Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv 6133301
123456xyz@gmail.com;

Digitally
signed by
Joseph Zernik,
PhD
Date:
2014.07.09
20:33:41
+03'00'

"
6133301 ",33407 "

[- ]
June 9, 2014
Asher Grunis, Presiding Justice
Supreme Court, State of Israel
Sha'arey Mishpat Street, Jerusalem
By certified mail

2014-07-10 by certified mail

RA226432468IL

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 1133114
Your 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 by
the 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 handsignatures, 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 effectual
court 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

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 to
the 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 Records
The 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 Rotem
in 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] remains
in 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 the
records of the Supreme Court?
Your letter says:
3/10

Name and Title of the signer of the certification - the signature of a Clerk
["Mazkir"], who sent you the Judgment appears, and that is sufficient".
In this regard it should be noted:
a. Previous correspondence with your office clarified that those, who were listed
as "Clerk" ["Mazkir"] of the sitting court during hearings, were not appointed
"Clerk" ["Mazkir"], but interns of the justices. [4]
b. The Regulations of the Court - Office of the Clerk, Regulation 6a, pertaining
to certification of court records, explicitly says that the authority to certify court
records is held by the "Chief Clerk". And the Regulations of Civil Court
Procedures, Article 1 says: ' "Chief Clerk" of a court - including his Deputy'.
c. Until about March 2002, all decision records of the Supreme Court explicitly
stated the name and title of the person, who certified the Supreme Court's records
- "Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen." [Attachment 6]
d. On the papers, which were sent to Petitioner Rotem, post-stamped May 29,
2014, the person who signed the certification is named, "Nava Kalaf", and her
title appears in the stamp as "Senior Coordinator - Civil Division" (but was
altered by hand to read "High Court of Justice Division"). Neither "Clerk", nor
"Chief Clerk" is listed. Therefore, a record is requested, which shows that Ms
Kalaf was duly authorized to lawfully certify judicial records of the High Court
of Justice, pursuant to the Regulations of the Court - Office of the Clerk, Article
6a.
e. On the papers, which were sent to Petitioner Rotem, post stamped May 27,
2014, neither the name of the person, who signed the certification, appears, nor
his/her title. Therefore, a record is requested, which shows that the unnamed
signer of the certification in this case, was duly authorized to lawfully certify
judicial records of the High Court of Justice, pursuant to the Regulations of the
Court - Office of the Clerk, Article 6a.
f. On the paper, which was sent to Petitioner Macmull, the person who signed the
certification was Ms Sarah Lifschitz. Her title appears on the record as "Chief
Clerk". However, no official notice of her appointment has been discovered, and
Ms Lifschitz, the office of Administration of the Courts, and the Chambers of the
Presiding Justice all refused to present her appointment record as "Chief Clerk".
[5]
4) Material changes in the form of decision records in 2002: Who
authorized, and on what legal basis, the removal of the certification box
"True Copy ["Heetek"] of the Original", the name and title of the Chief
Clerk, and its replacement with the disclaimer "Replica ["Otek"] subject to
editing and phrasing changes"?
Your letter says:
Note regarding editing and phrasing changes - this note appears in all
judgments and decisions that are given by the Supreme Court.
It should be noted:
4/10

a. Review of the Supreme Court's records shows that all records until about
March 2002 included the certification box stating "True Copy ["Heetek"] of the
Original, Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen". [Attachment 6]
b. Later, the content of this box was replaced with the disclaimer "Replica
["Otek"] subject to editing and phrasing changes". [Attachment 6]
c. The term "Copy" ["Heetek"] is used in Israeli law to designate the image of a
legal record, and in particular, a Certified Copy" ["Heetek"] of such record, e.g.,
pertaining to the rules of evidence.
d. In contrast, the term "Replica" ["Otek"] is used in Israeli law to designate the
product of mechanical duplication, e.g., pertaining to copyright laws, or a
printout from a computerized database. [Attachment 8]
e. A reasonable person would consider such changes in the form of the Supreme
Court's decisions and judgments around March 2002, material or critical. Yet to
this date, no source has been identified that would explains the authority and
legal foundation for such changes.
Summary
Your response on the above questions 1-4 would help to remove doubts,
regarding teh validity of records and court process in the Supreme Court.
Therefore, it would be highly valuable for parties in cases before the Supreme
Court, and the people of the State of Israel in general.
Truly,

Joseph Zernik, PhD

Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Attachments
Attachment 1: Records that were provided to Petitioner Rafi Rotem, post-stamped May 27,
2007.
Attachment 2: Records that were provided to Petitioner Rafi Rotem, post-stamped May 29,
2007.
Attachment 3: Records which were provided to Petitioner Miriam Eitana Macmull, and were
certified on June 20, 2008.
Attachment 4: Presiding Justice Asher Grunis's June 18, 2014 letter to Petitioner Rafi Rotem,
in re: Request for copies of decisions in his case, signed by the justices and duly certified.
Attachment 5: Yoel Susman, "Civil Court Procedures", Chapter 6 - "Service of Records", 7th
Ed., edited by Justice Dr Shlomo Levin, 1995, p 227
Attachment 6: Certification box on the Supreme Court's decision records, before and after
March 20002. [From Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UN Human Rights Council,
as incorporated into the Council's Periodic Report on Israel (2013)]
Attachment 7: Search results for the definition of the term "Copying" ["Ha'atakah"] in Israeli
law.
Attachment 8: Search results for the definitions of the terms "Copy" ["Heetek"] and "Replica"

5/10

["Otek"] in Israeli law.

LINKS
Below
=======
92014 ,


' ,

: , " ,
, .
18- ,2014 , , .1133114
14
,
, ] [1,2 ]
[3 " ,
, 18-,2014 ,
] , [4 .
.
" , " , ,"
, [1,2] .
, ,
,
,
,
, .
,
,
: ) '( ,
) '( , ) '(.

:
(1 : " ,
, " " , ,
)( , ,
," , 1984- ?476
:

6/10

 . 23-,2014 ,
, , [3] .
,
.
. ," ,1984- 476:
.476 -
, , , .
. , , ,":
] [5
... , ,
, ...
. , , " ",
, )( ,
, .
(2 :
" ] [1-3 ,
)( ,'' , 2004 6'?
)( ,'' , 2004 6' :
6 .
-
- .
:
. :
, 18- :
-
, .
.i 6 , " "
" - " , "
][ ".
.ii ] ,[1-3
1 - .
2 ,
. ,3
" " ,
")."(-
.iii ""
, -
" " .
"" ) ( ,
18- ) ( ,
, "" , "] . [5
7/10

 . :
, 18- :
,
.
.i
. 1-3 , "
".
.ii , - , 6' , ,
" ".
.iii , ,2002
" - "] . [6
.iv , ""
, , ] . [7
" (3" " :
?
:
-
.
:
. , "" " ,
"" , "[4] .
. )( , 6' , ,
" " .
, ,1" ': " - '.
. ,2002
" - , "] . [6
. , 29-,2014 ,
" " , " - ",
) "- ""( . "" " "
. , '
" , 6 )(.
. , 27- ,2014 ,
. ,
" , 6
)(.
. , , ' .
. ,' ,
, "
"[5] .
(4 :2002- ,
, 2002- , " ",
8/10

 , "
"?
:
-
.
:
.
,2002 " , , ,
"] . [6
. , " ,
"] . [6
. "" ,
" " , , .
. , "" ,
, , ] . [8
.
,2002 , . ,
.

1-4
" .
.
,

'
)(NGO

:1 , 27.2014 ,
:2 , 29.2014 ,
:3 , 20-.2008 ,
:4 18- ,2014 , ,
: .
:5 " , " , " - 6 " , '
,1995 ,' ..227
:6 ] .2002
" " " ) (NGO" )[.(2013
:7 "" .
:8 "" "-" .

9/10

[1] 2014-04-08 Ashkenazi+76 other v Minister of Justice et al in the High Court of

Justice (2300/11) Dr Zernik's Repeat request to inspect court file electronic records:
Notices to Appear, Uniting of Files
: '

http://www.scribd.com/doc/217006321/
[2] 2014-04-27 Ashkenazi+76 other v Minister of Justice et al in the High Court of
Justice (2300/11) Dr Zernik's Request for Certification of Presiding Justice Grunis's
Decision, True Copy of the Original
" " , , '
http://www.scribd.com/doc/221012938/
[3] 2014-04-23 Filed with Supreme Court Presiding Justice Asher Grunis: Rotem v
Samet et al (HCJ 1233/08) Petitioner Rotem's request No 1 for certification of March
3, 2008 Judgment and April , 2008 Decision, True copy of the Original (full English
translation) //
1 ' - (1233/08 ' ):
"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/232766171/
[4] 2013-11-28 Israeli Supreme Court Justice Asher Grunis response in re:
Appointment records of "Clerk" Aluma Zernik no need for appointment of clerks of
the sitting court...
""
... ""
http://www.scribd.com/doc/192000174/
[5] 2013-08-05 Response by Presiding Justice Asher Grunis of the Israeli Supreme
Court on request for the appointment record of Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz - Ms
Sarah Lifschitz, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, was appointed, pursuant to
prevailing rules in the State Service, relative to the people of such office.

, , " -
".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/161107108/

10/10

ATTACHMENT 1

Rotem v Samet et at (HCJ 1233/08) - March 3, 2008 Judgment and

April 6, 2008 Decision - records that were mailed to Petitioner Rotem in
response to his request, addressed to Presiding Justice Grunis, for
copies of the records, which are signed by the justices and duly certified
"True Copy of the Original".
Notes:
1) The records bear in the footnote the disclaimer: "Subject to editing
and phrasing changes".
2) The records are not signed by the justices.
3) The wording of the certification is "Copying is True to the Original".
4) The name and title of the signer of the certification fail to appear on
the record.
6- 2008 , 3- - (1233/08) '
, - 2008 ,
,
." "
:
." " :( 1
.( 2
." " ,( 3
.( 4

1/1

1233!08

~")!1

'))') 'N. 'N. \J.1)\!.Jn 1)J.:J

?:nN. 'Y n\J11\Un 11:n
VJ'J)).1 'Y \J11\Un 11J.:J
onn ').11

1 ) )

')IHN.n 1')1n n'):t n\J11\U , \JN.r.:lo n111

J.')J.N. ?n:t n1nY?
J.')J.N. ?n:t n1DY'J ')IHN.n r1n n')J.
o')?~Vn')J. n1nY? ')~INn 1')1n n')J.
1~1N.n 11\Ur.:l - ?N.I'V') n)')1r.:l
m')1nn 1p:tn- 01N.I\J'V1)')'J n:J')r.:l

.1
.2
.3
.4
.s

: 1nwn O'V:t

:,1/ 'N. 'N. tl9HDil

i1!:l1j?n il~"pnmv i111:Jl' O'On' n:J1l'~:J ~1i1 1l'J!:l:Jili i1ili1!:li1
m:11 O'Jili

1ili~:J ili~'iliili

, om1 '!:>1 , 1n1l'i1

l':JJ mJl'tJ'71 , 11'j?!:ln~ 1n1l'i1 1:Jl'1i1 01'

:J11l'~

'?w

i1J'Jl'

i1'i1 i1:J1 , O'O~i1 mw1:1

1!:l10:J .mili1i1

~ili1J O':J11~ O'ili11n m~ O'ili~ili~i1 0'110-'~

'?w

'?w

'?w

.1

n:Jili1~~

n11'j?ni1 np'?n~:J

on!:l'ilin:J m1:111l'~~ 1:J1i1

1'1i1-n':J 'J!:l:J .1ml'i1 ~':Ji1 1'j?!:lni1 1~ i1'1:Jl'i1i1 '7l' 1'nuwi1 n~ .i11tJili~i1 n1'j?n'7
, 1nJl'tJ'7 110' 1'~ ':J ~~m ,:JtJ'i1 j?~1m1 ~'j?~ 1'1-j?O!:l:J ,i1i 0'71~ ,i111:Jl''7 '11T~i1
::11 1~1 11l' on'ili~1ili ,O'l'11l i111:Jl' 'On'~ l':JJ n11'j?ni1 np'7n~:J m11:Jl' 01'0 ':J1
.mili1i1 '7w i1m'?i1mi1'7 1ili~:J 1wn 111l'ni1w 011p

i1~:J1l''7 11l'1l':J i1J!:l1 ,'11i~i1 1'1i1-n':J

'?w

ml'1:Ji1 Ol' 0''7Wi1'7 1~~ 1n1l'i1

i1:J 111'7 m:J'1~:J ili11Jili 1n~'7 . 1'n1Jl'tJ n~ '7:~p'7 i1n~1 ~'?

.2

Ol 1~ .n'~1~i1

i1n!:l'ilin '?l' Oj?J ~'? ':J i1l'1 '7'7::;,'7 , 1n~ i1!:l ,O'tJ!:l1ilii1 :J:J1i1 l''li1 ,O'J"Jl'i1 1'7w'7nwi1

OLCI Cl<ll'\' C\; 999659-ZO ! NU:L N <CC\LCC\' il " AOo " ]Jil O~A\A\A\
l.!l'\lU:d cc;l(, t;l'ii<Cl 1'\L<Cl.! lC<Olu

::>op100- 0Z I 080

e,u uam6~__:~j<~l.'"'"'u (t.l

UUdu

Nl

(ll. L G C1

(ll.LGC1U

(ll. L G C1

[4Ut I.!4LO' CuL t:Nl.L ~L I.!U(ll.OuU (80'0'0)'

C[04CLU N4L' NJ CHLO Ql.UuUI.! (1).4 l.!l\U4LI.! l\4 I.!Ol&' LCL N[L l\L(ll.40'

l\441.! 4l\L4CUL I.!QULl.(ll.U m4 I.!C4LLL l.!l\Lt:l.U4'

ll.! NdL d(ll.t:' 4Ql\C1 QaL40 ULd:40' Cl\LCNU l\Ll\LL (1).[441.!' L4N W~NU4 C4 I.!LCUI.!
L4Gt40 NU l.!l\Lt:l.LU I.!L4LL[C14LU t:C1LO I.!'C4l\L 4QOdtl.! N441.! I.!'C4l\L' C4l.Ll\' C4U-Q(ll.GC1
l\t:Ll.l.!' l\4Ll t:I.!CLl\LU4L m4 C4U-I.!l.J' l\4 (ll.U4 l\LCNLU4L' Q'C41.! C4 N4L t:UtL 4Gt4l.!l\LCNI.! l.!l.d[4U' Lt:QaLI.! l.d m4 C4U-I.!l.4t I.!NlLL4' I.!NQLl l\4 CU4tUO m4 4U04
l.!l\LQl.LU t:Ldl\ l.!l.CL40' t:l\rJ ll.! 4N 4LC4 41.!4Q~N UU44h 4dt:4l\LU41.! l.!l\Lt:l.UdU m4
LNm L.!UQL.! L.!CC,C,c (C1LO GLLOO' !;0'0 I '0 I))' 4C4t [04CLU l\Lt:l.UdU NULLU N(ll.L

!.!!

1.!~4'C l.!l\Lt:l. L4L LN(ll.4U LN41.! 4cl (ll.QaLLO t:U4LtUL (LLNL C'Cu~ I0/01:>89 !JC,?;:Ul CC, [,
l\0 lNU' 4l\L40 tl.L(ll.40 NrL 41.!CU4t C4t G4ClLL40 NL l.!l\t:LI.! QUGd41. (ll.4'CC41.!0

Ql\LCU 4UOd l\0 Ut:Ld 4l\t:Ll.l.! NL l\0 I.!QQLr40 l\44L'

l.!(ll.U4ULU (ll.Lt: NdL [NQt 4Ql\LCU t:l.! I.!Ut1.!4 l\4L41.! I.!4N C(ll.4l\~QI.! 41.!l\C4L NU
t:l.! Gl\4L' 4l\U40 (1).[40 NLLCLU' 4ULI.! QCL' NL Clt:l\4 I.!LN C4 I.!UUL(ll.l.! (ll.UL(ll.h
l\LC1.40 41.!l\Q4l. l\~QO t:Qi\Ql. l.!a(ll.l.! Q4CUU441.!' t:L [l.L(ll.40 1.!0 4~NU Ct'Cl. QO'CLU
Uddl.!' 4l\L40 Clt:Ll\ t:OL'C41.!' LI.!LN Qt I.!'CLLQ40 l.!l\4dL440 I.!QC14440 ~4 l\4 tCLtLUO m4
I.!U(ll.[ul-L66I' I.!U(ll.(ll. QG[4 G'C4l\l.! t:UtN4 l.!l\OdUL m4 Q4 (ll.l.!l\1 LUml& I.!Uti.!4LU C4U4
NU ULd I.!'Crl.! l\4 l\LC1.40 (U(ll.4GU l\C4LLU LG'C4l\l.! t:C1LI.!L I.!Q4l.LU NL CQ4[1.!4 I.!Ud4t)'
CQLUI.!' LNJ Nr4 dLt:l\ cL NL Qt l.!mGI.! L4UL..I: 'CO I.!QULdd I.!Cll\40 'C4ml.! lL' cuLddL
'

U(ll.4GUt m 4 (ll.U4ULdU t:QaLQLU l\t:Ll.l.! ~4CLL440 I.!4N Gl\L 4 1.! U(ll.Lt:l.! QNJ

l.!l\LUL 4I.!C4N 4C4C1L4 G04duo m4 CU4 l.!l.J 4l\t:Ll.l.!'

4CL4U 41.!L04l& L4d440 4U04 l\t:Ll.l.! Udd40' l\4 cl tOt:!.! l.!l\U4LI.! mt:Gr4rL' t:l.! Qt:dm
m4 (ll.U4ULU ~4CLL4U I.!LN (ll.l\Ql. t:C040 l.!l\t:LUL (1).4 l.!l\LUL QUGd4l.L' C4 NO l.!4l\l.L

1233/08

~")!1

~)?

N 1N \J!:lWJn 1)::1::>
?J.lN 1Y n\J!:l)\!Jn 1)::1::>
)n?:n!:l 'Y \J!:lVc~m 1n:>
1

onn

~!:ll

1 ) )
1~1n n~J.

n\J11\U , \JNnu n1l1

?nJ. n1ny? ~lHNn
J.~J.N ?nJ. n1nY? ~lnNn 1~1n n~J.
o~?\Un~J. n11J.Y? ~~lNn 1~1n n~J.
l~1Nn 1l\Un - ?Nl\U~ n)~1n
m~1nn lpJ.n - U1Nl\J\U1)~? n:>~n

.1

J.~J.N

.2
.3
.4
.s

,(3.3.08) n"OlZJni1 i1l'Cl '~ 01':J jn'llZl j'1i1-j?O!:l nii1:Ji17 C1j?~ 7:J j'~
.n!:>01Ji1 i1'~ii1 m:Ji7 ,i1i'm7i1 i~m 7:J n~ j1:JlZln:J ~':Ji11

li1:J illill7 jn'J j'1:J :JlZl'7~ ,~~ll 71o!:>7 ~7w ~!:>1lZl

7w

m~7ni1 7ll

C'lZlj?:Jn~i1 C'1llo7 ilZl~:J1 .m ~!:llZl~ n':J7 i1i'nll mll~~~:J ~7, ,pm:J l:J7 i1ll1:Jj?i1
i1i'nll:J C:Ji1:J7 c1p~ 7:J p~1 ,n1i!:>J i1i'nll:J i17~

7w

c~1p~ 'ii1 ,i1l'1~i1 ij?:J~ 1ll

.i111:Jll7 j'1i1 n':J

.(06.04.08) n"OlZlni1 jO'J:J

IN

'~

08012330_002.doc

7w

j'1i1-'j?O!:l 1ll

,t:l1'i1 i1Jn'J

.mo>Jl n:Pl~ "ll'l!h ')l!:D

pnwn

w ww.co urt. gov. il ,I.JlliJl'N lnN; 02-6593666 'JI.J .~1'Y.li:JlY.l

c-.

--d

('('

~
('
-..

C) L-5

rr:

*
~

~
{'()
ct)

{'()

('()
~

ATTACHMENT 2

Rotem v Samet et at (HCJ 1233/08) - March 3, 2008 Judgment and

April 6, 2008 Decision - records that were mailed to Petitioner Rotem in
response to his request, addressed to Presiding Justice Grunis, for
copies of the records, which are signed by the justices and duly certified
"True Copy of the Original".
Notes:
1) The records bear in the footnote the disclaimer: "Subject to editing
and phrasing changes".
2) The records are signed by the justices.
3) The wording of the certification is "Copying is True to the Original".
4) The name of the signer is Nava Khalaf, and her title is noted in her
stamp, "Senior Coordinator - Civil Division", but is altered by hand to
read, "Senior Coordinator - High Court of Justice Division".
6- 2008 , 3- - (1233/08) '
, - 2008 ,
,
." "
:
." " :( 1
.( 2
." " ,( 3
, ,( 4
" "- " - ," - "

1/1

ATTACHMENT 3

Macmull v State of Israel et at (HCJ 3518/08) - June 1, 2008 Decision record that was mailed to Petitioner Macmull in response to her request
for a copy of the record, which is signed by the justices and duly
certified "True Copy of the Original".
Notes:
1) The records bear in the footnote the disclaimer: "Subject to editing
and phrasing changes".
2) Petitioner Macmull reports that in place of the signatures of the
justices, their names appear in "wet hand-writing", and are each
preceded by the signs "(-)".
3) The wording of the certification is "Copying is True to the Original".
4) The name of the signer is not printed, but the signature is of Sarah
Lifschitz, and the stamp states her title as "Chief Clerk", with the date in
hand-writing - July 20, 2008.
5) The post-it note says:
July 20, 2008
Ms Macmull Shalom,
Per your request, attached is a certified decision.
Greetings,
Sarah Lifschitz
- 2008 , 1- - (3518/08 ' )"
.
:
." " :( 1
( " 2
."(-)" ,"
." " ,( 3
, ,( 4
20- ," " ,
.2008 ,
:( 5
2008 , 20
,'
. "
,

1/1

ATTACHMENT 4

[Coat of Arms]
THE SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL
President's Chambers
Jerusalem, June 18, 2014
Our No: 11331114
To:
Mr Rafi Rotem
PO Box 33407
Tel Aviv
6133301
Dear Sir:
RE: Your letter to the Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court
I herein certify that your June 5, 2014 letter was received in the chambers of the
Honorable Presiding Justice A Grunis on June 10, 2014.
Your letter was brought for the Presiding Justice inspection. In your letter you
complain regarding defects that you found in the Judgment record that was sent to
you. I address your claims in order:
Signatures of justices - the replica ["Otek"], which is signed by the justices, remains
in the Court file. Parties receive upon request an unsigned replica ["Otek"]. Wording
of the certification, pertaining to truth to the original, which appears on the judgment
that was sent to you is consistent with the requirements, pertaining to a certified copy
["Heetek"] of a judgment. Name and title of the signer on the certification - the
signature of the clerk, who sent you the judgment appears, which is sufficient. Note
regarding editing and phrasing changes - such note appears on all judgments and
decisions that are given by the Supreme Court. Accopanying letter - there is no
need for an accompanying letter for a certified copy ["Heetek"] of a judgment.
Greeting,
[hand signature]
Hila Spies
Public Correspondence Coordinator

1/1

ATTACHMENT 5

Yoel Susman, "Civil Court Procedures", Chapter 6: "Service of Records"; 7th

Ed., edited by Justice Dr Shlomo Levin, 1995, p 227.
" "; :6 ," " ,
.227 ' ,1995 ,
Translation of the relevant statements:
"The original complaint, and likewise any other court record, is served through
providing a person a duly signed replica or copy2 thereof."
And Footnote 2 says:
At times the Regulations instruct the service of replicas... and at times they
instruct the service of a copy... pertaining to a record, which was issued by a
party, opposing party is delivered with a replica, and pertaining to a record that
was issued by the court, a copy is delivered to the party, since the record was
executed in one replica only, which must remain in the court file...

1/2

2/2

ATTACHMENT 6

Examples of the certification boxes in decision records of the Supreme Court

before and after March 2002.
[From the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the UN Human Rights
Council Periodic Report on Israel (2010)]

.2002
( " NGO) ] "
[(2010) "

1/1

ATTACHMENT 7

Search results from the "Takdin" system, "updated laws" database,

"Definitions" search type.
Query word: "Copying" ["Haataka"]
The search results show the use of the term "Copying" ["Haataka"] in the
following instances:
1. The Disengagement Implementation Act - pertaining to the displacement
of a community.
2. The Forrests Order - pertaining to the displacement of a tree.
3. The Copyrights Law - pertaining to the mechanical duplication of a
work.
4. Regulations of the Postal Authority - pertaining to printouts from a
computerized database.
," " ," "
.""
." ":
: ""
. - .1
. - .2
. - .3
. - .4

1/2

2/2

ATTACHMENT 8

Search results from the "Takdin" system, "Updated Law" database,

"Definitions" search type.
Query words: "Copy" [" ]"and "Replica" ["]"
The search results show the use of the term "Copy" ["]", relative to valid,
admissible records, pertaining to :
1. The Mondy Laundering Prohibition Act
2. Rules of Evidence
3. Regulations of the Electronic Signature Act
4. VAT Regulations
The search results show the use of the term "Replica" ["]", relative to
compliant or violating replicas, produced through mechanical reproduction,
pertaining to the following:
1. Copyrights Act
2. Performance and Broadcasting Act
3. Regulations of the Movie Industry
," " ," "
.""
.""- "" :
," "
:
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
, ," "
: , , ,
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5

1/1