Olmert pulls petition to delay hearing after court deems it 'nonsense'
Former premier heeds court's recommendation, rescinds motion to postpone judicial hearing meant to determine whether he will face corruption charges
Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday pulled a motion filed with the High Court of Justice, seeking to postpone the judicial hearing in the cases pending against him, after the judges referred to it as "nonsense".
Olmert faced several corruption investigations during his tenure as prime minister and Attorney General Menachem Mazuz found that three of them – the Talansky case, the Investment Center case and the Rishon Tours' double-billing case – warrant possible indictments.
The final decision on whether or not criminal charges would be filed against the former premier pends the results of a judicial hearing. In an attempt to expedite the process, all three hearing have been joined into one.
Related stories:
- Mazuz considers indicting Olmert in Talansky affair
- Olmert faces indictment in Investment Center case
- AG considers indicting Olmert in double-billing affair
- State prosecutor closes Leumi case against Olmert
- Police close Cremieux case against Olmert
Olmert's attorneys filed the petition, citing the prosecution had failed to disclose all of the relevant material, but Judges Edmond Levy, Asher Grunis and Miriam Naor suggested the motion be pulled: "I'm appalled to find that we have to deal with such nonsense when there are appeal cases backing up until the end of 2009," said Justice Levy.
"The attorney general's offer (for a hearing date) is more than fair. Nowhere is it written that you have to get everything in the case file. You were met halfway and it is time to put a stop to this," added Justice Grunis.
Justice Naor stated that the court had no grounds to interfere in what she called "the negotiations" for a hearing date.
"I never had to appear before the court on a dates dispute with the Attorney General's Office," said Eli Zohar, one of Olmert's attorneys. "There is a principle involved."
Amir Dan, Olmert's communications director, told Ynet that the State Prosecutor's Office "is acting out of some inexplicable haste, like they're racing with someone. What difference does it make, public interest-wise, if the hearing is held in August or in September?
"The public interest is that everyone will be entitled to a fair (judicial) process. If they want this to be a fair hearing, they should give us time to study the material."
