Furthermore, the complaint suggested a motive for the alleged murder of Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen, missing from the 2002 complaint of Oholiva Peretz Izescu. The proposed motive was unlawful takeover of the Supreme Court's servers, previously under custody of the Chief Clerk.
The August 28, 2013 letter from the office of State Attorney states that the complaint was transferred to the office of State Prosecution. The letter should be viewed as affirmation that the complaints included sufficient valid substance to justify its review.
The appearance of "Chief Clerk" Lifschitz with no lawful appointment is not unprecedented. Over the past decade, appearance of senior Israeli government officers with no lawful appointments has been repeatedly documented. In no case were such officers criminally prosecuted. Effectively, such conduct was accepted as non-consequential.
However, the false appearance of Ms Lifschitz as "Chief Clerk" of the Supreme Court is unique, since it undermines the integrity of the Israeli justice system from its foundations. The Israeli courts themselves have ruled that a court, with no lawful office of the clerk is an incompetent court. Therefore, the Israeli Supreme Court should be deemed an incompetent court for over a decade!
The Complaint originated in Dr Joseph Zernik's attempt to file a petition for a conditional decree in the Supreme Court on April 15, 2013, under Dr Joseph Zernik v Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni and Director of the Administration of Courts Michael Spitzer (2689/13).
However, the office of the clerk refused to register some of Dr Zernik's papers, falsely registered others, never issued a conditional decree, and served on him unsigned, unauthenticated decisions, effectively denying him access to the Supreme Court and access to justice.
Therefore, while the process was still in progress, Dr Zernik wrote to the Presiding Justice, noting that he paid full court fees, and asked for fair and honest service in registration of papers he had filed in court, and Equal Protection under the Law.
In his responses, the Presiding Justice repeatedly referred Dr Zernik back to the office of the clerk.
Therefore, Dr Zernik wrote back to the Presiding Justice and asked that the Presiding Justice present the appointment letter of "Chief Clerk" Sarah Lifschitz. In his request, Dr Zernik explicitly detailed the evidence that Ms Sarah Lifschitz was NOT a lawfully appointed "Chief Clerk".
In
an August 5, 2013 response, the office of Presiding Justice Asher
Grunis stated:
"Ms Sarah Lifschitz, Chief Clerk of the Supreme
Court, was appointed in accordance with the customary rules of the
State Service for persons of her rank". [ xvii]
In his fraud complaint, Dr Zernik states:
"Such response by Presiding Justice Asher Grunis should be deemed false and deliberately misleading; information that was provided with the intent of having Dr Zernik rely on the authority and high rank of Mr Asher Grunis, so that Dr Zernik believe that Ms Sarah Lifschitz indeed was a lawfully appointed "Chief Clerk', that a lawful office of the clerk was in place in the Supreme Court, and that Dr Zernik was accorded Equal Protection under the law of the State of Israel."
It is difficult to believe that the Israeli justice system in general, and the State Prosecution in particular, are capable of addressing the complaints against "Chief Clerk" Lifschitz and Presiding Justice Grunis, which effectively implicate all Israeli justices since 2002 in complicity with unprecedented fraud on the people of the State of Israel by the Israeli judiciary.
G. Widespread corruption of the Israeli judges has been repeatedly documented over the past decade
Over the past decade, under the tenure of Presiding Justices Aharon Barak, Dorit Beinisch and Asher Grunis, the Israeli courts have experienced unprecedented corruption. A recent survey shows that only 22% of Israelis believe that Israeli judges do NOT take bribes.
Deputy Presiding Judge of the Tel Aviv District Court, Judge Varda AlSheikh, who routinely handled major corporate bankruptcy cases and "haircuts" to bondholders, was caught falsifying court records. Regardless of widespread public protest, the Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice patronized her against any material disciplinary actions, and she was permitted to continued sitting on the bench.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
