For the best viewing result TRIM your browser
|"Gin & Tonic" MIDI
| If you read this article, you may get a clue,
why the management of RAFAEL attempted to get rid of me. Was
there a nexus between RAFAEL (Israel) and
M.L. Energia, Inc. (NJ, USA)?|
Is there a reason to believe that some US officials from the Federal Government, a NJ Senator and a Congressmen were involved too.
|Objective:||neutralize a whistle blower|
|Means:||(1) impose an illegal employment in
the United States
(2) coerce resignation by a libelous letter
|By Whom:||M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. a small business firm in NJ, likely
collaborated with RAFAEL (Israeli Ministry of Defense)
|In 1988, the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice decided in the matter of Abraham Markowitch v. Commissioner of Civil Service (Sup. Ct. 453/87) [translated from Hebrew]: "we may not agree with the manner that respondent acted, filing complaints against an employee without letting his response. Either the material is irrelevant, and if so it must not be filed within a personal file, it should be returned to the sender . . . or if the material is relevant, then the person about whom a complaint was written must have a fair opportunity to respond; the complaint and the response should be filed" [in the same file].|
Mr. Doron Tal could not dream that he would ever lose his position at RAFAEL (Israel), when he left for a Sabbatical in the United States. Then he was serving as a project manager. Formerly he had been a system engineer and a senior research physicist in this institution.
Tal specialized in Electro-Optics and complex armament systems, successfully completed tough assignments at RAFAEL since 1977. He was quite certain that his future as a civil servant of the State of Israel was guaranteed, because RAFAEL had offered him future jobs that he accepted. These propositions were based on his proven management skills, specialization and proficiency. Tal's credentials are praised in many recommendation letters that had been filed in his personal file at RAFAEL.
Therefore, Tal was quite surprised to get an offer to resign from RAFAEL. It was about ten days after his wrongful dismissal from M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. - the American employer that allegedly had employed him illegally during his sabbatical from RAFAEL. Tal was shocked to get this offer when he was residing in New Jersey, quite far away from home in Israel.
Tal is alleging against his superior at RAFAEL who granted him an exceptionally long sabbatical leave (30.5 months). Mr. Shalgi had no authority to do so. It was a pre-planned plot to expel him away from RAFAEL, because he had had been a whistle blower. He had helped to expose flaws and corruption within the missile's division at RAFAEL. These allegations and others are the basis for the $1.2M lawsuit over libel that Tal filed with a Magistrate Court in Petach Tikva, Israel, Case No. 1184/97 (pending as of January 1997).
Tal's family arrived to the USA on August 13, 1990, and everything was fine apparently. Mr. Tal lastly worked as an H-1 (foreign expert worker) on November 15, 1991. There was a concocted dispute invoked by his American employer. On October 18, 1991, Tal and other research staff members, three individuals, were asked to accept 10 percent (10%) reduction in their salary. Although they did not agree to the salary reduction, M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. notified them on or about October 22, 1991, that there would be ten percent retroactive reduction in their salaries as of October 1, 1991. Tal continued to object the salary reduction on his own behalf, as the other staff members did. Lastly Tal received a notice from M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. on or about November 2, 1991, that he was terminated effective November 15, 1991. He was the only employee who has ever been dismissed by M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. Tal remained unemployed. His four children were learning in American public schools, the family had a rent agreement until August 1992, and their house in Israel had been already on a lease for the same period. Mr. Tal could not breach these contracts and he was reluctant to secure his family matters.
Tal was unable to leave the USA and return to Israel immediately. M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. (New Jerseyan small business firm) withheld his belongings and refused to pay his moving expenses back to Israel, as required under the provisions of U.S. Federal law, 8 U.S.C. Section 1184.
Ten days after his discharge from M.L. ENERGIA, Inc., Tal received a proposition to resign from RAFAEL. This had been allegedly plotted by Mr. Giora Shalgi, the head of Missiles Division in RAFAEL (at that time). Mr. Shalgi (or his colleagues) likely had networking with Moshe Lavid, the owner of M.L. ENERGIA, Inc.. Tal refused to resign, although RAFAEL gave him an ultimatum. He should have accepted his forthcoming resignation within less than a week. Then he was residing in New Jersey, quite far away from Israel. In his civil lawsuit (1184/97) Tal alleges against the manager of personnel, Ms. Dalia Pat, that she made it clear, had he refused to resign RAFAEL "would take care" of him, i.e. he would lose all the benefits, including the exceptionally long (30.5 months) sabbatical, and he would be fired at once, unable to acquire rights for a pension.
