Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

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

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

[]

October13,2015
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaor
SupremeCourtoftheStateofIsrael
ShaareyMishpatStreet,Jerusalem
Bycertifiedmail
RE:Urgentrequestforpublishingproceduresforobtainingcertificationofthe
SupremeCourt'sdecisionrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ingeneral,and
inparticularinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)criminalappealinthe
convictionofRomanZadorovinthemurderofthegirlTairRada.
Yourresponsewithin14daysiskindlyrequested.Timeisoftheessence!
DearPresidingJusticeNaor:
Ihereinurgentlyrequestthatyoupublishproceduresforobtainingcertificationofthe
SupremeCourt'sdecisionrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ingeneral,andin
particularinZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)criminalappealfromthe
convictionofRomanZadorovinthemurderofthegirlTairRada.Alternatively,I
hereinrequest,thatincasetheMay28,2015decisionrecordbythepanelofJustices
Danziger,AmitandZylbartal(theirpurporteddenialofDisqualificationforaCause)
isnotworthyoflawfulcertification,youtakeimmediateactions:a)toremovesuch
misleadingrecordfromITsystemoftheSupremeCourt,andb)toaddressajudicial
panel,whichfailedtodulyansweronDisqualificationforaCauseinthecourtfilein
reference.
TheRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficesoftheClerks)2004,Article6(a)says:
Thechiefclerksofthecourtsareauthorizedtocertifyacourtrecordtrue
copyoftheoriginalinthecourtfile.
Suchalsoisthelawinothernations.
Moreover,IsraelisapartytotheHagueApostilleConvention(1961),whichclarifies
thatajudicialrecordisdeemedvalid,effectualandenforceableonlyifsignedbythe
appropriatejudicialauthorityandcertifiedbythelawfullyauthorizedperson.
However,theabovereferencedRegulationsdidnotelaboratehowthecertificationof
judicialrecordswouldbematerialized.Therefore,Ihereinrequestthatyouestablish
thismaterialprocedureintheSupremeCourt.
1) Generalbackground:GraveconcernsregardinglackofintegrityinITsystems
oftheSupremeCourtsince2002,andtheroutinepublicationinthesystems
ofsimulateddecisionrecords.
InstantmatterismosturgentrelativetothecriminalappealinZadorovvStateof
Israel(7939/10)andtheMay28,2015decisionrecordbythepanelofJustices
Danziger,AmitandZylbertal(purportedlydenyingtheirMay26,2015
1/23

DisqualificationforaCause).However,theproblemisfundamentalitpertainsto
integrityoftheSupremeCourt'srecordsingeneral.
Aspartofanacademicstudy,Ihavebeenconductinginrecentyearsasurvey,
relativetoexercisingpublicaccesstocourtrecordsandintegrityoftheelectronic
recordsofthecourtsoftheStateofIsrael.Thestudyfollowstheoverarchingchanges
inadministrationofthecourtsoverthepastdecade,including:Implementationofthe
EsignAct,newRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk),newRegulationsofthe
Courts(InspectionofCourtFiles),andtheimplementationofnewITsystemsinthe
courts.Inthiscontext,seriousconcernsarose,relativetointegrityofnumerous
judicialdecisionrecords,whichontheirfacesappearedassimulatedcourtrecords.
[1]
Therefore,inordertoascertainthenatureofsuchjudicialrecords,Ihaveattempted
numeroustimestoobtaincertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ofdecision
recordsofthevariouscourts,includingtheSupremeCourt.
NotinasinglecasewasIsuccessfulinsuchattempts.Itisbynowobviousthatitis
notanaccidental,localfailure,butasystemwide,persistentphenomenon.

1 Simulated court record, and simulated judicial process are used here according to their definition in the
Texas Penal Code:
32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to
another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with
the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in
compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the
intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.
(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the simulating document:
(1) states that it is not legal process; or
(2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful
authority to issue or authorize the document.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed
with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a
court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable
presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a).
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(f) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously been
convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony.

2/23

Figure 1. Changes in IT system of the Supreme Court in 2002: The Supreme Court holds the paper
records as its valid and authoritative records. With it, the Supreme Court maintains IT systems for
public access to the decision records, and attorneys as well as the public at large, consider the
electronic records in the systems reliable and valid display of the Supreme Court's records.
However, since the death in March 2002 of Supreme Court's Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen, all
certifications, True Copy of the Original, were removed from the records, and the name of current
Chief Clerk no longer appears on the records. The electronic records bear no signature (either
graphic or electronic). Moreover, since 2002, all records bear a disclaimer: subject to editing and
phrasing changes. Furthermore, until 2002, the certification by the Chief Clerk included reference
to a unique, presumably secure electronic file. Since March 2002, such reference is only to Word
files, which are most likely not secured, and in numerous cases, no reference to any electronic file is
found on the record.
_____

Figure1,above,showstheprofoundchangesinthetemplateoftheelectronic
decisionrecordsoftheSupremeCourtinearly2002.Combined,theoutcomeof
thesechangesisthatsince2002thereisnosignontheelectronicrecords,which
conveysfinality,authority,orvalidity.Onthecontrary,theyshowadisclaimer...
Areasonablepersonwouldseesuchchangesasdeliberateactiontoabolishthe
validityandauthorityofallrecordsintheelectronicsystemsince2002.
BothSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeAsherGrunisandtheAdministrationofCourts
(thelatterpursuanttoFreedomofInformationActrequest)refusedtoanswer:
Underwhoseauthority,andonwhatlegalfoundationweresuchprofoundchanges
introducedin2002inthetemplateoftheelectronicrecords?
Inparallel,alldecisionrecordsoftheSupremeCourtaremailedtodaytopartiesin
process(inlieuofdueservice)asprintoutsfromtheelectronicsystem,unsigned,
uncertified,bearingthedisclaimer,subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges,withno
authenticationletterbytheOfficeoftheClerk.AccordingtolateSupremeCourt
PresidingJusticeYoelSusman'sbookCivilCourtProcedures,chapter,Serviceof
Record,suchconductisnotlawfulserviceofrecords.Thesamechapteralsoclarifies
thedubiousnatureofcourtdecisions,whicharenotdulyserved(i.e.,failurein
authentication).
Inspectionandcomparisonofthepaperrecordsandtheelectronicrecordsofthe
SupremeCourtraisedevendeeperconcerns,regardingintegrityofITsystemsand
recordsoftheSupremeCourt:
InAmosBaranesvStateofIsrael(3032/99)RequestforaNewTrialit
turnedoutthataseriesofdecisionrecords,whichweresuspectedforgeriesin
theITsystem,weremissingfromthepapercourtfile.
InMotiAshkenazi+76othersvDirectoroftheEnforcementandCollection
AuthorityandtheMinisterofJustice(2300/11)PetitionintheHighCourtof
JusticeitturnedoutthattheSupremeCourtmaintainsprotocols
(transcripts)ofitshearingsonlyaselectronicrecords,withnocounterpartsin
thepapercourtfiles.Moreover,theelectronicrecordsareunsigned(either
graphicallyorelectronically).
InMotiAshkenazi+76othersvDirectoroftheEnforcementandCollection
AuthorityandtheMinisterofJustice(2300/11),italsoturnedoutthatthe
SupremeCourtconductsforyearspreliminaryproceedingswithno
foundationinthelaw,withnoConditionalDecree(akintosummons),and
wheretheNoticetoAppearinCourtisaselfeliminatingelectronicrecord,with
nocounterpartinthepapercourtfile.Moreover,theelectronicrecord(priorto
3/23

itsselfelimination)issignedonlybyagraphicsignature(notavalidelectronic
signature)byaperson,whosenameandauthorityfailtoappearontherecord.
InpetitionstotheHighCourtofJustice,whereprocessisconductedunder
OriginalJurisdiction,theConditionalDecree,orinitsabsence,theNoticeto
AppearinCourt,aretheonlyvalidfoundationforestablishingjurisdictionof
thecourt.
ConcernsregardingintegrityoftheSupremeCourt'sITsystemswasaugmented,once
theintegrityoftheserverswasexamined:
Routineexaminationsonvariousoccasionsfoundtheserverslackingvalid
certificatesofidentity.
TheStateOmbudsman'sReport60b(2010)documentedthatcustodyofthe
servershadbeenremovedfromtheOfficesoftheClerksofthevariouscourts,
andtransferredtoacorporation.
AdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoansweronaFreedomoInformationAct
request:Whotodayholdstheultimateadministrativeauthorityfortheservers
oftheSupremeCourt?
TheAdministrationofCourtalsorefusedtoansweronaFreedomof
InformationActrequest:WhoistodaychargedwithsecurityofITsystemsof
thecourts?
Itshouldbenoted,thatinresponsetoanoticetotheYoramCohen,HeadoftheShin
Bet(sincetheShinBetischargedwithsecurityoftheState'sITsystems,asisthecase
inothernations),responsewasreceivedfromthePrimeMinister'soffice,statingthat
theShinBetisnotchargedwithresponsibilityforthesecurityofITsystemsofthe
courts.
FreedomofInformationActrequestsalsodocumentedthatsincethedeathof
ShmaryahuCohenin2002,thereisnolawfullyappointedChiefClerkintheSupreme
Court:BothChiefClerkSaraLifschitz(until2013)andChiefClerkIditMelul
(today),werenotlawfullyappointed,pursuanttotheRegulationsofStateService.
ItshouldalsobenotedthattheRegulationsoftheCourts(OfficeoftheClerk)2004,
abolishedthedutiesoftheChiefClerkforexcellentcustodyoftherecordsand
registrationsofthecourt.SuchdutywasprescribedbytheRegulationoftheCourts
(RegistrationOffice)1936fromtheBritishMandateperiod,andsimilarlyis
prescribedinthelawsofothernations.
TheoperationofalawfulOfficeoftheClerk,whichholdsdutiesforthesafeguardof
therecordsandtheirintegrity,andthemaintenanceofvalidandeffectualrecordsof
thejudicialprocess,arekeytraitsofCourtsofRecord.Therefore,thecombination
offindings,outlinedabove,alone,islikelytoleadinternationalobserverstoconclude
thattheSupremeCourtoftheStateofIsraelisnolongeraCourtofRecord,but
ratherasamedievalcourt.
2)ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10):Perversionsand/orforgeriesof
certificationofdecisionrecordsbyJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylebertal,
pertainingtoRequeststoInspectthecourtfile
OnMay26,2015,IfiledDisqualificationforaCauseagainstthepanelofJustices
Danziger,AmitandZylbertalintheRequesttoInspectprocessinZadorovvStateof
4/23

Israel(7939/10).TheDisqualificationforaCauseinpartsays[figureswereadded
hereinsteadoftheexhibitsintheoriginal]:
1. On March 23, 2015, I filed my first Request to Inspect in instant court file. [1]
2. On April 27, 2015, a Decision record, denying the Request to Inspect, appeared in the
online public access system of the Supreme Court. [2] However, the Decision has never
been duly served on me.
3. Failure of the Supreme Court to duly serve its decisions is inexplicable.
4. On May 3, 2015, I filed a Request for Authentication, asking the Court to provide me a
copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision: [3] a) Bearing signatures of the judicial authorities,
and b) Authenticated by certification, True Copy of the Original, by a duly appointed
Chief Clerk, or Magistrate of the Court, pursuant to the Regulations of the Courts Office
of the Clerk (2004), and the Hague Apostille Convention (1961). My May 3, 2015 Request
for Authentication stated that the authenticated copy was requested in order to enable the
issuance of an Apostille, pursuant to the guidelines of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for its
filing outside the State of Israel. It also asked that the Court employ the authentication
language stipulated by law - True Copy of the Original - and not invalid, perverted
variants, such as Copying is True to the Original.
5. On May 3, 2015, I also again filed a Request to Inspect instant court file. [4] To the best of
my knowledge, no decision has been rendered on the Request to this date.

Figure 2. First perversion and/or forgery of certification of Supreme Court decision in Zadorov v
State of Israel (7939/10). The record is not signed by the judicial authorities, the language of the
certification is meaningless, and not the one prescribed by law (Copying is True to the Original,
instead of True Copy of the Original), and the signature on the certification is by a person, who is
not authorized by law to sign such certification.
____
6. On May 4, 2015, I received by fax from the Supreme Court a copy of the April 27, 2015,
Decision record [Exhibit A] with no cover letter, presumably - purported response on
my May 3, 2015 Request for Authentication.
7. The copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision record, received on May 4, 2015 by fax:
a) Bears no signatures of the judicial authorities.
b) Is purportedly certified by Mr Danny Levy, who is neither Chief Clerk, nor Magistrate of
the Supreme Court, and therefore unauthorized by law to certify Supreme Court records.
c) Bears a stamp, including invalid, perverted certification language: Instead the language
provided by law - True Copy of the Original, it employed language which is senseless in
this context - Copying is true to the original.
d) Bears a disclaimer: subject to editing and phrasing changes.
8. Therefore, the copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision record, received by me on May 4,
2015 by fax should be deemed a perverted court record, and/or a case of forgery.
9. On May 7, 2015, I filed Repeat Request for Authentication, asking the court to provide me
a copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision record, duly signed and authenticated. To the best
of my knowledge, no decision has been rendered regarding this matter to this date.

5/23

Figure 3. Second perversion and/or forgery of certification of Supreme Court decision in Zadorov v
State of Israel (7939/10), which was received following protest of the first perversion and/or forgery:
The language of the certification is meaningless, and not the one prescribed by law (Copying is
True to the Original, instead of True Copy of the Original), and the signatures on the certification
are by a person, who is not authorized by law to sign such certification.
____
10. Last week, I received by mail from the Supreme Court another copy of the April 27,
2015 Decision record, [Exhibit B] with no transmittal letter, presumable response on
one of my Requests for Authentication.
11. The copy that was received by me by mail last week was similar to the one that is
described in 6., above, but bears signatures of the Justices. Regardless, the
authentication is still by the same unauthorized person, and the authentication language is
still invalid and perverted.
12. Therefore, the copy of the April 27, 2015 Decision record, received by me by mail last
week from the Supreme Court should be deemed a perverted court record, and/or a case
of forgery as well.
13. I am no legal scholar, and I have not found in Israeli law definition of simulated service
and simulated court process. For the purpose of clarification of the terms, as used by me
here, I provide the relevant article of the Texas Penal Code:.
32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. ...
14.
Under the circumstances, outlined above, a reasonable person and international
observers most likely would find that Justices Y. Danziger, Y. Amit, and Z. Zilbertal:
a) Have never duly served on the Requester to Inspect a valid and effectual decision record
on his Request to Inspect;
b) Deprived the Requester of the fundamental due process right regarding his Request to
Inspect, and
c) Colluded in the simulated service of perverted/forged court records.
15.
Moreover, as outlined in my May 3, 2015 Request to Inspect in instant court file, [4]
there are serious concerns, both among criminal justice experts and in the public at large,
of criminal conduct by the Israel Police investigation team and by the State Prosecution
team, and entirely unreasonable conduct of the courts in instant court file, which involved
false prosecution and false convictions of Mr Roman Zadorov in the murder of the child
Tair Rada.
16.
Therefore, a reasonable person and international observers would most likely find
here circumstances, which create serious and material concerns that the simulated
service of the April 27, 2015 Decision record was part of a court process, where the
public was falsely deprived of the right to inspect and Mr Roman Zadorov was falsely
deprived of the right for fair public hearing.
An article by legal scholars, titled, Regarding institutional problems preventing the
correction of false convictions in Israel", 1 outlines condition in the State of Israel today

6/23

regarding false convictions. The circumstances, outlined in the article, combined with
conduct of the courts and law enforcement in the case of Mr Roman Zadorov would likely
be deemed by the public at large and international observers as serious corruption, and
the denial of public access to inspect the court file through the simulated service of a
perverted and/or forged court record an attempt to conceal such corruption.

Themereexistenceofthefalseandmisleadingstamp,CopyingisTruetothe
Original,(No7),anditsrepeatedusebyaperson,whoisnotauthorizedbylawto
certifycourtrecordsindicatethattheperversions/forgeries,documentedhere,are
neitheranaccident,norahumanerror.[2]Itshouldalsobenotedthatitisthesame
stamp,whichwasusedbyothersintheperversion/forgeryofcertificationintheHigh
CourtofJusticeDivisionoftheSupremeCourtinRotemvSamet(Figures5,6,
below).
3)ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10):TheSupremeCourtpublishedinitsIT
systemtheMay28,2015decisionrecord(purportedlydenyingtheMay26,
2015DisqualificationforaCauseagainstJusticesDanziger,Amitand
Zylbertal),whilethedecisionhasneverbeenservedandtheCourtrefusesto
provideitsdulysignedandcertifiedcopy

Figure 4. May 28, 2015 decision record by the panel of Justices Danziger, Amit and Zylbertal,
pertaining to May 26, 2015 Disqualification for a Cause, as published in the Supreme Court's IT
system: Unsigned, uncertified, bearing the disclaimer: Subject to editing and phrasing changes.
The decision also fails to comply with the law as to its content. Moreover, the record was never
served at all, and the Supreme Court refuses to provide a signed and certified copy of the record.

_______
InresponseonthefilingoftheMay26,2015DisqualificationforaCause,onMay28,
2015,adecisionrecordbythepanelofDanziger,AmitandZylbertalwaspublished
2 Freedom of Information request, filed with the Administration of Courts asks: a) Who
authorized the creation of the stamp Copying is True to the Original (no 7)? b) Who is its
lawful holder? c) Who authorized Mr Danny Levy to employ such stamp in purported
certification of Supreme Court records? The Administration of Courts failed to provide the
relevant information in response on a similar Freedom of Information request, pertaining to
the use of the same stamp in perversion/forgery of certifications in Rotem v Samet (Figures
5, 6).

7/23

onITsystemoftheCourt,purportedlydenyingtheDisqualificationforaCause(see
Figure4).TheMay28,2015decisionrecordsays:
AfterreviewingtheRequest,andallitsreasons,weconcludedthatitcannotbe
granted,andthereforeitisdenied.
Therecordwasneverservedatall.
ThepublicationofsuchrecordintheelectronicsystemoftheSupremeCourt,
unsigned,uncertified,bearingthedisclaimer,subjecttoeditingandphrasing
changes,onitsfacecannotbedeemedbyanyreasonablepersonavalidand
effectualdecisionrecordofanycourt.
Moreover,thecontentoftherecordignorestheprovisionsofthelawaswell,since
thedecisionfailstoincludeanyreasoningatall.
Therefore,onJune3,2015,requestwasfiledwithMagistrateoftheSupremeCourt
GileadLubinsky,toprovideacopyoftheMay28,2015decisionrecord(purportedly
denyingtheDisqualificationforaCause),signedbythejudgesandcertifiedbythe
Magistrate(giventheabsenceofadulyappointedChiefClerkintheSupremeCourt).
TheJune3,2015Request,filedwithMagistrateLubinskyinpartsays:
6. The Regulations of the Courts (Registration Office) 1936, enacted under the British
Mandate, Article 4, says:
The clerks, who are responsible for the excellent maintenance of the records and
registration books of the courts, are the clerks in charge of the Registration Offices.
7. The Regulations of the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004, which replaced the Courts Act
(Registration Office) 1936, fails to include similar language. However, the Regulations of
the Courts (Office of the Clerk) 2004, amended in 2005 to include Regulation 6a, which
says:
The Chief Clerks of the courts are authorized certify that a copy of a court record is
true copy of the original in the court file.
8. My meeting on May 26, 2015, with Ms Idit Melul clarified again, what is documented in
the Freedom of Information response (P 10/2015) by the office of Administration of
Courts [1] that Ms Melul, who goes by the title Chief Clerk, acts with no lawful
appointment and no authority at all.
9. The Courts Act 1984, Article 105(a) says:
105(a) The Magistrate of the Court of the Supreme Court, the District Court, and the
Magistrate Court shall serve in any authority that was vested in the Chief Clerk of the
respective court, and perform any duty assigned to the Chief Clerk.
10.
Under the circumstances, outlined above, the Magistrate of the Supreme Court
should be deemed the only one, who is today authorized to certify the authenticity of
Supreme Court decision records.
11.
Therefore, I herein request that Magistrate of the Supreme Court Gilead Lubinsky
provide me copies of the above referenced April 27, 2015 and May 28, 2015 Decision
records:
a) Bearing signatures of the judicial authorities, and
b) Authenticated by certification, True Copy of the Original, by the Magistrate of the
Court, with his name and title appearing on the record, pursuant to the Regulations of
the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004), and the Hague Apostille Convention (1961)
12. Magistrate Lubinsky is explicitly requested to employ the certification language stipulated
in the Regulations - True Copy of the Original, and avoid employing invalid, perverted
certification language, such as - Copying is true to the original.
13.Such authenticated copies of the Decisions, referenced above, are requested in order to
enable the issuance of an Apostille, in compliance with the respective Regulations and
guidelines of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for its filing outside the State of Israel.
_______
[1] 2015-03-04 FOIA response by Administration of Courts (10/2015): Office of the Clerk and

8/23

IT systems of the Supreme Court no appointment records for Chief Clerk Melul, no
response on IT systems//
:(10/2015 - )-
,
https://www.scribd.com/doc/257699682/
_______

SupremeCourtMagistrateGileadLubinskyrefusedtoprovideasignedandcertified
copyofthedecisionbythepanelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,which
purportedlydeniedtheirDisqualificationforaCause.InhisJune15,2015Decision
(unsigned,uncertified,subjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges),Magistrate
Lubinskywrites:
Accordingtothelaw,andasiscustomaryinthisCourt,certificationthatan
issueofajudicialdecisionrecordisfaithfultotheoriginal,isprovided
generally,bytheChiefClerk.Suchshouldbedonealsointhecasebeforeus.
ItshouldbenotedthatinhisJune15,2015Decision,MagistrateoftheSupreme
CourtGileadLubinsky:
a)Getsconfusedintheuseofbasiclegalterms,suchasissueversuscopy,and
faithfultotheoriginalversustruecopyoftheoriginal.
b)RefersthecertificationtoaChiefClerk,whiletherequestexplicitlyinformedhim
thattherewasnolawfullyappointedChiefClerkintheSupremeCourttoday,and
providedhimwiththereferenceandalinktothecorrespondingdocumentary
evidence.
c)FalselyclaimsthatitiscustomaryinthisCourtthattheChiefClerkprovides
certificationofjudicialrecords.Thetruefactsinthematterarethatthecustomin
theSupremeCourttodayisthatunauthorizedpersonsprovidefalsecertifications,
andthatChiefClerkIditMelulavoidssigningjudicialrecordswithhernameand
falsetitle.

Figure 5. False certification, received by letter post-stamped May 27, 2014, from the Supreme
Court, in response on Tax-Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem first letter to Presiding Justice Asher
Grunis, asking for a duly signed and certified copy of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record in his
Petition Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08). The record is unsigned by the judicial authorities. The
certification employs perverted, meaningless certification language (Copying is True to the
Original, instead of True Copy of the Original, as prescribed by law.), and is signed with an
illegible scribble by a person, whose name and authority fail to appear on the record. Supreme
Court Presiding Justice refused to explain why the Supreme Court provides only false certifications,
but no true, valid certification of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record.

9/23

Figure 6. False certification, received by letter post-stamped May 29, 2014, from the Supreme
Court, in response on Tax-Authority whistle-blower Rafi Rotem second letter to Presiding Justice
Asher Grunis, asking for a duly signed and certified copy of the March 3, 2008 Judgment record in
his Petition Rotem v Samet et al (1233/08). The certification employs perverted, meaningless
certification language (Copying is True to the Original, instead of True Copy of the Original, as
prescribed by law), and is signed by Ms Nava Khalaf. The stamp, which states her position, Senior
Coordinator, Civil Division, was hand-altered to read Senior Coordinator, High Court of Justice
Division. Response on Freedom of Information Act request documented that Ms Nava Khalaf hold
no lawful appointment for either position. Supreme Court Presiding Justice refused to explain why
the Supreme Court provides only false certifications, but no true, valid certification of the March 3,
2008 Judgment record.

____
Seeforexample,falsecertifications(Figures5,6),providedtoTaxAuthority
whistleblowerRafiRotem,followinghisrepeatletterstoPresidingJusticeAsher
Grunis,askingfordulysignedandcertifiedcopiesoftheJudgmentinhisPetition,
RotemvSametetal(1233/08).InRotemvSametetal,theSupremeCourtruled
thatRotemwasnowhistlebloweratall.(Morerecently,theStateOmbudsman
renderedRotemaWhistleblowerProtectionDecreewithnoprotection...)
PresidingJusticeGrunisrefusedtoexplainwhytheSupremeCourtwouldprovide
onlyfalsecertifications,butnotruecertificationoftheJudgmentinRotem's
petition...
Thecombinationoffactsabove,wouldmostlikelyleadareasonablepersonto
concludethatSupremeCourtMagistrateGileadLubinskycommittedfraudinhisJune
15,2015DecisionontheJune3,2015RequestforCertification.
Atthebottomline,SupremeCourtMagistrateGileadLubinskyrefusedtoprovidetrue
andlawfulcertificationoftheMay28,2015DecisionbythepanelofJustices
Danziger,AmitandZylbertal,purportedlydenyingtheirDisqualificationforaCause.
SuchconductbytheSupremeCourt'sMagistrateinZadorovvStateofIsrael
(7939/10)furtherunderminespublictrustinthejudicialprocessinthiscase.
4) ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10):Failuretodulyrespondon
DisqualificationforaCauseraisesseriousconcernsregardingdisqualification
ofthepanelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,andtheirincompetence
andlackofauthoritytocontinueinanyprocessinthiscourtfile.
Inordertoascertainthattherewasnooversightormerehumanerror,onJune3,
2015,requestwasfiledwiththepanelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,fora
10/23

newdecision,reasonedasprescribedbylaw,ontheMay26,2015Disqualificationfor
aCause.
Thepanelhasneverrespondedontherequestforanewdecision.
Therefore,onAugust19,2015,anUrgentRequestwasfiledwithSupremeCourt
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaor,forappointmentofanewpanelintheRequestto
Inspectand/orintheentirecourtfile.TheRequest,filedwithPresidingJusticeNaor
claimedthatsincethepanelofJusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertalfailedtoduly
respondontheDisqualificationforaCause,thepanelshouldbedeemeddisqualified.
SincenodecisionwasrenderedontheAugust19,2015UrgentRequest,onOctober
7,2015,RequestforRenderingaDecisionontheAugust19,2015Requestwasfiled
withPresidingJusticeNaor.TheOctober7,2015Requestsaysinpart:
4. Regarding Disqualification for a Cause, Directive 9.1100 of the Attorney General says: [3]
The disqualification for a cause of a judge is a particularly sensitive matter, a claim of
disqualification for a cause is equivalent, in many cases (but not all) to refuting the
presumption of honesty and openness, existing regarding any professional judicial
panel.
Regarding disqualification for a cause, Judge Yigal Marzel's book (Chapter 3, p 51) says:
[4]
Honesty in Disqualification for a Cause
An important component in the laws pertaining to the procedure of disqualification for
a cause is the principle of honesty. It bears on all those related to the procedure
the party, counsel, and also the judicial panel.

Obviously,tricksplayedbyJusticesandtheCourtindecisiononDisqualificationfora
Causedonotconveyhonestyorfairness...
PresidingJusticeNaorhasnotrenderedanydecisionontheserequeststothisdate.
5) ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10):publictrustinthejudicialprocesshas
reachedalowmark
FollowingthedenialofthefirstRequesttoInspectinthiscourtfile,undertheclaim
thatitwasnotsufficientlyjustified,asecondRequesttoInspectwasfiledonMay3,
2015,whichwasinpartjustifiedasfollows:
h) Instant court file holds the highest public policy significance, since it raised and raises
numerous concerns among experts and the public at large:
Regarding instant court file, an expert on criminal law wrote: Conduct of the State
Prosecution is scary.
Regarding instant court file, another expert on criminal law wrote: There is no scientific
evidence tying the suspect to the crime scene, there is no motive for the crime. The suspect
denied his guilt during most of the investigation stages and all along his trial. When he
confessed, he did not lead the investigators to any evidence at all.... The Verdict is not
convincing that guilt was proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The new Verdict in the
matter of Roman Zadorov raises numerous concerns, on top of concerns that were raised by
the original Verdict in this affair. Zadorov's guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

3 Disqualifications for a Cause by State Counsel and Responses on Disqualifications by Other Parties,
Guidelines of the Attorney General, No 9.1100 (50.060); April 1, 1998, updated October 24, 2002.
http://index.justice.gov.il/Units/YoezMespati/HanchayotNew/Seven/91100.pdf
4 Disqualification Laws by Yigal Marzel, Israel Bar Association Press (2006)

11/23

 Interest of the public at large in instant court file is unprecedented. Tens of thousands of
citizens are listed in groups, which support the innocence of the accused and call for justice
for the accused.
To the Requester's best knowledge and belief, citizens who examined the evidence
material that was accessible to them, also filed criminal complaints with the Ministry of
Justice and/or the Attorney General against members of the investigation team for perverting
and/or falsifying evidence, and against members of the prosecution team for deliberately
misleading the Court.

Summary
ThemurderofthegirlTairRada,andconductoftheIsraelPolice,theState
Prosecutionandthecourts,relativetothecriminalprosecutionofRomanZadorov
andhisrepeatedconvictionofthemurder,hasstirredtheIsraelipublicforyears.
Publictrustinthejudicialprocesshasreachedalowmarkinthisaffair.
Therefore,duecertificationoftheMay28,2015decisionrecordbythepanelof
JusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertal,whichpurportedlydeniedtheDisqualification
foraCause,isessentialforrestoringpublictrustinthejudicialprocessinthiscase.
Thechainofevents,relativetotheRequesttoInspectthecourtfileinthiscase,again
raisesseriousconcernsregardingfundamentallackofintegrityinITsystems,records,
andtheOfficeoftheClerkoftheSupremeCourt,andthepublicationofsimulated
courtrecordsasaroutine.
Therefore,IhereinrequestthatPresidingJusticeMiriamNaorurgentlypublish
proceduresforobtainingcertificationofSupremeCourtdecisionsingeneral,andin
particularprocedureforcertificationoftheMay28,2015decisionbythepanelof
JusticesDanziger,AmitandZylbertalontheMay26,2015Disqualificationfora
Cause.
Alternatively,incasetheMay28,2015decisionbythepanelisnotarecord,suchthat
shouldbecertified,Ihereinrequest:
a.ThattheMay28,2015recordbeimmediatelyremovedfromITsystemofthe
SupremeCourt,asaninvalidandmisleadingrecord;
b.ThatSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeNaortakedueactionstoappointanew
panelintheRequesttoInspectprocessand/orinallprocessesinthiscourtfile,and
c.ThatSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeNaorinitiateactionstorestoretheintegrity
oftheOfficeoftheClerk,ITsystemsandrecordsoftheSupremeCourtoftheState
ofIsrael.
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlert(NGO)
OccupyTLV
CC:
ProfUziOrnan,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfMichalIrani,ComputerScience,WeizmannInstitute
ProfAbrahamBell,LawFaculty,BarIlanUniversity
ProfArielBendor,LawFaculty,BarIlanUniversity
ProfGadBarlzilai,LawFaculty,HaifaUniversity

12/23

ProfYoramBaram,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfOrenGazal,LawFaculty,HaifaUniversity
AttorneyEinatHurvitz,CEO,FreedomofInformationMovement
ProfShmuelZaks,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfIradYavneh,ComputerScience,Technion
AttorneyDanYakir,LegalCounsel,AssociationforCivilRightsinIsrael
ProfAsaKasher,PhilosophyDept,TelAvivUniversity,SchoolofPublicPolicyandAdmininstration,
HerbrewUnivesrity
ProfEliezerLederman,LawFaculty,TelAvivUniversity
ProfAmiLitman,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfYehudaLindell,ComputerScience,BarIlanUniversity
ProfMenahemMautner,LawFaculty,TelAvivUniversity
ProfBarakMedina,LawFaculty,HebrewUniversity
ProfDoronNavot,LawFaculty,HaifaUniversity
ProfBoazSangero,CriminalLawandCriminologyDivision,LawandBusinessAcademicCenter
(RamatGan)
ProfDanielFriedman,LawFaculty,TelAvivUniversity
ProfNirKedar,LawSchool,SapirAcademy
ProfMotaKermnitzer,LawFaculty,HebrewUniversity
ProfAmnonRubinstein,LawSchool,HerzliaIDC
ProfOmerReingold,ComputerScience,WeizmannInstitute
ProfAssafSchuster,ComputerScience,Technion
ProfGabrielaShalev,OnoAcademicCenter
ProfYedidyaStern,LawFaculty,BarIlanUniversity
ProfEliShamir,HebrewUniversity
AttorneyEladShraga,ChairmanandFounder,QualityGovernmentMovement

_________________________________________________________________________

2015, 13
,

,

", :
( 7939/10) , ,"
. "
! . 14
,

( 7939/10 )," "
28 , , .
) ( , ,2015 ,
( :
. ( ,
:)( 6 ,2004- ",( )
13/23


- - .
.
- ) ,(1961
, ,
.
" ,,
.
.1 :
,2002
) ,(7939/10
28 ,2015 , , , )
26 ,2015 , . ,
.
,
.
, :
, )( , ) (,
.
, ,
[5] .
, ,
" " ,
. . ,
, .

5 ,
,":
- :32.48
32.48
)(
, , , , :
) (1 ,
) (2 :
(A ;
( B , .
)(
.
)( , :
) (1 .
) ( 2 .
)( , , ,
, , , ,
)( .
)( )( , ,
.Class A misdemeanor
)( , ,
) state jail felony (.

14/23

 .1 :2002
. ,
.
. 2002
, " " ,
. )
( . , 2002 " - ".
, 2002 ,
. ,
) ( , .
_____

' ,1 ,
.2002 , ,2002
, , . , 2002
.... -
.2002
)
( : ,
?2002
, ) (
, , , "
" , .
" " " , " " ,
. )
(.
,
:
) - (3032/99 ,
, , .
76+ )"
,(2300/11 , "" ,
, . ,
) (.
" 76 + )" ,(2300/11 ,
" " ) ,(Summons -
" " , .
, ) ( )
15/23

 ( .
" , ) ,(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ,
" " , ) .
SUMMONS (
,
:
.
" 60' ) (2010
.
:
?
:
?
, " , ) " ,
, ( ,
," .
"
2002 : " " )
,(2013 " " )( , .
, ) ( ,"-
,2004 " "
. ) ( ,1936
, .
, ,
, " )
. (COURTS OF RECORD , ,
, "
" , -.
.2 ) :(7939/10 /
,

26 ,2015 , ,
) .(7939/10
) (:
.1 23 ,2015 , [1] .
.2 27 ,2015 , ""
[2] , "" .
.3 .
.4 03 ,2015 , "
27 [3] .2015 , 27,
: 2015( , ,( ,
" , , , ,
) ,(2004 ) .(1961 03,
, 2015
, . ,
- "
, ".
.5 03 ,2015 , [4] .
.

16/23

 .2 / )
:( 7939/10 , ,
, .
____
.6 04 ,2015 , "" 27] ,2015 ,
[.2 , 3 ,2015 ,
.
.7 " 27 ,2015 , 04:2015 ,
( .
( , ,
.
( : " -
" , " - ".
( " ".
.8 , " 27 ,2015 , 04
,2015 , / .
.9 07 ,2015 , ""
27 .2015 , .

.3 / )
,( 7939/10 / :
, ,
.
_____
"" 27
.10
] ,2015 , [3 .
.11 ,.6- , .
,
.
, " 27 ,2015 ,
.12
/ .

17/23

 ,
.13
. , ,
,":
- :32.48 ...
.14 , - ,
' ,' ,' :
( - ;
( ,
( / .
.15 , [4] , ,
, ,
,
.
, - ,
.16
"" 27,2015 ,
, ,
" .
," ,
.17
" 6 , .
, ,
,
/ .

" ,"(7) ,
, / , ,
[7] .
/ " ) ,5,6(.
.3 ) :(7939/10
28) 2015 , 26 2015 ,
, "( , ,

6,",".,193:
.2013
EFink,RRosenbergRobbins,"Regardinginstitutionalproblemspreventingthecorrectionoffalseconvictions
inIsrael",MaaseiMishpat,5:193,2013.
7 :(
, ?7( ? (
?
, 7/
) .(6 ,5

18/23

 .4 28 ,2015 , , ,
: , , :
" . . ,
,
.

_______
26 ,2015 ,
28 ,2015 , , ,
) ,(4:
, , ,
.
.
,
, , " , -
.
, , , ,
.
, 3 ,2015 ,
) ( , 28,2015 ,
. :
.6 ) ( 1936 , ,4:
.4
, ...
.7 )( ,2004 ) ( ,1936
. )( ,2004 ,2005
6 ,:
6 . -
- .
.8 26 ,2015 , ' , ,
) (10/2015' ,
" " , [1] .
.9 ,1984 )105( ,:
) .105( ,
.
.10 ,
.
.11 ,
27 2015 , 28 2015 , :
. .
. " " ,
, )( ,2004
)(1961
.12 " -
" , , " - ".
.13
, .
_______
[1] 2015-03-04 FOIA response by Administration of Courts (10/2015): Office of the Clerk and
IT systems of the Supreme Court no appointment records for Chief Clerk Melul, no
response on IT systems//
- ) :(10/2015 -
,
https://www.scribd.com/doc/257699682/

19/23

_______

, , . ) ,
" , "( 15 ,2015 ,:
, "
" , , , .
.
15 ,2015 , :
( , "" ," "
" ".
( " " ,
" " ,
.
( ," " ,
.
," "
.

.5 , 27 ,2014 , ,

, 3 2008 ,
) .(1233/08 .
) " , " " , ( ,
.
,
3.2008 ,

20/23

 .6 , 29 ,2014 , ,

, 3 2008 ,
) .( 1233/08 ) " , "
" , ( , ' . , , ,
" , - , , "" .
' ..
,
3.2008 ,

____
, ) ,(6 ,5
,
. ,
' ) .(1233/08 ,
) . " "
(...
, .
, -
15 ,2015 , .
,
28 2015 , , ,
.
)(7939/10
.
.4 ) :(7939/10 ,
.

, 3 ,2015 , ,
, 26.2015 ,
.
, 19 ,2015 , ,
/ .
, ,
.
3 ,2015 , .
7 ,2015 , .
:
.4 [8] :9.1100
, ,
) (
.
) ,' )[9] :(51
.2
8 , ,
1 ;(50.060) 9.1100 ,1998 24 ,2002
http://index.justice.gov.il/Units/YoezMespati/HanchayotNew/Seven/91100.pdf
9 , , )(2006

21/23

 .
, , .

, ...
.
.5 ) :(7939/10
.

, 3 ,2015 , , :
( ,
:
" :
".
" :
, . .
, " ...
. ,
. .
.
.
, , ,
/
/ , .

" , ,
, .
.
, , 28
,2015 , ,
.

, , ,
.
, ,
, ,,
28 ,2015 , 26.2015 ,
, 28 ,2015 , ,
:
. 28 ,2015 ,
, .
.
" ,/ .
. ,
, .
,

'
Human Rights Alert - NGO
22/23

 "
:
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
" ," ,
, ,
, ,
" , ,
, , " " ,
, , "
, ,
, , -
, , "
, ,
, ,
' , )-(
, , "
," ,
, ,
," , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , -
, ,
" ," ,

23/23