Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel
Fax: 077-3179186

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

2012-05-31 Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg: Decision (88/12/TelAviv District) on complaints against Judge Varda AlSheikh in the
Reconstructed Protocol affair //
( "/88/12) :
" "
https://www.scribd.com/doc/291016506/
[]

figures: Judge Varda Alshech reconstructed protocols, Justice Eliezer Goldebrg wrote a
landmark decision in this affair, exposing the fraud in development and operation of NetHaMishpat IT system of the Israeli district and magistrate courts.
#

Document

Page

1.

20120531Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)byOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldbergon
complaintsagainstJudgeVardaAlSheikhintheReconstructedProtocolaffairEnglishtranslation//
,31,("/88/12)
"" ,2012

2.

20120531Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)byOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldbergon
complaintsagainstJudgeVardaAlSheikhintheReconstructedProtocolaffairHebreworiginal//
,31,("/88/12)
"" ,2012

15

Notes:
1. Englishtranslationisprovidedonlyforpartsofthedecision,whichpertaintothe
developmentandoperationofNetHaMishpatandconductofjudgesandclerical
staffrelativetotheproduction,filing,service,andcertificationofjudicialrecords.
2. ThetwoprotocolsVersionAandVersionBtheinvalidgraphicsignatureson
them,andtheinvalidcertificationonVersionAcanbeviewedintheattachments
tothecomplaint,[3]filedwiththeOmbudsmanoftheJudiciarybytheIsraelBar
Association,whichisthesubjectofthedecisionprovidedhere.
Thedecisiondocumentsingreatdetailthefailureofallsuchprocedures,whichwere
establishedincourtsinWesternnationscenturiesago,andwhichwereestablished
alsointheStateofIsraelfrom1936to2004,underRegulationsoftheCourts
RegistrationOffice(1936),promulgatedundertheBritishruleperiod...[1]TheBritish
Regulationswerevoidedin2004,concomitantlywiththeinitiationofdevelopmentof
1/2

NetHaMishpatandthetransitiontoecourtsinIsrael.NewRegulationsoftheCourts
OfficeoftheClerk(2004)werepromulgatedinstead...[2]
LINKS:
[1] 1936-00-00 Regulations of the Courts Registration Office (1936)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306634079/
[2] 2004-00-00 Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306634195/
[3] 2012-01-26 Complaint against Judge VARDA ALSHEIKH in the Reconstruct Protocol
affair, filed by Israel Bar Association, Tel-Aviv Regional Chairman Efi Naveh, to Justice
Minister Yaakov Neeman, Supreme Court Presiding Justice Dorit Beinisch, and
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg, including Version A and Version B of the
protocol, and Complaint against Attorney Argaz, filed by Professional Advisor of the
Administration of Courts Barak Laser on behalf of Judge Varda AlSheikh
https://www.scribd.com/doc/299227398/

GeneralbackgroundregardingtheReconstructedProtocolaffair
TranslatedfromtheHebrewWikipedia
TheReconstructedProtocolsAffair
InJune2012JusticeEliezerGoldberg,OmbudsmanoftheJudiciary,determinedthat
JudgeAlshechperpetrated36technicalandmaterialchangesintheprotocol[minutes
jz]ofahearingshehadconducted,inordertomaketheconductofanattorney,
againstwhoshefiledacomplaint,appearmoresevere.FollowingtheOmbudsman's
decision,thePresidentoftheIsraelBarAssociationandtheheadsofthe5Districts
approachedMinisterofJusticeYaakovNeemanandPresidingJusticeAsherGrunisin
demandtoremoveAlshechfromthebench.OnJuly27,2012Alshechannouncedher
resignationfromherpositionasChairwomanoftheJudgesAssociation.Presiding
JusticeAsherGrunisdecidedtoissueaseriouswarningagainstAlshechinher
personalfileastheonlysanction.Hemadeitclearthathesawthematterseriously,
andwarnedheragainstrepeatingsuchconduct.However,hedecidednottoapplyhis
authorityaccordingtoBaseLaw:TheJudiciary,Article7(4),whichallowsopening
processforherimpeachment.Iinpart,hetookintoaccountthefactthatshewasa
veryexperiencedandseniorjudge.FollowingPresidingJusticeGrunis'sdecision,the
PresidentoftheIsraelBarAssociationandheadsofthe5DistrictsapproachedJustice
MinisterYaakovNeemanindemandingthatheusehisauthorityandfileacomplaint
withtheJudicialDisciplinaryCourtanddemandherimpeachment.Ajointconference
ofMinisterofJusticeNeemanandtheleadershipoftheIsraelBarAssociationledtoa
compromise,basedonPresidingJusticeseriouswarningtoAlshech.
Note:RegardlessoftheOmbudsman'sdecisionandthescandal,Alshechwaslater
caughtrepeatingthesameconduct...

