Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    II. Brief History of The Cases, As Related To This Study: 1. Moshe Katzav V State of Israel (3372/11)

    Uploaded by

    SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel
    The evidence has so far been reviewed by three senior Israeli Computing Experts. All three found the evidence alarming and disturbing. The Appendices were prepared for filing with the Supreme Court itself, in hope that it addresses the issues by agreeing to have the systems reviewed by Israeli computing experts. Probably the strongest and fastest to review evidence is in: a) Record #00 - Excerpts from the Ombudsman's Report 60b b) Record #03 - Certificates, or Lack Thereof, of the Servers of the Supreme Court of Israel c) Record #06 - Invalid on their faces decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. It is hoped that computing experts would recognize it as their civic duty to oversee the integrity of the case management systems of the courts and prisons, which are critical for the safeguard of civil society in our time (included in that is also Banking Regulation). The evidence from the US courts indicates routine fraud in cases involving large banks. Conditions in this regard in the United States are much worse.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    II. Brief History of The Cases, As Related To This Study: 1. Moshe Katzav V State of Israel (3372/11)

    Uploaded by

    SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel
    35 views3 pages
    The evidence has so far been reviewed by three senior Israeli Computing Experts. All three found the evidence alarming and disturbing. The Appendices were prepared for filing with the Supreme Court itself, in hope that it addresses the issues by agreeing to have the systems reviewed by Israeli computing experts. Probably the strongest and fastest to review evidence is in: a) Record #00 - Excerpts from the Ombudsman's Report 60b b) Record #03 - Certificates, or Lack Thereof, of the Servers of the Supreme Court of Israel c) Record #06 - Invalid on their faces decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. It is hoped that computing experts would recognize it as their civic duty to oversee the integrity of the case management systems of the courts and prisons, which are critical for the safeguard of civil society in our time (included in that is also Banking Regulation). The evidence from the US courts indicates routine fraud in cases involving large banks. Conditions in this regard in the United States are much worse.

    Original Title

    12-03-21 Evidence of Large-Scale Fraud in the Electronic Systems and Electronic Records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel: Appendix 07 Table Summaries of Papers Filed by Zernik and Their Disposition 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?

    The evidence has so far been reviewed by three senior Israeli Computing Experts. All three found the evidence alarming and disturbing. The Appendices were prepared for filing with the Supreme Court itself, in hope that it addresses the issues by agreeing to have the systems reviewed by Israeli computing experts. Probably the strongest and fastest to review evidence is in: a) Record #00 - Excerpts from the Ombudsman's Report 60b b) Record #03 - Certificates, or Lack Thereof, of the Servers of the Supreme Court of Israel c) Record #06 - Invalid on their faces decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. It is hoped that computing experts would recognize it as their civic duty to oversee the integrity of the case management systems of the courts and prisons, which are critical for the safeguard of civil society in our time (included in that is also Banking Regulation). The evidence from the US courts indicates routine fraud in cases involving large banks. Conditions in this regard in the United States are much worse.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    35 views3 pages

    II. Brief History of The Cases, As Related To This Study: 1. Moshe Katzav V State of Israel (3372/11)

    Uploaded by

    SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel
    The evidence has so far been reviewed by three senior Israeli Computing Experts. All three found the evidence alarming and disturbing. The Appendices were prepared for filing with the Supreme Court itself, in hope that it addresses the issues by agreeing to have the systems reviewed by Israeli computing experts. Probably the strongest and fastest to review evidence is in: a) Record #00 - Excerpts from the Ombudsman's Report 60b b) Record #03 - Certificates, or Lack Thereof, of the Servers of the Supreme Court of Israel c) Record #06 - Invalid on their faces decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. It is hoped that computing experts would recognize it as their civic duty to oversee the integrity of the case management systems of the courts and prisons, which are critical for the safeguard of civil society in our time (included in that is also Banking Regulation). The evidence from the US courts indicates routine fraud in cases involving large banks. Conditions in this regard in the United States are much worse.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

    Table of Contents

    II.

    Brief History of the Cases, as Related to This Study

    Moshe Katzav, former President of the State of Israel, was convicted in early 2011 on sex crimes by the District Court in Tel Aviv and in March 2011, he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. Consequently, Katzav filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. In response to a request by Katzav, the Supreme Court postponed the execution of the sentence for the duration of the Appeal. The Appeal was denied on November 10, 2011. However, the execution of the prison sentence was again postponed for several weeks. 1. Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) At the onset of the Appeal, Katzav filed a request to postpone the execution of his prison sentence. The State Prosecution objected, claiming that such postponement was contrary to the principle of equality before the law. On May 18, 2011, a decision was published, granting Katzavs request, and postponing the execution of the prison sentence for the duration of the appeal. [ vi ] Efforts to inspect copies of decisions in this case and clarify their validity are outlined in Table 1.
    Table 1. Summary of Papers Filed by Zernik under Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) and Their Disposition
    # 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Paper Filed Date Request to inspect and copy decisions July 7, 2011 Repeat request to inspect, copy decisions July 17, 2011 Response on the Magistrates Decision on Request for clarification July 18, 2011 Response on the Magistrates July 21, 2011 Decision August 1, 2011 Request for clarifications regarding validity of Decisions in the paper court file Aug 14, 2011 Request to inspect, copy Sealing Order Aug 29, 2011 Addendum to request to inspect, copy Sealing Order Sept 5, 2011 Request to access May 18, 2011 Decision as served on the State Prosecution, pursuant to Freedom of Information Act Sept 8, 2011 Response on Decision re: Request to inspect and copy Sealing Order Sep 19, 2011 Request for a signed and certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision Nov 2, 2011 Repeat Request for a signed and certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision Nov 22, 2011 Request for a signed and certified copy of the Sept 21, 2011 Decision Nov 22, 2011 Request Date Event Date ? ? ? ? ? ? Disposition Decision July 12, 2011

    None
    Request to inspect/ copy July 17, 2011

    None
    Decision July 21, 2011

    None None ? ?

    None
    Decision Aug 14, 2011 Phone call from office of the Clerk asked submission of the Addendum Decision Sept 5, 2011 Decision Sept 12, 2011 Decision Sept 21, 2011 Letter from the office of the Clerk Nov 14, 2011

    ?
    ? ? ?

    ? ? ? ?

    None

    None

    Paper Filed - Date short title of the record and date stamped Received Inspected by the office of the Clerk of the Court; Registration Date title of the record as it appears in the list of Requests, and the date of filing as listed in the online public access system; Event Date listing under Events, and the corresponding date; Disposition decision/judgment received by mail from the Supreme Court on the paper filed by the Appellant.

    Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel


    Table of Contents

    2. Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) The Appeal under Zernik v State of Israel originated in the August 14, 2011 Decision of the Magistrate, denying the request for clarification relative to validity of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel. [ xvii ] Conduct of the Appeal is outlined in Table 2.
    Table 2. Summary of Papers Filed by the Appellant under Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) and Their Disposition
    # 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Paper Filed Date Appeal Aug 21, 2011 None Request for Honest Docketing Aug 31, 2011 Request to Inspect, Copy Case Management Records Sept 5, 2011 None None Request for Clarification re: Validity of the Judgment Sept 20, 2011 Notice of Inspection Nov 1, 2011 Request for a Signed and Certified Copy of the Judgment Nov 2, 2011 Repeat Request for a Signed and Certified Copy of the Judgment Nov 22, 2011 Request for Review by Expanded Panel Nov 27, 2011 Request Date None None Add a Document Aug 31, 2011 Request to Inspect, Copy Sept 5, 2011 Receipt of Court Paper Sept 18, 2011 Receipt of Decision/Judgment Sept 18, 2011 None Office of the Clerk refused to receive the paper, duly filed Receipt of Decision/Judgment Nov 2, 2011 Receipt of Decision/Judgment Nov 22, 2011 Office of the Clerk refused to receive the paper, duly filed Event Date None Paper filed Aug 30, 2011 None None None None None None None None None Disposition Judgment ? None None None None None None None None None None

    Paper Filed - Date short title of the record and date stamped Received Inspected by the office of the Clerk of the Court; Request Date title of the record as it appears in the list of Requests, and the date of filing as listed in the online public access system; Event Date listing under Events, and the corresponding date; Disposition decision/judgment received by the Appellant by mail from the Supreme Court. All papers filed by the Appellant were stamped and signed Received/Inspected, except for the November 1, 2011 Notice of Inspection, which was duly filed, but which the staff of the Office of the Clerk of the Court refused to accept. None of the papers was listed as Rejected from Registration. The only decision/judgment listed in the online public access system is the Sept 7, 2011 Judgment. However, validity of the Judgment record remains dubious at best, since it was received unsigned, and the Supreme Court refused to provide a signed and certified copy of the Judgment, and also refused to permit inspection of Certificates of Delivery of the record.

    a) Commencement of the Appeal The Appeal was commenced on September 21, 2011, with the filing of the Appeal record, [ xviii ] following instructions of the office of the Clerk of the Court. The Appeal record was stamped Received/Inspected and signed by the office of the Clerk. (Figure 4b) b) Disappearance and reappearance of the Appeal file from the public access system

    19

    Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel


    Table of Contents

    3. Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) Following the guidelines, provided by the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the November 29, 2011 Challenge to the decision of the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court was filed. [ xxxv ]
    Table 3. Summary of Papers Filed by the Zernik under Zernik v Office of the Clerk (8835/11) and Their Disposition
    # 1. Paper Filed Date Challenge Nov 29, 2011 Request Date None Event Date None Disposition Date None

    Paper Filed - Date short title of the record and date stamped Received Inspected by the office of the Clerk of the Court; Request Date title of the record as it appears in the list of Requests, and the date of filing as listed in the online public access system; Event Date listing under Events, and the corresponding date; Disposition decision/judgment received by the Appellant by mail from the Supreme Court. All papers filed by the Appellant were stamped and signed Received/Inspected, except for the November 1, 2011 Notice of Inspection, which was duly filed, but which the staff of the Office of the Clerk of the Court refused to accept. None of the papers was listed as Rejected from Registration. No decision/judgment is listed in the online public access system.

    The Challenge claimed that the decision of the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court was in error, regarding the basic facts in the matter:

    The commencing record in Zernik v State of Israel was not registered in the online public access system; No proceeding is listed for Zernik v State of Israel in the Calendar of the Supreme Court, No decision was duly served in Zernik v State of Israel, and The Supreme Court had so far refuses to provide a signed and certified decision in the case.

    Therefore, it was claimed that it was incorrect for the office of the Clerk to consider the paper an attempt to initiate Additional Review following decision by a single justice. The commencing paper of the Challenge was accepted for filing and stamped Received/Inspected under a new caption and new case number: Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11). However, review of the records in the online public access system showed that the Supreme Court again listed a case with no commencing record, and no Events at all. [ xxxvi ] The listing was not corrected, even after a letter in this regard was forwarded to the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court. [ xxxvii , xxxviii ]

    30

    You might also like