Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-11-27 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi (1752-08) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – Repeat Request for Due Process, Appointment Record of Kobi Bleich

12-11-27 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi (1752-08) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – Repeat Request for Due Process, Appointment Record of Kobi Bleich

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3|Likes:
All judicial records were so far served unsigned, with an unsigned authentication record on behalf of the Clerk of the Court. The evidence shows that the cases, related to Moshe Silman were conducted as simulated litigation in the Tel-Aviv District Court. Therefore, request is made again for the service of signed judicial records, accompanied by signed authentication record on behalf of the Clerk of the Court. The explanation by Magistrate Avigail Cohen, that the signatures of these records are "electronic signatures in Net HaMishpat" – the electronic case management system of the court, where public access is denied – sounds straight out of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
All judicial records were so far served unsigned, with an unsigned authentication record on behalf of the Clerk of the Court. The evidence shows that the cases, related to Moshe Silman were conducted as simulated litigation in the Tel-Aviv District Court. Therefore, request is made again for the service of signed judicial records, accompanied by signed authentication record on behalf of the Clerk of the Court. The explanation by Magistrate Avigail Cohen, that the signatures of these records are "electronic signatures in Net HaMishpat" – the electronic case management system of the court, where public access is denied – sounds straight out of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

More info:

Published by: SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel on Nov 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/14/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1/4 
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Joseph Zernik, PhD
 
"
 
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel;
 
 josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org
;
91313
 
"3144
 
12-11-27
Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi (1752-08) in the Tel-AvivDistrict Court – Repeat Request for Due Process, AppointmentRecord of Kobi Bleich
All judicial records were so far served unsigned, with an unsigned authentication record on behalf of the Clerk of the Court. The evidence shows that the cases, related to Moshe Silman were conducted as simulated litigation in the Tel-Aviv District Court. Therefore, request is made again for the service of signed judicial records, accompanied by signed authentication record on behalf of the Clerk of the Court. The explanation by Magistrate Avigail Cohen, that the signatures of these records are "electronic signatures in Net HaMishpat" – the electronic case management system of the court, where public access is denied – sounds straight out of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
# Record Page #1
12-11-27 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi (1752-08) in the Tel-AvivDistrict Court – Repeat Request for Due Process, Appointment Recordof Kobi Bleich [English translation - jz]
22
12-11-27 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi (1752-08) in the Tel-AvivDistrict Court – Repeat Request for Due Process, Appointment Recordof Kobi Bleich
 
[Hebrew Original]
 5LINKS:
[1] 12-10-10 Human Right Alert's Appendix IV to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel -Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel - thecase of Moshe Silmanhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/109693460/ 
 
 
 
2/4Tel Aviv District Court1752-08Moseh Silman et alvBituach Leumi et alRepeat Request by Requester1 for a) Due Process, b) Certification by the office of theClerk of the Court of the Magistrate's October 25, 2012 and November 19, 2012Decisions, and c) an order by the Court on Mr Kobi Bleich to produce to the Requester1and the Parties to the case his appointment records.
To the Honorable Court, Magistrate Avigail Cohen, Chief Clerk Kobi Bliech, and the Parties:The Requester1, Dr Joseph Zernik, herein files his Repeat Request for a) Due Process, b)Certification by the office of the Clerk of the Court of the Magistrate's October 25, 2012 andNovember 19, 2012 Decisions, and c) an order by the Court on Mr Kobi Bleich to produce to theRequester1 and the Parties to the case his appointment records.Purpose of the Request1.The Requester1, Dr Joseph Zernik filed a series of requests in instant file – to inspect courtrecords, for certification by the clerk of decisions received from the Court, pertaining to therequest to inspect, for disqualification of Magistrate Brenner, for expediting court process, andfor due service of judicial decision records.
 ] 
Instant Repeat Request is filed, following theOctober 25, 2012 and November 19, 2012 Decisions by Magistrate in this matter.
 ] 
ii 
 Invisible electronic Signatures are like "The Emperor's New Clothes"2. The November 19, 2012 Decision by Magistrate Avigail Cohen, regarding the request for dueprocess and for production of the Chief Clerk's appointment record, was received likeprevious records, unsigned by the Magistrate, and accompanied by a Transmittal Letter that isnot signed by the Clerk of the Court.
 ] 
iii 
The Court continues to ignore the repeated requestsby Requester1 for service of signed court records.3. In her November 19, 2012 Decision, the Magistrate explains the service of unsigned records,"The Decisions are signed by electronic signatures, employing Net HaMishpat system". [theelectronic case management system of the Court] The Requester1 claims that suchexplanation reads straight out of the "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans ChristianAndersen. There is no technical reason, which prevents the Court from issuing a visibleelectronic signature, or a visible hand-signature. The ongoing refusal by the Court to serveany court record, bearing a visible signature, raises concern regarding integrity of the recordsand the process of the Request to Inspect itself.4. Additionally, it should be noted that the Magistrate's October 25, 2012 and November 19,2012 decisions, like prior decisions in this case, pertaining to the Request to Inspect, fail toappear in the online public access system of the Court. Such failure increases the concernregarding integrity of the records and the process of the Request to Inspect itself.5. The Requester1 claims that conduct of the Court, detailed in paragraphs 2-5, above, stand inviolation of the right for Due Process, and support the concern of conduct of simulatedprocess, pertaining to the Request to Inspect itself.Appointment, or lack thereof, of Chief Clerk Kobi Bleich is essential for certification of theCourt's records.
 
 
3/4
7. The Magistrate never ruled on the Requester1's request for a copy of Chief Clerk KobiBleich's appointment record. Instead, she responded with a question: "How would thedemand for the appointment record of Mr Bleich advance the Request to Inspect?"8. In response to the Magistrate's question, quoted in 7, above:a. All decisions of the Court are served with a Transmittal Letter, under the authority of theChief Clerk, and such Letter is integral to the due service procedure. Therefore, integrity,or lack thereof, of the decisions as valid court record, depends also on the lawfulauthority of the Clerk of the Court.b. Instant Request again includes a request for certification by the Chief Clerk of the Court of the Magistrate's October 25, 2012 and November 19, 2012 decision, pertaining to theRequest to Inspect, pursuant to the
 Regulations of the Court (Office of the Clerk)
– 2004,Article 6a. Article 6a of the Regulations says: "6a. Copies of Records (1996) – The Chief Clerks of the Courts are authorized to certify the a copy of a court record is true to theoriginal in the Court's file." Therefore, due appointment and due authority of Chief Clerk Kobi Bleich are essential for integrity and validity of the decisions and the process of theRequest to Inspect itself.c. As previously noted, to this date, no due appointment record of Chief Clerk Kobi Bleichhas been discovered, and the office of Administration of Courts refuses – with nofoundation in the law – to respond on a request, pursuant to the Freedom of InformationAct (1998) pertaining to the appointment record. Such conditions, combined withconduct of the Court now, pertaining to the Request to Inspect, described above(paragraphs 2-5, above), increase the concern that the Chief Clerk of the Tel-AvivDistrict Court is a simulated Chief Clerk, nothing more, and that process related to theRequest to Inspect is conducted as simulated process.Therefore, due appointment, or lack thereof, of Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv District Court isessential to the matter of integrity of the Request to Inspect itself.Additional evidence of simulated process in cases related to Moshe Silman and Social Securitywas recently discovered in the Tel Aviv District Court9. On November 19, 2012, additional records were discovered from the Appeal file (6909-01-10), which originated in instant case. Summary of the findings from these additional records isprovide in Appendix A.
 ] 
iv 
These findings also support the conclusion that in matters related toMoshe Silman and Social Security in the Tel-Aviv District Court, simulated process was and/oris conducted.
Therefore, the Undersigned requests:
a)
 
That the Honorable Court serve its decision on instant Request, signed by the Magistrateand accompanied by a Transmittal Letter signed by the Clerk, using visible signatures,either electronic or hand-written.b)
 
That the Honorable Court produce to the Requester1 copies of the Magistrate's decisionsdated October 25, 2012 and November 19, 2012, certified "True Copy of the Original",pursuant to the
 Regulations of the Courts (Office of the Clerk)
– 2004, Article 6a.c)
 
That the Honorable Court enter in instant file an order on Chief Clerk Kobi Bleich toserve on the parties, including Requester1, a copy of his appointment records.Date: November 27, 2012[signature]

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->