The Commission for Public Grievances Against Judges is not
carrying out its duties and is even acting improperly, writes
Atty. Rabbi Rafael Shtub at the beginning of a 20-page letter
addressed to Justice Minister Daniel Friedman, in his
capacity as chairman of the Judicial Selection Committee. As
such Shtub lodged a request for the Public Grievance
Ombudsman Selection Committee to dismiss the ombudsman, Judge
Tova Strassberg-Cohen, who earns NIS 90,000 ($27,000) per
month and has a large staff at her disposal.
Like in every other country, in Israel judges are supposed to
conduct themselves in accordance with the law and the justice
system guidelines. For judges, the law is supposed to be the
single guiding factor in rendering decisions, whereas the
judge's ideology and worldview, along with all other
considerations such as settling political scores, are wholly
out of place.
In order to oversee judges' actions, six years ago an
organization was formed called the Commission for Public
Grievances Against Judges. Atty. Shtub questions the need for
the commission to begin with, suggesting in his letter that
it be disbanded entirely since it failed utterly in its task
of ameliorating judges' conduct. He says that ever since the
commission started operating, the situation has worsened and
criticism of judges has merely increased. The need to find an
alternative to the commission or to appoint a different
ombudsman with greater integrity has become more acute in
light of the questionable conduct the ombudsman showed in the
Druckman Affair in which she lent her support to the
fraudulent acts perpetrated. These events put a quick end to
the illusion that the ombudsman was working to improve
judges' conduct.
Atty. Shtub raises several difficult questions regarding the
ombudsman's conduct, trying to find the common thread tying
the various incidents of other judges who were held
accountable for disciplinary infractions, to HaRav Sherman's
ruling. Among the incidents reported to her were several that
were far worse than what HaRav Sherman was accused of, yet
she never took measures that were as severe as those she took
with regard to HaRav Sherman.
Shtub quotes her remarks in the ombudsman's report for 2004
in which she describes her judicial methods, writing, "The
ombudsman is indeed authorized to recommend the dismissal of
a judge, yet no use has been made of this step of directly
recommending to the commission that a judge be dismissed."
The report also notes the maximal penalty a judge was given.
"A recommendation was made to transfer a judge from a certain
jurisdiction to another area."
Yet interestingly enough, when it came to HaRav Sherman the
ombudsman decided to try to remove him from his post, in
total opposition to her policy in dealing with judges.
Attorney Shtub's letter does not mention theoretical matters,
halachic opinions or ideology, but is built on the decision-
making pattern the judge has followed since her appointment.
The description in the letter demonstrates that she has one
form of justice for a judge and another for a dayan. Towards
the latter she is hostile, writing remarks she never issued
with regard to judges.
Atty. Shtub says he does not know of any other cases in which
Judge Strassberg was so aggressive, but what she herself
writes reveals much about her hostility.
Her legally vested power to penalize judges or dayonim gives
her a list of measures she can use. The simplest and most
routine step is to make a note in the judge's official
record. A more severe measure is to issue a warning. The next
step up is to give a reprimand. And a very acute measure is
to recommend a temporary suspension. In very severe
circumstances, the most extreme step is to recommend that the
commission remove the judge from his post.
Among various examples Atty. Shtub lists, he cites the case
of a judge who said openly in his court that all chareidim
are liars and that he doesn't believe a single one of them
— effectively rejecting the testimony of hundreds of
thousands of Israeli citizens. In response, Judge Strassberg
chose the lightest penalty, a note in the judge's file.
However, in the case of HaRav Sherman, whose judicial actions
were untainted, the judge opted for the maximal measure the
law permits her, though on no previous occasion had she taken
such drastic measures against any other public official.
