Was there a conspiracy?

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.

I was alleging to be a victim of a plot to remove me from RAFAEL (Israeli Armament Development Authority), because I was a Whistle Blower.   An American citizen holding dual citizenship, Dr. Moshe M. Lavid, had allegedly networking with RAFAEL.  Apparently he collaborated with the State of Israel to defraud the people of the United States.   If you do read Hebrew, you might follow the links to pleading documents, filed at Israeli Courts.   The Cause of Action herein is libel, predicated under the provisions of the Israeli Law.
Stop Abuse HomePage
  The Israeli Nexus
dircontent of the entire site
For the best viewing result  TRIM  your browser
Seeking Representation
in New Jersey at USDC


Doron Tal v. Moshe Lavid (NJ, USA)
and
seven six employees of RAFAEL
Israeli Armament Development Authority

Ref.  Case 1184/97     Read the background storysecondary window
Lawsuit was filed January 1997 with the Magistrate Ct. in Petach Tikva (Israel)
disposed June 1998 to District Ct. in Jerusalem.

On May 24, 1999, case was partly denied by the District Court in Jerusalem, Docket No. 1360/98, on the ground that I had failed to prove that State employees had acted maliciously.
On June 13, 1999, the same court granted my motion to include a monetary relief over non-monetary damages.  Defendant, Dr. Moshe Lavid may file a defense over this amendment.
On July 13, 1999, I filed a civil appeal 4685/99 with the Sup. Ct. (Jerusalem)
I am pleading that the District Court overlooked testimonies and that the lawsuit was alternatively alleging negligience. Moreover, the lower court accepted a forged letter and had improperly barred me from bringing crucial evidence.
On Oct 5, 1999, the Court decided
The remaining dispute is over the amount of liability over non-monetary damage.
On Dec 13, 1999, the Court moved bakwards.
Then the Court realized that the expert's testimony on my behalf would show that the previous (May 1999) ruling was wrong!  Therefore Judge Ben-Zimra proposed (in fact forced) the two parties to file affidavits, provided that he would ignore the expert testimony on my behalf.
Next hearing is schduled for February 27, 2000.

On Feb 24, 2000, the parties reached an agreement.
Parties who have already filed affidavits agree to waive cross examinations.
Court decision:  Within 7 days plaintiff may file a response (2000 words affidavit) to rebute contended facts in respondent's affidavit, that concenrs his non-monetary damage.  Plaintiff may bring evidence generated before lawsuit was filed.  Plaintiff may file his sumation within 21 days, thereafter respondent may file his sumation within 21 days.  Feb 27, 2000, hearding is canceled.

Both parties were permitted and filed additional affidavits and sumations.
Complementary verdict was given on May 22, 2000, over which plaintiff has filed a complemantary appeal
  pending!

 
  • Pre-trial session held October 21, 1998.
      Hon. Judge Ben Zimra ordered:
    1. All parties should mutually discover documents, including Dr. Moshe Lavid.
    2. The trial would not be divided between liability and damage sessions, as usually required.
    3. There would be another pre-trial session to which subpoena would be sent to
        Dr. Moshe Marc Lavid, 110 Linwood Circle, Princeton NJ 08540, USA.
    4. Next pre-trial hearing was on December 3, 1998.
    5. Trial has started January 5, 1999.

    Follow up

    1. The State of Israel moved the Court for a closed door's trial.
    2. I objected and won, the trial would be held OPEN DOORS !
    3. On December 3, Dr. Lavid (first respondent) failed to appear.
    4. Depositions should be given in writings to the court before trial.
    5. The State moved twice:
      request to postpone whitness depositions was strictly denied.
      request to postpone deposition of Giora Shalgi was denied in part.
    6. The trial started January 5, 1999.  All eight defendants failed to timely provide written affidavits as their testimonies.  I (the plaintiff) timely filed my affidavit with more than sixty documents (appendix).  State Attorney (representing defendants 2-8) investigated me.  Defendants 1,2,4 and 7 failed to appear at this hearing session.  Defendants 3,5,6 and 8 were coerced by the court to testify as my whitnesses, i.e. against their will to testify.  At the end of this hearing State Attorney provided a false document claiming that I had faxed it.  I contended that this document had been doctored.  The court ignored my petition.  Later, I filed a complaint with the police that was also ignored by the court. 
    7. On February 15, 1999, defendants 2, 4 and additional two witnesses testified.
    8. On February 28, 1999, defendant 7 who had failed to appear on previous hearings testified lastly.  The court ordered the State Attorney to give me a few documents that they had refused to provide! 
    9. On March 16, 1999, the court ruled in part against defendant 1 (Dr. Lavid).
    10. On May 24, 1999, partial decision was given.
      The court denied my claim over malicious actions of State employees, considering that I had not filed my lawsuit over neglegience (even though I did).  Moreoevr, the court again disregarded the allegedly forged documment that had been filed on behalf of State employees.  Court counted it as addmissible evidence and absolutely overlooked my complaint over perjury and fraud had been timely filed by me at the police (see above at par.6).
      I was granted to amend my lawsuit over defendant 1 - Dr. Moshe Lavid - solely.
    11. On July 13, 1999, I filed an appeal from the above partial decision with the Israeli Supreme Court     Still Pending . . .
    12. The proceeding against Dr. Lavid continued.  On Oct 5, 1999, the court denied Dr. Lavid's numerous motions, and advised the parties to agree that there was no dispute over the my claimed facts, i.e. Dr. Lavid has damaged my reputation (libel).  The remaining legal question is the liability, amount to be paid due to this damage.
    13. On Dec 13, 1999, the Court abstained from accepting an expert testimony on my behalf and advised the parties to file both affidavits.
      Hearing was scheduled, Februay 27, 2000.
    14. On Feb 24, 2000, the parties reached an agreementStay tuned. . .
  • Herein a flashback commencing with the first preliminary hearing session.

    1. Respondent number one, Dr. Moshe Lavid, received this lawsuit on about September 13, 1997.   He may have filed an answer within thirty (30) days, but he failed to do so.   Based on the Civil Procedure, I moved the court for a pre-trial verdict in my favor.

    2. On December 28, 1997, Hon. Judge Nira Diskin denied my motion, based on a mysterious photocopy of a handwritten response, signed Dr. Moshe Lavid, and apparently filed December 23, 1997.   The court disregarded that the answer was served untimely; that it lacked affirmative defense and that it was never served on the parties as required by the Civil Procedure.   Hon. Judge Nira Diskin ruled that based on this answer there was no ground to ask for a pre-trial verdict.

    3. On January 12, 1998, Judge Nira Diskin approved an Ex-Parte motion of the Israeli State Attorney moving the court to postpone the hearing scheduled January 15, 1998.   The State of Israel falsely based its motion, saying that Dr. Moshe Lavid, had not been located and that he had not filed an answer yet.
        Has Judge Diskin suppressed evidence in order to bar my rights for the due process of law?

        Quite surprisingly Judge Diskin approved the false motion of the State of Israel.   Shy must have known it was factually incorrect (if I may use a polite language).   Hon. Judge Diskin recklessly disregarded her previous (see above) December 28 decision. She knew that there had been an answer filed by Dr. Lavid.   A notice of postponement has never been served by the court on the parties.

      Accordingly the January 15 pre-trial hearing was held as scheduled.

    4. However, all respondents failed to appear at this session and the Judge couldn't care less.

    5. Hon. Judge Diskin concluded the Jan 15 hearing with three double spaced pages of (peculiar) decisions (as if she did not understand my attitude) and therefore I attempted to appeal her decision.   My attorney (E. Ziegler from Jerusalem) filed a motion to appeal, 1432/98 at the District Court in Tel Aviv (see below).   We asserted that the lower Court failed to act timely according to the Civil Procedure, first with respect to venue.   The lower court remained silent over lack of appearance of respondents.   Lastly, the lower court did not let me to add fees according to the claimed amount of monies as literally written in my original lawsuit.

    6. On February 1, 1998, my motion to appeal was denied.   Hon. Judge Hila Goerstel at the District Court in Tel Aviv concluded that there was no reason to seek a response.   According to Reg. 406(a) of the Israeli Civil Procedure the motion to appeal should be denied.

    7. On February 19, 1998, my attorney's secretary received an odd telephone call from Roni, at the office of Hon. Judge Nira Diskin.   She informed that "Judge Diskin would be ill," and therefore, there would be "no hearing session on March 30, 1998." [sic]

    8. On March 3, 1998, Hon. Judge Nira Diskin made a decision, saying that the pre-trial hearing session should be held as scheduled, March 30, 1998.

    9. On March 5, 1998, Hon. Judge Nira Diskin revoked her recent decision and postponed the pre-trial, session would be held on July 15, 1998, because Dr. Moshe Lavid asked for a postponement.   I still wonder why this Judge ignored me, (the plaintiff) making her decision Ex-Parte.

    10. On about April 13, 1998, Hon. Judge Nira Diskin likely realized the mess she made, and then, she attempted to have an Ex-Parte call to my attorney, but he was on vacation.   Likely she wished to clarify our position to her (odd) decisions, also our response to the recent motion of respondent Dr. Lavid.   Ms. Sharon, the secretary of Judge Nira Diskin left a message to my attorney asking him to answer in writing on or before April 26, 1998.   This sounds quite odd to me (to say the least), because Judge Diskin had never asked our position when we were standing before the bench on January 15, 1998, and when all respondent failed to appear.

    11. On April 22, 1998, my response was served on the court and the parties by facsimile.
      1. With respect to international venue there is no dispute that the alleged actions were committed in Israel.   Dr. lavid (respondent 1) even admits it in his recent request at page 2.
      2. With respect to local venue, this court has already decided that it had jurisdiction over this case, although I (the plaintiff) had moved the court to dispose the case to Jerusalem.   Since I have moved the court to grant a higher monetary claim (over the limit of this court), it would be appropriate to dispose the case to a District Court in Jerusalem.

    12. On April 23, 1998, Hon. Judge Diskin decided that I should file another formal request if I wish to raise the monetary amount and dispose the case to the District Court in Jerusalem.

    13. On June 17, 1998, the Case was finally disposed to the District Court in Jerusalem, as I requested.
      The Docket No. is 1360/98, trial started on January 5, 1999.   See more
    My original lawsuit
    filed January 14, 1997:
    1. The 1st page
    2. The 2nd page
    3. The 3rd page
    4. The 4th page
    5. The 5th page
    6. The 6th page
    7. The 7th page
    An answer filed by the
    Israeli State Attorney
    on behalf of private persons:
    April, 20 1997
    1. The first page
    2. The 2nd page
    3. The 3rd page
    4. The 4th page
    5. The 5th page
    My counter response
    to this answer
    May 23, 1997:
    1. The 1st page
    2. The 2nd page
    3. The 3rd page
    4. The 4th page
    5. The 5th page
    6. The 6th page
    Dr. Lavid's Answer
    December 23, 1997:
    1. The 1st page
    2. The 2nd page
    3. The 3rd page
    Motion to Appeal
    the decisions of Hon. Judge Diskin
    1432/98, filed January 27, 1998:
    1. The 1st page
    2. The 2nd page
    3. The 3rd page
    4. The 4th page
    Motion to Appeal Denied
    by Hon. Judge Goerstel
    February 1, 1998:
  • The Denial


  • Prehearing Scheduled
  • March 30, 1998
  • July 15, 1998

  • Initial article about this case English, or Hebrew by Mr. Eyal Gutman
    was published in a local Israeli magazine "Kol Karmiel"  May 30, 1997


    1. This page is a follow up of a Case (LIBEL and Transgression of PRIVACY)
      initially filed with a Magistrate Court in Petach Tikva, Israel
      later disposed to the District Court of Jerusalem.
      Liability of RAFAEL's officers was partly denied (May 24, 1999) by Judge Ben-Zimra
      My pending appeal before Higher court was filed on July 13, 1999.

    2. See the follow up of a related Case 2-91/97   breach of employment contract
      at Regional Labor Court in Jerusalem, Israel, now pending in Haifa.

    3. I revoked my petition 3434/98  at the Supreme Court, sitting as the "High Court of Justice"

    4. Why should have the "High Court of Justice" covered-up corruption?

    Other cases of a conspiracy against civil servants:

    Ha`aretz: RAFAEL is ordered by Supreme Court, in the matter of Dr. Arnon Bone

    Ha`aretz: RAFAEL is condemned by Supreme Court, in the matter of Mr. Israel F.

    e-mail mePrivate comments  |  SIGN Guest Book  |  VIEW Guest Book

    Home Stop Abuse         Directory Directory         Seeking Representation in NJ

    This Page had been Hosted By  Geocities             Revised October 25, 2001

    WebSite Disclaimer