The Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court issued last week an unprecedented "Restraining Order", which prohibits activist Barak Cohen from any speech, related to Bank HaPoalim CEO Zion Keinan. The order amounts to Prior Restraint of Free Speech... It comes in the footsteps of a series of gag orders, trying to prevent the publication of news regarding government corruption in general, and judicial corruption in particular...
Attorney Barak Cohen has become a trailblazing social protest activist, being able to rub the justice system the wrong way through artful provocations. In the latest round, he managed to provoke the Tel-Aviv court into issuing on him a Prior Restraint order, prohibiting him of making any public speech related to Zion Keinan, Bank HaPoalim top executive, key figure in fraud by the banks in collusion with the courts.
OccupyTLV, June 28 -- request to inspect the court file was filed with Judge Efrat Bosni of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court.  The request pertains to the court file, where Judge Bosni issued last Thursday a "Restraining Order", prohibiting activist Barak Cohen of any public speech related to Bank HaPoalim CEO Zion Keinan. Together with it, request was also filed for Judge Bosni's Disqualification for a Cause. 
In Israel, any request to inspect court file requires a request and a justification. The justification, provided in today's request, states that there is a serious concern that Judge Bosni engaged in fraud and criminality -- conduct of sham court process. The inspection is requested in order to clarify the nature of the records and the nature of Judge Bosni's conduct in this case.
The justification for the Disqualification states that given that the inspection may reveal criminal conduct by Judge Bosni, she is in a serious conflict of interest relative to the Request to Inspect.
The unusual hearing on Bank HaPoalim's CEO Zion Keinan's request for a Restraining Order against activist Barak Cohen took place last Tuesday. It was scheduled at an unusual time - 8:00pm in the evening, outside of the court's regular working hours - and it lasted till almost midnight. It was also conducted in an unusual place, not in Judge Bosni's regular courtroom, but in the basement of the court house. Regardless, when CEO Keinan appeared in the Court, he was welcomed by by a chorus of activists, yelling at him "Thief! Thief!".
Furthermore, although the court hearing was extensively covered by media, the case is now inexplicably "sealed" by the Court.
Over the past years, Barak Cohen launched a campaign against fraud by the banks and the justice system, similar to the foreclosure fraud epidemic, plaguing the United States since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008.
Last Tuesady's hearing, regarding a "Restraining Order" on activist Barak Cohen, was not conducted in Judge Bosni's regular courtroom, but in an alternative space, designated as a bomb-shelter.
The outcome of the process by Judge Bosni was an unusual decision as well. It prohibited activist Barak Cohen from "publication, of any kind and type, in writing, in the internet, and in any social media," relative to Bank HaPoalim's CEO Zion Keinan. Cohen's response following the issuance of the Decree: "A decree can't prohibit an idea, particularly - not an idea, whose time has come".
(image by Public) DMCA
The June 25, 2015 Restraining Order, which prohibits activist Barak Cohen from any public speech relative to Bank HaPoalim's CEO Zion Keinan, was extensively covered by media. However, the court now designated it "sealed" (the diagonal water mark on the record).
The conduct of sham and simulated legal process is a well-known form of judicial corruption. It involves the conduct of sham proceedings and the issuance of abusive court papers, which the judges themselves do not consider valid and effectual, but which the judges deceive or extort compliance with.
In numerous nations, such conduct is explicitly defined by law as criminality. In contrast, in Israel, the falsification and forgery of court records by judges has become a well-known phenomenon over the past decade. It has been facilitated by the implementation of new, fraudulent IT systems in the courts, which enable such conduct. Moreover, even when caught, judges have not been prosecuted, and the judiciary refuses to impose any significant punitive measures on judges for such conduct.