Marianne Azizi writes:

It’s not just an urban legend. For two years Israeli activists believed they were being monitored. The deputy-attorney general, Raz Nizri, announced this month the freezing of monitoring by the Courts Administration on citizens who criticise judges. One newspaper this week reported on how the administration itself was collecting data in order to thwart justice on citizens if they spoke out openly.

One Israeli victim has lodged a law suit against members of the Courts Administration who abused their power to separate him from his only son.  Ariel Formanovski had shared custody of his child with the mother, Odelia Evgy. In order to justify her actions of moving to another city without notice, she used her role as secretary in the Supreme Court to begin a campaign of preventing the father from having access to his child for over two and a half years.

A specially assigned state employee has been exposed as being responsible for monitoring social media networks to find problematic postings. Big Brother is really watching over Israelis who dare to disagree with judicial decisions made behind closed doors, the lack of remedies and the biased decisions made in response to appeals. The woman heading the unit responsible for the protection of judges is Advocate Liat Yussim (pictured above). As a close friend of Odelia, she began to work on collecting data on Ariel, and hundreds of others, including people he knew or associated with.

Ariel Formanovski has been fighting for his right to raise his son but no one believed him when he put the pieces together to identify the forces of the Courts Administration that were being used against him to maintain false claims against his reputation.

In her testimony to the police Liat Yussim admitted she had acted to assist her colleague Odelia by using her own authority and the tools at her disposal. This misuse facilitated false criminal proceedings to be opened against Ariel. Yussim chose to use her power to act personally on behalf of her friend. Odelia Evgy had even used the system and made false claims to check into a domestic violence shelter.

D

She filed a complaint with the police stating that Ariel was responsible for various publications and was also organising a protest at the house  of Judge Elia Nuss. Consequently, he was detained overnight, even though he had proof that he was not even present.

Shuki Segev, an expert on constitutional law at the Netanya Academic College, said:

If someone threatens a judge, it is clear the police should investigate and prosecute…  But from here to the establishment of a personal and specific enforcement system for judges and court employees is a grave flaw in the thought that, in defending the judicial system, they can establish their own mechanism.  Why should judges have special status?

Prior to the exposure of this abuse, Ariel had attended a hearing at the Petach Tikvah family court presided over by Judge Elia Nuss. Remarkably, all previous obstacles to seeing his son disappeared. Previously, he had been ordered to go to the Shalem Institute in Rehovot, which tests degrees of danger of fathers through psychiatric assessments. He was ordered to pay over $7,000 for this test.  He also refused to see his child in a supervised Contact Centre – a traumatic experience for parents and children. When his child was kidnapped and taken to the settlement of Nili, Ariel was imprisoned and has fought ever since for an evidence hearing but to no avail. 

In a surprising turn of evens, on 10 January Judge Nuss declared that he could no longer be considered a dangerous person. His lawyer, Meir Givati, proposed that Ariel should see his son again with only an independent supervisor present. The proposal was accepted, with a 10-day period to fully examine the offer and work a programme to finally reunite him with his son. Over seven undercover operatives were spotted both at the court and in a restaurant following the hearing.

The criminal file is against Liat Yussim, Judge Michael Shpitzer, Chief Executive of the Courts Administration, and Mirav Geva. This could have serious implications for the Courts Administration, but the fear of this being brushed under the carpet as news fades is a real one. The Courts Administration has in the meantime vowed to continue collecting data on private citizens. 

Formanovsky has lodged a further petition to the Supreme Court requesting the release of data collected on some 8,000 individuals.