2/2

[coat of arms state of israel]

Office of Ombudsman of the Judiciary

Chambers of Ombudsman Eliezer Goldberg
Supreme Court Justice (ret)
May 31, 2012
Ref: 88/12 Tel-Aviv District Court
Personal-Confidential-For the
addressees only
Complainants:

1. Attorney Effy Naveh, Chairman of the Tel-Aviv & Center

District, Israel Bar Association
2. Attorney Haim Arbel
3. Ometz-NGO (Citizens for Justice and Integrity in
Government)
4. Attorney Rafael Argaz

Subject of the Complaints: The Hon Judge Varda Alshech

Assistant Presiding Judge
Tel-Aviv District Court
Bankruptcy (1623/00) 1, 2
Matter:

Complaints received on 2012-01-26; 2012-02-02; 2012-02-07;

2012-02-20 (in order of the Complainants)
DECISION

1. Four complaints were filed with the Ombudsman's office against the Hon Judge
Varda Alshech, Assistant Presiding Judge, Tel-Aviv District Court, pertaining to a
hearing, conducted by her on 2011-09-12 in Bankruptcy file 1623/00 (hereinafter
the hearing)... 3
1 Footnotes are not part of the original decision record.
2 The Ombudsman does not state the court file caption: Bank HaPoalim v State
Receiver. The involvement of the largest bank in Israel in this scandal is significant.
Judge Alshech presided over the years in the largest corporate bankruptcy,
dissolution, and haircut cases.
3 The Complaint by Attorney Effy Naveh, Israel Bar Association, includes in
attachments copies of the two Protocols, Version A and Version B. (linked below).
The records show the invalid graphic signatures on the records, and the invalid
certification True Copy of the Original on Version A.
2012-01-26 Complaint against Judge VARDA ALSHEIKH in the Reconstruct
Protocol affair, filed by Israel Bar Association, Tel-Aviv Regional Chairman Effy
Naveh, with Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, Supreme Court Presiding Justice Dorit

1/14


The Protocol in Net-HaMishpat System
Date of the Hearing and production of the Protocol
18. On 2012-05-06 I received by email from the Hon Judge a printout from NetHaMishpat system, which lists Protocol Events, pertaining to the State Receiver's
Motion, heard on 2011-09-12, as stated above. The printout shows that on the date of
the Hearing, decisions were rendered by the Hon Judge on the the State Receiver's
Motion at 9:44 and 9:56. At 10:21 Stop Hearing event was registered, at 10:27
Continue Hearing event was registered, and at 11:27 End Hearing event was
registered.
In his 2012-05-01 letter, Attorney Laser states that examination, conducted at the
request of the Ombudsman, shows that the Protocol was first created on 2011-09-12
at 8:30, and that it was re-opened for editing on the same date at 10:27. 4
It is therefore possible to ascertain that after the Heating was concluded at 10:21, the
Hon Judge edited it for an hour, between 10:27 and 11:27.
Production of the Protocol
19. In her responses, dated 2012-02-05 and 2012-02-12, the Hon Judge conveys that
there were no two versions of the Protocol. Version A was a Draft Protocol, which
her secretary provided to Attorneys Arbel and Argaz by mistake, at their request, and
Version B was an Official Protocol, which was electronically signed by her after
proofreading. 5
TheHonorableJudge'sexplanationindicatesthatasfarasNetHaMishpat
systemisconcerned,anyprotocolbearsascannedgraphicsignatureofthe
judgeonalldecisions.6However,untiltheprotocolrecordissignedbythe
judgeusinganelectronicsignature,itisadraftprotocol,whichismaintained
intheProtocolsFolderofthesystem...
Beinisch, and Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg, including Version A
and Version B of the protocol, and Complaint against Attorney Argaz, filed by
Professional Counsel of the Administration of Courts Attorney Barak Laser on
behalf of Judge Varda Alshech
https://www.scribd.com/doc/299227398/
4 Attorney Barak Laser is Senior Legal Counsel of the Administration of Courts. His
conduct in this case and others is dubious. First, he colluded with Judge Alshech in
filing the semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Argaz, based on a falsified court
record (and Attorney Laser was one of the only persons to have access to system at
the level that permitted him to know that it was an invalid, unsigned record as
well.). Later, he provided to the Ombudsman incriminating information against
Judge Alshech. His conduct in this case and others has never been scrutinized.
5 All underlines in the original.
6 Incorrect statement, see paragraph 21, below system procedures description by
Mr Yardeni.

