and the Arlozorov Camp: Fraud and fabrications by Judge Eliyahu
Bachar, City of Tel-Aviv and others
the government showered NIS 150 m on forty families, and Attorney
General Mandelblit bent over backwards to fabricate legality of land
grabs and illegal construction. The camp in Alrozorov was built
pursuant to an agreement between the City of Tel-Aviv and the
protesters - as part of the eviction of the camp in Rothschild Ave in
2012. Now, the authorities offer the street-dwellers living in the
camp NIS 7,500 and try to enforce their eviction, which would end, as
one of them told me: "On the bench on the other side of the
in their attempts to evict the Arlozorov camp the authorities display
contempt of the law - Judge Eliyahu Bachar in collusion with the City
of Tel-Aviv, attorneys, "activist" Rotem and others
perpetrates Fraud Upon the Court - conduct of totally fabricated
court process and the publication of fabricated court records.
conduct is explained by some
legal scholars, such as Prof Menachem Mautner, as “decrease in
formalism and increase in values”. However, other
legal scholars” have recently described the resulting conditions as
“total jungle in the courts”, where the judges act arbitrarily,
ignoring both the facts and the law…
the perspective of international observers, there is no doubt that
such conditions would be considered widespread incompetence and/or
corruption of the judges and
law enforcement in
is one strange and striking difference between the
the Arlozorov Camp: In the Arlozorov Camp, the City of Tel-Aviv
enforce the eviction on members of an Iraqi Muslim family, who are
not Israeli citizens. There is nothing new to
it. City of Tel-Aviv enforcement personnel have explained the
and arbitrary enforcement by the fact that the Iraqis are “State
Persons” - a separate class, which is
above Israeli citizens and above the fabricated
documented in the Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols”
scandal, the judges established in Israel a court system where judges
are permitted to perpetrate Fraud Upon the Court with no fear of the
we imprison some of the criminal judges, nothing will change!
READ THE COMPLETE POST: http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/12/2016-12-21-amona-v-occupytlv-fraud-and.html
Figure 1: Arbitrary and selective enforcement - Protest tent in Volovelsky Garden: The signs in front of the test protest judicial corruption - from fraud by judges Hagai Brenner and Eitan Orenstein on self-immolated Moshe Silman (to benefit the Social Security Administration), through fraud by judges, including Daniel Beeri, on whistle-blower Rafi Rotem (to cover up the Tax Authority corruption scandal), and ending with the despicable fraud by judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and the pretender Haim Galpaz on Roman Zadorov (to affect his false, arbitrary arrest and prevent true investigation of Tair Rada's murder). Judge Eliyahu Bachar is perpetrating Fraud Upon the Court (to benefit the City of Tel-Aviv) in an attempt to evict the camp.
Figure 2: Arbitrary and selective enforcement - the Iraqi compound in Volovelsky Garden: The Iraqi compound has been exempt from enforcement of the fabricated law for ears. City enforcement staff explain that the Iraqi family members, who are not Israeli citizens, are "State Persons" - a class above Israeli citizens and above the fabricated law...
Figure 3: Arbitrary and selective enforcement - Amona: NIS 150 millions for 40 families, and the Attorney General is bending over backwards to fabricate legality of land grabs and illegal construction...
OccupyTLV, December 20 – Request to Inspect Court File has been filed today in the Tel-Aviv District Court in a petition by street dwellers from the Arlozorov Camp. In parallel, demand was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv to provide a duly signed and certified copy of a Judge Eliyahu Bachar unsigned, uncertified “Post-it Decision” in the same court file, which the City purports to be the legal foundation for its actions. Together, the Request to Inspect and the demand which was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv raise clear concerns that Judge Eliyahu Bachar, City of Tel-Aviv and others engage in perpetrating fraud under the pretense of court process, by fabricating cour process and court records.
Fraud Upon the Court has become an epidemic over the past decade. The best known case is of course the Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols” scandal. However, as stated in the Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision in that case, Judge Varda Alshech’s conduct was not unique at all, and is today routine in the court, following the implementation of Net-HaMishpat IT system.
