Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD "

PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel; jz12345@earthlink.net ; 91313 " 31440 ,


11-11-22 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Repeat Request for a Signed and
Certified Copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment (English + Hebrew)

Attached:

# Record Page #
1 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Repeat Request for a Signed and Certified Copy
of the September 7, 2011 Judgment (English)
3
2 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Repeat Request for a Signed and Certified Copy
of the September 7, 2011 Judgment (Hebrew)
5

Background:
Request filed with the Israeli legislature (Knesset) to examine the
electronic record systems of the Israeli Supreme Court

The evidence shows that the Supreme Court's electronic record systems are
unreliable. Most alarming is the ongoing refusal of the Supreme Court to
certify its own decisions.

Jerusalem, November 22 - request was file with members of the Israeli legislature
(Knesset) by Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), to initiate review by
the Knesset's Legal Counsel of the reliability and integrity, or lack thereof, of the
electronic record systems of the Israeli Supreme Court. [i] Similar requests had been
previously filed with the State Ombudsman, the Attorney General, and the Bar
Association. [ii]

The request was accompanied with a report, pertaining to the electronic case management
and online public access systems of the Supreme Court, showing various deficiencies in
the systems, [iii] which enable the conduct of simulated proceedings and online
publication of simulated decisions of the Court. [iv]

The report focused on records in cases related to former President of the State of Israel
Moshe Katzav, who was convicted on sex crimes in the District Court in Tel Aviv, and
sentenced to a seven-year prison term. [v] On May 18, 2011, media reported that
Katzav's request to postpone the execution of his prison sentence was granted by the
Supreme Court, in a decision that was widely criticized as undermining equality before
the law. [vi] The decision was issued by Justice Yoram Danziger, who has since
suspended himself from the Court, in conjunction with a criminal investigation against
him, in relationship to his conduct as an attorney, prior to joining the Court.

However, Dr Zernik's report concluded that there was no way to ascertain that the
decision was deemed by the Supreme Court itself as a valid and binding decision, since
the Supreme Court denied access to the respective authentication records (if any existed).
z 2 / 3 November 22, 2011

Pursuant to the law in Israel, and also the law in most civilized nations, public access to
inspect judicial records is guaranteed. However, following the implementation in recent
years of the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, the authentication records
are excluded from both the online public access system and the paper files of the Court.
Instead, the authentication records are hidden today from the public in the Supreme
Court's case management system.

Moreover, regarding the May 18, 2011 Decision:
The Supreme Court's Magistrate Guy Shani refused to provide a statement on the
record, that the decision was and is a valid and binding decision of the Court; [vii]
Appeal of the Magistrate's refusal to provide such statement was conducted (and
denied) in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it was
deemed a simulated litigation from start to finish; [viii]
The Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice jointly refused to permit access to
a copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision, as served on the State Prosecution (if
served at all). [ix]

"Most alarming is the ongoing refusal of the Supreme Court to certify its own
decisions," says Dr Zernik.

This morning, Dr Zernik again filed requests with the Supreme Court to certify its own
decisions. [x]

Dr Zernik has gained expertise over the past decade in analyzing the integrity of
electronic record systems of the banks, courts, and prisons. His reports on this matter
were published in computer science and criminology journals, and presented in
international computer science and criminology conferences. [xi] The 2010 submission
of Human Rights Alert to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations was
reviewed by the HRC professional staff and incorporated in the official HRC
Professional Staff Report with a note referring to corruption of the courts and the legal
profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California. [xii]

Computer science/informatics experts hold a unique civic duty in the safeguard of the
integrity of the courts, Human Rights, and civil society in the digital era.

LINKS:
[i] 11-11-20 Request for Review by the Knesset's Legal Counsel in Re_ Simulated Records in the Supreme Court of the
State of Israel in Cases Related to Former President Moshe Katzav-s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73245373/
[ii] 11-10-09 Requests filed with the State Ombudsman, with the Attorney General, with Members of Knesset, and with
President of the Bar Association for comments in re: records and electronic systems of the Supreme Court of the State
of Israel-s (Eng)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68133603/
[iii] 11-11-20 Simulated Decisions in the Supreme Court of Israel in Cases Related to Former President Moshe Katzav
(English) s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73239491/
[iv] "Simulated litigation", "simulated decisions", "simulated service" here refer to conduct defined in the Texas Criminal
Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates
a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
z 3 / 3 November 22, 2011

(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the
document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a
sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
[v] Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) and Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11)
[vi] 11-11-13 Former President Moshe Katzav compilation of media reports (Heb +Eng)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60121427/
[vii] 11-08-14 Katzav v State of Israel (3372-11) in the Supreme Court - Clerk Shani's Decision on Zernik's August 14,
2011 Request for Clarification in re: validity of the May 18, 2011 Decision, postponing the execution of the prison
sentence of Katzav
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73229600/
[viii] see [ii], above.
[ix] see [ii], above.
[x] New Requests
[xi] 11-07-04 Joseph Zernik,PhD, Biographical Sketch
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/
[xii] 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review
(UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with a note referring to
"corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/

