Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@earthli nk.net, c=US Date: 2012.03.

28 19:07:43 +03'00'

March 28, 2012 The Honorable Moshe Gal, Director Administration of Courts, State of Israel 22 Kanfey Nesharim Street, Jerusalem
By email: menahel@court.gov.il By Fax: 02-6513191

Response within 14 days is kindly requested. RE: Revised Freedom of Information Act Request (P29-2012), in re: Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. Dear Judge Gal: Thanks for your offices prompted March 6, 2012 Response (#04133512), [ i ] in re: March 2, 2012 Freedom of Information Act (1988) Request (P29-2012), in re: Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. [ ii ] Your Response, referenced above, denied the Request, claiming exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (1988), Article 9(B)(4), pertaining to Information regarding internal deliberations. The undersigned in not a legal scholar. However, the undersigned is of the opinion, that unequivocally establishing the lawful authority of the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel and valid certification procedures of the Court, are at the fundamentals of Fair Hearings/Due Process. [ iii ] Furthermore, the undersigned claims that under the principle of Publicity, which underlies Fair Hearings/Due Process in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the Hague Apostille Convention (1961), the appointment record(s) of Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz and the valid certification procedures of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel should be deemed Legal Public Records. Therefore, instant Reply to your Response on Request (P29-2012), kindly asks that you reconsider 1) and 2), below - Revised Freedom of Information Act (1988) Request (P29-2012) RE: Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.: 1) Any and all Legal Public Records, which are the appointment/reappointment record(s) of Chief Clerk [Mazkirah Rashit] Sarah Lifschitz of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel (hereinafter The Supreme Court), which is/are deemed in force and effect by your office as of this date, March 28, 2012. 2) Any and all Legal Public Records, which specify the certification/apostille certification practices, pertaining to the electronic judicial records of the Supreme Court by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, which is/are deemed in force and effect by your office as of this date, March 28, 2012. Truly, Joseph Zernik, PhD
ID: 05362559-6

PO Box 31440 Jerusalem 91313 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

In response, please include: Revised Freedom of Information Act (1988) Request (P29-2012) RE: Appointment records of the Chief Clerk and certification procedures of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. Correspondence, based on reference numbers and dates alone, has caused some miscommunications in the past. CC: Attorney Michal Teneh Freedom of Information Office Ministry of Justice
By email: MichalTe@justice.gov.il LINKS: March 6, 2012 Response (#04133512) Freedom of Information Act Request (P29-2012) Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/86345296/ ii March 2, 2012 Freedom of Information Act Request (P29-2012), in re: Appointment records of the Chief Clerks and certification procedures of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. Hhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/83584055/H iii "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.
i