Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Response Within 14 Days Is Kindly Requested.: Act (1988), Regarding: (

    Uploaded by

    SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel
    23 views1 page
    Thank you for your office’s response, dated April 4, 2012, post-stamped April 16, 2012, referenced above, pertaining to my requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), regarding: [ ] 1) Author of the Apostille certification arrangement, and the authorization of its online publication by the “Judicial Authority” (P-2012-28); 2) Changes, around 2001-2 in certification by the Chief Clerk of the electronic judicial records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, which started with all electronic records being certified by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen, and ended with no certification at all (P-2012-43); 3) Certification Authorities, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any, registered by, or on behalf of the Supreme Court (P-2012-44). The response stated, “I respond herein that these are not requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988) and therefore, we would not be able to address them.” [English translation – jz] I would be grateful for a more specific response, detailing any exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), applicable to the above referenced requests, or otherwise, the legal foundation for your office’s determination that the requests “are not requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988).”

    Original Title

    12-04-18 Reply to Administration of Courts on response dated April 4, 2012, denying Freedom of Information Requests (P-2012-28/43/44) re: Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Thank you for your office’s response, dated April 4, 2012, post-stamped April 16, 2012, referenced above, pertaining to my requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), regarding: [ ] 1) Author of the Apostille certification arrangement, and the authorization of its online publication by the “Judicial Authority” (P-2012-28); 2) Changes, around 2001-2 in certification by the Chief Clerk of the electronic judicial records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, which started with all electronic records being certified by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen, and ended with no certification at all (P-2012-43); 3) Certification Authorities, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any, registered by, or on behalf of the Supreme Court (P-2012-44). The response stated, “I respond herein that these are not requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988) and therefore, we would not be able to address them.” [English translation – jz] I would be grateful for a more specific response, detailing any exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), applicable to the above referenced requests, or otherwise, the legal foundation for your office’s determination that the requests “are not requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988).”

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    23 views1 page

    Response Within 14 Days Is Kindly Requested.: Act (1988), Regarding: (

    Uploaded by

    SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel
    Thank you for your office’s response, dated April 4, 2012, post-stamped April 16, 2012, referenced above, pertaining to my requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), regarding: [ ] 1) Author of the Apostille certification arrangement, and the authorization of its online publication by the “Judicial Authority” (P-2012-28); 2) Changes, around 2001-2 in certification by the Chief Clerk of the electronic judicial records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, which started with all electronic records being certified by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen, and ended with no certification at all (P-2012-43); 3) Certification Authorities, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any, registered by, or on behalf of the Supreme Court (P-2012-44). The response stated, “I respond herein that these are not requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988) and therefore, we would not be able to address them.” [English translation – jz] I would be grateful for a more specific response, detailing any exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), applicable to the above referenced requests, or otherwise, the legal foundation for your office’s determination that the requests “are not requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988).”

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    :

    April 18, 2012 The Honorable Moshe Gal, Director Administration of Courts, State of Israel 22 Kanfey Nesharim Street, Jerusalem
    By email: menahel@court.gov.il, liranb@court.gov.il

    Your number: 05974112 P-2012-28/43/44 Response within 14 days is kindly requested. RE: Freedom of Information Act response (P-2012-28/43/44), denying Freedom of Information requests, dated January 19, March 13, April 2, 2012 in re: Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures Dear Judge Gal: Thank you for your offices response, dated April 4, 2012, post-stamped April 16, 2012, referenced above, pertaining to my requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), regarding: [ i ] 1) Author of the Apostille certification arrangement, and the authorization of its online publication by the Judicial Authority (P-2012-28); 2) Changes, around 2001-2 in certification by the Chief Clerk of the electronic judicial records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, which started with all electronic records being certified by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen, and ended with no certification at all (P-2012-43); 3) Certification Authorities, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any, registered by, or on behalf of the Supreme Court (P-2012-44). The response stated, I respond herein that these are not requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988) and therefore, we would not be able to address them.
    [English translation jz]

    I would be grateful for a more specific response, detailing any exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), applicable to the above referenced requests, or otherwise, the legal foundation for your offices determination that the requests are not requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988). Truly, Joseph Zernik, PhD
    PO Box 31440 Jerusalem 91313 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

    CC: Attorney Michal Teneh Freedom of Information Office Ministry of Justice


    By email: MichalTe@justice.gov.il
    i

    12-04-04 Administration of Courts response, denying Freedom of Information Requests (P-2012-28/43/44) January 19, March 13, April 2, 2012 in re Supreme court web site, Apostille, electronic signatures http://www.scribd.com/doc/89955087/

    You might also like