[עברית להלן]
2014-09-22 State of Israel v Rafi Rotem: Mounting evidence of perversion of justice and fraud upon the court, and inexplicable conduct of National Public Defender Yoav Sapir
An unreasonable response, both on its face and relative to its content was received yesterday from National Public Defender Yoav Sapir, relative to evidence of perversion of justice and fraud upon the court in the criminal prosecution of Rafi Rotem - the Tax Authority whistle-blower. In parallel, news today is that Rotem was declared "Knight of Quality Government" by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel. Law authorities continue their efforts to abuse Rotem, creating a parallel reality in the courts, disconnected from the real life reality, and providing patronage for high level government corruption...
[pic]
a. Rotem in one of the numerous false arrests. b. Purported Public Defenders - the sign of law-firm "Barkan & Simon:, which does not exist at all, according to Attorney Nir Barkan. Attorneys Itzik Sadeh purported to appear as Public Defender for Rotem with no Certificate of Counsel or appointment by the court, and purported to consent, without Rotem's knowledge or consent to conduct including the admission of evidence with no witnesses in the criminal prosecution. c. Judge Yael Pradelsky conducts a criminal procedure where Public Defenders appear and are changed in disregard of the provisions of the law, and where court decisions are not duly served at all. d-e. National Public Defender Yoav Sapir and Pro Tem Tel-Aviv Ditrict Public Defender Elkana Leist find no defect in the conduct of this criminal prosecution...
_____
OccupyTLV, September 22 - for over a decade the court have been abusing Rafi Rotem - the Tax Authority whistle-blower. And now, he is criminally prosecuted for "insulting public servants" - policemen and law enforcement officers, who falsely arrested him, abused him, beat him up, humiliated him, and denied him equal protection under the law filed complaints, which are the basis for the indictment in a criminal prosecution, which defies logic and the fundamentals of justice.
Moreover, mounting evidence shows perversion of justice and fraud upon the court in this prosecution, which includes, but is not limited to:
* Appearance and replacement of purported Public Defenders with no Certificate of Counsel and no lawful appointment by the Court;
* Conduct of prosecution where court decision are not served at all...
* Appearance of unauthorized Public Defender, who purportedly provided consent fo conduct, including the admitting evidence with no witnesses in a criminal prosecution;
* Failure to file any motion with the Court in over a year and a half since the filing of the indictment;
* Failure to receive the evidence from the Prosecution a year and a half after the filing of the indictment;
Notice, which was filed with the National Public Defender Yoav Sapir, regarding the conduct of purported Public Defenders, was answered yesterday in a letter from his office, which appears unreasonable both on its face and relative to its content.
Following is the complete reply on the National Public Defender's letter.
The inexplicable conduct of the Pro Tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender and the National Public Defender in the case of Rafi Rotem raises further concerns regarding their conduct in the case of Roman Zadorov. Zadorov was convicted of murdered and sentenced to life in prison, in a case which is widely seen as perversion of justice.
____
September
22, 2014
Attorney
Dr Yoav Sapir
National
Public Defender
By
Fax and by email
RE:
State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): Your response,
dated September 18, 2014 (no reference number), and additional
evidence of perversion of justice and fraud upon the court.
Your
response within 7 days is kindly requested. Time is of the essence!
National
Public Defender Sapir:
Yesterday,
I received by fax a letter from your office, dated September 18,
2014, pertaining to my letters to you, dated September 16 and 17,
2014.
Your
letter appears dubious both on its face and relative to its content,
and I again request your response:
a)
Your response does not look like a valid official communication by a
State office.
Your
September 18, 2014 letter appears defective: [1]
i.
The coat of arms of the State of Israel fails to appear on its top.
ii.
There is no reference number, as required in official government
communications.
iii.
The fax transmission header shows a false date of the transmission -
"December 23, 2013".
A
reasonable person would not find this paper a valid formal
communication from a State office.
I
request your clarification: Is the September 18, 2013 letter, signed
by Attorney Yishai Sharon, part of the official communications of the
office of National Public Defender Yoav Sapir?
b)
Your response fails to answer on the evidence for perversion of
justice and fraud upon the court in the case in reference.
i.
My relationship to Defendant Rafi Rotem:
As
I explained to Pro Tem District Public Defender, I routinely inspect
court files in various courts, as part of data collection for reports
on Human Rights in Israel. In this case, inspection was conducted
pursuant to a Certificate of Powers by the Defendant Rafi Rotem. In
such inspection I found evidence for perversion of justice and fraud
upon the court. It was and it is my duty to report such evidence,
regardless of my relationship to the Defendant. Therefore, your
failure to respond on the evidence itself is inexplicable.
ii.
Certificates of Counsel for Defendant are missing from the court
file.
In
my meeting with Pro Tem District Public Defender Leist, I noted that
there is no Certificate of Counsel by any of the Public Defenders,
who appeared on behalf of the Public Defender's office in this case.
In response, the District Public Defender repeatedly stated that the
Certificates of Counsel were in the court file.
Yesterday,
I inspected the electronic court file again from the terminal in the
courthouse itself, intended for use by parties, with help from
employees of the Office of the Clerk. No Certificates of Counsel were
found. I was also also informed that there was no paper court file
in this case, only electronic records.
Therefore,
the statements by the Pro Tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender in
this matter are false.
The
law in this matter is clear. "Ethics in legal practice" by
Gabriel Kling, published by the Israel Bar Association (2001), p 336,
says:
In
a criminal process, the Certificate of Counsel for defendant should
be in writing, or by a statement on the record during the hearing,
and the matter shall be written in the protocol.
I
request your response on this matter itself.
iii.
Unauthorized appearance of Attorney Itzik Sadeh and perverted May
26, 2014 Protocol and Decision records.
In
a hearing on May 26, 2014, Attorney Sadeh appeared on behalf of the
Public Defender's office with no authority at all. Pro Tem Tel-Aviv
District Public Defender and his assistant in fact admitted that
Attorney Sadeh himself had never been appointed as Counsel for
Defendant in this case. However, they claimed that Attorney Sadeh
was authorized to appear as a member in a "law-firm", whose
name they never explicitly stated.
No
evidence for the appointment of any law-firm as Public Defender in
this case was found, either in the court file, or in the District
Public Defenders' Book. For example, no statement was filed in court
regarding appearance of a law-firm and the names of its members, as
prescribed by law. Moreover, I have not found in the law any
permission for the appointment of a law-firm (as opposed to an
individual attorney) as a Public Defender.
Therefore,
claims in this regard by the Pro Tem Tel-Aviv District Public
Defender and his assistant should be deemed baseless.
Furthermore,
Attorney Nir Barkan denied that the law-firm of Barkan & Simon,
whose signs hang outside the entrance to the office of Attorney
Simon, existed at all.
On
May 26, 2014, Attorney Sadeh purportedly initiated and/or provided
consent for conduct, which includes admission of evidence with no
witnesses in a criminal prosecution, without the knowledge of the
Defendant and without his consent. [2]
People,
who were present in the hearing, failed to hear the words attributed
to Attorney Sadeh in this matter.
Attorney
Sadeh refuses to answer on Defendant's written request to examine
and/or correct the May 26, 2014 Protocol, relative to this matter.
[3]
The
electronic court file indicates that these records were never duly
served. [2]
Attorney
Sadeh also refuses to respond on Defendant's written request for a
copy of the May 26, 2014 Protocol and Decision as served, including
the corresponding authentication letter by the Clerk of the Court, if
served at all. [4]
The
Clerk of the Court refuses to answer on Defendant's written request
for a copy of the May 26, 2014 Protocol and Decision, certified "True
Copy of the Original".
Therefore,
he May 26, 2014 Protocol and Decision should be deemed perverted
court records, or simulated court records.
I
request your response on the authority, or lack thereof, in
appearance of Attorney Sadeh on May 26, 2014, as a Public Defender,
and integrity and validity of the court records of the same date.
iv.
Incorporation of Police Investigation files in the electronic court
file, while the evidence has not been provided to the Defendant yet.
As
I noted in my meeting with Pro Tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender,
the court had already been exposed to the evidence in this case. The
Pro Tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender claimed that it had not
happened.
Seven
(7) Israel Police investigation files are hyperlinked in the
electronic court file in this case:
Therefore,
the Pro Tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender's claims in this
matter are baseless.
The
Criminal
Court Procedures Act,
Article 77 says:
77.
(a) No evidence shall be filed by a prosecutor in court and no
witness shall speak, until the Defendant or his Counsel were
permitted a reasonable opportunity to inspect the evidence or the
statements by the witness in investigation, and to copy them, unless
they gave up such opportunity.
I
request your response on compliance with the provisions of the law,
or lack thereof, in this matter.
c)
Your letter cannot be accepted as a reasonable response in view of
the serious evidence for perversion of justice and fraud upon the
court in the case in reference.
The
Pro Tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender previously provided another
false response in this matter. In his September 15, 2014 letter he
says, "in examination, which we conducted with Mr Rotem, it
turned out that he had no grievance against his Counsel". Mr
Rotem denied that any such examination had ever taken place. [5]
Your
response in reference says, "clarification was conducted with
the Pro Tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender Dr Elkana Leist. The
clarification showed that no defect was found in the conduct of
attorneys, who were appointed Counsel for Mr Rotem...".
In
view of all the above, your response regarding the serious evidence
of perversion of justice and fraud upon the court in the court file
in reference cannot be deemed adequate. I request your response on
the matters, which were detailed above.
Truly,
Joseph
Zernik, PhD
________________
Human
Rights Alert (NGO)
OccupyTLV
