סקס אלים חינם סקס אלים אונס

סקס אלים חינם סקס אלים אונס

Never duplicate your title tag content in your header tag. Return to top Marketing Checklist Optimize. Manage Competitors for mnews. Start My Day Free Trial. Marketing Checklist Top priorities for mnews. Michel D'Urso Wierde Belgium. Ricky Whiting Brighton United Kingdom. See all Certified Experts. This is a representation of what your Title Tag and Meta Description will look like in Google search results. Headings Medium impact Easy to solve.

An official in the Kibbutz confirmed that Nestle-Osem pressured unusually hard to have Nestle-Nestle-Noga ice cream owned by Nestle-Osem and Tnuva the exclusive supplier of the Kibbutz".

Attached is the notice by "Strauss" and Kibbutz Shefayim — marked as K. Furthermore, in the research book "First class", by the most senior journalist and researcher in Israel, Yoav Yizhak, one can read of food companies who stood up to Nestle-Osem and were distinguished, this happened in the framework of the centralization process that has been taking place for years in Israel, a gradually worsening process which leads also to the overtaking of the media that is financed by them.

Attached is the research relevant to Nestle-Osem — section , marked as L, and on harming the public on section - marked as L 1. While trying to eliminate the crusader companies — the companies that marketed Pikanti's products, the Nestle-Osem group submitted against them a series of 12 legal claims based on the false claim that they had not paid their debts to her.

Here the Nestle-Osem group used the ancient method of "Hast thou killed and also taken possessions? To the list of claims see attached supplement and marked as M see there section. All claims were submitted in short justice order and two at the execution bureau. To the heads of claims see attached supplement marked as N. In Nestle-Osem's claims words: There it claims to have been cheated and misled, and the corporate veil should be lifted and the Investment Crusader Ltd.

Yet when the Nestle-Osem group did not succeed with those claims why, will later be explained , they said that the one responsible for the crusader debts was not Investment Crusader Ltd. In any case, according to the behavior of Nestle-Osem — logically one of these processes is futile - the 12 processes against Investment Crusader Ltd.

See attached request for joining, and marked as Q. The Nestle-Osem group acted in this way not for a legal matter of fact consideration and not for discovering it was wrong, but rather because it had not succeeded in the former claims. Who but the representative of the Nestle-Osem group can describe its iniquity and its failure to the point of misusing legal processes. In a debate at the District Court on 3.

And in his words: So the truth came out, and the representative of the Nestle-Osem group said it publicly. We have eyes to see that not claims of misleading, cheating, the lifting of the corporate veil by Pikanti was the truth, but only because the Nestle-Osem group's plans were disrupted, according to which Investment Crusader is to be blamed, Nestle-Osem proceeded to wrongfully use legal procedures, and now falsely claim that "Cartel Survivor Ltd.

While there was no legal cause of action to submit a claim against Pikanti, the Nestle-Osem group conducted all its claims against the crusader companies — the companies that marketed the Pikanti products — as a whole, and against The Investment Crusader Ltd. When a poke was put in its legal wheel against the crusaders, the Nestle-Osem group had "no choice" but to go on with its method proven above and which receives confirmation in the affidavit marked C 1 which is "Nestle-Osem will do anything to destroy Pikanti".

Yet it is hard to turn an ocean of claims and legal arguments which Nestle-Osem held in 12 legal processes with what it considered defined and proven cause of actions, and claim now that it is all quite the opposite.

When Nestle-Osem destroyed the crusader — the companies that marketed the "Pikanti products — first with a cartel and then with an ocean of claims, all in the method of thou hast killed and also taken possession, she eventually realized that the tide was turned or in other words, she shot herself in the leg. Nestle-Osem's smart guys consulted as to what to do next and found themselves a consultant. Here Nestle-Osem recruited a new "war weapon" — an affidavit by a lawyer who is an internal consultant for the Nestle-Osem group.

However, Nestle-Osem does not say, nor does the consultant, that he is a consultant, and they do not say that he is a legal consultant and a lawyer too , but they specify in the affidavit a mixture of incorrect data, from the role of the person who gave the affidavit to creating a distorted picture in order to create a legal basis to oblige the "Cartel Survivor Ltd" with the debts of all crusader — the companies that marketed Pikanti's products, and they thought that the readers' "…eyes are debaubed, and they cannot see" Isaiah 44, 18 when they are cheated.

Moreover — This affidavit supported Nestle-Osem's request to join the liquidation file against Pikanti, while the one to request the liquidation, "Sunfrost", changed its mind.

Nestle-Osem, using this request and this affidavit, delayed the cancellation of the liquidation file, and continued to cause harm to claimant no. In his affidavit and in section 1 Mr. Joshua Meroz declares as follows: Yet it turns out that the person who gave the affidavit is not a member of the above mentioned management.

The person giving the affidavit did not reveal his real position — a legal internal consultant to the Nestle-Osem group and a lawyer, in addition to being the group' secretary. As specified in the registrar of companies' documents, the person giving the affidavit, lawyer Joshua Meroz, is not a manager in any one of the Nestle-Osem group companies who hold share and are inhere after specified. The total number of managers in those companies is 57!!!

Attached is a printout by the registrar of companies to the above mentioned Nestle-Osem company — marked as S. Attached is a printout by the registrar of companies to the above mentioned Nestle - Froumin Company — marked as T. Attached is a printout by the registrar of companies to "Atoor" of the Nestle-Osem group and a share holder in the two above mentioned companies — marked as U. Attached is a printout by the registrar of companies to "Nestle-Osem Export" which is a share holder in the above mentioned Nestle-Osem - marked as V.

Attached is a letter of the representative of those companies. In the copy his real position and title are indicated — marked as W. In section 3 to the affidavit the above declares that: Pikanti submitted to the petitioners check as follows: To Nestle-Osem — a check for the sum of , The affidavit is a portion of the Nestle-Osem group request against Pikanti — "Pikanti Food Industries" as was its former name. The person giving the affidavit distinguishes Pikanti from "The Pikanti Groups".

See reference to the "Pikanti Companies" in section 3 D. By making this distinction the lying Meroz puts up a false presentation as if the above mentioned checks were by "Pikanti Food Industries" today "Cartel Survivor Ltd.

But examining the checks it is clear that not "Pikanti food Industries Ltd. Meroz, the person who gave the false affidavit uses the name Pikanti and lets the court believe that he refers to the claimant. Yet as mentioned, this description is a false presentation of a fact and is done so intentionally. The deceitful presentation was made to mislead the court to think that there is a reason for Pikanti's liquidation due to dishonored non-redeemed checks.

The deceitful person who gave the affidavit covers and does not reveal that those checks were claimed in two execution files from "Pikanti Investment Ltd. Attached is execution file against debtor "Pikanti Investments Ltd. Attached is execution file against the debtor "Pikanti Investments Ltd. On page 4, section 4, the person who gave the false affidavit declares: And on page 9, section to the request it is said: But it turns out that H.

Food did not request the lien on The lien is of 8. Attached — agreement and the pawn bill of 8. Again, as already mentioned, the defendant puts up a deceitful presentation to the court with the intention of misleading it to believe that Pikanti and "Pikanti Companies" together made fictional liens after the request for the liquidation against H.

The lien had been created a long time before the request for liquidation the date of the liquidation was 9. The temporary liquidator also indicated in his first report, ibid page 7, that the lien was created on 8. Yet the claimant is not satisfied. To mislead the court as if a long time had passed after the request for liquidation, he says that three weeks had passed up to But in fact only two weeks had passed from 9.

Yet even the date of The deceit and misleading is multiplied. The deceitful person who gave the affidavit and the Nestle-Osem group are not satisfied with these lies. In regard to the date of the lien creation, and for the deceitful presentation to be perfect for the court to be convinced that the "facts" are the reality, it is declared as follows: In it emerge serious offences attributed to the claimant and her manager, who was also the manger of the "Crusader" companies, and there is enough in this report to base, all the more, what is written in this request: See the request by the Nestle-Osem group — supplement Q — page 9 section 25 — for convenient reasons this page is attached as an additional supplement, marked Z5.

The false presentation is, that even the temporary liquidator determined, as it were, that the company was under lien after the request for liquidation. But this is not what the liquidator ruled: Attached is the liquidator's ruling in section Their intention is clear — that whoever is misled by the presentation will act upon it, that is, as mentioned above: That means, the best "proof" and the most "convincing' one is that Pikanti should be liquidated.

On page 10 section cc , the Nestle-Osem group indicates, in its request to join the liquidation: According to section In this case also there is no way around the conclusion…".

