Israel: Supreme Court Presiding Justice Asher Grunis refuses to explain the appointment of new “Chief Clerk”

Joseph Zernik 

Reminder has been sent to Israeli Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, pertaining to request for a copy of the appointment record of Ms Idit Meloul as the Supreme Court’s new “Chief Clerk”. [1]

Presiding Justice Grunis, who had previously responded on a number of letters pertaining to the office of Chief Clerk, failed to respond on a February 19, 2014, request for Melloul’s appointment records. [2]

Ms Melloul had previously appeared on the web site of the Supreme Court as “Assistant Chief Clerk”. The same web site has recently started listing Ms Melloul as “Chief Clerk”. Yet, no appointment record has been found in the official registry, nor was any media report been found of such senior appointment. Presiding Justice Grunis has also failed so far to respond on the matter at all.

Absent clarification by Presiding Justice Grunis, the most plausible explanation is that the false appearance of Idit Meloul as “Chief Clerk” is the default follow-up for the false appearance of Ms Sarah Lifschitz in the same office over the past decade. [3]

On October 15, 2013, a criminal-fraud complaint was filed against Asher Grunis, relative to the false appearance of Lifschitz as “Chief Clerk”. [4]

On October 31, 2013, “Chief Clerk” Sarah Lifschitz “departed” from the Supreme Court.

During the decade of Lifschitz’s false appearance as Chief Clerk, numerous Supreme Court records were forged and falsified, and conduct of simulated process has became a routine. [5-7]

During the same decade, all decisions of the Supreme Court have been served:

* Unsigned by the judicial authorities,

* Uncertified by the Chief Clerk of the Court,

* Bearing the disclaimer “subject to editing and phrasing changes”, and

* With no authentication letter from the Office of the Clerk.

Such records cannot be deemed by a reasonable person as valid and effectual court records.

Following Lifschitz’s departure, Presiding Justice Asher Grunis first refused to disclose who held the authorities of Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. [8]

Presiding Justice Grunis also failed to provide:

* Appointment records of “Chief Clerk” Sarah Lifschitz;

* Appointment records of “Head, Pro Se Section” Attorney Danni Ben Tovim, and

* Valid certification “True Copy of the Original” of decisions, judgments of the Court.

The office of Attorney General Yehudah Weinstein has so far refused to respond either in the affirmative or in the negative on a request to authorize the investigation of the criminal fraud complaint against Presiding Justice Grunis in this matter. [9]

In Israel, as is the case in other courts, which originated in the English common law, the Chief Clerk is charged with the safeguard of the integrity of court records. Israeli courts had also ruled that a court with no lawfully operating office of the clerk is an incompetent court.

Yet, the entire affair has been so far blacked out by Israeli media, including:

* The filing of fraud complaints vs “Chief Clerk” Sarah Lifschitz and Presiding Justice Asher Grunis;

* The departure of “Chief Clerk” Lifschitz;

* The appearance of a new “Chief Clerk” Idit Melloul;

* The absence of documentation of lawful appointment of new “Chief Clerk” Idit Melloul, and

* Refusal of Presiding Justice Grunis to respond on the matter of Melloul’s appointment at all.

It should be noted that the resignation a couple of years ago of the Chief Clerk of the Israeli cabinet, Mr Natan Eshel, featured in the headlines prominently. [10]

The fraud in appearance of Ms Sarah Lifschitz as “Chief Clerk” of the Supreme Court was only part of the findings of the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the United Nations. The Human Rights Alert submission documented large-scale fraud in implementation of the new electronic-record systems of the courts over the past decade. Effectively, implementation of the systems amounted to abolishing the offices of the clerks of the Israeli courts. [11]

The Human Rights Alert submission was incorporated into the 2013 UPR report on Israel, with a note referring to “lack of integrity in the electronic records of the Supreme Court… in Israel.” [6]

Read more