00 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
LIVNI tells MERETZ: I won’t dismiss DISMISS JUSTICE MINISTER FRIEDMANN October 2, 2008 / By Haaretz, Mazal Mualem
(…) “YOU CANNOT TELL ME WHO TO APPOINT,” Livni told representatives of left-wing party Meretz. The Kadima leader added that SHE DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF FRIEDMANN’S REFORMS and that SHE WOULD BE OPEN TO DISCUSS HIS REFORMS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
Meretz MK Zahava Gal-On told Livni that “Friedmannism cannot exist without Friedmann [in office]” and that as long as he was justice minister, he would find ways to push his reforms forward.
Meretz has made the removal of Friedmann one of its key demands in entering a new coalition government under Livni while Labor insists that his reforms be put on hold. Kadima officials have said that if Livni agreed to remove Friedmann she would risk angering Vice Premier Haim Ramon, who would consider it a personal affront.
(…) But Labor Party sources say that talks with Kadima over forming a government are stuck. One point of contention has been the Friedmann issue.
JIWON:
This is exactly what I want to hear from Israeli Prime Minister TZIPI LIVNI. Then, people are talking about ‘FRIEDMANNISM.’ What is it? So, I started this collection. The rest of my message will be found in my Knesset-mail on Oct 2, 2008 in
JIWON: When is the best time to join FACEBOOK? (Regarding my Legal Business with Yeheskell Beinisch (Apr 22, 2008 to Present)
JIWON: In sum, I will travel ALL over the world and plead Palestinian Right to Targeted Killing of DORIT BEINISCH (Oct 2 – Dec 19, 2008).
Two Petitions to slam or support JM Daniel Friedmann Aug 13, 2007 / By Haaretz, Yuval Yoaz
(…) The authors of the petition “call on the minister of justice to manifest his responsibility toward the rule of law and democracy by altering his ways, and if this is not possible for him to do – then he should resign.”
In addition to the petition slamming Friedmann, a number of law professors on Monday released a statement in support of his actions.
The petition is very concise and contains basically one sentence. It states, “We, the undersigned professors of Law, request that the debate over the legal system be carried out in a practical manner without personal attacks, and we turn to Justice Minister Friedman to continue on his path to correct the deficiencies in the legal system and to strengthen the independence of judges.”
1. Daniel Friedmann: Everybody has misunderstood me! Saving the High Court from itself. (Aug 23, 2007 to Present)
2. Amnon Rubinstein: Danny acts in good faith. He will do nothing extreme. His remarks were directed against a certain frame of mind in the court. (Mar 8, 2007 to Present)
3. Supreme Court to Yaakov Ne’eman: This dog would not be allowed to leave deep scratches on the furniture. (May 09, 2004 to Present)
4. Professional Jurists say bla-bla-bla…
4-1. Moshe Negbi: Menachem Mautner recommends that judges make efforts to cite principles of halakha and Jewish jurisprudence in their rulings and that the judges recognize Israeli society today as a multicultural one.
4-2. Who will be the next?
06 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
COLLECTION WILL KEEP GOING.
I know… most Israelites are afraid of Dorit Beinisch and her Supreme Court whenever they have a chance to face Beinisch’s members in private. So, I will post private articles, which were written by Israeli citizens, when my collection of articles exceeds a certain number.
05 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
From Oct 2, 2008 in JIWON: When is the best time to join FACEBOOK? (Regarding my Legal Business with Yeheskell Beinisch, From Aug 6, 2008 to Present)
There is no Friedmann without Friedmannism Oct 2, 2008 / By Ha’aretz, Amos Schocken
(…) Ramon (…) In that case, it would be preferable for him to end his public career, as he considered doing after his trial. The second option is to put the incident behind him, bow before the system that prosecuted, judged and convicted him, and refrain from discussing it for a very long period, perhaps forever. If he does this, he will benefit on both the personal and the public level. But he will be able to do so only if the justice minister is not Friedmann.
JIWON:
Answer from the Haaretz This article made me wonder MORE and search for MORE about Dorit Beinsich. (Please see TALKBACKs below.) It took hours and hours to make this simple collection.