Attached is page no. The lien was not created on the day the defendant declared it was. The lien was created on Attached is the liquidator's report, page 8, section In addition is attached the registration with the registrar of companies, marked as Z9.

On page 5 of his affidavit, on p. Again, this is a deceitful presentation of a fact, in full knowledge that it is false, as the money entered their cash register, and this is no small some but , NS as follows: To base their request and cause Pikanti's liquidation, the cheater on page 5 of the above, in section g together with section 6 a , and in the request itself, declares that the ceasing of payments is due to the company being insolvent and: This declaration stands in contradiction to another declaration the Nestle-Osem group submitted in another process.

In the claim Nestle-Osem maintains page 9, section 17 that: Attached is the claim, marked AA. Yet when it wants Pikanti to be liquidated, it has no problem in submitting a false declaration — that already in 7. Nestle-Osem has no problem in submitting contradictory statements to different courts in an issue essential to the core of the matter.

Stopping supplies, the Nestle-Osem group and defendants and , breached the trade agreement they had with Pikanti unilaterally. They did so without due notice, against the agreement conditions, and against the business custom between them. On the contractual level: On the torturous level: Publicized libel about Pikanti, as under the libel prohibition law, , to the l public in general and other agents supplying goods to Pikanti in particular, and by doing so caused Pikanti considerable financial harm.

The almost certain harm of libel is damage to a person, to who the libel is directed. As the damage is not outside the natural results of the publicity, there is no need to see "with the intent to harm" in section 6 of the law a demand to a specific intent by the publicity, even if we adopt this classification of "intent". If the target, to whom the intent refers, "is attached to results which may develop naturally because of that behavior, then the intent attached to those results is ordinary, as the results are ordinary" S.

Feller, "Absenteeism, to evade a combat duty", The Attorney, , More difficult is the distinction between motive and intent. The law does not always use the term "with intent" to describe a mental basis of intent but also as a term of motive regard Z.

The question, then, is if section 6 demands "intent" in the sense of a mental base of intent, that is a relation of wishing to the result, a wish to achieve the goal by doing the deed, or maybe section 6 deals with "intent" that is the reason which made the doer want the result. When the motive is satisfied only after the immediate result was achieved See Y. The distinction is between 'aim' and 'motive'".

As the immediate almost certain result of libel by Nestle-Osem is damage to Pikanti, it is proper to say that the damage refers to the external reality to the doer and not his internal 'why'. Because if the damage is direct and immediate from the behavior, it is not that far away goal, satisfied when the immediate goal is reached.

The test of result, integrated with the test of external reality, shows that all defendants spoke ill of Pikanti. Furthermore, Nestle-Osem and its friends publicized a lie under section 58 of the Damage Law new version when they publicized an intentionally fraudulent notice about Pikanti's business. The quarrel created by the consumer protection law is not explicitly recognized in the general law, yet there are roots to this liability in the general law.

The explicit recognition of cause in the consumer protection law makes this question of cause simplified. The liability is that of the manufacturer in a case of misleading or covering up by him. There are roots to in the general law both in the customary law and in ruling and in literature, to the recognition of the liability of a third party to misleading presentations which resulted in agreement.

A, pages , section Shalev Contract laws, Law, second edition, page Novogrotzky, 84 34 3 47 the liability of a mediator to damages caused by contact. In the English law the liability of a manufacturer was recognized in cases when he presented direct presentations towards the buyer.

The base for liability was the establishing of a unilateral contract or a supplement. In Israel this technique has also been used. Nestle-Osem and the other defendants in this claim are prosecuted also for breaching a legal obligation: The Restraint of Trade , maintaining in section 4 that: All monopoly owners included in this claim, like Nestle-Osem and Tnuva are claimed for breaching a legal obligation also according to section 29 to the Restraint of Trade which determines: And also small section ".

Nestle-Osem's" business and consumer criminality is not new. For a long time it has cheated the consumers in various ways and methods. It has been discovered, lately, that Nestle-Osem reduces the packages of its products, yet leaves the prices intact. In these times of recession when many families fall upon hard times, Nestle-Osem found a new way to increase its revenue, by cheating customers. While it reduces the size of its packages so the consumer gets less and less, it profits at the expense of the consumers when it leaves the prices intact.

For example, reduced the package-size of the large Bisli from gr. After it was caught with its fingers in the till, Nestle-Osem tried to save her name and announced she would reduce the Bisli prices in 1. The uncovering of this phenomenon aroused a big storm and the Ministry of Industry opened an investigation. At the same time, Zamir Hayat, the supervisor for the central region in the Ministry of Industry, announced that following the instructions of the supervisor of consumer protection, the shrunk packages would be collected and the manufacture would be invited to offer explanations.

They would also examine the legal aspect of this issue. The companies of the Nestle-Osem concern mislead their customers by reducing the size of products without reducing their price accordingly and without making it known to the consumers. The Knesset committee for public petitions, turned to the manufactures and the companies that changed the packages, and asked them to go back on the changes they had made. Among other things, the committee demanded that the manufactures make an obvious change in the packages so as not mislead the consumers.

The vice general manger of the consumer authority in the Histadrut, Hani Monin, said in a debate at the Knesset, that an arbitration body should be established for the issue of misleading the consumer, which are in the so to speak grey zone yet which deprive the consumer of his rights. The legal consultant for consumerism, Attorney Yosi Berg said that the authority's examinations showed that the phenomenon of reducing the size of packages can cause to the public a potential damage of half a billion NS a year.

He also said that after learning the subject, the authority will debate its next steps. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and labor will examine an obligatory process which will coerce the marketing networks to publicize the price of products in relation the quantity.

This is about weight units, volume or single product units in large packages. This indication will enable the consumer to compare prices and will neutralize criminals such as Nestle-Osem from cheating the consumers. Yet Nestle-Osem's iniquities do not stop here. About a year ago a snack it imported by the name of Chicks-Mix was taken off the counters, after it was discovered that Nestle-Osem cheated the consumers. As it turned out, this snack has nothing to do with chips snacks, as this snack is not made of potatoes at all and thus the comparison misleads the consumer, who assumes that he eats a potato fatless snack, when in fact the snack is made of corn and wheat.

After the authority for consumerism got involved, The Health Ministry saw to it to take the snack off the counters. Yaffa Reicher, in charge of a legal group in the food service in Tel Aviv confirmed that a representative of Nestle-Osem was investigated at the police and the file was transferred to the Tel Aviv region Attorney's Office for further treatment. When asked by a journalist, Shoshanna Chen, "Why mislead the consumers? Nestle-Osem answered that the product was taken off the counters and the issue is treated by the legal department.

This is how Nestle-Osem decided to put an end to this embarrassing story. While the simple citizen fights for his livelihood, Nestle-Osem managed to have a sales turnover of the third quarter of of This fact alone can explain hoe "honest" and "loyal" Nestle-Osem is to its consumers.

It is obvious that today families buy less then what they used to in the past. Exploitation of Monopoly Nestle-Osem is a monopoly as the term is under the Restraint of Trade — The Restraint of Trade Law, in comparison to the former one of , is designed to increase the supervision on monopoly activity to prevent damage caused by monopoly control of the market.

The legislator implemented in section 26 A to the structure examination law, somewhat mechanical, establishing conclusive possession, that control over more than half the supply of assets or services, expresses control and dominant status. At the same time, section 26 c gives the Minister of Industry and Trade the authority to determine, concerning certain assets or services, the existence of a monopoly even if the control is over less than half, if he finds — by the supervisor's recommendation, that whoever has a smaller portion has a decisive influence in the market.

A monopoly is not against the law. The Restraint of Trade Law does not prohibit a body or a certain firm to have a monopoly, only if it has a monopoly, as Nestle-Osem does, the law forbids it from exploiting its monopolistic status as Nestle-Osem did against Pikanti. The Restraint of trade controller, in his ruling concerning "Yediot Aharonot" determined as follows: A monopoly as such is not forbidden by law.

In principle, a company with a monopoly has the right to conduct its affairs as it sees fit. This right has been around for a long time and now it is anchored inn a new basic law: The goal of controlling the monopoly is to prevent damage that may ensue from the monopoly owner's control of the market".

The issue of forbidding unfair competition, which we will deal with hereinafter, is anchored in section 29 A of the Restraint Trade law, a correction and an addition to the law.

Section 29 A of the law focuses in avoiding exploitation of the monopolistic status, while section 30 of the law states some statutory causes for orders to settle monopoly activities.

