20ECourtsandHumanRights

Chapter20

ECourtsandHumanRights

JosephZernik1

Abstract
Thecourtsworldwidehaveimplementedinrecent decadesIT
systemsforcasemanagement,electronicfiling,andpublicaccesstocourtrecords.
UnitedNationsreportsonStrengtheningJudicialIntegrityAgainstCorruption
encouragetheprocess.Nodoubt,suchsystemscouldhaveimprovedthetrans
parencyandintegrityofthejudicialprocess. However,Thetransitiontoelec
tronicadministrationofthecourtsamountstoaseachangeintheoperationsof
thecourts,primarilytheofficeoftheclerk,whichisknownforcenturiesascen
traltothesafeguardandintegrityofcourtrecordsandcourtprocess.Therefore,
thetransitionisfraughtwithrisks.ReviewofITsystemsoftheUSfederalcourts
andthecourtsoftheStateofIsraeldemonstratesthatsuchsystemsinfactunder
minepublicaccess,transparencyofthejudicialprocessandintegrityofthecourts.
Thesystemsdenythepublictheabilitytodistinguishbetweenvalidandinvalid
courtrecordsandlackvalidationrelativetothecorrespondinglawpertainingto
administrationofthecourtsandcourtprocedures.Thesystems,developedandim
plemented by the judiciary with inadequate public oversight established new,
unauthorized,andoftenunpublishedcourtprocedures,underminingtheprinciples
ofSeparationofPowersandPublicityoftheLaw.Theyenabletheconductof
simulatedlegalprocessandabuseofHumanRights.Regardless,thestudyofIT
systemsofthecourtsprovidesuniqueinsightsintoconductofthejusticesystem.
Correctivemeasureshouldinvolveotherbranchesofgovernment,andamoreac
tiveroleofITexpertsingeneral,andegovernmentexpertsinparticular,inthe
safeguardofCivilSocietyandHumanRightsintheDigitalEra.

HumanRightsAlert(NGO),joseph.zernik@hrango.org

ThankstoProfEliShamirforhisgoodcounsel,toDrorZernik,PhDforhis
helpindataproduction.

TableofContents
20.1 Introduction
20.2 "SimulatedLegalProcess","FraudUpontheCourt"
20.3 ECourtsintheUnitedStates
20.3.2KeydeficienciesinPACERandCM/ECF
20.3.2.1Developmentandimplementationwithnolawfulauthority
20.3.2.2Failuretoimplementelectronicsignatures
20.3.2.3AuthenticationNEFandNDA
20.3.2.4Doublebookssystemsinthecourts
20.3.2.5Invalidauthoritiesandpermissions
20.3.2.6Discriminationinaccesstothecourts
20.3.2.8Universalfailuretodocketsummonses
20.3.2.9Adulteratedandmissingofcourtrecords
20.3.2.10IntercourtdifferencesinPACERandCM/ECF
20.3.4Casestudies
20.3.4.1RichardFinevSheriffofLosAngelesCountyHabeasCorpus
20.3.4.3NetsphereIncetalv.JeffBaronetalenslavement
20.3.4.6SecuritiesandExchangeCommissionvBankofAmerica
20.3.4.8NMLCapitalvRepublicofArgentina
20.4ECourtsinIsrael
20.4.1ImplementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct(2001)
20.4.2ChangesintheSupremeCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(March2002)
20.4.3NewRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004)
20.4.4DevelopmentandimplementationofNetHaMishpat (2010)
20.4.5Casestudies
20.4.5.1StateofIsraelvRomanZadorovmurdertrial
20.4.5.2StateofIsraelvZernietalgovernmentcorruption
20.4.6ConstitutionalRevolution,orConstitutionalCrisis?
20.5Generalobservations
20.5.2Experts,media,ecourtsandCivilSociety
20.6Proposedcorrectivemeasures
20.7References

20161002

3
8
9
11
11
12
15
24
25
25
26
27
28
28
28
30
32
35
36
37
40
48
49
51
51
64
75
76
77
79
79

20.1Introduction
ThecourtsworldwidehaveimplementedinrecentdecadesITsystemsforcase
management,electronicfiling,andpublicaccesstocourtrecords.Theimplemen
tationof SustainintheSuperior Court ofCalifornia, CountyofLosAngeles,
around1984probablyrepresentedoneofthefirstimplementationofcentralcase
managementsystem.TheimplementationofCM/ECF(forcasemanagementand
electronicfiling)andPACER(forpublicaccesstocourtrecords)intheUnited
Statesdistrict courts,UnitedStatescourtsofappeals,andUnitedStatesbank
ruptcycourtswascompletedintheearly2000s,andrepresentedacloserachieve
mentofecourts.NetHaMishpat,implementedaround2010intheIsraelidistrict
andmagistratecourts,alsocombinescasemanagement,electronicfilingandpub
licaccessfunctions.BothintheUnitedStatesandinIsrael,theSupremeCourts
continuetobeadministeredinpapercourtfiles,whilemaintainingITsystemsfor
publicinformationonlywithlimitedaccesstocourtrecords.
BothintheUSandinIsrael,establishingITsystemsofthecourtswerecostly,
nationalprojects,managedbytherespectiveofficesofAdministrationofCourts,
which are eventually under oversight by the Chief Justices of the respective
SupremeCourtstheultimatenationaljudicialofficers.
No doubt, such systems transformed the administration of justice. United
Nations reports on Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption
encourage the transition to ecourts, with the expectation that they would
improvedthetransparencyandintegrityofthejudicialprocess.
However,Thetransitiontoelectronicadministrationofthecourtsamountstoa
seachangeintheoperationsofthecourts,primarilytheofficeoftheclerk,which
isknownforcenturiesascentraltothesafeguardandintegrityofcourtrecords
andcourtprocess.Therefore,thetransitionisfraughtwithrisks.
Here,PACERandCM/ECFoftheUScourtsandNetHaMishpatsystemofthe
Israelicourtsarereviewed.SomeexamplesarealsoprovidedfromITsystemsof
the two national Supreme Courts, and from systems Los Angeles County,
California.
Thedeficienciesthatarediscoveredintheintegrityandvalidityofsuchsystems
are profound, involving fundamental issues such as electronic signatures,
authentication,security,andvalidationrelativetocorrespondinglaw.Courtcases
areprovidedasexamples,howsuchsystemshaveinpracticebecometoolsfor
unlawfuldeprivationoflibertyandproperty,thereforeabuseofHumanRights.
TheHumanRightsAlert(NGO)submissionstotheUNHumanRightsCouncil
forthe2013UniversalPeriodicReview(UPR)ofHumanRightsinIsrael,andfor
the2015UPRoftheUnitedStatesarebelievedtobethefirsteverHumanRights
reportsthatwereprimarilybasedonITsystemanalysis,datamining,anddata

