Russian Compound, Jerusalem - Holding and trading of combat materiel, Danger to Regional Security
Translation: Marganit W.
Judge: Shmuel Fleischman
Police Investigator: Samir Ibrahim
Defense: Firas Sabah, Judd Kadmani
There are four cases in the docket: two detainees are” barred from seeing an attorney”.
The High Court of Justice preliminary recommendation (allowing us, as citizens, to attend the hearings of defendants barred from seeing an attorney where the defense pleads and where the judge meets the defendant without his attorney) had already been presented to Justice Fleischman several times before. He always objected to our presence in court, so we decided to forgo presenting the document, as is our wont, and walked out, sparing the judge the need to order us out. Thus, the principle of public hearing has been vitiated.
Muntaser Jamil Abdullah Naesan - ID 920100690
The defendant is barred from conferring with his defense attorney.
Attorney: Judd Kadmani
The Investigator requests a 15-day remand extension.
Naesan, a resident of Ramallah, was arrested on 17.1.13.
Charge: Endangering security in the region and possession of combat materiel. According to the charge sheet he was caught holding a weapon in his hand.
The defense’s questions are answered with references to the confidential file.
In reply to the defense, the judge comments that the file sounds like Ali Baba tales. A moment of embarrassment ensues: Atty. Kadmani does not understand the judge’s comment and its relevance to the case.
The judge asks Atty. Firas Sabah to explain the Ali Baba reference to his colleague….
In his summation, the defense states that he is opposed to such a long remand, because, at least on the face of it, the case does not require a long investigation: everything there is obvious.
Hiralla Ratab Abdallah Naesan – ID 940624071
Judd Kadmani presents himself as the defendant’s attorney. The judge objects vehemently, arguing that there is a conflict of interests: this defendant is connected to the earlier case of Muntaser Naesan.
The judge asks Kadmani if he is registered with the Lawyers Association, and threatens to write a note in the file about the attempt to represent two defendants connected to the same incident, which constitutes conflict of interests.
Kadmani is astounded (for the second time this morning). He explains that the judge has two cases on his desk, containing information that he, Kadmani, is not privy to. Thus he is not aware of a conflict of interests.
The judge asks to note in the protocol that both attorneys – Firas and Kadmani – represent the defendant, and that Firas will argue the case today.
The judge mitigates his position a bit, noting in the protocol that Kadmani requested to be the defendant’s second attorney.
Both these cases of “barred” defendants relate to the same charge. Atty. Firas is requested to ask questions regarding Naesan’s case. Firas agrees with his colleague Kadmani: he objects to a 15-day remand extension, arguing that the case is clear-cut.
We left the court without hearing the judge’s decision regarding the length of the remand.