One of the statutory causes as mentioned, is the cause of "conducting an unfair competition between the monopoly owner and others", as Nestle-Osem conducted. The learned Yizhak Yagur wonders what is new in section 29 A of the Restraint trade law compared to section 30 4 to the law, if all causes mentioned there fall anyway into the wide cause of "conducting unfair competition" by virtue of section 30 4 to the law.

The answer, according to Yagur, lays in the level of evidence and in the burden of proof. Section 29 A rules in fact four possessions that should one or more of them exist, a possession is created by which the monopoly owner exploited his status in the market in a way that may reduce competition in business. One of the exploitation possessions rules that "exploitation" means conducting unfair competition towards others.

The Law used the term unfair competition "towards others" and not necessarily towards competitors. Yagur explains that unfair competition, as reflected in monopoly rules, is not only on the horizontal level, which means, it is no merely among competitors, but it could exist also on the vertical level — between the monopoly owner and the distributor or distributors of the monopolized product, or even towards the suppliers, as was the case with the Nestle-Osem's CARTEL AGAINST Pikanti.

The competition, in this case, as will hereinafter be brought, was far from being a fair one. The claimant's suppliers hereinafter the defendants , took part in the food cartel established by Nestle-Osem. The defendants stopped the supplies in an organized and coordinated manner, despite the fact that the claimant made its payments on time, and by doing so they created the domino effect.

Stopping the supplies caused severe financial damage to the claimants and to the Pikanti concern in general, and caused the collapse of the Pikanti concern. The actions by each company by itself and the actions of all the companies together with the others, damaged the cash flow, emptied the Pikanti concern counters, and signaled to the rest of the suppliers to join the destruction.

The actions by the defendants, together and separately, caused panic among the suppliers, and they too, in a short time, ceased to supply goods fearing and expecting that the actions by the other defendants would disrupt the cash flow. Others in that additional crowd worsened the credit terms as a condition to keep supplying goods.

Naturally, the change in credit terms, added a layer to the damage of the Pikanti cash flow. When the supermarkets' shelves remained orphaned, the customers deserted the stores, which resulted in even more cash flow damage. On one hand expenses swelled up for paying all bills to the defendants , while on the other hand, income went down the hill.

Discontinuation of bank credit which is built by virtue of cash flow. The incapacity of the Pikanti concern companies to pay off their debts to the defendants, created enormous financial difficulties to the claimants, as all their income was based on ordering goods from the marketing companies.

With the destruction of the, marketing companies, no one remained to order goods from the claimants. These actions caused, among other things, the selling of part of the business for a pittance. Thus supermarkets with their expensive equipment were gone, and the investments went down the drain.

These actions were done despite Pikanti's and the rest of the Pikanti concern's warnings to the defendants, who did not give required advance notice, and acted to liquidate Pikanti in a manner contradictory to the company's ordinance. If those actions were not enough to destroy Pikanti, the companies implemented legal actions with the goal of destroying Pikanti.

However, it was proven that they conducted futile proceedings as court, including submission of false affidavits, forgery, and evidence concealing. These acts were severely criticized by the court. Thus, to the causes of the above claim of the Nestle-Osem group and its collaborators, are added causes of action for violation of trade agreements and obligations, actions against the law on a contract and damage level, exploitation of monopoly, conducting futile proceedings and more.

By activating a cartel, the suppliers caused Pikanti damage on a very large scale. As they were determined to bring about the collapse of Pikanti, they breached their contract with Pikanti. Any excuse, that Pikanti was in economic bad shape at that time, which made them each breach their contract, is an utter lie. At that time Pikanti enjoyed economic strength and there was no reason to breach contracts, unless for malicious reasons.

Furthermore, the argument as if the collapse of Pikanti originated in acts and failure to act on the part of its managers or its share holders as it were, is not in order, because already the magistrates court in Tel Aviv ruled that this is not about "inner" economic difficulties which originate inside the corporation, but rather about external to the corporation difficulties, not under its control, and not its guilt. And the honorable Judge Shevah continues and rules: On the contrary, the evidence submitted to me point to a firm economic situation, regular payments on a large scale in the past and an effort to solve the crisis by pouring in personal money".

Therefore, any claim the defendants arise concerning this issue, is a false claim as the truth has been uncovered, and it would be an act of court contempt.

The defendants are, thus, silenced from waving their chewed and flagellated lies about the blame components they tried to falsely accuse Pikanti and its managers with. The causes of action against the defendants are, among other things, the breaching of trade agreements and obligations, acts against the law on the legal and torturous level, exploitation of monopoly, malicious suit, and more.

Some of the defendants tried to destroy Pikanti at all costs, without any debt or a cause for liquidation, even at the cost of misleading the court. They would stop at nothing, including false claims and fact concealing. By stopping the supply of goods, the cartel partners breached the trade agreement between Pikanti and its suppliers unilaterally, with no advance warning, in contrast to the trade agreements and in contrast to the manner of trade between them.

Every defendant, who was a supplier for Pikanti, in its act or lack of acts, breached its obligations and acted towards defendant no. Its liability as partner and lobbyist is as under section 21 to the damage order. Hereinafter, the specification of the relations of the defendant with Pikanti, the situation before the breach of agreement and immediately after the start of the cartel, the details of the severe damage and its meaning to Pikanti.

Nestle-Osem offered no explanation to the breach of contract with Pikanti. Even after Pikanti asked it to renew the supply of goods and keep the contract, Nestle-Osem did not answer the pleadings.

Contrary to the agreements, the promises, and the trade custom, the goods were not supplied, and inability to sell suppliers' goods at that time resulted in heavy losses, expenditures for external financing due to the stopping of credit, loss of profit due to the pending liquidation process, and other debts.

The contract between Nestle - owner of Froumin Marketing Ltd. Nestle - Froumin supplied to Pikanti various products among others: The contract between the parties was done orally and for an unlimited sum.

Pikanti paid Nestle - Froumin regularly, who saw to it that a representative on its behalf would come and pick up the checks from Pikanti's office in Benei Brak. Even after time after time pleadings, Nestle - Froumin did not renew product supply to Pikanti. All questioned directed at to Nestle - Froumin, were evaded and no real answers were given. Furthermore, Nestle - Froumin approached other companies and convinced them to stop their business with Pikanti as well.

Nestle - Froumin belongs to the Nestle-Osem group and manufactures food. All of Nestle - Froumin's acts against Pikanti, whether cartel acts or legal ones, were coordinated with Nestle-Osem. So, for example, the liquidation request was joined and accompanied by a joined affidavit, an affidavit submitted by Joshua Meroz, the secretary of both Nestle-Osem and Nestle - Froumin companies, an "a member of the Nestle-Osem group management.

Nestle - owner of Nestle Froumin managed the food cartel that was organized by Nestle-Osem as mentioned, Nestle - Froumin belongs to the Nestle-Osem group , as a supplier to the Pikanti concern.

In its request and its affidavit, it said that the ,marketing companies the stores in the Pikanti concern ceased paying already In July 97', the month it stopped supplies to Pikanti. In addition it claimed, that claimant 1 is the debtor of the marketing companies by virtue of the lifting of the veil and more.

It was proved that the Nestle - Froumin affidavit was false in its facts such as: All in all , NS were paid and cashed, during the month when Nestle - Froumin did not supply products as agreed, causing the collapse of the marketing companies and claimant 1.

By drawing those sums, and other former sums, is an illegal act of preferring creditors, a preference that should be returned, and a preference that created a disadvantage with claimant 1. Also, the facts Nestle -Froumin claimed were contradictory to the facts it raised to the court in other proceedings. The court ruled that Nestle - Froumin had not submitted a proper affidavit as customary in legal order.

As the court noted: The court noted that Pikanti claimant 1 disagreed: On the Nestle - Froumin presentation, the court's criticism was severe, and the court noted that: Nestle - Froumin claimed falsely that the, marketing companies created a lien for the First International Bank one day before the appointment of the liquidator. The truth — the lien was created much earlier.

The claim of assets smuggling turned out to be dales. Nestle - Froumin's request and its trial to mislead the court and cause it to fail in a legal procedure, to believe that Nestle - Froumin provided goods to the claimant and the marketing companies, and that the claimant had not paid and therefore the "liquidation sword" should be raised and the debt collected — all these are futile proceedings, and points to its actions in the cartel which were meant to destroy Pikanti totally.

