Human Rights Alert

Human Rights Alert (NGO) Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Joseph Zernik, PhD Zernik, o=HRA-NGO,
ou,
email=joseph.zernik
PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel @hra-ngo.org, c=IL
Date: 2017.06.29
Fax: 077-3179186; Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org 16:12:37 +03'00'
HRC UPR Annex to Submission - 29th session
Incompetence and/or corruption of the courts and the legal

profession, and discrimination by law enforcement in Israel
Instant Annex is filed concomitantly with the Human Rights Alert-NGO Submission for
the UPR of the State of Israel, 3 rd cycle, 29nd session.
Executive Summary
The Human Rights Alert [HRA-NGO] submission documents incompetence and/or
corruption of the courts, the legal profession and law enforcement. Detailed evidence
is provided of lack of integrity in e-government systems, their development,
implementation, and operation. Such approach generates unique insights into
underlying processes, related to remarkable deterioration in integrity of the justice
system over the past two decades. Case studies are provided, documenting
production of patently invalid, or vague and ambiguous judicial and legal electronic
records (Drafts), and the use of such records for unlawful deprivation of rights and
discrimination in law enforcement. Such evolution of the justice system resulted from
a top-to-bottom process, led by senior law and justice figures with acquiescence or
collusion by informatics experts, for which Israel is world-renowned. The general
failure to hold judges and attorneys in State service accountable for deceit and breach
of trust undermines the Rule of Law. Resulting conditions - a post-truth justice system
- have led to unprecedented government corruption, and with it unprecedented
whistle-blowing, social protest, and pronouncements by legal scholars and political
figures - all against the justice system itself. Repression of social protest and
persecution of whistle-blowers produce some of the clearest evidence of abuse.
Prevailing conditions have major implications relative to the nature of the regime, will
be difficult to address, and may require a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the
justice system itself.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
A. Human Rights Alert-NGO 5
B. Allegations 5
C. Follow-up Information 6
D. Evidence 6
1. Introduction 6
2. Profound legal and institutional changes in the courts over past 2 decades 25
a) Constitutional Revolution or Total jungle in the courts? (1993) 26
Case Study: Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) in the Israeli Supreme Court 26
_____________________________________________________________________
HRA-NGO Annex to UPR Submission: Israel 2017-06-29
1/367 TOC: 1
b) Invalid implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) 28
c) Undermining integrity of the Supreme Court records (March 2002) 29
d) New Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004) 30
e) Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat (completed 2010) 32
3. The Courts 34
a) IT systems of the courts are operated by The Judicial Authority - an unlawful entity 34
b) The Supreme Court 35
(i) Dubious security of IT systems of the Supreme Court 35
(ii) Eliminating the certification of the Supreme Court decision records 35
Case Study: Even-Israel v Shulman (1554/16) civil appeal in the Supreme Court 36
(iii) Elimination of lawfully appointed Chief Clerk and refusal to provide certification 39
(iv) Elimination of valid Notices to Appear in Court 42
Case Study: Ometz v Attorney General (5514/16) petition in the Supreme Court 42
Case Study: Ashkenazi et al v ECA et al (2300/11) petition in the Supreme Court 141
(v) Failure to maintain valid Hearings Protocols [minutes] 44
(vi) Falsification and disappearance of court files and decision records 47
Case Study: Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) in the Supreme Court 47
Case Study: Franco-Sidi et al v Authority... (1582/02) in the Supreme Court 47
Case Study: Mishol v State of Israel () whistle-blower criminal appeal 48
(vii) Denial of access to court records 50
Case Study: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) criminal, murder case - paper
court file from the Nazareth District Court, then held by the Supreme Court 50
Case Study: Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) 51
Case Study: Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi
Persecutions Act (1582/02) civil appeal in the Supreme Court 59
(viii) Supreme Court justices as Chairs of the Central Election Committee 59
c) District, magistrate, family and small claims courts Net-HaMishpat system 59
(i) Development, implementation, operation of Net-HaMishpat 60
(ii) Invalid implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 64
Case Study: complaint (192/17/Nazareth District) - Ombudsman of the Judiciary 64
Case Study: Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) in the Tel-Aviv District Court 78
Case Study: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court 79
Case Study: State of Israel v Zerni et al former PM corruption trial 95
Case Study: In re: Joelle Ben-Simon 110
d) Administration of Courts 111
e) Judicial Selection Committee 113
f) Failure to hold judges accountable for criminal conduct 114
(i) Deceit, breach of trust 114
(ii) Censorship regarding judicial corruption 117
f) Public trust in the courts and the justice system 120
4. Ombudsman of the Judiciary 121
a) Judge Varda Alshech's "Fabricated Protocols" and e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 121
b) Fake complaint re: Judge Eliyahu Bachar of the Tel-Aviv District Court 123
c) Perversion of complaint regarding e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 126
5. Ministry of Justice 132
a) Implementation of the E-Signature Act (2001) 132
b) Administrative Courts: Detainees Courts 133
c) Administrative Courts: Debtors Courts 134
(i) 2016 State Ombudsman Special Report - rampant fraud on the debtors 134
Case Study: Debtor Shlomo Levy 135
(ii) 2009 Reform failed to establish the Enforcement and Collection Authority by law 138
(iii) Unlawful conduct in the Debtors Courts is patronized by the national courts 141
Case Study: Ashkenazi 141
(iv) Fraudulent IT systems 141
(v) Fraudulent conduct by pretender Legal Counsel and pretender FOIA officer 142
6. Attorney General, State Attorney, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight 147
a) Attorney General 147
(i) Bus 300 affair (1984) 147
_____________________________________________________________________
2/367 TOC: 1
(ii) Rabin Assassination (1995) 148
(iii) Bar-On Hebron affair (1997) 148
(iv) Harpaz affair (2010) 148
(v) Tenure of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (2010-2016) 149
(vi) Tenure of Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit (2016-present) 149
b) State Attorney 150
(i) Ruth David scandal 150
(ii) False convictions, National Pathological Institute, Prosecutorial Oversight 151
c) Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight 152
Case Study: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court Dr
Chen Kugels expert opinion and State Prosecution 152
Case Study: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court
refusal to serve responses on requests to inspect 153
7. The Legal Profession and Israel Bar Association 159
a) The Israel Bar Association and implementation of e-signatures 159
b) Attorneys in State service 160
c) Legal scholars 166
d) Individual attorneys in private practice 168
e) Attorneys, the banks, and Debtors Courts 175
8. Prison Service 175
Case Study: Imprisonment of whistle-blower Shuki Mishol 176
Case Study: Imprisonment of Roman Zadorov 177
Case Study: Imprisonment of Shulamit Zaken 177
9. Police 177
a) Top police commanders misconduct 178
b) The Eran Malka Ronel Fisher Ruth David scandal 179
c) The Rabbi Pinto-Menashe Arbiv-Efraim Bracha scandal 180
d) Lack of accountability 181
e) Spying on and undermining legitimate social protest 181
10. State Ombudsman
a) Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem 183
b) Audit of the Debtors Courts 188
c) Audit of IT systems of the courts 189
d) Audit of IT systems of the Central Election Committee 190
e) Refusal to accept complaint in re: IT systems of the Supreme Court 190
f) State Ombudsman and government corruption 191
11. Ministry of Health and the Medical Profession 192
a) The National Pathological Institute 192
b) The Dr Maya Forman affair 194
c) The Joelle Ben-Simon affair - false psychiatric hospitalization of protester 194
12. The Knesset (parliament) 195
a) Invalid IT systems and electronic records of the Knesset
b) Refusal to answer on FOIA requests, in re: Knessets IT systems 195
c) Refusal to take action re: Central Election Committee 195
13. Central Election Committee 198
a) Allegations of IT computer fraud in the 2015 general election 198
b) Evidence of lack of integrity and validity in the Committees IT systems 198
c) Previous allegations of corruption in the Central Election Committee 200
d) Supreme Court justices Chairs of the Committee 200
14. Shin-Bet (secret service) and the National Cyber Bureau 202
a) Shin Bet, torture, extracting confessions 202
b) Shin-Bet, Cyber Security Authority and State IT system certification and security 203
15. Academic Cyber Community 207
16. Protest against the justice system and repression of social protest 212
a) Protesters against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit 214
(i) Background
(ii) Police
(iii) The Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court
Case Study: State of Israel v Klas (63343-01-17) protesters detentions
_____________________________________________________________________
3/367 TOC: 1
b) Protesters against the family courts, welfare, kidnapping kids - Shem-Tov and Leybel 218
c) Protest against corruption of the Family Courts Joelle Ben-Simon 231
Case Study: Chenero v Chenero (4835-06-13) child custody 240
Case Study: Hachmon v Ben-Simon (58676-05-16) restraining order 244
d) Protesters against fraud by the banks and Debtors Courts Attorney Barak Cohen 246
Case Study: Keinan v Cohen (35113-06-15) restraining order 248
Case Study: Cohen v Keinan (15942-09-15) appeal of restraining order 251
Case Study: Keinan v Cohen (11466-01-16) restraining order 252
Case Study: State of Israel v Cohen (50825-01-15) criminal, insulting public 256
e) Leaders of the 2011 social protest Daphni Leef and others 257
f) Police brutality against anti-police brutality demonstration of Ethiopian Jews 257
g) Abuse at the Occupy Tel-Aviv camp
h) Shin-Bet intimidation of protest activists 258
17. Persecution of whistle-blowers 259
a) Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem 260
Case Study: Rotem v Ministry of Treasury in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court 275
Case Study: Rotem v Baram and State of Israel - in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court 262
Case Study: State of Israel v Rafi Rotem - in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court 278
b) Tax Authority whistle-blower Shuki Mishol 287
c) Forensic medical expert Dr Maya Forman 294
18. Media 297
a) TV series criticizing the State Attorney office 298
b) Publishing draft court records 299
Case Study: Internet terror gang 299
c) Gag orders 300
19. Civil Society NGOs 302
20. Related socio-economic trends 303
a) Rampant government corruption 303
b) Rapid increase in poverty 305
c) Total electronic surveillance 306
d) Censorship and online content management 307
e) Implementation of a Biometric Database 308
21. Compliance with State law 309
a) Basic Law Human Dignity and Liberty (1999) 309
Denial of access to inspect lawful arrest warrants:
Case Study: Roman Zadorov
Case Study: Shulamit Zaken
Case Study: Shuki Mishol
b) Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004) 309
c) Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files (2003) 309
d) Electronic Signature Act (2001)
e) Criminal Court Procedure ()
Case Study: Rafi Rotem
Case Study: Lori Shem-Tov and Moti Leybel open doors, arraignment
f) Prisons Act (1974) and Regulations of the Prisons ()
g) Freedom of Information Act (1988)
h) Debtors Court Act (1967)
i) Regulations of Apostille Convention (1977)
j) Regulations of Ombudsman of the Judiciary
k) Regulations of State Archives Court File Shredding (1986)
l) Regulations of the Apostille Convention (1977)
m) Regulations of Legal Incompetence and Conservatorship ()
22. Compliance with relevant treaties and conventions 311
a) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] (1966) 311
b) Hague Apostille Convention (1961) 311
Case Study: Decree appointing Conservator on the body and property of Redacted 319
23. Lack of response by Ministry of Foreign Affairs in re: UPR
24. Retaliation against author of instant submission 323
_____________________________________________________________________
4/367 TOC: 1
E. Conclusions 326
F. Recommendations 326
LINKS 327
A.HumanRightsAlertNGO
Three HRA submissions, have so far been incorporated into UN HRC UPR reports, with the
following notes:
1. United States (2010) - Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and
discrimination by law enforcement in California;
2. State of Israel (2013) - Lack of integrity in the electronic records of the supreme court,
the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel, and
3. United States (2015) - HRA NGO recommended restoring the integrity of the IT
systems of the courts, under accountability to the Congress, with the goal of making
such systems as transparent as possible to the public at large.
These three HRA submissions may be the first ever Human Rights reports, which focus on
analysis of e-government and its effects on Human Rights.
A textbook on "Machine Learning" found Dr Zernik's application of data-mining to Human
Rights research among "Notable uses", and summarized it as follows:
Data mining of government records - particularly records of the justice system (i.e.,
courts, prisons) - enables the discovery of systemic human rights violations in
connection to generation and publication of invalid or fraudulent legal records by
various government agencies.
Aseriesofpeerreviewedacademicpublications,aswellasnewsmediaarticleson
relevantsubjectsbyJosephZernik,PhD,theprimaryauthorofinstantsubmission,is
provided.[i]
ByNovember2016,some20reports,ongovernmentcorruption,whichIauthored,
foundtheirwaytotheWikileaksarchives,onebydirectsubmissionin2010,andthe
restthroughthePodestaleaks.
Mr Moshe Halevi, a computer and IT professional with special expertise in Net-HaMishpat
(case management system of the courts) assisted in producing instant submission.
Other Israeli computer and legal experts have been consulted over the past several years.
Note: Instant Annex to the Submission is filed in Word format, as instructed. For security
and fidelity in transmission, an electronically signed PDF file is also be submitted.
B.Allegations
Conditions, now prevailing in the courts and other national law and justice agencies in Israel
amount to violation of:
1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - any rights, where integrity of the courts
and the justice system is a prerequisite, particularly, fair and public hearing (Article 10),
liberty (Article 3), equality before the law (Article 7), not to subjected to arbitrary arrest
or detention (Article 9).
2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] (1966) particularly
the right for due process, specifically regarding the prosecution of whistle-blowers,
_____________________________________________________________________
5/367 TOC: 1
social protest activists, and non-Jewish minorities, as well as conduct of the Debtors
Courts.
3. The Hague Apostille Convention (1961) the courts in collusion with the Ministry of
Foreign affair have established procedures for deceitful Apostille certification of Israeli
judicial records.
4. The law of the State of Israel itself the courts and other law and justice agencies
deliberately disregard the Basic LawHuman Dignity and Liberty (purported foundation
of the Constitutional Revolution), Criminal Court Procedure, Civil Court Procedure,
Regulations of the Courts-Office of the Clerk, Regulations of the Courts-Inspection of
Court Files, Prisons Act and Regulations of the Prisons, Freedom of of Information Act,
Electronic Signature Act.
The justice system itself is central to such conduct. False pretenses of the Rule of Law are
created through the production of a multitude of patently invalid, or vague and ambiguous
judicial and legal records, which the judges themselves consider merely Drafts, and for
which they dont hold themselves accountable. In fact, the courts and other law and justice
agencies operate in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Judges and attorneys in the State
service are placed above the law, unaccountable even when their conduct amounts to patent
deceit and breach of trust.
The evidence shows serious deterioration in integrity of law and justice agencies over the
past 2 decades through a deliberate, concerted, top-to-bottom process. The best,
indisputable evidence to support such conclusions comes from analysis of development,
implementation, operation and security of e-government systems, as well as legislature and
its implementation, related to the transition to electronic administration of the courts.
C. Follow-up Information
Previous HRA-NGO submission was incorporated into the Professional Staff Report of the
2013 UPR of Israel with the note: Lack of integrity in the electronic records of the supreme
court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel.
Israeli authorities have not responded on requests to enter a dialogue regarding the UPR in
general, or any corrective measures in response to the 2013 UPR in particular.
D. Evidence
1. Introduction
The current Submission and its Annex:
a) Expand evidence of lack of integrity in IT systems and judicial records of the Supreme
Court and the District Courts, with new evidence from the Magistrate, Family, Small
Claims, and Debtors Courts. Particularly important evidence is provided regarding
large-scale deceit in implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) and
management of dockets, entry of judgments in Net-HaMishpat (case management
system) - to the point that there is no way to distinguish between an authentic, valid and
enforceable judicial record and one that is merely a Draft.
b) Provide a more detailed review of changes in the legal and institutional framework,
which permitted such transformation of the courts, including the Electronic Signature
_____________________________________________________________________
6/367 TOC: 1
Act (2001), Shin-Bet Act (2002), Regulation of the CourtsOffice of the Clerk (2004),
and the establishment of a new Cyber Authority with dubious legal foundation .
c) Provide a series of case studies, which were largely missing from the 2013 Submission.
Christian, Ukrainian citizen Roman Zadorov is confined in life imprisonment in Israel,
purportedly convicted of murder of a girl, with neither real evidence tying him to the
crime scene, nor lawful records of Verdict, Sentencing, Arrest Decree. The case led to
unprecedented, widespread, public and expert criticism of lack of integrity of the justice
system. It also was the subject of a separate complaint to the UN HRC Working Group
on Arbitrary Detention. Other notable cases pertain to the persecution of Tax Authority
whistle-blowers Shuki Mishol and Rafi Rotem, National Pathological Institute experts
Drs Maya Forman and Chen Kugel, and social protest activists Barak Cohen, Lori Shem-
Tov and Moti Leybel, Joelle Ben-Simon, Daphni Leef and more.
The underlying working hypothesis is three-fold:
The study of e-government provides unique insights into the true nature of the regime
since today [Computer] Code is the Law. [ii]
Unlawful implementation of e-government systems is a serious threat to Civil Society
and Human Rights.
Unlawful implementation of e-government system can amount to unannounced regime
change.
The analysis is based on methods inspired by data-mining and zero-knowledge proofs, on
consultations with Israeli law and computing experts, on numerous requests to inspect court
records, Freedom of Information requests, and on attempts to obtain relevant public
information or solicit investigation/corrective actions by relevant national agencies.
Over the past two decades, the Israeli judiciary transformed the court system,
concomitantly with the implementation of new IT systems in the courts, to the point that
court records are vague and ambiguous and there is no way to distinguish, according to the
judges themselves, between authentic court records and drafts (likewise in other legal
records). Drafts are routinely issued, which are invalid, false and misleading, lacking any
legal foundation as to their contents. Parties and other State agencies are then misled to
accept the authority of such drafts as valid, lawful judicial and legal records.
Instant submission documents numerous cases, where such conditions should amount to
serious violations of Human Rights.
It is claimed that in the wake of such transformation, the Israeli courts can no longer be
deemed competent Courts of Record.
Following are some notable examples of deceitful justice and law records:
_____________________________________________________________________
7/367 TOC: 1
a) Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) bankruptcy, receivership in the Tel-
Aviv District Court Judge Varda Alshechs Fabricated Protocols scandal
Figures. Attorney Rafael Argaz, Judge Varda Alshech, and one of Judge Varda Alshechs
September 12, 2011 Fabricated Protocols scandal.
The record says:
Decision
In view of Attorney Hermlins statements, instant Protocol shall be forwarded
by the Office of the Clerk to both Attorney Arbel and Attorney Argaz, and I
am asking the Director of Administration of Courts that when he forwards the
complaint to the Israel Bar Association, he forward also instant additional
Protocol.
Rendered today, September 12, 2011 in the presence of the parties.
The Protocol [minutes] was used by Judge Varda Alshech for retaliation against Attorney
Rafael Argaz through the filing, in collusion with the Administration of Courts, of a semi-
criminal complaint against Argaz. In dozen of places she inserted statements that he had
never made in court.
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) concluded that the Protocol
records were merely Drafts, and Judge Alshech was in full agreement: (a) The record in
the picture bears only Judges invalid graphic signature. The record was never duly
electronically signed.
(b) The certification True Copy of the Original and the Seal of the Court were affixed by
an unauthorized, incompetent person the Judges secretary.
Ombudsman of the Judiciary notes in his decision that the production of Drafts is a
widespread practice by the judges. The water-mark Draft, which had previously appeared
on all such Net-HaMishpat records, had been removed in some of the courts. The judges
claimed that it interferes with work flow.
Ombudsman of the Judiciary concludes that in Net-HaMishpat there is no way for parties
and the public to distinguish between authentic, valid and enforceable court records and
Drafts. Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision also quotes Judge Alshechs claim in her
own defense that the Supreme Court routinely engages in similar conduct...
_____________________________________________________________________
8/367 TOC: 1
Regardless of the documentation in this case of routine production of invalid, misleading
electronic judicial records, the judiciary, the Israel Bar Association and/or the Ministry of
Justice have never initiated corrective actions. In response on FOIA request, the
Administration of Courts stated that corrective actions had not been implemented, since the
Ombudsmans decision was merely a recommendation.
Judge Alshech, since retired, presided in some of the largest corporate restructuring,
bankruptcy, and public debt haircut cases. She also served as Chairwoman of the Judges
Association. She was never held accountable for Deceit and Breach of Trust.
[see also Case Study: Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) in the Tel-Aviv District Court
78 ; Invalid implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 64 ]
b) Chenero v Chenero (4835-06-13) child custody - in the Jerusalem Family Court -

invalid, deceitful Judge Menahem HaCohen Decision record
Figures. Joelle Ben-Simon, Judge Menahem HaCohen, and his July 26, 2016 Decision.
Ben-Simon protested against corruption of the Family Courts in front of Justice Minister
Ayelet Shakeds office, claiming that in the course of divorce proceedings judges and others
robbed her of her possessions and were going to let the father take her minor child out of
Israel. Consequently, she was confined in compulsory psychiatric hospitalization. The
medical records indicate that the hospitalization was coordinated by Attorney Yaek Kutik,
senior Ministry of Justice officer.
_____________________________________________________________________
9/367 TOC: 1
During her hospitalization Judge Menham HaCohen purportedly conducted a hearing in her
case and issued the July 26, 2016 Decision, which was served on Ben-Simon by the
Court, and which says:
Attorney Inbal Weil of the Legal Aid Bureau appeared before me... all my efforts to
locate the father's request, or the Hon Judge Elbaz Decision failed...
Attorney Inbal Weil appeared in Court with neither Ben-Simons knowledge, nor her
consent, apparently in attempt to investigate Ben-Simons claims.
The record is a printout from Net-HaMishpat, the diagonal water-mark on the record says
Draft. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated
Protocols scandal explicitly states that such records are not electronically signed, must not
be printed out, must not be certified, and must not be served on the parties.
Judge Menahem HaCohens personal stamp and wet hand-signature were affixed on a
printout, and then it was scanned back into Net-HaMishpat. True Copy of the Original
certification, and Seal of the Court were added by an unidentified person.
During a visit to the Office of the Clerk, which this writer witnessed, Ben-Simon attempted
to inspect her own court files. Staff member Esti again printed out the Decision, and
again certified it. Senior staff member Maya then demanded the record back and explained
that the record was merely a "draft", which must not be printed out. Maya provided a
printout of the Case Calendar, where the July 26, 2016 purported hearing fails to appear, but
refused to print out decisions or dockets from Ben-Simon court files, stating they were
merely Drafts.
Given the number of judges and others involved, and number of transactions, the case
should be deemed organized crime in the Jerusalem Family Court.
[see also Case Study: In re: Joelle Ben-Simon]
c) State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) criminal, murder trial - in the Nazareth
District Court invalid, deceitful Verdict records
(a)
(b)
_____________________________________________________________________
10/367 TOC: 1
(c)
Figures. (a) The Jew Mendel Beilis was falsely prosecuted and falsely convicted of the
murder of a boy in the Ukraine a century ago. The Christian, Ukrainian Roman Zadorov
was prosecuted and purportedly convicted in the 2006 murder of a girl in Israel.
Law professor Boaz Sangero wrote:
Conviction with no real evidence.
Law professor Mordechai Kremnitzer wrote:
Conduct of the State Prosecution in the Zadorov case is scary, it is not conduct
of Prosecution, which is seeking the truth Adding to that the Supreme
Court stance and the Attorney Generals conduct in recent years, one is left
with a justice system, which is primarily defending itself.
(b) The judicial panel included Judge Yitzhak Cohen (since convicted of sex crimes), Judge
Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz.
The latter was a retired judge. Administration of Court failed to duly answer on FOIA
request regarding his lawful appointment as Emeritus Judge during the relevant period, for
which he fails to show a Judges Calendar.
(c) Net-HaMishpat printouts of the September 14, 2010 Verdict, which appears neither in
the Judgments Docket, nor in the Decisions Docket.
The records in part say:
It was therefore unanimously decided to convict the Defendant of the crimes
of which he was charged.
Rendered and noticed today, September 14, 2010, in the presence of Counsel
for the Prosecution, Counsel for the Defense, and the Defendant.
Left October 2010 printout, which was filed with the Notice of Appeal, as discovered
during inspection of the paper court file Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme
Court. The record is neither signed, nor certified, in disregard of the law. The record fails to
bear even the invalid graphic signatures of the judges.
Right December 2015 printout from the Office of the Clerk of the Nazareth District Court
fails to show even the invalid graphic signature of Haim Galpaz, and shows perverted,
negative images of graphic signatures of Judge Yitzhak Cohen and Esther Hellman.
_____________________________________________________________________
11/367 TOC: 1
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) details the technical
production of signed judicial records in Net-HaMishpat. It is therefore clear that such
records are incomplete and have never been electronically signed. That fact is also obvious
from the differences between the two printouts shown here.
Attorney Avigdor Feldman, Roman Zadorovs pro bono counsel in the appeal, wrote, while
the appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court, that Zadorovs judgment records
were lost in the wailing wind across the Jezreel Valley (which the Nazareth District Court
overlooks).
The confinement of Roman Zadorov in Israel should be deemed arbitrary detention.
Figures. Nazareth District Court Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham and his January 25,
2016 Decision on repeat requests to inspect lawfully made judgment records and their
electronic signature data:
The Requester repeats his requests, subject of which, purportedly, is inspection
of court records. However, these are not requests to inspect, but an
investigation, which the Requester is conducting, pertaining to validity of
Net-HaMishpat system and various claims regarding conduct of the judicial
panel in this case. In such matters this court shall not engage...
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
12/367 TOC: 1
Figures. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court -
Presiding Judge Avraham Avrahams two Post-it Decisions on repeat requests to inspect
duly made arrest decree, , pertaining to Roman Zadorov, as prescribed by Israeli law for
admission of a person to prison. Left the February 03, 2016 record says: The Requester
does cease bothering the Court and wasting its time with useless requests, which amount to
nothing. If he continues filing similar requests, I shall consider imposing on him expenses to
the benefit of the State Treasury. Right the June 02, 2016 record says: On its face, the
request appears cantankerous and useless. Therefore, I found no room to grant it, and it is
denied. Post-it Decision records are not listed in the Decisions Dockets of the courts
in Net-HaMishpat, and are often not served at all. [see also: Case Study: State of Israel v
Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court 79; Zadorov v State of Israel in
the Supreme Court ]
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (murder trial) (502-07) in the Nazareth District
Court: Secretive response by senior State Prosecutor Shila Inbar, who headed Roman
Zadorovs prosecution, on a request to inspect lawfully made Zadorov judgment records: 1)
The Requester is daily filing a series of requests to inspect materials from the court file 2)
The nature of the requests is unclear, but it appears that their main intent is to substantiate
conspiracy theories regarding instant court file and the justice system in general. 3) There is
no relationship between the requests, the claims regarding the technical form of the records,
and the reasoning, which is primarily based on theories and baseless hearsay regarding the
evidence and the conviction 5) It should be noted, that it appears to the Responder that the
Requester is trying to abuse the term the Right to Inspect, and that such right should not
be interpreted as permitting any person to continuously bother the courts and the offices of
_____________________________________________________________________
13/367 TOC: 1
the clerks in a manner that would not permit them to perform their duties, using useless
reasoning. 6) As far as the Responder knows, the Requester has not been appointed Auditor
of the Courts, and nobody has authorized him to conduct investigations and audits. 7)
Beyond that, the Responder approves of the correct writing of the Hon Presiding Judge in
his January 25, 2016 Decision on Request No 120. Both the State Prosecution and the
District Court refused to duly serve the response on the Requester of Inspection. Neither
was the response served after filing a complaint with the Commissioner of Prosecutorial
Oversight.
[see also Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight]
_____
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07): False and misleading February 21, 2016
response letter by North District Attorney Mirit Stern on request for due service on the
Requester of Inspection of the January 26, 2016 response by North District Attorney office
on the request to inspect lawfully made judgment records. The letter shows no reference
number. It should therefore be considered off the record letter, or Draft. The letter
falsely claims that the request to inspect pertained to investigation materials. The letter
says: To Attorney Joseph Zernik, PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv. Dear Colleague, Re: State of
Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) your request to receive North District Attorney
responses on requests to inspect; Your February 03, 2016 letter. I herein confirm receipt
of your letter, referenced above. Your inquiry asks for copies of all State Attorney office
responses on your requests to inspect investigation materials, which were filed in the above
referenced court file. Since you filed such requests with various agencies besides North
District Attorney office, we would not be able to assist you in this matter. You would have to
inquire with the relevant agency, or alternatively request the Court. Sincerely, Mirit Stern,
_____________________________________________________________________
14/367 TOC: 1
North District Attorney. Both the North District Attorney and the Court refused to duly
serve the North District Attorneys responses on the requests to inspect. The response was
eventually discovered 5 months later during a visit to the Office of the Clerk of the Nazareth
District Court. Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Hila Gerstel refused to accept
complaint against North District Attorney, which claimed that the letter was false and
misleading, and in violation of Due Process rights. The Commissioner was also unable to
affect due service of the response prior to the Commissioners resignation under pressure by
the State prosecutors.
[see also - Roman Zadorov Nazareth, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, Ombudsman of
the Judiciary, State Attorney]
____
d) State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal in the Tel-Aviv District Court

invalid, deceitful judgment records in the Holyland corruption scandal
a)
b)
Figures. State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal in the Tel-Aviv District
Court: Sixteen Defendants were named in the case, including former Israeli PM Ehud
Olmert and his secretary Shulamit Zaken. The case originated in the Holyland corruption
scandal, one of the worst in Israels history.
a) PM Ehud Olmert, his secretary Shulamit Zaken, Judge David Rosen and his March 18,
2015 Post-it Decision on request to inspect lawfully made judgment records for Olmet
and Zaken, and Arrest Decree for Zaken, then serving a prison term. The judgment records
fail to be entered in the Judgment Docket in this case in Net-HaMishpat case management
_____________________________________________________________________
15/367 TOC: 1
system. The record says: The court file, where inspection was requested, is physically
located in the Supreme Court, as part of appeal of the judgment. Therefore, it is not possible
to grant this request. Such Post-it Decisions are universally excluded from the public
Decisions Dockets and are often not served at all. The Post-it Decision tacitly admits
that in a court, which by then was administered for 5 years in electronic court files, there
was no lawfully made judgment record in Net-HaMishpat case management system. Olmert
ended up not serving his prison term of this case, but another one.
b) Multiple versions of the Judge David Rosen Verdict record in the Holyland corruption
scandal - none of them is an authentic, valid court record: Left - the record, which appears
in Net-HaMishpat Decisions Docket - fails to be entered in the Judgment Index. The record
is 685 page long and is a scanned record - i.e., is not a valid electronic record. It is missing
the opening pages, naming the parties in the case, and is also missing the graphic
signature at the end. The scan of the final page is perverted in an unusual manner, as shown
here. Center - the record, which was distributed by the Administration of Courts to media,
but fails to appear in Net-HaMishpat, is a scanned record, i.e., is not a valid electronic
record, and all its pages are strangely cropped, possibly to conceal the fact that it is a
scanned record. The record is 687 page long, ending with a "wet" hand signature and stamp
of Judge David Rosen (http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/dover/6282891.pdf). Right - no valid
authentic judgment record was discovered in inspection of Supreme Courts appeal court
file (paper court file - original records), only a printout of the Verdict from Nevo Publishing
LTD not a court record at all.
e) False, deceitful judicial electronic signature data on judicial decision record in Net-
HaMishpat
Figure. Judge (ret) Boaz Okon, (Supreme Court Presiding Justice Aharon Baraks
protg) served as Magistrate, acted as Chief Clerk in the Supreme Court during critical
changes in IT system of the Court in 2002, later Director of Administration of Courts and
key figure in development of Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the District and
Magistrate Courts), and example of purported electronic signature on a judicial decision
record from Court B, which was electronically generated and served through Net-
HaMishpat. Inspection of the purported electronic signature certification, using the Israel
Bar Associations dedicated software:
_____________________________________________________________________
16/367 TOC: 1
General
The basic certification by the Certifying Authority is invalid...
Issued for: Israel Courts Authority
Issued by: Israel Courts Authority
Valid from: January 01, 2000 to: January 01, 2099.
All purported electronic signatures appear the same. They fail to provide the name and
authority of an individual, who is the purported signer, and are issued by Israel Courts
Authority to Israel Courts Authority - while no such entity exists by law, surely is not a
lawful Certifying Authority pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001).
[see also: Invalid implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 64 ]
f) Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi

Persecutions Act (1582/02) civil appeal in the Supreme Court invalid, deceitful
Decision record
Figure. Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi

Persecutions Act (1582/02) civil appeal in the Supreme Court: In this appeal, a group of
holocaust survivors from Bulgaria sought reparations from funds, provided by the German
government and administered by the Israeli government. The appeal was denied. The
record, shown here is from the electronic public access system of the Supreme Court. The
signature and certification box of Supreme Court decision in part says: Issued this date,
February 14, 2007. Boaz Okon, Magistrate. This version is subject to editing and phrasing
changes. Shmaryahu Cohen Chief Clerk. By February 2007, Boaz Okon was no longer
Magistrate of the Supreme Court for some 5 years, and Shmaryahu Cohen was not among
the living for the about five years. Numerous other records of the same nature were
discovered. The Supreme Court denied access to inspect the original paper decision records
in the Supreme Court file in this case, claiming that the paper court file was shredded.
However, regardless of repeat requests, the Supreme Court refused to provide the
documentation that is required by the Regulations of the Archive (1968) for shredding of
court files.
[see also - Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi Persecutions
Act ]
____
_____________________________________________________________________
17/367 TOC: 1
g) Even Israel LTD v Shulman et al (1554/16) - civil appeal - in the Supreme Court
Draft decision served in error
a)
b)
Figure. Even Israel LTD v Shulman et al (1554/16) - civil appeal - in the Supreme Court: a)
Justices Yitzhak Amit, Zvi Zylbertal and Noam Solberg. b) Justice Noam Solbergs April
10, 2016 Decision (pages 1 and 17), denying the appeal, as served on the parties. The
decision also orders that the Appellant pay NIS 2,500 legal expenses to each of the
Responders. On June 05, 2016, the Supreme Court issued in this case an opposing
judgment by Justices Yitzhak Amit, Zvi Zylbertal and Noam Solberg in favor of Appellant,
and the original judgment inexplicably disappeared from the paper court file and from
Decisions Docket in IT system of the Supreme Court (but entries pertaining to the
issuance and service of the April 10, 2016 decision remain in the Events Log of the
Supreme Courts IT system). On June 07, 2016, media reported: "Scandal in the Supreme
Court" On June 8, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an additional decision, explaining that
the original, April 10, 2016 judgment was merely a Draft.
[See also - Case Study: Even-Israel v Shulman (1554/16) civil appeal in the Supreme Court
36]
_____________________________________________________________________
18/367 TOC: 1
h) Anonymous (Shuki Mishol) v State of Israel (1322/17) criminal appeal - in the
Supreme Court invalid, deceitful Decision served as an arrest decree
Figures. Anonymous (Shuki Mishol) v State of Israel (1322/17) criminal appeal - in the
Supreme Court: April 05, 2017 Decision by Supreme Court Justice Uri Shoham. Shuki
Mishol is the most senior of a group of 15 whistle-blowers in the Tax Authority corruption
scandal. For 15 years, the justice system has been protecting the Tax Authority corruption
figures, while persecuting the whistle-blowers. The unsigned, unauthenticated was received
by Appellant Mishols counsel from an anonymous fax machine. Page 1 identifies the
person, pertaining to whom the record was issued only as "Anonymous". Page 5 says: "In
sum, the Requester shall appear in Nitzan Prison on April 23, 2017 before 10:00 am, or as
instructed by the Prison Service, for serving his penalty, holding an ID or a passport, and a
copy of instant decision." The unsigned signature box says only "Judge", and the footnote
disclaimer says - "subject to editing and phrasing changes". Israeli law prescribes the
issuing of a separate Arrest Decree by the trial or appellate court, following decision on
imprisonment. Israeli law also prohibits the prison commander from admitting any person
to prison without a lawfully made Arrest Decree, signed by the appropriate judicial
authority, and clearly identifying the person, who is being admitted to prison. Justice
Shoham failed to issue a valid Arrest Decree, and in parallel imposed unlawful sealing on
the entire court file. Regardless of repeat notices and protest, Shuki Mishol was admitted to
prison based on such record. [iii]
______
_____________________________________________________________________
19/367 TOC: 1
i) Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) petition - in the Supreme
Court invalid, deceitful Judgment record, pertaining to Disqualification for a
Cause
a)
b)
_____________________________________________________________________
20/367 TOC: 1
Figures. Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) petition - in the
Supreme Court: Ometz, an NGO petitioned against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit
and State Attorney Shai Nitzan, pertaining to attempt to adulterate the affidavit of Dr Chen
Kugel, Director of the National Pathological Institute, pertaining to Roman Zadorov's
murder trial. Justices Yoram Danziger, Noam Solberg and Neal Hendel of the Supreme
Court denied access to inspect the original, signed court decision records in the Supreme
Courts paper court file (if they exist at all), while Israeli law says: "Any person is permitted
to inspect court decisions, which are not lawfully prohibited for publication". The Supreme
Court itself declared in 2009 that such right was "a fundamental principle in any
democratic regime... constitutional, supra-statutory..." Instead or permitting inspection of
the original, signed records in the Supreme Court's paper court file, the three Justices
repeatedly sent by mail unsigned, unauthenticated invalid printouts from IT system of the
Court. Consequently, they failed to rule on repeat requests to inspect the original, signed
records in the Supreme Court's paper court file "in compliance with the letter and the spirit
of the law".
Disqualification for a Cause was filed against the 3 Justices by the Requester of Inspection,
stating that their conduct was perceived as gimmickry, which circumvented the law, and
indicated lack of sincerity and lack of integrity.
The three Justices issued two different records, which are invalid, false and misleading on
their faces as Decision on the Disqualification for a Cause. In such records, the justices
say: [iv]
After we reviewed the Disqualification and its justification, we decided
to deny it. Our decisions regarding inspection of the court file records
were rendered with no bias and do not show any concern of bias. The
Requester's requests to inspect were granted by sending the requested
records to him directly by mail. As far as the Requester is not pleased
with the decisions, or that he claims that there is some defect in the
records that were mailed to him, with all due respect, it does not indicate
any justification for Disqualification for a Cause.
The two decision records, pertaining to May 22, 2017 Disqualification for a Cause of the
three Supreme Court Justices. a) The first decision on the Disqualification for a Cause was
issued on May 29, 2017, and was titled "Judgment" on the "Petition", it was likewise
entered in the dockets of the Supreme Court. In doing so, the Supreme Court failed to duly
answer and dispose of the Disqualification for a Cause, and also further perverted the
Petition itself, by falsely disposing of the petition, by entering a "Judgment", prior even to
filing of responses by the Respondents. b) Following notice and protest, the second decision
on the Disqualification for a Cause was issued on June 06, 2017. This record was correctly
titled "Decision" on "Disqualification for a Cause". The record was faxed to the Requester
of Disqualification unsigned and unauthenticated from an anonymous fax number, and it has
not been entered in the dockets of the Supreme Court to this date. Both versions a) and b)
show the footnote disclaimer: subject to editing and phrasing changes.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
21/367 TOC: 1
i) Ombudsman of the Judiciary - invalid, false and deceitful Decision record on
fake Complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv District)
Figure. December 28, 2016 fake Decision on fake Complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv

District) by Senior Appointee Avraham Wolf of Ombudsman of the Judiciarys office.
Page 1 says: Office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary. Bureau of the Ombudsman Prof
Eliezer Rivlin, Deputy Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court (ret). December 28, 2016.
Our number 875/16 Tel-Aviv District. Complainant: Mr Joseph Zernik, Complaint
against: The Honorable Judge Eliyahu Bachar of the Tel-Aviv District Court, Court File
17890-10-14, Regarding: Complaint, received in our office on December 26, 2016.
Decision. Ombudsman of the Judiciary authorized me to notice you of his decision in the
Complaint... Page 2 says: 3. Following request by the Complainant, and pursuant to
Article 21 of the Ombudsman of the Judiciary Act (2002), we terminate review of the
Complaint. [wet hand-signature] Abraham Wolf, Adv., Senior Appointee, Ombudsman of
the Judiciary Office. CC: Mr Dror Yosef, Bureau of Ministry of Justice CEO, Your number
003-99-2016-012131. The record, from start to finish, is a unique example of false and
misleading, deceitful legal record. There was no Complaint, there was no Complainant,
the record is signed by Senior Appointee, who claims that he was authorized to notice a
Decision on behalf of the Ombudsman, but there is no record of the Decision itself,
signed by the Ombudsman himself, etc, etc. The fake Decision arrived in response on a
Notice to cease and desist fake complaint process, which was forwarded to the
Ombudsman of the Judiciary.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
22/367 TOC: 1
j) Invalid, deceitful Apostille certification of Decree appointing Conservator on the
body and property of [Redacted]
a) b)
c)
Figures. Apostille certification of February 15, 2016 Decree appointing Conservator on the
body and property of [Redacted], by Judge Arye Neeman of Krayot Family Court, a printout
_____________________________________________________________________
23/367 TOC: 1
from Net-HaMishpat system, with purported Apostille certification. a) Record, page 1 - the
diagonal water-mark says Closed Doors (all family matters are sealed in the Israeli
courts). The record is missing the serial number, prescribed by the Regulations of Legal
Competency and Conservatorship (1988). The Regulations also prescribe that the
Administration of Courts maintain an open to the public National Registry of Legally
Incompetent Persons, where all such decrees must be entered. However, the Administration
of Courts fails to maintain such registry. The light blue stamp certifies, True Copy of the
Original, joined by the personal stamp (upside down) and wet hand-signature of Iris
Dadon Chief Clerk, Krayot Magistrate Court, as well as the Seal of the Court. b) Record,
page 2 Judge Arye Neemans graphic signature. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision
in the Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal clarifies that such graphic signatures
in Net-HaMishpat lack any validity. The dark blue stamp certifies, True Copy of the
Original by Chief Clerk, Krayot Family Court, as well as the Seal of the Court. The hand-
signature is illegible, and no printed name appears under the signature line. c) Purported
Apostille certification: 2. This public document has been signed by Mr/Ms Iris Dadon -
false entry. If the record were indeed electronically signed, the signer should have been
Judge Arye Neeman. 3. Acting in the capacity of - the data is not provided. It should have
been Magistrate Judge. The Hebrew on the same line says, Deputy Chief Clerk. Deputy
Chief Clerk is not authorized by law sign such Conservatorship Decree. Neither is Deputy
Chief Clerk authorized to certify court records. 4. Bears the seal of Magistrate Court. 5.
Certified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Teila Karazi, Consular Affairs Division - false
entry there is no certification signature of Ms Teila Karazi on the record. The purported
certification of this record should have been by Chief Clerk of the Krayot Family Court.
The Apostille fails to state anywhere that the record was duly signed by Judge Arye
Neeman. Therefore, the Apostille should invalid, false and misleading. The Decree record
itself is of vague and ambiguous nature, since there is no way to ascertain that the record
was indeed signed by Judge Neeman, and it remains unknown, who signed the certification
as Chief Clerk of the Krayot Family Court, and the Decree was surely not entered in the
non-existent National Registry of Legally Incompetent Persons.
[see also - Hague Apostille Convention (1961) 311]
_____________________________________________________________________
24/367 TOC: 1
2. Profound legal and institutional changes in the courts over the past two decades
There is no constitution in the State of Israel. However, one key development over the past
two decades has been the increasing claims by the Supreme Court, starting under the
leadership of Presiding Justice Aharon Barak, of a Constitutional Revolution in Israel. At
the same time, Barak initiated changes in administration of the courts, which should be
deemed central to undermining integrity of the courts, the Rule of Law, and Human Rights.
Current concepts, relative to administration of competent courts involve the checks and
balances of the two arms of the courts: The judicial arm, which is charged with adjudication,
and the ministerial (or clerical) arm, which is charged with the safeguard of integrity of
court records, including but not limited to: The entry of records in court books (dockets,
book of judgments), service and notice of judicial records, maintaining court calendars,
guaranteeing public access, and certifying judicial records. Such at least was the case in the
Israeli courts, as established under the British Mandate for Palestine (1922-1948).
Over the past two decades, the evidence shows that such fundamental concepts of
administration of competent courts were undermined through concerted actions of the
judiciary, Ministry of Justice, Knesset, and the Israel Bar Association, including their
highest echelons. Such transformation took place in conjunction with the transition to
electronic administration of the district and magistrate courts and implementation of new IT
systems in the Supreme Court.
Key events in such transformation include:
Enactment and implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001);
Changes in IT system and Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (2002);
Promulgation of new Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), and
Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat case management system
(development started in the early 2000s, implementation completed in 2010).
These changes are critical for understanding the vague and ambiguous nature of court
records in Israel today. Such records are deemed by the judiciary merely drafts, and often
are patently lacking any legal foundation. At the same time, misleading parties, counsel, the
public-at-large, and other State agencies are misled to believe that they are valid, effectual,
and enforceable court records.
The invalidity and lack of authenticity of court records has been repeatedly documented.
Criminal complaints were filed against judges, who engage in such practice Deceit and
Breach of Trust - but such complaints are not criminally investigated and no judge has been
indicted for such conduct.
Resulting conditions should be deemed serious violations of the rights of Due Process, of
Fair and Public Hearing, of Possession, and of Liberty itself.
_____________________________________________________________________
25/367 TOC: 1
a) Constitutional Revolution or Total jungle in the courts? (1993)
Israel has no constitution. However, following the passage of Basic Law: Human Dignity
and Liberty (1992) (of 120 MKs only 32 voted for the law, 21 voted against it, and 1
abstained out of 120 MKs), Justice Aharon Barak declared a Constitutional Revolution.
[v] Such declaration was met with skepticism, if not derision in the international judicial
community. [vi]
In following years, the Supreme Court has increasingly adopted such language, declaring
various constitutional rights and constitutional principles. However, the evidence
provided in instant submission raises serious doubts regarding the sincerity of such
declarations:
The evidence shows that the Supreme Court itself disregards constitutional principles
which it had proclaimed, e.g., imprisonment with no arrest decrees, which are prescribed
by law, denial of public access to inspect and to copy decision records.
Presiding Justice Aharon Barak and his protg, Director of Administration of Courts
Boaz Okon, were key actors in initiating the transition to electronic administration of the
courts. Extensive evidence in instant submission shows that the process was abused by
the judiciary for undermining integrity of the courts and the Rule of Law itself.
Developments in Israeli jurisprudence in recent decades have been touted by influential
law professor M. Mautner as Decline in formalism and increase in values in Israeli
jurisprudence. [vii] However, in a recent media report, leading legal scholars discuss
conditions in the Israeli courts, with explicit reference to Prof Mautners book,
concluding that the outcome is in fact a total jungle in the courts. [viii]
Israel recognizes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is a party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR].
Regardless of all the above, the rights for Due Process and for Fair and Public Hearing are
only partly recognized by the Israeli judiciary.
The evidence presented in instant submission shows that the implementation of Net-
HaMishpat in the District and Magistrate Courts, and similar changes, which were
implemented in IT systems of the Supreme Court throughly undermine Due Process and
Fair and Public Hearing in the Israeli courts.
Case Study: Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) request for a new trial, murder
case - in the Israeli Supreme Court
Baranes v State of Israel and the right for Due Process
The case of Amos Baranes is particularly instructive regarding the state of Due Process in
the Israeli courts. Amos Baranes was falsely imprisoned from 1975 to 1983 under false
conviction in the murder of 19 year old Rachel Heller. The conviction was based on false
confession, extracted through physical pressure and brutality (and Baranes consistently
denied in court), on framing by police, and on prosecutorial misconduct.
In 1999, Public Defender David Weiner filed Request for a New Trial under Amos Baranes
v State of Israel (3032/99) in the Israeli Supreme Court. It was the 4th Request for a New
Trial, pertaining to Amos Baranes, following court trial and appeals. In the request,
Attorney Weiner detailed the coordinated misconduct of police and the prosecution, which
went on for years. Attorney Weiner summarized it: They stood as a fortified wall... to
conceal the truth... Then Attorney General, today Supreme Court Justice, Elyakim
_____________________________________________________________________
26/367 TOC: 1
Rubinstein was named one of the Respondents. Rubinstein adamantly opposed the Request
for a New Trial.
In March 2002, Justice Dalia Dorner granted the Request for a New Trial, based on the
argument of violation of the right for Due Process. The Attorney General and State
Attorney decided not to file a new indictment, and Baranes was initially vindicated for lack
of prosecutorial action.
In her March 14, 2002 landmark decision, Justice Droner says:
34. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (hereinafter: the Basic Law),
which was enacted in 1992, provided a status of a Constitutional basic right to
a person's right for a fair criminal process. That primarily under Article 5 of
the Basic Law, which establishes the right for Liberty, and Articles 2 and 4 of
the Basic Law, which establish the right for Human Dignity. The Basic Law
prescribes in Article 11 that all government authorities the legislative, the
executive and the judicial uphold the rights established in it. Therefore,
today the legislator and surely the courts are not at liberty, as in the past, to
choose the balancing point between the right for fair criminal process and the
principle of finality of court process. The newly established Constitutional
status of the right for Fair Process, requires therefore re-examination of the
balance between it and the principle of finality of court process, ascertaining
that the balance accurately reflects the respectable Constitutional status of the
right for Fair Process. Referring to the effect of the Basic Law on criminal
process, Boaz Okon and Oded Shaham wrote:
Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty fundamentally changed the array
of rights in criminal matters. The human right for Liberty was established.
It has material effect on the criminal process, where perhaps more than
anywhere else in the law it vies for seniority. With it, the right for Due
Process was established. The implication is a change in the pyramid of
values. Criminal court procedures have moved up one grade [the term
used in Hebrew regarding annual graduation in elementary school and high
school but not, for example, in high school graduation jz]. From a
procedural branch, they have been transformed into a central instrument in
the service of the basic Constitutional right. If the rights of the Defendant
in criminal trial were derived to this date from the provision of Court
Procedure, from now on, provisions of Criminal Court Procedure Act will
be derived from Human Rights, which are protected in criminal process.
The phrase moved up one grade, for describing the status of the right for Due Process in
Israeli law in the aftermath of the Constitutional Revolution, is particularly unfortunate.
Furthermore, the decision recognizes the right for Due Process only in criminal procedure.
Court records in Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99)
The case is no doubt a landmark case in the Israeli Supreme Court. However, the state of
court file records in this case itself provides unique evidence for conditions in the courts
today. A 2015 review of the electronic renditions of Justice Dorners decisions, as displayed
in IT system of the Supreme Court, raised suspicion that such electronic renditions of a
series of decisions in this case were perverted. Inspection of the original records in the
paper court file supported such conclusion: The suspect original paper decision records
_____________________________________________________________________
27/367 TOC: 1
disappeared from the Supreme Courts paper court file. Repeat requests, which were filed
with Supreme Court Presiding Justice Miriam Naor to remove the electronic records, for
which there are no paper originals, from IT system of the Supreme Court remained with no
decision. [ix]
Moreover, Justice Dorner herself explicitly ruled that Attorney David Weiners Request for
a New Trial, which detailed years of coordinated misconduct by police, Shin-Bet, and the
prosecution be open to the public. The record was fully published by the Public Defenders
officer years ago. However, in response to the 2015 Request to Inspect the original paper
court file, Supreme Court Magistrate Gilead Lubinsky issued a lawless decision, which
mandated that certain pages of the record (pertaining to gross misconduct) be excluded from
inspection. Beyond that, Magistrate Lubinsky demanded that the Requester sign a
Commitment not to violate the privacy of any person.
_________
b) Invalid implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001)
Figure. Example of purported electronic signature on a judicial decision record from Court
B, which was electronically generated and served through Net-HaMishpat inspection of
the purported electronic signature certification, using the Israel Bar Associations dedicated
software, General tab: The basic certification by the Certifying Authority is invalid...,
Issued for: Israel Courts Authority, Issued by: Israel Courts Authority, Valid from:
January 01, 2000 to: January 01, 2099. All purported electronic signatures appear the same.
They fail to provide the name and authority of an individual, who is the purported signer,
and are issued by Israel Courts Authority to Israel Courts Authority - while no such
entity exists by law, surely is not a lawful Certifying Authority pursuant to the Electronic
Signature Act (2001).
_____
Today, all Israeli District Courts, Magistrate Courts (including Family Courts) and Small
Claims Courts are administered through electronic files and records. Pursuant to the
Electronic Signature Act (2001), valid electronic court records must be electronically
signed, where court records were hand-signed by law. The matter was most clearly
determined in Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge
_____________________________________________________________________
28/367 TOC: 1
Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal. [x] The Ombudsman and Judge Alshech were
in agreement that the Fabricated Protocols were merely drafts, since they were
electronic records, produced in Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the courts), but
had not been duly signed, using electronic signatures.
However, further review shows that no electronic signature can be detected on any court
record (or any other State public or private legal or judicial record for that matter). E-
signatures were purportedly implemented by the State agencies as detached signatures,
where the electronic signature data is maintained separately from the electronic record itself,
and no e-signature can be detected on the court records itself. At the same time, judges
meticulously deny party and public access to electronic signature data of judicial records.
Detached e-signatures enable Shell Game Fraud (Confidence Trick), since there is no
way for the public and parties in the courts to distinguish between unsigned, invalid drafts
and signed, valid judicial and legal electronic records. Furthermore, detached e-signatures
defy the traditional definition of a signature: A personal symbol, affixed with the intention
of assuming responsibility. Moreover, as shown below, the courts are secretly using invalid
e-signatures, while claiming the opposite conditions similar to The Emperor's New
Clothes.
The full impact of the false implementation of e-signatures in the courts rapidly appeared
following the full implementation of Net-HaMishpat case management system in 2010: By
September 2010, fraudulent electronic Verdict and Sentencing were issued in Roman
Zadorovs case in the Nazareth District Court, and by September 2011, the Judge Varda
Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal erupted.
[ see also e-signatures, Ombudsman of the judiciary, Judge Varda Alshech, Roman Zadorov].
c) Undermining integrity of records and Office of the Clerk in the Supreme Court (March
2002)
Figure. L) Prior to March 2002 - standard certification: True Copy of the Original, Chief
Clerk... appeared on all Supreme Court decision records. R) After March 2002 - the
certification was removed, and a disclaimer was added on all Supreme Court decision
records: subject to editing and phrasing changes. Administration of Courts and Presiding
Justice refuse to answer: Under whose authority were such changes introduced? What was
the legal foundation such profound changes in court records?
____
Events, which commenced in March 2002 under the tenure of Supreme Court Presiding
Justice Aharon Barak and Supreme Court Magistrate Boaz Okon had profound effects on
integrity of the Supreme Court. Upon review of the evidence, detailed below, a reasonable
_____________________________________________________________________
29/367 TOC: 1
person, who is familiar with the fundamentals of court administration, would conclude that
today the Supreme Court of the State of Israel:
Holds all its records, at least since 2002, merely drafts;
Holds all its Notices to Appear invalid;
Holds all its hearings, at least since 2008, informal, off the record;
Is determined to keep it this way in disregard of the law.
d) New Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004)
Figure. Genosar v Israel Electric Company in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court: Simulation and/or
forgery of certification of the 2014 Tel-Aviv Labor Court decision record, which imposed an
unusual stiff NIS 4,000 payment in attorneys fees on whistle-blower Moran Genosar for
filing a request for discovery of records, which was deemed premature by the Court. Left:
The web page of the Tel-Aviv Labor Court lists Chief Clerk: Ms Orly Hammer. Right:
The Decision record was certified using a True Copy of the Original stamp #49 and an
illegible wet hand-signature. Freedom of Information response shows that Ms Orly
Hammer holds no lawful appointment as Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv Labor Court, and
stamp #49 is unlawfully held by Ms Galit Maglid, a secretarial assistant in the Tel-Aviv
Labor Court.
____
The changes in court procedures, related to implementation of the new IT systems of the
Israeli courts, have not be legislated or promulgated. However, in conjunction with the
development of Net-HaMishpat case management system, the old Regulations of the Courts
Registration Office (1936) [xi] were abolished, and new Regulations of the Courts Office
of the Clerk (2004) [xii] were promulgated under the tenure of Presiding Justice Aharon
Barak and the short tenure of Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, his close associate.
The 1936 Regulations are noted for their detailed specification of the proper operations of
the Office of the Clerk:
Article 4: Specified the duties and obligations of the Chief Clerk -excellent
maintenance of the files and books of the court
Article 5: Required the maintenance of Books of Court in civil cases, including an Index
of All Cases, and the registration of date of entry of judgment and abstract of
judgment for each case.
Article 7: Specified the exact manner of maintenance of a civil court file, including the
requirement to maintain summonses and certificates of service.
Article 8: Required similar maintenance of criminal court files and criminal judgments
registration.
Article 12: Required the maintenance of Judgment Books, where signed and certified
_____________________________________________________________________
30/367 TOC: 1
copies of all judgments are permanently glued.
Article 16: Required the inscription of the clerk's initials, who entered each record,
including judicial decisions and judgment records, on the face of the record.
Article 17: Provided the authority of the Chief Clerk to certify court records.
The 2004 Regulations, in contrast, are noted for their brevity and lack of details:
- The duties and obligations of the Chief Clerk, relative to integrity of court files and
court records are never mentioned at all.
- The requirement to enter registration of all judgments, and maintain a Judgment
Book (or Index of Judgments) is never mentioned at all.
- The duties of the clerks to inscribe their initials on any record that was entered,
including judicial decision and judgment records is never mentioned.
Article 5: Delegated to the Director of the Administration of Courts the authority to
introduce any necessary changes in the Regulations in the process of implementing
electronic systems.
Article 6a: An amendment, which was promulgated a year later, authorized the
Chief Clerk to certify court records, True Copy of the Original.
Article 5 should be deemed in violation of the principle of Separation of Powers, since it
delegates to the judiciary the promulgation of regulations of the courts. The same article
should also be deemed in violation of the principle of Publicity of the Law, since the
Administration of Courts refused to answer on Freedom of Information request, which
asked for specification of the necessary changes, which were introduced in the regulations
by the Director of the Administration of Courts.
Overall, the 2004 Regulations created courts where there is no public regulations, which
govern the operations of the Offices of the Clerks, where the Administration of Courts have
created procedures and Work Guidelines, which are kept secret, where there are no defined
clerical duties, relative to the safeguard of integrity of court file records, no requirement to
maintain dockets, and no requirement to enter and register the entry of judgments, both civil
and criminal.
Needless to say, such circumstances are inconsistent with conduct of competent Courts of
Record, with Due Process, with Fair and Public Hearing, and other fundamentals of Human
Rights.
The implications of such changes are profound and obvious:
There is no longer valid, public Decisions Docket in electronic court files. The docket in
Net-HaMishpat - public access system - is partial, many, or most decisions are routinely
excluded from the docket. Moreover, it is obvious that at least some of the decision records,
which appear in the docket, are sham/simulated court records.
Likewise, and more serious, is the fact that there is no longer valid Judgments Docket in
electronic court files, even in criminal cases, or Judgment Index of the courts.
Presiding Judges of various courts have been inquired, and likewise the Administration of
Courts (FOIA requests), but all refused to answer:
Who is authorized and who holds the duties to enter judgments under the Judgment
Docket in Net-HaMishpat?
_____________________________________________________________________
31/367 TOC: 1
Does the entry of a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment, Verdict, or
Sentencing indicate that it is indeed a duly made, valid and effectual judgment in the
corresponding court file?
Does the failure to enter a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment,
Verdict, or Sentencing indicate that it is not a duly made, valid and effectual
judgment in the corresponding court file?
e) Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat (completed 2010)

The implementation of Net-HaMishpat finalized the changes in the administration of the
Israeli courts over the past decade. [xiii]
As documented in the State Ombudsman Annual Report 60b (2010), the system was
developed and implemented out of compliance with domestic law and binding government
standards and procedures: []
Development contracts were signed with corporation by the Administration of Court
with no legal tender.
Development contracts were signed with no written specifications.
Development was conducted with no core management by a State employee.
The system was implemented with no prior independent examination and validation by a
State employee.
In the process, unknown number of Smart ID cards were issued to unknown persons.
In the process, servers of the court were removed from the custody of the Offices of the
Clerks to the custody of corporations.
The findings of the State Ombudsmans report alone should lead a person, who is familiar
with the fundamentals of IT system development and validation, to doubt the validity and
integrity of the system. Moreover, it is doubted that such series of failure by leading judicial
officers was merely human errors. Given the refusal of the Administration of Courts to
correct gross defects, even once exposed, and the refusal to duly answer on FOIA requests
pertaining to the system, human error becomes an unlikely explanation: For example, the
Administration of Courts refuses to provide due responses on:
Who, if any, is charged with entry of judgments?
Who holds the ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the various courts?
Who is charged with the systems security?
Request for evidence of implementation of lawful electronic signatures in the system.
Some of the most notable invalid features of the system, and accordingly - operations of the
courts were outlined above:
Implementation of undetectable, invalid detached electronic signatures - while the
judges themselves deem any record, which is not duly signed in compliance with the
Electronic Signature Act (2001), merely a Draft. The invalid signatures are concealed,
and the public is unable to distinguish between a valid court record and a Draft.
General failure to authenticate service of records, including summonses, court decisions
and court judgments by the Clerk of the Court;
_____________________________________________________________________
32/367 TOC: 1
No accountability of the Chief Clerk for integrity of court files and entry of record
double and triple books for Decision Dockets, invalid Judgment Index/Docket, or
Calendars of the Courts;
Discrimination in access to court records. The system permits the judges to engage in
unlawful, arbitrary and capricious concealment of records or complete court files. The
system includes no publicly accessible Index of All Cases, out of compliance with the
Regulations of the Courts- Inspection of Court Files (2003).
Combined, the transition of the Israeli courts to electronic court file administration made the
conduct of sham/simulated court process much easier.
Routine inspection of court records in Net-HaMishpat - public access system - and attempts
to inspect court records in the Office of the Clerk has produced numerous examples of
invalidity and/or fraud in court records in the district and magistrate courts, where Net-
HaMishpat is implemented. Most notorious and most likely to be perverted are cases that
originate government corruption, on the one hand, and cases related to social protest
activists or whistle-blowers, on the other hand.
The abusive effects of implementation of Net-HaMishpat is documented in instant
submission in a series of cases, most notorious among them is Roman Zadorovs
prosecution for the murder of 13.5 yo Tair Rada.
[see also Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat case management system 60;
Invalid implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 64]
_____________________________________________________________________
33/367 TOC: 1
2. The Courts
The evidence provided in instant submission shows concerted actions over the past two
decades, which undermined integrity of court records through top-to-bottom actions, in
conjunction with implementation of new IT systems in the courts.
It is alleged that in the aftermath, the Israeli courts can no longer be deemed competent
Courts of Record and that such conduct amount to serious violation of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights.
a) IT systems of the courts are operated by The Judicial Authority - an unlawful entity.
Figure. Today, electronic renditions of court records are published online on the Judicial
Authority web-site. However, no such entity exists by law.
_____
Figure. Page Info for website of the Judicial Authority shows: Website Identity -
Website: www.court.gov.il; Owner: This website does not provide ownership information.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
34/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Website of the Judicial Authority shows for Certification Viewer, General
tab: Issued To: Common Name (CN) - *.court.gov.il; Organization (O) - The Judicial
Authority of Israel. No such entity exists by law.
____
Cyber security experts would consider the failure to identify lawful ownership, certification
and authorities over website of the courts a fatal flaw.
b) The Supreme Court
(i) Dubious security of IT systems of the Supreme Court

Administration of Courts refused to answer on FOIA request: Who is charged with security
of IT systems of the Supreme Court today?
In 2014, notice was sent to Supreme Court Presiding Justice and Shin-Bet Head,
documenting a 2002 major security breach (internal), which was followed by massive
perversion of Supreme Court records. Supreme Court Presiding Justice Asher Grunis failed
to respond. [xiv] The Shin-Bet responded that it was not charged with security of the
Supreme Courts IT systems.
(ii) Eliminating the certification of the Supreme Court decision records

In March 2002, profound and inexplicable changes were introduced in the Supreme Court
IT system and the template of all decision records:
Prior to March 2002, all records, which were published in IT system of the Supreme
Court, showed the certification, True Copy of the Original, Shmaryahu Cohen Chief
Clerk of the Court, with reference to an electronic file (probably secured under
authority of the Chief Clerk). [xv]
After March 2002, the certification and any reference to the Clerk of the Court were
removed. Worse yet a disclaimer was added Version subject to editing and phrasing
changes.
Figure. Changes in the IT system of the Supreme Court ~ 2002. Left: Until early 2002, all
electronic decisions of the Supreme Court carried the certification, True Copy of the
_____________________________________________________________________
35/367 TOC: 1
Original, by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen. Right: Since early 2002, the
certification statement and any other reference to a chief clerk were omitted. On the
contrary, the disclaimer subject to editing and phrasing changes was added.
_____
Presiding Justice Miriam Naor and her predecessor Asher Grunis refused to answer on
inquiries, pertaining to this matter, and the Administration of Courts refused to answer on
Freedom of Information requests:
Under whose authority were such changes introduced?
What is the legal foundation for such changes?
Regardless, one can assume that such changes were introduced by consent, if not by
initiative of then Presiding Justice Aharon Barak father of the Constitutional Revolution.
Such changes effectively invalidate all Supreme Court records since March 2002, and
transformed them into sham/simulated court records, or merely Drafts - as they are termed
by Israeli judges. Such conduct is inconsistent with conduct of a competent Court of
Record. These resulting conditions, now prevailing in the Supreme Court have been again
recently demonstrated in the case of Even-Israel v Shulman (1554/16) civil appeal in the
Supreme Court .
Case Study: Even-Israel v Shulman (1554/16) civil appeal in the Supreme Court
In this case, the Supreme Court initially issued an April 10, 2016 Decision in favor of one
party, then inexplicably reversed it with its June 5, 2016 Decision without any Due Process
of law. After the incident was widely published by media, the Supreme Court issued the
June 8, 2016 Decision, stating that the original, April 10, 2016 Decision was merely a
Draft.
Figure. Judgment rendered in error: Where did the records disappear from the Supreme
Courts file?, Walla News 2016-06-21
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
36/367 TOC: 1
The case was reported by media as follows: [xvi]
A judgment entered in error: Where did the records disappear from
the Supreme Court file?
First it was claimed that the file was transferred to the archive, but after the
attorneys were permitted to inspect the paper court file, it turned out that
records were missing in it. The first judgment is missing, and also the
certificates of its service. The parties consider going to the police. The
Administration of Court does not respond.
New details were exposed today (Tuesday), which shed light on the case,
which was published on the day before yesterday in Walla News, where in an
unusual conduct, the Supreme Court issued a new decision, which ignored it
previous decision in the same court file. As published, the appeal was denied
by one Justice about two months ago the decision was published in the
Supreme Court site, and was also mailed to the parties. But about a week ago
the Court issued a new decision, by a 3-justice panel, which reversed the old
decision, and the original decision was removed from the Supreme Court site,
simply vanished. Now it turns out that records are missing also in the paper
court file, as if the first judgment never existed at all.
Once the new judgment was issued, the attorneys asked to inspect the paper
court file, but were told that it was transferred to the State Archive an
extremely unusual response, given that a decision was rendered only a day
earlier. After they persisted, they were permitted to inspect the paper court
file, where the records are missing in a manner that raises suspicion that they
were deliberately removed. Consequently, the parties are considering going to
the police to ask for investigation of the matter.
In parallel to the inexplicable reversal of the ruling, the original, April 10, 2016 Decision
disappeared from the Decisions Docket in the public access system of the Supreme Court,
and according to the media report, copied above, also the paper (original) decision record
was removed from the paper court file with no Due Process of law.
However, the issuance of the original April 10, 2016 Decision is still documented under the
Events tab (Figure 28).
a.
_____________________________________________________________________
37/367 TOC: 1
b.
c.
Figure. Even-Israel v Shulman (1554/16) civil appeal in the Supreme Court: a.
Events - on June 25, 2016, still shows the April 30, 2016 assignment of the case to a
Justice (singular), the April 10, 2016, release of the decision, and April 11, 2016 mailing
of the decision to the parties. b. The Decisions Docket (June 25, 2016 printout) fails to show
any longer the April 10, 2016 Decision. c. The June 08, 2016 Decision, issued following
media reports of the incident and request by Counsel to reinstate the original decision, says:
It was an error, a draft that was prematurely sent. The Judgment is the one, which was
rendered by the 3-justice panel on June 05, 2016. The request is denied. Rendered on June
08, 2016. The June 08, 2016 record, as usual, shows the footnote disclaimer: Version
subject to editing and phrasing changes.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
38/367 TOC: 1
(iii) Eliminating lawfully appointed Chief Clerk, and refusal to provide valid certification
Undermining the integrity of Supreme Court records in March 2002 took place in
conjunction with the unexpected death in office of then Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen.
Freedom of Information response by the Administration of Courts documented that Ms
Sarah Lifschitz, who appeared as Chief Clerk from 2002 to 2013 held no valid
appointment. The evidence also shows that Ms Lifschitz routinely perverted and falsified
Supreme Court records.
Figure. Macmull v Bank of Israel and State of Israel (3518/08) - simulation and/or forgery
of certifications of Supreme Court decision record. 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. a. Purported
certification of June 1, 2008 Decision, dismissing the petition. 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 - Copying is True to the
Original - instead of True Copy of the Original. Sarah Lifschitz was not duly appointed
Chief Clerk. The footnote says: Duplicate subject to editing and phrasing changes.
_____
Already in 2012, a criminal complaint was filed with the Israel Police, Jerusalem District,
against Sarah Lifschitz for deceit, false appearance as Chief Clerk, falsification of court
records, breach of trust. [xvii]
The criminal complaint against Ms Sara Lifschitz has never been duly investigated.
Later, in 2013, a criminal deceit and breach of trust complaint was also filed with the Israel
Police against Supreme Court Presiding Justice Asher Grunis on the same matter: [xviii] In
response to inquiry regarding perversion of court records in the Supreme Court and a
request for Ms Lifschitzs valid appointment record as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court,
presiding Justice Grunis responded: Ms Sara Lifschitz, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court,
was appointed pursuant to the rules that are common in the State Service for persons in her
rank. However, Presiding Judge Grunis failed to provide any record of the appointment at
all. Such response was deemed deceitful. The criminal complaint against Presiding Justice
Asher Grunis has never been duly investigated.
_____________________________________________________________________
39/367 TOC: 1
Figure. August 05, 2014 Response by the office of Presiding Justice Asher Grunis on
inquiry, which requested clarification of Ms Sara Lifschitzs appointment as Chief Clerk of
the Supreme Court and request a copy of her appointment record. The response says: To
Joseph Zernik, PhD, PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv. Dear Sir, RE: Your letter to the Supreme
Court Presiding Justice; Your June 18, 2013 letter. I herein confirm receipt of your June
18, 2013 inquiry by the Bureau of the Supreme Court Presiding Justice. Ms Sara Lifschitz,
Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, was appointed pursuant to the rules that are common in
the State Service for persons in her rank. Truly, [wet hand-signature] Yifat Gerfi,
Advocate, Professional Assistant to the Presiding Justice.
______
Freedom of Information response by the Administration of Courts likewise documented that

