The Report of the Legal Commission
(translation from the Arabic)
Introduction
On March 19, 2005 the Palestinian
Cabinet decided to set up a fact-finding special committee to
investigate a report published by Ma’ariv regarding a deal to sell
property belonging to Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. The
aforementioned property is located in the court of Omar Bin el Khattab
inside the Old City of Jerusalem. This property included the Imperial
Hotel and the building of Petra Hotel. The Committee was charged with
the task of verifying the authenticity of the report, and to collect
as many realities, facts and information as it could relevant to the
issue. The Committee would then put forward a full picture of what had
happened as well as its recommendation as to the necessary procedures
that should be taken to stop the deal, cancel it and declare it null
and void.
The legal committee began its work
in difficult and next-to impossible conditions. Apart from what the
newspaper Ma’ariv had published, the committee had no information or
document made available to it. Besides, the committee has neither the
legal capacity to investigate, nor has it the authority to take action
or to compel any one to deal with it.
The climate surrounding the report
has created a decisive picture defining the features of the treachery.
This picture had almost curbed the ability of anyone who would try to
fathom the truth. It would also prevent reaching the fair conclusion
that would ensure the annulment of the deal. The parties that could
have played a role and that would have been approached for enquiring
about a fact or an incident were not available. The task was entrusted
to only two advocates who neither had any executive powers nor did
they have any helping devices to assist them in their task.
The non-commitment of some
commission members to the rules and regulations of official procedures
in an official commission whose task is to investigate and find facts
in a crucial public issue, and taking up nonproductive attitudes to
reveal the truth ran counter to the tasks entrusted to them, making
public of their attitudes through the media. Thus, there was hindering
of the work of the commission which created a burden on it, and
contradicted the basic principle of being neutral and fair. This
action would jeopardize the credibility of the investigation as well
as the credibility of the realities which could be accredited in the
future by any official or judicial quarters.
Despite obstacles and in view of the
gravity of the issue and our conviction of the necessity to conclude
the task, the commission pursued the probe which was difficult and
ramified, during which 17 personalities, and official circles related
to the issue, were investigated. The investigation included some
clerics and advocates currently working at the Patriarchate and
advocates who used to work for the Patriarchate and who were in
contact with dignitaries involved in the case.
We attached in Supplement a list of
the names and all those whom we met and questioned. In this context,
we would like to point out that had it not been for the patience and
dedication of the General Secretary of the Cabinet, Dr. Samir Hlailah,
and for his constant readiness day and night, we would not have been
able to accomplish the task entrusted to us.
In addition to that, the
authorization we obtained from the Patriarch was the important means
of conducting the probe. Moreover, he was very cooperative and
forthcoming in his response to our questions and in fulfilling our
demands. Also, the unconditional cooperation of three clerics, namely
Archimandrite Ireneos, Archimandrite Chrysostomos and Archimandrite
Meletios Basal, played a key and vital role in preserving the trust
with the Patriarch. As for Archimandrite Basal, and from the outset of
the crises, he maintained a clear and committed attitude to the
Palestinian interest and stand, without foregoing the interest of the
church and its congregation, withstanding the incitement and insults,
he faced from irresponsible parties who gave precedence to their own
interests over the interest of the issue.
We did not satisfy ourselves with
hearing the testimonies of our witnesses. We carried out a
comprehensive investigation through which we compared bits of
information, documents and testimony. In many instances, we went back
to our witness to confront him with the correct truth and information.
We did not rely on one source of
information. We tried to verify it from various sources and
directions. We were objective, despite taking a foregone stance by the
media and through various attitudes in Palestine and outside. We tried
to overlook what was published in the press and to work professionally
and objectively and to handle the facts and information reaching us in
order not to make mistakes and miss an opportunity, because the price
is very high and injustice is cruel.
This report contains the gist of
verified realities leading to the outcome we have reached at. Some of
these results are supported by documents and others are supported by
testimonies of eyewitnesses.
We tried to present facts and come
to the conclusion through circumstantial evidence. From what we have
collected, it drew before us a very clear picture before and after the
exposure.
In the course of this investigation,
we got information that shows and reflects the general position of the
Patriarchate. We also got information about previous deals carried out
during the 1990s and prior to that. Our attention was drawn in
particular, to the organizational and administrative situation in the
Patriarchate. This situation reflects a negative image manifested in
deeply rooted chaos and corruption. This makes it imperative upon the
incumbents to take immediate action to put an end to this deplorable
situation. We would not have touched upon this internal issue, had it
not been one of the reasons that led to the case in question.
Finally, we would like to emphasize
that what we have sought to achieve was to arrive at the truthfulness
of what had happened, so that we can rely on this fact and reality
before presenting it to any judicial, political or international body.
We have been fully aware of the importance of this case entrusted to
us and its sensitivity to all parties concerned. We have worked with
utmost commitment and contact with officials, realizing the importance
of the task and necessity of being patient and giving precedence for
the general public interest over private and factional interest.
Background
Ireneos' path was not paved with
roses when he assumed the leadership of the Patriarchate. From the
beginning of his election to the post as Patriarch of the Holy City,
he found himself engulfed with strong and shrewd opposition and
contenders having close contacts with countries, officials and strong
politicians in Israel, Jordan, Greece and Russia, etc.
His contenders did not concede his
victory and election as a Patriarch. They continued their attacks on
him from all directions. They managed to convince the Israeli
Government that Ireneos is anti-Semitic and is not comfortable to the
Israeli government. No, on the contrary, he was a pro-Palestinian.
They reinforced this claim by showing copies of letters and meetings
with the late President Yaser Arafat. The refusal of the Israeli
government to recognize him after his election impeded him from
executing his basic duties as Patriarch.
He was unauthorized even to sign a
check drawn on any bank in the name of the Patriarchate. Neither was
he allowed to sign any order or contract or undertaking before any
official circle or any official papers. As a result he suffered from a
financial crisis that affected not only him but all those who
collaborated with him from among his followers or companions, be they
monks or secularists alike.
His predecessor or those around him
left him an empty coffer and treasury and passed on to him debts and
dues estimated about NIS 85 million. Sources of revenue were scarce
and there were several pending cases before courts, distributed among
several law firms.
The property files were not in
order. They were not in their proper place at the Patriarchate’s
Treasury Department. As well as the files of the deals which were
arranged, edited, signed and endorsed by his predecessors. These were
not in the offices of the Patriarchate, but they were distributed and
kept at the offices of the lawyers who handled them. In view of all
the above, he was unable to see what his predecessors have done or
what they have left him. That was still in need of handling and
follow-up, and to apprise himself of what was going on.
The land of the monasteries,
especially the holy places related to the Patriarchate, was either a
property or a trust to the appointed head. This has been the practice
over the years. The appointment of favorites to head the monasteries
or the holy place was a means to buy the appointed archimandrite or
bishop. Changing this situation and reorganizing and reforming the
status-quo and the imposition of financial control on all monasteries
and channeling and recording their revenues to the Patriarchate
treasury, was a factor that caused grumbling and dissatisfaction and
was a motive for opposing the Patriarch.
The efforts of the Patriarch to urge
the Israeli government to recognize him as Patriarch were prolonged to
no avail. Thus, he was forced to resort to Israeli lawyers to
represent him before official circles whence he demanded that they
issue their decision. When no response was received he petitioned the
High Court against the government, demanding that the latter explain
the reasons behind the government’s refusal to recognize him as
Patriarch of the Holy City. The High Court dismissed this petition
when the public prosecutor attributed the delay to on- going
investigation of the elected Patriarch’s past, and whether he was
involved in criminal cases. Following a lengthy delay, and for lack of
any evidence of criminal cases against him as claimed by his
opponents, the Israeli government endorsed his election on January 28,
2004.
Employment of Papadimas
In the summer of 2002 or around it,
the military attaché at the Greek Embassy in Tel Aviv visited Bishop
Kyriakos, Bishop of Nazareth. He was accompanied by a young man named
Nicolas Papadimas, a Greek from Ioannina, living in Tel Aviv and
married to an Israeli new immigrant from Russia. The attaché claimed
that Papadimas had applied for a job at the embassy, but the embassy
turned him down for lack of a vacancy.
The attaché requested Bishop
Kyriakos help Papadimas, being a Greek, get a job at the Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. He showed his desire in finding
him a job. Bishop Kyriakos agreed to recommend Papadimas to the
Patriarch. In fact, an appointment was made with the Patriarch whom he
visited with Papadimas. He suggested to the Patriarch to employ
Papadimas, explaining that the Greek Embassy was keen on finding him a
job.
The Patriarch approved of the
recommendation, and assigned Papadimas to the post of accountant in
the Patriarchate’s Financial Department.
None of those around the Patriarch
demonstrated or filed an objection or any remark concerning the
employment of Papadimas at any time until his escape. None of the
officials or advisors around the Patriarch has ever mentioned any flaw
in the performance of Papadimas. Not even a remark was made concerning
his performance or his way of managing the funds of the Patriarchate
or any remark concerning the persons he met and dealt with.
In the beginning, Papadimas worked
hard and gained the confidence of the Patriarch. The Patriarch
accommodated him in Andromeda Complex in Jaffa which is owned by the
Patriarchate. Where as before, Papadimas lived in an apartment in a
poor neighborhood at al-Carmel Market in Tel-Aviv. A car was also put
at his disposal. Papadimas has a friend – an old neighbor called Max
Semory - who occupied an apartment in the same building in which
Papadimas lived prior to his move to Andromeda Complex. A strong and
intimate friendship grew between them and still exists. Max had
connections with various government and non-government circles,
because he held a key post in the Ministry of Finance. He also played
a role in pursuing the relationship with Papadimas.
Papadimas authorized Max to move to
a luxurious apartment in Andromeda Complex owned by the Patriarchate.
When the Patriarch learned about this arrangement he filed a suit to
disown Max and evict him from the apartment. The case is still pending
in court.
Empowerment of the Patriarch
Advocate
Papadimas and his friend Semory got
acquainted with the Patriarchate’s advocate. Against the background
of the problems the Patriarch faced due to the Israeli government
refraining from recognizing him, they convinced the Patriarch that the
Patriarchate’s advocate, with his ramified relations with Israeli
positions, is the right person who could help the Patriarch obtain the
Israeli government’s recognition of him. They introduced him to the
Patriarch. Afterwards, the Patriarch empowered the advocate to handle
the case, in addition to several cases pertaining to the Patriarchate.
The advocate gained the confidence of the Patriarch, and tried to
convince the Patriarch to conduct real-estate deals through leasing or
developing property, as a means of a way-out of the financial crisis
experienced by the Patriarchate.
The property located in Omar Ibn Al
Khattab Square, Baab Al Khalil, Jerusalem, was among the property
offered for investment or lease. Sheer (sic) presented the Patriarch
with several offers for investment. One of them was Christian as he
claimed, and the other was Israeli as well as other investors.
However, the Patriarch rejected those offers despite his financial
crisis.
The Patriarch Ireneos declined
offers made by the Patriarchate’s advocate to settle the case of
extending the lease of property leased by Israeli Land Authority and
on which it set up the Rahavia neighborhood and part of Al-Talbiya
neighborhood, both in West Jerusalem. He refused to sign or enter into
negotiation to sign a settlement of the dispute in this case. This is
what the Patriarchate’s advocate stated and he held the Patriarch
accountable.
The advocate initialed a full survey
of all the property and assets of the Patriarchate, however; he did
not hand over the survey to the Patriarchate, but rather kept it to
himself.
Knowledge of English
The Patriarch neither speaks, reads
nor writes English. One day in April 2004, Papadimas came to the
Patriarch with a pre-prepared text of a Power of Attorney and asked
him to sign it. The advocate claimed that he needed the Power of
Attorney in order to lease a shop in the Old City. The Patriarch
signed the document based on the explanation made by Papadimas of its
content. By signing the document the Patriarch’s role came to an
end.
The Patriarchate’s advocate took
notice of the Power of Attorney and of its signing on the same day, or
at worse, two weeks after it had been signed. He did not show any
remark or reserve concerning it.
The Power of Attorney was registered
in the Protocols of the Holy Synod, something which confirms that all
the members of the Synod knew about it. None of the assistants or
advisors of the Patriarch or even the members of the Synod showed any
remark or reserve toward this Power of Attorney.
The Escape of Papadimas
In October 2004, rumors circulated
concerning the behavior of Papadimas, his behavior, relations and
possible over-reaching his powers. Meanwhile, a Greek reporter who
heard the rumors met the Patriarch and advised him to consult a Greek
independent lawyer, to look into the condition of the Patriarchate, to
check its files and investigate what is going on inside it. He took
heed of the advice and invited a Greek lawyer named Pelekis to look
into and scrutinize the records of the Patriarchate, in search of any
violations or mismanagement.
The lawyer came over and checked the
records and some files. He also met with the Patriarch’s advocate
and asked for copies of the Power of Attorneys signed for Papadimas,
so as to check them. He received copies of them. Furthermore, he
enquired about the pending cases relating to various properties which
are being handled by lawyers.
Pelekis made no remarks or reserve
concerning the Power of Attorneys. He returned to Greece without
reaching a conclusion or making any recommendations confirming the
authenticity of the rumors, or hinting at a potential danger or risk
in the work or performance of Papadimas.
This investigation jolted the
relationship between the Patriarch and Papadimas. In the wake of this
investigation the Patriarch stopped consulting Papadimas and
estrangement prevailed among them.
In November 2004, various incidents
aroused fears of the Patriarch towards Papadimas. During October and
early November 2004, Papadimas tried to convince the Patriarch of the
need to accept some of the property offers presented to the
Patriarch’s advocate, in order to remedy the deteriorating financial
situation at the Patriarchate, and to cover some of the debts and
expenses, and pay the overdue salaries. The Patriarch declined all
these offers and rejected every possible settlement. Instead, he
insisted on approaching the Greek Government for financial help.
Against this background, several verbal altercations took place
between the Patriarch and Papadimas. Some of these altercations were
in the presence of eye witnesses.
One day in November 2004, i.e., ten
days before the escape of Papadimas, and while the Patriarch was on
his way back to Jerusalem from Tel-Aviv together with a priest in his
car, an anonymous car rammed the Patriarch’s car and fled the scene.
The Patriarch suspected it was an attempt on his life. A few days
later, the Greek Foreign Ministry called the Patriarch and notified
him that the wife of Papadimas was arrested while entering Greece. She
was carrying 120.000 Euros and various jewelries. The Ministry
enquired if her husband was actually working for the Patriarchate. The
Foreign Ministry instructed the Patriarch to seal the treasury and
deny Papadimas any access to it. He complied.
Papadimas disappeared during this
period. Four days prior to his escape he resorted to an Israeli friend
of his and asked him to find him a refuge, under the pretext that
settlers were chasing him following his failure to complete a property
deal with them. When he failed {to find refuge} he fled the country.
Two days later the Patriarch knew about his escape to an unknown
place. Upon knowing that, the Patriarch initiated an internal
investigation. He also lodged a complaint with the Greek authorities
against Papadimas. He demanded that they arrest him and put him to
trial for embezzlement of money from the Patriarchate.
In the wake of Papadimas escape, the
Patriarch summoned Archimandrite Ireneos, who is from Crete Island,
who was living in a monastery in Greece, since the first half of the
1990s, to come back to the country. The latter, Ireneos, obeyed the
summons first in late December 2004. He visited the country for
several days. In February, he came back for a second short visit.
After that, he returned to assume the position as head of the
Patriarchate’s treasury as of the end of February 2005.
The lawyer of the buyers and
his relationship with Papadimas
The buyers' lawyer is a well-known
Israeli, who is famous for his experience in representing the extreme
right, including Arfing Moscowitz, Himont Company, Alert Cohanim, ELAD
institution. All of them are well-known extreme rightists. Their
members, aims and practices are known. They seek to buy Arab property
within the walls of the Old City and in East Jerusalem and in various
locations, with the aim of expanding Israeli control over settlement
sites in Arab Jerusalem. Among the well-known cases in which he
represents settlers, the lease of Saint John building in the Old City.
It turned out that the Israeli government stood behind its purchase,
and paid for it from the budget of the Ministry of Housing. The
buyers’ lawyers have strong and diversified relations with political
circles from the Right wing which support his clients.
Papadimas knew the buyers’ lawyer
ever since he began his work. We did not know who the medium between
them was. We did not know the background of the meeting or the
introduction that took place.
The relationship between the
buyers’ lawyer and Papadimas was so strong that Papadimas was
considered (one of the family members). He visited him frequently and
consulted him in various matters (according to the buyers’ lawyer
himself). The buyers’ lawyer used to visit Papadimas in his
apartment in Jaffa. This relationship grew stronger in 2004. The
buyers’ lawyer was seen many times in Papadimas office at the
Patriarchate during the few months prior to Papadimas flight. The
buyers’ lawyer visits to that Patriarchate did not draw the
attention of any of the officials at the Patriarchate.
Papadimas relationship with
Timothy and the buyers’ lawyer
Timothy knew Papadimas very well.
But in view of his relationship with the Patriarch, and so as not to
arouse the suspicion of the Patriarch in Papadimas, he desisted from
meeting Papadimas or talking to him in public. The contacts between
Papadimas and Timothy were conducted through an Arab lawyer working
for the Patriarchate. Timothy was spotted twice with Papadimas in
Tel-Aviv. He was and still is in direct contact with the buyers’
lawyer. This incident has concepts, dimensions and conclusions that
may explain the coincidence and timing of making known the news, and
the attempts to entice the Patriarch to sign a deal or deals so as to
frame him up.
The Patriarch and the
buyers’ lawyer
The Patriarch stated that he first
knew the buyers’ lawyer personally early 2005 or so. He heard of his
name through the Saint John case. But he did not meet him, and his
knowledge of the name was limited to him in his capacity as
representative of the Company that claimed to have bought the usufruct
or lease for the main tenant of Saint John Hotel – Metosian.
The case is still pending before
courts since the time of the former Patriarch Diodoros.
The case was referred to the Patriarchate’s advocate for handling,
who, in turn, referred it to the Arab lawyer, then to another Arab
lawyer. The Patriarchate’s advocate’s avoidance of dealing with
such an important issue of such magnitude raises questions and
attracts attention.
In December 2004, and during one
official reception at David Castle at Baab Al-Khalil, and in the
presence of Israeli as well as foreign personalities, a man who
identified himself as “Mr. Cohen” approached the Patriarch and
started a conversation that revealed a lot of information signifying a
drastic and old knowledge of affairs and issues pertaining to the
Patriarchate. This conversation aroused the concerns of the Patriarch.
At the end of the meeting, Mr. Cohen revealed that he had close and
strong connections with Israeli government quarters, which he can
manipulate to advance the interest of the Patriarchate before them,
including the attempt to initiate the conclusion of an agreement to
put the Patriarchate on equal footing with those of the Vatican in
terms of the legal status of its institutions. Nearly two weeks later,
the Patriarch paid a visit to the newly appointed Al-Qishleh Police
Chief Yoram Halevi Levi to congratulate him on his new post. The
Patriarch was accompanied by group of bishops and priests. On emerging
from this meeting the Patriarch was again approached by Mr. Cohen, who
“happened” to be there. He greeted him and reminded him of himself
and their previous encounter. He then informed him that he had talked
with an expert advocate who is very well connected with various
influential Israeli government quarters. He then expressed his
willingness to arrange a meeting between the Patriarch and that
advocate.
A week later, Mr. Cohen called the
Patriarch and invited him to a meeting at the King David Hotel where
they met. The Patriarch was accompanied by two priests who arrived
recently from Greece. Mr. Cohen introduced the Patriarch to the
advocate who turned out to be none other than the advocate of the
buyers. That was his first encounter with the buyers’ advocate, whom
he had never known before, and who (the advocate) identified himself
as “Etan”.
This name did not attract the
attention or wonder of the Patriarch or his escorts. The buyers’
advocate disclosed to the Patriarch all the information he had about
the Patriarch and his knowledge of his predecessors. The information
disclosed indicated an extensive and comprehensive knowledge of what
was and is going on within the Patriarchate.
A conversation took place between
them, on one hand, and Mr. Cohen and the buyers’ advocate on the
other. The advocate focused in general on what interested the
Patriarch, namely, the issue of raising the status of the
Patriarchate, and to initiate an agreement with the Israeli government
giving the Patriarchate and its institutions the same rights
stipulated in the agreement between the Vatican and the Israeli
government concerning the Vatican Catholic institutions. Also, the
buyers’ advocate talked about different issues for the Patriarchate
and about pending issues and previous issues about the relations with
the late Benediktos and about the relation with the late Diodoros.
The conversation ended with talk
about arranging another meeting between them to follow up on the
development of this relationship. Indeed another meeting took place.
In King David Hotel and in the presence of the same persons, the
lawyer called Mr. Cohen (Mati).
This name attracted the attention of
one of the Patriarch’s companions (Archimandrite Ireneos) who did
not know the identity of the persons whom he met during this meeting.
He recalled that the name (Mati) was
mentioned in the diaries of Papadimas, which he found in the
accounting office in the Patriarchate. He asked him if he was the same
(Mati) who was connected with Papadimas. He affirmed his relationship
with him, in addition that he had a working relationship with him, and
that they concluded several contracts between them.
When asked about the nature of those
contracts, he replied that they are related to long term lease of the
church property. Mr. Mati did not elaborate. The priest reported the
matter to the Patriarch and warned him that the persons he is meeting
with are but Papadimas friends, and they may be deceiving him,
consequently, he should exercise caution with them. They were told
that they had no knowledge of what they were talking about, and that
the Patriarch knew nothing about what they were talking, and also the
Holy Synod did not endorse any document they talked about, keeping in
mind that any real estate deal would not be valid unless it is
ratified by the Holy Synod and signed by the Patriarch, as stipulated
by the law.
This is something well known to the
government circles. The Patriarchate confirmed this in writing to the
officials. Such ratifications were never done and were never finalized
at any time whatsoever.
The other side refused to disclose
any information. They tried to pacify the Patriarch and his
companions. They suggested another meeting to discuss the case of
Papadimas and what he signed.
Indeed, after few days Mati (Mr.
Cohen) came with another person he claimed to be Mr. Levin. During a
conversation it appeared that Levin also knows a lot about the
Patriarchate’s property. Mr. Levin offered his services to help
Archimandrite Ireneos who was newly appointed, as head of the
Financial Department, to get acquainted with the Patriarchate’s
property. The Patriarch thanked him and repeated his request for
information about the deals which the buyers’ advocate and Mr. Cohen
claimed existed during their meeting at King David Hotel.
They repeated that unless he
collaborates with them, they would not provide him with any
information about the deals, yet they tried to placate and assure him
and promised him to talk to the lawyer in order to settle the case.
Hardly two weeks had passed Mr.
Cohen (Mati) and Mr. Levin had reiterated their request from the
Patriarch and the Archimandrite. To cooperate with them to conclude
the deals, Levin threatened that unless the Patriarch cooperates with
them, a grave thing will happen. Once again, the Patriarch insisted on
his unwillingness to talk about or enter into any negotiations
regarding any deal with Papadimas. He insisted upon seeing the
document. The response was that the Patriarch had until March 17, 2005
to decide, otherwise, “an atomic bomb” will fall at the
Patriarch’s court. Indeed, on March 17, 2005, they called the
Patriarch and renewed their warning. They gave him until 5 pm to
respond or “the bomb will explode”.
The Publication in Ma’ariv
True to their word, on March 28,
2005 Ma’ariv newspaper published the news about the so-called deal.
The news aroused the displeasure, condemnation and the outrage of the
Arab Orthodox congregation and the Jerusalemites in general, as well
as the dissatisfaction of the local and international political
circles.
The Patriarch denied any connection
with the deal. He asked his lawyer to investigate the matter.
Archimandrite Ireneos also requested to carry out a search and
investigation in the so-called deal. The latter went to the competent
authority, that is the Property Tax Department, to look for any report
or statement on the deal. However, the female employee in charge
informed him that according to the available information in the
computer, she could not trace any information or any statement or
report concerning a deal in the Old City. Despite this response, the
Archimandrite continued his efforts with the official circles. His
application was official and was coupled with a written letter which
the competent authority acknowledged receipt of.
Annulment of Powers of
Attorney
Following the publication in
Ma’ariv on March 18, 2005 and in the absence of a direct legal
advice from his legal advisors, he decided to annul the Power of
Attorneys given to Papadimas. Acting upon the advice of his lawyers
regarding the preference of signing the annulment before the notary
public who endorsed at the time the original Power for Attorneys,
namely Yakoub Miron, prepared the annulment document and summoned the
notary public to the Patriarchate so that the Patriarch could sign the
said document before him which was prepared by his lawyer.
Remarkably, the annulment document
contained a declaration from the Patriarch to the effect that he
revokes the power of Attorney he gave to Papadimas on May 6, 2004, and
which he signed at the time before the Notary Public Yakoub Miron.
The text writer deliberately put in
this declaration, knowing that the Attorney signed by the Patriarch to
Papadimas was not actually signed before the notary. He, indeed,
signed it in the presence of Papadimas in his own house in the
Patriarchate, after he had brought him the text demanding his
signature, claiming that the aim of this power of attorney was to
process a shop lease. Yakoub Miron at that time endorsed that power of
attorney without seeing the Patriarch. Therefore, the annulment text
came as a proof that the Patriarch signed the annulled power of
attorney before him to further complicate things!!! And to remove any
lingering doubt!!??.
Once again, the Patriarchate's
lawyers distanced themselves from the deal, by advising the Patriarch
to sign the annulment before the Notary Miron, something which raises
question we mentioned in the supplement to this report.
These incidents explain why the
Patriarch had insisted during our first meeting that he did not sign
the Power of Attorney given to Papadimas before the notary.
The position of the Land Tax Department
On March 23, 2005, Archimandrite
Ireneos, accompanied by Advocate Kevorkian to the Land Tax Department
to enquire about the existence of any declaration or report about a
deal. The lady in-charge said that she had no information whatsoever
about any deals related to the Patriarchate within the borders of the
Old City. In the same minutes Kevorkian wrote a text in Hebrew which
the Patriarch signed and requested therein not to refer to any deal
regarding the Patriarchate’s property in the Old City, without the
written and personal consent of the Patriarch.
He also requested that he be immediately notified of any enquiry
submitted in the name of the Patriarchate. The official or any other
party in the department did not respond to this letter.
Several days later, Archimandrite
Ireneos approached the Notary Yakoub Miron to obtain a copy of the
Power of Attorney given to him to handle the transactions of the
Patriarchate, in his capacity as head of the treasury. There, he met
the buyers’ lawyer who occupies a room next to the notary's room.
The buyers’ lawyer informed Archimandrite Ireneos that he prepared a
letter to the Land Tax Department demanding a temporary freeze on all
estimates and asked that they sign in order to forward it to the
Department.
Archimandrite Ireneos signed the
joint letter, believing that it was in the interest of the
Patriarchate. The buyers’ lawyer refused to give a copy of the
letter to Archimandrite Ireneos and offered to deliver it to the Land
Tax Department. Indeed, the Archimandrite and the buyers' advocate
went to the Department and handed in the letter on March 27, 2005.
Then, and for the first time, the
official informed him that there was a declaration of the deals, but
this official refused to give him any information about the claimed
deal. Archimandrite Ireneos repeatedly approached the Land Department
early in April. The official reiterated that there is a
report\declaration about a deal, but she couldn't disclose any
information to him about it, in compliance with the instruction of the
legal advisor, and refused to disclose any information, despite the
fact that the Patriarchate albeit in appearance is a concerned party
and has an interest in the deal, even though it would bear the taxes
emanating from the deal (improvement and taxes).
The King David\Torosian and
Kalmanson Deal
Following the publication of the
deal and the protest and condemnation that ensued, a person living in
Britain by the name of Bishara Torosian, an old friend of the
Patriarch, called the Patriarch to tell him he was coming to help him.
Soon after the arrival of Torosian, he began to talk about the
necessity for the Patriarch to amend a sale\lease deal of the
Patriarchate’s rights in a choice deal, contracted between the
previous Patriarch Diodoros, and an investor represented by the lawyer
Kalmanson from Tel Aviv. The contract concerned a plot near\in front
of King David Hotel. The deal was a complex one and included a choice
element by which the Patriarchate granted the investor the rights to
develop a property near King David Hotel, if the investor succeeded in
securing certain building rights from the Municipality. At the time,
he paid one million dollars in return for the choice to the Patriarch
Diodoros. The investor could not attain the building rights which he
committed himself to.
So, he lost the choice and the one
million dollars he paid. He began to threaten to regain the money or
to buy the building rights of the Patriarchate in accordance with the
conditions of that deal. Torosian tried hard to convince the Patriarch
to accept the investor's offer. In this regard, he paid the Arab
lawyer to prepare an agreement on the subject or to review it. But
when Torosian presented the contract to the Patriarch, he reused to
sign the deal altogether and he turned down Torosian and all those who
were with him. This made Torosian boycott the Patriarch to the
latter's pleasure.
It became clear, in this regard,
that Torosian who had come to the country under the pretext of
"helping" the Patriarch, was, as a matter of fact, in the
service of a cleric from the opposition who were party to the original
deal, and wanted to trap the Patriarch, by using lawyer Kalmanson and
Torosian. Torosian failed to obtain the signature of the Patriarch on
this deal, despite the Patriarch's need for money to cover the
Patriarchate expenses and to pay the salaries, etc.
Chasing the Patriarch
The support of the Greek clerics in
the Patriarchate remained, despite what was published by Ma’ariv and
despite the outcry and the Arab protest and condemnation following the
publication.
Key Synod members continued to
defend the Patriarch and denied any involvement by him in the deal.
They augmented their support and
backing of the Patriarch with a petition signed by 55 priests,
archimandrites and bishops. They forwarded the petition to the Greek
Prime Minister, demanding action or intervention against some clerics
who incited against the Patriarch and inflamed tempers against him.
The leaders of the instigators met on May 4, 2005 to organize the
mutiny. They decided to prepare a petition containing their demands
for the removal and boycotting the Patriarch.
At first, the petition was
signed by the opposition.
Later, they approached the priests,
monks and the bishops who supported the Patriarch and pressured them
to sign it. They deliberately asked the Synod member not to attend the
pro-Patriarch meeting on May 6, 2005.
The opposition leader was fully
aware and convinced that should the Synod members attend the meeting,
they would not vote for the demands contained in the petition. In
addition to that the Synod was to meet at the request of the
Patriarch; therefore, the agenda did not include a request for the
boycott of the Patriarch or his removal. Also, the married priests who
have the right to participate in the election of the Patriarch were
not convened, nor were they invited to convene for the purpose of the
removal of the Patriarch. Consequently, no decision was taken by them.
Bearing in mind that the majority of those priests were Arabs and part
of the Arab Orthodox denomination. Their absence was not an overlook.
The Arab denomination and its priesthood were the wood fuelling the
raging fire ignited by the opposition against the Patriarch inside the
Patriarchate. On May 6, 2005, a large number of the Synod members and
monks including many of those who signed the support petition demanded
the boycott and dismissal of the Patriarch. This was a beginning of
the declared and prominent move of the Greek clerics within the
Patriarchate to topple the Patriarch.
The Israeli circle, who claimed to
have bought in accordance with a deal, was not discouraged, and
continued its contacts with the Patriarch in an attempt to blackmail
him. It kept him informed ahead of any action or step or meeting
planned by the opposition and what it would result in. They informed
him in advance about the second press report published by Ma’ariv on
the "Great Friday" in the eve of April 29, 2005.
They informed him about the meeting
on May 9, 2005 and that it would result in the formation of the
tripartite commission.
A representative of the Ministry of
Justice visited him and asked him to refrain from holding a third
Synod session and not to dismiss the opposition members on the pretext
of cooling tempers. On the other hand, the Patriarch of Constantinople
called and asked him not to dismiss the opposition members.
He was informed of the bishops’
meeting in Constantinople and that his acquittal was in their hands,
and that they had documents about previous deals regarding the same
property and that this will help him in his claim that the deals date
back to the time of his predecessor. They informed him of the first
Synod's opposition meeting and that it was incomplete, and they
informed him of the second opposition Synod meeting and that it didn't
reach any conclusions; and they informed him of the third opposition
Synod meeting and that it will end up appointing an acting Patriarch.
They proved to him that their information was accurate and correct and
that it goes as they say. This proves the relation of the Israeli side
and its influence on what was going on within the opposition.
Accordingly, and throughout all these stages they repeated their offer
of the necessity of a solution by his acquiescing in their demand for
collaboration. They asked him to get rid of the Palestinian lawyers.
Authorizing Palestinian Lawyers
On May 5, 2005, the Patriarch signed
a power of Attorney authorizing us to act on his behalf to investigate
everything relating to the deal. Upon receiving the power of attorney
we met with his lawyer and other circles familiar with Papadimas and
they led us to his closest relatives with whom he is still in contact
with them. On May 9, 2005, we submitted a request to the concerned
authorities to allow us to see documents or declarations about the
submitted reports about the deal to the land property tax. Those
circles refused to provide us with any information without permission
from the department of legal advisor. Meanwhile, we held several
meetings with representative of the party that claimed to have bought
the property. We discussed several aspects of the deal and tried to
compare notes with the information we have versus the information
disclosed by the Israeli side which insisted, even during these
encounters, on his refusal to inform us of the documents regarding the
deal or of substantial details about it.
Then, on May 30, 2005, we submitted
a petition to the High Court to obligate the Finance Minister and\or
the tax official to show the reasons that prevent us from seeing all
that the so-called buyers had submitted regarding the declared deal.
Immediately after broadcasting the news about the petition to the High
Court against the behavior of the authorities and their refusal to
provide us with the required information, the government legal adviser
contacted the concerned authority and ordered him to provide us with
all the documents pertaining to the deal, and following that, indeed,
we got copies of the relevant deals. Despite that the Israeli
purchasing side continued to negotiate with us in the same manner of
blackmailing, they started with the Patriarch through clandestine
threats to lift the Israeli protective cover to effect the downfall of
the Patriarch so that they would be free to extort the other side as a
condition to recognize him. The Israeli sideways astonished by the
attitude of the Palestinian side which came as a surprise to them.
They thought that the Palestinian side would follow suit in the
footsteps of the Jordanian side by rescinding recognition.
Consequently the Patriarch would be left as a prey to them under cover
of seeking their protection.
PETRA, IMPERIAL, SAINT JOHN
deals concluded under Patriarch Diodoros
1. The case of the Saint John Hotel
building has been known for several years. It is still pending before
the courts until today. It is being followed up on by an Arab lawyer
who received it from the Patriarchate’s lawyer.
2. No one knew about agreements
concerning al-Petra and Imperial Hotels since the time of the late
Diodoros.
The only one who hinted at this
instance was Papadimas during his first conversation with the Advocate
Elias Khouri through the journalist. However, he didn't give any
details on the matter.
3. The first time the buyers' lawyer talked about the existence of
such deals was during one of his encounters with Advocate Elias Khouri,
prior to Patriarch Ireneos’ departure to Istanbul. He hinted that by
providing us with documents related to the deals, we could
"clear" Ireneos from charges and claims against him
regarding this property. Mr. Elias didn't pay attention to such talk
and he refused them demonstrating that the only option we have was to
annul all deals, if any. He insisted on the need to get all the
documents regarding this property.
4. The second time there was a
declaration about the existence of this old property, came two days
before the departure of the Patriarch to Istanbul when he was notified
(via-David\yousef) directly about them. They also informed him of
their willingness to provide him with the documents so that he could
defend himself before the Synod in Istanbul. The Patriarch refused to
deal with such a possibility as mentioned somewhere else in our
report.
5. To prove the authenticity of
their utterances, they provided us with a single document concerning
al-Petra Hotel and signed in 1997.
It is attached to our report, and
{they provided us} with a declaration from Advocate Davis Daniel in
which he acknowledges knowing about three deals signed by Metropolitan
Constantine.
The Deals under
Investigation
Upon receiving the report and
declarations submitted to the Land Tax Department together with the
documents attached, it became clear that:
First: on August 16, 2004 Papadimas,
acting on behalf of the Patriarch, signed a lease contract for 99
years of the property located in Al-Moristan Aftimos Market –Al
Dabbagha – Old City, known as Saint John Hotel. According to this
contract, the property was leased to a company in the name of (Humberstone
Ventures S.A). It is a company registered in the British Virgin
Islands, with anonymous shareholders, for the amount of $400,000 US
dollars paid in two equal installments to the Patriarchate.
In addition to this amount, the
company undertook to pay in advance a rent for $7,500 US dollars every
three months.
Second: On August 16, 2004 Papadimas
acting on behalf of the Patriarch, signed a lease contract for 99
years with a company in the name of (Richards Marketing Corporation)
registered in the British Virgin Islands with anonymous share holders.
In accordance with this contract, the Imperial Hotel building located
in the square of Omar Ibn Al Khattab, Baab Al Khalil, Jerusalem, was
leased for the amount of $1,250,000 US dollars, transferred to the
account of the Patriarchate in Leumi Bank in Jaffa in four
installments, the first of which was $350,000 US dollars then three
installments each for $300,000 US dollars.
We could not find in the said
account any remittances in this amount; however, we found a remittance
for the amount of $259,929 US dollars on August 20, 2004.
Third: On August 23, 2004, Papadimas, acting on behalf of the
Patriarch, signed a lease contract for 99 years to lease the Petra
Hotel building with a company by the name of "Petra Ford
Investment Ltd."; a company registered on "Quadinsi"
with anonymous shareholders, for a total amount for the whole period
of the lease, of $500,000 US dollars, paid in two equal installments,
the first within 30 days from the date of signing the agreement and
the second after 60 days as of signing.
This amount was remitted to the
Patriarchate Account at Leumi Bank Branch No. 80, Yafat St. Jaffa, the
first on September 29, 2004 and the second on October 22, 2004.
On October 19, 2004 Papadimas
withdrew $150,000 US dollars in cash. He also withdrew another
$150,000 US dollars on November 2, 2004. There were also withdrawals
in Israeli currency from this account to unknown quarters.
We were not able yet to receive all
the relevant account sheets. We didn't receive yet copies of the
payment transfers and vouchers of payment at the bank.
Fourth: On October 19, 2004,
Papadimas, acting on behalf of the patriarch, signed a lease contract
for real estate plot No 45 lot 30859 including the house built on it
in Al-Mo'athamiyya Str. No. 18, Bab Hutta- Old City.
The lease duration is 99 years for
the amount of $55,000 US dollars in three payments, the first
installment $10,000 US dollars to be paid within 30 days, the second
payment for $15,000 US dollars to be paid on January 1, 2005, the
third for $15,000 US dollars to be paid on February 1, 2005.
The fourth payment for $15,000 US
dollars was to be paid on March 1, 2005.
These payments were supposed to be
transferred to the said Bank Leumi account. But there was no mention
of these amounts in the accounts we received, bearing in mind that
despite our request to the bank, it didn't deliver them to us.
It is worth mentioning that this Bank Account was closed as of the end
of February 2005.
Papadimas was authorized to sign for
the said account as well as for all the Patriarchate's accounts at the
banks, in the capacity of the position he held at the time.
We could not find in the documents
which we received and reviewed, any signature or any evidence
indicating that the Patriarch received any amount of the transferred
payments. In addition, the buyers' lawyer acknowledges that he did not
remit any amount to the Patriarch.
For information, at the outset of
our meetings with the buyers' lawyer, he pointed out seven and not
four deals, as shown in the documents we got from the Land Tax
Department. However, after several meetings, the buyers' lawyer backed
out and declared that the contracted deals were only the four we got.
Certainly, what were submitted to the Land Tax Department were the
documents of the four mentioned deals. As a precautionary measure, we
will follow the matter with the Land Tax Department.
We obtained partial data about
banks, through the authorization given to us by the Patriarch, and
through the cooperation of Archimandrite Ireneos who went by himself
to the banks demanding the turnover of all the data which we hope will
be received shortly.
Conclusion
1. In accordance with the
information and data we received, we have not heard or received any
evidence or proof, incriminating Patriarch Ireneos of knowing about a
deal before its being signed or during the signing of and until the
flight of Papadimas from the country.
2. He did not participate in the
proceedings at any stage.
3. He did not receive any amount
from any deal, despite the fact that all the payments were made to the
account of the Patriarchate.
4. The deals were never presented to
the Synod of the Holy Tomb Brotherhood, because the Patriarch was not
aware of them.
Therefore the Synod did not endorse
them, a matter which renders these deals legally invalid so they
remain incomplete.
5. A very well calculated plan
unfolded before us. It was schemed by a number of clerics opposing
Ireneos in collaboration with Israeli Extreme Right Wingers. Their
interest converged in the aim of getting rid of Ireneos step by step.
6. a) The behavior of the buyers'
tenant was not in good faith. On the contrary, it is clear from the
above incidents that the buyer acted in ill-faith, resorting to
illegal methods to extort the Patriarch and force him to cooperate in
concluding the deal.
b) The buying party did not declare
the deal to the tax authority within the legal period specified by the
law-45 days as of signing the deal. It kept the said deal in secret,
something which constitutes a criminal breach on one hand and adds to
the ill-will underlying this deal, and the timing of its utilization.
There are objective indications that there was illegal cooperation
that may amount to criminal violation between the Land Tax Department
and the buyers. This may explain the concealment and refusal of the
Department to submit the declarations and their attachments to the
Patriarch or his representative until lodging the petition with the
High Court.
7. The party that concluded the new
deals with Papadimas was in knowledge of all deals. It tried to use
them, as claimed by its representative to improve and amend its
stands.
However, it is unreasonable for a
sane man to sign or approve or participate in the signing of four
deals for four sites for two million US dollars, at a time when there
were offers for amounts bigger than this amount in return for only one
deal, a matter which supports and enhances the conclusion that the
Patriarch was not involved in the said deals.
8. The Patriarchate is liable for
all the sums transferred to its account as a result of these deals,
and the damages and the expense which that entails.
9. a) In accordance with the
applicable law in East Jerusalem, Patriarch Ireneos is still the
legitimate Patriarch enjoying full powers.
b. The actions of the opposition to
the Patriarch are deemed null and void, because the post of the
Patriarch has not been vacant. Hence the action of this group is
legally senseless.
Should Israel decide to rescind its
recognition of Patriarch Ireneos, this would give rise to the Israeli
claim that there is a vacancy in discharging the affairs of the
church, because Ireneos is no longer a Patriarch on one hand, and on
the other, the procedures of electing an acting Patriarch should be
repeated anew, then, the doors would be open anew for those who vie
for this post, in accordance with pure Israeli criteria and
dictations.
10. Recommendations
1. Follow up the procedures to get the documents which we have not
received yet, and try to expose the true circles standing behind the
purchase and the possibility of the existence of other deals.
2. To maintain a close relation with the Patriarch and to encourage
him to continue rejecting the deals.
3. To consider the appropriate arrangement in favor of the case to
initiate the legal action to declare the invalidity of the deals. This
includes lodging a criminal case with the government legal advisor on
the grounds of suspicion of falsification and collaboration of the
Land Tax Department with the so-called buyers and to file a law case
concerning the declaration of the invalidity of the deals.
4. To maintain a channel of negotiation open with the Israeli side
with its affiliates; including the parties that claim to be the
buyers, in the hope that this may lead to the annulment of the deals
in this way.
5. Abstain from revoking the recognition in the Patriarch so as not to
leave the ground empty for the Israeli government which would seize
the opportunity to act against all the priesthood camps within the
Holy Tomb Brotherhood to extort them and to impose its dictations in
all the fields especially in the field of property.
6. Despite the circumstances surrounding the signing of the Patriarch
on the Power of attorney to Papadimas, he bears part of the
responsibility for the consequences resulting from the abuse of this
power of attorney. Therefore, we deem it necessary to insure a
monitoring mechanism that prevents the repetition of such incident and
its like, just as had happened in the past, so that we may safeguard
the future of the property.
7. Taking into consideration the location of the property involved in
the deal, and the strategic dimension of concluding such deals and of
the possible consequences resulting from them, we deem it necessary to
work on the proper diplomatic level to explain the gravity of the
matter to the concerned international circles, because this is a
political act to impose a new status quo that affect future
negotiations with the Palestinians.
8. To seize the opportunity made available by the current crisis at
the Patriarchate to enhance the status of the Arab clergy and to
cement the relationship between the Patriarchate and the Arab
congregation in the area.
9. To utilize the status quo to draw up a plan that ensures the
workings of the Patriarchate in the future so as to prevent the
custodians of this Patriarchate from committing (wrong doing) whether
it's deliberate or otherwise.
10. To demand all tenants to report any action taking by the so-called
buyer, so that we may respond immediately and to delegate authority to
an honest law firm to handle these cases.
THE LEGAL ADVISORS OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
AND AUTHORS OF THE REPORT