The online records of the Ashkenazi petition show that the case was managed as simulated, invalid litigation from the start:
-
The "Events" list shows that payment of the filing fee was recorded on day one. However, the list fails to show the filing of the petition itself -- the commencing record.
-
According to Israeli law, Petitions for a Conditional Decree - request for original jurisdiction by the High Court of Justice - commence with the issuance of a "Conditional Decree" - equivalent of a summons, which establishes the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter. No conditional decree was issued in this petition to this date.
-
Already in the first "Decision" in the case, Justice Esther Hayut defined the process as "Preliminary" - a process with no foundation in Israeli law.
-
The "Decisions" list shows a series of records, including "decisions" and a "judgment". However, none of these records should be deemed a valid and effectual court record, since the Israeli Supreme Court for the past 10 years serves its decisions unsigned by the judicial authorities, uncertified by the Chief Clerk of the Court, with no authentication letter, and with the disclaimer "subject to editing and phrasing changes".
-
The "Hearings" list indicates that three "hearings" were conducted. "Clerks" are listed as sitting in each of these "hearings". However, Presiding Justice Asher Grunis has previously clarified that such people are not duly appointed "Clerks", but the justices' own legal interns, sitting as "clerks" on rotation.
-
The "Calendar of the Court" shows that two of the "Hearings" were jointly conducted for two case files, 2300/11 (Ashkenazi's petition) and 804/12. Moreover, the second of the three proceedings is listed twice under 804/12 under the same date, once as "postponed" (but with "Decisions" and "Certificates of Delivery"), and once as having taken place.
-
The "Related Cases" list shows uniting of the Ashkenazi petition (2300/11) with another case (804/12), as well as "Administrative Union" with yet a third case. However, the records fail to show who executed such transactions, by what authority, when, or on what legal foundation. The records show that the union of 2300/11 (purportedly still open) and 804/12 (now closed) was later reversed, with no details at all.
-
The "Decisions" list notes a "Judgment", and a copy of the "Judgment" record indeed appears among the online records of the Ashkenazi petition. However, it is a "Judgment" record, which does not address to the case itself. Counsel for Ashkenazi and his co-petitioners claims that it is "judgment", which is applicable only to case number 804/12.
-
The "Events" list notes the issuance of three "Summonses for a Hearing". However, the records of such "Summonses for a Hearing" fail to appear among the online records. Moreover, such "Summonses for a Hearing" have no basis in Israeli law (Regulations of the High Court of Justice).
-
Although the case was duly filed with the High Court of Justice, a series of "Decisions" by Justice Esther Hayut and Presiding Justice Asher Grunis were issued under the name of the Supreme Court -- the wrong forum.
The list of "Requests" shows that the requests by the Petitioners, are no longer numbered after number 30...
The Israeli High Court of Justice operates with no lawful Office of the Clerk -- an incompetent court
For over ten years, the Israeli High Court of Justice has operated with no lawful Chief Clerk. During these years, forgery and falsification of Supreme Court decision, and the conduct of simulated litigation, has become a routine.
Even on such background, the records in the Ashkenazi petition stand out in their invalidity.
With it, the deprivation of Due Process in the debtors' courts, through failure to serve decisions longer than 17 lines, continues unbridled during the three years that the Ashkenazi petition is purportedly being reviewed by the Israeli High Court of Justice.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
