Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD

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

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

November16,2016

[]

MrShmuelHizkiya
KnessetFOIAOffice
Knesset,Jerusalem
Email:froi@knesset.gov.il
Fax: 026408201
RE:FreedomofInformationRequest,pertainingtoprotocolsoftheKnesset
committeesandcorrespondingITsystems
DearMrHizkiya:
OnAugust25,2016,IdulysubmittedaFOIArequest,partBofwhichseeksrecords,
pertainingtotheKnessetsITsystemsandelectronicrecords(AttachmentA).Feeswereduly
paid.
IfinallyreceivedbymailtheOctober10,2016FOIAresponse(AttachmentB).
SuchFOIAresponsecannotbedeemedlawfulFOIAresponse,forthefollowingreasons:
1.Theresponseshowsagraphicsignature,butnohandsignatureonapaperrecord.
Furthermore,itwasissuedonbehalfofaperson,whowasidentifiedasInformation
DevisionManager,butnotbyaFOIAOfficer.
TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecision(AttachmentC)intheJudgeVardaAlshech
FabricatedProtocolsscandalexplicitlystatesthata)Agraphicsignatureisnotavalid
signature,andb)Arecord,whichbearsagraphicsignatureisaninvalidrecord,merelya
draft.Withit,theJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandaldocumentedthat
aStateserviceemployee,whoperpetratesafraudbyissuingsuchrecords,isnotheld
accountable.
DecisionoftheFOIAEnforcementUnitoftheMinistryofJustice,pertainingtomy
complaintregardingsimilarconductbyanunauthorizedperson,whoprovidedfraudulent
responsesonFOIArequests,determinedthatFOIAresponseshadtobelawfullysignedby
thecorrespondingFOIAOfficer.
2.Thecoverletterisunsigned,andtheauthority,ifany,ofitsissuer,AnnaMatzkin
remainsunstated.
3.Theresponsefailstoprovideanyoftherequestedrecords.
4.Theresponseprovidesanunreasonableexcuse:Therequestpertainstoorganizational
knowledgeregardingtheoperationoftheprotocolssystem,informationwhichisnotinour
possession.
Therefore,Ihereinrequest:
1.Anewresponse,bearingthehandsignatureoftheKnessetsFOIAOfficer.
2.Thatthenewresponsetrulyaddresstherequestandproviderecordsaccordingly.
3.Thatarecord,documentingvalidappointmentofthesignerastheKnessetsFOIAOfficer
beattachedtotheresponse.

1/3

4.ThattheresponsebeprovidedonpaperbyIsraelPosttomyaddress,shownabove,
withoutfurtherdelay.
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
CC:
MKKarinElharrar,ChairoftheKnessetStateOversightCommittee
ProfUzziOrnan
ProfEliBiham,HeadoftheTechnionCyberSecurityResearchCenter
ProfDannyDolve,HeadoftheHebrewUniversityCyberSecurityResearchCenter
AttorneyDanYakir,AssociationforCivilRightsinIsrael
ProfAsaKasher
AttorneyAvigdorFeldman
_________________________________________________________________________
162016 ,


, ,
"froi@knesset.gov.il :
02-6408201 :
: .
,
25 ,2016 , ,
) ( . .
10) 2016 , (.
:
.1 " " , . ,
" " , " ".
) ( " "
, :( " " , (
" " ," . , "
"
.
,
,
, :(
, (
.
.2 , , "
.
.3 .
.4 :
.
, :

2/3

 . 1 , .
.2 .
. 3 , " " .
. 4 , , .
,

'
:
" ," .

,
,
" ,

3/3

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

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

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

August25,2016

[]

MrShmuelHizkiya
KnessetFOIAOffice
Knesset,Jerusalem
Email:froi@knesset.gov.il
Fax: 026408201
RE:FreedomofInformationRequest:A.ITsystemsoftheCentralElectionCommittee,
B.ProtocolsoftheKnessetcommittees
DearMrHizkiya:
PleaseacceptinstantFreedomofInformationRequest:
I.RequesterInformation
Name:JosephZernik
ID:
Address:POBox33407,TelAviv,Israel
Fax:0773179186
II.RequestedInformation
Instantrequestpertainstowrittendocumentationoftherequestedinformationinrecords,
whichareheldbytheKnesset,orreferencestoofficialpublications(e.g.StateRegister)of
therequestedinformation.
A.ITsystemsoftheCentralElectionCommittee
TherequestedinformationpertainstoITsystems,whichareusedbytheCentralElection
Committeeformonitoringconductoftheelectioninthevariouspollingstations,for
collectionandmaintenanceofvotingdatafromthepollingstations,forprocessingofthe
dataforcalculationofelectionoutcome,andforpublicationofthedataintheCentral
ElectionCommitteewebsites.
1.ComplianceofdevelopmentandimplementationofthesystemswithTreasuryAccounting
OfficeStandards,andOctober28,1991CabinetDecision103/eco,pertainingto
developmentandmaintenanceofITsystems:
a.Documentationofexistenceofspecificationsinconjunctionwiththesigningof
contrastsforsystemdevelopmentbyaStateemployee,includingbutnotlimitedto
hisname,title,documentationofhislawfulappointmentpursuanttotheState
ServiceRegulations.
b.DocumentationofcoremanagementofITsystemsdevelopmentbyaState
employee,includingbutnotlimitedtohisname,title,documentationofhislawful
appointmentpursuanttotheStateServiceRegulations.
c.DocumentationofindependentexaminationandvalidationofITsystemspriorto
implementationbyaStateemployee,includingbutnotlimitedtohisname,title,
documentationofhislawfulappointmentpursuanttotheStateServiceRegulations.
2.WhoholdstheultimateadministrativeauthorityforsuchITsystems?
3.WhichStateauthoritiesholdtheresponsibilityforsecuringsuchsystems?

1/4

4.Whowereauthorizedtopublishdata,pertainingtothe20 thKnessetelectionoutcome,in
theCentralElectionCommitteewebsite?(e.g.,portal:http://votes20.gov.il/ballotresults)
B.ProtocolsoftheKnessetcommittees
TherequestedinformationpertainstothemannerinwhichprotocolsoftheKnesset
committeesareadministeredandITsystems,whichareusedfortheirpublication.
1.Whoholdstheduty(ifany)fordraftingthecommitteesprotocols,forsigningthe
protocols,andwhoisauthorizedtocertifytheauthenticityoftheprotocolsasofficial
Knessetdocuments?
2.Whatarethedeadlines(iftheyexist)fordrafting,signing,publicationofcommittee
protocols?
3.Whoisauthorizedtoapprovethepublicationofrecordsascommitteeprotocolstothe
Knessetwebsite?(e.g.,portals:https://www.knesset.gov.il/protocols/search.asp;
http://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/committees/Pages/AllCommitteeProtocols.aspx)
4.Theprotocolswhicharepresentedintheabovereferencedwebsitesareunsignedword
processorfiles,andsomealsocarrydisclaimers(e.g.protocolwasnotproofed)i.e.,are
notauthenticrecordstherefore:
WhatisthemannerinwhichauthenticKnessetcommitteeprotocolsaremaintained(if
theyaremaintainedatall),andthemannerinwhichthepubliccanmaterializeinspection
ofsuchrecords?
III,Payment:
a.RequestfeeinthesumofNIS20.00waspaid,ReferenceNo323061077,receiptattached.
b.Commitment:IconsenttopayuptoNIS150.00.IncasetheFOIAOfficernotifiesmethat
costofprocessingtheinformationexceedstheabovesum,separateconsentwouldbe
requiredforcontinuingtheprocessingofinstantrequest.
Truly,
JosephZernik,PhD
HumanRightsAlert(NGO)
OccupyTLV
_________________________________________________________________________
2016 , 25


, ,
froi@knesset.gov.il :"
02-6408201 :
. , . : :

,
.
I

:
053625596 :"
6133301 ",33407 ":
joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org :"

2/4

077-3179186 :
:
II
,
) ( .
.

, ,
, .
.1 " , " )
"/ ( /103 28,
:1991
. ) (SPECIFICATIONS
, : , , .
. , : , ,
.
. ) ( ,
: , , .
.2 ?
.3 ?
.4 20-
? ) ,( http://votes20.gov.il/ballotresults :
.

.
.1 ) ( ,
, ?
.2 , , ,
?
.3 "" ?
) , https://www.knesset.gov.il/protocols/search.asp
( http://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/committees/Pages/AllCommitteeProtocols.aspx
.4"" " ,
) " "( )( :
)( ) ( ,
?
III:
. 20" , ,323061077 .
. : 150" .

, .
,

'
Human Rights Alert - NGO

3/4

4/4

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 33407, Tel Aviv, Israel
Fax: 077-3179186 Email: joseph.zernik@hra-ngo.org

Attachment9.5JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecisionandIsraelBarAssociation
complaint
InRE:ROMANZADOROVaUkrainiancitizendetainedinIsrael
Filedwith:
WorkingGrouponArbitraryDetention
c/oOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights
UnitedNationsOfficeatGeneva,Switzerland
Byemail:wgad@ohchr.org,urgent-action@ohchr.org

Attachment9.5JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandal
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciarydecisionandIsraelBarAssociation
complaint

Record

1.

JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalOmbudsmanof
theJudiciarydecisionwithEnglishtranslation

2.

JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalIsraelBar
AssociationComplaint

46

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

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

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

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

Eliezer Goldberg on complaints against Judge Varda AlSheikh in the
Reconstructed Protocol affair//
, "( /88/12)
" " ,2012 , 31

https://www.scribd.com/doc/291016506/
[]

JudgeVardaAlshechreconstructedprotocols,JusticeEliezerGoldebrgwrote
alandmarkdecision,exposingthefraudindevelopmentandoperationofNet
HaMishpatITsystemoftheIsraelidistrictandmagistratecourts.
____
Englishtranslationisprovidedonlyforpartsofthedecision,whichpertaintothe
developmentandoperationofNetHaMishpatandconductofjudgesandclericalstaff
relativetotheproduction,filing,service,andcertificationofjudicialrecords.
Thedecisiondocumentsingreatdetailthefailureofallsuchprocedures,whichwere
establishedincourtsinWesternnationscenturiesago,andwhichwereestablished
alsointheStateofIsraelfrom1936to2004,underRegulationsoftheCourts
RegistrationOffice(1936),promulgatedundertheBritishruleperiod...[1]TheBritish
Regulationswerevoidedin2004,concomitantlywiththeinitiationofdevelopmentof
NetHaMishpatandthetransitiontoecourtsinIsrael.NewRegulationsoftheCourts
OfficeoftheClerk(2004)werepromulgatedinstead...[2]
ThetwoprotocolsVersionAandVersionBandtheinvalidgraphicsignatureson
them,canbeviewedintheattachmentstothecomplaint,[3]filedwiththe
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciarybytheIsraelBarAssociation,whichisthesubjectofthe
decisionprovidedhere.
LINKS:
[1]19360000RegulationsoftheCourtsRegistrationOffice(1936)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306634079/
[2]20040000RegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306634195/
1/2

[3]20120126ComplaintagainstJudgeVARDAALSHEIKHintheReconstruct
Protocolaffair,filedbyIsraelBarAssociation,TelAvivRegionalChairmanEfiNaveh,
toJusticeMinisterYaakovNeeman,SupremeCourtPresidingJusticeDoritBeinisch,
andOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldberg,includingVersionAandVersionB
oftheprotocol,andComplaintagainstAttorneyArgaz,filedbyProfessionalAdvisor
oftheAdministrationofCourtsBarakLaseronbehalfofJudgeVardaAlSheikh//
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...

36 , , 2012
. " ,
,
2012 27- .
. "
, ,
:( 4) 7 ,
", . , , ,
,
.
, "
.
#

Document

Page

1.

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

2.

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

15

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 NetHaMishpat system, which lists Protocol Events, pertaining to the State Receiver's
Motion, heard on 2011-09-12, as stated above. The printout shows that on the date of
the Hearing Decisions were rendered by the Hon Judge on the 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
TheHonorableJudge'sexplanationindicatesthatasfarasNetHaMishpat
systemisconcerned,anyprotocolbearsascannedgraphicsignatureofthe
judgeonalldecisions.However,untiltheprotocolrecordissignedbythe
judgeusinganelectronicsignature,itisadraftprotocol,whichismaintained
intheProtocolsFolderofthesystem...
Sincethescannedgraphicsignatureofthejudgeappearsalsoonthedraft,a
printoutofthedraftandaprintoutoftheelectronicallysignedprotocollook
thesame,andthereisnowaytodistinguishbetweenthem.Therefore,
accordingtoofficeprocedures,aprotocolshouldnotbeprintedoutfromthe
ProtocolsFolder(asdonebyhersecretary),butonlyaftertheyitwas
electronicallysigned,byexecutingtheProtocolApplicationbytheOfficeof
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

theClerk.5
Moreover,corrections,whichareimplementedinaprotocolafteritwas
electronicallysigned,wouldgenerateinthesystemanewversion,named
CorrectedProtocol,alongsidetheoriginalversionoftheprotocol.In
contrast,changesinaprotocolthatwasnotelectronicallysignedarenot
recordedandsavedasseparateversions,andalleditingissavedunderthe
sameelectronicfileoftherecord.Theexaminationshowsthatinthiscase,
theHistorylistingofthesystemlistsnopreviousversionsoftheProtocol,
onlyoneversion,whichisVersionB,whichwasfiledwiththeComplaintto
theIsraelBarAssociation.6
AstothecorrectionsmadeintheProtocolthemselves,theHonJudgestates
thatsincetheHearingwasstormyandwasofteninterrupted,thetranscriber
didnothaveachancetorecordeverythingthatwassaid.She(theHon
Judge)thereforeinformedthepartiesthattheProtocolwouldbeprovidedto
themattheendofthebusinessdayattheOfficeoftheClerk....Regardlessof
hernotice,AttorneysArbelandArgazwentdowntotheOfficeoftheClerk,
wheretheyinformedhersecretarythattheywerecomingfromthe
courtroom,andtheydidnotreceivetheProtocol.Thesecretary,whowas
burdenedwithservicetothepublic,madeanerror,enteredNetHaMishpat
systeminthewrongway,andprintedoutforthemfromtheProtocolFolder
whatwasonlyaDraftProtocol.Additionally,andcontrarytooffice
procedures,thesecretarycertifiedtheDraftProtocolTrueCopyofthe
Original,althoughtherewasnoOriginalbeforeher.7
5

The information provided here shows that some effort was made to simulate in NetHaMishpat 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

NottoolongaftersheelectronicallysignedtheProtocol,hersecretarysentthe
entirerecord[VersionBEG]totheparties.8
TheHonJudgeemphasizedthatnoneoftheattorneysfiledarequestfor
correctionoftheProtocol,orarequestforclarification,inordertocorrectthe
situation.TheyrecalledtoaddresstheissueonlyaftertheIsraelBar
AssociationapproachedAttorneyArgaz.
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. Inhis20120229letter,MrYardenYardeniwrites:
Onagivenhearingdate,thecourttranscriberopensanewelectronic
protocolfile,whichopensaprotocoltemplateWorddocument.Inorderto
starteditingtherecord,thetranscriberhastoperformtwofunctionsinthe
Wordrecord:AddPersonsPresent,andStartHearing.Untilthese
functionsareperformed,itisimpossibletoedittherecord.TheStart
HearingactiontriggerstheProtocolApplicationtaskfortheOfficeofthe
Clerk.10Attheendofthehearing,thetranscriberperformsintheWord
documenttwoadditionalfunctions:GraphicSignatureandEndHearing.
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.

Thetranscriber,whensoorderedbythejudge,canprintoutacopyofthe
protocolpriortotheexecutionoftheEndHearingaction,sothattheparties
leavethecourtroomwithacopyoftheprotocol.11Aftertheexecutionofthe
EndHearingfunction,theWorddocumentisclosedandfiledintheProtocol
Folderasadraft.ThejudgethenenterstheProtocolFolderandexecutesthe
electronicsignatures.Theexecutionoftheelectronicsignaturetransformsthe
electronicfilefromdrafttofinalrecord,inthesensethatitislockedfromany
furtherchanges...TheProtocolApplicationtaskappearsintheOfficeofthe
Clerkonthehearingdate.IfthetheclerkattemptstoperformtheProtocol
Applicationpriortotheelectronicsigningoftheprotocoldraftbythejudge,
hewouldgetawarningmessagethattheprotocolisnotsignedyet,andthe
systemwouldpreventthecompletionoftheProtocolApplication.
However,theprintingofaDraftProtocolbytheOfficeoftheClerkispossible,
byenteringtheProtocolFolderinsteadofusingtheProtocolApplication.
Undersuchcircumstancesthereisnopromptwarningtheclerkthatthe
protocolisunsigned.
Itisimpossibletodistinguishbetweenagraphicallysignedprotocolandan
electronicallysignedprotocoloncetherecordhadbeenprinted.Withit,in
theelectronicfilesinNetHaMishpatsystemthereareseveralwaysto
distinguishbetweenthem:Theelectronicallysignedprotocolshowsthecoat
ofarmsoftheStateofIsraelincolor,whilethegraphicallysignedprotocol
showsitwithnocolors.Additionally,thetasklineofagivenprotocolappearss
ingreenoncetheprotocoliselectronicallysigned,andinblackaslongasitis
adraft.Additionally,thereisdocumentationoftheexecutionofelectronic
signatureintheProtocolEventsfolderinthesystem.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 NetHaMishpat, 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 TelAviv District Court...
The secretary thought that by printing out a copy of the Protocol from NetHaMishpat, she was in fact printing a copy of an original, and therefore, she stamped
it True Copy of the Original. She stated that the persons, who trained the staff,
during the 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 NetHaMishpat.

Human Rights Alert (NGO)

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

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

2012-01-26 Israel Bar Complaint against Judge Varda Alshech in the Fabricated
Protocols scandal //

[]

Figures:TelAvivDistrictJudgeVardaAlshech,OmbudmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldberg,and
AdministrationofCourts'LegalCounselBarakLaser.AlshechwasapowerfuljudgeoftheTelAviv
DistrictCourt,whoforyearshandledthelargestcorporatedissolutions,bankruptcies,andhaircut
cases,attimesrulingonmattersofNISbillionsinasinglecase.Moreover,sheservedatthetimethe
ChairwomanoftheJudges'Association.OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryGoldbergwroteadecisionof
historicsignificance,documentingtheinvalid,fraudulentnatureofNetHaMishpatnewelectronic
casemanagementsystemofthedistrictandmagistratecourt.CounselLaser'sroleinthescandal
againdemonstratedtheunique,centralroleofAdministrationofCourtsincorruptionoftheIsrael
justicesystem.
Seealso:
[1]20120531DecisionbyOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldbergintheJudgeVardaAlShech
fabricatedprotocolsscandal
https://www.scribd.com/doc/291016506/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5RnBOUWYtd0IzcVk/view?usp=sharing

ForthenonHebrewreader:
Themostinformativepartoftherecordsbelowareitems#4and#5,whicharethetwo
versionsoftheSeptember12,2011Protocol,issuedbyJudgeVardaAlshech.Bothversions
showmultipleinvalidgraphicsignatures,andVersionAalsoshowsaninvalid,fraudulent
certificationstamp,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,onitsthelastpage.
Briefchronology:
onSeptember12,2011,adisputeeruptedinthecourtroomduringahearinginBank
HaPoalimvStateReceiverbetweenJudgeAlshechandAttorneyRafaelArgaz,who
representedasmalldebtholderinthecase.Alreadyduringthehearing,Alshechinformed
AttorneyArgazthatsheintendedtofileanethicscomplaintagainsthimwiththeIsrael
Bar.Therefore,inordertohaveahavearecordofthetransactions,AttorneyArgaz
obtainedonthesamedatefromtheOfficeoftheClerktheSeptember12,2011hearing
protocol(minutes),whichappearedtohimsignedandcertified,TrueCopyofthe
Original(VersionA,#5,page17,below).
OnSeptember22,2011,thecomplaintwasindeedfiledwiththeIsraelBarAssociation
(#3,page5,below).ThecomplaintwassignedbyAttorneyBarakLaseronbehalfofthe
AdministrationofCourts,andincludedasattachmentanditsdocumentaryevidencethe

1/3

September12,2011hearingprotocol,whichappearedsigned,butnotcertified(VersionB,
#4,page7,below).
OnOctober10,2011,theIsraelBarAssociationforwardedthecomplainttotheTelAviv
BarEthicsCommitteeforreview(#2,page4,below).
OncehereceivedthecomplaintfromtheTelAvivBar,AttorneyArgazrealizedthatthe
September22,2011protocol(VersionB),whichwasattachedtothecomplaint,was
substantiallydifferentfromtheSeptember22,2011protocol(VersionA)inhispossession,
andthatthechanges,introducedinVersionB,purportedtorecordwords,whichheand
theotherparticipantsinthehearinghadnotspoken,andtherebyfalselyascribetohim
maliciousconductandintentions.
Next,AttorneyArgazraisedhisconcernswiththeTelAvivBarregardingthedifferences
betweenVersionAandVersionBoftheSeptember22,2011protocol.
Followingreviewofthematter,theTelAvivBarAssociationdecidedtodismissJudge
Alshech'scomplaintagainstAttorneyArgaz.
OnJanuary26,2012,theTelAvivBarfiledinsteadacomplaint(#1,page1,below)
againstJudgeAlshechwiththeOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary,theMinisterofJustice,
SupremeCourtPresidingJustice,andtheJudicailAppointmentsCommittee.Infact,the
TelAvivBarsuggestedthatJudgeAlshechbedismissedfromthebench.Later,following
yetanotherincidentofthesamenaturewithJudgeAlshech,ChairoftheTelAvivBar
Associationreleasedanunusualstatementtomedia:JudgeAlshechcannotremain
anotherdayonthebench.
Outcome:
JudgeAlshechwasnotdismissedfromthebench.Infact,nomaterialsanctionswere
imposedonher.Duringtheaffair,twosuccessiveSupremeCourtPresidingJustices(Dorit
BeinischandAsherGrunis)objectedtoholdingheraccountable,andJusticeMinisterYaakov
NeemanwaskeyfigureinbrokeringasettlementbetweenJudgeAlshechandtheIsraelBar
(theRuleofLawwasneverpartofthesettlement...)
Withit,Israelijudgeshaveeffectivelyestablishedanewstandard,wherebytheyarepermitted
toperpetratefraudfromthebench.Indeed,VardaAlshechherselfwasrepeatedlylatter
caughtinthesameconduct,withimpunity...
Generalcontext:
theFabricatedProtocolsorReconstructedProtocolscandal,quicklybecamethemost
notoriousjudicialcorruptionscandalinthehistoryoftheStateofIsrael.
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezerGoldbergthoroughlyreviewedtheIsraelBarcomplaint
againstJudgeVardaAlshech.TheMay31,2012Ombudsman'sdecision[1]holdshistoric
significance,sinceitprovidedunprecedented,detailedreviewofthemannerinwhichthe
Israelicourtsareadministeredtoday,followingtheimplementationoftheESignAct(2001)
andNetHaMishpatelectroniccasemanagementandefilingsystemofthedistrictand
magistratecourts(around2010justacoupleofyearsbeforethescandalerupted).
TheOmbudsman'sdecisiondocumentedthatfollowingtheimplementationoftheESignAct
(2001)andNetHaMishpat,judgesroutinelyfailtoelectronicallysigntheirjudicialrecords.
Leavingthemunsigned.Thejudgesholdsuchelectronicallyunsignedrecordstobemerely
drafts.Furthermore,asdraftsthejudgesholditpermissibletogoonchangingthe
records,evenaftertheywerepublishedandpresentedtothepartiesandcounsel.
Ontheotherhand,theOmbudsman'sdecisiondocumentedthatNetHaMishpatwasdesigned
andisoperatedinsuchmannerthatparties,counsel,andthepublicatlargecannotviewany
oftheelectronicsignaturedata.Therefore,nobody,exceptforthejudges,candistinguish
betweenanauthentic,validandeffectualcourtrecordsandinvalid,unenforceabledrafts.
Infact,JudgeGoldberg'sdecisiondocumentsthatevenhehimselfcouldnotaccessthe
electronicsignaturedata,andhehadtorelyontheAdministrationofCourts'LegalCounsel,
AttorneyBarakLaser,toprovidetheOmbudsmantheelectronicsignaturedataofJudge

2/3

Alshech'sjudicialrecords,ordocumentthelackthereof.Onecannotunderstatetheabsurdity
ofitall,sinceAttorneyBarakLaserwasakeyfigureinperpetratingtheunderlyingfraudin
collusionwithJudgeAlshechhewastheonewhofiledthecomplaintagainstAttorneyArgaz
onbehalfofJudgeAlshech,attachingtoitVersionBoftheprotocol...
JudgeGoldberg'sdecisioninincludedvariousrecommendationforaddressingthelackof
integrityandvalidity(nottosayfraudulentnature)ofNetHaMishpatsystem.However,but
noneofthemhasbeenimplementedtothisdate(2016).
Asawhole,conditionswhichweredocumentedinthisaffairshowthatthetransitiontoe
courtsinIsraelrenderedtheofficesoftheclerks(traditionallychargedwithcustodyofcourt
records)andthecourtsingeneralincompetent,andsusceptibletojudicialfraudand
corruption.ItisobviousthatJudgeAlshech'sconductwasnotunusualorunique,andthe
onlyreasonthatitgotattentionandwasthoroughlyinvestigatedwasthatthevictimofthe
fraudwasanattorneyappearingincourtascounsel,afactthatgeneratedstronginterestand
supportbytheIsraelBarAssociation.
#

Document

Page

1.

20120126Complaint,filedbytheTelAvivBarAssociationwithMinisterofJusticeYaakovNeeman,
PresidingJusticeoftheSupremeCourtDoritBeinisch,andOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryEliezer
GoldbergagainstTelAvivDistrictJudgeVardaAlshechintheFabricatedProtocolsscandal//
,,,
,
"

2.

20111010ReferralletterbytheIsraelBarAssociationtotheTelAvivBarAssociation,inre:Judge
VardaAlshech'scomplaintagainstAttorneyRafaelArgazintheFabricatedProtocolsscandal//
":"
""

3.

20110922Complaint,filedwiththeIsraelBarAssociationbytheAdministrationofCourts'Legal
CounselBarakLaser,onbehalfofJudgeVardaAlshech,againstAttorneyRafaelArgazinthe
FabricatedProtocolsscandal.//
",
"""

4.

AttachmentA:VersionBoftheSeptember12,2011Protocol,whichwasfiledasanattachmenttothe
complaintagainstAttorneyArgaz.//
.",2011,12':'

5.

AttachmentB:VersionAoftheSeptember12,2011Protocol,whichwasobtainedbyAttorneyArgaz
onthehearingdateintheOfficeoftheClerk.
.",2011,12':'

17

6.

AttachmentC:SummaryTabledifferencesbetweentheProtocols,VersionAandVersionB.//
.'':'

26

7.

AttachmentD:StatementofAttorneyHaimArbel,inre:ComplaintbytheAdministrationofCourts
againstAttorneyRafaelArgaz//
."":'

28

8.

AttachmentE:StatementofAttorneyRafaelArgaz,inre:ComplaintbytheAdministrationofCourts
againstAttorneyRafaelArgaz//
.":'

30

3/3