A Purge at Haaretz (Is Haaretz going to become another Bibi-ton? How long will it take? From Aug, 2006 to Present)
(Updated on OCTOBER 6, 2008)
JIWON:
Answer from the Haaretz, AGAIN!!! Therefore, I now know that I should stick to JM Daniel Friedmann. This will work MORE when Mr. Netanyahu takes over Olmert’s government. Hum… “The professor was never elected by the public”??? I will check this in FACEBOOK.
The hollow pyramid Oct 4, 2008 / By Ha’aretz, Ruth Sinai
(…) Israel will be the only country in the world with women at the head of all three branches of government: Livni of the executive branch, Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik of the legislative branch and Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch of the judicial branch. (…) German (in Herzliya), Feierberg (in Netanya), Livni, Itzik and Beinisch prove that women are capable. Only by electing additional women who can prove their abilities can the prejudices against female politicians be diminished.
04 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
The revolutionary professor Oct 6, 2008 / By Ha’aretz, Ari Shavit
Talkbacks for this article 4
1. Daniel Friedmann wants to turn Israel European style democracy 13:43 / shlomo / 06/10/08
2. A sad fact,Ari Shavit is obfuscating facts to suit his Left incli 15:23 / Absolute Sweden
3. This was not fair 17:43 / shlomo
4. It was v.fair,Aharon Barak attempted to change H.Court decisions 20:19 / Absolute Sweden
A few good words about Daniel Friedmann: The professor is honest, talented and determined. He has a solid, well-formulated and well-thought-out agenda. The combination of impressive personal capabilities and a vigorous agenda has turned the professor into the preeminent ideological leader of the first Kadima government. That same combination is liable to make him the dominant ideological force of the second Kadima government.
Because Friedmann is so colorful himself, he colors his surroundings. Just as he turned Ehud Olmert’s government into the Friedmann-Olmert government, he will also turn a Tzipi Livni government into a Friedmann-Livni government. There will be no way to calm or soften the professor or placate his opinions. Friedmann is not a believer in courtesy and good manners; he is a believer in leaving his stamp on the world through revolutions. Any government in which Prof. D. Friedmann serves as justice minister will be in his shadow. Advertisement
A few bad words about Daniel Friedmann: The professor was never elected by the public. The revolution he seeks to foment contradicts the platforms of both Kadima and Labor. Therefore, Friedmann’s theories contain an internal contradiction: The professor seeks to strengthen the political at the expense of the legal, but he is blurring and distorting the political. And his forgiving attitude toward governmental corruption intensifies the contradiction: He proposes replacing the law with public norms, but is emptying these norms of all content.
The professor is not conducting a dialogue with the legal system; he is attacking it. He is not trying to repair the justice system; he is undermining its foundations. His crusade threatens to destroy the protective walls that enable the courts to protect human rights, fight corruption and defend the individual against both governmental tyranny and the tyranny of the wealth-government nexus. Prof. D. Friedmann is working tirelessly to turn Israel’s constitutional democracy into a Berlusconi-style democracy.
A few pertinent remarks about Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak: The challenge facing them both is well known. Their ability to meet this challenge together is non-negligible. However, the preconditions for success are their ability to distinguish the important from the trivial, to focus their efforts and mobilize their forces.
Granted, this political duo currently faces more fateful questions than how to contend with the justice minister. Granted, the necessary solution to the problem of the justice minister will exact a price from them, both within their parties and in the media. But precisely for this reason, they must remove the stumbling block posed by the justice minister now.
It will be impossible to deal with strategic challenges and an economic crisis when the ideologue D. Friedmann is constantly skewing the agenda. It will be impossible to create a true partnership between Kadima and Labor when the revolutionary D. Friedmann is using the government day in and day out to storm Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch’s Bastille. If Livni and Barak want to build a stable political partnership, they must get rid of the third decision maker. If they lack the sense to turn the professor into a footnote, the professor will turn them into his footnotes.
