Human Rights Alert (NGO)

"

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel;

josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org ;
123456xyz@gmail.com;

91313 3144 "

13-04-15 Zernik v Minister of Justice Livni and Director of the Courts

Spitzer (2689/13) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
The Supreme Court of Israel denies access to justice in a petition that documents
undermining the integrity of court records in Israel over the past decade. Key part of the
evidence comes from the case of self-immolated social protest activist Moshe Silman,
zl, in the Tel Aviv District Court. The Petition in Zernik v Livni and Spitzer was filed from
the Tel Aviv Social Protest encampment.
#

Record

Page #

13-04-15 Filing Fee Voucher in the sum of NIS 1,786.00

13-04-15 Petition with stamps Received and hand inscription [Hebrew

original]:
1. Secretary of the Magistrate, Carmit, refused to ask the
Magistrate to accept the papers for filing.
2. Attorney Ben Tovim in the Office of the Clerk refused to accept
for filing the Request for his own Recusal.
13-04-15 Petition with stamps Received and hand inscription [English
translation]
13-04-15 Request for Recusal of the Office of the Clerk, with no
Received stamps. [Hebrew original]
13-04-15 Request for Recusal of the Office of the Clerk, with no
Received stamps. [English translation]
13-04-15 Online public records, showing under Events only payment
of Filing Fees, but no registration of the filing of any paper [English and
Hebrew].

3
4
5
6

38
46
60
63

The Papers
1) Petition for Conditional Decree
The Petition for Conditional Decree against Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni and Director of
Administration of the Courts Michael Spitzer seeks to abolish unpublished, secret
changes in the Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), which were
affected unlawfully by the office of Administration of the Courts through implementation
of the new electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel over the past
decade.
The petition claims that such secret changes to the Regulations of the Courts, were tied
to unprecedented loss of integrity in court records in Israel. Key deficiencies are related

1/2

to undermining the authority of the offices of the Clerks of the Courts and
implementation of invisible electronic signatures - The Emperor's New Clothes.
The Petition includes evidence, showing the resulting lack of integrity in records of the
various courts, including the Supreme Court itself.
Key part of the evidence comes from the case of self-immolated social protest activist
Moshe Silman, zl, who was subjected to simulated legal proceedings in the Tel Aviv
District Court in his lawsuit against Social Security Administration.
Dr Zernik's current Petition was filed from the Social Protest encampment in Tel-Aviv.
2) Request for Recusal of the Office of the clerk
Dr Zernik concomitantly filed Request for Recusal of the Office of the Clerk from
handling the registration of Dr Zernik's papers in the Petition. The Request for Recusal
documented dishonest registration of a previous Petition Dr Zernik had filed in the High
Court of Justice for protection against unlawful freezing of his assets by Bank HaPoalim,
BM. - Joseph Zernik v Stanley Fischer (7650/12).
The Request for Recusal also documents the fact that Ms Sarah Lifschitz has occupied
the office of the Chief Clerk for the past decade with no lawful appointment record.
The Request for Recusal seeks registration of the papers by the Magistrate of the
Supreme Court, pursuant to the Court Act (1984), which authorizes the Magistrate of
the Supreme Court to perform all duties of the Clerk.
Disposition:
1) The Office of the Magistrate refused to accept the papers for filing, and insisted on
referring Dr Zernik back tot he Office of the Clerk.
2) The Office of the Clerk refused to accept the Request for Recusal, without even
reading it.
3) Mr Ben Tovim in the Office of the Clerk reviewed the Petition itself, and decided to
permit its filing, pending payment of a NIS 1,786.00 Filing Fee. Dr Zernik agreed to
pay the fee on explicit condition of honest registration of the Filing of Petition
Process. Mr Ben Tovim stamped the Petition Received and signed his name in
the designated space.
4) So far, the online records of the Supreme Court, relative to Zernik v Livni and Spitzer
(2689/13) shows only the payment of Filing Fee, but no entry of any paper any paper
at all.
Conclusions:
The case documents for alleged serious abuses of Human Rights:the second time:
1) Denial of Access to Justice by the Supreme Court relative to Dr Zernik's petition,
attempting to protect his rights.. Denial of Access to Justice by the Tel Aviv District
Court was was also stated at the opening of Moshe Silman's last letter.
2) Denial of the right for Fair Hearing in National Tribunals for Protection of Rights.