To the above causes of conducting unlawful acts and fraud should be added the causes of action that derive from Nestle - owner of Nestle - Froumin's part in the cartel. The agreement between Pikanti and Haifa Poultry was agreed upon in , and in the contract was entered into with the Haifa Poultry Partnership. The business of Haifa Poultry Partnership was poultry slaughter. It provided Pikanti with various products among other with: After negotiations between the late Mr.

Arie Shrager and Mr. Moshe Badash of Pikanti, and the national dales manager of Haifa Poultry Partnership, an oral contract was conducted for an unlimited sum. It was agreed between Haifa Poultry Partnership and Pikanti that the contract will be automatically renewed annually with no time limit.

Pikanti paid regularly to Haifa Poultry Partnership, who saw to it that a representative on its behalf would pick up the checks at the Pikanti offices in Bnei Brak. Even though Pikanti continued to honor the agreement between them, Haifa Poultry Partnership breached its obligations of the contract and on 7.

Even after consistent pleadings, Haifa Poultry partnership did not renew goods' supply to Pikanti. Even though Tnuva ceased the supply to Pikanti, Pikanti continued to honor all its obligations. So, for example, Pikanti paid Tnuva the following sums after the start of the cartel: Furthermore, even though Haifa Poultry stopped supplies to Pikanti, Pikanti continued to fulfill all its obligations. Thus, for example, Pikanti paid Haifa Poultry the following sums after the start of the cartel: Haifa Poultry Partnership is, as mentioned, a legal entity which acted unlawfully, when controlled by the Tnuva concern in virtue of Tnuvashot Ltd.

According to the law, Tnuva should have asked the approval of the restraint Trade Controller to be involved in the control over Haifa Poultry. This criminal bunch chose to take the law in their hands, to neglect to approach the Restraint Trade Controller, and to try and hide the relations between the different corporations that were created to bypass illegally consumer law of great importance. The base of facts shows that the restraint trade criminals should be sent to jail, with the top swindler Arik Riechman in front, who externally presents a rough, illiterate farmer, yet in fact, this is just a cover for his illegal iniquity and the Diaspora-like "combinatory" not fit in the 3rd.

Reichman's criminality damaged the Pikanti companies mortally and ruined the lives of hundreds of families in Israel. There is no doubt that in the above case, Reichman took advantage of Haifa Poultry's as it were, separate persona, to make an unacceptable profit in illegal and false ways, hiding from the public and from the restraint trade controller, who serves as the consumers' trustee, the true connection between Tnuva and Haifa Poultry.

The law determined a number of tests for the examination of the existence of agency relations between a parent company and a subsidiary company. The conclusion of the existence of agent relations between a parent company and a subsidiary company in a cluster of companies, is anchored in various factual factors, including the question who appointed the business managers of the subsidiary company?

The test is if the subsidiary company acts as a tool or pipe for the parent company's activities. Here also, the nature of these bases requires laying a detailed factual foundation of the relations between the corporations and the defendants". This tests show that the curtain should be raised in relevance to the corporations of Tnuva and Haifa Poultry and all involved should be severely punished, because, as the law requires, Haifa Poultry "stopped acting on its own will", for her logical trade interests, and worked solely to serve the dark interests of Tnuva, including the food cartel issue, which means that "its self wish was deprived".

The food cartel against Pikanti was not the only time when Tnuva acted against the restraint trade law in the food market in general, and in the fattened and regular poultry in particular. Furthermore, Tnuva uses to act against the laws of fair trade and the restraint trade law while rolling its eyes heavenward as if it were some saint and not a giant, destructive conglomerate. So, for example, in a case in CPL.

Tnuva's claim in essence was, that a buying act should be interpreted as a "merge", only where all assets and obligations are transferred from a transferring company to an absorbing one, so that a firm unity is created between business bodies that prior to their merger acted as separate independent bodies.

Tnuva claimed that a merger occurs only where the result of the purchase is a unification of decision making processes in the companies, where the share holders of the transferring company become the share holders of the absorbing company.

And also, Tnuva, which for years did no procedures stand in its way to turn into the biggest economic body in the Israeli food business — suddenly is concerned with pedantry procedures. Years of rolling their eyes as goose fatteners and combinatory activities under the wing of the agricultural lobby in the Knesset, turned Tnuva and its heads opaque to essence. It was the honorable president Barak who put them right in the Negev Poultry case and who forced Tnuva's "innocent" heads to look at the economic reality as it is: It has not one single meaning in any context.

Its meaning is determined by its legislative order; its range is determined by its context…therefore, once the Negev Poultry purchase was the purchase of most of Negev Poultry's assets, this transaction should be considered a merger. For that matter, it makes no difference if the company is under liquidation or receivership.

This state of the company may influence the consideration if the merger influences the competition. Such a case does not influence the question if we have here a "merger" as defined by the law". Tnuva is one of the biggest and strongest companies in the market today. Striving to position itself in a central place in the Israeli consumer culture, Tnuva acted in a way that would not have shamed the heads of Sicilian mafia.

Tnuva was not satisfied with being a huge food company for many years, it wished, like a destructive giant, to not only be the biggest, but more importantly, the only one in the market. Into this boiling cauldron Pikanti entered unaware, as it opened its gates as a food chain that provides basic food products and other basic products, for low prices and superb quality.

This step by Pikanti did not fit Tnuva's narrow vision, that competition was the last thing it wanted, as competition is an opening for reduction in prices. So Tnuva decided to act so that it remains not only the biggest in the market, but that at the end of the day other businesses would learn not to dare compete with it, or it would destroy them.

And indeed, Tnuva planned and implemented. Tnuva knew its power and watched its big rival, Pikanti's downfall, being realized, used its great power, intrigues, quarrels and threats while acting illegally and even criminally, hiring public relations people for hundreds of thousands of dollars to blur the criminal activity and paint it in so called legitimate colors.

In this way Tnuva proved it has no ethics or morals, it does as it pleases and does not care who it will run over or destroy, as long as it succeeds in reaching its aim. While all that time ignoring the law, the courts and the principle of free market. All hoity-toity as a socialist corporation with the image of an organization led by industrious , honest workers, Tnuva is, in fact, led by a criminal and greedy bunch of people, a part of whose heads are corrupted personally and politically, and not only in restraint trade law.

To achieve its goal, Tnuva approached many companies that provided many products both to Nestle-Osem and to Pikanti and threatened them, warning companies and their managers, that should they keep providing goods to Pikanti, Tnuva will stop doing business with them.

Tnuva's threats worked as planned and all companies threatened by Tnuva stopped in one way or another supply to Pikanti. The actions of the various companies caused Pikanti unbelievable damage. And so Tnuva, in a direct, conscientious, malicious way, brought about Pikanti's collapse, recruiting to her side other companies in the market, with strange threats, activating a cartel and shamelessly using its monopoly in the market.

Today, after moving Pikanti out of the way and it being no threat to her, Tnuva found time to pursue her wish to be the only and biggest in the market, which will enable it to set the prices automatically, with no worry of competitors who would turn prices down and force her to do the same. Therefore Tnuva today is in touch with Nestle to enter as a strategic partner to Tnuva. Nestle is one of the two biggest diary manufactures in the world.

Thus both Tnuva and Nestle-Osem, the two leaders of the cartel against Pikanti, have ties with nestle, who engaged in Jewish forced labor during the Holocaust, - and who threaten to turn into a giant empire that will overtake complexly the food market as far as dairy products and snacks are concerned. If this business vision is realized, then Israel is expected to watch a fantastic vision in which holocaust survivors, whose families, friends and perhaps they themselves, were working in labor camps doing such jobs as shining the Nestle workers latrines for a pitiful bowl of murky soup — will have the chance to upgrade their relations with the Nestle concern when they are allowed to buy — thanks to the possible merger with Tnuva, a Yopple cup in an optimistic apricot flavor in the nearby supermarket.

This time, hopefully, those Jews will be allowed not only to take care of their food without presenting food slips allocated to them by the troopers, but also the price of which Nestle will provide for its subordinates will, in all probability, be expropriated. This is anomalous and sounds imaginary, but reality sometimes surpasses all imagination.

It is especially wondrous, in face of the fact that the government of the State e owner of a portion of Tnuva's shares, was established among other things, in virtue of the memory of the six million Holocaust victims. This approached is expressed in Israel's declaration of independence: The survivors of the European catastrophe, as well as Jews from other lands, proclaiming their right to a life of dignity, freedom and labor, and undeterred by hazards, hardships and obstacles, have tried unceasingly to enter their nation's land".

