Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • RE: Freedom of Information Act Request (P # To Be Assigned), in Re: Implementation of The Electronic Signature Act (2001)

    Uploaded by

    SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel
    29 views2 pages
    Freedom of Information Act (1988): Administration of Courts denied (or is holding overdue pending) requests, pertaining to: i. Changes around 2001-2 in certification patterns, ii. Ultimate administrative authority over the servers of the Supreme Court, iii. Changes in the Regulation of the Courts (2004) by the Director of Courts, iv. Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the Supreme Court, iv. Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the district courts, v. Establishment and authority of the “Information Center” in the Supreme Court, vi. The identity of those who authored the Apostille arrangement, and those who authorized its publication on the web site of the Judicial Authority. [ ] vii. Certification Authority of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any. Ministry of Justice holds overdue pending requests, pertaining to: i. the authorization of the Apostille arrangement by the unnamed “Minister of Justice”, ii. The names and addresses of the Detainees’ Courts, iii. The names of Chief Clerk, if any, of the Detainee’s Courts, iv. Appointment records of the Registrars of Certifying Authorities, Certifying Authority of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any. Of particular concern is the denial of the request for public records, regarding the appointment of the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court and its certification procedures, under a clause, pertaining to “records of internal deliberations”. Both the appointment of Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz and the certification procedures of electronic records of the Supreme Court have been most likely left in 'deliberations' for years. The Apostille certification arrangement, published online, should be deemed a simulated illegal public record. [ ] In March 2012, during the course of writing instant submission, and while Freedom of Information Requests, pertaining to the Apostille certification arrangement were denied, or overdue, the Apostille certification arrangement, published online, was altered, in a manner that rendered the arrangement more deceptive than before. [ ]

    Original Title

    12-04-02 Freedom of Information Act request on the Administration of Courts, Re: certified electronic signatures and certifying authority of the Supreme Court, if any, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) s

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Freedom of Information Act (1988): Administration of Courts denied (or is holding overdue pending) requests, pertaining to: i. Changes around 2001-2 in certification patterns, ii. Ultimate administrative authority over the servers of the Supreme Court, iii. Changes in the Regulation of the Courts (2004) by the Director of Courts, iv. Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the Supreme Court, iv. Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the district courts, v. Establishment and authority of the “Information Center” in the Supreme Court, vi. The identity of those who authored the Apostille arrangement, and those who authorized its publication on the web site of the Judicial Authority. [ ] vii. Certification Authority of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any. Ministry of Justice holds overdue pending requests, pertaining to: i. the authorization of the Apostille arrangement by the unnamed “Minister of Justice”, ii. The names and addresses of the Detainees’ Courts, iii. The names of Chief Clerk, if any, of the Detainee’s Courts, iv. Appointment records of the Registrars of Certifying Authorities, Certifying Authority of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any. Of particular concern is the denial of the request for public records, regarding the appointment of the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court and its certification procedures, under a clause, pertaining to “records of internal deliberations”. Both the appointment of Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz and the certification procedures of electronic records of the Supreme Court have been most likely left in 'deliberations' for years. The Apostille certification arrangement, published online, should be deemed a simulated illegal public record. [ ] In March 2012, during the course of writing instant submission, and while Freedom of Information Requests, pertaining to the Apostille certification arrangement were denied, or overdue, the Apostille certification arrangement, published online, was altered, in a manner that rendered the arrangement more deceptive than before. [ ]

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    29 views2 pages

    RE: Freedom of Information Act Request (P # To Be Assigned), in Re: Implementation of The Electronic Signature Act (2001)

    Uploaded by

    SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel
    Freedom of Information Act (1988): Administration of Courts denied (or is holding overdue pending) requests, pertaining to: i. Changes around 2001-2 in certification patterns, ii. Ultimate administrative authority over the servers of the Supreme Court, iii. Changes in the Regulation of the Courts (2004) by the Director of Courts, iv. Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the Supreme Court, iv. Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the district courts, v. Establishment and authority of the “Information Center” in the Supreme Court, vi. The identity of those who authored the Apostille arrangement, and those who authorized its publication on the web site of the Judicial Authority. [ ] vii. Certification Authority of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any. Ministry of Justice holds overdue pending requests, pertaining to: i. the authorization of the Apostille arrangement by the unnamed “Minister of Justice”, ii. The names and addresses of the Detainees’ Courts, iii. The names of Chief Clerk, if any, of the Detainee’s Courts, iv. Appointment records of the Registrars of Certifying Authorities, Certifying Authority of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), if any. Of particular concern is the denial of the request for public records, regarding the appointment of the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court and its certification procedures, under a clause, pertaining to “records of internal deliberations”. Both the appointment of Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz and the certification procedures of electronic records of the Supreme Court have been most likely left in 'deliberations' for years. The Apostille certification arrangement, published online, should be deemed a simulated illegal public record. [ ] In March 2012, during the course of writing instant submission, and while Freedom of Information Requests, pertaining to the Apostille certification arrangement were denied, or overdue, the Apostille certification arrangement, published online, was altered, in a manner that rendered the arrangement more deceptive than before. [ ]

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@earthlin k.net, c=US Date: 2012.04.

    02 03:02:18 +03'00'

    April 2, 2012 The Honorable Moshe Gal, Director Administration of Courts, State of Israel 22 Kanfey Nesharim Street, Jerusalem
    By email: menahel@court.gov.il By Fax: 02-6513191

    Response within 30 days is kindly requested. RE: Freedom of Information Act Request (P # to be assigned), in re: Implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) Dear Judge Gal: Please accept instant Freedom of Information Act Request (P # to be assigned), in re: Implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001). The specific request is for all legal public records, pertaining to: a) All Certification Authorities, if any, which have been registered, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), since the inception of the office of the Registrar of Certification Authorities, and to this date, related to, on behalf of, or for the stated purpose of use in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. b) All certification authorities, if any, which have been registered under the names of the following persons, as individuals, or in their official capacities in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, or the Administration of Courts: a. Dan Arbel; b. Aharon Barak; c. Dorit Beinisch; d. Shmaryahu Cohen; e. Moshe Gal; f. Asher Grunis; g. Sarah Lifschitz; h. Boaz Okon. Truly, Joseph Zernik, PhD
    ID: 05362559-6 PO Box 31440 Jerusalem 91313 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

    In response, please include: Freedom of Information Act Request (P # to be assigned), in re: Implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) Correspondence, based on reference numbers and dates alone, has caused some miscommunications in the past.

    CC: Attorney Michal Teneh Freedom of Information Office Ministry of Justice


    By email: MichalTe@justice.gov.il

    You might also like