2/2

 ) ( ,
, .
) ( ,
,

.
.4 .
.
.5 ," ,

.
, ,
-
. ,
, , , ,
.
" " )
(NGO .
" ),(2013
,25 "
, , ".
- ) (NGO 10- ,2012 ,
,2013 ".

2/9
"


.
.

:
?
.6 1
.
.7 2 ,
" .
.
.8 " 5
5 )( " 2004 - :
.5

, , .
,
. " 5
. , ,
.
.9 " 5
" 5 " "
,

3/9
"

 , ,1998 - " "

.
- 22- ,2012 , ,1998 - : "
" ?
, .
.10 " 5 .
" 5
) ( ,
.
,
:
.
,
. ,
" ",
. , - , ,
, , , .
. )( ,
.
60) 2010( ,' ,693-747
.

, ,

4/9
"

 , ,
. 60) 2010( ,
,
)? ,(IBM/EDS
.

.

,
.
,2012 ,61-62 ,,
.

,

.
.11 ,
," , .
) (NGO
,
, :

. ," , ,
, :
" . ] -[
" , , , .

5/9
"


. , :
) (13491/2008 , - .
-

) (1752-08 , , .

) (6909-01-10 , , , ).(1752-08
,
, , .
, ,
" , " ,
.
,1998-
.

. " ) (25607-03-13 ,
) ( ,
, , , .
- 17- ,2012 ,
".
. ,
.

6/9
"

 , "
, ,
, .
, ,
" " " ,
.
,
,1998- .

." ) (7650/12 )
(
.
, ,
, "".
,
, .
, "".
, ,,
, .
, ,
, .
, ,
" , " ,
.

7/9
"

 , ,
.1998-
,
,
.
, ,
, .

. : .
.11 :
5 )(
") 2004- ( "... ,
" ?
.
.12 , 5 )( "2004-
) ( , "... , " ,

. .
,
.
15 ,,2013 ,

__________________
" ,

8/9
"

 '

)Human Rights Alert (NGO

" 3144 91313

Joseph Zernik, PhD

; PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel; josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org

'

12-05-10" ) (NGO
- 2013- )(Hebrew short report
,
~ - ~

" ,
, ,
.

,
, - .
, ,
, , .

" " " " .

. / ,
. : 7- ,2002 ,
, .-- -- ,
. ,
. , ,
," " .
.
" , , ""
, , , .

" , ,
-:
.1 ,
.
.2 , ) ,(1961
, .
.3 ,,
.

:
.1
/ , .
.2 ,
,2002-
.
.3
.
" , , , ,
:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU
, " ,
" .

 . " ,2010
' , ."
" ,
." "
"
, ".' ,
,
, , .
.
.
,
, - . ,
, ,
) .(1961 ,
, , , .
. "
) , , ( ,
, .
" " " " ,
, ,
.

.1
,
,
, .
. ,2003-5
, .
,
/ .
, ,
, , .
/ , ,
- .

.2
( 7- ,2002 , , ,
) . (2
( , ) . (1
( , ,"
") . (2
( ) (2001-3 ) . (3
' 2 2001-2003

,2002
," . ,2003 ,
. , " " , "
" , .
.2001-2003
' 3

 - - ' ) (1582/02 :
," ," ).(14/02/2007

___


, 02-670444
pniot@supreme.court.gov.il :
www.court.gov.il :
,2007 ,
. .

(
(
(
(

,
,
.

,
) (5,6
,
, .
"" , ""
, , .
' 6

,
, . " : ," ," ) ,"(21.9.2011
. " ,
" , ,
" " , ,.

.3
-
,
.

.4

 ,
, " "
) . (1
:1
December 27, 2014
April 1, 2012
July 6, 2009
October 10, 2006
January 14, 2004
April 19, 2001
July 24, 1998
500000 1000000 1500000

,
,
) . 3"
( ,
Word ) ( .
, , ,
. , " "
.

.5 ; .6 ; .7; .8 ;
.9 ; .10
' 8 , " "

, ) ;(1961 ,
" " , , .
, " " , " " , , ,
) (2004 . , ,
,
. , ,
, .
.
. ,
, " ".

.

.11 ; .12
. .
" , ,
-:

 , .1
.
,(1961) , .2
,
.
, .3
. ,

.
:
.1
, /
.
, .2
,2002-
.
.3
.
2012 , 10-
[]
'
(NGO)
:
[1] 12-06-04 Human Right Alert, Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Integrity, or
lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel"
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5QWtZcjVQLWVFZ0k
[2] 12-05-10 Human Right Alert, Appendix I to Submission; 15th UPR - State of Israel "Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel"
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU
[3] 12-07-18 Human Right Alert, Appendix II to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel "Additional Responses by National Authorities/Experts, Re: ComSign, LTD - sole certifier and
hacker of the digital signatures of the State of Israel".pdf
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5bjBUY0FVNGR3eXc
[4] 12-10-10 Human Right Alert, Appendix III 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 peer-reviewed and published in Data Analytics 2012"
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5MFV3dnJMdzN0VVk
[5] 12-10-11 Human Right Alert, Appendix IV to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel "The case of Moshe Silman"
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5Q3loSEprNVNPVm8
[6] 12-10-15 Human Right Alert, Appendix V to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel "Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic records of the Bank of Israel-Banking Regulation
Consumer Complaint procedures"
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5b2FqQ2k3MVRwUWs

 '

February 22, 2012

Digitally signed by
Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph Zernik,
o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthlin
k.net, c=US
Date: 2012.02.22
19:12:02 +02'00'

The Honorable Alon Gilon

Freedom of Information Office
Administration of the Courts State of Israel
22 Kanfey Nesharim Street, Jerusalem
By email: menahel@court.gov.il
By Fax: 02-6513191

Response or confirmation of receipt within 14 days is kindly requested.

RE: Freedom of Information Request, in re: Changes that may have been
introduced in the Regulations of the Courts of the State of Israel (Offices of the
Clerks), 2004, by the Director of the Administration of the Courts.
Dear Judge Gilon:
Please accept instant request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), for:
1) Any and all records, pertaining to changes that may have been introduced in the
Regulations of the Courts of the State of Israel (Offices of the Clerks), 2004, as
published up to date (hereinafter - the Regulations) by the Director of the
Administration of the Courts (hereinafter the Director), pursuant to paragraph 5 of
the Regulations. [1]
2) In particular, any and all records, which document specific changes, if any, by the
Director, relative to the following paragraphs of the Regulations:

Paragraph 3a-c, relative to the maintenance of court files, including electronic

court files, in the Offices of the Clerks of the respective courts.
Paragraph 6a, relative to the method and/or authority of the Chief Clerk of the
Supreme Court to certify the electronic court files of the Supreme Court.
3) A list of the decisions and/or judgments of the Supreme Court, if any, which have
been certified True copy of the original by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of
the State of Israel from the date that paragraph 6a of the Regulations came into effect
to this date.
I shall readily pay any fees associated with your honest services in responding on instant
request, upon notification.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

LINKS:
[1] 04-11-25 Takanot Batey Hamishpat - Mazkirut (2004) // Regulations of the Courts - Offices of
the Clerks (2004) (Heb + Eng)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48770720/

 '

The Supreme Court

HCJ 2689/12
Dr Joseph Zernik v Minister of
Justice Tzipi...
Filing Date: April 15, 2013
[Sticker placed by the Office of the
Clerk upon filing jz]

Supreme Court
Unrepresented Parties Division
April 15, 2013
Received/Inspected
[signature of Mr Danny Ben-Tovim]
____
[Stamp imprinted by the Office of the Clerk upon filing jz]
In the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, Sitting as High Court of Justice
Dr Joseph Zernik Petitioner
v
Minster of Justice Tzipi Livni and Director of Administration
of Courts Michael Spitzer Respondents
Petition for Conditional Decree1
I. Instant Petition for Conditional Decree and Request for Recusal of the Office
of the Clerk are Concomitantly Filed

1. Petitioner Dr Joseph Zernik herein concomitantly files, as joint papers, Request

for Conditional Decree and Request for Recusal of the Office of the Clerk of the
Supreme Court from handling instant papers. Therefore, the Petitioner asks that the
Magistrate of the Supreme Court perform all duties of the Office of the Clerk in
instant file.
* 1. Secretary of the Magistrate, Carmit, refused to ask the
Magistrate to accept the filing of instant Petition.
2. Attorney Ben-Tovim refused to accept the filing of the Request
for Recusal, pertaining to himself. Jz [Hand notes added while
filing]

II. Petition for Conditional Decree

1 Footnotes do not appear in the original, added in the translation.

2. The Honorable Court is herein asked to enter a conditional decree, ordering

Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni and Director of Administration of Court Michael
Spitzer to appear and reason:
Why will the Supreme Court not order that Regulation 5 of the Regulations of
the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004, in its part ... with the necessary changes,
as ordered by the Director of Administration of Courts, is null and void?
A. Request for lenience for unrepresented Petitioner
3. Petitioner, Dr Joseph Zernik, is not an attorney and is not represented. Below,
Petitioner presents the factual and legal arguments in common Hebrew. Petitioner is
not qualified to analyze the legal arguments, relative to the law of the State of Israel
and Human Rights in International Law. Under other jurisdictions, courts are
required to take into consideration lack of qualification in the law of parties appearing
pro se, appearing in themselves (unrepresented), with no legal education, relative to
their legal arguments.
Therefore, the Court is asked to provide lenience for pro se Petitioner in instant case,
to review the factual and legal arguments as they are, and to provide the appropriate
legal framework in adjudicating instant Petition, pursuant to the law of the State of
Israel and Human Rights in International Law.
4. The appendices attached to the instant Petition are inseparable part of it.
B. Parties
5. Petitioner, Dr Joseph Zernik published studies in recent years in academic journals
in computer science and criminology and presented his findings in international
conferences in such fields, pursuant to anonymous peer review. Some of the studies
detail large-scale fraud, under the guise of lawfulness, in the US banking system and
US banking regulation as central to the current socio-economic crisis there. Other
studies analyze data in the electronic record systems of the US, California, and Israeli
courts, and their validity, or lack thereof.
A report, authored by Petitioner, which was submitted to the UN Human Rights
Council by Human Rights Alert (NGO), reviewed the electronic record systems of
the Israeli courts. The report was later incorporated into the Professional Staff Report
of the Human Rights Council, as part of the Universal Periodic Review (2013),
paragraph 25, with a note referring to lack of integrity in the electronic records of
the Supreme Court, the district courts, and the detainees courts in Israel.
Appendix A is a Hebrew translation of the short version of the June 10, 2012
Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the Universal Periodic Review of
Human Rights in Israel (2013) by the Human Rights Council of the United
Nations. 2
212-06-04 Human Right Alert, Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel (ENGLISH ORIGNIAL)
"Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel"
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5QWtZcjVQLWVFZ0k

Part of Petitioner's findings, relative to the electronic record systems of the Israeli
courts, were also examined by three senior staff members in the Departments of
Computer Science in three (3) universities in Israel. Based on such findings, all three
expressed serious concerns regarding lack of integrity in such systems. Based on
such findings, one of them forwarded a request for a halachic ruling by Rabbi Adin
Steinsaltz: Does conduct of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel amount to largescale public deception?
6. Respondent 1, Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni, and her predecessors are authorized
by the law of the State of Israel to promulgate the Regulations of the Courts.
7. Respondent 2, Director of Administration of Courts, Michael Spitzer, and his
predecessors were authorized by the part of the above part of Regulation 5 to
introduce unspecified changes to the Regulation of the Courts (Office of the Clerk).
C. Reasons for the Petition
8. The above part of Regulation 5 contradicts the fundamental principle of
Separation of Branches of Government
Regulation 5 of the Regulations of the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004 says:
5. Mechanized Systems
All provisions of instant Regulations shall be executed in mechanized systems
of the courts and in electronic devices, with the necessary changes, as ordered
by the Director of Administration of Courts.
Pursuant to the law of the State of Israel, the judicial branch is not authorized to
promulgate regulations, surely not the Regulations of the Courts. However, the
above section of Regulation 5 vests the Director of the Administration of Courts with
the authority to change the Regulations of Courts. Therefore, the vestor was not
authorized to vest such authority, and the vestee was not authorized to be vested.
9. The above part of Regulation 5 contradicts the fundamental principle of Publicity
of the Law
The above part of Regulation 5 does not define the necessary changes, which the
Director of Administration of Courts is authorized to change, and the Administration
of Courts refuses to answer on the Petitioner's request, pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act 1998: What are the necessary changes that were introduced in
the Regulation of Courts by the Director of Administration of Courts in the process
of implementing the electronic record systems?
Appendix B is a copy of a February 22, 2012 request, pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act 1998: What are the necessary changes,
introduced by the Director of Administration of Court in the Regulations of the
Courts in the process of implementing the electronic record systems?
Therefore, the Regulations of the Courts in the State of Israel are today hidden from
the public.

10. The above part of Regulation 5 undermines the fundamentals of Due

Process/Fair Hearings in the State of Israel.
The above part of Regulation 5 is part of a series of steps, related to the
implementation of the electronic record systems of the latest generation in the courts
of the State of Israel (including Net HaMishpat) over the past decade, which
fundamentally undermine the integrity of the Israeli justice system.
The fundamental flaws in the electronic record system, currently operating in the
courts of the State of Israel are:
a. Undermining the authority of the Clerks of the Courts, relative to their duties and
obligations for the safeguard of integrity of court records.
b. Invalid implementation of invisible electronic signatures, which in their essence
are the same as the fraud, underlying the fable The Emperor's New Clothes.
c. Maintenance of double and triple materially different books for the public at
large, for parties in the case, for the Office of the Clerk, and for judges and denial of
access to court records, even to parties in their own cases.
d. Hiding of the Regulations of the Courts (Office of the Clerk), as changed by the
Administration of Courts in the process of implementing the electronic record
systems.
The 2010 State Ombudsman Report (60b), pp 693-747, also dwells on the flaws in
the development and implementation of the systems over the past decade. The Report
determines that the systems, now in operation in the courts, were developed and
implemented out of compliance with the law of the State of Israel, since contracts
were awarded to corporations by the Administration of Courts with no bidding, with
no technical specifications, with no core supervision by State employees, and with no
independent examination of the final product by State employees prior to
implementation. The Report also determines that in the process of implementing the
systems, the servers for the records of the courts were removed from the Offices of
the Clerks to one of the corporations (IBM/EDS?), and an unknown number of
persons were issued double smart ID cards. The findings of the State Ombudsman
alone should have led the Ombudsman to conclude that such systems are invalid and
unacceptable as electronic record systems, pursuant to Due Process/Fair Hearing
rights. 3
Effectively, conditions which have been established in the courts of the State of Israel
over the past decade, concomitantly with implementation of the new systems, enable
judges to routinely falsify court records. The 2012 Ombudsman of the Judiciary
Report, pp 61-2, also dwells on retroactive changes in court records by judges.
Falsification of court records by Judge Vardah AlSheikh in the Tel Aviv District
Court, 4 and fabrication of court records by former Judge Hilah Cohen in the Haifa
District Court 5 were widely reported by media.
3 10-00-00 State of Israel - Ombudsman's Report 60b, Ministry of Justice Computerization (2010) p 693 Et Seq
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50624862/
412-04-10 The Judge Alsheikh Affair Reconstructed Transcript in the Tel-Aviv District Court _ Globe

http://www.scribd.com/doc/90686541/
505-08-14 Judge Hila Cohen set to step down _ Haaretz

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/judge-hila-cohen-set-to-step-down-1.167998

10. Lack of integrity in the courts undermines the Human Rights of all residents of
the State of Israel, including the late Moshe Silman, and the Petitioner.
The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the United Nations involved overall
analysis of the electronic record systems of the courts, but the following cases
demonstrate the effective harm to those who come to court, including the Supreme
Court:
a. Moshe Silman v Social Security Administration in the Tel Aviv District Court.
In the opening lines of his last letter, Moshe Silman says: 6
The Tel Aviv District Court denied my access to justice. Hanan Brenner [sic
jz], magistrate of the Tel Aviv District Court, violated the law and obstructed
justice with impunity.
Review of the court files, related to Moshe Silman v Social Security Administration in
the Tel Aviv District Court, revealed three court file numbers.
Accordingly, three requests for inspection of court files were filed:
- In the first court file (13491/2008), the commencing paper (complaint) was
purportedly registered, but the Office of the Clerk of the Tel Aviv District Court
refused to accept the request to inspect the court file, claiming that it had never
existed.
- In the second court file (1752-08), Hagai Brenner, in his capacity as Magistrate,
affected the dismissal of the complaint.
- In the third court file (6909-01-10), Hagai Brenner, in his capacity as Pro Tem
District Judge, denied Silman's appeal from Hagai Brenner's decision, in his capacity
as Magistrate in court file (1752-08).
Additionally, inspection of the court files revealed that court decisions are routinely
served unsigned by a judge and accompanied by an unsigned authentication letter by
a clerk, whose name fails to be stated.
Mr Kobi Bleich, who appears as Chief Clerk of the Tel Aviv District Court, refuses to
certify the decisions in the court files, related to the late Moshe Silman, True Copy
of the Original, and also refuses to provide a copy of his lawful appointment record
as Chief Clerk of the Tel Aviv District Court.
Prior to that, Administration of Courts had refused to respond on a request, pursuant
to the Freedom of Information Act 1998, for Mr Bleich's appointment record.
b. Conservatorship of RSZ (25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court
In the above referenced court file, two different and contradictory decisions of the
same date, on the same request, by Judge Esperanza Alon were served on Joseph
Zernik (Petitioner in instant case).
Appendix C includes copies of different and contradictory March 17, 2013
Decisions by Judge Esperanza Alon, which were served on Joseph Zernik in
court file of Conservatorship of RSZ. 7
6 Moseh Silman self-immolated social protest activist.
713-03-17 In RE: RSZ (25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court - Three (3) falsified decision records /
simulated service of process, received by certified mail from the Clerk of the Court and from Attorney Amos
Sadika

Joseph Zernik was not a party to the case. Moreover, one of the contradictory
decisions purported to summon Joseph Zernik to court for proceedings in the case.
Additionally, inspection of the court files related to conservatorship of RSZ reveals
that court decisions are routinely served unsigned by a judge and accompanied by an
unsigned authentication letter by a clerk, whose name fails to be stated.
Mr Israel Hen, who appears as Chief Clerk in the Haifa Magistrate Court, refuses to
certify either of the two contradictory decisions, True Copy of the Original, and
also refuses to provide a copy of his appointment record as Chief Clerk of the Haifa
Magistrate Court. Mr Israel Hen also appears as Chief Clerk of the Haifa District
Court, but prior to that, Administration of Courts had refused to respond on a request,
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1998, for Mr Hen's appointment record.
c. Zernik v Fischer (7650/12) in the Supreme Court (see appendices in Request for
Recusal of the Office of the Clerk)
Initially, the filing of commencing record was not registered at all.
After the Petitioner approached the Office of the Clerk for correction of the error,
filing of the petition was registered on a day, when no petition was filed, and was
registered as an Appeal.
In response to request for correction of the latter error, Ms Sarah Lifschitz refused to
enter a correction, claiming that there was no flaw in the registration.
But after the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, the registration was
retroactively changed to Petition.
Requests for clarifications by the Supreme Court, who made the retroactive changes,
on what date, and by what authority, were not answered to this date.
Additionally, the above referenced case and other cases of the Supreme Court reveal
that decisions of the Supreme Court are routinely served unsigned, accompanied by
no authentication letter by the Clerk of the Court.
Ms Sarah Lifschitz, who appears as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, refuses to
certify decisions of the Court, True Copy of the Original, and also refuses to
provide a copy of her appointment record as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court.
Prior to that, Administration of Courts had refused to respond on a request, pursuant
to the Freedom of Information Act 1998, for Mr Lifschitz's appointment record.
Petitioner in instant case claims that in parallel to implementation of the current
electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel, simulated Offices of the
Clerks and simulated litigation practcies were established.
It should be noted that under other jurisdictions, service of simulated court records
and in particular simulated summoning to court are criminal offenses. 8
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132872623/
8 Texas Penal Code - Section 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
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

C. The appropriate remedy in instant Petition: Immediate response by the

Responders.
11. Therefore, Petitioner claims that the appropriate remedy in instant Petition is
immediate response by the Responders:
Why will the Supreme Court not order that Regulation 5 of the Regulations of
the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004, in its part ... with the necessary changes,
as ordered by the Director of Administration of Courts, is null and void?
D. Summary
12. Petitioner claims that the above cited part of Regulation 5 of the Regulations of
the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004, which says, ... with the necessary changes,
as ordered by the Director of Administration of Courts, undermines the Rule of Law
in the State of Israel and materially harms the Human Rights of Petitioner and all
residents of the State of Israel. The remedy sought by Petitioner is only preliminary
step for correction of such conditions. Therefore, the Honorable Court is asked to
enter a Conditional Decree, as requested in instant Petition, and following response
by the Responders, made it absolute.
Today, April 15, 2013,
[Signature]
___________
Dr Joseph Zernik, unrepresented
Social Protest Encampment, Tel Aviv
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313
Affidavit of the Petitioner
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.
(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section
that the simulating document:
(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a
person or entity who did not have lawful authority to issue or
authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to,
or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a
court created or established under the constitution or laws of this
state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was
delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under
this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a
violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.

I, the undersigned, Dr Joseph Zernik, hereby declare that statements made in

paragraphs 1-12 of the Petition for Conditional Decree, above, are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Today, April 15, 2013,
[Signature]
___________
Dr Joseph Zernik, unrepresented
Social Protest Encampment, Tel Aviv
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313
I, the undersigned, Attorney Moshe Tzur, affirm that on this day, April
15, 2013 , Joseph Zernik appeared before me, and after I identified him by ID
#05362559-6, and after I warned him to say only the truth and the whole truth, and
that that he may be subject to penalties by law, if he does not do so, certified the
truthfulness of his Affidavit by signing before me.
[Stamp and signature of Moshe Tzur - jz]
________

 .
.

.3 "
)" (7650/12
. .
. ,
"".
- ' 8- ,2012 , 4-.2013 ,
. , ,
. ,
" , " , .
- ' 20-,2012 , "
.
. , "") . '(
. , , ,
, .
- ' 8- ,2013 , " .

2/4
"

 .4 , '
,1998 "
".
- ' 6- ,2012 , ,1998 '
.
.5 , ' ,
.
.6 , - ,
.
.7 , ,
, , .
.8 , "
) , (
,
.
15 ,,2013 ,

__________________
" ,
, ,-
" ,31440 91313
_______

3/4
"

 '

 '

 '

:
/ /

02-6759648 ,02-6526391 -
:
,

" "Stanley Fischer" sfischer@bankisrael.gov.il , "Attention Governor Stanley -
Fischer" miriam.segal@boi.org.
:' )" (7650/12
"
10.
/ /,

" ) ( : "" , 8-2012 ,
, " " , 4- ,2013 , " ".
, " , , ,
.
, / / / / .
: 8-2013 ,

_______________
'
" 31440, 91313

To:
Chief Clerk
Supreme Court of the State of Israel
By fax 02-6526391, 02-6759648
Copy:
Stanley Fischer, Governor
Bank of Israel
By email - "Stanley Fischer" sfischer@bankisrael.gov.il ,"Attention Governor Stanley
Fischer" <miriam.segal@boi.org.il
RE: Dr Joseph Zernik v Governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer (HCJ 7650/12)
Request for clarification regarding alteration in court record in the above referenced file.

Response within 10 days is kindly requested.

To the honorbale Chief Clerk:
Upon inspection of the online public access records in the file, referenced above,
alteration was noticed: Where on November 8, 2012, it was written "appeal filed", on
March 4, 2013, it was written "petition filed". (see picture above)
The undersigned, Petitioner in the above referenced file, requests clarifications
regarding such alterations: Who executed the alterations, when, and under what
lawful authority.
With it, the Chief Clerk is requested to produce a copy of his/her lawful appointment
record.
Dated: March 8, 2013

_________________________
Dr Joseph Zernik
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313

 '

In the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, Sitting as High Court of Justice
Dr Joseph Zernik Petitioner
v
Minster of Justice Tzipi Livni and Director of Administration of
Courts Michael Spitzer Respondents
Request for Recusal of Ms Sarah Lifschitz and Mr Danny Ben-Tovim, in
particular, and the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, in general, from
handling instant court file, and for receipt or rejection of Petitioner's papers by
the Magistrate of the Supreme Court 1
I. Instant Request for Recusal and Petition for Conditional Decree and Request
for Recusal of the Office of the Clerk are Concomitantly Filed *
1. Petitioner Dr Joseph Zernik herein concomitantly files, as joint papers:
- Petition for Conditional Decree
- Request for Recusal of Ms Sarah Lifschitz and Mr Danny Ben-Tovim, in particular,
and the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, in general, from handling instant
court file, and for receipt or rejection of Petitioner's papers by the Magistrate of the
Supreme Court.
II. Request for Recusal of Ms Sarah Lifschitz and Mr Danny Ben-Tovim, in
particular, and the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, in general, from
handling instant court file, and for receipt or rejection of Petitioner's papers
by the Magistrate of the Supreme Court
2. Pursuant to the Courts Act 1984, Article 105 (a), the Honorable Court is asked to
recuse the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, in general, from handling
instant court file, and for receipt or rejection of Petitioner's papers by the
Magistrate of the Supreme Court.
The Courts Act 1984, Article 105(a) says:
105(a) The Magistrate holds all authorities that were vested in the Chief Clerk
of the Supreme Court, the district court, and the magistrate court, and may
perform any of their duties.
A. Reasons for the Request
3. Lack of integrity in conduct of the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court in Dr
Joseph Zernik v Governor of Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer (7650/12)
a. Initially, the filing of commencing paper was not registered at all.
b. After the Petitioner approached the Office of the Clerk regarding correction of this
matter, the filing of commencing paper was listed as filing of an Appeal.
- Appendix A includes screen prints of Events from the electronic record
system of the Supreme Court in Zernik v Fischer dated November 8, 2012 and
1 Footnotes were added for the English translation.

March 4, 2013. 2
c. In response to request by Petitioner for correction of the latter error, Ms Sarah
Lifschitz refused to execute the correction, claiming that there was no defect in
the registration. With it, Ms Lifschitz, who signed her response, Chief Clerk,
refused to provide a copy of her appointment record.
- Appendix B includes the December 20, 2012 response by Ms Sarah Lifschitz
on Petitioner's request for correction of the false registration of the Petition in
Zernik v Fischer and for presenting her appointment record. 3
d. After the case was closed for lack of prosecution, the registration was retroactively
changed to Petition. (See Appendix A)
e. Request that was forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, to
clarify, who made the retroactive changes, when, and by what authority, was not
answered to this date.
- Appendix C includes the Petitioner's March 8, 2013 request for clarification
of retroactive changes in registration of the Petition in Zernik v Fischer. 4
4. Prior to that, the office of Administration of Courts refused to present a copy of Ms
Sarah Lifschtiz's appointment record as Chief Clerk in response to request,
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1998, claiming that it was a record
of internal deliberations.
- Appendix D includes the March 6, 2012 response by the Administration of
Courts, on request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1998, for Ms
Sarah Lifschitz's appointment record as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. 5
5. Therefore, Ms Lifschitz should be deemed a simulated Chief Clerk, and the Office
of the Clerk of the Supreme Court simulated Office of the Clerk.
6. Conduct of Ms Lifschitz and Mr Ben-Tovim denied Petitioner's access to
protection of his rights against the unlawful taking of his assets through capricious
and arbitrary conduit.
7. Out of necessity, Petitioner then asked for protection of his rights by the Honorable
Consul of the German Federal Republic in Israel, Mr Ludwig Blaurock. Only after
such request his assets were returned to his possession.
8. Therefore, also instant Petition and Request for Recusal will be forwarded to the
Honorable German Consul in Israel (with translation), as request to observe the
conduct of the Supreme Court in this matter, pertaining to the Human Rights of
Petitioner and all other German citizens in the State of Israel.
2 See the adulterated records in: 13-03-08 Zernik v Fischer (HCJ 7650/12) - Request for the Chief Clerk's
clarification regarding alteration in Supreme Court records

http://www.scribd.com/doc/129303235/
312-12-20 Zernik v Governor of the Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer (HCJ 7650/12) in the Supreme Court of
the State of Israel Response by "Chief Clerk" Sarah Lifschitz in re Notice of Withdrawal from Incompetent
Process
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118139097/
413-03-08 Zernik v Fischer (HCJ 7650/12) - Request for the Chief Clerk's clarification regarding alteration in
Supreme Court records

http://www.scribd.com/doc/129303235/
512-03-06 Freedom of Information response (P-29-2012 ) by the Administration of Courts, in re: a) Appointment records of the Chief
Clerks of the Supreme Court, b) Certification/apostille certification procedures of the Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86345296/

Today, April 15, 2013,

[Signature]

___________
Dr Joseph Zernik, unrepresented
Social Protest Encampment, Tel Aviv
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313
Affidavit of the Petitioner
I, the undersigned, Dr Joseph Zernik, hereby declare that statements made in
paragraphs 1-8 of the Request for Recusal, above, are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Today, April 15, 2013,
[Signature]

___________
Dr Joseph Zernik, unrepresented
Social Protest Encampment, Tel Aviv
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313
I, the undersigned, Attorney Moshe Tzur, affirm that on this day, April 15, 2013
, Joseph Zernik appeared before me, and after I identified him by ID #05362559-6,
and after I warned him to say only the truth and the whole truth, and that that he may
be subject to penalties by law, if he does not do so, certified the truthfulness of his
Affidavit by signing before me.
[Stamp and signature of Moshe Tzur - jz]

________

Zernik v Livni and Spitzer (2689/13)

Electronic Public Records on April 15, 2013
No filing of any paper was listed on April 15, 2013, under Events, only the ,
payment of Fling Fee
a) Index Entry

HCJ 2689/13 Dr Joseph Zernik v Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni - Petition to the High Court of Justice
GENERAL DETAILS

PARTIES

RELATD CASES

LOWER COURT CASE

PROCEEDINGS

EVENTS

Filing Fee Fee Paid April 15, 2013, by Dr Joseph Zernik

CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE

REQUESTS

DECISIONS