2/14

Sincethescannedgraphicsignatureofthejudgeappearsalsoonthedraft,a
printoutofthedraftandaprintoutoftheelectronicallysignedprotocollook
thesame,andthereisnowaytodistinguishbetweenthem.Therefore,
accordingtoofficeprocedures,aprotocolshouldnotbeprintedoutfromthe
ProtocolsFolder(asdonebyhersecretary).Itshouldbeprintedoutonlyafter
itwaselectronicallysigned,throughthetheProtocolApplication,executed
bystaffoftheOfficeoftheClerk.7
Moreover,corrections,whichareimplementedinaprotocolafteritwas
electronicallysigned,wouldgenerateinthesystemanewversion,named
CorrectedProtocol,alongsidetheoriginalversionoftheprotocol.In
contrast,changesinaprotocolthatwasnotelectronicallysignedarenot
recordedandsavedasseparateversions,andalleditingissavedinthesame
electronicfile.Theexaminationshowsthatinthiscase,theHistorylisting
ofthesystemlistsnopreviousversionsoftheProtocol,onlyoneversion,
whichisVersionB,whichwasfiledwiththeComplainttotheIsraelBar
Association.8
AstothecorrectionsmadeintheProtocolthemselves,theHonJudgestates
thatsincetheHearingwasstormyandwasofteninterrupted,thecourt
transcriptionistdidnothaveachancetorecordeverythingthatwassaid.She
(theHonJudge)thereforenoticedthepartiesthattheProtocolwouldbe
providedtothemattheendofthebusinessdayattheOfficeoftheClerk....
Regardlessofhernotice,AttorneysArbelandArgazwentdowntotheOffice
oftheClerk,wheretheyinformedhersecretarythattheywerecomingfrom
thecourtroom,andtheydidnotreceivetheProtocol.Thesecretary,whowas
burdenedwithservicetothepublic,madeanerror,enteredNetHaMishpat
systeminthewrongway,andprintedoutforthemfromtheProtocolFolder,
whatwasonlyaDraftProtocol.Additionally,andcontrarytooffice
procedures,thesecretarycertifiedtheDraftProtocolTrueCopyofthe
7

The information, provided here, shows that features were incorporated in NetHaMishpat that implement the operations of a competent Office of the Clerk: The
Judge writes the judicial record and electronically signs it. Only after that, the
Office of the Clerk is supposed to execute the Protocol Application, which is the
entering and docketing of the signed protocol into the public Decisions Docket.
However, the Ombudsman's decision provides documentation in great detail
(paragraph 38, below, Internal Audit Report) that in Net-HaMishpat back-doors
were implemented to bypass the operations ofa competent Office of the Clerk. In
fact, the implementation of Net-HaMishpat was equivalent to abolishing the Office
of the Clerk and its duties and authorities relative to the maintenance and integrity
of the records. Concomitantly with the transition to e-courts, the Regulations of
the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), were promulgated, which abolished the
duties and authorities of the Chief Clerk relative to the maintenance and integrity
of the records and entry of judgments.
8 The essence of the Complaints against Judge Alshech was that she falsified the
Protocol in order to file with the Israel Bar Association the semi-criminal complaint
against Attorney Argaz.

3/14

Original,althoughtherewasnoOriginalbeforeher.9
NottoolongaftersheelectronicallysignedtheProtocol,hersecretarysentthe
entirerecord[VersionBEG]totheparties.10
TheHonJudgeemphasizedthatnoneoftheattorneysfiledarequestfor
correctionoftheProtocol,orarequestforclarification,inordertocorrectthe
situation.TheyrecalledtoaddresstheissueonlyaftertheIsraelBar
AssociationapproachedAttorneyArgaz.11
20. My inquiries with the Director of the Administration of Courts, asking for his
comments on the computer system perspective of production of the Protocol, were
answered by copies of email correspondence between the computer system personnel
and the Hon Judge, which were provided for my review, in letters by Attorney Barak
Laser to the Ombudsman, in the 2012-02-29 letter to Attorney Barak Laser by Mr
Yarden Yardeni, Director of Net-HaMishpat Project in IT Systems and Computers
Wing of the Administration of Courts. 12
21.Inhis20120229letter,MrYardenYardeniwrites:
Onagivenhearingdate,thecourttranscriptionistopensanewelectronic
protocolfile,whichopensaprotocoltemplatedocumentinWord.Inorderto
starteditingtherecord,thetranscriptionisthastoperformtwofunctionsin
theWordrecord:AddPersonsPresent,andStartHearing.Untilthese
functionsareperformed,itisimpossibletoedittherecord.TheStart
9 This paragraph shows that both Judge Alshech and the Ombudsman are verily
familiar with are honest court procedures relative to writing, signature, filing,
entering, docketing, and certification of judicial decision records, and that such
procedures are in fact not upheld since the introduction of Net-HaMishpat. The
Ombudsman cites the Internal Audit Report (paragraph 38, below), which says,
contrary to what Alshech describes as an error by her secretary, that such conduct
was the typical routine: Judges did not electronically sign the records in NetHaMishpat, and unauthorized staff, untrained and uninformed, relative to the
significance of electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat, was instructed to bypass the
correct procedures and deliver such record to parties and counsel as valid court
records. The Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004) establish the
Chief Clerk as the person, who is authorized to certify court records. Here an
authorized judge's secretary certifies uncertifiable court records on a routine basis.
10 This sentence is further detailing of the sequence of events according to Judge
Alshech. Below, it turns out to be false: The Protocol record was never
electronically signed.
11Regarding Judge Alshech's complaint against him.
12 Regarding Mr Yarden Yardeni, see a separate complaint to the Ombudsman of the
Judiciary, which was also found justified. The Complaint pertained to ex parte
communications by Judge Kafah and Mr Yardeni, which Judge Kafah denied, in a
case related to lack of integrity in Net-HaMishpat as well.
http://magazine-consumer.com/tag/%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%93/

4/14

HearingfunctionalsotriggerstheProtocolApplicationtaskintheOfficeof
theClerk.13Attheendofthehearing,thetranscriptionistperformstwo
additionalfunctionsintheWorddocument:GraphicSignatureandEnd
Hearing.Thetranscriptionist,whensoorderedbythejudge,canprintouta
copyoftheprotocolpriortotheexecutionoftheEndHearingaction,14so
thatthepartiesleavethecourtroomwithacopyoftheprotocol.15Afterthe
executionoftheEndHearingfunction,theWorddocumentisclosedand
filedintheProtocolFolderasadraft.ThejudgethenenterstheProtocol
Folderandexecutestheelectronicsignature.Theexecutionoftheelectronic
signaturetransformstheelectronicfilefromadrafttoafinalrecord,inthe
sensethatitislocked,andnofurtherchangesinitarepossible...
TheProtocolApplicationtaskappearsintheOfficeoftheClerkonthe
hearingdate.IfthetheclerkattemptstoperformtheProtocolApplication
priortotheelectronicsigningoftheprotocoldraftbythejudge,awarning
messageappears,showingthattheprotocolisnotsignedyet,andthesystem
preventsthecompletionoftheProtocolApplication.However,theprinting
ofaDraftprotocolbytheOfficeoftheClerkispossiblebyenteringthe
ProtocolFolderinsteadofusingtheProtocolApplication.Undersuch
circumstancesthereisnopromptwarningtheclerkthattheprotocolis
unsigned.
Itisimpossibletodistinguishbetweenagraphicallysignedprotocolandan
electronicallysignedprotocoloncetherecordhadbeenprinted.16However,
thereareseveralwaystodistinguishbetweenthemintheelectronicfilesin
13 Again, showing the implementation of honest court and office of the clerk
procedures in Net-HaMishpat, together with back doors, which enable their
circumvention. Once the protocol is completed and electronically signed by the
judge, the Office of the Clerk is supposed to enter the protocol into the docket.
However, such functions are not performed in majority of court files in NetHaMishpat. The vast majority of protocols in Net-HaMishpat are apparently never
electronically signed. As a result, the vast majority of protocols in court cases in
Net-HaMishpat fail to appear in the docket, resulting in double-books: There is one
public docket and another docket used by the court, which includes the unsigned
protocols.
14 The statements by Mr Yardeni regarding the sequence of events in work procedures
are inconsistent with the sequence documented by the Ombdusman (paragraph 18,
above), which shows that the judge continues the editing, even after the hearing is
concluded, and only then the judge, not the transcriptionist, executes the End
Hearing function.
15 by Mr Yardeni's statement is misleading. The paper, provided under such
circumstances to the parties, is not a copy of the protocol. As clearly explained by
Judge Alshech and the Ombudsman, it is merely an unsigned Draft Protocol.
However, parties, counsel, and the public at large cannot distinguish the fact that it
is an unsigned, invalid court record, bearing only a graphic signature.
16 This inexplicable feature in Net-HaMishpat is the essence of its fraudulent nature.
Judges can distinguish what is a valid, signed document, but not parties, counsel, or
the public at large.