Ms Idit Melul, who appears as Chief Clerk today, holds no lawful appointment. [xix, xx]
The inability to obtain honest, authentic certification of Supreme Court decision records was
again documented in Roman Zadorov appeal court file in the Supreme Court. Regardless of
repeat requests for lawful, honest certification, only perverted (e.g. Copying is True to the
Original), false and misleading certification was provided by unauthorized persons.
_____________________________________________________________________
40/367 TOC: 1
Figures. Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) criminal appeal in the Supreme Court -
falsification/forgery of Israeli Supreme Court decision records: Repeat explicit requests
were filed with the Supreme Court for honest, lawful certification by a lawfully appointed
Chief Clerk or Magistrate of the Court, using the lawful certification language provided by
law - True Copy of the Original. Regardless, the certifications, which were received by
mail were of decision records, which were unsigned by the justices, using false language
Copying is True to the Original, and bearing wet hand signature of an unauthorized
person Mr Dannly Levy, Senior Coordinator, Criminal Division. [xxi]
____
After repeat requests for lawful, honest certification of decision records in Roman Zadorov
Supreme Court file, letter was received from Chief Clerk Idit Melul, stating: Further
inquiries in this matter would not be answered.
Figure. November 15, 2016 letter by Chief Clerk Idit Melul, pertaining to repeat requests
for lawful, honest certification of Supreme Court decision records in Roman Zadorov v
State of Israel (7939/10) criminal appeal in a murder case. The letter says: To Mr Joseph
Zernik, PO 33407, Tel-Aviv, 6133301. Dear Sir, Re: Your November 01, 2016 inquiry.
Thank you for your inquiry, referenced above. I have noting to add on my September 08,
2016 response. Further inquiries in this matter would not be answered. The letter bears no
reference number, and is signed by a graphic signature, therefore merely a Draft.
_____________________________________________________________________
41/367 TOC: 1
Such conduct renders the validity of all Supreme Court vague and ambiguous, and is
inconsistent with conduct of a competent Court of Record.
Undermining the authority of the Chief Clerk was affected by the Regulations of the Courts
Office of the Clerk (2004). The new Regulations eliminated any explicit provision,
pertaining to the authority and duties of the Chief Clerk, relative to the safeguard of
integrity of court records, court files and court books.
However, a 2005 amendment to the Regulations (Regulation 6a) provided the Chief Clerk
with the authority to certify court records, True Copy of the Original. The Magistrate of
the Court is also authorized to perform the Chief Clerk's duties.
Regardless, as shown above, it is impossible to obtain today lawful certification of Supreme
Court decision and judgment records.
(iv) Elimination of valid Notices to Appear in Court

The Notices to Appear are critical instruments, relative to validity of court hearings.
The Supreme Court is administered in paper court files, however, inspection of a series of
paper court files of the Supreme Court has failed to discover any Notice to Appear in any
paper court files.
According to staff of the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Notices to Appear
are maintained as electronic records (i.e., invalid records in a court that is administered in
paper court file). Moreover, according to staff of the Supreme Courts Office of the Clerk,
the Notices to Appear in Court disappear from the Supreme Courts computer system after
the hearing date.
Such conditions, which are now the routine in the Supreme Court, in fact render all Supreme
Court hearings sham/simulated hearings, and are inconsistent with conduct of a competent
Court of Record.
Case Study: Ometz v Attorney General (5514/16) petition in the Supreme Court
The failure to maintain Notices to Appear was again documented in Ometz v Attorney
General (5514/16) petition in the Supreme Court (related to the Roman Zadorov affair
and perversion of Dr Chen Kugels expert witness affidavit). In response on request to
inspect the Notice to Appear, the Supreme Court issued a decision, which is deemed a
dishonest gimmick: The decision granted the request to inspect, but instead of permitting
the Requester to inspect the original records in the paper court file ordered the Clerk of the
Court to directly mail to the Requester the Notice to Appear to the degree that it exists.
a)
_____________________________________________________________________
42/367 TOC: 1
b)
_____________________________________________________________________
43/367 TOC: 1
c)
Figures. Ometz v Attorney General (5514/16) petition in the Supreme Court: a) March
16, 2017 Decision on request to inspect duly made Notice to Appear and Protocol,
pertaining to the February 14, 2017 Hearing in this case. The decision was received by mail
unsigned and unauthenticated. It says in part: After reviewing the request, and pursuant to
the Regulations of the Courts- Inspection of Court Files (2003) we order the Office of the
Clerk to serve on the Requester by mail the Notice to Appear for the February 14, 2017
Hearing, to the degree that it exists, and the February 14, 2017 Hearing Protocol. b) No
Notice to Appear was received by mail from the Office of the Clerk, only an
unauthenticated printout from an unidentified IT system, which purports that Notices to
Appear were mailed out to the parties.
The printout is titled: Summonses/Cancellations for Court File 5514/16, and purports to
record the mailing of the Notices to Appear to the parties by fax to the Petitioner, and by
phone (!) to the Respondent (Attorney General). c) A record, which was received by mail
from the Office of the Clerk following the March 16, 2017 Decision on request to inspect
duly made Hearing Protocol. The record is an unsigned, unauthenticated printout from an
unidentified IT system. It ends Postponed for review. Court transcriptionists: Rina/Galit.
____
(v) Failure to maintain valid hearings protocols [minutes]

The Hearing Protocol is a critical record of the conduct of lawful hearing of the Court.
Israeli law prescribes that the courts maintain Hearing Protocols [minutes]. In fact, the
Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal was based on the failure to produce
lawfully valid, signed Hearings Protocols. However, the Supreme Court has failed to
maintain lawfully valid, signed Hearings Protocols for years.
In the 2008 Judgment in Honest Governance Movement v Minister of Justice and the
Supreme Court Presiding Justice (5122/06 ) in the Supreme Court itself, the Supreme Court
consented to keep signed Hearings Protocols. In parallel, a 2008 amendment to the Courts
Act was enacted, which explicitly prescribes that the Supreme Court maintain lawfully
valid, signed hearing protocols.
Regardless, the Supreme Court continues to disregard its own Judgment and the amendment
to the Courts Act to this date, failing to keep lawfully valid, signed Hearings Protocols.
The failure to maintain lawfully valid, signed Hearings Protocols was again documented in
Ometz v Attorney General (5514/16) petition in the Supreme Court (related to the
Roman Zadorov affair and perversion of expert witness Dr Chen Kugels affidavit). In
_____________________________________________________________________
44/367 TOC: 1
response on request to inspect lawfully made Protocol of the February 14, 2017 Hearing,
the Supreme Court issued a decision, which is deemed a dishonest gimmick: The decision
granted the request to inspect, but instead of permitting the Requester to inspect the
original records in the paper court file ordered the Clerk of the Court to directly mail to
the Requester the Hearing Protocol. The record, which was received by mail was a
unsigned printout from the IT system.
Case Study: Moti Ashkenazi+76 others v Director of the Enforcement and Collection
Authority and Minister of Justice (2300/11) petition for a conditional decree in the
Supreme Court
In this case war-hero Ashkenazi and others petitioned the Supreme Court, sitting as High
Court of Justice (national tribunal for protection of rights) to protect their Due Process rights
in the Debtors' Courts.
The Israeli debtors' courts are managed as administrative courts under the Ministry of
Justice. Fraud in collection procedures of the Debtor's Court has been repeatedly
documented, including a recent State Ombudsman report. Debtors are routinely charged
unlawful usury interest rates, debtors' payments are not properly credited to their accounts,
and at time entirely fictitious debts are collected.
The Ashkenazi petition was limited to one issue: Arbitrarily termination by the Debtors'
Courts of service to the debtors of any decision, which was longer than 17 lines. At the same
time, attorneys for the debt-holders continued to receive electronic notice and service
uninterrupted (almost 100% of the debtors are in pro se, while almost 100% of the debt
holders are represented by counsel).
In the Ashkenazi petition, Supreme Court 3-justice panel, headed by Supreme Court
Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, conducted for about 4 years preliminary proceedings with
no foundation in the law. Two judgments were listed in the Decisions Docket of such
preliminary proceedings. The first Judgment is said by Petitioners' Counsel not to be a
Judgment. A third Judgment, issued on June 03, 2014, ordered the dismissal of the
petition.
During the years of the Petition, State Counsel claimed first, that the failure to serve the
debtors was the result of computer problems. Later, he claimed that it resulted from shortage
in supply of the correct-size envelopes. Finally, he claimed that a new IT system was under
development for the Debtors' Courts, and therefore, the problem would be resolved.
Several hearings were purportedly held in this case, and the Supreme Court IT system lists
the issuing and mailing of Notices to Appear in Court. However, inspection of the Supreme
Court paper court file (original records) failed to discover any Notice to Appear in Court and
any Protocol [minutes] of the hearings.
Staff of the Office of the Clerk explained that no Notice to Appear in Court records are
maintained in the Supreme Court paper court files any longer. According to the staff of the
Office of the Clerk the Notice to Appear in Court is an electronic record (therefore invalid in
a court that is administered in paper court files), which is temporarily maintained in the
Supreme Court IT system, but disappears from the system after the hearing date. The
Notice to Appear in Court also showed invalid signature.
_____________________________________________________________________
45/367 TOC: 1
a.
b.
Figure. Moti Ashkenzai+76 others v Director of the Enforcement and Collection Authority
and Minister of Justice (2300/11) petition for a conditional decree in the Supreme Court
- hearing records: a) Notice to Appear in Court for a September 10, 2012 Hearing as
received by fax by Counsel for the Petitioners. The record is registered issued under the
Events tab in the Supreme Court IT system. However, all records of Notices to Appear in
Court are missing from this and other Supreme Court paper court files. According to staff of
the Office of the Clerk, these the notices are maintained as electronic records, which
disappear after the hearing date. The record is missing a valid signature. It shows a
graphic signature of Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz. Under the signature line only
signature is written, with no name or position title. Sarah Lifschitz appeared as Chief
Clerk of the Supreme Court from 2002 to 2013. However, Freedom of Information
response revealed that she held no lawful appointment for such office. b) Final page of the
purported July 21, 2011 Hearing Protocol - the record is an unsigned word-processing file,
maintained in the Supreme Court IT system. There are no protocol records in the paper court
file.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
46/367 TOC: 1
Upon review of the facts, outlined above, regarding the disclaimers, subject to editing and
phrasing changes, which were added on all Supreme Court records, the failure to duly
serve signed and authenticated decisions on the parties, the refusal to certify court decisions,
the failure to issue and maintain lawful, valid Notices to Appear, and the failure and refusal
to maintain lawful, valid Hearings Protocols, one is led to the unavoidable conclusion: The
Supreme Court today holds all its decisions merely drafts, and its hearings - informal,
off the record transactions.
Such conduct is inconsistent with a competent Court of Record, and should be deemed
serious violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Convention for Civil and Political Rights.
(vi) Falsification and disappearance of court files and decision records

Comprehensive data mining of IT system of the Israeli Supreme Court also shows that
following the March 2002 events, numerous electronic decision records were retroactively
falsified. As documented in the case of Even-Israel v Shulman (1554/16), it appears that in
parallel to falsification of the electronic renditions of paper decision records, the original
paper court records were destroyed, in disregard of the law, pertaining to shredding of court
files.
The matter is documented in the two cases belows.
Case Study: Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) Request for a a New Trial in
the Supreme Court
[see above - Case Study: Amos Baranes v State of Israel (3032/99) in the Israeli Supreme Court
26]
Case Study: Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to Handicapped by Nazi Persecution

Act (1582/02) civil appeal in the Supreme Court
The case of Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act
(1582/02) originated from denial of reparation payments by the Israeli government to
Holocaust survivors from funds established by the German government. It is one of many
Supreme Court files, which show patent falsification of the electronic renditions of the
original paper decision records.
Figure. Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi

Persecutions Act (1582/02) civil appeal in the Supreme Court - falsification of Supreme
Court electronic decision records: The signature and certification box of Supreme Court
_____________________________________________________________________
47/367 TOC: 1
decision 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 Magistrate of the Supreme Court for some 5
years, and Shmaryahu Cohen was not among the living for the about five years. Numerous
other records of the same nature were discovered. The Supreme Court denied access to
inspect the paper court file in this case, claiming that the paper court file was shredded.
However, regardless of repeat requests, the Supreme Court refused to provide the
documentation that is required by the Regulations of the Archive (1968) for shredding of
court files.
In this case, the Supreme Court denied access to inspect the paper court records through
various patent violations of Due Process. Eventually, the Supreme Court Magistrate
claimed that the court file was shredded, but refused to provide the documentation of court
file shredding, prescribed in the Regulations of the Archives (1986).
[see also Case Study: Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi
Persecutions Act 59]
_____
Anonymous (Shuki Mishol) v State of Israel (1322/17) criminal appeal - in the Supreme
Court
a)
_____________________________________________________________________
48/367 TOC: 1
b)
Figures. Anonymous (Shuki Mishol) v State of Israel (1322/17) criminal appeal - in the
Supreme Court: a) Index of All Cases in the Supreme Courts public access system shows
Mishols criminal appeal file onlyi as 1322/17 - Sealed. The sealing had no lawful
foundation, as established following the filing of a request for a lawfully made publication
prohibition decree [gag order], which did not exist at all. Unlawful sealing is one of the
hallmarks of corrupt court process in the cases of corrupt government officials, on the one
hand, and protest activists and whistle-blowers, on the other hand. b) April 05, 2017
Decision by Supreme Court Justice Uri Shoham. The unsigned, unauthenticated was
received by Appellant Mishols counsel from an anonymous fax machine. Page 1 identifies
the person, pertaining to whom the record was issued as "Anonymous". Page 5 says: "In
sum, the Requester shall appear in Nitzan Prison on April 23, 2017 before 10:00 am, or as
instructed by the Prison Service, for serving his penalty, holding an ID or a passport, and a
copy of instant decision." The unsigned signature box says only "Judge", and the footnote
disclaimer says - "subject to editing and phrasing changes". Israeli law prescribes the
issuing of a separate arrest decree by the trial or appeal court, following decision on
imprisonment. Israeli law also prohibits the prison commander from admitting any person
to prison without a duly made arrest decree, signed by the appropriate judicial authority, and
clearly identifying the person, pertaining to whom such arrest decree was rendered. Justice
Shoham failed to issue a valid arrest decree, and in parallel imposed unlawful sealing on the
entire court file. Regardless of repeat notices, Shuki Mishol was admitted to prison with no
valid arrest decree. Shuki Mishol is the most senior of a group of 15 whistle-blowers in the
Tax Authority corruption scandal. For 15 years, the justice system has been protecting the
Tax Authority corruption figures, while persecuting the whistle-blowers.
[see also Prison Service 175]
______
_____________________________________________________________________
49/367 TOC: 1
(vii) Denial of access to court records
Israeli law regarding public access to court records is clear. Regulations of the Courts-
Inspection of Court Files (2003) say:
2.(a) Any person is permitted to inspect the Index of All Cases in the Office of
the Clerk.
2.(b) Any person is permitted to inspect court decisions, which are not
lawfully prohibited for publication.
3. A party in a case is permitted to inspect the court file, in which he is a party,
after completing the Notice of Inspection (Form 1 in the Appendix), unless he
is prohibited by law from inspecting it.
4.(a) Any person is permitted to request the Court to inspect a court file,
unless inspection is prohibited by law.

6. (b) Presiding Judge of the Court shall establish inspection procedures and
times in the Court where the Judge presides.
Furthermore, a 2009 Judgment of the Supreme Court itself, at the end of a 12 year petition
on the subject of the right to inspect and to copy Association for Civil Rights in Israel v
Minister of Justice et al (5917/97) further established, regarding the right to inspect court
decisions:
Regulation 2(b) expands the publics right to inspect without any requirement
for filing a request with the Court, but that only pertaining to court
decisions, and only pertaining to decisions, which are not prohibited for
publication.
The same 2009 Judgment elaborates on the importance of the right to inspect in
safeguarding transparency of the judicial process, in maintaining public trust in the courts,
in upholding the appearance of justice, etc, etc The same 2009 Judgment also declares
that the right to inspect is a fundamental principle in any democratic regime
Constitutional, supra-statutory...
Regardless of the hifalutin Constitutional language and the explicit letter and spirit of the
law, the Supreme Court, like all other courts in Israel:
a) Routinely denies access to inspect court decisions without filing a request with the Court.
In doing so, the judges routinely usurp judicial authority and judicial discretion, where
neither authority nor discretion were provided to them by law, and
b) Routinely denies the access to inspect the original, signed paper decision records in the
paper court files, while trying to substitute such right with access to invalid, unsigned
renditions in IT system of the Courts.
There simply is not way to explain such conduct in a way that is consistent with the law,
consistent with integrity of the courts, and/or consistent with the Constitutional
Revolution and Constitutional Rights.
Case Study: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) criminal, murder case - paper
court file from the Nazareth District Court, then held by the Supreme Court
[see under Case Study: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court
79]
_____________________________________________________________________
50/367 TOC: 1
Case Study: Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) petition - in the
Supreme Court
a) b)
_____________________________________________________________________
51/367 TOC: 1
c)
d)
Figures. Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) petition - in the
Supreme Court two false, invalid decisions on Disqualification for a Cause: a) The May
29, 2017 original Judgment record - on page 1, the Filer of the Disqualification for a
Cause fails to appear in the record header. The records was falsely issued on the main
parties in the case, and falsely titled - "Judgment", above which the subject of the judgment
is falsely referenced: "Petition for a Conditional Decree". In doing so, the Supreme Court
effectively disposed on petition, before filing of response by the Respondents. The final
paragraph says: "7. The Office of the Clerk shall bring the court file up for review and
rendering of decision on the May 15, 2017 Request, once instant decision (on
Disqualification) becomes unappealable." The record was mailed unsigned and
unauthenticated. b) The June 06, 2017 amended Decision record - on page 1, the Filer of
the Disqualification for a Cause still fails to appear in the record header. The records is titled
- "Decision", above which the subject of the decision is correctly noted: "May 22, 2017
Disqualification for a Cause". At the bottom of the header page, inverted, is the fax header
stamp, which shows that the record was faxed from an anonymous fax machine on June 07,
2017. The final paragraph ( #7) is the same as in the May 29, 2017 "Judgment" record.
Below it the text says: "Rendered on May 29, 2017, Amended today, June 06, 2017".
However, the "amended" record has not been entered in the Supreme Court's "Decisions
Docket" and "Events Log" to this date. c) "Decisions Docket" (on June 14, 2017): The latest
entry is the May 29, 2017 original "Judgment" record. The June 06, 2017 "amended
Decision - has not been entered in the docket. d) "Events Log" (on June 14, 2017): The
latest entry is the May 29, 2017 original Judgment record - "No 31. May 29, 2017 -
Judgment - Rendering of Judgment", and "No 31. June 05, 2017 - Judgment - Mailing to
parties". The rendering and faxing of the June 06, 2017 "amended Decision - has not been
entered to this date. [xxii]
____
_____________________________________________________________________
52/367 TOC: 1
Justices Yoram Danziger, Noam Solberg and Neal Hendel of the Supreme Court denied
access to inspect the original, signed court records in the Supreme Courts paper court file
(if they exist at all). Instead or permitting inspection of the original, signed records in the
Supreme Court's paper court file, the three Justices repeatedly sent by mail unsigned, invalid
printouts from IT system of the Court. Consequently, they failed to rule on repeat requests
to inspect the original, signed records in the Supreme Court's paper court file "in compliance
with the letter and the spirit of the law".
The Disqualification for a Cause, which was filed against the 3 Justices by the Requester of
Inspection, stated that their conduct was perceived as gimmickry, which circumvented the
law, and indicated lack of sincerity and lack of integrity. [xxiii]
Instead of producing a lawful decision on the Disqualification for a Cause, the three Justices
issued two different records, which are invalid, false and misleading on their faces. In such
fake court records, the justices claim:
After we reviewed the Disqualification and its justification, we decided
to deny it. Our decisions regarding inspection of the court file records
were rendered with no bias and do not show any concern of bias. The
Requester's requests to inspect were granted by sending the requested
records to him directly by mail. As far as the Requester is not pleased
with the decisions, or that he claims that there is some defect in the
records that were mailed to him, with all due respect, it does not indicate
any justification for Disqualification for a Cause.
In response to the disqualification for a cause, the Supreme Court engaged in
additional dishonest conduct issuing two different decisions on the Disqualification,
both invalid, one was entered in the Decisions Docket in online public access of the
Supreme Court, while the other was never entered, and its rendering and mailing was
never entered in the Events Log in the online public access system of the Court.
Consequently, request was filed with Supreme Court Presiding Justice Miriam Naor,
asking to immediately appoint a new judicial panel to review the requests to inspect,
since the judicial panel failed to lawfully answer on Disqualification for a Cause, and
was therefore disqualified.
Following is the June 15, 2017 request for immediate appointment of a new judicial
panel in Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) in the Supreme
Court. At the time of writing this submission, the outcome of the attempt to inspect the
original, signed decision records in this court file is still unknown. However, it is
obvious that the Supreme Court is attempting to establish an entirely new unlawful
standard in the Israeli courts, where public access to inspect and to copy original paper,
valid and signed records is denied.
_____________________________________________________________________
53/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
54/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
55/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
56/367 TOC: 1
____
Conduct of the justices in Ometz v Attorney General et al is of particular concern on

the background of subject matter of the petition itself attempt by the State Attorney
office to pervert the affidavit of Dr Chen Kugel, Director of the National Pathological
Institute, pertaining to the Roman Zadorov trial. Subject of the petition is stated in the
commencing record as a series of requests for responses by Attorney General Avichai
Mandelblit and State Attorney Shai Nitzan, e.g.: [xxiv]
Why shouldnt the determination by Respondent 1 [Attorney General jz] be
voided - that there is no harm to due government administration in conduct of
the State Attorney, and that the State Attorney office is permitted, according to
determination by Respondent 1, to communicate with witnesses and demand
that they alter their affidavits, which are filed in the courts, and are based on
their expertise or professional judgment.
a)
_____________________________________________________________________
57/367 TOC: 1
b)
Figure. Attempted perversion of Dr Kugel's affidavit, pertaining to the Roman Zadorov
murder trial. a) Dr Chen Kugel, Director of the National Forensic Institute, refused to
pervert his affidavit, pertaining to the Roman Zadorov case, regardless of pressure by senior
State Attorney's office. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shai Nitzan
hold that they are permitted to change affidavits of state employees, in order to better serve
the state position in court. b) Top: Dr Kugel's affidavit regarding the knife used in the
murder of Tair Rada and Dr Maya Forman's testimony in Roman Zadorov's trial, with
"corrections" by a senior State Attorney staff member, Attorney Dorit Drori Yifrache.
_____________________________________________________________________
58/367 TOC: 1
Center: July 29, 2014 email from Attorney Dorit Drori Yifrache to Dr Chen Kugel, which
accompanied the "corrected" affidavit, concludes: "The authority to determine, which are
the relevant positions to be included in court records, which are filed in court, is held by the
Attorney General and his designees, and not by each individual state employee". Bottom:
July 29, 2014 response email from Dr Chen Kugel to Attorney Dorit Drori Yifrache of the
State Attorney's office concludes: "My position remains as stated in my original affidavit,
which was filed this morning with your office".
_____
The attempt by the State Attorney office to pervert Dr Chen Kugels affidavit is difficult to
comprehend, since Dr Chen Kugel was reputed as the one, who blew the whistle on the
nefarious relationships between his predecessor, Prof Yehdua Hiss and the State
Prosecution.
Minister of Health Yael German, under whose office the National Forensic Institute is
operating, was also named one of the Defendants in Dr Maya Forman's employment
discrimination case. Minister German also refused to support the Attorney General's and
State Attorney's position. Instead, she issued a letter stating that the Attorney General's and
State Attorney's position, pertaining to Dr Maya Forman: ...lacks legal foundation and
carries overarching and dangerous implications... blatant violation of Human Rights, the
fundamentals of law and justice...
The attempt to pervert Dr Chen Kugels affidavit became a central issue in Commissioner of
Prosecutorial Oversight, Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel report on the relationships between the
State Attorney office and the Institute, and clash between the State Attorney office and the
Commissioner, which led to the Commissioners resignation.
[see also State Attorney, National Pathological Institute, Commissioner of Prosecutorial
Oversight]
CaseStudy:JudithFrancoSidietalvAuthoritypursuanttothePersonsDisabled
byNaziPersecutionsAct(1582/02)civilappealintheSupremeCourt
[see above - Case Study: Franco-Sidi et al v Authority... (1582/02) in the Supreme Court 47 ]
(viii) Supreme Court justices as Chairs of the Central Election Committee

By law, a Supreme Court justice chairs the Central Election Committee.
In view of evidence of incompetence, corruption and/or fraud in the Central Election
Committee, one must question the competence and/or collusion of Supreme Court justices,
who chaired the Committee in corresponding periods.
[see more - Central Election Committee 198]
c) District, magistrate, family and small claims courts Net-HaMishpat case management
and public access system
(i) Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat case management system
_____________________________________________________________________
59/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Net-HaMishpat computerized, secure connection to the courts.
____
Net-HaMishpat is fully implemented in all District and Magistrate Courts since January
2010. The system provides case management, e-filing, public access management. With its
implementation, the corresponding courts transitioned to e-files and e-records
administration.
The State Ombudsman's Report 60b (2010) reviewed the development and implementation
of Net-HaMishpat, and concluded: [xxv]
Development contracts were unlawfully awarded to corporations with no legal tender;
Contracts were unlawfully signed with no written specifications;
Development lacked core management by a state employee;
System were received and implemented with no independent validation by a state
employee;
Servers were removed from custody of the clerks to corporations, and
Unknown number of individuals were issued double Smart-ID cards.
Some of the most notable invalid features of the system include: [xxvi]
General failure to authenticate service of records, including summonses, court decisions
and court judgments by the Clerk of the Court
Figure. Changes related to implementation of Net-Hamishat IT system. Left: 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 Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena of Witnesses. 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. Right: 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 with no visible signature and no
indication of its service. Post-it Decisions are universally excluded from the Decisions
Docket in Net-HaMishpat, and often are not served on the parties either.
_____________________________________________________________________
60/367 TOC: 1
_____
Figure. Implementation of invalid summonses in Net-Hamishpat: Ben-Yaakov v Rolnick

(5374702-12) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court. The summons is unsigned, bears no seal
of the court, and is issued in the name of Office of the Clerk of the Magistrate Court, Tel-
Aviv. The late Supreme Court Presiding Justice Yoel Susmans book Civil Court
Procedure, Chapter: Service of Record explicitly states that lawful summonses must be
signed by the Chief Clerk of the Court. Since the summons and its lawful service establishes
the jurisdiction of the court on parties in a given matter, the invalid implementation of
summonses in Net-HaMishpat undermines integrity of all court actions.
_____
Figure. Implementation of invalid authentication letters in Net-Hamishpat. Silman v Social

Security (17520-08) in the Tel-Aviv District Court: the Accompanying letter of Judge Hagai
Brenner August 30, 2012 decision 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. Conduct of Judge Hagai Brenner in this case was
noted in the opening paragraph of self-immolated, social protest activist Moshe Silmans
last letter: Judge Hagai Brenner, the Tel-Aviv District Court, denied my access to justice,
perverted court procedures with impunity.
_____
Universal failure to docket summonses and authentication records:

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
_____________________________________________________________________
61/367 TOC: 1
records in Net-HaMishpat at all. Similarly, no authentication records, pertaining to
service of decisions and judgments, have been discovered upon inspection of the
electronic records in Net-HaMishpat. The Administration of Courts failed to respond on
a FOIA request in this matter.
No accountability of the Chief Clerk for integrity of court files and entry of record - no
maintenance of valid Decision Dockets, Judgment Index/Docket, or Calendars of the
Courts:
By law, public access is permitted to all judicial decisions, unless lawfully sealed. The
2009 Judgment in Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice et al
(5917/97) states the expectation that following implementation of Net-HaMishpat,
decisions will be publicly accessible on an ongoing basis. However, in practice, Net-
HaMishpat permits judges to hide decision records in an arbitrary and capricious
manner, with no foundation in the law. As a result, double and triple books for
Decisions Dockets are routinely maintained in the courts. The practice is particularly
notable in cases pertaining to government corruption, on the one hand, and in the
persecution of whistle-blowers and social protest activists, on the other hand.
a. b.
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court -
criminal prosecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower on insulting public service
employee - Double-book system in Net-HaMishpat on September 23, 2014 the
Decisions Docket: a) A remote public access terminal shows no decisions, and the screen
says: "No details found". b) The office of the clerk terminal lists a dozen decisions.
_____
Honest registration of judgments is critical for honest administration of the courts.

Typically, a Judgment Book, or an Index of Judgments is considered one of the
fundamental Books of Courts. Registration of judgments in Net-Hamishpat is
arbitrary and capricious.
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court criminal
trial in a murder case failure to enter judgments: Under the Judgments Docket in Net-
_____________________________________________________________________
62/367 TOC: 1
HaMishpat, the September 14, 2010 Verdict, convicting Zadorov of murder and Sentencing,
of life in prison, fail to be entered. The February 24, 2014 Supplemental Judgment, which
again convicted Zadorov of murder, is listed as Order on Defendant's attorney to file
certificate of counsel. Presiding Judge and Chief Clerk of the Nazareth District Court as
well as Administration of Courts (FOIA request) refused to answer:
Who is today charged with entry of judgments in Net-HaMishpat in the Nazareth

District Court?
Does the entry of judgment indicate that it is a lawful, valid and effectual judgment
of the court?
Does the failure to enter judgment indicate that is not a lawful, valid and effectual
judgment of the court?
The failure to enter judgments and maintain valid judgment records, in itself, should render
the Israeli courts incompetent and in violation of the right for Fair and Public Hearing and
the right for Due Process. The deprivation of Liberty, such as in the case of Roman
Zadorov, with no valid judgment records and no Arrest Decree should be deemed Arbitrary
Detention.
_____
Unlawful filing of evidence in criminal prosecutions with no prior inspection by the

defendants:
The Criminal Court Procedure Act prohibits the filing of evidence in criminal
prosecution, unless the defendant and his counsel were first provided the opportunity to
inspect the evidence. Inspection of court files shows that in Net-HaMishpat, the
Prosecution electronically files the evidence without providing the defendants and their
counsel the opportunity to inspect the evidence first.
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court -
criminal prosecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower on insulting public service
employee: Unlawful filing of evidence in a criminal prosecution. List of Related Files
in Net-HaMishpat shows hyperlinks to seven (7) Israel Police investigation files, although
the Defendant had not been provided an opportunity to inspect the evidence, regardless of
repeat requests. The hyperlinks are inaccessible to the public and the Defendant.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
63/367 TOC: 1
Invalid implementation of authorities and permissions - discrimination in access to the
courts:
Attorneys, who are authorized as Net-HaMishpat 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 working 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. In most courts, access to electronic court records is also
severely limited or prohibited on unrepresented parties in their own court files, in
disregard of the law.
Invalid implementation of e-signatures of judges and clerks
[seebelow]
(ii) Invalid implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat

With the implementation of Net-HaMishpat the District, Magistrate and Small Claims Court
transitioned to electronic file management. Pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001),
electronic signature is required on all judicial and clerical records, which were hand-signed
under paper administration of the courts. The judiciary and the Israel Bar Association falsely
led the public to believe that judicial decision and judgment records are lawfully signed by
electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001). Review indicates that
only false, invalid signatures were implemented in Net-HaMishpat.
The failure to implement valid, lawful e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat, by itself, renders all
court decisions and judgments of the District and Magistrate Courts since 2010 merely
Drafts.
The false implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat is concealed from the public,
since detached e-signatures were implemented, and judges and attorneys consistently
denied public access to the electronic signature data. Therefore, the public and parties are
left unable to distinguish between valid, lawful and enforceable judicial records, and invalid
records, which are merely Drafts.
Such circumstances are akin to The Emperors New Clothes. Fraud experts call such
circumstances Shell Game Fraud, or Confidence Trick.
Case Study: complaint (192/17/Nazareth District), filed with Ombudsman of the

Judiciary
In 2017, complaint (192/17/Nazareth District) regarding the denial of party and public
access to e-signature data, and the implementation of invalid e-signature in Net-HaMishpat
was filed with the Ombudsman of the Judiciary. The complained claimed:
That judges unlawfully deny party and non-party access to e-signature data, and
That no lawfully valid e-signatures have ever been implemented in Net-HaMishpat, and
That Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision 88/12/Tel-Aviv District in the Judge Varda
Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal misrepresented the circumstances, leading the
naive reader to believe that lawfully valid e-signatures were indeed implemented in Net-
_____________________________________________________________________
64/367 TOC: 1
HaMishpat, but Judge Varda Alshech failed to execute them on the Fabricated
Protocols. [xxvii]
Ombudsman of the Judiciary failed to decide on the complaint. Furthermore, conduct of the
Ombudsmans office in this matter demonstrated lack of integrity, if not deceit.
[see also - Ombudsman of the Judiciary 121]
The implication of such circumstances are difficult to fathom. All District, Magistrate and
Small Claims Court records in Israel since January 2010 are unlawful, invalid. Likewise,
and appeals, originating in such decisions and judgments are invalid and unlawful, including
all appeals by the Supreme Court.
Following is the Appendix to Complaint 192/17/Nazareth District, addressing the invalidity
of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat:
_____
AddendumtoComplaint(192/17/NazarethDistrict),filedwith
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydenialofaccesstoinspectelectronic
signaturedatainNetHaMishpatbyJudgesAvrahamAvraham
StateofIsraelvZadorov(50207),EliyahuBacharRussovetalv
CityofTelAviv(187901014),ShalhevetKamirWiessStateof
IsraelvKlass(633430117),OdedMorenoStateofIsraelvZernik
(380860217).[xxviii]
Complainant:
JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlertNGO
OccupyTLV
April05,2017
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerRivlin
MinistryofJustice
Byemail:Shoftim@justice.gov.il
RE:AddendumtoComplaint(192/17/NazarethDistrict),filedwith
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciary:denialofaccesstoinspectelectronic
(380860217).
DearOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryRivlin:
IhereinfileanAddendumtotheComplaint,referencedabove.The
Addendumprimarilyprovidesnewevidenceregardingpurported
_____________________________________________________________________
65/367 TOC: 1
electronicsignaturesinNetHaMishpatandthewithholdingfromthe
publicatlarge.
Pleaseconfirmreceiptbyreturnemail.
Truly,
__________________
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv6133301
Email:joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
AddendumtoComplaint(192/17/NazarethDistrict),filewith
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciary:Denialofaccesstoinspectelectronic
(380860217).
TheComplaint,referencedabove,pertainstoconductofthenamed
judges,whodeniedaccesstoelectronicsignaturedata(iftheyexistat
all)ondecisionandjudgmentrecordsinNetHaMishpat(case
managementsystemoftheDistrictandMagistrateCourts).
TheAddendumpresentsevidencethatondocuments,whichare
perceivedascourtrecordsinNetHaMishpat,therearenoelectronic
signaturesofjudgesandcourtemployeespursuanttotheElectronic
SignatureAct(2001).
Theobviousquestion,arisinginthiscontextis:Doessuchconduct
amounttofraud?(fraudofthetype,whichcalledbyprofessionals
ShellGameFraud).
Theobviousconcernisthatconductofthejudges,whichisdocumented
intheComplaintrepresentsconductofIsraelijudgesasaclass
withholdingfromthepublicthelackofvalidityandeffectofjudicial
recordsinNetHaMishpat.JudgeAvrahamAvrahamJanuary25,2016
DecisioninStateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(50207),whichiscopiedin
theComplaint,isprobablytheclearestevidence:thesearenot
RequeststoInspect,butaninvestigation,whichtheRequesteris
conducting,regardingvalidityofNetHaMishpatsystem...(Figure5in
theComplaint).
a) ThelegalframeworkSigningjudicialdecisionsand
theElectronicSignatureAct(2001)
Regulation190(a)oftheCivilCourtProcedure(1984)provides:
Decisionshallbeinwritingandsignedbythejudges,whowereseated
incourt.
Article1oftheElectronicSignatureAct(2001)provides:
_____________________________________________________________________
66/367 TOC: 1
CertifyingAuthorityauthoritywhichissueselectroniccertificates,
andisregisteredintheRegisterpursuanttotheprovisionsofinstant
Act;
ElectronicSignaturesignature,whichiselectronicinformationor
electronicsymbol,whichwasaffixedortiedtoanelectronicmessage;
SecureElectronicSignatureelectronicsignature,whichcomplies
withallofthefollowing:
(1)Itisuniquetotheownerofthesigningdevice;
(2)Providestheapparentidentityoftheownerofthesigning
device;
(3)Wasgeneratedthroughasigningdevice,whichisunderthe
exclusivecontroloftheownerofthesigningdevice;
(4)Providestheabilitytoidentifyanychangethatwas
introducedintheelectronicmessageafterthetimeofitssigning;
Article2(a)oftheElectronicSignatureAct(2001)provides:
2.(a)Inanycase,wheresignatureofanindividualisrequired
by law on a document, such requirement may be fulfilled,
pertaining to a document that is an electronic message,
throughtheuseofanelectronicsignature,providedthatitis
acertifiedelectronicsignature.
3.Anelectronicmessage,whichissignedbyasecureelectronic
signature,shallbeadmissibleinanyjudicialprocessandprovidean
apparentevidencethat
(1)Thesignaturebelongstotheownerofthesigningdevice;
(2)Theelectronicmessagewastheonethatwassignedbythe
ownerofthesigningdevice.
Article6(b)andtheSecondAppendixtotheElectronicSignatureAct
(2001)provide:
6(a)Theoutputofandelectronicmessage,whichissignedbyasecure
electronicsignatureshallbedeemed,inanyjudicialprocess,notasa
copyoftheelectronicmessage,fromwhichitwasproduced,butan
original.
6(b)TheprovisionsofArticle6(a)shallnotapplytocertaintypesof
electronicmessages,certaintypesofjudicialprocessesandcertain
usagesofelectronicmessages,whichweredeterminedbytheMinister,
withapprovalbytheKnessetConstitution,LawandJusticeCommittee,
intheSecondAppendix.
SecondAppendix,Article6(b),1.Judgmentsofthecourt,tribunal,or
anyjudicial,orsemijudicialentity,whichwaslawfullyestablished,
unlessotherwiseprovidedbylaw;
_____________________________________________________________________
67/367 TOC: 1
9(a)TheMinistershallappoint,amongstaffofhisoffice,aperson,who
iscompetentasMagistrateJudge,asMagistrate[ofCertifying
Authoritiesjz].
TheMagistrateshallmaintainaRegistry,whereCertifyingAuthorities
shallbeentered,aswellasforeignCertifyingAuthorities,pursuantto
instantAct;theRegistryshallbeapublicrecord,openforinspection.
10(a)RequestforentryofaCertifyingAuthorityintheRegistryshallbe
filedwiththeMagistrate,andshallincludeallthefollowing:
(1)Requestersname,proposedcandidatefordirectorofthe
CertifyingAuthority,andIDdetailsandresidenceofboth;incase
theRequesterisacorporation,theRequestshallincludethe
incorporationarticlesofthecorporation,oritsoperations
articles,thenamesoftheindividuals,whocontrolthe
corporation,thedirectors,theirIDdetailsandresidences;for
instantpurpose,controlasdefinedintheStockAct(1968),
andanyandallterminsaiddefinitionshallbeconstrued
pursuanttotheabovereferencedAct;
(1a)ProvisionsofArticle10(a)shallapplytoRequestforentry
intotheRegistry,whichisfiledbytheState,orbyacorporation,
whichwasestablishedbylaw,withtherequiredmodifications,as
determinedbytheMinister.
...
(c)TheMagistrateshallsupervisetheCertifyingAuthorities,
pursuanttoinstantAct.
21a.(a)TheStateispermittedtoissueElectronicCertificatespursuant
toinstantAct,ineachofthefollowingcases:
(1)Onanidentificationdocument,asdefinedintheBiometric
IdentificationDevicesInclusionandBiometricIdentificationDatain
IdentificationDocumentsandinaDatabase(2009);however,in
anycase,whereacertifiedelectronicsignatureisrequiredby
law,suchElectronicCertificate,whichwasissuedpursuantto
instantArticlebeusedonlyforexecutionoftransactionsofthe
CertificateownervisavistheState,excludingtransactionsofa
corporation,ortransactionoftheCertificatesowner,whoisa
lawfullylicensedprofessional,whichisexecutedwithinthescope
ofhisprofessionorlicense;
(2)ForaStateemployee,foranyperson,whoperformsadutyor
holdsapositiononitsbehalf,oronbehalfofanyoftheState
institutions,orforanyperson,whoperformsadutybylaw,for
_____________________________________________________________________
68/367 TOC: 1
thepurposeofperformingsuchduty;forinstantpurpose,State
employeeincludingasoldier,apoliceman,oraprisonwarden.
(b)RegardlessofprovisionsofArticle21a.(a),theStateispermitted,
startingJanuary02,2011(ininstantArticletheEffectiveDate),to
issueelectroniccertificatesbeyondthosethatarepermittedinArticle
21a.(a),providedthatallthefollowingshallbecompliedwith:
(1)TheCertificateisrequiredforperformingaduty,whichis
requiredbyoftheRequesterbylaw,orpursuanttorequirement
byanyoftheStateauthorities;
(2)TheGovernmentdecidedso,onceconvincedthatonlyon
CertifyingAuthorityisissuingElectronicCertificatesforthe
purposesinArticle(1)andtherearematerialdeficienciesinits
performance,andthereforethereisconcernofharmingthe
abilityofthose,whoareperformingadutyorrequirement,as
providedinArticle(1),toreasonablypreformsuchdutyor
requirement,pursuanttoanylaw.
(c)RegardlessoftheprovisionsofArticles(a)and(b),the
StateispermittedtoissueElectronicCertificates,indisregard
ofArticle(a),priortotheEffectiveDate,providedthatthere
isnootherCertifyingAuthority,whichcanprovidethe
service,andoneofthefollowingisfulfilled:
(1)ACertifyingAuthoritywasremovedfromthe
Registry;
(2)ValidityoftheentryofaCertifyingAuthorityinthe
Registrywassuspended;
(3)OperationsofaCertifyingAuthoritywas
terminated;
(4)TheGovernmentwasconvinced,pursuantto
opinionoftheMagistrate,thatmaterialdeficiencies
existinoperationsofaCertifyingAuthority,which
raiseconcernsofharmingtheintegrityofElectronic
Certificates,whichareissuedbysuchCertifying
Authority.
(d)IfalltheconditionsforissuingElectronicCertificatesby
theStatewerefulfilled,pursuanttoArticles(b)and(c),the
MinistershallnoticetheCertifyingAuthorityofthedecision
toissueElectronicCertificatesbytheState.
(e)OncetheGovernmenthasdecidedthattheconcerns,
whichareprovidedinArticle(b)(2)or(c)(4)wereremoved,
orcircumstances,whichareprovidedinArticles(1)through
(3)ofArticle(c),ceasedtoexist,theStateshallceaseto
issueElectronicCertificatespursuanttoArticles(b)or(c);
theMinisterispermittedtoestablishprovisionsinthis
_____________________________________________________________________
69/367 TOC: 1
matter,includingtheissueofgraduallyceasingtoissue
ElectronicCertificates,asstatedabove,bytheState.
(f)TheMinister,withapprovaloftheKnessetScienceand
TechnologyCommittee,shallbepermittedtoestablish
provisionsfortheissuingofElectronicCertificatesandtheir
abolishmentbytheState,pursuanttoinstantchapterofthe
Act,buttheMinistershallnotestablishprovisions,which
woulddiminishthelevelofsecurityandqualityofservice,
whicharerequiredofaCertifyingAuthority,pursuantto
instantAct.
b) ThenaivereaderofOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary
DecisionintheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocols
scandalwouldreachtheconclusionthatjudicialdecisionsin
NetHaMishpatarelawfullysigned,usingelectronic
signatures,pursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001).
TheissueofelectronicsignatureswascentraltotheJudgeVarda
AlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal(althoughitwasnotreported
thiswaytothepublic).OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecision
(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)inthisaffairreferstoelectronicsignatureson
electroniccourtrecordsinNetHaMishpatanumberoftimes.[xxix]The
decisionclarifiesthatcourtrecordsinNetHaMishpatareelectronic
records,andaslongastheyarenotlawfullysigned,usinganelectronic
signature,pursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001),theyare
merelydrafts.Amongsuchreferencesare:
Paragraph36intheOmbudsmansDecisionsaysinpart:
toherresponse[JudgeVardaAlshech]attachedWorkInstruction
114/10oftheAdministrationofCourtsApplyingTrueCopyofthe
Originalstamponprintoutsofcourtjudgments
WorkInstruction114/10indicates:
Intheeraoftheelectroniccourtfiles,judgmentsaresignedusing
secureelectronicsignature.PursuanttotheElectronicSignature
Act(Article6bandthesecondAddendumtotheAct)...
ThiswritingisconsistentwithwhatissaidintheMay01,2012
AttorneyBarakLasers[LegalCounseloftheAdministrationofCourts
jz]lettertotheOmbudsman:
Outputofanelectronicrecord,signedusinganelectronic
signatureisdeemed,pursuanttoArticle6(b)oftheElectronic
SignatureAct(2001)acopy.
37.Therefore,sincetherewasnoProtocol,whichwassignedusingan
electronicsignature,thestampTrueCopyoftheOriginalshouldhave
notbeenapplied
_____________________________________________________________________
70/367 TOC: 1
39.Inaturallyfullyenjointherecommendationoftheabovereferenced
report.Judgesshouldbeinstructed,asearlyaspossible,withthe
significanceofsigningprotocolsanddecisions,usingelectronic
signatures(inthisregard,seetheprovisionsofRegulation190(a)of
theRegulationsofCivilCourtProcedure(1984),whichstatesthat
Decisionshallbeinwritingandsignedbythejudges,whowereseated
incourt)...
Basedonalltheabove,thenaivereaderandthepublicatlargecould
concludethatvalidandeffectualcourtrecordsinNetHaMishpatare
indeedsigned,usingelectronicsignatures,pursuanttotheElectronic
SignatureAct(2001).
Theevidence,whichisprovidedininstantAddendum,indicatesthat
suchisnotthecaseatall.
c) Asarule,therearenoelectronicsignatures,pursuant
totheElectronicSignatureAct(2001),tobefoundon
electronicdecisionandjudgmentrecordsinNetHaMishpat
Tothisdate,noaccesswasmaterializedtotheelectronicsignaturedata
(iftheyexistatall)inthecourtfiles,whicharethesubjectofthe
Complaint.However,recentlyIvegainedaccesstothepurported
electronicsignaturedataonaseriesofpurportedcourtrecordsfrom
NetHaMishpat,whichweregeneratedbyjudgesandcourtemployees.
Inspectionofthedataofsuchpurportedelectronicsignaturedata
indicatesthattheyareallessentiallythesame,andallofthemare
patentlyinvalidandineffectual(Figure1b,c).
a)
b)
_____________________________________________________________________
71/367 TOC: 1
c)
Figure1:a)Exampleoftheelectronicsignatureofaparty,whichfiles
amotion,usingelectronicfilinginNetHaMishpatinspectionofthe
electronicsignaturecertification,usingPERSONALIDcorporations
dedicatedsoftware:GeneralCertificationinformationInstant
certificationisintendedforprovingyouridentitytoaremote
computer,Issuedfor:<firstandlastname>,<IDnumber>
[redactedjz],Issuedby:PERSONALID...,Validfrom:October09,
2013to:October08,2019.
b)Exampleofpurportedelectronicsignatureonajudgmentrecord
fromCourtA,whichwaselectronicallygeneratedandservedthrough
NetHaMishpatinspectionofthepurportedelectronicsignature
certification,usingPERSONALIDcorporationsdedicatedsoftware:
GeneralThebasiccertificationbytheCertifyingAuthorityis
invalid...,Issuedfor:IsraelCourtsAuthority,Issuedby:IsraelCourts
Authority,Validfrom:January01,2000to:January01,2099.
c)Exampleofpurportedelectronicsignatureonajudicialdecision
recordfromCourtB,whichwaselectronicallygeneratedandserved
throughNetHaMishpatinspectionofthepurportedelectronic
signaturecertification,usingtheISRAELBARASSOCIATIONs
dedicatedsoftware:GeneralThebasiccertificationbytheCertifying
Authorityisinvalid...,Issuedfor:IsraelCourtsAuthority,Issuedby:
IsraelCourtsAuthority,Validfrom:January01,2000to:January01,
2099.
____
ThededicatedsoftwarethatisprovidedtoattorneysbytheISRAELBAR
ASSOCIATION(affiliatedwithCOMSIGNCorp),andlikewise,the
dedicatedsoftwarethatisprovidedtousersbyPERSONALIDCorp,
_____________________________________________________________________
72/367 TOC: 1
indicate,relativetopurportedelectronicsignaturesondecisionand
judgmentrecordsinNetHaMishpat:
(1)ThebasiccertificationbytheCertifyingAuthorityisinvalid...,
(2)Issuedfor:IsraelCourtsAuthority;
(3)Issuedby:IsraelCourtsAuthority;
(4)Validfrom:January01,2000to:January01,2099.
Suchpurportedelectronicsignaturesfailtoprovideanyidentificationof
thesignerandhis/herauthority,andalsofailtostatethatthe
signaturesarevalidpursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001).On
thecontrary,bothsoftwarepackagesindicatethatthecertificationby
ISRAELCOURTSAUTHORITYisinvalidFurthermore,thepurported
validityofthecertificationfor99yearsisinconsistentwithan
electronicsignature,whichwasissuedtoaspecificpersoninhis/her
capacityintheStateService.
Areasonablepersonwouldconcludethatsucharenotpersonal
electronicsignaturesatall,andsurelyarenotsecureand/orcertified
electronicsignaturespursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001).
d) FOIAresponse(90/17)bytheMinistryofJustice,
pertainingtotheRegistryofCertifyingAuthoritiespursuant
totheElectronicSignatureActclarifiesthatthereisno
CertifyingAuthoritynamedISRAELCOURTSAUTHORITY
forelectronicsignaturespursuanttotheElectronicSignature
Act(2001).
AppendixAtoinstantAddendumincludesFOIARequest(90/17),
whichwasfiledwiththeMinistryofJustice,andtheMinistryofJustice
April03,2017response.TheRequestsoughtinformationregarding
purportedCertifyingAuthoritypursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct
(2001),namedISRAELCOURTSAUTHORITY,ifitexistedatall.
TheMinistryofJusticeFOIAResponse(90/17)saysinpart:
First,wewishtoindicatethattheRegistryofCertifyingAuthoritiesis
publishedintheScienceandTechnologyAuthoritysite:
http://www.justice.gov.il/Units/ilita/subjects/HatimaElectronic/Meida
MeRashamCA/Pages/Gormim.aspx.
TheRegistrydoesnotinclude"IsraelCourtsAuthority,whichisnamed
intheFOIARequest.IncaseyoureferredtotheAdministrationof
Courts,suchentityisnotaCertifyingAuthority.Authorityofthe
MagistrateofCertifyingAuthoritiespertainsonlytoCertifying
Authorities.
TheResponsealsoprovidesacopyoftheRegistry,whichispublished
online,andwhichincludesonlytwo(2)CertifyingAuthorities:
COMSIGNandPERSONALID.
_____________________________________________________________________
73/367 TOC: 1
e) AdditionalFOIArequestswerefiledwiththe
AdministrationofCourtsandtheMinistryofJustice,
pertainingtoelectronicsignatures,issuedbytheState
Inparallel,additionalFOIArequestswerefiledwiththeAdministration
ofCourtsandtheMinistryofJustice,pertainingtoadministrationofthe
purportedelectronicsignaturesofjudgesandcourtemployeesinNet
HaMishpat,pertainingtoISRAELCOURTSAUTHORITYasapurported
CertifyingAuthorityandpurportedlylawfulStateAuthority,
pertainingtotheissuingofelectronicsignaturesbytheState.
Oncesuchresponsesarereceived,Iwouldexpedientlyforwardthemas
AddendatoinstantComplaint.ItislikelythatsuchFOIAresponses,if
dulyprovided,wouldgenerateadditionalevidenceforthelackof
validityofthepurportedsecureand/orcertifiedelectronicsignaturesof
judgesandcourtemployeesinNetHaMishpat.
f) AdministrationofCourtsFOIAresponse(147/2016)
indicatesthatcorrectionspursuanttotheOmbudsman
DecisionintheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocols
scandal,whichwereintendedtoaddresslackofintegrityin
NetHaMishpat,havenotbeenimplemented.
AppendixBtoinstantAddendumincludesFOIARequest(147/2016),
whichwasfiledwiththeAdministrationofCourts,andthe
AdministrationofCourtsMinistryofJusticeDecember04,201
response.
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)inthe
JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalclarifiesthatthere
isnowaytodistinguishinprintoutsanddisplaysfromNetHaMishpat
betweenpurportedlyelectronicallysignedrecordandarecordthatis
notsignedatall.[xxx]TheDecisionsaysinparagraph39:
ItshouldbefurtherconsideredtorestorethewatermarkDraftonthe
electronicallyunsignedversion,althoughithinders(allegedly)the
judgeswork.
TheDecember04,2016AdministrationofCourtsFOIAresponse
(147/2016)saysinpart:
itshouldbeclarifiedthattheOmbudsmansDecision,whichis
referencedinyourRequest,ismerelyarecommendationforthe
AdministrationofCourts
Conclusion
InstantAddendumpresentsadditionalevidenceregardingthestateof
affairsregardingpurportedelectronicsignaturesinNetHaMishpat
today:
a)TheevidencepresentedininstantComplaintandAddendumraisethe
allegation,thatjudicialdecisionrecordsinNetHaMishpatmaybe
dividedintotwomaingroups:
_____________________________________________________________________
74/367 TOC: 1
(1)Uniquelyinvalidrecords,suchasthedecisionrecords,whichare
presentedinthebodyoftheComplaint:StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov
(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtSeptember14,2010Verdict
(Figure1);StateofIsraelvAlnekari(detainees)etal(377150512)in
theTelAvivDistrictCourtProtocolandJudgment(Figure23);
StateofIsraelvZernietal(102910112)intheTelAvivDistrictCourt
SentencingofDefendants1,2,5,7,8,10,12,14,15,16(Figure24);
ChenerovChenero(48350613)intheJerusalemFamilyCourtJuly
16,2016Decision(Figure26);
(2)Generallyinvalidrecords,suchasthose,whosesignaturedatais
presentedininstantAddendum.
b) TheevidencepresentedininstantComplaintandAddendumindicate
thatcircumstances,wherepartiesandthepublicareunableto
distinguishbetweenadraftandavalidcourtrecord,regardingwhich
alarmwassoundedinOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecision
(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)intheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricated
Protocolsscandal,wasleftasitwas.[xxxi]
c)TheevidencepresentedininstantComplaintandAddendumraise
seriousconcernsregardingattorneysintheStateofIsrael,manyof
whomhaveaccesstoelectronicsignaturedatainNetHaMishpat,
includingattorneyswhospecializeindatasecurity,andhavenot
informedthepublicoverthepast7yearsregardinginvalidityofrecords
inNetHaMishpat.Suchconcernisparticularlynotableregardingthe
IsraelBarAssociation,whichisacentralagencyrelativeto
administrationofattorneyselectronicsignatures,anditshead,
AttorneyEffiNaveh,whowasakeyfigureintheJudgeVardaAlshech
FabricatedProtocolsscandal.
d) TheevidencepresentedininstantComplaintandAddendumraise
seriousconcernsregardingintegrityandcompetenceofOmbudsmanof
theJudiciaryEliezerGoldbergDecision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)inthe
JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal.[xxxii]Such
decisionwaspurportedlyrenderedwithnodirectknowledgebythe
Ombudsmanregardingthemannerinwhichelectronicsignaturesare
implementedinNetHaMishpat.Suchdecisionwaspurportedlybased
oninformationthatwasprovidedtotheOmbudsman(andcitedinthe
Decisionitself)bytheAdministrationofCourtsandLegalCounselof
theAdministrationofCourtsBarakLaser.Itisallegedthatintegrityof
suchinformationisdubiousatbest.
e)TheevidencepresentedininstantComplaintandAddendum,combined
withrefusaloftheAttorneyGeneraltoapprovecriminalinvestigations
againstjudges,againstwhocriminalcomplaintswerefiled,alleging
perversionofcourtrecordsandFraudUpontheCourt,raisethe
allegationthatthemannerinwhichthejusticesystemaddressedthe
JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal,createdinpractice
_____________________________________________________________________
75/367 TOC: 1
permissiontojudgestoengageinperversionofcourtrecordsandFraud
UpontheCourt.
f)TheevidencepresentedininstantComplaintandAddendumraise
seriousconcernthatconductofthejudges,againstwhomthe
Complaintwasfiled,representsconductofIsraelijudgesingeneral,
whichisintendedtowithholdfromthepublicthelackofvalidityand
effectofNetHaMishpatsystemanddecisionrecords,whichare
generatedinitbyjudges.
Today,March15,2017 ______________________
JosephZernik,PhD
POBox33407,TelAviv
6133301
Email:joseph.zernik@hra
ngo.org
APPENDICES
A.FOIArequestandresponse(9017)byMinistryofJustice:Israel
CourtsAuthorityasaCertifyingAuthoritypursuanttotheElectronic
SignatureAct(2001)
B.FOIArequestandresponse(147/2016)byAdministrationofCourts:
ImplementationofcorrectioninintegrityofNetHaMishpatpursuantto
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)inthe
JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal.
_____
Following submission of the Complaint and Addendum, the May 07, 2017 FOIA response
by Ministry of Justice provided additional confirmation that no state agency had been
approved as a Certifying Authority pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001).
Therefore, it becomes indisputable that the Israel Courts Authority is an unlawful
certifying authority, beyond the invalidity of the signatures themselves.
_____________________________________________________________________
76/367 TOC: 1
Figure. May 07, 2017 FOIA response (107-2017) by Ministry of Justice confirmed that no
state agency had been approved as a certifying authority pursuant to the E-signature Act
(2001). The response provided additional confirmation of the invalidity of e-signatures in
Net-HaMishpat: Relative to our request, pertaining to the Electronic Signature Act (2001),
Article 21a, it should be noted that the State has not been approved as a Certifying Authority
for the issuing of certified electronic signatures.
_____
Conclusions:
Events of the past 15 years provide unique evidence of deliberate, top to bottom corruption
of the courts, rendering all judicial records invalid, merely Drafts:
Concomitantly with the initiation of development of Net-HaMishpat, new
Regulations of the Courts-Office of the Clerk (2004) were promulgated, which
undermine the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Clerk of each court for
integrity of court records and court books.
Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat was a major, costly project,
overseen by then Director of Administration of the Courts Judge Boaz Okon
(protg of Presiding Justice Aharon Barak) and following Directors of the Courts.
By January 2010 the fraudulent system was implemented in all District, Magistrate
and Small Claims Courts in Israel.
_____________________________________________________________________
77/367 TOC: 1
Massive falsification of court records by judges followed, e.g.: September 2010
Zadorov fake judgment records; September 2011 Alshechs Fabricated Protocols
scandal.
Case Study: Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) bankruptcy, receivership - in

the Tel-Aviv District Court
Figures. Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) in the Tel-Aviv District Court:
Certified printout from Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the courts) of one of
the two Judge Varda Alshech September 12, 2011 records, which were at the center of the
Fabricated Protocols scandal. The record says: Decision In view of Attorney Hermlins
statements, instant Protocol shall be forwarded by the Office of the Clerk to both Attorney
Arbel and Attorney Argaz, and I am asking the Director of Administration of Courts that
when he forwards the complaint to the Israel Bar Association, he forwards also instant
additional Protocol. Rendered today, September 12, 2011 in the presence of the parties.
The Protocol [minutes] was used by Judge Varda Alshech for retaliation against Attorney
Rafael Argaz, who represented a small debt-holder in this case. Attorney Argaz was standing
in Judge Alshechs way, while she was trying to serve the interests Bank HaPoalim, the
largest bank in Israel, and the large debt-holder in this case. Judge Alshech in collusion with
the Administration of Courts later filed a semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Rafael
Argaz, based on the Fabricated Protocol, where in dozen of places she inserted words that
he had never said in court. Ombudsman of the Judiciary investigation and Decision
(88/12/Tel-Aviv District) concluded that the Protocol records were merely a drafts, and
Judge Alshech was in full agreement: [xxxiii] a) The record in the picture bears only Judges
invalid graphic signature. According to both Judge Alshech and Ombudsman of the
Judiciary the record was never duly electronically signed. b) The certification True Copy
of the Original and the Seal of the Court were affixed by an unauthorized, incompetent
person the Judges secretary. Ombudsman of the Judiciary notes in his decision that the
water-mark Draft, which had appeared on all such records, was removed in some of the
courts by judges demand. The judges claimed that it interfered with work flow.
Ombudsman of the Judiciary concludes that there is no way for parties and the public to
distinguish between authentic court records and drafts in Net-HaMishpat. Ombudsman of
_____________________________________________________________________
78/367 TOC: 1
the Judiciary decision also quotes Judge Alshech claim in her own defense that the
Supreme Court routinely engages in similar conduct...
Regardless of the facts, relative to routine production of false and misleading electronic
court records, which were fully documented in this case, the judiciary, the Israeli Bar
Association and/or the Ministry of Justice have never called for the initiation of corrective
actions. In response on FOIA request, the Administration of Courts stated that corrective
actions had not been implemented, since the Ombudsmans decision was merely a
recommendation.
Judge Alshech, since retired, was a prominent Israeli judge. She presided in some of the
largest corporate restructuring, bankruptcy and public debt haircut cases. She also served
as Chairwoman of the Judges Association. She was never held accountable for Deceit and
Breach of Trust.
[see also - Invalid implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 64 ]
largest corporate restructuring, bankruptcy and public debt haircut cases. She also served
as Chairwoman of the Judges Association. She was never held accountable for Deceit and
Breach of Trust.
_____
Case Study: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) criminal trial, murder in the
Nazareth District Court
Figures. Mendel Beilis and Roman Zadorov. The Jew Mendel Beilis was falsely
prosecuted and falsely convicted of the murder of a boy in the Ukraine a century ago. The
Christian, Ukranian Roman Zadorov was prosecuted and purportedly convicted in the 2006
murder of a the girl Tair Rada in Israel. Criminal law professor Boaz Sangero wrote:
Conviction with no real evidence. Senior law professor, one of the founders of the Israeli
Democracy Institute, Mordechai Kremnitzer wrote: Conduct of the State Prosecution in
the Zadorov case is scary, it is not the conduct of Prosecution, which is seeking the truth
Adding to that the Supreme Court stance and the Attorney Generals conduct in recent
years, one is left with a justice system, which is primarily defending itself. [ xxxiv, xxxv]
_____
Following the December 2006 gruesome murder of 13.5 yo Tair Rada, the evidence shows
that Israel Police Special Investigation Team, headed by Yoram Azulay, perverted the
investigation, withheld, destroyed, and/or misrepresented the evidence. Particularly notable
_____________________________________________________________________
79/367 TOC: 1
is the negligence in failing to attempt the matching of voluminous physical evidence from
the crime scene fingerprints, DNA samples, hair samples, footprints - to any other
suspect, even after none of it matched Roman Zadorov. Students from the victim's school
testified in court that they had knowledge regarding the murder and its perpetrators, but
police never followed up on such lines of investigation. Although both the victim, and all
students, who are in and around the crime scene during or around the time of the murder
carried cell phones, no data from cell phones (location, SMSs, etc) was provided by the
prosecution, and none was demanded by the Defense in the trial court.
After reviewing the evidence with the help of a police veteran, professional investigator, the
victim's mother, Ilana Rada, petitioned the Supreme Court for reopening the investigation.
She did not and does not believe that Roman Zadorov was the murderer. Like her, hundreds
of thousands of Israeli citizen are listed in support groups, calling for true investigation of
Tair Radas murder and justice for Roman Zadorov.
Close family relations between students and police have long been suspected as the reason
for the initial perversion of the investigation. Roman Zadorov on the other hand was
compromised, being Christian not Jewish, Ukrainian not an Israeli citizen, and not a
Hebrew speaker at the time.
The investigation was eventually centered on extracting a factually false confession from
Roman Zadorov, which he recanted almost immediately. Of note, Roman Zadorov, a
healthy individual, was rushed to the hospital in the middle of his investigation...
Veteran senior Israel Police investigator Alex Peleg repeatedly stated: There is no evidence
tying Zadorov to the crime scene, and the murder reenactment was staged. Investigator
Haim Sadovsky wrote a book on the case, titled, Framing the Innocent. Senior Criminal
Law professor Boaz Sangero later wrote:
Conviction with no real evidence.
He also wrote that he could not understand the reasoning of the judges in convicting Roman
Zadorov.
In January 2007 North District Attorney Mirit Stern and Chief Criminal Prosecutor Shila
Inbar filed the indictment against Roman Zadorov. The indictment was based almost
entirely on the purported confession, and provided no motive for the murder.
The same District Attorney Office filed a few years earlier indictment against Arab citizens
in Oleg Shoykhets murder case based on false confessions. Under adjudication standards,
established by the Israeli Supreme Court, conviction can be based on confession and
something else, light as a feather.
Under conditions of law enforcement and the courts in Israel, Prof Sangero wrote:
Confession: King of evidence, or Cesar of false convictions?
Senior Law Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer:
Conduct of the prosecution is scary this is not the conduct of prosecution, which is
seeking the truth... adding to it the Supreme Courts stance and the Attorney
Generals conduct in recent years, one is left with a justice system, which is primarily
defending itself.
Regarding retaliation campaign by Chief Prosecutor Shai Nitzan against senior Forensic
Expert, Dr Maya Forman, who testified for the Defense, Minister of Health YAEL
GERMAN wrote:
_____________________________________________________________________
80/367 TOC: 1
...lacks legal foundation and carries overarching and dangerous implications...
blatant violation of Human Rights, the fundamentals of law and justice
Criminal complaints, alleging police and prosecutorial misconduct were filed by various
parties, but were not investigated.
Review by the Israel Bar Association of ethics complaints against senior State Prosecution
officers for tampering with the affidavit of Director of the National Pathological Institute,
Dr Chen Kugel, was blocked by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. Dr Chen Kugel
stated in interview with media: I am intimidated by the State Prosecution.
Review by Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel of allegations
of prosecutorial misconduct was blocked by then Attorney General Yehuda Weinstin.
Referring to the Attorney General's conduct in relationship to this case, former Justice
Minister, senior Law Professor Daniel Friedman stated in the Knesset's Constitution, Law,
and Justice Committee hearing:
The Attorney General cannot gag the entire State and not let anybody voice an
opinion.
Already during the trial, complaints of serious sex crimes were pending against Judge
Yitzhak Cohen, who headed the 3-judge panel. Police later recommended his prosecution,
and Judge Cohen resigned. Investigation by Commissioner Gerstel of police and
prosecutorial misprision of felonies pertaining to Judge Yitzhak Cohen during Roman
Zadorov's trial, which left him exposed to extortion, was blocked by Attorney General
Yehuda Weinstein.
Review by Commissioner Hila Gerstel of matters, related to the Zadorov case and the
relationship between the State Prosecution and the National Pathological Institute , led to
direct confrontation with Chief Prosecutor Shai Nitzan and the State prosecutors, who
refused to acknowledge her oversight authority and launched an indefinite strike. Gerstel
wrote that Shai Nitzan is not telling the truth, but ended up resigning. Attorney Avigdor
Feldman wrote:
... in view of the State Prosecution's claim in response to Judge Gerstel, that
the Prosecution routinely does not file in court professional opinions that
contradict its position, I suddenly recalled all the cases, where I interrogated
Prof [Yehuda-jz] Hiss and other servants [sic-jz] from the Institute, who filed
opinions, which amazingly matched the Prosecution's position, and affected
false convictions (in my view, which is not worth a dime).
Presiding Justice Miriam Naor, on the other hand, explained the amazingly high conviction
rate in Israel (by some accounts close to 100%):
High conviction rate in itself does not indicate an error, since prior to it, we
have the filter of the Prosecution, which reviews the cases, and does not file
an indictment in every case.
Judge Efrat Fink, authoring an academic paper, titled: Regarding institutional problems,
preventing correction of false convictions in Israel...
On September 14, 2010, Judges Yizhak Cohen, Judge Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz
(regarding the latter, it remains unclear that he had valid judicial appointment at the time),
purportedly convicted Roman Zadorov of murder and sentenced him to life in prison.
However, neither valid Verdict, nor valid Sentencing record appear in the trial court dockets.
_____________________________________________________________________
81/367 TOC: 1
Top Israeli Attorney Avigdor Feldman, Roman Zadorovs pro bono Counsel, later wrote that
regardless of his efforts, he could only discover remnants of the judgment records, which
haven't been scattered by the wailing wind across the vast Jezreel valley...
Arrest Decree, which is required by Israeli law for admitting a convict to prison, is missing.
Nazareth District Court Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer refuses to certify, True Copy of the
Original, any of the records in Roman Zadorov's court file.
From October 2010 to December 2015, Israeli Supreme Court Justices Yoram Danziger,
Yitzhak Amit ad Zvi Zylbertal, conducted an appeal process, which originated with no
authentic judgment records of the Nazareth District Court, therefore lacking authority and
validity. Hearings were conducted, but Notices to Appear in Court and valid transcript are
missing. Decision records are of dubious validity: all are marked subject to editing and
phrasing changes, none is duly served, and no valid certifications can be obtained. Conduct
of the Supreme Court relative to attempts to inspect Supreme Court judicial decision records
was lacking in integrity. The appeal was denied by split panel opinions.
In July 2016, Supreme Court Presiding Justice Miriam Naor denied Roman Zadorovs
request for a new, expanded panel hearing of the Appeal.
Figures. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) criminal, murder trial - in the Nazareth
District Court: Judicial panel included Judge Yitzhak Cohen (since convicted on sex
crimes), Judge Esther Hellman, and Haim Galpaz. The latter was a retired judge, and
Administration of Court refused to answer on FOIA request, which asked for a copy of his
lawful appointment as Emeritus Judge during the trial.
____
Court: Judgments Docket in Net-HaMishpat. The September 14, 2010 Verdict
_____________________________________________________________________
82/367 TOC: 1
(convicting Zadorov of murder), and the Sentencing (life imprisonment), are not entered in
the Judgments Docket in Net-HaMishpat
The February 24, 2014 Supplemental Judgment, which again convicted Zadorov of murder,
is docketed as Order on Defendant's attorney to file certificate of counsel.
Presiding Judge of the Nazareth District Court Avraham Avraham and Administration of
Courts refuse to answer:
Who is today charged with entering judgments?
Does the entry of judgment indicate that there is no valid, lawful and enforceable
judgment?
Does the failure to enter judgment indicate that there is no valid, lawful and
enforceable judgment?
The Regulations of the Courts Registration Office (1936) from the British Mandate
period charged the Clerk of the Court with entering judgments and excellent maintenance
of court files and court books. On the other hand, the Regulations of the Courts-Office of
the Clerk (2004) (promulgated in conjunction with implementation of Net-HaMishpat)
abolished such duties.
The failure to enter judgments is widespread today in all courts using Net-HaMishpat. In
itself, such conduct should render the Israeli courts incompetent.

