Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-12-18 Human Right Alert, Appendix VI to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Integrity, or Lack Thereof, in the Electronic Records of the Courts of the State of Israel – CYBERLAW 2013 paper - peer-reviewed and accepted"

12-12-18 Human Right Alert, Appendix VI to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Integrity, or Lack Thereof, in the Electronic Records of the Courts of the State of Israel – CYBERLAW 2013 paper - peer-reviewed and accepted"

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4 |Likes:
The attached paper is based on the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UN HRC UPR. It details large-scale fraud in the Israeli courts electronic record systems.
Appendix VI shows that the serious claims, raised in the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission, were peer reviewed by legal experts and found valid. Similarly, the core claims of the Human Rights Alert submission had been previously subjected to anonymous peer-review in computing/informatics experts, and found valid and worthy as well. (Appendix III).
After acceptance through anonymous peer-review in CYBERLAW 2013, the attached paper was "rejected" through a dubious process by a self-identified "volunteer" and "logistics" of the organizers - IARIA – International Academy, Research, and Industry Association. However, in their actions, the "volunteer" and "logistics" never challenged the validity and soundness of the study and its conclusions. [1] Most recently, the author was informed by IARIA, "a committee is organized to revisit the articles".
With it, CYBERLAW was the first peer-reviewed, scholarly legal journal that agreed to review such papers in the first place. Prior to that, Harvard, Yale, Berkeley scholarly journals in the fields of Human Rights, or Law and Technology, refused to accept and process similar papers for anonymous peer-review at all. [2] Similarly, so far, no legal expert has agreed to opine on similar matters on the record.
The attached paper is shown in the exact form, in which it was submitted for peer-review, prior to final proof reading and corrections, pursuant to comments of peer-reviewers.
LINKS:
[1] 12-12-15 Correspondence with IARIA CYBRALAW 2013 re acceptance of paper documenting large-scale fraud in the electronic records of the Israeli courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/117211478/
[2] 10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37077401/
The attached paper is based on the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UN HRC UPR. It details large-scale fraud in the Israeli courts electronic record systems.
Appendix VI shows that the serious claims, raised in the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission, were peer reviewed by legal experts and found valid. Similarly, the core claims of the Human Rights Alert submission had been previously subjected to anonymous peer-review in computing/informatics experts, and found valid and worthy as well. (Appendix III).
After acceptance through anonymous peer-review in CYBERLAW 2013, the attached paper was "rejected" through a dubious process by a self-identified "volunteer" and "logistics" of the organizers - IARIA – International Academy, Research, and Industry Association. However, in their actions, the "volunteer" and "logistics" never challenged the validity and soundness of the study and its conclusions. [1] Most recently, the author was informed by IARIA, "a committee is organized to revisit the articles".
With it, CYBERLAW was the first peer-reviewed, scholarly legal journal that agreed to review such papers in the first place. Prior to that, Harvard, Yale, Berkeley scholarly journals in the fields of Human Rights, or Law and Technology, refused to accept and process similar papers for anonymous peer-review at all. [2] Similarly, so far, no legal expert has agreed to opine on similar matters on the record.
The attached paper is shown in the exact form, in which it was submitted for peer-review, prior to final proof reading and corrections, pursuant to comments of peer-reviewers.
LINKS:
[1] 12-12-15 Correspondence with IARIA CYBRALAW 2013 re acceptance of paper documenting large-scale fraud in the electronic records of the Israeli courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/117211478/
[2] 10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37077401/

More info:

Published by: SELA - Human Rights Alert - Israel on Dec 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/18/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Human Right Alert's 2013 State of Israel UPR, 15th UPR Working Group Session (Jan-Feb 2013).
Appendix VI
:
Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Records of the Courts of the State of Israel
– CYBERLAW 2013paper - peer-reviewed and accepted
 
"
1/1 
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Joseph Zernik, PhD
 
"
 
PO Box 31440, Jerusalem 91313
 
91313
 
"3144
 
 josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org
 
Human Right Alert's
Appendix VI to Submission
; 15th UPR Working Group Session (Jan-Feb 2013):State of Israel
Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic record systems in the courts of theState of Israel
~A court, which refuses to certify its own records, is certified corrupt~-----
12-12-18
Appendix VI -
 
Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Records of the Courts ofthe State of Israel – CYBERLAW 2013 paper - peer-reviewed and accepted
 
The attached paper is based on the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the UNHRC UPR. It details large-scale fraud in the Israeli courts electronic record systems. Appendix VI shows that the serious claims, raised in the Human Rights Alert (NGO)submission, were peer reviewed by legal experts and found valid. Similarly, the coreclaims of the Human Rights Alert submission had been previously subjected toanonymous peer-review in computing/informatics experts, and found valid and worthy as well. (Appendix III). After acceptance through anonymous peer-review in CYBERLAW 2013, the attachedpaper was "rejected" through a dubious process by a self-identified "volunteer" and"logistics" of the organizers - IARIA – International Academy, Research, and Industry  Association. However, in their actions, the "volunteer" and "logistics" never challengedthe validity and soundness of the study and its conclusions.
[1]
Most recently, theauthor was informed by IARIA, "a committee is organized to revisit the articles". With it, CYBERLAW was the first peer-reviewed, scholarly legal journal that agreed toreview such papers in the first place. Prior to that, Harvard, Yale, Berkeley scholarly  journals in the fields of Human Rights, or Law and Technology, refused to accept andprocess similar papers for anonymous peer-review at all.
[2]
Similarly, so far, no legalexpert has agreed to opine on similar matters on the record.The attached paper is shown in the exact form, in which it was submitted for peer-review, prior to final proof reading and corrections, pursuant to comments of peer-reviewers.
 
LINKS:
[1]
12-12-15 Correspondence with IARIA CYBRALAW 2013 re acceptance of paper documenting large-scale fraud in the electronic records of the Israeli courtshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/117211478/  
[2]
10-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the USJustice Systemhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/37077401/  
 
Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Records of the Courts of the State of Israel
False authentication, certification and undermined integrity of the offices of the clerks are inherent to thedesign and operation of the current electronic record systems of the courts.
 
Joseph Zernik 
Human Rights Alert (NGO)Jerusaleme-mail: josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org
 Abstract
— Recent Data Mining, Data Analytics, andWorld Criminology Congress peer-reviewed papers,detailed lack of integrity in the design and operation of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel. The current report focuses on analysis of falseauthentication and certification procedures, nowprevailing in the courts of the State of Israel, and themanner in which implementation of the currentelectronic record systems undermined the authority andintegrity of the Offices of the Clerks. Records fromseveral cases are presented to document the outcome of such practices in the administration of justice. It isproposed that such conditions in the courts are keyviolations of Human Rights of the People of the State of Israel and should be deemed an unannounced regimechange. Moreover, is it proposed that in civilizedsocieties, which practice separation of the branches of government, and where no court is permitted to enact therules of operation of the courts, no court should bepermitted to institute its own electronic record systemeither.
 Keywords-Information Systems;e-government; court; State o Israel; e-Fraud; e-Law; fr formatting; style; styling; insert (keywords)
I.
 
I
NTRODUCTION
 The courts worldwide, including Israel, have beenimplementing in recent decades electronic record systems forefficient management of court cases and public access tocourt records. Reports of the United Nations onStrengthening Judicial Integrity encourage this transition.Indeed, there is no doubt that such systems could haveimproved the management of valid court records andtransparency of the judicial processes. [1-2]Court procedures, and in particular, the maintenance of valid court records, have evolved over centuries and are atthe core of Fair Hearing. Essential part of such procedures inmany "western democracies" is based on the coordinatedactions of the two arms of the courts: The judicial arm – judges who make decisions, and the ministerial (clerical) arm– clerks who are custodians of court records and hold dutiesand responsibilities, defined by law, relative to integrity of the records of the respective court, in general, andauthentication and certification of court records, inparticular.The transition to electronic case management and publicaccess systems, in any court, amounts to a sea change inthese procedures, particularly in the work of the clerks of thecourt.Previous studies have shown that the transition toelectronic record systems in the courts and prisons in theUnited States was not risk-free. [3,4] A more recent peer-reviewed report, [5] summarizes a study of the electronicrecords systems of the courts of the State of Israel, whichwas submitted for the January 2013 Universal PeriodicReview of Human Rights in the State of Israel by the HumanRights Council of the United Nations [Online Appendices 1-6]. The 2013 Human Rights Alert submission is probably afirst: a Human Rights report, which is narrowly focused onintegrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of a nation’s courts.The current report focuses on more detailed analysis of false authentication, certification procedures andundermining of the integrity of the offices of the clerks, askey features of such systems in Israel and beyond. Casestudies are documented in more detail, to demonstrate theoutcome of such practices in the administration of justice.Relative to the State of Israel it is proposed that suchconditions in the courts are key violations of Human Rightsin State of Israel, and should be deemed an unannouncedregime change.More generally, is it proposed that today, in civilizedsocieties, which practice separation of the branches of government, and where no court is permitted to enact therules of operation of the courts, no court should be permittedto institute its own electronic record system either.II.
 
T
HE LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIONOF THE
O
FFICE OF THE
C
LERK IN THE
C
OURTS OF THE
S
TATEOF
I
SRAEL
 The authority, duties and responsibilities of the clerksand or registrars in the State of Israel were defined in a seriesof laws and respective regulations. The regulations, whichwere promulgated in 2003-5, during the period of implementation of the current electronic record systems of the courts, are of particular interest. The laws andregulations are at times inconsistent in their basic terms andleave considerable amount of ambiguity in defining theprocedures of the Office of the Clerk and the duties andresponsibilities of the Chief Clerk and/or Registrar. On such
 
legal background, it is also clear, that in developing andimplementing the electronic record systems of the courts, thefirst step, e.g., defining the specifications of the electronicrecord systems, was particularly sensitive. Either theauthorities, duties and responsibilities of the Chief Clerk and/or Registrar, and the respective procedures were to beunequivocally and unambiguously defined, or else an invalidelectronic records system would be developed andimplemented.III.
 
M
ETHODS
 The underlying study was narrowly focused on analysisof integrity of the electronic record systems in nationalcourts (Supreme Court, district courts, detainees’ courts).The study was not based on legal analysis of the records, orchallenges to the rationale of the adjudication. Instead,irregularities in date, signature, certification, and registrationprocedures were examined through data mining methods,executed on the online public records of the courts.In the current report, emphasis is given to several casehistories, and related certification, authentication proceduresof the courts.IV.
 
C
ERTIFICATION OF
C
OURT
D
ECISIONS
 
 A.
 
Supreme Court of the State of Israel – decisions are publshed on an uncertified servers.
A fatal defect in the security and validity of the SupremeCourt's records, is the failure to have the identity of theserver certified. (Fig 1)
Figure 1. Identify of the servers of the Supreme Court is not verified. Theelectronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel are publishedonline on a server, whose identity is not verified. The website is identifiedas belonging to the "Judicial Authority" – an undefined legal entity.According to the 2010 State Ombudsman’s Report (60b), the servers arenow housed on corporate grounds, out of compliance with the
 Regulationsof the Courts – Office of the Clerk 
(2004). The Administration of Courtsrefuses to disclose, who holds the ultimate administrative authority over theservers. After March 2002, no mention appears in the records of the officeor any Clerk of the Court.
 B.
 
Supreme Court of the State of Israel - inexpliciblechanges in certification procedures in 2001-2003
Initially, integrity of the basic components of theSupreme Court's information systems were examined:indices of all cases, calendars, dockets (lists of records in agiven file), indices of decisions, and consistency of dataamong these components (e.g., the date a record was filed, aslisted in the docket, in contrast to the date, as indicated in thebody of the record itself) [Online Appendix 2].A cursory survey was then conducted of the pattern judges’ signatures and clerk’s certification in records of theSupreme Court over the past two decades. Consequently, thesignificance of events around 2001-2003 was identified, anda more detailed survey was conducted of records of thatperiod, including changes in distribution of specific wordcombinations, related to certification, over time (e.g., Chief Clerk, Registrar, True Copy, individual names "ShmaryahuCohen", "Sarah Lifschitz", "Boaz Okon", etc). Records thatwere identified as outliers in such distributions wereindividually examined.
Figure 2. Changes in the Supreme Court Clerk’s certifications of electronic decisions: (a) Until early 2002, all electronic decisions of theSupreme Court carried certification by the late Chief Clerk ShmaryahuCohen. (b) Since 2003, none of the electronic decision records carries anycertification, or any reference to the Office of the Clerk. Instead they carrya disclaimer “subject to editing and phrasing changes”, and reference to an“Information Center”, which has no foundation in the law. TheAdministration of Courts refuses to disclose the legal foundation for suchprofound change in the records of the Supreme Court in 2001-2003.
Based on the findings from such data mining efforts,requests were filed on the Ministry of Justice and theAdministration of Courts, pursuant to the
Freedom of  Information Act 
, for records that would provide the legalfoundation for such changes, and the appointment records of chief clerks of the courts, the Registrar of CertifyingAuthorities, secondary legislation that might have authorizedthe changes, etc.Additionally, outside sources were reviewed forinformation regarding the history of the development andimplementation of the electronic records systems of thecourts: media reports, and in particular the 2010
StateOmbudsman’s Report 
60b.
Figure 3. The Decision, in
 Judith Franco Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi Persecutions Act 
(1582/02) in the SupremeCourt in part says:Issued this date, February 14, 2007Boaz OkonRegistrar_________This version is subject to editing and phrasing changes.Shmaryahu Cohen – Chief Clerk 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->