There is no Friedmann without Friedmannism Oct 2, 2008 / By Ha’aretz, Amos Schocken
Talkbacks for this article 20
1. I am no expert on legal matters but … 15:31 / one of the riff-raff / 03/10/08
2. Support Friedmann , Livni Must Reject Meretz Extortions 15:32 / Joseph.E
3. amos and the schocking lack of knowledge 16:48 / victor hardman
4. Who`s who on the Supreme Court? 17:04 / Zev Davis
5. Zev Davis-social disruption 17:52 / bar kochba
6. #`s 1 to 4 all against the law! Friedmann`s accomplishment. 18:32 / S
7. #1-#4 support the destruction of Israeli democracy 19:14 / Yonatan
8. to Yonatan, no. 7 20:08 / one of the riff-raff
9. Schocken against something = the something`s good for Israel 22:26 / Absolute Sweden
10. Friedmann is the best thing that happened to Israel 23:31 / Sima
11. it is enough for me this article to give friedmann 23:45 / vladimir
12. Friedmann is not totally correct but … 00:07 / Gee 04/10/08
13. one of the riff-raff #8 01:39 / Sarah
14. Supreme court is terribly foolish 08:56 / Jacob
15. #14 the suprem court would not know law if it jumped and bit them 10:13 / victor hardman
16. Friedmann is good for Israel 13:26 / Eugene
17. Why, what a vengefull irresponsible ignorant …. 14:19 / Afflalo, Ya`ish
18. Olmert 15:39 / Mr Ipp
19. #18 mr ipp annd low quality leaders in politics 17:57 / v.hardman 04/10/08
20. Money, Journalism and the Israeli establishment 20:29 / Ilan
In an interview with the prime minister published in the daily Yedioth Ahronoth on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, both the interviewee and the interviewers did everything possible to sum up Ehud Olmert’s term in the most positive light. But Olmert said not a word about a key component of this term, and that is not surprising: Throughout his term, Olmert has consistently refrained from explaining one of his main policies – the war he waged on the Supreme Court and on the constitutional democracy that Israel has become, his harassment of the Supreme Court president, and his consistent and determined efforts to weaken, politicize and humiliate the Israeli legal system.
Why the prime minister made such a no-holds-barred war against the legal system – which, despite its shortcomings, is one of Israel’s most magnificent systems – part of his agenda remains a mystery. It is hard to avoid thinking that immediately after Haim Ramon’s conviction, these two friends, Ramon and Olmert, recklessly and arrogantly decided “to teach a lesson” to the legal system by appointing someone who had consistently criticized the prosecution and the legal proceedings against Ramon.
One has to understand Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann’s modus operandi. We do not know whether Olmert was familiar with it before placing this important portfolio in Friedmann’s hands, but Friedmann’s high intelligence, his legal knowledge, the personal charm that he knows how to use are all entirely subordinate to his burning hatred for the Supreme Court and its head, President Dorit Beinisch, and for the independence of the legal system. That is the center of his world, the main, and perhaps only, motive for his activity.
Perhaps Olmert did not know in advance what he would get. But in defiance of the government guidelines and coalition agreements that he signed, he used Friedmann to wage a superfluous and damaging war against Israeli democracy. And this is the same Olmert who, in the interview summing up his term, said that what concerns him is what kind of country he will bequeath to his grandchildren. In any event, this badly tarnished his image, increased public suspicion of him and created unnecessary tensions with his partners in the government. Because of this policy, which he never explained – though not only because of it – Olmert’s term will be considered one of the worst of any Israeli prime minister.
Because there is no Friedmann without arrogance and burning hatred, because there is no Friedmann without a constant war against every branch of the legal system, because there is no Friedmann without a retreat from all the achievements of constitutional democracy in Israel, prime minister-designate Tzipi Livni must either prevent him from continuing to serve in her government, or decide that Friedmann reflects her attitude toward the legal system and the nature of Israel’s democracy.
Livni must understand that it is impossible to tame Friedmann. There is no Friedmann without Friedmannism, and there is no partial Friedmannism. Friedmann will always be a total concentration of effort in one direction only.
