Human Rights Alert, NGO

123456xyz@gmail.com;

91313

" Joseph Zernik, PhD 3144 ,31440 "PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313

13-05-27 Zernik v Minister of Justice et al (2689/13) in the Israeli Supreme Court false and deliberately misleading online public access records The online court file records in this case should be deemed by now false and deliberately misleading. The Supreme Court refuses to correct the false registrations of records previously filed by the Petitioner, and creates new false registrations of records filed in court. The petition itself addresses the fraudulent nature of the electronic record systems, which have been implemented in the Israeli courts over the past decade.
LINKS: [1] 13-04-15 Dr Zernik v Justice Minister Livni and Director of Administration of the Courts
Spitzer (2689/13) Petition in the High Court of Justice of the State of Israel (Hebrew with English translation)) http://www.scribd.com/doc/136215148/

1. Index

Note: The Index entry appears as valid opening of a petition file.

1/13

2. General Details

File #: 2689 HCJ Appellant: Dr Joseph Zernik Division: High Court of Justice Respondent: Minister of Justice Filing Date:April 15, 2013 Status: Open Last event: Notice Filed/ by the Petitioner Note: 1) The Petitioner is falsely listed as an Appellant 2) Filing Date: April 15, 2013 although the petition was stamped Received on April 15, 2013, the Office of the Clerk refuses to register is as Filing of Petition Process or even Document Filed, under Events. 3) Last Event: Notice Filed by the Petitioner, is incorrect the latest papers, which were filed on May 23, 2013, were all Requests.

2/13

3. Parties

Type: # Petitioner 1 Respondent Respondent

Name Attorneys Dr Joseph Zernik 1 Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni Bert, Yitzhaq 2 Director of Administration of Courts Michael SpitzerBarak Laser, Barak, State Attorney

Note: 1) Here the filer is listed as Petitioner 2) No certificate of Attorneys of Record for the Respondents: Attorneys Bert, Yitzhaq and Laser, Baraq has been filed or served so far. Request for the filing and service of certificates of Counsel of Record were subject of one of the May 23, 2013 Requests.

3/13

4. Related Cases

"No records were found in the requested range.

4/13

5. Lower Court File

"No records were found in the requested range. 6. Proceedings

"No records were found in the requested range.

5/13

7. Events (3 screen prints to cover all events)

6/13

7/13

# 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 3. 4. 4. 5. 6. 6. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Main Event Fees Decision Decision Decision Decision Decision Decision Paper filed Paper filed Paper filed Notice filed Process filed Process filed Process filed Notice filed Paper filed Notice filed Notice filed

Secondary Event Date Fees Paid April 15, 2013 Decision released April 18, 2013 Decision mailed April 18, 2013 Decision mailed April 18, 2013 Decision mailed April 18, 2013 Decision mailed April 18, 2013 Decision mailed April 18, 2013 Filed paper April 21, 2013 Filed paper April 21, 2013 Filed paper April 21, 2013 Failure to receive paperApril 29, 2013 Filed process May 1, 2013 Mailing May 1, 2013 Mailing May 1, 2013 Notice by Petitioner May 6, 2013 Filed paper May 9, 2013 Notice by the Petitioner May 12, 2013 Notice by the Petitioner May 26, 2013

Filer Dr Zernik

Dr Zernik Dr Zernik Dr Zernik Spitzer Dr Zernik Dr Zernik

General Notes: 1. The electronic record system of the Supreme Court is inherently invalid, since it fails to include a docket - a list of papers filed in court and entered into the court file. 2. The closest to a docket that the system shows is the list of Events. 3. The reason for the five (5) listings of mailing of a decision remains unknown. 3. Evidently, the system provided the option to enter free text under Secondary Event, describing the papers, which were filed. See for example: 5. Notice filed Failure to receive paper However, the filing of papers by petitioner is left uniquely vague and ambiguous by listings such as: 4. Paper filed Filed paper 4. The listing of of papers filed, where no party is listed as the Filer should be deemed invalid. Specific Notes: The list of events in this case is false and deliberately misleading:

8/13

1. The filing of commencing paper the Petition, which was stamped Received on April 15, 2013, was never registered to this date. 2. The event listed on April 21, 2013 Paper Filed/Filed Paper is probably in reference to the protest letter, mailed to Supreme Court Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, relative to the failure to register the filing of commencing paper in this case. Why it is listed three times remains unknown. 3. No paper was filed on May 1, 2013, and the listing (3 times) of Process Filed on that date is false. Moreover, according to the registration, the Process was filed by no party at all. The correct registration should have been Petition filed on April 15, 2013. 4. On May 5, 2013, Petitioner Zernik filed Request to Add Paper: Additional evidence of corruption in the Tel Aviv District Court and Net HaMishpat as the Enabler. The paper was not registered under Events at all. 5. On May 6, 2013, when no paper was filed by the Petitioner, the registration shows Notice Filed, but no party name is listed under Filer. This notice most likely refers to the repeat faxing on May 5, 2013, of protest letter No 2 to the Presiding Justice, pertaining to false registration of the Petition.
13-05-02 Zernik v Minister of Justice et al (2689/13) in the Israeli Supreme Court Request No 2 to Presiding Justice - for honest registration, alternatively - refund of filing fees

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139556302/

6. On May 12, 2013, no Notice was filed by the Petitioner, but a Request to provide a certified copy of the April 18, 2013 Decision record by Justice Hayut. 7. Requests, which were filed on May 23, 2013, were not registered at all...
13-05-23 Zernik v Minister of Justice et al (2689/13) Request for review by a panel of 3 justices of the Israeli Supreme Court http://www.scribd.com/doc/143227425/ 13-05-23 Zernik v Minister of Justice et al (2689/13) - Request for Certificates of Counsel of Record http://www.scribd.com/doc/143763214/ 13-05-23 Zernik v Minister of Justice et al (2689/13) - Request for entry and service of decisions on requests http://www.scribd.com/doc/14376637 13-05-23 Zernik v Minister of Justice et al (2689/13) - Request to add a document - Judge Esperanza Alon - master of the "mystical secrets of court procedure", or "obstructionist with impunity"? http://www.scribd.com/doc/143909723/

8. Notice, which is registered on May 26, 2013, is an unknown record.

9/13

7. Certificates of Delivery

# 2599973 2599974 2592419 2592418 2592320 2592321 2592322

Addressee Joseph Zernik State Attorney State Attorney Atty Laser Barak Dr Joseph Zernik Minster of Justice Livni Atty Laser Barak

Date of Signature Not keyed in yet Not keyed in yet Not keyed in yet Not keyed in yet Not keyed in yet Not keyed in yet April 18, 2013

Notes: 1) The Israeli courts routinely misuse Delivery as Service. 2) From the registration, as it appears in this online public access system, it is impossible to know what were the items mailed, or when.

10/13

8. Requests (2 screen prints)

# a. b. c. d. e.

Description of the Request Intermediate Decree Adding Evidence For entry of decision For Adding Evidence For order to file records
11/13

Date April 21, 2013 May 5, 2013 May 12, 2013 May 23, 2013 May 23, 2013

Filer Petitioner 1 Petitioner 1 Petitioner 1 Petitioner 1

f. g. h.

For expanded panel For entry of decision/judgment For entry of decision/judgment

May 23, 2013 May 23, 2013 May 23, 2013

Petitioner 1 Petitioner 1 Petitioner 1

Notes: 1. No paper at all was filed on April 21, 2013, and there is no request for an Intermediate Decree in this case. 2. The filing of the Request to Add Evidence is listed on May 5, 2013, although it was not listed under Events. 3. The Request for Certified Copy of the April 18, 2013 Decision is not listed under Requests. 4. On May 23, 2013, the filing of the Requests is registered here, although it was not registered as Events. Here, a fifth unknown Request is listed.

12/13

9. Decisions

Decision/Judgment Decision

Date April 18, 2013

Note: 1. The April 18, 2013 Decision by Justice Esther Hayut pertained in part to the Request for Recusal of the Office of the Clerk, which the Office of the Clerk refused to accept. It is also the subject of the May 12, 2013 Request for a certified copy, which was never answered by a decision of the court.

13/13