[Zerniks digital signature jz]
In the Supreme Court in Jerusalem
Dr Joseph Zernik 6041/11
V
State of Israel
Repeat Request for a copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment in Instant Case,
Signed by the Justice and Certified by the Office of the Clerk, and for Service of a
Signed Decision on Instant Request.
To the Honorable Court and the Parties in this case:
The Appellant files herein a repeat request for a copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment
in instant case (hereinafter the Judgment), signed by the Honorable Justice Jubran
and certified by the Office of the Clerk, and for service of a signed decision, pertaining to
instant request, as required by law.
I. Repeat request for a copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment in instant
case, signed by the Honorable Justice Jubran and certified by the Office
of the Clerk
The Requester has gained expertise over the past decade in the analysis of the validity, or
lack thereof, of electronic record systems in banks, courts, and prisons. The Requester
has also published scholarly papers on these subjects in academic journals in computer
science and criminology. Such studies were also selected for presentation in an
international computer science conference and the World Criminology Congress.
The Requester is now in final stages of writing a paper, analyzing the validity, or lack
thereof, of the electronic systems for case management and online public access of the
Supreme Court. The validity, or ambiguous validity of the records in instant case, is
discussed in detail in this study.
Therefore, the Requester filed on November 2, 2011 a request for a signed and certified
copy of the Judgment in instant case (hereinafter the Previous Request). The
Previous Request was received by the Office of the Clerk, and was also stamped and
signed Received/Inspected. The Previous Request also appears in the list of
Requests in the online public access system of the Court. However, no decision was
received on the Previous Request. Moreover, the Office of the Clerk, Criminal Division,
informed the Requester that the file had been transferred to the archive, and that it was
unlikely that he would receive a decision on the Previous Request.
Therefore, the Requester asks that the Court instruct the Office of the Clerk to provide the
Requester a copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment in instant case, signed by the
Justice and certified by the Office of the Clerk. Alternatively, if the Judgment was never
approved for service, or was never duly served, the Requester asks that the Court
explicitly state so in its decision.
II. Request for service of a signed decision, pertaining to instant request, as
required by law.
The Requester has previously received signed copies of certain decisions of the Court in
this case and another case as well. In other instances, only unsigned decisions were
received. Additionally, the Requester has previously served certain decisions of the
Court by certified mail with certificates of delivery, but other decisions were received by
regular mail with no certificates of delivery at all.
Therefore, the Requester asks that the Court served on him a signed decision, as required
by law, to the address listed below.
Dated: November 22, 2011
[Zerniks graphic signature-jz]
_____________________
Dr Joseph Zernik
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313
Tel: 052.508.3014
Jz12345@earthlink.net

The Supreme Court
Unrepresented Parties Division
November 22, 2011
Received/Inspected
[Atty Ben Tovims graphic signature jz]
Signature_____________










Exhibit 1

Copy of the face page of the previous, November 2, 2011 Request in the same matter,
stamped and signed Receive/Inspected.


Certificate of Service

r.--JL
"'--"
) . -.--- ..
6041/11 !l"I!1:1
jI'lTlI 901' '''"T
1
'lI>nI!l' n1'"TD
11"11';) lJ!lI!lD;) n':1 nn')T!l '"T' '711 '1!I1KIlI lJ!l11!l '"T' '711 Dlnn jlnll;) n'7:1il'7 n'TIn ;)l!IjI:1
n'I!IIKIlI ;)Dlnn ;)lJ'7n;) nKlID;)'71 ,;)T jI'n:1 ,2011 ,':1DlJ!lO:1 7-;) DI'D I'"T;) jlO!l '71!1
)'"T) ,n'n)11;) ;)l!IjI:1;) 11"T'1:1
C'l'"Til j7O!)" -1'111'1) ,ilT j7'TlJ, ,2011 ,1:1n090:1 7-il Ol'n I'"T" j709 ill} j71U1il n'7:lj7'7 111fln i'IIUj7:L m<TJ. \U'An 11Jllll'Jil
,nNT illUj7J. III'n imlnn ilo'mil ,11''711il 09\Ur.lil n')' nn')TI':l ',' '711 1\!.1lNr.lI 11rnJ.I'.l 09l\!Jil '1) ", '711 clJm
1")
'"T' 711 [linn ,;)T jI'nJ. ,2011 ,'J.lJlJ!lOJ. 7;) [l1'lJ I";) jlO!l '7\lj j1nll;) n'7J.j1'7 n'Tin ;)\ljj1J. .1
/1''711;) lJ9l!1lJ;) n'J. nn')T!l ", 711 11!l1N7JI lJ91\lj;) 'IJ.)
'11:11 ,09'00 '11:1 ,D'j71J.J. Tll'll1lJj7'7H TlI)111D i\U ITlIJ'jm 10ln IH .ITlIl'j7n nln'lJ.ll1nNil 11\U1I::l ilnnnil \Uj7J.1lil
r'}N iliH Q'1nN1l ,il
'
.l1111'J)1j1J.I J.\Unnn '11'11]). 111/ ill N\UIJ:l O"HJl"TjH( O'1D1<D 1:WJ. 0019 CJH llJj1J.rlil ,/'('D
..;V.lI'7Il'rl'1j7'7 'n'7ll1il 01,U1j1J.1 o'J.\Unn" 'DtH' I'J. 0]):1 iln'il'1 nn:u
TlI'1110j1'7Nil TlI:nunil 7\lJ ,ITlIl'j1Tl 101n IN ,ITlIl'j1Tl 11'T'1J, '/O,]"Tj1N 1J'lHrl 11:1'11:> '7\U 01'0i') 'J.'7\!.I:l 11.1.1) \!Jj1J.r.lil
j1'TlJ. Q':111);1 i\U ,DJlIJ'j1Tl ':1.17 TlIH1Uil 10ln IN ,01l1l'j7n .1I''7Vil 11':1:1 0'::J.n,1 Tl\U'::I '7lil']1 O'j7'nil "1i1']'7
ilT 1FlNDJ. ;)]11'3 ilT
.("Tlr.l"1Ij7il i1\!Jj1J.il" -1'7il'1) 1'"1i1 '71lJ 1\!JINI':lI olTln j1111V Tl'7J.j1'7 il\Uj1J. ,2011 ,1::J.r.l':1Il'7 2-il 01'::J. 1V1.lJr.lil
illl'9tn r'jl'( Tlr.l,.lj1il il\!Jj7:1i1 (1 on ::I::I'n) ."jn:u,'1::J.j7Tll" i1nTlnli11 Tl'J. Tll1"m '"1' '111 il'7:lj1Tlil nn"1Ij7i"1 11\!Jj7::J.i1
i11Tl' .nn"1Ij1i1 il\!Jj7::J.i1 11"1'3J. \Uj7:ln'1 inOY.ll Ni i1o'7nil '1, oilN ,"TlI\!Jj7:l"i1 Tlr.l'\U1::J. Tl\U'::I '7'i'l']'1 TllIlj1ni1 TlJ1lJn::J.
111'l:l ilo'7nil '1, '1::J.j1"1U 1':lOil In i1T I'NIUI ,::J.'J11'(1 1::l.1Jlill'1lJ j1'Tlil\U 1lJ1Vr.lil TIN i11/"1' Tln')TI'] ,1)n
.nn"Ij7i"1 i"I\!Jj1:li1
,i1r j7'Tl:l ,2011 ,1:l1lU90:l 7-il OPO 1'"1il j709 '11lJ j1TllJilllJj1::J.1l'7 ITI''7 TlI1',m'1 il1" 091lJrlil Tl':l1lJ ilUr.l D1Tlnil \!Jj1::J.D 1''1
,1'"1) N::tnlil H.'7 O'7IVr.l IN ,ilH::tr.lil'7 11lJIH H'7 oil.lJr.l 1'"1il OH .11n')Tnil '"1' '71/ 11lJ1Hr.l1 '"T' '1v DlTln
.lTlu'7ni1::J. mu Tl'::J.\!1 11011 OlTlnillOj1:lr.l
,l1J1llTln lil\U) 1nH. j7'l1:l1 i1T j7'1I::J. 1'n1\Uj7::J. '::J.::I'7 JI''1l1il 09\Ur.lil 1I':l 111O'1ni111 ilr.l) '1'<!1 C'j7J1Vil i10rJ Olnnil '1:l'j7 1J.l1::J.
011 Ol1lJ1 1HI'TJ. n':l '1'<!1190n J1111'1nil \!Jj7:lr.l'1 110m 1::l.1J::1 ,I' 11l) .nI1llTln 'n'1:llil'<!1) 1'7:lj7Tlil n/1mt n10''lni''l IN
.'7'1) il1'0l1 '11'iJ'H. N'1'1 ,'7'::11 1H.11:l1'1J.j1J1il nnnH. nlll'1ni1 vt 1i11'OI'l'11\u'N
,2011 ,1::1l1:l13'7 22 :l'1HTl
j1'11::t r'jOI' 1""
91313 ,31440 ,"n
052.508.3014
jz12345@earthlink.ne

c
'22 -11- 2011
j7,.J.)/'::lj.:7n)


























. 1



6041/11
"




, " , :

- 7 , 2011 , ,
,

:
:
- 29 , 91010
: 02.646.6664
:
- "

: 02.675.9632
: 02.675.9648
: - 22 , 2011 ,


____________________
"
" 31440 , 91313
: 052.508.3014
jz12345@earthlink.net