Human Rights Alert (NGO

)
Joseph Zernik, PhD PO Box 31440, Jerusalem

12-10-19 Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Records of the Courts of the State of Israel – CYBERLAW 2013 paper - peerreviewed and accepted
The attached manuscript details large-scale fraud in the Israeli courts electronic record systems. The attached paper was accepted for publication and presentation in CYBERLAW 2013 through scholarly peer-review process. Later, it was "rejected" through a dubious process by a self-identified "volunteer" and "logistics" of the organizers - IARIA – International Academy, Research, and Industry Association. The attached paper is shown in the exact form, in which it was submitted for peer-review, prior to 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] 12-12-18 PRESS RELEASE – Large-scale fraud in the Israeli courts electronic record systems – peer-reviewed by CYBERLAW 2013 http://www.scribd.com/doc/117211660/

Signing, Certification - no changes allowed; Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik, PhD Location: Jerusalem Date: 2012.10.12 11:10:06 +0200

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 the design and operation of the current electronic record systems of the courts.
Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert (NGO) Jerusalem e-mail: josephzernik@humanrightsalertngo.org Abstract— Recent Data Mining, Data Analytics, and World 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 false authentication and certification procedures, now prevailing in the courts of the State of Israel, and the manner in which implementation of the current electronic record systems undermined the authority and integrity of the Offices of the Clerks. Records from several cases are presented to document the outcome of such practices in the administration of justice. It is proposed that such conditions in the courts are key violations of Human Rights of the People of the State of Israel and should be deemed an unannounced regime change. Moreover, is it proposed that in civilized societies, which practice separation of the branches of government, and where no court is permitted to enact the rules of operation of the courts, no court should be permitted to institute its own electronic record system either.
Keywords-Information Systems;e-government; court; State of Israel; e-Fraud; e-Law; fr formatting; style; styling; insert (key words)

The courts worldwide, including Israel, have been implementing in recent decades electronic record systems for efficient management of court cases and public access to court records. Reports of the United Nations on Strengthening Judicial Integrity encourage this transition. Indeed, there is no doubt that such systems could have improved the management of valid court records and transparency of the judicial processes. [1-2] Court procedures, and in particular, the maintenance of valid court records, have evolved over centuries and are at the core of Fair Hearing. Essential part of such procedures in many "western democracies" is based on the coordinated actions 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 duties and responsibilities, defined by law, relative to integrity of the records of the respective court, in general, and authentication and certification of court records, in particular.

ig S
I.

e n

u d

in s

D g

INTRODUCTION

The transition to electronic case management and public access systems, in any court, amounts to a sea change in these procedures, particularly in the work of the clerks of the court. Previous studies have shown that the transition to electronic record systems in the courts and prisons in the United States was not risk-free. [3,4] A more recent peerreviewed report, [5] summarizes a study of the electronic records systems of the courts of the State of Israel, which was submitted for the January 2013 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the State of Israel by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations [Online Appendices 16]. The 2013 Human Rights Alert submission is probably a first: a Human Rights report, which is narrowly focused on integrity, 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 and undermining of the integrity of the offices of the clerks, as key features of such systems in Israel and beyond. Case studies are documented in more detail, to demonstrate the outcome of such practices in the administration of justice. Relative to the State of Israel it is proposed that such conditions in the courts are key violations of Human Rights in State of Israel, and should be deemed an unannounced regime change. More generally, is it proposed that today, in civilized societies, which practice separation of the branches of government, and where no court is permitted to enact the rules of operation of the courts, no court should be permitted to institute its own electronic record system either.

iS ig

n ig

r e

II. THE LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL The authority, duties and responsibilities of the clerks and or registrars in the State of Israel were defined in a series of laws and respective regulations. The regulations, which were promulgated in 2003-5, during the period of implementation of the current electronic record systems of the courts, are of particular interest. The laws and regulations are at times inconsistent in their basic terms and leave considerable amount of ambiguity in defining the procedures of the Office of the Clerk and the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Clerk and/or Registrar. On such

legal background, it is also clear, that in developing and implementing the electronic record systems of the courts, the first step, e.g., defining the specifications of the electronic record systems, was particularly sensitive. Either the authorities, duties and responsibilities of the Chief Clerk and/or Registrar, and the respective procedures were to be unequivocally and unambiguously defined, or else an invalid electronic records system would be developed and implemented. III. METHODS