The Arlozorov Camp street dwellers’ petition appears as a case that is likely to feature in the upcoming Periodic Review of Human Rights in Israel by the UN Human Rights Council, since the case shows a combination of ingredients, pertaining to fundamental rights:
Denial of street dwellers’ right for a shelter (one cannot even talk about “housing” in this case);
Denial of the right to protest;
Incompetence and/or corruption of the Court in conducting totally fabricated court process;
Threats and extortion by the City of Tel-Aviv, based on fabricated court records;
Threats and extortion by the City of Tel-Aviv, in attempt to compel people to accept the authority of social worker “Yigal” with no foundation in the law;
Arbitrary and selective enforcement by the City of Tel-Aviv – only on Israeli citizens, but not on Iraqi citizens, who the City considers “State Persons”...
The request to inspect in court file Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv et al (18790-10-14) in the Tel-Aviv District Court 
The Request to Inspect attempts to discover fundamental records that would make it possible to discern the foundations of Due Process and conduct of a competent court in this court file. At present, it is impossible to tell, who the parties are, what is the foundation for their standing in the matter in this court file, who the “Counsel” are, and what the foundation for their authority as such is, and what the foundation is for the purported authority of the Court, pertaining to persons who were not parties to the court process at all, in matters that were not reviewed by the Court…
The Request seeks:
a) Any and all records that clarify, who the person are, who are lawfully designated “Petitioners” in instant court file as of November 24, 2016, how such persons were added or subtracted from the “Petitioners” list in instant court file.
b) Any and all records which clarify, who “Others A” are - persons who are not “Petitioners”, but are listed in the “Binding List” - what their lawful standing is in instant court file, and what is the source of court authority pertaining to them in instant court file, as of November 24, 2016.
c) Any and all records which clarify, who “Others B” are – persons who are street dwellers, live in the camp (“Garden Dwellers”), and are not “Petitioners”, and are not listed in the “Binding List” - what their lawful standing is in instant court process, and what the foundation for the Court’s authority is pertaining to them, as of November 24, 2016.
d) Any and all records, which were duly entered in instant court file, and which are Certificate of Counsel of any of those, who appeared as “Counsel for Petitioners” in instant court file, including but not limited to Hagai Kalai, Dalia Bin-Nun, and Yaniv Moyal, provided to them by any person.
e) Any and all other records – such as protocols or judicial decisions – which were duly entered in instant court file, and which are the foundation for the authority as “Counsel for Petitioners” of those, who appeared as “Counsel for Petitioners” in instant court file, including but not limited to Hagai Kalai, Dalia Bin-Nun, and Yaniv Moyal.
f) Any and all records, which are the foundation for the authority of those, who appeared as “Counsel for Petitioners” to represent Others A and Others B.
g) Any and all records, which show the date of filing by Counsel and the lawful entry by the Office of the Clerk of the Request for Approval of “Outline for Departure from Volovelsky Garden”.
h) Data of Judge Eliyahu Bachar’s electronic signature pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) on the November 24, 2016 “Post-it Decision”, which was pasted on the face of “Outline for Departure from Volovelsky Garden”.
i) Lawfully made and entered Judge Eliyahu Bachar’s Decision record, which authorizes the opening of a trust account by “Counsel for Petitioners”.
To the degree that any of the requested records do not exist in instant court file, the Court is requested to explicitly state so in its decision on instant Request to Inspect.
The Request to Inspect sums up:
Based on all the above, it is obvious that the Requester of Inspection is trying to clarify through the inspection perplexities and serious concerns regarding instant court process:
(1) Where persons, who were not and/or are not street dwellers living in the protest camp, were listed as Petitioners in a matter, where they have no direct standing at all.
(2) Where apparently Others A also participated – who were not Petitioners, but are on the “Binding List” - in an unclear standing. It is likely that also among them there are persons who were not and/or are not street dwellers and/or dwellers of the camp as of November 24, 2016.
(3) Where the Court claims authority of the process in instant court file on Others B, who are dwellers of the camp (Garden Dwellers), and are not Petitioners and are not Others A (on the “Binding List”).
