Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H


  



Zernik, o=HRA-NGO,
ou,
     
 email=joseph.zernik@h
ra-ngo.org, c=IL
!"#$%&!'()
* "
+( + Date: 2017.04.05
15:41:49 +03'00'

 !!"#$%$&'$"(

:)*+ , -
 
-  +.+ ,(
 /0/192/17)  
 

  , )*+0-) -
)/ ,
 )

0
/- 1, +.
, 0

, /
 - - - 
,(502-07) -  "0 - -
-
:)*+
, ,(63343-01-17) /
 
 "0  0
-+ ,(18790-10-14)
"

[1] .(38086-02-17)   "0  0


 '
: 
Human Rights Alert NGO
"  

Addendum to Complaint (192/17/Nazareth District), filed with Ombudsman of

the Judiciary denial of access to inspect electronic signature data in Net-
HaMishpat by Judges Avraham Avraham State of Israel v Zadorov (502-07),
Eliyahu Bachar Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv (18790-10-14), Shalhevet Kamir-
Wiess State of Israel v Klass (63343-01-17), Oded Moreno State of Israel v
Zernik (38086-02-17). [1]

Complainant:
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert NGO
OccupyTLV

1
2017-03-15 Complaint (192/17/Nazareth District), filed with Ombudsman of the
Judiciary denial of access to e-signatures in the courts //
         ,( /192/17)  
-   
https://www.scribd.com/document/341946334/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5TGpGQkhDc1oxUWc/view?
usp=sharing


      


 


  ,1


 0-
0 
 
 


 
 

 
    
   
     
  
 



  
   
        

 

 
 
 
! "#$%"&%$#'&$(#)*!%"#(
#"&+&"$(
"  $$$'"#$%"&%$#'&%$,#-%&.#
( * &.$&!/-%$%&#/0'&#%"1  
 ((%#%$* 2'&#&$(%$%&##%$'#&$(-0
 * &.$&!/1""#%$&#,#-%&.#
$"'&%$
 /* 3
&1

 
 85674 
83664  '#&'#%#/
1 
 
 897:36;4 
8+:<<:34    
 
 
 



 * 2'&#$(&.$&85674!/-%$%&#/0'&#%"1 &
'#&'#%#/&#%/%$'#%#/.'&'$###"#$%"
%$#'"#83664
= * 2'&#$(&.$&897:36;4!/(%$%&##%$'#&1
.$##%$""#%$%$%$#%#/,#-%&.#.'&'$##
!'(&$#0'(%"%/>"%&%$8<<:3:?%?>%&#%"#4%$#
0'(@(&")*!%"#(
#"&+&"$(


      



 




   




    

!"#$ %&!'()
* "
+( +

 !!"#$%$&'$"

2017,  05
         
)*+0 +0
  .   ,  ,5 
 
02 6595511 : 
02 6595516 :

 !"#$%&'("#)*+, -+#. : 



, -
 
-  +.+ ,(
 /0/192/17)  
 
:1  
, )*+0-) -
)/ ,
 )

0
/- 1, +.
, 0 :)*+
/
 - - - 
,(502-07) -  "0 - -
-
:)*+  
,(63343-01-17) /
 
 "0  0
-+ ,(18790-10-14)
"

,
.(38086-02-17)   "0  0 ,
,         


  
   .
     
    
.  
 -      
. "
 
    
,

_________________
*
 '

6133301 " ,33407
"
joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org : "


               
 *
.

April 05, 2017

Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Rivlin

Ministry of Justice
By email: Shoftim@justice.gov.il

RE: Addendum to Complaint (192/17/Nazareth District), filed with Ombudsman

of the Judiciary: denial of access to inspect electronic signature data in Net-
HaMishpat by Judges Avraham Avraham State of Israel v Zadorov (502-07),


      

Eliyahu Bachar Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv (18790-10-14), Shalhevet Kamir-
Wiess State of Israel v Klass (63343-01-17), Oded Moreno State of Israel v
Zernik (38086-02-17).
Dear Ombudsman of the Judiciary Rivlin:
I herein file an Addendum to the Complaint, referenced above. The Addendum
primarily provides new evidence regarding purported electronic signatures in Net-
HaMishpat and the withholding from the public at large.
Please confirm receipt by return email.
Truly,

__________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD *
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv 6133301
Email: & (*/+0*12#3%142, + 1,
* The entire document is electronically signed, using a visible electronic signatures in
the upper right corner of the opening page of instant document.


      



 




   




     

!"#$ %&!'()
* "
+( +

[Bilingual filing English follows the Hebrew]

0
/ +.
, 0 :)*+ , -
 
- 
+.0  
 

-
)*+   , )*+0-) - 1 *
)/ -
 ,
 )

18790-10-)
"

, /
 - - - 
,(502-07) -  "0 - -

  "0  0 , ,(63343-01-17) /

 
 "0  0
-+ ,(14
.(38086-02-17)

    ,      

 
  
.

     (  )  
   - 
        

)         
     
.(2001
?        :        
.(
  "   
   
 )
       
    : 
    
  
 
  
, 25       .   
   -
:       ,    ,(502-07) 
  "  2016
        ,    ..."
.( 
 .- 5  0
) ...-

)
 )
 0
/ /
)*+
)/
0
/
/
.0 (

(2001
: ,1984-
" , 
 

 ()190 
.
   
     
: (2001)     1 

   ,  
   - " "

;  
,  
   
   - "  "
;  
  

      - "   "
: 
;   
  (1)
;        (2)
   
               (3)
; 

    
      (4)
;

      

 : (2001)     ()2 

, 
  ,

  
     
 ().2

  ,    ,  
  
 
.    
: (2001)     3 

   ,       

 .3
      
;      (1)
  
       
 (2)
.
: (2001)      
 ()6 

        

    ().6
, 

    
  ,    ,
.  
,  
  
    ()  
 ()
,  
 
      


 ,
     
  , 
.
  
 ,   

 .1 ,()6 
, 

     ,
       
;
 
: (2001)     9 

     
 ,
 
  ,  ().9
.  , 
       ,   ()
.     ;   
: (2001)     10 

    ,       ().10

: 
   
   ,  (1)
  ,
   ; 
    
  

   
   
   ,
       ,  
 
 - " " ,  ;   , 
   
   ,1968-" , 
; 
 ,
       ()  
 (1)
.     ,  
 
...
.         ()
: (2001)     21 

 ,     
   
 () .21


      

 : 

     
  
   (1)
,
   
    
   
     ;2009-"

    
  ,
  
,
  
         

      
    
 
 
  ,
     
; 
   
    ,

 (2)
,
 
     ,
 



 
"

" ,  ; 
  
  
.
  ,  
 "   ,
  ,()  
    ()

  ,(
  
) (2011  2) "
:   
  ,()  
      
       

 (1)
;
    
   
  

            (2)
(1) 
     
 

     ,     
) 
  
         
.
 
  
    ,(1
 
  ,()- ()  
    ()
,
  ,()  
       

 ,  
      
 
: 

;    (1)
;        (2)
;     
 (3)
  ,  
   ,   (4)
          
.    
 

 
 
   
    (
)

        
 ,()  () 
.
 
  
)()  (2)()  
   
      ()

 (3)
 (1) 
    
  ,(4
 
   
  

 ,() 
 
   ,      ;( )  ()
.
 
     

  ,
    
 
  , ()
  
 
     
   

      

            ,
.     


+*- )*+ , -
 
-
)/ + 0

 (-
 0 ,. 2+
 
)*+ + "-*0 )*"
* ,
 )

0
/- 1 
0
/ )*+0-) -
)*+
)/+
.(2001)
 )
 0
/ /
 "  "        
       .(  
   )   
 

 
 ( 
 .-
/* )   ( /88/12) 
    .- 
      
   
      ,    - 

:  . 
  (2001)      
:   "   36 

 114/10 
 
  [-  
 ]   ...
"

 
 
     "    
: 114/10 
 
.    
 
  ,   

(  
 6 
)      
,  
"     
      

:1.5.12 
()6 
        
   
. ,2001 "
 ,   
:   "   37 

    ,     
 , .37
" " 
:   "   39 

,
 ,  .  , 
        .39
)           
 ,1984-
" , 
 

 ()190    
...("
   
     " 
 ,
       ,       
        -    

.(2001)   
.      
  

,0-  )
1 *
)/ -
 ,
0 - - 1
, (.
/ * , )*+0 
-  -, )*+ +
 )

0
/ )*+0-)
.(2001)
 )
 0
/
  (  )         

          .
   
.  
  
   ,-  
  


                

.(.,- 1  0
)   
   

      

 (

(-


      

 (.
- -      
   
(
:1  0

:PERSONALID   
       

:  ,"    
    
 - " "
: " ,PERSONALID :
  " ,[- ] "   
.08/10/2019
 09/10/2013
    ,   

     
(-
  
   "  "  
 - -
,"...    

  - " " :PERSONALID   

" ,Israel Courts Authority :
  " ,Israel Courts Authority : 
.01/01/2999
 01/01/2000 :
  ,          
(.
 
   "  "  
 - -  
   

  - " " :
    
 
,Israel Courts Authority :
  " ,Israel Courts Authority :  ,"...
.01/01/2999
 01/01/2000 : "
____
) 
      
  
 
 
 
,PERSONALID  
   
  ,
 ,(COMSIGN 
:- 

          
"    

  (1)
,Israel Courts Authority :  (2)
,Israel Courts Authority :
  " (3)
.01/01/2999
 01/01/2000 : " (4)
  ,
      
       
 ,  .(2001)         


      

    .    Israel Court Authority 
   
 
 
         , 99- 
.
  

  
 ,         
 
 

         / ,  
.(2001)   
-. (90/17) , 0 +*/ / * , +- , )*+0 +0
-+
(
. 1
+ -0
 )
 0
/ / * , +
0 0. +0
* ,
 )

0
/ ISRAEL COURTS AUTHORITY" +- +
0
(2001)
 )
 0
/ /

   ,(90/17) 
       

/*
 
   .2017 ,  03  
  
ISRAEL COURTS  (2001)         
.   ,AUTHORITY
:   (90/17)   
 
:"  
       
http://www.justice.gov.il/Units/ilita/subjects/HatimaElectronic/MeidaM-
eRashamCA/Pages/Gormim.aspx .
 .
    ,Israel Courts Authority"   
.      ,     
.
          

:     , 

       
.PERSONALID- COMSIGN
  (90/17) 
       
 
    /     -  

.  
   (2001)   
+0 )*+0 
-
  +. , 0 +*/ / * ,
*
+- (
  0   ,
 )

 ,

*  -. )*+0
    
  
       , 
  
         


 ""    ISRAEL COURTS AUTHORITY  ,-
.
 
    
    , 
 
  
  ,   
    ,  

 
  
 ,   ,   
  .
  
  
          
.- 
(147/2016) , 0 +*/ / * , +- , )*+0 
-
  -+
(

 
-
)/ * ,  
,-
 )*+0 
-
 + 
0
,2+
 
)*+ + "-*0 )*"
+*- -
.)*+0-)
,0- + / , 0  , +
   ,(147/2016) 
       
 - /*
.2016 ,
04       , 


      

  "  "  ( /88/12)      
 -  

     ,  
 
"    .    
       

:39 
 
    
 ""     

. 
  (  )  
   , 
) 
      ,2016 ,
04      
:   (147/2016

  ,             ...
...     

-           

:
     ,    
      (
:   -   
:
        ,
  
   (1)
"
" -     (502/07) 
    

(37715-05-12)  ()    " ;(1  0
) 2010 ,
14 
  
 ;(23  0
) "
"i " " "   
  
" - "    (10291-01-12) ' 
 (4835-06-13)    ;(24  0
) 1,2,5,7,8,10,12,14,15,16
;(26  0
) 2016 ,  16  " "     
       ,   
   (2)
.

  
   , ,  
     (
        ,  
   ""    
 "  (" /88/12)   
   
.   ,  
   "
  ,  
 
 
   
    (

   ,-       
   7    
  ,
   
  
     .-     

" , ,
         ,

.  
   "  "   
 ,
       
   
    (

 "  ( /88/12) 
       
  
        .  
   "
   .-        
,    (   )  
 
   



   ,   . 
"       5
.  

        "  

 , 
   (
   ,
   
          



      

"  "        ,
   
      ,  
  
.
   
   
 
   ,    ,
      (
 ,         ,   

    
 -   
   

. 
     

: 
_________________ ,2017 ,  05 ,

 '

6133301 " ,33407
"
joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org : "

Addendum to Complaint (192/17/Nazareth District), file with Ombudsman of

the Judiciary: Denial of access to inspect electronic signature data in Net-
HaMishpat by Judges Avraham Avraham State of Israel v Zadorov (502-07),
Eliyahu Bachar Russov et al v City of Tel-Aviv (18790-10-14), Shalhevet Kamir-
Wiess State of Israel v Klass (63343-01-17), Oded Moreno State of Israel v
Zernik (38086-02-17).

The Complaint, referenced above, pertains to conduct of the named judges, who
denied access to electronic signature data (if they exist at all) on decision and
judgment records in Net-HaMishpat (case management system of the District and
Magistrate Courts).
The Addendum presents evidence that on documents, which are perceived as court
records in Net-HaMishpat, there are no electronic signatures of judges and court
employees pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001).
The obvious question, arising in this context is: Does such conduct amount to fraud?
(fraud of the type, which called by professionals - Shell Game Fraud).
The obvious concern is that conduct of the judges, which is documented in the
Complaint represents conduct of Israeli judges as a class withholding from the
public the lack of validity and effect of judicial records in Net-HaMishpat. Judge
Avraham Avraham January 25, 2016 Decision in State of Israel v Roman Zadorov
(502-07), which is copied in the Complaint, is probably the clearest evidence:
these are not Requests to Inspect, but an investigation, which the Requester is
conducting, regarding validity of Net-HaMishpat system... (Figure 5 in the
Complaint).
a) The legal framework Signing judicial decisions and the Electronic
Signature Act (2001)


      

Regulation 190(a) of the Civil Court Procedure (1984) provides:
Decision shall be in writing and signed by the judges, who were seated in court.
Article 1 of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) provides:
Certifying Authority - authority which issues electronic certificates, and is reg-
istered in the Register pursuant to the provisions of instant Act;
Electronic Signature - signature, which is electronic information or electronic
symbol, which was affixed or tied to an electronic message;
Secure Electronic Signature - electronic signature, which complies with all of
the following:
(1) It is unique to the owner of the signing device;
(2) Provides the apparent identity of the owner of the signing device;
(3) Was generated through a signing device, which is under the exclusive
control of the owner of the signing device;
(4) Provides the ability to identify any change that was introduced in the
electronic message after the time of its signing;
Article 2(a) of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) provides:
2.(a) In any case, where signature of an individual is required by law
on a document, such requirement may be fulfilled, pertaining to a
document that is an electronic message, through the use of an elec-
tronic signature, provided that it is a certified electronic signature.
Article 3 of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) provides:
3. An electronic message, which is signed by a secure electronic signature, shall
be admissible in any judicial process and provide an apparent evidence that -
(1) The signature belongs to the owner of the signing device;
(2) The electronic message was the one that was signed by the owner of
the signing device.
Article 6(b) and the Second Appendix to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) provide:
6(a) The output of and electronic message, which is signed by a secure elec-
tronic signature shall be deemed, in any judicial process, not as a copy of the
electronic message, from which it was produced, but an original.
6(b) The provisions of Article 6(a) shall not apply to certain types of electronic
messages, certain types of judicial processes and certain usages of electronic
messages, which were determined by the Minister, with approval by the Knes-
set Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, in the Second Appendix.
Second Appendix, Article 6(b), 1. Judgments of the court, tribunal, or any judi-
cial, or semi-judicial entity, which was lawfully established, unless otherwise
provided by law;
Article 9 of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) provides:
9(a) The Minister shall appoint, among staff of his office, a person, who is com-
petent as Magistrate Judge, as Magistrate [of Certifying Authorities jz].


      

 The Magistrate shall maintain a Registry, where Certifying Authorities shall be
entered, as well as foreign Certifying Authorities, pursuant to instant Act; the
Registry shall be a public record, open for inspection.
Article 10 of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) provides:
10(a) Request for entry of a Certifying Authority in the Registry shall be filed
with the Magistrate, and shall include all the following:
(1) Requesters name, proposed candidate for director of the Certifying
Authority, and ID details and residence of both; in case the Requester is a
corporation, the Request shall include the incorporation articles of the
corporation, or its operations articles, the names of the individuals, who
control the corporation, the directors, their ID details and residences; for
instant purpose, control - as defined in the Stock Act (1968), and any
and all term in said definition shall be construed pursuant to the above
referenced Act;
(1a) Provisions of Article 10(a) shall apply to Request for entry into the
Registry, which is filed by the State, or by a corporation, which was es-
tablished by law, with the required modifications, as determined by the
Minister.
...
(c) The Magistrate shall supervise the Certifying Authorities, pursuant to
instant Act.
Article 21 of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) provides:
21a. (a) The State is permitted to issue Electronic Certificates pursuant to in-
stant Act, in each of the following cases:
(1) On an identification document, as defined in the Biometric Identifica-
tion Devices Inclusion and Biometric Identification Data in Identification
Documents and in a Database (2009); however, in any case, where a cer-
tified electronic signature is required by law, such Electronic Certificate,
which was issued pursuant to instant Article be used only for execution
of transactions of the Certificate owner vis-a-vis the State, excluding
transactions of a corporation, or transaction of the Certificates owner,
who is a lawfully licensed professional, which is executed within the
scope of his profession or license;
(2) For a State employee, for any person, who performs a duty or holds a
position on its behalf, or on behalf of any of the State institutions, or for
any person, who performs a duty by law, for the purpose of performing
such duty; for instant purpose, State employee - including a soldier, a
policeman, or a prison warden.
(b) Regardless of provisions of Article 21a.(a), the State is permitted, starting
January 02, 2011 (in instant Article the Effective Date), to issue electronic
certificates beyond those that are permitted in Article 21a.(a), provided that all
the following shall be complied with:


      

 (1) The Certificate is required for performing a duty, which is required by
of the Requester by law, or pursuant to requirement by any of the State
authorities;
(2) The Government decided so, once convinced that only on Certifying
Authority is issuing Electronic Certificates for the purposes in Article (1)
and there are material deficiencies in its performance, and therefore
there is concern of harming the ability of those, who are performing a
duty or requirement, as provided in Article (1), to reasonably preform
such duty or requirement, pursuant to any law.
(c) Regardless of the provisions of Articles (a) and (b), the State is
permitted to issue Electronic Certificates, in disregard of Article (a),
prior to the Effective Date, provided that there is no other Certifying
Authority, which can provide the service, and one of the following is
fulfilled:
(1) A Certifying Authority was removed from the Registry;
(2) Validity of the entry of a Certifying Authority in the
Registry was suspended;
(3) Operations of a Certifying Authority was terminated;
(4) The Government was convinced, pursuant to opinion of the
Magistrate, that material deficiencies exist in operations of a
Certifying Authority, which raise concerns of harming the
integrity of Electronic Certificates, which are issued by such
Certifying Authority.
(d) If all the conditions for issuing Electronic Certificates by the State
were fulfilled, pursuant to Articles (b) and (c), the Minister shall
notice the Certifying Authority of the decision to issue Electronic
Certificates by the State.
(e) Once the Government has decided that the concerns, which are
provided in Article (b)(2) or (c)(4) were removed, or circumstances,
which are provided in Articles (1) through (3) of Article (c), ceased
to exist, the State shall cease to issue Electronic Certificates pursuant
to Articles (b) or (c); the Minister is permitted to establish provisions
in this matter, including the issue of gradually ceasing to issue
Electronic Certificates, as stated above, by the State.
(f) The Minister, with approval of the Knesset Science and
Technology Committee, shall be permitted to establish provisions for
the issuing of Electronic Certificates and their abolishment by the
State, pursuant to instant chapter of the Act, but the Minister shall
not establish provisions, which would diminish the level of security
and quality of service, which are required of a Certifying Authority,
pursuant to instant Act.
b) The naive reader of Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision in the Judge
Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal would reach the conclusion


      

 that judicial decisions in Net-HaMishpat are lawfully signed, using
electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001).
The issue of electronic signatures was central to the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated
Protocols scandal (although it was not reported this way to the public). Ombuds-
man of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in this affair (Appendix A to
the Complaint) refers to electronic signatures on electronic court records in Net-
HaMishpat a number of times. The decision clarifies that court records in Net-
HaMishpat are electronic records, and as long as they are not lawfully signed, using
an electronic signature, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), they are
merely drafts. Among such references are:
Paragraph 36 in the Ombudsmans Decision says in part:
to her response [Judge Varda Alshech] attached Work Instruction 114/10 of
the Administration of Courts Applying True Copy of the Original stamp on
printouts of court judgments
Work Instruction 114/10 indicates:
In the era of the electronic court files, judgments are signed using secure
electronic signature. Pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (Article 6b
and the second Addendum to the Act)...
This writing is consistent with what is said in the May 01, 2012 Attorney Barak
Lasers [Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts -jz] letter to the Om-
budsman:
Output of an electronic record, signed using an electronic signature is
deemed, pursuant to Article 6(b) of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) a
copy.
Paragraph 37 in the Ombudsmans Decision says in part:
37. Therefore, since there was no Protocol, which was signed using an elec-
tronic signature, the stamp True Copy of the Original should have not been
applied
Paragraph 39 in the Ombudsmans Decision says in part:
39. I naturally fully enjoin the recommendation of the above referenced report.
Judges should be instructed, as early as possible, with the significance of sign-
ing protocols and decisions, using electronic signatures (in this regard, see the
provisions of Regulation 190(a) of the Regulations of Civil Court Procedure
(1984), which states that Decision shall be in writing and signed by the
judges, who were seated in court)...
Based on all the above, the naive reader and the public at large could conclude that
valid and effectual court records in Net-HaMishpat are indeed signed, using electronic
signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001).
The evidence, which is provided in instant Addendum, indicates that such is not the
case at all.
c) As a rule, there are no electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic
Signature Act (2001), to be found on electronic decision and judgment
records in Net-HaMishpat


      

To this date, no access was materialized to the electronic signature data (if they exist
at all) in the court files, which are the subject of the Complaint. However, recently
Ive gained access to the purported electronic signature data on a series of purported
court records from Net-HaMishpat, which were generated by judges and court em-
ployees. Inspection of the data of such purported electronic signature data indicates
that they are all essentially the same, and all of them are patently invalid and ineffec-
tual (Figure 1 b,c).

a)


      

b)

c)
Figure 1: a) Example of the electronic signature of a party, which files a motion, us-
ing electronic filing in Net-HaMishpat inspection of the electronic signature certifi-
cation, using PERSONALID corporations dedicated software: General - Certifica-
tion information Instant certification is intended for proving your identity to a re-
mote computer , Issued for: <first and last name>, <ID number> [redacted


      

jz], Issued by: PERSONALID..., Valid from: October 09, 2013 to: October 08,
2019.
b) Example of purported electronic signature on a judgment record from Court A,
which was electronically generated and served through Net-HaMishpat inspection
of the purported electronic signature certification, using PERSONALID corporations
dedicated software: 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.
c) Example of purported electronic signature on a judicial decision record from Court
B, which was electronically generated and served through Net-HaMishpat inspec-
tion of the purported electronic signature certification, using the ISRAEL BAR ASSO-
CIATIONs dedicated software: 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.
____
The dedicated software that is provided to attorneys by the ISRAEL BAR ASSOCIA-
TION (affiliated with COMSIGN Corp), and likewise, the dedicated software that is
provided to users by PERSONAL ID Corp, indicate, relative to purported electronic
signatures on decision and judgment records in Net-HaMishpat:
(1) The basic certification by the Certifying Authority is invalid...,
(2) Issued for: Israel Courts Authority;
(3) Issued by: Israel Courts Authority;
(4) Valid from: January 01, 2000 to: January 01, 2099.
Such purported electronic signatures fail to provide any identification of the signer
and his/her authority, and also fail to state that the signatures are valid pursuant to
the Electronic Signature Act (2001). On the contrary, both software packages indicate
that the certification by ISRAEL COURTS AUTHORITY is invalid Furthermore, the
purported validity of the certification for 99 years is inconsistent with an electronic
signature, which was issued to a specific person in his/her capacity in the State Ser-
vice.
A reasonable person would conclude that such are not personal electronic signatures
at all, and surely are not secure and/or certified electronic signatures pursuant to the
Electronic Signature Act (2001).
d) FOIA response (90/17) by the Ministry of Justice, pertaining to the Reg-
istry of Certifying Authorities pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act
clarifies that there is no Certifying Authority named ISRAEL COURTS
AUTHORITY for electronic signatures pursuant to the Electronic Signa-
ture Act (2001).
Appendix A to instant Addendum includes FOIA Request (90/17), which was filed
with the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Justice April 03, 2017 response. The
Request sought information regarding purported Certifying Authority pursuant to the
Electronic Signature Act (2001), named ISRAEL COURTS AUTHORITY, if it existed at
all.

      

The Ministry of Justice FOIA Response (90/17) says in part:
First, we wish to indicate that the Registry of Certifying Authorities is published
in the Science and Technology Authority site:
http://www.justice.gov.il/Units/ilita/subjects/HatimaElectronic/MeidaM-
eRashamCA/Pages/Gormim.aspx .
The Registry does not include "Israel Courts Authority, which is named in the
FOIA Request. In case you referred to the Administration of Courts, such entity
is not a Certifying Authority. Authority of the Magistrate of Certifying Authori-
ties pertains only to Certifying Authorities.
The Response also provides a copy of the Registry, which is published online, and
which includes only two (2) Certifying Authorities: COMSIGN and PERSONALID.
e) Additional FOIA requests were filed with the Administration of Courts
and the Ministry of Justice, pertaining to electronic signatures, issued by
the State
In parallel, additional FOIA requests were filed with the Administration of Courts and
the Ministry of Justice, pertaining to administration of the purported electronic signa-
tures of judges and court employees in Net-HaMishpat, pertaining to ISRAEL COURTS
AUTHORITY as a purported Certifying Authority and purportedly lawful State Au-
thority, pertaining to the issuing of electronic signatures by the State.
Once such responses are received, I would expediently forward them as Addenda to
instant Complaint. It is likely that such FOIA responses, if duly provided, would gen-
erate additional evidence for the lack of validity of the purported secure and/or certi-
fied electronic signatures of judges and court employees in Net-HaMishpat.
f) Administration of Courts FOIA response (147/2016) indicates that cor-
rections pursuant to the Ombudsman Decision in the Judge Varda Al-
shech Fabricated Protocols scandal, which were intended to address
lack of integrity in Net-HaMishpat, have not been implemented.
Appendix B to instant Addendum includes FOIA Request (147/2016), which was
filed with the Administration of Courts, and the Administration of Courts Ministry of
Justice December 04, 201 response.
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge Varda
Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal clarifies that there is no way to distinguish in
printouts and displays from Net-HaMishpat between purportedly electronically signed
record and a record that is not signed at all. The Decision says in paragraph 39:
It should be further considered to restore the water-mark Draft on the elec-
tronically unsigned version, although it hinders (allegedly) the judges work.
The December 04, 2016 Administration of Courts FOIA response (147/2016) says in
part:
it should be clarified that the Ombudsmans Decision, which is referenced in
your Request, is merely a recommendation for the Administration of Courts
Conclusion



      

Instant Addendum presents additional evidence regarding the state of affairs regard-
ing purported electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat today:
a) The evidence presented in instant Complaint and Addendum raise the allegation,
that judicial decision records in Net-HaMishpat may be divided into two main
groups:
(1) Uniquely invalid records, such as the decision records, which are presented in
the body of the Complaint: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the
Nazareth District Court September 14, 2010 Verdict (Figure 1); State of
Israel v Alnekari (detainees) et al (37715-05-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court -
Protocol and Judgment (Figure 23); State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-
12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court - Sentencing of Defendants
1,2,5,7,8,10,12,14,15,16 (Figure 24); Chenero v Chenero (4835-06-13) in
the Jerusalem Family Court July 16, 2016 Decision (Figure 26);
(2) Generally invalid records, such as those, whose signature data is presented in
instant Addendum.
b) The evidence presented in instant Complaint and Addendum indicate that
circumstances, where parties and the public are unable to distinguish between
adraft and a valid court record, regarding which alarm was sounded in
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge
Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal, was left as it was.
c) The evidence presented in instant Complaint and Addendum raise serious
concerns regarding attorneys in the State of Israel, many of whom have access to
electronic signature data in Net-HaMishpat, including attorneys who specialize in
data security, and have not informed the public over the past 7 years regarding
invalidity of records in Net-HaMishpat. Such concern is particularly notable
regarding the Israel Bar Association, which is a central agency relative to
administration of attorneys electronic signatures, and its head, Attorney Effi
Naveh, who was a key figure in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols
scandal.
d) The evidence presented in instant Complaint and Addendum raise serious
concerns regarding integrity and competence of Ombudsman of the Judiciary
Eliezer Goldberg Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge Varda Alshech
Fabricated Protocols scandal. Such decision was purportedly rendered with no
direct knowledge by the Ombudsman regarding the manner in which electronic
signatures are implemented in Net-HaMishpat. Such decision was purportedly
based on information that was provided to the Ombudsman (and cited in the
Decision itself) by the Administration of Courts and Legal Counsel of the
Administration of Courts Barak Laser. It is alleged that integrity of such
information is dubious at best.
e) The evidence presented in instant Complaint and Addendum, combined with
refusal of the Attorney General to approve criminal investigations against judges,
against who criminal complaints were filed, alleging perversion of court records
and Fraud Upon the Court, raise the allegation that the manner in which the
justice system addressed the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols scandal,

      

 created in practice permission to judges to engage in perversion of court records
and Fraud Upon the Court.
f) The evidence presented in instant Complaint and Addendum raise serious concern
that conduct of the judges, against whom the Complaint was filed, represents
conduct of Israeli judges in general, which is intended to withhold from the public
the lack of validity and effect of Net-HaMishpat system and decision records,
which are generated in it by judges.

Today, March 15, 2017 ______________________

Joseph Zernik, PhD *
PO Box 33407, Tel-Aviv 6133301
Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
* The electronic complaint record is signed using a visible, secure, but uncertified
electronic signature at the upper right hand corner of the face page. A paper copy,
bearing a hand signature is sent to the Attorney General by certified mail.

APPENDICES /*
Israel Courts :
 
  
     (90-17)   .

(2001)         Authority

A. FOIA request and response (90-17) by Ministry of Justice: Israel Courts Authority
as a Certifying Authority pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001)
 :    
  
     (147/2016)   .-
( /88/12)         -   
  
   "  " 
B. FOIA request and response (147/2016) by Administration of Courts:
Implementation of correction in integrity of Net-HaMishpat pursuant to Ombudsman
of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge Varda Alshech
Fabricated Protocols scandal.


      



  

































 
 
     
  

!" # $ %&"


  
 

     !

March 26, 2016

FOIA Officer, Ministry of Justice
Fax: 
Email: 
 !"#

RE: FOIA request: Israel Court Authority as a Certifying body pursuant to the
Electronic Signature Act (2001) and audit by Magistrate of Certifying Bodies,
pertaining to electronic signatures in the courts
Dear FOIA Officer:
I herein file the request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), as
follows:
1. Any valid record of the Magistrate of Certifying Bodies, pursuant to the Electronic
Act (2001), which shows the registration (if any) of an entity, named Israel Court
Authority, in the Registry of Certifying Bodies, pursuant to the Electronic Act
(2001), Article 9(b).
2. Any valid record, which shows the conduct during the past 7 years of an audit by
the Magistrate of Certifying Bodies, pursuant to the Electronic Act (2001), or his
agents, pertaining to validity and compliance of electronic signatures, which are
issued by the Israel Court Authority to judges and court employees.
Fees were paid through the Government Payment Site, Certificate No. 21931415.
Preliminary draft copy of your FOIA response by email would be most welcome.
However, given the vague and ambiguous nature of Israeli government electronic
records, I request a valid paper response, bearing the hand-signature of the FOIA
Officer to my mail address, provided above.
Truly,

_________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
OccupyTLV
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
2017 ,  26
  
 
  
'$("


 !"#
" 

% " +$ # +, Israel Court Authority :"#

$%& '& % "
$'( :)*

#
& (, +$ # #+, $+
+'( (2001)
*+-'

#
&
'&
-%$#

((
*+-'
,   
     
$%
 : ,(1988)    
   


  
)

  

         

   .1
 !"#$%&"'%&($)&*"    (
 )     ,(2001
.2001-"
 ,

  

 ()9        

          
      

   .2




  7     (2001)

  

  !"#$%&"'%&($)&*"   

  "


 
"



.
 
 

 ,  
  
.21931415   ,
   

 
  

 

    ,
   . 

"  

  

,  



 
  ,
 
 
    - 
.   ,

    
       


,

________________

  '
"
  
(NGO)  
 

%
4/4/2017 " ," - 1998- 1984 webmail :: FW: 90/17

Subject " ," - 1998- FW: 90/17

From >Hofesh.Meida <Hofesh.Meida@justice.gov.il
Sender >Michal Tenne <MichalTe@justice.gov.il
To >joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org <joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
Date 2017-04-03 1:39 pm

).doc (~70 KB 90-17

" .

,"


025425555

From: Michal Tenne On Behalf Of Hofesh.Meida

Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:52 PM
To: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org
" ," - 1998- Subject: 90/17

,"


025425555

]From: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org [mailto:joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org

Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 12:28 PM
To: Hofesh.Meida
): Israel Court Authority(2001 Subject:

/ , .

______________

262017 ,

https://vefpostur.1984.is/?_task=mail&_safe=1&_uid=153&_mbox=INBOX.A+GOV+IL+MISHPATIM&_action=print&_extwin=1 1/2
4/4/2017 " ," - 1998- 1984 webmail :: FW: 90/17

02-6467085 :

"hofesh.meida@justice.gov.il , MichalTe@justice.gov.il :

: Israel Court Authority :

) (2001

https://vefpostur.1984.is/?_task=mail&_safe=1&_uid=153&_mbox=INBOX.A+GOV+IL+MISHPATIM&_action=print&_extwin=1 2/2
  




















 

 







!
"
 

$ # #
%









  

 

 

 


 
%

!


 !
'
'

&
&
) 

 
 '
 ('
 
!


 


 
    
# !"
!!  # '
&

!
'  #



$
!

 '
# 
 (

'

"(
 ')'

''
''
!

# 
 
 (

'&
 
 (

!

 !"  


 



# #$
  

















!

)
!
'

' &'
'
 '
&
&

''

 !"  


 



# #$


  

































 
 
     
  

!" # $ %&"


  
 


      

2016 ,  28
 

 ,  
  
02-6556887 :

 !"#$%&'%( :" 
# & ,"'( % ')*" ' '( (#   !  " !# :$%
#+% (*"   " - *-*%# '( ("# '%)*!"& $ (# #(, " "
-"& ) " '!)# '"!*) ()# '* " )#+ (%"(
,  
    )
:+) ,(1988)   
 ) 


*  
(
*/ 88 /12) ,   


 

* 

[1] .-  
  ",
 ,
 "
 ,2012 , 31 ,
,,)  ,+   , - 
)  
  
 



 
 ,
 
 +
 
) + + ,) ,  
- "
) +-
 ,,
 
 
 +
 
) + )  ,

,+ )
.)   ,

 ,(,    - "  ,


  
:
 + 

 ,
 , ,,
)   , - 
)
  ,

.(1 %( ,",
 , "   )
* + , ,
 ,+ )


.  -     , , ,

  , 

+ + - )  ,)  ,,  + ,* , ,
  
 *

.+
/  +
 
)
 ( 
) 
 +
 
)

, ,
   ,+ 
  +
/  +
 
)   :1 %(
,"
 ,


" ,* / 
   * +
/  +
 
) .",
 , "
,  (223561/2016 )
 
-
] .( 
) 
 +
 
)) )) 

  

 ,+ 
  ,
 ,  )  ,+
 
) 
.[ 
 
 " " 

 )) "   ,

. /0.102..345367836539#'33:;#553!$<53$53534#(3=3>?(5$3@(3
A$3$3:B3C"536&$3>"5!(3=3D#;5&3E#"?353F#G$##H3I$5$5833F$$!5$3J%K3
L"&3M#3F(!3NOG#!$3P#$!(Q3!5(3=34#(3R#3F!$53!?(5$353
SG"533$3L"!#H3TH3U.V3/0./3!53W./X3YY3XZ(F''3I$#!$[


3=3,\33, 3
)*3
33
3=33
*3
3*3=3 *3+38


3=3-3 3
33\,
3,
 \3
 3J%K3
3 338,
3,33 
W\
3*X./XYY[3/0./3V3U.3,3, 333

33
3+ 3)3
)
$$?8XX#'%&&(%!X?5]^0RYF/_`EG;Ka:9"`(:KbM4!/T


 ____
, ,


    

  ," 
 
, 
.+ ,  
 +)   

   , 
:  
  
* 
  ,-)
     ,",
 , " , ,
    



 
 
) ) (1


  
   - 
) ,
 
 ,
 ,
)
/ 88 /12) -    ",
 ,
 "
 ,   
.(
*
-   ,

    

   
 
) ) (2
." 
   
.34395964   ,
 ,

 
  

 ,

,)

________________

  '
(NGO) , 
)* 
August 28, 2016
FOIA Officer, Administration of Courts
Fax: 02-6556887
Email: hofesh-hamida@court.gov.il
RE: Freedom of Information Request restoration of the Unsigned water
mark, or similar on unsigned electronic records in Net-HaMishpat pursuant to
the Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision in the Judge Varda Alshech
Fabricated Protocols scandal
Dear FOIA Officer:
Instant request is based on the May 31, 2012 Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision
(88/ 12 /Tel-Aviv District) in the Judge Varda Alshech Fabricated Protocols
scandal. [2] In his decision, the Ombudsman describes conditions in Net-HaMishpat
(IT system of the district and magistrate courts), where parties, counsel and the
public at large cannot distinguish between an electronic record, which is duly signed
using an electronic signature, valid, and enforceable and an unsigned, simulated
(fabricated - according to media, draft - according to the judges) electronic
record, invalid and unenforceable.
The Ombudsman notes in his decision that:

When the system was first implemented, a watermark was shown on unsigned
electronic records (see for example, not signed yet, Figure 1);

The judges acted to have such watermark removed, claiming that it interfered
with their work process.

Since the watermark was removed, there is no way for parties, counsel, and the
public at large to distinguish between an authentic court record and a
simulated/sham court record.

/ a3O$5$3.V3G'%


. /0 37_?(333X"($3!"#$3#!#3GH3L"&37?#5<3F(5V3A!3
A3$3A$##;3NB$3a&53c$Q%33a"!3X"($3!"#$3#!#3A3((H3
!#$@V3NZ#"3>?H33$3S#&5(QV353((H3#'3353"$5$!3!"#$3#!#%3
d#3>#5(3>?(5$3Wa#"3>#3//UK1.X/0.1[353#"V3?#'#533!"#$3
#!#V3?#'#533!"#$3?#!V3G#!33(H($H3&5$3L"&37?#5<3F(5V3
A!3A35$#3GH3$34#(3P(!V353!!#5&3$3$3F$$#5H3E5#(33
?#"G(H3"5#3N$#$5$Q3GH3$3a$$3P#!"$5%e
_______
The above referenced Ombudsman decision also says that the Administration of
Courts should restore the watermark, and that the Administration of Courts should
update the Ombudsman regarding implementation of the restored watermark.
Therefore, I herein request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988):
1) Any and all records, which document the restoration of the watermark Not
Signed Yet, or similar on unsigned electronic records in Net-HaMishpat, pursuant
to the Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) in the
Judge Varda Alsehech Fabricated Protocols scandal.
2) Any and all records, which document reporting by the Administration of Courts to
the Ombudsman of the Judiciary regarding execution of the corrective measures
in Net-HaMishpat, pursuant to this above referenced decision.
Fees were paid through the Government Payment Site, Certificate No. 34395964.
Truly,

_________________
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)


 

ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS

Office Of the Legal Adviser



  
        

 
 

 NGO
joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org




 





 


           

           


         


 



           
                                         

      E - m a i l :  h o f e s h - h a m i d a @ c o u r t . g o v . i l


 : : :

158/11

:
" "
:
1/2/2016

.1
/ ," " , 1.1
. /
" , 1.2
.
. , / /
1.3
. , ,
, , 1.4
. ,
, 1.5
, / /
.

.2
" " ,
.

.3
. " "

" " .4
" " " 4.1
, )
.(PDF ,
, 4.2
: , " "

, , 4.2.1

." " , 4.1

 - " " .5
" ,
: , "

. 5.1
. , 5.2
. , 5.3
." " , 5.4

- " " .6
" "
: , 4.2.1 ,
. 6.1
, 6.2
.
. 7 , 6.3
6.4
:
. , 6.4.1
6.4.2
, , , .
. ,

" " .7
: ,
. " " 7.1
, , " " 7.2
.

, , .8
"" , 8.1
,
.
: ,
. 8.1.1
. 8.1.2

:
." " 67/09
" " 114/10