Human Rights Alert, NGO

Joseph Zernik, PhD 3144PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313

" 91313 ,31440 "

123456xyz@gmail.com;

13-07-03 In re: RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court Response by the Responders on Repeat Request to Inspect Court File The attached is a unique document part of ongoing denial of access to court records to a person, who is purported to be party to litigation. The main reasons provided for the denial of access in the Response this is a deep waters fishing expedition, vexatious, annoying, futile request, etc. Needless to say, the right to access court records by a party to litigation is a fundamental of Human Rights and Due Process in ratified International Law, if not in the State of Israel. The joint conduct of Atty Amos Zadika and Judge Esperanza Alon in this case should be deemed Fraud on the Court. The Attorney Zadika record below is also a unique example of writing by an attorney, who according to Conservator Robert Zernik is one of the most senior (or at least most costly) family court attorneys in Haifa. Declaration, filed in reply to instant Response notes numerous false and deliberately misleading statement in this record. [1] Otherwise, the quality of the writing is for the reader to judge...
# Caption and No Page 2

1.

13-07-03 In re: RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court Response by the Responders on Repeat Request to Inspect Court File [English translation] 13-07-03 In re: RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court Response by the Responders on Repeat Request to Inspect Court File [Hebrew original]

2.

LINKS: [1] 13-07-25 In re: RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court filing letter to the State Attorney in re: Fraud under the guise of court actions http://www.scribd.com/doc/156675218/ [1] 10-06-01 In re: RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court Fraudulent Affidavit of Robert Zernik and Consent Letters by Dror Zernik and Uri Zernik http://www.scribd.com/doc/147093295/ [2] 13-04-29 In re: RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court Notice of false and deliberately misleading April 7, 2013 Request to Add Dror Zernik as Conservator http://www.scribd.com/doc/148131383/ [3] 13-05-22 In re: RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court Declaration of Joseph Zernik: Judge Esperanza Alon - master of the "mystical secrets of court procedure", or "obstructionist with impunity"? http://www.scribd.com/doc/147192877/

1/7

[All bold, underlines, double underlines, quotation marks are in the original -jz] In the Haifa Magistrate Court In the court of the Honorable Judge Esperanza Alon 25607-03-13 Request No 2 In re: RSZ Requester: Joseph Zernik PO Box 31440, Jerusalem, 91313 Responders: 1. Robert Raffael Zernik 2. Dror Zernik Through their counsel Attorney Amos Zadika [1] Response by the Responders on Repeat Request to Inspect Court File
The Honorable Court is asked to deny the Requester's repeat request to inspect the court file, and to charge him with expenses, including attorney's fees of the Responders, with VAT, by law. Additionally, the Honorable Court is asked to issue prohibitive decrees or absolute prohibition on publication decree on all details of the proceedings, being conducted in the Honorable Family Court. Additionally, the Honorable Court is asked to issue decrees to remove all publications, pertaining to the proceedings between the Responders and the Requester from any internet sites, and/or paper print, including the Facebook page of the Requester. The Honorable Court is asked to impose on the Requester exemplary expenses for his despicable conduct, including the use of improper expressions (an understatement), as well as attorney's fees including VAT for the Responders, for instant Request. Following are the reasons for the Response: 1. We are dealing with an annoying and vexatious request (one of many), which came to this world in order to defame the Responders, and
1 Note: Attorney Zadika listed himself as Counsel for Dror Zernik, but failed to file certificate to such effect, and refused to provide such certificate after being requested - jz

