2016-07-11 Attachment 9.9 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 Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Digitally signed by Joseph H

Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik,
o=HRA-NGO, ou,
email=joseph.zernik@hrango.org, c=IL
Date: 2016.07.11 12:58:52
+03'00'
Attachment 9.9 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme

Court requests, decisions, in attempt to inspect the appeal court file
In RE: ROMAN ZADOROV a Ukrainian citizen detained in Israel
Filed with:
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
c/o Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland
By email: wgad@ohchr.org, urgent-action@ohchr.org
Attachment 9.9 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme

Court requests, decisions, in attempt to inspect the appeal court file
The attempts to inspect Roman Zadorov's appeal paper court file in the Supreme Court were
conducted under the following court files:
1) Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) criminal appeal - in the Supreme Court
initially the Justices issued decisions which denied access to inspect. However, decisions
were never duly served, and repeat requests to obtain duly signed and certified copies of the
decisions resulted only in obtaining perverted court records. Therefore, eventually
Statement of Disqualification was filed, which was also denied through a decision which
was never duly served, and which the Court refused to duly certify. The decision was also
not duly reasoned, and prescribed by law.
Consequently, request for appointment of of a new panel was filed with Supreme Court
Presiding Justice Miriam Naor, and then, inspection was permitted.
The request for appointment of a new panel was denied by Presiding Justice Miriam Naor.
However, her decision was also never duly served, and the Supreme Court Magistrate
refused to certify the decision. In repeat inspections of the paper court file, only unsigned
copies of Presiding Justice Miriam Naor Decision were discovered.
On October 20, 2015, upon inspection of the paper appeal file Zadorov v State of Israel
(7939/10) in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, patently invalid records were
discovered:
a) Notice of Appeal was filed with invalid records of purported Judgments of the Nazareth
District Court, in which the appeal purportedly originated.
b) Almost all decision records were not signed by the Justices.
c) There were no records of the hearings no Notice to Appear in Court and no Protocols.
d) October 12, 2015 Presiding Justice Naor Decision, denying request for appointment of
new panel was unsigned as well.
Upon repeat inspection, the findings regarding invalid judgments records attached to the
Notice of Appeal, missing hearing records, and unsigned October 12, 2015 Miriam Naor
decision were unchanged. However, most of the justices decision records were signed upon
repeat inspection.
2) Anon v Anon (7930/15) later - Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (7930/15) appeal of
Magistrate decision in the Supreme Court originated in the Magistrate refusal to certify
Presiding Justice Miriam Naor Decision, denying request for appointment of a new panel.
The appeal was denied by Justice Joubran.
The Appeal court file (7930/15) was unlawfully sealed immediately upon filing. The
Office of the Clerk claimed that the sealing was automatically applied by Supreme Court IT
system. Following written request for service of a sealing order, alternatively removal of
unlawful sealing, the unlawful sealing was removed by the Office of the Clerk. A fax to that
effect was received from the Office of the Clerk, but no formal decision was rendered on
the Request.
Justice Joubran denied the appeal.
Court filings are bilingual. However, at times the Office of the Clerk changed the page order, to
show the Hebrew first. English translation is provided for judicial decisions.
#
Record
Page
Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) criminal appeal - in the Supreme Court
1.
2015-03-23 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Request to Inspect
2.
2015-03-30 Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) Decision #1 on Request to Inspect response by

parties by April 19, 2015
3.
2015-04-21 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Request for Due
Process in requests to Inspect
4.
2015-04-21 Baranes, Zadorov, Olmert - Requests for Due Process in requests to inspect criminal
court files, filed with the Israeli Supreme Court
5.
2015-04-26 Baranes, Olmert, Zadorov registration, or lack thereof, of Requests for Due Process,
filed in the Supreme Court on April 21, 2015
14
6.
2015-04-27 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Decision denying
access to court records to inspect and to copy
27
7.
2015-05-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Repeat (narrow)
Request to Inspect court file
30
8.
2015-05-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Notice of Inspection
and Responses on March 23, 2015 Request to Inspect, as received in the Office of the Clerk,
following filing Notice of Inspection
38
9.
2015-05-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Request for an
authenticated copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision - denying Request to Inspect court file
45
10.
2015-05-04 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court fax received from
Supreme Court, purported response on Request for a Certified copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision denying Request to Inspect court file
50
11.
2015-05-07 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Repeat Request for
a duly signed and authenticated copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision - denying Request to Inspect
court file
53
12.
2015-05-10 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court the April 27, 2015
Decision - denying Request to Inspect court file - received from Supreme Court by mail, purported
response on Request for a signed and authenticated copy
59
13.
2015-05-26 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Disqualification for a
Cause of Justices in Request to Inspect Process
62
14.
2015-05-26 ISRAEL: Zadorov murder conviction - disqualification for a cause was filed against
Supreme Court Justices
76
15.
2015-05-27 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Notice to Magistrate
of perverted registration of Request for Disqualification, and Request for Correction
79
16.
2015-05-28 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Decision denying
Disqualification for a Cause
91
17.
2015-06-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Notice to Magistrate
Lubinsky of perverted registrations and Request for corrections
92
18.
2015-06-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Request for
authentication by Magistrate Lubinsky of: a) April 27, 2015 Decision denying inspection, b) May 28,
2015 Decision denying disqualification
99
19.
rendering a new, reasoned decision on Request for Disqualification for a cause
104
20.
rendering a decision on May 3, 2015 Repeat Request to Inspect
110
21.
2015-06-14 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Magistrate Lubinsky
decision Refusal to certify decisions
113
22.
2015-08-19 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Urgent Request,
filed with Presiding Justice Naor, for Appointment of a New Panel
116
23.
2015-08-20 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court Decision by Justices
Danziger, Amit, Zylbertal, permitting inspection of all requests and responses, as received by fax on
August 21, 2015
135
24.
2015-08-31 Letter to State Prosecutor Attorney Tamar Parush, in RE: Zadorov v State of Israel
(7939/10), Baranes v State of Israel (7939/10), Olmert v State of Israel (4478/14), Olmert v State of
Israel (5270/14) - failure to serve responses on the Requester in the Supreme Court, and request for
clarification of the State Prosecution's position, in re: Due Process Service, Freedom of Speech,
Freedom of the Press, relative to Requests to Inspect court records.
137
25.
2015-09-01 Letter to State Prosecutor Attorney Tamar Parush, in RE: Request for State Prosecution
opinion: Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) and Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) policemen's
and prosecutors' Right for Privacy, when maliciously perverting justice while performing their
duties.
141
26.
2015-10-07 Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) Urgent Request, Filed with Presiding Justice Miriam
Naor, for rendering a decision on the Request August 19, 2015 Urgent Request for Immediate
Appointment of a New Panel
145
27.
2015-10-12 Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10)- Presiding Justice Miriam Naor's Decision, denying
Request for Immediate Appointment of a New Panel (as published online, never served)
149
28.
2015-10-14 Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10)- Urgent request, filed with Presiding Justice Miriam
Naor, for a duly signed and certified copy of her October 12, 2015 decision, denying request for
appointment of a new panel
154
29.
2015-10-13 Presiding Justice Naor is asked to urgently publish procedures for obtaining certification
of decisions and judgments of the Supreme Court in general, and in particular in Zadorov v State of
Israel (7939/10) Criminal Appeal in the murder of Tair Rada
177
30.
2015-10-20 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) - Inspection of paper court file, Part II:
Pleading records
196
31.
2015-10-20 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) - Inspection of paper court file, Part I:
Decision records
263
32.
2015-10-25 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) - Magistrate Lubinsky Decision denying
request to certify True Copy of the Original Presiding Justice Miriam Naor October 12, 2015
Decision denying Request to appoint a new panel
306
33.
2015-11-27 Request for explanation by Director of the Courts Judge Spitzer of the difference in
Supreme Court records in criminal appeals of Zadorov and Vanunu to parallel and different tracks?
308
Anon v Anon - later - Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (7930/15) appeal of Magistrate decision in the
Supreme Court
34.
2015-11-22 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court - Dr Zernik's Appeal of Magistrate
Lubinsky's decision denying certification of Presiding Justice Naor Decision, and request for
clarification regarding validity of records and process in Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) appeal
record
317
35.
2015-11-23 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court online records in the Supreme Court
public access system
371
36.
2015-11-24 Zadorov, Olmert, Baranes and fake records of the Israeli Supreme Court
373
37.
2015-11-29 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court - Justice Joubran Judgment denying he
Appeal
385
38.
2015-12-20 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court - Request for Clarifications regarding
Justice Joubran November 29, 2015 Judgment
390
39.
2015-12-22 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court - Justice Joubran Decision on Request for
Clarifications - denied
426
40.
2015-12-23 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court - Request for a due service of sealing
decision, alternatively removal of unlawful sealing of court file
428
41.
2015-12-29 Zernik v State of Israel (7930/15) in the Supreme Court Fax from Office of the
Clerk/Criminal Division - informal removal of informal sealing
430
1/431
2/431
[Coat of Arms State of Israel]

In the Supreme Court Sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeals
7939/10
Before:
The Hon Justice Y Danziger
Appellant:
Roman Zadorov's
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
Requester of Inspection:

Request to Inspect/Copy
Decision
For response by the parties by April 19, 2015.

Rendered today, March 30, 2015.
[unsigned]
Judge
__________
Issue subject to editing and phrasing changes. 10079390_W46.doc
Information Center, Tel:... ; Internet Site, .
3/431

" - 979701/
:
'
)Human Rights Alert (NGO
.91.2.4.91
, ' " ( .) 2..2.4.91
_________________________
10079390_W46.doc .
,' ; 077-0703333 www.court.gov.il ,
4/431
5/431
[]
SupremeCourtoftheStateofIsrael
RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael
793910
Requester: JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Email:joseph.zernik@hrango.org
Fax:0773179186
RequestforDueProcessinre:March23,2015RequeststoInspect
I,theundersigned,JosephZernik,PhD,knowingthatImustsaythetruth,and
thatImaybesubjecttopenaltiesprovidedbylawifIdonodoso,stateas
follows:
1. MynameisJosephZernik(ID#providedintheMarch23,2015Requestto
Inspect).
2. OnMarch23,2015,IfiledintheOfficeoftheClerkoftheSupremeCourt
RequeststoInspectinfour(4)criminalcourtfiles:
a)AmosBaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99).
b)RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)
c)EhudOlmertvStateofIsrael(4478/14)
d)EhudOlmertvStateofIsrael(5270/14)
3. MyRequeststoInspectexplicitlystatedthattheRequestspaperswouldbe
dulyservedonthecorrespondingpartiesfollowingfiling,incompliancewith
DueProcess.Indeed,followingthefilingoftheRequestsIdulyservedthe
papersonthecorrespondingpartiesandfaxedcertificatesofservicewith
registeredmailnumberstotheOfficeoftheClerk.
4. ReviewoftheelectronicpublicaccesssystemoftheSupremeCourtshowed
thatinterimdecisionswereregisteredineachofthefiles,referencedabove,but
noneofthedecisionshavebeendulyservedonmebythecourttothisdate.
5. ReviewoftheelectronicpublicaccesssystemoftheSupremeCourtalso
indicatedthatsomepartiesfiledpapersrespondingonmyRequests,butnone
oftheresponseshavebeendulyservedonmebysuchpartiestothisdate,and
thepublicaccesssystemdoesnotpermitaccesstosuchrecords.Therefore,I
havenowaytoknowwhatsuchpaperssay.
6. SuchconductbythepartiesandbytheCourtshouldbedeemedinconsistent
withthefundamentalsofDueProcess.
1/3
'
6/431
7. Therefore,IhereinrequestthattheCourtorderthepartiestodulyserveonme
theirresponses,ifany,onmyRequesttoInspectininstantcourtfile,andthat
theCourtdulyserveonmeitsdecisioninthismatter,includingadecision
settingatimeformyreplyonresponsesbytheparties,ifany.
TheCourtshouldgrantinstantRequestincompliancewithprovisionsofthelaw
andthefundamentalsofjustice.
Today,April20,2015
______________
JosephZernik,PhDRequester
793910
'
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
"joseph.zernik@hrango.org:
0773179186:
23.2015,
,,,
,:
.1) 23.(2015,
.2 23,2015,
:
((3032/99)
((7939/10)
((4478/14)
((5270/14)
.3"
.,
.
.4
7/431
2/3
'
",
.
.5,
",
,
.,.
.6,.
.7,
,,
,,
.
.
20,,2015,
_______________
',
8/431
3/3
'

Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
2015-04-22 Requests for Due Process in requests to inspect criminal court

files, filed with the Israeli Supreme Court //
, ,

[]
Conditions have been established in the State of Israel over the past decade, where the
public is often denied access to records showing what a person was indicted on, what a
person was convicted of, what a person's sentence is, and whether a person is held in
prison pursuant to a duly made arrest warrant. Such conditions are typical of tribunals of a
military dictatorship, but not of courts of a civil society. The Requests for Due Process, now
pending before the Supreme Court, are precedential and are likely to create unique
documentation relative to public access to court records, restricted as it is in Israel today.
Figures: The Requests to Inspect, now pending before the Israeli Supreme Court, pertain to landmark criminal
cases Amos Baranes whose murder conviction was reversed, Roman Zadorov whose murder conviction is
largely believed to be the outcome of false evidence and framing by police, false prosecution, and false
conviction, and the corruption conviction of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, where duly made verdict,
sentence and arrest warrant records are yet to be discovered.
______
OccupyTLV,April22JosephZernik,PhD,ofHumanRightsAlert(NGO),hasfiled
RequestsforDueProcess,relativetohisRequeststoInspectCourtFilesoftheIsraeli
SupremeCourt.[1]
Overthepastdecade,publicaccesstocourtrecords,afundamentalcivilright,has
beendrasticallyrestrictedinIsrael.Thepublic'srighttoinspectcourtrecordiswell
establishedforcenturiesasthefundamentalmeasureinthesafeguardofintegrityof
thecourtsandthelegalprofession.Therestrictionsonpublicaccesstocourtrecords
tookplaceaspartofageneralrevolutioninadministrationoftheIsraelicourts,
includingimplementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct,theimplementationofnew
ITsystemsinthecourts,thepromulgationofnewregulationsinthecourts
(pertainingtoinspectionofcourtfilesandtheofficeoftheclerk),andthe2009
JudgmentinthepetitionAssociationofCivilRightsinIsraelvMinisterofJustice(HCJ
5917/97).Accordingtothenewregulations,apersonwhowishestoinspectacourt
file,mustfileaRequesttoInspect,whichisdecidedbythesamecourt.
TheRequestsforDueProcessoriginatedinfourRequeststoInspect,whichwerefiled
intheSupremeCourtonMarch23,2015,pertainingtolandmarkcriminalcourtfiles.
[2]Incriminalcases,underconditionswhichhavebeenestablishedoverthepast
1/5
9/431
decade,thepublicisdeniedaccesstorecordswhichascertainwhatapersonwas
indictedon,whatapersonwasconvictedof,whataperson'sverdictis,andwhether
apersonisheldinprisonbasedonlawfullymadearrestwarrant.Suchconditions
aretypicaloftribunalsofamilitarydictatorship,butofcourtsofacivilsociety.
NofinaldecisionhasbeenrenderedyetontheRequeststoInspect.However,ithas
alreadybeenestablishedthatresponsesbytheparties(presumablyobjections)and
interimdecisionsoftheSupremeCourthavenotbeendulyservedontheRequester.
Moreover,whiletheSupremeCourt'spublicaccesssystempermitspublicaccessto
decisions,itdoesnotpermitaccesstotheresponses.Therefore,theRequesteris
deniedaccesstoresponsesbythepartiesonhisRequeststoInspect,therighttoreply
onsuchresponses,oreventherighttoknowtheircontent.ThecurrentRequestsfor
DueProcessclaimthatsuchconditionsstandcontrarytothefundamentalsofdue
processindecidingtheRequeststoInspectthemselves.
ThecurrentRequeststoInspectwerefiledaspartofasurveyoftherighttoinspect
courtrecordsinvariouscourtsintheStateofIsrael.Itislikelytobethemost
comprehensivesurveyofthiskindconductedoverthepastdecade,ifnottheonlyone
ofitskind.TheresultsshowthatconductoftheSupremeCourt,relativetoRequests
toInspectisnotunique,buttypicalofothercourtsaswell.Moreover,inthelower
courts,theRequester'saccesswasoftendeniedeventothedecisionsonhisRequests
toInspect.[3]Insomecases,denialofaparty'saccesstotheparty'sownfilewas
alsodocumentedconductthatwouldbedeemedseriousviolationofHumanRights.
Thereisnodoubtthatconductofthecourts,relativetopublicaccesstocourt
records,wouldbedeemedanindicatoroffundamentallackofintegrityoftheIsraeli
courts.
Overthepastdecade,corruptionofgovernmenthasreachedunprecedentedlevelin
Israel.OECDhasrecentlyestablishedacommitteetoinvestigategovernment
corruptionintheStateofIsraelandcompliancewithOECDconventionstocombat
corruption.[4]Withit,itshouldbenotedthatthedenialofaccesstocourtrecordsis
particularlynoticeableincasespertainingtogovernmentcorruption.
Corruptionofthecourtsandthelegalprofessioniscentraltothefailureofeffortsto
combatgovernmentcorruptioninIsrael.Conditions,documentedthroughthe
requeststoinspectandotherstudies,areindicativeofsystemiccorruptionofthe
Israelicourtsoverthepastdecade:
TheUNHumanRightsCouncilPeriodicReportonHumanRightsintheStateof
Israel(2010)statesLackofintegrityintheelectronicrecordsystemsoftheSupreme
Court,thedistrictcourtsandthedetaineescourtsinIsrael.
Apaper,titledNewfraudulentITsystemsintheIsraelicourtsunannounced
regimechange?,wasacceptedforpresentationandpublicationintheEuropean
ConferenceonElectronicGovernment(ECEG2015),subjecttointernational
anonymouspeerreview.
TherequestsforDueProcessinRequeststoInspectintheSupremeCourt,arelikely
tobeprecedential.Therefore,conductoftheSupremeCourtrelativetothecurrent
RequestsforDueProcessinRequesttoInspect,aswellastheRequeststoInspect
themselves,willcreateuniquedocumentation,relativepublicaccesstocourtrecords,
restrictedasitisintheIsraelicourtstoday.
___
2/5
10/431
, ,

, ,
, , .
, .
,
, .
____
: , ,
.
_____
" 22 , ' , ) ,(NGO
[1] .
, -
.
.
,
, )
( , ) ( ,2009
) ,(5917/97 12.
,
, .
, ,
, 23 [2] .2015 ,
: , ,
. , .
,
, , ,
. ,
.
.
) (
. ,
,
. ,
,
, .
.
,
, ,
.
. , ,
3/5
11/431
[3] .

.
.
.
, OECD
[4] . ,
.

.
:
" " )(2010
: ,
".
"
? )
(ECEG2015 .
,
, . ,
,
,
.
____
[1]20150421AmosBaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99RequestforNewTrial)RequestforDue
Processinrequeststoinspectcourtfile//
3032/99)(
https://www.scribd.com/doc/262728624/
20150421RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtRequestforDue
ProcessinrequeststoInspect//
(7939/10)
20150421OlmetvStateofIsrael(4478/14)(ReqApp)intheSupremeCourtRequesttoforDue
Processinrequeststoinspect//
)(4478/14)(
20150421OlmetvStateofIsrael(5270/14)(App)intheSupremeCourtRequestforDueProcessin
requeststoinspect//
)(5270/14)(
[2]20150323AmosBaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99)intheSupremeCourtRequesttoInspect//
(3032/99)
20150323RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtRequesttoInspect//
(7939/10)
20150323OlmetvStateofIsrael(4478/14)(ReqApp)intheSupremeCourtRequesttoInspect//
)(4478/14)(
20150323OlmetvStateofIsrael(5270/14)(App)intheSupremeCourtRequesttoInspect//
)(5270/14)(
4/5
12/431
[3]20150415StateofIsraelvDavidLevy(428141014)DrZernik'sRepeatRequestforDue
Process,inre:February28,2014RequesttoInspect//
'(428141014)
2015,28
20150324StateofIsraelvZerni(102910112)intheTelAvivDistrictCourt:RequestforDue
Processinre:RequesttoInspectJudgments//
:"(102910112)
[4]20150201OECDexaminesperformanceofgovernmentinIsraelthejusticesystemandmedia
inbribingandcorruptionaffairscompliancewiththeConventiononCombatingBribery[Hebrew
only]
http://www.themarker.com/news/macro/1.2554123
5/5
13/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2015-04-26 Baranes, Olmert, Zadorov registration, or lack thereof, of Requests

for Due Process, filed in the Supreme Court on April 21, 2015 //
21 , , ,
.2015 ,
On April 21, 2015, Requests for Due Process were filed in four Supreme Court files. The registration
pattern shows that none of them was registered as a request. In a telephone inquiry with the Mr Danny
Levy, Supervisor of the Criminal Division, he stated one should not look at the Events registrations,
and that which way the Office of the Clerk decided to register papers is none of the Requester's
business.
Regarding the failure to register the Request in court file 4478/14, Mr Levy suggested to fax it back to
the Pro-se Section staff for registration.
Review of the data in the public access system of the Supreme Court shows:
None of the Requests for Due Process, filed and received in the Office of the Clerk, was
registered in IT system of the Supreme Court, under Requests, as a Request. Instead, 3 of
the four were registered as Receipt of a court record, and one was not registered at all.
None of the Requests for Due Process, filed and received in the Office of the Clerk, was
registered in IT system of the Supreme Court, under Events at all.
Table Summary
File
RegistrationunderEvents
RegistrationunderRequests
""
""
3032/99
BaranesvStateofIL
Notregisteredatall.
NotregisteredasaRequest.RegisteredasReceipt
. ofacourtrecord.
."".
7939/10
ZadorovvStateofIL
Notregisteredatall.
. ofacourtrecord.
."".
4478/14
Notregisteredatall.
5270/14
OlmertvStateofIL
Notregisteredatall.
Notregisteredatall.
.
. ofacourtrecord.
."".
1/13
14/431
"3032/99
1) GENERAL
2) PARTIES
2/13
15/431
3) EVENTS
*TheApril21,2015RequestforDueProcessisnotregisteredatall.
4) REQUESTS
*TheApril21,2015RequestforDueProcessisnotregisteredasaRequest.
Instead,onApril21,2015thedocketingtextsays:Courtrecordwas
received.
3/13
16/431
5) DECISIONS
4/13
17/431
"7939/10
1) GENERAL
2) PARTIES
5/13
18/431
3) EVENTS
4) REQUESTS
received.
6/13
19/431
5) DECISIONS
7/13
20/431
" 4478/14
1) INDEX
2) PARTIES
8/13
21/431
3) EVENTS
4) REQUESTS
9/13
22/431
5) DECISIONS
10/13
23/431
"5270/14
1) GENERAL
2) PARTIES
11/13
24/431
3) EVENTS
4) REQUESTS
received.
12/13
25/431
5) DECISIONS
13/13
26/431

7939/10
Before:

The Hon Justice Y Amit
The Hon Justice Z Zylbertal
Appellant:
Roman Zadorov
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Request to Inspect/Copy
For Appellant:
Attorneys Elkana Leist, Avigdor Feldman
For Respondent:
Attorney Tamar Borenstein

Decision
1. The Requester, who claims to have been occupied for years in academic research pertaining to IT
systems of the courts in the US and Israel and administration of public access to court records, is
asking to inspect all paper and electronic records in instant court file.
2. Appellant consents, while the State objects, claiming that the request is unclear and the court file
includes sensitive materials, closed doors hearings, and materials that may invade individual privacy.
3. The request is bound to be denied. As claimed by the State, the Requester did not sufficiently
explain the nature of the research that he is conducting and how the materials in instant court file would
enhance it. Moreover, the court file indeed includes sensitive materials and materials that may invade
individual privacy. Providing the court file for inspection would require sorting out the materials in the
court file between such that inspection of is permitted, and such that are not permitted. It is a very
large court file, including numerous materials and exhibits. Under such circumstances, when the
request is broadly stated and not clearly enough, and at this stage of the judicial review, when the court
file is pending before the Court, including numerous sensitive materials, we do not believe that there is
room to permit the Requester the inspection, and therefore the request is denied.
Rendered today, April 27, 2015.
[unsigned]
Judge
Judge
Judge
__________
27/431
" 7939/10
http://elyon2.court.gov.il/les/10/390/079/W47/1...

" - 7939/10
:
'
'
'
:
:
"
" ; "
"
, "
.1
"
" , " ".
,
.2
,
.
.3
. ,
04/28/2015 01:36 AM
28/431
1 of 2
" 7939/10
http://elyon2.court.gov.il/les/10/390/079/W47/1...
.
,
.

. .
, ,
,
,
.
,' " ) .(27.4.2015
_________________________
10079390_W47.doc .
,' ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il ,
04/28/2015 01:36 AM
29/431
2 of 2

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2015-05-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court

Repeat Request to Inspect court file // ( 7939/10)

[]
On March 23, 2015 the original Request to Inspect the court file was filed.
The interim March 30, 2015 Decision on the Request to Inspect and responses by the parties were
never served on the Requester to Inspect the Court File.
Therefore, on April 21, 2015, Request for Due Process was filed with the Supreme Court, asking for
service of responses and decisions.
Regardless, the April 27, 2015 Decision, denying the March 23, 2015 Request to Inspect Court File,
was never served on the Requester as well.
Therefore, on May 3, 2015, Request for a signed and certified copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision was
requested.
On May 4, 2015, a fax was received from the Supreme Court, purportedly response on the May 3,
2015 Request. However, the document, which was received by fax:
1. Bears no signature of the judges.
2. Bears certification by an unauthorized person - not Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court.
3. The certification language is perverted - instead of "True Copy of the Original" it says "Copying is true to the original".
A reasonable person would conclude that the Supreme Court is deliberately conducting an invalid
procedure, relative to the Request to Inspect the Zadorov court file.
Also on May 3, 2015, Repeat Request to Inspect was filed. The Repeat Request excluded all evidence
records, and also all records that were sealed or behind closed doors hearings. The Repeat Request
also provided more detailed justification for the inspection.
. 2015 , 23
. 2015 , 30
, ,2015 , 21 ,
.
,2015 , 27 , ,
.
27 ,2015 , 3 ,
.2015 ,
.2015 , 27 ,2015 , 4
2015 , 27
.( ) .
: ,
. .1
," , .2
.
," " . .3
." "
-
.
. ,2015 , 3
. ,
.""
1/2
30/431
2/2
31/431
[]
Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files (2003); Form 2 (Regulation 4(c))
Repeat Request to Inspect Court File
1. Requester's Details
a) Full name:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
b) ID No:
053625596
c) Address: PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
d) Telephone:
None
2. Court File Details
a) Court File Number:
Supreme Court, File No 7939-10
b) Parties:
Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (criminal appeal)
3. Records, which are subject of the request:
All records of requests and responses in the Supreme Court, including all Appeal
(commencing records) records, which were filed in the Supreme Court, and all electronic
records in instant court file.
Instant Request excludes inspection of any of the evidence. It is assume that the evidence is,
where privacy issues are likely to arise.
Instant Request excludes inspection of any protocols of hearings that were conducted behind
closed doors.
4. Purpose and Justification for the Inspection
Instant Request is filed pursuant to the Regulations of the Courts, Inspection of Court Files
(2003) and Supreme Court decision in Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of
Justice et al ( 5917/97):
a) The records, inspection of which is requested herein, are public court records, and instant
court file is not sealed.
b) The previous Request to Inspect in instant court file was denied, based on objection by
State of Israel, apparently pursuant to the following claims (State of Israel Response has not
been served on the Requester to this date):
1. The Requester did not sufficiently clarify the nature of his research, and how the
materials in instant court file advance such research.
2. Instant court file includes sensitive materials, hearings which were conducted behind
closed doors, and materials, inspection of which may undermine the right for privacy.
3. Permitting inspection in instant court file by the Requester may require sorting the
materials that should and should not be provided for inspection.
4. Instant court file is pending before the Court.
c)Relativetoobjectionb)1.,abovethepreviousRequesttoInspectprovidedthe
followingjustification:
The Requester has been engaged for years in academic research regarding IT systems of the
Israeli and US courts, and administration of public access to court records. His research on
such subjects has been published and presented in international academic conferences in the
relevant fields, subject to anonymous, international peer-review. His reports on such subjects
1/6
32/431
have also been incorporated into UN Human Rights Council Reports pertaining to the United
States (2010) and Israel (2013), following the Council's Professional Staff review.
d) Relativetoobjectionb)1.,aboveinstantRepeatRequesttoInspectaddsthe
followingjustification:
Inpart,thepurposeofmystudyistotestthelimitsofthepublic'srighttoaccess
courtrecordsandtherequirementforjustificationofrequeststoinspectcourtrecords
intheStateofIsraelinthewakeofthe2009JudgmentinAssociationforCivilRights
inIsraeletalvMinisterofJusticeetal(5917/97).TheJudgmentsaysinpart:
Theprincipleofpublichearingisafundamentalprincipleofanydemocratic
regime.Itholdsaconstitutionalstatus,superiortoregularactsinourlegalsystem,
andthereisnodisputeregardingitsimportanceandcentrality...
Therighttoaccesscourtrecordstoinspectandtocopyandtopublishtheir
contentisderivedfromBasicLaw:TheJudicature,Article3,whichprovidesthe
principleofpublichearing,andfromtherule,applicabletoanypublicauthority,
whichholdsauthoritybylaw,accordingtowhich,intheabsenceofstatutory
provisionstothecontrary,itsrecordsshallbeopenandvisible....Judgmentof
theIsraeliSupremeCourt4825/97GahelvTaxAssessmentOfficer(2001).
RegardingtherequirementforjustificationbytheFilerofRequesttoInspectversus
theburdenofconvincingonapartyopposingtheinspection,theJudgmentinthe
Association'spetitionsays:
Theopeningpositionisthattheinspectionshouldbegranted,andgivensuch
openingposition,theparty,whoopposestheinspection,carriestheburdenof
convincingthatitshouldnotbepermitted...
TheFilerofRequesttoInspectneedstodisclosetheessenceofhisobjectiveinthe
inspection...TheburdenisnotontheFileroftheRequesttoInspect,butonthe
partyopposingtheinspection.Undersuchcircumstances,therequirementfor
justificationintheRegulationswhich,asstated,isminute,andunlimitedinits
causescreatesnoburdenofconvincingontheFileroftheRequesttoInspect...
Theinfringementonthepublic'srighttoaccesscourtrecordstoinspectandto
copyifanyresultingfromtherequirementforjustification,ismarginaland
small,andinnocaseamountstoinfringement,whichrequiresexaminationofthe
RegulationsunderConstitutionalstandards...
Theweightofthepublic'srighttoaccesscourtrecordstoinspectandtocopybya
person,whoisdrivenbymereprurience,isinferiortotheweightoftherightofa
person,whorequeststoinspectandtocopyforthepurposeofstudyorresearch.
e) Relativetoobjectionb)2.,above:
IninstantRequest,inspectionoftheevidencematerialisexcluded.Theevidence
materialislikelytobethemoresensitivepartofinstantcourtfile.TheRequester
askstoinspectonlytherecordsofrequestsandresponsesbytheparties,asfiledin
thevariousappealsintheSupremeCourt.Likewise,theRequesterexcludesfrom
instantRequesttheprotocolsofanyhearings,whichwereconductedbehindclosed
doors.
f)Relativetoobjectionb)3.,above:
SincetheRequesterexcludedfrominstantRepeatRequesttheevidencematerial,the
issueofsortingthematerialswassubstantiallysimplified.
g)Relativetoobjectionb)34.,above:
2/6
33/431
Therightforfair,publichearingisoneofthefundamentalHumanRights,
particularlyincriminalprosecution.TheclaimthattheRequesttoInspectshouldbe
postponedwhilethecaseispending,appearstorestricttheprincipleofpublic
hearingtoitsapplicationonlyinretrospect,butnotduringofthelitigation.Itis
doubtedthatareasonablepersonwouldfindsuchargumentconvincing.Onthe
contrary,anyreasonablepersonwouldmostlikelyfindthatpostponingtherightto
inspectuntilafterthejudicialprocessiscompletedasvoidingtheprincipleofpublic
hearingfromitsfoundation.
h)Instantcourtfileholdsthehighestpublicpolicysignificance,sinceitraisedand
raisesnumerousconcernsamongthepublicatlargeandexperts:
Regardinginstantcourtfile,anexpertoncriminallawwrote:Conductofthe
StateProsecutionisscary.
Regardinginstantcourtfile,anotherexpertoncriminallawwrote:Thereisno
scientificevidencetyingthesuspecttothecrimescene,thereisnomotivefor
thecrime.Thesuspectdeniedhisguiltduringmostoftheinvestigationstages
andallalonghistrial.Whenheconfessed,hedidnotleadtheinvestigatorsto
anyevidenceatall....TheVerdictisnotconvincingthatguiltwasproven
beyondanyreasonabledoubt.ThenewVerdictinthematterofRoman
Zadorovraisesnumerousconcerns,ontopofconcernsthatwereraisedbythe
originalVerdictinthisaffair.Zadorov'sguiltwasnotprovenbeyonda
reasonabledoubt.
Interestofthepublicatlargeininstantcourtfileisunprecedented.Tensof
thousandsofcitizensarelistedingroups,whichsupporttheinnocenceofthe
accusedandcallforjusticefortheaccused.
TotheRequester'sbestknowledgeandbelief,citizenswhoexaminedthe
evidencematerialthatwasaccessibletothem,alsofiledcriminalcomplaints
withtheMinistryofJusticeand/ortheAttorneyGeneralagainstmembersof
theinvestigationteamforpervertingand/orfalsifyingevidence,andagainst
membersoftheprosecutionteamfordeliberatelymisleadingtheCourt.
i) TheJudgmentintheAssociation'spetitionalsorepeatsthepetitioners'arguments
regardingtheimportanceoftherighttoaccesscourtrecordsrelativetopublictrustin
governmentauthorities:
Theimportanceofthisprincipleisingeneratingpublictrustinthepublic
authoritiesingeneral,andinthecourtsinparticular,sinceitcontributesto
generatingtheappearanceoftheprocessofjusticeinamannerthatpromotessuch
trust.
Giventheabove,relativetoconcernsbythepublicatlargeandcriminallawexperts
regardinginstantcourtfile,generatingpublictrustinpublicauthoritiesandinthe
courtsshouldbedeemedofparticularsignificanceininstantcourtfile.
j)AsimilarstatementappearsinthelandmarkrulingoftheUSSupremeCourt,
pertainingtothepublic'srighttoaccesscourtrecordstoinspectandtocopy,asone
ofthefoundationsofsuchright:tofulfillthecitizen'sdesire'tokeepawatchfuleye
ontheworkingsofpublicagencies'.[i]
5. Relationship of the requester to the court file (direct or indirect)
None, except for academic interest.
6. Statement regarding service on parties
3/6
34/431
Immediately following filing and registration of instant Request to Inspect, copies of instant
Request will be served on the parties: a) State Prosecution, b) Roman Zadorov through his
counsel.
Date: May 03, 2015
Signature of the Requester:
_______________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
_________________________________________________________________________
)(,";2003)2)4((
.1:
( :'
('053625596 :
",33407
(:
(' :
.2:
(':
,'793910
(:
)(
.3/:
,
,.
.
.
.
.4:
(2003)
':(5917/97)
(,,.
(,
,)(:
.1,
.
.2,,
.
.3
.
.4.
((,.1:
35/431
4/6

".
,
.,"
"(2010),(2013).
((,.1:
,
2009
''.(5917/97):
.
,...
"3
:,,
,,,
."..."4825/97'
,")(2001)437,433(2
:
,,
...
...
.,
...
,
...