(4) Where attorney appeared as “Counsel” - both for Petitioners and for Others A, but the source of their authority as Counsel for either Petitioners or Others A is unclear.
(5) Where an “activist” name “Rotem”, who says that his is Attorney Dalia Bin-Nun’s son, participated in an unclear designation, which appears central to perversion of court process in instant court file.
(6) Where attorneys purportedly consented (as purported “Counsel” for Petitioners and Others A) to the “Outline”. That - when the attorneys, Petitioners, and Others A all benefit from payments from the City of Tel-Aviv. Such consent purportedly is the basis for the deprivation of the fundamental rights of Others B (street dwellers, who are “Garden Dwellers”, but are not Petitioners and are not on the “Binding List”).
(7) Where the Court purportedly approved an “Outline”, which is blatantly invalid and unreasonable as part of instant court process.
(8) Where the “Outline” was purportedly approved by Judge Eliyahu Bachar through a “Post-it Decision”, which is unsigned and uncertified, and cannot possibly be deemed a valid, effectual and enforceable court record – and the City of Tel-Aviv employs it for exerting threats and extortion.
(9) Where the Court purportedly provided approval to “Counsel”, whose authority is unclear, to establish a Trust Account for persons, whose standing in this court process is unclear, based on an invalid “Outline”, approved through an invalid “Post-it Decision”, and another judicial decision, which could not be so far discovered in the court file.
(10) Where purported “Counsel”, Petitioners, Others A and others purportedly provided their consent, and Judge Eliyahu Bachar purportedly provided his approval to the deprivation of the right to protest of another, or Others B – who are not part of this court process – and a matter that was not part of this court process at all.
(11) Where the City of Tel-Aviv no engages in threats and extortion, purportedly based on the “Post-it Decision”, in an effort to coerce persons, who were not part of the court process, to consent to treatment by a particular Social Worker, and retroactively become part of instant court process.
Therefore, serious concerns arise that the process and records in instant court file fundamentally lack legal foundation, and reflect the conduct of a blatantly incompetent court – such as described by “senior legal scholars” as “total jungle in the courts”.
The Request to Inspect states that the fact that an “Outline” was filed (if it were filed) in court by agreement of attorneys does not eliminate Judge Bachar’s duty to review, whether such agreement among such purported “counsel”, falls within the boundaries of the law, fairness, reason, and adequacy. In this regard, example was provided from a case that was widely reported worldwide following the 2008 banking crisis. In a case in the US Court in New York, counsel for the SEC and Bank of America appeared before a federal judge and asked his approval for a “Settlement”. The case originated in the unlawful taking by bank executives of USD 5.8 billions of shareholders’ funds. The “Settlement” did not require the executive to pay back a single cent to the shareholders, but required the payment of a USD 33 million fine by the shareholders (victims of the unlawful taking) to the SEC. Judge Jed Rakoff rejected the “Settlement” and wrote:
When, however, as in the case of a typical consent judgment, a ... agency seeks to prospectively invoke the Court’s own... power... the resolution has aspects of a judicial decree and the Court is therefore obliged to review the proposal a little more closely, to ascertain whether it is within the bounds of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy…
The Request to Inspect states that the Requester of Inspection is neither an attorney, nor a legal scholar. However, his expertise in analyzing fraud in the courts has been internationally recognized:
Over the past decade I have gained expertise in analysis of IT systems and data mining of the court in Israel and beyond:a) Three reports, which I filed with the UN Human Rights Council, were incorporated in the Professional Staff Reports of the Human Rights Council:
- Regarding the United States (2010), with the note: “Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California”;
- Regarding the State of Israel (2013) with the note: “Lack of integrity in the electronic records of the supreme court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel”, and
- Regarding the United States (2015) with the note: “HRA NGO recommended restoring the integrity of the IT systems of the courts, under accountability to the Congress, with the goal of making such systems as transparent as possible to the public at large.”
b) A textbook on "Machine Learning" cites my papers in academic periodicals in a paragraph which describes the application of data-mining to Human Rights research among "Notable uses", and summarized it as follows:
Data mining of government records - particularly records of the justice system (i.e., courts, prisons) - enables the discovery of systemic human rights violations in connection to generation and publication of invalid or fraudulent legal records by various government agencies.
c) In this area I also published research in periodical and international academic conferences, including the World Criminology Congress (2012).
d) In a highly ranked conference on e-government (European Conference on E-government – 2015) my research was published, subject to double peer review, titled: “Fraudulent new IT systems in the Israeli courts – unannounced regime change?”
