Digitally signed

by Joseph
Zernik, PhD
Date:
2015.01.16
00:55:47 +02'00'

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

Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO), Tel-Aviv, Israel
joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Abstract: Validity, integrity, and impacts of the new IT systems of the Israeli courts, implemented in the
decade of the 2000s, are examined. The report is based in part on the Human Rights Alert, NGO, (HRA)
submission for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of human rights in Israel by the Human Rights Council
(HRC) of the United Nations (UN) which, following professional HRC staff review, was incorporated into the
HRC UPR report (2013) with the note: "Lack of integrity in the electronic record systems of the supreme court,
the district courts and the detainees' courts in Israel". The current report is also based on the findings of the
State Ombudsman's Report (2010), which noted that system development failed to comply with State law and
standards: Contracts were signed with no legal tender and with no specifications; development was carried
out with no core management by state employees; systems were accepted with no independent validation by
state employees; servers were removed from the custody of the state courts into the custody of a corporation,
and unknown number of people were issued double smart ID cards. System analysis reveals: Development and
implementation with no lawful authority, servers of unverified identity, and invalid implementation of
electronic signatures, authentication procedures, authorities and permissions. Data mining reveals widespread
issuance of invalid judicial. Falsified, simulated, and/or forged judicial records are presented. Case studies
focus on the unlawful deprivation of liberty, persecution of whistle-blowers, and failing corporate/banking
regulation. The possibility that such fundamental deficiencies, which systematically stripped judicial records of
any semblance of validity and authenticity through a costly, long-term project, overseen by key national
judicial figures, are the outcome of oversight, or human error is remote. The systems should be viewed as
suspension of the law of the land, or denial of access to the civil courts. As such, they represent a regime
change, or a constitutional crisis in a nation with no constitution. The last couple of decades also involved
unprecedented corruption of government, and socio-economic changes, which propelled Israel to the first
place in poverty among OECD nations. The systems remarkably resemble similarly deficient, older systems of
the State of California and the US federal courts. The role of IBM and EDS, US-based corporations, in the
development of the Israeli systems is notable, as well as similar conduct by IBM in other nations. Notice the
unique relationship between code and law in such systems, corrective measures are proposed, calling for
Publicity of the Law transparency - and for the Separation of Powers placing the development and
implementation of such systems under accountability to the legislature. Human rights and internet activists
should be vigilant in monitoring such systems. IT experts should assume more prominent duties in the
safeguard of civil society in our era.
Keywords: e-justice, human rights, courts, prisons, banking regulation, State of Israel.
1. Introduction
The courts worldwide have implemented in recent decades IT systems for efficient management of court
cases, electronic filing by parties, and public access to court records. United Nations reports on Strengthening
Judicial Integrity Against Corruption (2000, 2001) encourage the process. No doubt, such systems could have
improved the transparency and integrity of the judicial processes. However, the transition to electronic
administration of the courts is not risk free.
Court procedures and in particular, the maintenance and safeguard of valid court records, have evolved over
centuries under paper administration of the courts. They are the core of fair hearing, and quintessential to
them is the coordinated actions of the two arms of the courts: The judicial arm adjudicating and issuing
decision records, and the ministerial (clerical) arm authenticating, certifying, and maintaining court records
as their lawful custodians. On the other hand, historical review finds that corruption of the office s of the clerks
is correlated with corruption of the courts themselves (Messinger, 2002).
The transition to electronic administration of the courts amounts to a sea change in the operations of the
offices of the clerks. Previous studies documented the detrimental effects of the implementation of invalid IT
systems in the courts and prisons in the United States, in the State of California, and in the State of Israel
(Human Rights Alert 2010, 2013, 2015, Zernik, 2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2015).
The current report is based in part on the Human Rights Alert, NGO, (HRA) submission to the United Nations
Human Rights Council (HRA, 2013), which was incorporated into the Professional Staff Report (2013) of the
Council's Periodic Review with the note: lack of integrity of the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the
district courts and the detainees courts in Israel. Given space limit, instant report provides: a) Online