5/14

NetHaMishpat:Theelectronicallysignedprotocolshowsthecoatofarmsof
theStateofIsraelincolor,whilethegraphicallysignedprotocolshowsitwith
nocolors.Additionally,thetasklineofagivenprotocolappearsingreen,once
theprotocoliselectronicallysigned,andinblackaslongasitisadraft.
Moreover,thereisdocumentationoftheexecutionofelectronicsignaturein
theProtocolEventsfolderinthesystem.17
No electronically signed Hearing Protocol was discovered
22. Following the receipt of the Hon Judge 2012-02-05 and 2012-02-12 responses,
we received Attorney Laser's 2912-03-01 letter to the Ombudsman, where I was
surprised to find the following:
"We discovered that there is only one version of the 2011-09-12 Hearing Protocol, a
version that is still not electronically signed... Under such circumstances, the
discovery of only one version of the Hearing Protocol, subject of the Complaints,
indicates that there is no prior signed version of the Protocol. [Bold added- EG]
Also Attorney Laser's 2012-02-27 letter to the Hon Judge, which was provided for
my review, indicates: There is only one version of the 2011-09-12 Hearing Protocol,
a version, which is still not electronically signed in the system. [Bold added- EG]
The same matter is also indicated in Attorney Barak Laser's 2012-04-15 letter, which
says: According to the examination, the protocol, which is the subject of your
inquiry, was not electronically signed... The Hearing Protocol is still filed as a Draft
Protocol in the Protocol Folder.
23. On 2012-03-13 I asked the Hon Judge to address the fact that there is no
electronically signed version of the Protocol, and to clarify how such a fact stands
relative to her responses on the Complaints.
24. The Hon Judge responded on my letter on 2012-03-15:
"I operated the signature option after I proofread the Protocol. If, and to the degree
that there was some problem or failure of the system, and my signature was not
executed by the system, and the record remained unsigned, it should be considered a
computer system failure, which should be addressed by computer systems personnel,
who are experts on such matters. I know for sure that I signed the Protocol. Such is
my practice since we have been working with the system, and I have not changed my
17 It should be noted that regardless of numerous requests in various courts and
directly to the Administration of Courts, they courts absolutely refuse to permit
inspection of the electronic signature data of judicial records, even by a party in the
case. Therefore, the courts effectively refuse to permit a party to ascertain,
whether a judicial record is a signed, valid record, or an unsigned, invalid record.
There is no way to explain such conduct, which is consistent with honesty and
integrity of the courts.

6/14

practice in this case either. [Bold, underline in the original EG] 18

25. On 2012-03-19 I inquired with the Director of Administration of Courts, whether
the finding that there is no electronically signed Protocol to this date can be settled
with the claim by the Hon Judge, that she executed the electronic signature function.
The response was provided in Attorney Barak Laser's 2012-04-15 letter, which says:
We have no information regarding such failure today or in the past.
I have not found that the Hon Judge filed any alert regarding such failure, when she
discovered that Version B was not electronically signed. [19]
26. In my 2012-05-03 meeting with the Hon Judge, I asked her why she stated that
Version B of the Protocol was electronically signed, and why she failed to state that
there was no electronically signed record of the Protocol, as described above.
She said:
"If I did not write it, I was wrong... I don't know why I didn't write it to you... I was
focused on the Complaint. When you get a bomb dropped on your head, you focus on
that.
In a 2012-05-06 letter, sent to me by the Hon Judge following our meeting, she
writes:
"Another point that bothered me was the fact that it was portrayed as if I
deliberatively tried to be imprecise regarding the date, starting which, purportedly, I
knew that the Protocol had never been signed. I admit that what I experienced (and
still am experiencing) is not the easiest... I had no intention to deliberately hide any
information, things were done honestly, at a time of great emotional storm.
27. She also informed me in her 2012-05-06 letter, referenced above, that she had
conducted another review with her secretary, which showed that Version B of the
Protocol (which she stated that she had sent to the parties at the end of the day), was
printed out by the secretary from the same place that she printed out Version A, which
she provided to Attorneys Arbel and Argaz, that is, from the Protocols Folder, and not
from the Protocol Application task. 20
Indeed, such statement is consistent with the fact that no electronically signed
Protocol exists.
18 Judge Alshech's statements here stand contrary to her secretary's statements,
recorded in the Internal Audit Report (paragraph 38, below).
19 The ombudsman fails to raise the question how Judge Alshech in collusion with
Attorney Laser filed the Complaint against Attorney Argaz with the Israel Bar
Association based on an attachment, which was a printout of Version B of the
Protocol, unsigned and uncertified... Neither Judge Alshech nor Attorney Laser
address that point. Attorney Laser is presented here as an objective, neutral party.
In fact he earlier was co-conspirator of Judge Alshech in this affair.
20 Here again, there is documentation that following the implementation of NetHaMishpat, unauthorized staff executes false service of unsigned, invalid court
records. However, the recipients cannot distinguish such facts.

7/14

28. I don't find it necessary to get into further details of the investigation in this
specific matter, 21 and I would sum it up: Today, as before, there is no evidence of a
computer failure, which prevents the execution of an electronic signature on this
Protocol record. The evidence before me makes it possible to determine that the Hon
Judge had never electronically signed the Hearing Protocol, Version B prior to its
submission as part of the filing of the Complaints with the Ombudsman, and that she
knew about it prior to the filing of the Complaints (once the affair was published by
media).
All that is left for me to say is that the concerns that I raised with the Hon Judge
during my meeting with her have not been addressed.
Printing the Protocol and providing it to the parties
29. In his Complaint, Attorney Argaz claims that at the end of the Hearing, the Hon
Judge referred the parties to the Office of the Clerk for receipt of the Protocol.

According to the Hon Judge, she noticed the parties at the end of the Hearing that
they would be able to get the Protocol in the Office of the Clerk only at the end of the
day.
30. In this matter I determine that even if the Hon Judge noticed the parties as she
states (I cannot ascertain it, given the conflicting versions in this matter), I cannot
accept her position, that Attorneys Arbel and Argaz acted in bad faith when they went
to the Office of the Clerk to get the copy of the Protocol at the end of the Hearing.
31. The Hon Judge attached to her 2012-05-12 response the 2012-01-26 letter by her
secretary, Ms Hagit Kostiner, where the latter detailed how she produced the Protocol
for Attorneys Arbel and Argaz, honestly, and without any knowledge that that
Protocol was signed graphically, but not electronically. According to the
secretary: 22
21 This paragraph hints that there was much more to it... that the Ombudsman had
more direct evidence of deception by Judge Alshech regarding the fact that Version
B of the Protocol was never signed. Perhaps she expected that Attorney Laser
would continue colluding with her. It is also left unclear, whether the Ombudsman
indeed relied only on statements by Attorney Laser, or more likely at some point
inspected the system data directly...
22 This episode again shows the invalidity in design and operation of Net-HaMishpat:
Unauthorized, untrained, uninformed personnel performed false certification, false
service, and provides false records to parties and counsel, without even being
aware of the difference between valid, authentic and invalid, unauthentic court
record, or the significance of honest service and certification procedures for
integrity of the courts. In contrast, it is obvious that the judges (Alshech, Goldberg)
are verily familiar with what honest court procedures are...

8/14

"Only after the fact I was informed that I should not have produced the Protocol out
of the Protocol Folder, but only by execution of the Protocol Application, and
likewise, that the certification True Copy of the Original, which I gave them, was
not on an authentic protocol (electornically signed) but on draft protocol and
decisions (such that need to pass through proofreading prior to electronic signature).
To the best of my memory, and most likely also in this case, I placed the Protocol in
an envelope and mailed it to the parties at the end of the day. 23
32. Ms Kostiner's 2012-02-26 letter to the Ombudsman says:
"It is not customary to mail copies of the protocols, unless the judge writes at the end
of the protocol The Office of the Clerk shall mail copies [there is not such
comment in instant Protocol- EG] 24 As stated, it is customary to send copies to all
parties by mail... There are no Certificates of Service [in Net-HaMishpat system
EG] 25 In an additional letter, dated 2012-04-01, Ms Kostiner clarifies: Regarding
your question today, I don't remember whether I sent the Protocol by mail... Most
likely I placed the Protocol in an envelope and mailed it to the parties at the end of
the day, when I received it, if so asked (by a note from the parties), because such is
my practice... I sent by mail with no Certificate of Service. Therefore, the
nonexistence of Certificates of Service cannot lead to the conclusion that the Protocol
was not mailed out by me.
33. Attorney Barak Laser's 2012-04-15 letter to the Ombudsman says:
There is no documentation, indicating whether the Protocol was printed and how.
When service is executed through the system, then there is documentation of it. A
protocol that was not electronically signed cannot be electronically served through
the system, only on paper. In the paper court file there is no documentation that the
Protocol was delivered or sent to any of the parties. However, it should be noted that
it is possible that the Protocol was mailed out by regular mail, following guidelines to
the staff, following the 2011 Saving on Mail initiative, and therefore, there is no
documentation of the mailing of the Protocol. 26
34. Attorney Argaz's Complaint notes that he figured out the difference between the
two versions of the Protocol only after the Bar Association asked his response on the
23 The secretary here admits that she routinely executes false service procedure of
false court records...
24 As shown in the example here, it should also be noted that Israeli judges have
stopped using the proper legal terms serve and service, relative to their own
judicial records. Instead they use today invalid legal terms: Mail, forward,
inform, etc.
25 Material failure in integrity of Net-HaMishpat is documented here no maintenance
of copies of Certificates of Service.
26 This paragraph documents that Net-HaMishpat was designed to prevent false
electronic service of unsigned, invalid judicial records, but the back-door option of
printing papers from the Protocols Folder is used to perpetrate false, simulated
service of invalid, unsigned judicial records.

