34). However, the conclusion from Judge David Rosen's
response on Request to Inspect is that there is no valid, lawfully made judgment
records for either Ehud Olmert or Shulamit Zaken in Net-HaMishpat electronic court
file in this case.
125/137
a.
126/137
b.
127/137
c.
d.
Figure 34: State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court - multiple
versions of the Judge David Rosen Verdict record in the Holyland corruption scandal - none of
them is an authentic, valid court record:
a. The record, which appears in Net-HaMishpat Decisions Docket - fails to be entered in the
Judgment Index. The record is 685 page long, is a scanned record - i.e., is not a valid electronic
record. It is missing the opening pages, naming the parties in the case, and is also missing the
hand signature and personal stamp at the end. The record is perverted in an unusual manner,
which is unlikely to be the outcome of human error.
b. The record, which was distributed by the Administration of Courts to media - entirely fails to
appear in Net-HaMishpat, is a scanned record - i.e., is not a valid electronic record, and all its
pages are strangely cropped, possibly to conceal the fact that it is a scanned record. The record
is 687 page long, ending with a "wet" hand signature and stamp of Judge David Rosen.
(http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/dover/6282891.pdf)
c. In the appeal court file (paper court file - original records), only a printout of the Verdict from
Nevo Publishing LTD was discovered not a court record at all. An appeal, which originates in no
128/137
authentic decision or judgment record of the lower court should be deemed lacking in authority
and validity.
d. The standard disclaimer in opening an Online Chat with Administration of Courts
representatives states that information provided in such chats is not authoritative, and the
authoritative records are those in the court file. Public and at times also party access to dockets
and records are denied, and under such circumstances, one has to rely on Delphic Online
Chats for information regarding court dockets and records.
The publication of the sham/simulated Verdict record by the Spokeswoman of the

