Roman Zadorov affair: The Supreme Court perverted decision records in Disqualification for a Cause against 3 justices
The matter in the petition before the court: The Attorney General and the State Attorney claim that they were acting within their authority in perverting the expert opinion of Dr Chen Kugel - Head of the State Forensic Institute - pertaining to the case of Roman Zadorov. As is the case in other court files related to Zadorov, the Supreme Court perverted the records in the petition itself as well. Prof M Kremnitzer summed conduct of the Attorney General, the State Attorney and the Supreme Court in the Roman Zadorov affair: "The justice system is primarily defending itself".
Read the complete post: http://inproperinla.blogspot.pt/2017/06/2017-06-14-roman-zadorov-affair.html
Figures. Roman Zadorov - the Ukrainian Mendel Beilis in Israel. The Jew Mendel Beilis was falsely convicted in the murder of a boy in the Ukraine a century ago. Only after intense international pressure he was released from prison. The Ukrainian Roman Zadorov was falsely convicted in the 2006 murder of a girl in Israel. Regardless of public protest and obvious corruption of all state agencies involved in the case, Roman Zadorov is still held in life imprisonment.
_______
A. Two different, invalid, false and misleading Supreme Court decisions on the Disqualification for a Cause
Figures. Justices Yoram Danziger, Noam Solberg and Neal Hendel of the Supreme Corut denied access to inspect the original, signed court records in a petition against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shai Nitzan, pertaining to attempt to pervert the affidavit of Dr Chen Kugel, Director of the National Forensic Institute, in Roman Zadorov's case. Israeli law says: "Any person is permitted to inspect court decisions, which are not lawfully prohibited for publication". The Supreme Court itself declared in 2009 that such right was "a fundamental principle in any democratic regime... constitutional, supra-statutory..."
But instead or permitting inspection of the original, signed records in the Supreme Court's paper court file, the three Justices repeatedly sent by mail unsigned, invalid printouts from IT system of the Court. Consequently, they failed to rule on repeat requests to inspect the original, signed records in the Supreme Court's paper court file "in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law".
The Disqualification for a Cause stated that their conduct was perceived as gimmickry, which circumvented the law, and indicated lack of sincerity and lack of integrity.
Instead of producing a lawful decision on the Disqualification for a Cause, the three Justices issued two different records, which are invalid, false and misleading on their faces. In such fake court records, the justices claim:
After we reviewed the Disqualification and its justification, we decided to deny it. Our decisions regarding inspection of the court file records were rendered with no bias and do not show any concern of bias. The Requester's requests to inspect were granted by sending the requested records to him directly by mail. As far as the Requester is not pleased with the decisions, or that he claims that there is some defect in the records that were mailed to him, with all due respect, it does not indicate any justification for Disqualification for a Cause.
_____
So far, the Supreme Court has issued two different, invalid, false and misleading decisions on the Disqualification for a Cause, but neither was duly served, signed and certified. The June 11, 2017 request states that the resulting situation raises serious concerns, not only lack of integrity of the Justices, but also of incompetence of the Supreme Court:
a) VERSION A: The first decision on the Disqualification for a Cause was issued on May 29, 2017, and was titled "Judgment" on the "Petition", it was likewise entered in the dockets of the Supreme Court. In doing so, the Supreme Court failed to duly answer on Disqualification for a Cause, and also further perverted the Petition itself, by falsely disposing of the petition, by entering a "Judgment", prior to completing the review of the Petition itself.
b) VERSION B: The second decision on the Disqualification for a Cause was issued on June 06, 2017, and was correctly titled "Decision" on "Disqualification for a Cause". The record was faxed to the Requester of Disqualification unsigned and unauthenticated from an anonymous fax number, and it has not been entered in the dockets of the Supreme Court to this date.
Figure. Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) in the Supreme Court - decisions on Disqualification for a Cause: VERSION A - the May 29, 2017 record. Top: On page 1, the Filer of the Disqualification for a Cause fails to appear in the record header. The records was falsely issued on the main parties in the case and falsely titled - "Judgment", above which the subject of the judgment is falsely referenced: "Petition for a Conditional Decree". In doing so, the Supreme COurt effectively disposed on petition. Bottom: The final paragraph says: "7. The Office of the Clerk shall bring the court file up for review and rendering of decision on the May 15, 2017 Request, once instant decision (on Disqualification) becomes unappealable." The record was mailed unsigned and unauthenticated, as usual, and is dated May 29, 2017.