20161002

analysis. The two submissions studied IT systems of the respective national

courts.The2010UPRsubmission,pertainingtoLosAngelesCounty,California,
wasanearlyattemptofthiskind.
ThethreesubmissionswereincorporatedintotheProfessionalStaffReportsas
partoftheUniversalPeriodicReviewreportsoftheUnitedNationsHumanRights
Councilontherespectivenations,withthefollowingsummarynotes:
UnitedStates(2010):Corruptionofthecourtsandthelegalprofession
anddiscriminationbylawenforcementinCalifornia.[i]
StateofIsrael(2013):Lackofintegrityintheelectronicrecordsofthe
supremecourt,thedistrictcourtsandthedetaineescourtsinIsrael.[ii]
UnitedStates(2015):HRANGOrecommendedrestoringtheintegrity
oftheITsystemsofthecourts,underaccountabilitytotheCongress,
withthegoalofmakingsuchsystemsastransparentaspossibletothe
publicatlarge.[iii,iv]
Both in the US and in Israel, the development and implementation of the
systemsbythejudiciarywithinadequatepublicoversightisconsideredcentralto
suchtheundesirableeffects.Inbothnations,seniornationaljudicialofficerswere
involvedinsuchprojects.Moreover,judgesandattorneys,asaclass,areinvolved
inoperatingsuchsystemsonadailybasis.Regardless,inbothnationsjudgesand
attorneyshavefailedtoprotesttheobviouslackofintegrityandvalidityofthe
systems.Therefore,suchsystemsprovideuniqueinsightsrelativetoconditionsof
thejusticesystemsandtheregimes.
BorrowingtheconceptthatCodeisLaw,[v]effectively,thesystemscanbe
viewed as establishing new, unauthorized, and often unpublished court
procedures.Therefore,thesystemsraiseseriousconcernsofabandoningeventhe
fundamentalprinciplesofSeparationofPowersandPublicityoftheLaw.
Thereisnodoubtthatsuchsystemsshouldbeviewedkeyinstrumentsinthe
safeguard,orabuseoftheRuleofLaw,HumanRights,andCivilSocietyinthe
DigitalEra.

20161002

Figure1.RichardFinevSheriffofLosAngelesCounty(2:09cv01914)HabeasCorpuspeti
tionintheUSCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia:June12,2009ReportandRecommendation
byUSMagistrateCarlaWoehrle,producedinPACERandCM/ECF(casemanagement,elec
tronicfiling,andpublicaccesssystemsoftheUSdistrictandappealscourts).[ vi]Therecordpur
portedtorecommendthedenialofFinespetition,basedonpost9/11antiterrorlaws.Itwas
laterpurportedlyadoptedasJudgmentbyUSJudgeVirginiaPhillips.StartingMarch2009,for
merUSprosecutorRichardFinewasheldfor18monthsinsolitaryconfinementinLosAngeles
TwinTowersJailbySheriffLeeBaca(nowfacingaprisontermoncorruption),afterFineex
posedandrebukedthetakingbyLosAngelesjudgesofnotpermittedpayments(calledbyme
diabribes).TheJune12,2009record,shownhere,appearsinthePACERdocketoftheUS
DistrictCourt,wasservedonFineinprison,andwaswidelypublished.Fine,averywellquali
fiedattorneyacceptedtheauthorityofthisrecord.However,uponinspectionintheOfficeofthe
Clerk,itwaslaterdiscoveredthattherecord,whichshowsnoformofvalidsignatureofUS
MagistrateCarlaWoehrle,wasmissingvalidauthentication(NEFNoticeofElectronicFiling)
inCM/ECF,whichishiddenfrompublicaccess.Therefore,therecordwasandisaninvalid,
voidnotvoidablecourtrecord,accordingtotheunpublishednormsoftheUSDistrictCourtit
self(seeFigure9).Itshouldhaveneverbeendocketed,andneverbeenservedonFine.AllMag
istrateWoehrlesdecisionrecordsinthiscase,aswellasJudgePhillipsJudgment,areofthe
samenature.SuchconductshouldbedeemedseriouscriminalityandabuseofHumanRights.
ComplaintwasfiledwiththeUSDistrictAttorneyandtheUSCongress.[ vii]Noneofthosein
volvedwasheldaccountable.