Administration of Courts is not unique. Collusion of the Administration of Courts in
the conduct of Judge David Rosen is also evidenced in the letter in Figure 37,
below. Furthermore, the Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts was also
partner in Judge Varda Alshech's conduct he filed with the Israel Bar Association
her fabricated protocol with an ethics complaint against Attorney Rafael Argaz.
Page 1
129/137
Page 2
Figure 35. State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court - Criminal
Levy Decree a two-page record by Judge David Rosen, pertaining to Defendant Shula Zaken in
the Holyland file, suspected as perversion, forgery and/or fraud.
The Criminal Levy Decree, pertaining to Defendant 9 (Zaken), was rendered in response to
request by the State Prosecution, Tel-Aviv District, Tax and Economy Division, pursuant to Levy
Order in the Sentencing record. The record is comprised of two pages:
Page No. 1 is Notice to the General Conservator regarding Levy Decree - which is a paper
form, which was completed by hand-writing, affixed with a wet stamp, and then scanned. The
Notice serves as an additional authentication of the Decree, prescribed by law.
Page No. 2 is the core of the record July 17, 2014 Post-it Decisionby Judge David Rosen,
which appears at the top of the page. The Post-it Decision is an electronic record, a
rectangular text frame, which was superimposed on another electronic record, which is the
scanned July 17, 2014 State Prosecution Request.
Another component on the same page is the authentication True Copy of the Original at the
top of the page, which was generated as a wet stamp with wet hand-written date and
130/137
signature, which were executed on a printout of the page prior to its final scanning.
Combined, the record was supposed to include three-step verification: Judge's signature on the
Decree, authentication of the Decree, True Copy of the Original, by the Chief Clerk, and
signature by the Magistrate of the Court on the Notice to the General Conservator.
In fact, none of these verification exists on this record. In addition, its content is false, as
detailed below.
Request by the State Prosecution (Page 2)
The July 17, 2014 Request by the State Prosecution is based on:
April 31, 2014 Verdict, wherein the Defendant was convicted of taking bribes and money
laundering.
There are no 31 days in the month of April, and there is no April 31, 2014 Verdict record
among the records in this court file in Net-HaMishpat. (Conviction of Defendant 9 appears in a
perverted, unsigned, March 31, 2014 record). Judge David Rosen also clarified in his March 18,
2015 Post-it Decision in response on Dr Joseph Zernik's request to inspect, that no verdict
record, pertaining to Defendant Zaken, had been registered in the electronic file in NetHaMishpat.
May 15, 2015 Sentence, wherein the Hon Court approved the plea bargain agreement signed
between the Prosecution and the Defendant. The Judgment in the matter of the Defendant
became unappealable. Such record also fails to appear among the records in Net-HaMishpat,
and regarding such records Judge Rosen also explained that it does not exist in the electronic
file. However, the reading of the Sentence in open court was widely reported by media. May 15,
2015 Protocol pages (9351-9396) were also published by Haaretz daily, but the Protocol, which
was published by Haaretz ends with a Decision, which says: Decision will be rendered later
today. [2]
Post-it Decision by Judge David Rosen (Page 2)
The July 17, 2014 Post-it Decision, was superimposed on the State Prosecution Request. The
Post-it Decision says: Decree granted as requested. The Post-it Decision, which
purportedly produced the Levy Decree, is unsigned.
Authentication True Copy of the Original (Page 2)
The Decree was purportedly authenticated on July 28, 2014, True Copy of the Original, by the
hand-signature of Shatz, or Selly (illegible), with neither name, nor title of the signer on the
stamp, and no stamp number. Such authentication should have been lawfully been signed by
the Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv District Court, or the Magistrate of the Court. Shatz, or Shelly
wasn't the name of the Chief Clerk, or the Magistrate on that date.
Forgery of the authentication, True Copy of the Original, by persons, who are not lawfully
authorized to sign such authentication, is a common phenomenon in the Israeli courts today,
from the magistrate courts to the Supreme Court. Such forgeries have been documented
numerous times in recent years, through requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
on the Administration of Courts, to ascertain the names and authority of the persons, who signed
the purported authentication on various court records in the various courts.
Such forgeries also stand contrary to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961), to which Israel is a
party.
Notice of Levy Decree (Page 1)
The Notice of Levy Decree, prescribed by law, provides additional authentication of the Levy
Decree. The form is dated July 28, 2014. On the form, signature of the Magistrate of the Tel-Aviv
District Court is required. However, the form is not signed at all. Instead of the Magistrate's
signature, Judge David Rosen's stamp was affixed, upside down.
The entire Levy Decree
The entire court record shows no signature by any person, who is identified as an officer of the
Tel-Aviv District Court by name and title. No reasonable person would consider such record a
valid and effectual, enforceable court record.
d. General perversion of the records, which appear in the public access Decisions Docket
The majority of the records, which appear in the public access system Decisions Docket are
not signed at all.
Such records can be generally divided into three types:
a) Records, which were generated and registered as electronic records some of these records
show no signature at all, and others show various signature types, as detailed below. However,
in no case does any such record show a secure, certified signature, complying with the Israeli
Electronic Signature Act.
131/137
b) Records, which were generated as paper records, then scanned and registered as electronic
records some of these records show scanned hand-signatures.
c) Records, which were generated through a combined process, and finally registered as
electronic records the July 28, 2014 Criminal Levy Decree and Post-it Decision (c, above),
are examples of such record.
This multiplicity and coordination of defects in the Criminal Levy Decree record,