Livni must therefore decide whether she needs this war, or whether she needs a justice minister who will restore government support for and sympathy with the legal system. A minister who will tell the public that the legal system is a central and admired element of Israel’s democracy, who will be able to treat the president of the Supreme Court with understanding and respect and, together with her, bring about the necessary changes in the system. Livni must decide whether she wants a justice minister who sided with suspects and the corrupt, and denigrated the police, the prosecution and the courts, or a minister who will support the rule of law. The answer seems clear: Livni must remove this obstacle from her path.
Perhaps it will be considered naive to suggest that Ramon also divorce himself from Friedmann. But as opposed to Friedmann, Ramon is not a “one-trick pony.” He is a multifaceted politician, with shortcomings, but with virtues as well. Ramon committed an indecent act against a female officer and was tried and convicted. The court had its say, and Ramon thinks he was a victim of injustice.
Now, he has two options. The first is to become a “one-trick pony” as well, and to continue being preoccupied by his conviction, as he was when he dragged the cabinet into a bizarre discussion about appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate the issue. In that case, it would be preferable for him to end his public career, as he considered doing after his trial.
The second option is to put the incident behind him, bow before the system that prosecuted, judged and convicted him, and refrain from discussing it for a very long period, perhaps forever. If he does this, he will benefit on both the personal and the public level. But he will be able to do so only if the justice minister is not Friedmann.
03 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Court in Session / Digging herself in deeper Jan 17, 2008 / By Haaretz, Yuval Yoaz
It seems Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch will not stop falling into the holes she digs for herself. In addition to the strategic mistakes she made with Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, and despite the petition signed by 29 MKs, calling on her to disqualify herself from dealing with the settlements after meeting with U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones, Beinisch succeeded once again this week in digging herself a hole vis-a-vis the judicial selection committee.
Beinisch is certainly entitled to feel bitter – she is being attacked from all sides. But one should simply imagine how former court presidents Aharon Barak or Meir Shamgar would have behaved in the same situations. They certainly would not have come to blows both with the “external” front (political figures on the judicial selection committee) and the judges whose support she needs.
The following story illustrates how Beinisch’s convoluted explanations work against her. It all began when the committee members demanded a more systematic appraisal of candidates – both for judges currently serving and seeking promotion and for external candidates. They sought, for example, personality tests, a “hearing” on a judge’s professional worldview and an examination of their work until now.
The judicial selection committee debated setting up an “advisory committee” of this kind, whose members would review the rulings handed down by the candidates; but a few months ago the committee decided to reject this proposal for the time being.
The Supreme Court president did not despair. Instead of an advisory committee, she set up a committee that would consult her and put at its helm retired supreme court justice Dalia Dorner. This move drew the wrath of the judicial selection committee, which felt that the court president was side-stepping its decision.
“I am of the opinion that the existence of a panel of this kind,” judicial committee member MK Gilad Arden wrote Friedmann this week, “in which only the judicial system is represented, undermines the substance and the purpose of the judicial selection committee. This kind of advisory panel may see the judicial selection committee becoming in effect a rubber stamp for the judicial system’s candidates. This process is contrary to the spirit of the law and the intention of the legislator who did not wish to create a situation in which judges appoint judges.”
Despite Arden’s claims, the judicial selection committee members, including Beinisch, are permitted to consult whomoever they wish to form a decision about a certain candidate. There are two questions that relate to this issue: Does the advisory panel have the authority to instruct a candidate to meet with it? And did Beinisch indeed create a “shortcut” to appoint an advisory panel for the judges selection committee?
This is exactly where Beinisch dug herself a hole. “The subject of an advisory panel was also raised before the judicial selection committee,” a spokesman for Beinisch said. “At one of the meetings, the president proposed appointing an advisory panel consisting of retired judges, and a decision about this has not yet been taken by the judicial selection committee.”
Beinisch’s spokesman added: “To promote the idea, the president appointed a committee consisting of two retired judges, who would advise her. The advisory committee does not bind the judicial selection committee nor does it replace it.”
Friedmann announced that in the wake of Arden’s request, the issue would once again be raised at one of the next meeting of the committee for selecting judges.
