Stop Abuse
The Israeli Nexus		 Stop Abuse  directory The Latest Info

Had RAFAEL been engaged with Energia?

  Doron Tal
v.
1. M.L. ENERGIA, Inc.,
2. Dr. Moshe Lavid
3. Ms. Nira Lavid
4. RAFAEL

Why should I not allege that
the Regional Labor Court in Jerusalem
made every effort to DELAY justice?

Ref.  Case No. 2-91/97  filed at at Regional Labor Court in Jerusalem, Israel

The case was later disposed to Regional Court in Haifa
following a year of improper proceedings!!!

Late Hon. Judge Doron Meiblum, The Chief of the Haifa Regional Labor Ct.
did let me file an affidavit and a proposal for a verdict
then he passed away on July 17th 1999 . . .   Rest In Peace Judge!

Respondent, Dr. Moshe Lavid, has ever been attempting to delay proceedings.
Following the two years that he had been unrepresented and never
attended at the court, he hired an attorney solely for the purpose of...
moving the court improperly.

On February 22, 2000, Hon. Judge E. Katzir issued a decision
barring the frivioulous motions on behalf of Moshe Lavid and his wife Nira,
ordereding them to pay my attorney N.I.S. 2,500 + VAT within 30 days.
The court ruled that it has jurisdiction over respondent
concerning my employment in the United States,
because the employment contract was made in Israel.

The State [higher] Labor Court denied their motion to appeal.

Respondents neither paid,
never appointed an attorney to represent them,
never filed an affidavit supporting their defense.

This court further ruled that
if they fail to appear at the forthcoming hearing (Oct 22, 2000)
then the court may give a final decision against them.

The Haifa labor court decided on Oct 16, 2000
that the hearing of Oct 22 is postponed to Dec 31, 2000.
This decision was based on an ex-parte communication by which
respondents' lawyer presented false information
pretending there was a pending motion to appeal.
Undeniably, their motion had been denied four months previously .

Court session of Dec 31, 2000.

On September 5, 2001, Hon. Judge Katzir has graciously granted the Lavids
an amended pleading for their defense,
BUT denied ALL their other motions and in particular to dismiss the case.

Hon. Judge Katzir ordered the parties to file affidavits
in support of their pleading documents.  However the Lavids
moved the national Labor Court for an appeal over Judge Katzir's decision. 

Their motion for an appeal was granted on Nov. 7. 

This appeal has been heard on Jan 22, 2002,
but there is no official written record of the hearing. . .
after which the National Labor Court reversed on April 4, 2002,
the decision of the Regional Labor Court in Haifa
had given on Sept. 5, 2001. 

On July 9, 2002, I filed my petition with the Israeli Supreme Court,
sitting as High Court of Justice - BAGATZ 5980/02.

Stay tuned!

Stop Abuse
The Israeli Nexus		 Stop Abuse  directory The Latest Info

If the facts as delineated through this page are correct, then fraud has extended into all aspects of life and each group of carpet-baggers covers for the others.

The background story

The cause of action of this lawsuit is a breach of employment contract in the United States.   M.L. Energia Inc. (a New Jerseyan firm) petitioned for my employment as an H-1 alien, asserting it would pay my wage jointly with RAFAEL (the State of Israel).   M.L. Energia, Inc. failed to employ me and to pay my wage as agreed.   Hence this lawsuit at Labor Court in Israel.

Lawsuit and Response

  • Below are pointers to GIF files, photocopies of Hebrew legal documents.
  • Your browser would open a secondary window to view these files.
  • Return to this page by selecting the primary window
  • use browser forward/back on the secondary window to review pre-loaded pages.

Lawsuit (a draft copy):
  1. The 1st page
  2. The 2nd page
  3. The 3rd page
  4. The 4th page
  5. The 5th page
  6. The 6th page
An answer filed by the
Israeli State Attorney
on behalf of RAFAEL:
  1. The 1st page
  2. The 2nd page
  3. The 3rd page
  4. The 4th page
Dr. Lavid's Response
on behalf of respondents 1-3:
  1. The first page
  2. The 2nd page
  3. Appendix unavailable

Case is disposed to Haifa!

Follow Up

Lack of an answer (issue closed)

  • I asked the court for a pre-trial verdict in my favor.   At least two respondents (the firm and Ms. Lavid personally) have failed to file a timely answer.   Magistrate Tweina decided that there was an answer filed by Dr. Moshe Lavid, on behalf of all the three.   Accordingly, this motion should be denied.   I appealed before the Court. After that -
    • Dr. Moshe Lavid and Ms. Nira Lavid failed to appear at the session of appeal held on January 8, 1998, before Hon. Judge Tivon.
    • Hon. Judge Tivon ruled that the response filed by Dr. Moshe Lavid may be deemed as a response on behalf of his firm, M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. and on behalf of his wife (Ms. Lavid) - his business partner and an organ of the firm.   Accordingly, no verdict in my favor (the plaintiff) might be issued at this time.   Therefore, a preliminary hearing should be held before a Magistrate Judge ... but they forgot to schedule it.
    • A State Attorney (Ronit Antabi-Shefran working for the State of Israel) was not representing M.L. Energia, Inc. or its owners.  She however insisted to appear.  Hon. Judge Tivon replied her (off the protocol because her question was not an issue) that RAFAEL might be a deponent.  There were apparently working relations between the State and and me as its employee during my sabbatical leave.  Lastly, the Court ruled that I should pay for the apperance of the State Attorney, although she was not invited and she was absolutely not a side to this issue.

    Failure to appear (issue closed)

  • Dr. Moshe Lavid and Ms. Nira Lavid failed to appear at the following pre-hearing session on January 8, 1998, held before Magistrate Tweina.
    • The Magistrate decided that he had no authority to rule.   Therefore, the case should be disposed before a panel, a senior Judge and two public representatives.
    • I have appealed from the above decision.
    • Hon. Judge Tivon ruledGif that Magistrate Judge should have decided what the disputed facts.   Regardless, this question has never been pinned down by the court.
    • Therefore, I filed a motion to appealGif before the National Labor Court, seeking to obtain a decision in my favor based on lack of appearance of the Lavids and the lack of an affirmative defense (their filed answer lacked merit IMHO).
    • Hon. Judge Steve Adler, President of the National Labor Court decidedGif that he would not intervene, but he wished the Regional Court would schedule soon hearing sessions.   Two weeks later a hearing session was schduled June 17, 1998

    The nexus with RAFAEL and related cases.

  • I have shown (off the record) before Magistrate Tweina that I hold prima facie evidence.   The Israeli State Attorney outraged.   She realized that the U.S. Administrative Court had already decided that the State of Israel collaborated with M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. for the purpose of employing me in the United States, during my sabbatical leave.   Moreover, this employment at Energia was unlawful likely.
  • RAFAEL may have 30 days to show it had no affiliation with M.L. ENERGIA, Inc.
  • I would have additional 30 days to contend RAFAEL's motion (if and after the State moves).
  • This file would be reviewed by the Magistrate Judge Tweina on February 15, 1998.
    1. On February 12, 1998, the State of Israel moved the court (file 1153/98, page1Gif, page2Gif ) to dismiss RAFAEL from the Caption as being a party.
    2. Magistrate Judge Tweina disposed the file to Hon. Judge Tivon.
    3. Hon. Judge Tivon decided on February 17, 1998, that I might file a reply within 10 days.
    4. My reply was filed February 25, 1998; ( page1Gif, page2Gif, page3Gif, page4Gif ).
    5. Ignoring the precise content of my reply (I was citing my lawsuit), Hon. Judge Tivon decidedGif on March 8, 1998, to strike out the State of Israel as a party to this case, because (according to this Judge) I had failed to state (in my lawsuit) the relief I was seeking from the State.
    6. Accordingly, I have filed a motion to apeal, ( page1Gif, page2Gif, page3Gif, page4Gif page5Gif ) before the National Labor Court, contendeding that the decision of Judge Tivon was unreasonably given.   Literally I have stated in my lawsuit the relief that I was seeking from the State of Israel, and accordingly the State should be remained captioned as respondent in this lawsuit.
    7. On April 9, 1998, Hon. Judge, Steve Adler, President of the National Labor Court apparently grantedGif my motion to appeal.   The State of Israel may answer my appeal within fifteen (15) days, after which the National Labor Court would enter a decision whether the State of Israel should be deemed a deponent in this lawsuit.
    8. On June 14, 1998, Hon. Judge Aliassof has hastily denied my motion to appeal.   He based his decision on a precedent, irrelevant in my opinion.   In fact, I had the right to appeal without a motion, but the court erred disregarding this point too.
    9. Oct 25, 1998, petition 6694/98 is filed before High Ct. challenging imoproper dismissal of parties

    Delay tactic regarding Jurisdiction and Bail

  • On June 16, 1998, magistrate Judge Tweina postponedGif a preliminary hearing schduled June 17, 1998, because Dr. Moshe Lavid informed the court they would not attend the scheduled hearing (as they had done previously in January 1998.  Moreover, repondent had also moved the court to order me paying bail for his arival to Israel.  Magistrate Tweina decidedGif that if I did not object within 15 days, then I should deposit a bail.  The Magistrate did not mention the required amount.  He also decided that the issue of venue/jurisdiction should be decided by a judge.   Accordingly, proceedings were postponed unreasonably.
    1. My lawyer promptly responded objecting the motion for bailGif.
    2. Magistrate Tweina orders
    NIS 15,000 bail, although the issue of venue was still pending.
  • My lawyer appeals from the decision of the magistrate.
  • Lastly on October 18, 1998, Hon. Judge Ari Tivon after a year decided to dispose the case to the Haifa Regional Labor court instead of the Jerusalem Regional Labor Court.
  • Hon. Judge Ari Tivon failed to decide over the issue of bail, which was decided in my favor lastly.  I do not have to pay the unjustified NIS 15,000 bail, due to the wrong decision of the Magistrate Moshe Tweina.
  • After a year of proceedings . . . the Jerusalem Regional Labor Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction (due to venue), but it abstained revoking its previous improper decisions, imposing an unfair burden on me.
  • Judge Ari Tivon presiding at the Regional Labor Court in Jerusalem abused my motion

    Has Judge Ari Tivon presiding at the Regional Labor Court
    in Jerusalem made every effort to DELAY and OBSTRUCT justice?
    Or has he been misled by the nasty tricks of Dr. Moshe Lavid. . .
  • My motion before the Regional Labor Court in Haifa was filed Oct. 26, 1998.
  • Hon. Judge Doron Maiblum the president of the Regional Labor Court in Haifa partly granted Defendants' motion and postponed the May 18, 1999, pre-hearing session to June 24, 1999.

    Judge Doron Maiblum Chief at the Regional Labor Court in Haifa
    passed away July 17th 1999.  RIP judge . . .

    follow up

    • Related Cases

    My appeal over a related libel case is pending at the Supreme Court.
    Initially it was invoked at Magistrate Court in Petach Tikva Case 1184/97
    Read an article about it, either English, or Hebrew, by Mr. Eyal Gutman
    published in a local Israeli magazine "Kol Karmiel"  May 30, 1997
  • See follow up of this Case LIBEL  at Magistrate Court in Petach Tikva, Israel
    Case was partly denied by the District Court in Jerusalem, May 24, 1999.
    Appeal over this Case is pending at the Supreme Court
  • The criminal side of this Case 3434/98  Petition @ Supreme Court
    was dismissed by my request

    • WebSite Disclaimer  |  e-mail mePrivate comments  |  SIGN Guest Book  |  VIEW Guest Book

    Stop Abuse
    The Israeli Nexus    		 Stop Abuse  directory The Latest Info

    This Page had been Hosted By Geocities             Revised July 9, 2002

    WebSite Disclaimer