You are on page 1of 34
 
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
אה
 
תויוכזל
 
גייס
Joseph Zernik, PhD
נרצ
 
ףסו ר
"
ד
PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv 6133301
ד
"
ת
33407
א
"
ת
 6133301
 
]
-
ה תירבע
 
הסרג
[
צ
June 9, 2014Asher Grunis, Presiding Justice Supreme Court, State of IsraelSha'arey Mishpat Street, JerusalemBy certified mail
RE: Concerns regarding your letter and papers, provided by the Supreme Court to petitioners, who requested copies of decision records, which are signed by the justices and duly certified.
June 18, 2014 Presiding Justice Grunis response letter to Mr Rafi Rotem, your number 1133114Your response within 14 days is kindly requested Dear Presiding Justice Grunis:Inspection of the papers, which were provided to petitioners Rafi Rotem [Attachment 1, 2] and Miriam Eitana Macmull [Attachment 3] in response to their requests for copies of Supreme Court records from their petitions, signed bythe justices and duly certified, as well as your June 18, 2014 letter, in reference, in reference, [Attachment 4] raises serious concerns. A reasonable person would find these papers inherently inconsistent and inexplicable.Inspection of Supreme Court files, explanations by the staff of the Court's Office of the Clerk, and my past experience make it clear that the Supreme Court conducts its business through the administration of paper records and hand-signatures, and not through the administration of electronic records and electronic signatures. [1,2]The plausible explanation for the numerous defects in the papers in reference, and the phrasing of your letter, is that the Supreme Court and the Presiding Justice deem decision papers, which are mailed by the Court to petitioners in the courts of the petitions, and also in response to their requests for signed and certified copies of decision records from their petitions, not as valid and effectualcourt records, but merely as printouts from a computerized database.If that is indeed the case in the Supreme Court today, it has far reaching implications relative to Human Rights in the State of Israel, pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The right for equal protection of the law(Article 7), the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for protection of rights (Article 8), and the right for fair hearing (Article 10).
1/10
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik, PhD Date: 2014.07.09 20:33:41 +03'00'
2014-07-10 by certified mail RA226432468IL
 
Therefore, I would be grateful if you could clarify material issues that arise from inspection of your letter and the papers in reference:
1) Service of court records: Does the sending by the Supreme Court to petitioners, during the course of the petitions, of a paper, which is a "Replica["Otek"] subject to editing and phrasing changes", which is unsigned, and with no accompanying letter (authentication), and its receipt by the petitioner, constitute valid and effectual service of court records, pursuant tothe
 Regulations of Civil Court Procedures
 (1984), Article 476?
It should be noted:a. Petitioner Rotem's April 23, 2014 letter to the Presiding Justice explicitly notes that the receipt of such papers in the course of his petition is the reason for his request. [3] And according to what Petitioner Macmull explained to me, that was also the reason for her request for copies of decision records in her petition, which are signed and certified. b.
 Regulations of Civil Court Procedures
 (1984), Article 476 says:476. The service of a court record is through it delivery or handing out of a replica [Otek] or a copy [He'etek] thereof, duly signed, unless it is otherwise stipulated in instant Regulations.c. Regarding service, former Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court, the late Justice Yoel Susman explains: [Attachment 5]... if it pertains to a record that was issued by the Court, the party is served with a copy [He'etek], since the record was only executed in one replica [Otek], which must be maintained in the court file...d. The sending to a party by the Court of a paper, which is a "Replica [Otek] subject to editing and phrasing changes", which is unsigned, with no accompanying letter (authentication), is not likely to be deemed valid service in other nations, where the courts originate from the English common law.
2) Certified copy [Heetek] of a court record: Are one or more of the papers, which were sent by the Supreme Court to Petitioners Rotem or Macmull [Attachments 1-3] certified copies [Heetek] of court records, pursuant to the Regulations of the Court (Office of the Clerk) 2004, Article 6a?
The Regulations of the Court (Office of the Clerk) 2004, Article 6a say:6a. Copies of RecordsThe Chief Clerks of the courts are authorized to certify that a copy of a court record is a true copy of the original in the court file.It should be noted:a. Justices' signatures: Regarding the papers, which were sent to Petitioner Rotemin response to his request for signed and certified copies ["Heetek"] of court records, your June 18 letter says:Justices' signatures - the replica ["Otek"], which is signed by the justices remains in the court file. Parties, upon request, receive an unsigned replica ["Otek"].
2/10
 
i. Such statement does not comply with Regulation 6a., since "an unsigned replica ["Otek"]" cannot be " a true copy of the original in the court file", while the original is "the replica ["Otek"], which is signed by the justices [and] remainsin the court file".ii. Out of the three examples of papers, sent to the Petitioners [Attachments 1-3], only the papers in Attachment 1 fit this statement - they bear no signatures of the  justices. The papers in Attachment 2 appear as photocopies of the signed originals from the court file, and the justices' signatures appear on them. And in Attachment 3, instead of the justices' signatures their names were inscribed by another person in "wet hand-writing", and in front of each name the symbols "(-)" appear.iii. Such statement uses the term "replica" ["Otek"] to designate the paper, which is signed by the justices and is kept in the court file, on the one hand, and on the other hand - to designate another paper, which is unsigned, and is sent in response to a request for a "signed and certified copy" ["Heetek"]. Such usage is inconsistent with the use of the term replica ["Otek"] n the Israeli law (see  below), is inconsistent with other statements in your June 18 letter (see below), and is inconsistent with the relevant passages in the former Presiding Justice, the late Yoel Susman's book "Civil Court Procedures". [Attachment 5] b. The wording of certification: Regarding the papers, which were sent to Petitioner Rotem in response to his request for signed and certified copies ["Heetek"] of court records, your June 18 letter further says:The wording of certification, pertaining to truth to the Original ["Makor"], which appears on the Judgment that was sent to you, is consistent with the requirements, pertaining to a certified copy ["Heetek"] of a judgment.. i. Such statement does not spell out the wording of the certification, which was used on the papers, which were received by Petitioner Rotem. However, Attachment 1-3 show that in all three cases, the wording, which was used for the certification, was "Copying [Haataka] is True to the Original".ii. In contrast,
 Regulations of the Court - Office of the Clerk 
, Article 6a,  pertaining to certification of valid and effectual court records, explicitly  prescribes, "True Copy ["Heetek"] of the Original ["Makor"].iii. Additionally, until about February 2002, all decision records of the Supreme Court showed the certification statement, which appears in the above referenced Regulation - "True Copy ["Heetek"] of the Original". [Attachment 6] iv. Moreover, the term "Copying" ["Haataka"] is used in Israeli law to refers to the production of a printout from a computerized database, e.g., the
 Regulations of Postal Authority.
 [Attachment 7]
3) "Clerk" of the Court: Were those who signed the certifications of the papers, which were mailed to Petitioner Rotem duly authorized to certify therecords of the Supreme Court?
Your letter says:
3/10

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505