Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel; josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org ;

" 91313 " 4413

12-11-27 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi (1752-08) Magistrate Avigail Cohen Decision on Request #9 refusal to rule on Due Process, certification of previous decisions, production of appointment record of "Chief Clerk" Kobi Bleich
The record, served on paper on the Requester, is in the form of a "Post-it Decision". The decision image is superimposed on the Request record, is unsigned, and accompanied by an unsigned authentication letter by an unnamed "Clerk". In this decision, Magistrate Cohen refuses for the second time to rule on a) Validity, or lack thereof, of invisible electronic signatures, b) Request for certification of previous decisions by Magistrate Cohen, and c) Request for production of the appointment record of "Chief Clerk" Kobi Bleich. Like the previous decisions in this request, the decision fails to appear in the online public access of the Court. # 1 Record
12-11-27 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi (1752-08) Magistrate Avigail Cohen Decision on Request #9 refusal to rule on Due Process, certification of previous decisions, production of appointment record of "Chief Clerk" Kobi Bleich [English translation - jz] 12-11-27 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi (1752-08) Magistrate Avigail Cohen Decision on Request #9 refusal to rule on Due Process, certification of previous decisions, production of appointment record of "Chief Clerk" Kobi Bleich [Hebrew original]

Page # 2

LINKS: [1] 12-10-10 Human Right Alert's Appendix IV to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel - the case of Moshe Silman http://www.scribd.com/doc/109693460/

1/2

______________________________________________________________________________ Tel Aviv District Court Civil - 1752-08 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi et al November 27, 2012 Dr Joseph Zernik, ID, PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313 Information Center, Tel: 077-2703333 Transmittal Letter Attached is a Decision record.

Date: November 27, 2012

[Stamp of the court - jz]

[No signature jz]

Signature of the Clerk

The decision record, which was served in paper form, is of the electronic "Post-it Decision" type. Its image is superimposed on the original request document. The Decision record is in a frame in the lower right.. The Decision fails to name the court, is unsigned, and is titled "Decision", "Request No 9". The following decision in the same file was titled "Decision", "Request No 1". The Court denies access by the public and by the Requester to the list of requests, maintained in the case management system of the court. The online public access system includes no docket [list of records, entered into registration by the court].

November 27,, 2012 Decision Request #9 in file 1752-08 Magistrate Avigail Cohen The records in this court file are issued by Net HaMishpat [the electronic record system of the district courts], as is done in all other files conducted in the courts, in which the system has been implemented. The Request, as phrased in its title (where the words were emphasized) does not require being addressed on the matter. It is unclear why the Requester (who is not a party to the case) holds that there is a need to request "Due Process". The matter is self-evident, and I have no reason to believe that the Requester's matter is denied "Due Process". There is no fault in decisions that are electronically signed, and it is recommended that the Requester focus on his original request to inspect the court file.

2/2