A cursory survey was then conducted of the pattern judges’ signatures and clerk’s certification in records of the Supreme Court over the past two decades. Consequently, the significance of events around 2001-2003 was identified, and a more detailed survey was conducted of records of that period, including changes in distribution of specific word combinations, related to certification, over time (e.g., Chief Clerk, Registrar, True Copy, individual names "Shmaryahu Cohen", "Sarah Lifschitz", "Boaz Okon", etc). Records that were identified as outliers in such distributions were individually examined.

The underlying study was narrowly focused on analysis of integrity of the electronic record systems in national courts (Supreme Court, district courts, detainees’ courts). The study was not based on legal analysis of the records, or challenges to the rationale of the adjudication. Instead, irregularities in date, signature, certification, and registration procedures were examined through data mining methods, executed on the online public records of the courts. In the current report, emphasis is given to several case histories, and related certification, authentication procedures of the courts. IV. CERTIFICATION OF COURT DECISIONS

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 Supreme Court's records, is the failure to have the identity of the server certified. (Fig 1)

Figure 2. Changes in the Supreme Court Clerk’s certifications of electronic decisions: (a) Until early 2002, all electronic decisions of the Supreme Court carried certification by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen. (b) Since 2003, none of the electronic decision records carries any certification, or any reference to the Office of the Clerk. Instead they carry a disclaimer “subject to editing and phrasing changes”, and reference to an “Information Center”, which has no foundation in the law. The Administration of Courts refuses to disclose the legal foundation for such profound 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 the Administration of Courts, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, for records that would provide the legal foundation for such changes, and the appointment records of chief clerks of the courts, the Registrar of Certifying Authorities, secondary legislation that might have authorized the changes, etc. Additionally, outside sources were reviewed for information regarding the history of the development and implementation of the electronic records systems of the courts: media reports, and in particular the 2010 State Ombudsman’s Report 60b.

Figure 1. Identify of the servers of the Supreme Court is not verified. The electronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel are published online on a server, whose identity is not verified. The website is identified as belonging to the "Judicial Authority" – an undefined legal entity. According to the 2010 State Ombudsman’s Report (60b), the servers are now housed on corporate grounds, out of compliance with the Regulations of the Courts – Office of the Clerk (2004). The Administration of Courts refuses to disclose, who holds the ultimate administrative authority over the servers. After March 2002, no mention appears in the records of the office or any Clerk of the Court.

B. Supreme Court of the State of Israel - inexplicible changes in certification procedures in 2001-2003 Initially, integrity of the basic components of the Supreme Court's information systems were examined: indices of all cases, calendars, dockets (lists of records in a given file), indices of decisions, and consistency of data among these components (e.g., the date a record was filed, as listed in the docket, in contrast to the date, as indicated in the body of the record itself) [Online Appendix 2].

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 Supreme Court in part says: Issued this date, February 14, 2007 Boaz Okon Registrar _________ This version is subject to editing and phrasing changes. Shmaryahu Cohen – Chief Clerk

In the Supreme Court an information center is operated, Tel: 026750444 The Court is open to comments and suggestions: pniot@supreme.court.gov.il The courts’ web site: www.court.gov.il By February 2007, Boaz Okon was no longer Registrar of the Supreme Court, and Shmaryahu Cohen was dead for about five years. Numerous other records of the same nature were discovered.

who holds the ultimate administrative authority over the electronic records of the Supreme Court. No visible electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) were implemented in the electronic records of the Supreme Court. Criminal fraud complaint was filed with the Israel Police relative to her conduct in issuing the false and deliberately misleading certifications, such as the one above. [6] See also Fig 5, above.