Appendix I - an expanded version of the current report with links to online references and records, and b)
Online Appendix II - HRA submission (2013), sections of which are referenced within the text (e.g., HRA C1e).
1.1 Office of the clerk
The authority, duties and responsibilities of the chief clerk of the court in the State of Israel were defined in a
series of laws and respective regulations (HRA C.1). The regulations, which were promulgated in 2003-5, during
the period of implementation of the current generation of IT systems of the courts, are of particular interest.
The laws and regulations are at times inconsistent in their basic terms and leave considerable amount of
ambiguity. On such background, the initial steps in developing and implementing the current IT systems of the
court, i.e., defining the specifications, was particularly sensitive. Either the authorities, duties and
responsibilities of the chief clerk and the respective procedures were to be unambiguously defined, or else
invalid IT systems would be developed and implemented. It is noteworthy that the Israeli courts themselves
ruled that a court, operating with no lawful office of the clerk, is an incompetent court.
2. Methods
2.1 IT system analysis and data mining
The systems are analysed by review of the their implementation and operation in various courts. Data mining
is largely conducted using the inherent built-in search engines. System rules are inferred through review of
the systems and the records, since hardly any public records are available (e.g. users' manuals), and the office
of Administration of Courts denied respective Freedom of Information requests, or wrongfully refused to
respond on them (HRA C9e).
2.2 Case studies
Case studies are provided in Online Appendix I to demonstrate the impact of the IT systems of on the
administration of justice in the Israel today.
2.3 Human rights, national and international legal implications
Legal analysis is largely restricted to technical and procedural matters, which needed to be addressed in the
course of implementing any IT system of the courts, e.g., the safeguard of valid, authentic records through
valid signatures, authentication, certification, authorities and permissions. Emphasis is given to records,
pertaining to the initiation (e.g. summonses) and termination (judgments) of litigation, which are recognized
for centuries as critical for integrity of the courts and the judicial process.
"Simulated Litigation", "Simulated Court Record", "Simulated Litigation/Records" are used here pursuant to
the Texas Penal Code 32.48, which is instructive in detailing the underlying conduct (see Online Appendix I):
Disseminating invalid, ineffectual, unenforceable, and typically abusive court records, then fraudulently
inducing or extorting compliance with them. In terms of US federal law, such conduct by judges, clerks, and
attorneys falls under Fraud upon the Court. Such conduct is considered "extra-judicial" conduct, which is not
covered by any immunity. The law of the State of Israel notably fails to specifically address such conduct.
Simulated legal process has been known for centuries as a common form of judicial corruption. The office of
the clerk, its duties and responsibilities, evolved centuries ago specifically to prevent such conduct.
Accordingly, emphasis is given to the ways in which the new IT systems enable the issuance and publication of
simulated judicial records.
3 IT system analysis
3.1 The systems
The current report primarily reviews the IT systems of the Israeli Supreme Court (name unknown), the district
and magistrate courts (Net-Hamishpat), the debtors courts (VTO, Ornet, and Kelim Shluvim), and the detainees
courts (name unknown). Net-Hamishpat, but none of the other systems provides the full range of case
management, public access, and electronic filing capabilities. The other systems, such as the one used by the
Supreme Court, provide case management and limited public access, but no electronic filing capabilities.
3.2 Development and implementation - disregard of standards, dubious lawful authority
As noted in the State Ombudsman's Report (2010), effectual standards and procedures, pertaining to the
development of State IT systems, were established in the October 28, 1991 Cabinet Decision 103/eco, and
further elaborated in Accounting Office of the Ministry of Treasury Maftah Procedures.
The State Ombudsman's Report (2010) notes that none of these rules and procedures were complied with in
the development of the current generation of IT systems of the courts (HRA C3b). Moreover, the State
Ombudsman's Report (2010) notes that contracts for system development were unlawfully awarded to
corporations with no legal tender, that the servers of the courts were removed from the custody of the clerks
of the courts to the custody of a corporation in violation of the Regulations of the Courts, and that an

unknown number of individuals were issued double ID cards (HRA C3b).

The current generation of IT systems of the Israeli courts represents a sea-change in court procedures and
court administration. These changes in court procedures have not be legistated. Limited authorization is
provided in changes, which are promulgated in the Regulations of Civil Court Procedure. A particularly alarming
change is promulgated in the Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), 5 Mechanical Systems
(see Online Appendix I). In Article 5, the Minister of Justice in fact delegates to the Director of the
Administration of Courts the authority to change the Regulations of the Courts as necessary in conjunction
with implementation of the new IT systems. Article 5 patently violates the principle of Separation of Powers.
Moreover, the changes to the Regulations, which were obviously introduced by the Director of the
Administration of Courts, were never published, in violation of the principle of Publicity of the Law.
Furthermore, the Administration of Courts refused to respond on a Freedom of a Information request, asking
for disclosure of such changes (HRA C9e). Regardless, review of the systems, data mining, and other Freedom
of Information responses enable the identification of the cardinal changes in court procedures, inherent in the
new IT systems of the courts.
In all Israeli courts (including the Supreme Court), the most significant change was abolishing the responsibility
and accountability of the chief clerk relative to integrity of court records, issuance of summonses,
authentication, service, and certification of judicial records.
In the Supreme Court, where the paper records are deemed the authoritative source, the validity of all
electronic records in the public access system was additionally voided by: a) adding to all records the
disclaimer subject to editing and phrasing changes, and b) omitting the standard statement by the Chief
Clerk of the Supreme Court, which had appeared on all records prior to 2002, True Copy of the Original, with
an electronic code (probably an early form of password secured file system) (Figure 1). Both the
Administration of Courts and current Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Asher Grunis refused to disclose
under whose authority and under what legal foundation such profound changes were introduced in the
electronic records of the Supreme Court in 2002.

Figure 1. Changes in the IT system of the Supreme Court ~ 2002. Left: Until early 2002, all electronic decisions
of the Supreme Court carried certification, True Copy of the Original, by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu
Cohen. Right: 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 (HRA xxx).
In the district, magistrate, and labor courts, where Net-Hamishpat is implemented, and where electronic
records are deemed the authoritative source, the validity of all electronic records was voided through the
implementation of invisible electronic signatures - The Emperor's New Clothes. For example, prior to the
implementation of Net-Hamishpat, judges were permitted to inscribe unformatted decisions on the face of
motion records under their signatures. With the implementation of Net-Hamishpat, such practice was
established as Post-it Decisions with no visible signatures at all (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Changes related to implementation ~ 2009 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. The Decision in part says:
... There is not a single substantial claim of a reasonable concern of bias... instant Motion is superfluous....

3.3 Servers of unverified identity and dubious security

Review of the identity of the servers of the various courts, using standard browsers, failed to discover a single
server of certified identify (HRA C2b). The failure to certify the identity of the servers, in itself, is likely to be
deemed sufficient to hold the systems invalid. Furthermore, the Administration of Courts refused to respond
on a Freedom of Information request: Who holds the ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the
Supreme Court of the State of Israel? (HRA C9e). Typically, the Shin-Bet (secret service) holds the ultimate
authority over security of state IT systems. However, in response on request, the office of Prime Minster (who
is in charge of the Shin-Bet) stated that the Shin-Bet holds no authority over of the servers of the courts.
3.4 Invalid implementation of electronic signatures
Today, all decision records of the Israeli courts, with the notable exception of the Supreme Court, are
maintained as electronic records. Regardless, no visible electronic record can be found on any court records.
The notion of invisible signatures, defies the essence of a signature a symbol affixed with the intent to accept
responsibility (HRA C9d). Such invalid implementation of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) extends beyond
the courts. For example, 2006-7 Annual Report of the Magistrate of Databases (who also holds the authority
of Magistrate of Certifying Authorities, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act), as published online by the
Ministry of Justice, shows no visible signature (Hacohen, 2007) (Figure 3). The Ministry of Justice denied a
Freedom of Information request for a copy of the Report, bearing a visible electronic signature, under the
claim that the electronic signature of a government officer is a private instrument. The implementation of
invalid electronic signatures was related to the privatization of the electronic signature system of the State
of Israel to Comsign, a private corporation a dubious measure.

Figure 3. Implementation of invisible electronic signatures. Unsigned signature box of the 2006-7 Annual
Report by Attorney Yoram Hacohen, Magistrate of Databases, as published online by the Ministry of Justice.
The signature box says: Truly, Yoram Hacohen, Adv., Magistrate of Databases, Justice Technology and
Information Authority (Originally signed by a secure electronic signature) [the parenthetical part in red in the
original, jz]. The Ministry of Justice denied a Freedom of Information request for a visibly signed copy of the
Report, claiming that the electronic signature of a government officer is a private instrument.
3.5 Invalid implementation of summonses, authentication, certification, service Instruments and procedures
In almost all courts, originating in the English common law, including the Israeli courts, the initiation of
litigation through the issuance and execution of service of a valid summonses under the signature of the clerk
of the court and the seal of the court is prescribed for the establishment of the jurisdiction of the court in a
given matter on the given parties. Therefore, the validity and integrity of the summons is critical for validity
and integrity of the subsequent litigation as a whole. However, since implementation of the current IT systems
of the Israeli courts:
In the Supreme Court - petitions (matters of original jurisdiction) are heard as Preliminary Proceedings with
no issuance of the the Conditional Decree, which according to the respective Regulations is the Summons in
such procedure.
In the Supreme Court - while all valid court records are maintained in paper court files, the Notices to Appear
in Court (for hearings on petitions) are maintained as electronic records, which according to the Supreme
Court staff, are automatically eliminated from the IT system after the date of the hearing (Zernik, 2014a).
In the district and magistrate courts - summonses are issued by an unnamed person, unsigned, only noted as
issued by the Office of the Clerk (Figure 4).

Figure 4. 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.

Authentication of all judicial records is a fundamental procedure in all courts, originating in the English
common law, including the Israeli courts, for rendering court decisions valid, effectual, and enforceable. The
matter is now internationally acknowledged in the Hague Convention (1961), to which the State of Israel is a
party (see below). Authentication of judicial records is executed through the due service of such records on the
parties to the matter before the court, duly signed, with an accompanying letter, signed under the authority of
the Chief Clerk.
However, since the implementation of the current IT systems of the Israeli courts:
In the Supreme Court - all decisions are mailed unsigned by the justices, bearing the disclaimer subject to
editing and phrasing changes and with no accompanying letter by the clerk of the court at all.
In the district, magistrate, and labor courts - all decisions are mailed with an unsigned accompanying letter by
an unnamed person (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Implementation of invalid authentication letters in Net-Hamishpat. Silman v Social Security (1752008) in the Tel-Aviv District Court the August 30, 2012 Accompanying letter of the decision (Figure 3) by Judge
Hagai Brenner says: Accompanying Letter. Attached is a decision record. Date: August 30, 2012. Signature of
a Clerk. The record is unsigned, fails to name its issuer, and bears no seal of the court (Brenner, 2012).
Of note, over the past decade, judges have stopped using the proper legal term, service. Instead, judicial
records instruct the office of the clerk to inform the parties of judicial decisions, or mail to the parties, etc.
The certification of court records by the clerk of the court is a routine procedure in all courts, originating in the
English common law. Duly certified court records are deemed self-authenticated, and are required for
enforcement of court orders and judgments, or when filing such records as admissible evidence. The
Regulations of the Courts, Office of the Clerk (2004), 6a establish the authority certify court records, True
Copy of the Original, with the Chief Clerk.
Following the implementation of the current IT systems of the courts, no valid certification of court records
could be obtained from any of the courts, where it has been attempted. However, numerous examples of
forgeries were discovered.
In the Supreme Court - petitioners, who have asked for signed and certified copies of decisions in their
matters, routinely received simulated and/or forged records. Such records typically bear an invalid
certification statement, Duplication is True to the Original, instead of True Copy of the Original, and are
either signed either by an unnamed person, using an illegible signature, or by a person, who is not the duly
appointed Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Simulation and/or forgery of certifications of Supreme Court decision record. a. June 1, 2008 Decision
in Macmull v Bank of Israel and State of Israel (3518/08). The petition originated in fraud by a bank on Debtor
Macmull in the Jerusalem Debtors' Court, and refusal of Bank of Israel to perform its duties as banking
regulator. The petition was summarily denied. The signatures of the justices are all in wet ink, in the form
(-), and in the same hand-writing as the signature of Sarah Lifschitz Chief Clerk. The certifying statement is
invalid - Duplication is True to the Original - instead of True Copy of the Original. Sarah Lifschitz was not
duly appointed Chief Clerk. The footnote says: Duplicate subject to editing and phrasing changes.

In the Tel-Aviv Labor Court - certification was issued by a person, falsely in possession of the Chief Clerk
stamp, while the person, who appears as Chief Clerk holds no appointment record as such (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Simulation and/or forgery of certification of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court decision record. Left: The web
page of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court lists Chief Clerk: Ms Orly Hammer. Right: The 29, 2014 Judge Giltzer-Katz
Decision, imposing an unusual NIS 4,000 payment in attorneys fees on Plaintiff Genosar, the Israel Electric
Company whistle-blower, was certified using a True Copy of the Original stamp #49 of an unnamed male
Chief Clerk (Giltzer-Katz, 2014). Freedom of Information response shows that Ms Orly Hammer holds no
lawful appointment as Chief Clerk of the Tel-Aviv Labour Court, and that stamp #49 is unlawfully held by Ms
Galit Maglid, a secretary in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court.
3.6 Invalid implementation of authorities and permissions, and 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.
Except for the Tel-Aviv District Court, access to electronic court records is also severely limited or prohibited on
unrepresented parties in their own court files, in disregard of the law.
Such conditions also enable the appearance of attorneys, who are not authorized as Counsel of Record for the
parties, which they purport to represent, a well-known method of fraud upon the court (Bohm, 2008).
Following the implementation of Net-Hamishpat, numerous cases were documented, where unauthorized
attorneys appeared and filed of papers without filing the certificates of counsel of records, as prescribed by
law: In the case of Israel Electric Company whistle-blower Moran Genosar, unauthorized attorneys appeared
on behalf of the Israel Electric Company; in the criminal prosecution of Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi
Rotem, unauthorized attorneys appeared as purported Public Defenders, and in the case of self-immolated
social protest activist Moshe Silman, unauthorized attorneys appeared on behalf of the Social Security.
3.7 Universal failure to docket summonses 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 records in Net-Hamishpat at all. Similarly, no
authentication records have been discovered upon inspection of the electronic records in Net-Hamishpat.
3.8 Adulterated, forged, and missing court records
Following the implementation of the new IT systems of the courts, numerous cases were reported, where
judges have altered or forged court records.
In the Supreme Court - data mining led to the discovery of numerous decision records, bearing forged
certification by the late Chief Clerk, up to 5 years after his death in 2002 (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Falsification and/or forgery of Supreme Court decision record. The signature and certification box of
Supreme Court Decision in Judith Franco Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi
Persecutions Act (1582/02) in part says: Issued this date, February 14, 2007. Boaz Okon, Magistrate. This
duplicate is subject to editing and phrasing changes. Shmaryahu Cohen Chief Clerk. By February 2007, Boaz
Okon was no longer Registrar of the Supreme Court, and Shmaryahu Cohen was dead for about five years.
Numerous other records of the same nature were discovered.
The two cases, most widely reported by media, involved Judge Varda Alshech from the Tel-Aviv District Court
and Judge Hila Cohen from the Haifa District Court (Zarchin, 2012, Yoaz, 2005). Neither was held accountable.

In other, notable cases, Haaretz daily reported a case, where a detainee was going to be deported, based on a
hearing protocol, which never took place in reality, and the Annual Report of the Judiciary Ombudsman (2012)
notes that judges hold that they are permitted to alter decisions and judgments, even after they were given in
open court. In the numerous media reports, relative to the falsification of judicial records by judges, the
fundamental question was never raised: How was it technically possible?
The most plausible explanation for current conditions in the Israeli courts is related to the implementation of
the current IT systems of the courts and undermining of the authority of the clerk of the court for integrity of
court records. Under paper administration of the courts, judicial records were entered into the dockets only
throughthe clerk of the court, and once stamped and entered, were no longer accessible for judges to modify.
In contrast, the evidence shows that today, the new IT systems of the courts permit judges access to alter,
modify, or forge judicial records any time, at will.
3.9 Double books
By law, public access is permitted to all judicial decisions, unless lawfully sealed. In practice, Net-Hamishpat
permits judges to selectively permit public access to decisions (Figure 9).

