Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2016-05-20 Zernik v State of Israel (3919/16) in the Supreme Court - Challenge to Clerk's Decision –Request for Correction of Erroneous May19, 2019 Magistrate Decision on Challenge to Clerk's Decision – Rejection of Filing of my Request to Inspect Court File Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act (9073/01) under “Shredded” claims // צרניק נ מדינת ישראל (3919/16) בבית המשפט העליון - בקשה לתיקון החלטת רשם מיום 19 למאי, 2019 על השגה על החלטת מזכירות – דחייה מרישום של בקשה לעיון בתיק יהודית סידי-פרנקו ואח' נ הרשות על פי חוק נכי רדיפות הנאצים (9073/01) בטענת "גרוס"

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    4 views5 pages
    3. On May 19, 2016, I received by fax the Magistrate's decision, as usual, unsigned, with no accompanying authentication letter by the office of the clerk, “subject to editing and phrasing changes”, in instant court file, which ends with: “The Challenge has no expectancy, and therefore, I cannot grant it”. 4. The reasons, provided for such statement, say in part: “Following my May 17, 2016 decision, the Office of the Clerk conducted an examination, which showed that as the Requester was informed when he tried to file the Request to Inspect - court file 1582/02 was indeed shredded”. Such statement has noting to do with the matter in bar – since it refers to another court file (1582/02), and not to the court file in which instant challenge originated – 9073/01. Therefore, there is no statement at all in either the Magistrate's May 17, or May 19, 2016 decisions, regarding the physical status of court file 9073/01, which is the matter in bar. 5. The reasons provided for such decision provide a partial citation of a Magistrate April 13, 2016 decision in another file (Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court 3020/16), pertaining the Office of the Clerk's claims that also another file (1582/02) is “shredded”: “The issue is a given condition, and the Magistrate has no way to change it”. Such citing is part of a conditional sentence, which holds an altogether different meaning: “It is understood, that if the court file is indeed shredded, the issue is a given condition, and the Magistrate has no way to change it”... 6. In contrast, in response to my inquiry with the State Archive, which is charged with the custody of the Supreme Court's files, regarding the physical status of the court file 9073/01, in which instant challenge originated, I received the following response: Subject: RE: Supreme Court file Franco-Sidi v Authority (9073/01) Date: 2016-03-28 8:42 am From: To: Dear Dr Zernik, Response was mailed yesterday: Dear Dr Zernik, Attached is the response I received from the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court: "The matter pertains to a civil appeal case. Since the inquiry is by a person, who is not a party to the case, he is not permitted to inspect the court file.” According to guidelines of the Administration of Courts, inspection of court files is permitted only through request addressed to the Court. Truly, Helena Vilenski Coordinator of Public and Research Services From such response, one may conclude that both the State Archive and the “Chief Clerk” know that court file 9073/01 has never been shredded. 7. Regulations of the Archives (Custody and Shredding) – 1986, Articles 3, 4, and 8 say: 3. (a) Once a Court wishes to shred a court file, as provided in Article 2, above, it shall notice the State Archivist accordingly. (b) The notice shall be accompanied by the list of court files, which are intended for shredding... 4. A notice of the intention to shred the court file shall be published by the State Archivist in the State Registry (Reshumot) (“Notice of Shredding” hereinafter)... 8. A Protocol of Shredding shall be made during the shredding and shall be signed by a representative of the Court and provided to the State Archivist withing 15 days. 8. Therefore, the Court is again requested to state, without mixing up court files, the physical status of court file Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act (9073/01). 9. In case the Supreme Court stands by its claims that court file 9073/01 was indeed shredded, the Court is requested to provide, as requested already in the original Challenge, the following records of shredding, prescribed by law: a. The reference in Reshumot to the Notice of Shredding (Article 4 in the Regulations, above). b. The corresponding Shredding Protocol (Article 8, above) 10. Denial of public access to court files under “shredding” claims, without the documentation required by law,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    3. On May 19, 2016, I received by fax the Magistrate's decision, as usual, unsigned, with no accompanying authentication letter by the office of the clerk, “subject to editing and phrasing changes”, in instant court file, which ends with: “The Challenge has no expectancy, and therefore, I cannot grant it”. 4. The reasons, provided for such statement, say in part: “Following my May 17, 2016 decision, the Office of the Clerk conducted an examination, which showed that as the Requester was informed when he tried to file the Request to Inspect - court file 1582/02 was indeed shredded”. Such statement has noting to do with the matter in bar – since it refers to another court file (1582/02), and not to the court file in which instant challenge originated – 9073/01. Therefore, there is no statement at all in either the Magistrate's May 17, or May 19, 2016 decisions, regarding the physical status of court file 9073/01, which is the matter in bar. 5. The reasons provided for such decision provide a partial citation of a Magistrate April 13, 2016 decision in another file (Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court 3020/16), pertaining the Office of the Clerk's claims that also another file (1582/02) is “shredded”: “The issue is a given condition, and the Magistrate has no way to change it”. Such citing is part of a conditional sentence, which holds an altogether different meaning: “It is understood, that if the court file is indeed shredded, the issue is a given condition, and the Magistrate has no way to change it”... 6. In contrast, in response to my inquiry with the State Archive, which is charged with the custody of the Supreme Court's files, regarding the physical status of the court file 9073/01, in which instant challenge originated, I received the following response: Subject: RE: Supreme Court file Franco-Sidi v Authority (9073/01) Date: 2016-03-28 8:42 am From: To: Dear Dr Zernik, Response was mailed yesterday: Dear Dr Zernik, Attached is the response I received from the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court: "The matter pertains to a civil appeal case. Since the inquiry is by a person, who is not a party to the case, he is not permitted to inspect the court file.” According to guidelines of the Administration of Courts, inspection of court files is permitted only through request addressed to the Court. Truly, Helena Vilenski Coordinator of Public and Research Services From such response, one may conclude that both the State Archive and the “Chief Clerk” know that court file 9073/01 has never been shredded. 7. Regulations of the Archives (Custody and Shredding) – 1986, Articles 3, 4, and 8 say: 3. (a) Once a Court wishes to shred a court file, as provided in Article 2, above, it shall notice the State Archivist accordingly. (b) The notice shall be accompanied by the list of court files, which are intended for shredding... 4. A notice of the intention to shred the court file shall be published by the State Archivist in the State Registry (Reshumot) (“Notice of Shredding” hereinafter)... 8. A Protocol of Shredding shall be made during the shredding and shall be signed by a representative of the Court and provided to the State Archivist withing 15 days. 8. Therefore, the Court is again requested to state, without mixing up court files, the physical status of court file Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act (9073/01). 9. In case the Supreme Court stands by its claims that court file 9073/01 was indeed shredded, the Court is requested to provide, as requested already in the original Challenge, the following records of shredding, prescribed by law: a. The reference in Reshumot to the Notice of Shredding (Article 4 in the Regulations, above). b. The corresponding Shredding Protocol (Article 8, above) 10. Denial of public access to court files under “shredding” claims, without the documentation required by law,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views5 pages

    2016-05-20 Zernik v State of Israel (3919/16) in the Supreme Court - Challenge to Clerk's Decision –Request for Correction of Erroneous May19, 2019 Magistrate Decision on Challenge to Clerk's Decision – Rejection of Filing of my Request to Inspect Court File Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act (9073/01) under “Shredded” claims // צרניק נ מדינת ישראל (3919/16) בבית המשפט העליון - בקשה לתיקון החלטת רשם מיום 19 למאי, 2019 על השגה על החלטת מזכירות – דחייה מרישום של בקשה לעיון בתיק יהודית סידי-פרנקו ואח' נ הרשות על פי חוק נכי רדיפות הנאצים (9073/01) בטענת "גרוס"

    Uploaded by

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    3. On May 19, 2016, I received by fax the Magistrate's decision, as usual, unsigned, with no accompanying authentication letter by the office of the clerk, “subject to editing and phrasing changes”, in instant court file, which ends with: “The Challenge has no expectancy, and therefore, I cannot grant it”. 4. The reasons, provided for such statement, say in part: “Following my May 17, 2016 decision, the Office of the Clerk conducted an examination, which showed that as the Requester was informed when he tried to file the Request to Inspect - court file 1582/02 was indeed shredded”. Such statement has noting to do with the matter in bar – since it refers to another court file (1582/02), and not to the court file in which instant challenge originated – 9073/01. Therefore, there is no statement at all in either the Magistrate's May 17, or May 19, 2016 decisions, regarding the physical status of court file 9073/01, which is the matter in bar. 5. The reasons provided for such decision provide a partial citation of a Magistrate April 13, 2016 decision in another file (Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court 3020/16), pertaining the Office of the Clerk's claims that also another file (1582/02) is “shredded”: “The issue is a given condition, and the Magistrate has no way to change it”. Such citing is part of a conditional sentence, which holds an altogether different meaning: “It is understood, that if the court file is indeed shredded, the issue is a given condition, and the Magistrate has no way to change it”... 6. In contrast, in response to my inquiry with the State Archive, which is charged with the custody of the Supreme Court's files, regarding the physical status of the court file 9073/01, in which instant challenge originated, I received the following response: Subject: RE: Supreme Court file Franco-Sidi v Authority (9073/01) Date: 2016-03-28 8:42 am From: To: Dear Dr Zernik, Response was mailed yesterday: Dear Dr Zernik, Attached is the response I received from the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court: "The matter pertains to a civil appeal case. Since the inquiry is by a person, who is not a party to the case, he is not permitted to inspect the court file.” According to guidelines of the Administration of Courts, inspection of court files is permitted only through request addressed to the Court. Truly, Helena Vilenski Coordinator of Public and Research Services From such response, one may conclude that both the State Archive and the “Chief Clerk” know that court file 9073/01 has never been shredded. 7. Regulations of the Archives (Custody and Shredding) – 1986, Articles 3, 4, and 8 say: 3. (a) Once a Court wishes to shred a court file, as provided in Article 2, above, it shall notice the State Archivist accordingly. (b) The notice shall be accompanied by the list of court files, which are intended for shredding... 4. A notice of the intention to shred the court file shall be published by the State Archivist in the State Registry (Reshumot) (“Notice of Shredding” hereinafter)... 8. A Protocol of Shredding shall be made during the shredding and shall be signed by a representative of the Court and provided to the State Archivist withing 15 days. 8. Therefore, the Court is again requested to state, without mixing up court files, the physical status of court file Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act (9073/01). 9. In case the Supreme Court stands by its claims that court file 9073/01 was indeed shredded, the Court is requested to provide, as requested already in the original Challenge, the following records of shredding, prescribed by law: a. The reference in Reshumot to the Notice of Shredding (Article 4 in the Regulations, above). b. The corresponding Shredding Protocol (Article 8, above) 10. Denial of public access to court files under “shredding” claims, without the documentation required by law,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5

    ][BILINGUALFILINGENGLISHFOLLOWSTHEHEBREW

    ______________

    Sentbyfaxto:026759648onMay20,2016

    3919/16

    :'
    HumanRightsAlertNGO
    ",33407"
    "joseph.zernik@hrango.org:
    0773179186:
    192019,
    '
    (9073/01)""
    ,
    :
    .116,2016,
    '.9073/01
    "".
    .2,
    .3919/16
    .319,2016,,"
    ,".
    .4:17,2016,

    "1582/02".
    )
    ,(1582/02.9073/01,
    ,17,19,2016,
    ,9073/01
    .
    .5,13,
    ,2016)(3020/16
    ,(1582/02):,
    ".,
    ":,,,
    "...,
    .9073/01
    1/5
    192016,

    .6,,
    ,,9073/01,
    :
    'RE:
    Subject:
    (9073/01)
    Date:
    201603288:42am
    From:
    ><reading_hall@archives.gov.il
    To:
    ><joseph.zernik@hrango.org
    ",
    :
    ",
    ":
    "",".

    .
    ,
    ,

    ,
    ""9073/01.
    .7)(,"
    ,1986,4,38:
    ) .3( ,,2.
    )( ...
    .4)
    (.
    .8,
    15.
    .8,
    ,,
    '.9073/01
    .99073/01,
    ,,
    :
    .)9073/01,4(.
    .),8(.
    2/5
    192016,

    "" .10
    .
    ,,
    ,9073/01
    .9073/01,
    .

    ____________
    '

    ,2016,19,

    IntheSupremeCourtoftheStateofIsrael
    JosephZernikvStateofIsrael
    3919/16
    Requester:JosephZernik,PhD
    HumanRightsAlertNGO
    POBox33407,TelAviv
    Email:joseph.zernik@hrango.org

    Fax:0773179186
    RequestforCorrectionofErroneousMay19,2019MagistrateDecisionon
    ChallengetoClerk'sDecisionRejectionofFilingofmyRequesttoInspect
    CourtFileJudithFrancoSidietalvHandicappedbyNaziPersecutionAct
    (9073/01)underShreddedclaims.
    IhereinfilemyRequestforCorrectionoftheabovereferencedMagistrate
    decision,whichislikelytobetheresultofamixupofrecordsorconfusion:
    1. OnMay16,2016IattemptedtofilearoutineRequesttoInspectin
    SupremeCourtfileFrancoSidietalvHandicappedbyNaziPersecutionAct
    (9073/01).TheOfficeoftheClerkrefusedtoacceptthefilingunder
    shreddedclaims.
    2. Therefore,IfiledonthesamedaymyChallengetoClerk'sDecisionunder
    instantcourtfile3919/16.
    3. OnMay19,2016,IreceivedbyfaxtheMagistrate'sdecision,asusual,
    unsigned,withoaccompanyingauthenticationletterbytheofficeofthe
    clerk,subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges,ininstantcourtfile,which
    endswith:TheChallengehasnoexpectancy,andtherefore,Icannotgrant
    it.
    4. Thereasons,providedforsuchstatement,sayinpart:FollowingmyMay
    17,2016decision,theOfficeoftheClerkconductedanexamination,which
    showedthatastheRequesterwasinformedwhenhetriedtofilethe
    3/5
    2016,19

    5.

    6.

    RequesttoInspectcourtfile1582/02wasindeedshredded.Such
    statementhasnotingtodowiththematterinbarsinceitrefersto
    anothercourtfile(1582/02),andnottothecourtfileinwhichinstant
    challengeoriginated9073/01.Therefore,thereisnostatementatallin
    eithertheMagistrate'sMay17,orMay19,2016decisions,regardingthe
    physicalstatusofcourtfile9073/01,whichisthematterinbar.
    Thereasonsprovidedforsuchdecisionprovideapartialcitationofa
    MagistrateApril13,2016decisioninanotherfile(ZernikvOfficeofthe
    ClerkoftheSupremeCourt3020/16),pertainingtheOfficeoftheClerk's
    claimsthatalsoanotherfile(1582/02)isshredded:Theissueisagiven
    condition,andtheMagistratehasnowaytochangeit.Suchcitingispart
    ofaconditionalsentence,whichholdsanaltogetherdifferentmeaning:It
    isunderstood,thatifthecourtfileisindeedshredded,theissueisagiven
    condition,andtheMagistratehasnowaytochangeit...
    Incontrast,inresponsetomyinquirywiththeStateArchive,whichis
    chargedwiththecustodyoftheSupremeCourt'sfiles,regardingthe
    physicalstatusofthecourtfile9073/01,inwhichinstantchallenge
    originated,Ireceivedthefollowingresponse:
    RE:SupremeCourtfileFrancoSidivAuthority
    Subject:
    (9073/01)
    Date:
    201603288:42am
    From: <reading_hall@archives.gov.il>
    To:
    <joseph.zernik@hrango.org>
    DearDrZernik,
    Responsewasmailedyesterday:
    DearDrZernik,
    AttachedistheresponseIreceivedfromtheChiefClerkofthe
    SupremeCourt:
    "Thematterpertainstoacivilappealcase.Sincetheinquiryisbya
    person,whoisnotapartytothecase,heisnotpermittedtoinspect
    thecourtfile.
    AccordingtoguidelinesoftheAdministrationofCourts,inspectionof
    courtfilesispermittedonlythroughrequestaddressedtotheCourt.
    Truly,
    HelenaVilenski
    CoordinatorofPublicandResearchServices
    4/5
    2016,19

    Fromsuchresponse,onemayconcludethatboththeStateArchive
    andtheChiefClerkknowthatcourtfile9073/01hasneverbeen
    shredded.
    7. RegulationsoftheArchives(CustodyandShredding)1986,Articles3,4,
    and8say:
    3. (a)OnceaCourtwishestoshredacourtfile,asprovidedin
    Article2,above,itshallnoticetheStateArchivistaccordingly.
    (b)Thenoticeshallbeaccompaniedbythelistofcourtfiles,
    whichareintendedforshredding...
    4.Anoticeoftheintentiontoshredthecourtfileshallbepublished
    bytheStateArchivistintheStateRegistry(Reshumot)(Noticeof
    Shreddinghereinafter)...
    8.AProtocolofShreddingshallbemadeduringtheshreddingand
    shallbesignedbyarepresentativeoftheCourtandprovidedtothe
    StateArchivistwithing15days.
    8. Therefore,theCourtisagainrequestedtostate,withoutmixingupcourt
    files,thephysicalstatusofcourtfileJudithFrancoSidietalvHandicapped
    byNaziPersecutionAct(9073/01).
    9. IncasetheSupremeCourtstandsbyitsclaimsthatcourtfile9073/01was
    indeedshredded,theCourtisrequestedtoprovide,asrequestedalreadyin
    theoriginalChallenge,thefollowingrecordsofshredding,prescribedby
    law:
    a.ThereferenceinReshumottotheNoticeofShredding(Article4inthe
    Regulations,above).
    b.ThecorrespondingShreddingProtocol(Article8,above)
    10. Denialofpublicaccesstocourtfilesundershreddingclaims,withoutthe
    documentationrequiredbylaw,iswellknownworldwideasacardinalsign
    ofanincompetentcourt.Therefore,forthesakeoftheCourt'sdignity,and
    incasetheCourtstandsbyitsshreddingclaims,itishopedthattheCourt
    providetherequestedshreddingdocumentation,pertainingtocourtfile
    9073/01.
    TheCourtshouldmaketheexerciseoftherighttoinspecttherequestedcourt
    recordspossibleinaccordancewithlawandjustice.

    Today,May19,2016

    ______________
    JosephZernik,PhDChallenger

    5/5
    2016,19

    You might also like