9/14

Complaint, filed against him by the Administration of Courts. 27

...
35. Given that both Counsel for the State Receiver and Attorney Arbel received
Version B of the Protocol from the Court, there is no reason to doubt the statements
by Ms Kostiner, that she mailed to the parties at the end of the day Version B of the
Protocol.
...
Certification True Copy of the Original of Version A in the Office of the Clerk
36. As stated, Version A of the Protocol record, which was provided to Attorneys
Arbel and Argaz in the Office of the Clerk, was stamped True Copy of the Original
by the Hon Judge's secretary. The Hon Judge's 2012-02-05 response states: This
action by the attorneys shows their bad faith conduct. They were holding a record,
which appeared to be signed by me, graphically, so why did they ask for it... to be
certified True Copy of the Original? Only the attorneys can address this question.
28
She attached to her response Office Procedure Instruction 114/10 of the
Administration of Courts, 'Stamping True Copy of the Original on Printouts of
Judgments', and Office Procedure Instruction 67/09 'The Use of True Copy of the
Original Stamp'.
Office Procedure Instruction 114/10 says:
"In the era of electronic court files, judgments are signed by secure, certified
electronic signature, pursuant to the E-sign Act (Article 6b and the Second
Supplement), a judgment record, signed by a secure electronic signature, is not
deemed an original court record. Originating in the statement above, printouts of
electronically signed judgments are not deemed original records, and should be
stamped as detailed in instant Instruction... Once a decision or judgment were
rendered in the court file, which were signed by a secure electronic signature, the
27 According to the Israeli procedures, the Complaint to the Bar Association was not
field directly by Judge Varda Alshech, but by the Administration of Courts, more
specifically - by Attorney Barak Laser. Therefore, Judge Alshech and Attorney Laser
were the only two parties, who had access to system data, which showed that
Version B of the Protocol was never electronically signed, and who colluded in filing
the semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Argaz, based on an invalid, unsigned
judicial record. At the same time, neither Attorney Argaz, nor the Israel Bar
Association, which was supposed to review the Complaint, could distinguish that it
was based on an invalid, unsigned judicial record... However, the Israel Bar
Association and Attorney Argaz failed to challenged the filing of an uncertified
judicial record.
28 This is one of the most ludicrous arguments by Judge Alshech, who as stated above,
was a prominent Israeli judge, who handled some of the most complicated, largest
corporate court cases... She in fact states that she expected the attorneys to be
deceived by her graphic signature, and the fact that they duly asked for
certification was bad faith conduct.

10/14

Office of the Clerk shall act to transfer certified copies to the parties, as detailed
herein: 3.1 Print the required number of copies. 3.2 Stamp each copy True Copy of
the Original. 29
These statements are also consistent with Attorney Barak Laser's 2012-05-01 letter to
the Ombudsman:
"The printout of an electronic message, which is electronically signed, is deemed,
pursuant to the E-sign Act (2001), Article 6(b), a copy.
Office Procedure Instruction 67/09 says:
"Once a person appears in the Office of the Clerk, holding a copy of a court record,
the staff member shall act as follows to inspect the record prior to its stamping:
Offices of the Clerks, which are administered through Net-HaMishpat system...
Locate the original record in the electronic court file, and stamp it True Copy of the
Original. 30

37. Obviously, absent an electronically signed Hearing Protocol, Version A, which

was provided to Attorneys Arbel and Argaz in the Office of the Clerk, shouldn't have
been stamped True Copy of the Original...
Attorney Arbel's 2012-04-09 letter to the Ombudsman explains, why he asked for
stamping 31 of the Protocol: I needed an lawfully authenticated Protocol in order to
file my appeal with the Supreme Court, which was indeed filed... 32
Failures relative to the Protocol computers, Office of the Clerk, and Judges
29 It should be noted that the Instructions cited here, other documents, obtained
through Freedom of Information requests and other communications with the
courts, all fail to state that the law authorizes only the Chief Clerk to certify court
records. In practice, for almost a decade, unauthorized persons routinely certify
court records.
30 Instruction 67/09, cited here, fails to state: a) who is authorized to perform the
certification? b) How is that person to ascertain that the record is electronically
signed? c) Where in the electronic court file should the record be located ? (e.g.,
the Protocols Folder vs the public Decisions Docket)
31 Certification True Copy of the Original.
32 It should be noted that Attorney Arbel and Attorney Argaz were fully informed of the
significance of certified authentication on a judicial record that was to be filed in
another legal process here an appeal. But judge Alshech and Attorney Barak
Laser filed a semi-criminal complaint with the Israel Bar Association, using a
printout of the Hearing Protocol, Version B (which as we, and as they most likely
knew, was never electronically signed) and which was never certified. The Israel
Bar Association accepted the filing of such complaint. The investigation of issue,
which is critical relative to the deceit in Judge Alshech's and Attorney Laser's
conduct, is never documented in the Ombudsman's written decision... Accordingly,
Judge Alshech and Attorney Barak Laser explanation of their conduct, relative to
filing a semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Argaz, based on an unsigned,
uncertified court record is not recorded in the written decision either.

11/14

38. Chronological Report of the Events, dated 2012-03-21, which was prepared by
the Internal Audit Wing, Administration of Courts, was provided for my review. The
record says:
" Investigation Results: 33 On 2011-09-12 Hearing was conducted on Motion #3 in
Bankruptcy 1623/00 court file in the Courtroom of Judge Varda Alshech in the TelAviv District Court...
The secretary thought that by printing out a copy of the Protocol from NetHaMishpat, she was in fact printing a copy of an original, and therefore, she stamped
it True Copy of the Original. She stated that the persons, who trained the staff,
during the implementation of Net-HaMishpat, never taught the staff regarding the
various ways of printing out records, the differences and their significance between
printing out a copy through the Protocol Application and printing it out from the
Protocols Folder... According to the Director of the Bankruptcy Division and
according to the secretary, all the employees used to print out protocols also through
the Protocols Folder... According to the secretary, until this case, some of the judges
were not aware of the significance of electronic signatures, and therefore would not
electronically sign their completed protocols. That was the case also in this court file
one can see in Net-HaMishpat that the Hearing Protocol has never been
electronically signed by the Judge to this day... 34 According to the secretary, during
the time of the incident, she was not aware that there was any difference between a
graphic signature and an electronic signature. Since some of the judges routinely
failed to use electronic signatures, the staff was blocked by the system, and could not
perform the Protocol Application on protocols. Therefore, the trainers, who
implemented Net-HaMishpat taught them how to circumvent the system by printing
out protocols through the Protocols Folder. According to the Computers Wing,
protocols were originally water-stamped DRAFT, if they were printed prior to
being electronically signed by the judge. However, pursuant to demands by the
judges, the water-stamp was removed. The judges claimed that the water-stamp
slowed down the transition between court file. 35 According to Mr Yarden Yardeni
from the Computers Wing, even today he encounters cases of judges who fail to
33 The Internal Audit report in fact documents that the circumstances surrounding the
Reconstructed Protocol were not unique at all. Judges routinely fail to
electronically sign their decision records. The records are routinely not processed
through the system into due docketing and service.
34 These statements of course stand contrary to the explanation previously provided
to the Ombudsman by Judge Alshech and her secretary. The notion that judges in
the most central and influential district court in Israel did not understand the
meaning and significance of the E-sign Act (2001) ten (10) years after its
enactment, while working on a daily basis with Net-HaMishpat - an electronic case
management system, is ludicrous...
35 The statements here, regarding the training of staff to produce copies of unsigned,
invalid court records, and the demand by the judges to remove the water-stamp
DRAFT from unsigned records, are some of the most disturbing evidence of
centrally orchestrated fraud in design and operation of Net-HaMishpat.

12/14

electronically sign their protocols...

39. There is noting I can add but join the recommendations of the above cited report
whole-heartedly. Judges should be instructed, as soon as possible, regarding the
importance of electronically signing their protocols and decisions (see in this context
Regulations of Civil Procedure (1984), Article 190(a), which says: Decisions shall
be in writing, singed by the judges who adjudged), judges and staff should be
trained regarding the manner in which decisions should be produced in NetHaMishpat, and restoring the water-stamp DRAFT should be considered, even if it
places some burden (as claimed) on the judges. 36
The corrections in the Protocol
The nature of the corrections
40. In her responses on the Complaints, the Hon Judge indicates that the majority of
the corrections in the Protocol are proofreading corrections, completion of truncated
sentences, punctuation, spelling, deletions and errors in transcription... ... if all
correction are reversed, and the Draft Protocol is restored, except for unedited and
deficient Hebrew, nothing material would be changed!!!
41. I hold that even if majority of the differences between the versions... are only
matters of editing and phrasing... certain corrections should be deemed material.

44. It is impossible not to be impressed that the above listed corrections made the
circumstances more severe, compared with Version A, for the purpose of filing the
complaint with the Israel Bar Association.
...
85. In conclusion, the Complaints are found justified, based on paragraphs . above.
[hand signature]
_____________
Eliezer Goldberg
36 Even today (2006) four (4) years after the rendering of the Ombudsman's report,
after the Internal Audit Report, none of the recommendation has been throughly
implemented. Judge refuse to produce electronically signed record on a routine
basis, courts refuse to lawfully serve their records, and invalid records are routinely
certified True Copy of the Original... The refusal to correct the failures is supports
the conclusion of centralized, organized fraud in the design and operation of NetHaMishpat.

13/14

Ombudsman of the Judiciary

CC: Complainants
The Hon Judge Varda Alshech
The Hon Presiding Judge Devora Berliner, Tel-Aviv District Court
The Hon Presiding Justice Asher Grunis, Supreme Court
Prof Yaakov Neeman, Minister of Justice
The Hon Judge Moshe Gal, Director of the Administration of Courts

14/14