PM Netanyahu’s Prosecution and Net-HaMishpat –

the Israeli Courts’ Case Management System
Abstract—Instant case study is based on ongoing
prosecution of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for bribery,
fraud and breach of trust. The case has generated
unprecedented circumstances, which have been described as a
constitutional crisis, social disintegration, and a trial of the
justice system itself. The court case has also provided
unprecedented documentation of lack of validity and integrity
in design and operation of Net-HaMishpat – the court’s case
management system. Vast majority of the decisions in the case
were kept inaccessible to the public, moreover, the trial court
judges denied a request to inspect and to copy such decisions,
reasoning the decisions were “post-it” decisions (similar to
Outlook “sticky notes”), which were of “technical” but not
“substantive” nature. In the first appeal, judgment of the
Supreme Court ruled that the trial court must allow the
decisions to be inspected. It was hailed as an “historic event in
the our justice system”. Permanent changes in Net-HaMishpat
system have followed the judgment in the first appeal. The
integrity of such recent changes in the system are critically
reviewed. The manner in which the trial court purported to
execute the Supreme Court judgment is reviewed as well. It
would be deemed by a reasonable person a “fabrication” –
invalid service of an invalid court record. Moreover, the trial
court denied access to inspect the entries of such purported
court record and its purported service in the Net-HaMishpat
system. A second appeal is now pending before the Supreme
Court, asking: Is a person, who receives a dubious service of a
dubious record from the court, permitted to ascertain the
authenticity, validity and authority of such record by
inspecting the corresponding data entries in the court’s case
management system? Invalidity of IT systems in the Israeli
courts has been repeatedly reported over the past decade. The
implementation of such systems was claimed to be an enabler
of serious deterioration in integrity of the justice system. Case
management systems of the courts present a unique example
of “Code is Law”, given their utmost significance in the
safeguard of human rights and democratic institutions. Human
Rights activists and IT experts should assume a voluntary duty
to monitor such systems.
Keywords— case management systems, courts, human
rights, democratic institutions
I. INTRODUCTION
I n January 2020, prime minister Netanyahu was indicted
on bribery, fraud and breach of trust in the Jerusalem
District Court [1,2]. The indictment generated
unprecedented constitutional, political and social crisis [3]. In
the aftermath, Netanyahu and his supporters have engaged in
incitement against law and justice agencies and against his
opponents, claiming that the indictment and prosecution

amount to “framing” and unlawful attempt to topple a
democratically elected prime minister [4,5]. On the other
hand, protesters have taken to the streets for months,
demanding Netanyahu’s immediate resignation and further
investigations of alleged corruption affairs [6]. Confidence in
conduct of the trial court is limited: A renowned media
personality, Amit Segal, openly advocates conduct of a
“Kuntz” in this trial [7]. And recently retired State Attorney
Shai Nitzan, provided the opinion that the trial might not take
place at all [8]. Netanyahu’s prosecution is only the latest in a
series of high level government corruption scandals in Israel
over the past decade, including serious corruption scandals of
law and justice authorities [9-12]. The current report examines
the role of invalid case management systems of the courts in
undermining the rule of law.
II.STATE OF ISRAEL V NETANYAHU: DENIAL OF ACCESS TO
INSPECT COURT DECISIONS
Routine inspection of the online docket of State of Israel v
Netanyahu et al (67104-01-20) in Net-HaMishpat case
management/public access system in June 2020 revealed that
only 16 decisions were accessible in the public docket, while
the latest request/motion numbers were in the 40s. It became
obvious that in a case, which was defined “Open to the
Public”, the majority of court decisions had been excluded
from public access. Consequently, request to inspect all
decisions was filed with the Jerusalem District Court [13].
The request was denied in the June 14, 2020 decision by the
three-judge panel, reasoning: “Pertaining to inspection of
court decisions, the rule concerning “Public Hearing”
applies… therefore, requesters and others are permitted to
inspect court decisions, which are periodically published. Yet,
one should distinguish between material decisions, where the
duty to publish applies, and technical decisions, typically
rendered as post-it decisions, where there is no publication
duty” [14]. Such reasoning had no foundation in the law.
The June 14, 2020 decision was issued in a fully structured
decision format (Figure 1). Key features of such format are: a)
Coat of arms of the State of Israel and name of the Jerusalem
District Court in the letterhead, b) title of the court record -
“Decision” - in bold, underline, following listing of parties,
and c) date and signature boxes, showing “graphic signatures”
(see Discussion, below) at the end of the document.
In contrast, “post-it” decisions (see example in Figure 3,
below) are yellow rectangular objects, which are pasted on top
of another electronic court record (typically – a pleading by a
party), and are similar to “sticky notes” in Microsoft Outlook.
Post-it decisions are noted for their informal format: a) There
is no listing of the parties, and b) there is no “graphic
signature”.
Fig. 1 State of Israel v Netanyahu et al (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court: June 14, 2020 decision by the 3-judge panel
denying the request to inspect decisions.
III. FIRST SUPREME COURT APPEAL
In late June 2020, appeal was filed in the Israeli Supreme
Court under Zernik v State of Israel et al (4421/20),
originating in the Jerusalem District Court’s decision, denying
access to “post-it”, “technical” decisions [15]. Of note,
responding to the appeal, the State Attorney’s office did not
object to the inspection, whereas all Defendants’ counsel filed
responses, opposing the appeal. In August 2020, Supreme
Court Justice Ofer Grosskopf rendered his judgment,
mandating that the “post-it”, “technical” decision be served on
the Requester of Inspection [16]. The judgment was hailed in a
report by renowned criminal defense attorney Avigdor
Feldman in Haaretz daily as “an historic event in our justice
system” [17]. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel issued
a special communique in this matter [18].
IV. PERVERTED EXECUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT BY THE DISTRICT COURT
On September 22, 2020, an unusual fax transmission was
received by the Requester of Inspection (Figure 2) [19].
Fig. 2 State of Israel v Netanyahu et al (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court: Pages 1 and 5 of a September 22, 2020, 5-
page fax transmission.
The 5-page document appeared intended to be perceived by
its recipient as court record and execution of the Supreme
Court judgment. It did not include copies of the original post-it
decisions, but re-typed text of some 25 “post-it” decisions.
However, such document couldn’t be deemed by a reasonable
person a valid court record: In contrast with valid court
records, rendered by the court itself, it failed to be issued on
the letterhead, showing the coast of arms of the State of Israel
and the name of the Jerusalem District Court. Furthermore, it
failed to name its author/filer, the author’s position, signature,
and date of filing, at its end. It likewise failed to show any sign
that it had been filed and entered in State of Israel v
Netanyahu et al (67104-01-20) in the Jerusalem District Court
(e.g., “Filed/Entered” stamp by the Office of the Clerk).
Moreover, the document, which was faxed from some
manual fax machine, was received with no cover letter by the
Clerk of the Court, as is typical in authentic electronic service
in other cases of the courts. There was neither any indication
on the document itself, who its sender was, nor was the sender
identified in the fax header line.
Consequently, inquiry was filed with the Clerk of the Court,
asking to clarify, whether such transmission and such
document originated in the Jerusalem District Court, and the
nature of such document [20]. The Clerk of the Court never
responded on the inquiry. Instead, response on behalf of the
Clerk of the Court was received from an Internal Auditor in
the Administration of Courts, trying to persuade the receiver
that the “September 22 document” was a valid court record,
which was duly served by the Jerusalem District Court.
Therefore, request “for due process and upholding good
faith duty” was filed in State of Israel v Netanyahu et al in the
Jerusalem District Court, explicitly stating “serious concern
that the September 22, 2020 fax transmission and the
document in it were fake service of a fake court record” [21].
In response, Judge Rivca Friedman-Feldman, head of the 3-
judge panel in the Jerusalem District Court, rendered the
October 26, 2020 decision, stating: “For such purpose, the
Office of the Clerk toiled, under the guidance of the
Administration of Courts and in coordination with it… and
uploaded the document to Net-HaMishpat system on
September 22, 2020… The Office of the Clerk shall again
send Requesters the September 22, 2020 document,
attached to instant decision” [underline and bold in the
original – jz] (Figure 3).
Fig. 3 State of Israel v Netanyahu et al (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court: October 26, 2020 decision by Judge Rivca
Friedman-Feldman on “request for due process and upholding good
faith duty”.
Such statement was distinctive in avoiding the use of valid
legal terms. It failed to refer to the document by any formal
legal term, such as “decision”, or “notice”, only the
“September 22, 2020 document’. It failed to state that the
document was “filed” and/or “entered” in the court file,
instead stating that it was “uploaded” to Net-HaMishpat
system. Likewise, it failed to order that the document be
“served”, instead ordering it to be “sent”.
Following the October 26, 2020 decision the “September
22, 2020 document” was again received, again by manual fax
from an unidentified source.
V. DENIAL OF ACCESS TO INSPECT ENTRIES OF THE
“SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 DOCUMENT” AND ITS SERVICE IN NET-
HAMISHPAT
Requester of the Inspection was unconvinced either by the
letter from Administration of Courts, or by the Judge
Friedman-Feldman October 26, 2020 decision that the
“September 22, 2020 document” indeed was an authentic
court record and authentic execution of Supreme Court Justice
Grosskopf judgment.
The “September 22, 2020 document” failed to appear in the
publicly accessible docket in Net-HaMishpat, and likewise,
the docket showing registration of the authentic service by the
Court was and is inaccessible to the public and Requester of
Inspection.
Therefore, Notice of Inspection was file in the Jerusalem
District Court, demanding to inspect the entries and
registration data in Net-HaMishpat, corresponding to the
“September 22, 2020 document and its service [22]. The
Notice of inspection stated that Requester of Inspection was a
party to the ancillary process of request to inspect, and
claimed that as such, he held the right to inspect the respective
entries, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Regulations of
Inspection (see under Discussion, below).
In her November 17, 2020 “post-it” decision, Judge
Friedman-Feldman effectively denied access to inspect such
data in Net-HaMishpat (Figure 4). The decision states: “On its
face, request no. 85 was addressed in the November 01, 2020
Notice by the Clerk”. The November 01, 2020 Notice by the
Clerk (Figure 5a) was a new document, purported to replace
the “September 22, 2020 document”, but it failed to address
the Notice of Inspection in any way, and it failed to provide
the data in Net-HaMishpat, pertaining to the “September 22,
2020 document”, if they existed at all. The November 01,
2020 Notice by the Clerk opens with the statement: ‘Per your
request, and following a document that was transferred to you
on September 22, 2020, content of the post-it decisions is
attached also as a “Notice by the Clerk”’. It should be again
noted that invalid legal terms are used: “September 22, 2020
document”, and “transferred” but not “served”.
In contrast with the “September 22, 2020 document”, the
entry in Net-HaMishpat for the November 01, 2020 Notice by
the Clerk was and is accessible to the Requester of Inspection
(Figure 5b). However, the entry for its service is inaccessible.
Fig. 4 State of Israel v Netanyahu et al (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court: November 17, 2020 “post-it” decision,
pasted on top of the Requester of Inspection’s “request for rendering
a decision in re: notice of inspection (no. 85)”. The text says: “On its
face, request no. 85 was addressed in the November 01, 2020 Notice
by the Clerk”. The lower-left corner bears the newly introduced note:
“***digitally signed***”.
a)
b)
Fig. 5 State of Israel v Netanyahu et al (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court: a) pages 1 and 5 of the November 01, 2020
Notice by the Clerk. The notice is a fully structured court record,
showing the coat of arms of the State of Israel and the name of the
Jerusalem District Court on its letterhead, and showing the name of
of Nurit Ringler-Cohen, Department Director and her “graphic
signature” at its end. b) Docket entry corresponding to the November
01, 2020 Notice by the Clerk, under no. 85 – second line from the
top.
VI. SECOND SUPREME COURT APPEAL
In late November 2020, a second appeal was filed in the Supreme
Court [23]. The legal question in the second appeal is: Is a party, who
receives dubious service of a dubious record from the court,
permitted to inspect the registration data of such document in Net-
HaMishpat system, in order to distinguish and ascertain, whether it is
an authentic, valid court record, or merely an invalid “draft”, or
“fabrication”?
The second appeal is still pending.
VII. LATE 2020 CHANGES IN NET-HAMISHPAT SYSTEM
Shortly after the August 2020 Supreme Court judgment in the first
appeal, the Administration of Courts introduced two significant new
features in Net-HaMishpat (Figures 4, 6).
First – all “post-it” decisions now include a new comment in their
lower-left corner – “***digitally signed***” (see for example –
Figure 4, above).
Second – all “post-it” decisions now purportedly appear in the
public access system docket. However, the “post-it” decisions do not
appear as a true copy of the original. Instead, their text is copied into
a new format, bearing the watermark - “copy of a decision”, and with
the footnote disclaimer (in red) - “*** In any case, the binding
version is the one in the decision, signed by the judge” (Figure 6).
Fig. 6. State of Israel v Netanyahu et al (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court: November 17, 2020 decision by Judge
Rivca Friedman-Feldman (corresponding to the “post-it” decision,
shown in Figure 4, above, as it appears in the public access docket.
VIII. DISCUSSION
The abbreviated sequence of events in State of Israel v
Netanyahu, outlined about, may appear convoluted and
incredible. However, it is not at all unusual.
A. Pending second appeal
The state of affairs in the second appeal is rather intractable:
The Jerusalem District Court twice faxed to Requester of
Inspection the “September 22, 2020 document” through
manual fax machines, but not through electronic service in
Net-HaMishpat (see below). The document itself appears
invalid on its face. A letter by the Internal Auditor of the
Administration of Court as well as the October 26, 2020
decision by Judge Rivca Friedman-Feldman attempted to
persuade the Requester of Inspection that the “September 22,
2020 document” was an authentic and valid court record and
its service was authentic and valid service by the Court.
However, the Jerusalem District Court denies Requester of
Inspection access to inspect the corresponding data entries in
Net-HaMishpat, if they exist at all... Fraud experts are likely to
deem such state of affairs “Shell Game”, or “Confidence
Trick” [24].
Denying the appeal would deny a party’s right to inspect his
own court process – contradicting the written law, Supreme
Court binding ruling, and “a fundamental principle in any
democratic regime” (see below). On the other hand,
mandating the right of Requester of Inspection to inspect the
Net-HaMishpat data entries, pertaining “September 22, 2020
document”, is likely to demonstrate that no such data exist.
Therefore, in may cast the Administration of Courts Internal
Auditor and Judge Friedman-Feldman as erroneous and/or
misleading. It may further undermine public trust in the court
process in State of Israel v Netanyahu – a case of
unprecedented constitutional, political and social significance.
B. The right to inspect and Net-HaMishpat
Over the past decade, numerous attempts to inspect court
decisions in various court files in various Israeli courts
indicate that the denial of access to inspect court decisions is
the rule, not the exception. The exception in this case was in
fact the August 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ofer Grosskopf
judgment, which mandated that the right to inspect be upheld.
The right to inspect differs in scope in various jurisdiction.
In the US, such right is perhaps the most comprehensive
today, including all court decisions and all pleadings by the
parties. The landmark US Supreme Court judgment in Nixon
v Warner Communications (the Nixon tapes affair) provides
that such right originated in the English common law, and was
established inter alia in the 1st Amendment to the US
Constitution – freedom of the press [25].
In Israel, the right to inspect is much narrower. It is
established in the Regulation of Inspection (2003). Regulation
2(b) provides: “Any person is permitted to inspect decisions,
which are not lawfully prohibited for publication”. And
Regulation 3 provides: “A party is permitted, following the
filing of Notice of Inspection to inspect the court file, to which
he is a party, unless it is prohibited for his inspection”.
The other main legal reference is the Supreme Court 2009
judgment at the end of a 12-year long petition – Association
for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of Justice [26]. The
judgment provides that in both cases – Regulation 2(b) and
Regulation 3 – there is no requirement of filing a request in
the court. Therefore, both the plain language of the
Regulations and the 2009 judgment imply that the judges have
no discretion in such matters, unless the corresponding court
materials are lawfully sealed.
In addition, Association for Civil Rights judgment states the
expectation that once Net-HaMishpat system is up and
running, most decisions of the courts would be publicly
accessible on an ongoing basis… Obviously, that is not the
case. A 2020 newspaper report claims that in about half of
Net-HaMishpat court files there are neither publicly accessible
decisions nor judgments at all [27].
The Association for Civil Rights judgment further declares
that the right to inspect is “a fundamental principle in any
democratic regime… constitutional, supra-statutory...” and “a
central safeguard for competence of the justice system and
public trust in it...”. The judgment cites a long list of similar
declarations in previous Supreme Court decisions over
decades.
Such concepts are not original. The right to inspect court
records is indeed considered a fundamental safeguard for
integrity of the courts. In the Nixon tapes affair, the US
Supreme Court states: “It is clear that the courts of this
country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and
documents. In contrast to the English practice... American
decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right
on a proprietary interest in the document or upon a need for it
as evidence in a lawsuit. The interest necessary to support the
issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for
example, in the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the
workings of public agencies... and in a newspaper publisher's
intention to publish information concerning the operation of
government...” [28] Obviously, “watchful eye” on “workings
of public agencies” and “operation of government” includes
first and foremost the workings and operation of the courts
themselves.
C.The courts’ duty to maintain identifiable, authentic court
records
The significance of authentication and due service was
already established and elaborated in Jewish Halacha over
2000 year ago. The first Mishnah chapters in Gittin Tractate,
as well as their elaboration in the Talmud are entirely
dedicated to questions pertaining to authentication and due
service of divorce documents [29].
The significance of authentication and due service has been
recognized for centuries in the Western World as a
fundamental principle in the conduct of competent courts.
Such principle was established as a Constitutional norm
almost 250 years ago in Article IV, Section 1 of the
Constitution of the United States [30].
The identification of the “source”, or the “authority” has
also been a central concept in the discourse of scholars of
jurisprudence, relative to validity and effect of the justice
system. Such concepts are particularly evident in the thinking
of the Positivist school, e.g., John Austin, Hans Kelsen and
HLA Hart [31]. Such concepts are central to the thinking of
the school of Procedural-Natural Law, e.g., Lon L Fuller [32].
The thinking of such scholars holds center stage in the
identification and recognition of a “Constitutional Assembly”
and a “Constitution” by retired Supreme Court Presiding
Justice Meir Shamgar and Supreme Court Presiding Justice
Aharon Barak in Bank HaMizrahi judgment – which is often
considered the declaration of the “Constitutional Revolution”
in the State of Israel [33].
Issuing legal and/or judicial records, whose source and
authority are vague and ambiguous, fundamentally
undermines the competence, validity and integrity of the
justice system.
In practice, the duty to maintain identifiable, authentic court
records is also established in the Hague Apostille Convention
(1961, 1965), to which Israel is a party [34]. Of note, the
Human Rights Alert NGO submission to the UN Human
Rights Council for the 2018 Universal Periodic Review
documented the “fabrication” of Apostille documents by the
Israeli courts.
D.Net-HaMishpat: Post-it decisions
The “post-it” decision feature has been repeatedly singled
out for criticism: First - “post-it” decision are universally
excluded from the public docket, and second – there is no
detectable signature on them [35].
The new features in Net-HaMishpat, implemented
following the August 2020 Supreme Court judgment fail to fix
such defects, moreover, they generate new concerns:
a) The new format of the “post-it” decisions, as they appear
in the internal docket (accessible to the court and the parties),
shown in Figure 4, above, includes the lower-left corner note:
“***digitally signed***”. However, Israeli law does not
recognize “digital signature” as a valid form or signature, only
“electronic signature” pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act
(2001). Therefore, the note “***digitally signed***” makes no
sense at all, and only increases the ambiguity.
b) The new format of the “post-it” decisions, as they appear
in the external docket (accessible to the public at large) bears
the watermark “copy of a decision” (but not “true copy of the
original”) and the red footnote disclaimer “*** In any case,
the binding version is the one in the decision, signed by the
judge”. Combined, such features render the records explicitly
neither authentic court records, nor authenticated copies of
court records. Therefore, their inclusion in the case
management system of the courts only contaminates the
database.
c) There is no valid legislation or promulgation relative to
the new practices, and the announcement by the
Administration of Courts was vague relative to the question
whether all post-it decisions, which are not lawfully prohibited
for publication would be included in the public dockets.
Moreover it remains unclear whether judges are permitted to
redact or alter the content of the post-it decisions, prior to
publication, without any indication on the face of the
published document.
E. Net-HaMishpat: Fully structured protocols, decisions
and judgments
Fully structured decision format is demonstrated in Figures
1 and 3, above. Such records purportedly show signatures of
the judges, who rendered the decisions. However, the 2012
Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision in the Judge Varda
Alshech “fabricated protocols” affair, explicitly states that
such “signatures” are “graphic signatures” - i.e., cut and paste
signatures, placed by the secretarial staff, lacking any validity
at all [36]. The Ombudsman’s decision further states that all
decision and judgment records in Net-HaMishpat are
electronic records, and therefore, they are valid court records
only if electronically signed by the judges. Decisions and
judgments that are not electronically signed are merely invalid
“drafts” (Figure 7a).
The Ombudsman’s decision further states that there is no
way to distinguish in printouts and various electronic
renditions in Net-HaMishpat system between unsigned
“drafts” and valid court records…
F. Net-HaMishpat: Dockets
The Judge Varda Alshech “fabricated protocols” affair also
demonstrates that invalid, unsigned,
“drafts”, or “fabricated” records, including protocols,
decisions and judgments can be entered in Net-HaMishpat
dockets (Figure 7b).
The September 12, 2011 Judge Varda Alshech “fabricated
protocols”, which included decisions and a judgment still
appear in the docket to this date.
State of Israel v Netanyahu, outlined above, also
demonstrates that in Net-HaMishpat a practice was created,
akin to the maintenance of double, triple, or quadruple books,
without any clear foundation in the law.
G.Net-HaMishpat: Service
The Ombudsman’s decision further determines that valid
service in Net-HaMishpat system is only electronic service,
using the inherent “Service Application”. At the same time, the
Ombudsman’s decision documents that Net-HaMishpat system
makes it possible to print out “drafts” and mail them or fax
them – amounting to invalid service of invalid documents.
In view of the above discussion, it is patently clear that the
“September 22, 2020 document” and its service couldn’t be
deemed authentic service of an authentic court record.
 provided great detail pertaining to the manner in which such
registers and records must be maintained. The mandatory
regulations were abolished with the promulgation of the Israeli
Regulations of the Office of the Clerk (2004) in anticipation of
the implementation of Net-HaMishpat. The Israeli Regulations
originally provided no details at all relative to the maintenance
of authentic court records. A 2005 amendment added
Regulation 6a, which only provides “the Chief Clerks of the
courts are authorized to certify that a copy of a court record is
a true copy of the original in the court file”.
However, today, the Chief Clerks fail to certify any records.
Instead, employees of unidentified or no authority typically
certify records. Moreover, in recent years, the Administration
of Court introduced a new feature in Net-HaMishpat –
machine-generated certification, which refers to no person’s
authority at all. Such machine-generated certification can seen
as the round, purple stamps in Figures 1, 3, 5 and 6, above.
The invalidity of such machine-generated certification is
demonstrated in Figure 6: The record itself is clearly not an
authentic court record, it bears the red, footnote disclaimer to
a) such effect. And yet, a “True Copy of the Original” machine-
generated certification is applied to it.
The absurdity of such machine-generated certification is
further demonstrated in the purported certification of a page,
saying only “scanned in error”, which is a fabrication in itself
– it was docketed in Net-HaMishpat as a February 06, 2020
Detainee release warrant (Figure 8a,b). Moreover, the derails
b)
in Net-HaMishpat falsely state that such fake warrant was
“signed” by Judge Anat Yahav on February 06, 2020 (Figure
8c).

c)
Fig. 7 Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623-00) in the Tel-Aviv
District Court: a) September 12, 2011 Judge Varda Alshech decision,
which was one of the records at the center of the “fabricated
protocols” affair. The 2012 Ombudsman decision determines that the
Judge’s signature on the record was merely a “graphic signature”, and
the document had never been electronically signed, and was merely
an invalid “draft”. The lower part of the document shows
certification “True Copy of the Original” and the seal of the court.
The 2012 Ombudsman decision determines that such certification
was rendered with no authority by an incompetent secretarial
assistant. b) December 14, 2020 screen print of the docket still shows
the entries for the “fabricated” September 12, 2011 Judge Varda
Alshech “fabricated protocols”, which included decisions and a
judgment still appear in the docket to this date. c) December 14, 2020
screen print of docket details still shows that the September 12, 2011
Judge Varda Alshech “fabricated protocols” were “signed” by Judge
Alshech on September 12, 2011. The Ombudsman decision
determined that the “fabricated protocols” had never been signed, and
were merely invalid “drafts”.
H.Net-HaMishpat: Certification
The Israeli courts were originally established in 1922 under
the British Mandate for Palestine and fashioned after the
English common law courts. Regulation 4 of the British Rules
of Court (1936) promulgated the duty of the Chief Clerk for a)
maintenance of “registers and records” of the court, and
 b)
c)
Fig 8. State of Israel v Zernik (11235-02-20) in the Tel-Aviv
Magistrate Court: a) February 06, 2020 “fabricated” release order, as
entered in Net-HaMishpat. The record only says “scanned in error”,
but it bears a machine-generated purported certification (purple round
stamp). b) December 14, 2020 screen print of the docket still shows
the entry for the “fabricated” February 06, 2020 “fabricated”
“Release Warrant”. c) Screen print of docket details still shows that
February 06, 2020 “fabricated” “Release Warrant” was “signed” by
Judge Anat Yahav on February 06, 2020.
I. Net-HaMishpat: Electronic signatures
Counsel and parties, who use electronic filing in Net-
HaMishpat, are required to obtain electronic signature devices
from a state licensed Certifying Authority (currently there are
only two – PersonalID and Comsign LTD). All documents,
which are electronically filed, must be electronically signed in
compliance with the Electronic Signature Act (2001).
The 2012 Ombudsman of the Judiciary decision in the
Judge Varda Alshech “fabricated protocols” affair makes
similar statements relative to judicial records in Net-
HaMishpat: The Ombudsman determines that judicial records
in Net-HaMishpat are electronic records, and therefore they
are invalid, unless signed by the judge, using an electronic
signature pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001) [37].
However, review of the electronic signature data in Net-
HaMishpat indicates that no valid electronic signatures have
ever been implemented for judges and clerks (Figure 9).
Examining the signature data, using the dedicated software of
the Israel Bar Association, shows that all judges signatures in
Net-HaMishpat are deemed by the software invalid, and the
signer of all such purported signatures, as well as the issuers
of all such purported electronic signature devices are one and
the same: “Israeli Courts Authority”.
Fig 9. Electronic signature Certification tab on a judgment record in
Net-HaMishpat:
Certification data: The fundamental certification of the certifying
authority is invalid…
Issued for: Israeli Courts Authority.
Issued by: Israeli Courts Authority.
Valid: From 01.01.2000 to 01.01.2099
Freedom of Information Request (269/2019) on the
Administration of Courts asked for any documents or legal
references for the establishment and conduct of the “Israeli
Courts Authority”, as well as documents and references for the
administration of electronic signature devices for judges. The
Administration of Courts’ reply stated, inter alia, that the
“Israeli Courts Authority” was established pursuant to the
Basic Law: The Judiciary (in the aftermath of the
“Constitutional Revolution”, led by the judiciary, Basic Laws
are deemed by the judiciary “constitutional articles”) [38-40].
However, the Administration of Courts refused to provide any
information regarding the administration of electronic
signature devices and the implementation of electronic
signatures for judges in Net-HaMishpat.
Such response by the Administration of Courts was deemed
fictitious, or another “fabrication”. Therefore, petition was
filed against Judge Yigal Mersel, Director of Administration of
Courts [41]. The petition is still pending. However, already in
the preliminary response, Administration of Courts recanted
and stated that there was no government entity named the
“Israeli Courts Authority”… Therefore, obviously, there is no
lawful Certification Authority and no lawful signer of judicial
records of the same name...
The implementation of invalid, fake electronic signatures in
Net-HaMishpat makes it possible for judges to alter judicial
records at will, with no due process of law and with no notice
to parties and no indication in the court file. Additionally,
judges and others can add, remove, or replace documents in
Net-HaMishpat docket at will with no due process of law, and
without recording the date, the authority and the cause of such
actions...
J. Net-HaMishpat: State Ombudsman report
Development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat was a
major, costly project, which lasted over almost a decade
(2000-2010). Following the January 2010 implementation of
Net-HaMishpat in all district and magistrate courts in Israel,
the State Ombudsman published a special report –
Computerization of the Courts, 60b (2010) [42]. The
published report notes critical failures in development and
implementation of the system:
a) Development contract were awarded with no legal
tender;
b) Development contracts were signed with no written
specifications;
c) Development was conducted with no “core management
by a state employee” (however, the same report notes that
following his resignation, Director of the Administration of
Court, Judge Boaz Okon, “volunteered” to continue
supervising the development until its completion);
d) No independent inspection and validation was conducted
by a state employee prior to implementation;
e) Unknown number of persons were issued double “smart
cards” (ICC) for access to the system, and
f) In conjunction with development of the system, servers of
the courts were transferred from custody of the Clerks of the
Courts to the custody of corporations.
K.Code is Law: Case management system of the courts,
human rights and democratic institutions
About 20 years ago Larry Lessig advanced the concept
“Code is Law”: In the age of cyberspace, a new type of
regulator emerges – code or architecture of online platforms,
which is a threat to Liberty [43]. Lessig’s concerns primarily
pertained to privacy, freedom of speech, access to information,
intellectual property rights, and the ability of cyber systems to
“displace values from our constitutional tradition”.
The study of case management systems of courts and
prisons expands such notions to a more acute level. Both in
Israel and in other nations, such systems were and are often
developed with inadequate public oversight. However, such
systems create a new law, at times contradictory or violating
the written, published law, in matters of Liberty itself.
Some incidents of “fabrication” of court records can
probably be discovered in any justice system. To wit, in many
jurisdictions specific laws appear in the penal codes to address
such criminal conduct [44]. However, in a competent, lawful
justice system, such incidents should reflect sporadic,
exceptional failures.
In contrast, design and operation of Net-HaMishpat system,
as demonstrated in instant report, enable the routine
fabrication of court records with impunity, as a system-wide
feature…
IX. CONCLUSIONS
The main defect in the Israeli courts’ case management
system, Net-HaMishpat, implemented in 2010, is the ability to
generate and propagate “fabricated” records with impunity.
Such records may be published online in court dockets, or sent
to parties in court process. The recipients and the public at
large are led to believe that such documents are valid and
effectual court records. Such record may also lead to
enforcement actions, such as deprivation liberty, property and
other rights. However, at the same time, judges consider such
records merely invalid “drafts”. The Judge Varda Alshech
affair (2011-2013) highlighted such circumstances [45-47].
Net-HaMishpat system has generated circumstances under
which, the public at large, or even a party to a court process
may not be able to distinguish between valid, authentic and
effectual court record and invalid “draft”, or “fabrication”.
The unique case, reported here, demonstrates how judges
work to make it impossible for a party to make such
distinction, in apparent violation of the written law, Supreme
Court binding decisions, and what they courts themselves
declared “a fundamental principle in any democratic regime…
constitutional, supra-statutory...”.
Human Rights Alet NGO submissions to the UN Human
Rights Council in 2013 and 2018, and the the US State
Department (2020) alleged that such circumstances undermine
the rule of law and human rights from their foundation [49-
51].
The 2013 UN Human Rights Council [HRC] Staff Report
incorporated by reference the Human Rights Alert NGO
submission and summarized it - “lack of integrity in the
electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, the district
court and the detainees courts in Israel”. The 2018 HRC staff
report likewise stated - “serious deterioration in integrity of
law and justice agencies as a consequence of the
implementation of e-government systems. It affirmed that the
validity and integrity of any legal and judicial records of Israel
should be deemed dubious at best” [52].
Likewise, case management systems of courts and prisons
at times permit data mining, which enables the discovery of
systemic human rights violations, related to the publication of
invalid or fraudulent legal records by various government
agencies [53-56].
Given the utmost significance of case management systems
of courts and prisons in the safeguard of human rights and
democratic institutions, human rights activists and IT experts
should assume a voluntary duty to monitor such systems.
APPENDIX
Online Appendix with links to references and full size, color
figures:
https://www.scribd.com/document/488197760/
REFERENCES
[1] Staff. (2020). Netanyahu indicted in court on corruption charges after
dropping immunity bid. BBC.
Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51277429
[2] Staff. (2020). Benjamin Netanyahu: What are the corruption charges?
BBC.
Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47409739
[3] Koplow, MJ. (2020). Israel’s non-constitutional constitutional crisis.
Israel Policy Forum.
Retrieved from https://israelpolicyforum.org/2020/03/26/israels-non-
constitutional-constitutional-crisis/
[4] Pfeffer, A., Bandel, N. (2020) Netanyahu Attacks Justice System at
Opening of His Corruption Trial. Haaretz
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-israel-corruption-trial-
live-updates-news-breaking-1.8868426
[5] Galili L. (2020). Netanyahu incites violence by casting protesters as
clear and present danger. Middle East Eye.
Retrieved from https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-netanyahu-
protests-attacked-violence-will-get-worse
[6] Alleruzzo, M. (2020) Israelis press ahead with weekly anti-Netanyahu
protests. AP
Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-israel-
benjamin-netanyahu-jerusalem-bdbcdcd28e3ff0bad5f9030b3ce5a4c2
[7] Segal, A (2019, November 21) Twitter
https://twitter.com/amit_segal/status/1197578802190311430?s=20
[8] Staff (2020) Shai Nitzan regarding proceeding of Netanyahu’s trial: In
this State nothing is a done deal. Haaretz [Hebrew]
https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/law/1.9241215
[9] Corruption in Israel. Jerusalem Post
Retrieved from https://www.jpost.com/tags/corruption-in-israel
[10] Bachner, M. (2019) Senior legal official arrested, others questioned in
judicial corruption probe. Times of Israel
Retrieved from https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-legal-official-
suspected-of-corruption-in-case-rattling-the-judiciary/
[11] Hovel, R. (2015) Top Cop in Israel's Anti-corruption Police Unit Gets 8
Years for Bribery. Haaretz
Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-top-cop-in-anti-
corruption-unit-gets-8-years-for-bribery-1.5400886
[12] Hovel, R. (2018) Former Israeli Anti-fraud Chief Sentenced to Jail Over
Corruption Charges. Haaretz
Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-former-
israeli-anti-fraud-chief-sentenced-to-jail-over-corruption-charges-
1.6763862
[13] Zernik, J. (2020) State of Israel v Netanyahu (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court - Request (No 41) to inspect court file, Human
Rights Alert NGO [bilingual: Hebrew & English]
https://www.scribd.com/document/482732477/
[14] xiv Judges Friedman-Feldman, R., Bar-Am, M., and Shaham, O. (2020)
State of Israel v Netanyahu (67104-01-20) in the Jerusalem District
Court – Decision, denying Request (No 41) to inspect court file by
Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert NGO [Hebrew]
https://www.scribd.com/document/482733633/
[15] Zernik, J. (2020) Zernik v State of Israel, Netanyahu et al (4421-20) in
the Supreme Court – Commencing record, Human Rights Alert NGO
[bilingual: Hebrew & English]
https://www.scribd.com/document/482734918/
[16] Justice Grosskopf, O. (2020) Zernik v State of Israel, Netanyahu et al
(4421-20) in the Supreme Court of Israel – Judgment, Human Rights
Alert NGO [Hebrew]
https://www.scribd.com/document/482735995/
[17] Feldman, A. (2020) Bibi Netanyahu and the yellow post-it notes road.
Haaretz
Retrieved from
https://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-1.9105764
[18] Yakir, D. (2020) State of Israel v Netanyahu – Justice Grosskopf on the
right to inspect. Association for Civil Rights in Israel [Hebrew]
https://www.scribd.com/document/482738349/
[19] Anonymous (2020) State of Israel v Netanyahu (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court – fax notice by the court to Requester of
Inspection, Human Rights Alert NGO [Hebrew]
https://www.scribd.com/document/482738899/
[20] Zernik, J. (2020) State of Israel v Netanyahu (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court – request for clarifications by the Clerk of the
Court [bilingual: Hebrew & English]
https://www.scribd.com/document/488171437/
[21] Zernik, J. (2020) State of Israel v Netanyahu (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court - Request (No 82) for due process, Human
Rights Alert NGO [bilingual: Hebrew & English]
https://www.scribd.com/document/488172480/
[22] Zernik, J. (2020) State of Israel v Netanyahu (67104-01-20) in the
Jerusalem District Court - Notice (No 85) of inspection, Human Rights
Alert NGO [bilingual: Hebrew & English]
https://www.scribd.com/document/488172817/
[23] Zernik, J. (2020) Human Rights Alert NGO v State of Israel, Netanyahu
et al (8338/20) in the Supreme Court - Appeal, Human Rights Alert
NGO
https://www.scribd.com/document/488176398/
[24] Confidence trick, Wikipedia
Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick
[25] Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 1978
[26] Beinisch, D. (2009) Association for Civil Rights in Israel v Minister of
Justice et al (5917/97)
[27] Dolev, D. (2020) The person who struggles for transparency of the
courts. Walla
Retrieved from https://news.walla.co.il/item/3368198
[28] Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
[29] Mishnah Gittin Tractate: Full Hebrew text with English translation,
Sefaria project
Retrieved from https://www.sefaria.org.il/Mishnah_Gittin.1?lang=bi
[30] US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be
given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings
of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe
the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.”
[31] Raz, J. (2009) The concept of a legal system: An introduction to the
theory of legal system. Oxford University Press
[32] Fuller, L. (1964) The Morality of Law. Yale University Press
[33] Shamgar, M (1993) United Bank HaMizrahi LTD v Migdal Cooperative
Village (6821/93)
Retrieved from https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/united-mizrahi-
bank-v-migdal-cooperative-village
[34] Apostille Convention. Wikipedia
Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostille_Convention
[35] Zernik J. (2015). Fraudulent new IT systems of the Israeli courts:
Unannounced regime change? In C. Adams (Ed.) 15th European
Conference on Digital Government (pp 331-340). Red Hook, NY:
Curran Associates, Inc.
[36] Ombudsman of the Judiciary Goldberg, E. (2012) Decision (88/12/Tel-
Aviv District) in the Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols” affair
(unpublished, May 12, 2012).
https://www.scribd.com/document/482728702/
[37] Ombudsman of the Judiciary Goldberg, E. (2012) Decision (88/12/Tel-
Aviv District) in the Judge Varda Alshech “Fabricated Protocols” affair
(unpublished, May 12, 2012).
https://www.scribd.com/document/482728702/
[38] Justice Barak, A. (1992) A constitutional revolution: Israel’s basic laws,
Yale Law School
Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4700&context=fss_papers
[39] Zernik, J. (2019) Freedom of Information Request (269/2019) on
Administration of Courts, re: Israeli Courts Authority and electronic
signatures, Human Rights Alert NGO
https://www.scribd.com/document/488174621/
[40] Saban-Safrai, Sh. (2020) Freedom of Information Response (269/2019)
by Administration of Courts, re: Israeli Courts Authority and electronic
signatures, Human Rights Alert NGO [Hebrew]
https://www.scribd.com/document/488175319/
[41] Zernik, J. (2020) Zernik v Director of the Courts Judge Y Mersel
(39537-05-20) in the J-m District Court - Petition
https://www.scribd.com/document/462313674/
[42] State Ombudsman, (2010) Procedures and actions pertaining to
computerization of the courts, Annual Report 60b, State of Israel
Retrieved from
https://www.mevaker.gov.il/sites/DigitalLibrary/Pages/Reports/465-
37.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
[43] Lessig, L (2000) Code is Law, Harvard Magazine
Retrieved from https://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html
[44] Texas Penal Code § 32.48. Simulating Legal Process
Retrieved from https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-32-
48.html
[45] Zarchin, T. (2012) Israeli judge accused of doctoring transcripts steps
down as judicial representative. Haaretz.
Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/judge-who-doctored-court-
protocols-quits-1.5272473
[46] Zernik, J. (2018) E-courts in Israel: are judges permitted to deceive in
imprisonment? In R. Bouzas-Lorenzo and A.C. Ramos (Eds.) 18th
 European Conference on Digital Government (pp 257-266). Red Hook,
NY: Curran Associates, Inc.
[47] Zernik, J. (2017) E-government in Israel – Transformation into the Post-
Truth Era. In J. Vieira Borges and J.C. Dias Rouco (Eds.) 17th European
Conference on Digital Government (pp 270-280). Red Hook, NY:
Curran Associates, Inc.
[48] Human Rights Alert NGO (2017). Submission for the Universal Periodic
Review, 29th session, United Nations, Human Rights Council
Retrieved from https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?
filename=4809&file=EnglishTranslation
[49] Human Rights Alert NGO (2013) Submission and Appendix for the
Universal Periodic Review of the State of Israel by the UN Human
Rights Council
https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/180/12/PDF/G1218012.pdf?
OpenElement
[50] Human Rights Alert NGO (2018) Submission and Appendix for the
Universal Periodic Review of the State of Israel by the UN Human
Rights Council
https://www.scribd.com/document/352527742/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5N0RyelB6YTNBems/
view?usp=sharing
https://www.scribd.com/document/351709301/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5a2ktaEhqdHk0b1U/vie
w?usp=sharing
[51] Human Rights Alert NGO (2020) Review of Human Rights and
Democratic Institutions in the State of Israel – 2019-2020, submitted for
the US State Department annual review
https://www.scribd.com/document/488165374/
[52] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(2018) Summary of Stakeholders’ submissions on Israel
Retrieved from https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/332/74/PDF/G1733274.pdf?
OpenElement
[53] Singh, I. (2018) Data Mining and Warehousing, Khanna Publishing, p
318
[54] Data mining – human rights, Wikipedia
Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_data_mining#Human_rights
[55] Zernik, Joseph; Data Mining as a Civic Duty – Online Public Prisoners'
Registration Systems, International Journal on Social Media:
Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1: 84–96 (2010)
[56] Zernik, Joseph; Data Mining of Online Judicial Records of the
Networked US Federal Courts, International Journal on Social Media:
Monitoring, Measurement, Mining, 1:69–83 (2010)