20161002

Figure2.BankHaPoalimvStateReceiver(1623/00)intheTelAvivDistrictCourt:September
12,2011 ProtocolandDecisionby JudgeVardaAlshech,producedinNetHaMishpat(case
management,electronicfiling,andpublicaccesssystemoftheIsraelidistrictandmagistrate
courts).Therecordwasoneoneoftwo,atthecenteroftheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricated
Protocolsscandal.JudgeVardaAlshechissuedsuchrecordsinthecourseofherattempttore
taliateagainstAttorneyRafaelArgaz,whoappearedinthiscase,throughasemicriminalcom
plaintwiththeIsraelBarAssociation.Argaz,averywellqualifiedattorneyacceptedtheauthor
ityofthisrecord.Likewise,theIsraelBarAssociationacceptedtheauthorityofanotherversion
ofthisrecord,whichwasfiledasthefoundationforthedisciplinarycomplaint. Investigation
and May 31, 2012 Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision established: a) that the Judges
graphicsignatureonthisrecord,likeallsimilarsignaturesinNetHaMishpatholdsnovalidity
andeffectatall,b)thattherecordwasmissingthevalidelectronicsignature(whichlikeallsimi
larelectronicsignaturesinNetHaMishpat,ishiddenfromviewbyparties,counsel,andthepub
licatlarge),c)thatsuchunsignedrecordwasinvalid,voidnotvoidable,d)thattheauthentica
tionstamp,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,andthesealofthecourtwereaffixedandsignedbyan
unauthorizedperson,e)thatsuchrecordshouldneverhavebeendocketed,neverbeenauthenti
cated,served.[viii]JudgeVardaAlshechsconductshouldbedeemedseriouscriminality.Senior
officeroftheIsraelBarAssociationdeclaredthatJudgeAlshechshouldntsitonthebenchone
additionalday. However,JudgeAlshechreceivedfullsupportbytheIsraeliSupremeCourt
PresidingJusticeandtheMinisterofJustice,andwasneverheldaccountableinanysignificant
manner.

20161002

a)

b)

20161002

8
Figure3.ChenerovChenero(48350613)intheJerusalemFamilyCourt:July26,2016Deci
sionbyJudgeMenahemHacohen,producedinNetHaMishpat(casemanagement,electronicfil
ing,andpublicaccesssystemoftheIsraelidistrictandmagistratecourts),asservedonJoelle
BenSimon(Chenero).InlateJuly2016,BenSimonsatinforfourdaysinfrontoftheofficeof
MinisterofJusticeAyeletShaked,protestingjudicialcorruptioninhercase.Shedemandedto
seetheJusticeMinister,andeventuallyspokewithherforafewminutes.Soonafterwards,Ben
SimonwasseizedbytheIsraelPoliceandplacedincompulsorypsychiatrichospitalization.[ ix]
TheDecisionrecordpurportstorecordacourthearing,whichfailstobeenteredintheCourt
CalendarinNetHaMishpat,whereanDepartmentofJusticeattorney(unauthorizedbyBenSi
mon,probablysentbytheJusticeMinister)appearedincourt,attemptingtoreviewthecase. a)
AuthenticationLetterisunsigned,andbearsnonameofanindividualunderthesignature
lineitsays,OfficeoftheClerk,butbearsastampoftheSealoftheCourt. b)Decisionrecord
bearsawaterstampDraft,ismissingthestandard,invalidgraphicsignature,butbearstwice
(onceupsidedown)personalwetstampsandhandsignaturesofJudgeHacohen,twoimprintsof
thesealofthecourt,aswellasacertificationstampTrueCopyoftheOriginal.Inavisitin
thecourtinearlySeptember2016,theOfficeoftheClerkrefusedtoprintouttherecordorcer
tifyit,statingthatitwasmerelyadraft.TheMay31,2012OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDeci
sionintheJudgeVardaAlshechfabricatedprotocolsscandalestablishedthatNetHaMishpat
records,whichbearthewaterstampDraftfailtobeelectronicallysigned(thevalidelectronic
signaturesareinvisibletoparties,counselandthepublicatlarge,onlyinvalidgraphicsigna
turesappearontherecords),areinvalidcourtrecords,whichmustnotbedocketed,mustnotbe
certified,andmustnotbeserved. However,theOmbudsmanalsodocumentedthatsoonafter
NetHaMishpatwasimplemented,judgesinsomeofthecourts(e.g.,theTelAvivDistrictCourt,
whereJudgeAlshechissuedthefabricatedprotocols)hadthewaterstampsremovedfromthe
system,claimingthattheyinterferewiththeworkflow.

20.2"SimulatedLegalProcess","SimulatedCourtRecord",
"FraudUpontheCourt"
Themainclaim,relativetoinvalidITsystemsinthecourtsintheUSandinIsrael,
isthattheyenabletheconductofsimulatedlegalprocessonascalethathasnot
beenseenfordecadesormore.
Suchconductinvolvesjudges,theofficeoftheclerk,othercourtpersonnel,and
at times also counsel appearing before the courts. Its essence is the issuing,
docketing, service, and publication of judicial and/or clerical records that are
deemedbythejudgesinvalid,voidontheirfaces. However,suchrecordsare
madetoappearasvalidandeffectualcourtrecordstopartiesandthepublicat
large. Throughsuchconduct,judges,clerksandattorneysinduceothersand/or
extortedthemtosubmittothefalseauthorityofsuchrecords.
Thepracticeiswellknownforgenerationsastypicalofcorruptcourts.Itis
clearlydefined,forexample,intheTexasPenalCode32.48.
In terms of US law, the conduct of simulated legal process, should be
considered "FraudupontheCourt"(Bullochv.UnitedStates,763F.2d1115,
1121(10thCir.1985))attachingthemachineryofthecourtitself.
Underpaperadministrationofthecourts,procedureshavebeendevelopedover
20161002

