Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD " PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel; ; 91313 " 04413,

Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@, c=US Date: 2011.08.15 08:26:56 +03'00'

11-08-14 Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11): Statement in re Visit to the Supreme Court of Israel and certificates of delivery of decisions in the case (Eng) 1. On August 14, 2011, I visited the Supreme Court of the State of Israel regarding my previous filings in the case, [ i ] and failure of the Court to serve any response on those filings. 2. Since the August 1, 2011 filing of the response, the case was also designated Sealed, and no data was available online. 3. Therefore, I filed a Request for decisions on the previous filings, and also for clarification of the nature of valid entry of papers filed by parties and entry of decisions of the Court in the docket of the case. [ ii ] 4. The reasons for the new request were: a. Some of the papers, previously filed in the Court and stamped Received, never appeared in the online docket, and also failed to appear in the list of papers, whose entry was denied. b. None of the decisions in the case was served on me. Instead, when I appeared in court, an unsigned copies would be printed out, of decisions that were purportedly entered at various previous days. 5. Initially, Attorney Dani Ben Tovin (Unrepresented Parties Division) refused to accept my new filing. He claimed that the filing was not written clearly, or that the filing would amount to harassing the Court. 6. I objected and claimed that he had no authority to deny my right to file papers in the Court. 7. Eventually, he said that he consulted with the Clerk of the Court and the decision was to accept my filing. He stamped my copy Received, and signed the stamp in the designated space. 8. During the same visit, Attorney Ben Tovim printed out an unsigned copy of a decision in the case, which had never been served on me, dated August 4, 2011. The August 4, 2011 decision stated that the two parties did not object to my request. Therefore, I was permitted to see the electronic authentication records, which I asked for in this case, if they existed. The decision was marked at its head Publication Prohibited. 9. When I commented that the decision was unsigned, Attorney Ben Tovim stamped it with the Seal of the Court. I commented that the decision was still unsigned. Attorney Ben Tovim dismissed that comment. 10. I was referred to the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court for obtaining the certificates, if they existed.

August 15, 2011 11. I then went upstairs to the Criminal Division to receive the authentication records.


12. In the civil case, which was the subject of my other request, I received some printouts of scans of certificates of delivery of the decisions. 13. In the case of Katzav v State of Israel, it was claimed that there were none, pertaining to the two decisions, which were the subject of my request. 14. The computer system of the Court also had a log of delivery status for various decisions. I asked for the log page to be printed. Initially, it was claimed that it was not possible or not permitted to print out the log. However, eventually, I did receive a printout of the log. 15. To the best of my understanding of the log, the May 18, 2011 Decision, pertaining to the postponement of the execution of the prison sentence of Katzav was only communicated by phone to the Prosecution. However, the log was constructed in a manner that appeared to me unclear. 16. I then asked for further data regarding the log. Then a person appeared, who was presented as the Supervisor of the Criminal Division, and he stated that I would not received any further information. 17. Later that day, I sent an email request to the Freedom of Information Office of the Ministry of Justice, regarding my July 11, 2011 request for a copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision, as served on the Prosecution. 18. On July 11, 2011, the Freedom of Information Office of the Ministry of Justice confirmed receipt of my request. 19. I had previously been told by staff at the Knesset that normal response time was 1-2 weeks. 20. However, the Freedom of Information Office of the Ministry of Justice did not respond on two requests for updates regarding the status of the request, which I sent over the intervening month. 21. In the August 14, 2011 email notice to the Freedom of Information Office of the Ministry of Justice, I stated that the Office had failed to respond on the request for a copy of the record of the May 18, 2011 Decision. Therefore, I asked that the Office confirm or deny that the May 18, 2011 Decision had never been duly served on the Prosecution. [ iii ] 22. Later that day, I received a phone call from the Supreme Court, informing me that there a decision was ready, pertaining to my filing that morning (August 14, 2011). It appeared that the caller, a female employee from the Criminal Division intended to communicate the decision to me by phone. 23. I asked that the decision be served on me by mail. She claimed that they had no address for me. 24. I corrected her that on each and every filing I had my address listed under my name in the signature box.

August 15, 2011 25. She then confirmed that she had the address, and agreed to serve it on me by mail. August 15, 2011 ________________ Joseph Zernik, PhD LINKS


11-08-01 PRESS RELEASE: Response Filed With the Supreme Court, Requesting Access to the Electronic Authentication Records, Pertaining to Decisions in the Appeal of Moshe Katzav v State of Israel H ii 11-08-14 Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court: Requests for Decisions/Clarifications in re: Due Process Procedures (Heb) H iii 11-08-14 Request for a Statement by FOIA Office of Ministry of Justice in Re Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (Eng+Heb) H