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 up conduct of the Attorney General, the State Attorney and the Supreme Court in the Roman Zadorov affair: "The justice system is primarily defending itself."
June 14 - the Roman Zadorov affair continues to reverberate through
the Israeli justice system, producing evidence of incompetence and/or
corruption. [1-4] The
Supreme Court has so far failed to respond in any way on a June 11,
2017, repeat request to provide a duly signed and certified decision,
pertaining to Disqualification for a Cause, which was filed
against three Supreme Court Justices - Yoram Danziger, Noam
Solberg and Neal Hendel - in the petition
Figures. 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 Christian 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 Court 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.