E-courts in Israel: Medieval-Digital Corruption

Abstract. Net-HaMishpat - case management and public access system of

the Israeli district and magistrate courts was developed by the judiciary
with inadequate public oversight. The resulting system lacks any validity.
Failures include: secretive rules of operation, invalid authorities, invisible
electronic signatures, double books for dockets, and general failure to
record and enter summonses and judgments.
Case studies demonstrate: a reconstructed protocol in a
banking/bankruptcy case, conviction with no real evidence in a murder
case and acquittal of a former prime minister in a major bribing case the
latter two - with no valid verdict and sentencing records. Persons are
unlawfully admitted to prisons with
no valid records for their
confinement.
Transition to e-courts in Israel was accompanied by abandonment of the
fundamentals of honest administration of the courts, which can no longer
be considered competent courts of record. The outcome is typical of
medieval courts, albeit, in the digital era.
Keywords: E-courts, State of Israel, Net-HaMishpat, Justice, Governance.

Introduction

The courts worldwide have implemented in recent decades IT systems for case
management, electronic filing by parties, and public access to court records.
United Nations reports on Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption
encourage the process. No doubt, such systems could have improved the
transparency and integrity of the judicial processes. However, The transition to
electronic administration of the courts amounts to a sea change in the operations of
the courts, primarily the Office of the Clerk, which is known for centuries as
central for the maintenance and safeguard of valid court records and integrity of
the judiciary. Therefore, the transition is fraught with risks.

Figure 1: Net-HaMishpat case management, electronic filing, and public access

system of the Israeli district and magistrate courts, implementation of which was
completed in 2010: Computerized, secure connection to the courts

The current report describes Net-HaMishpat case management, electronic filing,

and public access system of the Israeli district and magistrate courts (Figure 1).
The report is based on original research, on government reports [1-3], on
previously published research [4], and the Human Rights Alert, NGO, submission
to the United Nations Human Rights Council [5], which was incorporated into the
Professional Staff Report (2013) of the Council's Periodic Review with the note:
lack of integrity of the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts
and the detainees courts in Israel [6, p4, paragraph 25] .

Recent History of the Israeli Justice System

The Israeli courts originate in courts, which were established under British rule
(1917-1948), and which were modelled after the British courts. However, over the
previous decade the Israeli courts were transformed in an unprecedented manner
with the transition to electronic administration of the courts.
2.1

E-sign Act (2001)

The E-sign Act (2001) established the admissibility of electronic records, when the
required signatures are certified, secure e-signatures. The regulations further
established certifying authorities for e-signatures. However, through an irregular,
invalid process, Comsign LTD, a private corporation, controlled by veterans of IDF
Unit 8200 (cyber-war unit) gained almost complete control over e-signatures of the
State of Israel in general, and the justice system in particular. Additionally, invisible
e-signatures the Emperor's New Clothes were implemented in court records.
Therefore, parties, counsel, and the public can no longer distinguish between valid
and invalid court records. [2,3]
2.2

Changes in IT system of the Supreme Court (2002)

Around March 2002, concomitantly with the sudden death of Chief Clerk
Shmaryahu Cohen on the grounds of the Supreme Court, material, inexplicable
changes were introduced in IT system of the Supreme Court (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Changes in the IT system of the Supreme Court ~ March 2002. Left:
Until early 2002, all electronic decision records of the Supreme Court carried
certification, True Copy of the Original, by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu
Cohen, with referenced to secure file name. Right: Since early 2002, the
certification statement and any other reference to a chief clerk are omitted. On the
contrary, the disclaimer subject to editing and phrasing changes was added on all
records, and reference to a Word file.
The newly introduced disclaimer, Subject to editing and phrasing changes, by
itself, would lead a reasonable person to doubt the validity of the Supreme Court's
records. Moreover, the Administration of Courts (Freedom of Information) and
two Supreme Court Presiding Justices refused to answer: What was the legal
foundation for such changes? Under whose authority were the changes
introduced? [2]

2.3

Regulations of the Courts Inspection of Court Files (2003)

The new regulations established the right of every person to inspect court
decisions and judgments, which are not lawfully prohibited for publication.
Whereas in the past, inspection involved paper court files, today, inspection of
records in the district and magistrate courts involves access to electronic records in
Net-HaMishpat. Extensive survey shows that the the judges routinely refuse to
abide by the law, and unlawfully deny public access to court decisions and
judgments (Figures 2, 7). Judges routinely maintain double books for the decisions
docket in Net-HaMishpat, a practice that would have been difficult or impossible in
paper court files. Such unlawful practice is particularly noticeable in cases related to
various types of government corruption.
2.4

Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004)

The Regulations of the Courts Registration Office (1936), promulgated under the
British rule (1917-1948), established the Office of the Clerk of the various courts,
prescribed the authorities and duties of the Chief Clerk, including the proper
maintenance of the registers and records of the Court (Reg 4), and prescribed in
detail procedures for filing and entry of court records in general, and judgments in
particular (Reg 5,8). [7] Concomitantly with initiation of the development of NetHaMishpat, the British regulations were abolished. The Regulations of the Courts
Office of the Clerk (2004) fail to state the duties and responsibilities of the Chief
Clerk, and likewise fail to prescribe the entry of decisions and judgments, and its
procedure. [8]
2.5

Judgment in Association for Civil Rights v Minister of Justice (2009)

The 2009 Judgment by Supreme Court Presiding Justice Dorit Beinisch, disposed
the 12 year long petition, denying challenges to the new Regulations of the Courts
Inspection of Court Files (2003). With it, the judgment declares the right to inspect
court decisions and judgments - a constitutional, supra-statutory... fundamental
principle in any democratic regime. The Judgment also indicates the expectation
that decisions and judgments be accessible to the public on an ongoing basis in
Net-HaMishpat upon completion of its implementation.
The outcome of
implementation of Net-HaMishpat was the opposite denial of public access to
court decisions and judgments with no lawful sealing.
2.6

Completion of Net-HaMishpat Implementation (2010)

Development of the system was initiated around 2003 under the tenure of Supreme
Court Presiding Justice Aharon Barak. The system's implementation was completed
in 2010, and the total cost of development and implementation was estimated at
about NIS 0.5 billion (~USD 150 million).
2.7 Proliferation of commercial databases of legal records
During the same decade, commercial electronic databases, providing access to court
records have been developed. The records, which are published in such databases
are web renditions, carrying various modifications and disclaimers. Obviously, they
are not valid court record. Amazingly, Israeli judges often confuse such records
with signed and certified judgments records, which are required by law, for
example, for the filing of appeals (Figure 6).

Methods

The current report is based in part on the Human Rights Alert, NGO, (HRA)

submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council [5], on the State
Ombudsman's Report 60b (2010) [1] Ombudsman of the Judiciary reports (2012,
2015) [2,3] . The report is also based on data mining of court records in NetHaMishpat and IT system of the Supreme Court, system analysis, Freedom of
Information requests on the Administration of Courts, and systematic inspection of
court records through the filing of requests to inspect records in the various courts.

4
4.1

Net-HaMishpat Development and Operation

Invalid Development - State Ombudsman Report 60b (2010)

The State Ombudsman's Report 60b (2010) (reviewed in Appendix [5]) notes that
the system was developed and implemented in disregard of the law and binding
standards, pertaining to the development of state IT systems: Contracts for system
development were unlawfully awarded to corporations with no legal tender,
contracts were signed with no specifications, development was conducted with no
core management by a State employee, systems were accepted with no independent
validation by a State employee, servers of the courts were removed from the
custody of the clerks of the courts to the custody of a corporation, and an unknown
number of individuals were issued double smart ID cards. Such failures must raise
concern regarding integrity of the system and the intentions of those in charge of its
development.
4. 2 Invalid Operation the Reconstructed Protocol Affair Report (2012)
The Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision (2012) regarding Judge Varda
Alshech, a prominent Tel-Aviv judge, in the Reconstructed Protocol affair
provides unique insights into the scope of deceit in operation of Net-HaMishpat
only a year or two after its full implementation. The affair originated in the
falsification by Judge Alshech of hearing minutes in order to file a semi-criminal
complaint against an attorney. The Israel Bar Association called for her
immediate removal from the bench.
The Ombudsman's decision documents that Judge Alshech signed neither the
original record (Version A) nor the falsified record (Version B)... Both carried
only graphic signatures, which according to the E-sign Act (2001) held no
validity at all. The Ombudsman further describes the due to the implementation of
invisible e-signatures in Net-HaMishpat, parties, counsel and the public cannot
distinguish between valid and invalid court records... Of note no corrective
measures have been initiated, relative to Net-HaMishpat, following the rendering
of the Ombudsman's decision...
Other key failures in Net-HaMishpat operation include: Servers of unverified
identity and dubious security, invalid implementation of authentication and
certification instruments, procedures,
authorities and permissions discrimination in access to the courts, universal failure to docket summonses and
authentication records, adulterated, forged, and missing court records, double
books for dockets, and failure to enter judgments. [2, 8]

5
5. 1

Case Studies
Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623/00) in the Tel-Aviv District Court

In this case, the largest bank in Israel appeared before Judge Varda Alshech, Deputy
Presiding Judge of the Tel-Aviv District Court, asking to terminate bankruptcy
protection of the debtor. Judge Alshech had for years presided in the largest
financial and corporate cases in Israel, including bankruptcies, haircuts and

dissolutions. During the hearing on September 12, 2011, dispute erupted between
Judge Alshech and an attorney who appeared before her. Judge Alshech proceeded
to file a semi-criminal complaint against the attorney with the Israel Bar
Association. In support of her complaint she filed the hearing minutes (protocol)
(Version B). As it turned out, compared with the protocol obtained by the attorney
on the day of the hearing (Version A), it was adulterated in dozens of places, in a
malicious manner. Regardless of the scandal, the Presiding Justice of the Supreme
Court and the Minister of Justice refused to take any meaningful action against her.
Moreover, even after 2012 Ombudsman's decision, which determined that both
Version A and Version B of the September 12, 2011 hearing were unsigned, invalid
court records, two September 12, 2011 protocol records continue to appear in the
case docket in Net-HaMishpat (Figure 3). However, public access to both is
unlawfully denied.

a.

b.
Figure 3: Bank HaPoalim v State Receiver (1623/00) in the Tel-Aviv District Court.
a. The Decisions Docket shows two records only, both docketed as September
12, 2011 Protocol. b. Access to the records is unlawfully denied. Attempt to view
the records prompts the message Documents is not available right now...
5. 2

State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court

Roman Zadorov is a non-Jewish, Ukrainian citizen, who is confined in Israel since

2006, purportedly convicted in the gruesome 2006 murder of 13.5 year old girl, Tair
Rada, and purportedly sentence to life in prison. His prosecution and conviction are
widely believed by experts and the public in Israel to be a case of framing by police,
false prosecution and false conviction. Criminal Law Professor Boaz Sangero
wrote: "Conviction with no real evidence". International Law Professor (emeritus)
and one of the leaders of the Israel Democracy Institute Mordechai Kremnitzer
wrote:"Conduct of the prosecution is scary... the prosecution is not seeking the
truth... the justice system is mostly busy protecting itself..." [9] The case is
unprecedented in positioning senior legal experts, senior forensic medical experts,
the Israel Medical Association, the Ministry of Health (Israel), NGOs and the public

at large against various types of wrongdoing by the justice system [9].

Figure 4: Judgment Docket in Net-HaMishpat in State of Israel v Roman

Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court fails to list the 2010 "Verdict" and
"Sentencing" records. The 2014 "Supplemental Judgment" record is docketed as
"Instruction to Counsel for Defendant to file Certificate of Power of Counsel".
The September 2010 Verdict and Sentencing record, pertaining to Zadorov's
life imprisonment fail to appear in Net-HaMishpat Judgment Docket (Figure 4).
At the same time, Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham of the Nazareth District
Court, Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer, and the Administration of Courts refuse to
answer: a. Who is lawfully charged with the duty and authority to enter judgment
records under the Judgment Docket in Net-HaMishpat in the Nazareth District
Court? b. Does the entry of a court record as a Judgment, Verdict, and/or
Sentencing under the Judgment Docket in Net-HaMishpat indicate that it is
indeed a lawfully made, valid and effectual judgment in the respective court file? c.
Does the failure to register a court records as a Judgment, Verdict, and/or
Sentencing under the Judgment Docket in Net-HaMishpat indicate that it is
indeed not a lawfully made, valid and effectual judgment in the respective court
file?
As is the case in other nations, the duty of entering judgments, not only in the court
file, but also in a separate Book of Judgments was prescribed in great detail in the
British Regulations of the Court Registration Office (1936). In contrast, the Israeli
Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004) are entirely silent on this
matter. A court, where there is no valid and honest entry of judgments, and instead vague and ambiguous judgment records are maintained, is no doubt an incompetent
and/or corrupt court.

a.
b.
c.
Figure 5: State of Israel v Roman Zadorov (502/07) in the Nazareth District Court
signature sections of records, which were discovered during inspection of NetHaMishpat electronic court file in January 2016 in the Office of the Clerk: a.
September 14, 2010 Verdict; b. September 14, 2010 Sentencing; c. February
24, 2014 Supplementary Judgment. The 2010 records are entirely missing any
form of signature of one of the three panel judges (Judge Haim Galpaz). For the
two other judges, graphic signatures in a negative form appear on the records. No

such signatures have ever been discovered on any other Net-HaMishpat records.
The 2014 supplemental Judgment record shows three (3) graphic signatures. The
Court refuses to permit inspection of the e-signature data...
Verdict and Sentencing records, pertaining to Zadorov, which were discovered
in Net-HaMishpat during on site inspection in the Office of the Clerk of the
Nazareth District Court, are patently invalid (Figure 5). Moreover, inspection of the
records in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, where an appeal was
purportedly conducted for some 5 years, shows that no valid judgment records were
filed with the Notice of Appeal, in disregard of the law (Figure 6).

a.

b.
Figure 6: Roman Zadorov v State of Israel (7939/10) in the Supreme Court a.
September 14, 2010 Verdict record unsigned, from unknown source, b.
September 14, 2010 Sentencing record printout from Nevo Publishing, LTD.
The Supreme Court purportedly conducted for 5 years an appeal without any valid
verdict or sentencing records of the Nazareth District Court, in disregard of the law.
Like the law of other nations, the filing of signed and certified copies of judgment
records with the Notice of Appeal is prescribed.
5. 3

State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court

The case originated in a notorious corruption scandal, related to bribes taken by

public officials, including former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his secretary
Shulamit Zaken, from construction developers.
Following a plea bargain
agreement, Zaken produced voice recordings and accounting books of the funds,
which she maintained. Olmert was purportedly convicted and sentenced to a six
year prison term by Judge David Rosen of the Tel-Aviv District Court in hearings,
which were widely covered by media. Later, the conviction and sentence were
purportedly reversed by in an appeal by the Supreme Court. Inspection of the
electronic Net-HaMishpat court file in the Tel-Aviv District Court and the paper
court file in the Supreme Court failed to discover valid judgment records in either...
and that Judge David Rosen maintained double dockets in Net-HaMishpat (Figures
7-9).

a.

a.
Figure 7: State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court
an unsealed, open to the public case. a. Net-HaMishpat public access system
docket showed on April 6, 2015, sixty-four (64) decisions, most of them patently
invalid court records. b. Net-HaMishpat docket at the Office of the Clerk showed
on March 22, 2015, five-hundred-twenty-three (523) decisions. Neither docket
includes valid, lawful Verdict, or Sentencing records for former Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert, in contrast with some of the other Defendants in the same court file,

and in contrast with defendants in other cases, presided by Judge David Rosen.

Figure 8: State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court the JudgmentsDocketinNetHaMishpatinbothinthepublicaccesssystem
andinOfficeoftheClerkfailstolisttheMarch31,2014 Verdictrecord,
pertainingtoformerPrimeMinisterEhudOlmert.Thelistinthe
Judgmentstabincludethreerecords:a)May13,2014Instructionforthe
SupervisorofCommunityServiceinthePrisonServicetofileanOpinion
AvrahamFeiner,byJudgeDavidRosenanunsignedsentencingrecord,
pertainingtomostDefendantsinthiscourtfile.b)June9,2014Instruction
fortheSupervisorofCommunityServiceinthePrisonServicetofilean
UpdatedOpinionFeiner,byJudgeDavidRosensentencingrecord,
pertainingtoDefendantAvrahamFeiner.c)June19,2014Sentencing
datedJune19,2014,renderedbyDavidRosen,byJudgeDavidRosen
sentencingrecord,pertainingtoDefendantUriLupolianki.

Figure 9: State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv District Court signaturepageoftheMarch31,2014verdictrecord,pertainingtoformer
PrimeMinisterEhudOlmert.TherecordappearsintheDecisionsDocket
tab,butfailstoappearintheJudgmentDockettab,andisapatently
invalidcourtrecord,missingthesiganturebox.
GiventhatnovalidjudgmentrecordforformerPrimeMinisterOlmertwas
andispubliclyaccessible in NetHaMishpat,Request toInspectwasfiled.
Judge David Rosen's March 18, 2015 Postit Decision (Figure 10)
confirmedthatnojudgmentspertainingtoOlmertandZakenwereentered
inNetHaMishpat.Theludicrousreasoning,whichwasprovidedfordenial
oftheRequesttoInspectwasthattherecordswerephysicallytransferred
totheSupremeCourt.Suchclaim,inaCourt,whichhasbeenelectronically
administeredforover5years,isentirelyunreasonable.Moreover, Judge

Rosen'sDecisionisunsignedandunauthenticated,wasnotdulyserved,and
failstoappearintheDecisionsDocketinNetHaMishpat.TheMarch18
PostitDecisionrecordwouldbedeemedaninvalidcourtrecordbyany
reasonableperson.

Figure 10. State of Israel v Zerni et al (10291-01-12) in the Tel-Aviv

District Court - March 18, 2015 Post-it Decision by Judge David Rosen,
on Request (#298) to Inspect duly executed judgment records, pertaining to
Defendants Olmert and Zaken. The records says: The court file, where
inspection is requested, is physically located in the Supreme Court, due to
the appeal process, originating in the Judgment. Therefore, it is impossible
to grant the Request. The Post-it Decision record is unsigned,
unauthenticated, was never duly served, and fails to appear in the
Decisions Docket in Net-HaMishpat.

Figure 11: Olmert v State of Israel (4478/14) in the Supreme Court

request to extend time to file an appeal - printout from Nevo Publishing,
LTD, was filed instead of a signed and certified copy of the Tel-Aviv
District Court judgment, as prescribed by law. The Supreme Court denied
access to inspect decisions and judgments in the main appeal file Olmert v
State of Israel (5270/14) in disregard of the law.
Following the March 18, 2015 unreasonable claim by Judge David Rosen of
the Tel-Aviv District Court, attempts were carried out for months to inspect
the decisions and judgment records in the appeal court files in the Supreme
Court. Inspection of the the first court file (4478/14) request to extend
time to file and appeal showed that no judgment records were filed with
the request, in disregard of the law (Figure 11). Repeat requests to inspect
the decisions and judgments in the main appeal file (5270/14) were denied

by the Supreme Court in disregard of the law.

Conclusion Medieval-Digital Corruption

Valid IT systems could have provided unprecedented public access and

transparency of the courts and the judicial process. In contrast, Net-HaMishpat
effectively created a double books system, which undermines public access, and
court records of vague and ambiguous validity, which undermine transparency and
integrity of the courts. The tight link between the implementation of a fraudulent IT
system, corruption of the operations of the office of the clerk, and corruption of the
courts themselves, which is described here, is not surprising. Historical review of
the US courts, for example, finds that corruption of the office of the clerk is
correlated with corruption of the courts themselves [10]. In fact, the office of the
clerk evolved in the late Middle Ages as a key mechanism of checks and balances
against judicial corruption [10].
Conditions, which were established in the Israeli courts over the previous decade,
through transition to e-courts, development and implementation of Net-HaMishpat,
abolishing the duties and obligations of the Chief Clerk, failure to issue and enter
valid summonses, inability to distinguish between valid and invalid court records,
double-books for dockets, and the ambiguity in entry of judgments, amount to
recreation of medieval-style courts. The outcome is demonstrated here in the case
studies filing by a judge of false semi-criminal complaint against an attorney,
perpetration of false life imprisonment on the Roman Zadorov, and acquittal of a
senior politician, who took bribes, all based on the production of false, patently
invalid court records.
The fundamental failure of Net-HaMishpat - the new IT system of the Israeli courts
a system which holds high significance relative to the administration of justice
and the rule of law, and which was developed through a high cost, long-term
project, overseen by senior national judicial officers - cannot be reasonably deemed
the result of oversight or human error. The new system consistently strips judicial
records of any evidence of authenticity and validity [4]. In doing so, the system
ignores the fundamentals of administration of honest courts, well-established in
Western culture over centuries. It also ignores some of the fundamentals of integrity
in court records in Jewish law, well-established over millennia... Moreover, conduct
of the judiciary in the various courts in response to requests to inspect court records
clearly shows lack of integrity. Likewise, the refusal to take action against Judge
Varda Alshech, once she was caught falsifying court records in Net-HaMishpat, the
failure to correct the falsified records, and the failure to address the inherent lack of
integrity in Net-HaMishpat, which was documented in the Ombudsman of the
Judicairy's decisions [2,3], reflect inherent, widespread corruption of the judiciary
and the legal profession.
The findings of the current report may be deemed surprising, given that the State of
Israel was named by media a start-up nation, given that Israelis are among the
founders of the field of cryptology, and given that some leading data security firms
were founded in Israel. Moreover, Shin Bet the General Security Service
maintains a large department, charged with securing State IT systems, and an
additional national authority for securing IT systems has been established in recent
years, while IDF Unit 8200 is described as one of the best in the world... The
evidence more likely reflects collusion between the judiciary and the security
apparatus in undermining the rule of law and lawful government in Israel.
Therefore, the implementation of Net-HaMishpat can be viewed as deliberate
suspension of the law of the land, or denial of access to the competent civil courts.
As such, it represents a regime change, or a constitutional crisis [4].
The first clearly documented changes, indicating the deliberate undermining of
integrity of the courts, are in the 2002 changes in IT system of the Supreme Court
(Figure 2) under the tenure of Supreme Court Presiding Justice Aharon Barak

(1995-2006). The development of Net-HaMishpat was initiated under his tenure

as well. Many in the Israeli legal community hold Barak leader of a
Constitutional Revolution, which established fundamental rights in a nation with
no constitution. On the other hand, international reviewers named Barak a
judicial pirate, and the world's record holder in judicial hubris [11]. The
current report proposes an additional perspective: Barak presided over
unprecedented corruption of the Israeli courts concomitantly with the initiation of
transition to e-courts in Israel. Such conduct could not have taken place absent the
one-year tenure of Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, a close associate of Barak, who
abolished in 2004 the British Regulations of the Courts Registration Office (1936)
[7,8]. One is also hard pressed to take at face value the highfalutin 2009
declarations of Supreme Court Presiding Justice Dorit Beinisch in her Judgment in
Association for Civil Rights v Minister of Justice.
The period, starting in the early 2000s, which entailed the dramatic changes in the
Israeli courts, is also marked by unprecedented, rampant, unprecedented
government corruption and the emergence of extreme, unprecedented socioeconomic gaps. The economy has become dominated by a handful of 'tycoons', and
Israel has been propelled to the first place among OECD nations in poverty rate.
The State of Israel is not alone. Similar, but older IT systems have been reported in
the state and federal courts in the United States [12]. In this context, the key role of
two US-based international corporations IBM and EDS in the unlawful
development and implementation of the Net-HaMishpat should be noted, as well as
similar conduct of IBM in other nations [4].
IT experts in general, and e-government experts in particular, should assume a more
active role in the safeguard of civil society and Human Rights in the digital era.

References
1.State of Israel Ombudsman, Development of IT systems of the Israeli Ministry of
Justice and the Israeli courts, Report 60b (2010) [online]
2. OmbudsmanoftheJudiciary,Decision(88/12/TelAvivDistrict)on
complaintsagainstJudgeVardaAlshechintheReconstructedProtocol
affair(2012)[online]
https://www.scribd.com/doc/291016506/
3. OmbudsmanoftheJudiciary,AnnualReport(2015)[online]
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305761710/
4.Zernik,J.,FraudulentNewITSystemsoftheIsraeliCourts
UnannouncedRegimeChange?,Proceedingsofthe15thEuropean
ConferenceoneGovernment(ECEG),(2015)pp331340.[online]
5. Human Rights Alert (NGO), Submission and Appendix for the UPR of the State
of Israel (2013)
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5QWtZcjVQLWVFZ0k
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU
6. UN Human Rights Council, Summary prepared by the Office of the High
Commissioner for the UPR of the State of Israel (2013) [online]
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/180/12/PDF/G1218012.pdf?
OpenElement
7. Regulations of the Courts Registration Office (1936) [online]
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306634079/
8. Regulations of the Courts Office of the Clerk (2004) [online]
https://www.scribd.com/doc/306634195/
9.Roman Zadorov, Wikipedia [online]
10. Messinger, S., Order in The Court - History of Clerks of United States Courts,
Federal Judicial Center (2002) [online]
11. Posner, R., Enlightened Despot, New Republic (2007) [online]
12. Zernik, J., IT systems of the US federal courts, justice, and governance, ICEG
(2015) [online]