_______
Figure. Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) in the Supreme Court - decisions on Disqualification for a Cause: VERSION B - The June 06, 2017 perverted, false and misleading "corrected" decision on Disqualification for a Cause. Top: On page 1, the Filer of the Disqualification for a Cause still fails to appear in the record header. The records is titled - "Decision", above which the subject of the decision is correctly noted: "May 22, 2017 Disqualification for a Cause". At the bottom of the header page, inverted, is the fax header stamp, which shows that the record was faxed from an anonymous fax machine. Bottom: The final paragraph (No 7) is the same as in the May 29, 2017 "Judgment" record, but below it the text says: "Rendered on May 29, 2017", "Corrected today, June 06, 2017". However, the "corrected" record has not been entered in the Supreme Court's "Decisions Docket" and "Events List" to this date.
_______
Figures. Supreme Court records in Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16), as downloaded from Court's public access system (June 14, 2017): Top - the latest entry in the "Decisions Docket" is the May 29, 2017 VERSION A "Judgment". The June 06, 2017 VERSION B - the "corrected" decision - has never been entered in the docket. Bottom - the latest entry in the "Events Log" is the May 29, 2017 VERSION A as well: "No 31. May 29, 2017 - Judgment - Rendering of Judgment", and "No 31. June 05, 2017 - Judgment - Mailing to parties". VERSION B - the June 06, 2017 "corrected" decision - has not been entered in the court dockets to this date.
_____
Disqualification for a Cause is considered an extreme action, which is rarely used by attorneys, surely not in the Supreme Court. Disqualification for a Cause challenges the integrity of the judge or judges, who are adjudicating the case, and demand their removal from the case. Furthermore, both in Israel and in other jurisdiction, judges are barred from continuing to adjudicate in the case, until they duly dispose of the Disqualification for a Cause.
The two decisions, which were issued by the Supreme Court in this case also directly refer to this point: They order the Office of the Clerk to bring back the court file for their review only after their purported decisions on the Disqualification for a Cause become unappealable.
However, the June 11, 2016 request states that there is no way to consider either of the two decisions, which had been issued on the Disqualification for a Cause, becoming unappealable: The first, May 29, 2017, decision is false on its face - it was entered in court dockets as a "Judgment" on the Petition. And the second, June 06, 2017, decision, which purportedly corrected such false designation, has never been entered in the court dockets.
However, the June 11, 2016 request states that there is no way to consider either of the two decisions, which had been issued on the Disqualification for a Cause, becoming unappealable: The first, May 29, 2017, decision is false on its face - it was entered in court dockets as a "Judgment" on the Petition. And the second, June 06, 2017, decision, which purportedly corrected such false designation, has never been entered in the court dockets.
B. Ludicrous petition, pertaining to the purported authority of the Attorney General and the State Attorney to pervert expert witness affidavit in a murder case
The matter, which is under review in the petition is ludicrous to start out. In Roman Zadorov murder trial in the Nazareth District Court, the Prosecution claimed that Zadorov confessed the murder of 13.5 Tair Rada, and that he confessed that he perpetrated the murder using a Japanese cardboard knife. Zadorov denied that he had ever confessed the murder, but judges of the Nazareth District Court have purportedly decided that he had confessed. The knife had never been discovered.
However, senior forensic medicine expert, Dr Maya Forman testified in the Nazareth District Court that the murder was not perpetrated using a Japanese cardboard knife at all, but a serrated knife. Her testimony seriously undermined the integrity of the Prosecution's case.
To counter Dr Forman's testimony in the Nazareth District Court, the Prosecution claimed in that Dr Chen Kugel, Head of the National Forensic Medicine Institute supported their position regarding the murder tool. However, the Prosecution failed to have Dr Kugel take the stand, and also failed to file an affidavit on his behalf.
Regardless, the Nazareth District Court purportedly accepted Dr Kugel's hearsay testimony.
The State Prosecution did not stop at that, but issued an instruction that Dr Forman was no longer permitted to provide expert forensic opinions in the courts.
In response, Dr Forman filed a separate lawsuit, claiming employment discrimination. In an effort to defend State Attorney Shai Nitzan's conduct, State Attorney's office asked Dr Chen Kugel to file an affidavit, supporting the purported fallacy of Dr Maya Forman's testimony in Roman Zadorov's trial in the Nazareth District Court, and also supporting their decision to prohibit her appearance as an expert witness in the courts.
However, Dr Kugel produced an affidavit to the opposite effect: Supporting Dr Forman's testimony in favor of Roman Zadorov in the Nazareth District Court, and also opposing the retaliatory actions against her by the State Attorney Shai Nitzan. The State Attorney's office was obviously unhappy with Dr Kugel affidavit, and tried to pervert it. However, Dr Kugel refused to change the affidavit, which eventually was also filed in Zadorov's Supreme Court appeal.
Later, in a media interview, Dr Chen Kugel stated that he was afraid of retaliation by the State Attorney against him as well...
Figures. Dr Chen Kugel, Director of the National Forensic Institute, refused to pervert his affidavit, pertaining to the Roman Zadorov case, regardless of pressure by senior State Attorney's office. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shai Nitzan hold that they are permitted to change affidavits of state employees, in order to better serve the state position in court.
_____
Figure. Attempted perversion of Dr Kugel's affidavit. Top: Dr Kugel's affidavit regarding the knife used in the murder of Tair Rada and Dr Maya Forman's testimony in Roman Zadorov's trial, with "corrections" by a senior State Attorney staff member, Attorney Dorit Drori Yifrache. Center: July 29, 2014 email from Attorney Dorit Drori Yifrache to Dr Chen Kugel, which accompanied the "corrected" affidavit, concludes: "The authority to determine, which are the relevant positions to be included in court records, which are filed in court, is held by the Attorney General and his designees, and not by each individual state employee". Bottom: July 29, 2014 response email from Dr Chen Kugel to Attorney Dorit Drori Yifrache of the State Attorney's office concludes: "My position remains as stated in my original affidavit, which was filed this morning with your office".
_______
Minister of Health Yael German, under whose office the National Forensic Institute is operating, was also named one of the Defendants in Dr Maya Forman's employment discrimination case. However, Minister German refused to support the Attorney General's and State Attorney's position as well. Instead, she issued a letter stating that the Attorney General's and State Attorney's position, pertaining to Dr Maya Forman: “...lacks legal foundation and carries overarching and dangerous implications... blatant violation of Human Rights, the fundamentals of law and justice...”
C. Roman Zadorov - the Ukrainian Mendel Beilis in Israel
Regarding the prosecution and conviction of Roman Zadorov in the murder of Tair Rada, senior criminal law professor Boaz Sangero wrote:
Conviction with no real evidence.
And senior criminal law expert, one of the founders of the Israel Democracy Institute, professor Mordechai Kremnitzer wrote:
Conduct of the prosecution is scary. It is not the conduct of Prosecution, which is seeking the truth... When one adds to that the Supreme Court's position and the Attorney General's conduct in recent years, one is left with a justice system that is primarily defending itself.
In a nation of 8 millions, over 250,000 citizens are registered in social network groups that support Roman Zadorov's innocence, call for true investigation of Tair Rada's murder, and for criminal prosecution of police and state prosecution officers, who were involved in the case.
Criminal complaint was also filed with the Attorney General against the Nazareth District Court Judges, who perverted the process and records in Roman Zadorov trial. However, the Attorney General refuses to authorize investigation of the judges.
To this date, there is no valid judgment record in Roman Zadorov's case in the Nazareth District Court's file.
To this date, there is no valid judgment record in Roman Zadorov's case in the Nazareth District Court's file.
_______
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court - Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham’s January 25, 2016 Decision on request to inspect lawfully made judgment records: “These are not requests to inspect, but an investigation, which the Requester is conducting, pertaining to validity of Net-HaMishpat system [case management system of the Court] and various claims regarding conduct of the judicial panel in this case. In such matters this court shall not engage.”
_______
Senior criminal defense attorney Avigdor Feldman, who served as Roman Zadorov's pro bono counsel in the Supreme Court appeal wrote that Zadorov's judgment records "were lost in the wailing wind across the Jezreel Valley" (which the Nazareth District Court overlooks).
The statements by the Minister of Health, by legal professionals (only a few were copied here) and public reactions to the conviction of Roman Zadorov are unprecedented in expressing total loss of trust in integrity of the Israeli justice system and the courts.
There is no doubt that the Roman Zadorov affair is a historic landmark in corruption of the Israeli justice system. However, it is far from over yet. And each new turn of this affair produces new evidence of incompetence or corruption of the courts.
And yet, the Supreme Court goes on with such conduct, as if unaware of experts' and public opinion of the Supreme Court itself. It appears that the Supreme Court, knowingly or not, is following Tacitus' old maxim: Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity.
C. June 09, 2017 Request for receipt of a duly signed and certified copy of a duly made and entered decision on the Disqualification for a Cause
Following is the request for receipt of a duly signed and certified copy of a duly made and entered decision on the Disqualification for a Cause. The request was filed on June 09, 2017, and entered in the court file on June 11, 2017. So far the Supreme Court has failed to respond on the request.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
Ometz v Attorney General et al 5514/16
Requester of Inspection: Joseph Zernik, PhD
OccupyTLV
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Fax: 077-3179186
Email: joseph.zernik@
Urgent repeat request for receipt of a duly signed and certified copy of a duly made and entered decision, pertaining to disqualification for a cause
The Requester of Inspection in instant court file, Joseph Zernik, PhD, files herein an urgent repeat request for receipt of a duly signed and certified copy of a duly made and entered decision, pertaining to disqualification for a cause, for the following reasons:
1. On May 22, 2017, my Disqualification for a Cause, filed in the ancillary process of request to inspect was entered in instant court file. The Disqualification originated in the judicial panel’s conduct, which was perceived as gimmickry, lacking in sincerity and integrity: Access to inspect the original records of the February 19 ,2017 Decision and Conditional Decree, which had been published, was unlawfully denied. Instead, unsigned, invalid printouts from the electronic record system were mailed out. Moreover, the judicial panel had refused to rule on repeat requests to exercise in the paper court file of the inspection in the court file in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law - “a fundamental principle in any democratic regime… constitutions, supra-statutory”.
2. On May 29, 2017, “Judgment” was entered in the main process - “Petition for a Conditional Decree” - purported decision on the Disqualification for a Cause.
1. On May 22, 2017, my Disqualification for a Cause, filed in the ancillary process of request to inspect was entered in instant court file. The Disqualification originated in the judicial panel’s conduct, which was perceived as gimmickry, lacking in sincerity and integrity: Access to inspect the original records of the February 19 ,2017 Decision and Conditional Decree, which had been published, was unlawfully denied. Instead, unsigned, invalid printouts from the electronic record system were mailed out. Moreover, the judicial panel had refused to rule on repeat requests to exercise in the paper court file of the inspection in the court file in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law - “a fundamental principle in any democratic regime… constitutions, supra-statutory”.
2. On May 29, 2017, “Judgment” was entered in the main process - “Petition for a Conditional Decree” - purported decision on the Disqualification for a Cause.
3. On June 07, 2017 my request for receipt of a duly signed and certified copy of such record was entered. The request noted that there was no way to ascertain, whether such record was an authentic court record, or merely a “draft”, and noticed the Court of the serious double perversion in such record: a) The judicial panel had not disposed of the Disqualification. b) The entry of “Judgment” in the main process effectively disposed of the main process. Any further motions and decisions would be only post-judgment processes… (Figures 1)
Figures
1.
From
right: February 27 “Decision”
on “Request to inspect court file”; May 03 “Decision”
on “Request by State for extension”; May 29 “Judgment”
on “Petition for conditional decree”.
_______
4. On June 07, 2017, I received by fax a “Decision” record, pertaining to “May 22, 2017 Disqualification”, the end of which says: “Rendered on May 29, 2017”, “Amended on June 06, 2017”. (Figures 2) Such record is also perverted on its face, since the Requester of the Disqualification still fails to appear in its header. It also failed to be entered in the “Decisions Docket” in instant court file in the electronic public access system, while the perverted “Judgment” remained entered, with no note of its amendment. Similarly, while the rendering of the “Judgment” and its sending to the parties were entered under “Events”, the rendering of the “Decision” and its sending were not entered. Additionally, the “Decision” record was faxed unsigned, with no authentication letter, from an unidentified fax number (transmission of judicial and legal records from unidentified fax numbers is considered defective in many jurisdictions. [1] However, to the best of my knowledge it has never been addressed in Israeli law.) Therefore, such transmission cannot be deemed due service, and such “Decision” record cannot be deemed an authentic court record at all.
Figures
2. “Decision” on “May 22, 2017
Disqualification for a Cause”, which was received on June 07, 2017,
from an unidentified fax number, with no authentication letter, and
fails to appear in the “Decisions Docket” in the electronic
public access system: R) Page 1 – the Requester of
Disqualification fails to appear in the record header. L) Page
3 – the record is unsigned, and bears the disclaimer: “subject to
editing and phrasing changes”.
______
5. Both the “Decision” and the “Judgment” note in their end:
The Office of the Clerk shall bring up the file for review and rendering of decision on the May 15, 2017 motion, once the Decision (re: Disqualification) become unappealable.
However, in view of all the above, a serious vague and ambiguous circumstances were created in instant court file, regarding both decision in the disqualification in the ancillary process and judgment in the main process. Neither of the two above referenced records can be deemed disposing the Disqualification in instant court file.
6. Inexplicable conduct of the judicial panel in instant court file is perceived as inseparable from:
a) Denial of access to inspect the original decision records in the paper court file from the Nazareth District Court – State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) – which was then held by the Supreme Court, under the pretext of “jumble” in the court file.
b) Conduct of the Supreme Court in the appeal file - Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) – where the Supreme Court initially denied access to inspect, and eventually it turned out the appeal was conducted with no duly made and entered judgment of the lower court.
c) General conduct of the justice system in the Roman Zadorov affair, which was described by Prof Mota Kremnitzer: “Conduct of the prosecution in the Zadorov file is scary… when the Supreme Court’s stance and the Attorney General’s conduct in recent years are added, one is left with a justice system, which is primarily defending itself.”
Conduct of the judicial panel relative to the Disqualification for a Cause also raises serious concerns regarding competence of the judicial panel in instant court file, and competence of the Supreme Court as Court of Record.
7. Given my extensive experience in this matter, I find it necessary to state that my request is to receive by paper mail a copy of a duly made and entered, signed original from the paper court file of a record, which is deemed by the judicial panel in instant court file as a valid court record, which disposes the May 22, 2017 Disqualification, bearing a lawful certification with the stamp, “True Copy of the Original” (and not “Copying is True to the Original”, etc), hand-signed by a duly appointed Chief Clerk, or the Magistrate of the Court (and not by others, unauthorized persons, in their own names, or on behalf of others).
The Court should provide the filer of Disqualification a duly made and entered, signed and certified copy of a decision on the Disqualification for a Cause.
Today, June 09, 2017 ______________
Joseph Zernik, PhD – Requester of Inspection
_____________
[1] UETA - Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
LINKS:
[1] 2015-12-15 The Zadorov Affair: False murder conviction of a Ukrainian exposed massive corruption of the Israeli justice system, OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Zadorov-Affair-False-by-Joseph-Zernik-Exoneration_Israel_Judicial-Corruption-And-Pedophilia-151215-702.html
[2] 2016-07-12 ROMAN ZADOROV - the Israeli Mendel Beilis, , OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/articles/ROMAN-ZADOROV--the-Israel-by-Joseph-Zernik-Israel_Judicial-Corruption-160712-535.html
[3] 2016-08-19 Roman Zadorov affair: A court, which refuses to certify its own decisions, is certified corrupt! OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Roman-Zadorov-affair-A-co-by-Joseph-Zernik-Israel_Judicial-Corruption-160819-829.html[4] 2017-04-17 Roman Zadorov affair and arbitrary arrests in Israel - serious violations of the right for Liberty, OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Roman-Zadorov-affair-and-a-by-Joseph-Zernik-Judicial-Corruption-170417-259.html