which at the end shows no form of signature whatsoever of Judge David Rosen or
any other Officer of the Court, is unlikely to be the outcome of mere coincidence.
Furthermore, it is likely that the record represents collusion by the Tel-Aviv District
Attorney Office and Judge David Rosen in falsification of the record, while Counsel
for Shula Zaken acquiesced.
Figure 36: State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court Judge David
Rosen March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision: In response to an attempt to inspect lawfully made
judgment records pertaining to Ehud Olmert and shula Zaken and a lawfully made Arrest
Decree pertaining to Shula Zaken (who was already serving her prison term), Judge David
Rosen issued the "Post-it Decision", which says: The court file, inspection of which is requested,
is physically located in the Supreme Court, as part of the appeal process of the judgment.
Therefore, it is impossible to grant the request. This Post-it decision was never duly served, fails
to appear in the Decisions Docket, and Judge David Rosen refused to provide a duly signed and
certified copy of it. Therefore, it should be deemed a sham/simulated court record. With it, the
record should be deemed tacit admission by Judge David Rosen that there is no lawfully made
judgments or arrest decree in the Net-HaMishpat electronic court file in this case five (5) years
after the transition to electronic file administration in the Tel-Aviv District Court. Effectively, it is
admission that the records in Net-HaMishpat Judgments Docket and Decisions Docket are invalid
court records.
Judge David Rosen's March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision (Figure 32) should be deemed
a sham/simulated court record: It is unsigned, it fails to appear in the public
Decisions Docket, it was never duly served, and Judge Rosen refused to provide a
duly signed and certified copy of it. The Post-it Decision denies access to inspect
lawfully made judgment records for Defendants Ehud Olmet and Shulamit Zaken,
and lawfully made Arrest Decree for Defendant Shulamit Zaken in State of Israel v
Zerni et al, under the reasoning that the records were physically transferred to the
Supreme Court as part of the appeal process. With it, the Post-it Decision should be
considered tacit admission that none of the judgment records in Net-HaMishpat in
this court file are lawfully made court records.
Inspection of the Ehud Olmert Supreme Court appeal court file showed that no valid
Judgment records existed there either (Figure 34).
132/137
Following the issue of the March 18, 2015 and subsequent Post-it Decisions by Judge
David Rosen in response to inspection efforts, Judge David Rosen was requested to
duly enter the decisions in the Decisions Docket.
In response, an unusual letter was received from the Administration of Courts
(Figure 37).
Figure 37: July 26, 2015 letter from Legal Adviser Office of the Administration of Courts: The
letter was unsolicited, and claims to be in response to an inquiry, which never was. The letter
refers to my requests to docket Post-it Decisions, but fails to state what court and file are the
subject of the letter. The letter is signed by Heli Bracha, The Legal Bureau, without any
position title. In response to follow-up inquiries, Ms Bracha refused to clarify what her position
was, or what court file was the subject of the letter. However, the timing and subject make it
most likely related to State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court and
Judge David Rosen's Post-it Decisions in response to Requests to Inspect.
The letter says: RE: Your June 11, 2015 inquiry. Your inquiry, referenced above, was forwarded
to my handling, and I am honored to answer as follows: Regarding your request to view Post-it
Decisions, the matter was reviewed with the relevant authorities in the Administration of Courts,
133/137
and the outcome of such review was that the matter is impossible from computational
perspective....
The letter is notable for its vagueness, failing to state any identification of the
matter, the persons who were involved in the review, or the position of the writer.
The letter is also false and misleading, in stating that it is impossible from
computational perspective to view Post-it Decisions in Net-HaMishpat. To wit later
Judge David Rosen did post in the Decisions Docket some of his Post-it Decisions,
responding on my repeat requests to inspect. However, he posted only cryptic
decisions, such as I have nothing to add on my March 18, 2015 decision, but failed
to post the March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision, which is probably too obvious in its
implications regarding integrity of Net-HaMishpat records in this case, in particular,
and in other cases in general.
The unsolicited letter from Administration of Courts provides additional evidence for
the collusion of the Administration of Courts in the conduct of sham/simulated court
process by judges. It also provides evidence that the incompetence and/or
corruption of the Israeli courts today is not a case of sporadic incompetence and/or
corruption, but an organized one.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
TheeffectofimplementationofNetHaMishpatisparticularlynoticeableinStateof
IsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourt,sincethecase
spannedtheperiodofimplementationofthesystem:
Relativetopaperdecisionrecords,whereitistrivialtoascertain,whethertheyare
signedandwhethertheyweredulyservedthecourtshavetoresorttototaldenial
ofaccesstoinspecttherecords.
Relativetoelectronicrecords,wheretheelectronicsignaturesareinvisibleThe
Emperor'sNewClothestheNazarethDistrictCourtcourtpresentsjudgment
records,whicharevagueandambiguous.However,thefailuretoentertherecordin
theJudgmentsDocket,andtherefusalofboththeCourtandtheChiefClerktocertify
therecordsTrueCopyoftheOriginalprovidesassurancethattheyarenotvalid,
authenticcourtrecords,onlydrafts.
TheHolylandcorruptiontrialanditsrecordareparticularlyrelevanttoRoman
Zadorov'scase.Itshowsthesamepattern:FailuretoenterintheJudgmentsDocket
truejudgments,entryofaninvalidjudgmentrecordundertheDecisionsDocket,
conductoftheappealfromaprintoutfromNevoPublishingLTDnotacourtrecord
atall.
TheHolylandcorruptiontrialisalsomostrelevanttoRomanZadorov'scase,sincethe
twotrialsgeneratedunparalleledmediacoveragebyprofessionallegalreporters.
RegardlessofthepatentinvalidityoftheNetHaMishpatrecordsinbothcases,none
ofthemediamadeanymentionofit.
TheHolylandcorruptiontrial,andconductofJudgeDavidRosnandtheSupreme