Judges butt heads
Beinisch’s imbroglio with regard to the Dorner committee was not her only entanglement this week with the judicial selection committee. Her murky relations with Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court President Edna Beckenstein, surfaced this week over a clash about removing the candidacy of Judge Hayuta Kochan, who headed the bench in hearings against Vice Premier Haim Ramon.
Beckenstein sent an enraged letter to Beinisch after reportedly learning that Beinisch said Kochan’s name was removed because of “the needs of the Magistrate’s Court.” Beinisch denied the remarks, and sent a letter of apology to Kochan.
Meanwhile, Judge Michal Sharir of the Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court petitioned the High Court of Justice about Beckenstein. Sharir was up in arms over Beckenstein’s decision to remove her from the head of the Herzliya Magistrate’s Court, making her “just another” deputy to the president of the Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court.
Sharir’s lawyer, Eli Zohar, described in his brief how Beckenstein had appointed a replacement for Sharir behind her back while she was away on a sabbatical. Before Sharir left on sabbatical, Beckenstein had reportedly wished her “to return with renewed strength” to the Herzliya court.
“At the basis of the decision to change the spheres of responsibility of Judge Sharir lie the problems that were revealed during her stint as deputy president who is responsible for the Herzliya Magistrate’s Court, and the lack of trust that was created against this backdrop between the president, Beckenstein, and her,” wrote Beckenstein’s lawyer, Orit Koren.
But Beckenstein did not stop there. In a letter she sent in July 2006 to then director of the courts, Boaz Okon, she gave details of Sharir’s “flawed” work.
“In a large number of cases, the litigants waited many years for a ruling to be handed down. During the time Sharir was in charge, the court in Herzliya collapsed and more than 1,000 files had to be wiped out because of obsolescence. There were a large number of complaints about the problematic judicial temperament and the problematic human relations [of the judge] and the management of the court and its operation were secondary to the personal interests of the judge.”
True, Beinisch herself is not on the bench hearing Sharir’s petition against Beckenstein, but justices Eliezer Rivlin, Miriam Naor and Hanan Meltzer have already held two sessions in the case, the last about two weeks ago. At the beginning of the week, they issued an interim ruling which resembles an order: “The administration of the courts and the president, Beckenstein, are requested to show why they will not reverse their decision to stop Judge Sharir from serving in her position at the Herzliya Magistrate’s Court, and alternately, why they will not provide another fitting solution.”
Rivlin notes: “We made concerted and repeated efforts to get the sides to agree to a solution, we tried to dissuade the sides from taking a path leading to an unnecessary clash between them, but these efforts were to no avail.”
“The affidavit in which President Beckenstein and the court administration respond must be sent within 45 days,” Rivlin wrote. “It would be good to use this period of time to find an agreed-upon solution.”
Attention citizens
Last week, the police revealed the number of criminal cases that have remained unsolved along with the percentage of investigations they have completed within a reasonable amount of time.
The fact that some of the investigations continue for several years may be attributed to the following fact which the police do not make a special effort to bring to public attention: Coming to give evidence, or even to be interrogated under warning, at a police station if it is not done under conditions of arrest is optional and not obligatory. There is no clause in the law that obliges citizens to cooperate with a police interrogation and this is defined merely as “a civic obligation.” That is to say, perhaps it is worthwhile for citizens to help the police and to come to interrogations, but it is not possible to impose any kind of sanction on a citizen who refuses to do so.
This fact was revealed by Aviad Visuli, a rightist lawyer for the Committee for the Land of Israel. Visuli wrote to the Israel Police, claiming that according to the penal code, the police are obliged by law to try and interrogate suspects and witnesses at the site of an event and only in extraordinary cases to hold interrogations at the police station.
“This assertion is contrary to what is stated in the law about interrogating suspects,” Dana Chernobelsky, legal adviser to the Israel Police, wrote. “It states that a suspect will be interrogated at a police station unless the policeman feels it is not possible to conduct the interrogation there.”
Later Chernobelsky indeed admitted “there is no obligation anchored in law for someone to show up for an interrogation. Nevertheless, in court rulings there are references made which hold that a civic obligation exists for a person to show up at an interrogation.”
