Pinto II: Who is
corrupt? Rabbi Pinto, Judge Mudrick, or both?
The Pinto scandal is one of the worst corruption
scandals in recent years. The deliberately perverted records and denial
of public access to inspect the records in this prosecution in the Tel-Aviv
District Court again document that corruption of the judges is central cause of
the situation in Israel today!
פרשת
פינטו 2: מי
פה המושחת? הרב
פינטו, השופט
מודריק, או
שניהם?
פרשת
פינטו היא אחת מפרשיות השחיתות החמורות של השנים האחרונות. שיבוש הכתבים
וההליכים, ומניעת העיון בכתבים בתביעה הפלילית בבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א מראים
שוב, ששחיתות השופטים היא גורם מרכזי למצב בישראל היום!
[עברית להלן]
Figure:
Rabbi
Pinto and senior police officers Arbiv and Bracha - main figures in the
scandal. Pinto's attorneys warned that Pinto's prosecution would cause
embarrasment to the justice system... Judge Oded Mudrick of the
Tel-Aviv District Court - both the purported conviction, and the purported sentencing records fails to be entered in Net-HaMishpat (IT system of the Court), a widely reported sentencing hearing "did not take place", and the reading of the sentence was in a hearing that both took place and did not take place...
____
OccupyTLV, May
13 - newspaper headlines today announce that Tel-Aviv District Court Judge Oded
Mudrick yesterday sentenced Rabbi Pinto to one year in prison in one of the
worst corruption scandals in Israel's history. According to a letter from US
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI informed senior Israeli justice officials
already several years ago that Rabbi Pinto bribed the most senior Israel Police
officers... [1]
According to
media, Judge Mudrick announced yesterday in open court, during sentencing
hearing, that Pinto was "corrupt and corrupting"...
However, closer
review of the facts in this matter must raise concerns that Judge Mudrick is
corrupt to no lesser degree - creating deliberately perverted court
records in a case of the highest public policy significance: Judge Mudrick is
hiding the conviction and sentencing records (if they exist), created
duplicitous calendar data, fails to correct the false records, even after given
notice, and denies the right to inspect court records. Combined - these
are the hallmarks of judicial corruption and serious violations of Human
Rights.
The May 12, 2015 Sentencing record appears
neither among Decisions, nor among Judgments
Yesterday, Judge
Mudrick continued to create vague and ambiguous litigation records.
Review of
Net-HaMishpat (IT system of the Court) fails to unveil the May 12, 2015
sentencing record either among Decisions, or among Judgments.
Figure: Decisions Docket - as seen on May 13, 2015, fails to list the May 12 sentencing record
Figure: Judgments Docket - as seen on May 13, 2015, fails to list the May 12 sentencing record
________
The registration
of judgments without any delay is one of the fundamentals of Due Process.
And missing judicial records, particularly judgment record, is a hallmark of
judicial corruption.
Did the May 12, 2015 Sentencing hearing
take place, or didn't it?
The latest
decision in the Decisions Docket is a May 10, 2015 Decision by Judge Mudrick,
stating that the May 12, 2015 sentencing hearing, widely reported by media
today, was cancelled.
Figure: May 10, 2015 Decision, stating that the May 12, 2015 sentencing hearing was cancelled.
________
At the same
time, the case calendar shows that the May 10, 2015 sentencing hearing did take
place, and that a protocol was generated... but the protocol fails to appear
among court records in the docket..
Figure: The Case Calendar on
May 13, 2015 shows that the May 12, 2015 Sentencing Hearing did take place, and
a protocol was generated. However, the
May 12, 2015 Protocol fails to appear in the Decisions Docket.
________
In other
cases, Israeli judges were documented to conduct "unofficial
hearings", "off the record", with no knowledge of those
present. Such conduct should be deemed Fraud
Upon the Court.
The creation
of vague and ambiguous litigation records, particularly in criminal process, is
also a serious violation of Human Rights, and again - a hallmark of judicial
corruption.
Judge Mudrick fails to correct missing
conviction record and contradictory data regarding a previous sentencing
hearing, even after receiving a notice.
On May 3,
2015 Notice and Request were filed with Judge Mudrick, regarding erroneous
records in Pinto's prosecution.
No response
has been received yet from Judge Oded Mudrick on the May 3, 2015 Notice of
probably missing/erroneous court file registrations and Request for correction.
[4]
The Notice and Request refer to two records in the court file:
a) The April 14, 2015 Verdict
(Conviction) record:
Pinto's
conviction was widely reported by media. However, the conviction record
is missing from both the “Decisions” and the “Judgments” dockets. Missing court
records, particularly judgment records, are typical of corrupt courts.
Figure:
On April 29, 2015, a total of seven (7) decisions were listed in the
case, which by now should hold around 30 decisions. The decision
records, which are posted in the public access system, include decisions
on postponing hearing dates, changing defense counsel, and Defendant's
access to evidence. Missing from the public access system are any
hearing protocol, any decision pertaining to the evidence in this case,
and any record of the conviction, reported by media to have taken place
in a hearing on April 14, 2015. This court file and many others
demonstrate that in the courts' new IT system, Net-HaMishpat, judges
routinely maintain double-books for case dockets.
____
b)
The April 28, 2015 sentencing hearing: The hearing was
extensively reported
by media. However, in Net-HaMishpat (IT system of the Court) the
hearing is listed, “Did not take place”, in the Court Calendar. The
Case Calendar, likewise, shows that the hearing was postponed.
In
other cases, it has been documented that Israeli judges conduct “unofficial
hearings”, off the record (simulated hearings), while the public and
parties are under the impression that they are witnessing a lawful,
effectual court hearing.
Figure:
On April 29, 2015, the Court Calendar showed that the April 28, 2015
sentencing hearing, which was extensively reported by media, "Did not
take place". Also in other cases, it has been documented that the Court
Calendar in Net-HaMishpat is unreliable, and judges may conduct
"unofficial hearings", while the public and parties are under the
impression that they are witnessing a lawful, binding court hearing.
_______
Judge
Mudrick's failure to correct the false data, even after notice was given and
request for correction was filed, is clear evidence that the vague and
ambiguous records are not the outcome of "human error", but the outcome
of Judge Mudrick's deliberate conduct.
Judge Mudrick maintains double books for
"Decisions Docket" in this case
Beyond the missing conviction record, and the "did not take place"
sentencing hearing, it is obvious that Judge Mudrick runs in this case double
books for the "Decisions Docket": On April 29, 2015, only seven (7)
decision records were listed today in the online public access system, in a
case that should by now hold at least a couple dozen decision records.
The records, which are posted in the public access system, include decisions on
postponing hearing dates, changing defense counsel, and Defendant's access to evidence.
Missing from the public access system are any hearing protocols, and any
decisions pertaining to the evidence in this case.
The maintenance of double-books for Decision Dockets is not unique to this
court file, but the pattern is particularly blatant in cases that are related
to corruption of government agencies.
Judge Mudrick denies the right to inspect
court records in this case - a "Constitutional Right", and "fundamental
principle of a democratic regime", and a fundamental Human Right.
On May 10, Dr
Zernik, PhD, filed in the Tel-Aviv District Court Repeat Request to Inspect the
court file in the Pinto case, where the evidence shows perversion of justice by
Judge Oded Mudrick. [2] The
new request asks to inspect only the electronic records in this case, in order
to avoid "burdening" the court. Inspection of the electronic
records only requires providing access through the terminal in the Office of
the Clerk...
A previous
Request for Inspection, which was filed on April 29, 2015, asked to inspect all
electronic and paper records in this court file. [3] However, a
letter, dated April 30, 2015, received by mail from the court and purporting to
be a decision by Judge Mudrick, denied the Request to Inspect the court
file.
Figure: An unsigned, unauthenticated note, which fails to be registered
in the "Decisions Docket", was received by mail from the Court.
It purports to be a decision denying the right to inspect the court file -
according to the Israeli Supreme Court "a fundamental principle of a
democratic regime" and "a constitutional right".
________
The letter
says:
The
trial is not over yet.
Exercising
the right to inspect the court file at this stage would heavily burden the
judicial work.
Since
the Request is justified by a research purpose, I do not find room to grant it
at this stage.
Following completion of the trial, it would be possible to file
the request again.
The April 30, 2015 letter was received unsigned, unauthenticated, and it fails
to be listed in the "Decisions Docket" of the electronic public
access system of the Court (Net-HaMishpat). Such record cannot be
deemed by a reasonable person a valid court record.
Separately, request was filed on May 10, for a signed and authenticated copy of
the April 30, 2015 letter by Judge Mudrick. Previous experience in such
situations in the Israeli courts in recent years shows that the chances to
obtain a lawfully signed and authenticated copy of the record are null.
Serious violations of Human Rights, and
conduct that fits tribunals of a military dictatorship
The right to inspect court files was declared by the Israeli Supreme Court
"a fundamental principle in a democratic regime", and "a
constitutional right". It is also inherent to the fundamental Human
Right for fair, public hearing, particularly in criminal proceedings.
However, as documented in ongoing research survey, Israeli judges today deny
the right to inspect court records, particularly in criminal prosecutions
related to government corruption scandals.
Conditions have been established in the Israeli courts, such that the public is
denied the right to access court records which show: what a person was indicted
on, was a person was convicted of, what a person's verdict is, and that a
person is held in prison pursuant to lawfully made arrest warrants. Such
conditions are typical of tribunals of a military dictatorship, but not of
courts of a civil society.
The Pinto scandal is one of the worst in
recent years, documenting deep corruption of the highest levels of the justice
and law enforcement systems
Pinto is on trial for attempting to bribe Israel Police Brigadier General
Ephraim Bracha, Head of the National Fraud Unit. In his investigation, Pinto
provided incriminating evidence regarding Major General Menashe Arviv, Head of
Lahav 433, the main investigative unit of the Israel Police, popularly known as
the Israeli FBI. Pinto claims that he also holds incriminating evidence against
the Israel Police Brigadier General Ephraim Bracha, Head of the National Fraud
Unit. It is most likely the worst of the corruption scandals in the Israel
police, which have rocked its top command in recent years.
Widespread denial of the right to inspect
court files is typical of the Israeli courts today - particularly in cases
related to government corruption...
The Request to Inspect the Pinto court file in the Tel-Aviv District Court was
filed as part of a study of access to court files in the State of Israel,
following major changes in administration of the courts over the past decade.
While the Israeli courts repeatedly declared that public access to court files
is a "basic principle of a democratic regime", experience so far
indicates that the courts routinely deny public access to court files.
The denial of access and the perversion of court records are particularly
blatant in cases related to corruption of government agencies.
Public access to court records is known for centuries as the fundamental way to
safeguard the integrity of the courts, and absent public access to court
records it is impossible to maintain the integrity of the courts.
The evidence points to corruption of the judiciary as central to conditions in
the State of Israel today.
____
פרשת פינטו 2: ראיות מצטברות לשיבוש הליכים על ידי השופט עודד מודריק
פרשת
פינטו היא אחת מפרשיות השחיתות החמורות של השנים האחרונות. התביעה
הפלילית בבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א מראה שוב, ששחיתות השופטים היא גורם מרכזי
למצב בישראל היום!
תמונה:
הרב פינטו וקציני משטרה בכירים ארביב וברכה הם הדמויות המרכשזיות בפרשה.
עורכי הדין של פינטו הזהירו שהליכים פליליים נגד פינטו יגרמו למבוכה
למערכת... השופט עודד מודריק מבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א - הראיות מצביעות על
כך שהוא עוסק בשיבוש הליכים לכיסוי הפרשה.
___
תקציר
התקשורת
מדווחת היום שהשופט עודד מודריק מבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א גזר את דינו של הרב
פינטו לשנה מאסר והכריז על שחיתותו. אולם
בדיקת הכתבים בתיק זה מעלה חשש חמור שהשופט עודד מודריק מושחת לא פחות...
·
כתב גזר הדין
מאתמול אינו מופיע בין ההחלטות, וכן אינו מופיע בין פסקי הדין.
·
כתב הכרעת
הדין, גם הוא אינו מופיע בין ההחלטות או פסקי הדין.
·
ההחלטה
האחרונה הרשומה בתיק, מיום 10 למאי, 2015, אומרת שהדיון אתמול בוטל.
·
דיון קודם על
גזר הדין, שדווח בהרחבה בתקשורת, רשום כ"לא התקיים".
·
השופט עודד
מודריק לא תיקן את הרישומים הכוזבים ולא רשם את הכתבים החסרים, גם לאחר שהוגשה לא
הודעה ובקשה לתיקון הכתבים והרישומים בתיק זה.
·
השופט עודד
מודריק מסרב להתיר עיון בתיק זה – "זכות חוקתית", "יסוד במשטר
דמוקרטי" על פי בית המשפט העליון.
ניהול הליכים
פליליים בהם הכתבים משובשים בכוונה, ושהעיון בהם אסור, הוא הפרה חמורה של זכויות
האדם להליך הוגן ופומבי.
השופטים
בישראל יצרו מצב בו לא ניתן לציבור לדעת אל נכון במה הואשם אדם, במה הורשע, מה גזר
דינו, והאם הוא מוחזק בבית הסוהר של פי צו מאסר עשוי כדין. תנאים אלה תואמים טריבונלים של דיקטטורה צבאית,
אך לא בתי משפט של חברה אזרחית מתוקנת.
לאור העניין
התקשורתי הרב בתיק זה, קשה להאמין שהכתבים המשפטיים המנוסים והפרופסורים למשפטים
לא שמו לב לשיבושים המכוונים של הכתבים וההליכים בתיק זה על ידי השופט עודד מודריק.
אולם התקשורת ממשיכה לדווח כאילו מתנהל פה משפט תקני והוגן, על פי חוקי מדינת
ישראל...
LINKS:
[1] 2015-05-06
The Kabbalist and AG Loretta Lynch, OpEdNews.com
[2] 2015-05-10 State
of Israel v Pinto (43357-09-14) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – Dr
Zernik's Repeat Request (#27) to Inspect Court File //
מדינת ישראל נ פינטו
(43357-09-14) בבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א – בקשתו (מס' 27) החוזרת של דר' צרניק
לעיין בתיק
[3] 2015-04-29 State
of Israel v Pinto (43357-09-14) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – Dr
Zernik's Request (#25) to Inspect court file
מדינת ישראל נ פינטו
(43357-09-14) בבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א – בקשתו (מס' 25) של דר' צרניק לעיון
בתיק
[4] 2015-05-03 State
of Israel v Pinto (43357-09-14) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – Dr
Zernik's Notice (#25) of probably missing/erroneous court file registrations //
מדינת ישראל נ פינטו
(43357-09-14) בבית המשפט המחוזי ת"א – הודעתו (מס' 25 ) של דר' צרניק על
רישומים חסרים/שגויים ככל הנראה
Figure:
On April 29, 2015, a total of seven (7) decisions were listed in the
case, which by now should hold around 30 decisions. The decision
records, which are posted in the public access system, include decisions
on postponing hearing dates, changing defense counsel, and Defendant's
access to evidence. Missing from the public access system are any
hearing protocol, any decision pertaining to the evidence in this case,
and any record of the conviction, reported by media to have taken place
in a hearing on April 14, 2015. This court file and many others
demonstrate that in the courts' new IT system, Net-HaMishpat, judges
routinely maintain double-books for case dockets.