2/7

the Honorable Court, in order to undermine the Court's entered April 4, 2013 decision. [2] 2. It should be clarified that we are dealing with a repeat request to inspect the court file, regardless of the fact that the Requester's requests were already denied on April 4, 2013. Under such circumstances, it is clear that we are dealing with an entered decision. 3. When it came to denial of the Requester's Request to Inspect the Court File, the Court says in its April 4, 2013 decision: " To remove any doubt, I hereby clarify that except for today's protocol, no information in instant court file should be disclosed to any party that is not a party to it. The matter of the Conservatee is conducted behind closed doors, and pursuant to the position of the Counsel for the State Attorney, no information should be made available to third parties, absent permission by the Court. 4. It should be emphasized that the decision of the Honorable Court was issued in relationship to the position of the counsel for State Attorney, who recommended to deny the futile requests by the Requester. Regarding the Requester's question, pertaining to his position in the court files, it should be clarified that his position in the court file for Appointing an Additional Conservator for the Conservatee stems from the Legal Competency and Conservatorship Act (Article 80, 36). [3] and at the same time, in other files, pertaining to the Conservatee, the Requester has no standing at all, and that was detailed by both the Responder and the Counsel for State Attorney in their detailed responses, which were accepted and approved by the Honorable Court. [4] 5. With it, it should be noted that instant Request demonstrates what was noted in the Responders' responses to the Requester's previous requests to inspect the court file: "The Requester aims at undermining the entered decisions of the Honorable Court, while defaming the Conservator, and for that purpose, he filed his requests, which are deep water fishing expedition, aimed at bringing up various findings, which if found, purportedly would provide propulsion for filing a process...

2 Note: there is no April 4, 2013 decision in this court file. See a copy of all decisions provided by the court - jz http://www.scribd.com/doc/156534241/ 3 Note: the cited law says nothing of the claims made by Attorney Zadika - jz 4 Note: At best, it is unknown what position of the State Attorney Attorney Zadika it talking about - jz

3/7

6. As will be detailed, it appears that the proceedings between the parties which were commenced at the initiative of the Requester [5] were all aimed to promote the Requester's agenda of eliminating purported court corruption. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the interests of the Conservatee (his mother) are of interest to the Requester as much as garlic's peel, and the proceedings were meant to be a test case in order to promote his interests and the Requester's social agenda. 7. What are we talking about?

8. These very days, the Responders have learned that the Requester has published on the internet a scholarly article, which purportedly exposes court corruption. 9. The article was published under the title Human Rights Alert by Dr Joseph Zernik, and was published at the following internet site:[6] http://www.scribd.com/doc/143909723/ Attached to this Response, and integral part of it is a copy of the article, marked as Appendix A. 10. We do not find it necessary to detail all that was claimed in the Requester's scholarly article, but we found it necessary to alert the Honorable Court to the manner in which the article was written and published. 11. It is unnecessary to state that proceedings in front of the Family Court are under closed doors, and therefore sealed to the public at large. To remove any doubt, it should be clarified that the Courts Act -1984, Article 68 (e) says: "Regardless of stipulations in Article 68 (a), family matters, as defined in the Family Courts Act 1995, except for complaints pursuant to the Inheritance Act 1965, where the cause of action is not dispute within the family, and complaints pursuant to the Names Act 1965, and Age Determination Act 1963, shall be conducted behind closed doors, unless the court instructed to conduct part or all of the matter in open doors. 12. Regardless of the above, the Requester chose to publish his article on the internet, including court file numbers, decisions of the Honorable Court, court records, email correspondence, etc; and if that is not enough,
5 Note: This is a pure fabrication, the file was commenced by Attorney Zadika, the Requester only asked to inspect the court file. Nothing more. jz 6 Note: The link is to a paper filed in the Israeli Supreme Court, not an article, and not a scholarly article.

