2016-06-26 Zadorov affair: State Prosecutor Shila Inbar secret filing on evidence of fraud by the Nazareth Judges - “conspiracy theory”, “abuse of the right to inspect”, “has not been appointed Ombudsman of the Courts”...
So, what is one to do, when the judges and the State prosecutors violate the law in collusion with impunity, in order to withhold evidence of Fraud Upon the Court by Nazareth District Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz, and in order to continue the false imprisonment of Roman Zadorov?
It is obvious that the "Constitutional Revolution", championed by Presiding Justice Aharon Barak was intended to establish the supremacy of the courts over the legislature and the executive branches, but when it comes to the constitutional right of the people to keep a watchful eye on the courts, in order to prevent judicial corruption, the Constitutional theory is inapplicable...
Figure: Partners in Fraud Upon the Court in the Nazareth Distirict Court in the Zadorov affair - Judges Avraham Avraham, Haim Galpaz, Esther Hellman, Yitzhak Cohen, and senior State prosecutors Shila Inbar and Mirit Stern
_____
OccupyTLV, June 26 - in a visit to the Office of the Clerk of the Nazareth District Court today, finally the secret filing of North District Attorney's Office - Attorney Shila Inbar from late January 2016 was discovered. The filing pertained to a routine attempt to inspect the paper court decisions (original records) in State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07).
Until today, the North District Attorney Office and the Nazareth District Court refused to duly serve the response of the Attorney's Office on the attempt to inspect. Also a complaint, filed with the Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight in this matter was to no avail...
Figure: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - the secret January 26, 2016 filing by North District Attorney Office - Attorney Shila Inbar - on request to inspect the paper decision records (original records ) in this case.
____
Attorney Shila Inbar's secret filing in part says:
The nature of the requests is unclear, and it appears that their purpose is to establish conspiracy theories pertaining to instant court file and/or the justice system in general... The Requester is trying to abuse the term "Right to Inspect"... The Requester has not been appointed Ombudsman of the Courts yet...
The refusal by North District State Attorney Mirit Stern to duly serve the response was the foundation for a complaint on Fraud, Pervestion of Court Process, and Breach of Loyalty, which was filed with Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Hila Gerstel. North District Attorney Mirit Stern denied a request to be duly served Attorney Shila Inbar's response under false claim that the request was for inspection of "investigation materials"...
Figure: February 21, 2016 response by North District Attorney Mirit Stern on request to duly serve the January 26, 2016 response by North District Attorney Office - Attorney Shila Inbar - on Pro-forma request to inspect the paper court decisions (original records) in State of Israel v Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court. Attorney Stern refused to duly serve the January 26, 2016 response under false pretense, that the request was for inspection of "investigation materials". The false response was the foundation for a complaint against Attorney Mirit Stern, filed with Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Hila Gerstel.
_____
Following today's receipt of the copy of Attoreny Shila Inbar's response, request was filed with Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel to close the complaint against North District Attorney Mirit Stern. Obviously, if the Commissioner has been unable to review such simple complaint to this date, the Commissioner's office is a lame duck at best... With it, it is also obvious, that the Zadorov affair which effectually cause the dismantling of the Commissioner's office, is a sensitive matter... Moreover, in this case, the State Prosecution and the Nazareth District Court were perpetrating the fraud in collusion... Obviously, a simple complaint, but one that is difficult to digest...
Also of interest is the perversion of court records by the Nazareth District Court in this matter:
A "scanned", fabricated December 27, 2015 Decision by Judge Esther Hellman, on a request to inspect the judgment records in State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) was docketed as "Request No 112". And Attorney Shila Inbar's Response on the Request to Inspect the Paper Decision Records (Request No 118), was docketed as Response on Judge Hellman's Decision, which was docketed as "Request No 112".
Sounds confusing?
In the legal parlance of the Israeli Supreme Court it is called "a jumble"...
All of this made it difficult to discover the existence of the State Prosecution Response and obtain its copy. Filing requests to inspect in the Israeli courts is some kind of a poker game - the requester of inspection is not permitted to even view the docket of requests and decisions, pertaining to the request to inspect...
Another eye opening comment in Attorney Shila Inbar's Response is:
Over and beyond, the Responder fully supports the correct words of the Hon Presiding Judge in his January 25, 2016 Decision in Request No 120.
A "scanned", fabricated December 27, 2015 Decision by Judge Esther Hellman, on a request to inspect the judgment records in State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) was docketed as "Request No 112". And Attorney Shila Inbar's Response on the Request to Inspect the Paper Decision Records (Request No 118), was docketed as Response on Judge Hellman's Decision, which was docketed as "Request No 112".
Sounds confusing?
In the legal parlance of the Israeli Supreme Court it is called "a jumble"...
All of this made it difficult to discover the existence of the State Prosecution Response and obtain its copy. Filing requests to inspect in the Israeli courts is some kind of a poker game - the requester of inspection is not permitted to even view the docket of requests and decisions, pertaining to the request to inspect...
Another eye opening comment in Attorney Shila Inbar's Response is:
Over and beyond, the Responder fully supports the correct words of the Hon Presiding Judge in his January 25, 2016 Decision in Request No 120.
Figure: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) - Judge Avraham January 25, 2016 Decision on Request to Inspect paper decision records (original records). The Request was conducted in patent violation of the law, which permits inspection in previously published decision with no request process at all, and does not provide the judges any discretion to adjudicate the matter.
____
Request No 120 pertained to attempt to exercise the right to inspect "lawfully made arrest warrant" and "lawfully made judgment docket". Judge Avraham's Decision says:
... these are not requests to inspect, but an investigation by the Requester of the validity and operations of Net-HaMishpat system and various other claims relative to conduct of the judicial panel in instant court file. In such matters, this Court shall not engage...
It is not difficult to understand why the State Attorney Office and the Nazareth District Court got so sensitive regarding the requests to inspect the paper court file - it is likely to produce the best evidence yet of the Fraud Upon the Court by Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman and Haim Galpaz, which last years - 2007 to the end of 2010 - in conduct of a "fabricated"/sham/simulated trial against Roman Zadorov.
It should be noted that conduct of the Nazareth District Court, pertaining to the Request to Inspect the decisions in the paper court file (original records) was repeated with small variations by the Israeli Supreme Court. Also there the Justices engage in conduct of requests to inspect of previously published decision records, with no lawful authority. In the Supreme Court, the Magistrate denied the right to inspect the paper court decisions (original records) from the Nazareth District Court under the pretense of "jumble" in the court file... Also in the Supreme Court the District Attorney refused to duly serve its Response. And also the Supreme Court refuses to provide a copy of the District Attorney's Response on the attempt to inspect the paper court decision records. It is likely that the Response by the District Attorney Office in the Supreme Court is along the same conspiratorial vein of the Response that was discovered today in the Nazareth District Court...
Conduct of the Nazareth District Court, the Supreme Court, and the District Attorney Office shows collusion between the judges and senior prosecutors in withholding evidence of conduct of Judges Yizhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz in the Zadorov trial in Nazareth.
Moverover: Conduct of the Nazareth District Court, the Supreme Court and the District Attorney should be deemed serious violation of the law!
The law in this matter is clear.
The Inspection Regulations (2003), Regulation 2(b) says:
2(b) Every person is permitted to inspect decisions, which are not lawfuly prohibited for publication.
The matter was also explicitly clarified in Supreme Court Presiding Justice Dorit Beinisch 2009 Judgment at the end of a 12 year long petition - Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice ( 5917/97). The Supreme Court Judgment says:
Regulation 2(b) expands the public's right to inspect with no requirement of filing a request with the Court, but only pertaining to court decisions, and only pertaining to decisions, which are not prohibited for publication by law.
There is no requirement of filing a request, pertaining to inspection of decisions, which have already been published. The judges have no jurisdiction and discretion, pertaining to the right to inspect decisions, which have already been published, and the District Attorney Office has no authority to object to the inspection of decisions, which have already been published.
The 2009 Judgment also says, regarding the right to inspect:
A fundamental principle in any democratic regime... Constitutional, super-statutory...
Indeed, the right to inspect court decisions is a Constitutional right also in other jurisdictions. A landmark decision in this matter (the Nixon tapes) of the US Supreme Court explains the matter in the "desire of the people to keep a watchful eye on the working of government agencies..." Government agencies obviously include the courts themselves....
Therefore, it is also obvious that the "Constitutional Revolution in Israel" from the school of Presiding Justice Aharon Barak, which established the supremacy of the courts over the executive and the legislative branches, does not apply when it comes to the people's right to keep a watchful eye on the courts, inorder to prevent judicial corruption...
So, what is one to do, when the judges and the State prosecutors violate the law in collusion with impunity, in order to withhold evidence of Fraud Upon the Court by Nazareth District Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz, and in order to continue the false imprisonment of Roman Zadorov in absolute contempt of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty?
No comments:
Post a Comment