Court(notdetailedhere)relativetoattemptstoinspectarealsosimilartoconductof
theNazarethDistrictCourtandtheSupremeCourtinRomanZadorov'scase.
134/137
Finally,althoughitmayappearthattheSupremeCourthasactedinadiametrically
oppositemannerintheOlmertandZadorovappeals(theformerwasreversed,the
latteraffirmed),infact,conductoftheSupremeCourtinbothcasesshouldbeseenas
collusionbothwiththeconductofthesham/simulatedtrialsintherespectivedistrict
courts(inconductingpurportedappealsfromNevoPublishingLTDrecords),andat
thebottomlineinbothcases,theSupremeCourtprovidedsupportformassive
corruptionofthejusticesystemitselfintheZadorovcase,andofOlmertandhis
posseintheHolylandcorruptiontrial.
TheroleoftheAdministrationofCourtsisalsonotable:InthecaseofJudgeDavid
RosentheunsolicitedletterfromtheLegalBureau,andinthecaseofJudge
AvrahamAvrahamrepeatattemptstorefermetotheLegalDepartmentofthe
AdministrationofCourts.
g. ConstitutionalRevolution,orOrganizedStateCrime?
InstantRequest,filedwiththeWorkingGroup,pertainstoRomanZadorov.
However,inordertoallowcomprehensionofthenatureofprocessandrecordsin
RomanZadorov'scase,itbecameimperativetoexplainthemodeofadministrationof
courtprocessandcourtrecordsintheStateofIsraeltoday,andcircumstances,
relatedtointegrity,orlackthereof,inthePrisonService,theStateProsecutionand
thecourts.
Suchevidenceindicateswidespreadincompetenceand/orcorruptionoftheIsraeli
justicesystem,whichwassystematicallyimplementedoverthepast15years,and
whichisinherenttoconductofthejusticesysteminRomanZadorov'scase.
TheevidenceherefocusedonthePrisonService,theNazarethDistrictCourtandthe
SupremeCourt.However,abundanceofsimilarevidenceisavailablefromother
courtsaswell.Someexampleswerepresentedhere,whererelevanttounderstanding
RomanZadorov'scase.Overall,thecommonfeatureisconductofsham/simulated
judicialprocessandtheissuanceofsham/simulatedjudicialrecords.
SuchpracticeswerepreviouslydocumentedintheDetainees'Courts,andwere
presentedinHumanRightsAlertsubmissionfortheUPRoftheStateofIsrael(2013)
(Attachment9.2).TheoutcomeofsuchconductislongtermdeprivationofLiberty
ofdetainees,whoareheldincampsintheNegevdesertlargescalearbitrary
detention
ThesamepracticeshavebeencontinuouslydocumentedintheDebtors'Courts,where
thedebtorsareabusedonalargescalebybanks,attorneysandmagistratesthrough
theissuanceoffalse,sham/simulatedaccountingrecordsandmagistratesdecision,
unlawfulchargeofusuryinterestrates,thefailuretocreditdebtorsfordebt
payments,andattimesalsothecollectionoffictitiousdebts.Someoftheabusein
theDebtors'CourtshasbeenrecentlydocumentedalsoinaStateOmbudsmanreport.
TheabuseintheDebtors'Courtsshouldbeconsideredamaterialfactorinincreasing
povertyinIsraelinrecentyears.
135/137
Anumberofnotablecasesofabusethroughissuingofsham/simulatedcourtrecords
inordertostiflepoliticalspeechandsocialprotesthavealsobeendocumented,
particularlyintheTelAvivMagistrateCourt(Attachment12):
Sham/simulatedSearchandSeizureWarrantswereissuedagainstLoryShemTov
andMosheHaLevy,andsham/simulatedDraconianciviljudgmentwasissued
againstsocialprotestactivistsLoryShemTovandMordechaiLeybel.
Sham/simulatedRestrainingOrders,amountingtoPriorRestraintofSpeech,was
issuedagainstasocialprotestactivistBarakCohentobenefitbankingexecutives.
Sham/simulatedcriminalprocessisconductedagainstasocialprotest
activist/whistleblowerRafiRotemonchargesofInsultingaPublicService
Employee.
Overall,theevidencepresentedhereindicatesthatRomanZadorov'scaseisnota
caseofsporadicincompetenceand/orcorruption,butreflectsorganizedconduct,
whichissupportedbytheseniorStateofficersintheNazarethDistrictCourt,the
StateProsecution,theSupremeCourt,andtheAdministrationofCourts.
TheevidenceshowsthatunderminingofintegrityoftheIsraelicourtsandtheIsraeli
justicesystemhastakenplaceconcomitantlywithloftydeclarationsofConstitutional
Revolution.Infact,thetransformationofthecourtsandjusticesystemduringa
process,whichwasadvertisedasConstitutionalRevolution,shouldbedeemed
unannouncedregimechangeandvoidingofthelawoftheland.Incriminology,the
resultingconditions,whicharevividlydocumentedinRomanZadorov'scase,are
recognizedasOrganizedStateCrime.
136/137
9.Attachments
Attachment9.1JosephZernik,PhDBiosketch
Attachment9.2Zernik,J.,Integrity,orlackthereof,inelectronicrecordsystemsof
theIsraelicourts,HRANGOsubmissionforthe2013UPRbyUNHRC.
Attachment9.3Zernik,J.,NewFraudulentITSystemsintheIsraeliCourts:
UnannouncedRegimeChange?,EuropeanConferenceonEGovernment(2015)
Attachment9.4StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrict
Courtrequestsanddecisionspertainingtoeffortstoaccesselectronicjudicial
decisionrecordstoinspectandtocopy.
Attachment9.5JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalIsraelBar
AssociationcomplaintandOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryMay31,2012decision
(12/88/TelAvivDistrict)
Attachment9.6RegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk
a)RegulationsoftheCourtsRegistrationOffice(1936)Englishoriginally
b)RegulationsoftheCourtsRegistrationOffice(1936)UpdatedHebrewversion,
priortovoidingin2004
c)RegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004)Hebreworiginalwith
Enlishtranslation
Attachment9.7RegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles
Attachment9.8StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrict
Courtrequestsanddecisionsregardingattempttoaccesspaperjudicialdecision
recordstoinspectandtocopy
a) ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939)criminalappealintheSupremeCourt
requesttoinspecttheoriginalpaperdecisionrecordsin(502/07)inthe
Nazarethcourtfile
b) ZernikvStateofIsrael(3319/16)intheSupremeCourtappealofMagistrate
decisiontoconductjudicialprocess,pursuanttoRegulationsofInspection
(2003),Regulation4,pertainingtoinspectionoforiginalpaperdecision
recordsinStateofIsraelvZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethcourtfile
c) ZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael(4650/16)intheSupremeCourtappealof
Magistratedecisiondenyinginspectionoforiginalpaperdecisionrecordsin
StateofIsraelvZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethcourtfile
Attachment9.9RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourt
requestsanddecisionsregardingattempttoaccesstheappealcourtfilerecordsto
inspectandtocopy
Attachment9.10BackgroundDocumentRegardingElectronicSignaturesbythe
MinistryofJustice,TheIsraeliLaw,Information&TechnologyAuthority(ILITA)
(updatedSeptember2009)
Attachment9.11AmosBaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99)requestforanewtrial
intheSupremeCourtNoticeandrequesttocorrectfalseelectronicrecords.
Attachment9.12AbuseofpoliticalactivistsbytheIsraelicourts
137/137