Facing the fundamental obligation of Israel to the holocaust survivors and to its democratic values, and in face of the above, it is doubtful if Nestle has the right — in virtue of Israel's basic value — to be a partner of the State of Israel in the ownership of Tnuva, or to hold any share, or to transfer even a penny to an Israeli corporation, except for donation money, compensation and reparations to institutes perpetuating the holocaust survivors. Tnuva is a huge cooperative that controls the entire market, and due to Tnuva's efforts to kick out any potential competitor, it is also the only one in the market.

For the past two years, Tnuva's management has been trying to turn the agricultural cooperative Tnuva, held by Kibutzim and settlements, into a company Ltd. Only lately did Tnuva finish the combination process, so that now any of its future share holders know what the share of the companies' capital is. A simple calculation shows that Tnuva's annual revenue us million NS over each of the past three years. Tnuva's worth was evaluated in the past between two and three billion NS.

Tnuva's annual business cycle in the dairy market alone, is assessed to be about 4, ,, four and a half billion NS a year. To understand Tnuva's monopolistic control of the market, we will compare it to the American dairy market.

The cost of raw material to the dairy market in both Israel and the U. This simple comparison shows that it is possible to market the dairy products marketed by Tnuva in Israel — at half price to the consumer.

Tnuva's rate of sales as a result of its monopolistic control in the branch, is then, half its total cycle, or in other words, two billion NS annually as the result of the monopoly. Where do Tnuva's billions go to? Among other things, this monopolistic profit enriches the pockets of lobbyists such as Moshe Teomim of Gitam and various politicians whose duty it is to stand guard not to harm the distorted economic octopus.

Some of the creative ways Tnuva uses to pour money to politicians are: This explains why politicians and various go-getters who were financed by Tnuva in some way or another over the years and did not say a word when the food cartel against Pikanti started.

The silence of the rhinoceros who were sent to the Knesset to represent a voting body and not the Reichman family or Tnuva is irritating especial is irritating especially in view of the factual base of bribe received.

It is not surprising, then, that Reichman and Tnuva, who bribe in various ways and covers to various factors, did not find any problem in transferring fat budgets to the accountants office owned by Reichman's son. With the transfer of those budgets, Reichman did not update the partners of Tnuva how gifted was his son, and what his advantage is over tens of other accountants of other Tnuva partners' families.

While Tnuva enjoys prosperity and riches at the expense of its customers, there are people who are not that lucky, and who cannot afford to buy the products Tnuva provides. Those families are condemned to hunger, as they are not able to allow themselves the prices Tnuva determines, and they cannot find similar products from other companies, as Tnuva saw to it that they were shut down. In the past, when Pikanti was still around, it would provide products, the quality of which was no less than Tnuva's products, but for a much lower and at affordable prices.

Now when Pikanti collapsed, with the "kind help" of Tnuva, Tnuva is not obliged to cope with competition, and can determine any prices it pleases, knowing that there is no other group today that can compete with its prices or its products.

These elegant words cover a hard reality, or in other words, these hundred families cannot buy food in a regular fashion or with the proper ingredients, that will enable them and their children to function properly. The lack of nutritional certainty can be seen in smaller food portions that many people eat, and their culinary ingredients the ingredients of food can be critical to a person's health, see the Remedia case , and in skipping meals, in extreme cases even not eating for a whole day.

Another expression is the eating of unvaried food, rich in carbohydrates and lacking in meat, dairy products, vegetables and fruit.

Those included in the moderate situation, take care that only the parents are harmed but not the children, as the parents give from their portions so the children get all they need. In families whose nutritional lack of certainty is severe, they children are also harmed.

That is, even if the parents give the children from their portions, there still is not enough for the children. These severe numbers show the situation today, when there are children who go hungry to sleep, with an empty stomach, and even those whose parents are able to provide them with food, it is basic food only and often lacking basic ingredients such as dairy products, and meat.

Among the harmed are single-parent families, the elderly, lone people and multiple-children families. There is no way around the conclusion that Tnuva is directly responsible to the hunger of many of those families. This declaration may sound severe, yet it is absolutely true. Had Tnuva not acted illegally to bring about the collapse of Pikanti, then today there would be a number of big companies around which would provide both dairy and cutlery.

As Pikanti's greatness was in selling products very inexpensively, Tnuva would not have had any choice but to reduce its prices to the minimum, as free competition is in any free market.

In such a case, any family, as poor as it is, could have afforded to buy dairy and cutlery products, because the prices would be considerably lower. However, Tnuva has never been a cooperative with a social conscience. All it has ever cared about was to earn as much as possible, at the expense of citizens who are obliged to pay what it demands, to get food.

The result is the citizens of Israel pay "charity" to Tnuva, for it to provide them with basic food products, and Tnuva on its part, leaves them no choice. Tnuva prevents — by forcing unjustified high market prices — basic food products.

Yet only 55 of the families receive food help from various sources, which means the voluntary assistance does not reach the hard stricken families. The lack of food is expressed in diseases such as diabetes and anemia. In comparison, in families who are provided with food, only 2. All this while Tnuva boasts with its wonderful income, and many families in Israel suffer disease and hunger, because they are unable to pay for food that Tnuva provides them for expropriated prices, after it took care to kick out all competitors from the field.

Here, for example, are some consumer products of an average family and their prices in Israel and in the U. A liter of milk in a plastic pitcher in U. It is clear that the monopoly Tnuva implements in the market affixes the prices on such high levels.

With an identical salary in Israel and in the U. These data are outrageous for any person living and working in Israel. Why should we pay for a product identical in quality and in quantity 4 times more than in other places? Tnuva's greed is the reason. But when this situation "irritates" us, in some families the situation makes the difference between children with a full stomach and hungry ones, between parents who eat to the full and parents who deprive themselves of food, and sometimes fast for days, so their children will not die of hunger.

This description is no dramatization of the situation but an accurate one of the situation of the current situation in Israel in light of the economic situation.

Relatively unimportant factors like meta keywords are not included in the overall score. How would you like to have SEO advice for all your pages?? Start your SEO Dashboard and optimize your website! Images can also slow down a website. If the width and height for a picture is not specified for a browser know in advance how large the image is. A browser must first load the picture and see before it knows how much space should be on the page.

Upon reservation In the meantime, the browser can do little but wait. When the height and width for the plate are given in the HTML code, a browser just continues to build for a page while the images load in the background.

How are images contributing ro your SEO site-wise? At your SEO Dashboard we have the awnsers! Most important optimization pointers for www.

View all tips for www. By frequenty count we expect your focus keyword to be porno Focus keyword. Short and long tail. Short Tail Keywords porno xxx hairy long Tail Keywords 2 words porno 0 videos porno 1 16 16 7 maduras 1 long Tail Keywords 3 words 7 17 2 16 7 17 1 16 7 17 2 18 2 18 hairy2com hairy2com 15 19 18 hairy2com De length of the title is 96 characters long.

De lenght of the meta description is characters long. There is an indication that there are one or more keywords that are used excessively on www.

These words were flagged as spam: Emphasis bold and italic. Mobile help tips and tricks Mobile SEO www. Make your title tags clear, concise characters and include your most important keywords. Meta descriptions allow you to influence how your web pages are described and displayed in search results. A good description acts as a potential organic advertisement and encourages the viewer to click through to your site. Keep it short and to the point; the ideal meta description should contain between 70 and characters spaces included.

Ensure that each of your web pages have a unique, straightforward meta description that contains most important keywords. Never duplicate your title tag content in your header tag. Return to top Marketing Checklist Optimize. The fire disrupted Pikanti's and the crusader companies'' bookkeeping, it harmed their capacity to function, and destroyed some of the material that Pikanti collected for its claim against Nestle-Osem.

Apart from the fire that no doubt served Nestle-Osem, here are two more incidents that could benefit Nestle-Osem: A few years ago, Nestle-Osem's plant in Bnei Brak was burned down. This plant manufactured Nestle-Osem's "Bisslee", and Nestle-Osem had at the time of the fire old extinguishing equipment in the state of junk. The fire served Nestle-Osem. A few years ago the "Israel Taste" plant in the industrial zone of Rishon Lezion was burned down.

This plant had a fight with Nestle-Osem at the time of the fire, and hocuses pocus, it was burned. Nestle-Osem's corrupt methods in its fight against its competitors are well known. Here are "Strauss's", and Kibbutz Shefayim's words: Nestle-Osem made it clear to Kibbutz Shefayim that should they not make an exclusive contract with Nestle-Noga — the sales of the Policad firm, owned by the Kibbutz, would suffer.

