מאהל
המחאה ת"א,
31 לדצמבר
-
"מכתב
תגובה על מכתב הסבר מפוקפק של "ממונה
בכיר"
אברהם
וולף נשלח לנציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים,
שופט
בית המשפט העליון בדימוס
אליעזר ריבלין. העתקים
נשלחו למנכ"לית
משרד המשפטים אמי פלמור,
היועמ"ש
אביחי מנדלבליט,
והיועץ
המשפטי של האגודה לזכויות האזרח עו"ד
דן יקיר.
המכתב
מעלה חששות
כבדים,
שמכתבו
של "ממונה
בכיר"
עו"ד
אברהם וולף,
שנשלח
כניסיון לתרץ הליך תלונה בדויה/"מפוברקת"
בנציבות
תלונות הציבור על השופטים מצביע על חוסר
ישרה חמור במערכת המשפט בכלל,
ובנציבות
תלונות הציבור על השופטים בפרט.
המכתב
לנציב ריבלין אומר שמכתבו
של "הממונה
הבכיר"
עו"ד
אברהם וולף כולל
קביעות מרכזיות שהן
חסרות שחר,
וקיים
חשש סביר שמכתב זה, ותפקיד
“ממונה בכיר” בו מתהדר עו"ד
אברהם וולף הם פברוק נוסף ותו לאו…
התמונה
הכללית המתבהרת עתה היא של ניסיון של
מנכ"לית
משרד המשפטים אמי פלמור ונציב תלונות
הציבור על השופטים אליעזר ריבלין לטייח
הונאות ופברוקים של השופט אליהו בכר מבית
המשפט המחוזי ת"א
ועיריית ת"א
בנוגע לדרי רחוב וזכות ההפגנה.
א. הונאות ופברוקים חדשים - מנציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים אליעזר ריבלין
"ממונה
בכיר"
עו"ד
אברהם וולף כתב בשם נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים אליעזר ריבלין:
המכתב
לנציב ריבלין אומר שזוהי קביעה חסרת שחר.
מעולם
לא פניתי בבקשה
להגשת תלונה
למשרד המשפטים בעניין הונאות השופט אליהו
בכר ועיריית ת"א.
המכתב
לנציב ריבלין אומר שגם זאת קביעה חסרת
שחר.
רשויות
אכיפת החוק מוסמכות
לחקור תלונות על התנהלות פלילית של השופטים
- כמו
התנהלות פלילית של כל אזרח אחר.
חמור
מכך -
מכתבו
של "ממונה
בכיר"
עו"ד
אברהם וולף מייצג עמדה,
על
פיה מותר לשופטים לעסוק בהונאות על כס
המשפט,
ואין
החוק הפלילי חל על התנהלות עבריינית זאת.
המכתב
לנציב ריבלין אומר שלאור ריבוי המתחזים
והמפברקים במשרד המשפטים ובבתי המשפט,
לאור
תכנו המפוברק של המכתב, ולאור שם תפקידו המוזר של עו"ד אברהם וולף, יש
מקום לחשש שעו"ד
אברהם וולף אינו "ממונה
בכיר"
כלל,
והמכתב
כולו אינו אלא פברוק נוסף.
לפיכך,
מבקש
המכתב שהנציב ריבלין יספק תיעוד של מינויו
כדין של עו"ד
אברהם וולף כ"ממונה
בכיר"
בנציבות
תלונות הציבור על השופטים.
ב. בקשה לחוות דעת של הנציב אליעזר ריבלין לגבי תלונות פליליות נגד שופטים
החלק
החשוב ביותר במכתב שנשלח
היום לנציב ריבלין
הוא בקשה לחוות דעתו של הנציב ריבלין,
האם
אכן אין גופי אכיפת החוק מוסמכים לחקור
תלונות פליליות על השופטים. עניין זה נובע מהקביעה המפוברקת במכתב "הממונה הבכיר" אברהם וולף, האומרת ש"נציבות תלונות הציבור על השופטים היא הגוף היחידי המוסמך לבחון תלונות על שופטים". במצורף למכתב לנציב ריבלין נשלחו שלושה מקרים לדוגמה:
-
פרשת
"הפרוטוקולים
המפוברקים"
של
השופטת ורדה אלשייך.
