Human Rights Alert (NGO)

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

11-11-29 The Supreme Court of the State Israel Accepted for Preliminary Review a Challenge to the Integrity of Its Electronic Record Systems
In the handling of Zernik v State of Israel, the Supreme Court provided the best evidence, so far, of the glaring defects in its electronic online public access and case management systems.

Chief Justice Dorit Beinish,

Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Jerusalem, November 29 I hope that the Supreme Court will honestly register the records, conduct an honest review, and serve and enter a signed decision on the matter this time around, says Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert. Dr Zernik has filed today a Challenge to decision of the office of the Clerk. [i] The challenge pertains to the refusal of the office of the Clerk to accept a Request for review by an expanded panel of the Supreme Court of Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11). Under Zernik v State of Israel, evidence was provided that the Supreme Court has effectively established a system of double books in its electronic online public access and case management systems: [ii]

The online public access system - includes only vague and ambiguous records, including, but not limited to unsigned decisions, subject to "editing and phrasing changes", and The case management system - maintains materially different records for the same files, but public access to these records is denied.

In refusing to accept the filing of the Request, under Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11), the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court made the determination:
We cannot accept this paper for registration, since it is not permissible to request additional review proceeding of a single justice ruling.

The Challenge filed today by Dr Zernik, claims that the determination by the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court was in error:

The commencing record in Zernik v State of Israel is not registered in the online public access system; No proceeding is listed for Zernik v State of Israel in the Calendar of the Supreme Court, and

November 29, 2011

2/2

No decision was duly served in Zernik v State of Israel, and the Supreme Court has so far refuses to provide a signed and certified decision in the case.

Concomitantly, the Supreme Court published in its online public access system records for the same case, which would lead the People, and possibly also competent attorneys, to conclude that the case was accorded registration, review, and a decision, pursuant to the law of the State of Israel. Therefore, the conduct of the Supreme Court in Zernik v State of Israel, has provided the best evidence, so far, of the glaring defects in the Court's electronic online public access and case management systems. The conduct of Zernik v State of Israel should be considered Simulated Litigation, [iv] says Dr Zernik, Fixing the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court is critical for the integrity of the justice system in Israel.
_____
Dr Zernik has gained substantial experience over the past decade in analyzing the electronic records of banks, courts, and prisons. His opinions on these matters were supported by official report of the UN Human Rights Council, by the opinions of highly-reputed law enforcement and computer science experts, and by peer-review in international computer and criminology journals and conferences. Submission he authored on behalf of Human Rights Alert (NGO) for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the official 2010 UPR report with a note referring to corruption of the courts and the legal professionin California [v]

_____ LINKS
[1] 11-11-29 Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) Commencing Paper in Challenge to Refusal of the Office of the Clerk to Accept the Filing of a Paper under Zernik v State of Israel (6401/11) (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/74143154/ [ii] 11-11-27 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request Addressed to the Chief Justice for Initial Review by an Expanded Panel (English + Hebrew) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73907482/ [iii] "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. [iv] 11-07-04 Joseph Zernik, PhD, Biographical Sketch http://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/