centuries to prevent such criminal conduct in the courts. The fundamental

mechanism involveschecks and balances throughtheseparation ofdutiesand
authoritiesbetweenthejudicialarmandtheministerial(clerical)armofthecourt.
[x]Whilejudgesarechargedwithadjudication,underimmunityfortheirjudicial
conduct,theclerksarechargedwiththesafeguardandintegrityofcourtrecords
andprocess.Thesysteminvolvedtheverificationofrecordsbyhandsignaturesof
judgesandclerks,andseparatelythesealofthecourt(heldbytheclerk,butnot
bythejudge).Recordswerefurtherauthenticatedbydueservice,accompaniedby
certificatesofservice(authenticationofcourtrecords)bytheClerkoftheCourt.
Additionalauthenticationwastypicallyrequiredforenforcementorexecutionof
judicial records, by the certification, True Copy of the Original, under the
authorityoftheClerkoftheCourt.Additional,morestringentprocedureswere
established for the initiation(summonses) andterminationof court procedures
(entryandnoticeofentryofjudgment),whicharecriticalfortheintegrityofcourt
process. The Clerk of the Court was also charged withthe maintenance and
safeguard of fundamental Books of Court, which define the courts lawful,
authorized conduct, including: Index of All Cases, Court Calendar, Book of
Judgments,Dockets.
Bythelate20th century,suchcourtprocedureswerewellestablishedinmost
developednations,andalsoestablishedasthefoundationformutualinternational
faithandcreditincourtrecordsthroughtheHagueApostilleConvention(1961).
Alloftheseproceduresandinstrumentsweredrasticallychangedoverashort
timeperiodwiththeimplementationofcasemanagementandefilingsystemsin
thecourts.Theoutcomeisamassiveamountofvagueandambiguous,oroutright
fraudulentcourtrecords(Figures13).
Theoretically,judgesarenotcoveredbyanyimmunityrelativetosimulating
legalprocess,sinceitisconsideredextrajudicialactivity.Furthermore,inmost
cases,suchconductispartoforganizedcrime,orracketeeringinthecourts.The
notionofjudgesandcourtsactingasaracketeeringenterprisesisnotnewatall
(see for example "Kids for Cash" [ xi]). However, the evidence showsthat in
practice, both inthe US and inIsrael judges are held unaccountable for such
conduct[xii]
Obviously,suchconduct shouldbedeemed seriousviolationofanyHuman
Rights,whichrequireprotectionofrightsbyacompetentcourt.Competentcourts
are a prerequisite for about half of the first dozen articles of the Universal
DeclarationofHumanRights(1948).

20.3ECourtsintheUnitedStates
WidesegmentsofthepeopleoftheUnitedStates,fromHarvardlawprofessorsto
extremistgroups,todayholdthattheUSConstitutionisnolongerinforceandef
20161002

10

fect.[xiii]Inparticular,expertsseetheUSjusticesystemtodayatalowpoint.Ex
pertsspecificallypointouttheprisoncrisisandthefailureofthejusticesystem
inbothcriminalandcivilmattersrelatedtotheongoingbankingcrisis.[ xiv]The
studyofITsystemsoftheUScourtsprovidesuniqueinsightsintosystemicjudi
cialincompetenceand/orcorruption,FraudUpontheCourts,anddeprivationof
fundamentalHumanRightsbythejusticesystemitself.

Figure4.PACERisthepublicaccesssystemoftheUSdistrictcourtsandUScourtsofappeals,
andCM/ECFistherespectivecasemanagementandelectronicfilingsystem.

ImplementationofPACERandCM/ECFwascompletedintheearly2000sata
costthatisestimatedatafewbillionUSdollars.
TheHumanRightsAlert(NGO)submissiontotheUNHumanRightsCouncil
in2015wasbasedonsystemanalysis,dataminingandcasestudiesintheUS
courts.Thesubmissionincludedthefollowingallegations:
IT systems of the US courts enable the routine conduct of simulated
litigation and the publication of simulated judicial records.
Under such circumstances, the rule of law and the US Constitution are
effectively suspended.
Such conditions should be deemed in violation of any article of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where integrity of the courts and
the justice system is a prerequisite.
It is further proposed, that IT systems of the US courts provide a unique
database, which through the use of data mining techniques could provide an
"IndexofJudicialCorruption"acrosstheUSandgoingbackabouttwodecades.
[xv]