.
((,.2:
,
,
.
.
((,.3:
,
.
((,.4:
,.
,.
.,
.
(,
:
36/431
5/6
":
".
":
,.
.,"...
.
,
..
.
.
,,
,/
/,
.
(
:
,
.
,
.
(,"
,,"
[1].
.5)/(:
,.
.6
,:(
,(.
03:2015,
:
'
1 Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978) pp 434-5

The interest necessary to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been
found, for example, in the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of
public agencies, see, e.g., State ex rel. Colscott v. King, 154 Ind. 621, 621-627, 57 N.E.
535, 536-538 (1900); State ex rel. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L. 332, 336-339 (1879), and
in a newspaper publisher's intention to publish information concerning the operation of
government, see, e.g., State ex rel. Youmans v. Owens, 28 Wis.2d 672, 677, 137 N.W.2d
470, 472 (1965), modified on other grounds, 28 Wis.2d 685a, 139 N.W.2d 241 (1966).
But see Burton v. Reynolds, 110 Mich. 354, 68 N.W. 217 (1896).
37/431
6/6

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "

Notice of Inspection and Responses on March 23, 2015 Request to Inspect, as
received in the Office of the Clerk, following filing Notice of Inspection//
( 7939/10)
,2015 , 23

[]
On March 23, 2015 the original Request to Inspect the court file was filed.
Therefore, on May 3, 2015, Notice of Inspection was filed in the Office of the Clerk, claiming that it
was the Requester's right to receive copies of the parties' Responses.
Copies of the Responses were indeed received, after a Supreme Court Justice Danziger approved that.
. 2015 , 23
. 2015 , 30
, ,2015 , 21 ,
.
,2015 , 27 , ,
.
, ,2015 , 3 ,
.
. , ,
1/4
38/431
2/4
39/431
Response by the Public Defender's office: No objection to the Request to Inspect.
3/4
40/431
Response by the State Prosecution, objecting to the Request to Inspect for the following
reasons:
1) The Requester did not explain clearly enough the justification for the inspection.
2) The materials raise concerns of the right for privacy.
3) The case is pending before the Supreme Court.
4/4
41/431
[]
RequesttoInspectResponsesonOriginalRequesttoInspectCourtFile
1. Requester'sDetails
a)Fullname:
JosephZernik,PhD
b)IDNo: 053625596
c)Address: POBox33407,TelAviv
d)Telephone:
None
2. CourtFileDetails
a)CourtFileNumber:
SupremeCourt,FileNo793910
b)Parties:
RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(criminalappeal)
3.Records,whicharesubjectoftherequest:
ResponsesbythepartiesininstantcourtfileontheRequester'soriginal,March23,
2015RequesttoInspectinstantcourtfile.
4.PurposeandJustificationfortheInspection
InstantRequestisfiledpursuanttotheRegulationsoftheCourts,InspectionofCourt
Files(2003)andSupremeCourtJudgmentinAssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelv
MinisterofJusticeetal(5917/97):
a)RelativetotheRequesttoInspectprocess,theRequestershouldbedeemedaparty
totheprocess.Therefore,heshouldn'thavebeenrequiredtofileinstantRequestin
thefirstplace.FirsttheResponsesbythepartiesshouldhavebeendulyservedon
him(aspreviouslydoneinothercasesinthisCourt),incompliancewiththe
fundamentalsofDueProcess.SecondhisattempttodaytofileNoticeofInspection,
asprovidedbytheabovereferencedRegulations(Attached)andJudgmentwas
deniedbystaffoftheOfficeoftheClerk.
b)TheRequesterhasbeenengagedforyearsinacademicresearchregardingIT
systemsoftheIsraeliandUScourts,andadministrationofpublicaccesstocourt
records.Hisresearchonsuchsubjectshasbeenpublishedandpresentedin
internationalacademicconferencesintherelevantfields,subjecttoanonymous,
internationalpeerreview.Hisreportsonsuchsubjectshavebeenincorporatedinto
UNHumanRightsCouncilReportspertainingtotheUnitedStates(2010)andIsrael
(2013),followingtheCouncil'sProfessionalStaffreview.
c)Inpart,thepurposeoftheRequester'sstudyistotestthelimitsofthepublic'sright
toaccesscourtrecordsandtherequirementforjustificationofrequeststoinspect
courtrecordsintheStateofIsraelinthewakeofthe2009JudgmentinAssociation
forCivilRightsinIsraeletalvMinisterofJusticeetal(5917/97).Therefore,
documentingtheResponsesbythepartiesontheoriginalRequesttoInspectis
essentialforsuchresearch.
5.Relationshipoftherequestertothecourtfile(directorindirect)
None,exceptforacademicinterest.
6.Statementregardingserviceonparties
1/3
42/431
ImmediatelyfollowingfilingandregistrationofinstantRequesttoInspect,copiesof
instantRequestwillbeservedontheparties:a)StateProsecution,b)RomanZadorov
throughhiscounsel.
Date:May03,2015
SignatureoftheRequester:
_______________
JosephZernik,PhD
_________________________________________________________________________
)(,";2003)2)4((
.1:
( :'
('053625596 :
",33407
(:
(' :
.2:
(':
,'793910
(:
)(
.3/:
23.2015,
.4:
(2003)
':(5917/97)
(,.,
.
)
(,.,
)(,
,
",.
(
".
,
.,"
"(2010),(2013).
(,
2009
''.(5917/97),
.
2/3
43/431
.5)/(:
,.
.6
,:(
,(.
03:2015,
:
44/431
'
3/3

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "

Request for an authenticated copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision - denying
Request to Inspect court file //
( 7939/10)
2015 , 27
[]
On March 23, 2015 Request to Inspect the court file was filed.
requested.
. 2015 , 23
. 2015 , 30
, ,2015 , 21 ,
.
,2015 , 27 , ,
.
27 ,2015 , 3 ,
.2015 ,
.2015 , 27 ,2015 , 4
2015 , 27
.( ) .
: ,
. .1
," , .2
.
," " . .3
." "
-
.
1/2
45/431
2/2
46/431
[]
ZadorovvStateofIsrael
7939/10
Requester:JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Email:joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Fax:0773179186
RequestforAuthenticationofApril27,2015DecisiononRequesttoInspect
InstantCourtFile
I,theRequesterofInspection,filehereinaRequestforasignedandcertified
copyoftheApril27,2015Decision,denyingtheRequesttoInspectininstant
courtfile:
1. OnMarch23,2015,IfiledtheRequesttoInspectininstantcourtfile.[1]
2. OnApril27,2015,DecisiondenyingtheRequesttoInspectappearedinthe
onlinepublicaccesssystemoftheSupremeCourt.[2]
3. TheabovereferencedDecisionhasnotbeenservedonmetothisdate.
4. Therefore,theCourtishereinrequestedtoprovideacopy,oftheApril27,
2015Decision:a)Bearingsignaturesofthejudicialauthorities,andb)
Authenticatedbycertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,byadulyappointed
ChiefClerk,orMagistrateoftheCourt,pursuanttotheRegulationsofthe
CourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004),andtheHagueApostilleConvention(1961).
5. SuchauthenticatedcopyoftheDecision,referencedabove,isrequestedin
ordertoenabletheissuanceofanApostille,pursuanttotheguidelinesofthe
MinistryofForeignAffairs,foritsfilingoutsidetheStateofIsrael.
6. TheCourtisrequestedtoemploytheauthenticationlanguagestipulatedby
lawTrueCopyoftheOriginalandnotinvalidvariants,suchasCopyingis
TruetotheOriginal,andthatthenameandauthorityofthesignerofthe
certificationappearonthefaceoftherecord.
Inaccordancewiththefundamentalsoflawandjustice,theCourtshouldgrant
instantRequest.
Today,May03,2015
______________
JosephZernik,PhDRequesterofInspection
1/3

47/431
LINKS:Below
______________
7939/10
:'
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
"joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org:
0773179186:
27,2015,
27
,2015,:
.123,2015,[1].
.227,2015,
[2].
.3"27.2015,
.4,27:2015,
(,,(,
",,,,
,(2004).(1961)
.5
,.
.6
",,",,
.
.
03,,2015,
____________
',
:
[1]20150323RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourt
RequesttoInspect//
(7939/10)
48/431
2/3

Decisiondenyingaccesstocourtrecordstoinspectandtocopy//
(7939/10)
3/3

49/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2015-05-04 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court fax
received from Supreme Court, purported response on Request for a Certified
copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision - denying Request to Inspect court file //
( 7939/10)
27
2015 ,
[]
On March 23, 2015 Request to Inspect the court file was filed.
requested.
. 2015 , 23
. 2015 , 30
, ,2015 , 21 ,
.
,2015 , 27 , ,
.
27 ,2015 , 3 ,
.2015 ,
.2015 , 27 ,2015 , 4
2015 , 27
.( ) .
: ,
. .1
," , .2
.
," " . .3
." "
-
.
1/1
50/431
51/431
52/431
53/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Email:joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Fax:0773179186
RepeatRequestforaDulySignedandAuthenticatedCopyofApril27,2015
DecisiononRequesttoInspectInstantCourtFile
I,theRequesterofInspection,filehereinaRepeatRequestforadulysignedand
authenticatedcopyoftheApril27,2015Decision,denyingtheRequesttoInspect
ininstantcourtfile:
1. OnMarch23,2015,IfiledtheRequesttoInspectininstantcourtfile.[1]
2. OnApril27,2015,DecisiondenyingtheRequesttoInspectappearedinthe
onlinepublicaccesssystemoftheSupremeCourt.[2]TheDecisionwasnot
dulyservedonme.
3. OnMay3,2015,IfiledaRequestforAuthentication,askingtheCourtto
provideacopy,oftheApril27,2015Decision:[3]a)Bearingsignaturesofthe
judicialauthorities,andb)Authenticatedbycertification,TrueCopyofthe
Original,byadulyappointedChiefClerk,orMagistrateoftheCourt,pursuant
totheRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004),andtheHague
ApostilleConvention(1961).MyMay3,2015RequestforAuthenticationstated
thattheauthenticatedcopywasrequestedinordertoenabletheissuanceofan
Apostille,pursuanttotheguidelinesoftheMinistryofForeignAffairs,forits
filingoutsidetheStateofIsrael.ItalsoaskedthattheCourtemploythe
authenticationlanguagestipulatedbylawTrueCopyoftheOriginaland
notinvalidvariants,suchasCopyingisTruetotheOriginal,andthatthe
nameandauthorityofthesignerofthecertificationappearonthefaceofthe
record.
4. OnMay4,2015,IreceivedbyfaxacopyoftheApril27,2015,[ExhibitA]
withnocoverletter,presumablyaresponseonmyMay3,2015Request.
5. TheMay4,2015copyoftheApril27,2015Decision:
a)Bearsnosignaturesofthejudicialauthorities.
b)IspurportedlycertifiedbyMrDannyLevy,whoisneitherChiefClerk,nor
MagistrateoftheSupremeCourt,andthereforeunauthorizedtocertify
SupremeCourtrecords.
1/3
54/431

c)Thecertificationlanguagewasperverted:InsteadofTrueCopyofthe
Original,itemployedCopyingistruetotheoriginal.
d)Itwasreceivedbyfax,whilearecord,bearingoriginalcertification
signatures,isrequiredforthepurposeofissuanceoftheapostille.
6. Therefore,theCourtisagainrequestedtoprovidemebymailacopyofthe
April27,2015Decisionininstantcourtfile,signedbythecorresponding
judicialauthorities,andcertifiedTrueCopyoftheOriginalbyaduly
appointedChiefClerkorMagistrateoftheCourt.
instantRequest.
Today,May07,2015
______________
LINKS:Below
______________
7939/10
:'
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
"joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org:
0773179186:
27,
,2015
27,2015,:
.123,2015,[1].
.227,2015,
[2]..
.303,2015,,
27:2015,(,
,(,",,
,,,(2004)
.(1961)03,2015,
2/3
55/431

,
.,
"
,",,
.
.404,2015,27],2015,
[,3.2015,
.504,2015,:
(.
(,.
.
(:"","
".
(,
.
.6,,3015,27
,""
.
.
07,,2015,
____________
',
:
RequesttoInspect//
(7939/10)
Decisiondenyingaccesstocourtrecordstoinspectandtocopy//
(7939/10)
RequestforanauthenticatedcopyoftheApril27,2015DecisiondenyingRequestto
Inspectcourtfile//
(7939/10)
272015,.
3/3
56/431

57/431
58/431
2015-05-10 Second record, which was received as purported certified decision record
Regardless of specific requests, which detailed the nature of a valid court file, the Supreme Court
refuses in recent years to provide any duly certified decision.
In this case:
a) The certification was not produced from an original, but from a fax - presumably fax from
Chambers to the Office of the Clerk.
b) The person, who signed the certification, is again the same unauthorized person Mr Danny Levy,
and not Chief Clerk of the Court, as prescribed by law.
c) The language of the certification is again perverted, instead of True Copy of the Original Copying is true to the original.
59/431
60/431
61/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "

Disqualification for a Cause of Justices in Request to Inspect
Process //
( 7939/10)
. , ,
The Disqualification for a Cause paper was first stamped Not Filed Due to Discrepancy. Later,
that stamp was crossed, and a new stamp was affixed Received/Checked.
." " , ,
."/ - , ,"
However, in the electronic public access system of the Supreme Court the paper, filed by Joseph
Zernik, PhD, Requester of Inspection, was listed as Request for Change of Forum by Appellant.
",(4 ), ' , ,
.1 " "
1/1
62/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
RequestforDisqualificationforaCauseofJusticesY.Danziger,Y.Amit,Z.
ZilbertalinRequesttoInspectInstantCourtFile.
I,theRequesterofInspectionininstantcourtfile,filehereinRequestfor
DisqualificationforaCauseofJusticesY.Danziger,Y.Amit,Z.Zilbertalintheancillary
processofRequesttoInspectininstantcourtfile:
1. OnMarch23,2015,IfiledmyfirstRequesttoInspectininstantcourtfile.[1]
2. OnApril27,2015,aDecisionrecord,denyingtheRequesttoInspect,appearedin
theonlinepublicaccesssystemoftheSupremeCourt.[2]However,theDecisionhas
neverbeendulyservedonme.
3. FailureoftheSupremeCourttodulyserveitsdecisionsisinexplicable.
4. OnMay3,2015,IfiledaRequestforAuthentication,askingtheCourttoprovideme
acopyoftheApril27,2015Decision:[3]a)Bearingsignaturesofthejudicial
authorities,andb)Authenticatedbycertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,bya
dulyappointedChiefClerk,orMagistrateoftheCourt,pursuanttotheRegulationsof
theCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004),andtheHagueApostilleConvention(1961).My
May3,2015RequestforAuthenticationstatedthattheauthenticatedcopywas
requestedinordertoenabletheissuanceofanApostille,pursuanttotheguidelines
oftheMinistryofForeignAffairs,foritsfilingoutsidetheStateofIsrael.Italso
askedthattheCourtemploytheauthenticationlanguagestipulatedbylawTrue
CopyoftheOriginalandnotinvalid,pervertedvariants,suchasCopyingisTrue
totheOriginal.
5. OnMay3,2015,IalsoagainfiledaRequesttoInspectinstantcourtfile.[4]Tothe
bestofmyknowledge,nodecisionhasbeenrenderedontheRequesttothisdate.
6. OnMay4,2015,IreceivedbyfaxfromtheSupremeCourtacopyoftheApril27,
2015,Decisionrecord[ExhibitA]withnocoverletter,presumablypurported
responseonmyMay3,2015RequestforAuthentication.
7. ThecopyoftheApril27,2015Decisionrecord,receivedonMay4,2015byfax:
a)Bearsnosignaturesofthejudicialauthorities.
b)IspurportedlycertifiedbyMrDannyLevy,whoisneitherChiefClerk,nor
MagistrateoftheSupremeCourt,andthereforeunauthorizedbylawtocertify
SupremeCourtrecords.
c)Bearsastamp,includinginvalid,pervertedcertificationlanguage:Insteadthe
1/9
',','
63/431
languageprovidedbylawTrueCopyoftheOriginal,itemployedlanguagewhich
issenselessinthiscontextCopyingistruetotheoriginal.
d)Bearsadisclaimer:subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges.
8. Therefore,thecopyoftheApril27,2015Decisionrecord,receivedbymeonMay
4,2015byfaxshouldbedeemedapervertedcourtrecord,and/oracaseofforgery.
9. OnMay7,2015,IfiledRepeatRequestforAuthentication,askingthecourtto
providemeacopyoftheApril27,2015Decisionrecord,dulysignedand
authenticated.Tothebestofmyknowledge,nodecisionhasbeenrendered
regardingthismattertothisdate.
10. Lastweek,IreceivedbymailfromtheSupremeCourtanothercopyoftheApril27,
2015Decisionrecord,[ExhibitB]withnotransmittalletter,presumable
responseononeofmyRequestsforAuthentication.
11. Thecopythatwasreceivedbymebymaillastweekwassimilartotheonethatis
describedin6.,above,butbearssignaturesoftheJustices.Regardless,the
authenticationisstillbythesameunauthorizedperson,andtheauthentication
languageisstillinvalidandperverted.
12. Therefore,thecopyoftheApril27,2015Decisionrecord,receivedbymebymail
lastweekfromtheSupremeCourtshouldbedeemedapervertedcourtrecord,
and/oracaseofforgeryaswell.
13. Iamnolegalscholar,andIhavenotfoundinIsraelilawdefinitionofsimulated
serviceandsimulatedcourtprocess.Forthepurposeofclarificationoftheterms,as
usedbymehere,IprovidetherelevantarticleoftheTexasPenalCode:
32.48.SIMULATINGLEGALPROCESS.
(a)Apersoncommitsanoffenseifthepersonrecklesslycausestobedeliveredto
anotheranydocumentthatsimulatesasummons,complaint,judgment,orother
courtprocesswiththeintentto:
(1)inducepaymentofaclaimfromanotherperson;or
(2)causeanotherto:
(A)submittotheputativeauthorityofthedocument;or
(B)takeanyactionorrefrainfromtakinganyactioninresponsetothe
document,incompliancewiththedocument,oronthebasisofthedocument.
(b)Proofthatthedocumentwasmailedtoanypersonwiththeintentthatitbe
forwardedtotheintendedrecipientisasufficientshowingthatthedocument
wasdelivered.
(c)Itisnotadefensetoprosecutionunderthissectionthatthesimulating
document:
(1)statesthatitisnotlegalprocess;or
(2)purportstohavebeenissuedorauthorizedbyapersonorentitywho
didnothavelawfulauthoritytoissueorauthorizethedocument.
(d)Ifitisshownonthetrialofanoffenseunderthissectionthatthesimulating
documentwasfiledwith,presentedto,ordeliveredtoaclerkofacourtoran
employeeofaclerkofa
2/9
',','
64/431
courtcreatedorestablishedundertheconstitutionorlawsofthisstate,thereisa
rebuttablepresumptionthatthedocumentwasdeliveredwiththeintent
describedbySubsection(a).
(e)ExceptasprovidedbySubsection(f),anoffenseunderthissectionisaClass
Amisdemeanor.
(f)Ifitisshownonthetrialofanoffenseunderthissectionthatthedefendant
haspreviouslybeenconvictedofaviolationofthissection,theoffenseisastate
jailfelony.
AddedbyActs1997,75thLeg.,ch.189,3,eff.May21,1997
14.Underthecircumstances,outlinedabove,areasonablepersonandinternational
observersmostlikelywouldfindthatJusticesY.Danziger,Y.Amit,andZ.Zilbertal:
a)HaveneverdulyservedontheRequestertoInspectavalidandeffectualdecision
recordonhisRequesttoInspect;
b)DeprivedtheRequesterofthefundamentaldueprocessrightregardinghis
RequesttoInspect,and
c)Colludedinthesimulatedserviceofperverted/forgedcourtrecords.
15.Moreover,asoutlinedinmyMay3,2015RequesttoInspectininstantcourtfile,
[4]thereareseriousconcerns,bothamongcriminaljusticeexpertsandinthepublic
atlarge,ofcriminalconductbytheIsraelPoliceinvestigationteamandbytheState
Prosecutionteam,andentirelyunreasonableconductofthecourtsininstantcourt
file,whichinvolvedfalseprosecutionandfalseconvictionsofMrRomanZadorovin
themurderofthechildTairRada.
16.Therefore,areasonablepersonandinternationalobserverswouldmostlikelyfind
herecircumstances,whichcreateseriousandmaterialconcernsthatthesimulated
serviceoftheApril27,2015Decisionrecordwaspartofacourtprocess,wherethe
publicwasfalselydeprivedoftherighttoinspectandMrRomanZadorovwasfalsely
deprivedoftherightforfairpublichearing.
17.Anarticlebylegalscholars,titled,Regardinginstitutionalproblemspreventingthe
correctionoffalseconvictionsinIsrael",1outlinesconditionintheStateofIsrael
todayregardingfalseconvictions.Thecircumstances,outlinedinthearticle,
combinedwithconductofthecourtsandlawenforcementinthecaseofMrRoman
Zadorovwouldlikelybedeemedbythepublicatlargeandinternationalobserversas
seriouscorruption,andthedenialofpublicaccesstoinspectthecourtfilethrough
thesimulatedserviceofapervertedand/orforgedcourtrecordanattemptto
concealsuchcorruption.
18.TheRequesttoInspectininstantcourtfileisoneofaseriesofsimilarrequests,filed
aspartofanongoingstudyoftherighttoinspectandtherightforapublichearingin
Israelinpracticetoday.Themostrecentseriespertainedtocriminalcourtcases,
originatingincorruptionofgovernmentauthorities.ConductoftheJusticesY.
Danziger,Y.Amit,andZ.Zilbertalinthiscontextisnoexceptionatall.Inmostcases,
therighttoinspectwasdeniedthroughthesimulatedserviceofinvalid,perverted
and/orforgeddecisionrecords.AnextremeexamplewasfoundintheStateof
IsraelvPinto(433570914)intheTelAvivDistrictCourt,acaseoriginatingin
3/9
',','
65/431
massivecorruptionoftopechelonsoftheIsraelPoliceandothers.InthePintocase
JudgeOdedMudrickdeniedtherighttoinspectthoughtheissuanceofanunsigned,
unauthenticateddecisionrecord,whichhadneverbeendulyserved,andwhichis
notregisteredintheDecisionsDocketinthepublicaccesssysteminNet
HaMishapt.Andinresponseonarequestforprovidingadulysignedand
authenticatedcopyofsuchdecision,JudgeMudricktransmittedanunsigned,
unauthenticatedDecisionrecord,whichisnotregisteredinthepublicDecisions
Docketaswell,statinginpart:Mydecisionsaregiveninthewayandthemanner
thatIbelievethatIamallowedtoemploy.[5]
19.Theissuanceofpervertedand/orforgedcourtrecordsininstantcaseinthe
SupremeCourtisnoexceptioneither.Theevidenceshowsthatitisaroutineoverthe
pastdecade,andformerPresidingJusticeoftheSupremeCourtAsherGrunisrefused
toprovideanexplanationforaseriesofperverted/forgedrecords,receivedby
petitionerstotheHighCourtofJustice.[6]
20.Therefore,areasonablepersonandinternationalobserverswouldmostlikelyfind
heresystemwidecircumstances,wheretheIsraelicourts,ledbytheSupremeCourt,
disregardtheHumanRightforfair,publichearing,alsodeclaredbytheIsraeli
SupremeCourtafundamentalprincipleinademocraticregime,anda
constitutional,superstatutoryright.AssociationforCivilRightsinIsraeletalv
MinisterofJusticeetal(HCJ5917/97).Moreover,theroutineissuanceof
perverted/forgedcourtrecordswouldbefoundcreatingcircumstances,whichraise
concernsregardingcompetenceoftheSupremeCourtingeneral,andcompetenceof
theforum,nowhearingMrRomanZadorov'sappealinparticular.
21.TheCourtsActsays:
Ajudgeshallnotadjudicateinacase,ifthejudgefound,ofthejudge'sown
volition,orbyrequestofapartytothecase,thattherearecircumstances,which
creatematerialconcernsofbiasinadjudication.
22.Therefore,JusticesY.Danziger,Y.Amit,andZ.Zilbertalshoulddisqualify
themselvesintheancillarycourtprocessofadjudicatingmyMay3,2015Requestto
Inspectininstantcourtfile.
23.Moreover,inviewofalltheabove,areasonablepersonandinternationalobservers
wouldmostlikelyfindthattherearecircumstancesthatcreateserious,material
concernsregardingconductoftheJusticesininstantcourtfileingeneral.
24.Therefore,JusticesY.Danziger,Y.Amit,andZ.Zilbertalshouldalsodisqualify
themselves,oftheirownvolition,fromadjudicatingininstantcourtfileingeneral.
25.TheCourtsActalsosays:
Ajudge,againstwhomaclaimofdisqualificationhasbeenfiled,shalladjudicate
suchclaimpriortoanyotheradjudicationandshallnotcontinuetheprocess
untilthejudgehasrenderedadecisionregardingtheclaimofdisqualification.
26.Therefore,JusticesY.Danziger,Y.Amit,andZ.Zilbertalshouldadjudicatethe
RequestforDisqualification,filedherein,priortoanyotheradjudicationininstant
courtfile,
27.JusticesY.Danziger,Y.Amit,andZ.Zilbertalshoulddulyserveoninstant
4/9
',','
66/431
RequesterasignedandauthenticateddecisiononinstantRequestfor
Disqualification.RepeatoftherefusaltodulyservedecisiononinstantRequestfor
Disqualificationwouldbeperceivedasmockeryofthejudicialprocessinthe
SupremeCourt,andcircumstanceswhichcreateseriousandmaterialconcerns
regardingcompetenceoftheSupremeCourtthehighestjudicialinstanceinthe
StateofIsrael.
28.CopiesofinstantRequestforDisqualificationwillbedulyservedonthepartiesin
instantcourtfile,onPresidingJusticeoftheSupremeCourtMiriamNaor,andon
MinisterofJusticeAyeletShaked.CopieswillalsobesenttoKnessetMembers,who
areontheConstitutions,LawandJusticeCommitteeandtheStateOversight
Committee,andpublishedwithactivists,supportingMrRomanZadorov'squestfor
justice,andwithlocalandinternationalpress.
Inaccordancewiththefundamentalsoflawandjustice,theCourtshouldgrantinstant
Request.
Today,May26,2015
______________
LINKS:Below
______________
7939/10
' :
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
joseph.zernik@hrango.org:"
0773179186:
',','
',','
:,
[1].,2015,23 .1
"",2015,27 .2
.""[2],
.3
.
",2015,03 .4
[3].2015,27
5/9
',','
67/431
27:2015,(,,(
,",,,
,,(2004).(1961)
03,2015,
,
.,
"
,".
.503,2015,[4].
.
.604,2015,""27,2015,
][,3,2015,
.
.7"27,2015,04,
:2015
(.
(,,
.
(:
"","
".
("".
.8,"27,2015,
04,2015,/.
.907,2015,
""27.2015,
.
.10""
27],2015,[.
.11,.6,.
,
.
.12,"27,2015,
/.
.13,
.,,
,":
:32.48
32.48
)(
,,,
,:
)(1,
68/431
6/9
',','
)(2:
(A;
(B,
.
)(
.
)(,:
)(1.
)(2
.
)(,,
,,,
,,
)(.
)()(,,
.ClassAmisdemeanor
)(,
,)statejailfelony(.
.14,,
',',':
(;
(,
(/.
.15,[4],,
,
,,
.
.16,,
""27
,2015,,,
".
.17,",
"1,.
,,
,
/
.
.18,
.
1,",".,193:
.2013
EFink,RRosenbergRobbins,"Regardinginstitutionalproblemspreventingthecorrectionoffalseconvictionsin
Israel",MaaseiMishpat,5:193,2013.
69/431
7/9
',','
,.','
,'.
.
""/.)
(433570914",
.
"",,,"
".
"",
"",:
[5].
.19/
.,
/
"[6].
.20,
,,
"","
","")...'
')".(5917/97,
/
,.
.21:
,,
.
.22,',','
3.2015,
.23,,
.
.24,',','
,.
.25:
.
.26,',','
.
.27',','
.
,
,
.
.28,
70/431
8/9
',','
,.
,,,
,,.
.
26,,2015,
____________
',
:
[1]20150323RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtRequestto
Inspect//
(7939/10)
[2]20150427RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtDecision
denyingaccesstocourtrecordstoinspectandtocopy//
(7939/10)
[3]20150503RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtRequestfor
anauthenticatedcopyoftheApril27,2015DecisiondenyingRequesttoInspectcourtfile//
(7939/10)
272015,.
[4]20150503RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtRepeat
RequesttoInspectcourtfile//
(7939/10)
[5]20150518StateofIsraelvPinto(433570914)JudgeMudrick'sDecisiononRequest
#30forissuinganauthenticdecisionrecordonRequesttoInspectcourtfile//
"(433570914)"'30
[6]20140710IsraelStateOmbudsmanComplaint#907069:AdditionalEvidencefiled
RequestforPresidingJusticeGrunisclarificationsregardingpervertedSupremeCourt
records//
,'907069
http://www.scribd.com/doc/233331568/
71/431
9/9
',','
72/431
' Exh A
73/431
' Exh B
74/431
75/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2015-05-26 ISRAEL: Zadorov murder conviction - disqualification for a cause of

Supreme Court Justices //
, , -
[]
When it comes to criminal prosecution originating in corruption of government authorities,
there is no right for public hearing and no right for public access to court records... These
rights are still on the books, but the judges routinely deprive them through the issuance of
simulated decision records - invalid, perverted, and/or forged. Unprecedented, widespread
public corruption in Israel over the last couple of decades is first and foremost corruption of
the courts and law enforcement.
Roman Zadorov was falsely prosecuted, falsely convicted, and falsely sentenced to life in prison for
the 2006 brutal murder of 14 yo Tair Rada. Both criminal law experts and the public at large believe
that the case represent incredible corruption of the justice system. But the justice system cannot
cope with its own corruption...
____
OccupyTLV, May 26 - was an interesting visit to the Supreme Court today.

I came to file Disqualification for a Cause [1] against 3 Justices, who sit in the
Zadorov appeal, claiming in so many words that they are trying to cover up
corruption of police and prosecution (full text of the Disqualification for a Cause
below).
First the Office of the Clerk tried to deny me the right to file. Eventually they
sent me to the Criminal Division Head, and from there to the "Chief Clerk"
(pretender with no lawful appointment).
I introduced myself and gave her my business card. I asked that she introduce
herself as well, and give me her card as well.
She refused, said: We will do that later...
I insisted and said: This is a formal meeting, and it should start with
introduction of the participants.
Her secretary tried to help and said the Chief Clerk's name, and finally she
herself said she was "Idit Melul, Chief Clerk".
Melul claimed I had no right to file the Disqualification, since I was not a party
to the court file.
I said that I was a party to the ancillary process of "Request to Inspect", and the
1/3
76/431
Disqualification for a Cause pertained only to the ancillary process. (in Israel,
there is no public right to access court records, one has to file a "request to
inspect").
Melul finally decided that my Disqualification for a Cause would be stamped
"Not Filed - Due to Discrepancy", and then I would be permitted to file with the
Magistrate of the Supreme Court "Objection to Clerk's Decision".
I told her: I will write in my Objection that the decision to stamp it "Not Filed"
was rendered by "Idit Melul - Chief Clerk".
She said: You should write it was rendered by "office of the clerk"...
I said: But you are not "Office of the Clerk", you are "Idit Melul- Chief Clerk"...
Are you sure you are "Chief Clerk"?
She said: It is written in the internet web page of the Supreme Court...
I said: So who appointed you?
She said: Go ask Administration of the Courts...
I said: I have already asked, and response on FOIA request shows that you have
no appointment record...
At this point there security was already in the room... :)
Done. I went downstairs to get the stamp "Not Filed - Discrepancy". I must
add I was happy, they made my day...
I start writing by hand the "Objection", then a phone call arrives from Itdit
Melul, she changed her mind, and it will be stamped "Filed/Checked".
I was sure they were going to pervert the electronic registration, and indeed,
eventually they wrote it as "Request for Change of Forum" by Appellant.
I should add that the interaction with "Chief Clerk Idit Melul" was almost
identical to the interaction with "Elkana Leist - Tel-Aviv District pro tem Public
Defender". In that case too, he asked to meet me, and in that case too it turned
out that he held the office with no lawful appointment record.
He is the one charged with Defense of Roman Zadorov... but the evidence shows
that he colluded with the prosecution in permitting the false conviction.
Over the past 15 years the Israeli justice system has undergone unprecedented
corruption. One of the characteristics is numerous pretenders in key positions in
the courts and law enforcement.
____
,,
,,
"".
./,
!
. 26,"
)"".()[1]
.(
.. ,
,.",
.
2/3
77/431
,",
".
,.
,,"",.
"",
"".
,"""
".!.
"","".
""?
.
?.
,.
...
,""..
!
""...,
" /" . ,
""""1.
""
")("")(
...
.
,...
LINKS:
[1]20150526RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtDisqualificationforaCauseof
JusticesinRequesttoInspectProcess//
(7939/10),,
.
3/3
78/431

02-6759648
026759648
YOSEF ZERNIK
www.myfax.co.il
5
27/5/2015 14:25

a4bc4K72348
1
www.myfax.co.il
79/431
80/431
81/431
82/431
83/431
84/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
NoticetotheMagistrateYigalLubinskyofpervertedregistrationofRequest
forDisqualification,andRequestforCorrection.
I,theRequesterofInspectionininstantcourtfile,filehereinwithMagistrateofthe
SupremeCourtGiladLubinskyNoticetotheMagistrateYigalLubinskyofperverted
registrationofRequestforDisqualification,andRequestforCorrection:
1. OnMarch26,2015,IfiledRequestforDisqualificationintheRequesttoInspectin
instantcourtfile.[1]
2. ThestampsontheRequestforDisqualificationrecord(Page5,Figure1,below)
showthatitwasinitiallystampedNotFiledDuetoDiscrepancy.Suchstampwas
affixedpursuanttodecisionbyChiefClerkIditMelul.Later,theinitialstampwas
crossedout,andasecondstampwasaffixedFiled/Checked,alsopursuantto
decisionbyChiefClerkIditMelul.
Figure1:TheRequestforDisqualificationforaCausepaperwasfirststampedNotFiledDuetoDiscrepancy.
Later,thatstampwascrossedout,andasecondstampwasaffixedReceived/Checked.
____
3. Attheendofthefilingprocess,Ihadclearconcernsthattherewasanintentionto
createpervertedregistrationoftheRequestforDisqualification,andIexplicitlyand
repeatedlyaskedstaffoftheOfficeoftheClerktocreatevalidandhonest
registration.Needlesstosay,asusual,Iwasnotpermittedtoinspecttheregistration
onlocationthestaffroutinelydenythepublicanyaccesstoinspecttheirelectronic
actions.
4. Inretrospect,itturnedoutthatindeedtheregistrationoftheRequestfor
Disqualificationwasperverted:ItwasregisteredasaRequestforchangeofforum,
1/5
85/431
byFilerAppellant1namelyMrRomanZadorov.
Figure 2: The electronic public access system of the Supreme Court shows that the Request for Disqualification,
filed by Joseph Zernik, PhD, Requester of Inspection, was listed as Request for Change of Forum, filed by the
Appellant.
_____
5. Instantoccurrenceisnotexceptionalatall:Fullydocumented,seriousperversions
havealsobeenfoundintheelectronicregistrationsconductedbytheOfficeofthe
ClerkoftheSupremeCourtregardingvariouspapers,whichIfiledinothercasesas
well.
6. Therefore,IhereinrequestimmediateactionbyMagistrateoftheSupremeCourt
YigalLubinskyforcorrectionofthepervertedregistrationintheelectronicsystemof
theRequestforDisqualification,andduenoticetotheRequesterofInspectionand
partiesininstantcourtfileregardingsuchaction.
7. TheCourtsAct(RegistrationOffice)1936,enactedundertheBritishMandate,Article
4,says:
Theclerks,whoareresponsiblefortheexcellentmaintenanceoftherecordsand
registrationbooksofthecourts,aretheclerksinchargeoftheRegistration
Offices.
8. TheRegulationsoftheCourt(OfficeoftheClerk)2004,whichreplacedtheCourtsAct
(RegistrationOffice)1936,failstoincludesimilarlanguage.Regardless,thereisno
doubtthatacourt,wherethereisnoperson,whoischargedwithresponsibilityfor
thevalidityandhonestyoftheconductoftheOfficeoftheClerk,wouldbedeemed
byinternationalobserversanincompetentcourt.
9. MymeetingyesterdaywithMsIditMelulclarifiedagain,whatemergedfromthe
FreedomofInformationresponse(P10/2015)ontheofficeofAdministrationof
Courts[2]thatMsMelul,whogoesbythetitleChiefClerk,actswithnolawful
appointment.
10. TheCourtsAct1984,Article105.(a)says:
105.(a)TheMagistrateoftheCourtoftheSupremeCourt,theDistrictCourt,and
theMagistrateCourtshallserveinanyauthoritythatwasvestedintheChief
Clerkoftherespectivecourt,andperformanydutyassignedtotheChiefClerk.
2/5
86/431
11. Therefore,underthecircumstances,outlinedin9.,above,theMagistrateofthe
SupremeCourtshouldbedeemedtheonewhoischargedwithresponsibilityfor
validityandandhonestyinconductoftheOfficeoftheClerk.
12. Underthecircumstances,outlinedaboveandintheRequestforDisqualification
itself,andinparticularinviewoftheseriousconcernsregardingMrRoman
Zadorov'smurderconviction,outlinedintheRepeatRequestforInspection,thereis
nodoubtthatfailuretocorrectthepervertedregistrationoftheMay26,2015
RequestforDisqualification,wouldgenerateseriousconcernsregardingintegrityof
thejudicialprocessintheSupremeCourtingeneral,andininstantcourtfilein
particular.
13.CopiesofinstantRequestforDisqualificationwillbedulyservedonthepartiesin
instantcourtfile,onPresidingJusticeoftheSupremeCourtMiriamNaor,andon
MinisterofJusticeAyeletShaked.CopieswillalsobesenttoKnessetMembers,who
areontheConstitutions,LawandJusticeCommitteeandtheStateOversight
Committee,andpublishedwithactivists,supportingMrRomanZadorov'squestfor
justice,andwithlocalandinternationalpress.
Request.
Today,May27,2015
______________
LINKS:Below
______________
7939/10
' :
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
0773179186:
"",)
(
:
',',',2015,26 .1
[1].
3/5
87/431
.2)',5,1("
".""
.",
"/",""".
: 1 , , " " . ",

, -/".
_____
.3,
,
.
.
.4:""
"1.
: 2 , , ' , ) ,(4 "

" , " - .1
_____
.5:,,
.
.6,
,
.
.7)(,1936,,4:
88/431
4/5

.
.8)(",2004
)(,1936.,
,,,
.
.9'
)(10/2015[2]',
"",.
.10][,",1984).105(,:
).105( ,
.
.11,,.9,
.
.12,
,,
26,2015,
,.
.13,
,.
,,,
,,.
.
27,,2015,
____________
',
:
[1]20150526RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtDisqualificationfora
CauseofJusticesinRequesttoInspectProcess//
(7939/10),,
.
[2]20150304FOIAresponsebyAdministrationofCourts(10/2015):OfficeoftheClerkandIT
systemsoftheSupremeCourtnoappointmentrecordsforChiefClerkMelul,noresponseonIT
systems//
):(10/2015
,
89/431
5/5

7939/10
Before:

Appellant:
Roman Zadorov
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Request for Disqualification in the Request to Inspect Process
For Appellant:
Attorneys Elkana Leist, Avigdor Feldman
For Respondent:
Attorney Tamar Borenstein
For the Requester:
In pro se
Decision
After reviewing the Request, with its justification, we reached the conclusion that there is no cause to
grant it, and therefore it is denied.
Rendered today, May 28, 2015.
[unsigned]
Judge
Judge
Judge
__________
90/431

" 979701/
:
'
'
'
"

" ; "
"
, ,
.
, ' " ( .) 51.2.5.82
_________________________
10079390_W49.doc .
,' ; 277-0723333 www.court.gov.il ,
91/431
92/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
NoticetoMagistrateGileadLubinskyofPervertedRegistrationofRequest
forDisqualification,andRequestforCorrection.
SupremeCourtGileadLubinskyNoticetoMagistrateGileadLubinskyofperverted
registrationofRequestforDisqualification,andRequestforCorrection:
1. OnMarch26,2015,IfiledRequestforDisqualificationintheRequesttoInspect
processininstantcourtfile.[1]
Later,thatstampwascrossedout,andasecondstampwasaffixedFiled/Checked.
____
repeatedlyaskedstaffoftheOfficeoftheClerktocreatevalidandhonestelectronic
actions.
4. Inretrospect,itturnedoutthattheregistrationoftheRequestforDisqualification
1/6
93/431
wasindeedperverted:ItwasregisteredasaRequestforchangeofforum,byFiler
Appellant1namelyMrRomanZadorov.
Appellant.
_____
5. Instantoccurrenceisnotexceptionalatall:Fullydocumented,seriousperversions
havealsobeenfoundintheelectronicregistrationsconductedbytheOfficeofthe
ClerkoftheSupremeCourtregardingvariousotherpapers,whichIfiledinother
casesaswell.Perhapsthemoststrikingoccurrencepertainedtotheattempttofilein
April2013theRequestforDisqualificationofthetheOfficeoftheClerk,
concomitantlywithfilingcommencingrecordinthepetitionZernikvMinisterof
JusticeandDirectoroftheAdministrationofCourts(2689/13).[2]TheOfficeofthe
ClerkrefusedtoacceptthefilingoftheRequestforDisqualificationoftheOfficeof
theClerk,andalsorefusedtopermitthefilingofthepetitionthroughtheofficeof
theMagistrateoftheCourt.ThePetitionrecordwasaccordingly,clearlymarkedon
itsface.[2]Regardless,within3days,JusticeEstherHayutpurportedlyissueda
decision,denyingaRequestforDisqualification,whichhadneverbeenfiledand
whichfailstoappearinthecourtfile...[3]Suchoccurenceclearlydocumentsthat
theperversionofrecordsandproceduresiscoordinatedbytheOfficeoftheClerk
andjusticesoftheSupremeCourt.
6. MymeetingonMay26,2015,withMsIditMelulclarifiedagain,whatisdocumented
intheFreedomofInformationresponse(P10/2015)bytheofficeofAdministration
ofCourts[2]thatMsMelul,whoappearsasChiefClerk,actswithnolawful
appointmentandwithnolawfulauthorityatall.Obviously,suchconductbyMsEdit
Melul,andsimilarconductbyherpredecessorMsSarahLifschitztotalingovera
decadeprovideadditional,clearevidenceofintentionalunderminingofthe
integrityoftheOfficeoftheClerkbyjusticesoftheSupremeCourt.[4]
7. OnMay27,2015,ItriedtofilebyfaxaNoticeofPerversionandRequestfor
Correction.However,theOfficeoftheClerkfailedtoregisterthefiling.
8. OnMay29,2015,ItriedtofilebycertifiedmailaNoticeofPerversionandRequest
forCorrection.However,theOfficeoftheClerkfailedtoregisterthefilingtothis
2/6
94/431
date.
9. Therefore,IfilehereintodayinpersonintheOfficeoftheClerk,instantNoticeof
PerversionandRequestforCorrection.
10. TheCourtsAct(RegistrationOffice)1936,enactedundertheBritishMandate,
Article4,says:
Offices.
11. TheRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk)2004,whichreplacedtheCourts
Act(RegistrationOffice)1936,failstoincludesimilarlanguage.However,the
RegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk)2004,wereamendedin2005to
includeRegulation6a,whichsays:
TheChiefClerksofthecourtsareauthorizedcertifythatacopyofacourtrecord
istruecopyoftheoriginalinthecourtfile.
Withit,theChiefClerkwasrecognizedasresponsibleforthesafeguardofintegrity
ofcourtrecords.Additionally,thereisnodoubtthatacourt,wherethereisno
person,whoischargedwiththesafeguardofintegrityofcourtrecords,wouldbe
deemedbyinternationalobserversanincompetentcourt.
12. TheCourtsAct1984,Article105.(a)says:
105.(a)TheMagistrateoftheCourtoftheSupremeCourt,theDistrictCourt,and
13. Underthecircumstances,outlinedabove,theMagistrateoftheSupremeCourt
shouldbedeemedtheperson,whoischargedwiththesafeguardofintegrityofthe
SupremeCourt'srecordsandregistrationstoday.
14. Underthecircumstances,outlinedaboveandintheRequestforDisqualificationfor
aCause,andinparticularinviewofthewidespreadconcernsofMrRoman
Zadorov'sfalsemurderconviction,thereisnodoubtthatfailuretocorrectthe
pervertedregistrationoftheRequestforDisqualificationforaCause,islikelyto
causeseriousconcernsregardingintegrityoftherecordsandcourtprocessinthe
SupremeCourtingeneral,andinMrRomanZadorov'scaseinparticular.
15. Therefore,IhereinrequestimmediateactionbyMagistrateoftheSupremeCourt
GileadLubinskyforcorrectionofthepervertedregistrationintheelectronicsystem
oftheRequestforDisqualification,originallyfiledonMay26,2015,andduenotice
totheRequesterofInspectionandpartiesininstantcourtfileregardingsuch
correctiveaction.
Request.
Today,June03,2015
______________
3/6
95/431
LINKS:Below
______________
7939/10
:'
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
0773179186:
:
.126,2015,',','
[1].
.2)',5,1("
".""
.",
"/",""".
: 1 , , " " . ",

, -/".
_____
.3,
,
.
.
.4:""
"1.
96/431
4/6
: 2 , , ' , ) ,(4 "

" , " - .1
_____
.5:,,
.2013
,'
[2].(2689/13),
.
[2].3,,
,,
[3]...,
.
.626,2015,',
(P10/2015)[4]',
"",.
','
.
.727,2015,
..
.829,2015,
..
.9,
.
.10)(1936,,4:
.4
,...
.11)(,2004)(
,1936.)(,2004
,20056,:
97/431
5/6
6.
.
.12,1984)105(,:
).105( ,
.
.13,
.
.14,
,,
26,2015,
,
.
.15,
26,2015,
.
3,,2015,
____________
',
:
(7939/10),,
.
[2]20130415ZernikvMinisterofJusticeLivniandDirectoroftheCourtsSpitzer(2689/13)Petition
)intheSupremeCourtoftheStateofIsrael(HebrewwithEnglishtranslation
[3]20130418ZernikvMinisterofJusticeetal(2689/13)intheIsraeliSupremeCourtDecisionby
JusticeEstherHayut,asservedonthePetitioner
systems//
):(10/2015
,
98/431
6/6
99/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
RequestforAuthenticationbyMagistrateGileadLubinskyofa)April27,
2015DecisiondenyingRequesttoInspectcourtfile,andb)May28,2015
Decisionrecord,denyingRequestforDisqualification.
SupremeCourtGileadLubinskyRequestforAuthenticationofa)April27,2015
DecisiondenyingRequesttoInspectcourtfile,andb)May28,2015Decisionrecord,
denyingRequestforDisqualification:
1. OnMarch23,2015,IfiledRequesttoInspectcourtfile.
2. AnApril27,2015,Decisionrecord,appearingintheelectronicpublicaccesssystem
oftheSupremeCourt,deniestheRequesttoInspect.
3. OnMay3,andagainonMay7,2015,IfiledRequestsforAuthenticationoftheApril
27,2015Decisionrecord.Regardless,Ihavenotreceivedadulyauthenticatedcopy
oftherecordtothisdate.
4. OnMay26,2015,IfiledRequestforDisqualificationintheRequesttoInspectin
instantcourtfile.
5. AMay28,2015,Decisionrecord,appearingintheelectronicpublicaccesssystem
oftheSupremeCourt,deniestheRequestforDisqualificationforaCause.
6. TheCourtsAct(RegistrationOffice)1936,enactedundertheBritishMandate,Article
4,says:
Offices.
7. TheRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk)2004,whichreplacedtheCourtsAct
(RegistrationOffice)1936,failstoincludesimilarlanguage.However,the
RegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk)2004,amendedin2005toinclude
Regulation6a,whichsays:
TheChiefClerksofthecourtsareauthorizedcertifythatacopyofacourtrecord
istruecopyoftheoriginalinthecourtfile.
8. MymeetingonMay26,2015,withMsIditMelulclarifiedagain,whatisdocumented
intheFreedomofInformationresponse(P10/2015)bytheofficeofAdministration
ofCourts[1]thatMsMelul,whogoesbythetitleChiefClerk,actswithnolawful
1/4
2015,28(,,2015,27(
100/431
appointmentandnoauthorityatall.
9. TheCourtsAct1984,Article105(a)says:
105(a)TheMagistrateoftheCourtoftheSupremeCourt,theDistrictCourt,and
10. Underthecircumstances,outlinedabove,theMagistrateoftheSupremeCourt
shouldbedeemedtheonlyone,whoistodayauthorizedtocertifytheauthenticityof
SupremeCourtdecisionrecords.
11. Therefore,IhereinrequestthatMagistrateoftheSupremeCourtGileadLubinsky
providemecopiesoftheabovereferencedApril27,2015andMay28,2015
Decisionrecords:
a)Bearingsignaturesofthejudicialauthorities,and
b)Authenticatedbycertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,bythe
MagistrateoftheCourt,withhisnameandtitleappearingontherecord,
pursuanttotheRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004),andthe
HagueApostilleConvention(1961)
12. MagistrateLubinskyisexplicitlyrequestedtoemploythecertification
languagestipulatedintheRegulationsTrueCopyoftheOriginal,andavoid
employinginvalid,pervertedcertificationlanguage,suchasCopyingistrue
totheoriginal.
13. SuchauthenticatedcopiesoftheDecisions,referencedabove,arerequested
inordertoenabletheissuanceofanApostille,incompliancewiththe
respectiveRegulationsandguidelinesoftheMinistryofForeignAffairs,forits
filingoutsidetheStateofIsrael.
Request.
Today,June03,2015
LINKS:Below
______________
7939/10
______________
' :
HumanRightsAlertNGO
2/4
2015,28(,,2015,27(
101/431
",33407"
0773179186:
:(27,2015,,(28,
2015
:(27,2015,
,(282015,:
.123,2015,.
.2""27,2015,
,.
.33,2015,7,2015,
""27.2015,
.
.426,2015,.
.5""28,2015,
,.
.6)(1936,,4:
.4
,...
.7)(,2004)(
,1936.)(,2004
,20056,:
6.
.
.826,2015,',,
)(10/2015',
"",
[1].
.9,1984)105(,:
).105( ,
.
.10,
.
.11,
272015,282015,:
..
3/4
(27,2015,,(282015,
102/431
."",
,)(
,2004(1961)
.12"
",,"".
.13
,.
.
3,,2015,
____________
',
:
systems//
):(10/2015
,
4/4
(27,2015,,(282015,
103/431
104/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
RequestforJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertaltoperformtheirduties
andserveadulyreasoneddecisionontheRequestforDisqualificationfora
Cause.
I,theRequesterofInspectionininstantcourtfile,filehereinwithJusticesDanziger,
AmitandZylbertalrequesttoperformtheirdutiesandserveonmeadulyreasoned
decisiononmyMay26,2015RequestforDisqualificationforaCause:
1. OnMarch26,2015,IfiledmyRequestforDisqualificationintheRequesttoInspect
ininstantcourtfile.[1]
Later,thatstampwascrossedout,andasecondstampwasaffixedReceived/Checked.
____
repeatedlyaskedstaffoftheOfficeoftheClerktocreatevalidandhonest
actions.
1/5
105/431
.,2015,28
4. Inretrospect,itturnedoutthattheregistrationoftheRequestforDisqualification
wasindeedperverted:ItwasregisteredasaRequestforchangeofforum,byFiler
Appellant1namelyMrRomanZadorov.
Appellant.
_____
5. ThismatterisfurtherelaboratedintheconcomitantlyfiledNoticetoMagistrate
GileadLubinskyofPervertedRegistrationsofRequestforDisqualificationand
RequestfortheirCorrection.
6. RegardlessofthefalseregistrationoftheRequestforDisqualificationforaCause,on
May28,2015,JusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertalpurportedlyenteredaDecision
denyingtheRequestfortheirDisqualificationforaCause.TheMay28,2015record
says:
Afterreviewingtherequest,includingallitsjustifications,wehavereachedthe
conclusionthatthethereisnoreasontogranttheRequest,andtherefore,itis
denied.
7. SuchdecisionfailstoprovideanyreasoningfordenialoftheRequestfor
DisqualificationforaCause.
8. RegardingtherequirementforreasoningindecisionsonRequestsfor
Disqualification,YigalMarzel'sbookLawsofJudicialDisqualification(IsraelBar
Press,2006)says:
e.TheRequirementofReasoning
Asinanyotherjudicialdecision,thedecisionondisqualificationmustbe
reasonedbythejudge.Therequirementforreasoningwasexplicitlyexpressedin
theamendmenttothelawin2004,whichsays:decisionbyajudgeoracourt,
pursuanttoinstantarticleshallbereasoned...[77a(c)jz]Indeed,such
requirementisnotmerelytechnical,butmaterial,sincethejudge'sposition
relativetohisdisqualificationholdsparticularsignificance.Atthefactuallevel,
thejudge'sposition,relativetothefactsunderlyingtherequestmustholdheavy
weight.Attheconceptuallevel,thejudge'ssubjectiveposition,thatthereisno
realconcernofbiasisgivenacertainweight...Absentsuchreasoning,itshould
beadded,theappealofadecisionondisqualificationismadesuperfluous,since
2/5
106/431
.,2015,28
thereisnofoundationforadjudication.Theappealofdisqualificationisof
particularsignificance,andtherefore,therequirementforreasoningthedecision
ondisqualification,whichsetsthefoundationfortheappealisparticularly
significant.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatmerelyfailuretoreasonisadecision,
orfailuretoadjudicate,whichinitselfmaynotsupportthedisqualification,
unlessthereisinititselfrealconcernofbias.
9. Ininstantcase,theRequestforDisqualificationwasfoundedonevidenceof
perversionofcourtrecordsandprocedures.Thecircumstances,outlinedabove
perversionoftheregistrationoftheRequestforDisqualificationandfailuretoreason
thedenialoftheRequestforDisqualificationraiseadditionalseriousconcernsof
biasthroughperversionofrecordsandproceduresintheRequestforDisqualification
aswell.
10. Moreover,suchconductraisesconcernsthattheSupremeCourtisengagedin
instantcourtfileinunlawfuldeprivationofrightsunderthecoloroflaw:
a.TherightoftheRequesterforDueProcessintheRequestforInspectionandthe
RequestforDisqualification.
b.TherightoftheRequestertoAccessCourtRecordstoinspectandtocopy.
c.MrRomanZadorov'srightforFairandPublicHearingonhismurderindictment
andhisappeal.
d.MrRomanZadorov'srightsforLiberty.
11. Therefore,JusticesDanziger,Amit,andZylbertalarehereinrequestedto
reconsidermyMay26,2015RequestforDisqualificationforaCause,onceits
registrationiscorrected,andenterandserveadulyreasoneddecisiononit.
Request.
Today,June03,2015
______________
LINKS:Below
______________
7939/10
' :
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
0773179186:
3/5
107/431
.,2015,28
,
.
,
,26:2015,
.126,2015,',','
[1].
.2)',5,1("
".""
.",
"/",""".
: 1 , , " " . ",

, -/".
_____
.3,
,
.
.
.4:""
"1.
: 2 , , ' , ) ,(4 "

" , " - .1
_____
.5
,.
.6,"",
4/5
108/431
28,2015,.
,28,2015,,:
,,
.
.7.
.8,",
"):(2006
.
,.
","
77)...)((,,
.,
.,
...
,,
.,
.,
,,,
.
.9,
.
.
.10,,
,
,:
.,.
..
..
..
.11,,,,
,.
.
3,,2015,
____________
',
:
(7939/10),,
.
5/5
109/431
28,2015,.
110/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
RequestforRenderingDecisiononMay3,2015RepeatRequesttoInspect
InstantCourtFile.
I,theRequesterofInspectionininstantcourtfile,filehereinRequestforRendering
DecisiononmyMay3,2015RepeatRequesttoInspectinstantcourtfile:
1. OnMarch23,2015,IfiledmyoriginalRequesttoInspectinstantcourtfile.[1]
2. TheApril27,2015DecisionrecordontheSupremeCourt'selectronicpublicaccess
systemdeniesmyoriginalRequesttoInspect.[2]
3. OnMay3,2015,Ifiledmysubstantiallymodified,RepeatRequesttoInspectinstant
courtfile.[3]
4. Tothisdate,nodecisionhasbeenrenderedonmyMay3,2015RepeatRequestto
Inspect.
5. Therefore,IhereinrequestthattheCourtdulyenterandserveitsdecisiononmy
May3,2015RepeatRequesttoInspect.
Request.
Today,June03,2015,
______________
LINKS:Below
______________
7939/10
' :
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
0773179186:
1/2
.2015,3
111/431
3.2015,
3:2015,
.123,2015,[1].
.2""27,2015,
,[2].
.33,2015,,,[3].
.4,32015,.
.5,
3.2015,
.
3,,2015,
____________
',
:
[1]20150323RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtRequesttoInspect//
(7939/10)
[2]20150427RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtDecisiondenying
accesstocourtrecordstoinspectandtocopy//
(7939/10)
[3]20150503RomanZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)intheSupremeCourtRepeatRequestto
Inspectcourtfile//
(7939/10)
112/431
2/2
3.2015,

7939/10
Before:
The Hon Magistrate Gilad Lubinsky
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Appellant:
Roman Zadorov
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
June 4, 2015 Request by the Requester of Inspection
Decision
1. By law, and as is customary in this Court, certification of a record being True Copy of the
Original of judicial decision record, is provided by the Chief Clerk. So shall be done in the case at
bar.
2. Review with the Office of the Clerk shows that during input of the Request for Disqualification, it
was indeed entered in the Case Management System as one, which was filed by the Appellant
(and not by the Requester of Inspection). That was done in error. Following the Request,
referenced above, the error was corrected. It should also be clarified that the title of the Request in
the Case Management System is provided by internal classification of the Office of the Clerk.
Rendered today, June 14, 2015.
Gilad Lubinsky, Judge
[unsigned]
Magistrate
__________
113/431

" - 979701/
:
"

5202./14
.1
" " , , .
.
.2
" " (
) , . , . ,
" "
.
, " " ( .) 11.2.2.11
,
114/431
_________________________
10079390_X50.doc .
,' ; 277-2723333 www.court.gov.il ,
115/431
116/431
][
Supreme Court of the State of Israel
Zadorov v State of Israel
Requester: Joseph Zernik, PhD
7939/10
Human Rights Alert - NGO

PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Fax: 077-3179186
Urgent Request, Filed with Presiding Justice Miriam Naor, for Immediate Appointment
of a New Panel for Rendering a Decision on the Repeat (Narrow) Request to Inspect
Instant Court File; Alternatively for Deciding the Entire Appeal.
Your decision within 14 days is kindly requested.
The filer of the Requests to Inspect, files herein with Presiding Justice Miriam Naor an urgent
request to appoint a new panel for rendering a decision on the May 3, 2015 Repeat (Narrow)
Request to Inspect instant court file; alternatively for deciding the entire appeal.
A. The panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal is disqualified, since it refuses to
render a reasoned decision on the May 26, 2015 Request for Disqualification for a
Cause, as prescribed by law, and also refuses to provide a duly signed and certified copy
of its original decision, invalid as it is.
1. On May 26, 2015, I filed a Request for Disqualification for a Cause in the Request to Inspect
process in instant court file.
2. The May 28, 2015 Decision record, which was published on the Court's public access IT
system, purportedly denied the Disqualification for a Cause. However, the May 28, 2015
Decision record has never been served at all, in disregard of provisions of the law.
3. The May 28, 2015 Decision record, fails to include any reasoning at all, also in disregard of
provisions of the law.
4. On June 4, 2015, I filed a Request for Rendering a Duly Reasoned Decision on my Request for
Disqualification for a Cause.
5. To this date, I haven't received any decision on my Request for Rendering a Duly Reasoned
Decision on the Request for Disqualification for a Cause. No such decision has appeared in the
Court's IT system as well.
6. Also on June 4, 2015, I filed with Magistrate of the Supreme Court Gilad Lubinsky a Request for
a Duly Signed and Certified copy of the Decision on the Request for Disqualification for a
Cause, invalid as it is.
1/18
117/431
() :

7. Magistrate Lubinsky's June 14, 2015 Decision, which has never been duly served, [1]
effectively refused to provide a duly signed and certified copy of the Decision on the Request
for Disqualification for a Cause (see below).
8. Obviously, there is no way to appeal decisions of the current Panel, which have never been
rendered, or which are unsigned and uncertified, and which have never been duly served.
9. Therefore, the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal, should be deemed disqualified in
the Request to Inspect process, for its failure to render a lawful decision on the Request for
Disqualification for a Cause.
10. Moreover, any panel, which refuses to render a lawful decision on a request for
disqualification, should be deemed a panel which is engaging in perversion of justice in matters
pertaining to its own integrity
B. The Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal has never duly served the
Decision on the original (general) Request to Inspect and also refused to provide a
duly signed and certified copy of that Decision record.
11. On March 23, 2015, I filed the original (general) Request to Inspect in instant court file. The
Request was a standard request, filed as part of an academic study, the core of which is a survey
of exercising public access to court records in various criminal prosecution court files in various
courts in the State of Israel today. The survey's goal is to document conditions in the Israeli
courts in practice, following the 2009 Judgment in petition of the Association for Civil Rights in
Israel v Minister of Justice (High Court of Justice 5917/97). In that Judgment, the Court declared
the right to inspect court records, a fundamental principle in a democratic regime, and a
constitutional, supra-statutory right. The right to inspect court records, particularly in criminal
prosecution, is also established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10 the
right for fair, public hearing.
12. The April 27, 2015 Decision record, by the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal
has never been duly served on me.
13. Moreover, in response to repeat requests, which were filed with the Panel of Justices Danziger,
Amit and Zylbertal, for receiving duly signed and certified copy of the April 17, 2015 "Decision"
record, I received two court records, which should be deemed perversion and/or forgery of court
records (see below), and in response to a third request, addressed to Magistrate of the Supreme
Court I received an effective refusal (see below).
14. The April 27, 2015 Decision record, by the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal,
purportedly denied my original (general) Request to Inspect under the reasoning: a. The
Requester did not sufficiently clarify the nature of the research, which he is conducting..., and b.
Privacy.
15. The Decision record failed to state, whose Privacy was referred to. The vast majority of
the evidence in instant court file has been previously published, in Dr Haim Sadovsky's book,
Framing the Innocent (Sadeh Publishing, 2010), and in various internet sites. Upon information
Regarding lawful service of court decisions and its significance in Israeli law, see: Late Chief Justice Yoel Susman
Civil Court Procedures, chapter of Service of Records.
." " ," , ,
2/18
118/431
() :

and belief the records that are prohibited for publication are clearly defined: Photographs of the
victim's body, and protocols of hearings that were conducted behind closed doors. Therefore,
given the unique circumstances (see below) in instant court file, the publication of the Decision
record led to public responses, which described it as a thinly veiled attempt to patronize the
wrongful conduct of the Israel Police investigation team, the State Prosecution team, and the
judges themselves (see below). The concern is obvious inspection and publication of the
records in instant court file is likely to lead to the immediate collapse of the prosecution in this
case, and bring to an end the abuse of Mr Roman Zadorov.
16. Therefore, the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal, should also be deemed a panel,
which refuses to duly render a decision on the original (general) Request to Inspect in instant
court file, and therefore, is engaged in serious violation of Human Rights.
17. The inspection of instant court file also pertains to the fundamental integrity of the appeal
process in instant court file. Therefore, refusal by the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and
Zylbertal to duly render a decision in this matter, should be deemed grounds for their recusal in
the entire appeal.
C. The Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal refuses to render a decision on
the repeat (narrow) Request to Inspect in instant court file.
18. On May 3, 2015, I filed a repeat (narrow) Request to Inspect in instant court file. Such
Request provided more detailed justification for the Request, and also narrowed the scope of
records, subject of the Request, in order to avoid any possible violation of "privacy". Explicitly
excluded from such Request were all records that are part of the evidence in instant court file.
19. Since I received no decision on the repeat (narrow) Request to Inspect, I filed on June 3, 2015,
a Request for Rendering a Decision, relative to my the repeat (narrow) Request to Inspect.
20. Regardless, to this date, I have received no decision on the repeat (narrow) Request to Inspect,
neither has such decision record appear in the Court's public IT system.
21. Therefore, the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal, should also be deemed a panel,
which refuses to duly render a decision on the repeat (narrow) Request to Inspect in instant court
file.
22. Moreover, given the unusual circumstances in the Roman Zadorov affair (see below), denial of
access to court records, affected as shown here, raises in the public serious concern regarding
integrity of the current Panel in instant court file, and a wrongful attempt to prevent transparency
of the judicial process in the appeal file.
23. Therefore, the refusal to duly render decisions on both the original (general) and repeat
(narrow) Requests to Inspect in instant court file, also supports the disqualification of the current
Panel in the repeat (narrow) Request to Inspect, and its disqualification in the entire appeal
process.
D. In response on requests to provide duly signed and certified copy of the "Decision"
record, pertaining to the original (general) Request to Inspect, the Panel of Justices
Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal, in collusion with others, provided records that are
perversion and/or forgery of court records.
3/18
119/431
() :

24. Following the publication of the "Decision" record, pertaining to the original (general) Request
to Inspect in instant court file, which had never been duly served on me, I filed two Requests to
provide me duly signed and certified copies of such "Decision" record. My Requests explicitly
stated that pursuant to provisions of the Israeli law, and also pursuant to the Hague Apostille
Convention (1961), to which the State of Israel is a party, the record should be signed by the
corresponding judicial authorities, the certification should be signed by the Chief Clerk or
Magistrate of the Court, and the certification language should be as prescribed by law: "True
Copy of the Original".
25. In response on my first Request, I received a court record (Figure a.), which was unsigned by
the Justices, which was purportedly certified by Mr Danny Levy, who is not lawfully authorized
to sign such certification, and where the certification language is perverted. The certification
language, appearing on such record "Copying is True to the Original" is senseless in the
context of lawful certification of a court record.
26. In response on my second Request, which explicitly stated the failures in the record, which
was received following my first request, I against received a court record (Figure b.), purportedly
certified under the signature of Mr Danny Levy. The certification language was again perverted.
a.
b.
Figure: Copies of the April 27, 2015 "Decision" record on the original (general) Request to Inspect in instant court file,
which were received in response on repeat Requests, filed with the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal, for
a copy, which us duly signed by the corresponding judicial authorities, and certified by the Chief Clerk, or the
Magistrate of the Court, using the language prescribed by law "True Copy of the Original": a. The purported
certification box of a court record, received on May 5, 2015. b. The purported certification box on a court record,
received on May 10, 2015.
Both records should be deemed perversion and/or forgery of court records, since Mr Danny Levy is not lawfully
authorized to sign the certification of decision records of the Supreme Court. The issuance of court records, certified
by unauthorized persons, is a hallmark of simulated court records see, for example, Texas Criminal Code, 84.23, c.
(2), below.
4/18
120/431
() :

The certification language, employed by Mr Danny Levy is perverted as well, "Copying is True to the Original", fails
to comply with the language prescribed by law, and is senseless in the context of certification of a copy of a court
record.
It should also be noted that both records, like all Supreme Court records for over a decade, bear the disclaimer, "Issue
subject to editing and phrasing changes". Such disclaimers are also a hallmark of simulated court record see, for
example, Texas Criminal Code, 84.23, c. (1), below.
The "decision" record has never been duly served, but data, regarding its mailing were entered in the Supreme Court's
public IT system under "Events" tab, and data, pertaining to its delivery were entered under the "Certificates of
Delivery" tab. Misrepresentation regarding lawful service of court records, which are in fact simulated court record, is
the core of the conduct, underlying Simulated Legal Process see, for example, Texas Criminal Code, 84.23, a., b.,
below.
Both records are also invalid, ineffectual court records, pursuant to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961), to which
the State of Israel is a party. The Requests for a signed and certified copy explicitly stated that the copy is requested
for the issuance of an Apostille.
____
Therefore, the records, which were provided by the Court in response on my two Requests for a duly signed
and certified copy of the "Decision" record on my original (general) Request to Inspect in instant court file,
should be deemed perversion and/or forgery of court records.
E. Magistrate Lubinsky refused to provide duly singed and certified copies of either the
"Decision" record on the Request for Disqualification, or the "Decision" record on the
original (general) Request to Inspect.
27. On May 3, 2015, I filed an additional Request for duly signed and certified copies of the
records. In contrast with my previous two Requests, which were addressed to the Panel itself,
such Request was addressed to Magistrate of the Supreme Court Gilead Lubinsky. The Request
pertained to two "Decision" records by the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal:
a. The "Decision" record, pertaining to the Request for Disqualification for a Cause, and
b. The "Decision" record, pertaining to my original (general) Request to Inspect.
The Request, addressed to Magistrate Lubinsky, explicitly stated that the two previous Requests
resulted in the provision of perverted and/or forged court record. The Request also explicitly
stated that Magistrate Lubinsky is in fact the only person, who is today lawfully authorized to
certify Supreme Court decision records, since Ms Idit Malul, who falsely appears as "Chief
Clerk", operates with no lawful appointment record.
28. The June 14, 2015 "Decision" record by Magistrate Gilead Lubinsky, which appears in the
Supreme Court's public IT system, but which has never been duly served, says:
By law, and as is the custom in this Court, the certification of a record, issue "faithful to the
original" of a judicial decision, is provided, as a rule, by the Chief Clerk. So should be done in
instant case as well.
29. Following such "Decision" I received no signed and certified record, either by "Chief Clerk"
Idit Malul, by Magistrate Lubinsky, or by any other person.
30. Therefore, the June 14, 2015 "Decision" record by Magistrate Lubinsky should be deemed
effective refusal to certify both "Decision" record, referenced above, pertaining to the Request for
Disqualification and the original (general) Request to Inspect.
5/18
121/431
() :

31. The June 14, 2015 "Decision" record by Magistrate Lubinsky also suffers from lack of
integrity, since in such "Decision", Magistrate Lubinsky:
a. Attempts to create the false impression, that there is a duly appointed "Chief Clerk" in the
Supreme Court today. The true facts in this matter are that "Chief Clerk" Idit Malul has no
lawful appointment and no authority at all. Such facts were also documented in the Request,
filed with Magistrate Lubinsky.
b. Attempts to create the false impression, that the "Chief Clerk" today "as a rule" certifies
decisions of the Supreme Court. The true facts in this matter, as documented in the Figure
above, are that another person, who was not lawfully authorized, purported to certify the
records (and similar conduct was documented in other cases in the Supreme Court as well).
c. Failed to employ the certification language prescribed by law, "True Copy of the Original", and
instead refers to a perverted language "Issue is Faithful to the Original", which is senseless in
this context. The unsigned printouts from the IT system of the Supreme Court, which are not
valid court records, can be deemed as "Issues". However, a photocopy of the "original"
record, which is signed by the Justices, is a "copy" and not an "issue".
32. The refusal by Magistrate Lubinsky to provide duly signed and certified copies of the
"Decision", pertaining to the Request for Disqualification, and the "Decision", pertaining to the
Request to Inspect, must raise serious concerns, that Justices of the Panel Danziger, Amit, and
Zylbertal as well as Magistrate Lubinsky and others in the Supreme Court, have never deemed
such "Decision" records valid and effectual decision record of the Supreme Court.
33. Therefore, the refusal by Magistrate Lubinsky to provide duly signed and certified copies of
the above referenced "Decision" record, also supports the disqualification of instant Panel in the
repeat (narrow) Request to Inspect. Moreover, it must raise concerns that instant Panel is
disqualified in the appeal file in general.
F. Conduct of Justices of the Panel Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal, Magistrate Lubinsky
and others, detailed above, should be deemed Fraud Upon the Court and Simulating
Court Process.
34. Conduct of Justices of the Panel Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal, in collusion with Magistrate
Lubinsky and others, detailed above, includes:
Issuing "Decision" records that are invalid and ineffectual;
Mailing such "Decision" records to the filer of the Request to Inspect;
The registration and publication of such "Decision" records in the Supreme Court's public IT
system;
Entry of data, pertaining to mailing and delivery of such records in the Supreme Court's public
IT system;
Refusal to duly served decisions on the original (general) Request to Inspect and on the
Request for Disqualification, even after a Request for Due Process was filed;
Refusal to provide duly signed and certified copies of such "Decision" record, and
6/18
122/431
() :

Providing "Decision" records that are perverted or forged in response for duly signed and
certified copies of such "Decision" records.
35. Moreover, such conduct by the Panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal directly
originates from two Requests, which pertain to the fundamental integrity of any court, anywhere:
The Request to Inspect and the Request for Disqualification.
36. In fact, such conduct in its entirety, outlined above, should be deemed Fraud, the essence of
which is to generate misrepresentation, that decisions were duly rendered on the original (general)
Request to Inspect and the Request for Disqualification, while in fact, no valid and effectual
decision have been rendered at all. The goal of such conduct is to enforce on the filer of the
Request to Inspect the authority of invalid, ineffectual court records, and to unlawfully deprive
fundamental rights of the filer of the Request to Inspect, the Appellant in instant court file, and the
public at large.
37. Regarding the proof of Fraud, one should examine, whether such conduct was intentional, or
whether it was the outcome of human errors, or mere benign negligence. In such examination,
one of the clear tests is the refusal by the party or parties committing the purported errors to
correct such errors, after being asked to correct the errors. There is no doubt that in instant case,
Justice of the Panel Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal (with Magistrate Lubinsky and others)
repeatedly refused to correct their fraudulent conduct, outlined above.
38. Moreover, conduct of Justices of the Panel Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal is not original at all.
Such conduct is known for generations throughout the world, generally as "Fraud Upon the
Court", and specifically as "Simulating Court Process".
39. "Fraud Upon the Court" is defined, for example, in ruling of the US Supreme Court, ]2[ as
fraud, which is perpetrated by officers of a court (typically judges) and is directed to the judicial
machinery, and corrupts that impartial functions of the court.
40. "Simulating Court Process" is defined, for example, in the Texas Criminal Code, 32.48 (see
below), and is conduct of judges, office of the clerk, and others, the core of which is the
publication of invalid and ineffectual court records, and misrepresentation of their lawful service
on parties, aimed at falsely inducing the parties and others to believe that such records are valid,
effectual and enforceable, and falsely inducing submission to their authority.
Texas Criminal Code, 32.48 Simulating Legal Process

(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to
another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process
with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in
2
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the US Supreme Court says:
Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties
or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced
or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial
functions of the court have been directly corrupted.
7/18
123/431
() :

compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.

(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to
the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the simulating document:
(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have
lawful authority to issue or authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document
was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a
court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable
presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A
misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has
previously been convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, 3, eff. May 21, 1997
41. Conduct of Justices of the Panel Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal, in collusion with others,
matches in its details the components of "Simulating Legal Process", as defined by the Texas
Criminal Code, 32.48:
It started with the mailing of unsigned and unauthenticated records, simulating valid court
records and simulating lawful service of court records - 32.48 (a).
It continued with the entry of data, pertaining to the mailing of such invalid records in the
Supreme Court's public IT system under the "Events" tab, and with the entry of data,
pertaining to delivery of such invalid court records under the "Certificates of Delivery" tab,
thus generating false representation of lawful service of valid court records - 32.48 (a),
(b).
It also includes the false certification of records by a lawfully unauthorized person a
hallmark of simulated court records - 32.48 (c) (2).
It further includes the inclusion of the disclaimer "Issue is subject to editing and phrasing
changes" on the records also a hallmark of simulated court records - 32.48 (c) (1).
42. Conduct including Fraud Upon the Court and Simulating Legal Process is serious criminal
conduct, which is not covered by any immunity.
43. Serial conduct of this kind should be deemed organized crime in the Court.
G. The Unique circumstances in the Roman Zadorov affair and the murder of Tair
Rada, aggravate such conduct.
44. The circumstances in the Roman Zadorov affair and the murder of Tair Rada are unique, some
are outlined below:
8/18
124/431
() :

a. The parents of the murder victim petitioned to the High Court of Justice already at the outset,
and claimed, according to the Judgment: ]3[
In the Petition and its Appendix, which was filed on April 29, 2007 (hereinafter, together, the
Petition), the Petitioners seek that we order the re-opening of the investigation in this affair.
They claim that not all investigation directions were adequately examined, and those that
were examined were not completed or were abandoned. In their petition, the Petitioners
review a long and detailed list of evidentiary findings from the investigation file, which was
provided for their review, and which, according to their claims, establishes that the
investigation of the affair was inadequately conducted, and that the identity of the murderer
is erroneous. Moreover, the Petitioners claim that the case falls within the scope of cases,
which justify interference by this Court, since the decision by the prosecutorial authorities
was tainted by extreme unreason.
Such conclusions, which the murder victim's parents and some others held at the outset of the affair,
are not held by a vast number
b. Regarding this affair, Prof Mota Kremnitzer, an expert on criminal law, wrote:
Conduct of the State Prosecution in the Zadorov file is scary.
c. Regarding this affair, Prof Boaz Sangero, an expert on criminal law, wrote:
There is scientific evidence which ties the suspect to the crime scene, there is no motive for
the crime. The suspect denied his guilt throughout most of his investigation and throughout
the years of his prosecution. When he admitted, he failed to lead the investigator to any
evidence
The Verdict fails to convince that the guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt
The new Verdict in the matter of Roman Zadorov raises many concerns, on top of the
concerns raised following the original Verdict. Zadorov's guilt was not proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.
d. Conduct of the Nazareth District Court and the State Prosecution, headed by Shai Nitzan,
against Dr Maya Forman, who testified for Defendant Zadorov in the Nazareth District Court,
was described by media as vengeful. Such conduct was the subject of separate litigation,
where the Israeli Medical Association fully supported Dr Forman, who today is Head of the
Forensic-Pathological Department in the Abu-Kabir Forensic Institute, and a senior expert in
forensic medicine in the State of Israel.
e. Public interest in this affair is unprecedented. Tens of thousands of laypersons are listed in
groups that support the innocence of the Defendant and call for justice and for investigation of
the entire affair.
f. Upon information and belief, members of the public at large, including Dr Haim Sadovsky
(who acted as an investigator for the Defense), who examined the evidence material in detail,
filed criminal complaints with the Ministry of Justice and/or the Attorney General against the
3
2007-05-17 Rada and Rada v State Prosecutor (3041/07) - Judgment in petition in the High Court of Justice by the
victim's parents
) "70/1403 (
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/07/410/030/V04/07030410.v04.pdf
9/18
125/431
() :

Israel Police investigation team for perversion and/or falsification of evidence, and against the
prosecutorial team for deliberately misleading the courts.
g. Judge Yizhak Cohen, who presided over the panel in the Nazareth District Court, which twice
convicted Defendant Zadorov, was forced to resign in 2014, while the Israel Police
recommended that he be prosecuted for sex crimes, apparently also sex crimes in his
chambers. However, the State Prosecution appears not in a rush to file and indictment.
It appears that any reasonable person, who reviewed the evidence in this affair, be it the victim's
parents, legal experts, crime experts, or laypersons, reached the conclusion that in this affair fraud
was and is being committed, with the aim of falsely convicting the innocent in a despicable
murder, unlawfully depriving his liberty, and preventing a true investigation for finding the true
murderers of the late Tair Rada and their prosecution.
Under such unique circumstances, conduct of Justices of the Panel Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal
and others in the Supreme Court, outlined above, should be viewed as additionally grievous.
Such conduct in the Supreme Court, like the entire affair, generate the appearance of justice, of
the kind which is well known in dark regimes.
Summary
There is no doubt that the murder of the late Tair Rada and the prosecution of Mr Roman Zadorov
will be remembered with the passage of time as the scarlet letter of the Israeli courts in particular,
and the justice and law enforcement system in general.
In view of all of the above, Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Miriam Naor is herein requested
to immediately appoint a new panel for rendering a decision on the repeat (narrow) Request to
Inspect in instant court file; alternatively for deciding the entire appeal case.
Today, August 19, 2015
______________
Joseph Zernik, PhD Requester of Inspection
LINKS: Below
______________

09/9397

'

",88233 "
joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org :"
333-8739733 :
, ,
. () ;
. 72
10/18
126/431
() :

() ; .
. , ,
, "" ,
.
.7 43 ,4372 , .
.4 "" 43 , 4372 , ,
. "" , .
.8 "" 43 4372 , , .
.2 32 ,4372 ,
.
.2
.3
.3
.3
32,
, ,4372 "" .
32 ,4372 , , ,
"" , .
72 ,4372 , ]4[ ,
"" ( ).
, ,
.
.9 , , , ,
.
.73 , ,
.
. , ""
() , ""
.
.77 48 ,4372 , () .
, ,
. ,
4339 ( .)2973193
, , -" . ,
, , , - 73
" ".
.74 "" 43 ,4372 , ,
() .
.78 , , , , ,
"" 43 ,4372 ,
Regarding lawful service of court decisions by Israeli law and its sifnificance, see: Yoel Susman Civil Court
Procedures, chapter of Service of Records.
, , " , " ".
11/18
127/431
: ()

1 ( , ) ,
( . )
.72 "" 43 ,4372 , , ,
() : ." ... .
" ".
.72 " " , .
, ' " ( )4373 ,
. , :
, .
( ) , "" , ,
, ,
( ) .
, .
.73 , ,
() , .
.73 ,
, .
. , ()
.
.73 38 ,4372 , () .
, , "
" . .
.79 () , 384372 ,
() .
.43 , () ,
.
.47 , , ,
() .
.44 , ( ) ,
, ,
, .
.48 , ()
() ()
. .
. , , ,
3 ""
() .
.42 "" () , ,
"" . ,
( ,)7937 ,
, ,
" - ".
12/18
128/431
: ()

.52 , ( ') , ,
, , .
" - " - .
.43 , ,
( ') . .
.
.
: 43 ,4372 , () ,
, , ,
, " - " : .
32 .4372 , . 73.4372 ,
1 ,
. ,
, , ,84.23 ,)4(..
, " , .
.
, , , ,
" . , , ,
,84.23 ,)7( ..
,
"" , " " .
- , , , ,84.23
, ,.
- ( ,)7937 .
.
____
.43 ,
"" () , 1
.
13/18
129/431
: ()

. , , ""
"" () .
.43 38 ,4372 , .
, , .
"" , :
. "" ,
. "" () .
, ,
1 .
, ' , " " ,
.
.49 "" 72 , 4372 , ,
, ,:
, " "
, , . .
.83 , " " ,
, .
.87 , "" 72 ,4372 ,
"" () .
.84 "" 72 , 4372 , , "" ,
:
. " " .
.
.
. " " "" .
, , , ,
( ).
. , " ,
" " , . ,
, , "" .
( ) "" , , "" "".
.88 , ""
"" , , , ,

.
.82 , " ,
() . ,
.
. , , ,
, .
.82 , , ,
,:
"" ;
14/18
130/431
: ()

;
;
;
() ,
;
,
"" 1
.
.63 , , ,
: .
.83 , , ,
, .
, ,
, , .
.83 , ,
. ,
.
, ( )
.
.89 , , .
" - , -
.
" .23 " , , " ]5[ ,
( ) , ,
.
" .27 " , , , ( ,84.23)
, , , ,
, , , ,
.
- /4.23 ,
.
, , , , :
( )7 ,
( )4 :
)A ;
) B , , .
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the US Supreme Court says:
Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties
or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced
or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial
functions of the court have been directly corrupted.
15/18
131/431
: ()

.
.
. , :
( )7 .
( ) 4 .
. , , ,
, , , ,
, , () .
. () , , .Class A misdemeanor
. , ,
[ state jail felony -].
.24 , , ,
" " , :84.23 ,

- , ,84.23.

"" ,
" " , -
, ,84.23 , ,.
-
, ,84.23.)4(.
" "
- , ,84.23,)7( .
.28 , ,
.
.22 - .
. " ,
.
.22 , :
. " ,
]6[ :
( 49.2.4333 ) ,
. ,
.
,
.
,
.
2007-05-17 Rada and Rada v State Prosecutor (3041/07) - Judgment in petition in the High Court of Justice by the
victim's parents
( )70/1403 "
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/07/410/030/V04/07030410.v04.pdf
16/18
132/431
: ()

, ,
...
. , :
.
. ' , :
, .
. , ...
...
,
. .
. ' ,
, .
, ' ,
- - ,
.
. .
, .
. , , ' ( ,
) , , 1
1 ,
.
. , , ,
,4372 ,
. ...
, , ,
, , ,
, ,
, " .
, ,
, , . , ,
.
"
, .
,
() ; .
79 ,,4372 ,
____________
' ,
17/18
133/431
: ()

18/18
134/431
: ()


7939/10
Before:

Appellant:
Roman Zadorov
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Repeat Request to Inspect/Copy;
Request for Rendering a Decision
Decision
We reviewed the Request and decided to grant it. The Requester may contact Director of Criminal
Division in this Court, Mr Danny Levy, and coordinate with him the time of inspection as requested in all requests and responses filed in instant court file.
Rendered today, August 20, 2015.
[unsigned]
Judge
Judge
Judge
__________
135/431
136/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
[]
August31,2015
AttorneyTamarParush
SupervisorofCriminalMattersintheStateProsecution,Israel
Byemail:tamarpa@justice.gov.il
RE:ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10),BaranesvStateofIsrael(7939/10),
OlmertvStateofIsrael(4478/14),OlmertvStateofIsrael(5270/14)failureto
serveresponsesontheRequesterintheSupremeCourt,andrequestfor
clarificationoftheStateProsecution'sposition,inre:DueProcessService,
FreedomofSpeech,FreedomofthePress,relativetoRequeststoInspectcourt
records.
Yourexpedientresponsebyfaxoremailiskindlyrequested.Timeisoftheessence
DearAttorneyParush:
Inrecentyears,Ihavesubmittedaseriesofrequeststoinspectcourtrecordsin
variouscourtsintheStateofIsrael.Suchrequestsarepartofasurvey,relativeto
publicaccesstocourtrecordsandtheexerciseofsuchrightinIsrael,followingthe
newRegulationsoftheCourts,InspectionofCourtFiles(2003)andthe2009Judgment
inHighCourtofJusticepetitionAssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelvMinisterof
Justice(5917/97).Documentationoftherequesttoinspectprocessisnaturally
integraltomyresearchonthesubject,asaretheunderlyinglegaltheories,heldby
Stateauthoritiestoday.
GivenmygrowingexperienceinthevariouscourtsinIsrael,todayIroutinelyinclude
inmyrequestsafinalparagraph,titled,RequestforDueProcesswhereIaskthat
responsesbythepartiesonmyrequestsanddecisionsofthecourtbedulyservedon
me.
RegardlessofthefactthatIroutinelydulyservemyrequestsontheStateProsecution
bycertifiedmailwithcertificatesofdelivery,theStateProsecutionfailstoserveits
responsesonme.
Forexample,onJuly23,2015,Ireceivedbyfaxfromanunidentifiedfaxmachine,
withnoauthenticationletter(probablyfromtheSupremeCourt'sofficeoftheClerk)
onepage(attached),whichisapparentlypageNo4inaresponsebytheState
Prosecution,signedbyyou,anddatedApril25,2015.Thereisnowayformeto
ascertainthecourtfilethatitbelongsto,butIguessthatitistheBaranesfile,
referencedabove.
Therefore,Ikindlyrequest:
a)ExpedientforwardingtomebyfaxorbyemailofallresponsesoftheState
Prosecution,whichwerefiledoneachandanyofmyrequestsinthecourtfiles,
referencedabove.
1/3
137/431
b)ClarificationregardingtheStateProsecutionpositionanditslegalfoundation,
relativetoserviceontheRequesterofitsresponsesonrequeststoinspect.
SuchserviceappearstomeanindisputablepartoftherightforDueProcess.
c) ClarificationregardingtheStateProsecution'spositionanditslegalfoundation,
relativetostatementinC.intheattachedpage:TheRequestershallsigna
commitmenttoavoidprovidinganydetails,violatinganyperson'sprivacy.
TherighttoinspectcourtrecordsisdirectlytiedtoFreedomofSpeechand
FreedomofthePress,bothinIsraelandinothernations.Here,itappearsthatthe
StateProsecutionistryingtocreateahybridtherighttoinspectwithneither
FreedomofSpeechnorFreedomofthePress.
d)ClarificationregardingtheStateProsecution'spositionanditslegalfoundation,
relativetostatementinC.intheattachedpage:IncasetheRequesterwishesto
publishhisresearchheshallfileaseparaterequestwiththeCourt.
SuchpositionappearsablatantPriorRestraintofFreeSpeechandFreedomofthe
Press,particularlysincetherequestdetailedthattheintendedpublicationsarein
academicjournalsandUNHumanRightsCouncilreports.
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlert(NGO)
OccupyTLV
CC:
CriminalDivision,SupremeCourtOfficeoftheClerk,byFax:026759648
AttorneyDanYakir,AssociationforCivilRightsinIsrael,byEmail
_________________________________________________________________________
2015 , 31
"

tamarpa@justice.gov.il :"
,(3032/99) ,(7939/10) :
- (5270/14) ,(4478/14)
,
.
! . "
,"
,
, ,
2009 ,(2003) -
, .(5917/97 )"
,
.
2/3
138/431
,
, " " ,
.

, .
, 23 ,2015 , )
( )( , 4
, , 25 .2015 , ,
".
, :
. "
.
. , ,
.
, .
. , , .
: .
,
. - ,
.
. , , .
:
.
,
, ,"
".
,
'
"
:
,,026759648 :
" , ,".
3/3
139/431
140/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
[]
September01,2015
AttorneyTamarParoush
SupervisorofCriminalMattersintheStateProsecution,Israel
Byemail:tamarpa@justice.gov.il
RE:BaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99)andZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)
ispolicemen'sandprosecutors'conduct,maliciouslypervertingjusticewhile
performingtheirduties,coveredbytheRightforPrivacy?
Yourresponsewithin14daysiskindlyrequested.
DearAttorneyParush:
InrelationshiptomyRequesttoInspect,yourobjectiononbehalfoftheState
Prosecution,andtheJanuary31,2000RequestforaNewTrialinthecourtfile,
referencedabove[1,2]seriousconcernsmustberaisedthattheStateProsecution
employedfalseclaimsofRightforPrivacyinanattempttowrongfullyprohibit
inspectionandpublicationofacourtrecords,whichdocumentspolicemen'sand
prosecutors'misconductintheAmosBaranesaffair.
Thepicture,whichemergesfromtheRequestforaNewTrial,filedbythelatePublic
DefenderDavidWeinerandothers,indicatesthatalargegroupofpolicemenand
prosecutorsengagedinconduct,whichincludedextractionofconfessionand
reconstructionofmurderthroughtheuseofwrongfulmethods,providingfalse
testimoniesincourts,andsystematicconcealmentofthetruthincourt.
Theintentionofsuchpolicemenandprosecutors,asindicatedbytheRequestfora
NewTrial,wastostandasafortifiedwallinanefforttopervertDueProcessand
FairHearing,andobstructjustice.Allthatinordertoconvictaninnocentpersonof
murderandpreventhisacquittalinanewtrial.
Giventhenumberofpolicemanandprosecutorsinvolved,theircoordinatedconduct,
thedurationofyears,andthenumberofcourtprocessesinthematter,areasonable
personwouldmostlikelyconcludethatitwasorganizedcrimebypolicemenand
prosecutorsinthecourts.
Therefore,yourApril25,2015responseonbehalfoftheStateProsecution,objecting
tomyRequesttoInspectthecourtfile,referencedabove,raisesthefollowing
fundamentalquestion:
Ispolicemen'sandprosecutors'conduct,maliciouslypervertingjusticewhile
performingtheirduties,coveredbytheRightforPrivacy,asacausefordenying
inspectionandimposingprohibitionofpublicationofcourtrecords?
SuchquestionisofthehighestpublicpolicysignificancetodayintheStateofIsrael,
whenoverhalfadozenmostseniorcommandersoftheIsraelPolicehavebeen
demotedorresignedinrelationshiptovariouscorruptionorsexoffense
1/4
141/431
investigationsinrecentyears,whenabouthalfthepublicisshowninpollstoconsider
theIsraelPolicecorrupt,whenformerTelAvivDistrictStateAttorneyRuthDavidis
prosecutedinamajorcorruptionscandal,andwhenStateprosecutorsareengaging
inlaborstrikesinanefforttopreventtheestablishmentofapublicauthorityfor
supervisingtheirconduct.
Aboveandbeyondallthat,thequestioniscurrentandurgent,sincetheevidence
pointsoutthatalargegroupofpolicemenandprosecutorshasengagedforyearsin
similarconductintheRomanZadorovaffair,andtheStateProsecutionobjectedto
inspectionofcourtrecordsinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)undersimilarclaims
oftheRightsforPrivacy...[3]
Therefore,Iwouldbegratefulforyourresponse,regardingtheStateProsecution
positioninthisimportantpublicmatter.
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
OccupyTLV
LINKS:
Below
_________________________________________________________________________
2015 , 01
"

tamarpa@justice.gov.il :"
- (7939/10) ,(3032/99) :
, ,
?
. 14
,"
, 31 , ,
- [1,2] (3032/99) ,2000
, " "
.
,
, ,"
", ,
."
2/4
142/431
, ,
" " .
.
,
, ,
.
25 ,2015 ,
:
, ,
, ?
,
,
"" , "
,
.
, ,
,
) (7939/10
[3] ...
, .
,
'
"
[1]20150829ISRAEL:Baranesaffair,PartI:TheSupremeCourtassupremepatron
ofcorruption...//
,:...
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2015/08/20150829israelbaranesaffairpart
i.html
[2]20150831ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10),BaranesvStateofIsrael
(3032/99),OlmertvStateofIsrael(4478/14),OlmertvStateofIsrael(5270/14)
failuretoserveresponsesontheRequesterintheSupremeCourt,andrequestfor
clarificationoftheStateProsecution'sposition,inre:DueProcessService,Freedomof
Speech,FreedomofthePress,relativetoRequeststoInspectcourtrecords.//
,(7939/10),(3032/99)
,(4478/14)(5270/14)
,
,,.
Repeat(narrow)RequesttoInspectcourtfile//
3/4
143/431
(7939/10))(
4/4
144/431
20151007ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)UrgentRequest,FiledwithPresiding
JusticeMiriamNaor,forrenderingadecisionontheRequestAugust19,2015Urgent
RequestforImmediateAppointmentofaNewPanel//
(7939/10)
,2015,19
145/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
UrgentRequest,FiledwithPresidingJusticeMiriamNaor,forrenderinga
decisionontheRequestAugust19,2015UrgentRequestforImmediate
AppointmentofaNewPanelininstantcourtfile.
Yourimmediatedecisioniskindlyrequested.
ThefileroftheRequeststoInspect,fileshereinwithPresidingJusticeMiriamNaoran
UrgentRequestforRenderingaDecisionontheMay19,2015UrgentRequestfor
ImmediateAppointmentofaNewPanelininstantcourtfile.
1.OnAugust19,2015,IfiledtheUrgentRequestforImmediateAppointmentofaNew
PanelforRenderingaDecisionontheRepeat(Narrow)RequesttoInspectInstantCourt
File;AlternativelyforDecidingtheEntireAppeal.Tothisdate,Ihaven'treceiveda
decisionontheRequest.
2.TheAugust19,2015RequestoriginatedinthefailureofthePanelofJusticesDanziger,
Amit,ZylbertaltorenderalawfuldecisiononmyMay26,2015Disqualificationfora
Cause,asdetailedinmyRequestforImmediateAppointmentofaNewPanel.
3.TheAugust19,2015RequestalsooriginatedinthefailureofthePanelofJustices
Danziger,Amit,ZylbertaltorenderanydecisiononmyJune4,2015Requestfora
ReasonedDecisionontheDisqualificationforaCause.
4.RegardingDisqualificationforaCause,Directive9.1100oftheAttorneyGeneralsays:
[1]
Thedisqualificationforacauseofajudgeisaparticularlysensitivematter,aclaimof
disqualificationforacauseisequivalent,inmanycases(butnotall)torefutingthe
presumptionofhonestyandopenness,existingregardinganyprofessionaljudicial
panel.
Regardingdisqualificationforacause,YigalMarzel'sbook(Chapter3,p51)says:[2]
1
Disqualifications for a Cause by State Counsel and Responses on Disqualifications by Other Parties, Guidelines of
the Attorney General, No 9.1100 (50.060); April 1, 1998, updated October 24, 2002.
http://index.justice.gov.il/Units/YoezMespati/HanchayotNew/Seven/91100.pdf
2
Disqualification Laws by Yigal Marzel, Israel Bar Association Press (2006)
1/3
2015 , 19
146/431
2. HonestyinDisqualificationforaCause
Animportantcomponentinthelawspertainingtotheprocedureofdisqualification
foracauseistheprincipleofhonesty.Itbearsonallthoserelatedtotheprocedure
theparty,counsel,andalsothejudicialpanel.
5.Ininstantcourtfile,publictrustinthejudicialsystemhasreachedalowmark,and
failureofPresidingJusticeNaortorenderadecisiononmyAugust19,2015Requestfor
AppointmentofaNewPanelmayloweritevenfurther.
6.Inviewofalltheabove,PresidingJusticeNaorishereinaskedtodulyrenderadecision
onmyAugust19,2015UrgentRequestforAppointmentofaNewPanelforRenderinga
DecisionontheRepeat(Narrow)RequesttoInspectInstantCourtFile;Alternativelyfor
DecidingtheEntireAppeal.
Basedonthefundamentalsoflawandjustice,PresidingJusticeNaorshouldgrantinstant
request.
Today,October07,2015,
______________
______________

7939/10

'

",33407 "
joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org :"
077-3179186 :
: ,
2015 , 19
. )( ;

2015 , 19
. )( ;
,2015 , 19 .1
.)( ;
.
2/3
2015 , 19
147/431
.2 19 ,2015 , ,,
26 ,2015 , .
.3 19 ,2015 , ,,
04 ,2015 , .
.4 [3] :9.1100
, ,
) ( .
) ,' )[4] :(51
.2
. ,
, .
.5 ,
19 ,2015 ,
.
.6 ,
19 ,2019 ,
)( ; .
.
____________
' ,
07 ,,2015 ,
3 , ,
1 ;(50.060) 9.1100 ,1998 24 ,2002
4
, , )(2006
3/3
19 2015 ,
148/431

7939/10
Before:
The Hon Presiding Justice M Noar
Appellant:
Roman Zadorov's
v
Respondent:
State of Israel

August 19, 2015 and October 07, 2015 Requests for decision
appointing a new panel
Decision
1. In March 2015, Request to Inspect was filed in instant court file. The Request was filed by Joseph
Zernik, PhD. The judicial panel, which reviews the Appeal (Justices Y Danziger, Y Amit, and Z
Zylbertal) denied the Request to Inspect on April 27, 2015. Following the denial of the Request to
Inspect, the Requester filed a Statement of Disqualification. The Panel denied the Disqualification
on May 28, 2015. In parallel, the Requester filed another Request to Inspect. On August 20, 2015,
the Panel granted the repeat Request to Inspect and determined that the Requester could contact the
Director of the Criminal Division to coordinate the time of inspection.
2. On August 19, 2015, a day prior to the panel rendering its decision, permitting inspection of the
appeal court file, the Request filed another Request (as part of the process, referenced above),
which was addressed to the Presiding Justice, where he asked to order appointment of a new panel
for deciding on the new (limited) Request to Inspect in instant court file, alternatively to appoint a
new panel for the entire appeal process. Due to a problem, the Request was not forwarded to my
review after its filing. On October 7, 2015, the Requester filed Request for Rendering a Decision,
where he pressed that I order the disqualification of the panel.
3. The August 19, 2015 Request is in its essence an attempt to challenge the Panel's decision not to
disqualify itself. It is well-established that any judicial decision in the matter of disqualification,
including Supreme Court Justices decisions on disqualification, may be appealed, pursuant to the
Courts Act (1984), Articles 77a(c). Such appeal is reviewed by the Supreme Court Presiding
Justice, by a judicial panel, or by a single justice, as determined by the Presiding Justice (see Yigal
Marzel, Disqualification Law 394-395 (2006)).
4. In instant case, two material defects occurred in the Requester's attempt to challenge the Panel's
decision not to disqualify itself. First the Requester failed to file an independent Appeal (Ben
Adva v Smile Telecom LTD 6080/15, September 17, 2015). Second, the Request ignores that time
frame prescribed by law for the filing of Disqualification Appeal. In the matter at bar, the Request
[to appoint a new panel] was filed in August 2015, while the Disqualification Decision was
rendered in May 2015. The Criminal Court Procedure Act (1982), Article 147(b) says that appeal of
Disqualification in criminal matters shall be filed within 5 days from the disqualification decision.
Such defects are sufficient to deny the Request at bar. Beyond that, it should be noted that also
149/431
review of the matter itself discovers no reason to grant it. One must wonder why the Requester
continues to file futile requests, even after the Court granted his Request to Inspect.
5. Therefore, the Request is denied.
Rendered today, October 12, 2015.
[unsigned]
Presiding Judge
__________
150/431

" 979701/
:
'
"

" 91.2.8.91
5.9..8.91
.1
2015 .
" ' .
( ' ,' -' ) . 27.4.2015
.
. 28.5.2015
. 20.8.2015

.
.2
, 19.8.2015
, ( ) ,
, "
151/431
( ) ;
" . .
7.10.2015 ,
.
.3
19.8.2015
28.5.2015 . ,

77 ( ) [ ] , " -
. 1984
, , ( ,
.)) 2006 ( 395-394

.4
. ,
( " 6080/15 ' "
( .)) 17.9.2015 ,
. , 2015
. 2015 , ( 147 )
[ ] , " 1982 -
.
.
.
.
.5
, " " ( .) 12.10.2015
152/431
_________________________
10079390_C52.doc .
,' ; 277-2723333 www.court.gov.il ,
153/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
[]
October13,2015
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaor
ShaareyMishpatStreet,Jerusalem
Bycertifiedmail
RE:Urgentrequestforpublishingproceduresforobtainingcertificationofthe
SupremeCourt'sdecisionrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ingeneral,and
inparticularinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)criminalappealinthe
convictionofRomanZadorovinthemurderofthegirlTairRada.
Yourresponsewithin14daysiskindlyrequested.Timeisoftheessence!
DearPresidingJusticeNaor:
Ihereinurgentlyrequestthatyoupublishproceduresforobtainingcertificationofthe
SupremeCourt'sdecisionrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ingeneral,andin
particularinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)criminalappealfromthe
convictionofRomanZadorovinthemurderofthegirlTairRada.Alternatively,I
hereinrequest,thatincasetheMay28,2015decisionrecordbythepanelofJustices
Danziger,AmitandZylbartal(theirpurporteddenialofDisqualificationforaCause)
isnotworthyoflawfulcertification,youtakeimmediateactions:a)toremovesuch
misleadingrecordfromITsystemoftheSupremeCourt,andb)toaddressajudicial
panel,whichfailedtodulyansweronDisqualificationforaCauseinthecourtfilein
reference.
TheRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficesoftheClerks)2004,Article6(a)says:
Thechiefclerksofthecourtsareauthorizedtocertifyacourtrecordtrue
copyoftheoriginalinthecourtfile.
Suchalsoisthelawinothernations.
Moreover,IsraelisapartytotheHagueApostilleConvention(1961),whichclarifies
thatajudicialrecordisdeemedvalid,effectualandenforceableonlyifsignedbythe
appropriatejudicialauthorityandcertifiedbythelawfullyauthorizedperson.
However,theabovereferencedRegulationsdidnotelaboratehowthecertificationof
judicialrecordswouldbematerialized.Therefore,Ihereinrequestthatyouestablish
thismaterialprocedureintheSupremeCourt.
1) Generalbackground:GraveconcernsregardinglackofintegrityinITsystems
oftheSupremeCourtsince2002,andtheroutinepublicationinthesystems
ofsimulateddecisionrecords.
InstantmatterismosturgentrelativetothecriminalappealinZadorovvStateof
Israel(7939/10)andtheMay28,2015decisionrecordbythepanelofJustices
Danziger,AmitandZylbertal(purportedlydenyingtheirMay26,2015
1/23
154/431
DisqualificationforaCause).However,theproblemisfundamentalitpertainsto
integrityoftheSupremeCourt'srecordsingeneral.
Aspartofanacademicstudy,Ihavebeenconductinginrecentyearsasurvey,
relativetoexercisingpublicaccesstocourtrecordsandintegrityoftheelectronic
recordsofthecourtsoftheStateofIsrael.Thestudyfollowstheoverarchingchanges
inadministrationofthecourtsoverthepastdecade,including:Implementationofthe
EsignAct,newRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk),newRegulationsofthe
Courts(InspectionofCourtFiles),andtheimplementationofnewITsystemsinthe
courts.Inthiscontext,seriousconcernsarose,relativetointegrityofnumerous
judicialdecisionrecords,whichontheirfacesappearedassimulatedcourtrecords.
[1]
Therefore,inordertoascertainthenatureofsuchjudicialrecords,Ihaveattempted
numeroustimestoobtaincertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ofdecision
recordsofthevariouscourts,includingtheSupremeCourt.
NotinasinglecasewasIsuccessfulinsuchattempts.Itisbynowobviousthatitis
notanaccidental,localfailure,butasystemwide,persistentphenomenon.
1 Simulated court record, and simulated judicial process are used here according to their definition in the
Texas Penal Code:
32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to
another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with
the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in
compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the
intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the simulating document:
(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful
authority to issue or authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed
with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a
court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable
presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously been
convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.
2/23
155/431
Figure 1. Changes in IT system of the Supreme Court in 2002: The Supreme Court holds the paper
records as its valid and authoritative records. With it, the Supreme Court maintains IT systems for
public access to the decision records, and attorneys as well as the public at large, consider the
electronic records in the systems reliable and valid display of the Supreme Court's records.
However, since the death in March 2002 of Supreme Court's Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen, all
certifications, True Copy of the Original, were removed from the records, and the name of current
Chief Clerk no longer appears on the records. The electronic records bear no signature (either
graphic or electronic). Moreover, since 2002, all records bear a disclaimer: subject to editing and
phrasing changes. Furthermore, until 2002, the certification by the Chief Clerk included reference
to a unique, presumably secure electronic file. Since March 2002, such reference is only to Word
files, which are most likely not secured, and in numerous cases, no reference to any electronic file is
found on the record.
_____
Figure1,above,showstheprofoundchangesinthetemplateoftheelectronic
decisionrecordsoftheSupremeCourtinearly2002.Combined,theoutcomeof
thesechangesisthatsince2002thereisnosignontheelectronicrecords,which
conveysfinality,authority,orvalidity.Onthecontrary,theyshowadisclaimer...
Areasonablepersonwouldseesuchchangesasdeliberateactiontoabolishthe
validityandauthorityofallrecordsintheelectronicsystemsince2002.
BothSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeAsherGrunisandtheAdministrationofCourts
(thelatterpursuanttoFreedomofInformationActrequest)refusedtoanswer:
Underwhoseauthority,andonwhatlegalfoundationweresuchprofoundchanges
introducedin2002inthetemplateoftheelectronicrecords?
Inparallel,alldecisionrecordsoftheSupremeCourtaremailedtodaytopartiesin
process(inlieuofdueservice)asprintoutsfromtheelectronicsystem,unsigned,
uncertified,bearingthedisclaimer,subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges,withno
authenticationletterbytheOfficeoftheClerk.AccordingtolateSupremeCourt
PresidingJusticeYoelSusman'sbookCivilCourtProcedures,chapter,Serviceof
Record,suchconductisnotlawfulserviceofrecords.Thesamechapteralsoclarifies
thedubiousnatureofcourtdecisions,whicharenotdulyserved(i.e.,failurein
authentication).
Inspectionandcomparisonofthepaperrecordsandtheelectronicrecordsofthe
SupremeCourtraisedevendeeperconcerns,regardingintegrityofITsystemsand
recordsoftheSupremeCourt:
InAmosBaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99)RequestforaNewTrialit
turnedoutthataseriesofdecisionrecords,whichweresuspectedforgeriesin
theITsystem,weremissingfromthepapercourtfile.
InMotiAshkenazi+76othersvDirectoroftheEnforcementandCollection
AuthorityandtheMinisterofJustice(2300/11)PetitionintheHighCourtof
JusticeitturnedoutthattheSupremeCourtmaintainsprotocols
(transcripts)ofitshearingsonlyaselectronicrecords,withnocounterpartsin
thepapercourtfiles.Moreover,theelectronicrecordsareunsigned(either
graphicallyorelectronically).
InMotiAshkenazi+76othersvDirectoroftheEnforcementandCollection
AuthorityandtheMinisterofJustice(2300/11),italsoturnedoutthatthe
SupremeCourtconductsforyearspreliminaryproceedingswithno
foundationinthelaw,withnoConditionalDecree(akintosummons),and
wheretheNoticetoAppearinCourtisaselfeliminatingelectronicrecord,with
nocounterpartinthepapercourtfile.Moreover,theelectronicrecord(priorto
3/23
156/431
itsselfelimination)issignedonlybyagraphicsignature(notavalidelectronic
signature)byaperson,whosenameandauthorityfailtoappearontherecord.
InpetitionstotheHighCourtofJustice,whereprocessisconductedunder
OriginalJurisdiction,theConditionalDecree,orinitsabsence,theNoticeto
AppearinCourt,aretheonlyvalidfoundationforestablishingjurisdictionof
thecourt.
ConcernsregardingintegrityoftheSupremeCourt'sITsystemswasaugmented,once
theintegrityoftheserverswasexamined:
Routineexaminationsonvariousoccasionsfoundtheserverslackingvalid
certificatesofidentity.
TheStateOmbudsman'sReport60b(2010)documentedthatcustodyofthe
servershadbeenremovedfromtheOfficesoftheClerksofthevariouscourts,
andtransferredtoacorporation.
AdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoansweronaFreedomoInformationAct
request:Whotodayholdstheultimateadministrativeauthorityfortheservers
oftheSupremeCourt?
TheAdministrationofCourtalsorefusedtoansweronaFreedomof
InformationActrequest:WhoistodaychargedwithsecurityofITsystemsof
thecourts?
Itshouldbenoted,thatinresponsetoanoticetotheYoramCohen,HeadoftheShin
Bet(sincetheShinBetischargedwithsecurityoftheState'sITsystems,asisthecase
inothernations),responsewasreceivedfromthePrimeMinister'soffice,statingthat
theShinBetisnotchargedwithresponsibilityforthesecurityofITsystemsofthe
courts.
FreedomofInformationActrequestsalsodocumentedthatsincethedeathof
ShmaryahuCohenin2002,thereisnolawfullyappointedChiefClerkintheSupreme
Court:BothChiefClerkSaraLifschitz(until2013)andChiefClerkIditMelul
(today),werenotlawfullyappointed,pursuanttotheRegulationsofStateService.
ItshouldalsobenotedthattheRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk)2004,
abolishedthedutiesoftheChiefClerkforexcellentcustodyoftherecordsand
registrationsofthecourt.SuchdutywasprescribedbytheRegulationoftheCourts
(RegistrationOffice)1936fromtheBritishMandateperiod,andsimilarlyis
prescribedinthelawsofothernations.
TheoperationofalawfulOfficeoftheClerk,whichholdsdutiesforthesafeguardof
therecordsandtheirintegrity,andthemaintenanceofvalidandeffectualrecordsof
thejudicialprocess,arekeytraitsofCourtsofRecord.Therefore,thecombination
offindings,outlinedabove,alone,islikelytoleadinternationalobserverstoconclude
thattheSupremeCourtoftheStateofIsraelisnolongeraCourtofRecord,but
ratherasamedievalcourt.
2)ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10):Perversionsand/orforgeriesof
certificationofdecisionrecordsbyJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylebertal,
pertainingtoRequeststoInspectthecourtfile
OnMay26,2015,IfiledDisqualificationforaCauseagainstthepanelofJustices
Danziger,AmitandZylbertalintheRequesttoInspectprocessinZadorovvStateof
4/23
157/431
Israel(7939/10).TheDisqualificationforaCauseinpartsays[figureswereadded
hereinsteadoftheexhibitsintheoriginal]:
1. On March 23, 2015, I filed my first Request to Inspect in instant court file. [1]
2. On April 27, 2015, a Decision record, denying the Request to Inspect, appeared in the
online public access system of the Supreme Court. [2] However, the Decision has never
been duly served on me.
3. Failure of the Supreme Court to duly serve its decisions is inexplicable.
4. On May 3, 2015, I filed a Request for Authentication, asking the Court to provide me a
copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision: [3] a) Bearing signatures of the judicial authorities,
and b) Authenticated by certification, True Copy of the Original, by a duly appointed
Chief Clerk, or Magistrate of the Court, pursuant to the Regulations of the Courts Office
of the Clerk (2004), and the Hague Apostille Convention (1961). My May 3, 2015 Request
for Authentication stated that the authenticated copy was requested in order to enable the
issuance of an Apostille, pursuant to the guidelines of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for its
filing outside the State of Israel. It also asked that the Court employ the authentication
language stipulated by law - True Copy of the Original - and not invalid, perverted
variants, such as Copying is True to the Original.
5. On May 3, 2015, I also again filed a Request to Inspect instant court file. [4] To the best of
my knowledge, no decision has been rendered on the Request to this date.
Figure 2. First perversion and/or forgery of certification of Supreme Court decision in Zadorov v
State of Israel (7939/10). The record is not signed by the judicial authorities, the language of the
certification is meaningless, and not the one prescribed by law (Copying is True to the Original,
instead of True Copy of the Original), and the signature on the certification is by a person, who is
not authorized by law to sign such certification.
____
6. On May 4, 2015, I received by fax from the Supreme Court a copy of the April 27, 2015,
Decision record [Exhibit A] with no cover letter, presumably - purported response on
my May 3, 2015 Request for Authentication.
7. The copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision record, received on May 4, 2015 by fax:
a) Bears no signatures of the judicial authorities.
b) Is purportedly certified by Mr Danny Levy, who is neither Chief Clerk, nor Magistrate of
the Supreme Court, and therefore unauthorized by law to certify Supreme Court records.
c) Bears a stamp, including invalid, perverted certification language: Instead the language
provided by law - True Copy of the Original, it employed language which is senseless in
this context - Copying is true to the original.
d) Bears a disclaimer: subject to editing and phrasing changes.
8. Therefore, the copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision record, received by me on May 4,
2015 by fax should be deemed a perverted court record, and/or a case of forgery.
9. On May 7, 2015, I filed Repeat Request for Authentication, asking the court to provide me
a copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision record, duly signed and authenticated. To the best
of my knowledge, no decision has been rendered regarding this matter to this date.
5/23
158/431
Figure 3. Second perversion and/or forgery of certification of Supreme Court decision in Zadorov v
State of Israel (7939/10), which was received following protest of the first perversion and/or forgery:
The language of the certification is meaningless, and not the one prescribed by law (Copying is
True to the Original, instead of True Copy of the Original), and the signatures on the certification
are by a person, who is not authorized by law to sign such certification.
____
10. Last week, I received by mail from the Supreme Court another copy of the April 27,
2015 Decision record, [Exhibit B] with no transmittal letter, presumable response on
one of my Requests for Authentication.
11. The copy that was received by me by mail last week was similar to the one that is
described in 6., above, but bears signatures of the Justices. Regardless, the
authentication is still by the same unauthorized person, and the authentication language is
still invalid and perverted.
12. Therefore, the copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision record, received by me by mail last
week from the Supreme Court should be deemed a perverted court record, and/or a case
of forgery as well.
13. I am no legal scholar, and I have not found in Israeli law definition of simulated service
and simulated court process. For the purpose of clarification of the terms, as used by me
here, I provide the relevant article of the Texas Penal Code:.
32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. ...
14.
Under the circumstances, outlined above, a reasonable person and international
observers most likely would find that Justices Y. Danziger, Y. Amit, and Z. Zilbertal:
a) Have never duly served on the Requester to Inspect a valid and effectual decision record
on his Request to Inspect;
b) Deprived the Requester of the fundamental due process right regarding his Request to
Inspect, and
c) Colluded in the simulated service of perverted/forged court records.
15.
Moreover, as outlined in my May 3, 2015 Request to Inspect in instant court file, [4]
there are serious concerns, both among criminal justice experts and in the public at large,
of criminal conduct by the Israel Police investigation team and by the State Prosecution
team, and entirely unreasonable conduct of the courts in instant court file, which involved
false prosecution and false convictions of Mr Roman Zadorov in the murder of the child
Tair Rada.
16.
Therefore, a reasonable person and international observers would most likely find
here circumstances, which create serious and material concerns that the simulated
service of the April 27, 2015 Decision record was part of a court process, where the
public was falsely deprived of the right to inspect and Mr Roman Zadorov was falsely
deprived of the right for fair public hearing.
An article by legal scholars, titled, Regarding institutional problems preventing the
correction of false convictions in Israel", 1 outlines condition in the State of Israel today
6/23
159/431
regarding false convictions. The circumstances, outlined in the article, combined with
conduct of the courts and law enforcement in the case of Mr Roman Zadorov would likely
be deemed by the public at large and international observers as serious corruption, and
the denial of public access to inspect the court file through the simulated service of a
perverted and/or forged court record an attempt to conceal such corruption.
Themereexistenceofthefalseandmisleadingstamp,CopyingisTruetothe
Original,(No7),anditsrepeatedusebyaperson,whoisnotauthorizedbylawto
certifycourtrecordsindicatethattheperversions/forgeries,documentedhere,are
neitheranaccident,norahumanerror.[2]Itshouldalsobenotedthatitisthesame
stamp,whichwasusedbyothersintheperversion/forgeryofcertificationintheHigh
CourtofJusticeDivisionoftheSupremeCourtinRotemvSamet(Figures5,6,
below).
3)ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10):TheSupremeCourtpublishedinitsIT
systemtheMay28,2015decisionrecord(purportedlydenyingtheMay26,
2015DisqualificationforaCauseagainstJusticesDanziger,Amitand
Zylbertal),whilethedecisionhasneverbeenservedandtheCourtrefusesto
provideitsdulysignedandcertifiedcopy
Figure 4. May 28, 2015 decision record by the panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal,
pertaining to May 26, 2015 Disqualification for a Cause, as published in the Supreme Court's IT
system: Unsigned, uncertified, bearing the disclaimer: Subject to editing and phrasing changes.
The decision also fails to comply with the law as to its content. Moreover, the record was never
served at all, and the Supreme Court refuses to provide a signed and certified copy of the record.
_______
InresponseonthefilingoftheMay26,2015DisqualificationforaCause,onMay28,
2015,adecisionrecordbythepanelofDanziger,AmitandZylbertalwaspublished
2 Freedom of Information request, filed with the Administration of Courts asks: a) Who
authorized the creation of the stamp Copying is True to the Original (no 7)? b) Who is its
lawful holder? c) Who authorized Mr Danny Levy to employ such stamp in purported
certification of Supreme Court records? The Administration of Courts failed to provide the
relevant information in response on a similar Freedom of Information request, pertaining to
the use of the same stamp in perversion/forgery of certifications in Rotem v Samet (Figures
5, 6).
7/23
160/431
onITsystemoftheCourt,purportedlydenyingtheDisqualificationforaCause(see
Figure4).TheMay28,2015decisionrecordsays:
AfterreviewingtheRequest,andallitsreasons,weconcludedthatitcannotbe
granted,andthereforeitisdenied.
Therecordwasneverservedatall.
ThepublicationofsuchrecordintheelectronicsystemoftheSupremeCourt,
unsigned,uncertified,bearingthedisclaimer,subjecttoeditingandphrasing
changes,onitsfacecannotbedeemedbyanyreasonablepersonavalidand
effectualdecisionrecordofanycourt.
Moreover,thecontentoftherecordignorestheprovisionsofthelawaswell,since
thedecisionfailstoincludeanyreasoningatall.
Therefore,onJune3,2015,requestwasfiledwithMagistrateoftheSupremeCourt
GileadLubinsky,toprovideacopyoftheMay28,2015decisionrecord(purportedly
denyingtheDisqualificationforaCause),signedbythejudgesandcertifiedbythe
Magistrate(giventheabsenceofadulyappointedChiefClerkintheSupremeCourt).
TheJune3,2015Request,filedwithMagistrateLubinskyinpartsays:
6. The Regulations of the Courts (Registration Office) 1936, enacted under the British
Mandate, Article 4, says:
The clerks, who are responsible for the excellent maintenance of the records and
registration books of the courts, are the clerks in charge of the Registration Offices.
7. The Regulations of the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004, which replaced the Courts Act
(Registration Office) 1936, fails to include similar language. However, the Regulations of
the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004, amended in 2005 to include Regulation 6a, which
says:
The Chief Clerks of the courts are authorized certify that a copy of a court record is
true copy of the original in the court file.
8. My meeting on May 26, 2015, with Ms Idit Melul clarified again, what is documented in
the Freedom of Information response (P 10/2015) by the office of Administration of
Courts [1] that Ms Melul, who goes by the title Chief Clerk, acts with no lawful
appointment and no authority at all.
9. The Courts Act 1984, Article 105(a) says:
105(a) The Magistrate of the Court of the Supreme Court, the District Court, and the
Magistrate Court shall serve in any authority that was vested in the Chief Clerk of the
respective court, and perform any duty assigned to the Chief Clerk.
10.
Under the circumstances, outlined above, the Magistrate of the Supreme Court
should be deemed the only one, who is today authorized to certify the authenticity of
Supreme Court decision records.
11.
Therefore, I herein request that Magistrate of the Supreme Court Gilead Lubinsky
provide me copies of the above referenced April 27, 2015 and May 28, 2015 Decision
records:
a) Bearing signatures of the judicial authorities, and
b) Authenticated by certification, True Copy of the Original, by the Magistrate of the
Court, with his name and title appearing on the record, pursuant to the Regulations of
the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), and the Hague Apostille Convention (1961)
12. Magistrate Lubinsky is explicitly requested to employ the certification language stipulated
in the Regulations - True Copy of the Original, and avoid employing invalid, perverted
certification language, such as - Copying is true to the original.
13.Such authenticated copies of the Decisions, referenced above, are requested in order to
enable the issuance of an Apostille, in compliance with the respective Regulations and
guidelines of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for its filing outside the State of Israel.
_______
[1] 2015-03-04 FOIA response by Administration of Courts (10/2015): Office of the Clerk and
8/23
161/431
IT systems of the Supreme Court no appointment records for Chief Clerk Melul, no
response on IT systems//
:(10/2015 - )-
,
_______
SupremeCourtMagistrateGileadLubinskyrefusedtoprovideasignedandcertified
copyofthedecisionbythepanelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,which
purportedlydeniedtheirDisqualificationforaCause.InhisJune15,2015Decision
(unsigned,uncertified,subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges),Magistrate
Lubinskywrites:
Accordingtothelaw,andasiscustomaryinthisCourt,certificationthatan
issueofajudicialdecisionrecordisfaithfultotheoriginal,isprovided
generally,bytheChiefClerk.Suchshouldbedonealsointhecasebeforeus.
ItshouldbenotedthatinhisJune15,2015Decision,MagistrateoftheSupreme
CourtGileadLubinsky:
a)Getsconfusedintheuseofbasiclegalterms,suchasissueversuscopy,and
faithfultotheoriginalversustruecopyoftheoriginal.
b)RefersthecertificationtoaChiefClerk,whiletherequestexplicitlyinformedhim
thattherewasnolawfullyappointedChiefClerkintheSupremeCourttoday,and
providedhimwiththereferenceandalinktothecorrespondingdocumentary
evidence.
c)FalselyclaimsthatitiscustomaryinthisCourtthattheChiefClerkprovides
certificationofjudicialrecords.Thetruefactsinthematterarethatthecustomin
theSupremeCourttodayisthatunauthorizedpersonsprovidefalsecertifications,
andthatChiefClerkIditMelulavoidssigningjudicialrecordswithhernameand
falsetitle.
Figure 5. False certification, received by letter post-stamped May 27, 2014, from the Supreme
Court, in response on Tax-Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem first letter to Presiding Justice Asher
Grunis, asking for a duly signed and certified copy of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record in his
Petition Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08). The record is unsigned by the judicial authorities. The
certification employs perverted, meaningless certification language (Copying is True to the
Original, instead of True Copy of the Original, as prescribed by law.), and is signed with an
illegible scribble by a person, whose name and authority fail to appear on the record. Supreme
Court Presiding Justice refused to explain why the Supreme Court provides only false certifications,
but no true, valid certification of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record.
9/23
162/431
Figure 6. False certification, received by letter post-stamped May 29, 2014, from the Supreme
Court, in response on Tax-Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem second letter to Presiding Justice
Asher Grunis, asking for a duly signed and certified copy of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record in
his Petition Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08). The certification employs perverted, meaningless
certification language (Copying is True to the Original, instead of True Copy of the Original, as
prescribed by law), and is signed by Ms Nava Khalaf. The stamp, which states her position, Senior
Coordinator, Civil Division, was hand-altered to read Senior Coordinator, High Court of Justice
Division. Response on Freedom of Information Act request documented that Ms Nava Khalaf hold
no lawful appointment for either position. Supreme Court Presiding Justice refused to explain why
the Supreme Court provides only false certifications, but no true, valid certification of the March 3,
2008 Judgment record.
____
Seeforexample,falsecertifications(Figures5,6),providedtoTaxAuthority
whistleblowerRafiRotem,followinghisrepeatletterstoPresidingJusticeAsher
Grunis,askingfordulysignedandcertifiedcopiesoftheJudgmentinhisPetition,
RotemvSametetal(1233/08).InRotemvSametetal,theSupremeCourtruled
thatRotemwasnowhistlebloweratall.(Morerecently,theStateOmbudsman
renderedRotemaWhistleblowerProtectionDecreewithnoprotection...)
PresidingJusticeGrunisrefusedtoexplainwhytheSupremeCourtwouldprovide
onlyfalsecertifications,butnotruecertificationoftheJudgmentinRotem's
petition...
Thecombinationoffactsabove,wouldmostlikelyleadareasonablepersonto
concludethatSupremeCourtMagistrateGileadLubinskycommittedfraudinhisJune
15,2015DecisionontheJune3,2015RequestforCertification.
Atthebottomline,SupremeCourtMagistrateGileadLubinskyrefusedtoprovidetrue
andlawfulcertificationoftheMay28,2015DecisionbythepanelofJustices
Danziger,AmitandZylbertal,purportedlydenyingtheirDisqualificationforaCause.
SuchconductbytheSupremeCourt'sMagistrateinZadorovvStateofIsrael
(7939/10)furtherunderminespublictrustinthejudicialprocessinthiscase.
4) ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10):Failuretodulyrespondon
DisqualificationforaCauseraisesseriousconcernsregardingdisqualification
ofthepanelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,andtheirincompetence
andlackofauthoritytocontinueinanyprocessinthiscourtfile.
Inordertoascertainthattherewasnooversightormerehumanerror,onJune3,
2015,requestwasfiledwiththepanelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,fora
10/23
163/431
newdecision,reasonedasprescribedbylaw,ontheMay26,2015Disqualificationfor
aCause.
Thepanelhasneverrespondedontherequestforanewdecision.
Therefore,onAugust19,2015,anUrgentRequestwasfiledwithSupremeCourt
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaor,forappointmentofanewpanelintheRequestto
Inspectand/orintheentirecourtfile.TheRequest,filedwithPresidingJusticeNaor
claimedthatsincethepanelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertalfailedtoduly
respondontheDisqualificationforaCause,thepanelshouldbedeemeddisqualified.
SincenodecisionwasrenderedontheAugust19,2015UrgentRequest,onOctober
7,2015,RequestforRenderingaDecisionontheAugust19,2015Requestwasfiled
withPresidingJusticeNaor.TheOctober7,2015Requestsaysinpart:
4. Regarding Disqualification for a Cause, Directive 9.1100 of the Attorney General says: [3]
The disqualification for a cause of a judge is a particularly sensitive matter, a claim of
disqualification for a cause is equivalent, in many cases (but not all) to refuting the
presumption of honesty and openness, existing regarding any professional judicial
panel.
Regarding disqualification for a cause, Judge Yigal Marzel's book (Chapter 3, p 51) says:
[4]
Honesty in Disqualification for a Cause
An important component in the laws pertaining to the procedure of disqualification for
a cause is the principle of honesty. It bears on all those related to the procedure
the party, counsel, and also the judicial panel.
Obviously,tricksplayedbyJusticesandtheCourtindecisiononDisqualificationfora
Causedonotconveyhonestyorfairness...
PresidingJusticeNaorhasnotrenderedanydecisionontheserequeststothisdate.
5) ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10):publictrustinthejudicialprocesshas
reachedalowmark
FollowingthedenialofthefirstRequesttoInspectinthiscourtfile,undertheclaim
thatitwasnotsufficientlyjustified,asecondRequesttoInspectwasfiledonMay3,
2015,whichwasinpartjustifiedasfollows:
h) Instant court file holds the highest public policy significance, since it raised and raises
numerous concerns among experts and the public at large:
Regarding instant court file, an expert on criminal law wrote: Conduct of the State
Prosecution is scary.
Regarding instant court file, another expert on criminal law wrote: There is no scientific
evidence tying the suspect to the crime scene, there is no motive for the crime. The suspect
denied his guilt during most of the investigation stages and all along his trial. When he
confessed, he did not lead the investigators to any evidence at all.... The Verdict is not
convincing that guilt was proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The new Verdict in the
matter of Roman Zadorov raises numerous concerns, on top of concerns that were raised by
the original Verdict in this affair. Zadorov's guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3 Disqualifications for a Cause by State Counsel and Responses on Disqualifications by Other Parties,
Guidelines of the Attorney General, No 9.1100 (50.060); April 1, 1998, updated October 24, 2002.
4 Disqualification Laws by Yigal Marzel, Israel Bar Association Press (2006)
11/23
164/431
Interest of the public at large in instant court file is unprecedented. Tens of thousands of
citizens are listed in groups, which support the innocence of the accused and call for justice
for the accused.
To the Requester's best knowledge and belief, citizens who examined the evidence
material that was accessible to them, also filed criminal complaints with the Ministry of
Justice and/or the Attorney General against members of the investigation team for perverting
and/or falsifying evidence, and against members of the prosecution team for deliberately
misleading the Court.
Summary
ThemurderofthegirlTairRada,andconductoftheIsraelPolice,theState
Prosecutionandthecourts,relativetothecriminalprosecutionofRomanZadorov
andhisrepeatedconvictionofthemurder,hasstirredtheIsraelipublicforyears.
Publictrustinthejudicialprocesshasreachedalowmarkinthisaffair.
Therefore,duecertificationoftheMay28,2015decisionrecordbythepanelof
JusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,whichpurportedlydeniedtheDisqualification
foraCause,isessentialforrestoringpublictrustinthejudicialprocessinthiscase.
Thechainofevents,relativetotheRequesttoInspectthecourtfileinthiscase,again
raisesseriousconcernsregardingfundamentallackofintegrityinITsystems,records,
andtheOfficeoftheClerkoftheSupremeCourt,andthepublicationofsimulated
courtrecordsasaroutine.
Therefore,IhereinrequestthatPresidingJusticeMiriamNaorurgentlypublish
proceduresforobtainingcertificationofSupremeCourtdecisionsingeneral,andin
particularprocedureforcertificationoftheMay28,2015decisionbythepanelof
JusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertalontheMay26,2015Disqualificationfora
Cause.
Alternatively,incasetheMay28,2015decisionbythepanelisnotarecord,suchthat
shouldbecertified,Ihereinrequest:
a.ThattheMay28,2015recordbeimmediatelyremovedfromITsystemofthe
SupremeCourt,asaninvalidandmisleadingrecord;
b.ThatSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeNaortakedueactionstoappointanew
panelintheRequesttoInspectprocessand/orinallprocessesinthiscourtfile,and
c.ThatSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeNaorinitiateactionstorestoretheintegrity
oftheOfficeoftheClerk,ITsystemsandrecordsoftheSupremeCourtoftheState
ofIsrael.
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
OccupyTLV
CC:
ProfUziOrnan,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfMichalIrani,ComputerScience,WeizmannInstitute
ProfAbrahamBell,LawFaculty,BarIlanUniversity
ProfArielBendor,LawFaculty,BarIlanUniversity
ProfGadBarlzilai,LawFaculty,HaifaUniversity
12/23
165/431
ProfYoramBaram,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfOrenGazal,LawFaculty,HaifaUniversity
AttorneyEinatHurvitz,CEO,FreedomofInformationMovement
ProfShmuelZaks,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfIradYavneh,ComputerScience,Technion
AttorneyDanYakir,LegalCounsel,AssociationforCivilRightsinIsrael
ProfAsaKasher,PhilosophyDept,TelAvivUniversity,SchoolofPublicPolicyandAdmininstration,
HerbrewUnivesrity
ProfEliezerLederman,LawFaculty,TelAvivUniversity
ProfAmiLitman,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfYehudaLindell,ComputerScience,BarIlanUniversity
ProfMenahemMautner,LawFaculty,TelAvivUniversity
ProfBarakMedina,LawFaculty,HebrewUniversity
ProfDoronNavot,LawFaculty,HaifaUniversity
ProfBoazSangero,CriminalLawandCriminologyDivision,LawandBusinessAcademicCenter
(RamatGan)
ProfDanielFriedman,LawFaculty,TelAvivUniversity
ProfNirKedar,LawSchool,SapirAcademy
ProfMotaKermnitzer,LawFaculty,HebrewUniversity
ProfAmnonRubinstein,LawSchool,HerzliaIDC
ProfOmerReingold,ComputerScience,WeizmannInstitute
ProfAssafSchuster,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfGabrielaShalev,OnoAcademicCenter
ProfYedidyaStern,LawFaculty,BarIlanUniversity
ProfEliShamir,HebrewUniversity
AttorneyEladShraga,ChairmanandFounder,QualityGovernmentMovement
_________________________________________________________________________
2015, 13
,

,

", :
( 7939/10) , ,"
. "
! . 14
,

( 7939/10 )," "
28 , , .
) ( , ,2015 ,
( :
. ( ,
:)( 6 ,2004- ",( )
13/23
166/431

- - .
.
- ) ,(1961
, ,
.
" ,,
.
.1 :
,2002
) ,(7939/10
28 ,2015 , , , )
26 ,2015 , . ,
.
,
.
, :
, )( , ) (,
.
, ,
[5] .
, ,
" " ,
. . ,
, .
5 ,
,":
- :32.48
32.48
)(
, , , , :
) (1 ,
) (2 :
(A ;
( B , .
)(
.
)( , :
) (1 .
) ( 2 .
)( , , ,
, , , ,
)( .
)( )( , ,
.Class A misdemeanor
)( , ,
) state jail felony (.
14/23
167/431
.1 :2002
. ,
.
. 2002
, " " ,
. )
( . , 2002 " - ".
, 2002 ,
. ,
) ( , .
_____
' ,1 ,
.2002 , ,2002
, , . , 2002
.... -
.2002
)
( : ,
?2002
, ) (
, , , "
" , .
" " " , " " ,
. )
(.
,
:
) - (3032/99 ,
, , .
76+ )"
,(2300/11 , "" ,
, . ,
) (.
" 76 + )" ,(2300/11 ,
" " ) ,(Summons -
" " , .
, ) ( )
15/23
168/431
( .
" , ) ,(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ,
" " , ) .
SUMMONS (
,
:
.
" 60' ) (2010
.
:
?
:
?
, " , ) " ,
, ( ,
," .
"
2002 : " " )
,(2013 " " )( , .
, ) ( ,"-
,2004 " "
. ) ( ,1936
, .
, ,
, " )
. (COURTS OF RECORD , ,
, "
" , -.
.2 ) :(7939/10 /
,
26 ,2015 , ,
) .(7939/10
) (:
.1 23 ,2015 , [1] .
.2 27 ,2015 , ""
[2] , "" .
.3 .
.4 03 ,2015 , "
27 [3] .2015 , 27,
: 2015( , ,( ,
" , , , ,
) ,(2004 ) .(1961 03,
, 2015
, . ,
- "
, ".
.5 03 ,2015 , [4] .
.
16/23
169/431
.2 / )
:( 7939/10 , ,
, .
____
.6 04 ,2015 , "" 27] ,2015 ,
[.2 , 3 ,2015 ,
.
.7 " 27 ,2015 , 04:2015 ,
( .
( , ,
.
( : " -
" , " - ".
( " ".
.8 , " 27 ,2015 , 04
,2015 , / .
.9 07 ,2015 , ""
27 .2015 , .
.3 / )
,( 7939/10 / :
, ,
.
_____
"" 27
.10
] ,2015 , [3 .
.11 ,.6- , .
,
.
, " 27 ,2015 ,
.12
/ .
17/23
170/431
,
.13
. , ,
,":
- :32.48 ...
.14 , - ,
' ,' ,' :
( - ;
( ,
( / .
.15 , [4] , ,
, ,
,
.
, - ,
.16
"" 27,2015 ,
, ,
" .
," ,
.17
" 6 , .
, ,
,
/ .
" ,"(7) ,
, / , ,
[7] .
/ " ) ,5,6(.
.3 ) :(7939/10
28) 2015 , 26 2015 ,
, "( , ,

6,",".,193:
.2013
EFink,RRosenbergRobbins,"Regardinginstitutionalproblemspreventingthecorrectionoffalseconvictions
inIsrael",MaaseiMishpat,5:193,2013.
7 :(
, ?7( ? (
?
, 7/
) .(6 ,5
18/23
171/431
.4 28 ,2015 , , ,
: , , :
" . . ,
,
.
_______
26 ,2015 ,
28 ,2015 , , ,
) ,(4:
, , ,
.
.
,
, , " , -
.
, , , ,
.
, 3 ,2015 ,
) ( , 28,2015 ,
. :
.6 ) ( 1936 , ,4:
.4
, ...
.7 )( ,2004 ) ( ,1936
. )( ,2004 ,2005
6 ,:
6 . -
- .
.8 26 ,2015 , ' , ,
) (10/2015' ,
" " , [1] .
.9 ,1984 )105( ,:
) .105( ,
.
.10 ,
.
.11 ,
27 2015 , 28 2015 , :
. .
. " " ,
, )( ,2004
)(1961
.12 " -
" , , " - ".
.13
, .
_______
[1] 2015-03-04 FOIA response by Administration of Courts (10/2015): Office of the Clerk and
IT systems of the Supreme Court no appointment records for Chief Clerk Melul, no
response on IT systems//
- ) :(10/2015 -
,
19/23
172/431
_______

, , . ) ,
" , "( 15 ,2015 ,:
, "
" , , , .
.
15 ,2015 , :
( , "" ," "
" ".
( " " ,
" " ,
.
( ," " ,
.
," "
.
.5 , 27 ,2014 , ,

, 3 2008 ,
) .(1233/08 .
) " , " " , ( ,
.
,
3.2008 ,
20/23
173/431
.6 , 29 ,2014 , ,

, 3 2008 ,
) .( 1233/08 ) " , "
" , ( , ' . , , ,
" , - , , "" .
' ..
,
3.2008 ,
____
, ) ,(6 ,5
,
. ,
' ) .(1233/08 ,
) . " "
(...
, .
, -
15 ,2015 , .
,
28 2015 , , ,
.
)(7939/10
.
.4 ) :(7939/10 ,
.

, 3 ,2015 , ,
, 26.2015 ,
.
, 19 ,2015 , ,
/ .
, ,
.
3 ,2015 , .
7 ,2015 , .
:
.4 [8] :9.1100
, ,
) (
.
) ,' )[9] :(51
.2
8 , ,
1 ;(50.060) 9.1100 ,1998 24 ,2002
9 , , )(2006
21/23
174/431
.
, , .
, ...
.
.5 ) :(7939/10
.

, 3 ,2015 , , :
( ,
:
" :
".
" :
, . .
, " ...
. ,
. .
.
.
, , ,
/
/ , .
" , ,
, .
.
, , 28
,2015 , ,
.

, , ,
.
, ,
, ,,
28 ,2015 , 26.2015 ,
, 28 ,2015 , ,
:
. 28 ,2015 ,
, .
.
" ,/ .
. ,
, .
,
'
22/23
175/431
"
:
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
" ," ,
, ,
, ,
" , ,
, , " " ,
, , "
, ,
, , -
, , "
, ,
, ,
' , )-(
, , "
," ,
, ,
," , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , -
, ,
" ," ,
23/23
176/431
20151014ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)Urgentrequest,filedwithPresiding
JusticeMiriamNaor,foradulysignedandcertifiedcopyofherOctober12,2015
decision,denyingrequestforappointmentofanewpanel//
,,(7939/10)
,2015,12
177/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
RequestforaDulySignedandCertifiedCopyofPresidingJusticeMiriam
Naor'sOctober12,2015DecisioninInstantCourtFile
TheCourtiskindlyrequestedtorespondwithin7days.Timeisoftheessence!
I,theRequesterofInspectionininstantcourtfile,filehereinrequestforaduly
signedandcertifiedcopyofPresidingJusticeMiriamNaor'sOctober12,2015
decisionininstantcourtfile:
1. OnOctober13,2015,IsentalettertoPresidingJusticeMiriamNaor,Urgent
requestforpublishingproceduresforobtainingcertificationoftheSupreme
Court'sdecisionrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ingeneral,andin
particularinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10).Theletterstatesthat
regardlessofmynumerousattemptsinrecentyears,Ihaveneversucceededin
obtainingadulysignedandcertifiedcopyofaSupremeCourtdecisionrecord.
2. LaterIfoundout,thatonOctober12,2015,decisionbyPresidingJustice
MiriamNaorwaspublishedontheSupremeCourt'sITsystem,denyingmy
August19,2015RequestforAppointingaNewPanelininstantcourtfile.The
keyfactualbackgroundformyrequestwastherefusaloftheSupremeCourtto
provideasignedandcertifiedcopyoftheMay28,2015decisionrecordbythe
panelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,denyingtheirDisqualification
foraCauseininstantcourtfile.TheDisqualificationforaCauseitselfalso
originatedinrefusaloftheCourttoprovidedulysignedandcertifiedcopiesof
thepanel'sdecisions,denyingRequeststoInspectinstantcourtfile.
3. AsiscustomaryintheSupremeCourtsinceMarch2002,PresidingJustice
MiriamNaor'sOctober12,2015decisionrecordwaspublishedintheCourt's
ITsystemunsigned,uncertified,andbearingthedisclaimer,...subjectto
editingandphrasingchanges.
4. TheSupremeCourtITsystemindicatesthatonOctober13,2015,theabove
referenceddecisionrecordwasmailedouttothepartiesinthiscase.However,
1/8
.2015,12
178/431
asiscustomarysinceMarch2002,suchmailingalmostcertainlyconsistsofa
printoutfromtheITsystem,unsigned,uncertified,bearingthedisclaimer:...
subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges,andwithnoaccompanyingletterby
theOfficeoftheClerk.
5. TheRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk)2004,Regulation6a,says:
TheChiefClerksofthecourtsareauthorizedcertifythatacopyofacourt
recordistruecopyoftheoriginalinthecourtfile.
6. TheStateServicepublicationBasicPrinciplesinEmploymentofSeniorStaffin
theStateService(2004),pp911,[ExhibitA]outlinesthevariouswaysthat
lawfulappointmentintheStateServiceisdocumented.[downloadedonOctober14,
2015,fromhttp://www.csc.gov.il/DataBases/ArticlesAndPublications/documents/2003647.pdf]
7. TheMarch4,2015,FreedomofInformationActresponse(10/2015)bythe
AdministrationofCourtsonarequestfordocumentationofChiefClerkIdit
Melul'sdueappointmentasChiefClerkoftheSupremeCourt[ExhibitB],
saysinpart,Noappointmentrecordwasfound.Therequestfailedto
discoverdocumentationofMsIditMeluldueappointmentasChiefClerkof
theSupremeCourt.
8. TheCourtsAct1984,Article105(a)says:
105(a)TheMagistrateoftheCourtoftheSupremeCourt,theDistrict
Court,andtheMagistrateCourtshallserveinanyauthoritythatwasvested
intheChiefClerkoftherespectivecourt,andperformanydutyassignedto
theChiefClerk.
9. Therefore,IhereinrequestthattheCourtprovidemeadulysignedand
certifiedcopyofPresidingJusticeMiriamNaor'sOctober12,2015decisionin
instantcourtfile.
10. Ihereinexplicitlyrequest,thatthedulysignedandcertifiedrecord:
a)Bearthesignatureoftheappropriatejudicialauthority;
b)BecertifiedusingthelanguageprescribedintheRegulation,referenced
above,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,underthesignatureofadulyappointed
ChiefClerkorMagistrateoftheSupremeCourt,withher/hisnameandtitle
appearingonthethefaceoftherecord,pursuanttotheRegulationsofthe
CourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004),andtheHagueApostilleConvention(1961)
11. TheCourtisexplicitlyrequestedtoavoidtheuseofstamp#7[Figures14],
whichemploysinvalid,pervertedcertificationlanguage,CopyingisTrueto
theOriginal.
2/8
.2015,12
179/431
Figure 1. Perverted, invalid certification, received by letter post-stamped May 27, 2014, from the
Supreme Court, in response on Tax-Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem first letter to Presiding Justice
Asher Grunis, asking for a duly signed and certified copy of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record in his
Petition Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08). The record is unsigned by the judicial authorities. The
certification employs perverted, meaningless certification language (Copying is True to the Original,
instead of True Copy of the Original, as prescribed by law.), and is signed with an illegible scribble by
a person, whose name and authority fail to appear on the record. Supreme Court Presiding Justice
refused to explain why the Supreme Court provides only perverted, invalid certifications, but no true,
valid certification of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record.
Figure 2. Perverted, invalid certification, received by letter post-stamped May 29, 2014, from the
Supreme Court, in response on Tax-Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem second letter to Presiding
Justice Asher Grunis, asking for a duly signed and certified copy of the March 3, 2008 Judgment
record in his Petition Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08). The certification employs perverted,
meaningless certification language (Copying is True to the Original, instead of True Copy of the
Original, as prescribed by law), and is signed by Ms Nava Khalaf. The stamp, which states her
position, Senior Coordinator, Civil Division, was hand-altered to read Senior Coordinator, High Court
of Justice Division. Response on Freedom of Information Act request documented that Ms Nava
Khalaf holds no lawful appointment for either position, and a Senior Coordinator is not lawfully
authorized to certify Supreme Court decision records. Supreme Court Presiding Justice refused to
explain why the Supreme Court provides only perverted, invalid certifications, but no true, valid
certification of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record.
3/8
.2015,12
180/431
Figure 3. Perverted, invalid certification, received in response on the first request for certification of
Supreme Court's April 27, 2015 decision record in Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10). The record is
not signed by the judicial authorities, the language of the certification is meaningless, and not the one
prescribed by law (Copying is True to the Original, instead of True Copy of the Original), and the
signature on the certification is by Mr Danny Levy, Senior Coordinator, Criminal Division, who is not
authorized by law to sign such certification.
Figure 4. Perverted, invalid certification, received in response on the first request for certification of
Supreme Court's April 27, 2015 decision record in Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10). The language
of the certification is meaningless, and not the one prescribed by law (Copying is True to the Original,
instead of True Copy of the Original), and the signature on the certification is by Mr Danny Levy,
Senior Coordinator, Criminal Division, who is not authorized by law to sign such certification.
______
12. TheCourtisexplicitlyrequestedtoavoidthesigningofthecertificationby
persons,whoarenotlawfullyauthorizedtosignsuchcertification,suchasMr
DannyLevy,SeniorCoordinator,CriminalDivision.
13. Suchdulysignedandcertifiedcopyofthedecisionrecord,referencedabove,
isrequestedinordertoenabletheissuanceofanApostille,incompliancewith
theRegulationsforExecutionoftheHagueApostilleConvention(1977)and
GuidelinesoftheMinistryofForeignAffairsregardingtheConvention,forits
filingoutsidetheStateofIsrael.Therefore,Irequestthatthedulysignedand
4/8
.2015,12
181/431
certifiedcopydecisionrecordbemailedonpapertomyaddressprovided
above.
instantRequest.
______________
______________

:
Today,October14,2015
7939/10
'
" ,33407"
"joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org :
077-3179186 :

12 2015 , .
7 . !

12 2015 , :
.1 13 ,2015 , ""
, ",
, ) .(7939/10
,
.
.2 , 12 ,2015 ,
,
19 ,2015 , .

, 28 ,2015 , .
,
, .
5/8
12.2015,
182/431
.3
.4
.5
.6
,2002
12 ,2015 , ,
, ... , ".
13 ,2015 , "
. , ,2002
, , , ... ,
" , .
)( ,2004 6 ,:
6 . -
- .
" , ... " ,
] ,9-11 ' [ , ].14
,2015, [http://www.csc.gov.il/DataBases/ArticlesAndPublications/documents/2003647.pdf
.7 4 ,2015 , )
] (10/2015 '[ '
, , " .
" '
.
.8 ,1984 )105( ,:
) .105( ,
.
.9 ,
12 ,2015 , .
.10 :
. .
. "" , " ,
, , / /
, )( ,2004 )
.(1961
.11 ' ] 7 ,[1-4
, " , .
6/8
12.2015,
183/431
.1 , 27 ,2014 ,
,
, 32008 ,
) .(1233/08 .

) " , " " , ( ,
.
,
3.2008 ,
.2 , 29 ,2014 ,
,
, 3 2008 ,

) .( 1233/08 ) " , "
" , ( , ' . , , ,
" , - , , "" .
' ," "
.
,
3.2008 ,
7/8
12.2015,
184/431
.3 ,
27 ,2015 , ) :(7939/10
, ,
, .
.4 ,
27 ,2015 , ) :(7939/10
, ,
.
_____
.12
, , , .
.13
," 1977- ",
. ,
.
.
14 ,,2015 ,
____________
' ,
8/8
12.2015,
185/431
EXHIBITA
'
1/1
186/431

.1
.
) ,(2
)( " ,1959 ,
.
,
" ,
.
.
18.2":
18.281 18.231-"
, .
, ,
,
.

, .
,

18.2
".
42-44
" 2
, , ,
" ,31/ :
187/431
(1 .
(2 .

.
, 30- ,
.
,
, .
.
" "
18.132
" :
(1 .
(2 .
(3 .
" "
"
" ".
""
.

.
.
" "

, .
10
188/431
,
.
.2
13.8" .

.
" ) 13.82
( ) 13.83 (.
.
(1 ) (13.821
, , .
(2 , ,
.
.
(3
.
.
(4
,
, ,
.
11
189/431
EXHIBITB
'
1/1
190/431

ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS
Office Of the Legal Adviser

" ,"
4 2015
:
"
NGO
"joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org :
04290215 :
10/2015
) (
" ,
: " 1998 -
: 2.2.2015

5.1.2015
:
.1 '
. ,
.
.2 .
- 158/11
" ".
. ,
) " 1" ,
3 7 - .(... -
. .
. ,
, .
' ,22 , 02-6556919 ,02-6556935 95464'02-6556887 :
- E- mail: hof esh-hamida@court.gov.il "
191/431

ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS
Office Of the Legal Adviser
.3 2 "" - " ,
, , , " . - ,
.
.4 , 45
.
.
' ,22 , 02-6556919 ,02-6556935 95464'02-6556887 :

- E- mail: hof esh-hamida@court.gov.il "
192/431
193/431
:

" "
158/11
:
15/12/2014
.1
1.1
, " " , /
/ .
1.2
, "
.
/ / , .
1.3
...
1.4
...
.2
, " "
.
... .3
.4 " " -
, "
" , :
.5
4.1
4.2
, .
4.3
, .
4.4
, " ".
" "
5.1
" " " "

, ,
:
5.1.1 4.1 4.4.
5.1.2 " " ,
" " .
5.2
,
5.1 ,
5.2.1 " ".
5.2.2
, ,
.
.6 " "
, :
194/431
6.1 " " .

6.2
" .
, " " ,
, .
... .7
:
67/09 " ".
114/10 " "
195/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2015-10-20 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) criminal appeal in the

Supreme Court Inspection of paper court file, Part II: Pleadings by parties
, - ( 7939/10 )
:'
[]
Roman Zadorov, a Ukranian citizen, a workman, who does not speak Hebrew, was twice
convicted by the Israeli courts in the gruesome murder of 14 yo girl, Tair Rada. Criminal law
professor Mota Kremintzer wrote: Conduct of the State Prosecution is scary. Criminal law
professor Boaz Sangero wrote: Conviction with no real evidence. Tens of thousands of
laymen have joined groups supporting justice for Roman Zadorov and calling for true
investigation of the murder.
The Supreme Court maintains an IT system for public access, where decision records are
displayed unsigned, subject to editing and phrasing changes. The Supreme Court holds
only its paper record as valid, binding records, in contrast with the District and Magistrate
Courts.
Inspection of the pleading records in the paper court file
Review of the pleadings filed by partties in this case shows that Counsel for Appellant filed
the Notice of Appeal with printouts of record from dubious sources, but duly signed and
certified copies of the Nazareth Distinct Court judgments, as prescribed by law.
Therefore, the entire appeal process should be deemed invalid, of no force and effect.
Corresponding, duly signed Conviction and Sentencing also fail to appear in the
electronic court file in Net-HaMishpat IT-system of the Nazareth District Court.
Inspection of the decision records in the paper court file
Inspection of the decision records in the paper court file of Zadorov v State of Israel,
revealed a series of unsigned judicial records. Where two copies of a decision record were
found in the paper court file, two copies are shown here.
Mr Danny Levy, Head of the Criminal Division in the Office of the Clerk confirmed that there
were no paper decision records, beyond those shown here.
Page numbering excludes the cover pages.
Inspection of numerous paper court files of the Supreme Court has never revealed a case
like this one.
, , , ,
: . ,14
: ' ."
, ."
.
, ,
, .""
.

, ,2010
.( 502/07)
1/5
196/431
, ,

:
. " " 18 ,2007 , ,
" , ," ,
)( , , "/"
28.2010 ,
. " " 14 ,2010 , , ,
, : .
, " ".
" " , " " ,
" ".
. " " 14 ,2010 , , ,
"" , ".
"" " ".
"" 14 2010 , " " ,
" " , ,
.

. 502/07 .
:
. ' , 12 ,2012 ,
, .
. ' , 23 ,2014 , , "/"
23.2014 ,

, ,
. ,
, , ,.
,
, .
,
, ,
...
.

.

. "
, .
-
-
, "
".
-
, )(
, .
2/5
197/431

,- , .
"
.
, ." :
, . ,
.
,(7939/10 ):
,]:'
[
Table: Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) criminal appeal in the Supreme
Court- inspection of paper court file Part II: Pleading by parties [partial listing of
pleadings in the paper court file, page numbering excludes the cover pages]
#
1.
FilingDate Record

Signatures
Stamps
Page

20101028
NoticeofAppeal,filedonbehalfofAppellant
Zadorovbyhiscounsel,SpiegelandSpiegel.No
dulysignedandcertifiedjudgmentrecordsofthe
NazarethDistrictCourtwasfiledwiththeNotice
ofAppeal.Instead,invalidrecordsofinvalid
sources,wereprovidedforVerdictand
SentencingrecordsoftheNazarethDistrict
Court.
,"
".
"
.
",",
."
SignedbyDavid
SpiegelandGalil
Spiegel,Counselfor
Appellant1
",
.
Checked/Rec
eivedby
Supreme
CourtOctober
28,2010
"/
28
,
2010
ExhibitA?
20070118Indictment,ononecountof
murder,firstdegree'andobstructionofjustice,
includingalistof140witnessesforthe
Prosecution,mostofthemIsraelPolicestaff.
,2007,18""
140,
.,
SignedbyAttorney
ShilaInbar,Senior
AssistantinState
Prosecution,Northern
Distict,andAttorney
MiritStern,Nanager
oftheCriminal
DistrcitDivisionin
StateProsecution,
NorthernDistcitc
"
,
",
,
,()
,
Checked/Rec
eivedby
Nazareth
DistrictCourt
January18,
2007
"/
,
,18
2007
ExhibitB?
PrintoutofVerdict,456pagerecord,dated
September14,2010,byJudgesYitzhakCohen,
HaimGlpaz,andEstherHelmanoftheNazareth
DistrictCourt,ofanunknownorigin,whichsays
inpart:Itwasthereforeunanimouslydecidedto
Unsignedbythe
Uncertified,
correspondingjudicial TrueCopyof
authorities.
theOriginal
. "
3/5
198/431
12
convicttheDefendantoftheallegedcrimes.
Theprintoutisunsignedbythejudgesandisnot
certified,TrueCopyoftheOriginal.
Therecordalsofailstoappearintheelectronic
courtfileinNetHaMishpat,eitherunder
JudgmentsorunderunderDecisionsDocket.
Itisnotanauthenticcourtrecordatall.
14,456,"
,,2014,
,",,
:
.
,""
."",""
.()
."
ExhibitC?
PrintoutofVerdict,2pagerecord,dated
Unsignedrecord,is
September14,2010,byJudgesYitzhakCohen, notalegalpublic
HaimGalpaz,EstherHelman,fromNevo
recordatall.
Publishers,LTD.
TherecordwaspublishedbyNevowiththe
disclaimer:Subjecttoeditingandphrasing
.
changes,isunsigned,uncertified,andisnotan
authenticjudicialcourtrecordatall.
,14,2""
,,,2010
.",""
""
,""
."",
14""
,""2010,
,""
.,
.()
Uncertified,
TrueCopyof
theOriginal,
isnotalegal
publicrecord
atall.
"
,"
15
2.
20101229
UrgentRequestbyIsraelBroadcastAuthority
(regardingtherighttobroadcastvideosfrom
Zadorov'sinterrogationandthereconstructionof
thecrime
)
SignedbyAttorney
YigalKaveh,Counsel
fortheIsraeli
Broadcasting
Authority.
,"
,
",'
Checked/Rec
eivedby
Criminal
Divisionofthe
Supreme
Court
"/
17
3.
20140921
NoticeofFilingInquiriesforClarification,filed
onbehalfofAppellantZadorovbyCounselfor
thePublicDefender'sOfficeAvigdorFeldman
andElkanaLeist,providingtheinquiriesfor
clarifications,filedwithDrHenKugelofthe
ForensicInstitute.
,
"
,
'
.
SignedbyAttorney
AvigdorFeldmanand
AttorneyElkanaLeist
asCounselfor
Appellant
",
Checked/Rec
eivedby
Criminal
Divisionofthe
Supreme
Court
"/
26
4/5
199/431
4.
20141014
NoticebyRespondentStateofIsrael(regarding
,
additionalevidencefromDrHenKugelofIsrael ,
NationalForensicInstitute)
)
'
.(
Checked/Rec
eivedby
Criminal
Divisionofthe
Supreme
Court
29
5.
20141015
AdditionalCopy:NoticebyRespondentStateof
,
Israel(regardingadditionalevidencefromDr
,
HenKugelofIsraelNationalForensicInstitute)
:
')
.(
Checked/Rec
eivedby
Criminal
Divisionofthe
Supreme
Court
"/
31
6.
20141019
Notice,filedonbehalfofAppellantZadorovby
CounselforthePublicDefender'sOfficeAvigdor
FeldmanandElkanaLeist,respondingon
October14,2014NoticebyRespondentStateof
Israel(regardingadditionalevidencefromDr
HenKugelofIsraelNationalForensicInstitute)
",
,
)2014,14
.('
Checked/Rec
eivedby
Criminal
Divisionofthe
Supreme
Court
33
7.
Unknown
OpinionbyDrMayaFormanReznick,Specialist SignedbyDrMaya
Nostamp,no
filingdate.
inForensicMedicine,datedNovember12,2012, FormanReznick
clearfiling
insupportoftheDefenseinthiscase.
' data.
'
,2012,12,
.
.
54
8.
20140923
41
NoticefiledinCourt,byDrHenKugelofthe
IsraelNationalForensicInstitute,withAffidavit
ofDrHenKugel,insupportofDrMayaForman's
opinion,andexplainingdiscrepanciesinhispast
testimoniesinCourt.
',
',,
,',
.
SignedbyAttorney
AvigdorFeldmanand
AttorneyElkanaLeist
asCounselfor
Appellant
",
AffidavitsignedbyDr
HenKugel,certified
byAttorneyBenny
Avisar.
'
",
.
"/
Checked/Rec
eivedbythe
Supreme
Court
5/5
200/431
r" . I

"
7939/10
.
28/10/10 :
"
:
502/01
" " "

"
" 308. 588
04-6950130 : ,
~)iiaMb
~''''''\':f,Yn~ l-
-1
~ 8 -10- 26
;i]l. :n ..i. ! ~.
\.
~~----
..
\
1.
~
I"ji;---=:
' "
' " )'
' . ' .
", ' . ,' .( " 502/07 . 14/9/2010

() 300) (2
244
.
.1
50 .
201/431
.2
lI ' "
,
~ ~-;,.
?! ~43~t:
~ _ 481
III
II
202/431
"
'-
'J
"-
'
502./ 07
'
" "'~ t'~4
.
. 7 :18/01 / 98/0
:
' ;
37933-01107 n
<~
,1978
, 37/3
) (
_.",.~.
il:
)
.
) :"
,1010/06
.(
.1
, , '\!. ,
. ,
.
.2
, Z006
) 6.12.06
II
(,II
" ' ) : "(.

"(,
.3
, ) :
.
.4
II , 4.1.1993~ :"( ,
.
.5
, . ,
,) V ,
, .
1Z : 50
; 05 .1 ,
. ,
, ,
.
.6
, 13 = 30 ,
:l ,
) :
' ,
(.
.7
.8
, ,
- 'lJ ) :'( .
\ j ,
, \:, .
, , , .
203/431
:2
.11
, , , ,
, . .
,, .
-,
~.. ..,..............-~..~.........~-
.12
'.....
~-
, ,
: , ,
, .
)(iI
, ,
, ,' ,
. 17 : 30
. 14
,
, ~' l .
.
,15
, ,
. ' ,
.
_,.
.16
, , ,
'\!-.
.1
.2
- ) 300( (2 II .1977 -

244
",
; (:Q ;r
~
II
204/431
)(
,j
~
,....
'/
~ , , ,
II
..
~ ~ , , ~ , ,
II
? ~~.
/l
" ," (
'~, Q..., ~ 1.
'\
.
/l , /l , ,
~
~.
l
~'-.
,' , , .
\V
)(1
_.
," , , , .
" , /l , , .
~) , /l , , ': ",
'.
-.
'1,-'/.,
" , , , ,
,.
.10 , /l , \; , ~. ,
~~'~) I
.~ l l );. II , /l , , ,).,
"-
12
~\
," , , ).
" ",
-"--
..
~# -.~/
. . . , " . .,..---1.
,13" , /l , , '.
'
14- , , ,y', - - V .
. 15
" ' , ,
\!:, ,
...,....:------,
' .j-. -,....,.,
";-.\
. 16 /l c /l , , !//
,,-
~'i-_. 1 /,
\'
',.... .-
I/.i....--
, , '. ,' II I\ , S .
i/ ___::":;"--:
'{,
,.,
\, ..
-/
. 19
" , , -.
. 18/ , , , (~~_--..:
".
~,
(-
"?
"'
" , ," , ,
.
" , , .
". 2" , " , , .
~( 3 , , " , , ~.
\.::.
, , , .
,, .
......
. 25 , , " , , .
@ , , , ~ " , ,
.
; (i , - " , ,
~.
~ ~.,
i2s" , " , ,
~ .
"/ t
9 ." , , \ /l ,
, .
)-
'.-
./ .
\ 205/431
<.
",...., ..
~~) , , , .
;-
'.
~)' " , , ,.
~ " , II , 34470 I. .~ .
, 33/ , II , ,
'-:-----'
'
..
. 34 ," , .
@:i
" , Q
' /
.-
.I"
\' l
.'" .,!'~'".~,
<
'"".
. 36" , " , < , )''
)'G7
"1
~.......
'_-""":
" , ,.!i ~.:. .
~--",
'.,
/.,,
"
, ~ " ,~
" ~\::.....
'.
' 1-
i
l __.,<--\-~
~....,.
~.
....
~_g " , ,
. 38
~.......~-::.
!;')
_"-
_'r -_-
...
' ...
\ 39J /1 , , , .
~_
. 40 ," , : , J .
~
) ( 41" , " , ,
' --.' __,I ..
"v
.42
" ," , , .
'@ , , , .
'V/
.
..-"-
.44
" , , , .
.45
, ~ , , 1 ~..
.46
, , ,
-::"7
@ " " , , .
1
\...,.
. 48
~_",.
.49
" , , .
\..
. 50
" , , .
II , , , .
' , , . :
I
~v
. 52
'""
"
II , 1-1. " , ,
.
. 53
, '/ , ,
.
@
. 55
. 56
'......... t
," , , .
r.
II
10
". .
" ," , , .
" ,
. 57" ," , ,, .
"
. 58" ," , , .
\
~t.,
'/
. 59 , , .
. 60
"
\i
, , .
)
206/431
~,
..... ,.,.,.
(
~ .".,-<'......
,\.
5
",
.61 , , J /l , Jr
, .
.62
.63 v. yj
.
\
I
" , /l , , .
/ I , / I , . ,
.
.64 ,... -..-
/ , ," , , .
. 65
" / / /l , /
,.
. 66
II , < Z:,_ _~ ,' I / /
. .... .,
.
.
. 67
II
.
. 68
~Cii.
-. --
.
.. -
'-
"--'-
," , ,
;" ~ - ,
, , .
II
') ;(!t ~: .
~~ '''''''': . , .
' ....
_c
II
).
_~,
c.
) \:z3" I , II ," , .
.73
.7q.
. 75
. 76
- J
. 77
. 78
.79
_: :
;;; ~-----=: , , 054235965 .

_@ , / 052.17315 ,II ,30/2..
II
~ , , 058335555 ,3.
II
G.)'!. , / 028087914 ,13.

fji... ," , 5152.2167 , 6 ~)
_"
II
\~) , II I 56242308 ,6 ' '.:' ..
1 .
~! .,. , 022120661 ,lIn , ,53.
<
\; ,",~" ,22441539 ,47.
'/!,.
II
, / , 05880608 ,2.
I
. B9 ," ,051772010 , 36.'1 .
~ , , 030568638 ,3.
/1
~/,A
.91
~ , 64865348 .-
207/431
II
;.
;.
"
_,
'~ .
"J
\'!
;1
,.
\.
;(
,92 ," 54845441
_1,.-
_ _--
, 24,
"
> _
;,93 ':":' C II ,056535131 ,11
'v "-
.: , p
'---"'---:--_ --........
'~_ ,-~~$~~_~,: , 67662411 , 18-
.',: -
I/
~~~) , 1/ , 323640284 , 1/2.
',,
;1
~~ , , 314489048 , , 30/6
\'--~,,
" ..
,.
"
'.
, , 055982938 ,6 _ .
.97
"1...
19 ~. -, ,"
057139347
".
, .
(~~ ~,,.~: , , 024197998 , 3.

,-..
.,
y "-
. 100
,"
,.--
,. 101
, II
~. 102 ....
,051662732 , 51
30714602.7
, , 065409096 2
~-;;(,
.~/\..
,"
~._.
. 104
-._.\.
. 105
,"
"I ~--
, 106
,18
, 313066201
~:,
"/
, 37/3 \
';~
, 37.
," , 321147522. , 19/11.
. 107 :
" "1
,.
" , 313066169
"
,s.
, 056684673 ,26
/l , 313066227
"
,
~
@) -J " , ,
~~ , , , , .
)" ( ;10. ." , , , , "' -
/l
.......,
''-.-
. 111 '.-~-.
11--- .
.112
_,
~-"-'~~:'-'~-:;.-.
II
, , /l , ,
u-_-
~ 11 ~J
," , , .
' .i:~9 , ," , , ~~ .
---~-/,. -.;. . ;.-.. -.--
..,....~';::J..,
. 116 .....
,117
;'~
"'~~~.Jf4
~-
'/
,120
~
'v/
'\f'/
;;
:,
~\.
"',
'\,
~\.
" , , II , , ,
" , ,?, , , , .
~;,
:" , , , , .
~ , ,' , , ~
II
.. ...,
~ " , ,' , , ~"-:

/, ,-t-' ," , , .
" .1
........
, ," , , i
. 123
. 1Z4
/l , ~ , , , ;.. .
17 , ,2007 , ,"
208/431
. LI-" .
:!..{.,J
<
"
, , V
II , ,
/l
.-
~ " , ," , ,~ "-('-
..
~.
" , , , , )'/2
i ,
~.-
'3' .', ..
,
~,
~", :!
I/ 50'2107
~98/07
' I
" .. .',
,-.
.,
~.
r- :'~;"),
'
:';";:.:".: '"J',
;~I ~," ~"::' .;~::
="" ~~ . :. ..:,;:;\':...._. . . . '- ..,',, ,~. .,;~~ :~,~,."2r
" ' ;/ .
i
'": ~., !~ 4 ,r t,
Io
r. ~'r~;...:
'- ;c"j
~ ~,,_"\' ~ , ''''<, ~.1a,I
'? fI ::
)~
t~ :
;J'c
"I
r\~~,~,:.Ir
1
g'.
\ :;'~ ;~,:
'::~-:::::':::::;:--:::7::;::=:::~:'~:7._::-:-; --" .... ,........
.~ ~t. tf"t
92 ] !t_ U II 198% ..
'
'
I ' ~ ,:
~,..
.125
," ,
.126
, , /l ,! .
) , , ".
l-
. l28 ," , VJ~ .

{"
. 129
V
'v ''-
, , .
. 131
, 742/2
.132
,r n ,
jI.O,.....
'.
......
",
:,i
"
""!.
.130 , , , .
. 133 , ,27 ~, .
.134 v ;"'----",, ',.. ':r
\
\
"':
,-- 1.:
'i,I
~"
..~ :~,
".
!.
. \( ,/, /l , .
".C
139
"
"
' , ./~ , ) ,
(.
,~.
. 140 1(/ , , II ,\. , t" !r (.
! "
'/ 1
' / :
/
.1 { .
'/
:"J
......
"
~.
-. . - . . . .~.~., -,..-~. .-~ ~. . . .
'/
L',~,
.'---::--
n\-_ _ _':__/
;11
209/431
~~)':I~--
.) .( ~ ," 1 , ~: . ~ ~"
'~I
\V-
~ "
~.
,r
'
;:.
......
\'
iI
'\ .1 .
_-
~-' i
"~
=E
..... ,.
"

/~~; 07
3001/0
~ ;~;
'-.-~ ~i - 9_8/0
. E.' 110/0 1
",
... .
,'"-i-o ' , __ " .
~
"''>'j
.1 ... -
"!l.-."",
(! 1'~ '":~(, i'~ :"-,' ~:,'~t :.::,~ Y.I ,' , .
..-
' . 14,2 \\1........:~~ ~ ,'l j.
"-~.. -
.143
.144
.1 .....
",:.
II II
'~ V
- '
'
I .
. 145 , "-, .
. .1.46
. _.J,
. .( , ," , .
r
.147 , ," ~
.148 , ," " ,, ,

--"__..,...--~-'J
.p
' '" .
~~~"
. <""(-.......
.1 m .
.2
___/
jIfID
~-
~-
, /j
, p i
,
.4
210/431
""'"\
) , .
.3
'-
j'.
6.;-
J.; '" " /

-. J!.lf t(1 ~ i
,
'-;,
t.
\.
\ \",,
.d--
{~
'~\
\. . .
l1 108
// 502./07
// - 98/0
92
. --
//
1982 -
'
..
"iI'6,.7\"\__".--
~,-
.149
PhD Terry Melton, laboratory director, act1ng qua1ity manager, forensic
examiner, Mitotyping Technologies, Pennsylvania, USA .

,..
.150 ," ,324475300 ,23 .
",
\V~t~: ,-,,
'".,
:
:: ',,.'
\,
/~. ;:/
.151
" ,002874550
""'-
~!.!.
~-
J-
'f:
;.(":,
.1
, II II
II ." I/
.2
, II
. .
.3
, ,
I
.4
.5
..
(2) =' r;{'/
! . II
,
'
211/431
1.
)(
~
'1
~-
;
m
1
: I I1
II 502/07 :
14/9/10
~]

II II
II
II
II -
]:
]:
1
I
1
II II
',']-
II II
\!:.
]:
]:
\
]:
:
' ," - :
.
6/12/06 ,
, ,
( , /l ,
:
:
j
'1&1. '.
:J
, /I
, /l,
, " , ' , ,4/1/1993

6/12/06 , ( , ,
, 13 : 30 ,
, , , , ,
:
~,
/l
212/431
m
455
: I"
l1 502/07 :
14/9/10
(.1971-
,
, ,
, , ,
. , , , ,
,
. ,
, ,
.
,
" , ,
, ,
.
, , , ,
, ,
,
, , ,
, .
" 1
. , ,
, "
" 616/82
,365 (2
,373-374

(.
213/431
456
:' I"
lI 502/07 :
14/9/10
'
'
lI,14/9/10 ,
l1 , lI
l1
214/431
I (
502-07 (/
s:
JJ 502-07
J
. . -
14 2010
: J J
I
I
1139/07
: l1 Il1 l1
: l1 l1

( 300) ) (2 I II 1977 -
244
II 244

244 I
244
. 12/12/06
"
nevo.co.il
http://www.nevo.co.il/psika_word/mechoziJME-07-502-336.doc
215/431
' )(
) 502-07 (I
' "14/09/2010 ,
I1 , I1
54678313

,
:

,
"
nevo.co.il
-502-336.doc http://www.nevo.co.illpsika_wordlmechozi!ME-O
216/431
t ! J
i I'.: };'.t
79 ,? 9!,10

!! !! !! ! !
146!! 66883
~\
! i 03-7111711 : 03-7111707 :
'\ " , "1.;.

~-'~
'.,
;~:::,
;'",
," . ,} I
\ ~:.
"'!!;;.
'~\ '.
::0
.1 J
,t:
_,.
.",
"",
.:
! I
-'f{l,
;>-
'0
C
,
"'~ \\
\\
\i .....
~ '\
\\,.
~ \\
~ \\
\~~t'
.2
II !! ! I
8 I3
i 04-6950730 : I 04-6950730 :
)( 13
(,
", I / 2002
I 13
) ( I II) ZOOZ - I ! : !!(
) ! I ! I

II ) :
!!(,!!
! ) )(
.
) ) (5.1.2011 ! .
1 /
_'.:
217/431
'"
'.:~;.:'!_: ""':::
N
.1
il:
!II
I
5.1.2011
T: :'(.J -: ;:;',): );" : -1 ~ Li ;; ): .
!!.(//
.2
/
II
) :
( ) !/ :
II
(. II
13

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.3
.4
. . /
: )
)( .
.5
,)

)
)-.
.6
, - .
-2.?" ::~ ':
_.' ."~.~"
218/431
I
I
',i
.' ' 'i
6.12.2006 - II II
.7
]" ,; ;J :. j"; J' : :
'j)j
~ t .,
) .
.8
) )' I
,) ,14-.9.10
(502/07
18.1.2007
) .
, .
,9
11
'i
/ ) !!
.10
/l
, )
.11
, .
.12
II (4275/07
/ ,
13 .
r.:! ) ,
.
) ) )( . 1
) II 4-275/07 . 2
11
.13
13.9.2010
11
I
) II
(502/07
, -!

II
11
, ) , ! .
.
-3-
~~
219/431
~ :
~ ;_\('~.::
:J T: .'~ r ) ) 'I !) 13.'7.201 ; 3 r,
.14
, , I
, ; )
,10 ) 9 j ( .
.15
, ,

, .
.'
.16
13
I ,
,
.17
II
II 4275/07 J ,-
(, 200i) 4242 ,4236 (, 3)2007 13

:,

"

".
.18
: , ) , ,
,
.19
) -
, .) )
) ( ' " 10520/03 ,-
(, 4)2006
(2006 ) 1414 , 1410
:
' " JJ -
)).-
-!j.-
220/431
'::: :: i:' ,,
,!, .,.C::
. j f j YJ .1 I
~ f
:
i
1 fi in
II 75/53
II
. II
I II i 871 II 153/83
I II )( i 398 1393 II 4804/94
II I II
)675 1661 (5
.20
I
. I
.
I
. 21
.,
<) 1
14.9.2010
. 22
I I .
) II 4275/07 II I 12007
. 23
. :
i
!
II ) )
11
..
".
) )
( . I
11
,
. 24
~,
I
I
I
) ) II
502/07
II
,13.9 2010 :
,
) 'j ,
",1
~'
(1
'-: j
. II
-5-
221/431
~:
. .z_
) ,), ,
...
.25
I ' ...
, ,
,.
.26
, ,
I
. ,
,
~ .
.
,27
i,
11
~,
, 13
,
,28
, ,
,
. ) , ,
,
.29
, ,
13,9.2010" ,
. , ,
.
,
II II
/ !/
' I 4
.30
, ,
, )
.
6; ~
222/431
: :'~; ::-~ F. ::
' ) - I"')> :" ), r, "( 94-093,104.

) (1992'/ I ,- (2004) 6005 , 6003 (, 4) 2004
"
.

, ,
, "
",
!',
, 31
! !
, ,
..
.-
,32
11
13.9.10
,13,9,10
'
!!
, :I.
'.
'! ,
I-.. ,

,!:
, 33
),
fIl
II
, ,
,34

/ ,
-1 -
223/431
_ :;:" .......:: ....
~ ~;;'~ 3'"~ :-
1
~
.
, , 'I
,35
\ JI , \J\'"
v 1'" J )_ ) . ..., ! ....
.......
' ' ....
''''_''"' .... ,
'I ! 1'-
~ !L.l ''- '...1
'l
... ..I, ....\ Ir II-j ,,

, ..1..........iI ,
.,
\' ....... ,
\: 1
'
Ui;-,u1IC'",",''';li -
_,...
,.J
V 1_ V",
\' i.Ji '.: ji

I J V -l.J
"
\\ J ,'"",,''"',\:' j
''
\ .....
/ ...J I1
"V
,36
. /
, / ,
/ , j '/ - //
,
.37
) .
/ ,
/ / SlzepP(lrd v, M(Ly.well, 384 U.S., at

: 350.I
"A responsible press J1as alwa)ls been l'egarded as the
handl71aiden oj ejfecti1 e j'tldicial administl'atiol1, especially in the

J
!crin1inal jield. Its jLl1!CtiOJ1 in tJzis regard is dOCllme11ted by a1

' ice over several ceJ!tul'ies. T11e p,'essimpl'essive 1'ecord oj sel,'I
does not silnply publisJ1 injol'lnation about trials but gua1'ds
) sLlbjectiJ1,g the police,agai11st tJle 111iscal'1'iage oj justice b
prosecutOJ'S, al!d judicial pJ'ocesses to extensive public sCl'utiny
and criticisJn ",
, 38
11 " / /
.
,
. r
.39
i .
-8:,
P.
224/431
_":
\.\ l~ : I- ~ :;Z
,40
' fjj '., ~ j: ,','

) (5.11.2011 ,
.
.41
.42
'' . :-\~...- ... ::;~::'-'"".;--.;.~.
I II
,. '
II
-9;\
~:.', ;~ ~:: :: 1
225/431
;,
'\.
\

:
'1 7939110
" '

' ,4--
i 03-6932614 : 03-6932640 :
Q?(/
=
''-. ,. . .'--
.." .....,
..
""'~"~::" ~" . - ..... .~';:.~". .~:.--.

<"
~~;~ ~.':~_?:~:~.:':
~2Gl
'7 /
} \ :: r-
...... '-
-'~-~..... -
' J
---
'L '\ -G3-
. ... ":,
!"~<=-~ -:.::::::.:=-::::;::.-.::.~......,..",.~-'~.-.... =-"""'-'~--~-
16.9.14 '
.
/ '.
?I

.II
21
},
226/431
G! 0G!S0P
PG:G
?!~
" .1
~
2014
9GES9E0L
3N\7S 3-\;1I ~ O NOA
\;Id 3
P0!G0
21
Z014
II
" 7939/10 '

(, 16.9.14'l)
. , } 1
23.9.14 ,i ~ 00.1
.1
fl

, ! I
?
.Z
" ?
r ~

.3
II
?
.4
, , rl
/ ?
.5
> II
.6
.7
, ?
227/431
~~/ J~ T
b7.:7T
::- q7.i='F;q
S 3"j v I ~ O3- v NOA
dv 3
t 0/E0
.8
.9
.10
}{Z84J
!)
" Z84/
.11 10
.12
.13. 10.8.14 ' II {'/) 34157-07-14' I
; " "
. ? , ?
.14
?Z4-.2.14
.15
,.

. 16
, ,
.17
, lI '
, 13.6.2013
9.8.13
. 14.11.13 -
.18
14
II !
!
.19 .
!P
II
!
//
228/431
G 0G / 50 /
G:G
9GE59E0L
3-'i1I ~ 093t--jI:7S NOA
391:7d
/ 01 0 1

' ,' ' '
" 7939/10
20.10.14
708847
II II II

" " '

'
,4
61332
03-6932614 : ,
03-6932617 :
;,
.1
,16.9.2014
'
. ,
, ' .
, ,
I ,
.
'
, .

.2
' ,
229/431
. ,
.
.3
II 19 , 23.9.14
12
.4
, ,
, ,
,
textbook
.Medicolegal Investigation of Death :,
, - .

.5
,
,
,

.
'/
230/431
II 7939/10
2.0.10.14-
I , ~ 1 '
708847
/l 1I /

, I ' I I
! ,4 ~
61332
3~6932614 : ;
03-6932617 :
1 5 '10 2014

)(33
.1
/16.9.2014
: . '
, , , ~
:

' .
, ' !
I ,>
.
, '
' , ~ .
. .
,
.2
: , ,
I ~ ,
!
10Z / 01 / 1
: 61
231/431
L(;S 8L
1 >lZV\',jic d .L I I
'v'd 3
(; 0/10
.--=;-...;:"~F -+;:
. )
)\,, .
.3
/ I 19 , 23.9.14 '
12 .
!: ,
\ ,t .
.4
,'
:
.
,~
,
textbook
.i\1edicolegal Investigation of Death :
~ , ' - ) .
jlf l ,
1.
.S
n:
~ : ,

"'
~.
/
i
)"~
~:
~ 0 ~ /01J
232/431
EE
E8L1LZ:9
I't ltJI>iZ d l I I
;\ d 3
;/ 0 :: 0
JI 79.39/10
1f }

"

,4-
; J 03-6932614 : 03-693261

_ _ I --.~,---~_.:.-----:-
-1
I
-.
''''" !'i\!) ~'N ~ i ; / I"_,.,

~~ ~~ n
~,-
~
"'1'r ',<.' Jj':_'
_<,J
f
J
_j
I
J
~ )_:.:.,..
;-, ~,'- /::
_ \- ......
~'-i:'.
'
14/10/14
!I(5
,', /, ~- ,14/10/14 ~:'::--: ~ , ' r~

'\:
, , i
) ' I '1
. I~!:I:I
'
'j
" )
~ )' ,
- ------
' , \!. ' '\!."( , r
-~--.-,,-------~---
- -------_---_--- -------_---_-------_ ------------------------------- _-- ---- ----- -- ---,- - - -
--- ----------- --_ --'--- -~-.r M--\J:-~-:-:--t-:j,.)t- i-j_~~I..._. ___ __________ _. '). , 1\. [:
' I ,
.2
~ . ,j ":
, J::I ~I,
,
.3
, '"
} , ,
,' ~:
} ) , :\'
233/431
t t.J
(""1;.1
H"_~~ ,
: , :)!:} I ,
)1 ,
j':::I;!\'
-4
21:1. ) ',
( ,
1 ! '] : IJ
.5
f- .
,6 f'; .l
. 1/1 ,2013
\!.
" t~,
, 1' 1::
,7
. ); ,
] . i '::
' I 80BO/ 12 _
, , ,1:: I
.8
. ,; ':
;. ,
___ _.
"- ----------- --- -- -----_._---.------_ ----.!\I---------------.- -:------HLr~.__);.

.
-- - --- -------- ---- ----.---------.-.-.-------------- -----------------
'----
,9
} . } ;' VJ: ,
,15/11/12 ) . ;
2.11 , ~ l; ::"::
/ I '::
, ,
.10 ~ / l JO l ::VJ I\ : .
II ;'~ '1 ,
, )!,.
t , '~' :
- :: I'
234/431
'-I
...........
_ , ......,
;1 ~) ;~: .
) \I , (~
-!\J ':;":
jj
,,
,11 ) 2013 ) ' . : t ;~ i
" , ,$ I' '..

, } ~ :
J
y'I
,~ J
, ,\",:I
:'~;I
" , ' ,
, , II " ': I
I- .
.12 ' ( \J:Jt ,

; ~JI y'I
' I , ' ~ J'I
II /l ) , I \!, II
, , , : J "
" , I'I~
. II '); ,: ~I
'!,
, , J ' ~'~:,
" " __ _________ .. " ____ ",,
_- - - - - -------- --
- - _..... - - -_ - _--------- - - - - - - -->~...2 II) ~.- - -5 i~ - -
-_ _-
_-
-1
!! ! I: !!
'
.13 !$ tl J:
II " , :' I"
!' , ? }.!\ J~ I ,
~ , . ' j ' 1 ,
} !'J , 02/09/14 !; i~i ~f
} } lI ,,' j:
. '' 2': /l
. , ~ ! I
235/431
- "-
) \;. ,
) .!\I:,n
'
,14
, . ~~ I ,
' 'r::
, J I ;!"
, IlI > , r:I ')":
~I '/ , } .)!:'~
/ , r.: ,
1
. , , ') j
II ') ' i.:
, . } : j
. j"i:' '/
// , ': ,-
, ,
'/ , I ~ ~:
,15
, . )': !!,
" ) , ' 1::I" 1'

. ,
:I '\!,.'/ ,
,16
. . : I- .
___
_ ,. -~~--'-_~=_- -i t,~?fi -- f- / - ~'j '/--~~I ~ m. -,

: ,I
, j . ' j
, '(:
' :J } I
.
.17 416/09/
.')'::'f '.t
/ t '\;, - .
r.: ):~, }I,

, } / ~
I (,
'/ , ', )' ,
236/431
> II ; :'):
,..)I I:I;
} )\! } / . ~';:
:~,
,i8 n ' I;I . ,

tl .
.19
II );" 'i .
; : ~';:
. I \t1 ) f , ,;: '
~'')
.
.20
) . ' ; j\ I
, '{
. ': J:
/ I .. I / :' .
, ' ,
, 'i:
t '\!, II , , :I
.y
--_ --_ -'-
" , , " ' ::
-- ~=~=-=-=-- )1'7- T---- --3~~--~ i~ : - :-- -- , ' / t ~ , ;.
)1 / : I ,: ,
' '. .) I '\!J ) I.
' :.
,21 ! li'1) :
, :
I1 , ) ) V~ 11 :,
,22~ ) } j':~ ,
} : :
237/431
). l')"\ ::
) ) . !- ,
' .23 :: 'T}I ,

,
1I:
. , }";' ?
,20.10.14
~(~..-:-..--\~ f
~\C
-~~.-. ),-.-. '~ 91

~J l\~ i::">A~17
/ I . t~~ j :1
' J ,
--------
--_-- - - - - ----- -
----- ---_-------
~\}i I-
~ : l" ~ I
------------------
--------
__ -_----
_-_-- _--
--
----------
238/431
'I I
~

"
6852/14
,
:

19/10/14
(: -. . ( -. ,
L ~, '2..
~ ,
\).
\ .r-- -
. BI ~ ')1:;11; .i 1{)lq
____ _:_/r___j f ~_(____!

~____~ {)..:. . :. .
~d 1....L...L.!.---____j_j'....L-....L.-I
--L
) ( :
J-T-~~ ~ ~\
'_J--J-',
_L-
/ _ _ _ _ _ _
(;< / .
(;< ,
(;<
(;< , ,
0
0
- 2-
239/431
> ~L,;I,...I <J
lj'
I;Y>- J

'r:
:.\i".
J d ~ :~, )":; 1t.tj .,~.

~~I
II-
;' ,:':~:\li-~.
.}.' I_"" ~ I
.~ ~ I / n
f.t
~ I/O)I 1'"'1) '. ....:,_,, .
'~W~
r,;:::
'
/ t I
""' II~;:
,..", 1
...,tr,- .. :
\~ !::: \ ':~'~.~
\ 48j;SS'S;~4t
:;..~,~:~:..:~ ",- .'.;::-,' .
.,.. . 11 ,../.. 11 ...., ....
....
" Jo.::.
")
~901~8":Zt
; I;;)J\? I ,yL.JI \..
" IS-- .:
..... L.. .:J1,,", V J
" IS) V J --
. _- -----.1-- -- -.-,--:-
'_"""____________. _1"';.,"1.;."'~~-,.,""."'=.<"""-'""""'""',,.""'.,:k
' I I " I
JI048588834 ,
5
~r;:Jtitt i~~~~~~i~~'~~;~!;:
' ':. I ! 801 ,

I I:03 ~ 512b333 ,., 1 :
. 583179-4 10' 801310101-498586
;;:
,
~-~~~~~~~~~1U_4~~~~l_~l~~~~~~~~~~~ . --~~-t
~!~! ::! :~ n ~~ r, lli I re ~ ~ ;,ill 1II:: ~ ::~ IIII:: ~ :~ D

I \ I " U
240/431
'
Account No .
~I
~~ ~~ e~ 9 ~ ,~~ ' 5
XI
I X
Branch Banlc
'
Chegue No .
.L
{ 13:PAGE , /
035184002
ICFORENSIC t'~ EL
17:49
'"i
' 1
1 :
1 ,
i:
11 79.39/10
1 :
!.
1:
ii
1 :
;!
'; i
1:
1 ,
ii
:/
1 :
~
; 1
i :
' l
, 16.9,14 {!
; 1
~i
ji
; 1
1 :
!I
:

) (12
23
2014
23 -09- 2014
/
1:
ii
; j
'l
1 :,
" !I
i:
1 :,
Ii
;1
l' ,
('1
1 :
' )_"'d
'>; '" /G?{l.
I
; 1
r" {;;.
Cfr ')/;'" -
1 :
);"<
1
');,
241/431
23/09/2014
EDICFORENSIC t4
PAGE
02/1-3
035184002
17 : 49
23109 /, 2014
'1 :
1 :
1 :
i:
1 :
1 :
i'i
i:
, ! , SZ26S8 ,OS ; ! t.
I
'.
:i
ll
, :
; 1
;i
Ii
'1:
. '/ J/O 7939

1 :
, ,
. 16 _9.2014
1 :
:
:
ii
I I ;.
; 1
!!
1
; 1
;i
i,

:
1 :
1 :,
1
r
; 1
'
.1
I ,
It . \~
;:
; 1
i! :.
.2
" ( . I(.
.3
I I( I ( ..
i:
;i
i:
1 :
.4
~~ ,
" , ~ .
( :
''.
Ii
ii
( I.:
, , I(
1 :
. . .
, / i o
1:
242/431
i
i
03/13
FORENSIC MEDIC
PAGE
17:49
035184002
23/09/2014
i:
':
;i
.
1 ,
. ~
~
~i
' l
, ~
) vestig;;ltion of Death[ Medicolegal

2006' (, 566
Z SRJ
I )
Pathology ~ Principles and Practice EW Matshes, D. DolinakLew -
W.U.
Forens,it
~
,:
, 2005' (. 144 I I i o
O _ ~Lectur ):
Notes in Forensic Medicine D Pounder ,2006'
1 :
(.
' 1
'.
" ' ' /. D ' :

)'( / ' "
, '
)(scratch abrasiollS
/ .
O ' f,I
[V
' " I / II / ~ t
' .
Pr(ihlow-
Cena
t'' :/I
,
I / '' . , li'i
] / ) ' ( . / : ,
II
, I '
I' D
Forensic Autopsy of Sharp Force Injuries
/" .
JA Prahlow
) 1 :
SJ Cina
~.
Medscape (2014
1 :
1 :
'l
) " ( ?
:
I . Q / '' / ]'
'l
/ // ' ' _ / ,/ ) (
' ,: J~ ,
I
I I"_ f } ogy Handbook of Forensic Path rr

Froede ,2003 169
'1 :
(.
i:
1 :
1 :
' .
'l
'i
I
f
i,
' l
' l
!:
i
1 ,
243/431
RC
~'1EDIC
PAGE. 04/13
17:49
02~ 035184
FORENSIC
23/09/2014
1 .
1 :
i:
; 1
!I

I\f
1
. , I I
, O ) I( !~ I
.
1 :
~I
; 1
: "
II
, ?
:i
:
1
''' 2 : / "
11
; 1
J' ,
18.5 -
" f f' ,/
,' ']'. ' /; / -

0.6 -
3.5i -
0.2
"
1 :
".
1 :
" , // ' II /.
i
i
) ( J /
. { I -
0.5
"0 ]// ) /(
'{ / / ' , f -
0.8
" ~
!:
1 :
'l
) /(
1 -
" "
,' {/ , 0.6 -" , ' .'~

1 ' I '"
1 :
! :
'l
i
" ": /' )/

/ / ( ']'
' - /
, ;f
// I .
'
i:
i:
1
, '') ' ( ', ! ]/ l
' ' 2
' " II . I
j:
' / ,/ '' // II // }/
' 1 /'. II .' I J ,
'
-' ', / '} ' ,
/ II ,// , / f" / .
/ ' ) . ./' ' '{ / I I ! I
' '(.
i:
1
~!
! :
.,i
'l
;1 :
244/431
EDIC~1
PAGE
05/13
17:49
035184002
FORENSIC
23/09/2014
1:
" , ' ," j

I ," I
II qlll
I . O' , ':
" m
I
- , ,
. , I " .
I
J J . , I " O " " ' O , :
,
I1
!!
1 :
' , .)' ) '
3-1589-06
I(
.1
;:
245/431
23/09/2014
17:49
035184002
FORENSIC
~'1EDIC
05/1"3
PAGE
1 '
:
1
" :
I
1:
1 :
1 :
1 ,
'
1:
1;
1:
1
:,
,
'
"
1
1
1:
1 :
j'
:
ji
l'
1
:j
j:
1 :
1:
'j
i
I
1 ,
,
' 1
I;,
:/
j
1 :
i:
..:
1 :'
I
1 ,
l'
1
l'
1
!i
I
/
,!
!'
;
1 :,
:~
246/431
: I1PAGE , 0
035184002
FORENSIC tvlEDI C
: 4g 1
1 :
1:
( I , : I.
. '
,
i
) ( ( ,
il
. I ' I O ~:1
(.
~.
! ,
"
!:
I1
247/431
23/0g / 2014
0351840132
IEDIC\FORENSIC I
PAGE. 08/1'3
17 ' 49
:'
23/09/2014
1 :
1 :
' .,l
Ii :
. ' ~'
~) ."
1 :
I ( . I !
. . dh I
II
1 :
' .
; 1
i:
. I ,
Foren
if PstholOgy for
d Forensic SCientists ice, Death Investigators, Attorneys, a Po J.A. Prahlow
' .383
2010
.
1:
I ) 1
(.
:
i
1
i
1:
'l
'l
i:
' l
'i
1 .
':)< l1o, ~ltiple:, S\lpelfi.cial (sh.ufe. Note tile nlby a sen1J.ted k
14.7 A stab WOlilld produced
;'~F
pat'allel incised WQ'llnds along fue llppel' 1llargiIl of the WOllUd
'l
'l
: , ~\ ,
I I
" " .
.
1 .
O(' .
)
1 :
. m:n
II I Ot : OI
Produced by r ark Striation in Pig Ski Tooll
ade m a Serrated B Stabs Fr Pounder
DJ
'l
\ can Ame
Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology {,2011 I I

,." , ,! ,
) ! I J.A. Prahlow (.
1 :
'i
1:
248/431
FORENSIC r.IEDIC
PAGE
09/13
17: ~,9
035184002
'j
~..
:
1 :
i:
;'
i
. I I I( !~I I I .
Ii
, ,

;~.
I )
,
, t t :~ lnn
, I
I I,
.5
, I I ! II)I t
\ . I ) ( II I , t
.[ . ~
I I I . ,
;:
249/431
'
' l
23/09/2014
~,'IEDIC
PAGE
10/13
035184002
FORENSIC
23/09/2014
,9 17 :
1 :
'l
, '
I .,
1:
1 :
.7 :
i:
~ .I' ; f
.
i:
;i
8:
' , ). I
( , ) I ( ' J,
' ? f
J
. ' I
1 :
) ( , :.
'l
, . ~ I
,
1 :
1 :
" " ; I ,
I , ~
,' ' I !~1
' Ir:
1
I,
\'
, IP
~ ,
m :
. . I . , O
1 ,
1 :
1 :
.9
, I) , - ,
, ,' ~
,. , . ~"
') , : , 1
, I " i'
, I II'' I~ l
!:
,
1 :
; 1
) .10 / 23.8,2009) (, 284 " !

::
I I I :II ").' ! 4 II
(.
I )'
(. 1748
! , I !
)( I : ,
1
'l
1:
; 1
~ .'.
"I
250/431
035184002
FORENSIC t,'1EDIC
PAGE , 11/13
17:49
23/09/2014
. :,
f
:
. . II ' !
.
i:
':,
, , , I ~ h I
; 1
) '
1752
I(.
, I ~
. . I ' I I )
(.
1 :
'l
" ' I II )' 48 ]( '
~ :
1 :
) , ( , .
" ) ,' 1759( &ld

II ' .
I
II
1 :
" "~' t:
I
II
o" .
II
" ' , J'
' 17521 :
I ' I , ~ I
/ (
. ' '
' / , ' ' ") ,~ (

I
1:
[ 13 14 - ~
I I
,,
, . " l1 ,
t
1:
I / I , I I . : ' ( ? f '

I tl
) (. , : ,
i ,i - . II :
t
'.
' 1
ii
; 1
i:
, ' I? I
- t , I ~: I
I . , I I 8 "
,.
)' ( , I ' ?. I'D

I , I .
1 :
\,
. 1';1 10 ' I , II
O , O
',
] I .
1 :
10
1 :
,I i
251/431
035184002
FORENSIC tl'IEDIC
PAGE . 12/13
17:49
1:
:
1
, I I .
0:11-0:16
i:
" ' /" :i ~ ,

t
I ) 0:53( I I :
"
f ' 7' / I)?"I (. I I,

'
, I ' I 1~ 1:< .

] .
.
I : I! utube.com/watch?v:-MgpW93wP9XUhttps://www.y
:
1
.12: , ,:,
I
I . I I .
\:
. 131
:
. : I " 'i
. . .
1 :
'
( 'f
.14,
. ( ,24.2.2014 ~
'
II
1 .
~r
~ .1 . II
O .
,
, ) . ,
!:
i,
, 1$ t I , I ..
1 .
1
i:
!.
~() .1 17 I. (: 18
I , I I !.
.
) ,1~!3 ( 19 :
' I I I
1 :
:
1
,
'i
'l
" I I , I '~ nLI

.
. I I
1 .
,.
10
.. ,
:
, I I ~.
n ) ( n 0tio
II )
, I 'J[l
:
( , I " - t ,
11
i:
i1
1 :
11
"
252/431
23/09,/2014
13/13
035184002
1EDIC FORENSIC
PAGE
49 1
23/09/2014
, 1
I
1
:
,
o . ., Jl ': (
I
1 :
l I . , [ ,
ll . ])
,Q .
I lOO I
O I .
:
1
I I
' n
[ I :
. , I ~
l:
1 :
i:
" , .
I:
; 1
l l , l t
;1
i:
!:
;i
1 :
~
"-:
, ,
\:
'l
:
1 ,
./ ' , ,,
,61034
23.9,2014
\:
I [ 1
. ,057522658 ,
1
, ~
,
"
12
'l
i
1 :
I
1
'l
'l
1 :.
253/431
n adanc.n.c -
~

II -
: - 2001
:

" .2007-
33482 :
.2001-2006
22666 :
, ,
, , .
"
7939/10
"

" -
.1
3/1589/2006 19.12.2006
" .
.2
.3
" , 3.1.2007
.4
"
" .
:
0
" 3'
,
) (
0.5
II
0.8
II I -) ./ (
, ,
"
'!
1
.35 - 61333
:I
.03-609998503-6099986 :
: " 37 W 76226
www.madan-cnc.com
254/431
. cQrnadanc .
,
.
, II II :
/ .....

".
(
:
) (
'
'
( ',
~ -
. .
'
', ,
'" , , .
. ' -'
(.
- 1
255/431
~ adanc.n.cr
.
I
"
- ,
4-S.sX
"
".
" :
( )(
".
, , .
7-
.
.
,,
.1
, ' (.1

,
.2
(. 1
, . ~
: 202
Dimaio
Dimaio
.
".
256/431
adanc.n.c Q
.3
Froede : 169
" .
. , ) (
/ .
, .
, ,

. II
Spitz
,
.
,
.,
Atlas ofEmergency Medicine -
, ,
.
)
"( made COl1tact
(2
)11
, ,
.
.4
.5
.6
257/431
. c~ adanc .r
AtIas
1 e:R
urmanstadc LB, Storrow AB, n
,K
Knoop
Sun::e:
http://_w.accessmedicine.comfJidne, 3rd Ed,itk t:y lergeof En

C The McGraw-HiII Companies. Inc. AlI rights reserved t!CCl!lYrig
- 2
- 3
Atlas of emergency medicine
Spitz
,572 .
, .
( .
.
258/431
Qrnadanc.n.c
I

.1
, .
. . (
. , ,
.

(
,
.
, .
.2
.3
- (1
(1
-
(
Atlas of emergency medicine
- 2
- Spitz
,(
( . .
259/431
, .
3
(.
6 9
) rnadanc.n.c
~
.4
, ,
.
.
,
, .
.1
,
, .
.2
: ,
.
.
. .

.
.
,
.3
Froede
) Itibashi
(.
, " :
, -

.
.
260/431
~ adanc.n.cr
.4
II ,
.
.S
II " . ,
- , 7
.S.SX4
.
II
.II
, -
II
II
, .
.6
II
.
.
.7
) brim of the
.(hat
, II
II
.
) ( .
. .
.8
, II ,
!
II .

,
.
) ( ,

261/431
. cQrnadanc .
:
II
.1
.2
. .
" , ,
.
12.11.2012
:
Forensic Pathology , V.J. Dimaio, D. Dimaio, 2nd Ed, CRC press, 2001 p.202
Handbook ofForensic Pathology. RC Froede. 2nd Ed. College of American Pathologists 2003 p
169, 148 .
ow A.B ,Smock WS, Stack LB. Chapter 19. Forensic Medicine. In: Knoop KJ, Stack LB, Sto
3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill ; 2010 .
Emergency Medicine.
Thurman RJ, eds. The Atlas
http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=6006513 . Accessed October 29 , 2012 .

Forensic Pathology Principles and Practice, D. Dolinak, E.W.Matshes, E. O. Lew. Elsevier , 2005
p 144
Medicolegal investigation of death, W.U. Spitz. 4th Ed. Charles C Thomas ,2006 P 515,548,566 .
Forensic Neuropathology Itibashi et al. A Practical Review ofthe Fundamentals
2007 Elsevier p 168 .
262/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "

Supreme Court - inspection of decision records in the paper court file
- ( 7939/10 )
[]
Courts.
like this one.
, , , ,
: . ,14
: ' ."
, ."
.
, ,
, .""
.
, ,
, .
, .
.
.
.
#
Dae
Judges
Signatures Seal
1/3
263/431
Page
1.
20151012
2.
20150820
3.
20150528
4.
20150427
5.
20150330
6.
20141210
7.
20141209
8.
20141125
9.
20141020
10.
20141006
11.
20140916
12.
20140908
13.
20140821
14.
20140601
15.
20140527
16.
20140515
17.
20140514
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaor(deniedrequesttoappointanew
NO
panel,followingrefusalofthepresentpaneltoprovideaduly
signedandcertifiedcopyofareasoneddecisiononDisqualification
foraCause).
,)
(
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal
,,
NO
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal(denyingrequesttoinspect)
NO
(),,
JusticeDanziger
JusticeDanziger
JusticeDanziger
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
JusticeDanziger.No28lastnumbereddecision.
NO
.".
JusticeDanziger.Unnumbereddecision.
NO
..
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
YES 14
.".
JusticeDanziger.Decisioninstructingtoappearincourt)
NO
..
JusticeDanziger.No25.
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal.Decisionfollowinghearingofthe NO
samedate.
..,,
.".
NO
JusticeDanziger.DecisionNo26.
NO
NO
JusticeDanziger
.".
YES
NO
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal.Instructingcounseltoprovide
conversiontableforpagenumbersbetweenNevoConviction
recordandNetHaMishpatConvictionrecord.Stamped:
Releasedforservice.
.,,
"""""""
.":."
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal(denyingdisqualificationfora
NO
cause,originatingintheirrefusaltoprovidesignedandcertified
copiesoftheirowndecisions).
,),,
.(
JusticeDanziger
NO
2/3
264/431
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
18.
20140513
19.
20140505
20.
20140424
21.
20140413
22.
20140413
23.
20130317
24.
20130227
25.
20130226
26.
20121211
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
20121118
20121016
20121011
20110927
20110925
20110102
NO
..
JusticeDanziger.Decisioninstructingtoappearincourt,
NO
unnumbered.
.,.
JusticeDanziger.Unnumbered.
..
..
YES
.".
MagistrateShani.No12.
.".
NO
NO
NO
NO
MagistrateBenMelech.No17.
NO
NO
YES
.".
JusticeArbel.No17.Stamped:Releasedforservice.
.":.".
NO
NO
JusticeArbel.Decisionpertainingtoaddingevidenceinappeal.
NO
Unnumbered.
...
.".
NO
JusticesArbel,Danziger,Zylbertal.Decisionpertainingtoadding
NO
evidenceinappeal.Unnumbered.
..,,
.
.".
NO
PresidingJusticeGrunis.DecisionappointingJusticeAmittoreplace NO
JusticeArbel.Unnumbered.
.
..
JusticeArbel.No18.
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
MagistrateShani.No11.Decisiononrelievingprivatecounselfor
DefendantandappointmentofPublicDefender.
".".
.
YES
JusticeAsherGrunis.Unnumbered.Stamped:Releasedforservice.
.":..
YES
NO
NO
3/3
265/431
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

"
II
7939/10
"
7.10.2015
19.8.2015
.1
2015 .
" ' . )
, - T(
. 27.4.2015
. 28.5.2015
20.8.2015
, .
.2
, 19.8.20 15
, ) ( ,
, "
)( ; - " .
. 7.10.2015
, .
266/431
19.8.2015
.3
28.5.2015 . ,
77)( [,
" . 1984-
, ) , ] . 2006 ) 395-394

.4
. ,
) " 6080/15
']
"
) . 17.9.2015
, 2015
. 2015
, ( 147) ] [ ," 1982-

.
.

.
.5
," "
) (. 12.10.2015
10079390_CS2.doc .
. ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il .
267/431
~

lI
7939/10
II
.
, ,
"
,' " ) (. 20.8.2015
10079390_WSl.doc
, 3333 , 77' 27 ; ,
268/431
\V\V\v.court.gov.il
~

l1
7939/10
'
'
II
, , - -
" .
,' " ) (. 20.8.2015
, i 077-2703333
269/431
10079390 W51.doc
t aov.il .WWw.COU .
~

lI
7939/10
'
'
"
" ;"
"
, ,
.
, "
) (. 28.5.2015
10079390_W49.doc .
, ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il ,
270/431
m

"
- 1939/10
'
'
"
" ; "
"
.1
" ",
" ".
.2
,
.
.3
. ,
. ,
271/431
z

.
.
.
' "
) (. 27.4.2015
10079390 W47.doc .
I , i 077-2703333 IIWW\v.court.gov.il ,
272/431
" - 1939/10
:
"
. 19.4.2015
,' "
) (. 30.3.2015
10079390_W46.doc
. ; 077-2703333 WWW.court.gov.il .
273/431
m

"
- 7939/10
"
," " ) (. 10.12.2014
10079390_W4S.doc .
, ; 077-2703333 '\\\vw.court.gov.il ,
274/431
"
:
7939/10
10.12.2014 12 : 00

) ( . 11.1.2007-18.12.2006
," " ) (. 9.12.2014
.
,
077-2703333
275/431
10079390_W44.doc
i ,
WWW.court.oov.il
m

"
'
7939/10
22 / 26.11.2014
12 : 00
,' " ) (. 25.11.2014
10079390_W43.doc .
. ; 077-2703333 www.court.<>ov.il .
276/431
<~)~
)e

II
7939/10
II II ; II
II ; II ; II
; II

"" , 26.10.2014
" ".
," "
r
.
, 077-2703333
277/431
.doc
10079390_W
:I:~.~ ur!.."()\ .il),.~,_.
) (. 20.10.2014
~ ((-~.

m

II
7939/10
II II i"
II i" i"
i"

"" , 26.10.2014 .
" ".
," "
.
,
077-2703333 ,
278/431
10079390_W42.doc
; ,
www.court.gov.il
) (. 20.10.2014
m

"
7939/10
"
"
. .
. 20.10.2014
." "
) (. 6.10.2014
n 10079390_W40.doc .
, ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il ,
279/431
~

"
7939/10
'
'
II
" "
)(16.9.14
II II i"
II i" i"
.1
" 2014 .
.2
" , - ,
"
- , -
, , , :
280/431
2
.
"
' 21.9.2014- . 12:00 , ,
" -
" - "
' -
23.9.2014 . 17 : 00 " ,
.
.3
, -
' 20.10.2014 . 09:00 , , 11.9.2014

) 20- (
. 1.10.2014
," " ) (. 16.9.2014
10079390_W38.doc
,; 077-2703333 , '\\ W\\',court.g{)v.il ,
281/431
m

"
7939/10
i -
"
,
"
.
', 16.9.2014-
. 15:00
," " ) (. 8.9.2014
, i 077-2703333
282/431
10079390 W36.doc
'\\\i\~.C()LI11."()v.il ,
m

I1
- 7939/10
" " ;"
' . 31.8.2014
," "
) ( 21.8.2014
, 077-2703333
283/431
10079390_W35.doc
; .~\\'\\ court.g()v.il ,
1I
~

"
7939/10
29.5.2014
,' "
) (. 1.6.2014
10079390_W33.doc .
, ; 077-2703333 W\vw.court.gov.il ,
284/431
~

II
- 7939/10
II
26.5.2014
, 26.5.2014
15.5.2014
, . 29.5.2014
, 15.5.2014
, 26.5.2014 .
," "
) (. 27.5.2014
, ; 077-2703333
285/431
10079390 W32.doc
W\~ \\.COllrt.gO\.il ,
m

11
- 1939/10
11
15.5.2014
, . 26.5.2014
," "
) (. 15.5.2014
10079390 W31.doc
. ; 077-2703333 '!Y~~ \\.CQtlrt.go\.il .
286/431
m

11
- 1939/10
11
13.5.2014
. 21.9.2014
,/ /
) (. 14.5.2014
.
,
287/431
077-2703333
10079390_W30.doc
; ,
gov.il
. .'"\\'\\ C()U
~

"
'
11.5.2014
. 22.5.2014
," "
) (. 13.5.2014
10079390_W29.doc
, ; 077-Z703333 ,
288/431
\\'"'\\ .court.gt)V .i
7939/10
~

"
7939/10
" " ;"
"
.1
, 24.4.2014
, 20.10.2014
.2
09:00
. 1.9.2014
, "
) (. 5.5.2014
, 077-2703333
289/431
10079390_W28.doc
; ~V\vw.court.gov.il ,
,-
m

"
'
7939/10
" " ' ;" '

" '
, 13.4.2014
, .
.1
, , 8.1.2015
. .
.2
30 .
30.
.3
, .
"
. 45
," "
) ( 24.04.2014
10079390_W27.doc
, ; 077-Z703333 \ V\\lw.court.gov.il ,
290/431
~

II
'
7939/10
" " ' ;" '
" '
, ,
. 4.5.2014 20.
,
, , 25.5.2014 20.
," "
) (. 13.4.2014
10079390_W26.doc
, ; 077-Z703333 t gov.il ,"\i\V\\'.COtI .
291/431
m

"
1939/10
' ,
.
," "
) (. 13.4.2014
10079390 S2S.doc
,' ; 077-Z703333 ~ www.couli.(10Y.il
292/431
(!J

"
) Q -
7939/10
s (\.~\ q
)
' ,' II ' ( II 502/07
-14.9.2010
:
:
!! !!
!! 1!! !!
' :
" (
. ,
211 [ ," ) 1982- :"(.
.1
, .
- ,
. , , ,
. ,
,
, .
, , ,

293/431
2
.
- ," , - ,"
, . ,
, "
,.
.2
. ,
- .
: ,-
, ,
.- - , )" ( ,
, . ,
, . ,-
," - , -
, ,
. -
, ,
. , . , -

, . ,
, , ,
,
.
, .
,
.
.3
. ,
. ,
.
, , -
,
. ,
294/431
. , -

. ,
- " - .
, ,
. .-
, . .
. - .,

. ,
.
, ,
.4
,
, :-
- " -
.
.
, 211" ,
, ".

. : ,
j,
j ,
" )" 1742/91 '

, " ) 296 , 289 ( 5
). 1997
, )" 1690/09 '
). 10.10.10
, ,
, . ,
295/431
- ,
,

.
, ,
,5

, ,
) ,
( , ,
, ,
- , .
,6
" ,
, , ,
, ,
,
.
, , .
.
"
) (. 17,3,2013
c.10079390 B24.d
, ; 077-2703333 ,
t gov.ilW\VW.C01I .
296/431

II
'
7939/10
" i"
.
,

. 17 : 00
," "
) (. 27.2.2013
c.10079390_B21.d
, ; 077-Z703333 \ VW\v.cOttrt.gov.il ,
297/431
m

I1
- 7939/10
"
" '
" '
," "
) (. 26.2.2013
.
,
077-2703333
298/431
9390_B20.doc lOO
; ,
\V\vw.court.gov.il
~
';""~(' 1' ~ \'r
'R
\...
'..~~./
')
II
- 7939/10
"
" ' ,"
" ' ~
- -

