Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 34

1/34

Fraudulent New IT Systems of the Israeli Courts - Unannounced Regime Change?


Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO), Tel-Aviv, Israel
joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Abstract: Validity, integrity, and impacts of the new IT systems of the Israeli courts, implemented in the
decade of the 2000s, are reported, based in part on the Human Rights Alert-NGO (HRA) submission for the
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of human rights in Israel by the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United
Nations (UN). The submission was incorporated, subject to professional HRC staff review, into the HRC UPR
report (2013) with the note: "Lack of integrity in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, the
district courts and the detainees' courts in Israel". The current report also includes system analysis, data
mining, and a series of court case studies - particularly relative to liberty and corporate/banking regulation.
System analysis shows development and implementation with no lawful authority; servers of unverified
identity; invalid implementation of electronic signatures, authentication procedures, authorities and
permissions; discrimination in access against the public and unrepresented (pro se) parties and in favor of
attorneys, and widespread issuance of invalid judicial and legal records. Data mining reveals a large volume of
falsified, simulated, and/or forged judicial records. Court case studies document the detrimental impacts on
human rights and on corporate/banking regulation. The findings are discussed relative to the 2010 State
Ombudsman's report, which noted that system development failed to comply with the law: Contracts were
offered with no legal tender and signed with no specifications; development was conducted with no core
management by State employees; the systems were not subjected to validation by State employees; servers
were removed from the custody of the State courts into the custody of a corporation, and unknown number of
people were issued double smart ID cards... US-based corporations were involved in the project: EDS and IBM
- the latter was involved in corrupt practices in other nations as well... The deficient Israeli systems are
compared with the much older systems of the State of California courts, analysed as part of the HRA HRC UPR
submission, which was incorporated into the UN HRC UPR report on the US (2010) with the note: "Corruption
of the courts and the legal profession... in California". The systems are also compared with those of the US
federal courts (PACER, CM/ECF), subject of the HRA UN HRC submission for the January 2015 UPR of the US,
where similar deficiencies are documented. Significance is discussed in the context unprecedented rapid
corruption of government in general and the justice system in particular over the past two decades, coupled
with fast socio-economic changes, which propelled Israel to the first place in poverty among OECD nations, led
to extreme gaps in asset and income distributions, and widespread social protest. Corrective measures are
proposed, based on publicity of the law and the separation of powers: Reliance on Israeli IT and legal experts
under accountability to the legislature, enhanced public transparency, and ongoing vigilance by human rights
and internet activists. IT experts are called upon to more actively assume civic duties in the safeguard of civil
society in our era.
Keywords: e-justice, human rights, courts, prisons, banking regulation, State of Israel.
1. Introduction
The courts worldwide, including Israel, have been implementing in recent decades IT systems for efficient
management of court cases, electronic filing by parties, and public access to court records. United Nations
Drug Control and Crime Prevention Centre reports on Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption
(2000, 2001) encourage the process. Indeed, there is no doubt that such systems could have improved the
management of valid court records and transparency of the judicial processes. However, the transition to
electronic court administration is not risk free.
Court procedures, and in particular, the maintenance and safeguard of valid court records, have evolved over
centuries during the paper administration of the courts, and are at the core of Fair Hearing. Essential part of
such procedures in most courts is based on the coordinated actions of the two arms of the courts: The judicial
arm judges who adjudicate and issue decision records, and the ministerial (clerical) arm clerks who are the
custodians of court records and hold duties and responsibilities, defined by law, relative to integrity of the
court's records, in general, as well as authentication and certification of court records, in particular. On the
other hand, historical review also finds that corruption of the offices of the clerks is inherent to corruption of
the courts themselves (Messinger, 2002).

The transition to electronic administration of the courts amounts to a sea change in procedures related to the
operation of the offices of the clerks. Therefore, the transition to electronic administration of the courts must
be particularly regulated and monitored, to avoid corruption of the courts in the process.
Previous studies documented the detrimental effects of the implementation of fraudulent IT system in the
courts and prisons in the United States, in the State of California, and in the State of Israel (HRA 2010, 2013,
2015, Zernik, 2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2015).
The current report is based in part on the Human Rights Alert,NGO, (HRA) Submission to the United Nations
Human Rights Council and its Appendix (HRA, 2013). The Submission was incorporated into the Professional
Staff Report (2013) of the Council's Periodic Review with the note: lack of integrity of the electronic records of
the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel. References are provided to the
relevant sections of the HRA Appendix to the Submission (e.g., HRA C1e). Given space limits, reference is also
provided to an online appendix, which is an expanded version of the current report.
1.1 Office of the clerk
The State of Israel is a relatively young nation, with a relatively short history in the courts, although the
foundation of the justice system in the earlier British Mandate in Palestine-Israel (1917-1948). The authority,
duties and responsibilities of the clerks and or registrars in the State of Israel were defined in a series of laws
and respective regulations (HRA C.1). The regulations, which were promulgated in 2003-5, during the period of
implementation of the current generation of IT systems of the courts, are of particular interest. The laws and
regulations are at times inconsistent in their basic terms and leave considerable amount of ambiguity in
defining the procedures of the Office of the Clerk and the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Clerk and/or
Registrar. On such legal background, it is clear, that in developing and implementing the current IT systems of
the courts, the first step, e.g., defining the specifications of the electronic record systems, was particularly
sensitive. Either the authorities, duties and responsibilities of the Chief Clerk and/or Registrar, and the
respective procedures of the office of the clerk were to be unequivocally and unambiguously defined, or else
invalid IT systems would be developed and implemented. With it, the Israeli courts themselves ruled that a
court, operating with no lawful office of the clerk, is an incompetent court.
2. Methods
The current report is focused on analysis of integrity of the IT systems of the national courts: The supreme
court, district courts, detainees courts, labor courts, and debtors' courts. The study was not based on legal
analysis of the records, or challenges to the rationale of the adjudication. Instead, it focuses on analysis of
validity and integrity of IT systems and the electronic records on their faces. Sample case studies are provided
as example for the implications of the deficiencies found in integrity of the systems and the records.
2.1 IT system analysis and data mining
The systems are analysed by review of the their implementation and operation in various courts. Data mining
is largely conducted using the inherent built-in search engines. System rules are inferred through review of
the systems and the records, since hardly any public records are available (e.g. users' manuals), and the office
of Administration of Courts denied or wrongfully refused to respond on Freedom of Information requests (HRA
C9e).
2.2 Case studies
Case studies are provided to demonstrate the impact of the IT systems of on the administration of justice in
the Israel today. The examples, which are presented here, pertain mostly to liberty, to banking matters, and to
whistle blowers of government corruption.
2.3 Human rights, national and international legal implications
Legal analysis is largely restricted to technical and procedural matters, which needed to be addressed in the
course of implementing any IT system of the courts, e.g., maintenance of court records and the safeguard of
their validity and authority through signatures, authentication, and certification, authorities and permissions.
Accordingly, emphasis is provided to the discovery and identification of invalid, ineffectual, unenforceable
court records and court procedures. In such context, particular emphasis is given to records, pertaining to the
initiation (e.g. summonses) and termination (judgments) of litigation, which are recognized for centuries as
critical for the safeguard of integrity of the courts and the judicial process. Even such limited legal analysis
permits allegations of human rights violations, relative to access to justice and fair hearing.

2.3.1 Simulated legal process


"Simulated Litigation", "Simulated Court Record", "Simulated Litigation/Records" are used here pursuant to
the Texas Penal Code 32.48, which is instructive in detailing the underlying conduct:
Texas Penal Code - Section 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.
(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the simulating document:
(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful
authority to issue or authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed
with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a
court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable
presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously been
convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, 3, eff. May 21, 1997.
Simulated court records are records, which are defective, for example, relative to signatures, authentication
(service), and authorities. In such records, judges often issue rulings that are inconsistent with the law. With it,
the parties involved, are often unaware of the invalidity of the same records, and the courts induce the
enforcement and/or extort compliance with such records.
In terms of US federal law, the same conduct of court officers, including judges, clerks, and attorneys, relative
to the issuance of simulated court records and the conduct of simulated litigation, should be deemed "Fraud
upon the Court". Such conduct should be considered "extra-judicial" conduct, which is not covered by any
immunity.
The law of the State of Israel is notable for its failure to address such conduct specifically. In general, the
Israeli justice system operates under the assumption that judicial corruption is non-existent. To wit, in over 60
years of the history of the State of Israel, no judge was prosecuted for corruption on the bench, although a
number of cases were widely reported, particularly over the past decade.
Conduct by judges, involving simulated legal process, has been known for centuries as a common, probably the
most common form of corruption. The office of the clerk, and its authority and accountability relative to the
safeguard of the integrity of court records in general, and the execution of service, authentication and
certification of judicial record in particular, evolved centuries ago specifically to prevent such conduct.
The evidence in the current report and in corresponding previous reports, relative to the courts of the State of
California and the United States show that in developing current IT systems, the judiciary created mechanisms
for enabling and enhancing such conduct, through the implementation of IT systems that are lacking in validity
and integrity. However, whereas prior to the implementation of such IT systems, corruption through the
conduct of simulated legal process was local and sporadic in nature, the new IT systems enable such
corruption through the the conduct of central offices and senior, national judicial officers.
2.4 Media coverage
Media Coverage Media reports are examined, regarding the coverage of conditions of the Israeli justice in
general, efforts by the judiciary to limit public access to records, efforts to eliminate from the internet critical
publications, and coverage of individual cases of national significance.
3 IT system analysis
3.1 The systems

The current report primarily reviews the IT systems of the Israeli Supreme Court (name unknown), the district
and magistrate courts (Net-Hamishpat), the debtors courts (VTO, Ornet, and Kelim Shluvim), and the detainees
courts (name unknown) (Figure 1). Of these system, today only Net-Hamishpat provides the full range of case
management, public access, and electronic filing capabilities. The other systems, such as the one used by the
Supreme Court, provides case management capabilities and limited public access, but no electronic filing
capabilities.