The March 7, 2002 untimely death of Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court Shmaryahu Cohen is tightly correlated with precipitous corruption of the electronic records of the Supreme Court. Today, identity of the Supreme Court’s servers is not verified, and all Supreme Court decisions are published unsigned by judges, uncertified by the clerks, and subject to “editing and phrasing changes” (Fig 1). In the transition period (2001-2003), numerous Supreme Court decisions were falsified (Fig 2). C. Fraud in certification of Sumpreme Court decisions Today, the Supreme Court refuses to comply with the law regarding service of its decisions by the Clerk and denies public access to the authentication records – the certificates of delivery, even to a party in his/her own case. False and deliberately misleading certifications of Supreme Court decisions, recently issued by the office of the Chief Clerk were also discovered. • Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court

The case of Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court and related cases, documented that effectively, the Supreme Court established a triple-book record system, where the public and parties to litigation are not permitted to distinguish between valid and simulated decisions.[7, Online Appendix 5]. • Moshe Silman v Social Security Administration The case of Moshe Silman originated in the Decision of Hagai Brenner in the Tel Aviv District Court (see below). The Appeal was initially filed with the Supreme Court as the review court. In the Supreme Court, the Appeal was dismissed, for being filed with the incorrect instance. The Decision of the Supreme Court, published online unsigned and uncertified, explains that Hagai Brenner wears two hat, one of a Magistrate and the other of a pro tem District Judge. Since the Decision was by Brenner in his hat of Magistrate, the review court would be the Tel Aviv District Court itself. Consequently, Silman's attorney filed the appeal in the Tel Aviv District Court, where the appeal was purportedly assigned to Brenner in his hat of a pro tem District Judge, and was purportedly denied. Regardless of the legal content of the Supreme Court's decision, the case documents the conduct of simulated proceedings in the Supreme Court, originating from simulated decision of a lower court. Neither the Supreme Court, nor any other court, has jurisdiction over appeals from simulated court decisions or judgments. The fact that an appeal file was opened from a simulated decision of a lower court, shows failure in integrity of the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the case of Silman v Social Security Administration in the Supreme Court documents that coordinated actions of the fraudulent information systems of the Supreme and the Tel Aviv District Court. D. Simulated service of simulated decisions in the Tel Aviv District Court The evidence shows that implementation of Net HaMishpat, the electronic record system of the district courts, undermined the integrity of the records of the district courts, and in particular, the accountability of the chief clerks relative to the integrity of court records. The 2010 State Ombudsman’s Report 60b reviewed the development and implementation of Net HaMishpat. [8] The report documents a system that was developed with no written specification and with no core supervision by State employees, the issuance of contracts to outside corporations with no bidding, and acceptance of the system with no independent testing of its performance by State employees.

Figure 4. False certification stamp of the Supreme Court a. The certification statement of Chief Clerk, as authorized by the Regulations of Court – Office of the Clerk (2004) – “Copy Corresponds to the Original;” b. The certification statement employed by Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court Sarah Lifschitz, “Copying Corresponds to the Original.” See also Fig 6, below.

Figure 5. Fraud in certification of decisions Supreme Court in Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Excerpt from one of the three records, provided by Chief Clerk SARAH LIFSCHITZ, Supreme Court of the State of Israel. The excerpt says: "Issued today, September 21, 2011", then shows spaces for the signatures of three justices. The footnote says, "copy subject to editing and phrasing changes", then shows the Seal of the Court, and the invalid, false certification stamp, "Copying Corresponds to the Original," with the hand signature of the Chief Clerk and the date of March 29, 2012. Both the Administration of Courts and Sarah Lifschitz refuse to produce the appointment record of Sarah Lifschitz as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, and the Administration of Courts refuses to disclose,

Most alarming, the Ombudsman’s Report documents that unknown number of individuals had been issued double Smart ID cards. The Ombudsman's report points out that the development and implementation of the system was conducted out of compliance with State law. The Human Rights Alert 2012 submission to the United raised the question: How could a professional audit team, which authored the 2010 State Ombudsman's Report, fail to notice the invalidity of the system and its records as a whole? • Silman v Social Security Administration In July 2012, Moshe Silman, a social activist, selfimmolated in a Tel Aviv protest. The opening lines of this suicide letter accused the Tel Aviv District Court, where he sued the social security administration, of obstructing his access to justice. [Online Appendix 6]

