Israeli media expressed surprise at the government’s intention to disobey a “final” Supreme Court decision, purportedly entered a year ago, which required the demolition by May 1, 2012, of a settlement, unlawfully constructed on Palestinian land. However, the evidence shows that for a full decade, since the implementation of a new electronic record system in the Supreme Court, there are no “final” , entered decisions of the Supreme Court. All decisions are ‘subject to changes’, and the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court refuses to certify any of the Court’s decisions.
Supreme Court of the State of Israel. Prior to 2002, all electronic records were certified by the late Chief Clerk, “True copy of the original”. Today, all records are noted as ‘subject to changes’. The Beit El’s Ulpana, unlawfully constructed on Palestinian land.
View as PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91726045/
Jerusalem, April 29 – recent reports by Israeli media expressed surprise at the government’s decision to disobey a “final” decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, purportedly entered a year ago. The decision required the demolition of Beit El’s Ulpana, unlawfully constructed on Palestinian land. Today, Haaretz editorial rebukes the conduct of the Israeli government, which undermines “Israel’s rule of law.”
In a letter to the editor of Haaretz daily, Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) notes that such reports and opinions are founded in error: No “final” decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel on the matter has ever been entered.
The letter explains that for the past decade there have been no “final” decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel:
- Prior to the March 2002 all electronic records of the decisions of the Supreme Court were certified by the late Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court SHMARYAHU COHEN.
- Since March 2002 all decisions of the Supreme Court are ‘subject to changes’, as clearly noted in the body of each and every decision.
- The Administration of Courts refuses to respond on Freedom of Information request, regarding the legal foundation for such profound change in the decisions of the Supreme Court after March 2002.
- The Regulations of the Courts – Office of the Clerk (2004) appear to assign the authority for the certification of decisions of the courts to the respective Chief Clerks. However, the same Regulations authorize the Director of the Administration of Courts to modify the regulations, as necessary, in the process of implementing the electronic record systems of the courts. The Administration of Courts refuses to disclose the modifications, implemented pursuant to this clause.
- The Administration of Courts refused to identify the person, who holds the ultimate administrative authority over the electronic records of the Supreme Court.
- The Administration of Courts refuses to produce the appointment record of Ms SARAH LIFSCHITZ, who is today represented as the Chief Clerk.of the Supreme Court.
- Ms SARAH LIFSCHITZ herself, also refuses to respond on a similar request, to produce her appointment record as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court.
- Ms SARAH LIFSCHITZ refuses to provide honest Chief Clerk’s certification of decisions of the Supreme Court. In response to repeated requests, she eventually provided certifications of certain decisions of the Supreme Court, which were the subject a recent criminal fraud complaint, filed with the Israel Police, which issued a certificate of the filing of the complaint.
“It is the Supreme Court itself that undermined the rule of law in the State of Israel,” concludes Dr Zernik. “In March 2002, a simulated justice system was established in the State of Israel by the Supreme Court itself.”
Human Rights Alert’s submission for the 2012 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in Israel by the United Nations is narrowly focused on “Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic records of the State of Israel.”
The 2010 submission of Human Rights Alert to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations was reviewed by the HRC professional staff and incorporated in the official HRC Professional Staff Report with a note referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
LINKS:
[1] 12-04-29 Refusal of the Israeli government to obey a “final” decision of the Supreme Court in re: demolition of unlawful settlement on Palestinian land – Haaretz reports
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91723881/
[2] 12-04-29 Letter to the Editor of Haaretz: No “final decision” of the Israeli Supreme Court regarding removal of outposts, unlawfully constructed on Palestinian land
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91725091/[3] 12-04-25 Draft Human Right Alert’s 2012 State of Israel UPR Submission: Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic records of the courts of the State of Israel (REVISED)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82927700/[4] 12-04-16 PRESS RELEASE: Criminal Fraud Complaint (158921/2012) Against SARAH LIFSCHITZ, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, Filed Today With Israel Police
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89681591/[5] 12-04-25 Log of Freedom of Information requests, related to the electronic records of the courts of the State of Israel, and refusal of the Administration of Courts and the Ministry of Justice to respond.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91197575/
[6] 04-11-25 Takanot Batey Hamishpat – Mazkirut (2004) // Regulations of the Courts – Offices of the Clerks (2004) (Heb + Eng)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48770720/[7] “Simulated litigation”, “simulated decisions”, “simulated service”, “simulated justice system” here refer to conduct defined as felonies in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
_____________________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
The 2010 submission of Human Rights Alert to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations was reviewed by the HRC professional staff and incorporated in the official HRC Professional Staff Report with a note referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
Human Rights Alert online Flag Counter: 137http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://inproperinla.wordpress.com/
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Total Reads: 807,060 Followers: 1,44http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alerthttp://www.scribd.com/SeyagLizhuyotHaadam Total Reads: 35,547http://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345 Total Item Views: 664,803+156,012
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examinerhttp://www.facebook.com/joseph.zernik Facebook Friends: 1,611_____________________________
Take away justice, then, and what are governments but great bandit bands?Saint Augustine, Civitas Dei (City of God,4.4)
_____________________________
![[]](https://i0.wp.com/jagger.me.berkeley.edu/~twheeler/img/bcci-logo-90px.png){kind=logo}
Joseph Zernik
josephsdream2012 