a.
b.
Figure 9: Double-book system in Net-Hamishpat. September 23, 2014 List of Decisions in State of Israel v Rafi
Rotem (1074-02-13) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court: 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.
3.10 Unlawful filing of evidence in criminal prosecutions with no prior inspection by the Defendant
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 defendant and
his counsel the opportunity to inspect the evidence (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Unlawful filing of evidence in a criminal prosecution. List of Related Files in State of Israel v Rafi
Rotem (1074-02-13) in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court 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.
3.11 Failure to register judgments
Honest registration of judgments is critical for honest administration of the courts. Typically, a Judgment
Book, or an Index of Judgments is considered on the fundamental Books of Courts. Registration of
judgments in Net-Hamishpat is arbitrary and capricious (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Invalid registration of judgments. State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502-07) in the Nazareth District
Court. Under the Judgments tab in Net-Hamishpat, the September 14, 2010 Judgment, convicting Zadorov
of murder and sentencing him to life in prison is not listed. The February 24, 2014 Supplemental Judgment,
which again convicted Zadorov of murder, is listed as Order on Defendant's attorney to file certificate of
counsel.

4. Case studies
A series of case studies, further documenting the deficiencies in the new IT systems of the courts, outlined
above, is provided in Online Appendix I. The series of cases related to Tax Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem
is particularly instructive. Israeli media described him as being 'abused by the courts for over a decade' (Online
Appendix I): a) In Rotem v Tax Authority et al in the Tel-Aviv Labour Court, Rotem tried to gain protection
against retaliation. The case, commenced in 2005, and was conducted as a paper court file. Inspection of the
court file revealed only an unsigned, unauthenticated judgment record, which the Court refused to certify. b)
Rotem v Baram in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, commenced in 2004, was likewise conducted as a paper court
file. Inspection failed to discover summonses or authentication records, but uncovered numerous unsigned
judicial records, which were never duly served. Request for certification of the purported judgment in the
case, yielded a record, which should be deemed forgery/simulated court record. c) The still ongoing State of
Israel v Rotem in the Tel-Aviv Magistrate Court, commenced in 2013, provides a detailed example of the
conduct of abusive, simulated criminal prosecution under Net-Hamishpat. The hallmarks are electronic records
of vague and ambiguous validity, purportedly bearing invisible electronic signatures, a double-books system,
where public access is purportedly permitted, but effectively denied to all decision records issued so far so far
(Figure 9), electronic filing of evidence by the prosecution without providing Defendant an opportunity to
inspect it first, as required by law (Figure 10), and the appearance of unauthorized outside attorneys as
purported public defenders, who consistently failed to perform their duties. d) The petition Rotem v Samet
in the Supreme Court, commenced and summarily denied in 2008, provides a detailed example of the denial of
access to a national tribunal for protection of rights, and the issuance of simulated Supreme Court decision
records, which the Supreme Court refused to have duly certified.
5. Hague Apostille Treaty (1961)
The Hague Apostille Treaty abolished the requirement for legalization of foreign public documents, and
established instruments for mutually recognized certification of court records. The State of Israel entered the
Treaty in 1978, but the evidence shows that the State of Israel employs a false procedure for apostille
certification by private notaries, in violation of both Israeli law and the Treaty. The Administration of Courts
refused to answer on a Freedom of Information request: Under whose authority and what legal foundation
such procedure was published? (HRA C10a).
6. Discussion
The fundamental deficiencies in the new IT systems of the Israeli courts, systems that hold high significance
relative to the administration of justice and were developed through a high cost, long-term project, overseen
by senior national judicial officers, cannot be reasonably deemed the result of oversight or human error. The
new systems consistently strip judicial records of any evidence of authenticity, validity, force and effect:
Electronic signatures are vague and ambiguous, under control of a private corporation.
Signature of the chief clerk are omitted from summonses and authentication records, effectively
invalidating all service procedures.
Certification of judicial records is routinely executed by hand-signatures of persons, who are not
authorized to do so by law, using an invalid certification statements.
The servers are no longer under state custody, their identity is uncertified, and the ultimate
administrative authority over them is unlawfully held confidential.
The most plausible explanation for the entire body of evidence is that the judiciary deliberately established
invalid IT systems and invalid records in all courts. Therefore, the systems should be viewed as suspension of
the law of the land, or denial of access to the civil courts. As such, they represent a regime change, or a
constitutional crisis in a nation with no constitution. The evidence shows that invalid litigation records were
issued also prior to implementation of the systems. However, the older records reflect wrongdoing on a local
basis, whereas the new IT systems reflect wrongdoing on a national scale.
Public records, including court records, emerged in the late middle ages as key instruments in the
administration of a civil society, starting with birth, marriage, and burial records. Later, in the English common
law, court records were accorded the same status, with the office of the clerk as their lawful custodian. In
contrast, the current IT systems of the Israeli courts affected the privatization of public records, their
signatures, and their apostille certification - a concept which defies the purpose of public records.
The system of state (or royal) and court seals evolved in the middle ages as part of efforts to enhance the
integrity and security of the respective records. Valid, visible electronic signatures could have practically
eliminated the possibility of forgery, or the issuance of simulated court records. In contrast, the
implementation of invisible electronic signatures - the Emperor's New Clothes - in fact enhanced the ability

to generate forged or invalid, simulated court records. The privatization of certifying authorities of state
electronic signatures again defies their own purpose.
The right of the public to inspect and to copy court records originated hundreds of years ago in the English
common law, and is considered essential for transparency of the courts and integrity of the judicial process. In
US law it is inherent to the First Amendment to the Constitution. Valid IT systems could have provided
unprecedented public access and unprecedented transparency of the courts. In contrast, the systems which
were implemented effectively created a double books system, which undermines public access and
transparency of the courts. Furthermore, in a key decision of the Israeli Supreme Court ( Association for Civil
Rights v Minister of Justice, 5917/97), subject of which was public access to court records under the new IT
systems, then Presiding Justice Dorit Beinisch ruled that public access had to be restricted, based on the
'constitutional' right for privacy.
The conduct of the Israeli courts, inherent in the new IT systems, stands contrary to the fundamentals of the
English common law, in which the Israeli courts originated. Such conduct, likewise, stands contrary to the
fundamentals of fair hearing and access to national courts for protection of rights in Human Rights. It also
stands contrary to the fundamental of Jewish law, another major source of Israeli law, where valid issuance
and execution of summonses, execution of court records through valid signatures and authentication/service
procedures, particularly in matters of marriages and divorce, have been well-established for over 2000 years.
In reviewing conditions in the Israeli courts, one should note that although the State of Israel acknowledges
Human Rights in International Law, decisions of the Supreme Court clearly distinguish between 'procedural
deficiencies' and 'essential deficiencies' in court conduct. In a landmark 2002 decision in the case or Amos
Baranes, who was falsely convicted of murder and was falsely imprisoned many years, the Supreme Court
notes that 'procedural matter' should be considered 'upgraded', since the enactment in 1992 of the Basic Law
- Human Dignity and Liberty, which purportedly established the right for due process in Israel.
The development and implementation of the new IT system of the Israeli courts was launched under the
tenure of Supreme Court Presiding Justice Aharon Barak (in office 1995-2006). Under his tenure, the Supreme
Court purported to construe various fundamental human and civil rights of constitutional force and effect
based on the enactment of Basic Laws. Barak advertised himself as leading of a 'Constitutional Revolution' in
Israel (Zernik, 2012c). In contrast, outside observers perceived Barak as an 'enlightened despot' at best, or the
world's record holder in 'judicial hubris' (Posner, 2007). The notion of a 'Constitutional Revolution' cannot be
substantiated by any discernible enhancement in the adherence of the State of Israel with Human Rights,
either in the treatment of its own citizens within Israel proper, or the treatment of residents of the Palestinian
territories. The current report proposes that Justice Barak in fact presided over unprecedented corruption of
the Israeli courts.
The implementation of the new IT systems in the Israeli courts correlated with a period, which has been
marked by unprecedented, rampant government corruption and the emergence of extreme gaps in asset and
income distribution. The economy has grown to be dominated by a handful of 'tycoons', and Israel has been
propelled to the first place among OECD nations in poverty rate without suffering any economic crisis. The
socio-economic transformation has also led to the emergence in recent years of a social protest of
unprecedented scale.
The State of Israel is not alone. Similar conditions were reported in the IT systems of the state and federal
courts in the United States, which had been developed and implemented a decade or two earlier than those of
the Israeli courts (HRA, 2015b). In the United States, the implementation of such systems is likewise
correlated with unprecedented corruption of the justice system, the emergence of extreme socio-economic
gaps, and the widespread notion that the US Constitution has been voided or suspended (Zernik, 2015). In this
context, the key role of two US-based international corporations, IBM and EDS, in the unlawful development
and implementation of the new IT systems of the Israeli courts should be noted, as well as the conduct of IBM
in other nations (Zernik, 2014j).
7. Proposed Corrective Actions
The implementation of the new, fraudulent IT systems in the Israeli courts, implicate the judiciary as a class, as
well as the Israeli Bar Association and the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, corrective actions are likely to be
neither fast nor easy. Efforts may eventually require an approach similar to a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission.
Under similar circumstances in the US courts a century ago, key corrective measures involved reform of the
office of the clerk of the court (Messinger, 2002). Similar measures may be needed in Israel.
Corrective measures should note the unique relationship between code and law (Lessig, 2000), demonstrated
in IT systems of the courts, therefore requiring transparency pursuant to Publicity of the Law, and

accountability to the legislature pursuant to the Separation of Powers placing the development and
implementation of such systems under accountability to the legislature. Human rights and internet activists
should keep vigilance in monitoring such systems. IT experts should assume more prominent duties in the
safeguard of civil society in our era.
8. Online Appendices
I. Zernik, J. (2015) "Fraudulent New IT Systems of the Israeli Courts - Unannounced Regime Change?"
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252258857/
II. Human Rights Alert, NGO, (2013) Appendix to Submission for the UPR of Human Rights in the State of Israel
by the UN Human Rights Council
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU/edit?usp=sharing
References
Bohm, J. (2008) March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion in Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt
#248, Texas Bankruptcy Court, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Ferziger, J, and Wainer, D. (2014) Startup Israel Suffering Most OECD Poverty as Poor Surge, [online]
Bloomberg
Hacohen, Y. (2007) 2006-7 Annual Report of the Magistrate of Databases, [online] Ministry of Justice, State
of Israel
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2010) Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic
Review of Human Rights in the United State, [online] United Nations Human Rights Council
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2010) Appendix to Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States, [online] United Nations Human Rights
Council
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2013) Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic
Review of Human Rights in Israel, [online] United Nations Human Rights Council
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2013) Appendix to Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in Israel, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2015a) Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic
Review of Human Rights in the United States, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Human Rights Alert (NGO) (2015b) Appendix to Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council
Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Lessig, L. (2000) The Code in Law, and the Law in Code, [online] Harvard Law School
Messinger, S. (2002) Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts, [online] Federal Judicial
Center
Posner, R. (2007) Enlightened Despot, [online] New Republic
State Ombudsman's Report 60b (2010) Development of IT systems of the Israeli Ministry of Justice and the
Israeli courts [online] State of Israel Ombudsman's Office
Yoaz, Y. (2005) Panel rules to fire Judge Hila Cohen, [online] Haaretz
Zarchin, T. (2012) Israel Bar Association head says Tel-Aviv district court judge must go, [online] Haaretz
Zernik, J. (2010) Data Mining as a Civic Duty Online Public Prisoners Registration Systems [online]
International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96
Zernik, J. (2012a) "Design and Operation of the Electronic Record Systems of the US Courts are Linked to
Failing Banking Regulation", [online] Data Analytics
Zernik, J. (2012b) "Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Record Systems of the Courts of the State of
Israel", [online] Data Analytics
Zernik, J. (2012c) 'Constitutional Revolution' in the State of Israel? compilation of media reports [online]
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Zernik, J. (2014f) Mounting evidence of Fraud Upon the Court in criminal prosecution of Israeli whistle-blower
Rotem, [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Zernik, J. (2014g) Growing concerns of fraud on Israel Electric Co whistle-blower Moran Genosar in the TelAviv Labor Court., [online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Zernik, J. (2014h) Specification, validation of IT systems of the courts now before the Israeli Supreme Court,
[online] Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Zernik, J. (2014j) Corruption of governments and IBM compilation of media reports, [online] Human Rights
Alert (NGO)
Zernik, J. (2015) IT systems of the US federal courts, justice, and governance, [online] ICEG