For example, the ruling that was handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney Dror Hoter-Yishai, the former head of the Israel Bar association, in which it was stated that “under the normal conduct of events, anyone who is asked by the police to come to a police station to give evidence or to be interrogated, should indeed do so even if no order has been issued that obliges him to come to the police.”
However the current legal situation apparently does not satisfy the Israel Police. The Justice Ministry officials are currently working on a draft bill that would amend the law about interrogating suspects.
02 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Beinisch’s Junta: Sicily is here Dec 11, 2007 / By Haaretz, Yoel Marcus
From the earliest days of the state, even the biggest criminals in these parts knew you didn’t mess with judges. Judges, prosecutors and police officers enjoyed immunity under the law, broad backing and the power to haul lawbreakers into court and put them behind bars. In terms of the public good, the criminal-justice system was perceived as one of the backbones of a civilized country. No thief, rapist or robber dared to challenge or threaten those who presided over the courts. Those who were caught were brought to trial, and it didn’t matter if they were burglars, embezzlers of state funds or sex offenders. Law enforcement was a serious business.
That was in the days when underworld figures knew that if they were nabbed they would be tried and sent to jail, where they would remain until their time was up. That was in the days when breaking into a house was considered a serious offense, and people didn’t go to the police just to get a note for the insurance company. That was before 10-year-old boys molested 8-year-old girls, and before kids went to school armed with knives. That was before crackheads beat old men and women to death to snatch their savings or jewelry.
That’s the way things were before crime became more violent and organized. Before the Abergils, the Abutbuls, the Shirazes, the Alperons and their ilk. Before the country was divided up into mafia-type crime families and before the advent of protection money. Before the chief of police admitted that the police force could not stop crime but hoped to reach the point where crime in your neighborhood would be “tolerable.”
This same police chief announced three months ago that the crime organizations in Israel were busy arming themselves. More guns and explosives have led to gang wars, bombs attached to the bottoms of underworld bosses’ cars, and even a shoulder-held missile being fired into a private home. In the Global Peace Index published in the British magazine The Economist in May 2007, Israel was ranked among the world’s three most violent and dangerous nations.
A growing number of judges are walking around with bodyguards, in the wake of threats made by criminals inside the courtroom, or their anonymous couriers on the outside. It is rarely mentioned nowadays, but the first threats against Supreme Court justices were actually ideologically motivated, and came from the far right. At the time, a number of judges received empty bullet shells in the mail, after which emergency call buttons were installed in their homes.
The crimes are turning more violent, and the underworld is getting cheeky. Assi Abutbul’s threat breaks the record. “She’s gonna pay for that” was the promise he directed toward the judge at his trial. Mobsters set fire to the car of retired justice Theodore Or. On July 19, 2004, an escaped convict, Rafi Nahmani, sentenced to life in prison, pumped three bullets into Judge Adi Azar outside his home in an act of revenge on the courts masterminded by Yitzhak Zuziashvili. The break-in at the home of Judge Hannah Ben Ami has sent shock waves through the legal community.
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch warned last week that attempts to intimidate the judiciary would not succeed. “The judicial system is doing its utmost to provide adequate protection for the judges… Judges handling serious cases are finding themselves increasingly threatened, and some fear this will lead to the victory of criminal elements,” she said.
The weakened authority and prestige of the judicial system begins from above, with the government, the politicians and attempts to rein in the power of the Supreme Court, and it has also seeped into the media, says a retired Supreme Court justice. What are the crime bosses supposed to think when they hear belittling remarks referring to “the mafia of the justice system” or “Beinisch’s junta”?
Israel’s prime ministers have always taken pains to appoint sensible, cautious justice ministers. Prof. Daniel Friedmann may be a worthy candidate for the job but the timing of his appointment is problematic, if only because his efforts to limit the authority of the Supreme Court are liable to be interpreted by criminal elements as a weakening of the rule of law.
When Beinisch warns of attempts to terrorize judges, she is signaling the breakdown of the old taboo about not messing with judges. She is saying that Sicily is here.
01 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Beinisch takes off her gloves in fight with Friedmann Aug. 1, 2007 / By Jerusalem Post, Dan Izenberg
For the first time since Daniel Friedmann was appointed justice minister and embarked on his campaign to reform the court system by weakening the Supreme Court, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch on Wednesday lifted the veil of diplomacy that she has maintained and attacked him directly and bitterly.
“I regret that regarding this important institution, which is one of the cornerstones of Israel’s democratic system and is under constant threat from those seeking to weaken it, that instead of coping with its needs and problems, you advance dangerous plans for reasons that have nothing to do with the good of the court,” Beinisch wrote.
She was referring to a plan announced last week by Friedmann to change the system of appointing the presidents of all the courts, including the Supreme Court.
If Friedmann’s proposal is implemented, a search committee will recommend candidates for the posts. The panel would consist of a retired judge recommended by the justice minister, who will head the committee, and two judges appointed by the presidents of the district courts and the magistrate’s courts, respectively. The only court that would not have the right to appoint a representative to the committee would be the Supreme Court.
Friedmann announced his plan in public without first consulting Beinisch or the presidents of the lower courts. In an announcement to the press last Thursday, the justice minister said he had sent letters to all of the presidents asking for their opinion.
In response, Beinisch wrote: “Your proposals are meant to substantially change the mechanism set down by law to elect the presidents, deputy presidents and the head of the Courts Administration. The legality of the proposed regulations is questionable since, on the face of it, they contradict the system of appointments according to law and violate the constitutional tradition according to which the judicial system has been operating for many years.”
“It is clear that these proposals are another link in the series of steps you have been taking that cause disagreements and arguments and are aimed at destroying the existing structure of the judicial system and the status of the office of president of the Supreme Court,” she added.
Beinisch wrote that Friedmann’s justification for changing the system of appointing the presidents and deputy presidents was “astonishing.”
Friedmann had said he wanted to ensure the court presidents’ independence.
“Do you think that it is right that the presidents will be dependent on the minister only – in other words, the executive branch of government – so that the judicial system will not operate as an authority under the professional responsibility of the president of the Supreme Court? Is this what you call independent?” Beinisch wrote.
Until now, lower-court presidents have been appointed by the justice minister with the consent of the president of the Supreme Court. Presidents of the Supreme Court were chosen by seniority whenever the incumbent presiding judge left office at the mandatory retirement age of 70.
Recently, however, the Knesset passed a law initiated by Friedmann restricting the tenure of Supreme Court presidents to seven years. Friedmann’s proposal would also change the way new Supreme Court presidents and lower-court presidents are selected.
Beinisch said Friedmann was “seeking to challenge the principle anchored in the provisions of the Courts Law regarding the power of appointment that gives expression to the joint responsibility of the minister and the president of the Supreme Court.
“According to your proposal, the president of the Supreme Court will have no status regarding the appointment of the presidents and deputy presidents. On the other hand, a retired judge appointed by the minister of justice, who is a political figure, will have that status.”
Beinisch added: “Your proposals show that you are not familiar with the judicial system and the responsibilities of the presidents and deputy presidents of the courts.”
She said she hoped Friedmann “has the strength to think things over and protect the judicial system rather than rush to damage the foundations that were laid at the beginning of statehood and nourished ever since to create a professional, autonomous and independent judicial system.”
Recently retired Supreme Court deputy president Mishael Cheshin supported Beinisch in an interview with Channel 2 on Wednesday night.
“Friedmann is constantly trying to undermine the Supreme Court,” he said. “It’s no wonder Beinisch reacted the way she did. I would have done so earlier, and harsher.”
Cheshin added a personal message to Friedmann: “Go home, leave the system as it is and as it’s been in the past – good, beautiful and quiet.”
Friedman said in response that Cheshin’s comments did not actually address his justified proposal for appointing lower court presidents, a proposal designed to increase the independence of the judicial system.
In his letter (to Beinisch), Friedmann said he never used the style Beinisch employed in her letter (to him), and never spoke in the way Cheshin had. Friedmann added that he had never called on Benisch to resign.