-
תלונה
פלילית שהוגשה במשטרת ישראל נגד השופטת
אספרנצה אלון,
ונמצאת
עתה כביכול ב"בדיקה"
בפרקליטות.
-
תלונה
פלילית שהוגשה ליועמ"ש
אביחי ריבלין נגד השופטים יצחק כהן,
אסתר
הלמן,
ואברהם
אברהם בנוגע לפברוק ההליכים והכתבים
במשפט רומן זדורוב בנצרת.
הנציב
ריבלין מתבקש לחוות את דעתו לגבי כל אחד
מן המקרים:
במשך
כל שנות המדינה לא הורשע אף שופט על עבירות
במילוי תפקידו,
למרות
שפע ראיות להונאות ושחיתות השופטים.
עד
שלא נכניס כמה מהשופטים העבריינים לכלא,
דבר
לא ישתנה!
Following is a letter to Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Rivlin, in response on dubious letter by "Senior Appointee" Attorney Avraham Wolf, which tried to explain a simulated/"fabricated" complaint process against Judge Eliyahu Bachar
December
31,
2016
Ombudsman
of the Judiciary Eliezer Rivlin
By
email:
<shoftim@justice.gov.il>
RE:
Simulated/“fabricated” complaint
(875/16/Tel-Aviv District) against Judge Eliyahu
Bachar by Ombudsman of the Judiciary –
response on a dubious explanatory letter by
“Senior Appointee” Avraham Wolf
1)
December 28, 2016 letter by
Attorney Avraham Wolf, “Senior
Appointee” on behalf of
Ombudsman of the Judiciary [1]
2)
December 25, 2016 letter by
Mr Dror Yosef on behalf of Ministry of Justice CEO Amy Palmor
Your
response within 14 days is kindly requested.
Dear
Ombudsman Rivlin:
I
herein confirm receipt of a “Personal-Confidential-To the Addressee
Only” letter by Attorney Avraham Wolf on your behalf, pertaining to
the simulated/“fabricated” complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv District)
process, purportedly on my behalf, against Judge Eliyahu Bachar. [1]
The letter attempts to provide explanations for the
simulated/“fabricated” complaint process, but it raises new
serious concerns regarding the Israeli justice system in general and
the Ombudsman’s office in particular. Therefore, I would be
grateful for your expedient reply on instant respose, both in your
capacity as Ombudsman of the Judiciary and in your capacity as
Retired Supreme Court Justice.
Attorney
Wolf’s letter followed my December 27, 2016 demand that your office
cease and desist a simulated/“fabricated” complaint on my behalf.
[2] My demand was triggered by a December 26, 2016 false and
misleading notice by Ms Hedva Menachem-Werber, Judicial Complaints
Branch Manager in the Ombudsman’s office, which purported to
confirm receipt of my complaint (which had never been filed) against
an unnamed judge in an unspecified matter. [3]
a.
“The Complainant inquired with the Ministry of Justice and asked to
file a complaint regarding selective enforcement against the
“Arlozorov Camp’”???
Attorney
Wolf’s letter on your behalf states, as part of its attempt to
explain commencing of the simulated/“fabricated” complaint
(875/16/Tel-Aviv District) process under my name:
The
Complainant inquired with the Ministry of Justice and asked to file a
complaint regarding selective enforcement against the “Arlozorov
Camp”.
Such
a statement lacks any foundation in the true facts:
-
Attorney
Wolf fails to state the date or title of my purported “inquiry”.
-
I
have never inquired with the Ministry of Justice in a “Complaint”,
or “asked to file a complaint” in the matter in reference. I
collect on a regular basis evidence of judicial Fraud Upon the Court
(primarily conduct of simulated court process and the publication of
simulated court records). I have widely distributed publications in
such matters for years on a routine basis.
-
In
the matter, referenced above, it appears that the purported
“Complaint” was my December 20, 2016 publication, titled, “Amona
and the Arlozorov Camp: Fraud and fabrications by Judge Eliyahu
Bachar, City of Tel-Aviv, and others”. [4]
-
The
selective enforcement, which is documented in the publication (on
Israeli citizens only, but not on Iraqi citizens, who are deemed by
the City of Tel-Aviv “State Persons”) is explicitly stated as
City of Tel-Aviv’s conduct, and not by Judge Eliyahu Bachar’s.
Therefore, it remains unclear, why the Ministry of Justice CEO sent
a complaint pertaining to “selective enforcement” to the
Ombudsman of the Judiciary in the first place.
-
Judge
Eliyahu Bachar’s conduct in Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv et
al (18790-10-14),
which is documented in my publication, is likely to be eventually
found Fraud Upon the Court through the conduct of simulated court
process and the publication of simulated court records. Judge
Eliyahu Bachar’s conduct is detailed in the “Request to
Inspect”, which I filed in the court file, referenced above: [5]
Conduct of a court process, where it is impossible to discern, who
the parties are, what the source of authority is of those who
appeared as “Counsel”, and what the source of judicial authority
is on persons who are not party to the court process and/or have no
standing in the matter under review. In such court file, Judge
Eliyahu Bachar also published simulated/”fabricated” court
records, which are now used by the City of Tel-Aviv and others for
extortion. And yet, the City of Tel-Aviv is not ready, willing,
able to provide duly signed and certified copy of Judge Eliyahu
Bachar’s “Post-it Decision” in that court file, which is the
purported foundation for its conduct. [6,7] However, I have
not completed the collection and examination of the records in this
case.
The
serious concern, which is raised by Attorney Wolf’s letter on your
behalf, is that complaint process was commenced in the Ombudsman of
the Judiciary’s office through the filing of fake “complaint”,
with not authority at all, by the Ministry of Justice CEO on my
behalf, with explicit notice to me neither by the Ministry of Justice
CEO nor by the Ombudsman of the Judiciary, stating the subject matter
of the complaint and the name of the judge, who was subject of the
complaint. As it turns out now - in a matter of selective
enforcement by City of Tel-Aviv, which is not under the authority of
the Ombudsman of the Judiciary…
b.
“The Ombudsman of the Judiciary’s office is the only agency that
is authorized to examine complaints against judges”???
Attorney
Wolf’s letter on your behalf also states:
In
parallel, the Complainant’s complaint was forwarded for our
handling, since the Ombudsman of the Judiciary is the only agency
that is authorized to examine complaints against judges.
Such
statement is baseless as well. It is obvious that other law
enforcement agencies are authorized to investigate complaints
regarding criminality by judges. Recent examples include, inter
alia, criminal complaints against Judge Yitzhak Cohen of Nazareth
regarding sex crime, including complaints regarding sex crimes in
chambers, according to media reports.
Similarly,
Fraud Upon the Court by judges is considered throughout the civilized
world criminal conduct, which is “extra-judicial” conduct.
Therefore, it is not covered by any immunity, and law enforcement
agencies are authorized to investigate it.
The
most common method of perpetrating such Fraud Upon the Court is
conducting simulated court process and publishing simulated court
records. The essence of such conduct is the publication by judges of
false and misleading court records, lacking any lawful authority, and
presenting them to others as authentic, valid and enforceable court
records. Exhibit A in
the above reference Request to Inspect Court File [5]
documents that it is routine conduct
in the Israeli courts today, and that a key instrument for such
purpose is a fraudulent case management system – Net-HaMishpat.
The
most striking example of such conduct is of course the Judge Varda
Alshech “Fabricated Protocols” scandal. The complaint, which was
filed by Attorney Effi Naveh and the Israel Bar Association, and
decision by your predecessor
- Ombudsman of the Judiciary
Eliezer Goldber - documented
in great detail the conduct of Judge Varda Alshech and others in the
Tel-Aviv District Court in collusion with the office of
Administration of Courts in this affair (Attachment A).
The Ombudsman of the Judiciary’s May 31, 2012 Decision also
provides detailed report
regarding the use of Net-HaMishpat system for such fraudulent
purposes.
The conduct of an Ombudsman of the Judiciary complaint process in
this case was inherent to the failure to enforce
the criminal code against Judge Varda Alshech and her partners,
including Attorney Barak Laser of the Administration of Courts.
Additionally, no material corrective measures were undertaken
relative to Net-HaMishpat system following this scandal.
In
contrast, in other cases of conduct of simulated court process and
the publication of simulated court records, I have filed criminal
complaints against the respective judges with the Israel Police
and/or the Attorney General:
1.
Criminal complaint against Judge Esperanza Alon – regarding Fraud
Upon the Court in the case of Conservatee
RS (1829-06-10,
25607-03-13)
(Attachment
B).
Judge
Esperanza Alon conducted simulated court process and published and
cause the purported service of simulated court records, and failed to
cease such conduct even after being warned regarding evidence of her
criminality on the bench.
2.
Criminal complaint against Judges Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman, and
Avraham Avraham in State
of Israel v Roman Zadorov
(502-07) (Attachment C).
The evidence in this case shows that the former two judges conducted
a sham/simulated/”fabricated” murder trial on an innocent person,
which led to his false, arbitrary arrest – as purported convict –
but with neither lawfully made Verdict, nor Sentencing, nor Arrest
Decree. Judge Avraham Avraham engaged and engages in withholding the
evidence and misprision of such felonies. Following the filing of the
complaint it turned out that the person, who appeared as the third
judge on the judicial panel in this case – the late Haim Galpaz –
had neither valid, lawful appointment as a Judge, nor as a Judge
Emeritus during the corresponding period…
And
yet, it is obvious that the Attorney General has no intention of
permitting true investigation of such criminal complaints, which were
purportedly “transferred to the State Prosecution”. Attorney
General Avichai Mandelblit’s
conduct in such matters,
like his predecessor Yehudah Weinstein’s,
is similar to their conduct in preventing true criminal
investigations and enforcement of the law on senior
government officers in various other corruption
cases. Such conduct is perceived as a central factor in government
corruption in Israel today.
Therefore,
serious concern is raised that the approach, which is expressed in
Attorney Wolf’s letter
on your behalf, is part of a Ombudsman of the Judiciary’s doctrine,
which is also coordinated with the Ministry of Justice CEO and the
Attorney General. According to such doctrine, judges in Israel are
effectively permitted to perpetrate Fraud Upon the Court. Such
doctrine should be deemed a central factor in what “senior legal
scholars” have recently described as “a total jungle in the
courts” - where judges ignore both the facts and the law.
[8]
Conditions
where judges are permitted to perpetrate Fraud Upon the Court by the
conduct of simulated court process and the publication of simulated
court records are well-known worldwide for centuries as cardinal
signs of organized crime in the court – conditions which are known
in criminology as “state organized crime”.
Such
conditions also raise serious concerns regarding the nature of the
regime in the State of Israel today. My academic report, which was
published by the European Conference on E-government (2015) subject
to international peer-review, describes recent developments in the
Israeli courts, and is titled: “Fraudulent new IT systems in the
Israeli courts – unannounced regime changes?” [9]
c)
Request for the Ombudsman of the Judiciary’s opinion regarding
criminal complaints against judges
In
view of all the above, I would be grateful for your expedient
response, both in your capacity as Ombudsman of the Judiciary and in
your capacity as retired Justice of the Supreme Court:
1.
Judge Varda Alshech
“Fabricated Protocols” scandal (Attachment A):
Based on the Israel Bar Association complaint and Ombudsman of the
Judiciary decision in this case, is there in your opinion material
suspicion of criminal conduct by Judge Varda Alshech in this case?
Was the Ombudsman of the Judiciary the only agency, which was
permitted to review complaint against Judge Varda Alshech in this
case? Was there material
cause for filing a criminal
complaint against Judge Varda Alshech by
the Israel Bar Association in
this case?
2.
Judge Esperanza Alon and
the case of Conservatee RS (1829-06-10,
25607-03-13)
(Attachment B):
Based on my criminal complaint with the Israel Police and the
Attorney General, is there in your opinion material suspicion of
criminal conduct by Judge Esperanza Alon in this case? Was the
Ombudsman of the Judiciary the only agency, which was permitted to
review my complaint against Judge Esperanza Alon in this case? Was
there material cause for
filing of the criminal complaint against Judge Esperanza Alon in this
case?
3.
Judges
Yitzhak Cohen, Esther Hellman and Avraham Avraham in the
case of State of
Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07)
(Attachment C):
Based on my criminal complaint with the Attorney General, is there
in your opinion material suspicion of criminal conduct by Judges
Cohen, Hellman and Avraham in this case? Was
the Ombudsman of the Judiciary the only agency, which was permitted
to review my complaint against Judges
Cohen, Hellman, and Avraham in
this case? Was there
material cause for filing of
the criminal complaint against Judges
Cohen, Hellman, and Avraham
in this case?
d)
Request for documentation of lawful appointment of Avraham Wolf as
“Senior Appointee” in
the Ombudsman’s office
The
letter by “Senior Appointee” in the Ombudsman’s office,
Attorney Avraham Wolf, opens as follows:
The
Ombudsman of the Judiciary authorized me to inform of his decision in
the Complaint.
Such
statement purportedly lends credibility and authority to the
Ombudsman’s letter to me by Attorney Avraham Wolf. However:
1.
Subject of the letter is a simulated/”fabricated” complaint
process in the Ombudsman’s office;
2.
Content of the letter itself is dubious, as outlined above, and
3/The
title of the writer “Senior Appointee” - raises doubts as well.
Additionally,
in the background:
1.
Simulated/”fabricated” court process by Judge Eliyahu Bachar and
simulated/”fabricated” enforcement by City of Tel-Aviv, which the
simulated/”fabricated” complaint process in the Ombudsman’s
office appears to have tried to whitewash;
2.
Conduct of simulated/”fabricated” court process and the
publication of simulated/”fabricated” court records has become a
routine in the Israeli courts, and
3.
As previously documented, false appearance of persons as law and
justice officers is common practice in the Ministry of Justice and in
the courts today, including – all “Chief Clerks” whom I have
examined to this date (including current and past “Chief Clerk”
of the Supreme Court), all “Legal Advisers” whom I have examined,
the “Authorized Appointee regarding Badmouthing of Judges”,
judges (Haim Galpaz and Nili Maymon), and others…
Accordingly,
there is room for doubt that Attorney Avraham Wolf is falsely
appearing as “Senior Appointee”, with no lawful appointment, and
that his above referenced letter is just another “fabrication”,
nothing more…
Therefore,
I herein kindly request that with your response you provide a record,
which documents the lawful appointment of Attorney Avraham Wolf as
“Senior Appointee” in the office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary.
Happy
holidays,
Joseph
Zernik, PhD
Human
Rights Alert (NGO)
OccupyTLV
CC:
Attorney
Avichai Mandelblit, Attorney General
Attorney
Amy Palmor, Ministry of Justice CEO
Attorney
Dan Yakir, Legal Counsel of the Association for Civil Rights in
Israel
CC:
Wide distribution
Attachments:
listed below