2016-07-11 in RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian Citizen Detained in Israel - Complaint Filed With The UN HRC Working Group On Arbitrary Detention

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2016-07-11 in RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian Citizen Detained in Israel - Complaint Filed With The UN HRC Working Group On Arbitrary Detention

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

In RE: ROMAN ZADOROV a Ukrainian citizen detained in Israel

3. Model questionnaire to be completed by persons alleging arbitrary arrest or detention

4. Filer: Joseph Zernik, PhD

lawfully made Arrest Decree.

3 MODEL QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED BY PERSONS ALLEGING ARBITRARY

4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention):

6. (a) Identity document (if any):

(b) Issued by:

7. Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention):

1 Murder and initial investigation

2 Indictment and trial

2.2 Confession and Reenactment

2.4 Shoe imprints

2.7 Other biological evidence

2.8 Murder weapon

2.9 Cellular devices

3 Students in Tair's high school

5 Judge Yitzhak Cohen affair

6 Conduct of the State Prosecution, Dr Forman and Dr Kugel affairs

7 Prosecutors' strike, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight resignation

the Commissioner's report on the Forensic Institute

8 Parents, public, and media

4. REBECCA ANNA STOIL. "Tair-Rada-suspect-retracts-confession". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved January

Form 6 (Regulation 31)

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978)

[Coat of Arms of the State of Israel]

In the Nazareth District Court

Serious Crime 502/07

Enlightened Despot by Richard Posner, April 23, 2007, New Republic

Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act

Israeli government to Holocaust survivors from funds established by the German

The publication of the sham/simulated Verdict record by the Spokeswoman of the

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen