-
On May 22, 2017, my Disqualification for a Cause, filed in the ancillary process of request to inspect was entered in instant court file. The Disqualification originated in the judicial panel's conduct, which was perceived as gimmickry, lacking in sincerity and integrity: Access to inspect the original records of the February 19 ,2017 Decision and Conditional Decree, which had been published, was unlawfully denied. Instead, unsigned, invalid printouts from the electronic record system were mailed out. Moreover, the judicial panel had refused to rule on repeat requests to exercise in the paper court file of the inspection in the court file in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law - "a fundamental principle in any democratic regime" constitutions, supra-statutory".
-
On May 29, 2017, "Judgment" was entered in the main process - "Petition for a Conditional Decree" - purported decision on the Disqualification for a Cause.
-
On June 07, 2017, my request for receipt of a duly signed and certified copy of such record was entered. The request noted that there was no way to ascertain whether such record was an authentic court record, or merely a "draft", and noticed the Court of the serious double perversion in such record: a) The judicial panel had not disposed of the Disqualification. b) The entry of "Judgment" in the main process effectively disposed of the main process. Any further motions and decisions would be only post-judgment processes" ( Figures 1 )
Figures 1. From right: February 27 " Decision " on "Request to inspect court file"; May 03 " Decision " on "Request by State for extension"; May 29 " Judgment " on "Petition for conditional decree".
_______
-
On June 07, 2017, I received by fax a "Decision" record, pertaining to "May 22, 2017 Disqualification", the end of which says: "Rendered on May 29, 2017", "Amended on June 06, 2017". ( Figures 2 ) Such record is also perverted on its face, since the Requester of the Disqualification still fails to appear in its header. It also failed to be entered in the "Decisions Docket" in instant court file in the electronic public-access system, while the perverted "Judgment" remained entered, with no note of its amendment. Similarly, while the rendering of the "Judgment" and its sending to the parties were entered under "Events", the rendering of the "Decision" and its sending were not entered. Additionally, the "Decision" record was faxed unsigned, with no authentication letter, from an unidentified fax number (transmission of judicial and legal records from unidentified fax numbers is considered defective in many jurisdictions. [ 1 ] However, to the best of my knowledge it has never been addressed in Israeli law.) Therefore, such transmission cannot be deemed due service, and such "Decision" record cannot be deemed an authentic court record at all.
Figures 2. "Decision" on "May 22, 2017 Disqualification for a Cause", which was received on June 07, 2017, from an unidentified fax number, with no authentication letter, and fails to appear in the "Decisions Docket" in the electronic public-access system: R) Page 1 -- the Requester of Disqualification fails to appear in the record header. L) Page 3 -- the record is unsigned, and bears the disclaimer: "subject to editing and phrasing changes".
______
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
