Tal v. Civil Service Commissioner
The [wrong] decision of the Israeli Sup. Ct. 
|
Here, unlike in the courtroom, we uncover The Truth! The final decision brought herein is based on lies provided by the State Attorney, Dalit Gilo. There is a reason to believe that Hon. Judge Kedmi has likely had an ex-parte with her, or anyone else from that office. If true, then the Israeli judiciary system is administered by individuals, some of them place their personal and political agendas before the law. They would twist their own rules and regulations for the sake of obtaining unfair advantage over helpless citizens. |
Background
|
Anyone who reads my petition would realize that the following decision made by the Israeli Supreme Court is unfounded by fact and law. The court pretends that I was satisfied, although I have never been. I had requested a relief which they deliberately ignored. They wrongly concluded that the only request I made was to obtain the response of the Commissioner. Anyone who reads this petition would realize that I had clearly made a plea that the Commissioner ahould have replied timely, also I asked for legal expenses. Surprisingly, the court ignored:
Farewell Justice !!! |
English Translation of the final decision photocopy (Hebrew)
|
The Supreme Court Sitting as High Court of Justice
Before:
Hon. Judge J. Kedmi Hon. Judge D. Dorner Petitioner:
Petitioner sued the State, his employer, at the District Labor Court in Jerusalem. During these proceedings petitioner sent a letter to the Civil Service Commissioner, in which he raised several principal legal questions. Since the Commissioner falied to answer, this petition was filed on July 23, 1997, in which petitioner requested solely to instruct the Commisioner to answer petitioner's letter. About two weeks following the filing of this petition, an answer was served on the petitioner by the legal counsel of the Civil Service Commission. In view of this answer, and predicated on its content, the petitioner moved this court requesting to amend his petition. His motion was denied by Judge Kedmi, reasoning that the requested amendment is a new petition. However, Judge Kedmi let the panel who would deal with this petition, to consider again the motion for amendment, if the petitioner would choose not to file another petition. The petitioner apparently chose not to file another petition. We reconsidered his request to amend his petition and concluded that the was no reason to approve this motion, as Judge Kedmi had decided. In view of the chain of events, this petition should be denied, since petitioner was satisfied when the Commissioner's answer was given to him and he had not requested another relief in this petition. Obviously, petitioner may file another petition.
Given today 12 Heshvan, 5757 (November 12, 1997) The president Judge Judge Copy approved |
Hon. Judge Dorner's Order July 24, 1997
Original Hebrew HTMLbelow see a photocopy
Needless to say that
the State Attorney failed to answer timely as ordered.
The Final Decision - November 12, 1997
Original Hebrew HTML English translation
See below a photocopy
The first page
The second page
Why would the Supreme Court cover-up a deception?
|
The above decision is based on lies provided by the State Attorney! Here, unlike in the courtroom, we uncover The Truth! |
My attempt to obtain a hearing was denied without a reason
Appeal page 1
Appeal page 2
Herein the denial of my request for a hearing that has never been
Original Hebrew HTML see below a photocopy
