11-09-11 katzav v state of israel (3372/11) request for the supreme court to permit access to the...

8/4/2019 11-09-11 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) Request for the Supreme Court to Permit Access to the May 18, 2011 Order as Served on the State Prosecution (i

1/19

Human Rights Alert (NGO) Joseph Zernik, PhD " PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313, Israel; [email protected] ; 91313 ,31440"

11-09-11 Katzav v State of Israel(3372-11) Request to Permit the Ministry of Justice to

Permit, Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, Access to the May 18, 2011Decision as Served on the State Prosecution (if served at all) (Eng + Heb)

Attached:

# Record Page #

1 Katzav v State of Israel(3372/11) September 11, 2011 Request (English) 2

2 Katzav v State of Israel(3372/11) September 11, 2011 Request (Hebrew) 6

Brief Chronology:

i. The Requester is in possession of an unsigned copy of the decision, as published in the

online public access system of the Supreme Court.

ii. The Requester has previously filed requests to inspect this court file, which were granted,

including requests to inspect the May 18, 2011 Decision as it appears in the Supreme

Courts file and the respective Certificates of Delivery.

iii. In parallel, on July 11, 2011, the Requester filed an application, pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act, with the Ministry of Justice, for a copy of the Decision as served on the

State Prosecution (if served at all). (Exhibit 1)

iv. The August 14, 2011 Response by the Ministry of Justice denied the Request pursuant to

the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that the request must be filed with the Court, as a

Request to Inspect court file record. (Exhibit 2)

v. On September 2, 2011, the Requester applied again to the Ministry of Justice, pursuant to

the Freedom of Information Act, asking that the Ministry reconsider its response, or provide

a more detailed explanation for the denial. (Exhibit 3)In this repeat application, the Requester explained that he had already filed request with the

Supreme Court, which had been granted, to inspect the Decision and the respective

Certificates of Delivery (if they existed), as they appear in the Supreme Courts file, to be

distinguished from the copy of the Decision, as it appears online (already in his possession),

and also to be distinguished from the copy of the Decision, as served on the State

Prosecution (if served at all).

vi. On September 2, 2011 the Ministry of Justice responded on the September 2, 2011 repeat

application, stating that the Ministrys August 14, 2011 response speaks for itself. (Exhibit

4)

vii. The Requester holds that the Ministry of Justice was required, pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act, to provide a copy of the requested record (if it existed), or state that therecord was not in its possession. However, the Requester is neither an attorney, nor a legal

scholar.

viii. Therefore, following the opinion of the Ministry of Justice in its response on theapplication, the Requester asks that the Court would permit the Ministry of Justice, pursuant

to the Regulation, above, to provide the Requester a copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision, as

served on the State Prosecution (if served at all), or alternatively, state that the record is not

in its possession.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/19

The Supreme Court The Supreme Court

UNREPRESENTED PARTIES DIVSeptember 11, 2011

RECEIVED/INSPECTEDSignature: __[sig - jz__________Request to Inspect Court File (Regulation 4 (c))

1. Requesters Details:Name: Dr Joseph ZernikID: 05263459-6Address: PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313Tel: 052-518-31142. Court File Details:Case #: 3372/11Case Caption: Moshe Katzav v State of IsraelRecords to be Inspected: a) The May 18, 2011 Decision, as served on the State Prosecution (ifserved at all.3. Purpose and Justification of the Inspection:a. Academic Researchb. Full understanding of the records

c. Ruling of the Supreme Court on the issue itself [access per FOIA jz]4. Relationship of the Requester to the Case (please list any direct or indirect relationship):a. Research

b. Appeal in Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11)

September 11, 2011 [signature jz]_________Date Signature

Attached:1. Printed copy of the request2. 4 Exhibits


3/19

[digital signature - jz]

In the Supreme Court in Jerusalem

3372/11

Moshe Katzav

V

State of Israel

Request for Inspection (Regulation 4(c)), pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act, and for Due Service of a Signed Decision on Instant Request

To the Honorable Court and the Parties in the case:

The undersigned herein files a Request for Inspection (Regulation 4(c)), pursuant tothe Freedom of Information Act, and for Due Service of a Signed Decision on Instant

Request.

I. Request for Inspection

1. Requesters Details:

Name: Dr Joseph ZernikID: 05263459-6

Address: PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313

Tel: 052-518-3114

2. Court File Details:

Case #: 3372/11Case Caption: Moshe Katzav v State of Israel

Records to be Inspected: a) The May 18, 2011 Decision, as served on the State

Prosecution (if served at all.

3. Purpose and Justification of the Inspection:

a) The Requester has published in recent years academic papers regarding case

management systems of the courts and prisons, and also presented suchstudies in computer science and criminology conferences. The Requester

intends to publish a paper regarding the case management and public access

systems of the Supreme Court in general, and regarding this court file inparticular.

b) The Requester wishes to understand the records in this case unambiguously:

i. The Requester is in possession of an unsigned copy of the decision,

as published in the online public access system of the SupremeCourt.

ii. The Requester has previously filed requests to inspect this court

file, which were granted, including requests to inspect the May 18,2011 Decision as it appears in the Supreme Courts file and the

respective Certificates of Delivery.

iii. In parallel, on July 11, 2011, the Requester filed an application,pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, with the Ministry of


4/19

Justice, for a copy of the Decision as served on the StateProsecution (if served at all). (Exhibit 1)

iv. The August 14, 2011 Response by the Ministry of Justice denied

the Request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, claimingthat the request must be filed with the Court, as a Request to

Inspect court file record. (Exhibit 2)v. On September 2, 2011, the Requester applied again to the Ministryof Justice, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, asking that

the Ministry reconsider its response, or provide a more detailed

explanation for the denial. (Exhibit 3)

In this repeat application, the Requester explained that he hadalready filed request with the Supreme Court, which had been

granted, to inspect the Decision and the respective Certificates of

Delivery (if they existed), as they appear in the Supreme Courtsfile, to be distinguished from the copy of the Decision, as it

appears online (already in his possession), and also to be

distinguished from the copy of the Decision, as served on the StateProsecution (if served at all).

vi. On September 2, 2011 the Ministry of Justice responded on the

September 2, 2011 repeat application, stating that the Ministrys

August 14, 2011 response speaks for itself. (Exhibit 4)vii. The Requester holds that the Ministry of Justice was required,

pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, to provide a copy of

the requested record (if it existed), or state that the record was notin its possession. However, the Requester is neither an attorney,

nor a legal scholar.viii. Therefore, following the opinion of the Ministry of Justice in its

response on the application, the Requester asks that the Court

would permit the Ministry of Justice, pursuant to the Regulation,above, to provide the Requester a copy of the May 18, 2011

Decision, as served on the State Prosecution (if served at all), or

alternatively, state that the record is not in its possession.c) Additionally, the Requester asks that the Supreme Court rule on the

requirement of any government ministry, pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act, under the specific circumstances:

i. Request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, addressed toa government ministry, pertaining to court decision, as served on

the government ministry,

ii. In a case, where there is no sealing of the case,iii. Where the Decision has already been published by the court in the

online public access system,

iv. The signed Decision and the respective Certificates of Delivery (tothe degree that they exist), as they appear in the paper court file,

were already permitted for inspection by the court itself.


5/19

4. Relationship of the Requester to the Case (please list any direct or indirectrelationship):

a) The Requester filed an appeal, originating in this case, underDr Joseph

Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11).

b) The Requester intends to publish an academic paper regarding the SupremeCourts case management and online public access systems in general, andthis court file in particular.

II. Request for Due Service of a Signed Decision on Instant Request

5. Purpose of the Request:

In other cases, the Requester has been previously served with unsigned decisions, or hasnot been served at all, although the decisions appeared in the online public access system

of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Requester asks that the decision on instant request

be served on him at the address provided above.

III. Exhibits

Exhibit 1: July 11, 2011 Application, filed with the Ministry of Justice, pursuant tothe Freedom of Information Act.

Exhibit 2: August 14, 2011 Response by the Ministry of Justice on the Application.

Exhibit 3: September 2, 2011 repeat Application by the Requester, filed with theMinistry of Justice.

Exhibit 4: September 2, 2011 Response by the Ministry of Justice on the repeatApplication.

Dated: September 8, 2011

[signature -jz]

______________

Dr Joseph ZernikPO Box 41330, Jerusalem 91313

Tel: 052.508.3014

[email protected] ____
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


6/19


7/19

3372/11"

,,))(4(

,

,))(4( .

I.

:.1

;";053625596";91313,31440"

.:052.508.3014

:.2

3372/11":':

:

).(,,2011-18.:.3

..

.,

:,,.

i.,.

ii.,,,,,2011-18

.

Digitally signed by Joseph

Zernik

DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou,

email=jz12345@earthlink.

net, c=US

Date: 2011.09.08 11:06:04

+03'00'


8/19

23/

iii.-11,2011,,)1). ((,

iv.,-14,2011,,)2. (,"

v.-2,2011,,)3. (,

,,

,,,)().(

vi.-2,2011,-2,)4. (-14

vii.,)(,

..,

viii.,,",,

,-18,,2011-11,,,)(,",2011

.

,,,,.:

i.,,,,

ii.,

iii.,

iv.)(,,.

:.4

).)6041/11".

,.,

II.


9/19

33/

.5

,,.,,.

III.

.,2011-11,1

.,2011-14,2

.,2011-23

.,2011-74

,,2011:8

_____________________"91313,31440"

:[email protected]

_____________


10/19

1


11/19

GMAIL LOGO x y [email protected]

Request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Actpertaining to Moshe Katzav v State ofIsrael(3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.

1 message

JZ [email protected] Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:46 PMTo: [email protected]: Dorit Avramovitch

Attorney Michal TenehIn charge of Freedom of InformationSalah A-Din Street 29, JerusalemTel: 02-6466321Fax: 02-646708

RE: Request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Actpertaining to Moshe Katzav v State of Israel(3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.

Dear Attorney Teneh:

Please accept this request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

Initial payment was made in the Ministry of Justice web site.Certificate of payment 4312, customer code: jsp3vjg51tzac0dh

Instant request is for court records, which are decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel and the respectiveCertificates of Service, as served on the State of Israel by the Supreme Court, in the case referenced above:

1) Moshe Katzav v State of Israel(3372/11) Decision dated May 18, 2011;2) Certificate of Service of the above Decision;3) Moshe Katzav v State of Israel(3372/11) Decision dated May 9, 2011;4) Certificate of Service of the above Decision;

Please inform me by email in case additional information or additional payment are required.

Gratefully,

Dr Joseph ZernikCell: 052-508-3014
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


12/19

2


13/19

29-'' 91010 :02-6466321':02-6467085

, "

,201114

:

/53'

.31440.

91313,

.-1998",:11/07/2011

-",20

: ""):(1998 ,

".,

.-2003",)(

17.

,",


14/19

3


15/19


16/19


17/19

4


18/19


19/19

3372/11

:,",

,,))(4(

:,,

",":-,10

:057.936.9945:03.686.9775

:91010,29-

:02.646.6664

:

"-

:02.675.9632:02.675.9648

,,2011-8:

____________________"91313,31440"

:[email protected]

11-09-11 katzav v state of israel (3372/11) request for the supreme court to permit access to the...

Documents