Human Rights Alert, NGO

Joseph Zernik, PhD 3144PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313

" 91313 ,31440 "

123456xyz@gmail.com;

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
There is a reasonable concern that review of instant petition by a single justice would deprive the Petitioner of his Due Process rights in a matter of high public policy significance, relative to the Rule of Law in the State of Israel. Moreover, most likely, continued review of instant Petition by a single justice would create documentation that would be disgraceful for Justice Esther Hayut (future Presiding Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court), disgraceful for the Israeli Supreme Court, and disgraceful for justice and judges in the State of Israel today.. The Petitioner (who is not a legal scholar) doubts that even a panel of three justices could restore Due Process in instant Petition at this point. However, the Petitioner hopes that a panel of 3 justices would find a way to generate a positive, constructive message out of this case for the future of justice in the State of Israel.

Record

Page #

12-13-05-23 Zernik v Minister of Justice et al (2689/13) Request for review by a 1 panel of 3 justices of the Israeli Supreme Court [English translation]

2 4

2 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 [Hebrew original]

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/ [2] 13-05-14 Zernik v Minister of Justice et al (2689/13) in the Israeli Supreme Court letter No 4 to Presiding Justice - request for appointment record of the Chief Clerk http://www.scribd.com/doc/141376200/

1/3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL SITTING AS HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HCJ 2689/13 Dr Joseph Zernik Petitioner v Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni Respondent Director of the Administration of Courts Michael Spitzer Respondent

The Petitioner, Dr Joseph Zernik, files herein a Request to Transfer the Petition for a Conditional Decree to a panel of three justices for the following reasons: 1. Instant Petition addresses matters at the foundation of the justice system and the Rule of Law in the State of Israel, therefore, it should be reviewed by a panel of three justices of the Supreme Court. 2. In instant Petitioner, Unrepresented Parties Division of the Office of the Clerk is engaging consistently and stubbornly in false and deliberately misleading registrations, and it is more likely that a panel of three would find a way to address such conduct, to the degree that it is possible at this stage. 3. Conduct of Justice Esther Hayut to this date is out of compliance with the Regulations of the High Court of Justice (1984), and detailed below. 4. The Regulations of the High Court of Justice (1984), Article 5, says: 5. Hearing the Petitioner The Petition shall be brought before a Justice of the Supreme Court, who would be authrozied to issued the Conditional Decree, or order the Petitioner to appear before him, or transfer the Petition to a panel of three; once the Petition was transferred to a panel of three, the panel of three is authorized to issue the Conditional Decree, or to order the Petitioner to appear before them, and if they find the Petition unworthy on its face, they are authorized to deny it based on its writing without hearing the Petitioner; had the Justice(s) ordered the hearing of the Petitioner, the Magistrate would set a date and time for the hearing. 5. The Regulations of the High Court of Justice (1984), Form #4 also provide the language of the Conditional Decree: Regulations of the High Court of Justice (1984) Form #4 (Regulation 21) Conditional Decree (Title is same as in Form #1) Based on instant Petition, brought before the Court on <date>, in the presence of <name> the Petitioner/his Counsel of Record, the Court orders that a Conditional Decree is issued on <Respondents>, demanding that they appear before the Court and provide reasons why <statement of the Conditional Decree as it appears in the Petition>. The Respondent(s) shall file their response, if they so desire, within <> days from service of instant paper, in Court and serve it directly on the Petitioner. The Petition shall be reviewed in Court on <date>. Given today, ________________ Signature of the Chief Clerk or the Magistrate of the Supreme Court 2/3

6. In instant Petition, the Honorable Justice Esther Hayut did not issue a Conditional Decree, pursuant to Form #4, did not order the Petitioner to appear before her, did not transfer the Petition to a panel of three justices, and did not deny it based on its writing without appearance of the Petitioner. Also- no date and time were scheduled for a hearing on instant Petition. 7. Therefore, there is a reasonable concern that review of instant petition by a single justice would deprive the Petitioner of his Due Process rights in a matter of high public policy significance, relative to the Rule of Law in the State of Israel. Moreover, most likely, continued review of instant Petition by a single justice would create documentation that would be disgraceful for Justice Esther Hayut (future Presiding Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court), disgraceful for the Israeli Supreme Court, and disgraceful for justice and judges in the State of Israel today.. The Petitioner (who is not a legal scholar) doubts that even a panel of three justices could restore Due Process in instant Petition at this point. However, the Petitioner hopes that a panel of 3 justices would find a way to generate a positive, constructive message out of this case for the future of justice in the State of Israel. 8. Therefore, the Honorable Court is asked to transfer the Petition to a panel of three justices. Today, May 23, 2013, [signature] ___________________ Joseph Zernik, PhD, in pro se Occupy Tel Aviv Encampment Namir Road, Tel Aviv PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313 Affidavit

3/3