4/7

he attached copies of all those items to his article - copies were attached as appendices to the article. 13. If all the above is not enough, the Requester chose to use in his article inappropriate language and expressions in unbridled attack on the Court, as well as other functionaries of the court system (Chief Clerk Israel Hen). Thus, the Requester calls the Honorable Court: "Judge Esperanza Alon, master of mystical secrets of court procedures, or obstructionist with impunity? 14. We will not burden the Honorable Court with the plethora of gems used by the Requester in his scholarly article. Suffice is to say that by reading the article, we have learned that these days, the Requester filed a petition with the High Court of Justice, where he purports to expose court corruption and act towards its elimination. It should be noted that a copy of the Petition to the High Court of Justice (the court record itself), was also attached to the Requester's article. [7] 15. At last, but not least, it should be noted that the article, published on the internet, as well as the petition, filed with the High Court of Justice, use inappropriate language (an understatement), while engaging in unbridled attack on the Honorable Court, as well as the entire judicial system. [8] Such words were written by the Requester, only days after the Honorable Court's May 26, 2013 decision, where the Honorable Court says: "...I instruct the removal of this Request/Notice from the record for its inappropriate language. Under such circumstances, and given all the above, it is clear that the Requester has not internalized a word or half a word of the Honorable Court's decision. 16. Regarding the Requester's Request to request again to inspect the court file [sic jz] it should be clarified that the Request came to this world to promote the Requester's interests, who undertook to carry the flag of eliminating purported corruption of the court system, while the Conservatee's matters do not interest him at all!
7 Note: It is not clear whether Attorney Zadika considers filing a petition with the High Court of Justice, or publishing that fact, as offenses as well... The article or scholarly article that Attorney Zadika repeatedly refers to is the English translation of the petition... jz 8 At this point, Attorney Zadika seeks retaliation by the Haifa Family Court, for filing papers in the High Court of Justice... jz

5/7

17. Beyond the point that we are dealing with a vexatious, annoying, and futile Request, the Request has no purpose other than being another attempt at deep water fishing, in order to find blame in the Responders, if any, as well in the Honorable Court itself. 18. The Requester is effectively abusing the Conservatee, as well as the Responders, who were forced, through court proceedings imposed upon them, to obtain legal representation, and payments of considerable legal fees. [9] It is inconceivable that the reward of the Conservator, who is engaged in holy work [sic jz] would be a loss. It is inconceivable that in view of the legal proceedings and futile requests filed by the Requester, he imposes legal representation expenses on the Responders. 19. Already in the proceeding conducted on April 4, 2013 [10] (proceeding, which was scheduled for the Requester's requests, where the Requester did not bother to appear), the Responder asked for imposing on the Requester attorney's fees for legal representation, which the Responder was forced to engage. Regardless of the above, the Honorable Court avoided charging the Requester with the expenses of attorney's fees. However, given that the Requester continues to file innumerable futile requests (such as instant request), there is no way to avoid imposing on the requester the expenses,which he imposed on the Responder. 20. In view of all that was detailed in instant Response, the Honorable Court is asked: a. to deny the Requester's repeat request to inspect the court file, and to charge him with expenses, including attorney's fees of the Responders, with VAT, by law. b. to issue prohibitive decrees or absolute prohibition on publication decree on all details of the proceedings, being conducted in the Honorable Family Court. c. to issue decrees to remove all publications, pertaining to the proceedings between the Responders and the Requester from any internet sites, and/or paper print, including the Facebook page of the Requester.

9 Note: None of the proceedings were commenced by the Requester. The Requester only sought to inspect the court file. Why the Responders had to retain costly legal representation, in effort to prevent inspection of the court file, while the Requester, not an attorney, is unrepresented, remains a mystery jz. 10 Note: Attorney Zadika repeatedly refers to proceedings and decisions of April 4, 2013. There was no such proceeding and no such decision in instant court file. jz

6/7

d. to impose on the Requester exemplary expenses for his despicable conduct, including the use of improper expressions (an understatement), as well as attorney's fees including VAT for the Responders, for instant Request. [signed] Attorney Amos Zadika Counsel for the Responder [11]

11 Note: Here Attorney Zadika signs as Counsel for the Responder, in the singular, and a certificate of Power of Attorney was filed only for Robert Zernik, although instant paper was filed by Attorney Zadika on behalf of Dror Zernik as well. Attorney Zadika continues to refuse to provide certificate of Power of Attorney by Dror Zernik - jz

7/7