An official in the Kibbutz confirmed that Nestle-Osem pressured unusually hard to have Nestle-Nestle-Noga ice cream owned by Nestle-Osem and Tnuva the exclusive supplier of the Kibbutz".

Attached is the notice by "Strauss" and Kibbutz Shefayim — marked as K. Furthermore, in the research book "First class", by the most senior journalist and researcher in Israel, Yoav Yizhak, one can read of food companies who stood up to Nestle-Osem and were distinguished, this happened in the framework of the centralization process that has been taking place for years in Israel, a gradually worsening process which leads also to the overtaking of the media that is financed by them.

Attached is the research relevant to Nestle-Osem — section , marked as L, and on harming the public on section - marked as L 1. While trying to eliminate the crusader companies — the companies that marketed Pikanti's products, the Nestle-Osem group submitted against them a series of 12 legal claims based on the false claim that they had not paid their debts to her. Here the Nestle-Osem group used the ancient method of "Hast thou killed and also taken possessions?

To the list of claims see attached supplement and marked as M see there section. All claims were submitted in short justice order and two at the execution bureau. To the heads of claims see attached supplement marked as N. In Nestle-Osem's claims words: There it claims to have been cheated and misled, and the corporate veil should be lifted and the Investment Crusader Ltd. Yet when the Nestle-Osem group did not succeed with those claims why, will later be explained , they said that the one responsible for the crusader debts was not Investment Crusader Ltd.

In any case, according to the behavior of Nestle-Osem — logically one of these processes is futile - the 12 processes against Investment Crusader Ltd. See attached request for joining, and marked as Q. The Nestle-Osem group acted in this way not for a legal matter of fact consideration and not for discovering it was wrong, but rather because it had not succeeded in the former claims. Who but the representative of the Nestle-Osem group can describe its iniquity and its failure to the point of misusing legal processes.

In a debate at the District Court on 3. And in his words: So the truth came out, and the representative of the Nestle-Osem group said it publicly. We have eyes to see that not claims of misleading, cheating, the lifting of the corporate veil by Pikanti was the truth, but only because the Nestle-Osem group's plans were disrupted, according to which Investment Crusader is to be blamed, Nestle-Osem proceeded to wrongfully use legal procedures, and now falsely claim that "Cartel Survivor Ltd.

While there was no legal cause of action to submit a claim against Pikanti, the Nestle-Osem group conducted all its claims against the crusader companies — the companies that marketed the Pikanti products — as a whole, and against The Investment Crusader Ltd. When a poke was put in its legal wheel against the crusaders, the Nestle-Osem group had "no choice" but to go on with its method proven above and which receives confirmation in the affidavit marked C 1 which is "Nestle-Osem will do anything to destroy Pikanti".

Yet it is hard to turn an ocean of claims and legal arguments which Nestle-Osem held in 12 legal processes with what it considered defined and proven cause of actions, and claim now that it is all quite the opposite.

When Nestle-Osem destroyed the crusader — the companies that marketed the "Pikanti products — first with a cartel and then with an ocean of claims, all in the method of thou hast killed and also taken possession, she eventually realized that the tide was turned or in other words, she shot herself in the leg.

Nestle-Osem's smart guys consulted as to what to do next and found themselves a consultant. Here Nestle-Osem recruited a new "war weapon" — an affidavit by a lawyer who is an internal consultant for the Nestle-Osem group. However, Nestle-Osem does not say, nor does the consultant, that he is a consultant, and they do not say that he is a legal consultant and a lawyer too , but they specify in the affidavit a mixture of incorrect data, from the role of the person who gave the affidavit to creating a distorted picture in order to create a legal basis to oblige the "Cartel Survivor Ltd" with the debts of all crusader — the companies that marketed Pikanti's products, and they thought that the readers' "…eyes are debaubed, and they cannot see" Isaiah 44, 18 when they are cheated.

Moreover — This affidavit supported Nestle-Osem's request to join the liquidation file against Pikanti, while the one to request the liquidation, "Sunfrost", changed its mind. Nestle-Osem, using this request and this affidavit, delayed the cancellation of the liquidation file, and continued to cause harm to claimant no. In his affidavit and in section 1 Mr. Joshua Meroz declares as follows: Yet it turns out that the person who gave the affidavit is not a member of the above mentioned management.

The person giving the affidavit did not reveal his real position — a legal internal consultant to the Nestle-Osem group and a lawyer, in addition to being the group' secretary. As specified in the registrar of companies' documents, the person giving the affidavit, lawyer Joshua Meroz, is not a manager in any one of the Nestle-Osem group companies who hold share and are inhere after specified. The total number of managers in those companies is 57!!! Attached is a printout by the registrar of companies to the above mentioned Nestle-Osem company — marked as S.

Attached is a printout by the registrar of companies to the above mentioned Nestle - Froumin Company — marked as T. Attached is a printout by the registrar of companies to "Atoor" of the Nestle-Osem group and a share holder in the two above mentioned companies — marked as U.

Attached is a printout by the registrar of companies to "Nestle-Osem Export" which is a share holder in the above mentioned Nestle-Osem - marked as V. Attached is a letter of the representative of those companies.

In the copy his real position and title are indicated — marked as W. In section 3 to the affidavit the above declares that: Pikanti submitted to the petitioners check as follows: To Nestle-Osem — a check for the sum of , The affidavit is a portion of the Nestle-Osem group request against Pikanti — "Pikanti Food Industries" as was its former name.

The person giving the affidavit distinguishes Pikanti from "The Pikanti Groups". See reference to the "Pikanti Companies" in section 3 D. By making this distinction the lying Meroz puts up a false presentation as if the above mentioned checks were by "Pikanti Food Industries" today "Cartel Survivor Ltd.

But examining the checks it is clear that not "Pikanti food Industries Ltd. Meroz, the person who gave the false affidavit uses the name Pikanti and lets the court believe that he refers to the claimant. Yet as mentioned, this description is a false presentation of a fact and is done so intentionally. The deceitful presentation was made to mislead the court to think that there is a reason for Pikanti's liquidation due to dishonored non-redeemed checks.

The deceitful person who gave the affidavit covers and does not reveal that those checks were claimed in two execution files from "Pikanti Investment Ltd. Attached is execution file against debtor "Pikanti Investments Ltd. Attached is execution file against the debtor "Pikanti Investments Ltd. On page 4, section 4, the person who gave the false affidavit declares: And on page 9, section to the request it is said: But it turns out that H.

Food did not request the lien on The lien is of 8. Attached — agreement and the pawn bill of 8. Again, as already mentioned, the defendant puts up a deceitful presentation to the court with the intention of misleading it to believe that Pikanti and "Pikanti Companies" together made fictional liens after the request for the liquidation against H. The lien had been created a long time before the request for liquidation the date of the liquidation was 9. The temporary liquidator also indicated in his first report, ibid page 7, that the lien was created on 8.

Yet the claimant is not satisfied. To mislead the court as if a long time had passed after the request for liquidation, he says that three weeks had passed up to But in fact only two weeks had passed from 9. Yet even the date of The deceit and misleading is multiplied.

The deceitful person who gave the affidavit and the Nestle-Osem group are not satisfied with these lies. In regard to the date of the lien creation, and for the deceitful presentation to be perfect for the court to be convinced that the "facts" are the reality, it is declared as follows: In it emerge serious offences attributed to the claimant and her manager, who was also the manger of the "Crusader" companies, and there is enough in this report to base, all the more, what is written in this request: See the request by the Nestle-Osem group — supplement Q — page 9 section 25 — for convenient reasons this page is attached as an additional supplement, marked Z5.

The false presentation is, that even the temporary liquidator determined, as it were, that the company was under lien after the request for liquidation. But this is not what the liquidator ruled: Attached is the liquidator's ruling in section Their intention is clear — that whoever is misled by the presentation will act upon it, that is, as mentioned above: That means, the best "proof" and the most "convincing' one is that Pikanti should be liquidated.

On page 10 section cc , the Nestle-Osem group indicates, in its request to join the liquidation: According to section In this case also there is no way around the conclusion…". Attached is page no. The lien was not created on the day the defendant declared it was.

The lien was created on Attached is the liquidator's report, page 8, section In addition is attached the registration with the registrar of companies, marked as Z9. On page 5 of his affidavit, on p. Again, this is a deceitful presentation of a fact, in full knowledge that it is false, as the money entered their cash register, and this is no small some but , NS as follows: To base their request and cause Pikanti's liquidation, the cheater on page 5 of the above, in section g together with section 6 a , and in the request itself, declares that the ceasing of payments is due to the company being insolvent and: This declaration stands in contradiction to another declaration the Nestle-Osem group submitted in another process.

In the claim Nestle-Osem maintains page 9, section 17 that: Attached is the claim, marked AA. Yet when it wants Pikanti to be liquidated, it has no problem in submitting a false declaration — that already in 7. Nestle-Osem has no problem in submitting contradictory statements to different courts in an issue essential to the core of the matter.

Stopping supplies, the Nestle-Osem group and defendants and , breached the trade agreement they had with Pikanti unilaterally. They did so without due notice, against the agreement conditions, and against the business custom between them.

On the contractual level: On the torturous level: Publicized libel about Pikanti, as under the libel prohibition law, , to the l public in general and other agents supplying goods to Pikanti in particular, and by doing so caused Pikanti considerable financial harm. The almost certain harm of libel is damage to a person, to who the libel is directed. As the damage is not outside the natural results of the publicity, there is no need to see "with the intent to harm" in section 6 of the law a demand to a specific intent by the publicity, even if we adopt this classification of "intent".

If the target, to whom the intent refers, "is attached to results which may develop naturally because of that behavior, then the intent attached to those results is ordinary, as the results are ordinary" S.

Feller, "Absenteeism, to evade a combat duty", The Attorney, , More difficult is the distinction between motive and intent. The law does not always use the term "with intent" to describe a mental basis of intent but also as a term of motive regard Z.

The question, then, is if section 6 demands "intent" in the sense of a mental base of intent, that is a relation of wishing to the result, a wish to achieve the goal by doing the deed, or maybe section 6 deals with "intent" that is the reason which made the doer want the result.

When the motive is satisfied only after the immediate result was achieved See Y. The distinction is between 'aim' and 'motive'". As the immediate almost certain result of libel by Nestle-Osem is damage to Pikanti, it is proper to say that the damage refers to the external reality to the doer and not his internal 'why'.

Because if the damage is direct and immediate from the behavior, it is not that far away goal, satisfied when the immediate goal is reached. The test of result, integrated with the test of external reality, shows that all defendants spoke ill of Pikanti. Furthermore, Nestle-Osem and its friends publicized a lie under section 58 of the Damage Law new version when they publicized an intentionally fraudulent notice about Pikanti's business.

The quarrel created by the consumer protection law is not explicitly recognized in the general law, yet there are roots to this liability in the general law.

The explicit recognition of cause in the consumer protection law makes this question of cause simplified. The liability is that of the manufacturer in a case of misleading or covering up by him. There are roots to in the general law both in the customary law and in ruling and in literature, to the recognition of the liability of a third party to misleading presentations which resulted in agreement.

A, pages , section Shalev Contract laws, Law, second edition, page Novogrotzky, 84 34 3 47 the liability of a mediator to damages caused by contact. In the English law the liability of a manufacturer was recognized in cases when he presented direct presentations towards the buyer.

The base for liability was the establishing of a unilateral contract or a supplement. In Israel this technique has also been used. Nestle-Osem and the other defendants in this claim are prosecuted also for breaching a legal obligation: The Restraint of Trade , maintaining in section 4 that: All monopoly owners included in this claim, like Nestle-Osem and Tnuva are claimed for breaching a legal obligation also according to section 29 to the Restraint of Trade which determines: And also small section ".

Nestle-Osem's" business and consumer criminality is not new. For a long time it has cheated the consumers in various ways and methods. It has been discovered, lately, that Nestle-Osem reduces the packages of its products, yet leaves the prices intact. In these times of recession when many families fall upon hard times, Nestle-Osem found a new way to increase its revenue, by cheating customers.

While it reduces the size of its packages so the consumer gets less and less, it profits at the expense of the consumers when it leaves the prices intact. For example, reduced the package-size of the large Bisli from gr. After it was caught with its fingers in the till, Nestle-Osem tried to save her name and announced she would reduce the Bisli prices in 1.

The uncovering of this phenomenon aroused a big storm and the Ministry of Industry opened an investigation. At the same time, Zamir Hayat, the supervisor for the central region in the Ministry of Industry, announced that following the instructions of the supervisor of consumer protection, the shrunk packages would be collected and the manufacture would be invited to offer explanations. They would also examine the legal aspect of this issue.

The companies of the Nestle-Osem concern mislead their customers by reducing the size of products without reducing their price accordingly and without making it known to the consumers. The Knesset committee for public petitions, turned to the manufactures and the companies that changed the packages, and asked them to go back on the changes they had made.

Among other things, the committee demanded that the manufactures make an obvious change in the packages so as not mislead the consumers. The vice general manger of the consumer authority in the Histadrut, Hani Monin, said in a debate at the Knesset, that an arbitration body should be established for the issue of misleading the consumer, which are in the so to speak grey zone yet which deprive the consumer of his rights. The legal consultant for consumerism, Attorney Yosi Berg said that the authority's examinations showed that the phenomenon of reducing the size of packages can cause to the public a potential damage of half a billion NS a year.

He also said that after learning the subject, the authority will debate its next steps. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and labor will examine an obligatory process which will coerce the marketing networks to publicize the price of products in relation the quantity.

This is about weight units, volume or single product units in large packages. This indication will enable the consumer to compare prices and will neutralize criminals such as Nestle-Osem from cheating the consumers.

Yet Nestle-Osem's iniquities do not stop here. About a year ago a snack it imported by the name of Chicks-Mix was taken off the counters, after it was discovered that Nestle-Osem cheated the consumers.

As it turned out, this snack has nothing to do with chips snacks, as this snack is not made of potatoes at all and thus the comparison misleads the consumer, who assumes that he eats a potato fatless snack, when in fact the snack is made of corn and wheat. After the authority for consumerism got involved, The Health Ministry saw to it to take the snack off the counters. Yaffa Reicher, in charge of a legal group in the food service in Tel Aviv confirmed that a representative of Nestle-Osem was investigated at the police and the file was transferred to the Tel Aviv region Attorney's Office for further treatment.

When asked by a journalist, Shoshanna Chen, "Why mislead the consumers? Nestle-Osem answered that the product was taken off the counters and the issue is treated by the legal department. This is how Nestle-Osem decided to put an end to this embarrassing story. While the simple citizen fights for his livelihood, Nestle-Osem managed to have a sales turnover of the third quarter of of This fact alone can explain hoe "honest" and "loyal" Nestle-Osem is to its consumers.

It is obvious that today families buy less then what they used to in the past. Exploitation of Monopoly Nestle-Osem is a monopoly as the term is under the Restraint of Trade — The Restraint of Trade Law, in comparison to the former one of , is designed to increase the supervision on monopoly activity to prevent damage caused by monopoly control of the market.

The legislator implemented in section 26 A to the structure examination law, somewhat mechanical, establishing conclusive possession, that control over more than half the supply of assets or services, expresses control and dominant status.

At the same time, section 26 c gives the Minister of Industry and Trade the authority to determine, concerning certain assets or services, the existence of a monopoly even if the control is over less than half, if he finds — by the supervisor's recommendation, that whoever has a smaller portion has a decisive influence in the market. A monopoly is not against the law. The Restraint of Trade Law does not prohibit a body or a certain firm to have a monopoly, only if it has a monopoly, as Nestle-Osem does, the law forbids it from exploiting its monopolistic status as Nestle-Osem did against Pikanti.

The Restraint of trade controller, in his ruling concerning "Yediot Aharonot" determined as follows: A monopoly as such is not forbidden by law. In principle, a company with a monopoly has the right to conduct its affairs as it sees fit. This right has been around for a long time and now it is anchored inn a new basic law: The goal of controlling the monopoly is to prevent damage that may ensue from the monopoly owner's control of the market".

The issue of forbidding unfair competition, which we will deal with hereinafter, is anchored in section 29 A of the Restraint Trade law, a correction and an addition to the law. Section 29 A of the law focuses in avoiding exploitation of the monopolistic status, while section 30 of the law states some statutory causes for orders to settle monopoly activities.

One of the statutory causes as mentioned, is the cause of "conducting an unfair competition between the monopoly owner and others", as Nestle-Osem conducted.

The learned Yizhak Yagur wonders what is new in section 29 A of the Restraint trade law compared to section 30 4 to the law, if all causes mentioned there fall anyway into the wide cause of "conducting unfair competition" by virtue of section 30 4 to the law. The answer, according to Yagur, lays in the level of evidence and in the burden of proof. Section 29 A rules in fact four possessions that should one or more of them exist, a possession is created by which the monopoly owner exploited his status in the market in a way that may reduce competition in business.

