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.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