Figures. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (murder trial) (502-07) in the Nazareth District
Court: Printouts from Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the courts) of September
14, 2010 Verdict records, purportedly convicting Roman Zadorov of murder. The record
appears neither in the Judgments Docket, nor in the Decisions Docket in Net-
HaMishpat. Right October 2010 printout, which was filed with the Notice of Appeal, as
discovered in inspection of the paper court file (original records) in appeal court file,
Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court. The record is neither signed, nor
certified, in disregard of provisions of the law. The record fails to bear even the invalid
graphic signatures of the judges. Left December 2015 printout from the Office of the
_____________________________________________________________________
83/367 TOC: 1
Clerk of the Nazareth District Court, fails to show even the invalid graphic signature of
Haim Galpaz, and shows perverted, negative images of graphic signatures of Judge
Yitzhak Cohen and Esther Hellman. Senior criminal defense attorney Avigdor Feldman,
who served as Roman Zadorovs pro bono counsel in the appeal, wrote, while the appeal
was still pending before the Supreme Court, that Zadorovs judgment records were lost in
the wailing wind across the Jezreel Valley (which the Nazareth District Court overlooks).
____
a) b)
c)
Figure 7: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court - three
(3) versions of the September 14, 2010 purported Sentencing record: a) Version, which
appears in the Decisions Docket (but not the Judgments Docket shows "graphic
_____________________________________________________________________
84/367 TOC: 1
signatures" of two judges only. The signature of Haim Galpaz, whose judicial appointment
at the time remains dubious at best, is missing from the record. b) During inspection in
January 2016 of the records in Net-HaMishpat Office of the Clerk Office access another
version was discovered, showing negative images of two judges' "graphic signatures", but
again missing the signature of Haim Galpaz. c) During inspection of the paper court file in
the Supreme Court appeal court file (original records), a printout from Nevo Publishing
LTD was discovered, which was filed as an attachment to the Notice of Appeal, instead of
an authentic court record.
____
The Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Varda Alshech
Fabricated Protocols scandal explains in detail the processing of valid, or invalid judicial
decision records (paragraph 21):
At the end of the hearing, the transcriptionist performs in the Word
document two additional functions: Graphic Signature and End Hearing.
The transcriptionist, when so ordered by the judge, can print out a copy of the
protocol prior to the execution of the End Hearing action, so that the parties
leave the courtroom with a copy of the protocol. After the execution of the
End Hearing function, the Word document is closed and filed in the Protocol
Folder as a draft. The judge then enters the Protocol Folder and executes the
electronic signatures. The execution of the electronic signature transforms the
electronic file from draft to final record, in the sense that it is locked from any
further changes... The Protocol Application task appears in the Office of the
Clerk on the hearing date. If the the clerk attempts to perform the Protocol
Application prior to the electronic signing of the protocol draft by the judge,
he would get a warning message that the protocol is not signed yet, and the
system would prevent the completion of the Protocol Application.
However, the printing of a Draft Protocol by the Office of the Clerk is
possible, by entering the Protocol Folder instead of using the Protocol
Application. Under such circumstances there is no prompt warning the clerk
that the protocol is unsigned...
Therefore, a Sentencing records, where the graphic signature of Haim Galpza is
missing, should be deemed a record that was never duly completed.
_____________________________________________________________________
85/367 TOC: 1
Figures. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (murder trial) (502-07) in the Nazareth District
Court: Secretive response by senior State Prosecutor on a request to inspect lawfully made
Zadorov judgment records: 1) The Requester is daily filing a series of requests to inspect
materials from the court file 2) The nature of the request is unclear, but it appears that
their main intent is to substantiate conspiracy theories regarding instant court file and the
justice system in general. 3) There is no relationship between the requests, the claims
regarding the technical form of the records, and the reasoning, which is primarily based on
theories and baseless hearsay regarding the evidence and the conviction 5) It should be
noted, that it appears to the Responder that the Requester is trying to abuse the Right to
Inspect, and that such right should not be interpreted as permitting any person to
continuously bother the courts and the offices of the clerks in a manner that would not
permit that to perform their duties, based on useless reasoning. 6) As far as the Responder
knows, the Requester has not been appointed Auditor of the Courts, and nobody has
authorized him to conduct investigations and audits. 7) Beyond that, the Responder
approves of the correct writing of the Hon Presiding Judge in his January 25, 2016 Decision
on Request No 120. Both the State Prosecution and the District Court refused to duly
serve the response on the Requester of Inspection. Neither was the response served after
filing a complaint with the Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight.
_____
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court - Presiding
Judge Avraham Avrahams January 25, 2016 Decision on repeat requests to inspect lawfully
made judgment records and electronic signature data of the judgments: The Requester
repeats his requests, subject of which, purportedly, is inspection of court records. However,
_____________________________________________________________________
86/367 TOC: 1
these are not requests to inspect, but an investigation, which the Requester is conducting,
pertaining to validity of Net-HaMishpat system and various claims regarding conduct of the
judicial panel in this case. In such matters this court shall not engage.
____
Figures. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court -
Presiding Judge Avraham Avrahams two Post-it Decisions on repeat requests to inspect
duly made arrest decree, as prescribed by Israeli law, pertaining to Roman Zadorov. Left
the February 03, 2016 record says: The Requester does cease bothering the Court and
wasting its time with useless requests, which amount to nothing. If he continues filing
similar requests, I shall consider imposing on him expenses to the benefit of the State
Treasury. Right the June 02, 2016 record says: On its face, the request appears
cantankerous and useless. Therefore, I found no room to grant it, and it is denied. Post-it
Decision records are not listed in the Decisions Dockets of the courts in Net-HaMishpat,
and are often not served at all.
____
a)
_____________________________________________________________________
87/367 TOC: 1
b)
_____________________________________________________________________
88/367 TOC: 1
c)
d)
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court Calendar
data, pertaining to the September 14, 2010 hearing, reported by media as Reading of Verdict
and Sentencing. a) Court Calendar: provides only cumulative numbers of hearings per judge
per hearing type, but no case numbers; b) Case Calendar: lists 9:00-9:30 Verdict hearing,
9:30-10:00 Sentencing hearing; c) Personal Judge Calendar - Yitzhak Cohen: lists 9:000
Verdict hearing, 9:30 Sentencing hearing; d) Personal Judge Calendar Esther Hellman:
lists seven (7) different case hearings for 9:00 and 10:00 am, all of which took place,
including Zadorov's case; Personal Judge Calendar Haim Galpaz does not exist at all.
_____
The Calendar data, pertaining to the September 14, 2010 hearing is vague and ambiguous, if
not patently invalid.
For generations, Court Calendars have been recognized fundamental Books of Court,
defining the lawful conduct of the court. Court Calendars are a key instrument in
preventing the conduct of sham/simulated court hearings. A court, where the calendar data is
vague and ambiguous and/or invalid should be deemed incompetent court.
In sum: The falsification of the Nazareth District Court trial court records and entries in Net-
HaMishpat, pertaining to Roman Zadorov case, and the conduct of purported appeal in the
Supreme Court with no valid, lawful judgments of the lower courts should be deemed
serious violation of Human Rights, and the confinement of Roman Zadorov under such
circumstances Arbitrary Detention violation of the right for Liberty. Conduct of the
courts, relative to the Roman Zadorov affair indicates that the case involved not only
framing by police and the State Attorney office, but also collusion of the judges in
perverting court process.
_____________________________________________________________________
89/367 TOC: 1
Denial of access to Roman Zadorovs trial court decisions in the paper court file
under pretext of jumble in the court file
From 2007 to December 2009 , the trial court file was administered as a paper court file,
prior to implementation of Net-HaMishpat in the Nazareth District Court, and decision
records and protocols [minutes] should have been signed by wet hand- signatures.
Only part of the decision records and protocols, which were originally issued as paper
records are today displayed in Net-HaMishpat. Moreover, the displayed paper decision
records are not even scans of the hand-signed records, but unsigned display renditions.
Therefore, there is no way to ascertain, based on such display renditions, whether the
original paper records are of the same content as the records that are displayed today, and
whether the original paper records are signed, valid records, or unsigned, sham/simulated
court records.
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) electronic display rendition in Net-
HaMishpat (case management system of the Court) of a January 1, 2008 decision record by
Judge Yitzhak Cohen, which was originally issued as a paper decision record. The decision
record was supposed to be hand-signed by the judge. The electronic display rendition,
which is today provided in Net-HaMishpat is not even a scan of the hand-signed record, but
an unsigned record. Obviously, it is not an authentic court record, and there is no way to
ascertain that the corresponding authentic court record exists at all.
_____
In other court files, both in the lower courts and in the Supreme Court, it has been
repeatedly documented that judges issued unsigned paper decision records, which were
falsely represented as valid decision records. In yet other cases, the unsigned, electronic
display renditions of paper decision records were adulterated, and do not reflect the original
paper records.
_____________________________________________________________________
90/367 TOC: 1
After initial attempts to access the paper court file in the Nazareth District Court, Chief
Clerk Oshrat Avichezer provided notice that the paper court file was held in the Supreme
Court under the Roman Zadorov appeal court file Roman Zadorov v State of Israel
(7939/10). Therefore, subsequent efforts to access the original, paper judicial decision
records were conducted in the Supreme Court under the appeal court file.
Given that the 2009 Judgment of the Supreme Court in Association for Civil Rights v
Minister of Justice et al (5917/97) explicitly stated that there was no requirement for any
request process, initially, inquiries were filed with Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court,
to perform her duties, pursuant to Regulation 6(b), and establish inspection procedures for
such records. Presiding Justice Miriam Naor failed to respond.
Therefore, on April 11, 2016 the initial Pro-forma Request to Inspect Court File was filed
under the Supreme Court appeal file Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10). The filing stated
that it was filed pursuant to the Regulations of the Court Inspection of Court Files (2003),
Regulation 2(b), which states that Any person is permitted to inspect decision records
which are not lawfully prohibited for publication. The filing also stated that the request was
filed under duress, since the Supreme Court Presiding Justice Miriam Naor failed to perform
her duties and establish inspection procedures, pursuant to Regulation 6(b), even after repeat
requests.
The request was also deliberately limited to previously published decision records, in
order to eliminate any possible objection to the inspection.
Regardless, on April 14, 2016 Magistrate of the Supreme Court issued a decision record,
which allegedly usurped the authority for adjudication and judicial discretion in this matter,
and solicited responses by the parties. The Magistrate's decision explicitly replaced the
Pro-forma Request, pursuant to Regulation 2(b), with a Request (intended for records other
than unsealed decisions) pursuant to Regulation 4.
The validity of the Magistrate Decision record is dubious:
Like all Supreme Court decision records since 2002 it bears the disclaimer, subject
to editing and phrasing changes.
Like all Supreme Court decisions in recent years, it was not duly served.
There is no way to obtain valid certification of Supreme Court decisions in recent
years.
_____________________________________________________________________
91/367 TOC: 1
[Coat of Arms of the State of Israel]
In the Supreme Court in Jerusalem
Criminal Appeal 7939/10

Before: The Hon Magisrate Guy
Shani
Requester of Inspection: Joseph Zernik, PhD
Appellant: Roman Zadorov's
v
Respondent: State of Israel
Request to Inspect Court File
Request was filed to inspect the paper court file
State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) from the
Nazareth District Court.
The parties shall file their responses, pursuant to
the Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files
(2003), Regulation 4.
The responses shall be filed within 14 days from
service of instant decision. The Office of the Clerk shall
serve on the parties the Request together with instant
Decision.
Rendered today, April 14, 2016.
[no form of signature]
Guy Shani, Judge
Magistrate
__________________________________
Issue subject to editing and phrasing changes
100979390_D59.doc
Information Center, Tel: 077-1705555, Internet site:
www.court.gov.il
a) b)
Figure. Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) Criminal Appeal in the Supreme
Court April 14, 2016 Decision by Magistrate of the Supreme Court on Prof-forma Request
to Inspect previously published decision records from the Nazareth District Court paper
court file State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) (original records). a) Hebrew original;
b) English translation.
Such decision replace the Pro-forma Request, which was explicitly filed pursuant to
Regulation 2, which requires no request process, and which provides the judges neither
jurisdiction, nor discretion, pertaining to public access to unsealed decision records, with
request process pursuant to Regulation 4, which pertains to other types of court file records,
and which provides judges jurisdiction and discretion. This Supreme Court decision record,
as usual, is unsigned, bears the disclaimer subject to editing and phrasing changes, and
was never duly served. Therefore, its validity remains vague and ambiguous.
_____
On April 19, 2016, Appeal was filed in the Supreme Court - Zernik v State of Israel
(3919/16), originating in the Magistrate April 14, 2016 Decision, claiming that the
Magistrate's decision lacked lawful authority, and was issued as usual, through a vague and
ambiguous judicial record.
On May 4, 2016, Justice Salim Joubran issued Decision denying the Appeal, finding that
judges had the authority to adjudicate the right to inspect previously published decisions,
pursuant to Regulation 4.
_____________________________________________________________________
92/367 TOC: 1
The June 2, 2016, Supreme Court Magistrate Lubinsky Decision denied access to inspect
the previously published, original paper decision records in the paper trial court file from the
Nazareth District Court.
The denial was reasoned in a jumble in the Nazareth District Court file, and suggested
that inspection should instead be performed of the invalid, unsigned, electronic display
renditions of the same records in Net-HaMishpat.
On June 9, 2016, Appeal was again filed in the Supreme Court - Zernik v Zadorov and State
of Israel (4650/16), originating in the June 2, 2016 Magistrate decision, denying access to
the previously published, original paper decision record in the Nazareth District Court paper
court file.
The Appeal in part says:
1. Disorder and jumble are a particularly odd reasons for denying the right
to inspect:
a) They document patently incompetent conduct by the courts, relative to a
serious crime case, which has stirred the Israeli public for some ten years.
b) The Magistrate proceeded to make double speculation, relative to my
exposure to sensitive materials, if they exist at all. The court file is not
sealed, except for small number of records. In a competent court,
lawfully sealed records should be clearly marked as such. And if that has
not been done to this date it should be done now.
c) Given the intense public interest, and the incessant public stir relative to
this case, the sensitive materials have already been published by media
and in the Internet. On the Internet, one can probably find today
investigation materials from this case above and beyond those that are
included in the paper court file itself.
d) Following a similar request to inspect the Supreme Court appeal court file
(also a paper court file), which also pertained only to decision records, I
was permitted to inspect the entire court file, twice. In this case, the
appeal court file also includes investigation materials. Therefore, it is
obvious that the Supreme Court previously saw no hurdle in my exposure
to purportedly sensitive materials in this case. However, both then and
now I have no interest in inspecting any materials beyond authentic
decision records.
e) It is possible to devise simple and easy, adequate solutions for the
requested inspection: For example, if so asked, I would be glad to sign a
commitment to neither copy nor publish any materials, except for
previously published decision records, which are not lawfully prohibited
for publication the only and explicit purpose of the requested inspection.
f) As one who is experienced in inspection of court files, including paper
files of various courts, it is obvious to me that I could easily sort out the
decision records from other materials in the boxes of the Nazareth paper
court file within one day's work, since their template is distinctly different
from that of other records. I would be glad to perform such work under
the supervision of staff of the Office of the Clerk, to ascertain that I am
not inspecting any materials other than permitted decision records.
_____________________________________________________________________
93/367 TOC: 1
Additionally, I could bring with me a list of all decision records, which
have been previously published (and the Court obviously should have
such list as well). Thus, clerk's office staff would be able to easily
distinguish between previously published records, and records that may
be prohibited for publication.
2. Worse yet: Based on the Magistrate's decision, it is obvious that the
Supreme Court, which for 5 years conducted process in the appeal court
file, and wrote an exceptionally long and detailed Judgment hundreds of
pages referring to various decisions of the Nazareth District Court, did so
without ever inspecting the original records in the Nazareth paper court file,
and without establishing which decisions are authentic, and which are only
fabricated/sham/ simulated/drafts (see below).
3. The Magistrate's decision also says:
It is not superfluous to add that petition is pending before this Court for
rehearing the judgment in the appeal (1329/16).
If not for the purpose of the requested inspection, then surely the scope of
perversions in the Nazareth court file (see sections D et seq, below) should
be inspected as part of review of the above referenced petition. The
Requester claims that review of the scope of the perversions in the Nazareth
court file would lead to an inevitable conclusion: Court process in the
Nazareth District Court should be declared void not voidable, and
investigation of Tair Rada's murder should be re-opened.
Whereas the original Pro-forma Request to Inspect provided no justification for the
inspection, stating that no such justification was required by Regulation 2(b), the Appeal
explicitly claimed the concerns of Fraud Upon the Court in the Nazareth District Court
through the issuance of sham/simulated unsigned decision records, and provided the
evidence to support such concerns:
(a) The invalid September 14, 2010 Verdict and Sentencing records in the trial
court file, the failure to duly enter such records in the Judgments Docket, the
missing Arrest Decree, and the denial of access to inspect electronic signatures
execution data in the Nazareth District Court electronic court file (see below),
and
(b) Evidence from decision records in another, unrelated paper court file, where
the practice of conducting sham/issuing court process by issuing unsigned
paper decision records was fully documented Rotem v Baram and State of
Israel (73202-04) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court.
The appeal was denied. Access to the paper court records of decisions in Roman Zadorovs
trial in the Nazareth District Court was never gained, integrity and validity of the records
should be considered dubious, given the unusual conduct of the courts regarding the
attempts to inspect.
_____________________________________________________________________
94/367 TOC: 1
Case Study: State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal, former PM corruption
trial in the Holyland scandal in the Tel-Aviv District Court
Figure. Judge David Rosen presided in State of Israel v Zerni. The evidence shows massive
perversion of court records and court process in this landmark case. Today, Judge David
Rosen serves as Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, key position in efforts to restore
integrity and public trust in the State Prosecution. Former PM Ehud Olmert and his
secretary Shulamit Zaken on the background of the Holyland project, which was the subject
of criminal prosecution in one of the worst corruption scandals in the States history. [ xxxvi]
_____
The Holyland corruption scandal is one of the worst in the history of the State of Israel. It
involved bribing by developers of State officers, including former Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert and his personal secretary Shulamit Zaken.
Indictment was filed in 2012, and the case was tried under State of Israel v Zerni et al
(10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court. Sixteen (16) persons were named Defendants,
and the case generated intensive media coverage. The case was later appealed by various
Defendants in the Supreme Court.
According to media reports, Tel-Aviv District Judge David Rosen convicted Ehud Olmert
and sentenced him to a six year prison term, which was later mostly reversed by the
Supreme Court (and the remaining prison term was to be served, overlapping conviction in
another corruption scandal).
The chronology of the case according to media:
January 2012: Indictment filed by the Tel-Aviv District Attorney Office.
March 31, 2014: Verdict rendered, all convicted.
May 13, 2014: Sentencing was issued for most Defendants, including Olmert,
ordering start of prison terms on September 1, 2014. Haaretz daily published the
entire unsigned sentencing court record (over 50 pages).
May 15, 2014: Following a last minute plea bargain deal, Shula Zaken was separately
sentenced to 11 months prison term. Haaretz daily published the entire 45-page
Protocol, which fails to appear in the Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat public
access - in this case. The "Protocol" ends with a "Decision", which states: "Decision
will be rendered later today."
June 11, 2014: Avraham Feiner was separately sentenced to public service.
June 19, 2014: Uri Lupoliansky was separately sentenced to prison.
July 15, 2014: Shula Zaken started serving her prison term.
_____________________________________________________________________
95/367 TOC: 1
July 29, 2014: Ehud Olmert's prison terms was stayed by Chief Justice Asher Grunis
until hearing of the appeal in September 2014.
September 15, 2014: Ehud Olmert's prison terms was again stayed by Justice Noam
Solberg until decision in the appeals.
December 29, 2015: The Supreme Court reversed Judge David Rosen on Ehud
Olmert's central bribing conviction and reduced the sentence to 1.5 years,
overlapping the sentence in another corruption conviction.
Review of the case in Net-HaMishpat and lengthy inspection efforts, both in the Tel-Aviv
District Court and in the supreme Court, revealed pervasive perversion of records of the Tel-
Aviv District Court, in striking difference with the records of other cases, tried by Judge
David Rosen. The manner of perversion of various records in this case shows unusual
creativity:
Double books for decision dockets - most of the court decisions fail to appear in the
public docket in Net-HaMishpat.
Many of the records, which appear in the Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat are
patently invalid unsigned, truncated, etc.
The Verdict record was not entered in the Judgments Docket, and the record that was
entered Decisions Docket is patently invalid.
Some of the Sentencing records, which were entered in the Judgments Docket are
patently invalid and/or were entered under false docketing text.
No valid Arrest Decree was discovered for Shula Zaken, although she was already
imprisoned at that time.
The Administration of Courts, which appears to often act as a partner in such
matters, released to media a sham/simulated Verdict record.
The Supreme Court conducted a criminal appeal with no valid judgment records of
the District Court.
Shulamit Zaken's property was taken, purportedly as execution of sentencing, based
on a fraudulent Criminal Levy Decree (akin to Writ of Execution) one of the most
elaborate fraudulent court records ever discovered.
Judge David Rosen response on Request to Inspect made it clear that he did not
consider the judgment records in Net-HaMishpat lawfully made judgment records.
In this case, as in the Roman Zadorov case, upon review of the records, a reasonable person
would conclude that Judge David Rosen and the State Prosecution colluded in the deceit,
while Shulamit Zaken's Counsel acquiesced. The central role of the Administration of Court
in perpetrating sham/simulated judicial process was again documented in this case. Nevo
Publishing LTD appears to be again a partner in the publishing of sham/simulated court
records.
One is hard pressed to believe that professional legal reporters, who covered the case,
noticed none of it.
_____________________________________________________________________
96/367 TOC: 1
a)
b)
Figures. State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal trial of the Holyland
corruption scandal - in the Tel-Aviv District Court Decisions Dockets in Net-
HaMishpat in a case that is defined open to the public, unsealed: a) The Decisions
Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system on April 06, 2015, showed 63 decisions,
many of them patently perverted. b) The Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat Office of
the Clerk access - on March 22, 2015, showed 523 decisions. Both versions of the
Decisions Docket fail to include a valid records of the Defendants Ehud Olmet and Shulamit
Zaken's Verdict and Sentencing, as tacitly admitted by Judge David Rosen, in response to
Request to Inspect.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
97/367 TOC: 1
a)
b) c)
_____________________________________________________________________
98/367 TOC: 1
d) e)
Figure. State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal trial of the Holyland
corruption scandal - in the Tel-Aviv District Court Judgments Docket and its entries.
Sixteen (16) Defendants are named in the case, including former Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert (#8) and his personal secretary Shulamit Zaken (#9). As tacitly admitted by Judge
David Rosen in his March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision, none of the records in Net-HaMishpat
is a lawfully made judgment:
a) The Judgment Docket shows four entries. It fails to show any Verdict record.
b) 2014-06-19 Docketing Text - Sentencing dated June 19, 2014, rendered by David
Rosen: 10 page record, titled: Sentencing Defendant 6. The record ends with a
standard signature box, including a graphic signature.
c) 2014-06-09 Docketing Text - Instruction to Public Service Supervisor in the Prison
Service to file an updated opinion in re: Feiner: 6 page record, titled: Sentencing of
Defendant 11.
d) 2014-05-15 Docketing Text - Instruction to Defendant 8 to file bail/bond: 5 page
record, titled: Sentencing of Defendant 9 [Zaken-jz]. The record ends with a standard
Net-HaMishpat signature box, including a graphic signature.
e) 2014-05-13 Docket Text - Instruction to Public Service Supervisor in the Prison
Service to file updated opinion in re: Feiner Avraham: 64 page record, titled: Sentencing
of Defendants 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 [Olmert-jz], 10, 12, 14, 15, 16. The record ends with no
signature box at all, not even the name of Judge David Rosen.
The Judgments Docket in Net-HaMishpat public access system - fails to show any Verdict
record.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
99/367 TOC: 1
Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv District Court and the Administration of Courts refused to
answer:
Who is authorized and who holds the duties to enter judgments under the Judgment
Docket in Net-HaMishpat in the Tel-Aviv District Court?
Does the entry of a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment, Verdict,
or Sentencing indicate that it is indeed a duly made, valid and effectual judgment
in the corresponding court file?
Does the failure to enter a court record in the Judgment Docket as Judgment,
Verdict, or Sentencing indicate that it is not a duly made, valid and effectual
judgment in the corresponding court file?
As shown below, multiple versions of the Verdict record were discovered, all of them
invalid records. However, the conclusion from Judge David Rosen's response on Request to
Inspect is that there is no valid, lawfully made judgment records for either Ehud Olmert or
Shulamit Zaken in Net-HaMishpat electronic court file in this case.
a) b)
c)
_____________________________________________________________________
100/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court - multiple
versions of the Judge David Rosen Verdict record in the Holyland corruption scandal - none
of them is an authentic, valid court record:
a) The record, which appears in Net-HaMishpat Decisions Docket - fails to be entered in the
Judgment Index. The record is 685 page long, is a scanned record - i.e., is not a valid
electronic record. It is missing the opening pages, naming the parties in the case, and is also
missing the hand signature and personal stamp at the end. The record is perverted in an
unusual manner, which is unlikely to be the outcome of human error.
b) The record, which was distributed by the Administration of Courts to media - entirely
fails to appear in Net-HaMishpat, is a scanned record - i.e., is not a valid electronic record,
and all its pages are strangely cropped, possibly to conceal the fact that it is a scanned
record. The record is 687 page long, ending with a "wet" hand signature and stamp of Judge
David Rosen.(http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/dover/6282891.pdf)
c) In the Supreme Courts appeal court file (paper court file - original records), only a
printout of the Verdict from Nevo Publishing LTD was discovered not a court record at all.
An appeal, which originates in no authentic decision or judgment record of the lower court
should be deemed lacking in authority and validity.
_____
The publication of the sham/simulated Verdict record by the Spokeswoman of the

Administration of Courts is not unique. Collusion of the Administration of Courts in the
conduct of Judge David Rosen is also evidenced in the letter in Figure 37, below.
Furthermore, the Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts was also partner in Judge
Varda Alshech's conduct he filed with the Israel Bar Association her fabricated protocol
with an ethics complaint against Attorney Rafael Argaz.
The failure to generate valid judgment records, even in criminal process, and the failure to
maintain clear and unambiguous entries of judgments, by themselves, should render the
Israeli courts today incompetent courts.
Such circumstances should be deemed serious violations of Human Rights, including the
right for Fair and Public Hearing and the right for Liberty itself. It should also be deemed
serious violation of the right for Due Process, pursuant to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
Numerous other judicial records are perverted in the same court file.
_____________________________________________________________________
101/367 TOC: 1
Page 1
_____________________________________________________________________
102/367 TOC: 1
Page 2
Figure. State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court - Criminal
Levy Decree a two-page record by Judge David Rosen, pertaining to Defendant Shulamit
Zaken in the Holyland file, suspected as perversion, forgery and/or fraud and deceit.
The Criminal Levy Decree, pertaining to Defendant 9 (Zaken), was rendered in response
to request by the State Prosecution, Tel-Aviv District, Tax and Economy Division, pursuant
to Levy Order in the Sentencing record. The record is comprised of two pages:
Page No. 1 is Notice to the General Conservator regarding Levy Decree - which is
a paper form, which was completed by hand-writing, affixed with a wet stamp,
and then scanned. The Notice serves as an additional authentication of the
Decree, prescribed by law.
_____________________________________________________________________
103/367 TOC: 1
Page No. 2 is the core of the record July 17, 2014 Post-it Decisionby Judge
David Rosen, which appears at the top of the page. The Post-it Decision is an
electronic record, a rectangular text frame, which was superimposed on another
electronic record, which is the scanned July 17, 2014 State Prosecution Request.
Another component on the same page is the authentication True Copy of the
Original at the top of the page, which was generated as a wet stamp with wet
hand-written date and signature, which were executed on a printout of the page prior
to its final scanning.
Combined, the record was supposed to include three-step verification: Judge's
signature on the Decree, authentication of the Decree, True Copy of the Original,
by the Chief Clerk, and signature by the Magistrate of the Court on the Notice to the
General Conservator.
In fact, none of these verification exists on this record. In addition, its content is
false, as detailed below.
Request by the State Prosecution (Page 2)
The July 17, 2014 Request by the State Prosecution is based on:
April 31, 2014 Verdict, wherein the Defendant was convicted of taking bribes
and money laundering.
There are no 31 days in the month of April, and there is no April 31, 2014 Verdict
record among the records in this court file in Net-HaMishpat. (Conviction of
Defendant 9 appears in a perverted, unsigned, March 31, 2014 record). Judge David
Rosen also clarified in his March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision in response on Dr
Joseph Zernik's request to inspect, that no verdict record, pertaining to Defendant
Zaken, had been registered in the electronic file in Net-HaMishpat.
May 15, 2015 Sentence, wherein the Hon Court approved the plea bargain
agreement signed between the Prosecution and the Defendant. The Judgment in the
matter of the Defendant became unappealable. Such record also fails to appear
among the records in Net-HaMishpat, and regarding such records Judge Rosen also
explained that it does not exist in the electronic file. However, the reading of the
Sentence in open court was widely reported by media. May 15, 2015 Protocol pages
(9351-9396) were also published by Haaretz daily, but the Protocol, which was
published by Haaretz ends with a Decision, which says: Decision will be rendered
later today.
Post-it Decision by Judge David Rosen (Page 2)
The July 17, 2014 Post-it Decision, was superimposed on the State Prosecution Request.
The Post-it Decision says: Decree granted as requested. The Post-it Decision, which
purportedly produced the Levy Decree, is unsigned.
Authentication True Copy of the Original (Page 2)
The Decree was purportedly authenticated on July 28, 2014, True Copy of the Original,
by the hand-signature of Shatz, or Selly (illegible), with neither name, nor title of the
signer on the stamp, and no stamp number. Such authentication should have been lawfully
been signed by the Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv District Court, or the Magistrate of the
Court. Shatz, or Shelly wasn't the name of the Chief Clerk, or the Magistrate on that date.
_____________________________________________________________________
104/367 TOC: 1
Forgery of the authentication, True Copy of the Original, by persons, who are not lawfully
authorized to sign such authentication, is a common phenomenon in the Israeli courts today,
from the magistrate courts to the Supreme Court. Such forgeries have been documented
numerous times in recent years, through requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act on the Administration of Courts, to ascertain the names and authority of the persons,
who signed the purported authentication on various court records in the various courts.
Such forgeries also stand contrary to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961), to which
Israel is a party.
Notice of Levy Decree (Page 1)
The Notice of Levy Decree, prescribed by law, provides additional authentication of the
Levy Decree. The form is dated July 28, 2014. On the form, signature of the Magistrate of
the Tel-Aviv District Court is required. However, the form is not signed at all. Instead of the
Magistrate's signature, Judge David Rosen's stamp was affixed, upside down.
The entire Levy Decree
The entire court record shows no signature by any person, who is identified as an officer of
the Tel-Aviv District Court by name and title. No reasonable person would consider such
record a valid and effectual, enforceable court record.
d. General perversion of the records, which appear in the public access Decisions Docket
The majority of the records, which appear in the public access system Decisions Docket
fail to show even the invalid graphic signature. Therefore, pursuant to the description of
production of decision records in Net-HaMishpat in Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision
(88/12/Tel-Aviv District), it is evident that they are incomplete records, surely not lawfully
signed by electronic sigantures.
Such records can be generally divided into three types:
1. Records, which were generated and registered as electronic records some of these
records show no signature at all, and others show various signature types, as detailed
below. However, in no case does any such record show a secure, certified signature,
complying with the Israeli Electronic Signature Act.
2. Records, which were generated as paper records, then scanned and registered as
electronic records some of these records show scanned hand-signatures.
3. Records, which were generated through a combined process, and finally registered as
electronic records the July 28, 2014 Criminal Levy Decree and Post-it
Decision (c, above), are examples of such record.
This multiplicity and coordination of defects in the Criminal Levy Decree record, which at
the end shows no form of signature whatsoever of Judge David Rosen or any other Officer
of the Court, is unlikely to be the outcome of mere coincidence. Furthermore, it is likely that
the record represents collusion by the Tel-Aviv District Attorney Office and Judge David
Rosen in falsification of the record, while Counsel for Shula Zaken acquiesced.
_____________________________________________________________________
105/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court Judge
David Rosen March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision: In response to an attempt to inspect
lawfully made judgment records pertaining to Ehud Olmert and shula Zaken and a
lawfully made Arrest Decree pertaining to Shula Zaken (who was already serving her
prison term), Judge David Rosen issued the "Post-it Decision", which says: The court file,
inspection of which is requested, is physically located in the Supreme Court, as part of the
appeal process of the judgment. Therefore, it is impossible to grant the request. This Post-it
decision was never duly served, fails to appear in the Decisions Docket, and Judge David
Rosen refused to provide a duly signed and certified copy of it. Therefore, it should be
deemed a sham/simulated court record. With it, the record should be deemed tacit admission
by Judge David Rosen that there is no lawfully made judgments or arrest decree in the
Net-HaMishpat electronic court file in this case five (5) years after the transition to
electronic file administration in the Tel-Aviv District Court. Effectively, it is admission that
the records in Net-HaMishpat Judgments Docket and Decisions Docket are invalid court
records.
____
Judge David Rosen's March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision should be deemed a sham/simulated
court record: It is unsigned, it fails to appear in the public Decisions Docket, it was never
duly served, and Judge Rosen refused to provide a duly signed and certified copy of it. The
Post-it Decision denies access to inspect lawfully made judgment records for Defendants
Ehud Olmet and Shulamit Zaken, and lawfully made Arrest Decree for Defendant Shulamit
Zaken in State of Israel v Zerni et al, under the reasoning that the records were physically
transferred to the Supreme Court as part of the appeal process. With it, the Post-it Decision
should be considered tacit admission that none of the judgment records in Net-HaMishpat in
this court file are lawfully made court records.
Inspection of the Ehud Olmert Supreme Court appeal court file showed that no valid
Judgment records existed there either.
Following the issue of the March 18, 2015 and subsequent Post-it Decisions by Judge David
Rosen in response to inspection efforts, Judge David Rosen was requested to duly enter the
decisions in the Decisions Docket.
In response, an unusual letter was received from the Administration of Courts.
_____________________________________________________________________
106/367 TOC: 1
Figure. July 26, 2015 letter from Legal Adviser Office of the Administration of Courts: The
letter was unsolicited, and claims to be in response to an inquiry, which never was. The
letter refers to my requests to docket Post-it Decisions, but fails to state what court and file
are the subject of the letter. The letter is signed by Heli Bracha, The Legal Bureau,
without any position title. In response to follow-up inquiries, Ms Bracha refused to clarify
what her position was, or what court file was the subject of the letter. However, the timing
and subject make it most likely related to State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the
Tel-Aviv District Court and Judge David Rosen's Post-it Decisions in response to Requests
to Inspect.
The letter says: RE: Your June 11, 2015 inquiry. Your inquiry, referenced above, was
forwarded to my handling, and I am honored to answer as follows: Regarding your request
to view Post-it Decisions, the matter was reviewed with the relevant authorities in the
Administration of Courts, and the outcome of such review was that the matter is impossible
from computational perspective....
The letter is notable for its vagueness, failing to state any identification of the matter, the
persons who were involved in the review, or the position of the writer. The letter is also
false and misleading, in stating that it is impossible from computational perspective to
view Post-it Decisions in Net-HaMishpat. To wit later Judge David Rosen did post in the
_____________________________________________________________________
107/367 TOC: 1
Decisions Docket some of his Post-it Decisions, responding on my repeat requests to
inspect. However, he posted only cryptic decisions, such as I have nothing to add on my
March 18, 2015 decision, but failed to post the March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision, which is
probably too obvious in its implications regarding integrity of Net-HaMishpat records in
this case, in particular, and in other cases in general.
The unsolicited letter from Administration of Courts provides additional evidence for the
collusion of the Administration of Courts in the conduct of sham/simulated court process by
judges. It also provides evidence that the incompetence and/or corruption of the Israeli
courts today is not a case of sporadic incompetence and/or corruption, but an organized one.
____
Following examination of the judicial records in State of Israel v Zerni in Net-HaMishpat,

inquiry was filed with then Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv District Court Devora Berliner,
regarding integrity of court records in State of Israel v Zerni. Judge Berliner was also asked:
[xxxvii]
What is the basis for keeping double and triple Decisions Dockets, where the vast
majority of decisions records are hidden from public view?
Who is charge with the safeguard of integrity of court files and court books following
the implementation of Net-HaMishpat?
Does the entry of judgment in the Judgments Docket in Net-HaMishpat indicate that it is
a valid and effectual judgment of the Court?
Does the failure to enter judgment in the Judgment Docket in Net-HaMishpat indicate
that it is not a valid and effectual judgment of the Court?
Presiding Judge Berliner failed to answer on such inquiry. Instead, the Administration of
Court provide a fake response on Freedom of Information Request, which had never been
filed, and which failed to truly address the questions. [xxxviii]
Following the appointment of Judge Eitan Orenstin Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv District
Court, the inquiry was again filed with him. [xxxix] Presiding Judge Orenestins failed to
provide response on the matter itself, instead referring the inquirer to the Administration of
Courts. [xl]
_____________________________________________________________________
108/367 TOC: 1
Figure. April 19, 2017 response letter by Presiding Judge Eitan Orenstin of the Tel-Aviv
District Court, pertaining to Judge David Rosens perverted judicial records in Net-
HaMishpat in State of Israel v Zerni. The letter says: To: Joseph Zernik, PhD, PO Box
33407, Tel-Aviv. Dear Sir, RE: Your April 18, 2017 letter. I have reviewed your inquiry
and I believe that I am not the authorized person to answer it. I should note in this context
that you complain about procedures, which were issued by the Administration of Courts,
and according to you - the failure to comply with Supreme Court judgments. You further
challenge Net-HaMishpat system and its failure to comply with the law, lack of adequate
response by the Administration of Courts to your inquiries. The response on all such
matters is not in my authority and you should address the authorized agencies. Respectfully,
[wet hand-signature], Eitan Orenstin, Judge, Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv District
Court. CC: Judge Michael Spitzer, Director of Administration of Courts.
The letter fails to show a reference number.
______
A follow-up inquiry with Presiding Judge Orenstin pointed out that the inquiry was filed
pursuant to the Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files (2003), which provides
that the Presiding Judge of each court was charged with establishing procedures for public
access to court records. The follow-up inquiry asked Presiding Judge Orenestin to provide
the legal foundation for his response. [xli]
However, soon after the initial inquiry with Presiding Judge Orenstin, the entire State of
Israel v Zerni court file became unlawfully, retroactively sealed in Net-HaMishpat public
_____________________________________________________________________
109/367 TOC: 1
access system. Following the filing of request to inspect lawfully made publication
prohibition decree [gag order] in State of Israel v Zerni, [xlii] the court file became open to
the public again. No decision was provided on the request to inspect.
Presiding Judge Orenstins response on the follow-up inquiry failed to provide any legal
foundation for his denial of any authority, pertaining to inspection of Tel-Aviv District Court
records and their integrity.
Figure. May 07, 2017 follow-up response letter by Presiding Judge Eitan Orenstin of the
Tel-Aviv District Court, pertaining to Judge David Rosens perverted judicial records in
Net-HaMishpat in State of Israel v Zerni. The letter says in part: To: Joseph Zernik, PhD,
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv. Dear Sir, I have reviewed your May 03, 2017 inquiry and I notice
you that I find no reason to add on the response, which I provided on April 19, 2017 on your
original April 18, 2017 inquiry...
The letter fails to show a reference number.
______
Case Study: In re: Joelle Ben-Simon

[see below - Protest against corruption of Family Courts Joelle Ben-Simon 231]
_____________________________________________________________________
110/367 TOC: 1
d) Administration of Courts
The office of Administration of Court should be deemed central to corruption of the courts
over the past two decades. Any correction measures should include major reform of the
office of Administration of Courts:
The office of Administration of Courts was charged with development, implementation, and
operation of Net-HaMishpat case management system. As shown above, the system
provides judges a tool, which enables the routine perversion of court process and court
records.
[see more - Development, implementation, operation of Net-HaMishpat 60].
Additionally, when judges and presiding judges of the various courts are inquired regarding
false and misleading records in Net-HaMishpat, or unlawful denial of public access to court
records in Net-HaMishpat, they routinely respond by referring such inquiries to the
Administration of Courts, although by law, such matters are the duties of the judges, who
preside in the case, and the presiding judges of the various courts.
The role of the Administration of Courts, and its legal counsel, Attorney Barak Laser in
corruption of the courts was uniquely documented in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated
Protocols scandal
[see also Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) in the Tel-Aviv District Court 78].
In that case, Judge Varda Alshech used a thoroughly perverted Protocol [minutes] for filing
a semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Rafael Argaz. The Protocol, as later established,
was unsigned, and therefore was deemed only a Draft. However, counsel, the public, and
the Israel Bar Association could not distinguish in printout of such record from Net-
HaMishpat that it was unsigned, since the purported electronic signatures are concealed.
Judge Alshech did not file the complaint against Attorney Rafael Argaz herself. Instead, the
complaint was filed on her behalf by Attorney Barak Laser of the Administration of Courts.
However, as later established in Ombudsman of the Judiciary review and decision, Attorney
Barak Laser had full access to Net-HaMishpat. Therefore, Attorney Barak Laser could have
easily determined that the Protocol record, which he filed with the Israel Bar Association as
the basis for the complaint, was an unsigned, Draft record
[see also Judge Varda Alshech's "Fabricated Protocols" and e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 121].
Therefore, Attorney Barak Laser and the Administration of Courts should have been
considered in collusion with Judge Varda Alshech in the "Fabricated Protocols" scandal.
Nevertheless, the case was not addressed that way by Ombudsman of the Judiciary. On the
contrary, the Ombudsman relied in his review and decision on information, which was
provided to him by Attorney Barak Laser and the Administration of Courts. Purportedly, the
Ombudsman had no direct knowledge, or had no way to ascertain the facts for himself.
The outcome of such process was decision by the Ombudsman of the Judiciary, where in
collusion with Attorney Barak Laser and the Administration of Courts, repeat
misrepresentations are made, to mislead the reader to believe that lawful, valid e-signatures,
pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) were indeed implemented in Net-
HaMishpat, but Judge Varda Alshech failed to execute them.
_____________________________________________________________________
111/367 TOC: 1
Review of the true facts in this matter shows that no lawful, valid electronic signatures have
were implemented in Net-HaMishpat. Therefore, the system as a whole should be
considered a deceitful instrument of the judges of on the public in the State of Israel, which
undermines the integrity of the court system from its foundation.
[see also Perversion of complaint regarding e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 126].
Case study: Criminal investigation and home detention of Attorney Barak Laser Chief
Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts.
In March 2017, media published a short notice that Attorney Barak Laser, Chief Legal
Counsel of the Administration of Courts, was under criminal investigation and was placed
under 15 day home detention. His investigation and detention were reported to be related to
leaking documents the Internet Terror Group. Information, which was later leaked from
the investigation of Lori Shem-Tov, indicated that Attorney Laser had been one of the main
sources for inside information about the judiciary, which she published in her blogs. [ xliii,xliv]
Laser apparently claimed that he had been blackmailed, and that Shem-Tov threatened him
that she would publish personal details about his family life. However, it appears that the
stories, which were leaked by Attorney Laser to Shem-Tov were of his own selection, and
may have been intended to harm particular judges and attorneys.
This bizarre case, where some of the suspects were subjected to harsh and lawless treatment,
while their collaborator, Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts was treated very
differently, led to media reports, such as:
Investigation of Barak Laser: Another test for determination of the
justice system
Attorney Barak Laser was investigated on suspicion of leaking information to
a group of bloggers, who defamed judges and attorneys and extorted them. It
should be hoped that the State Prosecution will treat suspect of the justice
system itself, the same way that it treats other public figures. [xlv]
Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts returned from leave while
an investigation file against him is still open
Attorney Barak Laser, who went on a leave after being investigated on
suspicion of leaking confidential documents in the bloggers case, returned
to work, appeared in the Knesset, and represented the Administration of
Courts in a hearing regarding labor dispute with the judicial assistants. [xlvi]
Also prior the bloggers case Attorney Barak Laser was involved in some unusual and
apparently lawless incidents. In another case, it turned out that Attorney Barak Laser issued
a decision on behalf of the Administration of Courts, pertaining to an expert witness. At
the time that the Decision was rendered, the individual served penalty for criminal
conviction. The same individual was also diagnosed with various serious psychiatric
problems. The decision stated that judges and court personnel must not be informed of
the individuals criminal conviction, neither of his psychiatric diagnoses, so that he may
continue to provide expert opinions in the courts [xlvii]
_____________________________________________________________________
112/367 TOC: 1
e) Judicial Selection Committee
The Judicial Committee is the body that appoints judges to the Israeli courts.
The committee was established in 1953, following the enactment of the Judges Act. The
founding of the committee was intended to prevent outside political pressure, and so ensure
the independence of the judiciary. However, throughout the years conduct of the Committee
has been the subject of controversy and lack of content from various sides of the political
spectrum. [xlviii]
A main complaint regarding the committee is that the judiciary have developed an inside
club, and that they hold too much sway in conduct of the committee. Although only 3 of 9
members are judges. Effectively, sitting justices have veto power over who will be their
successors, an arrangement unheard of in any major democracy. [xlix]
In recent years additional controversy arose, when a committee of two retired judges was
lawlessly established by Supreme Court Presiding Justice Miriam Naor. The Committee
conducts a secretive process of initial culling of candidates for judicial appointments and/or
promotions by the Judicial Selection Committee. In March 2017 petition was filed in the
Supreme Court against the Administration of Courts in demand to expose the records of the
Committee. [l]
Another controversy erupted in June 2017, when it turned out the Presiding Justice Miriam
Naor was maintaining a lawless database, including private personal information on judges
and on candidates for judicial appointments: [li]
Ministry of Justice: Naor maintains an unauthorized database
Last night 360 exposed that Supreme Court Presiding Justice maintains a
computerized database on all judicial candidates. In order to do so, she
needed authorization by the Ministry of Justice [Magistrate of Databases jz],
but no such authorization was requested. The Ministry of Justice is permitted
by law to investigate the matter.
Regardless of the maintenance of such database, the Committee routinely ignores complaint,
even criminal or semi-criminal in nature, against candidates for judicial appointments and/or
promotions:
Numerous complaints have been filed in recent years with Ombudsman of the
Judiciary and the Judicial Selection Committee against magistrates of the Debtors
Courts by victims of fraud in the Debtors Courts. Regardless, such magistrates have
been promoted to judicial appointments.
In 2016, Criminal complaint for perversion of court records, fraud, breach of trust
was filed with the Israel Police, with the Attorney General , and with the Judicial
Selection Committee against Magistrate Judge Esperanza Alon. Regardless, she was
promoted to the position of district judge. [lii]
In 2017, media reported the recent appointment of a Family Court Judge, while
serious complaints were pending against her. It should be noted that media avoided
publishing her name. However, sufficient data was provided for an educated guess
that it was likely to be Judge Iris Ilotovich-Segal: [liii]
Appointed as a judge regardless of serious complaints in the Ethics
Committee
_____________________________________________________________________
113/367 TOC: 1
An attorney, against whom four complaints are pending, some pertaining to
integrity, was appointed Family Judge. Sources in the Committee for Judicial
Selection: We received only general information regarding existence of the
complaints, but we did not know their contents.
According to one of the complaints, which was filed in 2015, the attorney
was appointed five years ago as Conservator of a Conservatee in a dispute
heard in the Family Court in the central region. According to recommendation
by the judge, who heard the case, complaint was filed, alleging that she
embezzled NIS 45,000 from funds of the Conservatee, instead of maintaining
the money in a trust fund. Additionally, it was claimed that the attorney
mislead the Court when she claimed that she represented the Conservatee pro
bono. The complaint further claims that the attorney engaged in a series of
violations of the law, pertaining to conflicts of interest and perversion of court
process
f) Failure to hold judges accountable for extra-judicial, criminal conduct Deceit and
Breach of Trust
(i) Deceit, breach of trust

The most common type of incompetent and/or corrupt conduct by Israeli judges, which is
documented in instant report, falls under the term sham/simulated legal process. The
essence of such conduct is conducting court hearings and/or producing judicial records,
which are deemed invalid by the judges, while the judges lead others to falsely accept their
authority.
Such conduct is termed in US federal law Fraud Upon the Court::
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court
stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial
machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents,
false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or
influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his
judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been
directly corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to,
defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that
the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task
of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387
F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th
Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in
essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."
Some of the several states of the US have specific articles of the penal codes, further
elaborating this type conduct by judges and court personnel. For example, in Texas Penal
Code:
Texas Penal Code - PENAL 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
_____________________________________________________________________
114/367 TOC: 1
(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.
Simulating legal process, per se, is not defined in the Israeli penal code, and Israeli judges
and attorneys generally deny the existence of such conduct. Such overall denial was openly
shattered in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal, and prior to that in the
Judge Hila Cohen Fibulated Protocols scandal.
However, the same conduct falls under Breach of Trust, pursuant to Article 284 of the Israeli
Penal Code (1977). The provisions of the article are little changed from the original,
enacted under the British Mandate for Palestine Criminal Code (1936):
Frauds and breaches of trust by public officers
140. Any person employed in the public service who, in the discharge
of the duties of his office, commits any fraud or breach of trust
affecting the public whether such fraud or breach of trust would have
been criminal or not if committed against a private person, is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
Current Israeli law provides a 3 year prison term for such offense.
The law fails to define Breach of Trust, but it was further elaborated in a number of
landmark decisions of the Supreme Court, first and foremost State of Israel v Sheves
(1397/03), where former CEO of the Prime Ministers office was convicted.
_____________________________________________________________________
115/367 TOC: 1
For example, that Supreme Court ruling reaffirms a previous ruling that the false entry of
data into a register is Breach of Trust:
Public service employee who perpetrates himself, or instruct another to
perpetrate, untrue entry into registry violates the trust vested in him, and
therefore breaches trust. The foundation of trust is doing the right and honest
based on true facts
Article 281 of the Penal Code (1977), separately provides:
False Record
281. Whoever is authorized or required by law to provide a record, which may
impact the rights of a person, and he provides such record, knowing that it is
false in a material detail, his sentence is 5 years imprisonment.
In 2009, the Ministry of Justice issued a Memo of proposed amendment to the Deceit and
Breach of Trust Article, which spells out 4 typical instances, the fourth of which is:
(4) Producing misrepresentation in relationship to performing his duties, or
using his authority vis a vis another public employee, or delivering false report
to a public employee or public entity, including hiding information, which
under the circumstances he should have disclosed to the other public
employee, and which may influence the other public employee in performing
his duties [liv]
A number of prominent public figures have been convicted on Breach of Trust, including
PM Ehud Olmert, Minister of Interior Arye Deri, PM Office CEO Shimon Sheves.
Currently, former head of the Israeli FBI Menashe Arbiv is under indictment on Breach of
Trust. [lv]
Numerous cases of judicial conduct, documented in instant submission, appear to squarely
fall within the realm of Deceit and Breach of Trust. However, to this date, no Judge has
been indicted on such charges in the entire history of the State of Israel. Judge Varda
Alshech suffered no material sanctions. Judge Hila Cohens judicial appointment was
terminated. Regardless, consequently retired Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel ruled in
arbitration enhanced lifetime rewards to Hila Cohen for such termination.
A key claim of instant submission is that fraudulent IT systems in the courts have greatly
enabled the conduct of simulated legal process. Consequently, the practice has become
prevalent in recent years. Therefore, absent enforcement of the law, pertaining to Deceit
and Breach of Trust on offending judges, it is unlikely that integrity of the Israeli courts can
be restored.
The evidence shows that when judges are patently falsifying court records, the standard
explanation is that the fraudulent records were merely Drafts:
In 2011, Judge Varda Alshech of the Tel-Aviv District Court was caught in what was
later called the fabricated protocols scandal. Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision
(88/12/Tel-Aviv District) determined that the records were merely Drafts. [lvi]
Judge Alshech was never held seriously accountable.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court served a Judgment in favor of one party. Two
months later it served Judgment in favor of the opposite parties. Ombudsman of
the Judiciary decision determined that the first Judgment was merely a draft. [ lvii]
_____________________________________________________________________
116/367 TOC: 1
In the case of Jolle Ben-Simon, Judge Menahem HaCohens decision is explicitly
water-marked Draft. The record was also false and misleading as to its contents. It
was nevertheless served on Ben-Simon with the intent that she perceive it as a valid,
lawful court record. Regardless, during a visit to the Office of the Clerk, Jerusalem
Family Court, senior staff member of refused to print out any of the decisions, or
even the dockets in Ben-Simons court files, claiming that they were Drafts.
In the case of Judge Esperanza Alon, criminal complaint documents the service of a
hearing protocol, which is explicitly water-marked Not Signed Yet. The record
was also false and misleading as to its contents. It was nevertheless served on parties
in the case with the intent that they perceive it as a valid, lawful court record.
Complaint, which was filed with the UN Human Rights Council - Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention documents that Ukrainian citizen Roman Zadorov is held in
Israel, purportedly as a murder convict, with no valid judgment records. [lviii] It is
patently evident that the existing records in Zadorovs case are all merely Drafts.
(ii) Censorship regarding judicial corruption

It is likely that judicial corruption in Israel is much more pervasive than publicly known,
including cases of serious conflicts of interests and bribes. However, the authorities engage
in careful censorship of news regarding evidence of judicial corruption, and media seem to
generally suppress such news.
Of note in this contents is a unique 2006 interview, provided by Supreme Court Justice
Mishael Cheshin after retirement, which is widely known as the Cheshins Pandora Box:
[lix]
Mishael Cheshins Pandora Box
What cases, which are more serious than falsification of protocols is he
talking about accepting bribes, theft, bias in favor of favorites? The public
is not likely to be informed.
Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin should be thanked for opening for us
the Pandora Box of the judges in Israel. Retirement interviews with the
retiring justice exposed dark opinions, which were concealed from public
view, and which strengthen the impression that the custom, that judges in
Israel do not provide interviews during their tenure is not only archaic, it is
also dangerous for democracy.
Anybody, who read even one judgment penned by Justice Cheshin, cannot
avoid admiring his courage and naughtiness, which characterized both his
opinions and their intentions. And yet, the full ugliness was exposed of a
range of opinions, which are based on the belief that there are those, who are
more equal, and even if they erred, they must not be held accountable. These
are the elevated ones the guild of judges.
Cheshin was asked what he thought about the dismissal of Judge Hila Cohen,
who was caught in forgery of protocols. His response was both amazing and
objectionable: I set in previous disciplinary procedures [against judges, in the
secretive Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal jz]. They were simply not leaked.
There were worse cases, which passed with nothing, ended with a warning,
_____________________________________________________________________
117/367 TOC: 1
and nobody knows, nobody hears. Thats how things should be concluded,
since the moment that you publish something like that at that moment the
judge is burnt [done, over with jz].
From such statements it is clear that there are judges in Israel, who believe
that they are above the law. He admitted that on the docket of the Judicial
Disciplinary Tribunal many cases have been reviewed, which are much worse
and much more serious than the forgery of protocols. What could be worse
than a judge, who forges records? Accepting bribes? Bias in favor of the
favorites? Stealing by judges? Or maybe hit and run car accident?
The desirable system, according to Cheshin, is to prevent public transparency
of judicial corruption. If the serious cases ended with warning by the Judicial
Tribunal, it means that there was substance to it, and the judge indeed do
whatever he did. Isnt it the publics right to know about such things?
Thanks to Justice Cheshins unbridled mouth, the Pandora Box of Israeli
judges was finally opened for us. The fortified walls, with which the judges
surrounded themselves against public criticism havent prevented recently the
exposure of a list of scandals. First and foremost is the phenomenon of
nepotism in the justice system and the Ministry of Justice: Wives of judges,
who are meteorically promoted, misprision of defaults by judges, who are
favored by the Supreme Court, the tailoring of positions for children of senior
officers of the system, and the fast promotion track for those that the Supreme
Court favors.
Two urgent actions are necessary: First - we must demand full transparency of
all judgments of the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal; it is the publics right to
know starts exactly there with those who preach public transparency.
Second, the justice system must adapt itself to the information and technology
age, and allow public openness and honoring the publics right to know the
people behind the black robes.
Regardless of the 2006 opening of Mishael Cheshins Pandora Box, nothing has changed.
On the contrary, the general impression is that judicial corruption has dramatically
increased, but is guarded and censored more carefully than ever.
Particularly in relationship to a massive corruption scandal involving former Tel-Aviv
District Attorney Ruth David, her law partner Attorney Ronel Fisher, and senior police
investigator Eran Malka, news items repeatedly emerged, which suggested that bribing of
judges was also part of the scheme. It appears that none of it was truly investigated.
On June 05, 2015 news was published in social networks:
Three judges were detained in relationship to the Ruth David Ronel Fisher
scandal.
However, later that news item disappeared, [lx] although copies remain online. [lxi]
In parallel, Arutz 7 published that the Jerusalem District Court had issued a publication
prohibition decree [gag order] on the entire story: [lxii]
Gag Order on Huge Development in Corruption Case
Major development in scandal involving lawyer, former District Attorney and
top police investigator.
_____________________________________________________________________
118/367 TOC: 1
Israeli news media are reporting that a major development has taken place in
the ongoing investigation against lawyer Ronel Fisher, former Tel Aviv
District Attorney Ruth David, and former top police investigator Eran Malka.
However, a court has issued a gag order on any detail about the negotiations
being carried out with Malka, and on publication of any detail regarding a
pending investigation, especially regarding any detail that has been collected
or the names of additional people who are involved, and who are not included
in the charge sheet.
Haaretz daily, likewise, published on the same day cryptic news of major new development
in the case:
Significant Development in Ronel Fisher Case May Affect Senior Figure
in Affair
New information that reached police internal investigations department will
lead to a deepening of investigation into corruption case, possible summoning
of further suspects.
Labor party Chairman, Yitzhak Herzog, an attorney himself, commented a day earlier that
the scandal was the "Day of Atonement" of the Israeli justice system. [ lxiii] Malca, the
policeman in the group, was already convicted and is serving a prison term. However, it
remains to be seen if the system is able to address the conduct of Attorney Ronel Fisher and
former Tel-Aviv District Attorney Ruth David in the same scandal.
As is the case in some other nations, Prior Restraint of the press is prohibited by Israeli law,
unless a "clear and present danger" can be shown. Regardless, the Israeli courts routinely
issue gag orders, in what is largely seen as a coordinated effort by the justice system to
cover-up its own failure and/or corruption. Recently media reported a new record - 6 gag
orders within 24 hours. [lxiv] Such gag orders often also prohibit the publication of the fact
that a gag order was entered...
As a paraphrase on the old latin adage, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, less than a month
earlier, Haaretz daily 2015 headline read: [lxv]
Harpaz, Pinto, Fisher: Who will investigate the investigators'
investigators?
A 2016 media article addresses the same problem: [lxvi]
It has become a routine: special treatment for judicial misconduct
Cohen affair: whitewash upon a whitewash
If you decide to become criminals you better become judges first. It ensures
that even if you get caught, you get preferred treatment, which is not provided
to any other citizen in Israel. That is the conclusion not only from the retired
Judge Yitzhak Cohen affair, but also from a line of other affairs of judges, who
were involved in criminal conduct. In Cohens case as we show below, the
ongoing whitewashing. Investigation by News1 shows that it amounted to
filing a false indictment. The State Prosecution decided not to prosecute
Cohen in a matter that would have caused it substantial embarrassment.
Corruption of the justice system has reached a level, where it is rather evident that the
system is incapable to address its own corruption.
_____________________________________________________________________
119/367 TOC: 1
e) Public trust in the courts and the justice system
Survey after survey and various publications in recent years show collapse of public trust in
the courts:
2017 survey of young adults shows over 30% decline in trust in the courts over the past
20 years (from 63% to 40%). [lxvii]
2016 survey shows collapse in trust in the Supreme Court compared to an identical
survey 25 years earlier: From 80% (including Arabs) who expressed great trust or
absolute trust to 56%, from 41% of Jewish Israelis who expressed absolute trust - to
only 22%, from 3% who expressed lack of absolute trust - to 12%. [lxviii].
2016 article notes: The Erosion of Public Trust in Israel's Judiciary Is Realand
Unusual [lxix]
2015 survey shows that only 30% of the survey sample showed great trust or full trust in
the court system, and 38% stated that they had little or no trust in the court system. [ lxx]
2014 opinion piece notes loss of legitimacy of the justice system. [lxxi]
2011 survey shows that only 22% of the public believed that judges never take bribes.
[lxxii]
2011 scholarly publication, calling for reform of the courts and the prosecutorial system
notes: The disdain expressed by a considerable portion of the public threatens one of
the cornerstones of the court system: public trust. [lxxiii]
[see also section sections 12. Social Protest, 13. Whistle-blowers ]
_____________________________________________________________________
120/367 TOC: 1
4. Ombudsman of the Judiciary
The office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary was established in 2002 under the Ministry of
Justice. Its role is to review complaints against judges, pertaining to their conduct in
performing their judicial duties. The Ombudsman typically is a retired justice of the
Supreme Court. The Ombudsman issues decisions. However, such decisions hold no
judicial authority, and serve as recommendations only. The Ombudsman also publishes
annual reports.
While the office of the Ombudsman assists in documenting various types of judicial
aberrant conduct, its decisions make little impact.
The Ombudsman is permitted to file a complaint with the secretive Judicial Disciplinary
Tribunal. That Court conducts its business in secrecy, and is generally considered
ineffective. For example, in the Judge Hila Cohen Fibulated Protocols scandal, the
Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal issued only a reprimand. Judge Hila Cohens judicial
appointment was eventually terminated through an unprecedented process, where her
appointment was revoked by the Judicial Appointments Committee.
The Ombudsman is also permitted to file a recommendation with the Judicial Appointments
Committee for termination of the offending judges appointment. However, it is unknown
that the Ombudsman has ever done so.
In cases, which raise concern of criminal conduct by a judge, the Ombudsman is also
permitted to raise the matter before Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, and the
Supreme Courts Presiding Justice. It is unknown that the Ombudsman has ever done so
either.
a) 2002 - Judge Varda Alshech's "Fabricated Protocols" and e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat
Figures. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg and Fabricated Protocols Judge
Varda Alshech.
_____
Figures. Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) in the Tel-Aviv District Court:
Certified printout from Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the courts) of one of
the two Judge Varda Alshech September 12, 2011 Fabricated Protocols [minutes]. The
record reads: Decision In view of statements by Attorney Hermlin, instant Supplemental
Protocol shall be forwarded by the Office of the Clerk both to Attorney Arbel and Attorney
Argaz, and I am addressing the Director of Administrator of Courts, asking that he also
forward instant Supplemental Protocol, when he files the complaint with the Bar
Association. The Protocol was used by Judge Varda Alshech for retaliation against
Attorney Rafael Argaz, who represented a small-debt holder in this case. Attorney Argaz
_____________________________________________________________________
121/367 TOC: 1
was standing in Judge Alshechs way, while she was trying to serve the interests Bank
HaPoalim, the largest bank in Israel, and the large-debt holder in this case. Judge Alshech in
collusion with the Administration of Courts later filed with the Israel Bar Association a
semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Rafael Argaz, based on the Fabricated Protocol,
where she inserted in dozens of places statements, which he had never made in court.
Attorney Argaz provided the Israel Bar Association another printout of the same protocol,
which substantially differed from the record, which was filed by Alshech and the
Administration of Courts. The Israel Bar Association refused to conduct the Bar complaint
process against Attorney Argaz, in view of concerns regarding authenticity of the protocol
records. Instead, the Bar filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against Judge Alshech.
Investigation and Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) by the Ombudsman of the Judiciary
concluded that the records were merely Draft, and Judge Alshech was in full agreement:
[lxxiv] The record, pictured here, bears the Judges invalid graphic signature, but according
to Judge Alshech and Ombudsman of the Judiciary it was never duly electronically signed.
The certification, True Copy of the Original, and the Seal of the Court were affixed by an
unauthorized, incompetent person the Judges secretary. Ombudsman of the Judiciary
notes in his decision that the water-mark Draft, which had appeared on all such records,
was removed in some of the courts by the judges demand, claiming that the water-mark
interfered with work flow. Ombudsman of the Judiciary concludes that there is no way for
parties and the public to distinguish between Drafts and authentic court records in Net-
HaMishpat. Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision also quotes Judge Alshech claim in her
own defense that the Supreme Court routinely engages in similar conduct...
Regardless of the facts, relative to routine production of invalid, false and misleading
electronic court records in Net-HaMishpat, which were fully documented in this case, the
Israeli Bar Association never asked for corrective actions. Neither did the Ministry of
Justice nor the Knesset. In response on FOIA request, the Administration of Courts stated
that corrective actions had not been implemented, since the Ombudsmans decision was
merely a recommendation.
largest corporate restructuring, bankruptcy and haircut cases, and served as Chairwoman
_____________________________________________________________________
122/367 TOC: 1
of the Judges Association. She was never held materially accountable for her conduct in
the Fabricated Protocols scandal. On the contrary, she later engaged is similar conduct in
another case [lxxv] Following the second case, senior officer of the Israel Bar Association
declared: Judge Varda Alshech cannot continue to serve one more day. Regardless, the
authorities continued to provide her patronage. [lxxvi]
Initially, the Ombudsmans Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) [lxxvii] in the Judge Varda
Alshech scandal appears courageous. However, further review raises serious concerns
regarding its integrity.
The Ombudsmans decision repeatedly generates the misrepresentation that judicial
decisions, which are electronic records in Net-HaMishpat, are electronically signed,
pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001). The decision explicitly states that Judge
Alshech failed to duly sign the protocols, using the electronic signature application in Net-
HaMishpat. In contrast, the evidence, which is provided in instant submission, documents:
(i) No valid electronic signatures have ever been implemented for the judges to sign their
decisions in Net-HaMishpat.
(ii) Ombudsman of the Judiciary failed to accept and decide on a specific complaint,
pertaining to hiding the electronic signature data by judges, and invalidity of electronic
signatures in Net-HaMishpat. (see c), below).
b) 2016 - Fake Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision on fake Complaint, re: Judge
Eliyahu Bachar of the Tel-Aviv District Court
In December 2016, this writer received an unsolicited, cryptic email from the office of
Ombudsman of the Judiciary, Confirmation of receipt on December 26, 2016 of your
complaint in our office.
Figure.December26,2016unsolicited,crypticemailfromOmbudsmanofthe
Judiciary:
_____________________________________________________________________
123/367 TOC: 1
Personal-Confidential-to the Addressee Only
To: Mr Joseph Zernik
by email
Dear Sir,
RE: Your December 25, 2016 Complaint, our number 875/16.
We herein confirm receipt of your complaint in our office on December 26,
2016.
We will return to you in this matter.
Truly,
Hedva Menachem-Werber
Branch Director (Judicial Complaints),
Office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary.
No name of a judge, who was subject of the purported complaint was mentioned in the
email message. No complaint or any other communication had been transacted with
Ombudsman of the Judiciary prior to receipt of the message.
_____
No complaint or any other communication had been transacted with Ombudsman of the
Judiciary prior to receipt of the message. Moreover, the Regulations of Ombudsman of the
Judiciary (2003) stipulate that complaint must be filed by the complainant, under the
complainant signature. Therefore, it was clear that such email notice was baseless, most
likely some type of fake process by the Ombudsmans office itself.
The next day, message was forwarded back to the Ombudsman of the Judiciary - Notice to
cease and desist conduct of a fake (fabricated) complaint process under my name...
[lxxviii] However, the office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary failed to confirm receipt of such
email notice.
Figure. December 27, 2016 Notice to cease and desist conduct of a fake (fabricated)
complaint process under my name... forwarded to Ombudsman of the Judiciary.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
124/367 TOC: 1
After wide distribution publication of the incident, which appeared as deceit by the office of
Ombudsman of the Judiciary himself, response was eventually received in the form of a
fake Decision on the fake Complaint.
Figure. December 28, 2016 fake Decision on fake Complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv

District) by Senior Appointee Avraham Wolf of Ombudsman of the Judiciarys office.
Page 1 says: Office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary. Bureau of the Ombudsman Prof
Eliezer Rivlin, Deputy Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court (ret). December 28, 2016.
Our number 875/16 Tel-Aviv District. Complainant: Mr Joseph Zernik, Complaint
against: The Honorable Judge Eliyahu Bachar of the Tel-Aviv District Court, Court File
17890-10-14, Regarding: Complaint, received in our office on December 26, 2016.
Decision. Ombudsman of the Judiciary authorized me to notice you of his decision in the
Complaint... Page 2 says: 3. Following request by the Complainant, and pursuant to
Article 21 of the Ombudsman of the Judiciary Act (2002), we terminate review of the
Complaint. [wet hand-signature] Abraham Wolf, Adv., Senior Appointee, Ombudsman of
the Judiciary Office. CC: Mr Dror Yosef, Bureau of Ministry of Justice CEO, Your number
003-99-2016-012131. The record, from start to finish, is a unique example of false and
misleading, deceitful legal record. There was no Complaint, there was no Complainant,
the record is signed by Senior Appointee, who claims that he was authorized to notice a
Decision on behalf of the Ombudsman, but there is no record of the Decision itself,
signed by the Ombudsman himself, etc, etc.
_____
The Ombudsman of the Judiciarys response came in the form of Decision, signed by
Senior Appointee Avraham Wolf. It falsely stated that I had filed a Complaint with
Ministry of Justice against Judge Eliyahu Bachar of the Tel-Aviv District Court.
It further falsely claimed, that since the Ombudsman of the Judiciary is the only entity,
which is authorized to review complaints against judges, the office of CEO of the Ministry
of Justice forwarded the purported complaint to Ombudsman of the Judiciary. The
Decision stated that following my communication (Notice to cease and desist) review
of my Complaint will be terminated. [lxxix]
Further review shows that the full title of Attorney Avraham Wolf, who signed the
Decision is Senior Appointee for Religious and Military Tribunals in Ombudsman of
_____________________________________________________________________
125/367 TOC: 1
the Judiciarys office. Obviously, he had no business dealing with a fake Complaint
against a Tel-Aviv District Judge.
Repeat requests were filed with Ombudsman of the Judiciary, Justice (ret) Eliezer Rivlin,
asking to confirm the authority of Attorney Avraham Wolf in this matter and the authenticity
of the communication by Attorney Avraham Wolf of his office, which appeared as deceit.
[lxxx]
No response has been received from the office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary on such
repeat requests.
c) 2017 - Ombudsman of the Judiciary fake Decision on complaint pertaining to e-

signatures in Net-HaMishpat
In March 2017 complaint was indeed filed with Ombudsman of the Judiciary, pertaining to
fraudulent implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat and unlawful denial of access
to e-signature data to parties and the public at large. [lxxxi] The complaint pertained to a
series of four cases, first and foremost among them the judgment records of the Nazareth
District Court, pertaining to Roman Zadorov.
Even before filing of the complaint, there was no expectation of honest review of the
complaint by Ombudsman of the Judiciary, since it attacked the integrity of the entire court
system and the judiciary as a class.
Moreover, the complaint directly attacked the integrity of Ombudsman of the Judiciary
Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols
scandal, which repeatedly made misrepresentations regarding implementation of lawful e-
signatures for judges in Net-HaMishpat.
Furthermore, the complaint attacked conduct of the Nazareth District Court in the Roman
Zadorov trial, claiming and providing indisputable evidence that there were no valid, signed
Verdict and Sentencing records in that case. As noted by Prof Kremintzer, in the Roman
Zadorov affair, the justice system is primarily defending itself.
[see details of the complaint Invalid implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat]
The complaint was initially filed electronically, bearing an Adobe electronic signature.
March 19, 2017 initial response by Ms Hedva Menachem-Werber of the Ombudsmans
office denied filing of the complaint, since it was not lawfully signed, and since the
Complainant residential address was not correctly provided. [lxxxii]
_____________________________________________________________________
126/367 TOC: 1
Figure. March 19, 2017 letter by office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary, denying the filing
of Complaint 192/17/Nazareth District.
_____
March 29, 2017 response letter expressed my surprise at the denial of filing of the
complaint: Just four months earlier, the Ombudsman of the Judiciary purportedly accepted
Complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv District) on my behalf, when there was no complaint, it was
not filed by me, it was not signed by me, and it did not include my residential address.
Furthermore, my response explained that the complaint was electronically signed, using
detectable Adobe electronic signature, and that the residential address Tel-Aviv street
person was accurate, and was officially recognized by the Street Persons Department of
the City of Tel-Aviv Regardless, I filed second copy of the complaint on paper, bearing
my wet hand-signature. [lxxxiii]
On April 06, 2017 fake Decision was issued on the complaint, again by Senior
Appointee, Attorney Avraham Wolf. The decision was deemed deceitful both on its face
and in its content. Its author, Attorney Avraham Wolf was not authorized to issue or notice
decisions on behalf of Ombudsman of the Judiciary. Content of the Decision lacked legal
foundation, and entirely failed to address the issue of invalidity of e-signatures in Net-
HaMishpat.
_____________________________________________________________________
127/367 TOC: 1
Figure. 2017-04-06 Fake Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision on Complaint
(192/17/Nazareth District), pertaining to denial of access to e-signature data in Net-
HaMishpat to parties and the public-at-large, and fraudulent implementation of lawfully
invalid e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat. Page 1 of the record in part says:
Person-Confidential-To the Addressee Only
Decision
Ombudsman of the Judiciary authorized me to inform him of his decision in
the complaint
1. In his complaint and its appendix (to the degree that we could understand it)
the Complainant complains that his access to inspect electronic signatures is
denied on decisions of the above referenced judges in Net-HaMishpat. The
Complainant clarifies that he is not complaining regarding conduct of the
judges in the corresponding court files in their entirety, but only and the
inability of a party or a non-party to inspect electronic signature data on
decisions, which are not lawfully prohibited for publication, and regarding
validity, or invalidity of electronic signatures, as they are implemented today
in Net-HaMishpat. The Complainant filed his Complaint also with Head of
Shin-Bet, claiming that senior judges and attorneys, including the Hon former
Presiding Justice Aharon Barak, the Hon Judge Boaz Okon, the Hon Judge
Moshe Gal, the Hon Judge Michael Spitzer et al engage over the past decade
in subversion of the fundamentals of the democratic regime.
2. The entire complaint pertains to permissions or limitations of access to Net-
HaMishpat files. However, the determination who can access Net-HaMishpat
_____________________________________________________________________
128/367 TOC: 1
files, and what access each person is permitted is not in the hands of the
judges, on whom the Complainant complains. The Judges do not
determine, who would be permitted access to Net-HaMishpat
4. In view of all the above, the Complaint is denied.
[wet hand-signature]
Attorney Avraham Wolf
Senior Appointee,
Office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary.
CC: The Complainant.
____
On March 27, 2017, response was mailed to Ombudsman of the Judiciary Justice (ret)
Eliezer Rivlin, requesting response under his hand-signature, confirming the authenticity of
Attorney Avraham Wolfs April 06, 2017 Decision, and challenging its contents.
The letter noted that previous letters to the Ombudsman of the Judiciary noted that Attorney
Wolfs appointment, if any, was as Senior Appointee for Religious and Military Tribunals
and asked for a copy of his lawful appointment record. However, no response had ever been
received on such requests.
The letter further provided examples of other decisions by Ombudsman of the Judiciary, all
of which appeared authentic. All of them were hand-signed by Ombudsman of the Judiciary
himself, and all of them were copied to the judges, who were subject of the complaints, to
the Minister of Justice, to Supreme Court Presiding Justice, and to Director of
Administration of Courts. Attorney Wolfs letter was copied to none.
Figure. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldbergs signature box on Decision

(88/12/Tel-Aviv District) against Judge Varda Alshech.
_____________________________________________________________________
129/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldbergs signature box on Decision
(10/13/Tel-Aviv Magistrate) against Judge Limor Margolin-Yehidi.
_____
Figure. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Rivlins signature box on Decision

(329/14/Tel-Aviv Magistrate) against Judge Dana Amir
_____
Figure. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Rivlins signature box on Decision (75/15/Tel-
Aviv Magistrate) against Judge Shmuel Melamed.
____
The letter also provided again the legal foundation, establishing the authority of judges, who
rule in a case to provide access to inspect the court file. It also provided simple technical
ways, in which such judges could permit party and non-party individuals to inspect the
purported electronic signatures on their decisions.
_____________________________________________________________________
130/367 TOC: 1
Again, no response was received from Ombudsman of the Judiciary, Justice (ret) Eliezer
Rivlin.
The Decision by Attorney Avraham Wolf is deemed another example of a deceitful legal
record, issued by an attorney in State service, employee of the office of Ombudsman of the
Judiciary.
_____________________________________________________________________
131/367 TOC: 1
5. Ministry of Justice, Attorney General, State Attorney
a) Implementation of the E-Signature Act (2001)

The 2013 HRA UPR submission documented the appearance with no lawful appointment of
Magistrates of Certifying Authorities pursuant to the E-signature Act and the subsequent
assignment of Comsign LTD, a private corporation, controlled by IDF Unit 8200 veterans,
as sole Certifying Authority for State of Israel e-signatures. Later, also PersonalID was
assigned as a a Certifying Authority. Both corporations issue Electronic Certificates
(instruments for issuing electronic signatures) for individuals, typically - outside
government.
2017 FOIA response by the Ministry of Justice indicates that no State agency was assigned
as Certifying Authority pursuant to the E-signature Act, and no indication has been found to
this date that any State agency is using lawful e-signatures.
The invalid, false and misleading use of e-signatures by State agencies in particularly
notable in conduct of the Magistrate of Certifying Authorities himself.
Figure. Implementation of invisible electronic signatures: Unsigned signature box of the

Annual Report (2006-7) by Attorney Yoram Hacohen, Magistrate of Certifying Authorities
pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), submitted to the Knesset and the Minister
of Justice, as published online by the Ministry of Justice. The signature box says: Truly,
Yoram Hacohen, Advocate, Magistrate of Databases, Justice Technology and Information
Authority (Originally signed by a secure electronic signature) [red in the original - jz]. The
Ministry of Justice denied a Freedom of Information request for a copy of the same record,
including a detectable electronic signature, claiming that the electronic signature of a
government officer is a private instrument.
______
The Magistrate of Certifying Authorities, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2002), is
a senior justice system officer at the rank of district judge, who is charged with
implementation of the Electronic Signature Act and safeguarding the integrity of the State
electronic signatures system. By law, he submits an annual report to the Knesset and the
Minister of Justice. However, even such report, submitted to the Knesset and the Minister
of Justice, bears an undetectable electronic signature (if any was executed at all).
Following the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal and Ombudsman of the
Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in that case, it also becomes obvious that State
agencies consider electronic records, which only bear graphic signatures merely Drafts.
Therefore, all legal communications, which are electronically conducted with State agencies
(e.g., FOIA responses), and are signed by State officers using only graphic signatures are
invalid, merely Drafts.
_____________________________________________________________________
132/367 TOC: 1
On numerous occasions, when such electronic records were suspect deceit, paper copies,
bearing hand-signature of the same State officer was requested. The same State officer
refused to issue a hand-signed letter, as a valid record of their electronic Drafts. Notable
examples include:
FOIA response by the Ministry of Justice on request pertaining to e-signatures in the
courts.
Response by the Cyber Authority on inquiry pertaining to the identity of State agency,
which is charged with the safeguard of IT systems, which are critical for procedures
and institutions of the democratic regime, following the establishment of Cyber
Authority.
In short: The Ministry of Justice, which is charged with implementation of the Electronic
Signature Act (2001) has allowed conditions to develop over the past two decades in State
records, where most records, which are routinely issued by State officers are deemed by the
authorities merely Drafts, while the public at large is misled to believe that they are valid
and effectual State records.
[see also fraudulent implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat under District Courts
and under Ombudsman of the Judiciary]
b) Detainees Courts - Administrative Courts under the Ministry of Justice
Figure. Lack of integrity in Detainees ID numbers, derived from electronic records of the
Detainees Courts (from the Human Rights Alert submission to the UN Human Rights
Council, 2012).
______
Review of electronic public records of the Detainees Courts for the 2012 submission to the
UN HRC:
Lack of integrity in Detainees ID numbers;
Lack of integrity in Court identification (fake/ad-hoc courts);
Records are published as insecure, unsigned Word files with no detectable electronic
signatures;
Most of the electronic records were created (based on the Word-file Properties data) a
long time (at times years) after the respective proceedings dates, as indicated in the
bodies of the records.
No evidence that functional Office of the Clerk has been established in any of the
Detainees Courts.
_____________________________________________________________________
133/367 TOC: 1
c) Debtors courts - Administrative courts under the Ministry of Justice
Figure: State Ombudsman 2016 Special Report on the Debtors Courts; anti Debtors Court
protest signs Like getting trapped by the mafia.
______
(i) 2016 State Ombudsman Special Report indicates rampant fraud on the debtors
Following a wave of protest against rampant fraud in the Debtors Courts, the State
Ombudsman published in April 2016 a special report (2016-002) regarding the debt
collection process: [lxxxiv]
Instant report indicates failures in case administration in the Debtors Courts,
which violate due balance between debtors and debt-holders rights. The
findings show heavyweight deficiencies in the core conduct of the Debtors
Courts in commencing process. The failure in supervision resulted in the
unlawful opening numerous cases, which are administered by the Courts,
resulting in violation of the debtors rights. It should be emphasized that
erroneous commencing of process is a fundamental deficiency, which leads to
additional deficiencies in case administration and the unlawful charging of the
debtor in funds beyond that which is permitted by law. It also lead to
numerous cases where debtors courts process continues for years.
At the end of 2014, the Debtors Courts administered about 2.5 million cases
[in a nation of 8 million-jz] against 750,000 debtors. The total sum of debts in
the Debtors Courts reached hundreds of billions NIS. The report shows
serious deficiencies in interest rates imposed on the debtors. The Debtors
Courts entered erroneous interest rates at the time of opening the case files and
continued to administer the cases, at times for years, under such erroneous
data.
Localities still administer tens of thousands of cases in the Debtors Courts
under erroneous interest rates. In August 2015, the Debtors Courts corrected
the interest in about 78,000 cases. However, regarding other 78,000 cases,
even after the Debtors Courts and the Ministry of Justice approached the
localities in order to correct the errors, by the time of completing the audit,
most of the localities have not initiated corrective actions.
For over a decade, debt collection, pertaining to mortgages, provided by banks
for primary residence apartments were administered under rates that were
higher than that permitted by law.
_____________________________________________________________________
134/367 TOC: 1
Such deficiencies amount to real harm to the the debtors, many of whom have
difficulties protecting their rights, and part of whom are not even aware of
them.
As stated above, the Debtors Courts system in many cases collects debts from
underprivileged population, which has difficulties protecting its rights,
particularly vis a vis strong organizations and entities. The deficiencies,
indicated by instant report harm such rights. In view of the severity of the
deficiencies and their scope, there is great significance for meticulous
implementation of required corrective actions and their completion
Regardless of the rampant fraud, which was documented by the Ombudsman himself, all
such conduct was defined as deficiencies, and none of it was forwarded for criminal
investigation by law enforcement.
Regardless of the 2016 Ombudsman Special Report, the fraud in the Debtors Courts
continues at the time of submitting instant submission, and there is no intent to remedy
those robbed by banks and corporations in collusion with attorneys and magistrates of the
Debtors Courts.
The fraud on the debtors in the Debtors Courts is estimated at several billion NIS per year.
It should be considered a material cause in increasing poverty and homelessness in Israel.
Review of Debtors Courts records indicates that much of the fraud in the Debtors Courts is
enabled by invalid actions by unauthorized persons, using invalid IT systems and the failure
to establish valid offices of the clerks in the Debtors Courts.
The Debtors Courts refused to lawfully answer on FOIA request, pertaining to
lawful development, validation, security of new IT systems, and confirmed that there
were no lawful clerks. The resulting IT system failures. FOIA responses were
provided by a person, who was not a FOIA Officer at the time. She refused to sign
any of her patently false and misleading responses, even after Ministry of Justice
decision on complaints, which stated that FOIA responses must be signed by the
FOIA Officer. [lxxxv]
Fraudulent opening of case files with no lawful foundation;
Secretive unlawful interest rates implemented in the software;
Simplest accounting functions were falsified: payment sums were entered with a
hatch mark (#) - as comments and not as numerics, to be credited to debtors;
Electronic service of Debtors Courts decisions were routinely electronically served
on the debt-holders, while no service at all was executed on the the debtors;
Accounting and other electronic records disappeared from Debtors Courts files.

Case Study: Debtor Shlomo Levy (03-15049-98-01) in the Jerusalem Debtors Court
Debtors Shlomo Levy's file provides detailed evidence if typical fraud in the Debtors Court.
[lxxxvi] Review of the electronic records in the Debtors Court in this case shows:
The file was closed on March 13, 2002, pursuant to the Debt-holder's request.
Figure. IN RE: Debtor Shlomo Levy (03-15049-98-01) in the Jerusalem Debtors Court:
March 13, 2000 Notice says: Various Notices We herein notice you that file number 03-
15049-98-01 in the Jerusalem Debtors Court was closed on March 13, 2000 for the reason:
_____________________________________________________________________
135/367 TOC: 1
Debt Holder Request. Name of 1st Debt Holder: Avraham Shlomit. Name of 1st Debtor: Levy
Shlomo. Regardless, collection actions were resumed in 2011.
____
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 archive, for lack of activity.
On January 25, 2006, the file was returned from archive, for no clear reason.
In 2009, following the restart of collection actions , the Debtor challenged the re-
opening of the file, since the debt was paid off, and the case was closed in 2002.
On January 18, 2010 Decision was rendered by the Magistrate of the Debtors' Court,
ordering the Office of the Clerk of the Debtors' Court to explain the re-opening of the
file.
On January 19, 2010 purported Response was provided by the Office of the Clerk: A
handwritten note by Moshe, with no last name and no title, stating 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 records.
_____________________________________________________________________
136/367 TOC: 1
Figure. IN RE: Debtor Shlomo Levy (03-15049-98-01) in the Jerusalem Debtors Court:
January 19, 2010 purported Response by the Office of the Clerk on Magistrate decision,
ordering to explain the re-start of collection actions in a case that was closed in 2002. The
handwritten note by Moshe, with no last name and no title, says:
Response by Office of the Clerk:
The assumption is that the case was closed in error by the Office of the Clerk
of the Debtors Court. Later, once the error was discovered, the Office of the
Clerk took it upon itself to re-open the case, based on the date of closing and
date of re-opening of the case.
The Debtors Court claimed that the paper records had already been shredded, and the
electronic court file was inexplicably missing all the entries, pertaining to debt collection
prior to the 2002 closing of the case. The invalid, false and misleading note by Moshe
was used by the Magistrate to decide on resumed collection in this case. Debtor Shlomo
Levy is fighting the fraud in the Jerusalem Debtors Court to this date.
_____
On August 7, 2011, collection actions were resumed, based on the hand-written note
by Moshe, regardless of numerous challenges by the Debtor and the inability of the
Debtors Court to provide any record to support the lawfulness of the collection
actions. Collection was resumed on the sum of NIS 60,916, which continued to swell.
Debtor Shlomo Levy is fighting the fraud in the Jerusalem Debtors Court to this
date.
_____________________________________________________________________
137/367 TOC: 1
(ii) 2009 Reform failed to establish the Enforcement and Collection Authority by law
a)
b)
Figures: a) In 2009 Debtors Courts reform took place under Prime Minister Attorney Ehud
Olmert (since then convicted of corruption), Minister of Justice Prof Daniel Friedman, and
Supreme Court Justice Dorit Beinisch. b) Through such reform, the Debtors Courts were
separated from the court system and became administrative courts under the Ministry of
Justice, under a new entity: Enforcement and Collection Authority. Review indicates
failure to establish the new Enforcement and Collection Authority by law. Attorney Tomer
Moscovich is its current Director.
_____
The ambiguity regarding the legal foundation of the Enforcement and Collection Authority
becomes apparent in lawsuits, where debtors tried protect their rights through the courts:
Lifschitz v Enforcement and Collection Authority (class action, 18012-05-15)
The Parties section of the complaint defines the Enforcement and Collection Authority
as follows:
On November 16, 2008, Amendment 29 to the Debtors Court Act (1967) was
published, which affected numerous changes in the law. Concomitantly, a
national organizational unit was established, pursuant to Government Decision
3487 (May 11, 2008) for the Debtors Courts and the Fines and Fees
Collection, administered separately from the Administration of Courts. Such
unit started its operations on January 01, 2009 under the name Enforcement
and Collection Authority.
This complaint finds Government Decision 3487 as the legal foundation for the
establishment of the Enforcement and Collection Authority. However, review shows that
Government Decision 3487 (May 11, 2008) fails to mention Enforcement and Collection
Authority at all. The title of the document is Exemption from open legal tender for the
_____________________________________________________________________
138/367 TOC: 1
position of Director of the Debtor Courts system... The record also fails to include any
specific, explicit executive decision or instruction regarding the establishment of such unit,
as found in other comparable Government Decisions.
Figure. Government Decision 3487 (May 11, 2008) pertaining to the Debtors Courts. The
record says: Subject: Exemption from open call for the position of Director of the Debtor
Courts system appointment by a search committee
We decide 1. The Government notes the notice by Minister of Justice regarding
establishment of an organizational unit for debt collections and fines, fees, expense
collection, separately administered from the Administration of Courts and under the
authority of the Minister of Justice. 2. Approves the recommendation of the State Service
Committee, pursuant to Article 21 of State Service Act (1959) to exempt the position of
General Director of Debtors Courts systems from an open call, provided that a special
search committee process be conducted 3. Committee composition shall be. 4. The
position shall be added to the list of positions in Article 23 of State Service Act (1959)...
_____
Ashkenazi+76 others v Minister of Justice and Director of Enforcement and

Collection Authority (2300/11) in the Supreme Court
In Ashkenazis petition Parties were defined as follows:
Respondent No 1 holds ministerial responsibility over the Enforcement and
Collection Authority [hereinafter - The Authority], given that since April 1,
2009 (when Amendment 29 went into effect) the Authority is a unit under the
Ministry of Justice.
Respondent No 2 is the Director of the Authority; he is not a legal professional
but an administrator. Prior to establishment of the Authority, when the Debtors
Courts operated under the Director of Administration of Courts, he had served
_____________________________________________________________________
139/367 TOC: 1
as Deputy CEO of the Administration of Courts in charge of the Debtors
Courts.
This complaint finds Amendment 29 to the Debtors Courts Act (1967) as the legal
foundation for the establishment of the Enforcement and Collection Authority. However, it
fails to refer to any specific article of the law.
Over 230 mentions of Amendment 29 were found in the Debtors Courts Act (1967).
However, only four (4) mentions were found of the Enforcement and Collection Authority
none of them addresses in any manner the organizational relationship between the Debtors
Courts and the Enforcement and Collection Authority, or the purpose and mission of such
Authority. The Enforcement and Collection Authority fails to appear, for example, in the
Definitions introductory Article of the Act.
The four mentions are as follows: [bold added - jz]
3c.(e) general guidelines of the Supervisors of the Magistrates shall be posted
in the Enforcement and Collection Authority internet site.
69 9 (a) Notice of opening a case in the exemption track shall be published on the
Enforcement and Collection Authority internet site
69 18 (a) The Enforcement and Collection Authority internet shall mail the
debtors, to whom Article 69-3(a)(1) applies.a notice and the Enforcement and
Collection Authority internet shall check at least once a year, who the debtors are,
to whom Article (a) applies.
The website of the Enforcement and Collection Authority also fails to provide clear answer
to the question of its foundation in the law, in contrast with official websites of other
government authorities: [lxxxvii]
About the Enforcement and Collection Authority
The Enforcement and Collection Authority was established in January 2009 as
a unit of the Ministry of Justice. The Authority is charged with the
enforcement of judicial decisions, on collection of various debts among
private entities, and collection of fines, debts and various payments due to the
State.
The website of the Knesset also fails to provide an answer for the legal foundation of the
Enforcement and Collection Authority, in contrast with official Knesset websites pertaining
to other government authorities: [lxxxviii]
Laws and regulations pertaining to the Enforcement and Collection
Authority
2008-05-11: Government decision about organizational change in the
Debtors Courts, separating them from the Administration of Courts
and making them a unit of the Ministry of Justice
2009-01-01: The enforcement and collection system was separated
from the court system and a new organization was established: The
Enforcement and Collection Authority.
The reform was accompanied by legislation: Amendment 29 to the
Debtors Courts Act...
_____________________________________________________________________
140/367 TOC: 1
Such circumstances are particularly astounding, given that the reform was the initiative of
renowned academic law professor, then serving as Minister of Justice, carrying the banner
of court reform.
It is difficult to accept such circumstances as simple negligence, and they are more likely
deliberate ambiguity in establishment of the legal foundation of the Debtors Courts as a
new administrative court system under the Ministry of Justice.
The same type of conduct was seen in establishment of the Tax Authority in 2004 through a
Government decision (it later became a center of corruption, noted later by former Attorney
General today Supreme Court Justice Menachem Mazuz as the closest to organized
crime in high offices)
The same type of conduct is seen today, relative to the establishment of the new Cyber
Authority through a Government decision in 2016 with no adequate foundation in the law.
The creation of government entities with no foundation in the law, while such entities can
take various actions against individuals, undermines the Rule of Law.
(iii) Unlawful conduct in the Debtors Courts is patronized by the national courts
Case Study: Ashkenazi + 76 other v Director of the Enforcement and Collection

Authority and Minister of Justice (2300/11) petition in the Supreme Court
See in publication at link [lxxxix]
Figure. Moti Ashkenazi, named first petitioner in Ashkenzi+76 others v Minister of Justice
and Enforcement and Collection Authority Director (2300/11), here shown in the bunker
during the 1973 war, where he was distinguished.
_____
(iv) Fraudulent IT systems

As documented in the Ombudsmans report, the Debtors Courts have for years charged
debtors illegal usury interest rates. It is no error. The illegal usury rates have been
implemented in IT systems of the Debtors Courts, and the Debtors Courts refused to
disclose to the debtors what the rates were.
_____________________________________________________________________
141/367 TOC: 1
Moreover, in some cases, Debtors made the effort and obtained from certified accountants
opinion regarding the actual rates charged to them. Even when they filed such reports with
the Debtors Courts, magistrates refused to correct the matter.
v) Deceitful conduct by pretender Legal Counsel and pretender FOIA officer

FOIA response, in re: Appointment record of Legal Counsel of the Enforcement
and Collection Authority
In lengthy correspondence by fraud victims in the Debtors Courts and the Enforcement and
Collection Authority, none of the officer, addressed in such correspondence responded.
Instead, responses were provided by Attorney Anat Har-Even, signing at Legal Counsel,
Enforcement and Collection Authority. Such responses appeared invalid and deceitful.
Eventually, to clarify such conduct, FOIA request was filed for Attorney Anat Har-Evens
appointment record as Legal Counsel, Enforcement and Collection Authority.
The FOIA response stated that Attorney Anat Har-Even had no appointment record as Legal
Counsel. Moreover, it stated that all Legal Counsel in government offices had no
appointment records. Further FOIA requests on other government offices later confirmed
that the response was truthful
FOIA request and response, in re: Documentation of lawful development,

implementation and operation of new IT system of the Debtors Courts Kelim
Shluvim
Around 2014, the Debtors Courts developed and implemented a new IT system Kelim
Shluvim. Immediately upon its implementation, evidence was produced that it provided
unlawful features, particularly regarding opening new collection cases (the unlawful
commencement of collection cases was later noted by the State Ombudsman as a key
deficiency in the Debtors Courts).
Therefore, FOIA request was filed, seeking documentation of lawful development,
implementation and operation of Kelim Shluvim IT system.
_____________________________________________________________________
142/367 TOC: 1
Figure. December 06, 2014 FOIA request pertaining to lawful development,
implementation and operation of Kelim Shluvim, the Debtors Courts new IT system.
_____________________________________________________________________
143/367 TOC: 1
The December 18, 2014 response letter provided none of the requested records, was
unsigned, and had no reference number.
Figure. December 18, 2014 deceitful response by Ms Rivka Aharoni FOIA Officer,
pertaining to request for documentation of lawful development, implementation and
operation of IT system of the Debtors Courts. The response fails to show a reference
number, and is unsigned. It also provided none of the requested records. Eventually it
turned out that Ms Aharoni had no lawful appointment as FOIA Officer, but was falsely
appearing as such.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
144/367 TOC: 1
Appointment record of Ms Aharoni as FOIA Officer of the Enforcement and
Collection Authority.
On FOIA requests since early 2014, Ms Aharoni answered with unsigned letter, bearing no
reference number, but noting her name, and then FOIA Officer.
Complaint was therefore filed with the FOIA Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Justice
(of which the Authority is a subunit). It turned out that Ms Aharoni had no lawful
appointment as FOIA Officer.
After such determination by the FOIA Enforcement Unit, Ms Aharoni sent an invalid
Appointment Letter signed by Director of the Authority, but with no effective date.
Regardless, she continued to issue misleading FOIA responses, unsigned, with no reference
numbers
Figure. October 30, 2014 invalid Appointment Letter of Ms Rivka Aharoni as FOIA Officer
of the Enforement and Collection Authority. The letter was issued following complaint to
the Ministry of Justice FOIA Enforcement Unit of the Ministry of Justice after months,
during which she provided deceitful FOIA responses, unsigned, but noting herself as FOIA
_____________________________________________________________________
145/367 TOC: 1
Officer. The Appointment Letter bears a reference number, is lawfully signed by Director of
the Authority, but shows no effective date of the appointment Regardless, Ms Aharoni
continued later to issue deceitful FOIA responses, unsigned, with no reference numbers.
_____________________________________________________________________
146/367 TOC: 1
6. Attorney General, State Attorney and Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight
a) Attorney General
Figure. Demonstrations against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit started in winter

2017, and have been going on for over half a year by now. The demonstrations, near his
residence in the city of Petah-Tikva were characterized by numerous incidents of police
violence against peaceful, mostly older protesters. Numerous protesters have been detained,
and the Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court appeared as a rubber stamp for such conduct by
police. The protest is against conduct of AG Mandelblit, who is perceived as patronizing
government corruption in on all branches of government, first and foremost undermining
criminal investigation of corruption against PM Netanyahu and his wife, and failing to file
indictments on matters that have been already investigated. The protest against the Attorney
General is unprecedented in Israels history, and it joins protests against judges and other
parts of the justice system.
_____
The office of Attorney General, part of the Ministry of Justice, is a key position in the
justice system. The Attorney General often eclipses the Minister of Justice in his power and
significance. The office is not established in any single act, but in part in variety of acts.
The Attorney General is elected by the Minister of Justice, based on Search Committee
recommendations, and the appointment is approved by the government.
Inherent to the office is the conflict between the function of senior legal counsel to the
ruling government, representing the government and its officers in courts, and the function
of indicting and prosecuting offending government officers. Over the years, proposals were
repeatedly made to split the the office into two. [xc]
The office has been seen as dysfunctional for years. Over the past several decades, integrity
of the office has been continuously undermined.
(i) Bus 300 affair (1984)

The Bus 300 affair was a 1984 incident in which Shin-Bet members executed two
Palestinian bus hijackers, immediately after the hostage crisis incident ended and hijackers
had been captured. After the incident, Shin-Bet persons gave false testimony on their
involvement in the affair and further framed IDF general Yitzhak Mordechai in the deaths of
the captured hijackers. Yitzhak Mordechai was acquitted in 1985. However, the Shin-Bet
never revealed, who ordered their conduct in the entire affair.
_____________________________________________________________________
147/367 TOC: 1
In 1986 the Attorney General Yitzhak Zamir was forced to resign after he refused to call off
an investigation into the Shin-Bet's role in the affair. Shortly afterwards Avraham Shalom,
head of the Shin-Bet resigned as well, and was given a full Presidential pardon for
unspecified crimes, other Shin-Bet staff were pardoned before indictment.
The case seriously undermined the office of Attorney General, and established the impunity
of the Shin-Bet.
(ii) Rabin Assassination (1995)

At issue again was the Shin-Bet involvement in the case, since the assassin was part of a
Jewish underground cell, which was headed by a violent, lawless undercover Shin-Bet agent
Avishai Raviv. Additionally, Shin-Bet conduct during and after the assassination remains
inexplicable. Initially, attempts were made to conceal Ravivs involvement. Eventually,
Raviv was indicted, prosecuted, and acquitted. [xci]
Three of the senior persons, who were involved in the investigation of Rabins assassination
were later involved in serious corruption: Ruth David (Tel-Aviv District Attorney - senior
representative of the Attorney General), Efraim Bracha (Head of the Israel Police Special
Investigation Team) and Prof Yehuda Hiss (Director of the National Pathological Institute
called by the Shin-Bet to conduct a second post-mortem operation, whose report
contradicted in material points the report of the 1st post-mortem operation by Ichilov
Hospital pathologist). Conduct of the justice and law enforcement system relative to the
Rabin assassination remains shrouded with doubts, and conspiracy theories abound. [ xcii]
(iii) Bar-On Hebron affair (1997)

Roni Bar-On is an Israeli attorney. In 1997 he was appointed Attorney General, but resigned
after 24 hours. He had no legal, public service, or academic credentials for the job. He was
said to have been appointed as a political deal between then PM Netanyahu and politician
Arye Deri, then prosecuted for corruption (later convicted, served prison term). According
to such deal, Bar-On was supposed to act in favor of Deri, while Deris party was going to
support Netanyahu. Police investigated the affair and recommended indictment of four
politicians, including Netanyahu and Deri. None was indicted.
The case represented a blatant attempt to corrupt the Attorney Generals office and the
justice system. It also represented a serious crisis, which the justice system was not ready,
willing, able to address. [xciii]
(iv) Harpaz affair (2010)

In the Harpaz affair, departing IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and other top IDF officers
were suspected of engaging in production and dissemination of a fabricated, fraudulent
document, meant to discredit senior IDF officer Yoav Galant, who was one of the candidates
for next Chief of Staff position. In the background there was long-standing bad faith
between Chief of Staff Gabby Ashkenazi and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The entire
situation presented breakdown of civilian control of the military. [xciv]
Then Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein dragged the investigation and indictments for
years, eventually leaving it to his successor Avichai Mandelblit.
_____________________________________________________________________
148/367 TOC: 1
However, Mandelblit is under conflict of interests in the case, since in his former capacity as
Chief IDF Legal Counsel, he was directly involved in the affair, and was himself
interrogated on suspicion of obstruction in the case.
Regarding the Harpaz affair, IDF Chief of Staff (20112015) Benny Gantz said of the case:
On the Chief of Staffs desk lies a stenchy carcass. [ xcv] By late 2016 only Boaz Harpaz,
the most junior of those involved in the affair, has been indicted. [xcvi] His case is still in
court, but it is unlikely to be duly reviewed, since it is unlikely that the State authorities
would parade past and current IDF and Ministry of Defense in court. Shin-Bet involvement
in the case is still questioned. [xcvii]
(v) Tenure of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (2010-2016)

Yehuda Weinstein was appointed Attorney General after years in private practice, primarily
as a criminal defense counsel in white collar crimes. Senior State officers, investigated or
indicted for corruption had been his clients. Therefore, there were numerous conflicts of
interests inherent in his performance.
For example, in the Ruth David-Ronel Fisher scandal, one of the worst corruption scandals
(still ongoing), involving the justice system itself, it turned out that Weinstein had associated
with Ronel Fisher, and took inexplicable yacht trips with him, a fact that he hid, while
failing to recuse himself from the case. [xcviii]
As a private counsel, Weinstein had also represented Eitan Rob, senior Tax Authority
officer, and central figure in the Tax Authority corruption scandal, again of the worst in
Israels history, and one that involved law enforcement itself. [ xcix] Police recommended
Robs indictment, and Ministry of Justice spokesman issued notice that Rob was indicted.
However, after Weinstein was elected Attorney General, the case disappeared, or was
closed. At the same time, under Weinsteins tenure, persecution of the Tax Authority
whistle-blowers continued in full force.
Weinstein is perceived as having stalled and undermined major government corruption
cases. Prime examples are the Harpaz document affair, criminal complaints against police,
prosecution, judges, who were involved in the Roman Zadorov affair, and the Dr Chen
Kugel affidavit affair. [c]
[see also Kugel, Ruth David, Rafi Rotem, Shuki Mishol]
(vi) Tenure of Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit (2016-present)

Mandelblit was appointed Attorney General following the work of a Search Committee that
forwarded to the Justice Minister only one recommendation Mandelblit. His predecessor,
Yeduda Weinstein, opposed Mandelblits appointment to the office.
Mandelblit continued conduct of Weinstein by stalling and whitewashing government
corruption investigations, refusing to investigate criminal complaints against senior officers
of the justice system itself.
In 2016, law professor, former Justice Minister Daniel Friedman testified in the
Constitution, Law and Justice Knesset Committee, and stated relative to Mandelblit:
It is impossible that the Attorney General would declare -- I am the law! He is
not authorized to establish the law, to shut up the State, not let anybody voice
an opinion
_____________________________________________________________________
149/367 TOC: 1
Over the past half year demonstrations have been held against Mandelblit every Saturday
night not far from his home in Petah-Tikva. The demonstrators called for his resignation, in
view of his patronage of government corruption. Such demonstrations against the justice
system itself are unprecedented in Israels history. The demonstrations have been marred by
serious police violence against peaceful, mostly older demonstrators.
b) State Attorney
Picture. State Attorney Shai Nitzan (2013-present).

_____
The office of State Attorney is a unit of the Ministry of Justice, under the Attorney General.
The State Attorney represents the State in the courts. Shai Nitzan was appointed State
Attorney in 2013.
Over the past couple of years, conduct of the State Attorneys office has become a center of
controversy, particularly relative to the handling of corruption cases, on the one hand, and
concerns of false criminal prosecution and false convictions, on the other hand.
The Roman Zadorov case and the relationship between prosecutors and the National
Pathological Institute are of particular concern.
(i) Former Tel-Aviv District Attorney Ruth David

The Ruth David-Ronel Fisher-Eran Malka corruption scandal, involving former Tel-Aviv
District Attorney Ruth David, who for years was one of the most powerful and influential
figures in the justice system, further undermined public trust in the state prosecution and the
justice system.
State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan and others tried to contain the damage, claiming that there was
no evidence of Ruth David's corruption during her tenure as Tel-Aviv District Attorney.
Obviously, such claims are self-serving and lacking in credibility: The same people who are
supposed to investigate Ruth David's conduct during her tenure as Tel-Aviv District
Attorney, are the ones whose interest is to cover it up.
Particularly interesting in this context is a 2013 opinion piece by Attorney Ronel Fisher, "No
to Shai Nitzan". In it, Fisher calls for the rejection of Shai Nitzan's nomination for State
Attorney. The reason: Nitzan's track-record in covering-up criminality by government
officials... [ci]
Evidence of Ruth David's corruption during her tenure as Tel-Aviv District Attorney comes
from various sources. One of the most notable - her cover up of the Tax Authority
corruption scandal (again corruption scandal of the law enforcement system itself). The
Tax Authority scandal was described by then former Attorney General Menahem Mazuz as
the closest to organized crime in high government offices, but key parts of the scandal have
not been investigated to this date. [cii]
_____________________________________________________________________
150/367 TOC: 1
By far the largest issue, always lurking in the background, is the cover-up in Prime Minister
Rabin's assassination investigation. [ciii] Ruth David was the senior representative of the
Attorney General on the case.
(ii) False convictions, relationship with the National Pathological Institute, and
undermining Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight
As part of effort to restore public trust the office of Commissioner of Prosecutorial
Oversight was established in 2013. However, the State prosecutors and Shai Nitzan refused
to cooperate with the Commissioner. As part of their resistance to oversight, the State
prosecutors went on a strike, and also filed petition with the Supreme Court against
publishing Commissioner Gerstels report on the relationship between the State Prosecution
and the National Pathological Institute. The prosecutors claimed that it would damage their
reputation. In April 2016, Commissioner Hila Gerstel was eventually forced to resign.
After resigning, but still holding the office of Commissioner, she stated that Shai Nitzan is
not saying the truth: [civ]
What caused the explosion was the report, where she [Gerstel] wrote about the
manner in which the State Attorney conducted the court process against Dr
Maya Forman, after she was lawfully selected for a senior position in the
National Pathological Institute. ... Forman had provided the Defense [in
Roman Zadorovs case - jz] an expert opinion, which contradicted the
Prosecution - that the evidence from the crime scene shows that Rada was
attacked using a serrated knife, and not a Japanese cardboard knife, as
described in the Indictment...
In her special report, Gerstel sharply criticized the State Attorney office - after
it tried to alter the affidavit of the Head of the Pathological Institute, Dr Kugel,
who supported Forman's position in the Zadorov case and also supported her
appointment in the Institute. The State Attorney office claimed that Dr Kugel's
affidavit was a scandal, since the State must speak in one voice. Kugel insisted
on filing his affidavit as is.
Responding to Dr Gerstel's report, the State Attorney wrote a sharp letter to
the Attorney General, claiming that Gerstel's report was unlawful, with no
authority, since the State Attorney office acts on behalf of the Attorney
General, who is outside of Gerstel's authority...
"The intensive efforts, which are invested by the State Attorney in an effort to
void my decision in this matter", wrote Gerstel, "Must worry anybody who
hold the Rule of Law importent... there is no escaping the conclusion that this
is an attempt, one of several, to avoid and prevent criticism... lacks integrity."
We should remember who such harsh words are said about: The State
Attorney.
Regarding the claim that the State must speak in one voice, Gerstel writes that
it is founded on a lie by the State Attorney, nothing less. According to Gersel,
Kugel was not a State witness at all, "Such position by the State Attorney is
very worrisome... Dr Kugel was not a witness for the State. Forman's counsel
was the one, who asked to summon him."
Some media routinely refer to Nitzan as the liar. [cv]
_____________________________________________________________________
151/367 TOC: 1
Two TV mini-series, aired in 2016 further undermined public trust in the State Prosecution.
Shai Nitzans response to such TV programs, this is a true danger to democracy, created a
media uproar.
[see also Roman Zadorov, commissioner, ]
c) Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight
Figure. Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel, first office holder - Commissioner of Prosecutorial
Oversight, was forced to resign by the State prosecutors.
______
As part of effort to restore public trust in the State Prosecution, the office of Commissioner
of Prosecutorial Oversight was established in 2013. It should be noted that the mere
establishment of the office, parallel to the Ombudsman of the Judiciary, indicates that the
State Prosecutors in Israel effectively enjoy impunity, and are unaccountable for
prosecutorial misconduct.
Due to the controversy surrounding the office of Commissioner from the start, it was
initially established not by law but by administrative directive of the Minister of Justice.
As noted above, the State Prosecutors undermined oversight by the Commissioner, initiated
a strike, [cvi] and eventually caused the resignation of Commissioner, Judge (ret) Hila
Gerstel in April 2016. Later in 2016, the office was established in the Commissioner of
Prosecutorial Oversight Act (2016), and Judge (ret) David Rosen was eventually appointed
as Gerstels succsessor.
The controversial report, authored by Gerstel, regarding relationships between the
Prosecution and the National Pathological Institute was eventually published, in a modified
form. Media analysts claimed that Rosen sterilized the report in a major way, to avoid
suggestions of prosecutorial misconduct.
Dr Chen Kugel expert opinion the State Prosecution
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court to review additional evidence,
particularly regarding the murder weapon and foot prints.
Dr Maya Formans testimony on June 13 2013 presented the expert opinion that the murder
was committed using a serrated knife, fundamentally undermining the indictment. [ cvii]
Following that testimony, the Defense asked to summon also Dr Chen Kugel to provide an
expert opinion on the question. However, the State Prosecution objected, claiming that at the
time of his appointment as Director of the National Pathological Institute, Chen Kugel
_____________________________________________________________________
152/367 TOC: 1
signed an agreement with the State, that he would not testify regarding cases, in which he
was involved in while in private practice. [cviii]
Dr Kugels 2014 affidavit was eventually produced as part of the court process in the Labor
Court, and eventually also in the appeal Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme
Court. At the same time, Dr Kugel exposed that the State Attorney office tried to alter his
affidavit. In parallel, Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Gerstel prepared a scathing
report, which criticized the State Attorneys conduct regarding Kugels affidavit.
In a June 2017, the new Commissioner, David Rosen and Dr Kugel were confronted in the
Knessets Constitution, Law and Justice Committee. MKs were particularly interested in
the question, whether opinions, which were issued by the Institute's experts under pressure
by State Attorney office led to false convictions of people, who may still remain in prison.
Rosen was trying to undermine Gerstels reports and stated that he offered to Dr Kugel to
provide him evidence that a prosecutor caused an expert to provide a false testimony, and I
will make sure that one or both of them will end up in prison. However, according to
Rosen, Kugel could not provide such evidence. Kugel, on the other stated in the Committee
hearing that it was unlikely that an expert would create documentation of his/her unlawful
conduct. At the same time, he claimed that there were cases, where baseless opinions of
such experts in favor of the prosecution could be documented. [cix]
Stragely, it appeared that both Rosen and Kugel were avoiding the obvious the case, where
Dr Kugels own affidavit was altered by prosecutors! However, Kugel had already stated in
media interviews that he was intimidated by the State Attorney office
North District refusal to duly serve responses on requests to inspect, and false and
misleading response letter by North District Attorney Mirit Stern
As part of research regarding validity, or lack thereof of Net-HaMishpat, and perversion of
court records and court process in Roman Zadorovs murder trail, repeat requests were filed
to inspect lawfully made judgment records.
Eventually, Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham issued the January 25, 2016 decision, which
denied the request for the reason that it was part of research on validity of Net-HaMishpat
and conduct of the judicial panel...
_____________________________________________________________________
153/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District Court - Presiding
Judge Avraham Avrahams January 25, 2016 Decision on repeat requests to inspect lawfully
made judgment records: The Requester repeats his requests, subject of which, purportedly,
is inspection of court records. However, these are not requests to inspect, but an
investigation, which the Requester is conducting, pertaining to validity of Net-HaMishpat
system and various claims regarding conduct of the judicial panel in this case. In such
matters this court shall not engage.
____
It became apparent that the prosecution in this case filed responses on the requests to
inspect. However, both the North District Attorney and the Court refused to duly serve such
responses. Such conduct is no unusual. The State prosecution refused to duly serve its
responses on requests to inspect also in other court files in various courts.
The North District Attenuator's response was eventually discovered 5 months later during a
visit to the Office of the Clerk of the Nazareth District Court.
_____________________________________________________________________
154/367 TOC: 1
Court: Secretive response by senior State Prosecutor on a request to inspect lawfully made
Zadorov judgment records: 1) The Requester is daily filing a series of requests to inspect
materials from the court file 2) The nature of the request is unclear, but it appears that
their main intent is to substantiate conspiracy theories regarding instant court file and the
justice system in general. 3) There is no relationship between the requests, the claims
regarding the technical form of the records, and the reasoning, which is primarily based on
theories and baseless hearsay regarding the evidence and the conviction 5) It should be
noted, that it appears to the Responder that the Requester is trying to abuse the Right to
Inspect, and that such right should not be interpreted as permitting any person to
continuously bother the courts and the offices of the clerks in a manner that would not
permit that to perform their duties, based on useless reasoning. 6) As far as the Responder
knows, the Requester has not been appointed Auditor of the Courts, and nobody has
authorized him to conduct investigations and audits. 7) Beyond that, the Responder
approves of the correct writing of the Hon Presiding Judge in his January 25, 2016 Decision
on Request No 120. Both the State Prosecution and the District Court refused to duly
serve the response on the Requester of Inspection. Neither was the response served after
filing a complaint with the Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight.
_____
On February 21, 2016 North District Attorney Mirit Stern issued a response letter on
requests for due service of responses on requests to inspect. The letter falsely claimed that
_____________________________________________________________________
155/367 TOC: 1
the requests to inspect pertained to investigation materials, and refused to duly serve the
response. No requests to inspect investigation material had ever been filed with the
Court.
Figure. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07): False and misleading February 21, 2016
response letter by North District Attorney Mirit Stern in response for due service on the
Requester of Inspection of the January 26, 2016 response by North District Attorney office
on the request to inspect lawfully made judgment records. The letter is written on
irregular letterhead, missing the coat of arms of the State of Israel, and fails to show a
reference number. It should therefore be considered off the record letter. The letter falsely
claims that the request to inspect referred to investigation materials. The letter says:
To
Attorney Joseph Zernik
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Dear Colleague
Re: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) your request to receive
North District Attorney responses on requests to inspect
your February 03, 2016 letter.
I herein confirm receipt of your letter, referenced above. Your inquiry asks for
copies of all State Attorney office responses on your requests to inspect
investigation materials, which were filed in the above referenced court file.
Since you filed such requests with various agencies besides North District
Attorney office, we would not be able to assist you in this matter. You would
have to inquire with the relevant agency, or alternatively ask the Court.
Sincerely,
Mirit Stern
North District Attorney
_____________________________________________________________________
156/367 TOC: 1
Both the North District Attorney and the Court refused to duly serve the North District
Attorneys responses. The response was eventually discovered 5 months later during a visit
to the Office of the Clerk of the Nazareth District Court. Commissioner of Prosecutorial
Oversight Hila Gerstel refused to accept complaint against North District Attorney, which
claimed that the letter was false and misleading, and violation of Due Process, since a) it
had no reference number, b) it falsely stated that the requests pertained to investigation
materials, c) denied Due Service of response on requests to inspect court file. The
Commissioner was also unable to affect Due Service of the response prior to the
Commissioners resignation under pressure by the State prosecutors.
On February 12, 2016 two complaints were filed against North District Attorney Mirit Stern
with the Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight: Complaint 103-2016 pertaining to
refusal to duly serve responses on requests to inspect, and Complaint 107-2016 pertaining
to alleged fraud in Attorney Mirit Sterns February 03, 2016 response on request for due
service of responses on requests to inspect.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
157/367 TOC: 1
Figures. February 13, 2017 Complaint (107-16) against North District Attorney Mirit Stern,
alleging perversion/fraud in legal correspondence with North District Attorney office,
pertaining to refusal to duly serve the State Attorney response on requests to inspect the
Roman Zadorov judgment records in the Nazareth District Court . The office of
Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight refused to review Complaint (107-16), and was
ineffective in producing the requested records themselves.
[see also Roman Zadorov Nazareth, Commissioner]
_____________________________________________________________________
158/367 TOC: 1
7. The Legal Profession and the Israel Bar Association
The Taub Center 2017 report notes that the number of attorneys per capita in Israel is the
highest among developed nations. [cx] Similarly, according to BDI-CODE, in 2013 there
was one attorney per 150 persons in Israel (compared to 1:252 in the US). [ cxi]
Likewise, the number of attorneys in the State Service has rapidly grown in recent years.
Between 2009 and 2015 it has jumped 27%, about 50% faster than general increase in State
Service employees (18.2% over the same period). [cxii]
With few exceptions, the legal profession and in particular the Israel Bar Association
appear as partners in undermining the integrity of the justice system and Human Rights in
Israel, as State officers, controlling the Attorney General and State Attorney offices, as
lower level employees Legal Advisors, FOIA officers, etc, in various government offices,
and as private practitioners.
a) The Israel Bar Association and implementation of e-signatures
Figure. Head of the Israel Bar Association Effi Naveh recipient of the Ombudsman of the
Judiciary Decision in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal. The Bar
never demanded any system-wide corrective measures, regardless of the serious invalidity
of Net-HaMishpat, which was detailed in the Ombudsman Decision.
_____
The Israel Bar Association and the legal profession should be generally deemed a key
partner in fraudulent practices in the courts.
Such assertion is best evidenced in relationship to the invalid, deceitful implementation of e-
signatures in Net-HaMishpat:
The Israel Bar Association acts as an agency of Comsign LTD issuing e-signature
instruments to members of the Bar for electronic filing and receipt of court records.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that senior officer of the Israel Bar were not
familiar with the invalidity of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat right from the initial
implementation of Net-HaMishpat in the courts. Regardless, they chose not to alarm
the public and not to demand corrective actions.
The Israel Bar Association was the complainant in the Judge Varda Alshech
Fabricated Protocols scandal. The reason was that the Fabricated Protocols were
used as the basis for complaint against Attorney Rafael Argaz, which was filed with
the Israel Bar Association. Therefore, the Israel Bar was the primary recipient of the
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District), which provides
detailed information regarding the technical aspects of e-signatures in Net-
HaMishpat. The Decision moreover concludes that there is no way to distinguish in
_____________________________________________________________________
159/367 TOC: 1
Net-HaMishpat between an authentic, valid and enforceable judicial record and
unsigned, invalid, unenforceable record merely a Draft. Even after being noticed
of such unreasonable circumstances in the courts, following the implementation of
Net-HaMishpat, the Israel Bar Association has never demanded initiation of
corrective measures.
b) Attorneys in State service

In the process of research and data collection, related to instant submission, numerous
interactions were conducted with attorneys in the State Service, from employees of the
Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court through Legal Counsel of various ministries,
FOIA officers, to staff of Ombudsman of the Judiciary and State Ombudsman. Such
persons were most likely to engage in deceit in their communications in their official
capacity:
Yifat Gerfi, Advocate, Professional Assistant to the Presiding Justice. Provided a
deceitful response on behalf of Supreme Court Presiding Justice in 2013, pertaining to
lawful appointment of Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court Sara Lifschitz.
Avraham Wolf, Senior Appointee in Ombudsman of the Judiciary office, repeatedly
issued invalid, deceitful communications on behalf of the Ombudsman of the Judiciary.
A series of External Public Defenders with no lawful appointments appeared in Tax
Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotems criminal prosecution and undermined his case in
collusion with Pro-tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender Elkana Leist (also with no
lawful appointment), and National Public Defender Yoav Sapir.
_____________________________________________________________________
160/367 TOC: 1
Figure. September 18, 2014 invalid communication from the office of National Public
Defender Yoav Sapir, pertaining to conduct of the Public Defenders office relative to the
prosecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem. The letter bears no reference
number and was sent from an invalid fax machine, dated to 2013. The Ministry of Justice
operates a central fax server for its official transmissions The letter states:
3. Regardless, following your inquiries, review was conducted vis a vis Pro-
tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender, Dr Elkana Leist, and it turned out that
there was no deficiency in conduct of attorneys that were appointed to
represent Mr Rotem for the Public Defenders office
For two years a series of attorneys appeared as External Pubic Defenders with no
appointment records, with no statement for the protocol of their appointment. They filed no
request or response, except for requests for changing hearing dates. At the same time
Defendant Rafi Rotem was repeatedly requesting to inspect the evidence against him.
One of the External Public Defenders Itzik Sade, appeared on behalf of a non-existent
law-firm, and purportedly gave his consent for the conduct of criminal prosecution with no
appearance of witnesses.
Pro-tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender, Dr Elkana Leist himself sits in his office with no
lawful appointment. The Regulations of State Service prescribe that pro-tem appointment
can be used for half a year only, and only when the position is advertised as open. Leist is
occupying the office for several years, and the position is not advertised as open.
_____
Barak Laser Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts see under Administration
of Courts.
Shaul Gordon National Legal Counsel of the Israel Police
InlateMay,earlyJune2017,demonstrationsagainstAttorneyGeneralAvichai
Mandelblittookaseriousturnonthebackgroundofincreasedpoliceviolence
againstpeacefulprotesters.SpokesmanfortheIsraelPoliceannouncedina
radiointerviewthatnoadditionalprotestwouldbepermittedintheentirecityof
PetahTikvah.ThatwhileIsraelilawpermitsunlicensedprotestwithinthe
termsthattheprotestwasconducted.Therefore,IapproachedtheAssociationfor
CivilRightsinIsraeltoprotestsuchunlawfulrepressionofprotestrights.
InresponsetoletterbytheAssociation,NationalLegalCounseloftheIsrael
Police(againfromaninvalidfaxmachine),inpertinentpart(paragraph10)
statedthatCommanderoftheIsraelPoliceCentralDistrictdecidednottomake
theprotestpossibleanylonger.Inparallel,otherspublishedcallsforviolence
bypoliceagainsttheprotesters.

_____________________________________________________________________
161/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
162/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
163/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
164/367 TOC: 1
Figure.June01,2017letterbyIsraelPoliceNationalLegalCounselShaulGordon
toseniorlegalcounseloftheAssociationforCivilRightsinIsrael,statingthat
CommanderoftheIsraelPoliceCentralDistrictdecidednottomaketheprotest
possibleanylongeragainstAttorneyGeneralAvichaiMandelblit.
_____
Inresponse,thiswriterwroteimmediatelytoCommanderoftheIsraelPolice
CentralDistrict,demandingduenoticeofhisintentnottomake
NoresponsewaseverreceivedfromCentralDistrictCommander,andtheprotest
didtakeplacewithnoviolence.ItremainsunclearwhatthebasiswasforIsrael
NationalPoliceLegalCounselwas,ifany.
Figure.June01,2017requestforimmediatenoticebyIsraelPoliceCentralDistrict
Commander,regardingdecisiontopreventprotestfromtakingplace.Noresponse
wasreceived.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
165/367 TOC: 1
c) Legal scholars
The Roman Zadorov affair was the great divide. For the first time, leading legal figures
openly expressed their distrust of the judiciary, or worse.
Figure. Hebrew University law professor, leading criminal law expert Mota Kremnitzer
wrote: Conduct of the State Attorney office in the Zadorov case is scary When you add
to it the Supreme Courts position and conduct of the Attorney General in recent years, one
is left with a justice system, which is primarily protecting itself. [ cxiii]
_____
Figure: Prof Boaz Sangero, Head of the Criminal Division in the College of Law and
Business attacked the courts decisions in the Zadorov case step by step, writing at one
point: Conviction with no real evidence.
____
However, law professors usually are unwilling to publicly express opinions on matters
pertaining to administration of the courts, even when the perversion is obvious and material.
[cxiv]
On the other hand, developments in Israeli jurisprudence in recent decades have been touted
by influential law professor M. Mautner as Decline in formalism and increase in values in
Israeli jurisprudence. [cxv] Such publication appears to provide a theoretical rationale to
conduct, which should be deemed lawless and undermining due process.
In contrast with the public silence of legal scholars, a recent media report leaked group
discussion among senior legal scholar online, where they thought that they enjoyed
privacy and confidentiality. The discussion directly refers to Mautners book, concluding
that the outcome is far from increase in values, but in fact a total jungle in the courts:
[cxvi]
There is a total jungle in the courts, do anything you can to avoid getting
there
_____________________________________________________________________
166/367 TOC: 1
Globes expose: Facebook correspondence among senior legal scholars, who
set their keyboards free, abandoning common formalities, exposes criticism of
the family courts in particular and the courts in general.
A post, written day before yesterday by Prof Daphna Hacker, an important
sociology and legal scholar, has become an open and stormy correspondence
among senior, renowned legal scholars. The correspondence voices sharp
criticism regarding conduct of the family court judges in particular and the
judges in general, but also additional opinions.
The post by Prof Hacker of the Law Faculty and Womens and Gender Studies
in Tel-Aviv University, set the fire. The post started by referring to Prof
Menachem Mautners canonical 1993 article, Decline in formalism and
increase in values. The article, which is taught to this day in law schools,
claims that the most significant development in court rulings of the 1980s was
the decline in the world view of formalistic jurisprudence. Instead, a non-
formalistic world-view appeared, which emphasizes the value-dimension of
jurisprudence and the role of the courts in the State and society.
Do you remember Mautners article, Decline in formalism and increase in
values? Opened Prof Hackers post, and then she started shooting criticism -
so, at least in my area [family law -jz] and I hear that in other areas as well,
we are in the age of decline in value and increase in bordello. When judges
disregard the law and fail to honor precedents of higher instances why does
it continue to be called jurisprudence? It is not even Charismatic
Jurisprudence a-la-Weber since we dont go to judges for their charisma. It
isnt custom court either, since we are not a community. So what is this thing,
which calls itself jurisprudence, but is conducted in an arbitrary manner, based
on the absolute discretion of the judges on the bench? The time has come to
research it and write about it we are captives in a system that has forgotten
that it is a justice system. If this is the outcome of decline in formalism, I am
going to become a devout formalist since the damage is terrible and scary.
Do anything you can to avoid getting to the courts, since there is no justice
there!
The first to respond on Prof Hackers harsh words was her friend and
colleague, Dr Einat Albin, Lecturer in the Hebrew University Law School and
Director of the Law Clinics there. Albin asked Hacker: Wasnt it always this
way? It has always been judge-dependent. Perhaps the idea of legal certainty
is a fiction.
Hacker responded: Not to this degree. It is impossible to teach Family Law
any longer. There are judges, but there is no law. It has never been this way.
And it didnt help at all even after the Supreme Court told them to stop it.
They go on with it.
At this stage, Hebrew University Dr Sharon Sharon Shakargy, founder of the
Israeli Family Law Forum responded, agreeing with Hacker, but offering
other explanations for the bordello, which according to the two of them
reigns in the courts.
According to Shakargy, the situation relative to Family Law is indeed severe.
However, I am not sure that it is only there. It is related to our justice system
(sorry for the formalism), but we are on the one hand a common law system,
_____________________________________________________________________
167/367 TOC: 1
and therefore, judges are permitted to create new rulings, but our interpretive
systems are so wide that the it is entirely civil law. The outcome: There is no
binding precedent, judges hold excessive power, and the system is in total
disarray.
Tel-Aviv University Dr Yofi Tirosh contributed to the discussion: It is
interesting to check how many law students get even one lecture in First Year
on The Rules of Binding Precedent in a class such as Israeli Law, or Theory
of Law perhaps the judges, who fail to honor precedents were never
educated on the standing and significance of precedents and the central
position in the justice system, but instead, they were educated in a more
relativistic, sophisticated post-modern environment?
Dr Shakargy contradicted Tiroshs explanation: ...perhaps the explanation is
more prosaic: Power corrupts. It is not that the judges are corrupt. They want
to do good. However, the power permits them to do whatever they choose, and
to believe that it is better than the dry law. And everybody is paying the
price...

At this stage Attorney Eran Golan, who is director of non-profit Line for the
Worker, and deals with Labor Law entered the discussion: It is much worst
than what Daphna Hacker describes we live under an illusion of justice and
law and binding precedents. In fact, it is a total jungle, where the judges
world view dominate any law or precedent, or even the fundamental facts. It is
not easy to deal with.
Attorney Idit Zimerman, former State attorney and today Director of the
Labor Law Clinic in Tel-Aviv University referred in her response to the Labor
Courts.. when I represented the State, I had more or less certainty (that I
win), when I represent week employees, there is certainty that I would be
pressured to compromise, or that I would lose :)
On a more serious note: My students go every year to observe the Labor
Courts, and they return totally shocked by the settlements industry. The
situation is particularly serious in the Labor Courts, since they often settle
cogent rights.
Prof Oren Gazal-Eyal, Deputy Dean of the Haifa University Law School and
one of the leading researchers in criminal justice system in Israel added a
different perspective:
When the magistrate or district courts disregard the law, there is still where to
go. However, in Criminal Law I am much more worried by disregard of the
law by the Supreme Court

The Administration of Courts did not wish to comment.
d) Individual attorneys in private practice
Attorneys in private practice generally refuse to comment on the evidence of fraud or

corruption in the courts.
_____________________________________________________________________
168/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Attorney Avigdor Feldman, top Israeli criminal defense attorney.
____
A notable exception is Attorney Avigdor Feldman, Roman Zadorovs pro bono counsel in
the appeal. After I published the fact that there were no valid judgment records of the
Nazareth District Court in Roman Zadorovs case, Feldman published a media piece, where
he explained that Roman Zadorovs judgment records were lost in the wailing wind across
the Jezreel Valley (which the Nazareth District Court overlooks).
Later, Attorney Feldman wrote a personal a commendation letter:
Shalom Joseph: In my opinion you are doing a very important work you
show that the court system itself was hijacked through an unsupervised
electronic system, which enables the judges to do with the judgments as they
wish, and raising serious doubts whether judges, who signed their agreement
on judgment records indeed read them. Also your comments relative to Judge
Yitzhak Cohen make me lose sleep at night, and I am checking them in depth.
Thank you for your persistent and thorough work. Avigdor Feldman
Of particular concern is conduct of attorneys in private practice, who represent whistle-
blowers, social protest activists, and fail or are afraid to voice their protest, when judges
engage in patent perversion of court records and court process deceit and breach of trust.
For example, senior attorney Menahem Rubinstein failed to voice any protest as Counsel for
Tax Authority whistle blower Rafi Rotem in Rotem v Baram in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
court. The court file in that case shows that Defense Counsel, the District Attorney office
voiced their protest that Judge Shoshana Almagor was not serving her decisions (which
were unsigned Drafts), and there was no way to follow conduct of the court in that case.
[see also whistle-blower Rafi Rotem]
Likewise, in representing Tax-Authority whistle-blower Shuki Mishol, Attorney Menachem

Rubinstein refused to challenge the patently unlawful Decision by Justice Uri Shoham on
Anonymous, which was unlawfully used as Arrest Decree by the Prison Service.
[see also whistle-blower Shuki Mishol, Prison Service ]
However, the failure and/or fear of attorneys to voice their concerns in such matters may be
related to the notable case of Attorney Haim Stanger, who was sanctioned and whose license
was suspended, after he filed an appeal, where he claimed that his clients case was
perverted in the lower court. The Jerusalem District Court rendered a judgment affirming
the Israel Bar Association decision in Attorney Stangers case. [ cxvii] With it, through
collusion of the Israel Bar Association and the courts, a norm has been established, where
attorneys are not permitted to make such claims in court.
_____________________________________________________________________
169/367 TOC: 1
Numerous cases have been reported by media of fraud by attorneys in the courts. Such
cases are hardly ever criminally prosecuted. At most, they are handled as ethics
complaint to the Israel Bar Association.
One of the cases, which won significant media attention was the case of attempt by former
Prime Minister Olmerts counsel, Attorney Navot Tel-Zur, to pressure and bribe Olmerts
secretary Shulamit Zaken not to sign a plea bargain and not to take the stand against him in
a major corruption scandal. Police recommended the indictment of Tel-Zur, partner in a
prominent law firm. However, Tel-Zur was never indicted. [cxviii]
Case study: Criminal prosecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem

A series of attorneys appeared for over two years as external public defenders for whistle-
blower Rafi Rotem, but never filed any motion or response, except for change of hearing
date. During the same period, Rotem repeatedly demanded in open court to inspect the
evidence against him. None of the external public defenders filed a certificate of counsel
from the Defendant or assignment by Pro-tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender Elkana
Leist (acting with no lawful appointment, and in disregard of the State Service Regulations,
which limit the term of Pro-tem appointment, and permit it only while tender for the
position is open). At the same time, Leist denied access to the Public Defenders Book,
which is public record by law. Judge Yael Predalsky colluded in the conduct, ignoring the
Criminal Court Procedures relative to establishing defense counsel. She continued such
conduct even after repeat notices of her disregard of the law.
Figure. Attorney Itzik Sade was one of a series of attorney, who appeared as external
Public Defenders for whistle-blower Rafi Rotem. Pro-tem Tel-Aviv District Public
Defender Elkana Leist claimed that Sade appeared under assignment of the law-firm of
Barkan & Simon. However, Attorney Nir Barkan denied that such law-firm existed at all.
[cxix]
_____
Case study: Criminal prosecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower Shuki Mishol

Figure: Notable criminal defense attorney Menahem Rubinstein failed to protect his client,
Tax Authority whistle-blower Shuki Mishol against warrantless arrest.
_____________________________________________________________________
170/367 TOC: 1
_____
At the end of a criminal appeal in the Supreme Court, Justice Uri Shoham issued a
simulated, invalid arrest warrant against Shuki Mishol. Regardless of repeat notices, Justice
Shoham failed to correct the perverted warrant, and the Prison Services admitted Mishol to
prison, based on such invalid, unenforceable warrant, in disregard of the law.
Shuki Mishol himself was not aware until close to his imprisonment day of the fact that
Justice Uri Shoham April 05, 2017 decision was perverted, invalid record, and
imprisonment based on it arbitrary detention. I approached Mishol regarding the
existence of a lawful arrest decree in his case as part of my ongoing research pertaining to
conduct of Israeli judges vis a vis arrest warrants.
Once I presented to Mishol the legal background in this matter, Mishol was convinced.
Later, he told me that during his May 09, 2017 appearance before a Prison Service
Admissions Committee he asked them to present his arrest warrant, but his request was
denied.
However, Shuki Mishol decided not to stand up for his right to be presented with a lawfully
made arrest decree for his imprisonment. He told me that he received legal advice that such
insistence on his part would lead to retaliation
Regardless, on the evening before his imprisonment, Shuki Mishol sent his defense counsel,
Attorney Menahem Rubinstein and to me a notice, pertaining to my Supreme Court filing of
of requests to inspect Mishols lawfully made arrest warrant. Mishol explicitly instructed
his counsel to respond on my request to inspect and not to oppose it. However, subsequent
correspondence shows that Attorney Rubinstein is unlikely to comply with his clients
instructions .
_____________________________________________________________________
171/367 TOC: 1
a) May 15, 2017 email from Tax Authority Whistle-blower Shuki Mishol to his counsel,
Attorney Menachem Rubinstein, on the even of entering prison term, copied to this writer.
Mishol instructs his counsel: a) Not to oppose my request to inspect in the Supreme Court
lawfully made Arrest Decree for Mishol (which did not exist), b) To challenge Supreme
Court Magistrate Liat BenMelech, who responded on my request to inspect lawfully made
publication prohibition decree (sine the Supreme Court file was unlawfully sealed) with a
deceitful decision that stated that the sealing was imposed, since lower court files were
sealed as well. Mishol writes to his counsel: Also, there has never been a hearing in any
criminal process against me behind closed doors, and you participated in all..
Regardless, Attorney Rubinstein never responded on Magistrate Benmelechs deceitful
decision.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
172/367 TOC: 1
b)
_____________________________________________________________________
173/367 TOC: 1
c)
Figure. Email correspondence with Shuki Mishol on the eve of his imprisonment and later
with his defense counsel Attorney Menahem Rubinstein.
a) On the eve of his arrest, Mishol instructed his attorney in writing to respond, following
Supreme Court Magistrate Decision, which instructed response within 14 days on my
request to inspect lawfully made Arrest Decree (when there was none). Mishol instructed
his counsel: a) not to oppose inspection of the arrest warrant [cxx] and b) to addressing the
unlawful sealing of the court file. [cxxi] Attorney Rubinstein initially failed to respond on
request to clarify, whether he was going to follow Mishols instructions.
b) Following wide-distribution publication of the story, Rubinstein sent the May 18, 2017
letter, which threatens liable lawsuit. It also states:
3. Shuki Mishol could have provided you certificate of counsel and appointed
you to handle whatever he would like
6. When I am asked to respond on the request to inspect by the agency, whom
you filed the request with, I shall do so. The same regarding closed doors.
7. By the way, if you are so sure that the arrest decree, which was issued
against Shuki Mishol was unlawful, the way is open for you to petition in the
correct judicial authority, which to the best of my knowledge, you have so far
failed to do.
c) May 18, 2017 response to Attorney Rubinstein says:
To the best of my understanding of your writing:
a) You have no intention of filing a response on Magistrate Liat Benmelech
May 11, 2017 Decision
b) You deem the Justice Uri Shoham April 05, 2017 Decision as a lawfully
made arrest warrant
Please correct me, in case I misunderstood your writing...
Attorney Rubinstein never responded.
_____________________________________________________________________
174/367 TOC: 1
_____
e) Attorneys, the banks, and Debtors Courts

One of the common frauds in the Debtors Courts involves attorneys, who collect debts on
behalf of their clients, who are the debt holders, but fail to credit the debtors for the debt. In
numerous cases, involving banks or State agencies as the debt holders, it is unlikely that
there is no review and supervision.
Speculations are that the attorneys pocket the collected funds, and also share some of it with
others.
8.PrisonService
Figure.March15,2015FOIArequestsoughtdocumentationofadmission
proceduresandarrestwarrantsfollowingimplementationofelectronicrecordsin
thecourts.ItalsosoughttheappointmentrecordofFOIAOfficerofthePrison
Service.January06,2016invalid,unsigned,falseandmisleadingFOIAresponse
says:ToJosephZernik,PhDDearSir:Followingyourinquiry,wehereininform
youthatthereferenceforimprisonmentinthePrisonServiceisanArrest
Warrant/DetentionWarrant,signedbyajudgeoriginalonly!RegardingFOIA
OfficerthereisapermanentelementinthePrisonServiceLegalBureau,whois
appointedfortheFreedomofInformationAct.FYI.Truly,EtiGover,Inquiriesand
ComplaintsCoordinator,PrisonService.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
175/367 TOC: 1
Figure.ArrestsWarrantform,aspublishedintheRegulationsofCriminalCourt
Procedure(1974).
_____
TheRegulationsofCriminalCourtProcedure(1974)prescribethatfollowing
sentencing,thejudgecompleteanarrestwarrantform.
ThePrisonsAct(1971)prescribesthataPrisonDirectormustnotadmitapersonto
prison,unlesshearrivewithanarrestwarrant,heisclearlyidentifiedastheperson
namedinthewarrant,andthewarrantislawfullysignedbyajudge.
TheformistodayimplementedinNetHaMishpat,butthereisnowayforprison
authoritiestoascertain,whethersuchformislawfullysigned.
AttorneyAvigdorFelman,atopIsraelidefensecounsel,reportsthathasnotseena
dulymadeArrestDecreeinyears.
CaseStudy:ImprisonmentofwhistleblowerShukiMishol
Figure.
[see also - ]
____
_____________________________________________________________________
176/367 TOC: 1
CaseStudy:ImprisonmentofRomanZadorov
Figures.StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(50207)intheNazarethDistrictCourt
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamstwoPostitDecisionsonrepeatrequeststo
inspectdulymadearrestdecree,asprescribedbyIsraelilaw,pertainingtoRoman
Zadorov.LefttheFebruary03,2016recordsays:TheRequesterdoescease
botheringtheCourtandwastingitstimewithuselessrequests,whichamountto
nothing.Ifhecontinuesfilingsimilarrequests,Ishallconsiderimposingonhim
expensestothebenefitoftheStateTreasury.RighttheJune02,2016record
says:Onitsface,therequestappearscantankerousanduseless.Therefore,Ifound
noroomtograntit,anditisdenied.PostitDecisionrecordsarenotlistedinthe
DecisionsDocketsofthecourtsinNetHaMishpat,andareoftennotservedatall.
____
BynowitisobviousthatRomanZadorovisheldinlifeimprisonmentinIsraelwith
nolawfulVerdictrecords,nolawfulSentencingrecord,andnoArrestDecreeatall.
[cxxii]
CaseStudy:ImprisonmentofShulamitZaken
PMEhudOlmertsecretary,likewise,wasimprisonedwithnolawfulArrestDecree.
JudgeDavidRosenansweredonrequesttoinspecttherecordwithaPostit
DecisionclaimingthattherecordswerephysicallymovedtotheSupremeCourt
inacourtthatbythattimewasadministeredinelectronicrecordsforfiveyears
[see under State of Israel v Zerni ]
9.Police
Conditions in the Israel Police have often been described as a crisis, or collapse. [ cxxiii]
In April 2015, Opposition leader MK Yechimovich stated: [cxxiv]
The leadership of the police force is crumbling, plagued by a moral crisis.
Combined with corruption scandals at the highest levels of the State Prosecution it can be
seen as part of collapse of law enforcement and the entire justice system.
Some of the indicators of crisis of the Israel Police include:
_____________________________________________________________________
177/367 TOC: 1
a) Resignation of a series of top police commanders on the background of corruption or
sexual misconduct, and the appointment of former Shin-Bet officer as current Inspector
General
In recent years a long list of top police commanders resigned over corruption or sexual
misconduct, including, but not limited to former Jerusalem district police chief Nissim
Niso Shaham, who was fired in late 2013 over allegations of sexual harassment, breach of
trust, fraud and indecent acts, [cxxv] top anti-corruption police official Menashe Arbiv who
left in 2014 over allegations that he received thousands of dollars and other assistance from
a rabbi accused of corruption, and central district chief Bruno Stein who resigned after he
was spotted at a party thrown by Ronel Fisher, an Israeli attorney under investigation for
allegedly bribing multiple police officials. [cxxvi] The circumstances left the top echelons of
police greatly depleted. [cxxvii ] In a 2014 media report, then Interior Security Minister
Abramovich stated: [cxxviii]
Resignation of top police officials won't rush my decision for next chief.
A March 2015 media report notes: [cxxix]
...a year of unprecedented criminal investigations and general chaos in the
highest echelons of the police... Eight officers with the rank of assistant chief,
the second highest in the police force, have been dismissed or resigned over
the past 18 months, and five of them were involved in sexual misconduct or
sex crimes.
The December 2015 appointment of current Inspector General Roni Alsheich, former
Deputy Shin-Bet Head, is not necessarily any indication of any corrective trend. His tenure
has been plagued with problems, which seem to indicate lack of fundamental concepts of
Civil Society and the Rule of Law. Particularly troubling have been his actions, which seem
to place police above the law (like the Shin-Bet).
Soon after his appointment as Police Inspector General, Roni Alsheich was reported
to have told others that PM Netanyahu promised him to appoint him next Shin-Bet
Head. The direct involvement of PM Netanyahu in Police Inspector General
appointment, such promise, and the implied subservience to the PM are seen as
particularly troubling on the background of the non-stop, ongoing, never-ending
corruption investigations of PM Netanyahu by police. [cxxx]
In August 2016, media reported that Alsheich said that it was natural to suspect
Ethiopian Jews of criminality. [cxxxi] The remark comes after a series of cases, where
police were documented using violence against Ethiopian Jews, and violent police
action against Ethiopian Jews demonstration against police brutality. [cxxxii]
On 18 January 2017, in the unrecognized Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran, Israel,
an incident occurred which resulted in the death of two people, a Bedouin school
teacher Yacoub Mousa Abou al-Kaeean (Yacoub Abu Alkian), and an Israeli
policeman, Sgt. Erez Levi. The police and Israels government were quick to call the
incident another terrorist ramming attack. Al-Qiaan was immediately said to have
ties to an Islamist group. At Levis funeral, Police Chief Roni Alsheich repeated the
claim that the driver who killed the officer had been radicalized, accusing him of
goading children into violence. [cxxxiii, cxxxiv] Later investigations, both by
independent groups and by the Police Investigations Department proved claims by
Alsheich and Minister of Interior Security false, perversion of the true events in this
_____________________________________________________________________
178/367 TOC: 1
case. [cxxxv, cxxxvi] However, the latter were unwilling to backtrack. By February 2017
Haaretz editorial called for Alsheich resignation, even before the Police
Investigations Department report was published: [cxxxvii]
Israel's Police Chief, Public Security Minister Must Resign
In view of the incitement and lies these two spread immediately after the
events in the Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran, whose houses were all
destroyed, they can no longer remain in office.
By April 2017, Israeli media reported: [cxxxviii]
Expose: Unprecedented confrontation between Inspection General and
Police Investigations Department following Umm Al-Hiran affair
Discussion has been recently held in the office of the Attorney General
between Inspector General Alsheich and senior Department of Police
Investigations officers, pertaining to the implications of the eviction in the
Negev Bedouin village. News 10 has learned that Alsheich yelled on Police
Investigations Department personnel, and said that the Department had no
authority to determine, whether the incident was indeed a terrorist attack.
Another report stated it simply: [cxxxix]
Alsheich wants the authority to determine, whether the incident was a terror
attack, would be left in his hands.
In March 2017, news was published that Judea District police station commander, his
deputy and two policemen were involved in the rape and abuse of a female cleaning
worker, whom they locked up. Police decided to handle the case as a disciplinary
matters and avoid criminal prosecution of the policemen. Womens group responded
by protesting in front of the residence of General Inspector Alshech. [ cxl]
Also in March 2017 news was published that two policemen were ordered by the
courts to pay over NIS 2 millions in compensation for a driver, whom they
unlawfully detained and brutalized. In response, police announced that it was
granting such offending policemen immunity, and that the moneys would be paid
by police instead. [cxli]
In April 2017 Inspector General Alsheich was sued for calling female police officer
'criminal' for claiming sexual harassment by a senior police commander. At the same
time, Alshech decided not to take action against the senior commander. [ cxlii]
In June 2017 Inspector General Alsheich announced his intention to establish a
police youth movement, which would promote the norms of compliance with the
law. [cxliii]
b) The Eran Malka Ronel Fisher Ruth David scandal

The essence of the scandal was bribing senior police officer Eran Malka, who sold
confidential, undercover investigation materials to Attorney Ronel Fisher and his law
partner, former Tel-Aviv District Attorney Ruth David. The latter used the information for
extorting the investigation subjects, on the one hand, and for scuttling investigations, on the
other hand.
_____________________________________________________________________
179/367 TOC: 1
At the time of filing instant submission, Malka was convicted and serves prison term.
Ronel Fishers and Ruth Davids trial continues at a very slow pace.
The scandal is one of the worst in Israels history, since Ruth David, former Tel-Aviv
District Attorney, was one of the top figures in the Israeli justice system. Claims of her
corruption have been made for at least a decade earlier, relative to cover up of the Tax
Authority corruption scandal and persecution of the Tax Authority whistle-blowers
[see also - Tax Authority whistle-blower Shuki Mishol 287 ].
c) The Rabbi Pinto-Menashe Arbiv-Efraim Bracha scandal a remarkably similar affair,

involving the Head of Israeli FBI
Figure. Rabbi Joshia Pinto (center - convicted) and the two senior police officers, whom he
allegedly bribed: Menashe Arbiv (left- indicted), and Efraim Bracha (rifght suicide).
____
In February 2014, Menashe Arbiv, Head of Israeli Police Corruption Unit, often referred to a
Head of the Israeli FBI, quit over a bribery affair. [cxliv] Arbiv is purportedly now on trial
for breach of trust, but there are good indication of conduct of perverted, sham prosecution.
The same scandal also claimed the suicide, shredded in some mystery (the cell phone went
missing) of Commander Efraim Bracha, Head of the National Fraud Unit. Media routinely
published evidence of his corruption. Police and some other media outlets supported his
innocence. [cxlv] However, regardless of threats and intimidation, some media outlets
continued to publish evidence of Brachas corruption. Today police stand is that Barcha was
a victim of a smear campaign. [cxlvi] The scope of the corruption, related to this scandal is
difficult to estimate, but the evidence indicates that top government figures, as well as top
US law enforcement figures, were aware of corruption of top echelons of the Israel Police
corruption for some years, but the Israeli government chose to cover it up. [ cxlvii] The
prosecution of Pintos case in the Tel-Aviv District Court also shows clear signs of
perversion.
The suicide of Efraim Bracha on the background of evidence of corruption, the prosecution
of former Tel-Aviv District Attorney Ruth David on corruption, and the resignation of Prof
Yehuda Hiss, head of the National Pathological Institute on the background of corruption
again raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the investigation of PM Rabin
assassination. Ruth David was the senior representative of the Attorney General to the
investigation, Efraim Bracha was head of the Special Investigation Team, and Prof Yehuda
Hiss was brought by the Shin-Bet to perform a 2nd post-mortem operation, which
_____________________________________________________________________
180/367 TOC: 1
contradicted results of the 1st operation, conducted by the Ichilov Hospital pathologist.
[cxlviii,cxlix]
d) Lack of accountability
The evidence shows that police routinely engage in warrantless search and seizure,
warrantless arrests, brutality, sex crimes and more, but are not held accountable.
The Police Investigations Department, a unit of the Ministry of Justice is charged with
review of complaints against police. However, media report year after year that the
Department in fact fails to investigate almost all complaints, and that there is practically no
enforcement of the law on lawlessness by police.
The 2005 State Ombudsman found a series of failures in the functioning of the Police
Investigations Department, a unit of Justice Ministry responsible for handling complaints
about improper conduct by Israel Police officers. [cl]
There is no evidence of improvement since that time, possibly deterioration.
A 2017 Haaretz editorial refers to the Police Investigations Department - Israel's
Department of Police Cover-up. [cli]
The most notable abuse cases pertain to Arabs and Ethiopian Jews.
The most notorious single case is the framing of Roman Zadorov in murder. The evidence
indicates that police investigators perverted and destroyed evidence, presented false
evidence before the trial court. Activists have filed criminal complaints against the police
investigators in the case. However, there is no chance for true investigation of such
complaint, since else noted by Law Professor Mota Kreminitzer, the case shows collusion of
the police, the State Attorney office and the courts, where the justice system is primarily
defending itself [see also xxxx]
e) Spying on and undermining legitimate social protest

Police is openly engaged in spying on social protest activists, even when there is no
reasonable cause for suspicion of crime.
Figure. Tel-Aviv Police Intelligence Officer Israel Horn, who is charged with spying on
social protest activists. Here he appeared, accompanied by several uniformed police to
_____________________________________________________________________
181/367 TOC: 1
photograph the participants in a routine, open, peaceful coffee and cake sit-in with whistle-
blower Rafi Rotem in the lobby of the State Ombudsman.
_____
It is evident that police is routinely spying on social protest activists, even when there is no
reasonable suspicion of crime. Such conduct should be viewed as undermining legitimate
political activity, freedom of expression. The evidence also indicates heavy infiltration of
protest groups by police or its operatives.

_____________________________________________________________________
182/367 TOC: 1
10. State Ombudsman
The State Auditor and Ombudsmans office is expected by the public to perform as one of
the key gatekeepers against government corruption. The office is established in the State
Ombudsman Act (1958). The Ombudsman is typically a retired district court judge, elected
in a secret ballot by the Knesset . His office is well funded, and it commands reasonably
large, skilled, professional staff. The office issues routine periodic audits of government
agencies, special projects, special events, and also reviews public complaints that fall within
his purview. The Ombudsman holds substantial authorities for whistle-blower protection,
and is required to forward to law enforcement agencies matters that raise suspicions of
criminality.
His reports routinely get extensive media coverage. The Ombudsman reports are often
followed by Knesset hearings in various committees. However, the general perception is
that even in cases of scathing reports, there is no real follow-up and no serious initiatives are
based on his findings.
Generally, it appears that the Ombudsman, like other law enforcement agencies, is more
likely to apply his full authority and capacity in relationship to local government corruption,
but not so relative to national government agencies.
Reading some specific reports, pertaining to issues that are at the center of instant
submission e-government systems the impression is that the Ombudsmans office is far
better informed of the scope of the corruption of national agencies, and his reports are
deliberately made soft and ambiguous, ignoring findings that raise patent suspicions of
criminality.
Moreover, specific incidents detailed below clearly indicate that the Ombudsman refuses to
accept and review complaints that would directly confront him with the core of national
government agency corruption.
The current Ombudsman, Yosef Shapira appears to be more compromised than his
predecessors. He was elected in May 2012. Media reported that his election was
orchestrated by Netanyahu, who had vested interest in the Ombudsman's office. Netanyahu
had been routinely at the center of various corruption-related investigations. Later media
claimed that the Ombudsman helped to undermine criminal investigations of PM Netanyahu
and his wife, relative to a number corruption related affairs. [clii,cliii, cliv]
a) Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem
Figure. October 29, 2014 - Tax Authority whistle-blower and Social Protest activists in a
sit-in in the State Ombudsman's office in Tel-Aviv, following refusal to permit Rotem to
enter the office during public hours to file a complaint. [clv]
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
183/367 TOC: 1
Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem and supporters have been sitting-in in the
Ombudsman Tel-Aviv office lobby every Wednesday after noon for several years.
(i) Conduct of sham deposition

In summer 2014, in response to pressure by media and sit-in by activists in the lobby of his
office, the Ombudsman sent a letter to Attorney Hai Bar-El, head of Ogen (anti-corruption
NGO), stating that the Ombudsmans office staff would grant Rotems request, and accept
verbal information from him, but only if Attorney Bar-El be present in the meetings.
The letter came in response to Rotems repeat demands to be deposed as part of true
investigation of voluminous evidence that he had filed with the Ombudsmans office, but
which the Ombudsmans office refuse to review as a formal citizens complaint.
Attorney Bar-El, who was not Rotems counsel on this matter, announced that the
Ombudsmans office decided to depose Rotem and investigate his complaints regarding
corruption of the Tax Authority and retaliation against Rotem for whistle-blowing.
After a series of such meetings, Attorney Hai Bar-El was asked in an August 15, 2014 to
opine: [clvi]
Were you witness of any procedure, during the above mentioned meetings,
which was "providing deposition", pursuant to the law of the State of Israel?
Attorney Hai Bar-El refused to opine whether the meetings amounted to a lawful deposition.
Attorney Bar-El's response in part said: [clvii]
Even if you were to pay me for the requested opinion (our fee for such opinion
is $15,000 +VAT), I would have refused to accept such assignment.
In a follow-up request with Attorney Bar-El said: [clviii]
On various occasions, in the presence of Rotem's supporters, both before and
after the above mentioned meetings, you referred to such meetings as
"providing evidence".
After reviewing the facts in this matter, my opinion is that your statement to
such effect were false and misleading.
Therefore, my request for your opinion was meant to provide you an
opportunity to correct such false statements, which were made by an attorney,
who is:
CEO of the non-profit "Ogen Association - for fighting corruption";
The one who mediated and caused the convening of the meetings;
The one who participated in the meetings as Rotem's counsel, per an
unusual instruction by the State Ombudsman's April 29, 2014 letter. [4]
Given the unusual public policy significance of the Rafi Rotem affair, and in
view of my experience in international Human Rights reviews, I am of the
opinion that if you persist in your refusal to opine on this matter, your conduct
is likely to be deemed fraud, violation of Human Rights, and evidence for
high-level corruption of the justice system and the legal profession in the State
of Israel.
_____________________________________________________________________
184/367 TOC: 1
Therefore, I maintain my hope that you would respond on my request and
provide your opinion in this matter within the time specified in my August 15,
2014 letter.
Attorney Bar-El stood by his refusal to provide an opinion on the nature of the meetings
between whistle-blower Rotem and the Ombudsmans office staff, which he had
coordinated.
No complaint number was ever issued by the Ombudsmans office, and it is evident that no
complaint procedures were ever undertaken.
(ii) Refusal to accept Rotems complaints

Rotem demanded that the Ombudsman review his complaints of corruption in the Tax-
Authority and forward the matter for police investigation. Prior attempts by Rotem, starting
around 2003-4, to directly file complaints with police or the District Attorney office failed.
Throughout 2014, the Ombudsmans office refused to accept complaints from Rotem, and in
several instances police were called in, when Rotem tried to enter the office to file
complaints during public hours.
On October 29, 2014 Rotem released the following statement regarding refusal of the
Ombudsmans office to accept a complaint, pertaining to corruption in the Tax Authority,
linked to PM Netanyahu. [iclix]
October 29, 2014
Complaint, which the State Ombudsman refuses to accept, and called
police against me.
- About 10 years ago, investigation was underway in the Tel-Aviv
Investigations Department of the Tax Authority, regarding smuggling of a
container of television projectors, worth millions of NIS.
- The import was under the name of a corporation name "Sonar".
- Initial investigation uncovered that the true "Sonar" owners were unrelated to
the smuggling.
- The investigation clarified that a central Likud [Netanyahu's part - jz] activist
(Sh.B.) was the smuggler.
- Although the container was seized - in an unprecedented step, the container
was released by the Director of the Investigations Department Rafi Amiel, and
the investigation file was entirely covered up.
- An intelligence source approached me and told me that he was a witness of a
telephone conversation of the Likud activist with Bibi (Benjamin - jz]
Netanyahu, who then was Treasury Minister, and that Bibi assisted in releasing
the container.
- A document in this matter was forwarded to [Tax Authority Investigations
Department - jz] Security Officer Yoram Tibi, who did nothing about it.
- The intelligence source was recorded in this matter by the Tel-Aviv police.
Police did nothing about it.
- Later, the intelligence source was murdered.
- The State Ombudsman refuses to investigate the case.
_____________________________________________________________________
185/367 TOC: 1
Rafi Rotem
______
Rotem and activists arrived at the Ombudsman's office during public hours (3:00-5:00 pm),
but after a very short meeting of Rotem and a senior staff member, once she realized that the
complaint was linked to Prime Minister Netanyahu, she left the room and refused to return
and accept the complaint.
In response, Rotem and the activists refused to leave the office. Around 9:00 pm, hours after
normal closing time, staff of the Ombudsman's office called the Israel Police, which
evacuated Rotem and the activists from the location.
It was not the first time that the State Ombudsman, Judge (ret) Joseph Shapira, refused to
accept Rotem's complaints regarding corruption in the Tax Authority. For months in early
2014, the State Ombudsman issued a standing order to the security detail of his office to
prevent Rotem's entrance to the office during public hours, in order to prevent Rotem from
filing complaint regarding corruption in the Tax Authority.
In response, Rotem and the activists a arrived on a routine basis every Wednesday and
recorded the refusal of the State Ombudsman's office to accept complaints.
The refusal of the State Ombudsman to accept Rotem's complaints should be deemed
blatant violation of Human Rights - denial of Equal Protection under the Law.
During the summer, probably under pressure by media, the Ombudsman changed his
approach. In a series of meetings between the staff of the Ombudsman's office and Rotem, a
large volume of evidence was filed, pertaining to various corruption cases. [ clx] The cases
included, among others, the undermining and obstruction of tax investigations worth NIS
tens and hundreds of millions against tycoon Nochi Dankner, against organized crime figure
Reuven Gavrieli, and against Gibor-Sport Corporation, involving figures related to
Netanyahu's Likud Party. [clxi]
However, in the months that passed since the end of the series of meetings, it became clear
beyond doubt that the Ombudsman did not intend to examine Rotem's complaints at all. The
Ombudsman refused to issue complaint numbers - a routine commencing procedure - a
letter typically issued within a week or two after receipt of the complaint material,
indicating the complaint number.
In view of the State Ombudsman's obfuscation, the Israeli Quality Government Movement
issued an unprecedented letter to Ombudsman Shapira, urging him to perform his duties and
duly examine Rotem's complaints. [clxii]
The complaint, which Rotem attempted to file in October 2014, had never been previously
discussed during the meetings with the Ombudsman's staff. The complaint pertained to the
period during which Netanyahu served as Minister of the Treasury. A senior member of
Netanyahu's Likud Party was caught trying to smuggle a container full of electronic goods.
After Rotem (then a senior intelligence/ investigations officer in the Tax Authority) and
others had already seized the container and were examining it, a phone call arrived, ordering
them to release the container. As it turned out later, the order to release the container arrived
directly from then Treasury Minister Netanyahus office.
The intelligence source, who provided the lead for the capture of the container, was later
murdered. The source realized that his life was in danger, since his relationship with law
_____________________________________________________________________
186/367 TOC: 1
enforcement was leaked somehow to criminal elements involved in the matter. Therefore,
the source urgently contacted Rotem, and asked to enter protective detention. Rotem
immediately forwarded the request to his superiors. To his amazement, the request was
denied.
A few days later, the source was murdered in a hotel room, and evidence of torture was
found on his body. Police initially claimed that it was a suicide. The source's family initially
had no idea of the circumstances that led to his death. However, after the affair was exposed
by Rotem in media reports, the family filed a lawsuit for damages against the State. The
case was eventually settled out of court.
The murder of the source was previously covered by main-stream Israeli media, based on
the evidence exposed by Rotem. [clxiii] However, in October 2014 Rotem tried for the first
time to exposed the links between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the case.
Of all the corruption affairs, so far exposed by Rotem, the electronics container case is the
one that ties the corruption in the Tax Authority in the clearest and most direct way to the
highest government office holder in Israel today.
By now it is evident that also the office of Netanyahu's predecessor, former Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert was involved in the Tax Authority corruption. Parts of Rotem's claims,
regarding corruption in the Tax Authority, were confirmed earlier in 2014 in a plea bargain
deal with former Prime Minister Olmert's personal secretary Shulamit Zaken, during
Olmert's corruption the trial. [clxiv] According to media reports, when Judge David Rosen
examined the evidence, provided by Zaken as part of the deal, he found the parts, pertaining
to the Tax Authority "the most shocking". [clxv]
In an interview with Haaretz daily in 2013, then former Attorney General, today Supreme
Court Justice Menachem Mazuz stated that the Tax Authority corruption scandal was the
closest to organized crime in the highest offices of government. [clxvi] However, Mazuz did
not elaborate exactly how "high" such "offices" were...
About September 2014, Rotem was informed by Supreme Court Justice (ret) Mishael
Chesin, that Rotem was elected a "Knight of Government Quality" by the Israeli Quality
Government Movement. Similarly, the Israeli courts were described by media as 'abusing a
justice advocate for over a decade'. [clxvii] Such conduct spanned about a dozen court cases,
starting from the Tel-Aviv District Labor Court, continuing through the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court, and ending in the Israeli Supreme Court.
Israeli media have consistently covered the case over the past decade. [ clxviii] Media's
coverage in this case was unusual; first - for the direct and blatant criticism of the courts,
[clxix] and second - for a December 2013 letter signed by 44 senior correspondents, calling
upon State Ombudsman Shapira to perform his duties. [clxx]
However, regardless of the ongoing exposure of the scandal, the Israeli justice system
appears set on a different track: Since 2013 had been facing criminal prosecution by police
(in Israel Police can prosecute!) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, on charges of "insulting a
public service employees". Such prosecution is by police is seen as part of a persecution
patter, including a series of false arrests and beating, also reported by media. [ clxxi] None of
the police officers involved in the abuse had ever been held accountable, but Rotem was
prosecuted for insulting police and other law enforcement employees... Furthermore, the
evidence increasingly shows that Judge Yael Pradelsky of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, in
_____________________________________________________________________
187/367 TOC: 1
collusion with both Police Prosecution and the Public Defender's office have been engaged
in obvious perversion of justice in this case.[clxxii]
The October 2014 exposure by Rotem of evidence, which directly implicates Prime Minister
Netanyahu in the Tax Authority corruption scandal, provides the most plausible explanation
for conduct of the law and justice authorities over the past 15 years..
The scandal is by now far from a Tax Authority corruption scandal. The evidence, which has
been gradually accumulating in this case over the past decade, clearly presents systemic,
widespread corruption of the courts and the justice system.
(iii) Protection Decree

In January 2015, yielding to intense pressure by media, the Ombudsman issued a
Protection Decree for Rafi Rotem, and for the first time recognized him as a whistle-
blower. However, such protection decree was unusual on several accounts:
It provided no job protection for Rotem, who had been terminated over a decade
earlier.
It provided for the first time state termination benefits, although at a very reduced
rate.
The Ombudsman sent is judicial decision in the matter to Attorney Hai Bar-El, and
issued a press release. Attorney Bar-El was not Rotems counsel. The Ombudsman
refused to serve the decision on Attorney Nava Pinchuk, who was Rotems counsel.
Regardless of repeat requests, the Ombudsman refused to provide Rotem a duly
signed and certified copy of the Protection Decree.
Overall, conduct of the Ombudsman office relative to whistle-blower Rafi Rotem lacked
and lacks integrity. It appeared as attempt to appease the media, while failing and refusing to
review any evidence of corruption and criminality in the Tax Authority.
[SeealsocriminalRotem,whistleblowerRotem]
b) Audit of the Debtors Courts
Figure: State Ombudsman 2016 Special Report on the Debtors Courts; anti Debtors Court
protest signs Like getting trapped by the mafia.
______
Regardless of numerous complaints by individuals, who were victims of fraud in the
Debtors Courts, the State Ombudsman had refused for years to review such complaints.
Finally, in April 2016, he published a Special Report of the Enforcement and Collection
Authority. The Special Report documented rampant fraud, mostly by banks and large
_____________________________________________________________________
188/367 TOC: 1
corporations, employing attorneys to engage in lawless collection, taking peoples homes
and life savings, all conducted under the guise of lawful actions of the Debtors Courts and
their magistrates:
heavy weight deficiencies in core activity of the Debtors Courts in the
stage of commencing cases numerous cases were unlawfully commenced
conducted for years serious deficiencies in interest rates imposed on the
debtors tens of thousands of cases were conducted under false interest
rates and in cases of debts on mortgages provided by banks for primary
residences often against underprivileged sectors of society against
powerful entities
Regardless of the detailed, scathing report, which describes large-scale robbery of
underprivileged segments of society, the Ombudsman failed to find any evidence of
criminality, and failed to forward any parts of the report for criminal investigation.
Likewise, in the months that past till the filing instant submission, it has become evident that
regardless of victims of fraud in the Debtors Courts, even after the Ombudsman audit,
ongoing fraudulent collection procedures would not cease, and no remedy would be
provided for victims of past fraud in the Debtors Courts.
[See also - Debtors Courts ; Ashkenazi ]
c) Audit of IT systems of the courts
Figure. Net-HaMishpat computerized, secure connection to the courts.

____
In 2010, following the implementation of Net-HaMishpat, case management system of the
courts, and the transition to electronic file administration of the District and Magistrate
Courts, the Ombudsman issued a special report. The report audited on the development and
implementation of the system, which was a costly, multi-year project.
The State Ombudsman Annual Report 60b (2010) documents that the system was developed
and implemented out of compliance with domestic law and binding government standards
and procedures:
Development contracts were signed with corporation by the Administration of Court
with no legal tender.
Development contracts were signed with no written specifications.
Development was conducted with no core management by a State employee.
The system was implemented with no prior independent examination and validation by a
State employee.
In the process, unknown number of Smart ID cards were issued to unknown persons.
In the process, servers of the court were removed from the custody of the Offices of the
Clerks to the custody of corporations.
_____________________________________________________________________
189/367 TOC: 1
The findings of the State Ombudsmans report alone should lead any person, who is familiar
with the fundamentals of IT system development and validation, to reject such system as
invalid and dangerous for administration of any court. Moreover, any reasonable person to
doubt the motive and intentions of senior State judicial officers, who engaged in such
conduct, as well as integrity of the resulting IT systems.
It is also evident that a report, which was detailed at that level, had to be conducted by
professional, skilled auditors, who had extensive direct access to the systems and their
records. And yet, not a word in the report on possibly the most glaring deficiency in the
system, which all by itself renders it invalid, if not patently fraudulent: The failure to
implement any valid electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001)
for judges and clerks.
The fact that such omission was no oversight by the State Ombudsmans office is evidenced
by their refusal to review complaints, which specifically address the issue of invalidity and
sham judicial records in Net-HaMishpat (see below).
It should be noted that Ombusman of the Judiciary, likewise, refused to review complaints
on the matter of invalidity of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat.
[See also Net-HaMishpat]
d) Audit of IT systems of the Central Election Committee

Over the past decade, the Ombudsman issued several audit reports, which were very critical
of the Central Election Committee. Of particular interest are parts of his 2013 and 2016
reports, pertaining to IT systems of the Committee:
ort 66c (2016a) notes:
A previous audit showed that the Events Log of the Democracy system
failed to include most of the online transactions, which were executed in the
system... In addition, the Central Election Committee had not appointed a
person, who would have been authorized to inspect the Events Log. Follow-
up audit shows that such deficiencies have not been fully corrected.
The Report 55bc (2014) documented the failure to implement a valid log of online
transactions and additional material security failures, relative to management of authorities
and permissions.
However, it is difficult to take the Ombudsmans reports at face value. With the extensive
audit authority of the Ombudsman, he should have had plenty of additional information
regarding integrity and security failures in the Democracy system, first and foremost
regarding compliance with state law in its development and implementation.
[See also Central Election Committee]
e) Refusal to review complaint in re: IT systems of the Supreme Courts

In June 2014 attempt was made to file a complaint with the Ombudsman regarding fraud in
implementation and operation of the Supreme Court's computer systems, and the appearance
of an impostor, Ms Idit Meloul, as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. [clxxiii]
Senior staff of the Ombudsmans office initially tried to refuse to accept filing of the
complaint, claiming that the Ombudsman had no authority to review judicial decisions.
However, the complaint deliberately avoided any such part. It pertained only to
_____________________________________________________________________
190/367 TOC: 1
administrative issues, particularly development and operation of the Supreme Courts IT
system. These issues are clearly under the Ombudsmans purview, since the Ombudsman
issued a report on the subject in 2010.
Filing of the complaint was eventually entered, [clxxiv] and additional evidence was filed of
lack of integrity in Supreme Court electronic records. [clxxv]
However, later, the Ombudsmans office issued a decision that the complaint would not be
reviewed, since the Complainant has not provided sufficient evidence how he was
personally harmed by the conduct alleged in the complaint. Such evidence was provided in
the complaint, but it was not detailed. The bulk of the complaint addressed evidence of
fraud in operations of IT systems of the Supreme Court and Office of the Clerk.
Conduct of the Ombudsman regarding the attempt to file such complaint again documents
his unwillingness to address the core corruption issues in national government agencies,
particularly in justice and law enforcement.
[see also supreme court it]
f) State Ombudsman and government corruption

Ombudsman Lindenstraus attempted to address government corruption as a unique task, and
in the years 2005-8, former senior Israel Police commander Jacob Borovsky was appointed
Senior Counsel, in charge of Anti-corruption Team.
However, in 2006, Borovsky was interrogated by police for 6 hours on suspicion that he had
offered bribes to PM Sharon family for his appointment as Inspector General of the Israel
Police. [clxxvi]
Later, in 2014, the Israel Bar Association decided to review an Ethics Complaint against
Borovsky for a 2012 recording, where he was taped advising a suspect of violations of the
law regarding election funding how to spin a false version of events. [ clxxvii]
_____________________________________________________________________
191/367 TOC: 1
11. Ministry of Health and the Medical Profession
a) The National Pathological Institute
The National Pathological Institute has for decades held a monopoly on expert post-mortem
opinions in the courts.
The National Pathological Institute, particularly under the leadership of Prof Yehuda Hiss
was repeatedly rocked by scandals. Hiss served as Director from 1988-2004. In 2004 he was
dismissed from the Directors position, but continued to serve as Chief Pathologist until
October 2012. He continues to appear as a medical expert to this date.
In 1995, Hiss was the expert, who was called by the Shin-Bet to conduct a 2 nd post-mortem
operation on assassinated PM Rabin. His report contradicted in material points the 1 st
operation report, by Ichilov Hospital regular pathologist.
A 2005 media report notes: [clxxviii]
Infamous Chief Pathologist to Once Again Evade Punishment
According to the arrangement, the prosecution will request that Prof. Hiss
receive only a reprimand for his involvement in the unauthorized removal of
parts from 125 bodies. In exchange, Hiss will admit to the acts. The plea
bargain is subject to the approval of the court.
In all of the 125 cases, Dr. Hiss and his subordinates removed organs, bones
and tissue without the permission of, and in many cases, against the expressed
wishes of the families of the deceased.
According to evidence submitted in the past, Abu Kabir had a museum of
skulls set up by Dr. Hiss that included the skulls of IDF soldiers that had
been shot in the head. He has also been investigated for selling organs and
falsifying testimony.
Hiss was fired from his position as Director of the institute shortly after the
courts became involved in allegations against him, but has remained the Chief
Pathologist at the Institute.
This is not the first time that Hiss has escaped legal consequences for his
actions. Former Attorney-General Elyakim Rubenstein aroused objections
from several directions when he ruled that Hiss should not be charged with
criminal behavior, even though he provided "expert testimony" about
autopsies at which he had not been present and used tissues and organs after
autopsies without permission from the families of the deceased.
In August 1999, Jerusalem District Court Judge Ruth Orr sharply criticized him for
testifying that a 12-year-old Arab rock-thrower died as a result of a beating by Beitar
security chief Nachum Korman three years earlier. She wrote that Hiss "was carried away
by his desire to find the exact cause of the death... and ignored important pathological
findings that did not correspond with this desire."
In July 2002, while Hiss was under police investigation for suspicions including the removal
of organs from 81 deceased persons without familial consent, the Supreme Court rejected a
petition by the Movement for Quality in Government (MQG) demanding his suspension.
In 2009 media report: [clxxix]
_____________________________________________________________________
192/367 TOC: 1
The former #2 in the National Institute for Forensic Medicine (Abu Kabir)
says he can't understand why the director, found to have engaged in illegal
harvesting of organs, is still the highest-paid person in the public sector.
A 2010 media report asserts that Dr Hiss was involved in body parts trading: [ clxxx]
Body Parts and Bio-Piracy
by NANCY SCHEPER-HUGHES
Editorial Note: NANCY SCHEPER-HUGHES is professor of anthropology at
the University of California, Berkeley, where she directs the doctoral program
in medicine and society. Since 1996, she has been involved in active field
research on the global traffic in human organs, following the movement of
bodies, body parts, transplant doctors, their patients, brokers, and kidney
sellers, and the practices of organ and tissue harvesting in several countries
from Brazil, Argentina, and Cuba, to Moldova, Israel and Turkey, to India,
South Africa, and the United States. She is a co-founder of Organs Watch, an
independent, medical human rights, research and documentation center at UC
Berkeley.
What follows is her detailed report on the tissue, skin, bone and organ
harvesting conducted for many years at Israels L. Greenberg National
Institute of Forensic Medicine, a.k.a. The Abu Kabir Institute, under the aegis
of its former director and current chief pathologist, Dr. Yehuda Hiss. Long
before Donald Bostrm leveled allegations of organ-harvesting from
Palestinians in the Swedish tabloid, Aftonbladet, in August 2009, causing
furious accusations of blood libel, Dr. Scheper-Hughes had already
interviewed Dr. Hiss and had on tape the interview that forms part of her
report here.
Dr. Scheper-Hughes says her purpose here is to refute the controversial
official statements of the Ministry of Health and the IDF that while there may
have been irregularities at the National Forensic Institute, they have long since
ended. To this day, she says, they have failed to acknowledge, punish, or
rectify various medical human rights abuses, past and present at the National
Forensic Institute. While many of the allegations are widely known, the
testimony by Israeli state pathologist and IDF (reserve) Lt. Col. Chen Kugel
has never been published in English and his allegations are known only within
Israel. Dr. Scheper-Hughes invited Dr. Kugel to speak publicly on this topic in
the U.S. on May 6, 2010.
There are three lawsuits ongoing in Israel at the present moment concerning
the Forensic Institute and Dr. Hiss. Two concerns alleged abuses against the
dead bodies of Israeli citizens. The third concerns Rachel Corrie, a U.S.
citizen who was killed in Gaza in 2003 while protesting the demolition of
houses. Transcripts of court proceedings show that Corries autopsy was
conducted in contravention of an Israeli court order that an official from the
U.S. Embassy be present. These transcripts also show Dr. Hiss conceding that
he had kept samples from Corries body without her familys knowledge. Dr.
Hiss also testified that he was uncertain where these samples now are. For his
part, Dr. Kugel asserts that abuses at the Institute continue to this day.
_____________________________________________________________________
193/367 TOC: 1
The Scheper-Hughes article takes care to note Dr. Kugels description of his
former mentor, Dr. Hiss, as a man who saw himself as willing to take great
personal and professional risks to serve a noble end to help the war-
wounded victims of terrorist attacks, with his actions as something sublime,
or even heroic, as a modern-day Robin Hood. AC/JSC
In 2016 Prof Hiss testified for the Defense in the case of IDF soldier Elor Azaria, who was
prosecuted for extra-judicial killing of a Palestinian by a shot to the head. Prof Hiss
testified, without conducting a post-mortem operation, that the Palestinian did not die from
the shot to this head, but from other injuries. His testimony was largely perceived as lacking
credibility. [clxxxi]
The treatment of Prof Hiss stands in sharp contrast to the treatment of Dr Maya Forman by
the Israeli justice system
[see also - Forensic medical expert Dr Maya Forman 294]
The obvious concern is that Prof Yehuda Hiss is protected by the justice system to this date,
since he willingly serves its needs.
In 2013 Dr Chen Kugel was appointed Director of the National Pathological Institute. Dr
Chen Kugel had previously received the 2007 Quality Government Award for exposing
corruption in the National Pathological Institute.
Dr Chen Kugel and the National Pathological Institute were also central to the Roman
Zadorov affair
[see also Case Study: Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) in the
Supreme Court 51]
In a May 2017 media interview Dr Chen Kugel said: [clxxxii]

In the justice system were those, who preferred to overlook the knowledge
that in the Institute wrongful conduct was taking place People remain in
prison afterbeing convicted of serious crime because of failures during Hisss
period.
[See also - Forensic medical expert Dr Maya Forman 294; Case Study: Ometz v Attorney
General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) in the Supreme Court 51.]
b) Medical whistle-blower against the justice system - Dr Maya Forman affair

[See under - Forensic medical expert Dr Maya Forman 294; Case Study: Ometz v Attorney
General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) in the Supreme Court 51.]
c)TheJoelleBenSimonaffairfalsecompulsorypsychiatrichospitalizationof
protesteragainstjudicialcorruption
[See under - Protest against corruption of the Family Courts Joelle Ben-Simon 231.]
_____________________________________________________________________
194/367 TOC: 1
12. The Knesset (parliament)
a) Invalid IT systems and electronic records of the Knesset
Figures. L) 2000 Minutes, re: E-sign Bill; R) 2009 Minutes, re: Biometric Database Bill
both maintained as unsigned Word files, bearing disclaimers: unproofed version.
____
Minutes [protocols] of the Knesset committees - including draft bills and appropriations -
are maintained as unsigned Word documents, often bearing the disclaimer unproofed
version.
MK K Elharrar, Chair of State Oversight Committee, was asked in person about this
practice, and she confirmed: I dont sign anything.
Such practices in the Knesset are inexplicable in view of common parliamentary practices,
or even practices imposed by law on voluntary, non-profit, tax-exempt associations. It is
even more puzzling on the background of the Knessets 2008 amendment to the Courts Act,
attempting to compel the Supreme Court to maintain valid, signed minutes of its hearings
(which the Supreme Court refuses to comply with to this date).
b) Refusal to answer on FOIA requests, in re: Knessets IT systems

The Knesset also refuses to answer on FOIA requests, pertaining to lawful development,
validation, operation and security of IT systems of the Knesset itself. The Knesset FOIA
Officer answered by claiming, organizational knowledge... not in our possession. [ clxxxiii]
It should be noted that the Knesset enacted:
Amendment re Supreme Court protocols
Amendment re CEC FOIA compliance.
However, the Knesset appears entirely unready, unwilling, unable to perform its oversight
duties, both relative to the courts and the Ministry of Justice.
c) Refusal to take action in view of evidence of election fraud in the Central Election
Committee
_____________________________________________________________________
195/367 TOC: 1
Figures: Attorney Orly Adas, Central Election Committee CEO - key fraud suspect. The
Knessets conduct in deliberately overlooking the evidence of fraud in the Central Election
Committee, raises serious doubts regarding the legitimacy and nature of the regime in the
State of Israel today.
____
In February 2017 inquiry was forwarded to the heads of the parties, which are represented in
the 20th Knesset. The inquiry reviews evidence of serious computer fraud in the Central
Election Committee, and offers to discuss with interested parties filing a criminal complaint
with the National Fraud Unit/Anti-corruption Unit and Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit
against senior officers of the Central Election Committee.
Following is the complete letter:
February 11, 2017
Naftali Bennett The Jewish Home
Benjamin Netanyahu - HaLikud
Isaac Herzog Zionist Union
Ayman Odeh Joint List
Yaakov Litzman - United Torah Judaism
Yair Lapid Yesh Atid
Robert Ilatov - Yisrael Beitenu
Moshe Kahlon - Kulanu
Zehava Gal-On - Meretz
Aryeh Deri Shas
By email
RE: Filing a criminal complaint with Israel Police National Fraud
Unit/Anti-corruption Unit and the Attorney General against senior
officers of the Central Election Committee
Your response within 7 days is kindly requested. Time is of the essence
Dear Honorable Sirs and Madam:
Collection of records in my possession, outlined in the attached publication, is
the outcome of of Freedom of Information request on the Central Election
Committee regarding computerization of the Central Election Committee,
validity and integrity of IT systems of the Committee, as well as
correspondence with the Committee and the Shin-Bet following the
Committees response on the FOIA request.
_____________________________________________________________________
196/367 TOC: 1
Such records:
a) Clearly indicate fraud by senior officers of the Central Election Committee
in their FOIA response regarding validity and integrity of the Committees IT
systems and their compliance with the law and binding standards;
b) Indicate clear and serious contradiction between the statements of the
Committees senior officers and Prime Ministers office response on inquiry
with the Shin-Bet Head regarding validation and security of the systems;
c) Raise serious concerns that the fraud in the Committees FOIA response,
and likewise, the contradiction between the Committees and the Shin-Bets
statements were intended to cover up fraud in computerization of the Central
Election Committee, and
d) Raise serious concerns of lack of integrity and/or fraud in conduct of the
2015 General Election, as previously claimed in publications in the US and in
Israel.
Obviously, fraud of the type, which is suspected, undermines the lawful
authority of the current Knesset. Moreover, ignoring clear evidence of fraud
of this type by heads of the parties, which are represented in the Knesset, must
raise doubts regarding the nature of the regime in the State of Israel.
The publication, copied below, also proposes that preparations should be made
for paper administration of the next general election, and for inviting
professional international election observers.
Please find additional information in the publication, copied below. I would
be glad to discuss the matter, referenced above, with any of you, who may be
interested.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
OccupyTLV
CC: Wide distribution
Attached: Shin-Bet incriminates senior officers of the Central Election
Committee... and where have the Supreme Court justices been all along???
None of the MKs has ever responded.
Even before the filing of the letter, it became evident in a meeting with MK Elharrar, Chair
of the Oversight Committee, that she was aware of concerns of election fraud in IT systems
of the Central Election Committee.
Also, as documented in the section about the Central Election Committee, the Knesset was
aware and concerned regarding corruption in the Central Election Committee, but failed to
take any material action.
[See also Central Election Committee ]
_____________________________________________________________________
197/367 TOC: 1
13. Central Election Committee
The Israeli Central Election Committee is plagued with allegations of fraud and corruption.
a) Allegations of IT computer fraud in the 2015 general election

Perennial concerns abound regarding corruption of the Central Election Committee. [ clxxxiv,
clxxxv
]
Figure. US influential blog Daily Kos reported of concerns regarding fraud several days
after the 2015 Israeli general election. Similar reports appeared later in Israel as well
____
Netanyahus win (at 23.40%) defied all up to the last minute pollsters predictions, and it
could be attributed to an unusual increase in voting near the 22:00 closing time. Unlawful
conduct in the Committees IT system was alleged.
In a personal meeting, MK K Elharrar, Chair of State Oversight Committee, commented on
such allegations: Anything is possible.
The allegations focus on integrity and security of IT systems of the Central Election
Committee.
b) Evidence of lack of integrity and validity in the Committees IT systems

Both are obviously deficient.
Figure. Polling returns, published on the Central Election Committee web-site (downloaded
September 28, 2016) are patently false - the two sets are identical: L) March 17, 2015
election - 20th Knesset. R) January 22, 2013 - 19th Knesset.
_____________________________________________________________________
198/367 TOC: 1
____
dort 66c (2016a) notes:
A previous audit showed that the Events Log of the Democracy system
failed to include most of the online transactions, which were executed in the
system... In addition, the Central Election Committee had not appointed a
person, who would have been authorized to inspect the Events Log. Follow-
up audit shows that such deficiencies have not been fully corrected.
The Report 55bc (2014) documented the failure to implement a valid log of online
transactions and additional material security failures, relative to management of authorities
and permissions.
However, it is difficult to take the Ombudsmans reports at face value. With the extensive
audit authority of the Ombudsman, he should have had plenty of additional information
regarding integrity and security failures in the Democracy system, first and foremost
regarding compliance with state law in its development and implementation.
In 2016, this author tried to file a FOIA request with the Committee, regarding
documentation of compliance with state law and binding standards, pertaining to
development and implementation of IT systems. First it turned out that the for years the
Committee held itself exempt from FOIA. In response, the Knesset passed as special
amendment to FOIA, explicitly imposing it on the Committee. Once the amendment came
into effect, FOIA request was filed with the Committee, seeking documentation of
compliance relative to development, validation, certification, operation and security of its
IT systems. [clxxxvi]
The Committees FOIA response was deemed false on its face none of the records that
were provided in response (about 200 pages) were authentic records, and the Committee
refused to list the records, which were provided in its response, issued on behalf of three
State service attorneys: FOIA officer, Committees CEO, and Committees Legal Counsel.
Figures. L) Attorney Orly Adas Central Election Committee CEO; R) Nadav Argaman
Shin-Bet Head
_____
The Committees FOIA response failed to provide any record to document validation and
certification of the Democracy system. However, the Committees FOIA response cover
letter stated: Shin-Bet (Reem information security authority) validated and certified the
Committees IT systems.
However, when the Committees FOIA response was forwarded to Shin-Bet Head Nadav
Argaman for comments, February 05, 2017 response stated: Shin-Bet is neither the
guiding authority, nor the certifying authority for the Committee systems. [clxxxvii]
_____________________________________________________________________
199/367 TOC: 1
Once the Shin-Bets comments on the Committees FOIA response was forwarded back to
the Committee, the Committee issued a Corrected February 15, 2017 FOIA response:
We couldnt locate documentation of the systems validation by a state employee. [ clxxxviii]
It should be noted that the Committee is headed by a Supreme Court justice by law.
However, whereas by law the same justice is supposed to head the Committee from one
election to the next, in fact, a series of Supreme Court justices headed the committee over
the past decade, due to the appointment of justices just prior to their retirement to head the
Committee.
c) Previous allegations of corruption in the Central Election Committee

Concerns of corruption in the Committee had been raised prior to the 2015 general election.
Specifically such concerns were raised following the 2007 State Ombudsman report, which
pointed out nepotism, and unlawful employment of Knesset employees by the Committee,
unreasonable contracts with IT system providers, unreasonable management of the IT
development project, lack of security in data transfer from the polling stations to the
Committee, failure to implement Shin-Bet (Reem information security authority)
recommendations regarding data security.
In the aftermath, the Knesset considered in 2007 expelling the Committee from the Knesset
building, subject to hearing of the Committees senior officers, including its Chairman
Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Rivlin. [clxxxix]
Following the 2014 publication of the State Ombudsman report, pertaining to the 2013
general election, claims were made that the Ombudsman failed to report on serious data
security failures, which effectively undermined confidentiality in the polling stations.
Claims were made that the Ombudsman ignored information regarding recurring data
security breaches. [cxc]
d) Supreme Court justices Chairs of the Committee

By law, Supreme Court Justices chair the Central Election Committee. By law the the
justices are supposed to continuously head the Committee, also between elections. However,
the evidence shows that through the practice of appointing justices just before their
retirement, the Supreme Court created rapid turnover of the justices in the chair position.
Obviously, such turnover reduces the accountability of any single justice, who served as
Chair of the Committee.
And yet, in view of the scathing Ombudsman reviews of conduct of the Committee, and the
ease with which activists managed to obtain evidence of computer fraud in the Committee,
one must wonder if conduct of the justices amounted only to incompetence, or was also
tainted by collusion.
Following is the list of justices, who chaired the Central Election Committee from 2004 to
2017 - a period spanning the development of Democracy system and scathing
Ombudsman reports.
_____________________________________________________________________
200/367 TOC: 1
Figures. Supreme Court justices, who chaired the Central Election Committee from 2004 to
2017: Jacob Turkel, Dorit Beinisch, Eliezer Rivlin, Ayala Procaccia, Miriam Naor, Elyakin
Rubinstein, Salim Joubran, Esther Hayut.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
201/367 TOC: 1
14. Sin-Bet and National Cyber Authority
As is the case with the courts, the Shin-Bet is promoting its own image, quite successfully.
The most notable example is the critically acclaimed documentary The Gatekeepers
(2012).
a documentary history of the country told from the point of view of its
internal security chiefs, is both honest and saddening They are all hyper-
patriots who would do anything to save Israeli lives and to preserve the Jewish
state They are all learned, sober guys
Denby, The New Yorker (2012)
The Israeli General Security Service [Shin-Bet] was established soon after the State was
born in 1948. However, its charge, structure and authority were established by law only in
2002. Prior to that time, it was operating based on government decisions, and that too, only
in a partial manner. [cxci]
a) Shin Bet, torture, extracting confessions, undermining the Rule of Law

The push for establishing the Shin-Bet conduct by law was driven in part by major scandals,
related to unlawful conduct, which undermined the Rule of Law. Such scandals included:
The 1984 Kav 300 affair - where the Shin-Bet tried to frame a senior, decorated IDF
officer in a murder case;
The 1980-88 Izat Nafso affair - where the Shin Bet framed a Circassians, Muslim IDF
intelligence officer in espionage, and managed to extract his false confession through
torture, and
The 1994 PM Yizhak Rabin assassination - where the assassin was a former Shin-Bet
employee and a member of a violent Jewish underground cell, headed by an undercover
Shin-Bet agent, even at the time of the assassination. Shin-Bet conduct before and
during the assassination remains inexplicable)
Although little advertised, Amos Baraness 1999 Request for a New Trial documents that
Baraness false confession was also extracted in a Shin-Bet facility. [see above Supreme
court] Baranes himself had little to do with any security issues. However, the murder
victim, Rachel Heller, was a member of an extreme left-wing group, which was infiltrated
by the Shin-Bet. It is likely that the Shin-Bet was involved in extracting Baraness false
confession in order to prevent true investigation of Hellers murder.
_____________________________________________________________________
202/367 TOC: 1
In 2004, the Shin-Bet Regulations were signed, which were claimed to prohibit applying
physical pressure during investigations. According to media, Shin-Bet investigations had
been conducted in the past in the twilight zone [cxcii]
However, numerous accounts document that extraction of confessions, at time false
confessions, through conduct that should be deemed torture, is still common practice of the
Shin-Bet.
For example, in the July 2015 Kafr Duma (Palestine) arson/murder case, it was clear from
the start that the crime was perpetrated by Jewish settlers (subject to Israeli law), and it was
rather clear that Shin-Bet knew who the perpetrators were. Media reported that several
masked individuals were witnessed on location. A few days later, Defense Minister Yaalon
commented that the authorities had identified the perpetrators (in plural), however, the
authorities had decided against legal action to avoid exposing the sources in court. Foreign
media reported that one of the co-conspirators, on location, was a Shin-Bet agent, but he
was not the fire-bomber. Eventually, confession was extracted from one individual, that he
had perpetrated the murder himself, alone. [see Attachment x]
On the other hand, according to media the Shin-Bet refused to obey an order from PM
Netanyahu to assist in eradicating violent organized-crime, even in cases that appeared no
different from terror attacks in mid-day. [cxciii]
b) Shin-Bet, Cyber Security Authority and State IT system certification and security
The Shin-Bet Act (2002) provides:
The Shin-Bet is charged with safeguarding the States security, procedures and
institutions of the democratic regime, against threats of terror, sabotage and
subversion...
With increasing dependence of procedures and institutions of the democratic regime on IT
systems, one would have expected that the Shin-Bet develop comprehensive apparatus for
certification and security of critical State IT systems. Indeed, Shin-Bet activities in this areas
were formalized into the Shin-Bet Reem Division [Information Security Authority], which
has considerably grown over the years.
However, the Shin-Bet charge in this area was further defined by Authorization of Public
Entities' Security Act (1998), which was updated a number of times over the years. Review
of the Act in its current form shows that the entities and systems, named below, all fail to
appear in the lists, and systems of such entities were all found seriously lacking relative to
inside violations of security and integrity:
a. Knesset - particularly IT systems which are used for maintain protocols and records
of legal nature. The Knesset failed to duly answer on FOIA requests pertaining to
authorities, certification and security of the Knesset's IT systems.
b. Supreme Court - particularly IT systems that are used to maintain electronic
renditions of the original decision and judgment paper records. The Supreme Courts
electronic systems show a critical security and integrity compromising event around
2002. The Administration of Courts failed to duly answer on FOIA requests related to
the 2002 event, or pertaining to authorities, certification and security of IT systems of
the Supreme Court.
_____________________________________________________________________
203/367 TOC: 1
c. District and Magistrate Courts - Net-HaMishpat case management system, fully
implemented around 2010. Lack of integrity and security has been documented in
numerous cases, the Judge Varda Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal being the
most widely known. The extreme example is State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-
07) in the Nazareth District Court, where no valid 2010 Verdict and Sentencing
records are to be found, and where the Court denied due access to inspect records.
Administration of Courts failed to duly answer on FOIA requests pertaining to
authorities, certification and security of IT systems of Net-HaMishpat.
d. Prison Service - particularly IT systems that are used for admission and release of
persons from prison. The capability of the Prison Service relative to detecting
validity of electronic records, originating in the courts is doubted. The Prison
Service failed to duly answer on FOIA requests pertaining to authorities, certification
and security of IT systems of the Prison Service.
e. Ministry of Justice: a) Enforcement and Collection Authority particularly IT
systems that are used in the Debtors' Courts, such as Kelim Shluvim, implemented
around 2015, b) Detainees Courts IT systems that are used for case management.
The Ministry of Justice and Enforcement and Collection Authority failed to duly
answer on FOIA requests pertaining to authorities, certification and security of the
corresponding IT systems.
In 2014, inquiry was filed with both Shin-Bet Head Yoram Cohen and Supreme Court
Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, pertaining to validity and security of IT systems of the
Supreme Court. [cxciv, cxcv] The inquiry presented irrefutable evidence that integrity of IT
systems of the Supreme Court was compromised in March 2002, and that since that time
decision records have been falsified in numerous court files. The Shin-Bets response stated
that it had no responsibility over validity and security of IT systems of the Supreme Court.
Presiding Justice Grunis failed to respond (furthermore, Administration of Courts refused to
respond on corresponding FOIA requests see Sections xx and xx).
On February 13, 2017, inquiry was forwarded to Shin-Bet Head Nadav Argaman, asking
clarifications regarding the Shin-Bet's performing of its lawful duties in safeguarding
procedures and institutions of the democratic regime relative to safeguarding the validity,
integrity and/or security of IT systems of critical State agencies. [ cxcvi]
On February 28, 2017, the Shin-Bet promptly responded:
The Shin-Bet performs its lawful duties, as detailed in relevant law,
pertaining to exercising its responsibility for various State IT systems. [ cxcvii]
Obviously, such response fails to address either the specific question, or the apparent
contradictions between the Shin-Bet Act (2002)
A more specific, February 25, 2017 inquiry with Shin-Bet Head Argaman addressed a
statement in the Central Election Committees FOIA response - that the Shin-Bet had
validated and certified the Committees IT systems (Section xx). [ cxcviii] The Shin-Bet
response in that case amounted to wholesale denial of the Central Election Committees
claims, in fact implicating the Committees senior officers in deceit and breach of loyalty.
The willingness of the Shin-Bet, which is exempt from FOIA, to respond on the inquiry was
surprising. It may reflect Deep State turf wars, relative to control and supervision of e-
government systems.
_____________________________________________________________________
204/367 TOC: 1
Finally, in 2017, a complaint was filed with Shin-Bet Head Argaman, alleging fraud in IT
systems of the courts and providing indisputable evidence of fraud in implementation of
electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) on judicial records.
The inquiry included a copy of a complaint in that matter, which was filed also with
Ombudsman of the Judiciary (Section xx), and asserted that conduct of the judiciary in the
matter amounted to sabotage and subversion of procedures and institutions of the
democratic regime. [cxcix] The complaint, filed with Shin-Bet Head Argaman named the
following as key figures in perpetrating such subversion and sabotage:
a) Recent and current Directors of Administration of Courts, Judges Boaz Okon, Moshe
Gal and Michael Spitzer;
b) Retired Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak, and
c) Leaders of the Israel Bar Association, particularly its current Head, Attorney Effi
Naveh.
As usual, the Shin-Bets response was prompt. The response stated:
Our February 28, 2017 response stands as it is. [cc]
d) Cyber Authority
In recent years, validity, security and control of State IT systems was rendered even more
ambiguous with the establishment of the Cyber Authority.
In February 2015, the government decided to promote the establishment of the Cyber
Authority, and drafting the corresponding bill started.
An August 04, 2016, media report states that PM Netanyahu gained control of all major
State IT systems through establishment of the Cyber Authority with no foundation in the
law - by his own permission. [cci] The Cyber Authority was established on the same week
through an Interim Act. According to the report, through such measure, Netanyahu gained
control over IT systems of all critical State entities, removing them from Shin-Bet, Police,
and the Nuclear Security Agency (MALMAB).
Figure: April 25, 2017 prominent publication in Maariv (and other media) leaked a letter to
Prime Minister Netanyahu from four top senior security officials Mossad Head Cohen,
Shin-Bet Head Argaman, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Golan, and Ministry of Defense CEO
Adam. The four used unusually strong language in opposing the draft Cyber Authority bill
(while the Cyber Authority had already been up and running). The publication shows a
photocopy of an excerpt from the letter: The draft bill seeks to vest in the Cyber Authority
wide authorities, while its mission has not been clearly defined; it amounts to serious harm
in core security activity of the security community in the cyber field. Such publication is
_____________________________________________________________________
205/367 TOC: 1
extremely unusual, since a) the business of Mossad and Shin-Bet it usually conducted
behind closed doors, and b) at least two of the figures, Cohen and Argaman are Netanyahus
hand-picked appointees. It remains unclear, whether the true cause of the letter was external
security concerns, or internal security concerns, pertaining to safeguarding procedures and
institutions of the democratic regime against the Prime Minister himself.
______
April 25, 2017 unusual media reports exposed a major turf war among the various security
branches, pertaining to the establishment of the Cyber Security by PM Netanyahu. [ ccii, cciii,]
According such reports, Mossad Head Yossi Cohen, Shin-Bet Head Nadav Argaman, IDF
Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan and Ministry of Defense CEO Udi Adam signed a strong
letter to the Prime Minister and Security Cabinet Ministers, stating that the Cyber
Authority bill, as drafted amounts to serious harm to core security activity of the State of
Israel. The four signers demanded to immediately stop the current bill in progress and
initiate the drafting of a new bill, which serves the security and national interests of the
State of Israel. The Prime Ministers office issued no response at all. MK Nahman Shay
(Zionist Alliance), a security expert, responded by stating his support for the protest letter:
placing cyber [sic] under the PMs control creates a superfluous and harmful power
center a serious error and an un-democratic act
Already in March 01, 2017, inquiry was forwarded to Cyber Authority Head Eviatar
Matanya, regarding validation and certification of critical state IT systems, following the
reorganization of cyber security in Israel. [cciv]
The Cyber Authoritys response stated: [ccv]
1. Pursuant to current Israeli law, the entities, which you listed, including
the Central Election Committee, Knesset, Supreme Court, District and
Magistrate Courts are fully responsible for cyber security of their own
systems
2. Entities, which are part of the executive branch, are guided and oriented
by the National Cyber Security Authority, relative to cyber security,
which is assisted also by other intra-government agencies, all pursuant
to the February 15, 2015 Government Decision 2443, pertaining to
Promoting national organization and government leadership in cyber
security, and also by the Shin-Bet in certain contexts.
However, the letter, which was received by email, was perceived as fake on its face
electronic record (draft), and regardless of repeat requests, the Cyber Authority refused to
provide a hand-signed, paper copy of the letter (in contrast, the Shin-Bet provided all its
responses both by email and by hand-signed, paper letters).
The February 15, 2015 Government Decision 2443 includes instruction to the PMs Legal
Bureau to prepare within 180 days, in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and others,
a bill to be promptly submitted by the Prime Minister for voting by Knesset.
As of June 2017, the permanent Cyber Authority Act is still to be passed by the Knesset.
Regarding Cyber Authority Research Centers in leading academic institutions see -
Academic Cyber Community.
Regarding Shin-Bets role in repressing social protest see - Shin-Bet intimidation
of protest activists 258.
_____________________________________________________________________
206/367 TOC: 1
15. Academic Cyber Community
Israel boasts cutting-edge IT technology and high level academic expertise in related fields.
Several senior CS professors reviewed my 2013 UN and agreed with my conclusions, but
were unwilling to publicly voice their concerns.
Figure. Linguistics and computer science professor Uzzi Ornan

_____
A notable exception is Prof Uzzi Ornan, a distinguished linguistics and computer science
professor, with a joint appointment also in the Technion. In January 2016, Prof Ornan, of
his own volition, wrote a support note to the author of instant report:
On 2016-01-20 9:19 pm, Uzzi Ornan wrote:
Congratulations! All power to you!
I hope that you see the fruits of your enormous investment!
Uzzi Ornan
a) PM funding of Cyber Security Research Centers

However, over the past several years, the Prime Ministers office, through the new Cyber
Authority, has funded and established cyber security research centers in leading Israeli CS
departments. In doing so, the PM office effectively co-opted such academic institutions into
the security apparatus. With it, the chances of academic freedom and publicly voicing
opinions regarding e-government in Israel are diminishing.
For example: Prof Eli Biham, Head of the Technions Cyber Security Center adamantly
refused to opine on such matters, and further claimed that requests for his opinion in such
matters amounted to harassment. [ccvi]
Figure. 2014, Cyber Security Center inaugurated at Tel-Aviv University. From left: TAU
President Joseph Klafter, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Blavatnik Cyber Center
_____________________________________________________________________
207/367 TOC: 1
Head Prof. Isaac Ben-Israel, and TAU Board of Governors Chairman Prof. Jacob A.
Frenkel.
_____
Figure. Prof Yitzhak Ben Yisrael Cyber problems are almost always amenable for
technological solutions. However, the problems are almost never technological.
_____
Figure. 2014, Cyber Security Research Center inaugurated at Ben Gurion University,
headed by Prof Yaval Elovici. Partners are major military-industrial entities.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
208/367 TOC: 1
Figure. 2016, Cyber Security Research Center inaugurated at the Technion. Prof Eli Biham
- Center Head (right) with Dr. Eviatar Matania - Israels National Cyber Bureau Head, and
Prof Peretz Lavie - Technion President.
_____
Figure. 2015, Cyber Security Research Center inaugurated at Hebrew University, headed
by Prof Danny Dolev. The partners in this case are more academically, civil society inclined.
_____
Prof Danny Dolev, one of the leaders of the Hebrew University Cyber Security Research
Center, met with the author of instant submission for a private meeting, in contrast with
other top figures in Cyber Security Research Centers, who refused to comment on lack of
integrity or fraud in e-government. Prof Dolev consented that there were major problems in
integrity of e-government in Israel. According to his opinion:
Implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) was incomplete.
There was a pervasive problem in e-government system of lack of valid logs, and
failure to distinguish between authentic records and Drafts.
Shin-Bet involvement in e-government development and implementation was a key
reason for its lack of integrity.
_____________________________________________________________________
209/367 TOC: 1
Figure. 2016, Applied Cryptology and Cyber Security Research Center inaugurated at Bar-
Ilan University. From right: Prof A Zaban University Research VP; Prof M Faust
University Rector; Rabbi Prof D Hershkowitz University President, Dr Eviatar Matania
Cyber Authority Head; Prof Y Lindell CS Dept ; Prof B Pinkas - CS Dept; Dr M Geva
Center Research Director (formerly @ National Cyber Bureau); Prof H Shacham UCSD.
_____
In 2012, three Israeli senior computer science professors from Bar-Ilan University, Hebrew
University, and Weizmann Institute agreed to review the draft HRA submission for the
previous UPR cycle. All three agreed with the submissions findings and conclusions and
expressed great concerns regarding the implications. However, none provided any public
statement.
In 2015-6, the Cyber Authority (or in any of the various names it has used in recent years)
established two Cyber Security Research Centers in leading academic Computer Science
Departments of the Technion Technological Institute and of the Hebrew University (April
2016 and , respectively), and earlier also in Tel-Aviv University and Ben-Gurion University.
In May 2016, Head of the Hebrew University Cyber Security Research Center, an
internationally renowned Mathematics and Computer Science professor surprisingly invited
the author of instant submission (a Tel-Aviv street person) for a meeting. In such meeting he
stated that reports by this author are correct:
a) Implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) has been incomplete.
b) Across all government agencies (not only the courts, as published by this author)
drafts have proliferated, side by side with authentic State records, while drafts
and authentic records have become indistinguishable.
c) Across all government agencies (not only the courts, as published by this author)
there is a failure to establish logs (e.g. dockets, judgments index in the courts) of
authentic records.
According to this expert, such flaws, which should appear fatal for the conduct of any
lawful government, were caused by Shin-Bet involvement in e-government in Israel over
the past two decades
Figure: Professor Eli Biham, Head of the Cyber Security Research Center at the Technion
(right) with Dr. Eviatar Matania, Head of Israels National Cyber Authority, and Technion
President Professor Peretz Lavie during the launching ceremony of the Cyber Authority
sponsored Technion Cyber Security Research Center. The tight relationship between
leading computer science academicians and the Cyber Authority and funding by the Cyber
_____________________________________________________________________
210/367 TOC: 1
Authority appear to stifle free public discussion of e-government in Israel and its impact on
Human Rights and democratic regime. It also appears to undermine the role of academic
institutions in civil society.
_____________
Consequently, repeat requests for opinion were filed with Prof Eli Biham, Head of the
Technion Cyber Security Research Center (also an internationally renowned Mathematics
and Computer Science professor), pertaining to security and integrity of State IT systems in
general and IT systems of the courts in particular. The inquiries claimed that it was his
academic integrity duty, as a State funded professor, and an obligation to the public as a
State funded Head of the Cyber Security Research Center.
Alternatively, such inquiries requested the holding of an informal public seminar in the
Cyber Security Center on integrity and security of e-government systems in Israel. Prof Eli
Biham refused to opine or respond on such matters. Instead he claimed that such inquiries
amounted to harassment.
Ethics complaints against Prof Biham were filed with the Technion President, Prof Peretz
Lavie and Executive Vice President for Research, Prof Wayne D Kaplan, requesting the
establishment of Ethics Committees for Computer Science, similar to ethics committees
already in place in biological and medical sciences.
The general outcome of Cyber Authority support of computer science departments appears
to promote acquiescence or even collusion by leading computer science departments with
conduct which undermines civil society, Human Rights and a democratic regime.
_____________________________________________________________________
211/367 TOC: 1
16. Protest against the justice system and repression of social protest
The current Israeli Social Protest movement started in 2011 in response to unaffordable cost
of living and growing poverty. The 2011 large protest wave has subsided, and the Social
Protest has evolved into smaller, focused protest groups, which are dedicated to specific
issues. The common thread to many or most of these groups today is protest against various
aspects of corruption of the justice system. In response, the Israeli justice system is engaged
in efforts to criminalize the leaders of such protest groups, as outlined below.
However, the role corruption of the justice system was a notable theme already in the early
part of the protest. In a large demonstration on June 14, 2012, in Tel-Aviv, social protest
activsist Moshe Silman self-immolated. [ccvii]
The case shocked the Israeli public. Media generally tried to portray him as mentally
deranged. However, his suicide letter presents a different story:
The State of Israel stole my property and robbed me.
It left me penniless.
Judge Hagai Brenner and the Tel-Aviv District Court denied my access to
justice, perverted court process with impunity...
Later, inspection of Moshe Silmans court files showed that Silman was accurate in his
statements. Among the findings: Judge Hagai Brenner of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court
dismissed Silmans complaint against the Social Security Administration (which instead of
granting his request for support, imposed on him a levy and took his pick-up trucks his
only source of income). Pro-tem Judge Hagai Brenner of the Tel-Aviv District Court (his
other appointment at that time) denied Silmans appeal from Magistrate Judge Hagai
Brenners decision in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court.
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein refused to order an investigation into Judge Hagai
Brenners conduct in this case (see Attachment XX).
Following that case, a number of other self-immolations and suicides were reported by
individuals, who felt abused by the State and its welfare system. Then media stopped
reporting, claiming that reporting generated copycat cases.
_____________________________________________________________________
212/367 TOC: 1
Figures. Self-immolated social protest activist Moshe Silman and his June 14, 2012 suicide
letter. It opens: The State of Israel robbed me. It left me penniless. Judge Hagai Brenner
and the Tel-Aviv District Court denied my access to justice, perverted court process with
impunity.
______
In 2017 David Bukovza self-immolation in front of the Supreme Court

The case was hushed by media for almost a week. It was related to a long standing bitter
divorce dispute, and prior to self-immolation Bukovza murdered one person and tried to
murder his divorced wife.
Earlier in 2016, an unprecedented protest was conducted in front of the Supreme Court by
fathers, who claim routine discrimination in the Family Courts, part of it established by law.
[ccviii]
_____________________________________________________________________
213/367 TOC: 1
a) Protesters against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit
Figure. Meni Naftali, former chief caretaker of the PM's residence, and one of the leaders
of the ongoing protest against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit over the past half year,
has repeatedly been the target of violence by police. [ccix]
______
(i) Background
In winter 2016, routine Saturday night protest started in front of the residence of Attorney
General Avichai Mandelblit. The protest was initiated by Meni Naftali, former chief
caretaker of the PMs residence. Naftali was fired from his job, and later sued the PMs
Office, for abusive treatment by the PMs wife, Sara Netanyahu. Naftali won the lawsuit,
which documented aberrant conduct by Ms Netanyahu, alcoholism, and various other
bizarre conduct. [ccx]
In parallel, Naftali filed various complaints, alleging corruption in management of the PMs
residence and his private properties. The protest was initiated in response to failure of the
Attorney General to address such complaints. However, later the protest became more
comprehensive, addressing the failure of the Attorney General to adequately address a long
list of government corruption cases.
The protests have been peaceful, non-violent. However, the protesters have been repeatedly
the target of police violence, particularly Meni Naftali.
Police took actions, which were arbitrary and capricious, in trying to repress the protest, so
far unsuccessfully. [ccxi] On the contrary, in response to police repression, the protest only
gained momentum.
Case Study: State of Israel v Klas et al (63343-01-17) protesters detentions in the

Petah-Tikva Magistrate Court
Detained protesters were routinely brought to the Petah-Tikva Magistrate Court, and
conduct of the judges there in the cases of such protesters further documented perversion of
court process and court records.
_____________________________________________________________________
214/367 TOC: 1
a)
b)
Figure. State of Israel v Klas et al (63343-01-17) detentions in the Petah-Tikva
Magistrate Court, Net-HaMishpat records (downloaded June 20, 2017): a) Decisions
Docket - No details are found; b) Judgments Docket - No details are found.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
215/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Klas et al (63343-01-17) detentions in the Petah-Tikva
Magistrate Court: January 29, 2017 Protocol, stating that the detainees were present in
court, and were represented by Attorney Daniel Hacklay. In fact, three of the six detainees
were held outside the courtroom, and Attorney Hacklay, who purportedly admitted
violations of the law on their behalf was appearing with neither their knowledge nor their
consent. Regardless of repeat requests, Judge Shahevet Kamir-Wiess refused to correct the
protocol. She claimed that the detainees were kept out of the hearing for lack of space
and that Attorney Hacklay represented to her that he was Counsel for the detainees (but
there is no such statement in the Protocol). The Protocol and decision (imposing restraining
orders and still bail) are not accessible in public records of the Court in Net-HaMishpat, and
Judge Kamir-Wiess denied access to inspect here electronic signature data on such Protocol
and Decision. She claimed that the Suspect received a printout of the record. However,
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols
_____________________________________________________________________
216/367 TOC: 1
scandal clarifies that there is no way to distinguish in printouts from Net-HaMishpat
between drafts and valid, lawfully signed decision records.
_____
In cases, such as State of Israel v Klas et al (63343-01-17), shown above, there is no way
for the detainees in the case to ascertain, whether judicial conduct, which appeared lawless
on its face, was founded in real court records, or merely drafts, which the Detainees were
fooled to accept as authoritative. [ccxii, ccxiii, ccxiv, ccxv, ccxvi] Ombudsman of the Judiciary
refused to rule on complaint, pertaining to such conduct by judges of the Petah-Tikvah
judges.
In other cases, Petah-Tikvah Magistrate Court judges held closed-doors hearing in the cases
of detainees from the Saturday night demonstrations. [ccxvii]
[see also - Perversion of complaint regarding e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat 126]
(i) Police conduct in the demonstrations against Attorney General

Some of examples of unreasonable conduct by police included the detention (and later court
action) against individuals, who stood silently in a Petah-Tikva square, holding protest
signs, and detention (and later court action) against an elderly woman, who was caught by
police keeping a megaphone (with no batteries) in her bag near the Petah-Tikva police
station.
The protests against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and government corruption in
Petah-Tikva exposed other unlawful practices by police.
In a radio interview, Israel Police spokesman announced that no protest of any kind
would be permitted any longer anywhere in the city of Petah-Tikvah. The announcement
led to intervention by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and it was retracted.
Later, the Association received a fax from Israel Police national legal counsel, Attorney
Shaul Gordon, which stated that Commander of the Central District has decided not
make it possible to protest in Goren Square any longer. However, Commander Moti
Cohen never responded on direct request to confirm such statement, and the protest in
Goren Square took place as usual. In retrospect, Attorney Shaul Gordons letter should
be deemed deceit.
Conduct of police and the courts against peaceful, mostly older protester in Petah Tikva later
raised concerns, by both media and Mks, of a general attempt to suppress protest rights.
[ccxviii, ccxix] Several MKs started appearing in the Saturday night protests, expressing their
support of protest rights. However, Legal Counsel of the Knesset issued a baseless letter,
stating that the protest in Goren Square in Petah Tikvah was illegal, and that MKs should
not appear there...
_____________________________________________________________________
217/367 TOC: 1
b) Protesters against the family courts, welfare, kidnapping kids - Shem-Tov and Leybel
Figure. Lori Shem-Tov and Moti Leybel, leaders of protest against corruption of the
Family Courts and social workers, for what they term kidnapping of kids from their
biological parents. They have been detained for months. Leybel was held first in a black-
hole facility for 10 days, in an attempt to extract confession. Legal process in their cases
fails to meet any lawful standards.
_____
In late February 2017, in what appeared as a media campaign, orchestrated by police, media
reported the detention of an Internet Terror Group, which engaged in extortion of public
service employees. In fact, the key detainees in the case were anti-court corruption activists
Lori Shem-Tov and Moti Leybel.
The case eventually produced unusual documentation of abuse of anti court corruption
activists by the justice system:
In detention extension hearings, police again tried to use the Internet Terror
claims. Defense counsel rapidly refuted any such claim, and later police entirely
stopped using such baseless terminology.
In detention extension hearings, police again tried to use claims of extortion,
which had been prominently published by media, but that too turned out to be
baseless claim, and it was later abandoned.
Detention extension hearings produced unusual documentation of holding Moti
Leybel for 10 days in an unlawful detention facility, under conditions that should be
deemed torture, apparently in an effort to extort confession.
The courts refused to release the suspects on bail, an unusual practice when there
was no need for investigation any longer, and there was no real concern of
endangering any person.
The courts continued to hold the suspects in detention, although the prosecution
failed to file an indictment within the 30 days, prescribed by law. The failure to
timely file indictments was inexplicable, since police stated in court that the
suspects had been under covert investigation for over a year prior to their detention.
The prosecution eventually filed indictment in court, but failed to serve it on the
detainees, and yet Judge Beni Sagi noted Arraignment in Net-HaMishpat. Later,
the detainees were served with an unauthentic version of the Indictment, different
from the one which was filed in the court file. Again, Judge Beni Sagi purported to
conduct Arraignment. When the double indictment records were exposed, Judge
Beni Sagi tried to claim from the bench that they were not different from each other,
_____________________________________________________________________
218/367 TOC: 1
but eventually conducted a third Arraignment.
The prosecution failed to provide Defense counsel the evidence against the
Defendants, regardless of repeat demands, within the time prescribed by law.
Regardless of repeat petitions to the Supreme Court, the evidence was not provided
in a timely manner, and the Supreme Court denied repeat requests for their release
on bail.
In a bizarre twist, Legal Counsel for the Administration of Courts was also placed
for 15 days under home detention, on suspicion that he was one of the sources for
the information, which was published online by the Defendants.
Judges repeatedly tried to conduct hearings behind closed doors, with no legal
foundation. Court files were unlawfully sealed.
_____________________________________________________________________
219/367 TOC: 1
a)
b)
_____________________________________________________________________
220/367 TOC: 1
c)
Figures. Two versions of indictment records in State of Israel v Lori Shem-Tov, Moti
Leybel, Zvi Ze (14615-04-17) in the Tel-Aviv District Court double indictment records: a)
First and last page of the 152 page Indictment, which was served on the detainees in jail.
b) First and last page of the 164 page Indictment, which was served on the detainees in
jail. c) Summary Table, which was filed in court, showing the differences between the two
Indictment records. The extreme left column in each page is the one where differences are
noted.
It took three tries and over a month, before Judge Beni Sagi managed to conduct lawful
arraignment in this case. From the bench, regardless of evidence filed with him to the
contrary, Judge Sagi tried to claim that there was no difference between the two Indictment
records...
_____
Key issue in the case was attempts of police and judges to unlawfully conduct closed-doors
hearings in these cases. In part it appeared to be motivated by the patent violations of the
detainees rights in court process and the investigations. In one unprecedented case, the
public refused to leave the courtroom, and the judge ended up conducting an open court
hearing instead. There was not lawful foundation for that hearing being held in closed doors
to begin with, and neither the Prosecution nor the Defense asked for it. [ ccxx]
The initial detention of Moti Leybel also produced unique documentation of the
maintenance of an unlawful confinement facility in the heart of Tel-Aviv in the basement
of the Tel-Aviv District new headquarters (Salame). Conditions in the facility should be
deemed torture, which is intended to extort confessions:
Leybel was held there for ten days in solitary confinement, no time out of the cell, except
_____________________________________________________________________
221/367 TOC: 1
for interrogations (up to 10 hours a day), no access to counsel. Leybel complained that he
could not sleep, since his cell was next to a firing range and light was on in his cell 24/7.
Trucks were heard driving over head. [ccxxi]
Police referred to the facility in Court as Yiftah Detention Center, and claimed that people
could be held there with permission of a senior police officer, for separation purposes.
Police failed to lawfully respond on a FOIA request pertaining to the legal basis for the
establishment of such facility, other facilities of the kind that may exist, and the procedures
for their operations.
With their detention, police stated in court that the activists had been under cover
investigation for over a year, and investigations were also conducted abroad. It had been
known before the detentions, that the Israel Police asked assistance of US Department of
Homeland Security in obtaining Information Preservation Instructions on US-based service
providers. The lawfulness of conduct of the Israeli and US authorities in this matter remains
dubious. [ccxxii]
Unlawful detention facility in the heart of Tel-Aviv a black hole prison
Figure. Tel-Aviv Police headquarters on Salame Street. In Moti Leybels court file it
emerged that police established an unlawful detention facility in its basement. Lebel was
held there for 10 days, under conditions that should be deemed torture. Police refused to
duly answer on FOIA request, pertaining to the legal foundation for the establishment of
such facility, the existence of additional facilities of this kind, and the legal foundation for
procedures for their operation. It appears that the facility is employed in effort to extort
confessions. [see also under section Police]
____
_____________________________________________________________________
222/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
223/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Moti Leybel (59411-02-17) - detention in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court response by police on Leybels complaint of his unlawful detention conditions. The
unsigned record was accepted by the Court as response by police. The record is an email
message from Galil Amasha, Intelligence Officer, Jaffa Police. The record says:
Good morning,
Regarding claims by Suspect Mordechai Leybel, who stays [sic jz] in Yiftah
Detention Center for the benefit [sic -jz] of investigation (pursuant to request
by the Detaining Unit, for separation purposes) for 10 days.
1. The suspect was held in a detention cell with surveillance cameras. In
Yiftah Detention Center detainees are not held overnight, except for unusual
cases, with permission by a senior police officer, with emergency light in the
cell
2. Regarding food service pursuant to police procedures, a detainee, who is
held for over 24 hours, is entitled to a hot lunch.
3. Regarding fresh air [sic jz] according to procedures, the detainee is
entitled to a daily walk in the yard starting on the 8th day for one hour, and so
it was done.
4. Regarding the Detainees complaint of noise from a firing range in the
District Building, it should be noted that the firing range operating hours are
from 8:00 to 17:00 (totally muffled noise during daytime).
____
Earlier retaliation by the justice system against Shem-Tov and Leybel

Already earlier, the group was targeted for abuse by the justice system, including attempts to
suppress online blogging, with assistance Google and US DHS/ICE, spying, unreasonable
detentions, unlawful search and seizure of computers, and draconian, invalid, deceitful
judgments.
In June 2016, DHS/ICE refuses to respond on inquiry regarding an unusual "Information
Preservation" instruction, issued to Wordpress and targeting Israeli anti court corruption
activist Lori Shem-Tov and others. Shem-Tov is best known for her blogs and direct action,
protesting corruption of the family courts in general. Particularly, protest is against the
practices of welfare agencies and the courts in taking children from their biological parents
and giving them to surrogates or adoption. Shem-Tov and other social protest activists have
often been targeted for retaliation by Israeli police and judges through unreasonable
detentions, unlawful search and seizure procedures, and fraudulent court processes.
_____________________________________________________________________
224/367 TOC: 1
Unusual DHS actions
Figure. Information Preservation letter, issued by DHS to Wordpress, pertaining to blogs,

mostly by Israeli anti-corruption activist Lori Shem Tov.
_________
The January 15, 2016 Information Preservation instruction was issued to

WordPress/Automatic, Inc by J. Robert Klotz, Special Agent, Homeland Security
Investigations, Cyber Crimes Center (C3). It requires that Wordpress preserve any and all
information associated accounts (32 blogs were listed), including all subscriber
information, account contents (images, emails, chat logs, account setting, and contacts,
etc . The instruction was addressed to Automatic Inc General Counsel Paul Sieminski, a
well-known internet Free Speech advocate. Attorney Sieminski did not respond on request
for comments either.
_____________________________________________________________________
225/367 TOC: 1
The inquiry on DHS asked for any comments by DHS regarding the Information
Preservation instruction, in particular: Does it fall at all within the mission of the US ICE
unit, since it appears that the involved blogs deal with social-political matters in Israel?
DHS was prompt in answering, within less than 30 minutes, asking whether the inquiry was
for publication. It then refused to comment without first obtaining the name of the intended
publication outlet and a letter of intent to publish by your editor...
Spokeswoman of the Israeli Administration of Courts, the most likely mover in this case,
failed to respond at all on inquiries, asking: Was the action initiated by the Israeli
Administration of Courts? What was the foundation in Israeli law for such action?
The DHS action was unusual, since most of the blogs which were subject of this DHS
instruction were blogs maintained by Israeli citizens in Israel, and the blogs dealt with
corruption of the Israeli courts, particularly - the family courts. The primary target appeared
to be Lori Shem-Tov, a well known activist against family court corruption. However, a
couple of the targeted blogs posted only media reports on court related matters, and one of
the blogs, not owned by Lori, was simply a list of free online software and Hebrew
explanation of its uses. One possible explanation for the DHS action was that US agencies
also treated social-political protest in the US under Counter-terrorism... (see below)
The case was not unique at all. Requests by the Israeli Administration of Courts to Google
to remove web pages, or delete them from search engine results had been repeatedly
reported by Israeli media. In an even more bizarre conduct, the Israeli courts tried to
prevent Google from including Israeli court rulings in Google search engine results,
although the law in Israel, similar to the US is, that any person is permitted to inspect
judicial records, which are not lawfully sealed. [ccxxiii]
Unreasonable detentions
Figure. Lori Shem Tov, Moshe HaLevi, Moti Leybel Israeli anti-court corruption activists
are targeted for unlawful retaliation by police and the courts.
______
Lori Shem-Tov has been targeted by the Israeli courts for several years. She has been
detained a number of times, and at least once an unreasonable detention inside a court
building (on false suspicion of unlawful recording of court proceeding) involved police
brutality. The most recent instance, a couple of weeks ago, appeared intended to retaliate
against her for blogging on a case, involving abduction of a minor by a father, part of a
family court dispute. Court transcript of the detention extension proceeding shows the
unreasonable conduct by police and the judge. Lori's counsel made it clear that Lori did not
know the father, that Lori objected to the father's conduct, and that Lori had no part in it.
Lori's counsel argued that Police had nothing to investigate Lori about, and that if police
wanted to catch the father, the most logical course of action was to leave Lori free, and track
_____________________________________________________________________
226/367 TOC: 1
the father, while he called Lori to provide her information for her blog. Nevertheless, Lori's
detention was extended. In contrast, Israeli media, often fed by police and the courts,
reported that Lori was detained as suspect in collusion with the father's conduct. [ ccxxiv]
Unlawful search and seizure warrants pertaining to activists' computers

Lori is best known for her blogs and direct action e.g., demonstrations in front of homes,
where children, taken from their biological parents are housed prior to assignment to
surrogates or adoptive parents.
In June 2014, two search warrant were issued against Lori, targeting her computers.
Figures. June 13, 2014 Judge Danna Amir sham/simulated search warrant against Lori
Shem Tov. The search warrant form was left incomplete: It has no court file number, and
Judge Amir never marked, whether she granted or denied the police request for the search
warrant... Her professional career includes service as a senior staff member in the Tax
Authority Legal Counsel office, during the peak years of the Tax Authority corruption
scandal. Former Attorney General, current Supreme Court Justice Menahem Mazuz,
described the scandal as the closest to organized crime in high government offices...
_______
_____________________________________________________________________
227/367 TOC: 1
Figures. June 18, 2014 Judge Shmuel Melamed sham/simulated search warrant against
Lori Shem Tov. Also this search warrant form was left incomplete: It has no court file
number, and the Judge never marked, whether she granted or denied the police request for a
search warrant... Conduct of Judge Melamed was identical to that of Judge Amir. One
should notice Melamde's professional career: He served in a senior position in the Israel
Police Prosecution. In Israel, police prosecutes an anomaly in itself. Police Prosecution is
a key agency in retaliation against social protest activists.
______
In response to Lori's complaint, pertaining to the use of invalid, sham search warrant, which
was filed with Ombudsman of the Judiciary, Judge Amir claimed that the omission of court
file number was an atypical error, or oversight. Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision
(329/14) regarding Judge Amir's perverted search warrant found Lori's complaint
justified. [ccxxv] An identical case, involving another search warrant against Lori, issued a
few days later by Judge Shmuel Melamed, shows that Judge Amir's conduct was not an
unusual error, or oversight.
In Judge Melamed's case, Ombudsman of the Judiciary refused to review Lori's complaint,
calling it "cantankerous". The reason: Lori described the episode in her blog, and labeled the
judge negligent.[ccxxvi] The Ombudsman's decision in Judge Melamed's case only
highlights the role of Ombudsman of the Judiciary as a glorified fig leaf. His decisions,
whether a complaint a judge is justified, or unjustified have little, if any consequence.
_____________________________________________________________________
228/367 TOC: 1
a. b.
Figures. Moshe HaLevi v State of Israel (Israel Police, Administration of Courts, and State
Prosecution)(13113-11-08) in the Haifa Small Claims Court a. March 31, 2009 Public
Service Employee's Certificate (comparable to an affidavit), file by the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court Criminal Division Senior Coordinator Rachel Shiran. Ms Shiran's Certificate
documents that search warrant requests are conducted with no court files at all, and are not
entered in the Court's case management system. b. Sample of a sham/simulated index, used
by police and the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court for search warrant requests, which was filed as
evidence with Ms Shiran's Certificate. It is a page page from a sloppy, hand-written, barely
legible, invalid notebook.
_______
Moshe HaLevi, another activist, is best known for his computer pranks, ridiculing the
fraudulent IT system of the Israeli courts and incompetent conduct of the offices of the
clerks. For example, in a recent prank, he electronically filed a criminal indictment against
himself. [ccxxvii] Another recent prank (not by HaLevi), which went viral a man filed a
petition for a restraining order against god. [ccxxviii]
In what appears as retaliatory actions, police seized and searched Moshe's computers. Also
in this case, the search warrant records were invalid.
Consequently, HaLevi sued in the Haifa Small Claims Court, challenging the lawfulness of
the search warrant issued against him. The State's response provides unique documentation
of the fraudulent practices of police and the courts: Public Service Employee's Certificate,
filed by the State with its response, documented in detail the practice of issuing
sham/simulated warrants - a court, where search and seizure warrant requests are routinely
processed with no court files, no index of cases, and no valid warrant records. Obviously, a
_____________________________________________________________________
229/367 TOC: 1
court system, where judges routinely conduct such proceedings on search warrant requests
by police, should be deemed a fraudulent operation under the guise of the rule of law.
Sham/simulated, fraudulent draconian civil judgment against Lori Shem Tov and
Moti Leybel by Magistrate Avi Cohen.
Figures. Hava Klein v Lori Shem Tov and Moti Leybel (621-02-16) in the Tel-Aviv
Magistrate Court sham/simulated, draconian, NIS 800,000, April 17, 2016 "Post-it
Judgment" record, issued by Tel-Aviv Magistrate Avi Cohen against Lori Shem Tov and
Moti Leybel. As requested, judgment is herein rendered against Defendants 1+2, according
to the content of the attached record. The "Post-it Judgment" is unsigned, was never duly
served, and appears neither in the Court's docket nor in the Judgment Index. [ccxxix]
_______
In yet another serious episode of retaliation by the courts through fraud, Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Avi Cohen purported to enter an April 17, 2016 judgment in the sum of NIS 800,000 against
Lori Shem Tov and her colleague Moti Leybel in favor of Attorney Hava Kein. Judgment of
such sum could financially ruin the Defendants.
However, the draconian judgment was issued as an unsigned "Post-it Judgment" - standard
fraud in Net-HaMishpat - IT system of the Israeli courts. Moreover, the judgment exceeded
over 10-fold the Magistrate's judicial authority (NIS 75,000). In later court filing, Lori also
claimed that the complaint had never been served on her, and that she had never been given
the opportunity to file a response. She first heard of the case, when the draconian judgment
was reported by gleeful media. [ccxxx]
Lori and Moti appeared in pro-se, unrepresented, and perhaps Magistrate Cohen thought
that they would fall for the fraud and accept the judgment's authority. The judgment has
since been voided.
Fake/simulated court records are common in all Israeli courts today, including some of the
highest public policy cases, pertaining to government corruption... [ccxxxi]
Shem Tov and Leybel are among many, who protest the unreasonable practices of Israeli
welfare agencies and the family courts. In a 2013 Knesset (parliament) hearing, Judge (ret)
Hanna Ben-Ami appeared and stated that she was the only judge hearing such cases in
Jerusalem for several years. She described a system, where she had to rely on welfare
workers' statements, which were often inaccurate or false. In one extreme case, which she
described, welfare workers asked to conduct the court hearing regarding the children in the
mother's absence, claiming that she was violent. Ben-Ami explained that she resolved the
problem by having the mother participate by video conference from another room. It turned
out that the mother was not only non- violent, but feeble... Moreover, when the welfare
_____________________________________________________________________
230/367 TOC: 1
workers realized that Ben-Ami was not siding with them, they raised the argument that if
the children wouldn't be taken from the mother, the northern district adoption project
would collapse. [ccxxxii] Ben-Ami's statement was repeatedly interrupted, and never
managed to completed it...
Judges, whistle-blowers, social protest, and government corruption
Fraud by judges is a common problem in recent years in trials against social protest
activists. [ccxxxiii] Some of the other cases where fraud by judges has been recorded are
trials, related to the notorious government corruption. [ccxxxiv]
In fact, the judiciary should be considered one of the core groups in government corruption,
and one of the key power groups in what can be considered unannounced regime change in
Israel. [ccxxxv]
c) Protest against corruption in the Family Courts Joelle Ben-Simon
Figure. Joelle Ben-Simons sit-in in front of the office of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked in
protest of corruption of the Family Courts led to her forced psychiatric confinement,
executed by police and coordinated by Attorney Yael Kutik of the Ministry of Justice.
[ccxxxvi,ccxxxvii ]
______
In early August 2016 -- compulsory psychiatric hospitalization of Joelle Ben Simon came to
an end with her release from Eitanim hospital in Jerusalem. Only then were the underlying
records discovered through the efforts of activists and several attorneys, who came to her
assistance.
Ben Simon protested for four days in front of the office of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked
against family court corruption. She demanded to speak with the Minister.
Finally, Minister Shaked agreed to speak with her for a few minutes.
Soon after, Ben Simon was seized by police and placed in compulsory psychiatric
hospitalization.
The law in Israel is clear, involuntary admission is permitted only if the person poses
immediate, material danger to self or others. The records show how the law was abused.
_____________________________________________________________________
231/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Social Worker Hadas Weiss July 27, 2016 fax. For additional details or Ms Yael
Kutik of the Ministry of Justice: 050-62116207. Senior Justice Ministry officer
coordinated Joelle Ben-Simons psychiatric hospitalization.
_______
July 27, 2016 fax by Social Worker Hadas Weiss, the Gush Etzion regional council
Social Worker Hadas Weisss fax to the Jerusalem District Psychiatrist stated that Weiss had
been contacted by "Ms Yael Kutik", and urged action by the District Psychiatrist regarding
Ben Simon.
Since there was no claim of violence, the danger was fabricated by the fact that the Ministry
of Justice is located in East Jerusalem, and therefore -- security risk for Ben Simon to stay
there. However, the Ministry of Justice complex was and is under high level security 24/7
_____________________________________________________________________
232/367 TOC: 1
"Ms Yael Kutik" turned out to be Attorney Yael Kutik (formerly senior officer of the
Ministry of Justice, her exact current position remains unknown). How she came to be the
coordinator of Ben Simon's abuse remains unclear...
Figure. Jerusalem District Psychiatrist Dr Jacob Chernas July 28, 2016 Order. The note in
hand-writing: Should be coordinated with Attorney Yael 050-6216207.
_______
July 28, 2016 Order by Jerusalem District Psychiatrist Dr Jacob Chernas
Dr Jacob Chernass order compelled Ben Simon's admission to a psychiatric hospital in

Jerusalem for examination, falsely stating as justification that "she may pose danger to
herself or others".
_____________________________________________________________________
233/367 TOC: 1
A hand-written note on the order says: "To be coordinated with Attorney Yael, 050-621-
6207".
One must wonder for what reason a Ministry of Justice senior officer, who was no personal
acquaintance of Ms Ben Simon, had to be involved in her psychiatric examination
Joelle realized that she was wanted, and tried to hide, but was seized by police and forced to
undergo psychiatric examination in the psychiatric hospital.
Figure. Dr Elizabeta Jovan Weltzer request for a compulsory hospitalization order

_______
July 28, 2016, 20:57, Dr Elizabeta Jovan Weltzer, Psychiatrist at Eitanim hospital -
Request for Compulsory Hospitalization Order
The request for compulsory hospitalization order, issued on the same evening, correctly
stated Ben Simon's grievances regarding judicial corruption, and it was obvious about the
_____________________________________________________________________
234/367 TOC: 1
fact that Ben Simon's protest in front of the Justice Ministry was a key issue in the case. The
request correctly stated that Ben Siome had no previous psychiatric treatment or
hospitalization, negated any violent tendencies, but found erratic judgment and provided the
diagnosis of "psychosis".
Regardless, Dr Jovan Wetzler asked for compulsory hospitalization order, while stating that
the patient was informed of her right to appeal the decision.
Figure. Dr Agnes Vash, Jerusalem Deputy District Psychiatrist, Order for compulsory
hospitalization
_______
August 4, 2016 (date unclear), Dr Agnes Vash, Jerusalem Deputy District Psychiatrist
- order for compulsory hospitalization
_____________________________________________________________________
235/367 TOC: 1
Dr Agnes Vashs order falsely stated "danger of violence".
It remains unclear under what legal foundation Ben Simon was held from July 28, 2016 to
August 4, 2016.
Figure. Joelle Ben Simon under compulsory hospitalization in Eitanim Hospital, Jerusalem
_______
Friday, August 5, 2016 - social protest activists visit Ben Simon.
Following activists visit in Eitanim hospital, video was widely published on social
networks, where Ben Simon, in hospital garb, wished Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked a
happy weekend, and "thanked" her for causing her compulsory psychiatric hospitalization.
The key activists for Joell Ben-Simon release, Lori Shem-Tov and Moti Leybel, are now
detained for months.
[see also Protesters against the family courts, social workers, and kidnapping of kids 218]
https://youtu.be/N7WsUCiv0Fo
Activists Lori Shem-Tov and Moti Leybel, assisted by several attorneys, started efforts to
discover the records and release Ben Simon. They widely published denunciation of Minster
of Justice Ayelet Shaked for her conduct in this case, as well as hidden camera videos of
medical staff of the hospital making various false statements regarding the case.
https://www.facebook.com/lori.shemtov/videos/1311053652239867/
The activists also reported that the medical staff refused to produce any records of the
compulsory hospitalization, and that medical staff claimed that Ben Simon "waived" her
right to appeal the decision.
Such claim was ludicrous, given that the records later showed that Ben Simon had been
diagnosed "psychotic" and of "erratic judgement" - therefore, legally incompetent.
Saturday night, August 6, 2016 - Ministry of Justice Press Release
By Saturday night, given the wide circulation of reports on social networks of Ben Simons
case (no word on mainstream media), Ministry of Justice Spokesman issued a press release,
denying any involvement by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked in the case, and threatening
those, who liable the Justice Minister.
_____________________________________________________________________
236/367 TOC: 1
Tuesday, August 08, 2016 - medical committee meeting
The meeting was held under pressure by activists. Several attorneys volunteered to appear
on behalf of Ben Simon, and activists appeared as character witnesses.
Attorney Inbal Bar-On later stated in an interview that she considered conduct of the
medical staff during the meeting unreasonable, and that efforts were made to continue the
compulsory hospitalization.
However, due to the coordinated action of the support group, Ben Simon was released on
the same day.
Figure. Invalid release certificate

_______
Tuesday, August 08, 2016 - Ben Simon's release
_____________________________________________________________________
237/367 TOC: 1
An invalid release certificate was issued, with no full name or stamp of the staff member,
under whose authority the release was certified.
Real mental health patients are criminalized before compulsory hospitalization
The entire episode is striking in comparison with the routine treatment of real mental health
patients. Last year, non-profit association of psychiatric patients' families issued a position
paper, calling for reform of compulsory hospitalization procedures.
The families claimed that they had no access to obtain compulsory hospitalization orders
from the district psychiatrists in cases of violent episodes by previously diagnosed,
previously hospitalized family members.
The families claimed that the district psychiatrists routinely referred them to police,
demanding that they first file criminal complaints, leading to detention of their family
members. Psychiatric examination by order of the district psychiatrists were routinely
conducted in detention centers. The families objected to such practices, which led to
criminalization of mental health patients.
A culture of repression by public service employees
The entire Ben Simon episode is also striking, since its shows a series of professionals, who
are all public service employees -- an attorney, who is a senior officer of the Ministry of
Justice, a social worker, and at least three psychiatrists - operating expediently and in
concert to deprive a protester of her freedom at the whim of the Justice Minister.
The case also documents the intolerance of protest against corruption of the courts.
What is Attorney Yael Kutiks true position in the Ministry of Justice?
In the aftermath of Joelle Ben-Simons incident, effort was made to discover the true nature
of Attorney Yael Kutiks current position in the Ministry of Justice. There was reason to
suspect that she was in liaison with the Secret Service. In previous years, her name
appeared in various public record as Deputy Legal Counsel of the Minsitry of Justice. There
was even an Haaretz editorial, pertaining to her unreasonable conduct in such capacity.
However, in recent years her name disappeared from public records.
FOIA request, pertaining to current appointment record of Attorney Yael Kutik was filed
with the Ministry of Justice.
_____________________________________________________________________
238/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Misleading FOIA response (183-16) by Ministry of Justice, pertaining to
documentation of Attorney Yael Kutiks current appointment. The letter is undated, fails to
show the FOIA resquest number, and is unsigned. The letter in part says: your request
is denied, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (1988). Article 8(3)
says: 8. A public agency is permitted to deny a request for information in one of the
following cases: (3) After undertaking reasonable measures, it turned out that the
information cannot be located, or is inexistent.
_____
Underlying conduct of the Jerusalem Family Court
In September 2016, following Joelle Ben-Simons release, efforts were made to document
her claims regarding conduct of the Jerusalem Family Court.
Figure. Some of the judges, who are involved in Joelle Ben-Simons case: Judge Menahem
Hacohen, Judge Emeritus Nili Maymon, and Judge Shlomo Elbaz - Jerusalem Family Court.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
239/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Attorney Yael Kutik (Ministry of Justice) coordinated Joelles forced psychiatric
hospitalization; Ayelet Shake - Minister of Justice, and Amy Palmer - Director General of
the Ministry of Justice, are both directly involved now in Joelle Ben Simons case as well;
Attorney Inbal Weil (senior staff member, Jerusalem and Southern Region, Legal Aid
Bureau, Ministry of Justice) falsely appeared on behalf of Joelle in Court, without Joelle's
knowledge, without Joelle's consent, with no certificate of counsel.
____
Case Study: Chenero v Chenero (4835-06-13) child custody - in the Jerusalem Family
Court
Once Joelle Ben-Simon was released from compulsory psychiatric hospitalization, she
received purporsed service of the July 26, 2016 Judge Menahem Hacohen (of whom she had
never heard before) Decision from the Jerusalem Family Court.
_____________________________________________________________________
240/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Chenero v Chenero (4835-06-13) child custody - in the Jerusalem Family Court:
Sham/simulated/"draft" Judge Menahem Hacohen July 26, 2016 Decision record -
"Attorney Inbal Weil of the Legal Assistance Bureau appeared before me... all my efforts to
locate the father's request, or the Hon Judge Elbaz Decision failed..."
Therecord,whichisaprintoutofanelectronicrecordfromNetHaMishpatcase
managementsystemoftheCourtbearsthediagonalwatermark,Draft,Judge
MenachemHaCohenspersonalstamp(twice,onceupsidedown)andwethand
signature,aswellascertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,handsignedbyan
unknownpersonofunknownauthority,andSealoftheCourt.
_____
During a visit to Office of the Clerk, staff member Esti again printed out the July 26, 2016
Decision record and again certified it, "True Copy of the Original".
However, then senior staff member Maya demanded the record back from Joelle and threw
it in the trash. Maya explained to Esti that the record was merely a "draft", which must not
be printed, must not be certified, and must not be provided to parties in the case. However,
the very same record had been previously served on Joelle by the Court
Indeed, Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge Varda
Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal explicitly states that records, which bear the water-
_____________________________________________________________________
241/367 TOC: 1
mark Draft are not electronically signed, are merely Drafts, must not be served and
must not be provided to parties by Office of the Clerk. [ccxxxviii]
The Decision record is also deceitful in its contents. It referred to a hearing, where
another Ministry of Justice officer, Attorney Inbal Weil of the Legal Aid Bureau, had
unlawfully appeared and filed a motion and on behalf of Joelle in court without Jolles
knowledge or consent. Joelle had never met Weil. Judge Hacohen purportedly states in the
Decision that he made serious efforts, but could not find certain records in Joelles court
file.
The Decision pertains to the reason that led to Joelle Ben-Simons sit-in in front of the
Justice Ministers office: Her minor son was prohibited from leaving the country under
order of the Court. However, her former husband entered a motion to take her son out of
Israel, and Joelle Ben-Simon was afraid that she would never see him again. The deceitful
Decision by Judge Menahem HaCohen states that he could not find the related records.
However, during the visit to the Office of the Clerk the records were readily discovered...
Joelle also claimed that in the course of divorce process, she was abused by the courts,
robbed of her real-estate by collusion of attorneys and judges, had unlawfully a restraining
order imposed on her, prohibiting her from seeing her elderly mother.
Figure. Partial list of the 22 court file, pertaining to Joelle Ben Simon in the Jerusalem
Family Court. Israeli law perscribes that all files in the Family Courts, pertaining to the
same, be united. Senior Office of the Clerk staff member Maya refused to print out dockets
or records from these cases, stating they they were Drafts.
_____
During the visit to the Office of the Clerk of the Jerusalem Family Court, attempt was made
by Joelle to exercise her right to inspect her own Jerusalem Family Court files (there is no
public access outside the court to the Courts case management system).
Israeli law in this matter is clear: Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files
(2003), Regulation 3. says:
3. A party in a case is permitted to inspect the court file, in which he is a party,
after completing the Notice of Inspection (Form 1 in the Appendix), unless he
is prohibited by law from inspecting it.
_____________________________________________________________________
242/367 TOC: 1
Joelle duly filed a "Notice of Inspection". However, senior Office of the Clerk staff member
Maya refused to print out the dockets or any of the records in Joelle Ben-Simons Jerusalem
Family Court files, stating they they were merely Drafts.
Sufficient evidence was produced to remove any doubt that the Jerusalem Family Court
engaged in organized crime in Joelles case.
Unlawful opening and closing of court files was also inherent to the criminal complaint
against Judge Esperanza Alon of the Haifa Family Court (the complaint has never been duly
investigated by the Attorney General and the State Prosecution. See also - Failure to hold
judges accountable for Deceit, Breach of Trust 115).
Further efforts were focused on the court file, in which the July 26 Judge Menahem
HaCohen Decision was issued.
First, basic information was requested: Parties and Counsel, Case Calendar, and Certificates
of Counsel. Attorney Inbal Weil was nowhere mentioned. Neither was the purported
hearing, where Attorney Weil purportedly appeared in court
Printout from Net-HaMishpat - Parties and Counsel - shows only one counsel - Attorney
Ephraim Gavish.
_____
Printout from Net-HaMishpat - Certificates of Counsel - shows only one certificate in
this court file - by Attorney Ephraim Gavish.
____
Printout from Net-HaMishpat - Case Calendar - shows no hearing on or about July 26,
_____________________________________________________________________
243/367 TOC: 1
2016 (the hearing purportedly documented in Judge Menahem HaCohen deceitful
Decision. Only two hearings are listed, both in 2014.
_____
Case Study: Hachmon v Ben-Simon (58676-05-16) restraining order - in the Jerusalem

Court
a)
_____________________________________________________________________
244/367 TOC: 1
b)
Figure. Hachmon v Ben-Simon (58676-05-16) restraining order - in the Jerusalem Court:
Printout from Net-HaMishpat, which was provided during inspection by Office of the Clerk
Esti, also certified by her, True Copy of the Original, before senior Office of the Clerk
Maya ordered her not to print out or provide any records from Ben-Simon court files, since
they were merely Drafts. The record fails to notate correct court file number, fails to
include true complete names of the parties appearing before the Court.
_____
Another perverted court record was discovered during the September 2016 inspection,
before the inspection was stopped by senior Office of the Clerk staff member Maya, who
stated that the records were merely Drafts. The record is purported Protocol and
Decision in Hachmon v Ben-Simon (58676-05-16) imposing a restraining order against
Ben-Simon, prohiting her from seeing her elderly mother. The record is hand-writing, and
surely is not a valid electronic record in Net-HaMishpat.
According to Ben-Simon, Judge Emeritus Nilli Maymon, whom Ben-Simon had never seen
before, appeared with no judicial gown, with no court transcriptionist, commenced a new
court file, and started conducting the hearing and noting it in her own hand-writing. Ben-
_____________________________________________________________________
245/367 TOC: 1
Simon immediately realized that she was compelled to participate in a sham/simulated court
process.
The Protocol opens with recording Respondent Joelle Ben-Simon:
I request the Hon Judge to recuse her self on the spot. I want to warn you,
Nilli Maymon, not to fall into the same crimes, which have been perpetrated
by other judges
The Protocol ends with Decision, which says in part:
The Respondent speaks derisively and blatantly against judges, and there it is
impossible to conduct a hearing on the Request itself...
Joelle Ben Simons affair documents the lack of tolerance of social protest against
corruption of the courts and the justice system.
The case also documents the central role of Net-HaMishpat as a tool for perpertrating fraud
and deceit in the courts, and the vague and ambiguous nature of electronic court records,
which are generated by judges in the system. [ccxxxix]
The case also documents denial of a partys right to inspect her own court file.
There is no doubt that true investigation of the Jerusalem Family Courts files, pertaining to
Joelle Ben-Simon would prove that the Jerusalem Family Courts conduct amounts to
organized crime.
The case also raises serious concerns regarding conduct of Minister of Justice Ayelet
Shaked, Director General of the Ministry of Justice Attorney Amy Palmer, and Attorney
Inbal Weil of the Legal Assistance Bureau.
However, the evidence shows that in Israel there is no recourse today against criminality by
judges and attorneys in the State service [See also - Failure to hold judges accountable for
Deceit, Breach of Trust 114, The Legal Profession and Israel Bar Association 159].
d) Protesters against fraud by the banks and Debtors Courts
Figure. Attorney Barak Cohen, prominent leader of the protest against fraud by the banks
and the Debtors Courts, is prosecuted for conspiracy.
_____
Attorney Barak Cohen is a social protest activist against fraud by the banks in collusion with
the Debtors Courts. The group, which he led, engaged in protest against banking
executives.
_____________________________________________________________________
246/367 TOC: 1
On September 09, 2015, it was reported by activists, that their Facebook page was
eliminated first from Google search engine results through a secretive court process. [ ccxl]
Figure. In September 2015, Google removed Coming to the Bankers from search engine
results: In response to a legal request, submitted to Google, we have removed three (3)
results from this page...
_____
In September 2015, the page was also removed from Fabebook. [ccxli]
Media reports indicate that an influential PR agent, Zamir Dahbash, representing among
others, Fabebook, the Bankers Association, and Bank HaPoalim CEO Zion Keinan was
behind these actions. Moreover, the reports provide evidence that Fabebook and the
Bankers Association closely monitored any onlin conduct by Barak Cohens group, before
_____________________________________________________________________
247/367 TOC: 1
completely eliminating it. [ccxlii] Media reports indicate that the same PR agent also tried to
intimidate mainstream media from publishing unfavorable reports regarding his clients.
Various legal actions were initiated against Barak Cohen, both civil and criminal, in effort to
silence him.
Case Study: Keinan v Cohen (35113-06-15) restraining order in the Tel-Aviv

Magistrate Court
In June 2015, Zion Keinan, then Bank HaPoalim CEO, filed a request for a restraining order
against Attorney Barak Cohen, claiming that he feels threatened for his life by him.
The June 23, 2015 late evening hearing was widely covered by media, and the resulting
Restraining Order was widely published and reported.
Figure. Keinan v Cohen (35113-06-15) restraining order in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate

Court: The June 25, 2015 Restraining Order, which prohibits activist Barak Cohen from
any public speech relative to Bank HaPoalim's CEO Zion Keinan, was extensively covered
by media. However, the record bears a diagonal water-mark, Closed Doors, indicating
sealing. For many months public access to the entire court file was denied. Today, the court
file is accessible to the public in Net-HaMishpat, but the June 25, 2015 Decision fails to
appear among court record. [ccxliii]
_______
_____________________________________________________________________
248/367 TOC: 1
The June 25, 2015 Decision issued by Judge Efrat Busani was patently unusual. It
amounted to prior restraint of speech, prohibiting Attorney Barak Cohen from any public
expression, related to Bank HaPoalim CEO Zion Keynan. In Israel, as in some other
nations, prior restraint of speech is prohibited, unless in special cases, related to State
security, for example.
Media reported it as follows: [ccxliv]
Not coming to the bankers: The court redefine the limits of Freedom of
Experssion
The Court not only prohibited Attorney Barak Cohen from physically
harassing Bank HaPoalim CEO Zion Keinan, but also from any harassment on
the internet or in social networks. Legal scholars are divided on whether the
expansive order by the Judge would be upheld upon appeal
It wouldnt be far-reaching to assume that Magistrate Judge Efrat Busanis
decision surprised even Bank HaPoalim CEO Zion Keinan Keinan asked to
prohibit Cohen from harassing him and his family anywhere in any manner
to get near him less than one kilometer
In her decision, rendered on Thursday [June 25, 2015 jz] Busani granted
Bank HaPoalim requests in full However, Busani expanded the prohibitions
on Cohen beyond what Keinan himself requested, and in a precedential
decision also prohibited Cohen from writing and publishing anything
regarding Keinan in writing or on the internet. The Respondent is prohibited
from harassing Keinan and his family, anywhere, in any way, directly or
indirectly, by himself or through other, Busanis Order says, including any
way of publication of any kind and type in writing, in the internet, or in social
media
However, no expansive order, such as rendered by Judge Busani, has ever
been issued in Israel Legal scholars doubt the legality of the order. the
order raises difficulties, both regarding Freedom of Expression and regarding
enforcement, says Attorney Tali Lieblich Judge Busanis decision is far-
reaching and unreasonable, regarding the prohibition to publish opinions and
claims in social networks, says a senior legal scholar. the prohibition on
punishing opinions is out of compliance with Basic Law: Human Dignity and
Liberty, and rulings that permit expression of opinion, as long as it is not
defamatory.
It goes beyond any previous court ruling, says Attorney Pinhas Fishler I
am not familiar with such overarching interpretation of harassment, and I am
not sure that such ruling fits a democratic state. He adds that the remedy,
which was provided by the Court was not requested by Keinan at all, and the
Court is not permitted to provide a remedy, which was not requested by a
party to the case.
Attorney Barak Cohens response was:
A decree can't prohibit an idea, particularly - not an idea, whose time has
come.
However, beyond all the legal arguments against Judge Efrat Busanis June 25, 2015 Order,
it remains unclear, whether it was indeed a lawful, valid and enforceable order of an Israeli
court, or merely a Draft.
_____________________________________________________________________
249/367 TOC: 1
For months after the publication of the decision and its extensive discussion by media,
public access to the entire court file was denied through fake sealing.
Figure. Keinan v Cohen (35113-06-15) restraining order in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate

Court: For months, public access to the entire court file in Net-HaMishpat was denied. A
pop up message appeared: The user is not permitted to view instant court file. (June 27,
2015) Such message does not claim any lawful sealing or publication prohibition, but is
routinely used by Israeli judges for arbitrary and capricious denial of access to court files.
____
Today, the court file is publicly accessible in Net-HaMishpat. However, Judge Efrat
Busanis June 25, 2015 Decision still fails to appear in the Decisions Docket or the
Judgments Docket. There is no way to ascertain that it ever was a true, valid and
enforceable court record. Most likely it was merely a Draft.
a)
b)
_____________________________________________________________________
250/367 TOC: 1
Figures: Keinan v Cohen (35113-06-15) restraining order in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court: Public records in Net-HaMishpat (June 21, 2017) public access to the court file was
restored. However, there is no record of the June 25, 2015 Judge Efrat Busani Decision.
a) Decisions Docket shows only one entry - August 03, 2015 Decision from Protocol,
Judge Tal Levy-Michaeli. b) Judgments Docket shows No details found.
____
The case again shows the vague and ambiguous nature of court records in Israel today,
following the implementation of Net-HaMishpat system in the courts, even in matters that
are considered by legal scholars constitutional, pertaining to Human Dignity and
Liberty.
Case Study: Cohen v Keinan (15942-09-15) appeal of restraining order - in the

Tel-Aviv District Court
a)
b)
c)
_____________________________________________________________________
251/367 TOC: 1
Figures. Cohen v Keinan (15942-09-15) appeal of restraining order - in the Tel-Aviv
District Court: Public records in Net-HaMishpat (June 21, 2017) a) General Details -
Sealing Open to the Public; Status closed; Reason of Closing -
Judgment/Decision; b) Decisions Docket - No details found; c) Judgments Docket -
No details found.
_____
Appeal was indeed apparently filed in September 2015 from Judge Busanis June 25, 2015
Restraining Order. In a case that was described by legal scholars as an important precedent,
redefining the limits of Freedom of Expression and a Constitutional matter, there is no
way to know the disposition of the matter from public court records.
Keinan v Cohen (11466-01-16) restraining order - in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court

Six months later, on February 4, 2016, Judge Efrat Busani heard Bank HaPoalim CEO Zion
Keinans request to extend the dubious June 25, 2015 restraining order.
In open court, Barak Cohen explained that he heard of the hearing by chance, during a visit
to the Office of the Clerk that morning. No notice was provided to him of the hearing. It
also became clear that the hearing was specifically scheduled to meet Keinans schedule,
who returned to Israel the night before.
In open court, Keinans Counsel accused Barak Cohen of informing the public of the
existence of the hearing. Apparently the intention was to have it conducted without any
public knowledge.
In open court, again the question of lawless Closed Doors designation on court records in
this case came up. From the bench, Judge Efrat Busani stated the obvious - that the hearing
was in fact conducted in open doors, and that the new court file was not lawfully sealed.
However, she claimed that she had no knowledge how to execute the removal of Closed
Doors designation from the new court file.
Based on similar incidents in other court files in the same court Tel-Aviv Magistrate
Court, it is patently clear that the adding or removal of Closed Doors designation on court
records is easily executed by court transcriptionists. Judge Efrat Busani in the new court
file should be deemed deceitful, as it was in the old court file in the same matter.
The restraining order was extended for another six months period.
Figure. Keinan v Cohen (11466-01-16) extension of restraining order in the Tel-Aviv

Magistrate Court: On February 4, 2016 in open court Judge Busani stated on February 4,
2016 that that the hearing was in fact conducted in open doors, and that the new court file
was not lawfully sealed. However, she claimed that she had no knowledge how to execute
the removal of Closed Doors designation from the new court file For months, public
_____________________________________________________________________
252/367 TOC: 1
access to the entire court file in Net-HaMishpat was denied. A pop up message appeared:
The user is not permitted to view instant court file. (March 21, 2016) Such message does
not claim any lawful sealing or publicagtion prohibtion, but is routinely used by Israeli
judges for arbitrary and capricious denial of access to court files.
____

Magistrate Court: The February 4, 2016 Decision in the Protocol states in paragraph 8,
The Protocol and Decision are Open to the Public (there is also no judicial decision in the
file that the file is lawfully sealed), but the record itself is water-marked Closed Doors and
public access to the entire court file in Net-HaMishpat was denied...
____

Magistrate Court: Public access to the entire court file in Net-HaMishpat continues to be
unlawfully denied . A pop up message appeared: The user is not permitted to view instant
court file. (June 21, 2017)
______
_____________________________________________________________________
253/367 TOC: 1
Magistrate Court: Decisions Docket - in Net-HaMishpat, Office of the Clerk Access
(March 22, 2016). The Decisions Docket tab lists 2 decisions on January 9, 2016. There is
no indication that one of them, if any, was lawfully deleted from the system, under whose
authority, and when. There also is no way to ascertain which one of the two was served on
the parties.
_____

Magistrate Court: Net-HaMishpat, Office of the Clerk Access (March 22, 2016) - The
January 09, 2016 Decision by Judge Efrat Busani (1 st decision in the Decisions Docket),
was replaced by a scanned, hand-written page saying error. There is no indication under
whose authority such change was applied, or when. The mere existence of such record in
Net-HaMishpat shows lack of validity, lack of integrity of the system.
_____________________________________________________________________
254/367 TOC: 1
_____

Magistrate Court: Net-HaMishpat, Office of the Clerk Access (March 22, 2016) - Service
tab a) The January 30, 2016 Post-it Decision - setting hearing for February 4 was not
served at all. Keinans Counsel statements in court lead to the conclusion that the hearing
was set to match his client's schedule, and that he expected that the public would not know
about conduct of the hearing. Cohens statement in the Protocol indicates that he learned
about the hearing by chance on the same morning. b) The February 13 and February 25
Post-it Decisions on requests to inspect by author of this submission were never served on
the Requester, and since public access to the court file was denied, he could not
know of their existence...
____

Magistrate Court: Net-HaMishpat, public Access (May 04, 2016) - Judge Calendar, Judge
Efrat Busani - for February 4, 2016 Judge Busanis calendar fails to show the hearing at
_____________________________________________________________________
255/367 TOC: 1
13:30 in Keinan v Cohen on that date. On the contrary, it shows on that date at 13:30pm a
hearing in State of Israel v Tabah (16512-11-15)
___
Combined, conduct of Judge Efrat Busani in the two cases of restraining orders by Bank
HaPoalim CEO Zion Keinan against Barak Cohen should be deemed deceitful.
The maintenance of vague and ambiguous court records and court books, and the failure to
enter decisions and judgments in court file and the failure to keep valid Decisions Dockets,
valid Judgment Dockets, valid Calendars is inconsistent with conduct of a competent Court
of Record and the right for Due Process. The unlawful denial of public access to court
records in a case of such significance defies the right for Fair and Public Hearing.
Case Study: State of Israel v Barak Cohen (50825-01-15) criminal, insulting public
service employee - in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court
Figure. Green-eyed snake, a song, recorded by Attorney Barak Cohen, was at the center
of criminal prosecution for insulting public service employee - police officer Alon
Hamdani. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06CvhYyiJJM
_____
In June 2017 media reported the criminal conviction of Barak Cohen on charges of insulting
public service employee Alon Hamdani. No sentencing has been rendered at the time of
writing instant submission.
Hamdani a Jerusalem Police Intelligence Officer, was charged with spying on social protest
in general, and on Barak Cohen in particular. A main issue in the case was the recording by
Barak Cohen of a song, Green-eyed Snake, which depicted Hamdani in a derogatory
manner. The song won wide publicity, and Hamdani claimed, it destroyed my life. At
issue was also a series of insulting comments, which were published in social media.
In court, on the witness stand, Hamdani admitted key facts in the case:
Attorney Barak Cohen was Counsel for soccer fan of Beitar Jerusalem FC, generally
perceived as violent and racist. The Jerusalem Police tried to misrepresent to the fans that
they were required to obtain police license for any protest activity (police engaged in the
same conduct relative to protest against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit). Barak
Cohen, on the other hand posted a short video on Youtube, which explained Israeli law,
which clearly distinguishes between protest types, which require license by police, and
those, which do not require any license. Police also expected Attorney Barak Cohen to act
as a moderating agent vis a vis his client and/or to provide police intelligence information.
Attorney Barak Cohen refused to act in such capacities.
_____________________________________________________________________
256/367 TOC: 1
Hamdani admitted that consequently, the Jerusalem Police decided that Attorney Barak
Cohen was putting pokes in their wheels. Later, Hamdani and others initiated various
retaliatory actions against Attorney Barak Cohen:
Hamdani contacted the extreme right-wing Beitar Jerusalem FC fans and explained
to them the Attorney Barak Cohen was a Tel-Aviv anarchist, and urged them to
stop their relationship with Attorney Cohen.
Hamdani and another police officer filed a criminal complaint against Cohen,
claiming that Cohen cursed them. In polygraph test it turned out that the policemen
were lying.
Hamdani and others tried to initiate Israel Bar Association action against Attorney
Barak Cohen.
Police falsely detained Attorney Barak Cohen.
Hamdani has never been charged with any crime for all these unlawful actions.
e) Leaders of the 2011 social protest Daphni Leef and others
Figure. Daphni Leef, prominent leader of the 2011 social protest, was abused by police,
then prosecuted for interfering with police performing his duty and resisting detention. [ ccxlv]
The prosecution, which lasted until 2014, was eventually dropped, when it became evident
that police was lying on the witness stand. [ccxlvi]
_____
A group of some dozen leaders of the 2011 were prosecuted by police (in Israel police
prosecutes). [ccxlvii] In 2014 the Attorney General instructed termination of the trials. [ccxlviii]
However, such false prosecutions were largely seen as a way to repress social protest. [ ccxlix]
f) Police brutality against anti-police brutality demonstration of Ethiopian Jews

Brutal treatment of Ethiopian Jews by police had been repeatedly been recorded.
Unusual brutality was used by police against Ethiopian Jews in a 2015 anti-police brutality
demonstration.
The incident led to calls for resignation of then Police Inspector General Danino. [ ccl]
g) Abuse at the Occupy Tel-Aviv camp

At the end of the first phase of the 2011 social protest, the City of Tel-Aviv signed an
agreement to evict the occupy style protest from the central avenue where it was originally
located to an out of the way park.
_____________________________________________________________________
257/367 TOC: 1
Later, police, the City of of Tel-Aviv and the courts engaged in various unlawful actions in
order to terminate the camp. The case provided a plethora of incidents of lawless conduct
by the authorities. One of the notorious ones was the release to media of fake news, that
lawful eviction orders were rendered against the camp. Regardless of the fact that no
document at all existed to support such news, all mainstream media outlet, both press and
TV published the fake news.
Regardless of protest, the City of Tel-Aviv and Israel police then engaged in executing the
non-existent Eviction Order. [ccli, cclii]
It was also evident that police implanted some violent elements former police, who had
been convicted on violent crimes and served prison sentences. Such persons were left to
engage in violence, while police refused to provide protection against them. [ ccliii]
h) Shin-Bet intimidation of protest activists

In July 2013, in the wake of the 2011 social protest movement, the Association for Civil
Rights in Israel filed petition in the Supreme court against the Shin-Bet and the Israel
Police. The complaint asked to stop the practice of summoning political activists by the
Israel Police to what in fact were warning talks with the Shin-Bet. [ ccliv]
The petition claimed that inviting political activists to a friendly talk, over a cup of tea
with the secret service is not a practice, which is typical of a democratic regime. The
petition includes testimonies by political and social activists, who had been summoned to
such warning talks over the previous year. Such testimonies showed that warning talks,
which were not formal investigations on specific suspicions of violations of the law,
amounted to intimidation of activists, who engage in lawful protest, but which was
perceived as belonging outside the consensus. Such talks included questions regarding
political activity, personal relationships, and money. Such discussions included warnings
that so far there was no suspicion of violations of the law, but that the authorities were
keeping a watchful eye. In some of the cases, such friendly talks were preceded by
humiliating bodily searches The petition also claimed that the summoning by police for
Shin-Bet encounters amounted to misrepresentation, falsely leading the summoned person
to believe that he was required by law to appear.
The February 2007 Supreme Court Judgment concludes: [cclv]
In view of all the above, the petition, which contributed to an improvement in
a sensitive matter, shall be dismissed [originally - erased - jz].
Of note:
The Israeli Supreme Court practices dismissal, or erasing of petitions, even after
lengthy proceedings. Here, a petition, which lasted for 4 years, including various
filings by the parties, three hearings...
Paragraph 34 of the Judgment says: Due to sensitivity of the materials and the issue
that was before the Court, the hearings were to a large degree conducted ex parte [in
presence of only Shin-Bet counsel], and the Petitioner repeatedly noted its dismay.
The Association published the full February 2007 Judgment. However, today public
access is denied to the entire court file in the Supreme Courts Index of All Cases,
even the case caption. According the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, there is
only prohibition of publication on certain decisions and filings in this case, and the
_____________________________________________________________________
258/367 TOC: 1
case was originally publicly accessible. The current situation reflects another case of
retroactive, fake, unlawful sealing of entire files by the courts.
Figure. Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Shin-Bet and Israel Police (5277/13)
petition in the Supreme Court: Public access to the petitions court file, whose February
2017 Judgment was published by the Association, is today denied. The index only shows:
Petition 5277/13 Sealed".
_____
In late February 2017, undercover police arrested Mr Mordechai Leybel at the end of an
unrelated court hearing in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court. Later, 5 others were detained as
well. In a detention hearing the next day, police claimed that they arrested at the end of an
intensive 18 months investigation a group that engaged in internet terror. The evidence
was filed under seal. Media reported the next morning the same as detention of a group that
engaged in activities that were on the threshhold of internet terror. In fact, it was a group
of activists, which protest the taking of children from their biological parents by welfare
agencies under the seal of the courts. As was clarified already in the original detention
hearing, no weapons were involved. It became apparent that the terror claims were related
to blogs, which were published in the US, and the Israeli authorities had tried in vain to
remove from the net. [cclvi] Already earlier, the Israeli courts employed fake/simulated court
records against the same activists, and recruited the US Department of Homeland Security
against them. [cclvii]
16. Persecution of whistle-blowers

State law created mechanisms for protection of whistle-blowers against retaliation and
persecution:
Act for Protection of Employees Exposure of Criminality (1997) vested the authority
for adjudicating such cases with the Labor Courts. [cclviii]
The State Ombudsman Act (1958) provides the State Ombudsman the authority to
review whistle-blower complaints, and when deemed proper to issue Protection Decree
for whistle-blowers. [cclix]
Regardless, the general perception is that inadequate protection is provided for whistle-
blowers, and they often suffer serious consequences, including persecution by the justice
_____________________________________________________________________
259/367 TOC: 1
system itself. Proposals for various amendments to the law have been repeatedly discussed
in recent years. [cclx, cclxi] The State Ombudsman himself opined that current legal
protections for whistle-blowers are inadequate. [cclxii]
The treatment of the Tax Authority whistle-blowers, on the one hand, and the lenient
treatment of the major corruption figures and/or lack of enforcement of the law in the Tax
Authority corruption scandal has been of central interest in this context.
a) Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem
Figure. Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem during one of his numerous false arrests.
_____
Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem and activists have been conducting sit-in protest
every Wednesday afternoon in the lobby of the State Ombudsman office for years. They
protest the failure of the State Ombudsman to review key parts of the scandal and failure to
affect adequate criminal investigation of the corruption.
Around 2003, the Tax Authority corruption scandal erupted. It is no doubt one of the worst
in Israels history. A group of senior Tax Authority officer exposed that the Tax Authority,
then under new leadership, has waived tax debts in ten and hundreds of millions NIS to
organized crime figures, to tycoons, and to individuals and corporations, who are related to
the ruling party.
It should be noted that the Tax Authority was created by then Treasury Minister Netanyahu
with no foundation in the law. The reorganization of the tax authority provided an
opportunity for new appointments. The general corrupt practices, related to appointments
and decisions by senior Tax Authority senior officers were further evidenced in corruption
trial of PM Ehud Olmert and his secretary Shulamit Zaken, whose brother was involved in
the Tax Authority corruption scandal.
In 2008, the Supreme Court denied Rotems petition, claiming perversion of his Tel-Aviv
Labor Court case by Judge Varda Samet. The Supreme Court Judgment in this petition was
described by media as Stain on the justice system. [ cclxiii]
A 2012 Globes article says: Rafi Rotem, Tax Authority whistle-blower, lives in the street.
He hit rock bottom: Lives in the street, routinely detained and humiliated by police, receives
no pay since 2005, has no money for doctors fees. It has not stopped him from going on
flooding the authorities with blatant fax messages and voicing his anger with the media,
_____________________________________________________________________
260/367 TOC: 1
which deserted him. How could it be that I reached this state? he yells. Conduct of the
justice system in his case can be summed in one word: Disgrace. [ cclxiv]
In a 2013 Haaretz interview, then former Attorney General Menachem Mazuz (today
Supreme Court justice) described the scandal as the closest to organized crime in high
offices. He also expressed his disappointment from the manner in which related cases were
handled by the courts. [cclxv]
In parallel, Rotem has suffered serious persecution over the past 14 years.
A 2013 Maariv opinion piece was titled: For a decade the courts have been abusing a
justice crusader, and the subtitle elaborates: It has been a decade of the Tax Authority
corruption scandal and whistle-blower Rafi Rotem. Back to the case and the judgment that
left him penniless. [cclxvi]
In 2014 Rotem received a distinguished award by the influential Quality Government
Movement or his fight against government corruption. The award committee was headed by
retired Supreme Court Justice Mishael Chesin. [cclxvii]
In 2015, following intense, continuous pressure by media, the State Ombudsman eventually
granted Rafi Rotem a Protection Decree, [cclxviii] which the State Ombudsman in a press
release described as a precedent and exceptional decision. [ cclxix] The Ombudsman
reference to exception here probably refers to the fact that in 2008, the Supreme Court
ruled in Rotems petition that Rotem was not a whistle-blower at all, and his case originated
in muddled labor relationships. [cclxx] However, regardless of repeat requests, filed by
Rotem with Supreme Court Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, the Supreme Court failed to
provide a lawfully certified copy of the purported judgment in Rotems petition. [cclxxi]
However, such Protection Decree offered too little too late: It came some 12 years after
the scandal erupted. During that period, Rotem and other Tax Authority whistle-blowers had
been persecuted and impoverished. The Protection Decree failed to restore Rotem to his
former position as an Tax Authority Investigator, which he lost, and failed to compensate
him for any damages. It only provided him some State service retirement benefits, at a
reduced level. All such benefits had been denied until that time.
In November 2016, Rotem was purportedly sentenced to prison term on probation,
following a 3 year criminal prosecution on insulting public employees. However, the
sentencing hearing was listed in Net-HaMishpat Did not take place The criminal
prosecution was obviously meant to silence Rotem from voicing further statements against
corruption of senior government officers.
In January 2017, the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and
equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas issued a press release, including a note
regarding Israeli Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem: [cclxxii]
I call on Governments worldwide to put an end to multiple campaigns of defamation,
mobbing and even prosecution of whistleblowers like Julian Assange, Edward
Snowden, the Luxleakers Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet and the tax corruption
leaker Rafi Rotem, who have acted in good faith and who have given meaning to
article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of
expression. Whistleblowers who are serving prison sentence in many countries
should be pardoned.
To this date, Rafi Rotem lost about a dozen court cases, and won none.
_____________________________________________________________________
261/367 TOC: 1
One of the most disturbing aspects of the scandal is refusing of all State authorities to
investigate the murder of an intelligence source. The case was related to the smuggling of
an electronics container by a member of the ruling party. After the container was already
seized, Rotem testified that they Tax Authority investigators received a direct instruction to
release it from the office of then Treasury Minister Netanyahu.
Consequently the intelligence source requested protective detention, but was denied. Later
he was murdered. Police initially claimed that it was suicide. However, following Rotems
whistle-blowing, the murdered intelligence source filed a claim for damages against the
State, and the case was settled out of court. See more - [cclxxiii ]
Review of the numerous court cases, in which Rotem was involved, demonstrate corruption
of the courts and the legal profession as a key factor in the treatment of whistle-blowers.
Case Study: Rotem v Baram and State of Israel (73202/04) - civil, defamation - in the
Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court
The case is of special interest, since it provides unique documentation of the conduct of
simulated court process under paper administration of the court. Many of the older, while
paper court files in the Magistrate and District Courts have been shredded. Documentation
of invalid court process is easier in the paper court files since the missing judges
decisions on court decisions and judgments are readily detectable, as well as missing
Entered, and Served stamps on the decisions and judgment.
Figure. Judge Shoshana Almagor, then in Tel Aviv Magistrate Court, was the main judge
involved in perverting the records and process in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel.
____
Until 2003, Rafi Rotem, then a senior investigator in the Tax Authority, routinely received
excellent job reviews by his superiors. However, according to the complaint, after he blew
the whistle on corruption in the Tax Authority, his supervisor, Defendant Eyal Baram.
represented him to co-workers as a psychiatric case and a crime figure. The complaint
documents other forms of abuse, including threat with a weapon, threat of retaliation
through organized crime, serious brain concussion, which required hospitalization and long
recovery, and which Rotem claimed was assault, while Defendants claimed was a soccer
game accident
_____________________________________________________________________
262/367 TOC: 1
The facts were confirmed by witnesses, but the claim was denied in Judge Shoshanah
Almagor's November 30, 2008 Judgment. [cclxxiv]
In October 2014, the paper court file of Rotem v Baram and State of Israel was inspected in
the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court. [cclxxv] The records indicate general invalidity of court
records and court process, in what should be deemed simulated court process and deceit and
breach of trust by Judge Shoshana Almagor:
No Summons was discovered;
Decisions were unsigned, unregistered, unauthenticated;
No evidence was discovered of entry, service, authentication of judgment).

Regardless, the evidence in the court file documents:
Senior officers intervened to undermine the tax investigation of a senior crime figure
- Reuven Gavrieli;
Senior officers intervened to undermine the tax investigation of a corporation - Givor
Sport - where key figures were related to the ruling party;
Major investigation file - Terry Deckel Goldmine - disappeared from a high security
office, but internal security and senior officers refused to investigate the matter or to
attempt restoration of the missing data;
Close personal and business relationships exist between senior officers and senior
crime figures, and
Staff of the Investigations/Intelligence Division is subject to harassment,
intimidation, and retaliation, as well as serious physical assault, when they try to
honestly perform their jobs.
In October 2014, following inspection of the court file, Rotem submitted to Chief Clerk
Rahamim Asher of the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court requests for certified copies of key
records, relative to validity of the entire court file:
Summons, [cclxxvi] and
November 30, 2008 Judge Shoshanah Almagor Judgment. [ cclxxvii]
No response has been received to this date (2017).
Inspection of the court file in Rotem v Baram and State of Israel also shows that although
the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court at the time was officially managed in paper court files and
paper Books of Court, in fact, the Court relied on the records in its IT system (at that time
"Manat"). No dockets were found in the paper court file itself. However, the Court denied
access to inspect the records in the court's IT system corresponding to Rotem v Baram et al.
Of note, the records in the paper court file include filings by the District Attorney office,
which protest that they cannot follow conduct of the case, since the court fails to serve its
decisions in this court file In contrast, there is no evidence of protest by Plaintiff
Counsel, Attorney Menachem Rubinstein, a renowned Israeli criminal defense attorney.
Figure. 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.
_____________________________________________________________________
263/367 TOC: 1
______
_____________________________________________________________________
264/367 TOC: 1
Figure. November 14, 2005 Unsigned, by an unnamed clerk - Notice to Appear and
Demand for payment of court fees.
______
Figure. November 14, 2005 Unsigned Second Notice to Appear by an unnamed clerk.
_____________________________________________________________________
265/367 TOC: 1
______
_____________________________________________________________________
266/367 TOC: 1
Figure.December4,2005UnsigneddecisionbyJudgeDaliahMark,formattedasa
lettertoDistrictAttorneytoremovecustomsrecords,filedbyPlaintiffRotemas
evidence,underclaimofconfidentialitybyState.Thereisnoindicationthatacopy
wasservedonCounselforPlaintiffRotem.
______
_____________________________________________________________________
267/367 TOC: 1
Figure.March13,2006UnsignedJudgeShoshanahAlmagorProtocoland
Decisiononhearingofevidence.NostampoftheOfficeoftheClerk,pertainingto
entryorservice.
______
_____________________________________________________________________
268/367 TOC: 1
Figure.July9,2006UnsignedJudgeShoshanahAlmagorProtocolandDecision
onhearingofevidence.NostampoftheOfficeoftheClerk,pertainingtoentryor
service.
______
_____________________________________________________________________
269/367 TOC: 1
Figure.July13,2004UnsignedSeniorAssistanttoTelAvivDistrictAttorney
MenachemMizrahiLetterdenyingcorruptionintheTaxAuthority,filedaskey
evidenceintheJuly9,2006Hearing.MenachemMizrahi,todayaMagistrate
Judge,isclaimedbyRotemtobekeyfigureincoveringuptheTaxAuthority
corruptionscandal.
______
_____________________________________________________________________
270/367 TOC: 1
Figure.July20,2004UnsignedSeniorAssistanttoTelAvivDistrictAttorney
MenachemMizrahiLetterdenyingcorruptionintheTaxAuthority,filedaskey
evidenceintheJuly9,2006Hearing.MenachemMizrahi,todayaMagistrateJudge,
isclaimedbyRotemtobekeyfigureincoveringuptheTaxAuthoritycorruption
scandal.
______
_____________________________________________________________________
271/367 TOC: 1
Figure.July16,2006unsignedJudgeShoshanahAlmagorProtocolandDecision
onhearingofevidence.NostampoftheOfficeoftheClerk,pertainingtoentryor
service.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
272/367 TOC: 1
Figure.September23,2007unsigned,missingSealoftheCourt,uncertified
NationalLaborCourtJudgmentdenyingRotem'sAppealfiledbyDefendantaskey
evidence.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
273/367 TOC: 1
Figure.November30,2008JudgeShoshanahAlmagorJudgmentbearsnoSealof
theCourt,noevidenceofentryorofservice."Issuedinchambers...Officeofthe
ClerkshallforwardcopiesoftheJudgmenttotheparties".Judgesconsistently
avoidedtheuseofthelawfulterms"serve",or"service"inthiscase.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
274/367 TOC: 1
CaseStudy:RotemvMinistryofTreasury(3660/05,5883/05)whistle
blowerprotectionintheTelAvivLaborCourt
Figure.JudgeVardaSametoftheTelAvivLaborCourt.JudgeSametpresidedin
whistleblowerRafiRotemscaseanddeniedthecomplaint.JudgeSametfailedto
summonandhearkeywitnessesinthecase.Shealsofailedtorecuseherself,
althoughasturnedoutlater,herhusbandanddaughter,bothpracticingattorneys,
wereretainedbyoneofthecorporations,whichwereaccordingtoRotem
beneficiariesoftheTaxAuthoritycorruption.
____
IntheTelAvivLaborCourt,whistleblowerRafiRotemtriedtogainprotection
againstretaliationbyhisemployertheTaxAuthority.Defendantsclaimedthat
therewereseriouscomplaintagainstRotemsjobperformancebycoworkers.
However,regardlessofdemands,JudgeSametfailedtosummonthewitnessesand
heartheirtestimonyincourt.Yet,JudgeSametbasedherjudgmentagainstRotem
onsuchclaims.
Later,boththeNationalLaborCourtandtheSupremeCourtaffirmedJudgeSamet
Judgment,butentirelyfailedtoaddresstheclaimsoffailuretosummonandhear
witnesses,whichwerethefoundationforthefacts,whichweredeterminedbyJudge
SametinherJudgment.
InOctober2014,requestwasfiledtoinspecttheTelAvivLaborCourtfileRotemv
MinistryofTreasury(3660/05,5883/05).[cclxxviii]TheOfficeoftheClerkprovided
documentationthatthepapercourtfilehadbeenshreddedin2013,andfurther
claimedthatnovalidcopyoftheJudgmenthadbeenmaintained,andnocertified,
TrueCopyoftheOriginalofJudgmentcouldbeprovided.
CaseStudy:RotemvSametetal(1233/08)petitionintheSupremeCourt
TheSupremeCourt,liketheNationalLaborCourt,deniedRotemschallengeto
JudgeVardaSametsconductinhisTelAvivLaborCourtcase,wherenowitnesses
wereheard.
_____________________________________________________________________
275/367 TOC: 1
JusticeEdmondLeviwrote:
TheLaborCourt,inacomprehensiveandwellreasonedjudgment,
foundthattherewasnofoundationforRotemsclaims,andthathis
terminationfromtheInvestigationsDepartmentoriginatedinbadwork
relations,whichstartedalongtimebeforethesuspicionarose,
pertainingtoconductoftheTaxAuthorityReviewofdeterminations
oftheCourts,inbothinstances,showsthattheythoroughlyexamined
therelevantfactsbeforereachingtheirdeterminations.Ifoundnoproof
orcauseforrehearingofthefactsinthismatter.
TheSupremeCourtJudgmentfurtherdeterminedthatRotemwasnowhistle
blower,andthathiscaseoriginatedinmuddledlaborrelations.
Figure.IsraeliSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeAsherGrunis.
_____
Regardlessofrepeatrequests,filedbyRotemwithPresidingJusticeAsherGrunis,
theSupremeCourtfailedtoprovideRafiRotemalawfullysignedandcertifiedcopy
oftheJudgmentinRotemvSametetal(1233/08).Instead,onlyfalse,invalid
recordswererepeatedlyprovided.
_____________________________________________________________________
276/367 TOC: 1
a) b)
Figures. Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08) in the Supreme Court: Purportedly certified
Judgment Judgment records: a) Received after Rotems 1st request, addressed to Presiding
Justice Grunis. The record cannot be deemed an authentic, valid and effectual court record:
(i) It is not signed by the justices at all. (ii) It is purportedly certified by a person, whose
name and authority fail to appear on the face of the record. (iii) The wording of the
certification (Copying is True to the Original) is not that, which is stipulated by law, and
is meaningless in the context of certification of court record. b) Received after Rotems 2nd
request, addressed to Presiding Justice Grunis. The record cannot be deemed an authentic,
valid and effectual court record: (i) It is purportedly certified by a person, whose authority
is"Coordinator", but not Chief Clerk, as prescribed by law. (ii) The wording of the
certification (Copying is True to the Original) is not that, which is stipulated by law, and
is meaningless in the context of certification of court record. (iii) Coordinator Khalaf's
personal stamp is altered by hand.
________
_____________________________________________________________________
277/367 TOC: 1
Figure. December 01, 2014 FOIA response by the Administration of Courts, pertaining the
lawful appointment record and authority of Ms Nava Khalaf to certify Supreme Court
records: a) The response explicitly says: "There is no appointment record" for Ms Nava
Khalaf. b) Khalaf had a temporary appointment in 2008, as a "Senior Coordinator". c) The
response further explicitly states: "The authority to certify court records is established by
law, and may not be delegated." The authority to certify court records is provided by Israeli
law to the Chief Clerk, not a "Senior Coordinator".
_______
Case Study: State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13) - criminal, insulting public service
employee - in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court
The criminal prosecution of whistle-blower Rafi Rotme on charges of insulting public
employees was perceived as a clear attempt to silence him.
It should be noted that a 2011 Supreme Court Judgment by a 9 justices panel of the Supreme
Court in Ungerfeld et al v State of Israel (7383-08) ruled that the claim, I spoke the truth,
is not a valid defense in criminal process under insulting public service employee. The
trial judge in State of Israel v Rafi Rotem also explicitly gave him notice to that effect.
[cclxxix] .
Regardless, that court process in State of Israel v Rafi Rotem produced unique evidence of
perversion of court records and court process from start to end, including blatant alleged
deceit and breach of trust by judges and attorneys.
Among other perversions: For two years, various attorneys appeared as purported External
Public Defenders, with no valid appointment by the District Public Defenders office, with
no certification of Counsel, and with no statement on the record that they were lawfully
_____________________________________________________________________
278/367 TOC: 1
appointed. Among them was Attorney Itizik Sade, who purportedly appeared on behalf of
the non-existent law-firm of Barkan and Simon. In his appearance Attorney Sade
purportedly agreed on Rotems behalf to conduct criminal process with no appearances by
witnesses. During the two years of such appearances by false Exeternal Public Defenders,
they filed no motion or response, except for requests to change hearing dates. At the same
time, Rotem repeatedly demanded in court to inspect the evidence against him, which was
filed in court, but not provided to him, in disregard of the Criminal Court Procedure Act.
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): Attorney Itzik Sade appeared as
purported External Public Defender on behalf of the law-firm of Barkan and Simon.
Attorney Barkan denied that such law-firm existed.
_____
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): Judge Yael Pradelsky presided on major
part of the trial, permitting unauthorized attorneys to appear as false External Public
Defenders. Judge Yael Pradelsky was repeatedly noticed of such perversions of process, but
refused to take any action.
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
279/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Pro-tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender Elkana Leist denied access to inspect
and to copy the Public Defenders Book.
_______
In parallel, attempt was made to inspect the District Public Defenders Public Defenders
Book - a public record by law. Pro-tem Tel-Aviv District Public Elkana Leist denied
access to inspect the Public Defenders Book. In the process, FOIA response by the
Ministry of Justice disclosed that he had no lawful appointment as Pro-tem Tel-Aviv
District Public Defender
Figure. National Public Defender Yoav Sapir.

_______
Complaint regarding conduct of Pro-tem Tel-Aviv District Public Defender and External
Public Defenders in Rotems case was filed with National Public Defender Yoav Sapir.
_____________________________________________________________________
280/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): 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. The letter in part says:
Review shows that no fault took place in conduct of attorneys, who were appointed to
represent Mr Rotem on behalf of the Pubic Defenders office. Attorney Yoav Sapir refuses
to respond on repeat requests to confirm that such letter is an authentic communication from
his office.
____
_____________________________________________________________________
281/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): Hyperlinks to seven (7) police
investigation files were inserted in the electronic records in the IT system of the court with
commencement of the case, although the police prosecution has never provided the evidence
to the Defendant for two years after filing the indictment. Israeli law prohibits filing of
evidence without providing a reasonable opportunity for the Defendant to review it first.
_____
a)
_____________________________________________________________________
282/367 TOC: 1
b)
Figures. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): September 23, 2014, double books for
Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat. a) As it appeared from a public access terminal of
Net-HaMishpat (IT system of the court). 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 Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court also refused to certify any of the records in this case True
Copy of the Original. [cclxxx]
In August 2014, notice was filed with Supreme Court Presiding Justice Asher Grunis,
pertaining to the numerous perversions in such criminal court process. The notice included
extensive copies from Net-HaMishpat records in this case. [ cclxxxi] Presiding Justice Grunis
failed to answer or take action. However, the notice, replete with documentation in court
records, was secretly filed in Net-HaMishpat electronic case management system in this
case, with secretive Post-it Decisions by Presiding Judge of the Magistrate Court and the
Trial Judge.
_____________________________________________________________________
283/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): Secretive August 24, 2014 "Post-it
Decision" by Trial Judge Yael Pradelsky, Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, on top of a copy of a
notice, filed with Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, documenting the extensive perversion of
Criminal Court Procedure in this case. The Post-it Decision states: "I have read." (a
second, similar Post-it Decision was entered by Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv
Magistrate Court). The "Post-it Decision" is superimposed on a copy of the 57-page
document, forwarded to Presiding Justice Grunis by Joseph Zernik, PhD, documenting the
fraud being perpetrated by Pradelsky and others in the criminal prosecution against Rotem.
Obviously, there was no lawful foundation for filing this record in this court file. Moreover,
the Post-it Decisions are universally omitted from public Decisions Dockets in Net-
HaMishpat, and routinely not served. Therefore, Defendant Rafi Rotem had no knowledge
of most of the decisions in his own court file.
______
_____________________________________________________________________
284/367 TOC: 1
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13): Judge Daniel Beeri of the Tel-Aviv
Magistrate Court purportedly convicted Rotem in an October 06, 2016 off the record
hearing, and sentenced him to prison term on probation in a November 07, 2016 hearing,
which did not take place.
______
a)
b)
_____________________________________________________________________
285/367 TOC: 1
c)
Figure. State of Israel v Rafi Rotem (1074-02-13) - public records in Net-HaMishpat,
downloaded on June 20, 2017: a) Case Calendar shows entry of the October 06, 2016
hearing, docketed as Reading of Verdict Took place, but with no Protocol [minutes].
Therefore, it should be deemed an off the record court hearing. The November 28, 2016,
which was reported by media as Sentencing is entered as Evidence, Did not take
place. b) Decisions Docket shows entry of the October 06, 2016 Verdict. No entry is
listed for the November 28, 2016 Sentencing. The latest entry is a November 21, 2016
decision by Judge Daniel Beeri, which says: The Defendant should be noticed that the
Reading of Sentencing will take place on November 28, 2016, at 11:30 am, in the courtroom
of the Hon Presiding Judge Avichai Doron, 6th floor. c) Judgments Docket shows entry of
the October 06, 2016 Verdict. No entry is listed for the November 28, 2016 Sentencing.
_____
Following the purported Sentencing hearing, request was filed with Judge Daniel Beeri to
inspect lawfully made November 28, 2016 Protocol and Sentencing records. [ cclxxxii]
Following the purported Sentencing hearing, notice was also sent to media, to correct the
news items, which reported the sentencing. [cclxxxiii] No media reported the perverted
process in this case.
Combined, the cases of whistle-blower Rafi Rotem provide unique evidence of deceit and
breach of trust by judges, attorneys, and court personnel. They also provide unique
evidence of the role of the courts and the legal profession in patronizing government
corruption and persecuting whistle-blowers. The case also documents the role of media in
failing to report on perversion of process in the courts.
_____________________________________________________________________
286/367 TOC: 1
b) Tax Authority whistle-blower Shuki Mishol
Figure. Shuki Mishol, former director of Tel-Aviv region VAT is the most senior in a group
of 15 Tax Authority whistle-blowers. Mishol served a 2 months prison term, under unlawful,
arbitrary arrest the culmination of a 15 year long persecution of the Tax Authority whistle-
blowers.
_____
The case of Shuki Mishol the most senior among the Tax Authority whistle-blowers also
provides unique documentation of deceit in court process, moreover, it also provides unique
documentation of arbitrary arrest.
Following his whistle-blowing, Tel-Aviv District Attorney Ruth David (now on trial on
corruption charges) initiated a persecution campaign against Shuki Mishol, with extensive
investigations. Eventually, the main charge left against Mishol was the failure to timely
refund the state for overpayment on car insurance for about NIS 500 (less than USD 150).
Mishol was eventually prosecuted and sentenced to community service. However, due to his
failing health, he could not perform the sentence. He therefore appealed to the Supreme
Court. Justice Uri Shoham of the Supreme Court purportedly sentenced Mishol to a 2
months prison term instead, which Mishol has since served. However, the case provide
unique evidence of perversion of records and process.
Figure. Former Tel-Aviv District Attorney Ruth David and her law office partner Ronel
Fisher are now named defendants in an ongoing corruption trial. In her capacity as DA,
David launched a persecution campaign against the Tax Authority whistle-blowers,
including Shuki Mishol and Rafi Rotem. [cclxxxiv] According to Mishol, Davids partner,
Attorney Ronel Fisher tried to extort him. The couple was arrested after being caught in the
act of accepting bribes in a suitcase full of cash from union boss, then under-cover
_____________________________________________________________________
287/367 TOC: 1
investigation for organized crime (later indicted), Alon Hassan. [cclxxxv ,cclxxxvi] In the ongoing
corruption trial it has been documented that David and Fisher had
routinely sold covert criminal investigation materials from top Israel Police organized crime
and corruption units tothe investigation subjects. [cclxxxvii] In a separate case, organized crime
figure Amir Mulner [cclxxxviii] claimed that the couple tried to extort him of USD 1
million. Initial media reports claimed that bribing judges was also part of the scheme,
however that part of the scandal was hushed. Israeli Attorney General also refuses to further
investigate or prosecute corruption claims, pertaining to Ruth David in her capacity as DA.
Her prosecution is limited to corruption allegations after her retirement to private
practice. Her law office partner, Fisher, was both a top attorney and a media figure, among
his credits a docu-reality TV series - The Ten Commandments [cclxxxix]
_________
Figure. Supreme Court Justice Uri Shoham issued a perverted arrest warrant on whistle-
blower Shuki Mishol, and in parallel, applied unlawful sealing on the entire court file.
Regardless of repeat notices, Justice Shoham has so far failed to initiate corrective actions
regarding the perverted arrest warrant and the perverted sealing. The combination of
withholding court records and court files and perverting court records and court process has
been known worldwide for generations as a hallmark of incompetent and/or corrupt courts.
_______
Figure. Supreme Court Index of All Cases: 1322/17 - Sealed. Public access to court
records is denied. But no sealing request was filed in this case, and no Publication
Prohibition Decree [gag order] was lawfully entered. Regardless, fraudulent IT systems of
the Israeli courts enable judges to arbitrarily and capriciously withhold court files and court
records from public access. Moreover, the publication of sealed court records is a criminal
offense. Therefore, such judicial conduct undermines not only integrity of the courts, but
also Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press.
______
_____________________________________________________________________
288/367 TOC: 1
Figure. April 05, 2017 Decision by Supreme Court Justice Uri Shoham as received by fax
by Appellant Shuki Mishol: Page 1 identifies the person, pertaining to whom the record was
issued as Anonymous. Page 5 says: In sum the Requester shall appear in Nitzan
Prison on April 23, 2017 before 10:00 am, or as instructed by the Prison Service, for serving
his punishment, holding an ID or a passport, and a copy of instant decision. The signature
box says only Judge, and the footnote disclaimer says - subject to editing and phrasing
changes. Following wide distribution of this sealed fake record (purportedly a criminal
offense), the April 23, 2017 was delayed in the last minute currently scheduled for May
16.
______
Figure.OfraKinger,GovernoroftheIsraeliPrisonService.TheIsraeliPrisonService
continuestonoticewhistleblowerShukiMisholofhispendingimprisonment,
regardlessofrepeatnoticesoftheperverted,invalidnatureofthearrestdecree,
issuedbyJusticeUriShoham.
_____________________________________________________________________
289/367 TOC: 1
_______
On May 07, 2017, notice was sent to Prison Service Governor Ofra Klinger regarding
concerns that the Prison Service was intending to unlawfully admit whistle-blower Shuki
Mishol to prison with no lawful arrest warrant (see below). In parallel, notice was again
filed with Supreme Court Justice Uri Shoham regarding the fake arrest warrant, which he
had issued, and the fake sealing, which he had applied to the court file (see below).
The Prison Service had in previous weeks repeatedly contacted Shuki Mishol the most
senior among the Tax Authority whistle- blowers with the intention of admitting him to
prison based on a perverted arrest warrant, which was issued by Supreme Court Justice Uri
Shoham.
The notice, forwarded to Prison Service Governor Klinger, also repeated the demand for a
lawful FOIA response, on a request pertaining to prison admission procedures. The request
also asked for a copy of a lawful appointment record of the Prison Service FOIA Officer,
who by law should sign the FOIA response.
The FOIA request was filed (and fees duly paid) over two years earlier. [ ccxc] However, so
far only an invalid, false and misleading response was received.
Figure. January 06, 2016 sham, invalid, false and misleading FOIA response on request,
which was duly filed and paid for on March 15, 2015, pertaining to: a) Admission
procedures following implementation of electronic records in the courts, b) Appointment
record of the Prison Service FOIA Officer. The unsigned response says: To Joseph Zernik,
PhD, Dear Sir: Following your inquiry, we herein inform you that the reference for
imprisonment in the Prison Service is an Arrest Warrant/Detention Warrant, signed by a
judge original only! Regarding FOIA Officer there is a permanent element in the Prison
Service Legal Bureau, who is appointed on the Freedom of Information Act. FYI. Truly, Eti
Gover, Inquiries and Complaints Coordinator, Prison Service.
____
In parallel, an urgent request to render decisions was filed with Supreme Court Justice Uri
Shoham, who has so far failed to decide on requests to inspect a lawfully made Publication
Prohibition Decree [gag order], pertaining Mishol v State of Israel(criminal appeal
1322/17) in the Supreme Court, and to inspect a lawfully made arrest decree, pertaining to
Shuki Mishol in the same court file.
Sealing was unlawfully applied on Mishol v State of Israel. In parallel, Justice Uri Shoham
(former IDF Chief Military Legal Counsel and Chief Prosecutor) issued an April 05, 2017
_____________________________________________________________________
290/367 TOC: 1
Decision, which is a perverted, invalid, false and misleading arrest warrant. Such arrest
warrant fails to name the person, pertaining to whom it was issued (only Anonymous), is
unsigned, and bears the disclaimer, subject to editing and phrasing changes
The failure, or refusal to initiate corrective measures after repeat notices is often considered
evidence of fraud in contrast with human error
The combination of perverted sealing, or withholding court files and court records from
public scrutiny, and perverting court records and court process is well-known worldwide for
generations as a hallmark of incompetent and/or corrupt courts.
The circumstances in Mishols case produced unprecedented documentation of the issuing
of an invalid, false and misleading arrest warrant by a Supreme Court Justice, and collusion
by the Prison Service highest officers in a scheme to execute unlawful imprisonment.
Such circumstances shed new light on the Constitutional Revolution, based on Human
Dignity and Liberty, declared by then Israeli Supreme Court Presiding Justice Aharon Barak
(there is no constitution in Israel). [ccxci]
Such circumstances also shed new light on Supreme Court Presiding Justice Miriam Naors
repeat declarations regarding the Supreme Courts and her person commitment to protect
human rights and the rule of law. [ccxcii]
Both Baraks and Naors declaration appear as public relations stunts.
Following is the notice sent to Prison Service Governor Ofra Klinger
May 07, 2017
Ofra Klinger, Israel Prison Service Governor

Israel Prison Service
Spokesperson Bureau, PO 81, Ramla, 72100
Fax: 08-9193810; 08-9193840
Email: yaffaz ; ips.dover ; meitalv, " -
"NachumM , " - -
"etigo
By email
RE: Shuki Mishol v State of Israel (1322/17) urgent warning regarding

an attempt to unlawfully admit a person to prison!
Your response without further delay is requested.
Dear Prison Service Governor Klinger:

Please accept the attached urgent request for rendering decisions, which was
filed today in the Supreme Court in the court file, referenced above.
_____________________________________________________________________
291/367 TOC: 1
Figure 1. [here Figure 5, above -jz] April 05, 2017 Decision record by
Supreme Court Justice Uri Shoham as received by Appellant Shuki Mishol:
Page 1 identifies the person, pertaining to whom the record was issued as
Anonymous. Page 5 says: In sum the Requester shall appear in Nitzan
Prison on April 23, 2017 before 10:00am, or as instructed by the Prison
Service, for serving his punishment, holding an ID or a passport, and a copy of
instant decision. The signature box says only Judge, and the footnote a
disclaimer says - subject to editing and phrasing changes.
____
The request documents the issuing of the April 05, 2017 unsigned Decision
record by Justice Uri Shoham, pertaining to Anonymous, bearing the
disclaimer: subject to editing and phrasing changes (Figure 1) Such
Decision record, which was sent to Mr Shuki Mishol, is deemed a sham,
perverted, invalid, unenforceable Arrest Warrant, which is meant to deceive
Mr Mishol to accept its authority as a lawful Arrest Warrant for his admission
to prison.
In parallel, I am informed that the Prison Service has repeatedly contacted Mr
Shuki Mishol in order to coordinate his arrest, purportedly based on such
Decision record.
Additionally, I herein attach my April 16, 2017 demand for a lawful FOIA
response, pertaining to Prison Service procedures for admission to prison
(see Figure 2). The FOIA request was filed over two years ago!
The case at hand the attempt to mislead Mr Shuki Mishol to enter
imprisonment with no lawful Arrest Warrant would not doubt be deemed a
serious violation of Human Rights.
It is expected and hoped that you lawfully perform your duties, abide by the
law of the State of Israel, and would not admit Mr Shuki Mishol to prison
absent a lawfully made Arrest Warrant.
Truly,
________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
OccupyTLV
CC:
Association for Civil Rights in Israel, wide distribution
Following is the Request for Rendering Decisions, filed with Justice Uri Shoham in
Mishol v State of Israel (1322/17) in the Supreme Court.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
_____________________________________________________________________
292/367 TOC: 1
Anonymous v State of Israel 1322/17
Requester of Inspection: Joseph Zernik, PhD
OccupyTLV
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv
Fax: 077-3179186
Email: joseph.zernik
Urgent request for rendering a decision regarding lawfully made publication

prohibition decree and lawfully made Arrest Decree
1. Instant court file appears unlawfully sealed. On April 21, 2017 the Requester filed a
pro-forma request to inspect a lawfully made publication prohibition decree [gag order]
(Request No 6, which was again entered as Request No 7). To this date no decision
was issued on such requests.
2. The April 05, 2017, Justice Uri Shoham Decision, pertaining to Anonymous (who is
Appellant Shuki Mishol) appears as a perverted, invalid, unenforceable Arrest Decree
(Figures 1) [here: Figure 5, above -jz]. To this date, no decision was issued on the request to
inspect a lawfully made Arrest Decree. On April 30, 2017, the Requester filed a pro-forma
request to inspect lawfully made Arrest Decree in instant court file. To this date no decision
has been rendered on the such request.
3. The Regulations of Criminal Court Procedure (1974), Article 31 says:
31. Once Sentencing was rendered the Judge/s or the Magistrate shall issue,
pursuant to request by a party, Decree which shall specify that which requires
execution, pursuant to the Sentencing, and in case prison sentence was
imposed, an Arrest Decree shall be issued, pursuant to Form 6 in the
Appendix; such Decree and Order shall be signed by the Judge/s or the
Magistrate of the Court and shall serve as the authorization for any State
agency for the execution of the sentence.
The Prisons Act (1971), is clear as well, explicitly saying:
2. A person shall not be admitted to prison, unless pursuant to an Arrest
Decree or Detention Decree, which was brought with him...
3. The Prison Director shall verify that the Decree is signed by the appropriate
authority and is lawfully made, and that the prisoner is the person stated in it.
4. The Requester also filed two years ago a FOIA request on the Prison Service, pertaining
to current admission to prison procedures. The January 06, 2016 Response by Eti Grover,
"Coordinator of Complaints and Public Inquiries (invalid FOIA response: unsigned, issued
by a person, who is not a FOIA officer), says:
We herein inform you that the reference for imprisonment in the Prison Service is an
Arrest/Detention Warrant, signed by a judge original only!
5. The above referenced requests, which were filed with the Supreme Court, also serve as
notices to the Supreme Court in general, and to Justice Uri Shoham in particular, regarding
the serious perversions in instant court file. Therefore, refusal to render decisions on the
above referenced requests also amounts to refusal to correct such perversions.
_____________________________________________________________________
293/367 TOC: 1
6. In parallel, the Requester filed notices with Governor of the Prison Service Ofra Klinger,
warning her to safeguard the law, pertaining to admission of persons to prison in general,
and Appellant Shuki Mishol in particular.
7. Ongoing refusal by the Supreme Court to correct serious perversions, pertaining to
Liberty; moreover admission to prison by the Prison Service of Appellant Shuki Mishol,
or any other person, with no lawfully made Arrest Decree, would not doubt be deemed
serious violations of Human Rights in International Law.
8. Circumstances, which are documented in instant court file render the Supreme Courts
hifalutin declarations regarding a Constitutional Revolution and its adherence to Human
Rights as public relations stunts, no more.
9. Appellant Mishol is former senior officer of the Tax Authority, and the most senior among
the Tax Authority whistle-blowers. Later, he became the victim of persecution by the justice
system, particularly former Tel-Aviv District Attorney Ruth David and her partner Attorney
Ronel Fisher. Therefore, the circumstances, which are documented in instant court file, also
appear as continuation of persecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower Shuki Mishol by the
justice and law enforcement systems.
10. Instant request is extremely urgent, given the pending imprisonment.
Date: May 07, 2017; Requesters signature: _______________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
c) Forensic medicine expert Dr Maya Forman
Figure. Dr Maya Forman

______
The Dr Maya Forman affair, is a major derivative of the Roman Zadorov affair. It clearly
demonstrated collusion of the Nazareth trial court judges, the State Attorney and the
Attorney General in the perversion of Roman Zadorovs case. It also showed retaliation
against an honest forensic medical expert, who dared to stand up to the false claims of
police and the State prosecution, and judges, which were determined to convict an innocent
person.
In the Nazareth District Court trial, police claimed that Roman Zadorov confessed the
murder of Tair Rada, which Roman Zadorov repeatedly denied. Police moreover claimed
_____________________________________________________________________
294/367 TOC: 1
that Roman Zadorov confessed that he had perpetrated the murder using a Japanese
cardboard knife (but the knife had never been discovered).
Dr Maya Forman, then in private practice testified on behalf of the Defense, that Tair Rada
was murdered using a serrated knife. Therefore, Dr Forman undermined the Prosecutions
case and the validity of the purported confession in a fundamental way.
In the Nazareth District Court trial, the Prosecution countered Maya Formans testimony by
hearsay statements: That Dr Chen Kugel, Director of the National Pathological Institute
supported their position, that the murder had been perpetrated using a Japanese cardboard
knife. However, Dr Kugel never took the stand and never filed an affidavit in the Nazareth
District Court trial.
Regardless, the Nazareth District Court judges accepted Dr Kugels hearsay professional
opinion and relied on it in their purported Verdict. Moreover, the Nazareth District Court
judges went out of the way to strongly criticized Dr Forman for her unprofessional,
negligent conduct
In the aftermath, Dr Maya Forman was hired by the National Pathological Institute,
following a search committee recommendation.
State Attorney Shay Nitzan, supported by Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein then initiated
a retaliation campaign against Dr Maya Forman and issued directives to prohibit her from
further appearances before the courts as an expert witness.
Dr Forman sued State Attorney Shay Nitzan, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, Minister
of Health Yael German (the Institute is administered under the Ministry of Health), and
Head of the Institute Dr Chen Kugel in the Tel-Aviv Labor Court for unlawful interference
with her employment and her professional career.
The case took an unexpected turn, when the Minister of Health Yael German, named
Defendant in the case, refused to support the State Attorneys and Attorney Generals
position. Regarding State Attorney Shay Nitzans actions against Dr Maya Forman, Minister
of Health Yael German wrote: ...lacks legal foundation and carries overarching and
dangerous implications... blatant violation of Human Rights, the fundamentals of law and
justice...
The case took an unexpected turn, when Dr Chen Kugel, also named Defendant in the case,
also refused to support the State Attorneys and Attorney Generals position. Dr Chen Kugel
filed an affidavit fully supporting Dr Maya Formans professional opinion regarding the
Roman Zadorovs case (contradicting the hearsay statements of the Prosecution, made on
his behalf in the Nazareth District Court), and also fully objecting to State Attorney Shay
Nitzans actions against Dr Maya Forman.
In response, the State Attorneys office tried to temper with Dr Chen Kugels affidavit and
pervert it. However, Dr Chen Kugel bravely stood by his opinion.
Dr Maya Forman eventually won her labor lawsuit. [see also - ]
The case further spawned new serious, ongoing affairs:
_____________________________________________________________________
295/367 TOC: 1
The Dr Chen Kugels Affidavit affair
Figure. Dr Chen Kugel

______
State Attorney Shay Nitzan and Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (like his successor,
current Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit) fully supported the right of the State
Attorneys office to pervert Dr Chen Kugels affidavit to suit the States position in court.
Their rationale was that Dr Chen Kugel was a State service employee, and therefor had to
support the States position.
The position of State Attorney Shay Nitzan and Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (like his
successor, current Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit) were then subject of NGO
complaints to the Israel Bar Association. Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein then used his
authority to prohibit the Israel Bar Association from reviewing such complaints.
The position of State Attorney Shay Nitzan and Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (like his
successor, current Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit) are now subject of a petition to the
Supreme Court, where the evidence shows that the Supreme Court is engaged in perversion
of records and process
The Dr Chen Kugels affair is still ongoing at the time of writing this submission
[see also - Ometz v Attorney General, State Attorney et al (5514/16) in the Supreme Court 51]
Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight Hila Gerstel affair:

With the establishment of the new office of Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight in an
effort to restore integrity of the State Prosecution, Commissioner Judge (ret) Hila Gerstel
initiated review of the relationship between the State Prosecution and the National
Pathological Institute. Her scathing report raised concerns of routine perversion of justice
by tailoring of the National Pathological Institutes's opinions to suit the State Prosecutions
needs. In some cases, she documented pressure by the State Prosecution on the Institutes
experts to change their court opinions.
When Commissioner Gerstel completed her report and was about to publish it, the State
Prosecutors went on strike, and also filed a petition in the Supreme Court, asking to prohibit
the publication of the report, which would have damaged their reputation. In view of such
staunch opposition by the State Attorney and the Attorney General, with no support from the
Minister of Justice, Commissioner Gerstel resigned.
_____________________________________________________________________
296/367 TOC: 1
Judge (ret) David Rosen was elected next Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight. He
eventually published an amended report, which was largely seen as tailored to avoid the true
fact unearthed in Hila Gerstels report.
National Pathological Institute affair

Regardless of the position of the State Attorney, the Attorney General, and new
Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight, the National Pathological Institute under Dr Chen
Kugels leadership initiated a dialogue with the Knessets Constitution, Law and Justice
Committee in the context of review of the Commissioners report.
The Institute stated its intention to start reviewing of court opinions that were provided in
previous years under the Leadership of Prof Yehuda Hiss (who was fired on the background
of a disciplinary process, and under whose leadership various types of misconduct in the
Institute were alleged). Such review may result in the voiding of unknown number of
serious criminal cases, perhaps in the thousands.
In the Committees June 19, 2017 Hearing, the State Attorneys office objected to the direct
dialogue between the National Pathological Institute and the Knessets Constitution, Law
and Justice Committee, and internal review by the Institute of its past opinions. [ ccxciii]
Deputy State Attorney Shlomo Lamberg stated that, continuing such dialogue intimidates
that State Attorneys office and undermines the justice process. He also stated:
Commissioner Rosens report refuted the claims that State Attorneys caused
experts to alter their expert opinions.
MK Yael German, former Minister of Health, raised concerns that innocent people were
convicted and remained in imprisoned.
Dr Chen Kugel repeated in the Committees hearing his position that a second pathological
institute should be supported, to end the monopoly of the National Pathological Institute. Dr
Kugel answered in the positive on a question by MK Ohana, whether there were past cases
that the National Pathological Institute provided baseless opinions. MK German responded.
This is the most disturbing part, and Dr Kugels response makes it mandatory
that Dr Kugel file a list of cases, where such opinions were provided.
MK Mualem-Rafaeli said:
The State Attorneys office has totally lost public trust because of its war
against the former Commissioner, which the public cannot comprehend. It
was seriously wrong...
At the end of the Committees meeting, Chairman Slomiansky asked Dr Kugel to file a list
of cases, which raise clear concerns of false conviction.
[See also - Ministry of Health and the National Pathological Institute 192]
18. Media
While media in Israel is vibrant, Israel ranks relatively low on Freedom of the Press indexes
of Reporters Without Borders.
In 2014 Israel ranked at 96th place (out of 180), below Bolivia and Ecuador, but
above Kirghistan and Gabon.
_____________________________________________________________________
297/367 TOC: 1
In 2017 Israel ranked at 91st place (out of 180), below Kirghistan and Peru, but above
Nicaragua and Mozambique.
a) TV series criticizing the State Attorney office

From meetings with journalists it becomes apparent that they have plenty of information
regarding judicial incompetence and/or corruption. It is also obvious that they note the
blatant perversion of court records. However, as an award winning legal corespondent
explained to this writer: These things would not pass any mainstream media editor in
Israel.
However, criticism of the State Attorney and State Prosecution passes.
Two TV mini-series in particular, both of which aired in 2016 in close proximity, had a
major impact on public perception of corruption of the State Attorneys office:
Shadow of Truth dealt with the murder of Tair Rada and the Roman Zadorov affair
[ccxciv] It greatly increased public awareness of the miscarriage of justice in this case.
Capital Cases dealt with a variety of cases, pertaining to police and the State
Prosecution conduct, including whistle-blower Shuki Mishols persecution, some
false murder charges, and more. The series, which included in leading Israeli
criminal counsel, victims of false prosecutions, and politicians presented the State
Prosecution as an unaccountable force, which can convict anybody at will. It also
raised the prospect that politicians are routinely intimidated, including justice
ministers. Orna Ben Dor, the producer, later said in an interview There is no truth
and no justice in the Israeli justice system. She also said that she lived in fear after
producing the series.
The two TV series put the State Prosecution on the defense. State Attorney delivered a
speech in the Israel Bar Association, where he said: [ ccxcv]
Today, the State Prosecution is under a prolonged attack a series on
Channel 10, named Capital Cases was replete and saturated with serious
defamation, baseless, patently groundless This is rock bottom
unprecedented that an Israeli mainstream outlet permitted the broadcast of
such series. It is incredible that an important national TV channel permits
misleading the public, and aggressively promotes such a problematic series,
which pretends to be a documentary, where the public is incited against the
State Prosecution, which is represented as a cruel dictatorship, nothing
less For example, in one of the chapters, a well known attorney speaks
about the fact that The Rule of Law Gang keeps in the safe files on any
person, and there is hardly any person on whom they dont have a file. The
same attorney says that e heard a story that the State Prosecution threatened to
frame a judge if he did not resign
While that TV series has not yet ended, another one was aired, this time
regarding the Tair Rada murder ladies and gentlemen, these are mainstream
media, which provide the stage for conspiracy theories This is a true
danger to democracy
In sum without a strong State Prosecution, independent and determined,
Israel would become a weak and corrupt state.
_____________________________________________________________________
298/367 TOC: 1
Supreme Court Presiding Justice Miriam Naor referred to the same TV series in the same
Israel Bar meeting, warning against alternative courts on TV.
Their statements created a major media storm. The producers responded: Whoever thinks
that Freedom of Expression is dangerous for democracy may be the core of the problem.
Director of Channel 8 said, Shai Nitzans attack scares me.
b) Publishing Draft court records

UN reports on Strengthening Judicial Integrity against Corruption note that in nations,
where judicial corruption is rampant, media usually refrain from publishing the matter. That
is also the general case in Israel.
Moreover, media should be deemed in collusion with the courts relative to publishing
invalid prosecutorial and judicial records - drafts.
Such records are provided to legal correspondents by spokespersons of various agencies,
particularly spokespersons of the Ministry of Justice (as to indictment records) and the
Administration of Courts (as to judgment records).
It is unreasonable that experienced legal correspondents do not know the difference between
an authentic court record and an unauthentic record. However, legal correspondents
routinely publish indictment records, which are provided to them by the Ministry of
Justice as unsigned Word documents, with no court file number, no Filed stamp.
Among the publications in the case of the Internet Terror Group - activists against
corruption of the family courts - was a draft indictment, which turned out to be different
from the one filed in court.
Similar circumstance were recorded in the case of criminal prosecution of former Head of
the Israel FBI Menashe Arbiv, who is purportedly prosecuted on Breach of Loyalty, related
to bribes taken by him.
Ombudsman of the Judiciary annual reports noted a number of times in recent years that
Spokeswoman of the Administration of Courts had released to media judgment Drafts.
Case Study: Internet terror gang

The case of social protest activists Lori Shem-Tov and Moti Leybel is a prime example. In
that case, media, fed by the prosecution, engaged in a smearing campaign against the
suspects over the first 24 hours after their detention. Police referred to them in court as an
Internet Terror Gang, and media adopted the term, which has no foundation in the law.
Police also initially claimed that the suspects engaged in extortion. Media adopted that
claim as well. Later it turned out to be baseless: [ccxcvi]
The gang that worked at defaming people
A gang of bloggers had for years spread fear among social workers, attorneys
and judges under the pretext that they were social activists. The group,
which published false and offending reports on thousands of public service
employees, was detained last week under suspicion that beyond the harm
perpetrated online, they also tried to extort the victims, by demanding pay in
order to remove the defaming publications
_____________________________________________________________________
299/367 TOC: 1
However, following the first few days, media accepted self-imposed censorship on the case,
which demonstrates to this day some extreme violations of the suspects Human Rights and
Israeli law by police and the courts.
c) Gag Orders
Media in Israel is further limited in reporting on the courts, due to abundance of gag orders,
whose number has greatly expanded in recent years.
The combination of closed-doors hearings and gag order on media permits the courts, police
or Shin-Bet, and the prosecution to engage in various types of abuse. [ccxcvii] Israelis are
often informed of such cases only through foreign press.
One news outlet recently noted: [ccxcviii]
The courts are rubber stamps police got 54 gag orders in one month
Investigation by News1 finds: 32 gag orders were rendered in murder
investigations, including old cases. Some of the gag orders are rendered in a
manner that does not permit to know what they refer to. The epidemic of gag
orders on suspects names continues.
And another record was also set recently: [ccxcix]
Six gag orders within 24 hours
Reports indicate that gag orders by the courts (often with an accompanying gag order,
prohibiting the publication of the fact that a gag order was issued) have increased more than
three-fold over the past fifteen years. They are often used to suppress reporting on subjects
that are embarrassing to the authorities, in particular the security apparatus and the
judiciary.
The Israel Democracy Institute 2013 Freedom of the Press report notes: [ ccc]
The central story relative to Freedom of the Press in Israel for 2013 is no
doubt the Ben Zygier Prisoner X affair. The affair raise in full the issue of
the use of gag order in Israel in criminal investigations, in civil matters, and
a substitute for military censorship
already in 2010 Presiding Judge of the Central District Hila Gerstel granted
State Attorney and security agencies request for a gag order regarding
Zygiers identity and any other detail related to the affair (including his
imprisonment, suspicions against him, general circumstances). Three
interesting details regarding this gag order first, it was granted indefinitely,
second, it included prohibition on citing foreign media (a method used by
Israeli media to circumvent censorship and gag orders), and third, a Super
Injunction was also issued, prohibiting the publication of the existence of the
gag order itself
A recent case demonstrates the extreme laxity with which the courts and law enforcement
use gag orders a gag-order, issued behind closed doors, with no limit in time, on
investigation against one of Israeli largest public corporations Bezeq on suspicions of
stock-market law violations: [ccci]
In a very unusual move, a judge approved request by the Israel Securities
Authority (ISA) for a publication prohibition decree, which is not limited in
time, a measure that is not even taken in murder cases, disregarding the fact
_____________________________________________________________________
300/367 TOC: 1
that subject of the investigation is a huge public corporation As usual, the
decree was rendered in an ex parte process, with no media present or voicing
their position in case there would be any detentions media would be
required to obtain special permission from the court to publish the news The
judge granted the ISA full control over the continuation of the gag-order, since
she failed to state an expiration date; even in murder cases, gag-orders are
limited in time and must be renewed. In this case, ISA is permitted to decide
by itself regarding ending the effect of the decree in whole or in part without
court approval The original decree was issued in the early morning, and
included a super decree, prohibiting publication of the existence of the decree
a measure that is typically taken only in State security affairs.
An Israel Democracy Institute 2016 publication titled, Press Freedom, Democracy
Under Fire, notes, ...a recent episode between the Israeli government and the foreign
press placed Israel in a problematic light and was neither democratic nor right on
February 9, the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee summoned heads of the
Foreign Press Association to the Knesset for a hearing. [cccii]
Other notable concomitant developments include increasingly centralized government
control of media. Some of the alleged corruption scandals, pertaining to PM Netanyahu, are
related to control of media.
_____________________________________________________________________
301/367 TOC: 1
19. Civil Society NGOs
Some well-established NGOs, such Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Israel Democracy
Institute, Ometz, continue their work.
A plethora of anti-corruption NGOs have grown in recent years, and some of them are of
dubious record:
Conduct of Ogen and its legal director, Attorney Hai Bar-El, relative to whistle
blower Rafi Rotem and the State Ombudsman is recorded above. [see also ]
Conduct of former senior Israel Police commander Yigal Ankori, who heads an anti-
corruption NGO - Movement for fighting crime and corruption in Israel. Ahead of
an anti-Attorney General, anti-corruption lawful protest in Petah Tikva, which police
was trying to prevent, he published a Facebook post, which reads like incitement for
violence against lawful protesters and for suppression of protest rights in Israel.
Figure. June 03, 2017 Facebook post by Yigal Ankori, former senior police officer and
founder of Movement for fighting crime and corruption in Israel: Ladies and Gentlemen:
This Saturday night, June 03, 2017, an illegal demonstration is going to take place in Goren
Square in Petah-Tikvah, not far from the residence of dear Attorney General Avichai
Mandelblit! I see and explosion, meaning rioting and violence and detentions the
[neighborhood] residents do not agree to such demonstrations, and they may take the law
into their hands and confront the demonstrators (so I hear). I though to myself, that police
decision was right to prevent and scuttle violent confrontation, which would harm and risk
public peace!!! anybody who come to demonstrate or watch should take into account that
they may be detained...
_____
_____________________________________________________________________
302/367 TOC: 1
20. Related socio-economic trends
a) Rampant government corruption

The past couple of decades show rampant increase in government corruption.
In January 2016, Business insider summed it like this: [ccciii]
Israel The OECD's poorest nation is also one of its most corrupt...
Figure. Wikileaks Cablegate: 2009 US Ambassador Cunninghams report on merger of

organized crime and government in Israel.
_____
One of the more interesting cables pertaining to Israel, published by Wikileaks as part of
Cablegate, is US Ambassador Cunninghams 2009 report on government corruption in
Israel, titled: Israel: A promised land for organized crime? Of note, the report addresses
the justice system, but concludes that there was no evidence of corruption there. [ ccciv] The
years since then produced plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Figure. Law Prof Mordechai Kremnitzer, one of the founders of the Israel Democracy
Institute.
____
The Roman Zadorov affair was no doubt a break point, where senior experts for the first
time openly expressed their opinion of massive corruption of the justice system. Prof
Kremnitzer wrote:
Conduct of the prosecution is scary this is not the conduct of prosecution,
which is seeking the truth... adding to it the Supreme Courts stance and the
Attorney Generals conduct in recent years, one is left with a justice system,
which is primarily defending itself.
News1, alternative online media, which focuses on legal and justice issues, routinely refers
to State Attorney Shai Nitzan - the habitual lier.
_____________________________________________________________________
303/367 TOC: 1
Corruption in economic/financial matters is more openly discussed by media and experts.
Kremnitzer and his colleagues also wrote a critical review of Breach of Trust in the Israeli
Penal Code and a proposal for its improvement. Their claim is that the ambiguity of the
offense of Deceit and Breach of Trust poses a hurdle in combating corruption in Israel. [ cccv]
He failed to respond on request to comment on the failure to enforce the law, pertaining to
Deceit and Breach of Trust on judges, for example, Judge Varda Alshech in the Fabricated
Protocols scandal.
Figure. Economics professor Yaron Zelekha, Israeli Ministry of Finance Accountant

General 20032007
_____
Economics Prof Yaron Zelekha, former Ministry of Finance Accountant General, authored a
book, titled: The Macroeconomics of Corruption.
He is also known for stating: A gang of criminals took over the regime in the State of
Israel.
Figure. Criminal Law professor Miriam Gur-Arye

_____
Criminal Law professor Miriam Gur Arye appears to be taking an opposing approach. At the
same time that she recognizes the public corruption crisis, she does not see the failure in law
enforcement on corrupt government officers. On the contrary, she perceives the current
situation as an outburst of moral panic concerning the fight against political corruption.
Likewise, she perceives: This panic has caused the expansion of the offense into areas
better controlled by disciplinary and ethical means. [cccvi] She failed to respond on request
to comment on the failure to enforce the law, pertaining to Deceit and Breach of Trust on
judges, for example, Judge Varda Alshech in the Fabricated Protocols scandal.
_____________________________________________________________________
304/367 TOC: 1
Figure: Supreme Court Justice Menachem Mazuz, former Attorney General.
____
In contrast with Prof. Gur-Arye, who perceives excessive criminalization of State Service
employees, then former Attorney General, in a newspaper interview, described the Tax
Authority corruption scandal as closest to organized crime in high offices, and expressed
his disappointment from the way related cases were handled by the courts.
b) Rapid increase in poverty
Figure. Israel used to be a socialist welfare state. Over the past 2 decades it has been
propelled to 1st place in OECD Relative Poverty Rate.
_____
The Israeli economy has experienced continuous moderate growth over the past couple of
decades, and has not experienced any banking crisis. Regardless the increase in relative
poverty in Israel over the past two decades was rapid, and it can be directly related to
_____________________________________________________________________
305/367 TOC: 1
government policies, which reduced funding and/or privatized welfare services, decimated
public housing, as part of an official New Economy policy.
c) Implementation of total electronic surveillance

IDF Unit 8200 is routinely promoted in both local and international media as best in the
world in cyberwar.
Figure: 2013-08-13 Business Insider publication, one of a series of publications in both

local and international media, which promote the capabilities of the unit.
____
Figure: 2013-08-13 Business Insider publication, one of a series of publications in both

local and international media, which promote the capabilities of the unit.
____
However, an open dissent letter by Unit 8200 veterans exposed a more prosaic reality and
widespread serious violations of Human Rights. The letter specifically addressed practices,
which are applied to the Palestinian population. For example, the use of total electronic
surveillance to identify innocent individuals, which may be easily compromised because of
urgent medical needs, financial hardship, sexual orientation, and application of pressure on
them to become Israeli informers. The practice was claimed to undermine the fundamentals
of civil society in Palestine.
Although the letter referred to methods, which are applied to the Palestinian population, it is
naive to believe that total electronic surveillance stops at international borderlines.
On such background, the refusal of same or similar agencies to use the same methods to
investigate organized crime (the official reasoning - reluctance to expose working
_____________________________________________________________________
306/367 TOC: 1
methods), both violent and white-collar, creates the perception of patronage of organized
crime by State authorities.
Figure. 2017-06-04 A huge project of the Israel Police and the Internal Security Ministry
in the Capital. Any vehicle entering Jerusalem will be photographed and registered. "It
will work like in the movies", says a senior police officer, "there won't be a single citizen,
who won't be monitored". Hundreds of cameras are being installed in the entrances to
Jerusalem and main streets. All license plates will be recorded.
_____
d) Censorship and online content management
Figures. The Israeli government is believed to be one of the most active players in the
_____________________________________________________________________
307/367 TOC: 1
discourse in Hebrew, other basic languages... as well as Japanese, Persian, Mandarin,
Turkish.
____
Regarding censorship and online contents management, applied against social protest, see
also - Protesters against fraud by the banks and Debtors Courts Attorney Barak Cohen
246.
e) Implementation of a Biometric Database

Regardless of staunch opposition by leading Israeli cryptology experts, the Biometric
Database is now imposed on all residents of Israel.
Figure. In 2017, the Biometric Database became mandatory.

_____
_____________________________________________________________________
308/367 TOC: 1
20. Compliance with State law
Lack of compliance with State law, which is documented in instant submission is rampant,
particularly related to lack of compliance with the law by the judiciary. Under such
circumstances, the Rule of Law is thoroughly undermined.
State law that is disregarded, in evidence in instant submission:
a) Base Law Human Dignity and Liberty (1999)

Denial of access to inspect lawful arrest warrants:
Case Study: Roman Zadorov
Case Study: Shulamit Zaken
Case Study: Shuki Mishol
b) Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004)

Failure to lawfully appoint clerks in the courts, routine certification of invalid judicial
records by unauthorized, incompetent persons.
c) Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files (2003)

Routine denial of access to inspect judicial records, particularly e-signature data, even by a
party in his/her own case.
d) Electronic Signature Act (2001)

Implementation of invalid, deceitful e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat.
Filing of invalid, deceitful, unsigned reports by the Magistrate of Certifying Authorities.
e) Criminal Court Procedure ()
Case Study: Rafi Rotem
Case Study: Lori Shem-Tov and Moti Leybel open doors, arraignment
f) Prisons Act (1974) and Regulations of the Prisons ()

Admissions with no lawful arrest warrant
Roman Zadorov
Shulamit Zaken
Shuki Mishol
g) Freedom of Information Act (1988)

As evidenced in instant submission even the Ministry of Justice and the Knesset, not to
mention the Central Election Committee, headed by a Supreme Court Justice, disregard the
law.
_____________________________________________________________________
309/367 TOC: 1
h) Debtors Court Act (1967)
Routine fraud in the Debtors Courts.
i) Regulations of Apostille Convention (1977)

Falsification of Apostille certification.
j) Regulations of Ombudsman of the Judiciary

Initiation of fake review of a fake complaint.
Issuing of invalid, deceitful Decisions by Senior Appointee Attorney Abraham Wolf.
k) Regulations of State Archives Court File Shredding (1986)

Denial of access to inspect Supreme Court files under pretext of shredding, while refusing
to produce the documentation prescribed by law for court file shredding.
l) Regulations of the Apostille Convention (1977)

Falsification of Apostille certification, publishing online false instructions for Apostille
certification.
_____________________________________________________________________
310/367 TOC: 1
22. Compliance with international treaties and conventions
a) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] (1966)

Generally, conduct of the courts, relative to the failure to keep valid judicial records, valid
dockets, entry of judgments, should be deemed in violation of Due Process.
In particular, conduct of the prosecution in cases, outlined above, against whistle-blowers
and social protest activists document numerous additional violations of Due Process.
Finally, the case of Roman Zadorov, outlined above, should be deemed serious violation of
Civil Rights.
b) Hague Apostille Convention (1961)

Israel is a party to the Hague Apostille Convention.
Regulations for Execution of the Hague Apostille Convention (1977) were lawfully
promulgated, but appear in need of updates.
(i) Ministry of Foreign Affairs instructions for Apostille certification

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs published two versions of instructions for the issuance of
Apostille. These instructions could be deemed close to valid manner for Apostille
certification, with the exceptions, noted below.
Hebrew version [cccvii]
Figure. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hebrew instructions for issuing an Apostille on judicial
court records.
_____
Regarding court decisions and judgments, the instructions prescribe:

a) Obtain photocopy of the complete decision or judgment.
b) Obtain True Copy of the Original in the Court, where the decision or
judgment was rendered.
c) Obtain personal stamp and hand-signature of the Chief Clerk or Deputy
Chief Clerk of the the Court, where the decision or judgment was rendered.
English version [cccviii]
_____________________________________________________________________
311/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Ministry of Foreign Affairs English instructions for issuing an Apostille on judicial
court records.
_____
Regarding court decisions and judgments, the instructions prescribe:
Certification of Israeli Public Documents
One must follow the certification procedure as follows:
8. Rulings and Judgments of the Judicial Courts (but not of Tribunals*):
A. Photocopy of the ruling or judgment in its entirety.
B. Authoritative seal of the Judicial Court where the ruling or judgment was
rendered.
C. Signature and Seal of the Chief Secretary or Deputy Chief Secretary of the
Judicial Court where the ruling or judgment was rendered.
D. Signature and Seal of the Registrar of the Supreme Court or the Deputy
Director for the Judicial Courts certifying items B and C above.
A Seal may be obtained at:
o Bureau of Registrars, Supreme Court
Mondays-Thursdays, 09:00-12:00.
An appointment must be made one day in advance by telephone 02-6759601.
It remains inexplicable where the instructions originate, pertaining the authority of Supreme
Court Magistrate (here Registrar), or Deputy Director of Administration of Courts (here -
Deputy Director for the Judicial Courts) to certify judicial records of various courts.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs FOIA requests and responses, in re: Apostille
certification procedures
The instructions, published online by the Ministry of Justice left two major questions: a)
Who authorized the publication of the Apostille certification instructions on the Foreign
Ministry website, and b) How does the Ministry of Justice establish, who is a lawful Chief
Clerk of a given court (knowing that there are no lawfully appointed Chief Clerks in the
Israeli courts any longer).
Following is the February 20, 2015 FOIA request on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on
these questions.
_____________________________________________________________________
312/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
313/367 TOC: 1
_____________________________________________________________________
314/367 TOC: 1
Figures. February 20, 2015 FOIA request on Ministry of Foreign Affairs, re: Apostille
Certification.
_____
On March 23, 2015, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a Notice of Extension for the
time to provide response on such FOIA request.
On April 19, 2015, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the following FOIA response. Of
note, the FOIA response fails to show any reference number, and should therefore be
deemed Draft.
_____________________________________________________________________
315/367 TOC: 1
Figures. April 19, 2015, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs FOIA response. The response says
in part: 1) a) The website of the Foreign Ministry is periodically updated by authorized
persons in the Foreign Ministry. b), c), d) The requested information is held by the
Administration of Courts or the Ministry of Justice, and you may inquire with them 3)
Regarding the above, we herein clarify that where we state that the information is held by
the Administration of Courts, we mean that to the best of our knowledge the information
should be held by them, and therefore we recommend that you inquire with them.
_____
Following challenge to the FOIA response above, as inadequate, additional response was
received on May 27, 2015, shown below. Of note, the additional FOIA response also fails to
show any reference number, and should therefore be deemed Draft.
_____________________________________________________________________
316/367 TOC: 1
Figures. May 27, 2015, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs FOIA follow-up response. The
response says in part: We received your May 15, 2015 inquiry, and we wish to update you,
that the FOIA response was seriously reviewed vis a vis all relevant agencies. Accordingly,
we do not find that there is any room to change it. As stated in response to your inquiry, you
may inquire with the Administration of Courts or the Ministry of Justice for any information
that may be held by them.
_____
(ii) Administration of Courts instructions for Apostille certification
The Administration of Courts has separately published online entirely different instructions
for Apostille certification and sample forms, which should be deemed deceitful. [ cccix]
_____________________________________________________________________
317/367 TOC: 1
Figure. Administration of Courts Hebrew instructions for issuing an Apostille on judicial
court records. The instructions say: In the process of certification of public records, they
are certified by a notary public, on an attached certification. The notary public certification
is a public record, which requires certification. The certification of such public record, and
only such public record [bold in the original jz], is under authority of the courts. The
certification is executed on a record, which corresponds to the law, agreed between Israel
and the intended nation. Apostille is a record, which is intended for nations, which are
parties to to the Hague Conventions October 05, 1961 for the abolishing of certification of
public records. Israel is party to the Convention. Therefore, the court certify notary public
certifications, which are intended for nations, which are parties to the Convention, using the
Apostille record, the form of which is shown below [see the perverted form, published by
the Administration of Courts below jz]. In short: The Israeli courts explicitly state that
they do not certify their own records on the Apostille. They only certify that the notary
public, who certified the court record, is an authorized notary public. Obviously, such
certification is invalid, since the notary public is not authorized by Israeli law to certify
court records, only to certify translation of an official record as to its contents.
The misleading forms, published online, are deceitful on the same matter as shown in the
actual Apostille example below, pertaining to Conservatorship Decree i.e., the forms
published by the Israeli Judicial Authority deliberately eliminate any reference to the
judicial authority, who signed the record, and the certification does not pertain to such
judicial record at all.
_____________________________________________________________________
318/367 TOC: 1
Obviously, such perversion of the Apostille certification is entirely consistent with the vague
and ambiguous nature of judicial signatures on judicial record today, and their
accountability for such records.
Figure. Invalid, deceitful Apostille certification insructions, 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 only 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.
The Administration of Courts, like the Ministry of Justice, failed to duly respond on FOIA
request, pertaining to the authority, under which information is published on websites of the
Administration of Courts.
Case Study: Apostille certification of Decree appointing Conservator on the body and
property of Redacted
_____________________________________________________________________
319/367 TOC: 1
a) b)
c)
Figures. Purported February 15, 2016 Decree appointing Conservator on the body and
property of Redacted, by Judge Arye Neeman of Krayot Family Court, a printout from Net-
HaMishpat system, with purported Apostille certification. a) Record Page 1 - the diagonal
water-mark says Closed Doors (all family matters are sealed in the Israeli courts). The
record is missing the serial number, prescribed by the Regulations of Legal Competency and
Conservatorship (1988). The Regulations also prescribe that the Administration of Courts
_____________________________________________________________________
320/367 TOC: 1
maintain an open to the public National Registry of Legally Incompetent Persons, where all
such decrees must be entered. However, the Administration of Courts fails to maintain such
registry. The light blue stamp certifies, True Copy of the Original, joined by the personal
stamp (upside down) and wet hand-signature of Iris Dadon Chief Clerk, Krayot
Magistrate Court, as well as the Seal of the Court. However, a series of FOIA requests
shows that no Chief Clerk in the Israeli courts in recent years hold a lawful appointment. b)
Record Page 2 Judge Arye Neemans graphic signature. Ombudsman of the Judiciary
Decision in the Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal clarifies that such graphic
signatures in Net-HaMishpat lack any validity. The dark blue stamp certifies, True Copy
of the Original, bearing wet hand-signature of illegible signatures and no printed name,
Chief Clerk, Krayot Family Court, as well as the Seal of the Court. c) Purported Apostille
certification: 2. This public document has been signed by Mr/Ms Iris Dadon - false entry.
If the record was indeed electronically signed, the signature should have been by Judge Arye
Neeman. 3. Acting in the capacity of - the data is not provided. It should have been
Magistrate Judge. The Hebrew version of the same article says Deputy Chief Clerk -
Deputy Chief Clerk is not authorized by law sign such Conservatorship Decree. Neither is
Deputy Chief Clerk authorized to certify court records. 4. Bears the seal of Magistrate
Court. 5. Certified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Teila Karazi, Consular Affairs
Division - false entry. The purported certification of this record is either by Ms Iris Dadon,
Chief Clerk, alternatively Deputy Chief Clerk of the Krayot Magistrate Court, or by
illegible, Chief Clerk of the Krayot Family Court. The Apostille fails to state anywhere that
the record was duly signed by Judge Arye Neeman the person, who was authorized by
law to sign such legal record. Therefore, the Apostille is invalid, false and misleading. The
Decree record itself is of vague and ambiguous nature, since there is no way to ascertain that
the record was indeed signed by Judge Neeman, Iris Dadons authority to certify it is
dubious, and it was surely not entered in the National Registry of Legally Incompetent
Persons, prescribed by law by non-existent in practice.
______
In sum: The instructions, which are published online by the Ministry of Justice and the
Administration of Courts are contradictory, and both eventually permit the issuance of
invalid, deceitful Apostille certifications of Israeli judicial records. The outcome is
demonstrated in the Apostille form, published by the Administration of Courts and by the
actual Apostille certification execution on the Coservatorship Decree. The common theme
is the avoidance of certification of signature by a judge on the judicial records (where in
fact, there is no lawful signature on electronic records of the Israeli courts in Net-
HaMishpat).
_____________________________________________________________________
321/367 TOC: 1
23. Lack of response by Ministry of Foreign Affair in re: UPR
Repeat inquiries were forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, seeking information
regarding the establishment of a UPR Liaison Office, and the filing of drafts of instant
submission for their comments, response.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed receipt of the inquiries, but never responded.
_____________________________________________________________________
322/367 TOC: 1
23. Retaliation against this author following the 2012 submission and beyond
Figure. Social protest today is split into various groups, but many or most of them protest
corruption of the justice and law enforcement system. The author of instant submission is
known in Israel for routinely publishing in Israel and abroad evidence of incompetence
and/or corruption of the Israeli judiciary, and refusal of law enforcement to address such
evidence.
______
a) 2013 Freezing of bank accounts

In January 2013, my remaining savings (most had been unlawfully taken in the United
States), then deposited in the largest bank in Israel - Bank HaPoalim - were unlawfully
frozen by the bank. The bank claimed that the funds were frozen in compliance with US
law (FATCA). But FATCA was not in effect at that time in the US, and surely not in the
State of Israel. The freezing of my funds involved no prior legal procedure, either in the US
or in Israel.
Similar actions were similar to the unlawful actions, which were taken by US banks against
Assange and Wikileaks in late 2010, and US drone pilot whistle-blowers in 2015. [ cccx, cccxi]
Bank of Israel, Israel's central bank and banking regulator, then headed by Stanley Fischer
(today, No 2 in the US Federal Reserve), refused to duly register my Consumer's Complaint
against Bank HaPoalim in this matter, as documented in a letter from Stanley Fischer's own
office. [cccxii]
The January 27, 2013 letter from Governor of Bank of Israel Bureau Stanley Fischer in part
says:
Regardless of the fact that it is a US law,the Israeli banking system, like the banking
systems in many other nations, is gearing itself to act, pursuant to the demands of the
US Ministry of the Treasury and tax authorities, in order to avoid sanctions by such
bodies, including withholding from payments, transferred from the US to Israel,
regardless of the individual clients .
...
We understand that clarifications in the spirit of this letter have already been provided
to you by [the Israeli-jz] Bank HaPoalim, BM, on November 4, 2012.
_____________________________________________________________________
323/367 TOC: 1
With all our sympathy for the inconvenience and trouble, caused to the customers by
the FATCA instructions, we regretfully cannot help you beyond providing
clarifications, as detailed above.
Washington DC Attorney James Jatras, former US State Department counsel, opined that
Stanley Fischer's conduct in this case made no sense at all. [ cccxiii]
The Supreme Court of the State of Israel refused to duly register a Petition to Compel
Stanley Fischer to perform his banking regulation duties in compliance with the law of the
State of Israel. The petition was duly registered only after it was dismissed. [ cccxiv,cccxv]
Then Chief Clerk of the Israeli Supreme Court Sarah Lifschitz refused to answer on a
request to explain the retroactive adulteration of court records in this case.
Eventually, when all else had failed, I filed a Request for Protection with the Federal
German government, through the Tel Aviv Consulate. [cccxvi]
Soon after that, all funds were returned by the bank.
b) 2013 - Further retaliation following the UPR submission

Later in 2013, civil litigation was purportedly commenced against me in the Haifa
Magistrate Court. Such litigation was clearly simulated litigation and Fraud upon the Court
and an attempt to intimidate and retaliate:
The litigation started with no summons;
The complaint listed no law of the State of Israel as the basis for the complaint;
Attorney, who filed the complaint, failed to file certificate of Counsel of Record for
the purported plaintiffs;
Court orders were served unsigned by a judge, and with no authentication by the
clerk of the court;
The litigation was to be conducted behind closed doors, and I was repeatedly warned
in purported "orders" by the judge, against showing any of the records to any other
person, and
Access to court records was denied to the purported Defendant in his own case.
I refused to appear in such court.
Attempts to gain Equal Protection under the Law against such abuse, by petitioning to the
Israeli Supreme Court again failed - the Supreme Court purportedly denied the petition, but
refused to serve a signed and certified record of the decision. [cccxvii,cccxviii]
Eventually, I again filed a Request for Protection with the German Consul in Tel Aviv, and
the litigation file was "closed". [cccxix]
c) 2016 unlawful detention, beating by police attempt to extract computer passwords

On the morning of November 09, 2016, I was stopped by police in the morning, while
walking in the street (Israel Police Event #83). The policeman, who stopped me, Saif
Kabalan, knew me well, since for 5 years (2012-2017) I resided in the OccupyTLV camp.
Police also knew that I always carry my laptop computer with me. He asked what I was
carrying. I answered my laptop computer. He asked to see it, and I showed it. He then
asked to inspect its contents, I refused, since he had no cause and no search warrant. He then
_____________________________________________________________________
324/367 TOC: 1
declared the computer suspected stolen. I answered that I had a receipt with me, and the
shop, where I bought it was nearby and the owner could testify to that effect as well.
All that did not matter. I was taken to the Tel-Aviv Center Police Station on Dizengoff
Street, where I was held for 4 hours. I was taken into the bomb-shelter, where there was no
camera and sound could not be heard, where I was stripped, beaten, all in an attempt to
extract my computer passwords. Beyond Kabalan an interrogator Idan Malka, and the
Station Assistant Commander Alon Lurie were involved. All three tried to bully me and
threaten that they would transfer me to a detention center, etc. [cccxx]
Upon release, complaint, documenting the incident, was promptly filed with the German
Consul.
_____________________________________________________________________
325/367 TOC: 1
E. Conclusions
The evidence indicates systemic violations of Human Rights, treaties and conventions as
well as State law by Israeli justice agencies, holding serious implications relative to all
aspects of Civil Society in Israel:
1. The validity and integrity of any legal and judicial records of Israel should be deemed
dubious at best. The Israeli courts can no longer be deemed competent Courts of Record.
Israel should be deemed in violation of all Human Rights, where competent courts are a
prerequisite. Israel should be deemed in violation of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the Hague Apostille Convention.
2. Conditions, which have emerged in the Israeli courts should be deemed a constitutional
crisis in a nation with no constitution. The purported Constitutional Revolution should
be deemed a public relations charade by the same actors, who were central to
undermining integrity of the courts.
3. Concentration of power in legal, security, and capital groups is likely to frustrate any
corrective efforts. Conditions in Israel amount to loss of social contract. Correction
would require long-term, fundamental public education and massive exertion of public
will and determination.
F. Recommendations
Major efforts should focus on restoring integrity of the courts and the legal profession:
1. Israeli informatics and legal experts, operating under direct public accountability, should
assume a central role in repairing e-government systems in all branches of government,
first and foremost in the courts and prisons. Lawful implementation of e-signatures on
electronic government records in general and judicial records in particular is essential.
The courts must not be permitted to develop and implement their own IT systems
(Separation of Powers), and their IT systems should be as transparent as possible
(Publicity of the Law). Informatics experts should assume a central role in the safeguard
of Civil Society and Human Rights in our era. Human Rights and internet activists must
vigorously monitor such systems on an ongoing basis. Israel provide a unique example
of the risks, inherent in unlawful implementation of e-government systems.
2. Deceit and Breach of Trust should be vigorously enforced on extra-judicial conduct by
judges, such as falsification of court records, as well as on conduct of attorneys in State
service, particularly prosecutors. Major reform in Administration of Courts and Offices
of the Clerks is a prerequisite for restoring integrity of the courts. Truth and
Reconciliation Commission may be eventually required, regarding current conduct of the
courts and the legal profession.
3. Chairmanship of the Central Election Committee by Supreme Court justices was mired
in incompetence or worse. The Committee needs to be fundamentally reformed. Until its
integrity is restored, administration of the general elections should avoid the use of
existing IT systems. Invitation of international observers is desirable.
Note: The HRA submission pertains only to the State of Israel within the 1967 borders.
Online Annex with references: https://www.scribd.com/document/351709301/
_____________________________________________________________________
326/367 TOC: 1
June 29, 2017 __________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD*
Human Rights Alert-NGO
* Detectable Adobe electronic signature is placed on the upper right corner of the face page
of the PDF file.
LINKS:
_____________________________________________________________________
327/367 TOC: 1
i
2017 Joseph Zernik, PhD Biographical Sketch
https://www.scribd.com/document/46421113/
ii
2000Lessig,L.CodeisLaw
http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/codeislawhtml
iii
Thursday, May 11, 2017

Israeli Supreme Court Justice Uri Shoham fakes an arrest warrant
on whistle-blower Shuki Mishol Justice Shoham issued an unsigned
arrest warrant on "anonymous", "subject to editing and phrasing
changes", and in parallel applied unlawful sealing on the entire Supreme
Court file. For 15 years, the justice system has been protecting the Tax
Authority corruption figures, while persecuting the whistle-blowers.
Judges are the crux of government corruption in Israel.
iv
Wedne
Tuesday, June 14, 2017

Roman Zadorov affair: The Supreme Court perverted decision
records in Disqualification for a Cause against 3 justices In the
petition, the Attorney General and the State Attorney claim that they
were acting within their authority in perverting the expert opinion of Dr
Chen Kugel - Head of the State Forensic Institute - pertaining to the
murder trial of Roman Zadorov. To top it off, the Supreme Court perverted
the records in the petition itself as well. Prof Kremnitzer summed it up:
"The justice system is primarily defending itself".
v
1993AConstitutionalRevolution:Israel'sBasicLawsbyAharonBarak,eYLS
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3697/
vi
2007-04-23 Posner, R., Enlightened Despot, New Republic
https://newrepublic.com/article/60919/enlightened-despot
vii
1993 Mautner, M., Decline of formalism and increase in values in Israeli jurisprudence
[Hebrew]
http://www.textologia.net/?p=25856
2016-09-21 There is a total jungle in the courts. Do anything possible not to get there.
viii
Globes
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001153449
ix
REQUESTTONAORREPERVERSIONOFRECORDSINBARANES
x
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge Varda
Alshech "Fabricated Protocols" scandal //
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5SUZuQlU5eXVIc2M
xi
RegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk1936and2004
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cTNMWVh3QUpNVFk
xii
RegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk1936and2004
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cTNMWVh3QUpNVFk
xiii
Monday, September 24, 2012

LargescalefraudinthecourtsoftheStateofIsrael,peerreviewedbyinternational
computingexperts A paper, detailing large-scale fraud in the electronic
records of the court of the State of Israel was accepted for publication in
an international computer science journal, following two cycles of
anonymous peer-review by international computer-science academic
scholars. The facts, detailed in the paper, should be deemed equivalent
to an unannounced regime change in the State of Israel over the past
decade.
xiv
NOTICE TO GRUNIS AND SHIN BET OF SECURITY BREACH
xv
Friday, January 3, 2014

ISRAEL: Large-scale Fraud in the Supreme Court's Office of the
Clerk A court, which operates with no lawful office of the clerk, is an
incompetent court. The evidence shows that starting in 2002, the Israeli
Supreme Court operates with a sham Office of the Clerk. The fraud in
appearance of Attorney Ben Tovim as "Head of Pro Se Section" in the
Israeli Supreme Court has a close parallel in the conduct of "Court
Counsel" Danny Bickell in the US Supreme Court.
20160621Ajudgmententeredinerror:Wheredidtherecordsdisappearfrom
xvi
theSupremeCourtfile?WallaNews
http://news.walla.co.il/item/2972169
2012-04-16 PRESS RELEASE: Criminal Fraud Complaint Against SARAH
xvii
LIFSCHITZ, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, Filed Today With
Israel Police
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89681591/
xviii
CFRIMINAL COMPLAINT V GRUNIS
xix
Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Israel: Supreme Court Presiding Justice Asher Grunis refuses to
explain the appointment of new "Chief Clerk"... Recently, the
website of the Israeli Supreme Court started noting Ms Meloul as Chief
Clerk with no formal published notice of her appointment. Presiding
Justice Grunis has also refused to address the appointment at all, while
Israeli media black out the entire affair. Conditions in the Israeli courts
mimic similar fraud, implemented in the electronic-record systems of the
US federal courts a decade or two earlier.
xx
FOIA Melul appointment
xxi
Friday, August 19, 2016

Roman Zadorov affair: A court, which refuses to certify its own
decisions, is certified corrupt! The Nazareth District Court and the
Israeli Supreme Court have so far refused to produce any duly signed and
certified decision or judgment record pertaining to Roman Zadorov.
Zadorov is held by the Israeli authorities, purportedly as a convict in the
gruesome murder of 13.5 yo Tair Rada - with no duly made Verdict, no
duly made Sentencing, and no duly made Arrest Decree.
xxii
Wednesday,June14,2017
RomanZadorovaffair:TheSupremeCourtperverteddecisionrecordsin
DisqualificationforaCauseagainst3justicesInthepetition,theAttorney
GeneralandtheStateAttorneyclaimthattheywereactingwithintheirauthorityin
pervertingtheexpertopinionofDrChenKugelHeadoftheStateForensicInstitute
pertainingtothemurdertrialofRomanZadorov.Totopitoff,theSupremeCourt
pervertedtherecordsinthepetitionitselfaswell.ProfKremnitzersummeditup:
"Thejusticesystemisprimarilydefendingitself".
20170522OmetzvAttorneyGeneraletal(5514/16)intheSupremeCourt
xxiii
DisqualificationforaCause(Req21)ofSupremeCourtJusticesYoramDanziger,
NealHeldelandNoamSolbergintheancillaryprocessofrequesttoinspect
20160711OmetzvAttorneyGeneraletal(5514/16)intheSupremeCourt
xxiv
petitionforaconditionaldecree
http://www.ometz.org.il/admin/UploadImages/434201.pdf
xxv
OMBUDSMAN NET
xxvi
Zernik,J."FraudulentNewITSystemsoftheIsraeliCourtsUnannounced
2015
RegimeChange?"EuropeanConferenceonEgovernment
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252258857/
xxvii
xxviii
20170315Complaint(192/17/NazarethDistrict),filedwithOmbudsmanof
theJudiciarydenialofaccesstoesignaturesinthecourts
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5TGpGQkhDc1oxUWc/view?
usp=sharing
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii
xxxiv
Tuesday, July 12, 2016

ROMAN ZADOROV - the Israeli Mendel Beilis "Roman Zadorov's case
reflects widespread incompetence and/or corruption of the Israeli justice
system, including its highest echelons, to a level that would be
recognized in criminology as 'Organized State Crime'." The imprisonment
of Ukrainian Zadorov by the Jewish state is a tragic mirror image of the
notorious Mendel Beilis affair in the Ukraine a century ago.
xxxv
Tuesday, December 15, 2015

The Zadorov Affair: False murder conviction of a Ukrainian
exposed massive corruption of the Israeli justice system Roman
Zadorov has been imprisoned for almost 10 years, part of life sentence
for gruesome murder 13 yo girl, which he had nothing to do with. Israeli
law professor Boaz Sangero wrote: "Conviction with no real evidence".
Israeli law professor Mota Kremnitzer wrote:"Conduct of the prosecution
is scary... the prosecution isn't seeking the truth... the justice system is
mostly busy protecting itself..." Please sign the petition.
xxxvi
Saturday, March 21, 2015

Holyland II: Where are Judge Rosen's Verdict and Sentence records of former PM
Olmert corruption? The Holyland corruption scandal originated in bribes
taken by former PM Olmert. Israeli media reported a year ago that Olmert
was convicted and sentence to a 6 year prison term, of which he hasn't
served so far a day. Overnight, Judge David Rosen became a national
hero in the war on government corruption. However, the Verdict and
Sentence records are nowhere to be found... Assign Series
xxxvii
BERLINER ON CLERK
xxxviii
FAKE FOIA response
xxxix
Inquiry with Orenestin
xl
Orenstin response
xli
Oresnstin 2nd response
xlii
Req insp gag order holyland
20170313Seniorjusticesystemfigureissuspectedofinvolvementinthepublic
xliii
serviceemployeesshamingaffair[Hebrew]
SeniorLegalcounseloftheAdministrationofCourts,AttorneyBarakLaser,was
investigatedforprohibitedremovalofrecordsfromhisoffice.Materials,which
wereseizedintheinvestigationindicatedthathehadbeenincontactwiththe
bloggers,whoaresuspectedinshamingsocialworkers.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L4934557,00.html
xliv
""":
:"
""
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/001D38915300.html
News1|"
*15"

NEWS1.CO.IL
20170314InvestigationofBarakLaser:Anothertestfordeterminationofthe
xlv
justicesystem,Calcalist
https://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3709504,00.html
20170525LegalCounseloftheAdministrationofCourtsreturnedfromleave
xlvi
whileaninvestigationfileagainsthimisstillopen,Posta
http://www.posta.co.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA-
%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99-%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F-
%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9/%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99-
%D7%94%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7/13112-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9E-%D7%A9-
%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9E
%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%91-%D7%9C
%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7-
%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95-
%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%97
xlvii
20140602Acriminalwithpsychiatricproblemsisperformingasanexpert
witnessinthecourts,Ynet
Salzberger,E.M.JudicialAppointmentsandPromotionsinIsraelConstitution,
xlviii
LawandPolitics,HaifaUniversity[English]
http://weblaw.haifa.ac.il/he/Faculty/Salzberger/Documents/Eli%20Salzberger
%20%20Judicial%20Selection%20in%20Israel%20Constitution%20%20Law
%20and%20Politics.pdf
xlix
20161124RuleofLaworRuleoflawyers:AlettertoMinisterAyeletShaked,
IsraelNationalNews.com[English]
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19819
l
20170314Petition:ExposetheworkoftheCommitteeofTwo,Arutz7
[Hebrew]
http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/342168
20170616MinistryofJustice:Naormaintainsanunauthorizeddatabase,NRG
li
[Hebrew]
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/882/441.html
20160526Criminalcomplaint(223561/2016)againstJudgeEsperanza
lii
AlonfromtheHaifaMagistrateCourtJudge,whichwasfiledwiththeIsraelPolice,
andRequest,filedwiththeAttorneyGeneraltoinstructtheIsraelPoliceto
investigatethecomplaint
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5bUk2OExtY3Vtb2c/view?
usp=sharing
20170722AppointedasajudgeregardlessofseriouscomplaintsintheEthics
liii
Committee,Ynet[Hebrew]
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4979083,00.html
liv
MinistryofJusticeMemoAmendmenttothePenalCodeDeceitandBreachof
Trust(2009)
http://www.tazkirim.gov.il/Memorandum_Archive/Attachments_2009/35_x_Attach
File.pdf
lv
20170503STATEINDICTSFORMERHEADOF'ISRAELIFBI'FORBREACHOF
TRUST,Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/IsraelNews/StateindictsformerheadofIsraeliFBIArbiv
forbreachoftrust483258
lvi
lvii
20160829ErrorintheSupremeCourt:Thepartiesreceivedtwoopposite
judgmentsandcomplained_TheMarker[Hebrew]
http://www.themarker.com/law/1.3051805
lviii
20151215TheZadorovAffair:FalsemurderconvictionofaUkrainianexposed
massivecorruptionoftheIsraelijusticesystem_OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/TheZadorovAffairFalsebyJosephZernik
Exoneration_Israel_JudicialCorruptionAndPedophilia151215702.html
20160712ROMANZADOROVtheIsraeliMendelBeilis_OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ROMANZADOROVtheIsraelbyJoseph
ZernikIsrael_JudicialCorruption160712535.html
20160819RomanZadorovaffair:Acourt,whichrefusestocertifyitsown
decisions,iscertifiedcorrupt!_OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/RomanZadorovaffairAcobyJosephZernik
Israel_JudicialCorruption160819829.html
lix
20060604MishaelCheshinsPandoraBox,Ynet[Hebrew]
20150605ThreecurrentjudgesweredetainedintheRonelFisher
lx
affair,Rotter.net[Hebrew]
http://newsil.net/news/3---"---- --'-
--
http://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/216092.shtml
20150605ThreecurrentjudgesweredetainedintheRonelFisher
lxi
affair,Rotter.net[Hebrew]
https://twitter.com/rotternews/status/607264672761454592
20150604GagOrderonHugeDevelopmentinCorruptionCase,ArutzShav
lxii
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196316#.VXRqWby1k8o
lxiii
20150604Herzog:TheRonelFisherscandalisYomKippurofthelaw
enforcementsystem,IDFRadio
http://glz.co.il/108763747he/Galatz.aspx
lxiv
20170616Sixgagorderswithin24hours,News1
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15caf41309125e0d
20150515Whowillinvestigatetheinvestigators'investigators?.Haaretz
lxv
[Hebrew]
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/law/.premium-1.2637140
lxvi
20161118Ithasbecomearoutine:specialtreatmentforjudicialmisconduct.
Cohenaffair:whitewashuponawhitewash,News1[Hebrew]
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-116013-00.html
lxvii
20170512TheNewIsraelis,Yediot[Hebrew]
lxviii
2016-12-11 Survey: Collapse in public trust in the Supreme Court, Arutz 7 [Hebrew]
20161226TheErosionofPublicTrustinIsrael'sJudiciaryIsRealandUnusual,
lxix
Mosaic,[English]
https://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2016/12/theerosionofpublictrustin
israelsjudiciaryisrealandunusual/
20151026Survey:Declineinpublictrustinthejusticesystem,Knessetand
lxx
police,Globes[Hebrew]
lxxi
20141002JerusalemPostOpinion:INTOTHEFRAY:JURISTOCRACYIN
ISRAEL,WHENLEGALITYLOSESLEGITIMACY,JerusalemPost[English]
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/IntothefrayJuristocracyinIsraelwhenlegality
loseslegitimacy377972
lxxii
20111101PublictrustinthepoliceisamonglowestintheWest,Haaretz
[Hebrew]
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/law/1.1536267
lxxiii
2011SafeguardingJustice:ReformsintheJudiciaryandtheProsecution,Israel
DemocracyInstitute[English]
https://en.idi.org.il/publications/7601
lxxiv
lxxv
20130909OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryGoldberg:JudgeVardaAlshechagain
unlawfullyfabricatedaprotocol,Takdin[Hebrew]
http://www.takdin.co.il/Pages/Article.aspx?artId=4322898
20130909JudgeVardaAlshechcannotcontinuetoserveinherjobonemore
lxxvi
day,Calcalist[Hebrew]
https://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L3611807,00.html
lxxvii
lxxviii
Notice to ombudsman to cease Bachar
lxxix
Wolf Decision on Bachar
lxxx
Letter to ombudsman on Wolf Bachar
lxxxi
Complaint re e-signatures
Addendum to complaint
lxxxii
Denial of filing of e-signature complaint
lxxxiii
Challenge to denial of filing complaint.
lxxxiv
201604StateOmbudsmansSpecialReport(2016002)regardingthe
DebtorsCourts
http://www.mevaker.gov.il/
(X(1)S(aguuqj0kl4acdq5sgkju3fvk))/he/publication/Articles/Pages/HotzaaLapoal.a
spx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
lxxxv
ECA FOIA and FOIA IN MOJ
LinkstocompleteJerusalemDeborsCourtfilefordebtorShlomoLevy,aswell
lxxxvi
asrelatedMagistrateandDistrictCourtrecordsareprovidedonline.Thefollowing
linkisforanindexoftherecords:IsraeliDebtorsCourtsArchive:IndexofRecords
WebsiteoftheEnforcementandCollectionAuthority
lxxxvii
https://eca.gov.il/ind
Knessetwebsite,pertainingtotheEnforcementandCollectionAuthority
lxxxviii
http://www.knesset.gov.il/comm
lxxxix
1.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
ISRAEL: War hero Moti Ashkenazi+76 others versus the medieval
debtors' courts Israel has adopted the US-style foreclosure-fraud crisis,
only on a bigger scale. By estimate, half of the people of the State of
Israel are currently under process in medieval debtors' courts, patronized
by the Israeli Supreme Court. Conditions in the Israeli justice system
amount to state organized crime, perpetrated by banks, attorneys, and
judges. Presiding Justice Asher Grunis must resign!
xc
20150805JusticeMinisterShakedMullsPlantoSplitAGsJobinTwo,Haaretz
[English]
http://www.haaretz.com/israelnews/.premium1.669631
xci
20030401AvishaiRavivAcquittedofHavingFailedtoPreventRabin
Assassination,Haaretz[English]
http://www.haaretz.com/avishairavivacquittedofhavingfailedtopreventrabin
assassination1.14368
20151027STUDY:20YEARSLATER,RABINASSASSINATIONCONSPIRACY
xcii
THEORIESHAVERISENDRAMATICALLYONLINE,Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/IsraelNews/Study20yearslaterRabinassassination
conspiracytheorieshaverisendramaticallyonline430141
19970425The'BarOnScandal':ImplicationsfortheNetanyahuGovernment
xciii
andthePeaceProcess,WashingtonInstitute
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policyanalysis/view/thebaronscandal
implicationsforthenetanyahugovernmentandthepeace
20100818TopIDFOfficersSuspectedinForgeryofGalantDocument,
xciv
Haaretz[English]
http://www.haaretz.com/top-idf-officers-suspected-in-forgery-of-galant-document-1.308696
20101124DeputyChiefofStaffGantzleavesIDF,Feelingdisappointed,Ynet
xcv
[Hebrew]
20161027HARPAZAFFAIRWHICHONCEHELDHOSTAGEFORMERIDF
xcvi
CHIEFSENTERSFINALSTAGE,JPOST
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Harpaz-Affair-which-once-held-hostage-former-IDF-
chiefs-enters-final-stage-470970
xcvii
Friday, September 19, 2014

The Harpaz document affair: IDF "Coup attempt", or a Shin-Bet
sting operation? It is unlikely that the people of the State of Israel will
ever hear the truth in this matter, four years into the latest production
from the people who brought to you "The Gatekeepers"...
20150612WeisteinusedtotakeyachttripswithRonelFisher,whileinprivate
xcviii
practice,butdidnotrecusehimselffromthecase,Haaretz[Hebrew]
xcix
200711157ARRESTEDINLATESTTAXAUTHORITYSCANDAL,Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/7arrestedinlatestTaxAuthorityscandal
20110110FormerIsraeliTaxAuthorityChiefConfessesToCorruptionCharges,
TaxNews
http://www.tax
news.com/news/Former_Israeli_Tax_Authority_Chief_Confesses_To_Corruption_Ch
arges____47178.html
c
20151002IntroducingIsrael'sRealPrimeMinister,YehudaWeinstein,Haaretz
[English]
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium1.678576
20160104WASYEHUDAWEINSTEINAGOODATTORNEYGENERAL?,Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/WasYehudaWeinsteinagoodattorneygeneral
439393
ci
20131110Fisher,R,"NotoShaiNitzan",Haaretz[Hebrew]
http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/.premium-1.2161794
20141109Zernik,J,"IsraeliOmbudsmanrefusestoacceptwhistleblower
cii
complaintagainstPMNetanyahusmuggling,murderofa"source"
",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Israeli-Ombudsman-refuses-by-Joseph-Zernik-
Israel_Judicial-Corruption_Netanyahu_Whistleblowers-141109-518.html
Zernik,J,"ISRAEL:Attorneysfromanonexistentlawfirmappearedas 20140929
PublicDefendersforwhistleblowerRafiRotem...",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAEL-Attorneys-from-a-n-by-Joseph-Zernik-Israel_Judicial-
Corruption_Whistleblowing-140929-463.html
ciii
20140104ISRAEL:NewtrialintheRabinassassinationcase?,OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAEL-New-trial-in-the-R-by-Joseph-Zernik-
Assassination_Israel_Judicial-Corruption_Shin-bet-140401-251.html
20151221UnusuallysharpletteroftheCommissioneragainstShaiNizan:
civ
Doesntsaythetruth,Nana[Hebrew]
http://m.nana10.co.il/Article/1165149?sid=120
cv
20170309Seewhostalkingaboutfairandhonest,News1[Hebrew]
cvi
20150208ProsecutorsunionagainstCommissionerHilaGerstel:Italianstrike
startingWednesday,Calcalist[Hebrew]
20130613StateofIsraelvZadorov(50207)intheNazarethDistrict
cvii
CourtHearingProtocol,truthtoday.co.il
http://truthtoday.co.il/
%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C
%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D
%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D
%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%AA
2013/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%
9C%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9C
%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%9F
cviii
20140114TheStatepreventsDrKugelfromtestifyingforZadorov,Haaretz
[Hebrew]
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/law/.premium1.2216565
cix
20170621ThePathologicalInstitutereportcontinuestoraisestorms,Calcalist
[Hebrew]
cx
2017StateoftheStateReport,TaubCenter
http://taubcenter.org.il/he/pon2017heb/
cxi
20140525BDI:ThenumberofattorneysinIsrael1per150persons,Calcalist
cxii
20170330JumpinthenumberofattorneysinStateService,Arutz7
20141016ProfMotaKremnitzer:ConductoftheprosecutionintheZadorov
cxiii
caseisscary,Haaretz[Hebrew]
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/.premium1.2459167
cxiv
Thursday, November 7, 2013

ISRAEL: Senior law professors are asked to affect lawful
appointment of Chief Clerk for the Supreme Court "Chief Clerk"
Sarah Lifschitz, who falsely appeared in that title for over 10 years,
resigned as of October 31, 2013. Today's letter to the law professors
voiced the concern that the Bar's failure to take action in this matter,
which is central to integrity of the justice system, should lead to the
opinion of "corruption of the legal profession in Israel" under reasonable
international review standards.
cxv
1993 Mautner, M., Decline of formalism and increase in values in Israeli jurisprudence
[Hebrew]
http://www.textologia.net/?p=25856
2016-09-21 There is a total jungle in the courts. Do anything possible not to get there.
cxvi
Globes
20150302JudgmentinStenger,HaimvIsraelBarAssociationEthicsCommittee
cxvii
(323820613)intheJerusalemDistrictCourt
cxviii
20140529Police:IndictOlmert,TelZurforobstructingjustice,Globes
http://www.globes.co.il/en/articlepoliceindictolmerttelzurforobstructing
justice1000943015
20160603Olmertslawyermayfacechargesforobstructingjustice,TimesofIsrael
http://www.timesofisrael.com/olmerts-lawyer-may-face-charges-for-obstructing-justice/
cxix
Monday, September 29, 2014

ISRAEL: Attorneys from a non-existent law-firm appeared as Public Defenders for
whistle-blower Rafi Rotem... The typical response by Israeli attorneys: "You
are focusing on immaterial procedural details..." If it didn't look like the
defendant was going to end up in prison, it would be funny...
cxx
20170430MisholvStateofIL(1322/17)UrgentproformaRequest(No8)to
inspectlawfullymadeArrestDecreepertainingtoAppellantMishol
cxxi
20170421MisholvStateofIL(1322/17)Request(No6)toinspectlawfully
madepublicationprohibitiondecree(gagorder)
cxxii
Monday, April 17, 2017

Roman Zadorov affair and arbitrary arrests in Israel - serious
violations of the right for Liberty By now it is clear that Roman
Zadorov is held in life imprisonment following framing by police, false
prosecution and false conviction in the murder of 13-year-old Tair Rada in
2006. Zadorov is confined with neither lawfully made judgment records
nor lawfully made arrest decree. Anybody who cherishes liberty must
stand up to corruption of the courts in Israel.
20150127PoliceinCrisisasAnotherTopCopIsInvestigated,Haaretz
cxxiii
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.639224
20150204Yechimovich:PoliceNeedtoCleanUpTheirAct,
cxxiv
IsraelNationalNews.com
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/190936
cxxv
20140928JERUSALEMDISTRICTPOLICECOMMANDERABRUPTLYRESIGNS,
Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/IsraelNews/JerusalemDistrictPolicecommanderabruptly
resigns376516
cxxvi
20140910SeniorIsraeliPoliceCommandertoResignOverTiesWith
CorruptionSuspect,Haaretz
cxxvii
20150124Toppolicemanquitsoverimproperrelationship,TimesofIsrael
http://www.timesofisrael.com/toppolicemanquitsoverimproperrelationship/
cxxviii
20140930AHARONOVITCH:RESIGNATIONOFTOPPOLICEOFFICIALS
WON'TRUSHMYDECISIONFORNEXTCHIEF,JPOST
http://www.jpost.com/IsraelNews/AharonovitchResignationoftoppoliceofficials
wontrushmydecisionfornextchief376637
cxxix
20150309POLICEINVESTIGATIONSDEPARTMENTPUBLISHESANNUAL
REPORT,Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/IsraelNews/PIDpublishesannualreportStartedworking
sexcrimecasesdirectlywithrapecrisiscenter393413
cxxx
20160606'NetanyahupromisedtomakemeShinBethead',
20160831"ISRAELPOLICECHIEFSPARKSCRITICISMAFTERSAYINGITS
cxxxi
NATURALTOSUSPECTETHIOPIANSOFCRIME",Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/israelpolicechiefsparkscriticismaftersayingnatural
suspectethiopians494704
cxxxii
20150504IsraelpoliceclashwithEthiopianJewishprotesters,BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/worldmiddleeast32577452
cxxxiii
20170119"FearandloathinginUmmalHiran",TimesofIsrael
http://www.timesofisrael.com/fearandloathinginummalhiran/
cxxxiv
20170118"PoliceofficerandBedouinkilledinhomedemolitionclashes",
Guardian/UK
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/18/israeliarabkilledinclashes
withpoliceoverhomedemolitions
cxxxv
20170518ReconstructionofUmmalHirankillingsdisprovescarramming
claims,+972
https://972mag.com/reconstructionofummalhirankillingsprovesnocar
rammingattack/127351/
cxxxvi
20170222ERDANUNDERFIREASREPORTSSAYINCIDENTINUMMAL
HIRANWASNOTATERRORATTACK,JPost
http://www.jpost.com/IsraelNews/Erdanunderfireasreportssayincidentin
UmmalHiranwasnotaterrorattack482293
cxxxvii
20170223EditorialIsrael'sPoliceChief,PublicSecurityMinisterMustResign,
Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/1.773337
cxxxviii
20170405Expose:UnprecedentedconfrontationbetweenInspection
GeneralandPoliceInvestigationsDepartmentfollowingUmmAlHiranaffair,
Nana10
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1240360
cxxxix
20170405Report:AlsheichisfuriousatthePoliceInvestigationsDepartment
becauseofpublicationsthattheUmmAlHiranincidentwasnotterrorattack,
tensionthathasnotbeenseenforyears,NRG
http://www.maariv.co.il/news/israel/Article580455
cxl
20170308LivebroadcastofwomensprotestinfrontoftheresidenceofPolice
InspectorGeneralAlshechinthewakeofdecisiontohandlerapeandabuseofa
cleaningwomanbypoliceasadisciplinaryaction,SocialJusticeSituationRoom
https://www.facebook.com/j14live/videos/1605160086178570/
cxli
20170308PoliceBrutalitywouldcostthetaxpayerNIS2.5millions,News1
cxlii
20170405IsraelPoliceChiefSuedforCallingOfficer'Criminal'forClaiming
SexualHarassment,Haaretz
cxliii
20170621Policechiefyouthmovementplanscorned,timesofisrael
http://www.timesofisrael.com/policechiefyouthmovementplanscorned/
cxliv
20140210HeadofIsraeliPoliceCorruptionUnitQuitsOverBriberyAffair,
Haaretz
cxlv
20150706WhyaTopIsraeliCopKilledHimself,Haaretz
cxlvi
Sunday,July19,2015
SuicideofcommanderEfraimBrachaand"collapse"oftheIsraelPoliceHeadofthe
NationalFraudInvestigationsUnitEfraimBrachacommittedsuicideafterasmallonline
newsoutletpublishedreportsofhiscorruption.Asisthecaseinothernations,the
UnitedStatesincluded,widespreadpolicecorruptionisimpossibleabsentcorruptionof
thejusticesystemingeneralandthejudiciaryinparticular
cxlvii
Wednesday, May 6, 2015

The Kabbalist and AG Loretta Lynch The Rabbi Josiah Pinto scandal is
a gem of Israeli justice system corruption. The case involved the ouster
of the head of "the Israeli FBI" in the midst of various high level
government corruption investigations. Leaked AG Lynch letter and Israel
Police investigation transcripts as well as a perverted, secretive court
process indicate business as usual in the "only democracy in the middle-
east".
cxlviii
Thursday,July2,2015
TheRabinassassinationandgovernmentcorruptioninIsraelOverthepastyear
theStateofIsraelhasbeenrockedbyneverendingcorruptionscandals,involving
thehighestlevelsofthejusticeandlawenforcementsystems.Keyfiguresinthe
mostrecentscandalswerealsokeyfiguresinpervertingtheRabinassassination
investigationforthebenefitofthepowersthatbe.
cxlix
Friday,September2,2016
BulletintheheadofaHebronPalestinianandtheRabinassassinationWhat's
commontothebulletintheheadofaPalestinianinHebroninMarchthisyearand
the1995Rabinassassination?Whentheregimeisinneed,whoareyougoingto
call?ProfYedudaHiss...
cl
20050901PoliceInvestigationsDepartment:MostComplaintsAboutExcessive
UseofForceAreNotInvestigated,Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/policeinvestigationsdepartmentmostcomplaintsabout
excessiveuseofforcearenotinvestigated1.168769
cli
20170412Editorial:Israel'sDepartmentofPoliceCoverup,Haaretz
20150131TheAttorneyGeneralandtheOmbudsmansilencedtheNetanyahu
clii
bottlesaffairandfailedtoforwardthematterforpoliceinvestigation,Haaretz
[Hebrew]
cliii
20150201StateOmbudsmandoesnotwanthisweaknesstobepublicly
exposed,Haaretz[Hebrew]
TheOmbudsmanwasinclinedtograntthePMrequesttopostponethepublication
ofanauditpertainingtotheofficialresidence,butmediareportingscuttledthat.
cliv
20161117TheOmbudsmanfoundthatNetanyahusattorneyworkedforthe
Likudpartyatgreatlyreducedfees,butsealedtheaudit,Haaretz[Hebrew]
clv
Sunday, November 9, 2014

Israeli Ombudsman refuses to accept whistle-blower complaint
against PM Netanyahu - smuggling, murder of a "source" The case
of whistle-blower Rafi Rotem is no longer a case of the Tax Authority
corruption. The case provides clear evidence of systemic, widespread
corruption of the Israeli courts and justice system.
clvi
20140815RequestforlegalopinionfiledbyJosephZernik,PhD,withAttorney
HaiBarel,OgenCEO,regardingthenatureofmeetingsofMrRotem'srecent
meetingswithStateOmbudsman'soffice
clvii
20140817AttorneyBarEl'sResponseonarequestforopinion:Weremeetings
ofwhistleblowerRotemwithStateOmbudsmanstaff"providingtestimony"
pursuanttoIsraelilaw?
20140817RepeatrequestforlegalopinionbyAttorneyHaiBarElregarding
clviii
thenatureofrecentmeetingsbetweenIsraeliwhistleblowerRafiRotemandstaffof
theStateOmbudsman'soffice
clix
20141029TaxAuthoritywhistleblowerRafiRotem:Corruptioncomplaint,
involvingBenjaminNetanyahu,whichtheStateOmbudsmanrefusedtoaccept
20140505ISRAEL:Afteryearsofabuse,TaxAuthoritywhistleblowerRafi
clx
RotemwinstherighttobedeposedbyStateOmbudsman,OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAEL-After-years-of-abu-by-Joseph-Zernik-Citizen-
Protest_Israel_Judicial-Corruption_Whistleblowing-140505-277.html
clxi
20141101RafiRotem,theTaxAuthority,andthejusticesysteminterim
summaryofthecase
clxii
20141006IsraeliQualityGovernmentMovementletterofinquirytotheIsraeli
StateOmbudsman,inre:InvestigationofRotem'scomplaint
clxiii
20070126VIDEO:DeathoftheTaxAuthorityAgent_Channel2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc6LuG3Iis
clxiv
Saturday, May 17, 2014

Tel Aviv courtroom drama exposes new evidence of organized
crime in highest levels of government in Israel In a last-minute plea
bargain, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's secretary spilled the beans
on organized crime in the Israeli Tax Authority during her sentencing
hearing. The thoroughly corrupt justice and law-enforcement systems
have been working in concert for the past 12 years to protect organized
crime in the highest levels of government, and to silence Tax Authority
whistleblower Rafi Rotem.
20140517TelAvivcourtroomdramaexposesnewevidenceoforganizedcrime
clxv
inhighestlevelsofgovernmentinIsrael,OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Tel-Aviv-courtroom-drama-e-by-Joseph-Zernik-Corporate-
Corruption-Crime_Israel_Judiciary-Corruption-Crime_WHITE-COLLAR-CRIMES-140517-48.html
clxvi
20130607InterviewwithformerAttorneyGeneralMenachemMazuz,Haaretz
20131004CalmanLiebeskind:"NojusticesinJerusalem,foroveradecadethe
clxvii
courtshavebeenabusingjusticeadvocate",Maariv
clxviii
TaxAuthoritywhistleblowerRafiRotemindexofrecordsandlinks(full
Englishtranslation)inchronologicalorder
clxix
20071002"TheRafiRotemfile:Thewitnesses,whonevertookthestand"_
Globes(fullEnglishtranslation)
clxx
20131219Letterby44journaliststoStateOmbudsmantoprovideRotem
protection(fullEnglishtranslation)
20130623FormerMK,ProfAryehEldad,"Anticorruptionfighterhasbecome
clxxi
homeless",Haaretz
20140929ISRAEL:AttorneysfromanonexistentlawfirmappearedasPublic
clxxii
DefendersforwhistleblowerRafiRotem...,OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAELAttorneysfromanbyJosephZernik
Israel_JudicialCorruption_Whistleblowing140929463.html
clxxiii
20140610Complaint,filedwiththeStateofIsraelOmbudsman:Fraudin
implementationandoperationoftheSupremeCourt'scomputersystems,andthe
appearanceofanimpostor,MsIditMeloul,asChiefClerkoftheSupremeCourt
20140630ResponsebytheStateOmbudsmanonfilingacomplaint,:Fraudin
clxxiv
implementationandoperationoftheSupremeCourt'scomputersystems,assigning
FileNo907069
clxxv
20140710IsraelStateOmbudsmanComplaint#907069:AdditionalEvidence
filedRequestforPresidingJusticeGrunisclarificationsregardingperverted
SupremeCourtrecords
20061227Ombudsmansanticorruptioncounselinterrogatedonsuspicionof
clxxvi
offeringbribestoSharonfamilyforappointmentasInspectorGeneral,Globes
[Hebrew]
20140129FormerOmbudsmananticorruptioncounselsubjectdisciplinary
clxxvii
procedure,Haaretz,[Herew]
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/

," "

20050926InfamousChiefPathologisttoOnceAgainEvadePunishment,
clxxviii
clxxix
20091026ComplaintsAgainstProf.HissContinue,IsraelNationalNews.com
clxxx
20101025"BodyPartsandBioPiracy",Intecept
https://www.counterpunch.org/2010/10/25/bodypartsandbiopiracy/
clxxxi
20160915AtAzaria'sTrial,ExpertSaysAutopsyFailstoShowHeadShot
KilledPalestinian,Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/israelnews/1.742297
clxxxii
20170518TheStateAttorneyofficeandthePathologicalInstitute,News1
clxxxiii
KNESSET FOIA RESPONSE
clxxxiv
Wednesday, September 28, 2016

ISRAEL: Computer election fraud in the only digital banana
republic in the middle-east? Netanyahu's reelection in 2015 defied all
up to the last minute statisticians' predictions. Recent publications and
court filing allege massive election fraud through IT systems of the
Central Election Commission. Over the past weekend -- data on the
Commission's web site was inexplicably adulterated. Head of the
government new Cyber Security Research Center refuses to comment...
clxxxv
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
ISRAEL: Computer fraud in the Central Election Commission?
Where is the Shin-Bet? Academic papers, which have been published
in recent years, document large-scale fraud in e-government in Israel
over the past 15 years, at a level which should be considered
unannounced regime change. Where is the Shin-Bet in this story?
clxxxvi
CEC FOIA
clxxxvii
SHIN BET ON CEC FOIA
clxxxviii
Cec corrected FOIA response
20170130StateOmbudsman:WasteofpublicfundsbytheCentralElection
clxxxix
Committe,NRG[Hebrew]
20170130WasteintheCentralElectionCommittee,Globes[Hebrew]
20070216TheKnessetremovestheblemishoftheCentralElectionCommittee,
Ynet[Hebrew]
TheKnessetChairwomandecidedtoevicttheCentralElectionCommitteefrom
KnessetbuildingfollowingaseriousauditbytheStateOmbudsmanofthe
Committeesconduct.
cxc
20140226TheStateOmbudsmanandthemissingreportonvoting
confidentiality,Telecomnews[Hebrew]
http://www.telecomnews.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%A7%D7%A8
%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94
%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%97
%D7%94%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA
%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%9C
%D7%94%D7%91%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%9C
%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%9419.html
cxci

Monday, July 18, 2016

ISRAEL: Who is the Shin Bet loyal to? With the piling up of criminal
affairs, linked to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his family, the question is
whether the Shin-Bet is charged only with securing senior politicians, or
also securing the nation against its senior politicians... In the US similar
questions were answered already in the 1950s, in Eisenhower's Farewell
Address...
cxcii
, "
" , " :
"
cxciii
Monday, February 17, 2014

ISRAEL: The Shin-Bet-Judiciary Gang and organized crime In a
nation where total surveillance is not even questioned, organized crime is
permitted to thrive, and the Shin Bet refused a "request" by the Prime
Minister to fight organized crime. The situation raises questions
regarding the line of civilian authority over the Shin Bet, and patronizing
of organized crime by it.
cxciv
Monday, June 9, 2014

Israel: Fraud in the Supreme Court's computer systems - notice
given to Supreme Court Presiding Justice, Shin-Bet Head As has
been the case in the US for much longer, the Israeli Supreme Court
implemented in 2002 fraudulent computer systems. Examples of the
fraud are particularly noticed in cases related to corruption of the justice
and law-enforcement systems. Corruption of the courts in both the US
and Israel is central to the current socio-economic crisis.
20140604NoticetoIsraeliSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeGrunisandShin
cxcv
BetHeadCohen,inre:FraudinIsraeliSupremeCourtcomputersystems
cxcvi
20170213RequestforShinBetHeadclarification:ShinBetdutiesand
responsibilitiesrelativetocertificationandsecurityofDemocraticRegimeITsystems
cxcvii
20170228ShinBetresponsere:ShinBetdutiesandresponsibilitiesrelativeto
certificationandsecurityofDemocraticRegimeITsystems
20170205ShinBetresponseinre:ValidationandcertificationofITsystemsof
cxcviii
theCentralElectionCommittee
cxcix

Friday, March 17, 2017

Complaint filed with Shin-Bet Head: E-signatures in the courts -
subversion of the foundations of a democratic regime Senior
judges and attorneys have engaged over the past decade in subversion
of the foundations of the democratic regime through fraudulent
implementation of e-signatures in the courts, complaint to the Shin-Bet
alleges. The Shin-Bet was recently instrumental in exposing IT system
related fraud in the Central Election Committee.
20170315Complaint,filedwithShinBetHeadandOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary
esignaturesinthecourts
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5TGpGQkhDc1oxUWc/view?
usp=sharing
cc
20170402ShinBetresponseoncomplaintagainstjudgesandattorneys
electronicsignaturesinNetHaMishpatsabotageandsubversionofthe
fundamentalofdemocraticproceduresandinstitutions
cci
20160804Byhisownpermission,Yediot
NetanyahutransferredinformationsecurityofthemostsensitiveStatesystemsto
theCyberAuthorityunderhiscontrol.
http://www.yediot.co.il/articles/0,7340,L4837497,00.html
20170425SeniorSecurityOfficers:StoptheCyberAuthorityAct[Hebrew]
ccii
WroteastronglettertothePrimeMinsiter:Newlegislationshouldbedrafted,
whichservessecurityneeds.
http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/471079
cciii
Seniorsecurityofficialsopposeestablishmentofcyberbureau
InalettertoPrimeMinisterBenjaminNetanyahu,theheadsofMossadandShin
Bet,IDFDeputyChiefofStaffandDirectorGeneraloftheMinistryofDefenseall
opposetheproposedNationalCyberBureauasaviolationofIsraelinationalsecurity
concerns.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L4953458,00.html
cciv
20170301InquirywithCyberBureauHeadDrEviatarMatania,inre:IT
systemsoftheCentralElectionCommittee
ccv
20170312CyberAuthorityresponseinre:safeguardofdemocraticprocessand
institutions
ccvi
BIHAM
20120718Kaufman,A,MosheSilman'sselfimmolationisanational,notjusta
ccvii
personal,tragedy,TheGuardian/UK
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/18/moshe-silman-self-immolation
20170511SethimselfonfireinfrontoftheSupremeCourtafteramurderand
ccviii
attemptedmurder,Channel20news[Hebrew]
http://www.20il.co.il/%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%AA
%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C
%D7%91%D7%92%D7%A6%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8
%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%97
%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F
%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%97/
ccix
Sunday, December 25, 2016

Police violence on Christmas Eve in Tel-Aviv Only a few months ago,
former Justice Minister, Law Prof Daniel Friedman said: "The Attorney
General cannot shut the mouths of the entire nation..." Well, it appears
that Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit is working at it -- no holds
barred. On such matters Voltaire said: "To learn who rules over you,
simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize".
ccx
20160210CourtRules:SaraNetanyahuAbusedEmployeesinPrimeMinister's
Residence
ccxi
20161225Israeli police turn violent on peaceful anti-
corruption protest, Redress
http://www.redressonline.com/2016/12/israelipoliceturnviolentonpeaceful
anticorruptionprotest/
Saturday,
February 4, 2017
ISRAEL: [Video] Arrested again for singing in the street PM
Netanyahu is under a string of criminal corruption investigations. His
hand-picked Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit is actively undermining
the investigations. Protest against the AG last Saturday night again
ended in detentions This time the production was more elaborate...
Tuesday, January 17, 2017

ISRAEL: [Video] Arrested for singing in the rain... PM
Netanyahu,wife, son are under a string of criminal corruption
investigations. His hand-picked Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit does
anything possible to undermine the investigations. Police and the Shin-
Bet have been going out of their way in recent weeks to prevent protests.
Here - a single person's protest, singing in the rain on Saturday night on
the side-walk opposite the home of the Attorney General led t
2017052820DETAINEDFORPROTESTINGOUTSIDEISRAELIATTORNEY
GENERAL'SHOME
ProtestersdecryAGAvichaiMandelblit'spolicyofprotectingtheprimeministerin
corruptioncases.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Protesters-decry-AG-Mandelblits-policy-flock-to-his-
house-to-demonstrate-494090
ccxii
20170130StateofIsraelvKlassetal(633430117)inthePetahTikvah
ccxiii
MagistrateCourtRequest(No2)NoticeofPervertedHearingandDemandfor
DulySignedandCertifiedrecords
20170131StateofIsraelvKlassetal(633430117))inthePetahTikvah
ccxiv
MagistrateCourtRequest(No2a)ResponseonJan31PostitDecisionand
RepeatDemandforDulySignedandCertifiedrecords
ccxv
MagistrateCourtPostitDecisionandwarningonRequest(No2a)Response
onJan31PostitDecisionandRepeatDemandforDulySignedandCertified
records
ccxvi
MagistrateCourtProFormaRequest(No3)toinspectJudgeShalhevetKamir
Wiess'selectronicsignaturedataontheJanuary29,2017"Protocol"andDecision
records,iftheyexistatall
ccxvii
20170521PoliceViolence,ClosedDoorsHearingsinIsraeliProtestAgainst
CorruptAG(Videos).OpEdNews.com[English]
https://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Police-Violence-Closed-Do-by-Joseph-Zernik-Government-
Corruption-170521-770.html
20170530EditorialUndercuttingtheRighttoDemonstrate
ccxviii
AttorneyGeneralMendelblitsrighttoprivacymustberespected.Butthisrightdoes
notextendovertheentiremunicipalareaofthecitywhereheresides
20170608DefendingIsraelisRighttoProtest,NewIsraelFund
ccxix
http://www.nif.org/stories/humanrightsdemocracy/defendingisraelisrightto
protest/
ccxx
20170505CourtobserversscuttleIsraelijudge'sattempttoholdacloseddoors
hearinginprotesters'criminalprosecution
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Court-observers-scuttle-Is-by-Joseph-Zernik-Judicial-
Corruption-170505-398.html
ccxxi
Saturday,
March 18, 2017
[Video] The remedy for Israeli judicial corruption is repression of
social protest Two activists and two attorneys are detained in
relationship to protest of the unbearable ease with which Israeli
authorities take children from their biological parents, particularly the
poor. In a bizarre, inexplicable twist, Legal Counsel of the Administration
of Courts is under house detention...
ccxxii

US DHS assists in suppression of anti-corruption dissent in
Israel Israeli judges retaliate against anti court corruption activists by
unlawful, fraudulent use of their authority. US DHC/ICE colludes with
them, and Google is a major partner. Spying, unreasonable detentions,
unlawful search and seizure of computers, and draconian fake judgments
- retaliation produces some of the best evidence of judicial corruption.
Conditions in the US are similar.
ccxxiii
IsraeliCourtsBarGoogleFromAccessingCourtRulings_Haaretz
ccxxiv
20160605Abloggerissuspectinassistingafather,whoabuctedhis
son_Posta
http://posta.co.il/widgetkit/%D7%9E
%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D1/%D7%9E
%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%94%D7%91%D7%9E
%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98/9187%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%93
%D7%94%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA
%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%91
%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%98%D7%A3%D7%90%D7%AA
%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95
ccxxv
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecision(329/14),regardingJudgeDannaAmir's
June13,2014fake/simulatedsearchwarrant,found:"Thecomplaintwas
justified".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5WDlCVkhIeFkyRDQ/view?
usp=sharing
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecision(57/15),regardingJudgeShmuel
ccxxvi
Melamed'sJune18,2014fake/simulatedsearchwarrant
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5RW5WcTk3ZWZGNEE/view?
usp=sharing
20160509TheIsraelicourtstheviraljokeisonusHalemoindicted
ccxxvii
himself
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/05/20160509israelicourtsviraljoke
is.html
20160505IsraeliManFilesRestrainingOrderAgainstGod_HuffPost
ccxxviii
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/restrainingorderagainst
god_us_572b9557e4b0bc9cb04611a2
20160510RampantfraudintheIsraeliCourtsMagistrateAviCohen"Postit
ccxxix
Judgment"againstLoriShemTovandMotiLeybel
Ihttp://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/05/20160510rampantfraudin
israeli.html
20160418BloggerscalledherKidsKidnapper,AttorneyKleinsuedthem
ccxxx
andmadethemgobroke_Globes
ccxxxi
20150321HolylandII:WhereareJudgeRosen'sVerdictandSentencerecords
offormerPMOlmertcorruption?_OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/HolylandIIWhereareJudbyJosephZernik
BriberyInfluencePeddling_Israel_JudicialCorruption150321607.html
ccxxxii
20131231KnessetCommitteeonChildren'sRights,Protocol#42,on
removingchildrenfromtheirbiologicalparentsbysocialworkers
ccxxxiii
IsraeliOmbudsmanrefusestoacceptwhistleblowercomplaintagainstPM
Netanyahusmuggling,murderofa"source"_OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/IsraeliOmbudsmanrefusesbyJosephZernik
Israel_JudicialCorruption_Netanyahu_Whistleblowers141109
518.html&series=464
20141007RafiRotem,JudgeShoshanaAlmagor,andmedievaldigitalcorruption
oftheIsraelicourts
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/20141007rafirotemjudge
shoshana.html
WhenitcomestotheFirstAmendmentIsraelscoresan"F"_OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/WhenitcomestotheFirstbyJosephZernik
BankingFraud_FreedomOfThePress_Israel_JudicialCorruption150628481.html
20160504ISRAEL:Bankstersandcrookedjudgesunited...
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/05/20160504israelbankstersand
crooked.html
ccxxxiv
20151231ISRAEL:Fraudepidemicinthecourts...
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/01/20151231israelfraudepidemic
in.html
20160419Zadorovaffair:TheSupremeCourtatitsworst:Tryingtohidethe
conductofshamtrialinNazareth
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/04/20160419zadorovaffairsupreme
court.html
20151221HOLYLANDII:Crooksinthecourts...
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2015/12/20151221holylandiicrooksin
courts.html
20150430RabbiPinto'sbribingtrialwhereisJudgeMudrick'sconvictionrecord?
Andwhyisithidden?
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2015/04/20150430rabbipintosbribing
trial.html
ccxxxv
ISRAEL:NationhijackedbyaShinBetJudiciaryGang
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAELNationhijackedbybyJosephZernik
Corruption_Fraud_Integrity_Judges131026653.html
ccxxxvi
Saturday,
September 10, 2016

Joelle Ben Simon affair continues - organized crime in the
Jerusalem Family Court Joelle decided to sit-in in front of the Jerusalem
office of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, protesting judicial corruption. She
ended up in forced psychiatric hospitalization. Now, attempt to inspect
her Jerusalem Family Court files has produced clear evidence of
organized crime by judges, misprision by senior staff of the Office of the
Clerk, a
ccxxxvii
Sunday,August14,2016
Israel:antijudicialcorruptionprotesterplacedundercompulsorypsychiatric
hospitalizationJoelleBenSimonprotestedcorruptionofthefamilycourtsinfront
oftheofficeofJusticeMinisterAyeletShaked,demandingtospeakwiththe
Minister.Finally,MinisterShakedtalkedwithherforafewminutes,resultinginBen
Simon'scompulsorypsychiatrichospitalization.Californiaattorneys,whoprotest
judicialcorruption,facesimilarpredicament,typicalofrepressiveregimes...
ccxxxviii
ccxxxix
Zernik,J.,NewFraudulentITSystemsintheIsraeliCourts:Unannounced
RegimeChange?,EuropeanConferenceonEGovernment(2015)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5QlRaTGNHTVR4UFU
20150909GoogleremovedComingtotheBankersfromsearchengineresults
ccxl
duetoamysteriouscourtorder,Room404
http://room404.net/?p=66382
ccxli
20150905ComingtotheBankers,whoprotestedagainstFacebookpublic
relationsperson,wasremovedfromFacebook,Room404
http://room404.net/?p=66336
20160816Expose:ThisishowFacebookIsraelandtheBankersAssociation
ccxlii
spiedonComingtotheBankersprotestuntiltheycomletelywipeditout,Mizbala
http://mizbala.com/news/114198
ccxliii
Sunday, June 28, 2015

When it comes to the First Amendment - Israel scores an "F" The
Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court issued last week an unprecedented "Restraining
Order", which prohibits activist Barak Cohen from any speech, related to
Bank HaPoalim CEO Zion Keinan. The order amounts to Prior Restraint of
Free Speech... It comes in the footsteps of a series of gag orders, trying
to prevent the publication of news regarding government corruption in
general, and judicial corruption in particular...
20150628Notcomingtothebankers:Thecourtredefinethelimitsof
ccxliv
FreedomofExperssion,Calcalist
ccxlv
20140126SOCIALJUSTICEMOVEMENTLEADERDAPHNILEEF'STRIAL
OPENSINTELAVIV,Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/SocialjusticemovementleaderDaphni
LeefstrialopensinTelAviv339397
ccxlvi
20140408TheCourtofficiallyruled:DaphniLeefisfullyvindicated,Walla
News
ccxlvii
20121024Todaytrialof14protestactivistcommences,TheMarker
http://www.themarker.com/news/protest/1.1849009
ccxlviii
20140206TheAttorneyGeneralinstructedterminationoftheprotest
activiststrials,NRG
http://www.maariv.co.il/news/new.aspx?pn6Vq=E&0r9VQ=EMDJM
20140126EvidencehearingscommencedinDaphniLeeftrial:Attemptto
ccxlix
restrictFreedomofExpression,Haaretz
ccl
20150518IsraelPoliceCommissionerMustResign,orBeFired,Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium1.656902
ccli
Friday, December 27, 2013

Occupy Tel Aviv: Fake "Eviction Decree"/ "Demolition Decree"
process Tel Aviv Municipality issued sham "Eviction Decrees" or
"Demolition Decrees", which fail to include the word "Decree" mentioned,
which are not signed by any named individual, which were issued by no
named unit of the municipality, and which refer no law or regulation as
the legal foundation for the threats of imminent use of force.
cclii
Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Occupy Tel Aviv: Police, Municipality rampage in unique case of government
corruption, Human Rights abuse Israel Police and the Tel Aviv Municipality
colluded in a month long operation of fraud, extortion, and vandalism
against the homeless and dispossessed, under the color of law, through
the enforcement of non-existent "Eviction Decrees" or "Demolition
Decrees". At the explicit request of Member of Knesset Galon, criminal
complaint was filed against the Tel Aviv Police Commander with the State
Prosecution, Police Investigations
ccliii
Friday, May 16, 2014
OccupyTLV: Tel Aviv Police Commander suspects criminality by
police in the camp As is the case in the United States, the Israel police
are engaged in unlawful efforts to undermine legitimate political
opposition to the current government, and attempts to criminalize civil-
society activists and whistle-blowers. Israel has experienced a profound
socio-economic transformation since the 1995 Rabin assassination, with
the establishment of a US-style neo-conservative regime with matching
consequences.
ccliv
20130728StopinvivingpoliticalactiviststowarningtalkswiththeShin
Bet,AssociationforCivilRightsinIsrael
https://www.acri.org.il/he/28080
20170207JudgmentinAssociationforCivilRightsinIsraelvShinBetandIsraelPolice
cclv
(5277/13)
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/13/770/052/t23/13052770.t23.htm
20170310IsraeliPoliceArrestChildWelfareActivists,Attorneys,Charging
cclvi
ThemwithTerrorismandSexCrimes_TikunOlam
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2017/03/10/israelipolicearrestchildwelfare
activistsattorneyschargingterrorismsexcrimes/#comment850929
20160620Zernik,J.USDHSassistsinsuppressionofanticorruptiondissentinIsrael_
cclvii
OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=USDHSassistsinsuppressbyJoseph
ZernikDepartmentOfHomelandSecurity_Israel_JudicialCorruption_Protester
SurveillanceAndArrests16062071.html
ActforProtectionofEmployeesExposureofCriminality(1997)
cclviii
https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/Law01/092_001.htm#Seif3
cclix
TheStateOmbudsmanAct(1958)
http://www.mevaker.gov.il/he/Laws/DocLib/mevakerLaw2015tikun48.pdf?
AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
cclx
20070129WhistleblowersProtection,KnessetResearchCenter
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m01899.pdf
20160621KnessetOversightCommitteewillpromoteamendmenttothe
cclxi
WhistleblowerProtectionAct,KnessetPressRelease
http://main.knesset.gov.il/News/PressReleases/pages/press210616n.aspx
cclxii
20160621StateOmbudsman:Legalprotectionsforwhistleblowersare
insufficient.Protectionneedstobeofferedalsotopolicemenandprisonwardens.
Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/.premium1.2982750
cclxiii
20080327Stainonthejusticesystem,Globes
cclxiv
20120216RafiRotem,TaxAuthoritywhistleblower,livesinthestreet,
Globes
cclxv
20130607InterviewwithformerAttorneyGeneralMenachemMazuz,Haaretz
cclxvi
20131004Liebeskind,K.Foradecadethecourtshavebeenabusingajustice
crusader,NRG
20140922MosheLichtman:"WhistleblowerRafiRotemannouncedKnightof
cclxvii
QualityGovernment",Globes
cclxviii
20150115StateOmbudsmanProtectionDecreeforRafiRotem,State
OmbudsmanPublication.
http://www.mevaker.gov.il/he/publication/Articles/Documents/Hachlata_Rafi_Rot
em.pdf
20150115StateOmbudsmanrenderedRafiRotemaProtectionDecree,State
cclxix
OmbudsmanOfficepressrelease
http://www.mevaker.gov.il/he/publication/Articles/Pages/2015.1.16
RafiRotem.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
cclxx
Rotem petition
cclxxi
20140423TaxAuthorityRafiRotemsrequest,filedwithSupremeCourt
PresidingJusticeAsherGrunis,foralawfullycertifiedcopyofthe2008Judgmentin
RotemvSamet(1233/08),whichdeterminedthatRotemwasnowhistleblower.
20170118ItistimetorecognizethecontributionofwhistleblowersUNexpert
cclxxii
welcomescommutationofManningssentence,PressReleasePoint
http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/ittimerecognizecontributionwhistleblowers
unexpertwelcomescommutationmanningssentence
cclxxiii
20080902WhistleblowerRotem,JudgeAlmagor,andmedievaldigital
corruptionoftheIsraelicourts,OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/McCain-Makes-Up-History-in-General_News-
080902-327.html&series=464
20140505ISRAEL:Afteryearsofabuse,TaxAuthoritywhistleblowerRafiRotem
winstherighttobedeposedbyStateOmbudsman.OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAEL-After-years-of-abu-by-Joseph-Zernik-
Citizen-Protest_Israel_Judicial-Corruption_Whistleblowing-140505-
277.html&series=464
20140517TelAvivcourtroomdramaexposesnewevidenceoforganizedcrimein
highestlevelsofgovernmentinIsrael,OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Tel-Aviv-courtroom-drama-e-by-Joseph-Zernik-
Corporate-Corruption-Crime_Israel_Judiciary-Corruption-Crime_WHITE-COLLAR-CRIMES-
140517-48.html&series=464
20140526RequestfiledwithAmnestyInternationalinthecaseofpersecuted
IsraeliTaxAuthoritywhistleblowerRafiRotem,OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/Series/Rafi-Rotem--Israeli-Tax-A-by-Joseph-Zernik-141110-
412.html
20140929ISRAEL:AttorneysfromanonexistentlawfirmappearedasPublic
DefendersforwhistleblowerRafiRotem,OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAEL-Attorneys-from-a-n-by-Joseph-Zernik-
Israel_Judicial-Corruption_Whistleblowing-140929-463.html&series=464
20141110IsraeliOmbudsmanrefusestoacceptwhistleblowercomplaintagainst
PMNetanyahusmuggling,murderofa"source",OpEdNews.com
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Israeli-Ombudsman-refuses-by-Joseph-Zernik-
Israel_Judicial-Corruption_Netanyahu_Whistleblowers-141109-518.html&series=464
cclxxiv
20141001RotemvBaram(73202/04)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourt
Recordsdiscoveredthroughinspectionofthecourtfile
20081130RotemvBaram(73202/04)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourtJudge
ShoshanaAlmagorJudgmentasdiscoveredduringinspectionofpapercourtfile
cclxxv
20141001RotemvBaram(73202/04)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourt
Recordsdiscoveredthroughinspectionofthecourtfile
cclxxvi
20141006RotemvBaram(7320204)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourt
Requestforacopyofthesummons
cclxxvii
20141006RotemvBaram(7320204)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourt
RequestforcertificationofJudgeShoshanaAlmagorNovember30,2008Judgment,
"TrueCopyoftheOriginal"
cclxxviii
20141026RotemvMinistryofTreasury(3660/05,5883/05)intheTelAviv
LaborCourtRequesttoinspectpapercourtfile.
https://www.scribd.com/word/document_edit/245015439
Legalanalysis:IsRafiRotemgoingtobeconvictedofInsultingPublicService
cclxxix
Employee?Globes
cclxxx
20140909StateofIsraelvRafiRotem(10740213)intheTelAvivMagistrate
CourtRequestforcertificationofMay26,2014ProtocolandDecisionbyJudge
YaelPradelsky"TrueCopyoftheOriginal"
CourtRepeatrequestforcertificationofMay26,2014ProtocolandDecisionby
JudgeYaelPradelsky"TrueCopyoftheOriginal"
Courtrequestforcopiesofauthenticationrecords(AccompanyingLettersofservice
bytheClerkoftheCourt)ofJudgePradelsky'ssix(6)ProtocolsandDecisions
cclxxxi
CourtNoticeofevidenceofperversionofjusticeandfraudonthecourt,servedon
SupremeCourtPresidingJusticeAsherGrunisandTelAvivMagistrateCourt
PresidingJudgeZivahHadassiHermanincludesallcourtfilerecords
cclxxxii
20161129StateofIsraelvRafiRotem(10740213)request(No53)to
inspectcourtfile
20161128PrisontermonprobationforwhistleblowerRafiRotem,Globes
cclxxxiii
cclxxxiv
20150506Formerdistrictattorneyarrestedinmajorbriberycase,Timesof
Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/former-district-attorney-arrested-in-major-bribery-case/
cclxxxv

Explosive corruption of the Israeli justice system is cured by gag
orders... News last week, that three judges were jailed in the latest
corruption scandal, was immediately gagged by the Jerusalem court. As
is the case in the United States, Prior Restraint of the press is prohibited
by Israeli law, absent "clear and present danger". In practice, the courts
routinely gag the press, in what is seen as a coordinated effort by the
justice system to cover-up its own corruption.
cclxxxvi
TOPIC:AlonHassan,TimesofIsrael
http://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/alon-hassan/
cclxxxvii
20140706Toplawyerarrestedinmassivepolicebriberyscandal,Timesof
Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-lawyer-arrested-in-police-corruption-scandal/
20150507FormerTADistrictAttorneyarrestedinFisheraffair,Globers
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-former-ta-district-attorney-arrested-in-ronel-fisher-
affair-1001034321
TOPIC:RonelFisherscandal,ArutzSheva
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Tag.aspx/38100
cclxxxviii
20151003AFTERYEARSABROAD,TOPMOBBOSSARRESTEDAFTER
LANDINGINISRAEL,JerusalemPost
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/After-years-abroad-top-mob-boss-arrested-after-
landing-in-Israel-419824
cclxxxix
THETENCOMMANDMENTStrailer,Keshet
http://www.keshetinternational.com/show/factual-ent/the-ten-commandments/
ccxc
20150315FreedomofInformationrequestontheIsraelPrisonService,re:
Lawfularrestwarrantsingeneral,andarrestwarrantsofRomanZadorovandShula
Zakeninparticular
ccxci
1993AharonBarak,AConstitutionalRevolution:Israel'sBasicLaws,YaleLaw
School,FacultyScholarshipSeries
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3697/
ccxcii
20150507RemarksbyMiriamNaor,PresidentoftheSupremeCourt,ather
SwearinginCeremony,YeshivaUniversityCardozoLawSchoolwebsite
http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/viewpoints/remarks-miriam-naor-president-supreme-court-
her-swearing-ceremony
ccxciii
20170619DeputyStateAttorneyintheKnessetConstitution,LawandJustice
Committee:ContinuingthedialogueintimidatestheStateAttorneysofficeand
underminesthejusticeprocess,KnessetConstitution,LawandJusticeCommittee
PressRelease
http://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/committees/Huka/News/Pages/press19617.aspx
ccxciv
"ShadowofTruth"(2016)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5599272/combined
ccxcv
20160405TopIsraeliJudge,ProsecutorSlamTVDocumentaryAbout
MurderedGirl,Haaretz,[English]
http://www.haaretz.com/.premium-1.712736
ccxcvi
20170310Thegangthatworkedatdefamingpeople,Mako[Hebrew]
http://www.mako.co.il/newsisrael/localq1_2017/Article
d445f948799ba51004.htm&Partner=facebook_share
ccxcvii
Saturday, April 19, 2014

Israel places journalist under incommunicado confinement Majd
Kayyal, a 23-year-old Israeli citizen and a journalist, was remanded to
arrest, following court procedure behind closed doors in the Haifa
Magistrate Court, with Publication Prohibition Decree, pertaining to the
entire affair.
ccxcviii
20170612Thecourtsarerubberstampspolicegot54gagordersinone
month,News1[Hebrew]
20170616Sixgagorderswithin24hours,News1
ccxcix
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15caf41309125e0d
ccc
201405252013FreedomofthePressreport,IsraelDemocracyInstitute
[Hebrew]
https://www.idi.org.il/articles/4537
20170626UnusualoverarchinggagorderinBezeqaffairinvestigation,News1,
ccci
[Hebrew]
20160228PressFreedom,DemocracyUnderFire, sraelDemocracy
cccii
Institute[English]
https://en.idi.org.il/articles/3321
20160127Thesearethe16mostcorruptcountriesintheWesternworld,
ccciii
BusinessInsider
http://uk.businessinsider.com/themostcorruptcountriesintheoecd2016
1/#chiledespitebeingoneofthemostcorruptcountriesintheoecdchileisone
oftheleastcorruptinlatinamericawherecountrieslikebrazilvenezuelaand
paraguayareriddledwithbriberyandfraudoverallchilescored70pointsthree
fewerthaninlastyearsindexmeaningithasbecomeslightlymorecorruptinthe
past12months1
ccciv
Cunningham,ISRAEL:APROMISEDLANDFORORGANIZED
2009-05-15
CRIME?,Wikileaks
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TELAVIV1098_a.html
cccv
2008Kremnitzer,M.,Fux,A.,Navot,D.,BenOr,N.Vertheim,G.Deceitand
BreachofTrustcriticalreviewandrecommendationforimprovedlegislation,
IsraelDemocracyInstitute
20140618GurArye,M.MoralPanicandPoliticalCorruption:
cccvi
TheExpansionoftheCriminalOffenseofBreachofPublicTrustoverDisciplinary
andEthicalAreas,LawandBusiness
https://idclawreview.org/2014/06/18/volume17_gur-arye/
cccvii
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Certification of Israeli Public Legal Records [Hebrew]
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFAHEB/ConsularService/Certification/Pages/imut_mismachim.aspx
cccviii
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Certification of Israeli Public Documents [English]
http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ConsularServices/Pages/PublicDocumentsEng.aspx
cccix
Administration of Courts - Certification of Israeli Public Legal Records [Hebrew]
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/info/apostil.htm
20101225"BanksandWikiLeaks",NYTimes
cccx
cccxi
20151127AirForceDronePilotsExposeUsGovt.MurderHaveBank
Accounts&CreditCardsFrozenByFeds,TheWashingtonStandards
http://thewashingtonstandard.com/airforcedronepilotsexposeusgovtmurder
havebankaccountscreditcardsfrozenbyfeds/
20160218TheUntoldCasualtiesoftheDroneWar,RollingStone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/theuntoldcasualtiesofthedronewar
20160218
20130127ResponsebyGovernorofBankofIsraelStanleyFischer,inre:
cccxii
unlawfulseizingofbankaccoutnsbyBankHaPoalim,BM
20130206AttorneyJamesJatrasopinioninre:BankofIsrael'sStanley
cccxiii
Fischer'sJanuary27,2013FATCAResponseLetter
20121023JosephZernikvStanleyFischer(7650/12)PetitionintheHigh
cccxiv
CourtofJusticeoftheStateofIsrael.
20130308ZernikvFischer(HCJ7650/12)RequestfortheChiefClerk's
cccxv
clarificationregardingadulterationinSupremeCourtrecords
20130123RequestforprotectionbytheGermanAmbassadortoIsraelofa
cccxvi
humanrights/computersciencewriterinJerusalem
20130523ZernikvMinisterofJusticeetal(2689/13)Requesttoadda
cccxvii
documentJudgeEsperanzaAlonmasterofthe"mysticalsecretsofcourt
procedure",or"obstructionistwithimpunity"?
20140123ZernikvLivnietal(2689/13)Repeatrequestforcertificationof
cccxviii
April18,2012DecisionandJune25,2013Judgment,"TrueCopyoftheOriginal"//
,2013,18(2689/13)'
,2013,25".
20130822RequestforprotectionbytheGermanConsulinIsraelofaGerman
cccxix
citizenagainstsimulatedcourtprocess
cccxx
20161109TelAvivPolicecriminalsinuniform:SaifQabalan,IdanMalka,
AlonLurie
http://inproperinla.blogspot.co.il/2016/11/20161109telavivpolicecriminals
in.html

Human Rights Alert

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Human Rights Alert

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Human Rights Alert (NGO) Digitally signed by

HRC UPR Annex to Submission - 29th session

Incompetence and/or corruption of the courts and the legal

b) Chenero v Chenero (4835-06-13) child custody - in the Jerusalem Family Court -

d) State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) criminal in the Tel-Aviv District Court

f) Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi

Figure. Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi

Figure. December 28, 2016 fake Decision on fake Complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv

b) Invalid implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001)

d) New Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004)

e) Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat (completed 2010)

b) The Supreme Court

(i) Dubious security of IT systems of the Supreme Court

(ii) Eliminating the certification of the Supreme Court decision records

Freedom of Information response by the Administration of Courts likewise documented that

(iv) Elimination of valid Notices to Appear in Court

(v) Failure to maintain valid hearings protocols [minutes]

(vi) Falsification and disappearance of court files and decision records

Case Study: Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to Handicapped by Nazi Persecution

Figure. Judith Franco-Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi

Conduct of the justices in Ometz v Attorney General et al is of particular concern on

(viii) Supreme Court justices as Chairs of the Central Election Committee

(i) Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat case management system

Figure. Changes related to implementation of Net-Hamishat IT system. Left: Under paper

Figure. Implementation of invalid summonses in Net-Hamishpat: Ben-Yaakov v Rolnick

Figure. Implementation of invalid authentication letters in Net-Hamishpat. Silman v Social

Universal failure to docket summonses and authentication records:

Honest registration of judgments is critical for honest administration of the courts.

Who is today charged with entry of judgments in Net-HaMishpat in the Nazareth

Unlawful filing of evidence in criminal prosecutions with no prior inspection by the

(ii) Invalid implementation of e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat

Case Study: complaint (192/17/Nazareth District), filed with Ombudsman of the

Case Study: Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) bankruptcy, receivership - in

Criminal Appeal 7939/10

The publication of the sham/simulated Verdict record by the Spokeswoman of the

Following examination of the judicial records in State of Israel v Zerni in Net-HaMishpat,

Case Study: In re: Joelle Ben-Simon

(i) Deceit, breach of trust

(ii) Censorship regarding judicial corruption

a) 2002 - Judge Varda Alshech's "Fabricated Protocols" and e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat

Figure. December 28, 2016 fake Decision on fake Complaint (875/16/Tel-Aviv

c) 2017 - Ombudsman of the Judiciary fake Decision on complaint pertaining to e-

Figure. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldbergs signature box on Decision

Figure. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Rivlins signature box on Decision

a) Implementation of the E-Signature Act (2001)

Figure. Implementation of invisible electronic signatures: Unsigned signature box of the

b) Detainees Courts - Administrative Courts under the Ministry of Justice

Ashkenazi+76 others v Minister of Justice and Director of Enforcement and

Case Study: Ashkenazi + 76 other v Director of the Enforcement and Collection

(iv) Fraudulent IT systems

v) Deceitful conduct by pretender Legal Counsel and pretender FOIA officer

FOIA request and response, in re: Documentation of lawful development,

Figure. Demonstrations against Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit started in winter

(i) Bus 300 affair (1984)

(ii) Rabin Assassination (1995)

(iii) Bar-On Hebron affair (1997)

(iv) Harpaz affair (2010)

(v) Tenure of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein (2010-2016)

(vi) Tenure of Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit (2016-present)

Picture. State Attorney Shai Nitzan (2013-present).

(i) Former Tel-Aviv District Attorney Ruth David

c) Commissioner of Prosecutorial Oversight

a) The Israel Bar Association and implementation of e-signatures