Figure 6. Simulated service of a simulated court decision in Silman et al v Bituach Leumi et al (1572-08) in the Tel Aviv District Court. (a) Simulated, unsigned Certificate of Service – the signature box at lower left, says "Signature of the Clerk" below the signature line. The signature box was left unsigned, and no clerk was named; (b) Simulated, unsigned "Postit" Decision in the name of Judge Hagai Brenner, as served on the author by the Tel Aviv District Court, in response to a Request to Instpect and to Copy. The purported decision record is an the electronic, half transparent text box at the upper left, superimposed on the request record. The purported Decision says: "For response by parties and their heirs within 21 days. Service in person by the Requester".The Request record explicitly asked the Tel Aviv Districtr Court for due service of court decisions in the matter (access to inspect and to copy).

(a)

Initial attempts to access the records of the Tel Aviv District Court have been unsuccessful so far. However, in the process it was discovered that: • The complaint and initial decision in this case were filed under a court file number that now the office of the Clerk of the Court says never existed; • None of the published decisions are signed or certified, instead, simulated, ¨Post-it Decisions” were issued; • Judge Brenner affected the dismissal of the original complaint, and then denied an appeal from his own decision. No access has been gained so far to the Tel Aviv District Court file in the case of Moshe Silman. However, in the process it was shown that the Tel-Aviv court established the following, materially different court files, in violation of the law: 1. Paper court file; 2. Court file as viewed from a remote public terminal; 3. Court file as viewed from a local public terminal in the Court; 4. Court file as viewed in the terminals of the office of the Clerk of the Court; 5. Court file(s) as viewed by the judges? Furthermore, while Silman's attorney immediately confirmed that he was the authorized Attorney of Record of the Plaintiff, the office of retired judge Sarah Frish, who appeared on behalf of the social security administration, refused to confirm or deny that it was authorized as Attorney of Record for the Defendant. Likewise, the social security administration refused to respond on a Freedom of Information Act request, for the authorization of Attorney Sarah Frish as Attorney of Record for social security in this case. Concern should be raised of appearance by unauthorized attorneys for the social security administration in the case of the late Moshe Silman. Such unauthorized appearances by attorneys are common practice by financial institutions and their outside counsel in the United States. [9] E. Fraud in Certification procedure, pursuant to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961) Both the Administration of Courts and the Ministry of Justice refused to answer, or provided invalid, or false and deliberately misleading responses on Freedom of Information requests, pertaining to the foundation for the changes in certification practices in the Supreme Court, or

(b)

the Apostille certification procedures, appointment records of the chief clerks of the courts.

4. A certified electronic signature is presumed to be a secure electronic signature.

a.

Pursuant to the Act, a Registrar of Certification Authorities (qualified as a district judge) was to be appointed in the Ministry of Justice. Discontinuities in certification authorities of the Supreme Court in late 2001-3, which ended with no certification at all, followed closely. Several individuals purportedly served in the position of Registrar of Certifying Authorities over the past decade, Guidelines and Standards were published, and enforcement was conducted. Requests, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1988), pertaining to the implementation of the Electronic Signature Act, including the appointment records of the Registrars of Certifying Authorities of the past decade, the identities of Certifying Authorities that may have been assigned to the courts, names of individuals, who hold the ultimate administrative authority for the servers of the courts. [Online Appendix 2], were not answered by the Ministry of Justice and the Administration of Courts, or answered in a manner that should be deemed false and deliberately misleading. Combined, the evidence shows that the Ministry of Justice has deliberately undermined the implementation of Electronic Signature Act (2001) over the past decade. V. COMSIGN, LTD – SOLE CERTIFIER AND HACKER OF THE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL Through the unlawful appearance and conduct of individuals as "Registrar of Certifying Authorities", ComSign, LTD, was effectively established as sole Certifying Authority for electronic signatures in the State of Israel. ComSign, LTD, is a private corporation, controlled by a group of veterans of the IDF Intelligence Unit 8200 (cyber-war). [Online Appendix 3] Perhaps the most alarming finding in data mining efforts, based on legal public records spanning some two decades, was the failure to discover even a single visible, valid electronic signature of any judge, clerk, or officer of the State of Israel. The Ministry of Justice has failed so far to respond on a Freedom of Information request for any record, bearing valid electronic signature of the State of Israel. A. Complaint with the Israeli Bar Association Since both individuals, who unlawfully appeared as "Registrars of Certifying Authorities" of the State of Israel were senior attorneys at the Ministry of Justice, attempt was made to duly file complaints against the two with the Israel Bar Association. The complaints alleged Fraud on the and Breach of Trust by the two attorneys. Initially, both the Jerusalem and Tel Aviv chapters refused to issue complaint numbers. Following intervention by the national office, the Jerusalem, but not the Tel Aviv chapter consented to designate a complaint number. However, when the national office and the chapters were

b.

Figure 7. Fraud in Apostille certification arrangement, published online by the “Judicial Authority”: (a) True apostille form, as authorized by the Hague Apostille Convention (1961); (b) A sample apostille form, published on the web site of the “Judicial Authority” of the State of Israel, falsely represented as the true apostille form, as authorized by the Convention. The form, published by the “Judicial Authority”, purports that an “Advocate”, acting as a Notary, is permitted to certify court decisions, which the Regulations of the Courts – Office of the Clerk (2004) authorize the Chief Clerks to certify. Furthermore, the latter form permits a member of the staff of the Office of the Clerk, to sign the apostille form, as certification of the signature of the Notary, with the Seal of the Court, in a manner that appears as a valid certification by a clerk of the attached court decision. In fact, the arrangement, published online, specifically states that in executing the apostille, the Office of the Clerk certified ONLY the signature of the notary, but not the attached court record. The arrangement is opined as fraud on the People of Israel, and also on the People and the courts of other nations, who are parties to the Convention. It is part of a pattern of false certifications on records of the courts of the State of Israel. Both the Administration of Courts and the Ministry of Justice refuse to disclose, who authorized this arrangement, and who and when authorized its online publication. The Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court refused to provide apostille certification of judicial records of the Supreme Court.

F. Electronic Signature Act (2001) The Act and the respective regulations were signed and became effective in 2001. In pertinent parts, the Act says:
Chapter 2. Validity of a Secure Electronic Signature … 2. (a) For any law, requiring a signature on a document – such requirement may be fulfilled, in respect of any electronic message, by use of an electronic signature, provided that it is a certified electronic signature… 3. An electronic message, signed with a secure electronic signature is admissible in any legal procedure…

asked to disclose the nature of their relationship with ComSign, LTD, all three refused to respond. In fact, the Israel Bar Association is closely associated with ComSign, LTD, acting as its affiliate or subsidiary, which is authorized by ComSign, LTD, to issue certified electronic signatures to licensed attorneys. B. Complaint with the Accuntancy Bar Google search showed that ComSign, LTD, at one time strived to have its certified electronic signatures recognized by common browser. For that purpose, the browser management asked ComSign, LTD, to provide documentation of its lawful corporate audit, relative to compliance with the law. Initially, executives for ComSign, LTD, claimed in their correspondence with the browser management that ComSign is audited by the Ministry of Justice of the State of Israel. When asked to provide certified translation of such audit records, ComSign provided instead an audit letter issued by a private accountant. The private audit letter is alleged as fraud. However, the Israeli Institute of Certified Public Accountants refused to accept complaint against the accountant, or advise of any other disciplinary mechanisms. The conduct of professional organizations, outlined above, provides insights into the scope of the problem: Senior members of the professional class, judges, Ministry of Justice officers, attorneys, accountants, data processing corporations, are all involved in various ways in the establishment of fraudulent electronic signature system in the State of Israel. VI. DISCUSSION

English common law, but thousands of years of Jewish law. Validity and authentication of legal records are elaborated in Talmudic discourse, for example, relative to marriage and divorce. [10] The marriage ceremony itself was designed so that even an illiterate woman would be able to ascertain the legal validity of the transaction, through the exchange of the ring in front of competent witnesses. Likewise, special authentication procedures were established for transactions, conducted with incompetent parties, such as minors. [11] The conduct of mock litigation violates at least three of the Ten Commandments, and in later Jewish law, it is deemed Gneyvat Da'at HaTzibur [widespread public deception – jz]. Conduct of mock litigation is also provided as the essence of corruption of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel in the case of Naboth's Vineyard. [12] Based on review of part of the findings of the current report, a senior member of the faculty of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, filed a formal request for Halachic ruling by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, a widely recognized Talmudic authority, "Is the Supreme Court of the State of Israel engaged in Gneyvat Da'at HaTzibur? C. Duties and responsibilities of the Clerk of the Court The general pattern that emerges from review of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel, and corresponding systems in the state and federal courts in the United States is the following: • • • • Rendering the nature of electronic signature ambiguous in the transition from paper to electronic record systems. Implementation of electronic signature systems, which are invisible to the public. Deletion of any mention of the office of the Clerk of the Court from the electronic records. Falsification of the remaining authentication and certification procedures, where the hand signature of an individual clerk is required.

A. Human error or mal intent? Mal-intent is most effectively evidenced in the refusal of the authorities to right the wrongs: • The Supreme Court refused to provide access to a party to the party's own electronic court records, in violation of the Regulations of the Courts and the Court's own decisions. • The Supreme Court repeatedly refused to comply with the law, relative to valid service of the Supreme Court's decisions. So did also the Tel Aviv District Court. • The Supreme Court engaged in simulated registration of an appeal, and conduct of simulated proceedings on the matter, and then refused to correct the false registrations. • The Supreme Court's Chief Clerk produced fraudulent certification on Supreme Court decisions, and refused to correct the certification records. B. Mock litigation and authentication of court records from the Jewish perspective The leap, taken by the courts of the State of Israel, in developing and implementing invalid record systems in the courts, stands in contrast, not only of hundreds of years of

D. "Privatization" of Public Records and undermining the office of the Clerk of the Court Public records emerged in the last middle ages as key instrument for the administration of a civilized society. The earliest public records were birth, marriages, and burial records. Later, in the English common law, court records were accorded the same status. The right to inspect and to copy court records is considered essential for transparency of the courts and the judicial process, and for the safeguard of the courts against corruption. Implementing electronic record systems in the courts, could have enhanced transparency. In fact, as explicitly ruled by former Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch of the Supreme the implementation of current electronic records systems in the courts of the State of Israel, such systems led to restricting public access. [13]

The office of the Clerk of the Court is deemed the lawful custodian of the public records in the courts of most "western democracies". The examples from the courts of the State of Israel, discussed here, and similar examples from other jurisdictions, show that undermining the authority of the office of the Clerk of the Court was central to the implementation of unlawful electronic record systems. As detailed in the 2010 State if Israel's Ombudsman's Report, [8] custody of both the electronic record systems and the servers of the electronic records of the courts of the State of Israel were "privatized" over the past decade. Likewise, the delegation of certification of apostilles of judicial records, pursuant to the Hague Convention, to notaries, should also be deemed a form of "privatization". The notion of "privatization" of any electronic record sysrtem, which is essential for the safeguard of a civilized society, should be deemed ill-conceived and absurd. Included in the list of such systems are electronic record systems of the courts, of the prisons, electronic voting machines, to list just a few. On the background of conditions of the justice system of the State of Israel, documented in the current report, concerns should be raised, regarding the insistence of the government of the State of Israel on passing and executing a Biometric Database Act. Particularly alarming is the stated intent to "privatize" the biometric database. [14] E. The Israeli “Constitutional Revolution” The State of Israel has not adopted a constitution to this date. In the early 1990s, the Knesset (legislature) enacted two “Basic Laws”, in effort to establish fundamental Human Rights by law. Moreover, under the tenure of Presiding Justice Aharon Barak (1995-2006), reputed as a "liberal", and to a lesser degree under the tenure of Presiding Justice Dorit Beinisch (2006-2012) the Supreme Court of the State of Israel purportedly spear-headed a “Constitutional Revolution”. [15] Various “Constitutional Rights” were purportedly construed by the Supreme Court. The current report stands in stark contrast to such popular myths. Data mining documents that Presiding Justice Aharon Barak presided over unprecedented corruption of the records of the courts of the State of Israel. With it, the Human Rights for Due Process/Fair Hearings, and Access to Justice through national tribunals for protections of rights were irreparably compromised. Reports in the Israeli press in recent years document the falsification of court records in the District Courts and Detainees' Courts, and refusal of the appropriate government agencies to take actions against the responsible judges. [16,17] F. Unannounced regime change in the State of Israel The evidence, outlined in the current report (and the Online Appendices) shows that over the past decade, key functions of the lawful government of the State of Israel

have been unlawfully seized by individuals, groups and corporations. Such transition amounts to an unannounced regime change in the State of Israel. From criminological perspective, the conduct, which is outlined in the current paper should be deemed Organized State Crime. G. The State of Israel is not alone… Peer-reviewed papers and reports detail similar conduct in the state and federal courts in the United States. The results of the study are not unique to the State of Israel. The Human Rights Alert submission for the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights in the United States was in part based on analysis of fraud in the electronic record systems of the California courts and prisons. The submission was reviewed by and incorporated into the official UN report with a note referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession in California”. [18] In this context, the key role of two US-based international corporations, IBM and EDS, in the unlawful development and implementation of the current electronic record systems of the State of Israel, as outlined in the 2010 State Ombudsman's Report, should also be noted. [8] Preliminary surveys suggests that similarly invalid electronic record systems have been instituted in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Federal Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany. [19, 20] VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of the current study show that senior members of the judiciary and the legal profession exploited the transition over the past decade to new electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel to undermine the integrity of the justice system. Attorney and judges were not alone, but were and are aided by the accountants, elements in the security apparatus, and large international information systems corporations. Updates in the electronic records systems and the passage of the Electronic Signature Act in 2001, made it necessary to decide between the development of systems, based on valid, lawful specifications and lawful electronic signatures, or systems based on no specifications and no visible electronic signatures at all. The results show that around 2002 decision was made in favor of the latter option. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the development and implementation of invalid record systems in the courts required the neutralization of the primary watchdogs: the chief clerks of the Supreme Court and the district courts, and the Registrar of Certifying Authorities. It was also necessary to devise ways to circumvent, or undermine the valid authentication and certification procedures, where they still existed in paper form, e.g. – the apostille, pursuant to the Hague Convention. Finally, false perception of enhanced public access and enhanced transparency of the courts was created through the implementation of invalid electronic record systems in the

courts. In fact public access and transparency of the courts were undermined. [13] The resulting conditions are claimed as serious violations of the Human Rights of the People of the State of Israel. The findings should also require reassessment of any faith and credit, which may be given to legal public records originating in the courts of the State of Israel by other nations, including, but not limited to those, who are parties to the Hague Convention (1961). Furthermore, the failure, outlined above, to honestly implement of the Electronic Signature Act has ramifications far beyond the justice system. It is likely to place Israeli financial markets at high-risk of instability and collapse. The Human Rights Alert submission recommends: 1. The electronic records systems of the courts should be examined and repaired by Israeli computing and legal experts, under accountability to the legislature. 2. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be established to examine the conduct of members of the judiciary and the legal profession, who were involved in undermining the integrity of the electronic record systems; 3. No court of any nation should be permitted to develop and implement its own electronic record systems, since such systems effectively amount to establishment of new regulation of the courts. Typically, the authority to establish such regulations is reserved for one of the other two branches of government. VIII. NO COURT OF A CIVILIZED NATION SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ITS OWN ELECTRONIC RECORD SYSTEM The current report supports the following line of logic: Any information system (whether on paper or electronic) is an assembly of rules of operations. 2. The statement in 1., above, is valid regardless of whether such program is written in machine language, higher level computer language, or in natural (human) language. 3. An electronic information system that runs the operations of a court, is an assembly of rules of operations of such court. 4. To the degree that today civilized societies practice separation of the branches of government and no court is permitted to enact the law and rules of operation of the courts, no court of a civilized society should be permitted to institute its own electronic record system. The unauthorized implementation of electronic information systems in the courts of the State of Israel (other nations as well) should be deemed unannounced regime change. Such conduct is likely to lead to deterioration in Human Rights conditions and socio-economic development. One of the first indications of such dynamics is the erosion of integrity of other government operations, including, but not limited to effective banking and corporate regulation, and the widening socio-economic gaps. 1.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author thanks Israeli computing/cryptology and legal experts for their assistance. ONLINE APPENDICES
The online appendices includes further details, links to the original data, and enlarged and additional figures: [1] Human Right Alert (NGO), Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the State of Israel submission: Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/92826212/ https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5QWtZcj VQLWVFZ0k [2] Human Right Alert (NGO), Appendix I to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel: Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/108663259/ https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2sz X05oMkU [3] Human Right Alert (NGO), Appendix II to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel: Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel Additional Responses by National Authorities/Experts, Re: ComSign, LTD - sole certifier and hacker of the digital signatures of the State of Israel (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/108662869/ https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5bjBUY0 FVNGR3eXc [4] Human Right Alert (NGO), Appendix III to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel peer-reviewed and published in Data Analytics 2012 s http://www.scribd.com/doc/109534131/ https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5MFV3dn JMdzN0VVk [5] Zernik, J., Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court Simulated Records, Simulated Litigation Enabled by the Electronic Record Systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel (English) (2012) http://he.scribd.com/doc/73239491/ [6] Human Right Alert (NGO), Appendix IV to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel - the case of Moshe Silman (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/109693460/ https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5Q3loSEp rNVNPVm8

REFERENCES
United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center, “Report of the First Vienna Convention Strengthening Judicial Integrity”, CICP-6 (2000) [2] United Nations Drug Control and Crime Prevention Center, “Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption”, CICP10 (2001) [3] Zernik, J., “Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners’ Registration Systems”, International Journal on Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining 1: 84-96 (2010) [4] Zernik, J., “Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the Networked US Federal Courts”, International Journal on
[1]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8] [9]

[10]

[11]

[12] [13]

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Social Media: Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69-83 (2010) Zernik, J., "Integrity, or Lack Thereof, of the Electronic Record Systems of the Courts of the State of Israel", Data Analytics 1:31-38 (2012) Human Rights Alert (NGO), PRESS RELEASE: Criminal Fraud and Breach of Loyalty Complaint Against SARAH LIFSCHITZ, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel, Filed Today With Israel Police (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/89681591/ "Simulated litigation", "simulated decisions", "simulated service", "simulated justice system" here refer to conduct defined as felonies 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. State of Israel Ombudman, “Report 60b (2010) - Ministry of Justice Computerization" (2010) pp 693 et seq Bohm, J., US Judge, "Memorandum Opinion", in: Case of Borrower William Parsley (05-90374), Dkt #248 (2008) http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/ The Talmudic tractus of Gittin [Divorces – jz] discusses valid authentication: ‫משנה: המביא גט ממדינת הים - כל חו"ל קרי ליה מדינת הים בר מבבל‬ '‫כדאמר לקמן )דף ו( צריך - השליח המביאו לומר כו‬ "He who executes divorce across the sea, shall appoint a messenger to deliver the record, and the messenger shall declare…" [English translation – jz] The Talmudic tractus of Baba Batra [Middle Gate – jz] discusses "Segulah" – authentication procedures in transactions with incompetent parties: ...‫קבל מן הקטן יעשה לו סגולה‬ "Upon receipt from a minor, a Segulah should be produced…" [English translation – jz] Bible: 1 Kings 21 Sharvit, N., "Chief Justice Dorit Beinish: The new case management system (Net Ha-Mishpat) would require restricting public access to court records", Globes (October 8, 2009) Zarchin, T., " High Court: Israel's biometric database is 'extreme and harmful' ", Haaretz (July 24, 2012) Barak, A., “A Constitutional Revolution – Israel’s Basic Laws”, Constitutional Forum 4:83-85 (1992) Weiler, D., “Court Decision Appeared in Court File Prior to Proceedings”, Haaretz (February 8, 2011) Raz, H., "Justice minister to rule on judge who altered court minutes", Haaretz (Aug.19, 2012 ) Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Ninth session, National report submitted in

accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, United States of America” (1– 12 November 2010) [19] Zernik, J., "Preliminary review of the electronic record systems of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)"(2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/107097024/ [20] Zernik, J., "Preliminary Review of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" (2012) http://www.scribd.com/doc/106077048/

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful