Human Rights Alert (NGO) ‫לזכויות האדם‬

Joseph Zernik, PhD ‫ד"ר יוסף צרניק‬

PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel 6133301 ‫ ת"א‬,33407 ‫ת"ד‬
Fax: 077-3179186 Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org

2012-05-31 Decision (88/12/Tel-Aviv District) by Ombudsman of the Judiciary

Eliezer Goldberg on complaints against Judge Varda AlSheikh in the
“Reconstructed Protocol” affair//
‫ השופט אליעזר‬,‫ מחוזי ת"א( של נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים‬/88/12) ‫החלטה‬
‫ בעניין "הפרוטוקול המשופץ" של השופטת ורדה‬,2012 ,‫ למאי‬31 ‫גולדברג מיום‬
‫אלשייך‬
https://www.scribd.com/doc/291016506/ 
[‫]עברית להלן‬

Judge Varda Alshech “reconstructed protocols”, Justice Eliezer Goldebrg wrote 
a landmark decision, exposing the fraud in development and operation of Net­
HaMishpat – IT system of the Israeli district and magistrate courts.
____
English translation is provided only for parts of the decision, which pertain to the 
development and operation of Net­HaMishpat and conduct of judges and clerical staff 
relative to the production, filing, service, and certification of judicial records.
The decision documents in great detail the failure of all such procedures, which were 
established in courts in Western nations centuries ago, and which were established 
also in the State of Israel from 1936 to 2004, under Regulations of the Courts – 
Registration Office (1936), promulgated under the British rule period... [1] The British 
Regulations were voided in 2004, concomitantly with the initiation of development of 
Net­HaMishpat and the transition to e­courts in Israel. New Regulations of the Courts – 
Office of the Clerk (2004) were promulgated instead... [2]
The two protocols – Version A and Version B – and the invalid “graphic signatures” on 
them, can be viewed in the attachments to the complaint, [3] filed with the 
Ombudsman of the Judiciary by the Israel Bar Association, which is the subject of the 
decision provided here.
LINKS:
[1] 1936­00­00 Regulations of the Courts – Registration Office (1936) 
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306634079/ 
[2] 2004­00­00 Regulations of the Courts – Office of the Clerk (2004) 
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306634195/  

1/2
 [3] 2012­01­26 Complaint against Judge VARDA ALSHEIKH in the “Reconstruct 
Protocol” affair, filed by Israel Bar Association, Tel­Aviv 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/ 

Hebrew Wikipedia
The Reconstructed Protocols Affair
In June 2012 Justice Eliezer Goldberg, Ombudsman of the Judiciary, determined that
Judge Alshech perpetrated 36 technical and material changes in the protocol [minutes –
jz] of a hearing she had conducted, in order to make the conduct of an attorney, against
who she filed a complaint, appear more severe. Following the Ombudsman's decision,
the President of the Israel Bar Association and the heads of the 5 Districts approached
Minister of Justice Yaakov Neeman and Presiding Justice Asher Grunis in demand to
remove Alshech from the bench. On July 27, 2012 Alshech announced her resignation
from her position as Chairwoman of the Judges Association. Presiding Justice Asher
Grunis decided to issue a serious warning against Alshech in her personal file as the only
sanction. He made it clear that he saw the matter seriously, and warned her against
repeating such conduct. However, he decided not to apply his authority according to
Base Law: The Judiciary, Article 7(4), which allows opening process for her impeachment.
Iin part, he took into account the fact that she was a very experienced and senior judge.
Following Presiding Justice Grunis's decision, the President of the Israel Bar Association
and heads of the 5 Districts approached Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman in demanding
that he use his authority and file a complaint with the Judicial Disciplinary Court and
demand her impeachment. A joint conference of Minister of Justice Neeman and the
leadership of the Israel Bar Association led to a compromise, based on Presiding Justice
serious warning to Alshech.
Note: Regardless, Alshech was later caught repeating the same conduct...
‫ויקיפדיה‬
‫פרשת השינויים בפרוטוקול‬
‫ תיקונים טכניים‬36 ‫ כי אלשיך ביצעה‬,‫ אליעזר גולדברג‬,‫ קבע נציב תלונות הציבור על השופטים‬2012 ‫ביוני‬
‫ בעקבות‬.‫ כדי להחמיר בתיאור התנהלות עו"ד שנגדו התלוננה‬,‫ומהותיים בפרוטוקול דיון שהתנהל בפניה‬
‫ פנו ראש לשכת עורכי הדין וחמשת ראשי מחוזות הלשכה לשר המשפטים יעקב נאמן ולנשיא‬,‫החלטת הנציב‬
‫ הודיעה אלשיך על התפטרותה‬2012 ‫ ביולי‬27-‫ ב‬.‫בית המשפט העליון אשר גרוניס בדרישה להדחתה‬
‫ הנשיא גרוניס החליט לנקוט בסנקציה של אזהרה חמורה כנגד אלשיך‬.‫מתפקיד יו"ר נציגות השופטים‬
‫ והזהיר אותה מפני הישנות מקרים דומים‬,‫ הבהיר כי הוא רואה בחומרה את המקרה‬,‫שהוכנסה לתיקה האישי‬
‫ השפיטה ולא לפתוח בהליך‬:‫( לחוק יסוד‬4) 7 ‫ אך החליט שלא לעשות שימוש בסמכותו לפי סעיף‬,‫בעתיד‬
‫ פנו יו"ר‬,‫ בעקבות החלטת גרוניס‬.‫ בכך שמדובר בשופטת ותיקה ומנוסה ביותר‬,‫ בין היתר‬,‫ והתחשב‬,‫הדחתה‬
‫ בדרישה להשתמש בסמכותו ולהגיש‬,‫לשכת עורכי הדין וחמשת ראשי מחוזותיה לשר המשפטים יעקב נאמן‬
‫ בישיבה משותפת‬.‫קובלנה משמעתית נגד אלשיך לבית הדין המשמעתי של השופטים ולהשעותה מתפקידה‬
‫ הוביל נאמן לפשרה שבמרכזה‬,‫שהתקיימה בין השר נאמן לבין יו"ר לשכת עורכי הדין וראשי המחוזות‬
.‫הסתפקות בהחלטתו של הנשיא גרוניס על אזהרה חמורה לאלשיך‬
# Document  Page