Figure 1. Left: Net-Hamishpat is the case management, public access, and electronic filing system of the
district, magistrate, and labour courts of the State of Israel, implemented around 2009. Right: The current IT
system of the Supreme Court (name unknown) provides case management and limited public access only, and
its current version dates to 2002.
3.2 Development and implementation - disregard of standards, dubious lawful authority
3.2.1 Development and implementation in disregard of established standards and procedures
As noted in the State Ombudsman's Report (2010), effectual standards and procedures, pertaining to the
development of State IT systems were established in the October 28, 1991 Cabinet Decision 103/eco, and
Treasury Accounting Office Standards. Such standards were developed and elaborated in a separate project
and include, but are not limited to:
Establishment of specifications of the IT systems by a State employee in conjunction with signing
contracts for the development of the systems;
Core management of IT system development by a State employee, and
Independent examination and validation of new IT system prior to implementation by a State
employee.
The State Ombudsman's Report (2010) notes that none of these rules were complied with in the development
of the current generation of IT systems of the courts (HRA C3b).
Moreover, the State Ombudsman's Report (2010) notes that in the process, the servers of the courts were
removed from the custody of the clerks of the courts to the custody of a corporation, and that an unknown
number of individuals were issued double ID cards (HRA C3b).
Regardless of the State Ombudsman's Report (2010), the evidence shows that the latest IT system of the
debtors' courts Kelim Shluvim - implemented in 2014, was again developed and implemented in disregard of
the established standards and procedures for State IT system development (Enforcement and Collection
Authority, 2014) (see also xx).
The State Ombudsmans Report (2010) also notes that contracts were signed for the development of the
systems with no legal tender, in violation of State law. The report did not identify the corporations involved,
but media identified them as as including IBM and EDS. Of note, IBM was reported to have been involved in
corrupt practices in various nations (xxx).
3.2.2 Development and implementation in under dubious lawful authority
The current generation of IT systems of the Israeli courts represents a sea-change in court procedures and
court administration. However, the Israeli Knesset has never enacted these profound changes in court
procedures. Limited changes were implemented in the Regulations of Civil Court Procedure. The most alarming
change was promulgated in the Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), 5:
5. Mechanical system
Any provision of instant Regulations shall be complied with in mechanical systems of the courts and by
electronic means with the necessary changes, if instructed so by the Director of the Administration of
Courts.
In Article 5, the Minister of Justice in fact delegates the authority to change or promulgate the Regulations of

the Courts to the judiciary, in violation of the principle of Separation of Powers. Moreover, the changes to
the Regulations, which were introduced by the Director of the Administration of Courts, were never published.
Therefore, such conduct also violates the principle of Publicity of the Law. Furthermore, the Administration of
Courts refused to respond on a Freedom of Information request, asking for disclosure of such changes (HRA
C9e).
Regardless, review of the systems, data mining, and Freedom of Information responses enable the
identification of the cardinal changes, which were introduced:

In all Israeli courts: The most significant change is abolishing the responsibility and accountability of
the chief clerks of the courts relative to integrity of the records of the respective courts.
In the Supreme Court: The changes, implemented in March 2002, voided the validity of all electronic
records in the public access system by: a) adding to all records the disclaimer subject to editing and
phrasing changes, and b) omitting the standard statement by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court,
which had previously appeared on all such records, True Copy of the Original, with an electronic
code (probably an early form of password secured file system) (Figure 2). Both the Administration of
Courts and current Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Asher Grunis refused to disclose under
whose authority and what legal foundation such profound changes were introduced in the electronic
records of the Supreme Court in 2002 .

Figure 2. Changes in the Supreme Court's electronic records in March 2002. Left: Ben Gavriel v Chief of Staff
(1595/00) - until early 2002, all electronic decisions of the Supreme Court carried certification, True Copy of
the Original, by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen. Right: Sayeg v Agricultural Insurance (100/03) - since
2003, none of the electronic decision records carries any certification, or any reference to the Chief Clerk.
Instead they carry the disclaimer subject to editing and phrasing changes, and reference to an Information
Center, which has no foundation in the law.

In the district, magistrate, and labour courts, where Net-Hamishpat is implemented: Implementation
of invisible electronic signatures - The Emperor's New Clothes. Prior to the implementation of NetHamishpat, judges were permitted to inscribe unformatted decisions on the face of motion records
under their signatures. Such practice is permitted in other courts as well, e.g., the Supreme Court of
the United States. However, with the implementation of Net-Hamishpat, such practice was
established as Post-it Decisions with no visible signature at all.

Figure 3. Changes in the district and magistrate courts decision records ~2009. Top: Under paper
administration - Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202/04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court - the February
26, 2006 Decision by Judge Shoshana Almagor is inscribed on the face of the Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena of
Witnesses. The Decision says: Decision. Subpoena the witnesses by service with personal delivery. The
Judge's stamp and hand signature appear next to the inscription, as well as the stamp by the office of the clerk
of the court Sent by fax or email on February 26, 2006 (Almagor, 2006). Bottom: In Net-Hamispat IT system Silman v Social Security (17520-08) in the Tel-Aviv District Court the August 30, 2012 Decision by Judge Hagai
Brenner is a Post-it Decision - a semi-transparent frame, superimposed on the face page of the Motion for
Disqualification for a Cause. The Decision in part says: ... There is not a single substantial claim of a
reasonable concern of bias. With it, given changes in the work schedule of the Court, the Request for
Inspection will be reviewed by the Honorable Magistrate anyway. Therefore, instant Motion is superfluous
and does not need to be addressed. The Decision shows no visible stamp or signature of the judge, neither of
the office of the clerk of the court (Brenner, 2012).
Therefore, the development and implementation of the current generation of IT systems of the Israeli courts
by the judiciary should be deemed of dubious, or no lawful authority. Moreover, the pattern of conduct
reveals disregard of the fundamentals of integrity in the development and implementation of the systems by
the senior, national officers of the Administration of the Courts, deliberately undermining the integrity and
validity of court records and the judicial process.
3.3 Servers of Unverified Identity and Dubious Security
Review of the identity of the servers of the various courts, using standard browsers, failed to discover a single
server of certified identify (HRA C2b). IT experts are likely to deem the systems invalid, based on the failure to
certify the identity of the servers alone.
Typically, the Shin-Bet (secret service) holds the ultimate authority over security of state IT systems. However,
in response on request, the office of Prime Minster (who is in charge of the Shin-Bet) stated that the Shin-Bet
holds no authority over of the servers of the courts. The State Ombudsman's Annual Report (2010) notes that
the servers were removed from the custody of the clerks of the courts and transferred to the custody of a
corporation. And the Administration of Courts refused to answer on a Freedom of Information request: Who
holds the ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel? (HRA
C9e) Therefore, identity, validity, and security of the severs is dubious at best.
3.4 Invalid Implementation of Electronic Signatures
Today, all records of the Israeli courts, with the notable exception of the Supreme Court, are maintained as
electronic records. Regardless, no visible electronic record can be found on any of the courts' records. The
notion of invisible signatures, The Emperor's New Clothes, defies the essence of a signature a symbol
affixed with the intent to accept responsibility (HRA C9d).

Such invalid implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) extends beyond the courts. For example,
the Ministry of Justice denied a Freedom of Information request for a visibly signed copy of the 2006-7 Annual
Report of the Magistrate of Databases, who also holds the authority of Magistrate of Certifying Authorities,
pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act. The reason, provided for the denial: Electronic signatures of a
government officer is a private instrument. (Figure 4) (Hacohen, 2007). Of note, the same office is charged
with privacy protection of the controversial Biometric Database, currently under implementation in the State
of Israel with the explicit intent of its privatization.

Figure 4. Unsigned signature box of the March 29, 2006-7 Annual Report by Attorney Yoram Hacohen,
Magistrate of Databases (including Certifying Authorities, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act) to the
Ministry of Justice (Hacohen, 2007). The signature box says: Truly, Yoram Hacohen, Adv., Magistrate of
Databases, Justice Technology and Information Authority. (Originally signed by a secure electronic signature)
[the parenthetical part in red in the original, jz]. The Ministry of Justice denied a Freedom of Information
request for a visibly signed copy of the record on the grounds that the electronic signature of a government
officer is a private instrument.
Such conditions are related to the privatization of the electronic signature system of the State of Israel to
Comsign, LTD, a private corporation, by Ministry of Justice officers, acting with no lawful authority (HRA C9d).
Of note, it appears that Mozilla is withholding acknowledgment of Comsign electronic signatures, for lack of
sufficient audit data of the Comsign (bugzilla@mozilla, 2014).
3.5 Invalid implementation of Summonses, Authentication, Certification, Service Instruments and
Procedures
3.5.1 Invalid implementation of summonses, notices to appear in court
In almost all courts, originating in the English common law, the initiation of litigation through the issuance and
execution of service of a valid summonses under the signature of the clerk of the court and the seal of the
court is prescribed for the establishment of the jurisdiction of the court in a given matter on the given parties.
Therefore, the validity and integrity of the summons is critical for validity and integrity of the subsequent
litigation as a whole. A textbook on Civil Court Procedure by the late Supreme Court Presiding Justice Yoel
Susman explicitly states the same, relative to the law in Israel.
However, since implementation of the current IT systems of the Israeli courts:
In the Supreme Court: Petitions (matters of original jurisdiction) are heard as Preliminary
Proceedings with no issuance of the the Conditional Decree, which according to the respective
Regulations is the Summons in such procedure.
In the Supreme Court: While all valid court records are maintained in paper court files, the Notices to
Appear in Court (for hearings on petitions) are maintained as electronic records, which according to
the Supreme Court staff, are automatically eliminated from the IT system after the date of the hearing
(Zernik, 2014a).
In the district and magistrate courts, summonses are issued which are not signed, by an unnamed
person, only noted as Office of the Clerk (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Summons in Net-Hamishpat: Ben-Yaakov v Rolnick (5374702-12) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court.
The summons is unsinged, bears no seal of the court, and is issued in the name of Office of the Clerk of the
Magistrate Court, Tel-Aviv.
3.5.2 Invalid implementation of authentication instruments and procedures
Authentication of all judicial records is a fundamental procedure in all courts, originating in the English
common law, and the matter is now internationally acknowledged in the Hague Convention (1961), to which
the State of Israel is a party (see below). Authentication of judicial records is executed through the due service
of such records, duly signed, with an accompanying letter, signed by the Chief Clerk, or those authorized by
him, on the parties to the matter before the court. As is the case in most courts, originating in the English
commons law, due service is quintessential for rendering court decisions valid, effectual, and enforceable. In
his book Civil Court Procedure, the late Presiding Justice Yoel Susman notes the same, regarding Israeli law.
However, since the implementation of the current IT systems of the Israeli courts:
In the Supreme Court: All decisions are mailed unsigned by the justices, bearing the disclaimer
subject to editing and phrasing changes and with no accompanying letter by the clerk of the court
at all.
In the district, magistrate, and labor courts: All decisions are mailed with an unsigned accompanying
letter by an unnamed person (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Authentication letter in Net-Hamishpat. Silman v Social Security (17520-08) in the Tel-Aviv District
Court the August 30, 2012 Accompanying letter of the decision (Figure 3) by Judge Hagai Brenner says:
Accompanying Letter. Attached is a decision record. Date: August 30, 2012. Signature of a Clerk. The record
is unsigned, fails to name its issuer, and bears no seal of the court (Brenner, 2012).
3.5.3 Forgery of certifications of judicial records
The certification of court records by the clerk of the court is a routine procedure in all courts, originating in the
English common law. Duly certified court records are deemed self-authenticated, and are required for
enforcement of court orders and judgments, and when filing such records as admissible evidence. The
Regulations of the Courts, Office of the Clerk (2004), 6a provide that the Chief Clerk is authorized to certify
court record True Copy of the Original.
Following the implementation of the current IT systems of the courts, no valid certification of court records
could be generated in any of the courts, where it has been attempted. However, numerous examples of
forgeries were discovered:
In the Supreme Court: Following the March 2002 untimely death of Supreme Court Chief Clerk
Shmaryahu Cohen and the concomitant changes in IT systems of the Supreme Court, data mining led
to the discovery of numerous decision records, bearing forged certification by the late Chief Clerk, up
to 5 years after his death (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Signature and certification box of Supreme Court Decision in Judith Franco Sidi et al v Authority
pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi Persecutions Act (1582/02). The excerpt in part says: Issued this
date, February 14, 2007. Boaz Okon, Magistrate. This duplicate is subject to editing and phrasing changes.
Shmaryahu Cohen Chief Clerk. By February 2007, Boaz Okon was no longer Registrar of the Supreme Court,
and Shmaryahu Cohen was dead for about five years. Numerous other records of the same nature were
discovered.

In the Supreme Court: Petitioners, who ask for signed and certified copies of decisions in their
matters, routinely receive simulated and/or forged records. Such records typically bear an invalid
certification statement, Duplication is True to the Original, instead of True Copy of the Original,
and are either signed by an unnamed person using an illegible signature, or by a person, who is not
the duly appointed Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court (Figure 8).

a.

b.

c.
Figure 8. Simulation and/or forgery of certifications of Supreme Court decision records. a. June 1, 2008
Decision in Macmull v Bank of Israel and State of Israel (3518/08). The petition originated in fraud by a bank
on Debtor Macmull in the Jerusalem Debtors' Court, and refusal of Bank of Israel to perform its duties as
banking regulator. The petition was summarily denied. The signatures of the justices are all in wet ink, in the
form (-), and in the same hand-writing as the signature of Sarah Lifschitz Chief Clerk. The certifying
statement is invalid - Duplication is True to the Original - instead of True Copy of the Original. Sarah
Lifschitz was not duly appointed Chief Clerk. b. March 3, 2008 Decision in Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08).

The petition originated in fraud on Tax Authority whistle-blower Rotem in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court. The
petition was summarily denied. The record was received in response on request by the Petitioner on Presiding
Justice Asher Grunis. The record is not signed by the justices. The certification statement is invalid, and the
name and title of the signer are not provided. c. March 3, 2008 Decision in Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08).
The record was received in response on repeat request by the Petitioner on Presiding Justice Asher Grunis,
noting the invalidity of the first response. The record is signed by the justices, but is again certified using the
false, invalid certification statement - Duplication is True to the Original. The certification is by Ms Navah
Khalaf, Senior Coordinator, Civil Division (the stamp is hand-altered to read High Court of Justice Division),
but not by a Chief Clerk, as provided by law. Presiding Justice Asher Grunis refused to explain the nature of
the three purportedly certified Supreme Court decision records shown here (Zernik, 2014e).

In the Tel-Aviv Labour Court: Certification was issued by a person, falsely in possession of the Chief
Clerk stamp, while the person, who appears as Chief Clerk holds no appointment record as such
(Figure 9).

Figure 9 . Left: The web page of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court lists Chief Clerk: Ms Orly Hammer. Right: The 29,
2014 Judge Giltzer-Katz Decision, imposing an unusual NIS 4,000 payment in attorneys fees on Plaintiff
Genosar, the Israel Electric Company whistle-blower, was certified using a True Copy of the Original stamp
#49 of an unnamed male Chief Clerk (Giltzer-Katz, 2014). Freedom of Information response shows that Ms
Orly Hammer holds no lawful appointment as Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court, and that stamp #49 is
unlawfully held by Ms Galit Maglid, a secretary in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court.

In the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court: Certification was issued by an unnamed person, who turned out to
be a secretary, using an invalid certification stamp, bearing the statement True Duplication, on an
unsigned Judgment record (Figure 10).

Figure 10. The November 30, 2008 Judge Shoshana Almagor Judgment in Rotem v Baram (73202/04) in the
Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court is unsigned by the Judge. Rafi Rotem is the Tax-Authority whistle-blower, and the
complaint originated in retaliation against him by his supervisors. The complaint was denied. The certification
statement is false and invalid - True Duplication, and the name and title of the signer is not provided.
Freedom of Information response revealed that the holder of stamp #189 is Judge Almagor's secretary, Ms
Michal Abutbul, not a Chief Clerk. Mr Rahamim Asher appears as Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court with no valid appointment record. (Zernik, 2014b,c,d)

3.6 Invalid Implementation of Authorities and Permissions, Discrimination in Access to the Courts
3.6.1 Discrimination in access to the courts
In all district and magistrate courts only attorneys, who are authorized by the specific US court as NetHamishpat users, are permitted access to electronic filing from remote locations at all times. Such attorneys
are permitted to enter records into court docket, bypassing the authority of the clerk of the court .
Unrepresented parties must file on paper in the office of the clerk during opening hours.
Service on attorneys is by email, on unrepresented parties - by paper mail.
Authorized attorneys are permitted comprehensive access to Net-Hamishpat electronic records from remote
locations at all time. Except for the Tel-Aviv District Court, access to electronic court records is also severely
limited or prohibited on unrepresented parties in their own court files, in disregard of the law.
3.6.2 Appearance of attorneys, who are not authorized as counsel of record
Appearance of attorneys, who are not authorized as Counsel of Record for the parties, which they purport to
represent, is a well-known method of fraud upon the court (Bohm, 2008).
In numerous cases, implementation of Net-Hamishpat enabled the appearance and filing of papers by
attorneys, who were not authorized as counsel of record, and without filing the certificates of counsel of
records, as prescribed by law:
In the case of Israel Electric Company whistle-blower Moran Genosar, unauthorized attorneys
appeared on behalf of the Israel Electric Company.
In the criminal prosecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem, unauthorized attorneys
appeared as Public Defenders.
In the case of self-immolated social protest activist Moshe Silman, unauthorized attorneys appeared
on behalf of the Social Security.
3.7 Universal Failure to Docket Summonses, Authentication Records
The issuance of valid summonses, their execution, and their docketing, as prescribed by law, is critical for
commencing valid litigation and for the safeguard of integrity of the courts.
Review of court file records in Net-Hamishpat failed to discover the summonses in a number of cases, and it
remains unknown if they are maintained among the electronic records in Net-Hamishpat at all.
Similarly, no authentication records have been discovered upon inspection of the electronic records in NetHamishpat.
3.8 Adulterated, Forged, and Missing Court Records
Following the implementation of Net-Hamishpat, numerous cases were reported, where judges have altered
or forged court records. The two most widely reported by media, were the cases of Judge Varda Alshech from
the Tel-Aviv District Court and Judge Hila Cohen from the Haifa District Court (Zarchin, 2012, Yoaz, 2005):
Judge Alshech was caught forging court hearing protocols in a number of cases. The case that
generated the most media coverage was one, where she forged a court hearing protocol in order to
file a disciplinary complaint against an attorney, who appeared before her. The judiciary and the
Minister of Justice refused to impose any serious sanctions against Judge Alshech, even after the
Israeli Bar Association called for her immediate removal from the bench.
Judge Hila Cohen was caught fabricating numerous court records, among them protocols of hearings
that never took place in reality. Again, the judiciary and the Minister of Justice refused to take any
meaningful actions against her. Eventually, the Israeli Committee for Judicial Appointments took an
unprecedented action and cancelled her appointment as a judge. Subsequently, Judge Cohen was
awarded enhanced retirement benefits for the rest of her life.
Other, notable cases:
Haaretz daily reported a case, where a detainee was going to be deported, based on a protocol and a
hearing, which never took place in reality. The Ministry of Justice dismissed the case as a secretarial
error.
The Annual Report of the Judiciary Ombudsman (2012) notes that judges hold that they are permitted
to alter decisions and judgments, even after they were given in open court.
The Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2013) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council
reported numerous forged and/or falsified decision records of the Supreme Court, which show
certification True Copy of the Original by the Chief Clerk, up to five years after his death (Figure 7).

In the numerous media reports related to falsification of judicial records in the courts, the fundamental
question was never raised: How was it technically possible?
The most plausible explanation for such conditions in the Israeli courts today is related to the implementation
of the current IT systems of the courts and the undermining of the authority and accountability of the clerk of
the court for integrity of court records. Under paper administration of the courts, judicial records were
forwarded to the clerk of the court, and once stamped and entered, were no longer accessible for judges to
modify. In contrast, the evidence shows that today, the IT systems of the courts permit judges access to alter,
modify, or forge judicial records any time at will.
3.9 Double Books: Denial of Public Access and Unlawful Sealing
By law, public access is permitted to all judicial decisions, unless lawfully sealed.
In practice, Net-Hamishpat permits judges to selectively permit public access to decisions (ss).
4. Case Studies
4.1 Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court
Tax Authority whistle-blower has been subjected for over a decade to what has been described by media as
abuse by the courts. He has never gained the protection, provided by law to whistle-blowers, and the courts
ruled against him in a series of cases. Review of the court records in such cases reveals that Rotem was the
victim of serial fraud in the courts.
In Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, Rotem tried to gain
protection against abuse in the work-place. His complaint was denied.
The case is of particular interest, since it documents the conduct of simulated litigation prior to the
implementation of Net-Hamishpat. The technique was rather primitive: Inspection of the paper court file in
this case reveals that most judicial records are unsigned, with no evidence that they were ever served on the
parties. Obviously, such system, where visible signatures were required on court records, could not be
maintained after the implementation of Net-Hamishpat, which provided more extensive public access to court
records than ever before.

Figure 11: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
Key records are missing, including: Summons, Docket, all authentication records.

Figure 12: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
February 28, 2005 Unsigned - Judge Kobi Vardi Initial Scheduling Order (only appearance of this judge in this
case, with no conference, from chambers) - "The Office of the Clerk shall inform the parties". Judges
consistently avoided the use of the terms "serve", or "service" in this case.

Figure 13: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
November 14, 2005 Unsigned, by an unnamed clerk - Notice to Appear and Demand for payment of court fees.

Figure 14: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court:November 14, 2005 Unsigned, by an unnamed clerk - Second Notice to Appear

Figure 15: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
December 4, 2005 Unsigned, formatted as a letter to District Attorney - Judge Daliah Mark Decision - to
remove customs records, filed by Plaintiff Rotem as evidence, under claim of confidentiality by State.

Figure 16: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
March 13, 2006 Unsigned - Judge Shoshanah Almagor Protocol and Decision - on hearing of evidence.

Figure 17: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
July 9, 2006 Unsigned - Judge Shoshanah Almagor Protocol and Decision - on hearing of evidence.

Figure 18: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
July 13, 2004 Unsigned - Senior Assistant to Tel-Aviv District Attorney Menachem Mizrahi Letter - denying
corruption in the Tax Authority, filed as evidence in the July 9, 2006 Hearing.

Figure 19: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
July 20, 2004 Unsigned - Senior Assistant to Tel-Aviv District Attorney Menachem Mizrahi Letter - denying
corruption in the Tax Authority, filed as evidence in the July 9, 2006 Hearing.

Figure 20: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
July 16, 2006 Unsigned - Judge Shoshanah Almagor Protocol and Decision - on hearing of evidence.

Figure 21: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court:September 23, 2007 Unsigned, missing Seal of the Court, uncertified - National Labor Court Judgment
denying Rotem's Appeal - filed by Defendant as evidence.

Figure 22: Paper court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court:
November 30, 2008 Judge Shoshanah Almagor Judgment - bears no Seal of the Court, no evidence of entry or
of service. "Issued in chambers... Office of the Clerk shall forward copies of the Judgment to the
parties". Judges consistently avoided the use of the terms "serve", or "service" in this case. .
Rotem's request for a signed, certified copy of the Judge Almagor Judgment in his case yielded a simulated
and/or forged court record (Figure 10).
4.2 Criminal prosecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court
Starting in 2002, former Tax Authority senior investigator Rafi Rotem exposed organized crime in government:
Huge tax breaks to tycoons, crime figure, businesses related to the ruling party, sex bribes, and murder of a
"source". The authorities consistently refused to investigate his complaints, while Rotem has been subjected to
harassment, intimidation, and retaliation over the past 12 years. He lost his job, his home, his possessions. As
of 2015, he is facing criminal prosecution on insulting police officers.
The corruption exposed by Rafi Rotem was described by former Attorney General Menachem Mazuz as the
closest to organized crime in government high offices. The case is described by senior journalist Amnon
Dankner as the worst case of miscarriage of justice he has seen in his long career as a journalist, where all
institutions of the justice system gang up on an honest person to trample him and destroy him. In December
2014, Rotem won a decoration by the Israeli Quality Government Movement, where the award committee
was headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Mishael Chesin.
At the same time, Rotem has been subjected since 2013 to prosecution on insulting police officers, following a
series of false arrests and his beating by police.
Review of the court records in various cases involving Tax Authority whistle-blower generated unique
documentation of corruption of the Israeli courts and the justice system. (Zernik, 2014f)
In the ongoing criminal prosecution, a series of attorneys have appeared over the past two years as purported
Public Defenders, but are likely to be acting with no lawful authority and no intention to defend Rotem.
In October 2014, Rotem forwarded requests for copies of all records in the Public Defender's file of his ongoing
criminal prosecution. The requests were forwarded to National Public Defender Yoav Sapir and Pro-tem TelAviv District Public Defender Elkana Leist.
The requests referred in particular to:
Records that document the valid appointment, if any, of outside attorneys, who appeared in court as
Rotem's purported Public Defenders;
Decisions that were served on the Public Defenders by the Court, if any, and
Evidence that was produced by the prosecution, if any.
The requests were filed as part of efforts to further document the nature of the process, now under way in the
Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court. The evidence so far indicates that the ongoing criminal prosecution of Rotem in the
Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court is Fraud upon the Court, as part of retaliation against a whistle-blower.
4.2.1 Purported Public Defenders
The requests were forwarded to the District and National Public Defenders after the attorneys, who appeared
as purported Public Defenders refused to respond on Rotem's written requests to access the same records. [58] The Israeli Regulations of the Public Defender's Office, prescribes that the Defendant be sent a written
notice by the District Public Defender's office when an outside attorney is appointed as Public Defender.
Rotem received no such notice over the past two years.
The Israeli Criminal Court Procedure Act also prescribes that that outside Public Defenders file in court their
appointment records, or make a statement on the records to that effect. None of the attorneys, who had
appeared so far, did so. [9]
During the past two years, the Prosecution failed to produce its evidence to the Defence, but the purported
outside Public Defenders never filed the motions, provided by law, to enforce the production of the evidence.
Even after the judge in this case ordered in summer 2014 purported Public Defender Yossi Saka to file notice in
Court, in case the Prosecution failed to produce the entire evidence within the following 30 days, the Public
Defender failed to do so. [9]

Figure 23: Purported Public Defenders - the law-firm "Barkan & Simon": Attorney Nir Barkan denied that
such law-firm existed at all. Attorneys Itzik Sadeh purported to appear as Public Defender for Rotem with no
Certificate of Counsel or appointment by the court, and purported to consent, without Rotem's knowledge or
consent, to conduct including the admission of evidence with no witnesses in the criminal prosecution.
Two of the purported outside Public Defenders appeared, according to the District Public Defender as part of a
law-firm. Review showed that the law firm never existed at all.
The third purported outside Public Defender, Attorney Yossi Saka, informed Defendant Rotem of material
conflicts of interests, and noticed Rotem in writing that he stopped representing him. Next, the same attorney
appeared in court, and stated that he would continue to represent Rotem.
A notice was previously filed with National Public Defender Yoav Sapir, regarding the failure of the outside
Public Defenders to comply with the law and to perform their duties. Pro-tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender
Elkana Leist responded by fax, which was missing the coat of arms of the State of Israel at its heading, was
missing a reference number, as required in official State correspondence, and which said that review of the
matter with the Defendant Rotem showed that the Defendant had no concern regarding conduct of the
purported Public Defenders. Defendant Rotem denied that he had any contact with the District Public
Defender's office in the relevant period...
A repeat notice was then filed with the National Public Defender Yoav Sapir, noting the false response by Protem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender Elkana Leist.

Figure 24: September 18, 2014 response letter from the office of National Public Defender Yoav Sapir, missing
the coat of arms of the State of Israel, missing the required reference number in State correspondence, and

bearing an invalid fax header, dating the transmission to December 23, 2013. Attorney Yoav Sapir refuses to
respond on repeat requests to confirm that such letter is an authentic communication from his office.
The response fax from the office National Public Defender Yoav Sapir stated that review with the Tel-Aviv
District Public Defender showed that there was no fault in conduct of the purported outside Public Defenders.
However, the fax was missing the coat of arms of the State of Israel at its heading, was missing a reference
number, required in official State correspondence, and was transmitted from an invalid fax machine, showing
a transmission date of December 2013 (Figure 24). Repeat requests to National Public Defender Yoav Sapir,
asking that he confirm that the September 18, 2014 fax response was an authentic communication from his
office, remained unanswered.
According to the Israeli Criminal Court Procedure Act, if the prosecution files notice that it would request a
prison sentence, the Defendant must be represented by counsel. Here, the Prosecution filed such notice with
the indictment.
Reviewing the entire evidence, a reasonable person would most likely conclude that both Tel-Aviv District Protem Public Defender Elkana Leist and National Public Defender Yoav Sapir are colluding with the Prosecution
and the Judge in this case in conducting criminal prosecution with no counsel for the Defendant, only the
appearance of such. Such conduct should be deemed Fraud upon the Court, serious public corruption, and
serious violation of Human Rights.
On such background, denial of Defendant Rotem's access to his Public Defender's records would be
inexplicable, providing further evidence of the fraud being committed.

Figure 25: Hyperlinks to seven (7) police investigation files were inserted in the electronic records in the IT
system of the court. although the police prosecution has never provided the evidence to the Defendant yet, a
year and a half after filing the indictment. Israeli law prohibits filing of evidence without providing a
reasonable opportunity for the Defendant to review it first.
4.2.2 The Prosecution
The filing of the indictment in this case stands contrary to the fundamentals of justice: Policemen and law
enforcement officers beat Rotem, deprived him of his fundamental rights, engaged in serial false arrests. None
of them was held accountable. And yet, police is prosecuting Rotem for "insulting policemen".
The failure by the Prosecution to produce the evidence to the Defence and to the Defendant, two years after
filing of the indictment, while hyperlinking police investigation files with the court (Figure 25), should also be
deemed as perversions of justice and violation of the Israeli Criminal Court Procedure Act.
4.2.3 The Judge and the court
Judge Yael Pradelsky fails to comply with provisions of the Criminal Court Procedure Act, pertaining to approval
by the Court of the appointment of Public Defenders and their replacement. Judge Pradelsky also issues
decisions and protocols, which are not duly served.
Chief Clerk Asher Rahamim refuses to respond on repeat requests to certify Judge Yael Pradelsky's purported
decisions "True Copy of the Original".
Both the Chief Clerk and the Presiding Judge also refuse to respond on repeat requests to present Chief Clerk
Rahamim Asher's appointment record as "Chief Clerk". Response by the office of Administration of Courts
documented that Mr Asher holds no valid appointment records as Chief Clerk.
4.2.4 Senior Judicial Officers: Presiding Judge Zivah Hadassi-Herman and Presiding Justice Asher Grunis

Notices were forwarded to Presiding Justice Asher Grunis of the Supreme Court and Presiding Judge Zivah
Hadassi-Herman of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, providing the evidence for perversion of justice in this case,
and urging them to take corrective actions. Neither took took any corrective action. Presiding Justice Grunis
reply stated, "You are not a party in this case", to which the response stated, "I am performing my civic duty"...
4.2.5 Previous court cases involving whistle-blower Rotem
The findings in the current criminal prosecution against whistle-blower Rafi Rotem is not unique at all. Review
of other court files in his cases uncovered similar findings:
In Rotem v Baram and State of Israel in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, review of the paper court file
revealed that key decisions were neither signed, nor duly served.
In Rotem v Ministry of Treasury in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court - only an unsigned Judgment record was
discovered. Likewise, the copy of the same Judgment, which was filed as evidence by the State in Rotem v
Baram and State of Israel was unsigned and uncertified in disregard of the law.
In Rotem v Ministry of Treasury in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court, media also reported the admission of
inadmissible evidence from Rotem's personal employee file, likely to be forged records, and the failure of
witnesses to take the stand.
In Rotem v Samet in the High Court of Justice, Presiding Justice Asher Grunis refused to provide Rotem duly
signed and certified copy of the purported Judgment.
4.2.4 Net-Hamishpat - IT system of the court a tool for Fraud upon the Court
Rotem's criminal prosecution presents unique evidence of the employment of Net-Hamishpat as a tool for
Fraud upon the Court and perversion of justice.
Although the evidence has not been produced to the Defendant, seven (7) Israel Police investigation files
are hyperlinked in the court file, in disregard of the Criminal Procedure Act (Figure 25).

a.

b.
Figure 26: September 23, 2014, List of Decisions in State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): a. As it appeared
from a public access terminal of Net-Hamishpat. No decisions are listed in this criminal prosecution, which
commenced in February 2013. The screen says: "No details found". b. As it appears from the Clerk of the
Court access terminal of Net-Hamishpat. The Israeli courts created a double book system, where they routinely
hide decisions from public access, although the law permits public access to court decisions that are not
lawfully sealed.

The case demonstrates the practice of keeping double-books in Net HaMishpat. By September 2014, the
public access system showed no decisions in this case, but the local Office of the Clerk terminal showed
twelve (12) decisions in this case (Figure 26).

Figure 27: August 24, 2014 first "Post-it Decision" by Judge Yael Pradelsky, Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, stating: "I
have read." The "Post-it Decision" is superimposed on a copy of the 57-page document, forwarded to Presiding
Justice of the Supreme Court Asher Grunis by Joseph Zernik, PhD, documenting the fraud being perpetrated by
Judge Yael Pradelsky and others in the criminal prosecution against whistle-blower Rafi Rotem in the Tel-Aviv
Magistrate Court.

Records and purported decisions were filed in the electronic system in disregard of the law, including an
outside record by this author, documenting the fraud upon the court being perpetrated in this case (Figure
27)
Decisions were registered in the system, although according to the system itself, none of the decisions was
duly served.

4.3 Israel Electric Company whistle-blower Moran Genosar in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court
The Israel Electric Company (IEC) is a well-known centre of corruption. Investigation of bribes by Siemens (part
of Siemens' global bribing campaign) to senior IEC officers, including members of the Board of Directors,
relative to the purchase of gas turbines, is dragged with no reasonable explanation for years. In the
meanwhile, persons, who probably received millions of dollars in bribes continue to serve on the Board. The
IEC also purchased control systems from Siemens, under circumstances (Zernik, 2014g).
As result, for years the IEC has been involved in very large lawsuits against Siemens, relative to both the bribes
and the cartel conduct.
Moran Genosar, an IT system analyst, claims that he was fired from his work in IEC after he had exposed
deficiencies in the control systems purchased from Siemens. Moreover, Gensar claims that after he found an
alternative workplace, the IEC retaliated and managed to get him fired there too.
Genosar sued the IEC in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court. Judge Arlela Giltzer-Katz is presiding in the case, and
attorneys from the law-firm of Herzog, Fux Neeman appeared in the case on behalf of IEC. Former Israeli
Justice Minister Neeman, who was subject of criminal investigation for filing false papers in court, is a named
partner in the firm.

Figure 28: Net HaMishpat, the IT system of the Israeli courts shows Attorney Yosef Ashkenazi (senior partner
in the law-firm of Herzog, Fux, Neeman) as Counsel for IEC in Genosar v IEC. The law-firm of Herzog, Fux,
Neeman itself is not listed as counsel of record. According to the clerk's office, no Certificate of Counsel was
filed in this case, but access to the court file listing of counsel was denied. Other attorneys from the same lawfirm appeared in the case and filed papers, which according to Genosar failed to include affidavits by
authorized IEC officers, as required by Israeli law. Judge Ariela Giltzer-Katz failed to dismiss such filings.
Repeat attempts by Genosar to inspect the court file in his own case were denied by Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv
Labour Court Orly Hammer, [4] in disregard of the Israeli law and Human Rights.
Regardless, the records that were discovered raise serious concerns of corruption in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court,
and fraud upon the court in the litigation of Genosar v ICE. Of note, Genosar's own counsel never alerted him
to the multiple deficiencies in conduct of the litigation, and also failed to update him regarding developments
in the litigation...
The case also documents the fraud inherent in the implementation and operation of Net HaMishpat - the IT
system of the Israeli courts.

Figure 29: In Genosar v IEC in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court, the office of the clerk of the Court says that there are
17 decisions in this case today. Net HaMishpat, the public access IT system shows only one. [7]
On September 29, 2014, Judge Giltzer-Katz issued a decision, largely denying Plaintiff Genosar's request for
discovery of records by Defendant IEC. Moreover, the decision imposed on Genosar the payment of NIS 4,000
in attorneys fees and expenses. Moreover, given Genosar's unsound financial conditions, IEC attorneys asked
that the court require a large deposit from Genosar, in case he would be later charged with attorneys fees

upon losing the case. Such deposit requirement would undermine Genosar's ability to continue with the
litigation.
As is the case in the courts of other nations, certification of judicial records by the clerk of the court is required
for their enforcement. The September 29, 2014 Judge Giltzer-Katz Decision was indeed certified True Copy of
the Original (Figure x). However, the certification stamp fails to name the Chief Clerk who signed the
certification, and the stamp is for a male Chief Clerk, while the web page of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court names
a female Chief Clerk - Ms Orly Hammer. (Figure x)

Figure 30: Left: The web page of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court lists Chief Clerk Ms Orly Hammer. Right: The 29,
2014 Judge Giltzer-Katz Decision, imposing NIS 4,000 payment on Plaintiff Genosar was certified, using a True
Copy of the Original stamp of an unnamed male Chief Clerk, #49. [4] Freedom of Information response
shows that Ms Orly Hammer holds no lawful appointment as Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court, and
that stamp #49 is held by Ms Galit Maglid, another employee of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court.
Response by the office of Administration of Courts on a Freedom of Information request shows:
a. Ms Orly Hammer holds no lawful appointment record as Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court, and
b. The Chief Clerk, True Copy of the Original stamp #49 is held by Ms Galit Maglid, a Tel-Aviv Labour Court
employee [].
The failure to protect whistle-blowers, and the undesirable outcome, relative to the struggle to eradicate
government corruption, have been the subject of ongoing debate in recent years in Israel. Various initiatives
were launched to enact stronger laws for the protection of whistle-blowers. However, as documented in the
case of IEC whistle-blower Genosar, more laws are unlikely to yield the desirable effect, given lack of integrity
in the courts.
4.4 Criminal prosecution of Roman Zadorov on murder charges in the Nazareth District Court
In September 2010, Roman Zadorov was convicted in the 2006 brutal murder of 12 year old Ta'ir Rada.
Zadorov was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Nazareth District Court. Many believe that Zadorov was
falsely prosecuted, falsely convicted, and falsely sentenced, among them the victim's parents. In November
2012, the conviction was appealed to the Supreme Court with new forensic expert opinions. In March 2013,
the case was returned to the Nazareth District Court for review of the new evidence. Nevertheless, in
February 2014, the Nazareth District Court again convicted Zadorov in the Ta'ir murder. In his 2014
Judgement, Presiding Judge Yitzhaq Cohen attacked forensic expert Maya Forman, who provided an opinion
for the Defendant in this case. At present the case is again under appeal.
The court records from the Nazareth District Court in Net-Hamishpat shows that under the Judgments tab,
the original September 14, 2010 Judgment is not listed. The February 24, 2014 Supplemental Judgment is
listed as Order on Defendant's attorney to file Certificate of Counsel.

Figure 31: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court. The Judgments tab in
Net-Hamishpat shows that the September 14, 2010 Judgment, convicting Zadorov of murder and sentencing
him to life in prison is not listed. The February 24, 2014 Supplemental Judgment, which again convicted
Zadorov of murder, after review of new evidence, is listed as Order on Defendant's attorney to file Certificate
of Counsel.
In November 2014, with the case still pending before the courts, Presiding Judge of the Nazareth District Court
Yitzhaq Cohen, who doubled as Presiding Judge of the forum of three judges in Zadorov's case, resigned in the
midst of a sex crimes investigation, including alleged sex crimes in chambers. In late December 2014, a group
of citizens, who support Zadorov's cause, including attorneys and physicians, submitted to the Attorney
General a criminal complaint, alleging deliberate fraud in the framing of Zadorov and falsification of evidence
in order to convict him. The named culprits include the translator from Russian to Hebrew, who generated
what was purported to be Zadorov's confession, two police investigators, who were involved in production
and/or destruction of physical evidence, and an attorney, who served as the prosecutor in the case.
The case exposed unprecedented corruption of the Israeli criminal justice system. Regarding conduct of the
prosecution in this case, Prof Motta Kremnitzer, a criminal law expert, wrote it was scary. Questions were
also raised regarding the Israel Police investigation methods, including extraction of confessions and handling
of evidence in the crime scene. Integrity of the State Forensic Institute was exposed as lacking, and serious
doubts were also raised regarding conduct of the Public Defenders, who failed all along to obtain the full
evidence from the Prosecution. Finally, the case raised again the question of extremely high conviction rate in
criminal prosecutions in Israel, and doubts regarding the level of false convictions.
A Facebook groups, supporting Zadorov's acquittal lists over 30,000 members. An Israeli pop star recorded a
song in his support. The unusual media coverage (which was subject of complaints by the Nazareth judges)
and public opinion had a major effect, causing repeat review of the case. So far, with little effect.
In a related case, forensic physician Maya Forman claimed that she suffered retaliation and her appointment
as Chief of the State Forensic Institute was blocked by the State Prosecution, as a result of her opinion for
Defendant Zadorov in the Nazareth District Court. The litigation in Dr Forman's case became a major stage,
where the scope of the corruption in the Zadorov litigation was exposed. Another forensic expert, Dr Chen
Kugel, admitted that he was forced by the State Prosecution to alter his affidavit in the Zadorov case, and Dr
Forman claimed that the Zadorov case was not unique and that the State Prosecution routinely pressured
forensic experts to cater to the State Prosecution by providing supportive opinions.
Therefore, the records of Dr Forman's litigation provide a critical source for evaluating the conduct of the
Zadorov litigation. Dr Forman's litigation is listed as not sealed. However, any effort to access the court
records in Net-Hamishpat yields a General Error message (Figure 32).

Figure 32: Dr Forman v Head of the National Forensic Institute (34157-07-14) in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court.
Top: Opening page of Net-Hamishpat court file shows that the case is not sealed. Bottom: Any attempt to view
court records in the case yields a General Error message.
4.5 Debtor Shlomo Levy in the Jerusalem Debtors' Court
Israeli Debtors' Courts are administrative courts, operating under the Israeli Ministry of Justice, under the
Enforcement and Collection Authority. The evidence shows that such courts operate with no due process of
law:
They have no lawful clerk of the court, although the Israel courts themselves ruled that a court with
no lawful clerk is an incompetent court.
They fail to serve valid decision records on debtor.
They operate fraudulent IT systems, which include accounting system that routinely defrauds the
debtors.
And yet, the Debtors' Courts are authorized to deprive Israeli citizens of liberty, property and more. The
records show that these courts engage in the routine fraud on the debtors by banks, large corporations,
attorneys and Debtors' Courts magistrates. Regardless of ongoing protests, the Israeli authorities fail to take
action. The operation of the Debtors' Courts, where in 2012 there were 2.8 million open cases (in a nation of
about 8 millions) is a significant cause in soaring poverty in Israel, and a cardinal sign of corruption of the
current Israeli government in general, and the justice system in particular.
Shlomo Levy's file provides unique, detailed evidence for:

Invalidity of Ornet- IT system of the Debtors' Courts.

Invalidity of the accounting spreadsheets of the Debtors' Courts

Invalidity of the conduct of the Office of the Clerk of the Debtors' Courts.
Serious violations of the Human Rights relative to fair hearings, through the admittance of
inadmissible court records.

The patronage by the Israeli courts of the fraud in the Debtors' Courts.
The Ornet Docket shows that the file was closed on March 13, 2002, pursuant to the Debt-holder's request.
On March 13, 2002, notice was also issued of closing of the Debtors' Court file, pursuant to request by the
Debt Holder.
Furthermore, on March 23, 2002, the file was transferred to the archive, for lack of activity. Then, on January
25, 2006, the file was returned from archive, and on August 7, 2011, collection actions were resumed.
The November 14, 2011 Accounting Pages show a typical spreadsheet of the Debtors' Courts, which is
incomprehensible as to the registration of basic accounting transactions.

April 10, 1995 the account opens with a debt of NIS 8,560.

March 13-15, 2000 the account , which swelled through various fees to NIS 24,261, is paid off and
then closed.

September 2, 2000 the account is charged monthly NIS 7.00 with the incompressible # mark,
while the balance remains at NIS 0.0

September 3, 2009 the account balance jumps to NIS 60,916 with no explanation at all.
Additional records show:
Following the restart of collection actions in 2009, the Debtor challenged the re-opening of the file.
The Debtors' Court could not provide records to explain the transactions in this court file, which had
already been shredded.
On January 18, 2010 Decision by the Magistrate of the Debtors' Court ordered the Office of the Clerk
of the Debtors' Court to explain the re-opening of the file.
The January 19, 2010 Response, a handwritten note by Moshe, with no last name and no title,
states that the the presumed reason for closing and re-opening of the file was an error. This
presumption is based on the dates of the actions, with no foundation in records.
Regardless of the challenges by the Debtor, the Court continued collection actions on the sum of NIS
60.916, which continued to swell.

Figure 33: In re Borrower Shlomo Levy (03-15049-98-01) in the Jerusalem Debtors' Court. The January 19, 2010
hand-written note by a person, identified only by first name Moshe, was entered in response to a magistrate
decision, asking the administrator of the Jerusalem Debtors' Court to explain the resumption of collection
actions in the case of Borrower Shlomo Levy, after it had been closed for years, and after Borrower Levy had
filed in court the notice, issued years earlier, that the case had been closed years earlie at the request of the
Debt-holder. The note in part says: The assumption is that the case was closed in error... based on the closing
date and the reopening of the case. The paper court file was no longer available, since it had been shredded.
The electronic court file was available, but the part, pertaining to the years, during which the debt had already
been collected, was selectively deleted. The hand-written note fails to bear any stamp, fails to list the full
name of the writer, or his title. Based on such record, collection of the entire debt was resumed.
The evidence shows that the fraud in the Debtors' Courts is a high level fraud ():

False response by the Enforcement and Collection Authority on a Freedom of Information request
(regarding the lawful foundation for the operation of office of the clerk in the collections bureaus, if
any) was provided by a senior officer, Ms Rivca Aharoni, with no lawful appointment as a Freedom of
Information Officer, in an unsigned letter.

Decision on complaint, which was filed with the Ministry of Justice, regarding conduct of Ms Aharoni,
concluded that indeed she was not authorized as a Freedom of Information Officer that response
letters on Freedom of Information requests had to be signed.

Regardless, Ms Aharoni continued to issue a false, unsigned answer on a later request, pertaining to
specification and validation in compliance with Israeli government standards of Kelim Shluvim - the
new IT system of the Debtors' Court.
4.6 Motti Ashkenazi+76 others - petition in the High Court of Justice
Mounting evidence indicates that large-scale fraud is perpetrated on the debtors in the debtors' courts
through collusion of banks, large corporations, attorneys and magistrates. In 2012 there were 2.8 open cases
open in these courts, and the fraud is estimated at several billions NIS per year. The petition Moti
Ashkenazi+76 others v Minister of Justice and Director of the Debtors' Courts (2300/11) originates in an

arbitrary and capricious decision of the debtors' courts to stop the service on the debtors (almost all of them
unrepresented individuals) of decisions, longer than 17 lines. The debt-holders (almost all banks and large
corporations, which are represented by attorneys) continue to receive immediate service of the decisions by
electronic mail. The conduct of legal process, where decisions are served on one side only, would be deemed
a serious violation of the human right of fair hearing, pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The petition is of particular interest, since it involved at once three IT systems of the Israeli courts:
Ornet IT system of the debtors' courts at the commencing of the petition.
Kelim Shluvim IT system, which was developed and implemented during the time of the petition.
Name Unknown IT system of the Supreme Court, where the petition was under way.
In such petition, the Supreme Court conducted for over three years "preliminary proceedings", which have no
basis in the law of the State of Israel. Inspection of the records in this case also documents perversions that
would be deemed conduct of simulated litigation and the issuance of simulated court records (Zernik, 2014h).
The Respondents in the partition - Minster of Justice and Director of the Debtors' Courts - never denied the
facts in this matter: First, they claimed that the failure to serve the debtors resulted from computer problems
(but the computer systems of the debtors' courts was not changed during this period). Later they claimed that
the issue originated in problems with the paper envelope size... (but no such problem existed in prior years).
Additionally, every half year or a year, State Counsel claimed in court that there was progress in addressing the
issue.
In short: The response by the State authorities would be by any external observer lacking in common sense.
One June 3, 2014, after more than 3 years, the Supreme Court issued a "Judgment":
"The updated notices by Respondents, dated June 2, 2014, and April 10, 2014 show that progress has been
made in the implementation of a new IT system, which is now operated under "pilot" in the Kfar Saba Debtors'
Court... We believe that with arrangement of the module that permits the mailing of decisions, longer than 17
lines, by all debtors' courts, the remedy sought by the Petition was provided, and the Petition was rendered
superfluous... Therefore, we order the deletion of the Petition."
One should notice that unusual language of the "Judgment":
It fails to refer to "service", only "mailing";
It fails to state that the Court found the remedy worthy, only "believes" so, and
It did not "deny" the Petition, but ordered it "deleted".
The relevant Regulations of High Court of Justice Procedures do not refer to Deletion of a petition, only to its
summarily denial. In the Regulations of Civil Court Procedure, Deletion is permitted, as an action, which is
similar to summary denial. But summary denial after more than three years of proceedings, several hearings,
and numerous requests and responses is unheard off.
In his July 17, 2014 filing, Counsel for the Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to void its June 3, 2014
Judgment. The request notes that examination of the new IT system, Kelim Shluvim under "hot pilot",
showed that the system did not address the issue of failure to serve decisions on Debtors, and the system
made false interest calculations. Therefore, Counsel for the Petitioners claimed that the Judgment in this case
was based on false representations by State Counsel for the State Respondent.
As part of the Petitioners' request for voiding the judgment in the petition, counsel noted in his July 21, 2014
filing:
"On October 28, 1991 the Israeli government adapted an IT Development Protocol (Decision 103/eco), and
consequently, the protocol was made part of Directives of the General Accounting Office of the Ministry of
Treasury. The Protocol defines procedures for development of IT systems (from initiation, through
specification, construction, examination and implementation). There is no doubt that had the Respondents
complied with the Protocol, the flaws, detailed in their letter to me, could never come to exist."
In a parallel, in the July 21, 2014 letter to the Director of the Debtors' Courts, Counsel for the petitioner asks:

Who signed on behalf of the State on the Specifications of the new IT system?

Was development conducted under core management by a State employee, and who was that
employee?

Was the system subjected to validation, and who signed off on the validation?
Separately, review of the records of the petition in the Supreme Court's file raised serious concerns regarding
the nature of the process under way. In this petition, three justices of the Supreme Court, headed by Presiding
Justice Asher Grunis conducted for over three years "Preliminary Proceedings", which have no basis in the law
of the State of Israel. Moreover, inspection of the records revealed perversions, which would be deemed
conduct of simulated litigation and issuance of simulated court records fraud:

Both the law of the State of Israel and the law of other nations, where the courts originate in the
English common law, hold civil litigation that commenced with no summonses, invalid and ineffectual
litigation. Pursuant to the Regulations of the High Court of Justice (of the Supreme Court),
"Conditional Decree", issued by the Chief Clerk of the Court is the summons in petitions to the
Supreme Court. However, in the petition of Moti Ashkenazi no "Conditional Decree" was ever issued.

Instead, the IT system docket shows "Notices to Appear in Court", which have no foundation in the
Regulations of the Supreme Court (High Court of Justice). Moreover, upon inspection of the paper
Supreme Court's paper file, no such "Notices to Appear in Court" were discovered. Staff of the Office
of the Clerk claimed that the "Notices to Appear in Court" are self-eliminating electronic record. Such
records disappear from the Supreme Court's IT system after the due date of the appearance...

Presiding Justice Asher Grunis refused to respond on repeat requests to provide certified True Copy
of the Original copies of his own decisions in this petition.
Effectively, in handling this petition, the Supreme Court has so far provided its patronage to the corruption of
the debtors' courts. The large-scale fraud in the Debtors' Courts is a unique example of corruption caused by
capital-government collusion. And the records of the Supreme Court in this petition provide a unique example
of the fraud perpetrated in the Supreme Court, through the employment of its own invalid IT systems.

5. Treaties, Conventions: Hague Apostille Treaty (1961), Basel Accords on Banking Supervision
The Hague Apostille Treaty abolished the requirement for legalization of foreign public documents, and
established instruments for mutually recognized certification of court records. The State of Israel entered the
Treaty in 1981, but the current study documents lack of integrity in the certification of Israeli court records,
undermining compliance with the Treaty (HRA C10a).
Accords Basel I, Basel II and Basel III were issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The
US, a party to the Basel Accords, should be deemed failing to fulfil its duties and obligations by decriminalizing
banking fraud.
5.1 Fraud in certification procedure, pursuant to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961)
Both the Administration of Courts and the Ministry of Justice refused to answer, or provided invalid, or false
and deliberately misleading responses on Freedom of Information requests, pertaining to the foundation for
the changes in certification practices in the Supreme Court, or the Apostille certification procedures,
appointment records of the chief clerks of the courts.

Figure 34. Fraud in Apostille certification arrangement, published online by the Judicial Authority. Left: True
apostille form, as authorized by the Hague Apostille Convention (1961. Right: A sample apostille form,
published on the web site of the Judicial Authority of the State of Israel, falsely represented as the true
apostille form, as authorized by the Convention. The form, published by the Judicial Authority, purports that
an Advocate, acting as a Notary, is permitted to certify court decisions, which the Regulations of the Courts
Office of the Clerk (2004) authorize the Chief Clerks to certify. Furthermore, the latter form permits a member
of the staff of the Office of the Clerk, to sign the apostille form, as certification of the signature of the Notary,
with the Seal of the Court, in a manner that appears as a valid certification by a clerk of the attached court
decision. In fact, the arrangement, published online, specifically states that in executing the apostille, the
Office of the Clerk certified ONLY the signature of the notary, but not the attached court record. The
arrangement is opined as fraud on the People of Israel, and also on the People and the courts of other nations,
who are parties to the Convention. It is part of a pattern of false certifications on records of the courts of the
State of Israel. Both the Administration of Courts and the Ministry of Justice refuse to disclose, who

authorized this arrangement, and who and when authorized its online publication. The Chief Clerk of the
Supreme Court refused to provide apostille certification of judicial records of the Supreme Court.
6. Discussion
The fundamental deficiencies in matters of high constitutional significance in a national, long-term project,
overseen by senior national judicial officers, cannot be reasonably deemed the result of oversight or human
error. Moreover, the overview in the current report documents that the courts have consistently stripped the
systems and the records from any evidence of authenticity and certification as lawful State records. The
combination cannot be reasonably be deemed a matter of chance.
6.1 Simulated litigation and authentication of court records from the Jewish law perspective
The leap, taken by the courts of the State of Israel, in developing and implementing invalid record systems in
the courts, stands in contrast, not only of hundreds of years of English common law, but thousands of years of
Jewish law. Validity and authentication of legal records are elaborated in Talmudic discourse, for example,
relative to marriage and divorce.
The marriage ceremony itself was designed so that even an illiterate woman would be able to ascertain the
legal validity of the transaction, through the exchange of the ring in front of competent witnesses. Likewise,
special authentication procedures were established for transactions, conducted with incompetent parties,
such as minors.
The conduct of mock litigation violates at least three of the Ten Commandments, and in later Jewish law, it is
deemed Gneyvat Da'at HaTzibur [widespread public deception jz]. Conduct of mock litigation is also
provided as the essence of corruption of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel in the case of Naboth's Vineyard.
Based on review of part of the findings of the current report, a senior member of the faculty of the Hebrew
University, Jerusalem, filed a formal request for Halachic ruling by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, a widely recognized
Talmudic authority, "Is the Supreme Court of the State of Israel engaged in Gneyvat Da'at HaTzibur?
6.2 Duties and Responsibilities of the Clerk of the Court
The general pattern that emerges from review of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of
Israel, and corresponding systems in the state and federal courts in the United States is the following:
Rendering the nature of electronic signature ambiguous in the transition from paper to electronic
record systems.
Implementation of electronic signature systems, which are invisible to the public.
Deletion of any mention of the office of the Clerk of the Court from the electronic records.
Falsification of the remaining authentication and certification procedures, where the hand signature
of an individual clerk is required.
6.3 "Privatization" of Public Records and Undermining the Office of the Clerk of the Court
Public records emerged in the last middle ages as key instrument for the administration of a civilized society.
The earliest public records were birth, marriages, and burial records. Later, in the English common law, court
records were accorded the same status. The right to inspect and to copy court records is considered essential
for transparency of the courts and the judicial process, and for the safeguard of the courts against corruption.
Implementing electronic record systems in the courts, could have enhanced transparency. In fact, as explicitly
ruled by former Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch of the Supreme the implementation of current electronic records
systems in the courts of the State of Israel, such systems led to restricting public access. [13]
The office of the Clerk of the Court is deemed the lawful custodian of the public records in the courts of most
"western democracies". The examples from the courts of the State of Israel, discussed here, and similar
examples from other jurisdictions, show that undermining the authority of the office of the Clerk of the Court
was central to the implementation of unlawful electronic record systems.
As detailed in the 2010 State if Israel's Ombudsman's Report, [8] custody of both the electronic record systems
and the servers of the electronic records of the courts of the State of Israel were "privatized" over the past
decade. Likewise, the delegation of certification of apostilles of judicial records, pursuant to the Hague
Convention, to notaries, should also be deemed a form of "privatization". The notion of "privatization" of any
electronic record sysrtem, which is essential for the safeguard of a civilized society, should be deemed illconceived and absurd. Included in the list of such systems are electronic record systems of the courts, of the
prisons, electronic voting machines, to list just a few.
On the background of conditions of the justice system of the State of Israel, documented in the current report,
concerns should be raised, regarding the insistence of the government of the State of Israel on passing and

executing a Biometric Database Act. Particularly alarming is the stated intent to "privatize" the biometric
database.
6.4 The Israeli Constitutional Revolution
The State of Israel has not adopted a constitution to this date. In the early 1990s, the Knesset (legislature)
enacted two Basic Laws, in effort to establish fundamental Human Rights by law. Moreover, under the
tenure of Presiding Justice Aharon Barak (1995-2006), reputed as a "liberal", and to a lesser degree under the
tenure of Presiding Justice Dorit Beinisch (2006-2012) the Supreme Court of the State of Israel purportedly
spear-headed a Constitutional Revolution. (Zernik, 2012c) Various Constitutional Rights were purportedly
construed by the Supreme Court.
In contrast with the image, which Barak tried to nurture, others saw him as an enlightened despot at best
(Posner, 2007).
The current report stands in stark contrast to such popular myths. Data mining documents that Presiding
Justice Aharon Barak presided over unprecedented corruption of the records of the courts of the State of
Israel. With it, the Human Rights for Due Process/Fair Hearings, and Access to Justice through national
tribunals for protections of rights were irreparably compromised.
Reports in the Israeli press in recent years document the falsification of court records in the District Courts and
Detainees' Courts, and refusal of the appropriate government agencies to take actions against the responsible
judges.
6.5 Unannounced regime change in the State of Israel
The evidence, outlined in the current report (and the Online Appendices) shows that over the past decade, key
functions of the lawful government of the State of Israel have been unlawfully seized by individuals, groups
and corporations. Such transition amounts to an unannounced regime change in the State of Israel.
From criminological perspective, the conduct, which is outlined in the current paper should be deemed
Organized State Crime.
6.6 Socio-economic implications
The case studies in current report pertain to corruption of government, and fraud by banks and large
corporations on the citizens of the State of Israel, under the color of law and the appearance of the rule of
law.
The past decade in Israel has shown rapid increase in poverty and ever increasing gaps in income and assets.
That in a nation that was founded and was controlled for decades by socialist governments. Today, Israel is
the first among OECD nations in various parameters of poverty (Ferziger, 2014).
A wave of social protest in Israel started in summer 2011, It focused on the exorbitant cost of living, housing
costs, privatization of State natural resources, and the establishment of an economy controlled by a handful of
Tycoons. Although government committees were established to propose measures to address the issues
brought up by the social protest movement, by and large, both the perception among the public and expert
reports suggest that the situation has only deteriorated.
6.7 The State of Israel is not alone
Conditions of the Israeli justice system, outlined in the current report are not unique. Peer-reviewed papers
and UN reports detail similar conduct in the state and federal courts in the United States. The Human Rights
Alert submission for the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States was in part
based on analysis of fraud in the electronic record systems of the California courts and prisons. The submission
was reviewed by and incorporated into the official UN report with a note referring to corruption of the courts
and the legal profession in California.
In particular, the current socio-economic crisis in the United States has been repeatedly tied to lack of integrity
of the US justice system:
The January 2008 collapse of Countrywide Financial Corporation, key event in eruption of the crisis, was
directly caused by the New York Times' report of "recreated letters" filed in a US Court.
Yale Law School Visiting Professor Brescia opined, "it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the US court
system in U.S. history where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of
thousands of cases".
US media have widely and repeatedly reported a "foreclosure fraud epidemic" in the courts.
Economics Nobel Prize laureate Prof Krugman described "...a system in which only the little people have to
obey the law, while the rich, and bankers especially, can cheat and defraud without consequences".

In 2011, more than 100 law professors have signed on to a letter that proposed "mandatory and
enforceable" ethics rules for Supreme Court justices for the first time.
In this context, the key role of two US-based international corporations, IBM and EDS, in the unlawful
development and implementation of the current electronic record systems of the State of Israel, as outlined in
the 2010 State Ombudsman's Report, should also be noted.
6.7 Simulated records, related conduct
The evidence, provided in the current review would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the practice of
simulated litigation and the issuance of simulated court records is widely practiced in Israeli courts today.
Effectively, such practice amounts to suspension of the law of the land. Alternatively, it can be described as
denial of access to civil courts a characteristic of a nation under marshal law.
7. Proposed Corrective Actions
Given the nature of the situation, corrective actions are likely to be neither fast nor easy. Efforts may require
an approach similar to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Corrective efforts may require that the office of Administrative of Courts, which played a central role at the
national level in the development and implementation of the current IT systems be restructured or entirely
eliminated.
Undermining the authority of the office of the Clerk of the Court as custodian of court record is one of the
central deficiencies of the current systems. A century ago, conditions in the US courts were described in the
US Congress as "a burlesque". The Salary Act (1919) is credited as a key measure in addressing the situation
and restoring the autonomy and integrity of the office of the Clerk of the Court, through placing the Chief
Clerks under the authority of the Attorney General. Similar measures may need to be considered now in Israel.
Israeli legal and computing experts should be engaged in an initiative to restore the integrity of the IT systems
of the courts.
Lessig (2000) advanced the comparison between Code and Law.. IT systems of the courts in fact represent
translation of national law (particularly, relative to court procedures) from natural language into operational
machine code.
Therefore:
Such efforts must include validation of the systems relative to the federal law;
Design and operation of the systems should aim at the highest transparency possible, pursuant to the
principle of based on the principle of Publicity of the Law, and
Such efforts should be conducted under accountability to the legislative branch, pursuant to the
principle of Separation of Powers.
The results of the current study show that senior members of the judiciary and the legal profession exploited
the transition over the past decade to new electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel to
undermine the integrity of the justice system. Attorney and judges were not alone, but were and are aided by
the accountants, elements in the security apparatus, and large international information systems corporations.
Updates in the electronic records systems and the passage of the Electronic Signature Act in 2001, made it
necessary to decide between the development of systems, based on valid, lawful specifications and lawful
electronic signatures, or systems based on no specifications and no visible electronic signatures at all. The
results show that around 2002 decision was made in favour of the latter option.
Furthermore, the findings suggest that the development and implementation of invalid record systems in the
courts required the neutralization of the primary watchdogs - the chief clerks of the Supreme Court and the
district courts, and the Magistrate of Certifying Authorities, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act.
It was also necessary to devise ways to circumvent, or undermine the valid authentication and certification
procedures, where they still existed in paper form, e.g. the apostille, pursuant to the Hague Convention.
Finally, false perception of enhanced public access and enhanced transparency of the courts was created
through the implementation of invalid electronic record systems in the courts. In fact public access and
transparency of the courts were undermined.
The resulting conditions are claimed as serious violations of the Human Rights of the People of the State of
Israel. The findings should also require reassessment of any faith and credit, which may be given to legal public
records originating in the courts of the State of Israel by other nations, including, but not limited to those, who
are parties to the Hague Convention (1961).
Furthermore, the failure, outlined above, to honestly implement of the Electronic Signature Act has
ramifications far beyond the justice system. It is likely to place Israeli financial markets at high-risk of instability
and collapse.

The Human Rights Alert submission recommends:


1. The electronic records systems of the courts should be examined and repaired by Israeli computing and
legal experts, under accountability to the legislature.
2. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be established to examine the conduct of members of the
judiciary and the legal profession, who were involved in undermining the integrity of the electronic record
systems;
3.
No court of any nation should be permitted to develop and implement its own electronic record
systems, since such systems effectively amount to establishment of new regulation of the courts. Typically, the
authority to establish such regulations is reserved for one of the other two branches of government.
8. General Recommendations
8.1 No court should be permitted to develop and implement its own IT systems
The current report supports the following line of logic:Any information system (whether on paper or
electronic) is an assembly of rules of operations.The statement in 1., above, is valid regardless of whether such
program is written in machine language, higher level computer language, or in natural (human) language.An
electronic information system that runs the operations of a court, is an assembly of rules of operations of such
court.To the degree that today civilized societies practice separation of the branches of government and no
court is permitted to enact the law and rules of operation of the courts, no court of a civilized society should
be permitted to institute its own electronic record system.
The unauthorized implementation of electronic information systems in the courts of the State of Israel
(other nations as well) should be deemed unannounced regime change.
Such conduct is likely to lead to deterioration in Human Rights conditions and socio-economic
development. One of the first indications of such dynamics is the erosion of integrity of other government
operations, including, but not limited to effective banking and corporate regulation, and the widening socioeconomic gaps.
8.2 Human Rights and internet activists must recognize the significance of IT systems of the courts and prisons
in the safeguard of civil society and continuously keep a watchful eye on their validity and integrity.
8.3 IT experts should assume more prominent civic duties in the safeguard of civil society in our era.
9. Appendices
[1] Longer version of the current report: J. Zernik, "IT Systems of the US Federal Courts, Justice, and
Governance",
[2] Human Rights Alert (NGO) Submission and Appendix for the UPR of Human Rights in the State of Israel by
the UN Human Rights Council, "Integrity, or lack thereof in the electronic record systems of the State of Israel",
2013.
Submission:
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session15/IL/HRA_UPR_ISR_S15_2012_HumanRight sAlert_E.p
df
Appendix:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU/edit?usp=sharing
Acknowledgement
The author is grateful to unnamed IT and law experts, who have provided assistance in recent years. Special
thanks to Dror Zernik, PhD, for help in data production.
References
Almagor, Sh. (2006) February 26, 2006 Decision by Judge Shoshana Almagor on Plaintiff's Motion for
Subpoena of Witnesses in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202/04), [online] Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court
https://www.scribd.com/doc/242161844/
Brenner, H. (2012) August 30, 2012 Decision on Disqualification for a Cause in Silman v Social Security, State
of Israel (1752-08), [online] Tel-Aviv District Court
https://www.scribd.com/doc/110975686/

Bohm, J. (2008) March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion in Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt
#248, Texas Bankruptcy Court, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/
Ferziger, J, and Wainer, D. (2014) Startup Israel Suffering Most OECD Poverty as Poor Surge, [online]
Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-16/startup-israel-suffering-most-oecd-poverty-as-poor-surge.html
Hacohen, Y. (2007) 2006-7 Annual Report of the Magistrate of Databases, [online] Ministry of Justice, State
of Israel
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252183943/
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2010) Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic
Review of Human Rights in the United State, [online] United Nations Human Rights Council
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session9/US/HRAlert_UPR_USA_S09_2010_Human%20rights
%20alert1.pdf
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2010) Appendix to Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States, [online] United Nations Human Rights
Council
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session9/US/HRAlert_UPR_USA_S09_2010_Human%20rights
%20alert1.pdf
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2013) Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic
Review of Human Rights in Israel, [online] United Nations Human Rights Council
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session15/IL/HRA_UPR_ISR_S15_2012_HumanRightsAlert_E.p
df
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2013) Appendix to Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in Israel, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU/edit?usp=sharing
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2015) Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic
Review of Human Rights in the United States, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239652334/
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2015) Appndix to Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239647129/
Lessig, L. (2000) The Code in Law, and the Law in Code, [online] Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/pcforum.pdf
Messinger, S. (2002) Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts, [online] Federal Judicial
Center
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34819774/
Posner, R. (2007) Enlightened Despot, [online] New Republic
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/enlightened-despot
State Ombudsman's Report 60b (2010) Development of IT systems of the Israeli Ministry of Justice and the
Israeli courts [online] State of Israel Ombudsman's Office
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50624862/
Yoaz, Y. (2005) Panel rules to fire Judge Hila Cohen, [online] Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/panel-rules-to-fire-judge-hila-cohen-1.175730
Zarchin, T. (2012) Israel Bar Association head says Tel Aviv district court judge must go, [online] Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-bar-association-head-says-tel-aviv-district-court-judge-mustgo-1.435572
Zernik, J. (2010) Data Mining as a Civic Duty Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems [online]
International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96
http://www.musicdistribuce.cz/www/en/Publishing/Journals/MMM/Archive/MMM2010/MMM2010-1web.pdf#page=85
Zernik, J. (2012a) "Design and Operation of the Electronic Record Systems of the US Courts are Linked to
Failing Banking Regulation", [online] Data Analytics
http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=data_analytics_2012_3_50_60059
Zernik, J. (2012b) "Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Record Systems of the Courts of the State of
Israel", [online] Data Analytics
http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=data_analytics_2012_2_10_60063

Zernik, J. (2012c) 'Constitutional Revolution' in the State of Israel? compilation of media reports [online]
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/92422943/
Zernik, J. (2014a) Repeat request to inspect court file electronic records: Notices to Appear, Uniting of
Files, in Ashkenazi+76 other v Minister of Justice et al (2300/11) in the Supreme Court, [online] Human Rights
Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217006321/
Zernik, J. (2014b) Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court - Response
on Request for certification of Judge Shoshana Almagor November 30, 2008 Judgment, 'True Copy of the
Original', [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/249038303/
Zernik, J. (2014c) Administration of the Courts' Freedom of Information response (No P79/2014) - no
appointment record for "Chief Clerk" of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court Rahamim Asher, [online] Human Rights
Alert (NGO)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/248687722/
Zernik, J. (2014d) Administration of the Courts' Freedom of Information request (102/2014-), regarding the
Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court: a. Name, title, appointment record of the lawful holder of stamp, #189, which
appears on a copy of the November 30, 2008 Judge Almagor Judgment in Rotem v Baram (073202/04), dated
November 23, 2014, b. Such person's authority to certify court records, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/249369218/
Zernik, J. (2014e) Letter to Supreme Court Presiding Justice Grunis: Request for clarification, in re - perverted
Supreme Court records, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/233329226/
Zernik, J. (2014f) Mounting evidence of Fraud Upon the Court in criminal prosecution of Israeli whistle-blower
Rotem, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/245950119/
Zernik, J. (2014g) Growing concerns of fraud on Israel Electric Co whistle-blower Moran Genosar in the TelAviv Labor Court..., [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/249253900/
Zernik, J. (2014h) Specification, validation of IT systems of the courts now before the Israeli Supreme Court,
[online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252253335/
Zernik, J. (2014j) Corruption of governments and IBM compilation of media reports, [online] Human Rights
Alert (NGO)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252257590/
Zernik, J. (2015) IT systems of the US federal courts, justice, and governance, [online] ICEG
http://www.waset.org/abstracts/20899