Demand was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv for a duly signed and certified copy of Judge Eliyahu Bachar’s “Post-it Decision”. 
In parallel, demand was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv to obtain a duly signed and certified copy of the Judge Eliyahu Bachar November 24, 2016 “Post-it Decision” (Figure 4), which the City purports to enforce. The law requires the service of duly signed and certified court order for enforcement.
The fabrication of invalid court records for enforcement purposes is well-known worldwide for generations as a criminal method, which is known as “simulating court process”. That was also the foundation of criminal conduct by Judge Varda Alshech in the “Fabricated Protocols” scandal. However, Israeli judges and the Attorney General have introduced new and amazing standards – where judges are permitted to engage in Fraud Upon the Court without any fear of the law.
Figure 4: Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv et al (18790-10-14) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – ridiculous fraud by Judge Eliyahu Bachar: Unsigned, uncertified “Post-it Decision”, which was emailed by City of Tel-Aviv as the legal foundation for its enforcement actions. The “Post-it Decision” purports to approve the “Outline”, where there is no way to discern, who the parties are, who were lawfully authorized as “Counsel”, and what is the foundation for the Court’s authority on person, who were not party to the court process at all, and/or had no standing in the matter reviewed in court. The “Post-it Decision” is one of the cardinal fraudulent features of Net-HaMishpat system.
The obvious concern is that Judge Eliyahu Bachar, City of Tel-Aviv and others engaged in perpetrating fraud and fabrications in the Court, following the style of Judge Varda Alshech...
The Demand, which was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv provides a collection of fabricated court records from various court files, which were used to defraud. The Demand, which was filed with the City of Tel-Aviv notes that the example, which is most similar to the situation in the Street Dwellers’ petition is the ridiculous fraud in Senior Magistrate Avi Cohen’s “Post-it Decision” in Attorney Hava Klein v Lori Shem Tov and Moti Leybel (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Hava Klein v Lori Shem Tov and Moti Leybel (621-02-16) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court – ridiculous fraud by Senior Magistrate Avi Cohen. The April 17, 2016 “Post-it Judgment” purported to award Attorney Hava Klein NIS 800,000 – over 10-fold higher than Magistrate Cohen’s authority by law… The Request to Inspect, which was filed with Judge Eliyahu Bachar today notes that the fraud in this case is remarkably similar to the fraud by Judge Eliyahu Bachar in the street dwellers’ petition under
Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv et al.
Already in the UN Human Rights Council Periodic Report on Human Rights in Israel (2013) it is noted that the “Post-it Decision” instrument is one of the remarkable fraudulent traits of Net-HaMishpat system. Such decisions are unsigned, and are not entered in the public docket.
Experience of recent years shows that the chances of obtaining a duly signed and certified copy of a “Post-it Decision” in an Israeli court are null.
2016-12-20 Alex Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv et al (18790-10-14) in the Tel-Aviv Court for Administrative Matters – Request (No 52) to Inspect Court File //
אלכס רוסוב ואח’ נ עיריית ת"א ואח’ (18790-10-14) בבית המשפט לעניינים מנהליים,ת"א – בקשה (מס’ 52) לעיון בתיק בית המשפט
2016-12-20 OccupyTLV: Notice to cease and desist and demand for a duly signed and certified copy of court decision - delivered to City of Tel-Aviv //
מאהל המחאה ת"א: הודעה לחדול מפעולות נגד המאהל ודרישה להעתק חתום ומאושר של החלטת בית המשפט – נמסרה לידי עיריית ת"א