1. 2012­05­31 Decision (88/12/Tel­Aviv District) by Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg on  3
complaints against Judge Varda AlSheikh in the “Reconstructed Protocol” affair – English translation //
,‫למאי‬ 31 ‫מיום‬ ‫גולדברג‬ ‫אליעזר‬ ‫השופט‬ ,‫השופטים‬ ‫על‬ ‫ הציבור‬ ‫תלונות‬ ‫ נציב‬ ‫של‬ (‫ת" א‬ ‫ מחוזי‬/88/12) ‫החלטה‬
‫לאנגלית‬ ‫תרגום‬ – ‫אלשייך‬ ‫ורדה‬ ‫השופטת‬ ‫של‬ "‫המשופץ‬ ‫" הפרוטוקול‬ ‫ בעניין‬  ,2012

2. 2012­05­31 Decision (88/12/Tel­Aviv District) by Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg on  15
complaints against Judge Varda AlSheikh in the “Reconstructed Protocol” affair – Hebrew original// 
,‫למאי‬ 31 ‫מיום‬ ‫גולדברג‬ ‫אליעזר‬ ‫השופט‬ ,‫השופטים‬ ‫על‬ ‫ הציבור‬ ‫תלונות‬ ‫ נציב‬ ‫של‬ (‫ת" א‬ ‫ מחוזי‬/88/12) ‫החלטה‬
‫עברי‬ ‫מקור‬ – ‫אלשייך‬ ‫ורדה‬ ‫השופטת‬ ‫של‬ "‫המשופץ‬ ‫" הפרוטוקול‬ ‫ בעניין‬  ,2012

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

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 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)... 2
1 The Ombudsman does not state the 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.
2 Copy of the Complaint by Attorney Effy Naveh, Israel Bar Association, which
includes as attachments copies of the two Protocols, Version A and Version B can be
found in the link below. The records show the “graphic signatures” on the records,
and the stamp “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, 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 Alshech
…

