Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD " PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel; jz12345@earthlink.net ; 91313 " 04413,

11-11-24 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request, forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Israel, for correction of the listing, or lack thereof, of papers, filed in the Appeal (English and Hebrew) Attached:
# 1 2 3 Record 11-11-24 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request, forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Israel, for correction of the listing, or lack thereof, of papers, filed in the Appeal (English) 11-11-24 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request, forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Israel, for correction of the listing, or lack thereof, of papers, filed in the Appeal, as faxed (Hebrew) 11-11-24 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) listing of records in the Appeal, as downloaded from the online public access system on November 24, 2011, from the Supreme Courts online public access system (Hebrew and English) Page # 2 3 4

Brief Chronology: 1) The listing of the records, which were duly filed and received for registration in the Appeal, was invalid, from start to finish. 2) Repeat requests for correction of the listing of the records were left unaddressed. 3) Upon review of the records as a whole, a reasonable person would conclude that the Appeal was conducted as a simulated litigation from start to finish. [i] 4) For additional details, see the manuscript, linked below. [ii] LINKS [i] "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 (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. [ii] 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/

November 24, 2011 Attorney Danni Ben-Tovim Unrepresented Parties Division The Supreme Court Tel: 02.675.9632 Fax: 02.675.9648 RE: Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) registrations in the online public access system. Dear Attorney Ben Tovim: Thank you for your help and your patience during my visits to the Supreme Court, and I apologize for bothering you, for lack of legal knowledge. Searching the online public access system today, relative to the case, referenced above, it was found: 1. The filing of the commencing paper of the Appeal still fails to appear in the system, either in the list of Requests, the list of Rejected from Registration, or the list of Events. 2. The November 2, 2011 Request, for a signed and certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment, does appear under the list of Requests, but fails to appear under the list of Events. 3. The November 22, 2011 Repeat Request, for a signed and certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment, does appear under the list of Request, but likewise fails to appear under the list of Events. I would be grateful if you try to help in correcting the registration in the system, hoping that eventually I would receive a decision by a Justice of the Supreme Court, pertaining to the Requests in 2 and 3, above. Alternatively, in case I have erred in my understanding of the meaning of Events, I would be grateful if you could correct me. To the best of my knowledge, Events and their registration are not defined by law, and likewise, are not defined in the system itself. In addition, my requests for instruction material, pertaining to the system, which could have clarified this point, have not been granted to this date. Thanks for your help in this matter, Dated: November 24, 2011,
[zerniks graphic signature jz]

______________ Dr Joseph Zernik PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313 Tel: 052.508.3014 jz12345@earthlink.net

 42, 1102 " : 2369.576.20 : 8469.576.20 : )" 11/1406( . " : , . , , " : 1. , "", " ", "". 2. -2 , 1102, , "", "". 3. -22 , 1102, , "", "". , )3,2(, . , "", . , "" , , , , . . : 42 , 1102,

_________________ " " 04413, 31319 : 4103.805.250

jz12345@earthlink.net

November 24, 2011 Zernik v State of Israel (6041) Screen prints from the online public access system of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel: http://elyon2.court.gov.il/ Search for file #6041

a)

General Details

b) Parties

c) Related Cases

d) Lower Court Case

e) Proceedings Notes: No proceedings at all are listed for the case. In other case management systems, review of the case, whether in the presence or the absence of the parties, is listed in the Calendar.

f) Events Notes: 1. Events are not defined by law, neither are they defined in the system itself. 2. The Events listed below are: 1. Document filed August 30, 2011 2. Judgment issued September 7, 2011 3. Judgment mailed to the parties September 8, 2011 4. Judgment mailed to the parties September 8, 2011 3. The commencing record the Appeal itself, still fails to appear. 4. The dates, listed for mailing to the parties, do not match the data in the Certificates of Delivery (below). 5. The filing of the November 2, 2011, and the November 22, 2011 Requests for certified copies of the September 7, 2011 Judgment fail to be listed under Events

g) Certificates of Delivery 2273696 mailed to: Dr Joseph Zernik, September 19, 2011 2273697 mail to: State Prosecution, September 8, 2011 Notes: 1. The listing could not possibly be deemed Certificates of Delivery. At best, these are notes (unidentified by name of an individual, unsigned), pertaining to Service, but not Delivery. 2. The date of mailing to the State Prosecution could be deemed adequate for the September 7, 2011 Judgment in the case. However, the date of mailing to the Appellant, Dr Joseph Zernik, is well beyond 5 days, permitted by law, following the issuance of the September 7, 2011 Judgment.

h) Requests Notes: 1. Both the November 2, 2011 Request (line 5), and the November 22, 2011 Request (line 6) for certified copies of the September 7, 2011 Judgment appear in the list. However, no decision was issued on either.

i) Decisions Notes: 1. The only decision listed online is the September 7, 2011 Judgment.