Professional Documents
Culture Documents
" 91313 " 4413
12-10-25 Moseh Silman et al v Bituach Leumi et al (1572-08) in the Tel Aviv District Court "Post-it Decision" by Magistrate Avigail Cohen, regarding service by Requester1
The attached decision record, was received by Requester1, Dr Joseph Zernik, by certified mail. However, the October 25, 2012 "Post-it Decision" record cannot be reasonably be deemed a valid court record. # 1 Record
12-10-25 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi et al (1572-08) in the Tel Aviv District Court "Post-it Decision" by Magistrate Avigail Cohen, regarding service by Requester1 [English translation - jz] 12-10-25 Moshe Silman et al v Bituach Leumi et al (1572-08) in the Tel Aviv District Court "Post-it Decision" by Magistrate Avigail Cohen, regarding service by Requester1 [Hebrew original]
Page # 2
LINKS: [1] 12-07-25 PRESS RELEASE: Time Line of Events: Moshe Silman - self-immolated, Israeli social protest activist - and the justice system of the State of Israel (English) http://es.scribd.com/doc/101008706/
1/2
The decision record in this case is a "Post-it Decision", a form of record that was noted in the 2012 Human Rights Alert (NGO) report as an invalid form of court record implemented in Net HaMishpat the electronic record system of the District Courts of the State of Israel. The background record is the face page of an October 24, 2012 notice by Requester1 to the office of the Clerk of the Court regarding service of Request on the parties in the case. On the background of the October 24, 2012 Notice, a rectangular frame is superimposed in the upper right the "Post-it Decision".
The January 25, 2010 "Post-it Decision" record is not signed by Magistrate Avigail Cohen, is not certified by the Clerk of the Court, and bears no seal or stamp of the court. The January 25, 2010 "Post-it Decision" record cannot be reasonably be deemed a valid court record.
October 25, 2012 Decision Magistrate Avigail Cohen It is unclear where the certificates of delivery to the heirs of the Plaintiff are, pursuant to the July 31, 2012 Decision. Service should be conducted by law, not by electronic mail. Service by electronic mail can only be executed pursuant to Regulation 497c to the Regulations of Civil Procedure, and I have not found in this case the electronic mail addresses, as they appear in the Request. In any event, at hand is an uncomplicated request to inspect a court file. If the Requester executes service by law, he would be able to obtain an expedient decision.
2/2
'l9r 2012
''l:'tt
P]N 25
tp'p
.n
F'11]
rlot'::
3'144{ ,'r"n
o,?ut-t'
O77
-2703333 :yr,n
rrrn ;rolo
;r]]bD
fn)D
2Ol2\)\t2?'rN 25 ,l"ytDn
''l')TD nD'nn ''J'''lxn
l]un ,b
.l
3 il N d
l#ed 24 Oct
?01"2
10:46:l"Z Affi
I5T
FaxI0:431300S
Page
1of3
x/x"n
'nxl ln*lto;lun
l
nulnil
2V12
o$oltlilf
"tT'n n'1gCIn lli?'n? ne,ri?:: i9 ?y c-lroln? J' ,U-I')lil
r)ln {:5q;nn nt) fil'lt)rn 'D ?sl ,"x" nlx;l rx tfn)lu 1"y? uJt nltf s! ."x"r'l" nlrnlx;l nx 1'01il? 'Tr ?$ tn0^t9nn lrT*,f .i.tlx nt,firH r.(?? tnj! rJ9unil n'l .n'tg,f nyl!nn nx l?f.i? Nlx lf 'e?
03-607-2fi59 :oirp: n!-1'3rn? nn?sil nxr nylln
ftu?nn
:?s11*/?0J 2
1752-08 i7'n] 5
lOl'
,u;-l1,?
nup:
'HJ1
n) ?'l'jx
i?'l-]Y
n,?ut'tt ,3144S
,? 1l1l X? nt'CInn '-1lq,t'X .3117112 n!'!n nu?nnn 'e ?v nntrl SJflnn ')nn nl-l'on }.,Yf.? uI lXtr n'yxnNf. x?l ;nrf
l$Fts
?trf:
n?t>"lt.tutr?N -txlr nlYYnxS n-lron tro nni?n? )497 illi?n 's ?I, i?'l nluv'n? nonl tr i?'nL ') 'nxylf, t{?l 'n-]rxn l'-Tn '9J'lt-lul?Rn lxlrn nlfln) 09u"rv3n n'f? .ngJi?ff nly'3ln lnt{, -lfl-Tn .n'ls ?) ?3,' lt,y? n)frCIn x? nvJtr33 *e xNn ,l'T) n11'on ui?fnn yx3' nx .;7rn3 . n t-'l'nnf n $?n n ?:p? ?ll'
.,3t-)ui??x
--
u
J J
3 .*
\r 2
J
\,
5 r,
\.>
l-*
II'