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 Net-
HaMishpat 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 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, showed 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. 3
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 are no two versions of the Protocol. Version A is a “Draft Protocol”, which her
secretary provided to Attorneys Arbel and Argaz by mistake, at their request, and
Version B is an “Official Protocol”, which was electronically signed by her after
being proofread. 4
The Honorable Judge's explanation indicates that as far as Net­HaMishpat 
system is concerned, any protocol bears a scanned graphic signature of the 
judge on all decisions.  However, until the protocol record is signed by the 
judge using an electronic signature, it is a draft protocol, which is maintained 
in the Protocols Folder of the system... 
Since the scanned graphic signature of the judge appears also on the draft, a 
printout of the draft and a printout of the electronically signed protocol look 
the same, and there is no way to distinguish between them.  Therefore, 
according to office procedures, a protocol should not be printed out from the 
Protocols Folder (as done by her secretary), but only after they it was 
electronically signed, by executing the “Protocol Application” by the Office of 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/299227398/  
3 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.
4 All underlines in the original – jz
the Clerk. 5 
Moreover, corrections, which are implemented in a protocol after it was 
electronically signed, would generate in the system a new version, named 
“Corrected Protocol”, alongside the original version of the protocol. In 
contrast, changes in a protocol that was not electronically signed are not 
recorded and saved as separate versions, and all editing is saved under the 
same electronic file of the record.  The examination shows that in this case, 
the “History” listing of the system lists no previous versions of the Protocol, 
only one version, which is Version B, which was filed with the Complaint to 
the Israel Bar Association. 6   
As to the corrections made in the Protocol themselves, the Hon Judge states 
that since the Hearing was stormy and was often interrupted, the transcriber 
did not have a chance to record everything that was said.  She (the Hon 
Judge) therefore informed the parties that the Protocol would be provided to 
them at the end of the business day at the Office of the Clerk....  Regardless of 
her notice, Attorneys Arbel and Argaz went down to the Office of the Clerk, 
where they informed her secretary that “they were coming from the 
courtroom, and they did not receive the Protocol”.  The secretary, who was 
burdened with service to the public, made an error, entered Net­HaMishpat 
system in the wrong way, and printed out for them from the Protocol Folder 
what was only a Draft Protocol.  Additionally, and contrary to office 
procedures, the secretary certified the Draft Protocol “True Copy of the 
Original”, although there was no “Original” before her. 7  
5 The information provided here shows that some effort was made to simulate in Net-
HaMishpat the operations of a competent Office of the Clerk. Namely, 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 in fact enters the
signed protocol into the public “Decisions Docket”. However, the Ombudsman's
decision also documents in great detail that none of it is performed in practice. 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. The Regulations of the Courts – Office of the Clerk (2004), were
accordingly changed, to abolish the legal duties and authorities of the Chief Clerk
relative to the maintenance and integrity of the records,
6 The essence of the Complaints against Judge Alshech was that she falsified a court
record in order to file with the Israel Bar Association the semi-criminal complaint
against Attorney Argaz.
7 This paragraph contains important information. It shows at once that Judge
Alshech and the Ombudsman are familiar with what are honest procedures
regarding the filing and certification of court records, and that such procedures are
in fact not upheld since the introduction of Net-HaMishpat. As the Ombudsman later
comments, contrary to what Alshech describes as an error by her secretary, her
conduct was typical: Judges do not electronically sign the records in Net-HaMishpat,
and unauthorized staff, untrained and uninformed, relative to the significance of
electronic signatures in Net-HaMishpat, delivers such record so parties and counsel
as valid court records. Additionally, the routine certification in the courts, as in this
case, is by unauthorized persons. 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
Not too long after she electronically signed the Protocol, her secretary sent the
entire record [Version B – EG] to the parties. 8 
The Hon Judge emphasized that none of the attorneys filed a request for 
correction of the Protocol, or a request for clarification, in order to correct the 
situation.  They “recalled” to address the issue only after the Israel Bar 
Association approached Attorney Argaz.

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 a 2012-02-29 letter by Mr Yarden Yardeni, Director of
the Net-HaMishpat project in the IT Systems and Computers Wing of the
Administration of Courts, to Attorney Barak Laser. 9

21.  In his 2012­02­29 letter, Mr Yarden Yardeni writes:
“On a given hearing date, the court transcriber opens a new electronic 
protocol file, which opens a protocol template Word document. In order to 
start editing the record, the transcriber has to perform two functions in the 
Word record: “Add Persons Present”, and “Start Hearing”.  Until these 
functions are performed, it is impossible to edit the record.  The “Start 
Hearing” action triggers the “Protocol Application” task for the Office of the 
Clerk. 10 At the end of the hearing, the transcriber performs in the Word 
document two additional functions: “Graphic Signature” and “End Hearing”. 

records on a routine basis.

