שרון בן חיים הגיש תביעה נגד כחלון ונאמן גם ניבה מילנר בתיה ארטמן וסימונה שטיינמץ בין הנתבעות פשעים נגד האנושות

Spread the love

שרון בן חיים הגיש תביעה נגד כחלון ונאמן

גם ניבה מילנר בתיה ארטמן וסימונה שטיינמץ בין הנתבעות

פשעים נגד האנושות

הורים התחילו להגיש תביעות נגד השר משה כחלון – הידוע בכינויו “שותק כמו דג”, עקב שתיקתו בפרשיית הרצח של התינוק התאום של הסבתא פ קידת הסעד שרה טל, סגנית מנהלת לשכת רווחה רמת גן.

פשעי משרד הרווחה.

Sharon Ben-Haim

6-05 Saddle River Rd #225

Fair Lawn, NJ 07410

Tel: 917.775.5386

Fax: 201.625.6377

sharonsbh@gmail.com

August 15, 2012

Hon. Magistrate Judge Hammer

Martin Luther King, Federal Building & U.S Courthouse

US District Court

50 Walnut Street, Room 3053

Newark, NJ 07101 by UPS

Re: Ben-Haim et al. v. Neeman et al.,

Docket No. 2:12CV00351-JLL-MAH

Dear Judge Hammer,

I am one of the Plaintiffs pro se. We request permission to file a brief sur-reply within 7 days. We feel the sur-reply is necessary in light of the Israeli State Officials Defendants’ reply brief which exceeds the four corners of the complaint.

Moreover, since we filed the opposition brief with declarations of witnesses who are victims of the Defendants, all these witnesses were marked by Defendant Neeman for “special treatment” to deter them from testifying. “Special treatment” means police brutality, trumping up false criminal charges, arrest and detention, surveillance of activists, seizures of private computers and invasion of emails and facebook accounts.

In June 15, 2012 two witnesses signed declarations in opposition to Neeman and co-Defendants’ motion to dismiss: Amir Shipperman and Guy Shamir. They have been targeted for retribution by Defendant Neeman. Witness Amir Shipperman was arrested east of Tel Aviv two weeks ago. His computer was seized and he endured 4 hours of grueling interrogation. He is now awaiting decision whether he will be indicted for participating in a vigil protest. The other witness, Guy Shamir was arrested a week ago, and is still in police custody, for telling a judge’s secretary who called him (instead of his attorney) on the phone “Tell the judge not to call me or bother me, tell her to mess with her own children and not to mess with mine”. (This came after his judge suddenly and without trial issued a judgment of full custody to his ex-wife). The indictment revealed that secret police detectives were performing surveillance of men on our witness list. Defendant Neeman clearly has sent a message that anybody daring to testify in this case will be arrested on trumped up charges.

At this point, the record should reflect Defendant Neeman’s conduct of terrorizing men on our witness list. We may have to file an injunction.

The issues we need to cover in the sur-reply:

First, Defendant Neeman gave instructions within Israel to the police and certain judges to threaten my witnesses by false arrests and false detentions. Contrary to Neeeman’s argument that this case is frivolous, his conduct in the past two weeks shows otherwise. Otherwise, Neeman would not abuse his powers by terrorizing my witnesses, and deterring them from testifying in this case.

Second, Defendant Daniel Edri purposely availed himself of the jurisdiction of New Jersey by issuing operative instructions to rabbis in New Jersey, who take instructions from him to excommunicate me. The letter also contained instructions what to do with my body upon my death.

Finally, contrary to your argument that Israel provides an alternative “convenient” forum, (a) in a State where innocent male witnesses are terrorized, falsely arrested by the Minister of Justice himself, and tampering with witnesses or intimidating them, in retaliation for filing declarations, the Plaintiffs have no chance in Israel, and (b) three months ago, Israel’s Supreme Court issued a judgment in praise of “radical feminism” and made it clear that Israeli Supreme Court adopts “radical feminism” as a guiding legal source for interpretations of laws and assessment of human behavior. I believe no other Court in the world ever took such a radical approach. See Orit Goren and shdulat Hanashim v. Home Center. In a jurisdiction that draws its guidance from radical feminism theories, and praises then, all men will never receive equal protection of laws.

Sincerely,

Sharon Ben Haim

Enclosures: All counsel via e-mail

Cc: Sol Havivi, Pro se

Gamliel Elmalem, Pro se

JENNIFER L. LARSON
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
399 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022-4690
212-715-1783
jennifer.larson@aporter.com

John B. Bellinger III, pro hac vice

Jean E. Kalicki, pro hac vice

R. Reeves Anderson, pro hac vice

ARNOLD & PORTER LLP

555 Twelfth St., NW Washington, DC 20004

Reeves.Anderson@aporter.com