One of the exploitation possessions rules that "exploitation" means conducting unfair competition towards others. The Law used the term unfair competition "towards others" and not necessarily towards competitors. Yagur explains that unfair competition, as reflected in monopoly rules, is not only on the horizontal level, which means, it is no merely among competitors, but it could exist also on the vertical level — between the monopoly owner and the distributor or distributors of the monopolized product, or even towards the suppliers, as was the case with the Nestle-Osem's CARTEL AGAINST Pikanti.

The competition, in this case, as will hereinafter be brought, was far from being a fair one. The claimant's suppliers hereinafter the defendants , took part in the food cartel established by Nestle-Osem. The defendants stopped the supplies in an organized and coordinated manner, despite the fact that the claimant made its payments on time, and by doing so they created the domino effect. Stopping the supplies caused severe financial damage to the claimants and to the Pikanti concern in general, and caused the collapse of the Pikanti concern.

The actions by each company by itself and the actions of all the companies together with the others, damaged the cash flow, emptied the Pikanti concern counters, and signaled to the rest of the suppliers to join the destruction. The actions by the defendants, together and separately, caused panic among the suppliers, and they too, in a short time, ceased to supply goods fearing and expecting that the actions by the other defendants would disrupt the cash flow.

Others in that additional crowd worsened the credit terms as a condition to keep supplying goods. Naturally, the change in credit terms, added a layer to the damage of the Pikanti cash flow. When the supermarkets' shelves remained orphaned, the customers deserted the stores, which resulted in even more cash flow damage.

On one hand expenses swelled up for paying all bills to the defendants , while on the other hand, income went down the hill.

Discontinuation of bank credit which is built by virtue of cash flow. The incapacity of the Pikanti concern companies to pay off their debts to the defendants, created enormous financial difficulties to the claimants, as all their income was based on ordering goods from the marketing companies. With the destruction of the, marketing companies, no one remained to order goods from the claimants.

These actions caused, among other things, the selling of part of the business for a pittance. Thus supermarkets with their expensive equipment were gone, and the investments went down the drain. These actions were done despite Pikanti's and the rest of the Pikanti concern's warnings to the defendants, who did not give required advance notice, and acted to liquidate Pikanti in a manner contradictory to the company's ordinance.

If those actions were not enough to destroy Pikanti, the companies implemented legal actions with the goal of destroying Pikanti. However, it was proven that they conducted futile proceedings as court, including submission of false affidavits, forgery, and evidence concealing. These acts were severely criticized by the court. Thus, to the causes of the above claim of the Nestle-Osem group and its collaborators, are added causes of action for violation of trade agreements and obligations, actions against the law on a contract and damage level, exploitation of monopoly, conducting futile proceedings and more.

By activating a cartel, the suppliers caused Pikanti damage on a very large scale. As they were determined to bring about the collapse of Pikanti, they breached their contract with Pikanti. Any excuse, that Pikanti was in economic bad shape at that time, which made them each breach their contract, is an utter lie.

At that time Pikanti enjoyed economic strength and there was no reason to breach contracts, unless for malicious reasons. Furthermore, the argument as if the collapse of Pikanti originated in acts and failure to act on the part of its managers or its share holders as it were, is not in order, because already the magistrates court in Tel Aviv ruled that this is not about "inner" economic difficulties which originate inside the corporation, but rather about external to the corporation difficulties, not under its control, and not its guilt.

And the honorable Judge Shevah continues and rules: On the contrary, the evidence submitted to me point to a firm economic situation, regular payments on a large scale in the past and an effort to solve the crisis by pouring in personal money".

Therefore, any claim the defendants arise concerning this issue, is a false claim as the truth has been uncovered, and it would be an act of court contempt. The defendants are, thus, silenced from waving their chewed and flagellated lies about the blame components they tried to falsely accuse Pikanti and its managers with.

The causes of action against the defendants are, among other things, the breaching of trade agreements and obligations, acts against the law on the legal and torturous level, exploitation of monopoly, malicious suit, and more. Some of the defendants tried to destroy Pikanti at all costs, without any debt or a cause for liquidation, even at the cost of misleading the court. They would stop at nothing, including false claims and fact concealing. By stopping the supply of goods, the cartel partners breached the trade agreement between Pikanti and its suppliers unilaterally, with no advance warning, in contrast to the trade agreements and in contrast to the manner of trade between them.

Every defendant, who was a supplier for Pikanti, in its act or lack of acts, breached its obligations and acted towards defendant no. Its liability as partner and lobbyist is as under section 21 to the damage order. Hereinafter, the specification of the relations of the defendant with Pikanti, the situation before the breach of agreement and immediately after the start of the cartel, the details of the severe damage and its meaning to Pikanti. Nestle-Osem offered no explanation to the breach of contract with Pikanti.

Even after Pikanti asked it to renew the supply of goods and keep the contract, Nestle-Osem did not answer the pleadings. Contrary to the agreements, the promises, and the trade custom, the goods were not supplied, and inability to sell suppliers' goods at that time resulted in heavy losses, expenditures for external financing due to the stopping of credit, loss of profit due to the pending liquidation process, and other debts.

The contract between Nestle - owner of Froumin Marketing Ltd. Nestle - Froumin supplied to Pikanti various products among others: The contract between the parties was done orally and for an unlimited sum. Pikanti paid Nestle - Froumin regularly, who saw to it that a representative on its behalf would come and pick up the checks from Pikanti's office in Benei Brak. Even after time after time pleadings, Nestle - Froumin did not renew product supply to Pikanti. All questioned directed at to Nestle - Froumin, were evaded and no real answers were given.

Furthermore, Nestle - Froumin approached other companies and convinced them to stop their business with Pikanti as well. Nestle - Froumin belongs to the Nestle-Osem group and manufactures food.

All of Nestle - Froumin's acts against Pikanti, whether cartel acts or legal ones, were coordinated with Nestle-Osem. So, for example, the liquidation request was joined and accompanied by a joined affidavit, an affidavit submitted by Joshua Meroz, the secretary of both Nestle-Osem and Nestle - Froumin companies, an "a member of the Nestle-Osem group management.

Nestle - owner of Nestle Froumin managed the food cartel that was organized by Nestle-Osem as mentioned, Nestle - Froumin belongs to the Nestle-Osem group , as a supplier to the Pikanti concern. In its request and its affidavit, it said that the ,marketing companies the stores in the Pikanti concern ceased paying already In July 97', the month it stopped supplies to Pikanti.

סקס אלים חינם סקס אלים אונס -

The defendants in this statement of claim took advantage of the constant atmosphere of economic unstableness in the Israeli economy to set fire to this flammable thorn field. In the English law the liability of a manufacturer was recognized in cases when he presented direct presentations towards the buyer. These rumors were, of course, baseless, בלונדיניות סקס זיון מעולה all Pikanti's and the crusader companies' payments were fully honored. The base for liability was the establishing of a unilateral contract or a supplement. After it was caught with its fingers in the till, Nestle-Osem tried to save her name and announced she would reduce the Bisli prices in 1. Hashahar Haole Sweets Industries Ltd. But it was proved they conducted futile proceedings in court, including submitting false affidavits, forgery and evidence hiding. On the contrary, here the seller stops supplying merchandise suddenly and unilaterally yet the corporation goes on to pay off the future checks for two months after the supply was stopped". The competition, in this case, as will hereinafter be brought, was far from being a fair one.

: סקס אלים חינם סקס אלים אונס

סרט סקס מלא סרטי סקס סבתות While the simple citizen fights for his livelihood, Nestle-Osem managed to have a sales turnover of the third quarter of of The lien was not created on the day the defendant declared it. If all this is not enough to destroy Pikanti, the defendants took legal actions intended to liquidate Pikanti. The business of Haifa Poultry Partnership was poultry slaughter. Yet despite all this, and despite the fact that for about 6 weeks she did not supply any goods with no warning as under The Companies Ordinance, Nestle-Osem סרטים של כושים סרטי סקס הומו חינם a letter requesting a company liquidation a 24 hours warning instead of 21 days — as under paragraph to the Companies Ordinance. Another expression is the eating of unvaried food, rich in carbohydrates and lacking in meat, dairy products, vegetables and fruit. We found 1 level 1 סקס אלים חינם סקס אלים אונס and 6 folders above or in the first level of navigation.
סקס אלים חינם סקס אלים אונס 154
סקס רדומות סקס צפיה חינם 193
סקס אלים חינם סקס אלים אונס

0 thoughts on “סקס אלים חינם סקס אלים אונס

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *