11-12-19 Simulated Records, Simulated Litigation Enabled by The Electronic Record Systems of The Supreme Court of The State of Israel (English) S

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
Simulated Records, Simulated Litigation Enabled by the Electronic Record Systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel 1
Joseph Zernik, PhD jz12345@earthlink.net Human Rights Alert (NGO), California, USA http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
Downloadable PDF copy of this paper with active hyperlinks: http://www.scribd.com/doc/73239491/
Abstract
Previous studies found deficiencies in the validation of the electronic information systems of the US courts and in authentication of judicial records in specific cases, following the implementation of electronic record systems in the courts. Moreover, these systems facilitate the conduct of simulated litigation and the publication of simulated orders and judgments. The systems also facilitate the denial of public access to public records, which would have enabled the public to distinguish between valid and void judicial records. [ i ] This study examines the judicial records in specific cases of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, following the implementation of relatively new electronic record systems in the Supreme Court. This study does not involve analysis of the adjudication, per se. Instead, this study focuses only on analysis of the validity, or lack thereof, of the records and the systems on their faces. The examination finds: All decisions of the Supreme Court are published in the online public access system unsigned and subject to editing and phrasing changes - in a manner that does not permit the public to ascertain their validity. The Supreme Court does not duly serve and authenticate all its decisions and judgments in compliance with the law; The recording of the authentication of decisions and judgments in the online public access system is vague and ambiguous, or even misleading; The Supreme Court routinely denies public access to the authentication records (Certificates of Delivery), which are maintained in the Supreme Courts case management system, and which could have enabled the public to discern between valid and void records; The Supreme Court refuses to certify its own decisions, even to parties to a case. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Ministry of Justice have published, and have so far denied access to any guidance material, regarding the design and operation of the systems and definition of the data stored in them. Such analysis, leads to the conclusions, that: The May 18, 2011 Decision to postpone the execution of the prison sentence of former President Moshe Katzav was most likely a simulated record, not deemed valid by the Supreme Court itself; Two cases of the Supreme Court, which originated in attempts to ascertain the validity of the May 18, 2011 Decision, were reviewed as simulated litigation from start to finish; Following the implementation of its electronic systems, the Supreme Court resorts to arbitrary and capricious sealing of public records, with no due process of law. In implementing its electronic systems, the Supreme Court has effectively promulgated
1
Presented in the 16th World Criminology Congress, August 2011, Kobe Japan, and published in an abstract form in the Congress proceedings.
new court procedures, albeit never published, and thus the Supreme Court has usurped authorities not permitted to it by law. Conduct of the Supreme Court, documented in this study, also appears to contradict recent decisions of the Supreme Court regarding authentication of court records and public access to court records. Furthermore, combined, the findings raise the question, whether the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel should be deemed fraud, which enables the publication of simulated orders and judgments and the conduct of simulated litigation, and therefore undermine the integrity of the justice system. Corrective measures are proposed: Revision of the Regulations of the Courts, pertaining the duties and responsibilities of the Office of the Clerk and Public Access to judicial records; Implementation of digital signatures and digital authentication records, which are clearly defined, valid, easily-recognized, and transparent; Clear definition by law of those authorized to enter and publish data in the systems, their duties and their responsibilities, Validation of the electronic record systems of the courts under legal accountability. Computer science/informatics experts hold a unique civic duty in safeguarding the integrity of courts, Human Rights, and civil society in the digital era. Keywords: e-government, e-courts, information system design, policy, politics, fraud, validation, verification, authentication
Table of Contents
Abstract Table of Contents Lists of Figures and Tables Introduction I. Systems and Methods 1. Electronic systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel 2. Regulations of the Courts 3. Submission of Requests to the Court Itself 4. Court Records in Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11), Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11), and Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) 5. Requests for Clarifications by the State Authorities 6. Media Reports 7. Examination of Court Records II. Brief History of the Cases, as Related to This Study 1. Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) 2. Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) 3. Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) 4. Requests for Records of the Supreme Court, Outside the Court Files, Per Se 5. Media Reports on the Case of Moshe Katzav III. Design and Operation of the Electronic Systems, as Seen in this Study IV. Discussion 1. Execution of Service, Pursuant to the Law in Israel 2. Certificates of Delivery as Authentication of Judicial Records 3. Legalization of Judicial Records, Pursuant to the Hague Convention (1961) 4. Certificates of Delivery in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel 5. Fraud in Execution of Service, as Inherent to Conduct of Simulated Legal Process 6. Signatures on Digital Judicial Records 7. Validity and Reliability of the Records in Katzav v State of Israel 8. Validity and Reliability of the Records in Zernik v State of Israel 9. Validity and Reliability of the Records in Zernik v State of Israel 10. Public Access to Court Records in the State of Israel 11. Sealing of Court Records in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel 12. Denial of the Requests, Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988) 13. Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010) 14. Instruction Material for the Electronic Record Systems 15. Refusal to Certify Decisions of the Court 16. Refusal to Rule on Matters Before the Court 17. Overall conduct of Katzav v State of Israel, Zernik v State of Israel, and Zernik v Office of the Clerk 18. Overall Validity and Reliability of the Electronic Systems of the Supreme Court 19. Similar Findings in a Case in the Detainees Court 20. The Legal Framework for Implementation and Operation of the Electronic Systems 21. The Legal Framework for the Operation of the Office of the Clerk 22. Responses, or Lack Thereof, by State Authorities 23. Similar Systems in the United States Undermine the Integrity of the Courts V. Corrective Measures VI. Conclusions References and Endnotes
Lists of Figures and Tables

Tables: 1. Table 1. Summary of Papers Filed by the Author under Katzav v State of Israel and Their Disposition 2. Table 2. Summary of Papers Filed by the Appellant under Zernik v State of Israel and Their Disposition 3. Table 3. Summary of Papers Filed by the Challenger under Zernik v Office of the Clerk and Their Disposition Figures: 1. Figure 1: Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel a. Screen prints of the list of Certificates of Delivery from the online public access system of the Supreme Court; b. Screen prints of Certificates of Delivery from the case management system of the Supreme Court, pertaining to the May 18, 2011 Decision; c. Screen prints of Certificates of Delivery from the case management system of the Supreme Court, pertaining to the May 11, 2011 Decision(s) 2. Figure 2: September 5, 2011 Decision in Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, as served on the author 3. Figure 3: September 7, 2011 Judgment in Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, as served on the author. 4. Figure 4: The face pages of records filed by the author, as Appellant, in Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel - a. The August 21, 2011 Commencing Record of the Appeal, and b. The September 20, 2011 Request for Clarification 5. Figure 5: Screen prints of the electronic lists in the online public access system of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) a. List of Events; b. List of Requests, and c. List of Decisions 6. Figure 6: Screen prints of the electronic lists in the online public access system of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel a. Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11), and b. Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) 7. Figure 7: Screen prints of the electronic lists in the online public access system of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11). 8. Figure 8: Apostilles, pursuant to the Hague Convention (1961) a. Apostille issued by the State of Israel, authenticating a marriage certificate, and b. The ten standard fields in Apostilles pursuant to the Hague Convention.

Table of Contents
Introduction
The courts worldwide, including Israel, have been implementing in recent years electronic information systems for efficient management of court cases and public access to court records. Reports of the United Nations on Strengthening Judicial Integrity encourage these procedures. Indeed, there is no doubt that such systems could improve the management of valid court records and transparency of the judicial processes. Court procedures, and in particular, the maintanence of valid court records, have evolved over centuries and are at the core of Fair Hearings. The transition to electronic case management and public access systems, in any court, amounts to a sea change in these procedures. A similar transition has recetly been completed in Israel. Under these circumstances, this study examined the systems and the records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, the highest court of the land. This study focused on records in the case of Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11), an appeal that originated in it (as part of this study), Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11), and a challenge to validity of the records in the appeal under Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11). The outcome of this examination raises serious conerns regarding validity of the systems, the records of the Supreme Court, and their impact on the integrity and transparency of the justice system in Israel.

Table of Contents
I.
Systems and Methods
1. Electronic systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel As has been the case in all systems that have so far been examined, the systems, implemented in the Supreme Court, are clearly segregated: The electronic case management system, is used by the Supreme Court itself, and is not normally accessible to the public. As part of the current study, the Supreme Court has permitted the author to inspect limited records in the case management system. The online system for management of pubic access to the Supreme Courts records, is part of the Israeli Courts Authority web site. 2 Scant public information is available regarding the process of developing these systems, or the technical specifications of the current version. 2. Users Manuals and Instruction Records Requests for access to users manuals or similar instruction records, were filed with the Court itself, with the Israeli Courts Authority, and with the Ministry of Justice. 3. Regulations of the Courts The Regulations of the Court, Civil Procedure (1984) were examined for the following aspects: [ ii ] General procedures, pertaining to the operation of the electronic systems; Definition of digital signatures; Definition of digital authentication; Issuance, service, delivery, and entry into registration of court records. The Regulations of the Courts, Office of the Clerk (2004) were examined for the following aspects: [ iii ] Duties and responsibilities of the Office of the Clerk; Oaths of Office of the Clerk and Deputy Clerks. The Regulations of the Courts, Inspection of Court Records (2003) were examined for the following aspects: [ iv ] The scope of public access to judicial records in general; Access to electronic court records; Procedures for exercising the right to access judicial records. 4. Submission of Requests to the Court Itself Various requests were filed with the Supreme Court itself, in an effort to access various records, as detailed below, or in an effort to elucidate the validity of various records. In all these requests, it was clearly stated, that the main purpose of the requests was an academic study of the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court. 5. Court Records in Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11), Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11), and Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11)
2
http://elyon2.court.gov.il/
The sources of records in these cases were: The online public access system of the Supreme Court; Records, which were discovered, following requests to inspect and copy the paper files of the Supreme Court, and Records, which were served on the author by the Supreme Court. In addition, requests were filed with the Ministry of Justice and/or the Supreme Court itself, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), to obtain copies of: Decisions, as served by the Court on the State Prosecution; Instruction material pertaining to the design and operation of the electronic systems of the Supreme court; Signed copies of the Rules of Ethics of Judges (2007) and Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010) 6. Requests for Clarifications by the State Authorities Requests for clarifications regarding the integrity of the electronic systems and the electronic records of the Supreme Court were filed with the State Ombudsman, the Ministry of Justice, the Courts Authority, members of Knesset (legislature), and the Bar Association. 7. Media Reports Major media outlets were surveyed online for reports pertaining to the case of Katzav v State of Israel. 8. Examination of Court Records It should be emphasized that the goal of this study was not to examine the legal basis of the Courts decisions. Instead, the goal of this study was only to examine the validity of the electronic systems and the electronic records on their faces. The author is not a legal scholar. However, over the past decade he has gained substantial experience in examining the validity of the electronic systems and electronic records of banks, prisons, courts, and other government systems. [ v ]

Table of Contents
II.
Brief History of the Cases, as Related to This Study
Moshe Katzav, former President of the State of Israel, was convicted in early 2011 on sex crimes by the District Court in Tel Aviv and in March 2011, he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. Consequently, Katzav filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. In response to a request by Katzav, the Supreme Court postponed the execution of the sentence for the duration of the Appeal. The Appeal was denied on November 10, 2011. However, the execution of the prison sentence was again postponed for several weeks. 1. Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) At the onset of the Appeal, Katzav filed a request to postpone the execution of his prison sentence. The State Prosecution objected, claiming that such postponement was contrary to the principle of equality before the law. On May 18, 2011, a decision was published, granting Katzavs request, and postponing the execution of the prison sentence for the duration of the appeal. [ vi ] Efforts to inspect copies of decisions in this case and clarify their validity are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Papers Filed by the Author under Katzav v State of Israel and Their Disposition
# 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Paper Filed Date Request to inspect and copy decisions July 7, 2011 Repeat request to inspect, copy decisions July 17, 2011 Response on the Magistrates Decision on Request for clarification July 18, 2011 Response on the Magistrates July 21, 2011 Decision August 1, 2011 Request for clarifications regarding validity of Decisions in the paper court file Aug 14, 2011 Request to inspect, copy Sealing Order Aug 29, 2011 Addendum to request to inspect, copy Sealing Order Sept 5, 2011 Request to access May 18, 2011 Decision as served on the State Prosecution, pursuant to Freedom of Information Act Sept 8, 2011 Response on Decision re: Request to inspect and copy Sealing Order Sep 19, 2011 Request for a signed and certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision Nov 2, 2011 Repeat Request for a signed and certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision Nov 22, 2011 Request for a signed and certified copy of the Sept 21, 2011 Decision Nov 22, 2011 Request Date Event Date ? ? ? ? ? ? Disposition Decision July 12, 2011
None
Request to inspect/ copy July 17, 2011
None
Decision July 21, 2011
None None ? ?
None
Decision Aug 14, 2011 Phone call from office of the Clerk asked submission of the Addendum Decision Sept 5, 2011 Decision Sept 12, 2011 Decision Sept 21, 2011 Letter from the office of the Clerk Nov 14, 2011
?
? ? ?
? ? ? ?
None
None
Paper Filed - Date short title of the record and date stamped Received Inspected by the office of the Clerk of the Court; Registration Date title of the record as it appears in the list of Requests, and the date of filing as listed in the online public access system; Event Date listing under Events, and the corresponding date; Disposition decision/judgment received by mail from the Supreme Court on the paper filed by the Appellant.
All papers filed by the Appellant were stamped and signed Received/Inspected, and none of the papers was listed as Rejected from Registration. Question marks indicate missing data.
b) Requests to inspect and to copy court records in Katzav v State of Israel Like all other decisions of the Court, the decisions in this case were published in the online public access system, unsigned and uncertified. Therefore, requests were filed by the author to access the decisions and the certificates of delivery in Katzav v State of Israel, to inspect and copy, pursuant to the Regulations of the Courts, Inspection of Court Files (2003). Additionally, several requests for clarifications were filed, pertaining to the decisions of the Court regarding requests for access to the records, as detailed below. Registry of the requests was inconsistent and unreliable. Some of the requests, which were presumably received by the Office of the Clerk, eventually appeared in the online public access system under the list of Requests, but others neither appeared among the list of Requests, nor did they appear under the list of Rejected from Registration records. These aberrations were not corrected even after requests were filed for correction of the listing. Furthermore, service of decisions of the Supreme Court was inconsistent and unreliable as well: Some of the decisions were served signed, and others were served unsigned. Some were never served at all. Some of the decisions were served by certified mail, and others - by regular mail, with no certificates of delivery. In its decisions, the Supreme Court permitted the author to inspect the records of the decisions in the Supreme Courts paper files. All decisions, which were inspected, were signed by justice(s) of the Supreme Court. However, when the author asked the Office of the Clerk to certify the copies of these decisions, the staff of the Office of the Clerk refused to do so. c) Requests to inspect and copy the certificates of delivery The law in Israel requires that certificates of delivery of judicial records (decisions, orders, judgments) be maintained, as authentication of such records. And yet, the certificates of delivery are not accessible in the Courts online public access system. However, the representation in the online public access system would lead a person to conclude that such certificates are routinely maintained. (Figure 1) In response to repeated requests, the Supreme Court permitted the author to inspect and copy the certificates of delivery, as they appear in the case management system of the Supreme Court, which is not usually accessible to the public. For some of the judicial records, certificates of delivery were indeed found in the case management system. For others, even if issued months ago, the case management system showed the entry, Not keyed in yet. However, for the May 18, 2011 Decision, the case management system included only a cryptic entry, which referred to a communication by phone. The staff of the Office of the Clerk refused to permit access to further details regarding this matter

Table of Contents
(e.g., the names of individuals, who entered the delivery data, date of entry of the data, etc). d) Requests to inspect and to copy a Sealing Order Initially, in the course of this study, public access was permitted to the Supreme Courts decisions and to various lists in the online public access system in this case (list of parties, list of events, list of requests, list of decisions, list of records rejected from registration, list of certificates of delivery). (Figure 5) As is the case in all other online files of the Supreme Court, public access was denied to papers filed by the parties themselves. However, in requests filed by the author, he pointed the inconsistent and unreliable nature of the lists in this case: Papers, which purportedly were received for entry into the registry, were never listed in the list of Requests, neither were they listed under records Rejected from Registration. The author further requested that the missing records be incorporated in the lists. Starting in early August 2011, public access was denied to any of the decisions and any of the lists in the online public access system. Instead, the system displayed the word Sealed. (Figure 6a) Consequently, a Request was filed to inspect and to copy the Sealing Order. [ vii ] In response, the author was served with the September 5, 2011 Decision of the Court, denying the request. [ viii ] This Decision was served hand-signed by three Justices of the Court, stamped and signed Released for Service. (Figure 2)
10
.a
#
51/50/11
: " .
7312122
51/50/11
: " .
9312122
03/50/11
: " .
2022222
03/50/11
: " .
4022222
32/50/11
: " .
7022222
32/50/11
: " .
9022222
30/50/11
: " ,
6056022
30/50/11
: " ,
7056022
: " ,
8056022
13/50/11
: " ,
6092222
: " .
3156022
30/50/11
: " .
5156022
80/50/11
: " .
4156022
81/70/11
: " .
9958422
: " .
0068422
: " .
7323222
20/60/11
: " ,
0323222
62/60/11
: " .
1395322
62/60/11
: " .
3395322
71/70/11
: " .
8477422
71/70/11
: " .
9477422
: ,
7477422
21/50/11
: " .
6491122
21/50/11
: " .
8491122
71/50/11
: " .
4680122
11/50/11
: " .
6680122
80/50/11
: " .
7649022
80/50/11
: " .
9649022
80/50/11
: " .
8649022
32/60/11
: " .
4194322
32/60/11
: .
2194322
11
71/50/11
: " .
5680122
91/50/11
: .
3680122
81/50/11
: " .
4145122
91/50/11
: " .
6145122
: " .
9146422
71/70/11
: " .
1246422
41/70/11
: " .
0246422
: " .
8346422
90/60/11
: " ,
1704222
: " ,
6123222
: " .
7223222
13/50/11
: " .
9223222
20/60/11
: " .
7423222
20/50/11
: " .
5255022
20/50/11
: " .
7255022
: " .
6255022
20/50/11
: " .
1355022
20/50/11
: " .
3355022
03/50/11
: " ,
4280222
92/50/11
: " ,
5280222
42/50/11
: " ,
0278122
20/60/11
: " .
3234222
20/60/11
: " .
5234222
13/21/01
: " .
4234222
.b
21
c.
Figure 1: Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel a. Screen prints of the list of Certificates of Delivery from the online public t f th S C t b S i t f C tifi t f D li f
13
access system of the Supreme Court; b. Screen prints of Certificates of Delivery from the case management system of the Supreme Court, pertaining to the May 18, 2011 Decision; c. Screen prints of Certificates of Delivery from the case management system of the Supreme Court, pertaining to the May 11, 2011 Decision(s) a. The list, as it appears in the online public access system, does not permit the public to examine the certificates of delivery themselves, or to match individual certificates with the corresponding judicial records. Therefore, the system does not permit the public to ascertain the validity of judicial records. Two of the entries in the list, which might be perceived by the public as corresponding to the May 18, 2011 Decision (No. 2223216 and 2223227) state Not keyed in yet. Public access is no longer permitted to the list, shown in Figure 1a. Instead, the writing appears: Sealed, albeit, the Supreme Court refuses to permit access to the judicial record, which is the foundation for the retroactive sealing of these data. (Screen prints from the online public access system were downloaded on August 14, 2011) b. The author was permitted partial access to the case management system of the Supreme Court. The listing in the case management system for the May 18, 2011 Decision showed:
Name Moshe Katzav State of Israel Mailed To Attorney Feldman Attorney: State Prosecution Date May 18, 2011 May 18, 2011 Cert of Delivery No 2215414 2215416 Signature Date May 18, 2011 May 19, 2011 Service Delivered with no Certificate of Delivery Delivered telephonically Mode Mail Mail
Additional detail regarding the service were likely to exist in the case management system, but further access was denied. In cases where delivery was duly executed with certificates of delivery, scans of the certificates were maintained in the case management system of the Supreme Court, with signatures of the recipients. No Certificates of Delivery existed for the May 18, 2011 Decision. The serial numbers of the Certificates of Delivery in the case management system (2215414, 2215416) fail to appear in the online public access system. Moreover, these numbers are not related to specific serially numbered Certificates of Delivery, as the public might falsely perceive. Instead, these numbers refers to various text notes, entered by unidentified individuals, including notes such as Not delivered. c. Additional listing from the case management system of the Supreme Court were discovered for the May 11, 2011 Decision(s):
Name Moshe Katzav State of Israel Mailed To Atty Feldman Atty State Prosecution Date May 11, 2011 May 11, 2011 May 11, 2011 May 11, 2011 Cert of Delivery No 2210864 2210866 2210865 2210863 Signature Date May 17, 2011 May 11, 2011 May 17, 2011 May 19, 2011 Service Delivered to Counsel Delivered telephonically Not delivered Delivered to Counsel Mode Mail Mail Fax Mail
Public access is no longer permitted to these lists, and public access to the lists in the case management system was denied even in Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11), an unsealed case, where the author was Appellant. (Screen prints from the Courts case management system were received on August 14, 2011, at the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court) The records pertaining to the service and delivery of judicial records are excluded from the paper files of the Court. Therefore, inspection of the paper files would not enable a person to distinguish between valid and void judicial records.
14

Table of Contents
The September 5, 2011 Decision in part stated:

Regretfully, it is unclear from the Request, and also from the details, later added, what the Sealing Order is, that is referred to by the Requester
Following the September 5, 2011 Decision, a repeat Request was filed, [ ix ] which clarified:
Sealing Order, for the purpose of instant Request, is a Court record, to the degree that it exists, which provides the legal foundation for the fact that access is denied to data in instant file of the Court in the online public access system, and instead appears the writing Sealed.
In response, the author received the September 21, 2011 Decision, unsigned, again denying his request. [ x ] The September 21, 2011 Decision said:
Even following the Request for Clarification, in response to September 5, 2011 Decision, we could not fathom the intent of the Requester. Therefore, we have no choice but to deny the Request.
e) Request for clarification regarding validity of the decisions in the paper court file Given the ambiguity in the entry into registration of requests and decisions in this case, the author filed an additional Request with the Court, asking: [ xi ] Were all the Decisions in the paper file of the Court in this case, copies of which were provided by the Office of the Clerk, valid and binding? The August 14, 2011 Request in part said:
Request for Leave to File Request for Clarification by Justice(s) of the Court, Pertaining to Inspection of the Courts Decisions Additionally, the Requester claims that granting the leave to file instant Request and clarifications by Justice(s) of the Court in this regard holds significance that surpasses the Request to inspect the Decisions in Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) 6. Request for clarification regarding filing and entry into registration of requests to inspect and copy a. Is a request, having been stamped Received/Inspected recorded as entered into registration, whether or not it later appears in the online public access system? 9. Request for clarification regarding entry into registration, validity, and service of decisions of the Court a. Is a decision, which appeared unsigned in the online public access system, yet never served on the requester, deemed a valid decision of the Court, and entered into registration? b. Is a decision, which appeared unsigned in the online public access system, and also served unsigned on the requester, deemed a valid decision of the Court, and one that was entered into registration? d. Is a requester entitled to be served by the Court a signed, valid, and entered decision pertaining to a request to inspect and copy?
The Magistrate denied this Request in a signed Decision, albeit the decision was never stamped and signed Released for Service. [ xii ] 15
The Clerks August 14, 2011 Decision said in part:

I have made considerable concessions toward Dr Zernik, who is not party to this case This request has no basis To remove any doubt, there is no indication that Dr Zerniks requests were inappropriately handled, in a manner that justifies any further clarifications or explanations.
f) Request for a signed and certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision Given the Supreme Courts refusal to clarify the previous requests, pertaining to the vague and ambiguous nature of the May 18, 2011 Decision, another attempt was made to address the situation by requesting a copy of a signed and certified copy of the Decision. [ xiii ] The November 2, 2011 Request said in part:
When the Requester asked the staff of the Office of the Clerk to certify the copy of the Decision, the Supervisor of the Criminal Division refused to certify the record, absent explicit decision of the Court in this regard Therefore, the undersigned requests that the Court instruct the Office of the Clerk to provide the Requester a copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision, signed by the Justice and certified by the Office of the Clerk, as a valid and effectual decision, to the degree that such decision exists. Alternatively, if the aforementioned Decision never received approval for service, the undersigned requests that the Court explicitly state so in its decision.
Since the lists of Requests, list of records Rejected from Registration, and list of Decisions remained all sealed, (Figure 6) there was no way to ascertain whether this Request was ever entered into the registry. No decision was served in this matter. Instead, on November 14, 2011, a phone call was received from the Office of the Clerk, where the callerd attempted to communicate by phone a decision of the Supreme Court. The author insisted on a written record of the decision. A letter, also dated November 14, 2011, was later received by mail from the Court, [ xiv ] stating:
Regretfully, we will not be able to accommodate your request to receive a certified copy of a decision in a sealed case, where you are not a party. Every citizen is permitted to inspect the decisions of the Court, which are published in the online site. We cannot provide certified copies of decisions to a person, who is not a party to the case.
g) Repeat request for a signed and certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision Following the receipt of the November 14, 2011 Letter, another attempt was made to obtain a certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision. The November 22, 2011 Repeat Request in part said: [ xv ]
In response on the Request, the Requester received by mail a letter, dated November 14, 2011, signed by Idit Melul. (Exhibit 2, hereinafter the Letter) The Letter raises a number of questions: 1. The Letter refers to the Request, both in the subject line and in the body of the Letter, as your letter, although the Request was titled as such, and was not a letter at all. 2. The Letter refers to a sealed case, but the Decision, subject of the Request, was not sealed at all. It was previously published in the online public access system of the Court and by media. The Requester had also previously asked and was granted permission to inspect and copy the Decision from the paper file of the Court, and received a signed copy of the Decision.
16
3. The Letter states, We will not be able to provide certified decisions to a person, who is not a party to the case, but fails to provide the legal foundation for the statement. 4. Deputy Chief Clerk signed the letter, but failed to provide the legal authority for responding on the Request, duly filed with the Court.
The Requester claims that as a rule, the public at large is entitled to know, which of the Courts decisions are valid and binding, and in particular, decisions in instant case.
h) Request for a signed and certified copy of the September 21, 2011 Decision Additionally, request was filed on November 22, 2011, for a signed and certified copy of the September 21, 2011 Decision of the Supreme Court, denying access to the court records, providing the legal foundation for the sealing of the online public access to the docket and decisions of the Supreme Court in this case. [ xvi ] Pertaining to the September 21, 2011 Decision, which was received by mail unsigned, the author was the Requester himself.
17
Figure 2: September 5, 2011 Decision in Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, as served on the author. This judicial record was served hand-signed by three Justices of the Court, bears the Seal of the Court, and additional stamp and hand signature Released for Service. The record, like all decisions of the Court bears a footnote: Version subject to editing and phrasing changes. Also compare this record to the judicial record in Figure 3. The Court refused to respond on a Request to explain the difference between these two records.
18

Table of Contents
2. Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) The Appeal under Zernik v State of Israel originated in the August 14, 2011 Decision of the Magistrate, denying the request for clarification relative to validity of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel. [ xvii ] Conduct of the Appeal is outlined in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Papers Filed by the Appellant under Zernik v State of Israel and Their Disposition
# 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Paper Filed Date Appeal Aug 21, 2011 None Request for Honest Docketing Aug 31, 2011 Request to Inspect, Copy Case Management Records Sept 5, 2011 None None Request for Clarification re: Validity of the Judgment Sept 20, 2011 Notice of Inspection Nov 1, 2011 Request for a Signed and Certified Copy of the Judgment Nov 2, 2011 Repeat Request for a Signed and Certified Copy of the Judgment Nov 22, 2011 Request for Review by Expanded Panel Nov 27, 2011 Request Date None None Add a Document Aug 31, 2011 Request to Inspect, Copy Sept 5, 2011 Receipt of Court Paper Sept 18, 2011 Receipt of Decision/Judgment Sept 18, 2011 None Office of the Clerk refused to receive the paper, duly filed Receipt of Decision/Judgment Nov 2, 2011 Receipt of Decision/Judgment Nov 22, 2011 Office of the Clerk refused to receive the paper, duly filed Event Date None Paper filed Aug 30, 2011 None None None None None None None None None Disposition Judgment ? None None None None None None None None None None
Paper Filed - Date short title of the record and date stamped Received Inspected by the office of the Clerk of the Court; Request Date title of the record as it appears in the list of Requests, and the date of filing as listed in the online public access system; Event Date listing under Events, and the corresponding date; Disposition decision/judgment received by the Appellant by mail from the Supreme Court. All papers filed by the Appellant were stamped and signed Received/Inspected, except for the November 1, 2011 Notice of Inspection, which was duly filed, but which the staff of the Office of the Clerk of the Court refused to accept. None of the papers was listed as Rejected from Registration. The only decision/judgment listed in the online public access system is the Sept 7, 2011 Judgment. However, validity of the Judgment record remains dubious at best, since it was received unsigned, and the Supreme Court refused to provide a signed and certified copy of the Judgment, and also refused to permit inspection of Certificates of Delivery of the record.
a) Commencement of the Appeal The Appeal was commenced on September 21, 2011, with the filing of the Appeal record, [ xviii ] following instructions of the office of the Clerk of the Court. The Appeal record was stamped Received/Inspected and signed by the office of the Clerk. (Figure 4b) b) Disappearance and reappearance of the Appeal file from the public access system
19
A few days later, the entire Appeal file disappeared from the online public access system. On August 29, 2011, a letter was forwarded to the office of the Clerk in this regard. [ xix ] The August 29, 2011 letter in part says:
In our conversation today, I mentioned that the online public access system of the Court no longer included any reference to the case. On the other hand, you demonstrated to me that the case still appeared in the case management system of the Court, and mentioned that the system indicated that the case was assigned to Justice Salim Jubran. Attached are screen prints, from query I conducted today for the above referenced case in the online public access system of the Court. The outcome of the query for 6041/11 was: No records were found for the query range. Similar query, which I conducted last week, in the same system, indeed showed the case, and also the paper of Appeal, which was received for registration. One plausible explanation for this condition, is that in this case there is a discrepancy between the data presented in the online public access system and the case management system of the Court.
Later, the Appeal file reappeared in the online public access system. [ xx ] c) Invalid data for the Appeal file in the public access system Even after Appeal files reappearance, the Appeal record itself never appeared in the online public access system, neither under the list of Requests, nor under the list of records Rejected from Registration. Instead, the commencing record in this file was titled Request for Adding a Record, and dated August 31, 2011. [ xxi xxii ,] (Figure 5b) Since no public access is permitted to the records themselves in the online public access system, one could not even ascertain what record was linked to this listing. On September 1, 2011, a letter was forwarded to the office of the Clerk of the Court, asking for correction of the data. [ xxiii ] The September 1, 2011 letter says in part:
Review of data in this case and others, point out, presumably, that the current procedure in the Supreme Court is to list each filing of a document as an Event. To this date, three documents have been filed: 1. On August 21, 2011 Appeal was filed. 2. On August 21, 2011 Request for waiver of fees was filed under a separate face page (following your explicit instructions) 3. On August 31, 2011 Request for honest docketing was filed. On the other hand, on the Events page under the above referenced case, only one event appears: 1. On August 30, 2011 Document filed/filed document. This situation is difficult to understand as part of consistent procedures for data entry in the system. In addition, to this date, I have not found any written procedures in this matter.
No response was received on the letter, and the data in the online public access system was not corrected to this date. d) Request to inspect and copy the Courts records of the Appeal in the case management system Given the ambiguity regarding the validity of the commencement of the Appeal, a Request was filed, to inspect and to copy the records of the Appeal in the case management system of the Court. [ xxiv ] The Request was stamped Received/Inspected, and appeared in the list of Requests. (Figure 5b) The September 5, 2011 Request said in part:
20
2. The Records, Subject to the Request: a. The records of the above referenced Appeal in the case management system of the Court. b. Users manuals, or similar records, to the degree that they exist, pertaining to the operation of the case management and the online public access systems of the Court. 3. The Purpose and Justification of the Request a. The Requester has published in recent years academic papers, pertaining to the electronic record systems of the courts and prisons, and also presented such studies in international criminology and computer science conferences. The Requester intends to publish an academic paper, pertaining to the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in general, and the case, in which instant Appeal originated, in particular.
No decision, pertaining to this Request, appeared in the online public access system, (Figure 5c) and no decision in this regard was served on the author. Later, the staff of the Office of the Clerk informed the author that the case file had already been transferred to the archive, and the Court apparently decided not to decide on this Request. [ xxv ] e) Judgment on the Appeal Although the record of the Appeal itself never appeared in the online public access system, Judgment on the Appeal, did appear in the system (unsigned), and was also served on the Appellant, albeit - unsigned. [ xxvi ] (Figure 3) The September 7, 2011 Judgment in part said:
In his Decision, the Honorable Magistrate determined that the Request was unwarranted I concur that there is no substance to the Request as far as the Requester is interested in information pertaining to the electronic systems of the Court, he should file an appropriate request with the authorized body in the Ministry of Justice.
f) Invalid data, pertaining to the service and delivery of the Judgment in the online public access system of the Supreme Court Review of the data, pertaining to the Certificates of Delivery in the online public access system of the Supreme Court, shows only two listings: [ xxvii ]
2273696 - mailed to: Dr Joseph Zernik, September 19, 2011 2273697 mail to: State Prosecution, September 8, 2011
These listing could not possibly be deemed Certificates of Delivery. At best, these are notes (unidentified by name of an individual and unsigned), pertaining to Service, but not to Delivery. Moreover, the date of mailing to the State Prosecution could be deemed adequate for the September 7, 2011 Judgment in the case. However, the date of mailing to the Appellant, Dr Joseph Zernik, is well beyond 5 days, permitted by law, following the issuance of the September 7, 2011 Judgment. (see Discussion, below) g) Request for clarification by the office of the Clerk of the Court regarding the failure of any proceeding pertaining to the Appeal to appear in the calendar of the Supreme Court Although the Judgment on the Appeal appeared in the online public access system, no reference to the Appeal appears in the Calendar of the Court. A September 20, 2011 request for clarification by the office of the Clerk of the Court, regarding the failure of the Appeal to appear in the calendar [ xxviii ] was not answered. The Appeal fails to appear in the Calendar of the Court to this date. 21

Table of Contents
h) Request for clarification regarding validity of the Appeal as a whole Given the ambiguity regarding the validity of the entire Appeal, the author filed a request xxix for clarification. [ ] The September 20, 2011 Request included two exhibits: A copy of the September 5, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel, handsigned by three Justices of the Supreme Court, stamped and signed by the Office of the Clerk, (Figure 2) and A copy of the unsigned September 7, 2011 Judgment in Zernik v State of Israel. (Figure 3) The Request in part said:
The Requester claims what any reasonable person would conclude: that these two records are of the same validity is unlikely Therefore, the undersigned requests that the Honorable Justice S Jubran clarify, whether the September 7, 2011 Judgment in instant case, is a valid Judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, pursuant to the law of the State of Israel.
The Request was stamped and signed Received/Inspected. (Figure 4a) However, it failed to appear in the list of Requests, or in the list of record Rejected from Registration, no decision on the Request was served, and no decision appeared in the online public access system. (Figure 4c) i) Attempt to file a Notice of Inspection In view of the ambiguity in the records of the Appeal in Zernik v State of Israel, an attempt was made on November 2, 2011, to file a Notice of Inspection, pursuant to the Regulations of the Courts, Inspection of Court Files, Regulation 3 (cited in Discussion, below). The staff of the Office of the Clerk refused to accept the Notice of Inspection for various reasons, including a claim that even parties have no right to inspect the records of their own case in the Supreme Courts case management system. [ xxx ] j) Request for a signed and certified copy of the Judgment in the Appeal On November 2, 2011, a Request was filed for a signed and certified copy of the Judgment in the Appeal. [ xxxi ] The Request failed to appear in the online public access system, and no decision was received on the Request, either. (Figure 6b) k) Repeat Request for a signed and certified copy of the Judgment in the Appeal On November 22, 2011, additional attempt was made to obtain a signed and certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment. [ xxxii ] The November 22, 2011 Repeat Request in part said:
The Previous Request was received by the Office of the Clerk, and was also stamped and signed Received/Inspected no decision was received on the Previous Request. Moreover, the Office of the Clerk, Criminal Division, informed the Requester that the file had been transferred to the archive, and that it was unlikely that he would receive a decision on the Previous Request. Therefore, the Requester asks that the Court instruct the Office of the Clerk to provide the Requester a copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment in instant case, signed by the Justice and certified by the Office of the Clerk. Alternatively, if the Judgment was never approved for service, or was never duly served, the Requester asks that the Court explicitly state so in its decision.
22
l) Repeat request, forwarded to the Office of the Clerk, for correction of the listing of the records in the online public access system of the Supreme Court Following the filing and receipt of the November 22, 2011 Repeat Request, for a signed and certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment, concern was raised that the Repeat Request, like the November 2, 2011 Initial Request on this matter, was inadequately listed in the Supreme Courts online public access and case management systems. Therefore, on November 24, 2011, a Repeat Request was forwarded to the Office of the Clerk, to correct the listing of the records in the Appeal. [ xxxiii ] The November 24, 2011 Repeat Request in part says:
Searching the online public access system today, relative to the case, referenced above, it was found: 1. The filing of the commencing paper of the Appeal still fails to appear in the system, either in the list of Requests, the list of Rejected from Registration, or the list of Events. 2. The November 2, 2011 Request, for a signed and certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment, does appear under the list of Requests, but fails to appear under the list of Events. 3. The November 22, 2011 Repeat Request, for a signed and certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment, does appear under the list of Request, but likewise fails to appear under the list of Events. I would be grateful if you try to help in correcting the registration in the system, hoping that eventually I would receive a decision by a Justice of the Supreme Court, pertaining to the Requests in 2 and 3, above. Alternatively, in case I have erred in my understanding of the meaning of Events, I would be grateful if you could correct me. To the best of my knowledge, Events and their registration are not defined by law, and likewise, are not defined in the system itself. In addition, my requests for instruction material, pertaining to the system, which could have clarified this point, have not been granted to this date.
No response was received on the November 24, 2011 letter, and the data in the online public access system were not corrected to this date. m) Attempt to file a Request for review by an expanded panel On November 27, 2011, attempt was made to file a Request for review of the Appeal in Zernik v State of Israel by an expanded panel of the Supreme Court. The request provided two alternative presentations of the request: Request for initial review of the Appeal by an expanded panel, claiming that review of the data in the online public access system would lead to the conclusion that the Appeal was never registered, never reviewed, and that no judgment was entered in the Appeal. Request for repeat review of the Appeal by an expanded panel, claiming that even if the Appeal as a whole was deemed by the Court as registered, the service of the Judgment was never adequately executed, and therefore, the request for repeat review should be deemed as premature request, prior to the due service of the Judgment. In justifying the review by an expanded panel, the author claimed that the Appeal presented questions of unique significance, relative to the compliance of the Supreme Courts online public access and case management systems with the law in Israel, in particular, and Fair Hearings, in general.
23
The office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court refused to accept the filing of the paper. Instead, staff of the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court inscribed on the record: [ xxxiv ]
We are unable to accept this paper for registration, since it is not permissible to initiate Additional Review following decision by a single justice.
24
Figure 3: September 7, 2011 Judgment in Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, as served on the author. This judicial record was served unsigned. The record, like all decisions of the Court bears a footnote: Version subject to editing and phrasing changes. Also compare to the judicial record in Figure 2. The Court refused to respond on a Request to explain the difference between these two records.
25
a. __
b.
Figure 4: The face pages of records filed by the author, as Appellant, in Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel - a. The August 21, 2011 Commencing Record of the Appeal, and b. The September 20, 2011 Request for Clarification. Both records were stamped and hand-signed Received/Inspected by the Office of the Clerk. Both records failed to appear in the online public access system either under Requests, or under record Rejected from Registration. (see also Figure 5) Therefore, there is no way to ascertain the disposition of these records, and the authority of the stamp Received/Inspected remains dubious. The Office of the Clerk was non-responsive on repeated requests to correct the registration of records in this case. A reasonable person would conclude that the Appeal in Zernik v State of Israel, as a whole, where the commencing record was never registered, where the Judgment was served unsigned (Figure 3), and where the Court refused to provide a signed and certified copy of the Judgment, was conducted as a simulated litigation.
26
a.
b.
c.
Figure 5: Screen prints of the electronic lists in the online public access system of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) a. List of Events; b. List of Requests, and c. List of Decisions. 1. The commencing record of the Appeal, which was purportedly received for filing on August 21, 2011, (Figure 4 a) failed to be registered in these lists, but a Judgment in this matter was purportedly entered by the Court. 2. The September 5, 2011 Request to inspect the records in this case management system of the Court was registered in these lists, but no decision on this matter was issued.
27
3. The September 7, 2011 Judgment on the Appeal, which was registered in these lists, was served unsigned. 4. The September 20, 2011 Request for Clarification, which was purportedly received for registration, was not registered in these lists, and no decision on the matter was issued. A reasonable person would conclude that the Appeal in Zernik v State of Israel, as a whole, where the commencing record was never registered, where the Judgment was served unsigned (Figure 3), and where the Court refused to provide a signed and certified copy of the Judgment, was conducted as a simulated litigation. (Downloaded on October 9, 2011)
28
a.
b.
Figure 6 Screen prints of the electronic lists in the online public access system of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel a. Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11), and b. Dr Joseph Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11). Public access to the lists is denied in Katzav v State of Israel; instead the writing Sealed appears. The commencing record in Zernik v State of Israel, which was duly filed (Figure 4) fails to appear either under the list of Requests, or under the list of records Rejected from Registration. (Downloaded on November 3, 2011)
29

Table of Contents
3. Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) Following the guidelines, provided by the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the November 29, 2011 Challenge to the decision of the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court was filed. [ xxxv ]
Table 3. Summary of Papers Filed by the Challenger under Zernik v Office of the Clerk and Their Disposition
# 1. Paper Filed Date Challenge Nov 29, 2011 Request Date None Event Date None Disposition Date None
Paper Filed - Date short title of the record and date stamped Received Inspected by the office of the Clerk of the Court; Request Date title of the record as it appears in the list of Requests, and the date of filing as listed in the online public access system; Event Date listing under Events, and the corresponding date; Disposition decision/judgment received by the Appellant by mail from the Supreme Court. All papers filed by the Appellant were stamped and signed Received/Inspected, except for the November 1, 2011 Notice of Inspection, which was duly filed, but which the staff of the Office of the Clerk of the Court refused to accept. None of the papers was listed as Rejected from Registration. No decision/judgment is listed in the online public access system.
The Challenge claimed that the decision of the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court was in error, regarding the basic facts in the matter:

The commencing record in Zernik v State of Israel was not registered in the online public access system; No proceeding is listed for Zernik v State of Israel in the Calendar of the Supreme Court, No decision was duly served in Zernik v State of Israel, and The Supreme Court had so far refuses to provide a signed and certified decision in the case.
Therefore, it was claimed that it was incorrect for the office of the Clerk to consider the paper an attempt to initiate Additional Review following decision by a single justice. The commencing paper of the Challenge was accepted for filing and stamped Received/Inspected under a new caption and new case number: Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11). However, review of the records in the online public access system showed that the Supreme Court again listed a case with no commencing record, and no Events at all. [ xxxvi ] The listing was not corrected, even after a letter in this regard was forwarded to the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court. [ xxxvii , xxxviii ]
30
a.
b.
Figure 7. Screen prints of the electronic lists in the online public access system of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11). (Downloaded on November 3, 2011)
31

Table of Contents
4. Requests for Records of the Supreme Court, Outside the Court Files, Per Se Additional attempts were made to access related records: a) Request for a copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel, as served (if served) on the State Prosecution The Freedom of Information office of the Ministry of Justice denied this request. [ xxxix , xl ] The August 14, 2011 response by the Office said:
your request is denied, pursuant to Article 20 of the Freedom of Information Act (1998) In the matter before us, request to inspect court records should be filed as outlined in the Regulations of the Court, Inspection of Court Files (2003).
The Ministry of Justice persisted in its refusal to provide a copy of the requested record, even after it was clarified that the Supreme Court had previously granted the authors request to inspect and copy the same record, pursuant to the same Regulations, cited by the Ministry of Justice. Consequently, a Request was filed with the Supreme Court under Katzav v State of Israel, [ xli ] following the directive of the Freedom of Information Office of the Ministry of Justice, seeking the Supreme Courts permission to obtain a copy of the decision from the Ministry of Justice. The Request was denied by the Supreme Court, albeit, in an unsigned decision. [ xlii ] The September 12, 2011 Decision in part said:
As far as the Requester seeks to inspect the Courts May 18, 2011 Decision, he can find it in the online system, where all decisions appear, which are permitted to be published.
b) Request for instruction material relative to the electronic systems of the Court On September 5, 2011, a Request was filed under Zernik v State of Israel for instruction xliii material, relative to the operation of the electronic systems of the Court. [ ] The Request failed to appear in the online public access system, and no decision was issued in this matter. However, in the September 7, 2011 Judgment in the same case (quoted above), a note was inserted, instructing the author to seek the material from the Ministry of Justice. On October 10, 2011, request was filed with the Ministry of Justice for copies of instruction material. On November 24, 2011, response was received from the Public Communications Unit of the Ministry of Justice. The response in part says: [ xliv ]
As a rule, we are not an appeal instance, and we have no authority to intervene in judicial proceedings and decisions, issued by the courts or the Supreme Court. The subject of your letter falls under the authority of the administration of the courts, and you may approach them directly, their address: The Department of Public Communications and Internal Audit
On December 5, 2011, an additional response was received from the Public Communications Unit, this time on a formal request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988): [xlv ]
a public authority is permitted to deny a request in one of the following cases: the information was created by another public authority You may approach in this regard the Courts Authority.
32
Consequently, on November 14, 2011, a request was filed also with the Israeli Courts Authority, Freedom of Information office . [ xlvi ] The November 30, 2011 response by the Freedom of Information Office said: [ xlvii ]
In response to your request I answer herein that in the Supreme Court there are no written procedures for the operation of the electronic record systems by the staff.
c) Requests for a signed record of the Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010) Request was filed with the office of the Clerk of the Court for a signed copy of the record titled Guidelines of the Supreme Court, dated January 10, 2010, which was published unsigned under the name of Chief Justice Dorit Beinish in the online web site of the Supreme Court. [ xlviii ] The Office of the Clerk clarified that no such record existed. Additional request for the Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010) was filed with the Courts Authority, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2008). [ xlix ] No response was received to this date. d) Request for a signed record of the Rules of Ethics of Judges (2007) Request was filed with the office of the Courts Authority for a signed copy of the record titled Ethics Rules for Judges (2007), which was published unsigned under the name of Chief Justice Dorit Beinish in the online web site of the Supreme Court. [ l ] No response was received to this date. 5. Media Reports on the Case of Moshe Katzav The case of Moshe Katzav, former President of the State of Israel was widely reported by Israeli and international media. [ li ] Many of the reports highlighted the conviction of Katzav in the District Court in Tel Aviv, as a sign of the strength of the Israeli justice system. In contrast, the May 18, 2011 Decision by the Supreme Court, to postpone the prison sentence for the duration of the Appeal, was criticized as undermining equality before the law. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, denying the Appeal in Katzav v State of Israel (3722/11), media reported that Katzav was scheduled to start serving his prison term on December 7, 2011. The delay was again unusual. On December 2, 2011, media reported that some Members of Knesset were trying to launch an initiative to commute Katzavs prison term into house arrest, which would have required special, retroactive decision by the Knesset, instructing the Prison Authority to recognize Katzavs home as a Prison Facility.
33

Table of Contents
III.
Design and Operation of the Electronic Systems, as Seen in this Study
Examination of the electronic case management and online public access systems of the Supreme Court of Israel, as seen in the conduct of the two cases, outlined above, revealed numerous deficiencies: Decisions of the Court in all cases appear in the online public access system unsigned, with a footnote Version subject to editing and phrasing changes; Public access is universally denied to papers filed by parties in the cases, although the capability is clearly built in to provide such access; The public access system fails to include a clear docket of the papers, filed by parties or by the Court, and which were entered into registration by the Court; One of the central components in the online public access system is a list of Events. However, the nature of Events is defined neither by law, nor in the public section of the system; moreover, although Events are used in other case management systems in courts outside Israel, which were previously examined, the usage of Events in this system is inconsistent with the term as used elsewhere; The lists of Requests and Decisions are cryptic, and often include no further information, except for the date of filing, and name of filer, making these lists of scant usage to the public at large; As detailed in the cases outlined above, the lists, which appear in the online public access system include at times unreliable and incorrect information; Public access to the certificates of delivery is denied; moreover, the list of Certificates of Delivery is constructed in a manner that makes it impossible to correlate the entries in the list and the entries in the list of Decisions; The public access system includes no information regarding the names and authority of the individuals, who entered data into the system; The Court refused to correct invalid or erroneous listings in the online public access system, even after repeated requests; Critical data is hidden from public access in the case management system of the Court, first and foremost the Certificates of Delivery; No public access is permitted to instruction material that would explain the manner in which the Supreme Court operates the systems, and It remains unclear, what the legal foundation is for sealing even the basic lists of records, particularly in a case that was conducted in open doors, where the parties filing had never been accessible, and where the Supreme Court decisions had already been redacted, but published.
34

Table of Contents
IV.
Discussion
1. Execution of Service, Pursuant to the Law in Israel Decisions, pertaining to the Requests, filed by the author in the two cases reviewed in this study, were at times served by certified mail, or by regular mail, and some were never served at all. Some of the decisions were served signed, and others unsigned, although as a routine, the requests included a paragraph, asking the Supreme Court to duly serve on the author signed decisions, pursuant to the law of Israel. In contrast, the Criminal Court Procedure Act (1982) says: [ lii ]
Service of Records - 237. (a) Records that are required to be served on a person, pursuant to this law, shall be served as follow: (1) By personal delivery; if he is not to be found in his residence or business place to a family member, who is 18 years or older, as for a corporation or a group of persons by delivery to the registered office or to a person authorized to represent them. (2) By certified mail with certificates of delivery to the address of the person, the corporation, or the group of persons; the court is permitted to consider the date of delivery as the date of service. (b) Delivery of the record to the defendants counsel, or delivery to the counsels clerk in the counsels office, and also by certified mail with a certificate of delivery to the attorneys office shall be deemed as service on the defendant, unless the counsel notifies the court within 5 days that he was unable to bring the record to the defendants attention. (c) When the court is provided with evidence that service pursuant to this section was not executed, because of refusal to accept the letter or the record, or to sign the certificate of delivery, the court is permitted to consider the record duly served. (d) When the court is provided with evidence that service pursuant to (a) or (b), above, is not possible, the court is permitted to direct service in one of the following ways: (1) By posting a copy of the record in place in the court and also in the last known place of residence or business of the addressee; (2) By advertising in the register or in a daily newspaper; (3) In any other way deemed fit by the court.
The Regulations of Civil Procedure (1984), Chapter 32, Service of Court Records (475 et seq) similarly say: [ liii ]
475. Court records shall be served in one of the following ways: (1) Personal service by the Office of the Clerk, by an attorney, his clerk or his messenger, or by another person, who was authorized in writing by the Court, or by the Executive of the Court, or by a messenger of the person, thus authorized by the court (any of these shall be called messenger of the court); (2) By an institution, as promulgated in B., below; (3) By mail, as promulgated in C., below; (4) By facsimile, as promulgated in C.(1), below; (5) By electronic means, as promulgated in C.(2), below.
In this regard, Dr Joel Susman, former Chief Justice of the Court, says in his book, Civil Procedure (Fifth Edition, 1988, pp 209-212):
To avoid misunderstanding, let us clarify the terminology upfront. Once a copy, or a duplicate of a court record was served on a person, the language of the Regulations is usually, that the record, which remained in possession of the Court, which was the origin of the record in his hands, was served: Thus, the original record was served by providing a copy thereof.
35
183. The Regulations, pertaining to the service of court records, in Chapter 32, do not apply only to the complain, but to the service of various other court records as well. However, regardless if the Court, or an attorney executes the service, defects in the service, in case such defects exist, harm the Plaintiff. Therefore, although the Plaintiff is not responsible for the execution of service, it is his interest that service is duly executed. Knowledge regarding the content of court records, which was gained by a party in cases by any other means, is not deemed a valid service, even if gained from the Office of the Clerk, 10 or even if the record was provided by the Office of the Clerk in response to a request for the record, unless the record was provided through valid service. 11 ___ 10 Expedition 213.5 (Decisions 10, 186; Decisions 22, 73); Criminal Appeals 82.50 (Decisions 5, 151; Decisions 7, 155). 11 Civil Appeals 127/60 (Decisions 14, 2187; Decisions 49, 291), see also Civil Appeals TA 38/45 (1946, The Law 338): Inspection of Court File.
These quotes clarify: Procedure, where the signed original remains in the Court, and an unsigned copy, which is not a valid copy of the original, was sent to a party, should not be deemed valid service. Susmans statement, that defects in service usually harm the Plaintiff, is usually valid, for example in the Appeal of Zernik v State of Israel. However, this statement is invalid in cases, where the counsel for the parties cooperate with the Court in the conduct of simulated service, as detailed in Katzav v State of Israel. In the latter case, the public at large is harmed, since it has inherent interest in Fair Hearings and Equality under the Law. Given that the author was the Appellant in Zernik v State of Israel, and bound to be harmed in case of invalid service, he was within his lawful rights to press the Supreme Court to clarify the nature of the service in this case, and to ensure valid service of the decisions in this case. The response by the Court on request to obtain a copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel, as served on the State Prosecution (if served at all), which referred the Requester to inspect the online copy of the record, had nothing to do with the nature of the Request, which was clearly stated - an attempt to uncover the nature of the service, if any was executed in this Decision. It should be noted, that although the staff of the Office of the Clerk stated on various occasions that there was no need for certified mail, and regular mail was sufficient for valid service, [ liv ] such statements were contradicted the explicit language of the Regulations. Regulation 476A(a)(2) says:
(2) In cases, where the Court did not order service in person, a party shall serve the records by certified mail with certificates of delivery, no later than 5 days from the day that the record was provided to his for service.
Regulation 476A(b) says:

(b) The party shall maintain in his possession the certificate of service, and a copy thereof shall be filed with the Court, any time a Party files a request for remedy by the Court against another Party.
Regarding service by facsimile, Regulation 497A. says:
36
Service by Facsimile 497A. (a) The Court or an attorney (hereinafter the Sender) is permitted to serve a court record by facsimile transmission to an attorney, who represents a party (hereinafter the Recipient), and it shall be deemed as personal delivery, provided that all the following conditions are satisfied: (4) A Facsimile Cover Sheet was attached to the record, detailing the case and Senders identification details including his address, phone and facsimile numbers, and the number of pages that were transmitted; (5) The Sender of the facsimile shall notify the Recipient thereof by phone, within 24 hours from the time of transmission, that the record was transmitted, and that a copy thereof is maintained in the Office of the Clerk, and the Sender shall maintain written record of the phone notification, detailing the court record, the time of the phone notification, and the recipient of the notification; (6) In case the Sender is the Court itself the Court shall maintain a certificate of service of the record by facsimile.
Therefore, the service of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel should be deemed invalid, or at least, one should conclude that regardless of intensive efforts by the author, the Court denied access to any record that would have provided evidence of valid service of the Decision. It should be noted that in 2003, the Supreme Court issued a mandate under Bar Association v Minister of Religious Affairs et al (6112/02) on all rabbinical courts in Israel to execute the service of court records by certified mail with certificates of delivery. [ lv ] However, as repeatedly shown in this study, the Supreme Court exempts itself from the law in this regard. 2. Certificates of Delivery as Authentication of Judicial Records Pursuant to the English common law, records, which are admitted as evidence, must be authenticated. [ lvi ] For the purpose of judicial records, the certificates of service, or certificates of delivery serve as the authentication of decisions of the courts. Therefore, defects in the execution of service of judicial records, or concealment of the certificates, undermine the validity and reliability of such records. This matter is also spelled out in Regulation 475A(b):
(b) The party shall maintain in his possession the certificate of service, and a copy thereof shall be filed with the Court, any time a Party files a request for remedy by the Court against another Party.
Therefore, decisions of the Supreme Court, for which no certificates of delivery existed, could not be deemed valid court records. 3. Legalization of Judicial Records, Pursuant to the Hague Convention (1961) The State of Israel is a party to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement for Legalization for Foreign Public Documents (1961). The Convention established a standard apostille for the certification of public government records, including, but not limited to court records. [ lvii ] Accordingly, the government of the State of Israel issues apostilles pursuant to the Convention. (Figure 8) However, as documented in this study, the Supreme Court of the State of Israel refuses to certify its own decisions. 4. Certificates of Delivery in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
37

Table of Contents
Regardless of their significance in establishing the validity of judicial records, the certificates of delivery of the Supreme Court do not appear in the online public access system. (Figure 1) The certificates are also excluded from the paper files of the Court. Therefore, even after exercising the right to inspect the paper files, a person would not be able to discern between valid and void judicial records. Instead, the certificates are maintained in the case management system of the Court, where the public access is denied. Moreover, as seen in the findings of this study, the Supreme Court today often provides its decisions by regular mail, where no certificates of delivery are not generated, and could not possibly be maintained. Furthermore, the Regulations, pertaining to service, clearly differentiate between Service and Delivery, and Susmans book comments that the distinction was established in Israeli law in 1963. However, in practice, the staff of the Office of the Clerk was found using these terms interchangeably. Therefore, it is unclear what the list of Certificates of Delivery in the online public access system refers to: Delivery as defined by law, or as used by the staff of the Supreme Court? The Court permitted the author restricted access to the certificates of delivery in Katzav v State of Israel, but not to the degree that would have permitted to unequivocally clarify the nature of the service of the May 18, 2011 Decision (if served at all). Furthermore, in Zernik v State of Israel, where the author was a party to the case, the Supreme Court refused to permit any access to the data in the Courts case management system, which could have enabled the Appellant to unequivocally clarify the nature of the Appeal. It should be noted in this regard that United Nations reports on Strengthening Judicial Integrity refer to missing court records as a cardinal sign of corruption of the courts. [ lviii , lix ] 5. Fraud in Execution of Service, as Inherent to Conduct of Simulated Legal Process Various definitions exist in various jurisdiction for fraud. [ lx ] In defining Simulated Legal Process, the Texas Penal Code clearly recognizes fraud in the execution of service as inherent to such conduct. [ lxi ] Fraud in the execution of service was also repeatedly shown by the author as common practice in the courts of the United States and the courts of its several states. [ lxii ] 6. Signatures on Digital Judicial Records The Regulations permit the transmission of unsigned court and judicial records, in cases of service by electronic mail, but only under clear restrictions regarding the nature of the electronic systems that are used for the transmissions. However, in this study, no service was conducted by electronic mail. Therefore, there is no explanation for the service of unsigned judicial records as seen here. (Figure 3) Moreover, when a Request was filed for clarification regarding the publication of decisions that may have not been duly served, or that were served unsigned under Katzav
38
v State of Israel, the Magistrate denied the Request, and the Appeal from the Request was conducted in a manner that should be deemed simulated litigation. When a Request of the same nature was duly filed under Zernik v State of Israel, the Request failed to appear in the online public system, and no decision was ever provided on the Request. The conduct of the Supreme Court, pertaining to the requests for clarification regarding the validity of the records, should raise serious concerns regarding abuse of the authority of the Supreme Court. 7. Validity and Reliability of the Records in Katzav v State of Israel The May 18, 2011 Decision in this case: Most likely was never duly served by the Supreme Court on the State Prosecution, and The Supreme Court refused to address requests regarding its validity. Therefore, the validity of the May 18, 2011 Decision remains dubious at best. 8. Validity and Reliability of the Records in Zernik v State of Israel Serious defects characterized the records of the Appeal from start to finish: The commencing record, which was duly filed, was never registered in the online public access system; (Figure 4a) The electronic case file entirely disappeared from the online public access system, then re-appeared; The Judgment in the Appeal was mailed unsigned; (Figure 3) The Request for clarification regarding the validity of the Judgment, which was duly filed, was also never registered in the online public access system, (Figure 4b) and no decision was provided on the Request either, and The Request for inspection of the electronic court file was registered in the online public access system, but no decision on it was provided.
39
APOSTILLE Convention de La Haye du 5 octobre 1961 1. Country ... [country name] This public document 2. has been signed by ... [name] 3. acting in the capacity of ... [function] 4. bears the seal/stamp of ... [authority] certified 5. at ... [location] 6. the ... [date] 7. by ... [name] 8. No ... [apostille registration number] 9. Seal/stamp ... [of the authority giving the apostille] 10. Signature ... [signature of authority giving the apostille]
a.
b.
Figure 8: Apostilles, pursuant to the Hague Convention (1961) a. Apostille issued by the State of Israel, authenticating a marriage certificate, and b. The ten standard fields in Apostilles pursuant to the Hague Convention. The Israeli apostille in this case was intended to legalize/certify an Israeli marriage registration record, in order to make it internationally admissible. As seen in Katzav v State of Israel and in Zernik v State of Israel the Supreme Court of the State of Israel refused to certify its own decision, while court records are public records pursuant to the Hague Convention and also pursuant to the law in Israel. (The Israeli Apostille from the Hebrew Wikipedia)
40

Table of Contents
A reasonable person would conclude that the Appeal was conducted by the Supreme Court as simulated litigation. 9. Validity and Reliability of the Records in Zernik v State of Israel adfa 10. Public Access to Court Records in the State of Israel The requests to access court records, detailed in this study, were granted, with notable exceptions: Only partial access was granted to the certificates of delivery in the case management system under Katzav v State of Israel; Access to inspect the Sealing Order in Katzav v State of Israel was denied; Access to inspect the electronic records in the case management system under Zernik v State of Israel was denied. Such conduct amounts to the establishment of triple books: The online public access system, where all judicial records appear unsigned and unauthenticated and access is almost universally permitted; The paper court files, where the judicial records appear signed, but unauthenticated and access is limited, and The case management system of the Supreme Court, where the definitive authentication records are maintained and public access is denied. The issue of public access to court records was reviewed by the Supreme Court itself from 1997 to 2009 under Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice et al (5917/97). The Association objected to the Regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Justice, as unreasonable restriction of public access to the records. The case languished for over a decade, since during that period new regulations were promulgated, new electronic systems were implemented in the courts, and several Ministers of Justice with divergent views on the matter held office during the same period. The October 8, 2009 Judgment in Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice et al, written by Chief Justice Dorit Beinish, in part says: [ lxiii , lxiv ]
The matter before us pertains to the constitutionality of Regulation 4 of the Regulations of the Courts. The case management system, implemented these days in all the courts in Israel, technologically enables public access to all the records in cases before the courts. The systems enhance individuals access to court records, but raises complex issues, pertaining to the rights and interests of the parties in the courts proceedings, first and foremost among them, the constitutional right for privacy. It is possible that this situation requires reconsideration of the appropriate arrangements for inspections of court files. This matter was not before the Court in the instant case, and therefore, should not be reviewed by the Court at this point. With it, we should note that the time has come for reconsideration of the Regulations pertaining to inspection of court files, not only for the reasons raised in the case before us, but also on the background of this new reality.
Therefore, the Judgment justifies restricting public access to court records, as protecting the constitutional right for privacy. However, it should be noted that the denial of public access to court records in the Supreme Court in this study had nothing to do with protecting the privacy of the parties. Instead, public access was denied to records that
41
could have resolved the vague and ambiguous nature of the judicial records that were published online by the Supreme Court. In elaborating on the correct balance between public access to judicial records and the right for privacy, the Judgment Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice et al further says:
The right of inspection by parties to a case is stipulated in Regulation 3. The scope of access by parties to a case is the most expansive. Party to a case is not required to file a Request to Inspect, instead, it is sufficient that he file a Notice of Inspection, unless the inspection is prohibited by law. Therefore, the Regulations state: The Right of Inspection by Parties to a Case 3. Party to a case, is permitted to inspect the court file, to which he is a party, after completing a notice of inspection following Form 1 in the Appendix (hereinafter Notice of Inspection), unless he is prohibited from inspecting the court file by law.
Regardless, the Appellant in Zernik v State of Israel was and is denied to access to the authentication records in the case management system in his own case: 1. When he filed a Request to inspect the records no decision was provided on the Request, and 2. When he tried to file a Notice of Inspection - the Court refused to accept the Notice. Such conduct in the administration of the Supreme Court is contrary to the basic principle of Fair Hearings and in its essence appears conducive to shell game fraud. 11. Sealing of Court Records in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel The initial Request filed by the author, to inspect the Sealing Order under Katzav v State of Israel, was indeed unclear, as stated in the Supreme Courts September 5, 2011 Decision (quoted above), which was served signed. [ lxv ] (Figure 2) The repeat Request filed by the author, properly defined the term Sealing Order. However, the repeat Request was again denied in the September 21, 2011 Decision, which was served unsigned. The lists of records and the decisions of the Supreme Court in same court file were not sealed in previous months, and were widely published by media. The November 10, 2011 Judgment under Katzav v State of Israel, which denied the Appeal, was not sealed, either. Moreover, the appeal was conducted in open doors. A reasonable explanation for the situation as a whole, is that in the absence of legal framework for the operation of the online public access system of the Supreme Court, the sealing of the lists of records and the decisions in Katzav v State of Israel in the online public access system in early August 2011 was arbitrary, with no judicial record as its basis. 12. Denial of the Requests, Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988) a) Requests for the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel, as served The Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice jointly denied access to the May 18, 2011 Decision under Katzav v State of Israel, as served (if served at all) on the State Prosecution. The legal basis for the denial remains dubious, and validity of the Supreme
42
Courts September 12, 2011 Decision, denying the Request, which was served unsigned, remains dubious as well. A reasonable person would conclude that most likely the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court jointly covered up evidence of the invalidity of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel, and abused their authority in this matter. b) Requests for instruction material for the Supreme Courts electronic record systems
The November 30, 2011 response by the Courts Authority, denied that written procedures existed for the operation of the systems.
c) Requests for signed copies of the Guidelines (2010) and Ethics Rules (2007) These two key records were published on the online site of the Supreme Court unsigned and/or undated. No responses on these Freedom of Information requests have been received so far. 13. Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010) The Guideline were published on the Courts Authority website under the name of Chief Justice Dorit Beinish, unsigned, and the staff of the Office of the Clerk stated that no signed copy of the record existed. Moreover, senior Israeli legal authorities hold the opinion that the Chief Justice overstepped her authority by publishing the Guidelines, since no guidelines of the courts are defined in the law in Israel, and the courts in Israel are not permitted to promulgate any regulations. Conditions, where unofficial records are published by the courts with no legal authority and in a manner that appears to the public as valid and authoritative, is unreasonable. 14. Instruction Material for the Electronic Record Systems It is almost certain that instruction material or users manuals for the staff of the Supreme Court in some form have been created in the process of implementing the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court. Public access to such material is essential in order to enable the public to discern the validity of various judicial records, that are published online by the Supreme Court. The response by the Courts Authority, which denied the existence of such material, implies that critical functions and transactions, which today are all executed in the electronic record systems, are conducted with no written procedures: Valid opening of a Supreme Court electronic file; Simulated opening of a Supreme Court electronic file; Valid judicial assignment; Valid registration of papers, which were duly received for filing by the Supreme Court; Simulated registration of papers, which were duly received for filing by the Supreme Court; Valid listing of "Certificates of Delivery" in the online public access system, when valid service and delivery were executed; Simulated listing of "Certificates of Delivery" in the online public access system, when no valid service and delivery were executed; 43

Table of Contents
"Sealing" of certain electronic files in the online public access system; Denial of public access to the data in the case management system.
The response further implies that there are no written procedures in the Supreme Court, regarding the identifies and authorities of the individuals, who are permitted to make certain determinations and enter the corresponding data into the electronic record systems. 15. Refusal to certify decisions of the Court In response to the Request, duly filed with the Court in Katzav v State of Israel, for a certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision, the Supreme Court provided a letter, denying the request, on the grounds that the case was sealed, and further claiming that the Supreme Court cannot provide certified decisions to a person, who is not a party to the case. As detailed in the November 22, 2011 Repeat Request for a certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision, the response by the May 18, 2011 Letter was invalid on its face. Additionally, the Request for a certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment in Zernik v State of Israel, was not addressed at all. None of the purported restrictions on providing a certified copy of a Supreme Courts May 18, 2011 Decision under Katzav v State of Israel, which were listed in the November 14, 2011 Letter, quoted above, applied to the September 7, 2011 Judgment in Zernik v State of Israel: The case was not sealed, and The Requester was the Appellant, a party in the case. Moreover, as documented in the November 24, 2011 Letter to the Office of the Clerk (quoted above), the Supreme Court refused to adequately list the November 2, and November 22, 2011 Requests for a certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment. Refusal of any court to certify its own decisions should be considered particularly alarming. Upon review of the matter as a whole, a reasonable person would conclude that the November 14, 2011 Letter, refusing to provide a certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel and the refusal to adequately register and answer on the November 2, and November 22, 2011 Requests for a certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment in Zernik v State of Israel, were part of ongoing efforts to cover up the irregularities or misconduct in the Supreme Court relative to the issuance and service of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel. 16. Refusal to Rule on Matters Before the Court The most notable examples of refusal to rules on matters before the Supreme Court in this study concerned: The initial request for a certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel, pertaining to the postponement of the execution of the prison sentence of Katzav, and The two Requests for a certified copy of the September 7, 2001 Judgment in Zernik v State of Israel, pertaining to refusal of the Magistrate to provide a
44
This conduct appears to contradict the letter and the spirit of the Rules of Ethics of Judges of the State of Israel (2007). [ lxvi ] Rule 12(c) says:
(c) Notwithstanding his duty to treat evenly the parties before him, a judge shall do his best to explain to unrepresented parties the nature and procedures of the legal process, as possible under the circumstances, and within the limits of his duties and the law.
In filing the requests for certified copies as requests, per se, for judicial decisions, following explicit instructions by the staff of the Office of the Clerk. Regardless, to the degree that such requests were misplaced or in error, it should have been expected that he would have received some notice to that effect, given his status as an unrepresented party. Rule Rule 14(a) says:
(a) Pursuant to the law and to instant Rules, a judge shall rule on any matter assigned to him.
The justices of the Supreme Court appeared to violate Rule 14(a) in refusing to rule on the requests for certified copies of the Supreme Courts decisions. 17. Overall conduct of Katzav v State of Israel, Zernik v State of Israel, and Zernik v Office of the Clerk. Review of the evidence as a whole, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that: The May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel was a simulated decision; The entire Appeal in Zernik v State of Israel was conducted as simulated litigation to cover up that fact; The Challenge under Zernik v Office of the Clerk was set up as a simulated litigation, although it is not clear if a decision would be ever issued under this caption; At least four (4) Justices and the Magistrate of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel were involved in the conduct documented in this study, as well as a number of members of the staff of the Office of the Clerk, in concert. A key part of this conduct was the repeated referral of the author to the invalid, unsigned records published online by the Supreme Court, as a substitute for access to valid and effectual court records, and denial of access to authentication records, maintained in the case management system of the Supreme Court. 18. Overall Validity and Reliability of the Electronic Systems of the Supreme Court The major defects in the electronic systems of the Supreme Court documented in this study are: Denial of public access to the Certificates of Delivery the authentication records of the Supreme Courts decisions; The publication of unsigned and unauthenticated judicial records subject to editing and phrasing changes in the online public access system; Receipt of records by the Office of the Clerk, which were stamped and signed Received/Inspected, but later failed to appear in either the lists of Requests, or the list of records Rejected from Registration, and
45

Table of Contents
Denial of public access to instruction material regarding the design and operation of the electronic systems of the Supreme Court.
Combined, these systems should be deemed invalid, unreliable, and non-transparent, in a manner that undermines the Human Rights of the People in Israel. 19. Similar Findings in a Case in the Detainees Court In early 2011 Haaretz daily published a report regarding a case in the Detainees Court, titled, Court issues ruling from nonexistent hearing. [ lxvii ] The response by the spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice, as quoted in the report, explained that the anomaly had been caused through a clerical error in feeding court decisions into the electronic record system. Furthermore, the spokesperson described the report regarding this anomaly in the Detainees Court as a tempest in a teapot. In view of the findings of this study, a reasonable person is likely to find the explanation by the Ministry of Justice dubious at best. 20. The Legal Framework for Implementation and Operation of the Electronic Systems The implementation of any electronic record system in the courts affects a sea change in court procedures. Therefore, it should be recognized that the implementation of such systems is equivalent to the promulgation of new regulations of the courts, regardless that in this case the regulations may be written in computer language, rather in human language. This reality is alluded to by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court both in the Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010) and in the Judgment (2009) in Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice et al. The computer systems of the courts in Israel, including the systems of the Supreme Court, were independently implemented by the Courts Authority. However, the courts in Israel are not permitted by law to promulgate any regulations. Moreover, the new regulations, inherent in such systems, have never been published. In that regard it should be noted the United Nations report on Strengthening Judicial Integrity promote the implementation of electronic record systems in the courts, as a means of enhancing the reliability and transparency of court records and the judicial process. [ lxviii , lxix ] The findings in this study of the Supreme Court of Israel, and studies of the US District Courts documented that electronic systems can also have the opposite effects. There is no doubt that electronic systems could have enhanced the integrity and transparency of the courts, but only when such systems are implemented under the authority prescribed by law for the promulgation of regulations for the courts. 21. The Legal Framework for the Operation of the Office of the Clerk The electronic record systems of the courts affect directly the operation of the Office of the Clerk and procedures for the maintenance of court records. Practically all functions, which were found deficient, reside traditionally in the Office of the Clerk: Safeguard of the integrity of court records; Safeguard of public access to court records; Execution of service and entry of judicial records;
46
Certification of judicial records; Inspection of signatures on all records filed in court.
Additional traditional functions of the Office of the Clerk, which were not reviewed here, but are likely to be found deficient in the Supreme Court include: Assignment of the Justices to the cases; Inspection of credentials and powers of attorneys, as counsel for the parties, and Designation of parties. It should be noted that in other courts that evolved from the English common law, the duties and responsibilities of the Office of the Clerk are more clearly defined by law. [ lxx ] Accordingly, in other jurisdictions, the Clerk of the Court is under Oath of Office, and authorized to appoint Deputy Clerks, who assist in conducting the business of the court, under Oaths of Office as well, and under the authority of the Clerk of the Court. In Israel, none of the staff of the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court conducts the business of the Court under an oath of office. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude, that the deficiencies apparent in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, reflected inherent incoherence in the definition of the Clerk of the Court and the Office of the Clerk. This incoherence had to be addressed, one way or another, in implementing the electronic record systems. This report shows that the electronic record systems were specified in a way that would reflect this incoherence. However, once implemented, it highlights these deficiencies in the system, by effectively promulgating them explicitly. 22. Responses, or Lack Thereof, by State Authorities Notices, pertaining to the defects in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, detailed in this study, were forwarded to the State Ombudsman, the Attorney General, members of the legislature, and the Israeli Bar Association, with requests for initiation of corrective actions. [ lxxiii , lxxii , lxxi ,lxxiv , lxxv ] None of these state authorities has responded on the matter so far. In Audit 60b (2010), the Israeli State Ombudsman reviewed various electronic record systems, implemented in recent years by the Ministry of Justice and the Courts Authority. [ lxxvi ] The report focused on the process of developing and implementing such systems, and severely criticized the Courts Authority relative to its conduct in implementing Net Ha-Mishpat the electronic record systems of the district courts. [ lxxvii , lxxviii lxxix ,] In most cases, however, the State Ombudsman did not examine the validity of the systems themselves, but in one case, the State Ombudsman concluded that an electronic system for the collection of fines by the Ministry of Justice amounted to fraud. 23. Similar Systems in the United States Undermine the Integrity of the Courts Reviews of the electronic records systems of the US courts, which were implemented a decade or two prior to the corresponding systems in the Israeli courts, revealed similar defects to those described above: failure to define valid digital signatures and authentication records, removal of the authentication records from public access, and conduct of simulated service of judicial records. [ lxxx , lxxxi ]
47
The National Law Journal and ProPublica also published reports documenting the apparent adulteration of the electronic record of a court decision in the US District Court in Washington DC, in the habeas corpus petition of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. [ lxxxii ] Opinion letter of a world-renowned computer science expert supports the claim of largescale fraud in similar systems in the State of California courts. [ lxxxiii ] However, the situation in the United States should be considered very different from the situation in Israel. In the United States, the duties and responsibilities of the Clerk of the Court were rather well-defined prior to the implementation of the electronic record systems. The electronic record systems, which were implemented in the US District Courts (PACER and CM/ECF), effectively and deliberately undermined the integrity of the Office of the Clerk. In Israel the situation should be seen more as negligence in adequately addressing the inherent deficiencies in the definition of the Office of the Clerk in the process of specifying the electronic systems.
48

Table of Contents
V.
Corrective Measures
The defects in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, shown here, are not inherent to electronic record systems. On the contrary, such system could have enhanced the integrity and transparency of the courts. There is also no doubt that some of the worlds best computer science experts are readily available in Israel, and could assist in review of these systems: 1) Publicly recognized, legally valid, and transparent digital signatures and digital authentication records should be established by law. [ lxxxiv ] 2) The specifications and rules of operation of such system should be established by law or regulations. The specifications and rules of operations should also be published. Furthermore, prior to implementation of such systems, they should be subjected to a formal, legally accountable process of validation, to ascertain that they comply with the specifications and rules of operation established by law. [ lxxxv ] 3) Public access to judicial records should be restored, including the certificates of delivery. 4) The law, pertaining to service and maintenance of authentication records, as well as registration of records that were duly file, must be enforced on the Supreme Court and the staff of the Office of the Clerk. 5) The public at large, and in particular computer science/informatics experts, must continuously monitor the integrity of the courts and validity of its electronic record systems. [ lxxxvi ] The right of public access to judicial records originated in the English common law. In adapting this right as part of the rights guaranteed in the Amendments to the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court concluded that such right was essential, in order to enable the public to keep a watchful eye on government. [ lxxxvii ] The 2009 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel in Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice et al (in parts not cited above), effectively adopted these principles as part of the law in Israel. In particular, it should be noted that the main reason, provided by the courts for denial of access to judicial records protection of the privacy of the litigants in fact is irrelevant. Computing/informatics methods are available today, which can establish the validity of the systems, or lack thereof, based on analysis of encrypted data, in a manner that does not compromise privacy (zero knowledge proof). [ lxxxviii ] There is no substitute for vigilance of the public at large in keeping a watchful eye on the courts, and computer science/informatics experts today hold a unique civic duty in the safeguard of integrity of the courts, Human Rights, and civil society in the digital era.
49

Table of Contents
VI.
Conclusions
Implementation of electronic record systems in the courts amounted to a historic transition in management of the justice system, both in Israel an in other nations. However, in managing this transition, major defects were introduced, as documented in the current study: 1) Validity of the May 18, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel, pertaining to the postponement of the execution of the prison sentence, remains dubious at best. Regardless of multiple efforts, the highest court of the land refused to provide a clear answer, or permit access to public records that would confirm the validity, or invalidity of the decision. 2) The Appeal in Zernik v State of Israel, subject of which was integrity of the Courts records, was most likely conducted as simulated litigation from start to end. 3) The electronic record systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel were designed in a manner that deliberately rendered the records vague and ambiguous. 4) The most blatant violation of Human Rights seen in these systems is the establishment of double or triple record systems in the Court. The public and even parties to the litigation, are permitted access only to the vague records in the online public access system, while the Court maintains entirely different set of records for the same court files, secretly. Corrective measures were proposed, but such measures cannot substitute for ongoing vigilance of the public at large, and computer science/informatics experts in particular, in safeguarding the integrity of the courts, Human Rights, and civil society in the digital era.
50

Table of Contents
References and Endnotes

Simulated Litigation here refers to cases, where the evidence shows conduct of the courts, defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows: Texas Penal Code 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to: (1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or (2) cause another to: (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or (B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document. (b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered. ii 84-00-00 Takanot Batei Ha-mishpat, Seder Ha-Din Ha-Ezrahi (1984) // Regulations of the Courts in Israel - Civil Procedure (1984) (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/70725765/ iii 04-11-25 Takanot Batey Hamishpat - Mazkirut (2004) // Regulations of the Courts in Israel Offices of the Clerks (2004) (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/48770720/ iv 03-01-16 Takanot Batey Ha-Mishpat - Iyun Ba-Tikim (2003) // Regulations of the Courts in Israel - Inspection of Court Records (2003) (Heb +Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/48770482/ v 11-07-04 Joseph Zernik, PhD, Biographical Sketch (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/46421113/ vi 11-05-09, 11-05-18 Katzav v State of Israel (3372-11) Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel (Heb +Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/60122610/ vii 11-08-29 Katzav v State of Israel - Request for Access to Sealing Order and List of Record (Docket) (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63536414/ viii 11-09-05 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel Decision Denying Request to Inspect the Sealing Order (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/70762030/ ix 11-09-19 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel Clarification in Response to Decision of Sept 5, 2011, in re: Sealing Order as filed (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/65635643/ x 11-09-21 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) Decision Again Denying Access to the Sealing Order (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73230563/ xi 11-08-14 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) in the Supreme Court: Requests for Decisions/Clarifications in re: Due Process Procedures (Heb only) http://www.scribd.com/doc/62291393/ xii 11-08-14 Katzav v State of Israel (3372-11) in the Supreme Court - Magistrate Shani's Decision on Zernik's August 14, 2011 Request for Clarification in re: validity of the May 18, 2011 Decision, postponing the execution of the prison sentence of Katzav (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73229600/ xiii 11-11-02 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) Request for a signed and certified copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/71331094/ xiv 11-11-14 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) - Letter from the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, denying request for certification of the May 18, 2011 Decision, postponing the execution of the prison sentence (Heb + Eng)
i
51
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73228671/ 11-11-22 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) - Repeat Request for a copy of the May 18, 2011 Decision, Signed by the Justice and Certified by the Office of the Clerk, and for Service of a Signed Decision on Instant Request (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73464340/ xvi 11-11-22 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) - Request for a Copy of the September 21, 2011 Decision in Instant Case, Signed by the Justices and Certified by the Office of the Clerk, and for Due Service of a Signed Decision on Instant Request (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73466693/ xvii 11-10-09 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - Records downloaded from the online public access system on October 9, 2011 1 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Index of All Cases Query (Heb + Eng) 2 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) General Details (Heb + Eng) 3 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Parties (Heb + Eng) 4 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Related Cases (Heb + Eng) 5 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Lower Court Cases (Heb + Eng) 6 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Proceedings (Heb + Eng) 7 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Events (Heb + Eng) 8 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Certificates of Service (Heb + Eng) 9 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Requests (Heb + Eng) 10 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Decisions (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/68119852/ xviii 11-08-21 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Appeal of Clerk's Decision in re: Request for Clarification regarding Validity of Papers in Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) and Request for Waiver of Fees s (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/62755010/ xix 11-08-29 Zernik v State of Israel (6041-11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel public access to valid List of Cases s (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63494018/ xx 11-08-30 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - Appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel purged court file reappears, but its validity remains dubious (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63600174/ xxi 11-09-01 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request for Correction of Listing of Events (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63741373/ xxii 11-08-31 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Supreme Court of the State of Israel Request for honest docketing (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63661507/ xxiii 11-09-01 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request for Correction of Listing of Events (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63741373/ xxiv 11-09-05 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - Request for Access to case management system records and user's manuals (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63999716/ xxv 11-11-02 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in RE: Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel November 2, 2011 attempt to access electronic court file records by filing of Notice of Inspection, pursuant to the Regulations of the Court (Inspection), Regulation 3, and denial of access (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/71313705/ xxvi 11-09-07 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - September 7, 2011 Judgment by Justice S Jubran, as served (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/65637322/ xxvii 11-11-24 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - screens prints from the online public access system of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel http://www.scribd.com/doc/73780650/
xv
52
11-09-20 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - Request for Clarification by the Office of the Clerk re: Failure of the September 7, 2011 Judgment to appear in the Calendar of the Court (Heb only) http://www.scribd.com/doc/66171229/ xxix 11-09-20 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - Request for Clarification re Validity of the September 7, 2011 Judgment (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/65674320/ xxx 11-11-02 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in RE: Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) November 2, 2011 attempt to access electronic court file records by filing of Notice of Inspection, pursuant to the Regulations of the Court (Inspection), Regulation 3, and denial of access (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/71313705/ xxxi 11-11-02 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request for a signed and certified copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/71329799/ xxxii 11-11-22 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Repeat Request for a Signed and Certified Copy of the September 7, 2011 Judgment (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73460055/ xxxiii 11-11-24 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Repeat request, forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Israel, for correction of the listing, or lack thereof, of papers, filed in the Appeal (Engl + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73669590/ xxxiv 11-11-27 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request Addressed to the Chief Justice for Initial Review by an Expanded Panel - denied filing (English + Hebrew) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73907482/ xxxv 11-11-29 Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) Commencing Paper in Challenge to Refusal of the Office of the Clerk to Accept the Filing of a Paper under Zernik v State of Israel (6401/11) (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/74143154/ xxxvi 11-11-30 Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) The Supreme Court of the State of Israel again created a shell case with no records (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/74289966/ xxxvii 11-11-30 Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) Letter to the Office of the Clerk in Re: Failure to register the commencing paper in the online public access system http://www.scribd.com/doc/74291344/ xxxviii 11-12-04 Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) Records downloaded from the Supreme Courts online public access system (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/74670646/ xxxix 11-07-11 Freedom of Information Request filed on Israeli Ministry of Justice in re: Supreme Court of Israel Decisions in Katzav v State of Israel (3372-11) (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/59811516/ xl 11-08-14 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) Response by the Freedom of Information office of the Ministry of Justice, denying request for the May 18, 20011 Order, as served on the State Prosecution (if served at all) (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/70758202/ xli 11-09-11 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) Request for the Supreme Court to Permit Access to the May 18, 2011 Order as Served on the State Prosecution (if served at all) (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/64659571/ xlii 11-09-12 Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) Decision Denying Access per Freedom of Information Act to the May 18, 2011 Decision, As Served (if Served) on the State Prosecution (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73230839/ xliii 11-09-05 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - Request for Access to case management system records and user's manuals (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63999716/
xxviii
53
11-11-24 Correspondence with the Ministry of Justice of the State of Israel, in re: Electronic Record Systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel http://www.scribd.com/doc/73693415/ xlv 11-12-05 Freedom of Information Response by Ministry of Justice, in re: Users Manuals and other instruction materials for the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/74800883/ xlvi 11-11-14 Request per Freedom of Information Act for Instruction Material or User's Manuals for Supreme Court, as filed on the Israeli Courts Authority (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/72951950/ xlvii 11-11-30 Freedom of Information Response, No P-84-2011, by the Courts Authority, in re: Request for Instruction Materials for the Electronic Record Systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/75482773/ xlviii 10-01-11 Dorit Beinish: Hanchayot Beit Ha-Mishpat Ha-Elyon // Dorit Beinish: Guidelines of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/48768761/ xlix 11-11-27 Request for a signed copy of the Guidelines of the Supreme Court (2010) by Chief Justice Dorit Beinish, filed with the Freedom of Information office of the Courts Authority (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73790160/ l 11-11-27 Request for a signed copy of the Ethics Rules for Judges (2007) by Chief Justice Dorit Beinish, filed with the Freedom of Information office of the Courts Authority http://www.scribd.com/doc/73789956/ li 11-07-15 Former President Moshe Katzav compilation of media reports (Heb +Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/60121427/ lii Hok Seder Ha-Din Ha-Plili (1982) // Criminal Court Procedure Act (1982) (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73286878/ liii Takanot Batei Ha-Mishpat, Seder Ha-Din Ha-Ezrahi (1984) // Regulations of Civil Procedure (1984), Chapter 32, Service of Court Records (475 et seq) (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/70725765/ liv 11-11-02 Declaration of Joseph Zernik in RE: Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) November 2, 2011 attempt to access electronic court file records by filing of Notice of Inspection, pursuant to the Regulations of the Court (Inspection), Regulation 3, and denial of access to the records (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/71313705/ lv 03-07-02 Bar Association v Minister of Religious Affairs et al (6112/02) - the High Court of Justice Mandates the Use of Certified Mail with Certificates of Delivery in Service by the Rabbinical Courts http://www.scribd.com/doc/74707916/ lvi AUTHENTICATION - An attestation made by a proper officer, by which he certifies that a record is in due form of law, and that the person who certifies it is the officer appointed by law to do so. By authentication is also understood whatever act is done either by the party or some other person with a view of causing an instrument to be known and identified as for example, the acknowledgment of a deed by the grantor; the attesting a deed by witnesses. lvii 11-11-03 Apostilles Pursuant to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961) (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/71465468/ lviii United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center, Report of the First Vienna Convention - Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6 (2000), pp 5-6 (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/50364404/ lix United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center, Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption CICP-10 (2001), pp 5-6 (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/48103697/ lx FRAUD: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain, or loss to the victim.
xliv
54
STATUTE OF FRAUDS: A law found in many jurisdictions, originating from the 17th century English law, requiring that certain kinds of documents must be in writing to be enforceable. lxi See [i], above. lxii 11-01-07 Log Cabin Republicans v USA et al (10-56634) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Motion to Intervene and Concomitantly Filed Papers as published in the online PACER dockets (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/46516034/ lxiii 09-10-08 Israeli Civil Rights Association v Minister of Justice et al ( 5917/97) Chief Justice Dorit Beinish: The new case management system (Net Ha-Mishpat) would require restricting public access to court records _ Globes (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/50621508/ lxiv It should be noted, that although the Judgment refers to constitutionality and constitutional right, there is no constitution for the State of Israel. lxv The error in referring to the document as Sealing Order originated in literal translation from English to Hebrew. lxvi 07-00-00 Klaley Etika La-Shoftim (2007) // Rules of Ethics of the Judges of the State of Israel (2007) (Eng + Heb) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73602507/ lxvii 11-02-08 Dana Weiler: Court issues ruling, with quotes, from nonexistent hearing _ Haaretz (Heb + Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/48769638/ lxviii United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2000), Report of the First Vienna Convention - Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6, pp 5-6 (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/50364404/ lxix United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center (2001), Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption CICP-10, pp 5-6 (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/48103697/ lxx Judiciary Act of 1789 - An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/42306274/ lxxi 11-08-22 Dr Zerniks notice to State Ombudsman Lindenstrauss in re: Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) in the Supreme Court Appeal of Clerk of the Supreme Court August 14, 2011 Decision in Moshe Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/62789310/ lxxii 11-09-06 Letter to Ombudsman of IL RE: Validity of the Electronic Record Systems of the Courts of the State of Israel (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/64028740/ lxxiii 11-08-22 Dr Zerniks notice to State Ombudsman Lindenstrauss in re: Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) - Appeal of Clerk of the Supreme Court August 14, 2011 Decision in Katzav v State of Israel (3372/11) (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/62789310/ lxxiv 11-08-30 Zernik v State of Israel (6041/11) Request to comments by President of the Israeli Bar Association regarding validity of the List of All Cases of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/63562473/ lxxv 11-11-20 Request for Review by the Knesset's Legal Counsel in Re: Simulated Records in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in Cases Related to Former President Moshe Katzav (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/73245373/ lxxvi 10-00-00 State of Israel - Ombudsman's Report 60b (2010), Ministry of Justice Computerization, p 693 et Seq (Heb only) http://www.scribd.com/doc/50624862/ lxxvii 10-05-11 Net Ha-Mishpat: State Ombudsman - Computerization of the Courts Fraught With Problems _ Globes (Heb only) http://www.scribd.com/doc/50622088/ lxxviii 10-10-19 Net Ha-Mishpat - State Ombudsman - A Project With No Bidding and No Supervision_ The Marker (Heb only)
55
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50623978/ 10-10-19 Net Ha-Mishpat - State Ombudsman - A Project With No Bidding and No Supervision_ The Marker (Heb only) http://www.scribd.com/doc/50623978/ lxxx 10-08-18 Zernik, J: Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/ lxxxi 11-08-01 Zernik, J: Fraud and corruption in the US courts is tightly linked to failing banking regulation and the financial crisis, 16th World Criminology Congress presentation (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/61351562/ lxxxii See [xlvi], above. lxxxiii 09-04-20 Prof Eliyahu Shamir's Opinion Letter re: Sustain - the Case Management System of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Eng) http://www.scribd.com/doc/46069337/ lxxxiv For general introductory review of Digital Signatures, see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signatures lxxxv The validation process of electronic systems is often referred to as functional logic verification. lxxxvi For general introductory review of Validation and Verification of electronic systems, see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_and_Validation_(software) lxxxvii In Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc, 435 US 589 (1978), the US Supreme Court decided that the right to access judicial records was inherent to the First, Sixth, and Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. lxxxviii For general introductory review of Zero Knowledge Proofs, see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
lxxix
56

11-12-19 Simulated Records, Simulated Litigation Enabled by The Electronic Record Systems of The Supreme Court of The State of Israel (English) S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11-12-19 Simulated Records, Simulated Litigation Enabled by The Electronic Record Systems of The Supreme Court of The State of Israel (English) S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Lists of Figures and Tables

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Systems and Methods

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Brief History of the Cases, as Related to This Study

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

The September 5, 2011 Decision in part stated:

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

The Clerks August 14, 2011 Decision said in part:

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Design and Operation of the Electronic Systems, as Seen in this Study

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Regulation 476A(b) says:

Regarding service by facsimile, Regulation 497A. says:

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Certification of judicial records; Inspection of signatures on all records filed in court.

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

References and Endnotes

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel

Simulated records, litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of Israel