Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel
123456xyz@gmail.com

(NGO)
'
6133301 ",33407 "

2014-07-17 State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13) in the Tel Aviv

Magistrate Court - inspection in local party access and clerk
terminals //
- ",( 1074-02-13)

The findings raise concern of perverted court proceedings in a criminal
prosecution, and continued abuse of Rafi Rotem - the Tax Authority whistleblower by the Israeli courts.
The main findings:
1) No attorney ever filed a Power of Attorney certificate.
2) Attorneys from the Public Defender's office appeared as Counsel for Defendant, in
disregard of the Criminal Court Procedures Act of the State of Israel, pertaining to the
appointment of public defender and his replacement by the Court.
3) One such counsel, Attorney Sadeh, provided preliminary agreement, without the
Defendant's knowledge, to conduct trial with no appearance of witnesses for the
prosecution.
4) Five (5) records of minutes and decisions by Judge Predalsky are listed as
entered, but none is listed as served on the parties by the Court.
5) Two hearings are listed under "Arraignment", but in neither was the pleading of the
Defendant "Guilty", or "Not guilty", recorded. With it, in a later hearing, Judge
Predalsky states, "If the Defendant continues his denial of the charges we have to set
up a trial date".
6) Almost a year and a half after the filing of the Indictment, the Defendant and his
counsel (if there is any) were not given full access to the evidence, held by the
Prosecution.
7) The electronic court file includes hyperlinks to seven (7) external investigation files
of the Tel Aviv police, which are inaccessible to the Defendant, in disregard of the
Criminal Court Procedures Act, which prohibits the filing in court of evidence, unless
the Defendant or his counsel were given reasonable opportunity to inspect it.
The conduct of a criminal prosecution under such circumstances is likely to be
viewed as serious violation of Human Rights. It also represents continuation of what
Israeli print media described as "A decade long persecution of Rafi Rotem by the
courts".
The records in State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13) also provide evidence for:
1) The use of Net HaMishpat - the case management system of the Court - as a tool
for perverting due process.
2) The inherent incompetence of Israeli courts, which over the past decade operate
with no lawfully appointed Chief Clerks.
LINKS:
Below
-
.
:
.( 1

1/11

Digitally
signed by
Joseph Zernik,
PhD
Date:
2014.07.25
14:28:28
+03'00'

 ( 2
.
( 3 ," , , ,
.
(4 ) (5 ,
.
( 5 "" ,
. , ,
, .
( 6 , ) (
.
(7 ) (7 " ,
, ,
.

. " :
".
) (1074-02-13 :
(1 - -
.
( 2 ,
.

] 2013-10-04 [1 : -
_
Calman Liebeskind: For a decade the courts have been abusing Rafi Rotem - No justices in
Jerusalem_Maariv
http://www.scribd.com/doc/218831926/
] 2007-10-02 [2 : - _
Moshe Lichtman: The Rafi Rotem file - the witnesses, who never took the stand_ Globes (full
(English translation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220938014/
] 2007-04-00 [3 : _
)Amnon Dankner: Saving our honor as a society_Maariv (full English translation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/218845727/
] 2013-01-01 [4 ) ( "
)(2013
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114254105/
] 2013-01-01[5 ) ( "(
" )(2013
The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission (2013) for the Universal Periodic Review of israel
by the UN Human Rights Council, as it appears on the UN web site
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session15/IL/HRA_UPR_ISR_S15_2012_Hu
manRightsAlert_E.pdf
] 2013-01-01 [6 " ) (2013
" , ,
" )' ,4 (25
The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission, as incorporated into the UN Human RItghts
Council UPR reprort with the note "Lack of integrity in the electronic records of the Supreme
)Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel" (page 4, paragraph 25
?http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/180/12/PDF/G1218012.pdf
OpenElement
] 2013-01-01 [7 ' 1" ) (NGO
" " - ,
".
Human Right Alert, Appendix I to Submission; 15th UPR - State of Israel - "Integrity, or lack
"thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel

2/11

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU/edit?usp=sharing
" " " , 2014-06-15 [8]
" "
Request, filed with Tel Aviv Magistrate Court Presiding Judge and Chief Clerk for Appointment
Record of Chief Clerk Rahamim Asher
http://www.scribd.com/doc/230058216/

Note:
Pages 1-55 were obtained on July 17, 2014 from the party access terminal in
the Magistrate Court, pursuant to authorization by Defendant Rafi Rotem.
Page 45 is a screen photograph, since the information could not be printed
out for unclear reasons.
Pages 56-57 were obtained from the office of the clerk terminal, since the
data was not available in the party access terminal.
, ,2014 , 17- 1-55
.
. , 45
, 56-57
.
#

Record

Page #

1.

4/57
Counsel

2.

6/57
Witnesses and Experts

3.

8/57
Deadlines for Parties

4.

9/57
Hearings

5.

10/57
Pleadings

6.

11/57
Indictment

7.

24/57
Requests and Instructions

8.

25/57
Requests for Temporary Remedies

9.

26/57
Post Judgment Requests

10.

27/57
Decisions

11.

2013 13 - 1 28/57
May 13, 2013 Minutes and Decision

12.

2013 1 - 2 29/57
October 1, 2013 Minutes and Decision

13.

2014 12 - 3 31/57
February 12, 2014 Minutes and Decision

14.

2014 26 - 4 33/57
May 26, 2014 Minutes and Decision

15.

2014 14 - 5 35/57
July 14, 2014 Minutes and Decision

16.

37/57
Judgments

3/11

17.

Minutes of Hearings

18.

Exhibits

19.

40/57
Related Court Files

20.

Accounts

21.

Bails and Bonds

22.

Summaries

23.

Notices by the Office of the Clerk

24.

( ) 45/57
Service of Records (printed from the Party Access terminal)

25.

46/57
Certificates of Counsel of Record

26.

47/57
Incoming Records

27.

48/57
Paper File

28.

( ) 56/57
Service of Records (printed from the Office of the Clerk terminal)

Notes
1) Counsel
Attorney Tammar Bar-Zohar is listed as Counsel for the State of Israel
Attorney Neil Simon is listed as Counsel for the Defendant Rafi Rotem.
It should be noted that no Counsel filed Certificate of Counsel of Record. (p 46)
The following appeared as Counsel for Defendant:
October 1, 2013 - Attorney Neil Simon (p 29)
Feb 12, 2014 - Attorney Neil Simon (p 31)
May 26, 2014 - Attorney Sadeh (p 33)
July 14, 2014 - Attorney Skah (p 35)
The Criminal Court Procedures Act provides clear instructions, relative to representation of
Defendant by the Public Defender's office (Articles 13-15). It appears that the provisions of
the law were ignored in this case. Additionally, the Defendant says that he asked the Court to
appear in pro se, but forced to accept Public Defender's representation. There is no mention
of such matter in the minutes.
Moreover, Attorney Neil Simon no longer represents the Defendant since early July 2014,
following fundamental disagreements. There is no record that he was relieved from
representation, or that another attorney was appointed to replace him.
With it, the July 14, 2014 says: "Given the changes in representation there is no way to avoid
delaying the filing of response on the indictment".
At present it is unclear from the court file, who, if any, represents the Defendant, since he
says that he did not sign authorization for any Counsel.
The Criminal Court Procedures Act (Articles 16-18) provides clear instructinos relative to
changes in Defendant's counsel. It appears that the provisions of the law were ignored by the
court in this case.
2) Witnesses and Experts
Ten witnesses are listed as State witnesses.
In contrast, the Indictment (p 22) lists 37 witnesses, but witnesses 28-37 are protocols of
investigations or disks, and not persons.
3) Deadlines for Parties
The Judge's instructions relative to deadline for transfer of the evidence to the Defendant's
Counsel are not listed. (p 36)

4/11

4) Hearings
Five (5) hearings are listed that took place:
a. May 13, 2013 - Arraignment
b. October 1, 2013 - Hearing
c. February 12, 2014 - Arraignment
d. May 26, 2014 - Hearing
e. July 14, 2014 - Hearing
Appearance of the Defendant is listed in the last four hearings.
Although two hearings are listed as "Arraignment", the respective minutes fail to record the
reading of the Indictment, or pleading of the Defendant "Guilty", or "Not Guilty". Article 143 of
the Criminal Court Procedures Act requires that the Defendant's pleading be listed in the
minutes.
5) Pleadings
Except for the Indictment, no pleading was filed by either party to this date, over a year after
the opening of the court file.
6) Indictment
Notices to the Court (p 22) states: "There is the possibility that the prosecution would request
a prison sentence for the Defendant".
In Notices to the Defendant (p 22-23) there is no mention of it.
The Criminal Court Procedures Act, Articles 15a (a)(1) and (2) require that the Court notice
the Defendant and the Public Defender in such case.
There is no record of such Notice by the Court to the Defendant and the Public Defender. It
appears that the Court ignored the provisions of the law.
7) Requests and Instructions
No requests were filed to this date.
In particular it should be noted that no Preliminary Request was filed, pursuant to Articles 74
or 75 of the Act, relative to inspection of all evidence of the prosecution.
With it, it should be noted that the court file includes hyperlinks to the Israel Police
investigation files (Related Files, p 40). Therefore, it appears that the Judge in this case was
already exposed to the evidence, although the Defendant and his Counsel have never had
the chance to inspect the same materials, over a year since the opening of this court file.
Conduct of the Court appears to violate Article 77 of the Act, which prohibits the filing in court
of the Prosecution evidence, if the Defence had no reasonable opportunity to inspect it.
It appears that the Defendant holds that the prosecution violates the basic principles of justice
and fairness. With it, it appears that the Defendant's Counsel, if there is one, has never
suggested to the Defendant to file a Preliminary Request, pursuant tot Article 149 (10) of the
Act.
8) Requests for Temporary Remedies
No requests have been filed.
9) Post Judgment Requests
No requests have been filed.
10) Decisions
Five (5) Decisions, one from each hearing, are listed.
11) Hearing of May 13, 2013
Present:
"Defendant is not present"
"Decision: The Prosecution shall summon the Defendant using the Location Unit".
12) Hearing of October 1, 2013
Present:
"Defendant's Counsel - Attorney Simon"
"Defendant himself"
The Defendant and his Counsel apparently received the Indictment for the first time during
this hearing. Apparently the Indictment was never served and delivered prior to this hearing.
"Decision: Postponed for arraignment on February 12, 2014."

5/11

13) Hearing of February 12, 2014

Present:
"Defendant's Counsel - Attorney Simon"
"Defendant himself"
"Decision: Postponed for arraignment on May 26, 2014."
14) Hearing of May 26, 2014
Present:
"Defendant's Counsel - Attorney Simon"
"Defendant himself"
Counsel for Defendant: "The Defendant pleads not guilty, there is no alibi claim, and
no minor claims." "We have no objection for the conduct of proceedings pursuant to
Article 144 of the Act, after the Defendant reviews the evidence."
Counsel for the Prosecution: "I agree."
Decision:"The parties should prepare for proceedings that shall be conducted
pursuant to Article 144 of the Act".
Article 144 of the Act refers to agreement of the parties to admission of evidence without the
calling of witnesses.
The Defendant does not recall the exchange, pertaining to Article 144, taking place in the
Court. Moreover, he had never discussed such agreement with his Counsel (if there was
one), and never provided his agreement to such proceedings.
15) Hearing of July 14, 2014
Present:
"Defendant's Counsel - Attorney Skah"
"Defendant himself"
Decision: "Given the change in representation, there is no way to avoid delaying the
pleading on the Indictment... if the Defendant continues to deny the indictment, a plan
for the trial should be set forth... It is clarified that in case the Defendant's Counsel
does not receive the list of evidnce material within 30 days, he shall file the
appropriate request with the Court."
It remains unclear, wether the Defendant understands the significance of the accuracy of the
minutes of the proceedings, and his responsibilities to demand corrections, in case the
minutes are inaccurate. (Articles 134, 137, 139 of the Act)
It remains unclear that the Defendant's Counsel (if there is any) has ever discussed with the
Defendant the optionof filing Preliminary Requests, pursuant to Articles 95 and 149(10) of the
Act.
16) Judgments
"No details found"
17) Minutes of Hearings
The above listed five hearings minutes are listed, all as part of the "Main Proceeding".
18) Exhibits
"No details found"
19) Related Files
Seven (7) investigation files of the Israel Police are listed, with hyperlinks to the files
themselves.
None of the hyperlinks is accessible from either the Party Access Terminal in the Court, or the
Office of the Clerk terminal. However, there is reason to suspect that the same hyperlinks are
accessible from the Judge's terminal.
If so, such condition should be deemed in violation of Article 77 of the Act, which prohibits the
filing of evidence by the Prosecution, unless reasonable opportunity was provided to the
Defendant or his Counsel to inspect the evidence first.
20) Account Status
"No details found"
21) Bails and Bonds
"No details found"
22) Summaries

6/11

"No details found"

23) Notices by the Office of the Clerk
"No details found"
24) Service of Records (from Party Access terminal)
"No details found"
25) Certificates of Counsel of Record
"No details found"
See notes above.
26) Incoming Records
"Indictment - February 3, 2013"
The Indictment was apparently filed in court by fax, and its receipt was listed here.
27) Paper Court File
Ten (10) records are listed in the paper court file, including: Indictment and five (5) minutes of
hearings. The additional four records are:
a. February 3, 2013 - Certificate of File Opening
b. February 11, 2013 - Summons to the Defendant
c. February 11, 2013 - Notice to Appear, Extending Hearing Date
d. May 21, 2013 - Notice to Appear, Extending Hearing Date
28) Service of Records (from the Office of the Clerk terminal)
Total of three (3) service of records by the Court are listed to this date:
a. February 11, 2013 - Summons to the Defendant Rafi Rotem
b. February 11, 2013 - Notice to Appear, Extending Hearing Date to Counsel for the
Prosecution.
c. May 21, 2013 - Notice to Appear, Extending Hearing Date to Defendant Rafi Rotem
Evidently, none of the minutes of hearing and the respective decisions were ever served on
the parties.
===========

:( 1
. -"
."
(46 ). "
(29 " )2013 , 1 -

(31 " )2014 12 -

(33 ): 2014 , 26 -

(35 " )2014 , 14 -

]""[ 1982 - ",[ ]

:(13-15 )


.13
.15
,)(
.15
, 117
:

(1)

; ,

(2)
;
, ,
(3)
;

(4)
, ,
; ,
)( )( 15
(5)

7/11

 ,
;
15)( )(
)(6
, , ,
.
)(
- .
)(
," 1995 - ,
.
)(
)() ( 1 ) ( 3 )( , -
, - .
)(
, ,
)() (1 ) ,(3
)(.
)( )( )-( ,
, ,".1995-
)(
)( )( ,
;
,
.
.
, ,
. .
," ,2014 ,
. , .
14 ,2014 , " ".
, , , .
, :16-18

.16
, , .
)(
.17
, ;
.
)(
, , ,15
.
,
.18
,
,
.
.
(2 :
.
) (22 37 , " 28-37 ,
.
(3 :

) . (36
(4 :
:
13 . - 2013 , -
1 . - 2013 , -
12 . - 2014 , -
26 . - 2014 , -
14 . - .2014 , -
4- .

8/11

 "" , ) (
.
. 143 , ,
, , ,
, ,
; .
(5 :
, , .
(6 :
) (22 " ".
) (22-23 .
15 :
15) .( ) (1
,
.
) (2 ) ,(1
.
15) .( )(2
(7 :
.
, , 75 ,74
.
) .74( , ,
, , , ,
,
.
)( , ,
, , .
)( )(
.
)(
.
)(
; 30 ,
.
)( ' ] [ ,"-
1971.
. 75
, , ,
.
, ") , ,
,(40 , ,
, .
, :77
) .77(
, , .
. ,
, , :(10) 149
.149 ,
...
) (10
.
(8 :

(9 :

(10 :
) (5 , .

9/11

 (11 13 - 1 2013
:
" "
" "
(12 1 - 2 2013
:
" -"

. ,
.
" 12."2014 ,
(13 12 - 3 2014
:
" -"

" 26."2014 ,
(14 26 - 4 2014
:
" -"

" " : , " ".
144 ".
" " : "
" : 144"".
144:
. 144 ,

, .
144 , ,
) ( .
(15 14 - 5 2014
:
" -"

" : , ...
, ... "
30 , ".
, .
) . 134(
, ,
, .
...
)( , , .
.137 ,
, ;
.
. 139 ,
, .
, , ,
,95 .(10) 149
) .95( ;
;
,
.
)( , ,
143 ,
)( , ,

10/11

 , 143
)( , 143)(.
- (10) 149 ) (7 (
(16

(17
" , " ".
(18

(19
" .
, .
.
, :77
) .77(
, , .
(20
(21
" ".
(22
" ".
(23
" ".
(24 ) (
.
(25
" ".
.
(26
" 3 -".2013 ,
, .
(27
) (10 . ) (5 .
:
3 . - 2013 ,
11 . - 2013
11 . - 2013 ,
21 . - 2013 , ,
(28 ) (
" .
11. 2013 ,
11 . 2013 ,
21 . 2013 ,
, .

11/11