8 This sentence is further detailing of the sequence of events by Judge Alshech.
Below, it turns out to be false: The Protocol record was never electronically signed.
However, this sentence also documents the breakdown of lawful service procedures
following the implementation of Net-HaMishpat. A secretary (unauthorized staff)
sent by mail an unsigned, invalid court record, in lieu of lawful service of a signed,
valid court record, accompanied by an authentication letter by the Office of the
Clerk.
9 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/
10 Again, showing the initial implementation of correct functions of the Office of the
Clerk in Net-HaMishpat, but failure to perform them in reality. 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 Net-HaMishpat. 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.
The transcriber, when so ordered by the judge, can print out a copy of the 
protocol prior to the execution of the “End Hearing” action, so that the parties 
leave the courtroom with a copy of the protocol. 11 After the execution of the 
“End Hearing” function, the Word document is closed and filed in the Protocol
Folder as a draft. The judge then enters the Protocol Folder and executes the 
electronic signatures. The execution of the electronic signature transforms the 
electronic file from draft to final record, in the sense that it is locked from any 
further changes... The “Protocol Application” task appears in the Office of the 
Clerk on the hearing date. If the the clerk attempts to perform the “Protocol 
Application” prior to the electronic signing of the protocol draft by the judge, 
he would get a warning message that the protocol is not signed yet, and the 
system would prevent the completion of the “Protocol Application”.   
However, the printing of a Draft Protocol by the Office of the Clerk is possible,
by entering the “Protocol Folder” instead of using the “Protocol Application”. 
Under such circumstances there is no prompt warning the clerk that the 
protocol is unsigned.
It is impossible to distinguish between a graphically signed protocol and an 
electronically signed protocol once the record had been printed.  With it, in 
the electronic files in Net­HaMishpat system there are several ways to 
distinguish between them: The electronically signed protocol shows the coat 
of arms of the State of Israel in color, while the graphically signed protocol 
shows it with no colors. Additionally, the task line of a given protocol appearss
in green once the protocol is electronically signed, and in black as long as it is 
a draft.  Additionally, there is documentation of the execution of electronic 
signature in the “Protocol Events” folder in the system.” 12

No electronically signed Protocol was discovered

22. Following the receipt of the Hon Judge dated 2012-02-05 and 2012-02-12, we
received the 2912-03-01 letter by Attorney Barak Laser 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,
11 Here, the statements by mr Yardeni become false and misleading. The paper
provided under such circumstances to the parties is not a “copy of the protocol”, as
explained by Judge Alshech and the Ombudsman, it is merely a “Draft Protocol”,
albeit, parties, counsel, and the public at large cannot distinguish the fact that it is
an unsigned, invalid court record, bearing only a “graphic signature”.
12 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.
indicates that there is no prior signed version of the Protocol.” [Bold added- EG]

Also a 2012-02-27 letter by Attorney Barak Laser to the Hon Judge, which was
provided for mky 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 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
practice in this case either.” [Bold, underline in the original – EG] 13

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 by 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.

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, as described above.
She said:
"If I did not write I was wrong... I don't know why I didn't write to you... I was
focused on the Complaint. When you get a bomb dropped on your head, you focus on
what is there.”
13 The entire story of course does not add up. If the Protocol was not signed
electronically, it should have been impossible to add it to the public docket, and
likewise, it should have been impossible to duly execute the “Service Application”
(see below). Therefore, the case shows that beyond keeping the records unsigned,
the courts routinely bypass the other procedures, set in place for centuries in
honest courts, namely – due service, and the maintenance of honest dockets.
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 painted as if I deliberatively
tried to be imprecise regarding the date, starting which, purportedly, I knew that the
Protocol was never signed. I admit that the period that 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 sent to the parties at the end of the day), was
printed out 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. 14
Indeed, such statement is consistent with the fact that no electronically signed
Protocol exists.

28. I don't find it necessary to get into further details of the investigation in this
matter, and I would sum it up, that today, as before, there is no evidence of a
computer failure, which prevents the execution of an electronic signature on this
Protocol record, and 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 to 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 has not been addressed.

Printing the Protocol and providing it to the parties

29. In his Complaint, Attorney Argaz claimed 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 informed the parteis at the end of the Hearing that
they would be able to get the Protocol in the Office of the Clerk at the end of the day.

30. In this matter I determine that even if the Hon Judge informed the parties as she
states (since I cannot ascertain, given the conflicting versions in this matter), I cannot
accept her position, that Attorneys Arbel and Argaz went to the Office of the Clerk to
get the copy of the Protocol at the end of the Hearing out of bad faith motives.
14 Here again, there is documentation that following the implementation of Net-
HaMishpat, unauthorized staff executes false service of unsigned, invalid court
records. However, the recipients cannot distinguish such facts.
31. The Hon Judge attached to her 2012-05-12 response a letter, written by her
secretary, Ms Hagit Kostiner, dated 2012-01-26, where she 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: 15
"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.” 16

32. In her 2012-02-26 letter to the Ombudsman Ms Kostiner writes:

"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] 17 As stated, it is customary to send copies to all
parties by mail... There is no Certificates of Service [in Net-HaMishpat system –
EG]” 18 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. In his 2012-04-15 letter to the Ombudsman, Attorney Barak Laser 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

15 This episode again shows the invalidity in design and operation of Net-HaMishpat:
Unauthorized, untrained, uninformed personnel performs false certification, false
service, and provides false records to parties and counsel, without even being
aware of the difference between authentic and 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 know exactly what is right and
what is wrong...
16 The secretary here admits that she routinely executes false service procedure of
false court records...
17 As stated 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.
18 Here there is documentation of major failure in integrity of Net-HaMishpat – in
maintaining copies of Certificates of Service.
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 si no
documentation of the mailing of the Protocol.”

34. In his Complaint, Attorney Argaz notes that he figured out the difference between
the two versions of the Protocol, only after the Bar Association asked for his response
on the Complaint, filed against him by the Administration of Courts. 19
...

35. Given that both Counsel for the State Receiver and Attorney Arbel received from
the Court Version B of the Protocol, there is no reason to doubt the statement by Ms
Kostiner, that she mailed to the parties at the end of the day Version B of the Protocol.
...

Certification of Version A in the Office of the Clerk “True Copy of the Original”

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. In her 2012-02-05 response, the Hon Judge States:
“This action by the attorneys shows their dishonest intention. They were holding a
record, which appeared to be signed by me, graphically, why did they ask for it... to
be certified “True Copy of the Original”? Only the attorneys can resolve this issue”. 20
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. From the statement above, it is originates, that
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 is signed by a secure electronic signature, the
19 It should be noted, that according to the procedures in Israel, 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,
the only two parties, who had access to system data, which showed that Version B
of the Protocol was never electronically signed, colluded in filing a semi-criminal
complaint, 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...
20 This is one of the strangest arguments by Judge Alshech, who as stated above, was
a prominent Israeli judge, who handled some of the most complicated, largest
corporate court cases...
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”. 21

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”. 22
…

37. Obviously, absent an electronically signed 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 explained in his 2012-04-09 letter to the Ombudsman, why he asked
for stamping [certification] on the Protocol: “I needed an lawfully authenticated
Protocol, in order to file my appeal with the Supreme Court, which was indeed
filed”... 23

Failures relative to the Protocol – computers, Office of the Clerk, and Judges

38. “Chronological Report of the Events”, dated 2012-03-21, which was prepared by

21 It should be noted that the Instructions cited here, and 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.
22 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”)
23 It should be noted that Attorney Arbel and Attorney Argaz were fully informed of the
significance of certified authentication on a court 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 an
printout of the Protocol, Version B (which as we now know was never electronically
signed) and which was never certified. And the Israel Bar Association accepted the
filing of such complaint. This issue, which is critical relative to the deceit in Judge
Alshech conduct, is never questioned by the Ombudsman... Accordingly, Judge
Alshech and Attorney Barak Laser never had to explain their conduct, relative to
filing a semi-criminal complaint against Attorney Argaz, based on an unsigned,
uncertified court record.
the Internal Audit Wing, Administration of Courts, was provided for my review. The
record says:
"… Investigation Results: 24 On 2011-09-12 Hearing was conducted on Motion #3 in
Court File Bankruptcy 1623/00 in the Courtroom of Judge Varda Alshech in the Tel-
Aviv District Court...
… The secretary thought that by printing out a copy of the Protocol from Net-
HaMishpat, 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 implemetnation 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 “Protocol Application” and printing it out from the
“Protocol 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 stamp 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... 25 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, originally protocols were 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 it slowed down the
transition between court file. 26 … According to Mr Yarden Yardeni from the
Computers Wing, even today he encounters cases of judges who fail to sign their
protocols by electronic signatures...”

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
24 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.
25 These statements of course stand contrary to the explanation previously provided
to the Ombudsman by Judge Alshech and her secretary. The notions that judges in
the most central and influential district court in Israel, did not understand the
meaning of the E-sign Act (2001) ten (10) years after its enactment, is ludicrous.
26 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.
be in writing, singed by the judges who adjudged”), and train judges and staff
regarding the manner in which decisions should be produced in Net-HaMishpat, and
restoring the water-stamp “DRAFT” should be considered, even if it places some
burden (as claimed) on the judges. 27

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 filing the complaint with
the Israel Bar Association.

...

85. In conclusion, the Complaints are found justified, based on paragraphs …. above.

[hand signature]
_____________
Eliezer Goldberg
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
27 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 Net-
HaMishpat.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) ‫לזכויות האדם‬
Joseph Zernik, PhD ‫ד"ר יוסף צרניק‬
PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel 6133301 ‫ ת"א‬,33407 ‫ת"ד‬
Fax: 077-3179186 Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org

2012-01-26 Israel Bar Complaint against Judge Varda Alshech in the Fabricated
Protocols scandal //
‫תלונת לשכת עורכי הדין נגד השופטת ורדה אלשייך בפרשת הפרוטוקולים המפוברקים‬
[‫]עברית להלן‬

Figures: Tel­Aviv District Judge Varda Alshech, Ombudman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg, and 
Administration of Courts' Legal Counsel Barak Laser. Alshech was a powerful judge of the Tel­Aviv 
District Court, who for years handled the largest corporate dissolutions, bankruptcies, and haircut 
cases, at times ruling on matters of NIS billions in a single case.  Moreover, she served at the time the 
Chairwoman of the Judges' Association. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Goldberg wrote a decision of 
historic significance, documenting the invalid, fraudulent nature of Net­HaMishpat – new electronic 
case management system of the district and magistrate court.  Counsel Laser's role in the scandal 
again demonstrated the unique, central role of Administration of Courts in corruption of the Israel 
justice system.
See also:
[1] 2012­05­31 Decision by Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg in the Judge Varda AlShech 
“fabricated protocols” scandal
https://www.scribd.com/doc/291016506/ 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5RnBOUWYtd0IzcVk/view?usp=sharing 

For the non­Hebrew reader:
The most informative part of the records below are items #4 and #5, which are the two 
versions of the September 12, 2011 Protocol, issued by Judge Varda Alshech. Both versions 
show multiple invalid “graphic signatures”, and Version A also shows an invalid, fraudulent 
certification stamp, “True Copy of the Original”, on its the last page.
Brief chronology:
•   on September 12, 2011, a dispute erupted in the courtroom during a hearing in Bank 
HaPoalim v State Receiver between Judge Alshech and Attorney Rafael Argaz, who 
represented a small debt­holder in the case.  Already during the hearing, Alshech informed
Attorney Argaz that she intended to file an “ethics complaint” against him with the Israel 
Bar.  Therefore, in order to have a have a record of the transactions, Attorney Argaz 
obtained on the same date from the Office of the Clerk the September 12, 2011 hearing 
protocol (minutes), which appeared to him signed and certified, “True Copy of the 
Original” (Version A, #5, page 17, below).
•   On September 22, 2011, the complaint was indeed filed with the Israel Bar Association 
(#3, page 5, below).  The complaint was signed by Attorney Barak Laser on behalf of the 
Administration of Courts, and included as attachment and its documentary evidence the 

1/3
 September 12, 2011 hearing protocol, which appeared signed, but not certified (Version B,
#4, page 7, below).
•   On October 10, 2011, the Israel Bar Association forwarded the complaint to the Tel­Aviv 
Bar Ethics Committee for review (#2, page 4, below).
Once he received the complaint from the Tel­Aviv Bar, Attorney Argaz realized that the 
September 22, 2011 protocol (Version B), which was attached to the complaint, was 
substantially different from the September 22, 2011 protocol (Version A) in his possession,
and that the changes, introduced in Version B, purported to record words, which he and 
the other participants in the hearing had not spoken, and thereby falsely ascribe to him
malicious conduct and intentions.
Next, Attorney Argaz raised his concerns with the Tel­Aviv Bar regarding the differences 
between Version A and Version B of the September 22, 2011 protocol.  
Following review of the matter, the Tel­Aviv Bar Association decided to dismiss Judge 
Alshech's complaint against Attorney Argaz.
• On January 26, 2012, the Tel­Aviv Bar filed instead a complaint (#1, page 1, below) 
against Judge Alshech with the Ombudsman of the Judiciary, the Minister of Justice, 
Supreme Court Presiding Justice, and the Judicail Appointments Committee. In fact, the 
Tel­Aviv Bar suggested that Judge Alshech be dismissed from the bench.  Later, following 
yet another incident of the same nature with Judge Alshech, Chair of the Tel­Aviv Bar 
Association released an unusual statement to media: “Judge Alshech cannot remain 
another day on the bench”.
Outcome:
Judge Alshech was not dismissed from the bench.  In fact, no material sanctions were 
imposed on her. During the affair, two successive Supreme Court Presiding Justices (Dorit 
Beinisch and Asher Grunis) objected to holding her accountable, and Justice Minister Yaakov 
Neeman was key figure in brokering a “settlement” between Judge Alshech and the Israel Bar 
(the Rule of Law was never part of the settlement...)
With it, Israeli judges have effectively established a new standard, whereby they are permitted
to perpetrate fraud from the bench.  Indeed, Varda Alshech herself was repeatedly latter 
caught in the same conduct, with impunity...
General context:
the “Fabricated Protocols” or “Reconstructed Protocol” scandal, quickly became the most 
notorious judicial corruption scandal in the history of the State of Israel. 
Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer Goldberg thoroughly reviewed the Israel Bar complaint 
against Judge Varda Alshech. The May 31, 2012 Ombudsman's decision [1] holds historic 
significance, since it provided unprecedented, detailed review of the manner in which the 
Israeli courts are administered today, following the implementation of the E­Sign Act (2001) 
and Net­HaMishpat electronic case management and e­filing system of the district and 
magistrate courts (around 2010 – just a couple of years before the scandal erupted). 
The Ombudsman's decision documented that following the implementation of the E­Sign Act 
(2001) and Net­HaMishpat, judges routinely fail to electronically sign their judicial records.  
Leaving them unsigned.  The judges hold such electronically unsigned records to be merely 
“drafts”. Furthermore, as “drafts” ­ the judges hold it permissible to go on changing the 
records, even after they were published and presented to the parties and counsel. 
On the other hand, the Ombudsman's decision documented that Net­HaMishpat was designed
and is operated in such manner that parties, counsel, and the public at large cannot view any 
of the electronic signature data. Therefore, nobody, except for the judges, can distinguish 
between an authentic, valid and effectual court records and invalid, unenforceable drafts. 
In fact, Judge Goldberg's decision documents that even he himself could not access the 
electronic signature data, and he had to rely on the Administration of Courts' Legal Counsel, 
Attorney Barak Laser, to provide the Ombudsman the electronic signature data of Judge 

2/3
 Alshech's judicial records, or document the lack thereof. One cannot understate the absurdity 
of it all, since Attorney Barak Laser was a key figure in perpetrating the underlying fraud in 
collusion with Judge Alshech – he was the one who filed the complaint against Attorney Argaz
on behalf of Judge Alshech, attaching to it Version B of the protocol...
Judge Goldberg's decision in included various recommendation for addressing the lack of 
integrity and validity (not to say fraudulent nature) of Net­HaMishpat system. However, but 
none of them has been implemented to this date (2016).
As a whole, conditions which were documented in this affair show that the transition to e­
courts in Israel rendered the offices of the clerks (traditionally charged with custody of court 
records) and the courts in general incompetent, and susceptible to judicial fraud and 
corruption.  It is obvious that Judge Alshech's conduct was not unusual or unique, and the 
only reason that it got attention and was thoroughly investigated was that the victim of the 
fraud was an attorney appearing in court as counsel, a fact that generated strong interest and 
support by the Israel Bar Association.

# Document  Page

1. 2012­01­26 Complaint, filed by the Tel­Aviv Bar Association with Minister of Justice Yaakov Neeman,  1
Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinisch, and Ombudsman of the Judiciary Eliezer 
Goldberg against Tel­Aviv District Judge Varda Alshech in the “Fabricated Protocols” scandal//
‫העליון‬ ‫המשפט‬ ‫בית‬ ‫לנשיאת‬ ,‫נאמן‬ ‫יעקב‬ ‫ המשפטים‬ ‫ לשר‬ ,‫ ת”א‬ ‫ מחוז‬ ,‫ הדין‬ ‫ עורכי‬ ‫ לשכת‬ ‫ ידי‬ ‫ על‬ ‫ שהוגשה‬ ‫ תלונה‬ 
‫בפרשת‬ ‫אלשייך‬ ‫ורדה‬ ‫השופטת‬ ‫נ‬ ‫גולדברג‬ ‫אליעזר‬ ‫השופטים‬ ‫ על‬ ‫ הציבור‬ ‫ תלונות‬ ‫ ולנציב‬ ,‫ בייניש‬ ‫דורית‬
"‫המפוברקים‬ ‫“ הפרוטוקולים‬

2. 2011­10­10 Referral letter by the Israel Bar Association to the Tel­Aviv Bar Association, in re: Judge  4
Varda Alshech's complaint against Attorney Rafael Argaz in the “Fabricated Protocols” scandal// 
‫ארגז‬ ‫רפאל‬ ‫עו"ד‬ ‫נגד‬ ‫אלשייך‬ ‫ורדה‬ ‫השופטת‬ ‫של‬ ‫ תלונתה‬ :‫ בנידון‬ ‫ למחוז ת" א‬ ‫הדין‬ ‫ עורכי‬ ‫ מלשכת‬ ‫ הפנייה‬ ‫מכתב‬
"‫המפוברקים‬ ‫"הפרוטוקולים‬ ‫בפרשת‬

3. 2011­09­22 Complaint, filed with the Israel Bar Association by the Administration of Courts' Legal  5
Counsel Barak Laser, on behalf of Judge Varda Alshech, against Attorney Rafael Argaz in the 
“Fabricated Protocols” scandal. // 
‫אלשייך‬ ‫ורדה‬ ‫השופטת‬ ‫בשם‬ ‫המשפט‬ ‫בתי‬ ‫מהנהלת‬ ‫לייזר‬ ‫ ברק‬ ‫ עו" ד‬ ‫ ידי‬ ‫ על‬ ‫ הדין‬ ‫ עורכי‬ ‫ ללשכת‬ ‫ שהוגשה‬ ,‫תלונה‬
"‫המפוברקים‬ ‫"הפרוטוקולים‬ ‫בפרשת‬ ‫ארגז‬ ‫ רפאל‬ ‫ עו"ד‬ ‫נגד‬

4. Attachment A: Version B of the September 12, 2011 Protocol, which was filed as an attachment to the  7
complaint against Attorney Argaz. //
.‫ארגז‬ ‫עו"ד‬ ‫נגד‬ ‫לתלונה‬ ‫כצרופה‬ ‫שהוגשה‬ ,2011 ,‫לספטמבר‬ 12 ‫מיום‬ ‫הפרוטוקול‬ ‫של‬ '‫ב‬ ‫גרסה‬ :'‫א‬ ‫מיצג‬

5. Attachment B: Version A of the September 12, 2011 Protocol, which was obtained by Attorney Argaz  17
on the hearing date in the Office of the Clerk.
.‫הדיון‬ ‫ביום‬ ‫במזכירות‬ ‫ארגז‬ ‫עו"ד‬ ‫שקיבל‬ ,2011 ,‫לספטמבר‬ 12 ‫מיום‬ ‫הפרוטוקול‬ ‫של‬ '‫א‬ ‫גרסה‬ :'‫ב‬ ‫מיצג‬

6. Attachment C: Summary Table – differences between the Protocols, Version A and Version B. // 26
.‫הפרוטוקול‬ ‫של‬ '‫ב‬ ‫גרסה‬ ‫לבין‬ '‫א‬ ‫גרסה‬ ‫בין‬ ‫ההבדלים‬ – ‫ סיכום‬ ‫טבלת‬ :'‫ג‬ ‫מיצג‬

7. Attachment D: Statement of Attorney Haim Arbel, in re: Complaint by the Administration of Courts  28
against Attorney Rafael Argaz // 
.‫ארגז‬ ‫עו"ד‬ ‫נגד‬ ‫לתלונה‬ ‫בנוגע‬ ‫ארבל‬ ‫חיים‬ ‫עו"ד‬ ‫ הודעת‬ :'‫ד‬ ‫מיצג‬

8. Attachment E: Statement of Attorney Rafael Argaz, in re: Complaint by the Administration of Courts  30
against Attorney Rafael Argaz // 
.‫נגדו‬ ‫לתלונה‬ ‫בנוגע‬ ‫ארגז‬ ‫רפאל‬ ‫עו"ד‬ ‫הודעת‬ :'‫ה‬ ‫מיצג‬

3/3