. 2013
1l 7 .
," " ) (. 11.12.12
~~~\- .
, 077-2703333
299/431
0079390_B 19 .doc
i ,~ C()llli."(IV.il ,
~

JJ
i ~
- 7939/10
II
21
.
' 1 , " ) (. 18.11.2012
!!t
(17\:
__;
10079390 P18.doc
,; 077-2703333 , ~ '\\'\\ IV.C()urt.g()v.il
300/431
m

II
- 7939/10
II
, 15.11.2012
,' " ) (. 16.10.2012
~'
10079390_P 17 .doc
, ; 077 "2703333 l ~(,,'.il , LC..Q.:~
301/431
m

I1
- 7939/10
lI
, .
. 15.10.2012
," "
) (. 11.10.2012
('(~r J
!'5
79390_P16.doc10
,; 077-2703333 , .'\'\'\\'\\ c()u!I.g(!v.il ,
302/431

II
- 7939/10
"
,
j .
- ,
.
" i ," " ) (. 27.9.2011
/),/
/ /
_-_. .
,077-2703333 ,
303/431
l0079390_D12.doc
vV\V\V,c()tlrt.go\'.il ,
';/

"
- 7939/10
"
(, 28.10.2010
)(
. .
, 23.10.2011 . 10 : 00 ,
, , .
," " ) (. 25.9.2011

)
,/
'
"
,:~:.~.
~'~,.,.. ...
",1
~-
, 077-2703333
304/431
l0079390_Dll,doc
; \ V ~V\v.COllrl.gl)v.il ,
\~.
""

_J
.f
'~t
;::,
~~"":."C
'J
II
7939/10
.1
.2
13
) ( , II 2002-
"
:1
"
"
:2
2 . 1
.1
2,
. 13.9.2010
.2
.3
- 3.1.2011
, I"
) (. 2.1.11
vJ

I0079390_S02.doc .
. 02-6593333
305/431
; "'\ W\V.(~ ()Ult."ov.il .

In the Supreme Court
7939/10
Before:
The Hon Magistrate Gilad Lubinsky
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Appellant:
Roman Zadorov
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
October 14, 2015 Requester's Request
Decision
As common and customary, the Requester is permitted to address the Chief Clerk of this Court for
obtaining a signed and certified copy of the Hon Presiding Justice Mirian Naor October 12, 2015
Decision.
I find no need to provide any additional instructions in this matter.
Rendered today, October 25, 2015.
[unsigned]
Gilad Lubinsky, Judge
Magistrate
__________
Issue subject to editing and phrasing changes. 10079390_X54.doc
306/431

" - 979701/
:
" '

1101/01/11
,
' ' 0 2102.01.21
0
, " " ( 0) 1102.01.21
_________________________
10079390_X54.doc .
,' ; 277-0723333 www.court.gov.il ,
307/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
1600036 ",00433 "
November 27, 2015

Judge Michael Spitzer
Director, Administration of Courts
By email: MICHALTS@court.gov.il ,ronam@court.gov.il ,Pniyot@court.gov.il ,
Dover@court.gov.il
RE: Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) and David Vanunu v State of Israel (7921/11)
parallel and unequal criminal appeal tracks in the Supreme Court?
Your response within 45 days, pursuant to the Reformed Administrative Procedures Act (1958), is
kindly requested.
Dear Judge Spitzer:
Please accept instant letter request for clarifications regarding the striking and perplexing
differences between the Supreme Court records of the two criminal appeal files, referenced
above. Such differences raise serious concerns that the Supreme Court simultaneously maintains
two parallel and unequal tracks for criminal appeal:
The first track, in which the Vanunu appeal was conducted, is distinguished by the fact that all
decision records in the Supreme Court's paper file (original records) are signed by the respective
Supreme Court justices. In addition, with the Notice of Appeal, printouts were filed of the
Judgment records of the Tel-Aviv District Court from Net-HaMishpat (IT and case management
system of the district courts), bearing a signature of Tel-Aviv District Court Judge David Rosen.
On the contrary, the second track, in which the Zadorov appeal is conducted today, is
distinguished by records, which are incomplete and invalid on their faces: Absolute majority of the
Supreme Court Justices' decisions in this case are unsigned in the paper file (purportedly original
records). In addition, with the Notice of Appeal, printouts were filed of records that are not court
records at all, instead of the judgment record of the district court, in which the appeal puprotedly
originated, as required by law.
Therefore, the findings raise serious concerns regarding integrity of the records and the process in
the Zadorov case.
Furthermore, the two cases, referenced above, demonstrate that decisions of the Supreme Court,
regardless of whether they are signed or not signed in the paper court files (original records), are
published in the Supreme Court's web site, in a manner, which does not permit the public at large
and attorneys to distinguish between these two types of records.
Therefore, the findings, outlined below, also raise serious concerns regarding integrity of
development and operation of IT system of the Supreme Court as well as conduct of the Office of
the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, please also accept instant letter as a request for corrective measures regarding
integrity of court records in the Zadorov file in reference, in conduct of the Office of the Clerk of
the Supreme Court, and regarding integrity and validity of IT systems of the Supreme Court.
1/9
308/431
The widespread lack of public trust in conduct of law enforcement and the justice system
regarding the investigation of the late Tair Rada murder, prosecution and conviction of Roman
Zadorov in that murder is common knowledge. Therefore, your clarifications in this matter, and
information regarding corrective measures that you may initiate, would help in restoring public
trust in the court system and the judicial process.
Table 1, below, summarizes the findings in inspection of the two paper files (original records) in
the Supreme Court's Office of the Clerk. The complete decision records, discovered upon
inspection, are also provided in the links below. [1-2]
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

OccupyTLV
LINKS:
Below
CC:
Prof Uzi Ornan, Computer Science, Technion
Prof Michal Irani, Computer Science, Weizmann Institute
Prof Abraham Bell, Law Faculty, Bar Ilan University
Prof Ariel Bendor, Law Faculty, Bar Ilan University
Prof Gad Barlzilai, Law Faculty, Haifa University
Prof Yoram Baram, Computer Science, Technion
MK Anat Berko
Prof Oren Gazal, Law Faculty, Haifa University
Prof Yoav Dotan, Law Faculty, Hebrew University
Attorney Einat Hurvitz, CEO, Freedom of Information Movement
Prof Shmuel Zaks, Computer Science, Technion
Prof Irad Yavneh, Computer Science, Technion
Attorney Dan Yakir, Legal Counsel, Association for Civil Rights in Israel
Prof Asa Kasher, Philosophy Dept, Tel-Aviv University, School of Public Policy and Administration,
Hebrew University
Attorney Gaby Lasky, Tel-Aviv
Prof Eliezer Lederman, Law Faculty, Tel-Aviv University
Prof Ami Litman, Computer Science, Technion
Prof Yehuda Lindell, Computer Science, Bar-Ilan University
Prof Menahem Mautner, Law Faculty, Tel-Aviv University
Prof Barak Medina, Law Faculty, Hebrew University
Prof Doron Navot, Law Faculty, Haifa University
Prof Boaz Sangero, Criminal Law and Criminology, Law and Business Academic Center (Ramat Gan)
Prof Daniel Friedman, Law Faculty, Tel-Aviv University
Prof Nir Kedar, Law School, Sapir Academy
Prof Mota Kermnitzer, Law Faculty, Hebrew University
Prof Amnon Rubinstein, Law School, Herzlia IDC
Prof Omer Reingold, Computer Science, Weizmann Institute
Prof Assaf Schuster, Computer Science, Technion
Prof Gabriela Shalev, Ono Academic Center
Prof Yedidya Stern, Law Faculty, Bar-Ilan University
Prof Eli Shamir, Hebrew University
Attorney Elad Shraga, Chairman and Founder, Quality Government Movement
___
2/9
309/431
272102 ,

", Pniyot@court.gov.il, ronam@court.gov.il, MICHALTS@court.gov.il:
Dover@court.gov.il
: ( ,)09/9397 ( - )09/9399
?
52 (.)0521
,

. -
:
, " , (
) . ,
" " ( )
- , .
, , ,
:
( ) . , ,
, , .
, .
, , , ,
( )
.
,
, .
, ,
, .

, . , ,
.
, 9 ,
( ) .
, , ].[1-2
_____
Table 1: Judgment records of the respective district courts, and decision records of the
Supreme Court, as discovered during inspection of the two paper Supreme Court files
(original records), referenced below.
:9 , ,
, ( )
.
)Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10
)David Vanunu v State of Israel (7921/11
() )11/7277 (11/1277
3/9
310/431
1.
Printout of a Verdict record (opening and closing pages),

which was filed with the Notice of Appeal in the Supreme
Court the record appears as a printout from NetHaMishpat (IT and case management system of the
district courts), and bears a graphic signature of Judge
Printout of a Verdict record (opening and closing
pages), which was filed with the Notice of Appeal in the David Rosen of the Tel-Aviv District Court.
Supreme Court a record of unknown origin, unsigned, ,) " " (
," " -
which is not an authentic court record at all...
."
,
,) " " (
, -
... () ,
4/9
311/431
2.
Printout of a Sentencing record (opening and closing

pages), which was filed with the Notice of Appeal in the
Supreme Court the record appears as a printout from
Net-HaMishpat (IT and case management system of the
district courts), and bears a graphic signature of Judge
David Rosen of the Tel-Aviv District Court.
,) " " (
, " -
. ",
Printout of a Sentencing record (opening and closing

pages), which was filed with the Notice of Appeal in the
Supreme Court a record which was published by
Nevo publishing, LTD, is unsigned, and is not an
authentic court record at all...
,) " " (
, - " "- "-
.. ()
5/9
312/431
3.
Unsigned May 28, 2015 decision record by the panel of

Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbartal, as discovered
during inspection of the Supreme Court paper file
(purportedly original record) in the office of the clerk.
The decision purportedly denied disqualification for a
cause of the panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and
Zylbertal, for their refusal to provide duly signed and
certified copies of their decision in this court file.
, ,6102 , 62
) ( ,
.
, ,
.
Signed February 26, 2013 decision record by the panel of

Justices Jubran, Metlzer, and Shoham, as discovered
during inspection of the Supreme Court paper file (original
record) in the office of the clerk. The decision remands
the case to the district court for the filing of additional
evidence and the rendering of a supplementary judgment.
, ',6102 , 62
( ) , ,
.

.
6/9
313/431
4.
Unsigned October 12, 2015 decision record by Presiding

Justice Miriam Naor, as discovered during inspection of
the Supreme Court paper file (purportedly original
record) in the office of the clerk. The decision
purportedly denied a request for the appointment of a
new panel of justices in this case, since the panel of
Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal failed to duly
answer on disqualification for a cause.
,6102 , 06
,
.
, , ,
.
Signed February 12, 2013 decision record by Justice
Jubran, as discovered during inspection of the Supreme
Court paper file (original record) in the office of the clerk.
The decision says that decision on the requests to remand
the case to the district court for the filing of additional
evidence would be rendered by a panel of three justices.
, ',6102 , 06
( )
.

.
7/9
314/431
5.
The only signed decision record of the panel of three

justices, which was discovered during inspection of the
Supreme Court paper file in the office of the clerk: The
October 20, 2014 decision by Justices Arbel, Danziger
and Zylbertal orders the parties to provide a conversion
table for page numbers between the Verdict record,
used by counsel, which is an unauthentic record,
published by Nevo publishing, LTD, and the record in
Net-HaMishpat.
Signed August 24, 2015 Judgment by the panel of Justices
Jubran, Metlzer, and Shoham, as discovered during
inspection of the Supreme Court paper file (original
record) in the office of the clerk.
, ',6102 , 62
( ) , ,
.
____
,
'
"
[1] 2015-11-22 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court re: Dr Zernik's challenge to Magistrate Lubinsky's
decision, and request for clarification regarding validity of records and process in Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10)
commencing record purportedly sealed//
)5121301( ) ' 5121302(

[2] 2015-11-22 Vanunu v State of Israel (7921/11) in the Supreme Court criminal appeal Inspection of court
records //
) 5160300(
, ,
, ,
- , ,
- , ,
, ,
, ,
"
, ,
, ,
8/9
315/431
" ," ,
"
, ,
, ,
" , ,
, , "
, , "
, ,
, , -
" ,"
, , -
, ,
, ,
' , ,
, , "
," ,
, ,
," ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , -
, ,
" ," ,
9/9
316/431
317/431
[]
7939/10
HumanRightsAlertNGO
POBox33407,TelAviv
Fax:0773179186
ChallengetoMagistrateLubinsky'sOctober25,2015decision,pertainingto
certificationofPresidingJusticeNaordecisiononrequesttoappointanew
panel;alternativelyrequestforclarifications.
TheRequesterofInspectionininstantcourtfile,fileshereinachallengetoMagistrate
Lubinsky'sOctober25,2015decision,pertainingtocertificationofPresidingJustice
NaorOctober12,2015decisiononrequesttoappointanewpanel;alternatively
requestforclarificationsoftheMagistrate'sdecision:
1. OnOctober14,2015,IfiledwithPresidingJusticeNaorarequestforadulysigned
andcertifiedcopyofherOctober12,2015decision,whichpurportedlydeniedmy
requestforappointinganewpanelininstantcourtfile.
2. OnNovember11,2015,IreceivedbycertifiedmailfromtheSupremeCourta
DecisionrecordbyMagistrateLubinsky,asusualunsigned,uncertified,withno
accompanyingletter.Therecordsays:Asiscustomary,theRequestermayapproach
theChiefClerkofthisCourtforreceivingasignedandcertifiedissueoftheHon
PresidingJudgeNaorOctober12,2015decision.
3. InviewofthefindingsofinspectionthepapercourtfileZadorovvStateofIsrael
(7939/10),detailedbelow,onitsface,Icannotascertainwhatthenatureand
validityofsuchrecordbytheMagistrateoftheSupremeCourtis.Moreover,its
contentisdubiousaswell.Therefore,theCourtishereinrequestedtoclarifythe
followingquestions:
A.ThenameandarecordoflawfulappointmentofChiefClerkoftheSupreme
Court.
4. Intheabovereferenceddecision,theMagistratereferredmetotheChiefClerkof
thisCourtwithoutlistinghername.
5. MyOctober14,2015requestforacertifiedcopyofthePresidingJustice,referenced
above,explicitlystatedthatMsEditMelul,whotodayappearsasChiefClerkofthe
SupremeCourt,actswithnolawfulappointmentandwithnolawfulauthorityatall.
Exhibitswerealsoprovidedwithmyrequesttodocumentsuchfacts:a)Publication
oftheStateServiceAdministration,BasicPrinciplesinEmploymentofSenior
1/10
.2015,25
318/431
Staff,b)March4,2015AdministrationofCourtsFreedomofInformationresponse
(10/2015).[1]
6. Inviewofalltheabove,thereisroomforconcernthatmyreferralbyMagistrate
LubinskytoChiefClerkofthisCourtwaserroneousandmisleading.Therefore,I
hereinrequestthattheCourt:a)ExplicitlystatethenameoftheChiefClerkofthe
SupremeCourt,andb)Presentdocumentationofherlawfulappointment,pursuant
totheRegulationsofStateService.
B.ValidityofPresidingJusticeNaorOctober12,2015decision,asonethatcanbe
certifiedTrueCopyoftheOriginal,pursuanttothelawoftheStateofIsrael.
7. FollowingthefilingofmyOctober14,2015requestforcertificationofPresiding
JusticeNaor'sabovereferenceddecision,IexercisedonOctober20,2015,inspection
ofinstantSupremeCourtpaperfile.Suchinspectionshowedthattheabove
referenceddecisionofPresidingJusticeNaor:a)Wasunsignedonthedateonwhich
itwaspublishedOctober12,2015,b)wasunsignedonthesayonwhichitwas
purportedlyservedOctober14,2015,andc)wasunsignedonthedateofthe
inspectionOctober20,2015.Otherwisestated,therewasnovalidandeffectual
originalrecordoftheabovereferenceddecisionbythePresidingJusticeininstant
courtfile.
8. Inviewofalltheabove,thereisreasonableroomforconcernthatMagistrate
Lubinsky'sdecisionwaserroneousandmisleading,sincetherewasnovalid
originalrecordofPresidingJusticeNaor'sOctober12,2015decision,acopyof
whichcouldbecertifiedasTrue.Therefore,Ihereinrequestclarificationbythe
Magistrate:IsPresidingJusticeNaorOctober12,2015decisionrecordininstant
courtfilearecord,suchthatitscopymaybecertifiedTrueCopyoftheOriginal,
pursuanttothelawoftheStateofIsrael?
C.ValidityoftherecordsandprocessinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)in
general.
9. InspectionofthepapercourtfileinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)indicatedthat
ininstantcourtfile:
a.Acriminalappealwascommencedwithnodulysignedandcertified
judgmentsoftheNazarethDistrictCourt,outofcompliancewithprovisionsof
thelawoftheStateofIsrael.[2](Figures1,2)
12015-10-14 Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10)- Urgent request, filed with Presiding Justice
Miriam Naor, for a duly signed and certified copy of her October 12, 2015 decision, denying request
for appointment of a new panel//
, ,( 7939/10)
,2015 , 12
2 Regulations of Civil Court Procedure (1984): 419. Following are the documents that shall be
enclosed with an appeal record: (1) Copies of photocopies of decisions of previous courts,
pertaining to the same matter, certified by magistrate or chief clerk of the same courts...
2/10
.2015,25
319/431
Figure 1. Inspection of Supreme Court paper file Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) unsigned,
uncertified printout of the September 14, 2010 Verdict record by Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Haim
Galpaz and Ester Helman from an unknown source, which was filed with the appeal's commending
record opening and final pages.
3/10
.2015,25
320/431
Figure 2. Inspection of the paper file in the Supreme Court Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10):
Printout of the September 14, 2010 Sentencing record by Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Haim Galpaz
and Ester Helman from Nevo Publishers, LTD, which is not a court record at all, first and last
pages.
4/10
.2015,25
321/431
BothintheStateofIsraelandinothernations,jurisdictionoftheappellatecourt
originatesinthefilingofauthenticjudgmentsofthelowercourtasthe
foundationoftheappeal,andwithoutsuchauthenticjudgment,theappellate
courthasnojurisdictioninthematteratall.
b.Ininstantcourtfile,theabsolutemajorityofdecisionrecordsofthejustices
oftheSupremeCourtareunsignedinthepapercourtfile,includingbutnot
limitedto:i)May28,2015decisionrecordbythepanelofJusticesDanziger,
AmitandZylbertal,whichpurportedlydeniedtheirowndisqualificationfora
cause,andii)October12,2015decisionrecordbyPresidingJusticeNaor,
referencedabove,whichpurportedlydeniedtherequestforappointmentofa
newpanel.AttachmentAincludescopiesofalldecisionrecords,whichwere
discoveredduringtheOctober20,2015inspectionoftheSupremeCourt'spaper
courtfileZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)togetherwithasummarytable.
10. Inviewoftheabovefindings,thereisroomforconcernthatthejudicialprocessin
instantappealfile,fromitsstartisinvalidpursuanttothelawoftheStateofIsrael.
11. Therefore,IhereinrequesttheCourt'sclarification:Aretherecordsandprocessin
ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/11)validjudicialrecordsandprocess,pursuantto
thelawoftheStateofIsrael?
Request.
Today,November19,2015
______________
7939/10
______________
' :
HumanRightsAlertNGO
",33407"
0773179186:
,25
;
5/10
.2015,25
322/431
25,
,201512,2015,;
:
.114,2015,
12,2015,
.
.211,2015,""
,,,.:
,
'.12.10.2015
.3,(7939/10)
,,,""
.,.,
:
.""
.4,"",
.
.514,2015,,
""'
.",:(
",...",(4,2015,
),(10/2015
[3].
.6,"
".,
,
.
.12,2015,
,.
.714,2015,"""
,20,2015,.
,,
""":12,2015,
14,(2015,20
.2015,,
.
.8,,
12,
,2015",".,
:""12
3 ' ,1.
6/10
252015,.
323/431
2015,""
?
.(7939/11).
.9(7939/11):
.
,)..(1,2
,
,,
.
///
///
///
7/10
252015,.
324/431
:1 ) :(7939/10
" " 14 ,2010 , ,
, - .
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
8/10
252015,.
325/431
:2 ) :(7939/10 "
" 14 ,2010 , , , "
" , - .
______
9/10
252015,.
326/431
.""
,(i:"",28
,2015,,(ii""
12,2015,
.'",
(7939/10)20,2015,
.
.10,
.
.11,:
(7939/10)
?
.
19,,2015,
____________
',
10/10
252015,.
327/431
Exhibit A

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "

Supreme Court - inspection of decision records in the paper court file
- ( 7939/10 )
[]
Courts.
like this one.
, , , ,
: . ,14
: ' ."
, ."
.
, ,
, .""
.
, ,
, .
, .
.
.
.
#
Dae
Judges
Signatures Seal
1/3
328/431
Page
1.
20151012
2.
20150820
3.
20150528
4.
20150427
5.
20150330
6.
20141210
7.
20141209
8.
20141125
9.
20141020
10.
20141006
11.
20140916
12.
20140908
13.
20140821
14.
20140601
15.
20140527
16.
20140515
17.
20140514
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaor(deniedrequesttoappointanew
NO
panel,followingrefusalofthepresentpaneltoprovideaduly
signedandcertifiedcopyofareasoneddecisiononDisqualification
foraCause).
,)
(
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal
,,
NO
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal(denyingrequesttoinspect)
NO
(),,
JusticeDanziger
JusticeDanziger
JusticeDanziger
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
JusticeDanziger.No28lastnumbereddecision.
NO
.".
NO
..
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
YES 14
.".
JusticeDanziger.Decisioninstructingtoappearincourt)
NO
..
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal.Decisionfollowinghearingofthe NO
samedate.
..,,
.".
NO
JusticeDanziger.DecisionNo26.
NO
NO
JusticeDanziger
.".
YES
NO
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal.Instructingcounseltoprovide
conversiontableforpagenumbersbetweenNevoConviction
recordandNetHaMishpatConvictionrecord.Stamped:
Releasedforservice.
.,,
"""""""
.":."
JusticesDanziger,Amit,Zylbertal(denyingdisqualificationfora
NO
cause,originatingintheirrefusaltoprovidesignedandcertified
copiesoftheirowndecisions).
,),,
.(
JusticeDanziger
NO
2/3
329/431
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
18.
20140513
19.
20140505
20.
20140424
21.
20140413
22.
20140413
23.
20130317
24.
20130227
25.
20130226
26.
20121211
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
20121118
20121016
20121011
20110927
20110925
20110102
NO
..
JusticeDanziger.Decisioninstructingtoappearincourt,
NO
unnumbered.
.,.
..
..
YES
.".
MagistrateShani.No12.
.".
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
.".
JusticeArbel.No17.Stamped:Releasedforservice.
.":.".
NO
NO
JusticeArbel.Decisionpertainingtoaddingevidenceinappeal.
NO
Unnumbered.
...
.".
NO
JusticesArbel,Danziger,Zylbertal.Decisionpertainingtoadding
NO
evidenceinappeal.Unnumbered.
..,,
.
.".
NO
PresidingJusticeGrunis.DecisionappointingJusticeAmittoreplace NO
JusticeArbel.Unnumbered.
.
..
JusticeArbel.No18.
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
MagistrateShani.No11.Decisiononrelievingprivatecounselfor
DefendantandappointmentofPublicDefender.
".".
.
YES
JusticeAsherGrunis.Unnumbered.Stamped:Releasedforservice.
.":..
YES
NO
NO
3/3
330/431
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

"
II
7939/10
"
7.10.2015
19.8.2015
.1
2015 .
" ' . )
, - T(
. 27.4.2015
. 28.5.2015
20.8.2015
, .
.2
, 19.8.20 15
, ) ( ,
, "
)( ; - " .
. 7.10.2015
, .
331/431
19.8.2015
.3
28.5.2015 . ,
77)( [,
" . 1984-
, ) , ] . 2006 ) 395-394

.4
. ,
) " 6080/15
']
"
) . 17.9.2015
, 2015
. 2015
, ( 147) ] [ ," 1982-

.
.

.
.5
," "
) (. 12.10.2015
10079390_CS2.doc .
. ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il .
332/431
~

lI
7939/10
II
.
, ,
"
,' " ) (. 20.8.2015
10079390_WSl.doc
, 3333 , 77' 27 ; ,
333/431
\V\V\v.court.gov.il
~

l1
7939/10
'
'
II
, , - -
" .
,' " ) (. 20.8.2015
, i 077-2703333
334/431
10079390 W51.doc
t aov.il .WWw.COU .
~

lI
7939/10
'
'
"
" ;"
"
, ,
.
, "
) (. 28.5.2015
10079390_W49.doc .
, ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il ,
335/431
m

"
- 1939/10
'
'
"
" ; "
"
.1
" ",
" ".
.2
,
.
.3
. ,
. ,
336/431
z

.
.
.
' "
) (. 27.4.2015
10079390 W47.doc .
I , i 077-2703333 IIWW\v.court.gov.il ,
337/431
" - 1939/10
:
"
. 19.4.2015
,' "
) (. 30.3.2015
10079390_W46.doc
. ; 077-2703333 WWW.court.gov.il .
338/431
m

"
- 7939/10
"
," " ) (. 10.12.2014
10079390_W4S.doc .
, ; 077-2703333 '\\\vw.court.gov.il ,
339/431
"
:
7939/10
10.12.2014 12 : 00

) ( . 11.1.2007-18.12.2006
," " ) (. 9.12.2014
.
,
077-2703333
340/431
10079390_W44.doc
i ,
WWW.court.oov.il
m

"
'
7939/10
22 / 26.11.2014
12 : 00
,' " ) (. 25.11.2014
10079390_W43.doc .
. ; 077-2703333 www.court.<>ov.il .
341/431
<~)~
)e

II
7939/10
II II ; II
II ; II ; II
; II

"" , 26.10.2014
" ".
," "
r
.
, 077-2703333
342/431
.doc
10079390_W
:I:~.~ ur!.."()\ .il),.~,_.
) (. 20.10.2014
~ ((-~.

m

II
7939/10
II II i"
II i" i"
i"

"" , 26.10.2014 .
" ".
," "
.
,
077-2703333 ,
343/431
10079390_W42.doc
; ,
www.court.gov.il
) (. 20.10.2014
m

"
7939/10
"
"
. .
. 20.10.2014
." "
) (. 6.10.2014
n 10079390_W40.doc .
, ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il ,
344/431
~

"
7939/10
'
'
II
" "
)(16.9.14
II II i"
II i" i"
.1
" 2014 .
.2
" , - ,
"
- , -
, , , :
345/431
2
.
"
' 21.9.2014- . 12:00 , ,
" -
" - "
' -
23.9.2014 . 17 : 00 " ,
.
.3
, -
' 20.10.2014 . 09:00 , , 11.9.2014

) 20- (
. 1.10.2014
," " ) (. 16.9.2014
10079390_W38.doc
,; 077-2703333 , '\\ W\\',court.g{)v.il ,
346/431
m

"
7939/10
i -
"
,
"
.
', 16.9.2014-
. 15:00
," " ) (. 8.9.2014
, i 077-2703333
347/431
10079390 W36.doc
'\\\i\~.C()LI11."()v.il ,
m

I1
- 7939/10
" " ;"
' . 31.8.2014
," "
) ( 21.8.2014
, 077-2703333
348/431
10079390_W35.doc
; .~\\'\\ court.g()v.il ,
1I
~

"
7939/10
29.5.2014
,' "
) (. 1.6.2014
10079390_W33.doc .
, ; 077-2703333 W\vw.court.gov.il ,
349/431
~

II
- 7939/10
II
26.5.2014
, 26.5.2014
15.5.2014
, . 29.5.2014
, 15.5.2014
, 26.5.2014 .
," "
) (. 27.5.2014
, ; 077-2703333
350/431
10079390 W32.doc
W\~ \\.COllrt.gO\.il ,
m

11
- 1939/10
11
15.5.2014
, . 26.5.2014
," "
) (. 15.5.2014
10079390 W31.doc
. ; 077-2703333 '!Y~~ \\.CQtlrt.go\.il .
351/431
m

11
- 1939/10
11
13.5.2014
. 21.9.2014
,/ /
) (. 14.5.2014
.
,
352/431
077-2703333
10079390_W30.doc
; ,
gov.il
. .'"\\'\\ C()U
~

"
'
11.5.2014
. 22.5.2014
," "
) (. 13.5.2014
10079390_W29.doc
, ; 077-Z703333 ,
353/431
\\'"'\\ .court.gt)V .i
7939/10
~

"
7939/10
" " ;"
"
.1
, 24.4.2014
, 20.10.2014
.2
09:00
. 1.9.2014
, "
) (. 5.5.2014
, 077-2703333
354/431
10079390_W28.doc
; ~V\vw.court.gov.il ,
,-
m

"
'
7939/10
" " ' ;" '

" '
, 13.4.2014
, .
.1
, , 8.1.2015
. .
.2
30 .
30.
.3
, .
"
. 45
," "
) ( 24.04.2014
10079390_W27.doc
, ; 077-Z703333 \ V\\lw.court.gov.il ,
355/431
~

II
'
7939/10
" " ' ;" '
" '
, ,
. 4.5.2014 20.
,
, , 25.5.2014 20.
," "
) (. 13.4.2014
10079390_W26.doc
, ; 077-Z703333 t gov.il ,"\i\V\\'.COtI .
356/431
m

"
1939/10
' ,
.
," "
) (. 13.4.2014
10079390 S2S.doc
,' ; 077-Z703333 ~ www.couli.(10Y.il
357/431
(!J

"
) Q -
7939/10
s (\.~\ q
)
' ,' II ' ( II 502/07
-14.9.2010
:
:
!! !!
!! 1!! !!
' :
" (
. ,
211 [ ," ) 1982- :"(.
.1
, .
- ,
. , , ,
. ,
,
, .
, , ,

358/431
2
.
- ," , - ,"
, . ,
, "
,.
.2
. ,
- .
: ,-
, ,
.- - , )" ( ,
, . ,
, . ,-
," - , -
, ,
. -
, ,
. , . , -

, . ,
, , ,
,
.
, .
,
.
.3
. ,
. ,
.
, , -
,
. ,
359/431
. , -

. ,
- " - .
, ,
. .-
, . .
. - .,

. ,
.
, ,
.4
,
, :-
- " -
.
.
, 211" ,
, ".

. : ,
j,
j ,
" )" 1742/91 '

, " ) 296 , 289 ( 5
). 1997
, )" 1690/09 '
). 10.10.10
, ,
, . ,
360/431
- ,
,

.
, ,
,5

, ,
) ,
( , ,
, ,
- , .
,6
" ,
, , ,
, ,
,
.
, , .
.
"
) (. 17,3,2013
c.10079390 B24.d
, ; 077-2703333 ,
t gov.ilW\VW.C01I .
361/431

II
'
7939/10
" i"
.
,

. 17 : 00
," "
) (. 27.2.2013
c.10079390_B21.d
, ; 077-Z703333 \ VW\v.cOttrt.gov.il ,
362/431
m

I1
- 7939/10
"
" '
" '
," "
) (. 26.2.2013
.
,
077-2703333
363/431
9390_B20.doc lOO
; ,
\V\vw.court.gov.il
~
';""~(' 1' ~ \'r
'R
\...
'..~~./
')
II
- 7939/10
"
" ' ,"
" ' ~
- -

. 2013
1l 7 .
," " ) (. 11.12.12
~~~\- .
, 077-2703333
364/431
0079390_B 19 .doc
i ,~ C()llli."(IV.il ,
~

JJ
i ~
- 7939/10
II
21
.
' 1 , " ) (. 18.11.2012
!!t
(17\:
__;
10079390 P18.doc
,; 077-2703333 , ~ '\\'\\ IV.C()urt.g()v.il
365/431
m

II
- 7939/10
II
, 15.11.2012
,' " ) (. 16.10.2012
~'
10079390_P 17 .doc
, ; 077 "2703333 l ~(,,'.il , LC..Q.:~
366/431
m

I1
- 7939/10
lI
, .
. 15.10.2012
," "
) (. 11.10.2012
('(~r J
!'5
79390_P16.doc10
,; 077-2703333 , .'\'\'\\'\\ c()u!I.g(!v.il ,
367/431

II
- 7939/10
"
,
j .
- ,
.
" i ," " ) (. 27.9.2011
/),/
/ /
_-_. .
,077-2703333 ,
368/431
l0079390_D12.doc
vV\V\V,c()tlrt.go\'.il ,
';/

"
- 7939/10
"
(, 28.10.2010
)(
. .
, 23.10.2011 . 10 : 00 ,
, , .
," " ) (. 25.9.2011

)
,/
'
"
,:~:.~.
~'~,.,.. ...
",1
~-
, 077-2703333
369/431
l0079390_Dll,doc
; \ V ~V\v.COllrl.gl)v.il ,
\~.
""

_J
.f
'~t
;::,
~~"":."C
'J
II
7939/10
.1
.2
13
) ( , II 2002-
"
:1
"
"
:2
2 . 1
.1
2,
. 13.9.2010
.2
.3
- 3.1.2011
, I"
) (. 2.1.11
vJ

I0079390_S02.doc .
. 02-6593333
370/431
; "'\ W\V.(~ ()Ult."ov.il .
2015-11-23 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court re: Dr Zernik's

challenge to Magistrate Lubinsky's decision, and request for clarification regarding
validity of records and process in Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) online
records //
) ' 7930/15(
) 09/9397(
According to the office of the clerk, the court file was sealed by computer's decision.
Request for reconsideration of computer's decision was filed.
, ." " ,
...
1) Index
"sealed"
371/431
2) Details
"Sorry, details of the requested court file are sealed."
372/431

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Fax: 077-3179186
"
6133301 ",33407 "
2015-11-24 Zadorov, Olmert, Baranes and fake records of the Israeli

Supreme Court //
, ,
[]
OccupyTLV,November24inaseriesoffilinginvariouscasesoftheIsraeliSupreme
Court,requestweremadetocorrectpervertedrecordsoftheSupremeCourt.
TheMagistratesoftheSupremeCourtcameupwithstrangeexplanationsforthe
perversion,whenany:
1)MagistrateLubinskytheclaimregardingpervertedrecordsarenotmaterial.
2)MagistrateLubinskythereisnojudicialprocesstoaddressfraudulentcourt
records...
3)MagistrateBenMelechthejudgmentrecords,pertainingtoformerPMEhud
OlmertarenotregisteredintheTelAvivDistrictCourtduetoa"technicalproblem".
4)MagistrateBenMelechcontentofthemissingjudgmentrecords,whichfailedto
bedulyregisteredbytheTelAvivDistrictCourtcanbereadinvariousotherinternet
sites,freeofcharge!
5)PresidingJusticeNaorfailstoansweronrequesttoaddresstheperversionof
recordsintheBaranescourtfile.
6)PresidingJusticeNaorfailstorespondonrequesttoexplaintheundocumented
"shredding"oftheSidiFrancocourtfile,whereforgeryofdecisionrecordsis
suspected.
Withit,thenewfilingswere"sealed"througha"computerizeddecision".Requestfor
reconsiderationof"computerizeddecision"wasfiled,challengingtheunlawful
sealingoftherecords.
, ,
,"
,","
.
,"",
...,
1/12
373/431
"24,
22,
,,,
.
,(7939/10)
)
""(,.,
.,
)(.
,:
.)
(7939/10?
.)(
,)
(,
?
."",,
?"
"'
,.
,
.
___________________________________________________________
1/12
374/431
___________________________________________________________
2/12
375/431
___________________________________________________
:1"")(,
,,
)(..
_____________________________________________________________
3/12
376/431

______________________________________________________________
4/12
377/431
______________________________________________________________
:2"")(,
""",)(
..
____
)(
,(7939/10)
)(.
:
.,,)
(
5/12
378/431
:328,2015,,
,)(
.,,
.,
,
.
_________________
.,)
,,
(.
6/12
379/431
:412,2015,
,.
,,
,.
...
_________________
,
,
"""...
:5,,20,
,2014.
""""...
______
7/12
380/431
,
,"".,
"".
""...
:6/
(7939/10)(7930/15)
"".
_____
",
:
:7")(,
.
__________________
)
(,":
*"",
)(,
.
*,,,
,
.
*,,,.
.
8/12
381/431
,
!
,
...
,,
.,
...
7939/10
*)(2010
.
,
".
*,
,,.
*)(
.
"
".""
")."
(.
*")(
,.
5270/14,4478/14
*"
".
",)
(""...
.
*")
(,,
""...
*)
("
".
*)(
,
.
3230/99
*.
,
".
*")(
,,.
1582/02
9/12
382/431
,.
.
,
"",
...
,,
.,
...
""
,"".
"",
.
[1] 2015-11-22 Anon v Anon (7930/15) in the Supreme Court re: Dr Zernik's challenge
to Magistrate Lubinsky's decision, and request for clarification regarding validity of
records and process in Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) commencing record
purportedly sealed//
) (7930/15 '
) (7939/10
[2] 2015-11-22 Olmet v State of Israel (4478/14) Challenge to Magistrate Lubinsky's
October 18, 2015 decision, filed in Zernik v Olmert (7927/15) commencing record
puportedly sealed //
) (4478/14 18
,2015 , ) (7927/15 ,"
[3] 2015-11-22 Anon v Anon (7924/15) in the Supreme Court (Challenge to Magistrate
))BenMelech October 28, 2015 decision in Olmert v State of Israel (5270/14
commencing record purportedly sealed//
) (7924/15 ) 28
,2015 , ) ((5270/14 -"
[4] 2015-11-22 Anon v Anon (7924/15) in the Supreme Court (Challenge to Magistrate
BenMelech October 28, 2015 decision in Olmert v State of Israel (5270/14)) Request for
reconsideration of IT system decision to seal file//
) (7924/15 ) 28
,2015 , )- ((5270/14

[5] 2015-11-22 Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) Request for rendering a
decision on October 07, 2015 Notice of perversion of records and request for corrective
measures, filed with Presiding Justice Miriam Naor //
) (3032/99
, 072015 ,
[6] 2015-11-22 Request for response by Presiding Justice Naor on request to urgently
publish procedures for inspection of decisions and judgments in the paper court files of
the Supreme Court in general, and in particular in Ehud Olmert v State of Israel
(5270/14) Criminal Appeal in the Holyland affair //

,
) - (5270/14
10/12
383/431
[7] 2015-11-22 Request for response by Presiding Justice Naor on urgent request to
publish procedures for obtaining certification of decisions and judgments of the Supreme
Court in general, and in particular in Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) Criminal
Appeal in the murder of Tair Rada //

) ,
"- (7939/10
11/12
384/431

7939/10
Before:
The Hon Justice S Joubran
Appellant:
Joseph Zernik
v
Respondent:
1. Roman Zadorov
2. State of Israel
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Appeal of October 25, 2015 Magistrate G Lubinsky Decision in
Criminal Appeal 7939/10
Judgment
1. Appeal of October 25, 2015 Magistrate G Lubinsky Decision in Criminal Appeal 7939/10
(Hereinafter the Main Process), where the Magistrate determined that the Appellant may address
the Chief Clerk of this Court for receipt of a signed and certified copy of October 12, 2015
Presiding Justice Miriam Naor Decision.
2. The Appellant, who is not a party to the Main Process, file in March 2015 a Request to Inspect. On
April 24, 2015 the judicial panel in the Main Process denied his Request, since it found his request
to be broadly stated and unclear. Following the denial, the Appellant filed a Request for
Disqualification of the panel, and on May 28, 2015 the panel denied the request. Simultaneously
with the the Request for Disqualification, the Appellant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the
Request to Inspect, and on August 20, 2015, the panel granted the request. The panel's decision
stated that Appellant may contact the Criminal Division Director of this Court to coordinate the
time of inspection.
3 On August 19, 2015, a day prior to the rendering of the panel's decision, permitting the inspection,
the Appellant filed a Request for Appointment of a New Panel for rendering a decision on the new
(limited) Request to Inspect instant court file, alternatively for appointment of a new panel for the
entire appeal, addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Court. On October 12, 2015, Presiding
Justice Miriam Naor denied the Request.
4. On October 14, 2015, the Appellant filed Request to obtain a duly signed and certified copy of the
October 12, 2015 Presiding Justice Decision. On October 25, 2015, Magistrate Decision was
rendered, where the Appellant was directed to the Chief Clerk of this Court for obtaining a signed
and certified copy of the Presiding Justice Decision. Such is the origin of the Appeal at bar.
5. In his Appeal, the Appellant claims that there is room for concern that his referral to the Chief Clerk
of this Court without stating her name is false and misleading, since according to his opinion, Ms
Idit Melul, who occupies the office, operates with no lawful appointment, and effectively with no
authority. Therefore, the Appellant asks in instant Appeal that the Court name the Chief Clerk and
present documentation of her lawful appointment. Secondly, the Appellant notes that he exercised
385/431
on October 20, 2015 his right to inspect the paper court file in the Main Process, and found out that
the October 12, 2015 Decision was unsigned. Therefore, the Appellant believes that there is no
valid, signed original record of the Decision in the court file, from which a True Copy of the
Original can be certified. Finally, the Appellant claims that the Main Process was conducted with
no authority, since the Notice of Appeal was filed with no signed and certified copies of the District
Court Judgments, in which the Appeal originated.
6. The Appeal should be denied. First, it should be emphasized that the Appeal is on the October 25,
2015 Magistrate Decision, and on it alone. The subject matter of that decision, as stated above, is
the Appellant's request to obtain a signed and certified copy of the October 12, 2015 Presiding
Justice Decision. Therefore, there is no room to review within instant Appeal the Appellant's claims
regarding validity of the Main Process, which were not part of the Magistrate Decision, from which
instant Appeal originated.
7. Also as to the matter itself, I do not accept the Appellant's claims. His request to obtain a copy of
the Presiding Judge Decision was not denied, since he was referred in the Magistrate Decision to
the Chief Clerk of this Court to obtain his wish. However, he chose not to do so, and despite this,
he raises claims regarding the validity of the appointment of the Chief Clerk and the validity of the
Presiding Justice of the Court based on inspection of one of the paper court files of the Court.
Under such circumstances, I find no room to grant the Appeal.
8. To sum, the Appeal is denied.
Rendered today, November 29, 2015.
[unsigned]
Judge
__________
Issue subject to editing and phrasing changes. 15079300_H01.doc
386/431

" 7930/15
:
' '
" '
.1
.2
'
25.10.2015" 7939/10
-
' " ) 7939/10 : (
.1
,25.10.2015
'
.12.10.2015
, , .2015
.2
,27.4.2015 ,
. ,
, .28.5.2015
,
, 20.8.2015 .
.
,19.8.2015 ,
.3
, ,
" )(
; " . ,12.10.2015
387/431
' .
,
: ,
.
,14.10.2015
.4
.12.10.2015 ,25.10.2015 ,
,
. .
,
.5
" " , ,' ,
, . ,

. , 20.10.2015
, 12.10.2015 .,
,
" " . ,
,
, .
. ,
.6
,25.10.2015 . , ,
' .12.10.2015 ,
,
, .
, .
.7
,
. , ,

388/431
. ,
.
.8
, .
," " ).(29.11.2015
_________________________
15079300_H01.doc .
,' ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il ,
389/431
390/431
391/431
392/431
393/431
394/431
395/431
396/431
397/431
398/431
399/431
400/431
401/431
402/431
403/431
404/431
405/431
406/431
407/431
408/431
409/431
410/431
411/431
412/431
413/431
414/431
415/431
416/431
417/431
418/431
419/431
420/431
421/431
422/431
423/431
424/431
425/431

7939/10
Before:
The Hon Justice S Joubran
Appellant:
Joseph Zernik
v
Respondent:
State of Israel
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Request for Reconsideration of November 29, 2015 Judgment
Decision
The Request is denied.

Rendered today, December 22, 2015.
[unsigned]
Judge
__________
Issue subject to editing and phrasing changes. 15079300_H02.doc
426/431

" - 7930/15'
:
' '

29.11.2015
.
,' " ).(22.12.2015
_________________________
15079300_H02.doc .
,' ; 077-2703333 www.court.gov.il ,
427/431
][Bilingualsubmission:HebrewEnglish
7930/15
,
""
'
,"":
.1(7930/15)
(7939/10)".
)(7939/10.
.2(7930/15).
.320)2015,(""
'.
.4
"".
" 7930/15
:222015,.
______________
.5,68/70
;,""
.
23,2015,
_________________
',,
IntheSupremeCourtoftheStateofIsrael
7930/15
ZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael
Requestforacopyofapublicationprohibitiondecisionordecreein
instantcourtfile;alternativelyremovalofsealing,whichwas
unlawfullyappliedinITsystemoftheCourtininstantcourtfile.
AppellantJosephZernik,PhD,fileshereinarequestforacopyofapublication
prohibitiondecisionordecreeininstantcourtfile;alternativelyremovalof
sealing,whichwasunlawfullylistedandappliedinITsystemoftheCourtin
instantcourtfile:
1. Ininstantcourtfile(7930/15),Ifiledanappeal,originatinginMagistrate
Lubinsky'sdecisioninZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)appealofconviction
inthemurderofTairRada.Thelatterappealfile(7939/10)isnotsealed.
428/431
1/2
2. Alsoinstantcourtfile(7930/15)wasnotsealeduntilacoupleofdaysago.
3. OnDecember20,2015(twodaysago)IfiledininstantcourtfileRequestfor
Clarification,pertainingtotheJusticeJubran'sJudgmentonmyappealin
instantcourtfile(7930/15).
4. WhenIcheckedlastnighttheinformation,publishedinITsystemofthe
SupremeCourtininstantcourtfile,Idiscoveredthatitwaslistedaspurportedly
Sealed.
7930/15 "
Figure:PrintoutfromtheSupremeCourt'sITsystemininstantcourtfileonDecember22,2015.
____
5. Therefore,Ihereinrequestacopyofaprohibitionofpublicationdecisionor
decreeininstantcourtfile,pursuanttoTheCourtsAct,Article68and/or70;
alternativelyremovaloftheunlawfulthesealedlistingofinstantcourtfilein
ITsystemoftheSupremeCourt.
Today,December23,2015
_____________
JosephZernik,PhD,
Appellant,inprose
2/2
429/431
2015-12-29 Anon v Anon, alternatively - Zernik v State of Israel (7930/15) in the

Supreme Court Fax from Office of the Clerk/Criminal Division - informal removal of
informal sealing
7930/15
Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (7930/15)

At your request sealing was removed from instant court file.
Danny Levy
Criminal Division Director
[hand siganture]
[Stamp: Danny Levy, Senior
Coordinator, Input Division,Supreme
Court]
430/431
431/431

2016-07-11 Attachment 9.9 in RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian Citizen Detained in Israel - Complaint Filed With The UN HRC Working Group On Arbitrary Detention

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2016-07-11 Attachment 9.9 in RE: Roman Zadorov - Ukrainian Citizen Detained in Israel - Complaint Filed With The UN HRC Working Group On Arbitrary Detention

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Digitally signed by Joseph H

Attachment 9.9 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme

Attachment 9.9 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme

2015-03-30 Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) Decision #1 on Request to Inspect response by

[Coat of Arms State of Israel]

The Hon Justice Y Danziger

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

For response by the parties by April 19, 2015.

)Human Rights Alert (NGO

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2015-04-22 Requests for Due Process in requests to inspect criminal court

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2015-04-26 Baranes, Olmert, Zadorov registration, or lack thereof, of Requests

[Coat of Arms State of Israel]

The Hon Justice Y Danziger

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Attorneys Elkana Leist, Avigdor Feldman

Attorney Tamar Borenstein

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2015-05-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court

1 Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 U.S. 589 (1978) pp 434-5

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2015-05-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court

Response by the Public Defender's office: No objection to the Request to Inspect.

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2015-05-03 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2015-05-26 Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

2015-05-26 ISRAEL: Zadorov murder conviction - disqualification for a cause of

OccupyTLV, May 26 - was an interesting visit to the Supreme Court today.

: 1 , , " " . ",

: 2 , , ' , ) ,(4 "

[Coat of Arms State of Israel]

The Hon Justice Y Danziger

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Attorneys Elkana Leist, Avigdor Feldman

Attorney Tamar Borenstein

For the Requester:

: 1 , , " " . ",

: 2 , , ' , ) ,(4 "

: 1 , , " " . ",

: 2 , , ' , ) ,(4 "

[Coat of Arms State of Israel]

The Hon Magistrate Gilad Lubinsky

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert - NGO

Texas Criminal Code, 32.48 Simulating Legal Process

compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.

Human Rights Alert - NGO

[Coat of Arms State of Israel]

The Hon Justice Y Danziger

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Disqualification Laws by Yigal Marzel, Israel Bar Association Press (2006)

Human Rights Alert - NGO

[Coat of Arms State of Israel]

The Hon Presiding Justice M Noar

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

'~_ ,-$_~,: , 67662411 , 18-