Tal pleads that the proposition to resign was made, because Mr. Giora Shalgi likely covered-up serious flaws in the Missiles Division that he had managed. Shalgi had wished to neutralize Tal likely because of the 1990 report issued by the Israeli Comptroller General. Tal had collected more evidence to support his allegations about these flaws. The crucial documents had been kept within a safe at RAFAEL, when Tal left to the USA. He may not have taken confidential material out of the plant not to say out of the country. These documents however were intentionally destroyed in 1993 by a "security officer" of RAFAEL.
In November 1991, Tal decided to stay in the USA at least until August 1992, and invoked in the United States legal actions against M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. Tal claims that this firm had fired him wrongfully. During these legal proceedings Tal realized that this American firm had intentionally failed to have on a file certification by the U.S. Secretary of Labor, as required for any foreign worker. In late 1992 Tal was informed about a libelous letter that the president of M.L. ENERGIA, Inc. likely had sent to RAFAEL. This letter hurt Tal and coerced on him an untimely resignation. Likely, the letter was mailed to the management of RAFAEL. More than twenty-five individuals have received it, although RAFAEL has already admitted that only fifteen individuals had read it.
Only on March 28, 1993, (more than a year after the resignation was imposed on him by RAFAEL) Tal made his acceptance. He had no choice knowing that a libelous letter had been intentionally put in his personal file in RAFAEL, neither letting him to read it nor to respond. It was in violating the internal regulations (Israeli Civil Service, Section 93.124).
Consequently, in May 1994, Tal filed a lawsuit against RAFAEL at the Regional Labor Court in Jerusalem. Tal demanded from RAFAEL to obtain the original libelous letter, to take it out of his personal file in RAFAEL, or alternatively to have a permission to file his response to this libelous letter. Tal predicated this former lawsuit on a decision of the Israeli Supreme Court, in a similar case. Tal claims that the libelous letter was filed intentionally in his personal file, without his knowledge. It was violating of the regulations, and it has adversely affected his position at RAFAEL.
On October 20, 1994, the Israeli State Attorney filed on behalf of RAFAEL a letter of defense (quite of late), denying entirely Tal's pleading. The State Attorney admitted:
During a preliminary trial session the State Attorney admitted that seven high ranked officers had read this letter, without informing Tal (the victim) about it. Tal concluded from this evidence that these seven individuals had violated the prohibition of libel and transgressed his privacy (interconnected two Israeli laws). Moreover, Tal realized that the letter had been treated improperly, and that it was circulated in violation RAFAEL`s internal regulations, the Rules of Civil Service, the instructions of the Commissioner for Civil Service, not to say the decision (453/87) given by the Israeli Supreme Court.
Following an agreement with the State of Israel (approved by the Labor Court December 1994), Tal realized that the State of Israel had had deceived him. There were more individuals who received copies of this letter. The State Attorney pleaded incorrectly. Then the Regional Labor Court reopened the case (14-240/95). Only then and because of the continuance of the trial the Israeli State Attorney admitted that there were additional seven individuals who had received a copy of this letter. Still Tal contended that there were more names, but RAFAEL suggested there might be additional two names. The final list of names was fifteen. Tal was advised to dismiss his motion for continuance at the Regional Labor Court. The case would be dismissed and RAFAEL would promtly let him review his personal file. Tal agreed. On December 24, 1996, he discovered in his personal file another libelous letter filed against him. Apparently six documents had been removed from this file and some documents had been altered.
Needless to say that the filing of these two alleged libelous letters violated the regulations of Israeli Civil Service, 94.123. According to Israeli law, the State may not be liable for a libel, only the individual(s) who allegedly made a libel might be liable. Consequently, on January 14, 1997, Tal filed a lawsuit against the person who wrote these letters, Dr. Moshe Lavid (the president of M.L. ENERGIA, Inc.), together with seven high ranked officers at RAFAEL. They allegedly abused these letters in an attempt to defame Tal. The lawsuit was filed in Petach Tikva Magistrate Court, Case No.1184/97.
Tal (50) married with four children lives nowadays in Karmielmap, Israel. He is compelled to seek alternative jobs after his coerced resignation, due to the libelous letter. Tal is unable to be employed elsewhere, within the small community of Israeli scientists engaged in Electro-Optics. Tal believes he might be modestly compensated, if he wins the lawsuit, filed January 14, 1997, by his lawyer, Eliyahu Ziegler. Mr. Tal claims an amount of $1.2M, as explained in his lawsuit. The seven employees of RAFAEL are represented by the Civil State Attorney, Tel Aviv, Israel. Their answer has been already filed.
Tal alleges against Dr. Moshe Lavid that he wrote two libelous letters, in an attempt to cause tangible harm to Tal, to defame him, to put him as a target of contempt and ridicule, and in particular, to induce his dismissal from RAFAEL. Mr. Giora Shalgi improperly used these libelous letters, by exposing them to RAFAEL`s management, in an attempt to remove Tal away from RAFAEL wrongfully. Tal was a whistle blower - he exposed flaws in the division that Shalgi has managed. Although Tal was seeking employment with OpGal, a small business firm in Karmiel a daughter firm of RAFAEL that manufactured products which Tal had developed, he was denied employment there. Likely, it was Mr. Shalgi who was a member in the board of OpGal's directors barring him to be accepted.
Tal alleges against Ms. Zehava Shmueli, the official addressee of the libelous letters that she had known that these two letters were untruthful, that the letters were schemed to defame Tal and adversely affect him. Regardless, Ms. Shmueli made copies of these letters and sent these to RAFAEL`s management but concealed it from the victim (Tal), in violation of Israeli Civil Service Regulation (93.124).
Tal alleges against Mr. Haim Datner: Datner sent one of these letters to individuals outside RAFAEL. By doing so Mr. Datner acted in collaboration with other respondents, like the personnel managers, Ms. Dalia Pat, and Ms. Ester Navon. Mr. Dan Dudiuk the legal counsel of RAFAEL allegedly misled Tal and collaborated with other respondents.
Tal alleges against Mr. Joseph Pankowsky as the Vice President of RAFAEL he was personally involved and responsible to this misconduct. Mr. Pankowsky has not prevented the circulation of the libelous letter, regardless of the Israeli law and Civil Service Regulations. Lastly, when Tal asked RAFAEL to obtain the libelous letter, in order to respond to it, he was absolutely denied by Ms. Ester Navon and Mr. Dan Dudiuk Esq.,. Likely they conspired against Tal together with Mr. Giora Shalgi and Mr. Joseph Pankowsky.
In their response (filed by the Israeli State Attorney), respondents claim:
Tal responded to the above that respondent's pleading should be dismissed. It lacked affirmative defense, as required by the rules, 85, 86 and 89, of the Israeli Civil Procedure (1984).
In conclusion, the seven respondents (2-8, represented by the State of Israel) moved the court to dismiss this lawsuit. The first respondent (Dr. Moshe Lavid) has never filed an answer at the time of writing this article. (Article published May 30, 1997. Lavid lastly filed his response on about December 23, 1997, -D.T.).
This is not the first case in which high ranked officers
at RAFAEL abused personal files of employees. The Israeli
Comptroller General has made her recommendation in this regard
within the 1990 Annual Report
(ibid. at page 879).
In an internal memo as of November 1993, the union of the Research Stuff informed that a complaint had been filed with Israeli police, under the provisions of Section 45 of the Civil Service Rules. In September 1993, Mr. Joseph Pankowsky informed to delegates from the union that RAFAEL`s management decided to dismiss four research staff members because they did not fit in their capacity, even though they had been employed more than 13 years in these capacities. Members of the union discovered that the personal files of these four employees were altered by replacing documents (in violation of the Civil Service Regulations).
However, all complaints made by the union were misapplied or ignored. Two of the four employees who were dismissed and then sued RAFAEL. The Regional Labor Court in Haifa found that they had been wrongfully dismissed. The State of Israel appealed to the National Labor Court and lost its appeal. During these proceedings it was discovered (inter alia) that the dismissal from RAFAEL was wrongful, but was made deliberately if not maliciously. The details of these proceedings may be a subject for long horror story.