Eretz Yisrael Time

Powered by WebAds
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
There may be a righteous man in S'dom after all. Jerusalem District Court Judge Moshe Drori has permitted Noam Federman to return to the site of his home.

While the court didn't address the damage the government, army and police did to Noam by destroying his house, he did clearly state that the State and army acted completely improperly here and forget about out of proportion, the judge stated that the army completely misapplied the law.

Furthermore, the judge stated that the State has failed in any way to prove their case, and in fact their actions may have been unconstitutional.

The judge also threw away any claim of violence on Federman's part, as it was he that was totally bruised over and not a single policeman.

To quote the judge:

“Let every person decide for himself how he would act if a police officer turns to him at 1:30 in the night and wants to give him papers ordering him out of his house, with his wife and nine young children sleeping in their beds, and their father sees himself responsible for their welfare and safety… The State did not bother to explain why it needed a force of 100 policemen to remove a person from a military zone that had been closed for ten months, with no prior warning or attempt at dialogue… The eviction was not balanced, not reasonable, not right and not appropriate.”

Judge Drori is a graduate of Netiv Meir yeshiva high school in Jerusalem.

Where this will go remains to be seen, but at least there is one Judge in this country who isn't apparently corrupt and immoral.

Read more on A7.


Anonymous said...

B"H, a breath of fresh air is seeping into the country.

Ruchie Avital said...

Don't hold your breath. Have you any doubt at all that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision on appeal? That's what they do. That's what they're there for. Judge Drori, sadly, is an anomaly in the Israeli court system, but SC will "correct" it soon enough.

DoubleTapper said...

"the State has failed in any way to prove their case, and in fact their actions may have been unconstitutional."

What constitution is he referring to?

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Powered by WebAds
    Follow the Muqata on Twitter
      Follow JoeSettler on Twitter
      Add to favorites Set as Homepage

      Blog Archive

      Powered by WebAds