20161002

11

20.3.2KeydeficienciesinPACERandCM/ECF
20.3.2.1Developmentandimplementationwithnolawfulauthority
ProceduresoftheUScourtsunderpaperadministrationoriginatedintheEnglish
legalsystem,andwereestablishedintheUSCodeofCivilProcedures,USCode
ofCriminalProcedureandpublishedLocalRules,whichthecourtswereautho
rizedtoadopt,subjecttopriorpublicationofsuchrulesforpubliccommentand
challenge.ThetransitiontodigitaladministrationoftheUScourtsinevitablyen
tailedaseachangeincourtprocedures,whichhadtobeestablishedbylaw,orby
thepublicationofnewLocalRules.ReviewoftheLocalRulesofthevariousUS
districtcourtsandUScourtsofappeals,[ xvi,xvii]universallyrevealednodirectref
erencetoPACER,CM/ECF,orthenewprocedurespertainingtovalidsignatures
andauthentication,noticeandservice,entryofjudgment,andpublicaccessto
courtrecords.
Insomecases,reference,albeitvagueandambiguous,wasfoundin General
Ordersofthecourts.Thecourtswerenotauthorizedtoestablishcourtprocedures
in General Orders. [xviii] In some courts, the new procedures were vaguely
described in Users Manuals (e.g., Unofficial Anderson Manual of the US
DistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia). [xix] However,suchpublications
couldbynomeansbeconsideredvalidandeffectuallegalrecords.Moreover,on
keyissuessuchpublicationsareeithervagueandambiguousormisleading(e.g.,
NEFseebelow). Somerules,inherentinthesystemscanbeinferredbydata
miningordataanalysis.Sucheffortsalsoindicatevariationsamongthevarious
USdistrictcourts,regardlessoftheuniformplatformsofPACERandCM/ECF.
Needlesstosay,suchcircumstancesunderminetheprincipleofPublicityofthe
Law.
Ingeneral,itisclaimedthatthereisnowaythattheITsystemsofthecourts
couldbedeemedofintegrity,validity,andauthorityabsentfulldocumentationof
lawful specification, development management, and validation by persons of
adequateauthority.[xx] Noevidenceofsuchquintessentialmeasureshaveever
beendiscovered,relativetothedevelopmentandimplementationofPACERand
CM/ECF.
Furthermore,ITsystemsofthecourtsareinfacttranslationofthelawinto
operable programming code. Therefore, it is argued, that the authority for
specification,development,andvalidationofsuchsystemsshouldresideoutside
ofthejudicialbranchundertheprincipleofSeparationofPowers.[xxi]

20161002

12

20.3.2.2Failuretoimplementelectronicsignatures
TheUSCongressestablishedtheESignAct(2000),butthelaw,asenacted,and
itsinadequatepromulgationmadeitsapplicationintheUSdeficient(conditions
whichhavefarreachingimplications,forbeyondthecourts,e.g.,inthebanking
systemandthebankingcrisis).
Today,almostallrecordsoftheUSdistrictcourts(withthenotableexception
ofsummonses)andappealscourtsareelectronicrecords.However,thereisno
visible,validimplementationofelectronicsignaturesonanysuchrecords.
Reviewoftherecordsinthecasespresentedbelow,showsavarietyofformsof
signaturesonelectronicrecords:
Scannedimagesofhandsignatures
/s/
TypedName,e.g.,JohnDoe
Nosignatureatall.
Noneoftheseshouldbedeemedvalidelectronicsignatures.

Figure5.HuminskivRutlandPoliceDeptetal(1:99cv00160)intheUSDistrictCourt,Ver
montCivilRightsmatter:TheFebruary12,2010OrderbyUSJudgeGarvanMurthaemploys
noelectronicsignature,onlythetyped,"/s/"signature.TheOrderwasservedwithnoNEF(au
thentication)atall,thereforeisdeemedvoidnotvoidablebytheCourtitsefl.[ xxii]

20161002

13

Figure6.WrightvBankofAmerica(10cv01723),USDistrictCourt,NorthernDistrictofCali
forniabankingmatter:November5,2010CertificateofService.InsteadofusingandNEF,the
authenticationinstrumentinCM/ECF(seebelow),atraditional,paperCertificateofServicewas
usedintheelectroniccourtsystem.However,suchpaperauthenticationinstrumentrequireda
handsignature,andtheelectronicrecordhereisunsigned,andthereforeinvalid.

Underpaperadministrationofthecourts,theEnteredstamp,andinitialsor
signatures,handinscribedonrecordsundertheauthorityoftheClerkoftheCourt
obviously were visible parts of the public paper records. And likewise, the
CertificatesofService,whichwerehandsignedundertheauthorityoftheClerk
oftheCourtwerepartofthepaperpublicrecords.
Underelectronicadministrationofthecourts,asimplementedinPACERand
CM/ECF,thatisnolongerthecase.
Ofnote,theCaliforniaRegulations(CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title2,
Div 7, Chapter 10), for example, require that any electtronic signatures that
replacedwetsignatures(handsignaturesusingink),whichwerepartofpublic
records, must remain publicrecords intheirelectronic form.Therefore, tothe
degreethattheUSDistrictCourtsinCalifornia,andtheUSCourtofAppeals,9th
Circuit,whichconducttheirbusiness,asoutlinedbelow,intheStateofCalifornia,
theirconductshouldbedeemedinviolationofStatelaw. Similarregulations,
pertainingtoelectronicsignatures,werepromulgatedinmostoftheseveralstates.
Various practices, related to the issuance of altogether unsigned decision
recordsbythecourtsofappealsandtheSupremeCourtwerealsorepeatedlynoted
bymedia.[xxiii,xxiv,xxv,xxvi]
20161002

14

Itshouldbenoted,thatinallcases,reviewedbythiswriter,decisionsofthe
courts of appeals and the Supreme Court were served unsigned and
unauthenticated.

Figure7.ZernikvUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia(0872714),intheUSCourt
ofAppeals,9thCircuitCivilRightsmatter:June25,2008Decision,asdocketedinPACERin
theoriginatingcase ZernikvConnoretal (2:08cv01550). TheDecisionisunsignedand
unauthenticated.ItwaslikewiseservedunsignedandunauthenticatedonthePetitioner.Thepe
tition,"ToCompelFederalDueProcessRights",askedtheUSCourtofAppeals,9thCircuit,to
ordertheUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia,toissuevalidsummonsesforcom
mencinglawfulcourtprocess,inacasewheretheDistrictCourtrefusedtodoso.

20161002

15
ItshouldbenotedthatthestampoftheClerkUSCourtofAppeals,9thCircuit,statesonly
"Filed"(andnot"Entered"),asistheroutineinthatCourt.Moreover,thestampisnotsigned.
Likewise,thestampoftheDeputyClerkoftheUSDistrictCourt,whichissigned,onlystates
"Received",andnot"Filed",or"Entered".AlljudicialrecordsintheUSDistrictCourtinthis
case(includingtheUSCourtofAppealsDecision,shownhere)weredocketedwithnovalid
NEF(seebelow),andwerethereforedeemedinvalid,voidnotvoidablebytheCourtitself.[ xxvii]

Inreviewingsomesuchdecisions,onecannotescapetheconclusionthatattimes,
thepracticeofissuingunsigneddecisionsisemployed,whenthejudgesorjustices
ruleinamannerthathasnobasisinthelawoftheUnitedStates.[xxviii]
Itisunlikelythatthefailuretoimplementvalid,visibleelectronicsignaturesin
PACERandCM/ECFistheoutcomeofoversight,orhumanerror.

20.3.2.3NEFandNDA:Invalidimplementationofauthenticationandservice
procedures[xxix]
UnderpapercourtfileadministrationoftheUScourts,priortotheimplementation
ofPACERandCM/ECF,courtorderswereauthenticatedbytheaccompanying
CertificateofService,signedundertheauthorityoftheClerkoftheCourt(Figure
6).TheCertificatesofServiceweredocketedpursuanttothe FederalRulesof
CivilProcedure(orFederalRulesofCriminalProcedure)inthepapercourtfiles,
andwerethereforepartofthepublicrecords.
Following the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF, the Notice of
ElectronicFiling["NEF"]intheUSdistrictcourts,andNoticeofDocketActivity
["NDA"]intheUScourtsofappealseffectively,althoughwithoutbeinglawfully
established, replaced the Certificate of Service. Likewise, the NEF today
effectively istheevidence ofentry ofpleadingsbypartiesandentryofcourt
minutes,orders,andjudgments,andtherefore,itisofcriticalsignificance.
IntheNEFandNDA,thewethandsignaturesofthetraditionalCertificateof
Servicewerereplacedbyadigitallyencrypted,alphanumeric"checksum"string
(Figure812).

20161002

16

a)

b)

20161002

17

c)

d)
Figure8.NEF(NoticeofElectronicFiling)inCM/ECFandPACERdockets:a)NEFincluding
the"ElectronicDocumentStamps"(redframesadded),PerryvPremierMortgageFundingetal,
USDistrictCourt,EasternDistrictofCalifornia. b) NEF,missingthe"ElectronicDocument
Stamp",MandateoftheUSCourtofAppeals,9thCircuit,asdocketedin FinevSheriffofLos
AngelesCounty,USDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia.c)TwoPACERdocketentries
inSECvBankofAmericaCorporation,USDistrictCourt,SouthernDistrictofNewYork.The
January12,2010entry(Dkt#73,Order)islinkedtoanactualrecord.Incontrast,theJanuary19,
2010entry(Dkt#none,Minutes)isnotlinkedtoanyrecord,andsuch"dockettextonly"nota
tioncouldn'tpossiblybeauthenticatedbyanNEF.Therefore,theJanuary19,2010telephone
hearinganditsminutesshouldbedeemedsimulatedcourthearingandsimulatedminutes,like
manyotherssimilarentriesinthesamecase.d)PACERdocketentry,documentingthatjudicial
recordswithnovalidNEFareinvalid,voidrecords,whichshouldntbedocketed:January11,
2012DocketentrybyPresidingJudgeoftheUSDistrictCourtAudreyBCollins,InRE:Ronald
Gottschalk(2:11mc00284),USDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia:"OrderofDisbar
mentbyJudgeAudreyB.CollinsthatRonaldGottschalkbedisbarredfromthepracticeoflawin
thisCourt...deletedforthefollowingreason:ReportedthattheNEFwasnotgenerated."[xxx]

20161002

18

a)

20161002

19

b)
Figure9. RichardFinevSheriffofLosAngelesCounty (2:09civ01914)intheUSDistrict
Court,CentralDistrictofCaliforniaHabeasCorpuspetitionNEFs:a)Dkt#01,Petitionfor
WritofHabeasCorpus,ValidNEF,bearingacomplete"ElectronicDocumentStamp".b)Dkt
#59:MandateoftheUSCourtofAppeals,9thCircuit,re:CertificateofAppealability ,asdock
etedintheUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCaliforniainvalidNEF,missingthe"Elec
tronicDocumentStamp".OtherordersandtheJudgmentinthesamecaseareallalsomissing
theElectronicDocumentStamp,andthereforearedeemedbytheCourtitselfinvalid,voidju
dicialrecords.RichardFine,formerUSprosecutorwasheldatthetimeinsolitaryconfinement
intheLosAngelesTwinTowersJail.ThedecisionsinhisHabeasCorpuspetitionwereserved
onhimwithnoNEFatall,andhehadnoaccesstoCM/ECF,andacceptedtheirauthorityas
validcourtrecord.Numerous,similar,invalidNEFs,missingthe"ElectronicDocumentStamp"
werediscoveredinothercasesinvariousUSdistrictcourts.[ xxxi]

20161002

20

Figure10.HuminskivRutlandPoliceDeptetal(1:99cv00160)intheUSDistrictCourt,Dis
trictofVermont CivilRightsmatter: July1,2010OrdergrantingMotionforExtensionof
TimetoAnswer.TheNEFisinvalid,lacking"ElectronicDocumentStamp".Italsoincludesno
linktoarecord,andnomailingoremailinglist.TheNEFshownherepertainstoa"textonlyor
der"textthatisenteredinthePACERdocketwithnoattacheddocument.Suchordersandmin
utescannotpossiblybeauthenticatedthroughan"ElectronicDocumentStamp",achecksum
stringsincethereisnodocumentatall.[xxxii]

Figure11.MaidoftheMistvWindsor(1:06cv00714),intheUSDistrictCourt,NorthernDis
trictofGeorgia:InvalidPACERdocketnotation,simulatingCertificateofMailing.NoNEFwas
issuedontheOrder,andpurportedlyapaperCertificateofMailingwasissuedinstead.How
ever,nosuchrecordappearsinthedocket.,thePACERdocketnotationwasassignednodocket
number,andnolinktoarecordwasprovided.Therefore,thereisnosuchdocumentonrecord,
andthedocumentcouldn'thavebeenauthenticatedthroughtheissuanceofanNEFandan"Elec
tronicDocumentStamp",whichisachecksumstring. Therefore,the"Clerk'sCertificateof
Mailing"inreferencewasinfactinvalid,void,andlikewisetheOrder(Dkt#369),whichitpur
portedtoauthenticate.Regardlessofrepeatrequests,WilliamWindsorwasdeniedaccesstoin
specttheNEFsinhisowncourtcases.

There is no single source that clearly defines the NEF as an authentication

instrumentinPACERandCM/ECG. The"UnofficialAndersonManual(Rev
07, 2008) for electronic filing in the US District Court, Central District of
California,providesthefollowingvagueandambiguousexplanation:(p13)[xxxiii]
L.TheNoticeofElectronicFiling
ThesystemwillpresentyouwithaNoticeofElectronicFiling(NEF)
screen and will also email you a copy of the NEF. The Notice of
ElectronicFiling(NEF)isyourproofthatthedocumenthasbeenE
20161002

21

Filed.YoushouldprintthescreentoapieceofpaperoraPDF(orboth)
beforeproceeding,becauseyouwillneedtoattachtheNEFasthelast
pageofthecourtesycopythatyousubmittotheCourt.TheNEFincludes
adocumentnumberandalink.Besuretonotethatdocumentnumber,
asyouwillneeditifyouneedtoemailaproposedordertotheCourt.
The NEF also includes an Electronic Document Stamp which is a
string of letters and numbers which Court staff can use to verify the
authenticityoftheNEF.TheNEFalsocontainsthepathandfilenameof
thedocumentyouuploadedandanyattachments.
A more specific description of the NEF appears in Administrative Policies and
Procedures for Electronic Filing of the US District Court, Western District of
Texas. [xxxiv] The text in this document, regardless of its lack of authority, clearly
states that the NEF constitutes "filing" and "entry", and "Notice of Entry of
Judgment" pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Section2:DefinitionsandRelatedRequirements
h. Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) is an electronic notice
automaticallygenerated bytheElectronic FilingSystemat thetimea
document is docketed. The NEF includes the time of filing and
docketing,thenameofthepartyandFilingUserfilingthedocument,the
typeofdocument,thetextofthedocketentry,thenameofthepartyand
FilingUserreceivingthenotice.Ifadocumentisattachedtothedocket
entry,theNEFwillcontainaHyperlinktothefileddocumentallowing
recipientstoretrievethedocument.
Section7:ConsequencesofElectronicFiling
a.ElectronictransmissionofadocumentthroughtheElectronicFiling
System constitutes the filing of the document pursuant to Rule 5(e),
FEDERALRULESOFCIVILPROCEDURE,andRule49,FEDERAL
RULESOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE.
b.ThetransmissionofaNEFconstitutesentryonthedocketpursuantto
Rules 58 and 79, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and
Rules49and55,FEDERALRULESOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE.
Section16:NoticeofCourtOrdersandJudgments
a. Immediately upon entry of an order or judgment, the Clerk will
transmitaNEFtoFilingUsers.TransmissionoftheNEFconstitutesthe
notice required by Rule 77(d), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, and Rule 49(c), FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.TheClerkwillsendpapercopiesofordersandjudgments
tononFilingUsers.
However,itshouldbenotedthatthetextfromtheUSDistrictCourt,Western
DistrictofTexas,entirelyfailstomentionthe"ElectronicDocumentStamp",and
itscriticalroleinpurportedsubstitutionofthesignatureoftheClerkoftheCourt,
and which purportedly verifies the NEF, and thereby also authenticates the
respectivecourtrecord.
20161002

22

The General Order 0802 of the US District Court, Central District of

Californiaprovidesadditionalinformation,pertainingtothesignificanceofthe
"ElectronicDocumentStamp"asencryptedverificationcode,authenticationthe
entryofcourtrecords:[xxxv,xxxvi]
IV.ElectronicFiling
...
O.CertificationofElectronicDocuments.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1) and 44(c), the
methodofelectroniccertificationdescribedhereinisdeemedproofofan
officialcourtrecordmaintainedbytheClerkofCourt.TheNEFcontains
thedateofelectronicdistributionandidentificationoftheUnitedStates
District Court forthe Central District of California as thesender. An
encrypted verification code appears in the electronic document stamp
sectionoftheNEF.Theelectronicdocumentstampshallbeusedforthe
purposeofconfirmingtheauthenticityofthetransmissionandassociated
document(s)withtheClerkofCourt,asnecessary.Whenadocumenthas
been electronically filed into CM/ECF, the official record is the
electronicrecordingofthedocumentkeptinthecustodyoftheClerkof
Court.TheNEFprovidescertificationthattheassociateddocument(s)is
atrueandcorrectcopyoftheoriginalfiledwiththecourt.
The language here is also vague and ambiguous, referring to "proof of an
officialcourtrecordmaintainedbytheClerkofCourt",insteadofreferringto
"Filing","Entry",and"NoticeofEntryofJudgment".ItagainreferstotheNEF
as"certificationthattheassociateddocument(s)isatrueandcorrectcopyofthe
originalfiledwiththecourt",butnotofits"Entry".
TheUserGuideoftheUSDistrictCourt,NorthernDistrictofIllinois,[ xxxvii]
provides additional critical information regarding the "Electronic Document
Stamp":Itdescribesthe"DocumentVerificationUtility"anditsuse(Figure12).
Throughthedescription inthisGuide,itbecomes evident that the"Electronic
DocumentStamp"isnotapersonalelectronicsignature,butachecksumstring,
whichshowstheequivalenceoftworecords,providedthatapersonhasaccessto
the "Document Verification Utility". As noted above in "Unofficial Anderson
Manual,inmostcourts,theUtilityisaccessibleonlytocourtpersonnel.

20161002

23

Figure12.DocumentVerificationUtilityasdescribedintheCM/ECFUserGuideoftheUS
DistrictCourt,NorthernDistrictofIllinois.Descriptionoftheutilitywasnotfoundinanyof
theotherdistrictcourts'usersmanualswhichwereinspected.TheUtilityenablesapersontode
termine, using the alphanumeric string in the Electronic Document Stamp, whether a court
recordwasadulterated.Thepublic(andoftenalsoproseparties)isuniversallydeniedaccessto
theNEF(andtheElectronicDocumentStamp)andtheUtility.

TheUSdistrictcourtstodaypurportthattheNEFconstitutetheauthenticationand
certificationinstrumentofcourtrecords.However,theNEFisinvalidassuchin
strumentonitsface:
20161002

24

TheopeningstatementontheNEFsays:Thisisanautomaticemail
message generated by the CM/ECF system. In contrast, a valid
Certificate of Service includes a certification statement: "I, the
undersigned,herebycertify..."
Thereisnoname,authority,orsignatureofanindividualintheNEF.In
contrast,avalidCertificateofServicenamesanauthorizedDeputyClerk
withhis/herhandsignature.
TheNEFisnotsentanddeliveredasaanaccompanyingrecordtothe
actualminute,order,orjudgment,whichitpurportstoauthenticate.The
relationship between the NEF and the respective court record is only
throughthehyperlink,providedintheNEF.Hyperlinksareinsecureand
invalidapplicationforthispurpose.Infact,manycourtsprohibittheuse
ofhyperlinksinanycourtfiling.Incontrast,avalidCertificateofService
accompaniedthemailingoftheminutes,order,orjudgment.
TheNEFisconcealedfrompublicaccess,andinmanycourtsalsofrom
prose partiesintheirownlitigation.Therefore,thepublicatlargeand
prose partiesinparticularareunabletodistinguishbetweenvalidand
effectual records andinvalid,voidrecords, whilebothvalidandvoid
recordsareroutinelypublishedbythecourtsinthePACERdockets.In
contrast,thevalidCertificateofServicewasdocketedinthepapercourt
filewiththerespectivecourtrecord.
Examples have been recorded invarious US courts of minutes, orders, and
judgments, which were published in the PACER dockets, but were not
authenticated as entered through the issuance of a valid NEF bearing an
"ElectronicDocumentStamp".
The NDA of the US courts of appeals reflects similar invalid, vague and
ambiguouspractices.[xxxviii]

20.3.2.4Establishingdoublebookssystemsinthecourts
Underpaperadministrationofthecourts,itwasphysicallydemanding(butnot
unheardof)tomaintaindoublecourtfiles.ThroughPACERandCM/ECF,theUS
courtseffectivelyestablishedadoublecourtfilesystem:Thepublicand prose
filersseeonesetofrecords,whichdonotpermitthemtodistinguishbetween
validandvoidcourtrecords. Authorizedattorneys,judges,andcourtpersonnel
seeadifferentsetofcourtrecordsforthesamecourtfiles.
Suchconditionsamounttodenialofpublicaccesstocourtrecordstothepublic
andtoprosefilersindisregardofFirstAmendmentandDueProcessrightsunder
USlaw,anddisregardoftheFairPublicHearingrightunderHumanRightsin
internationallaw.

20161002

25

20.3.2.5Invalidimplementationofauthoritiesandpermissions
Entries are made in US district court dockets by unidentified persons of
unidentifiedauthority,withnovalidsignatures.However,inanumberofcasesin
severalUSdistrictcourts,itbecameevidentthatentriesaremadebyunauthorized
DeputyClerks. Forexample,in SECvBankofAmericaCorporation (1:09cv
06829)intheUSDistrictCourt,SouthernDistrictofNewYork,theentryofthe
January19,2010simulatedminuteswasby"mro"(Figure8c),likemostother
entriesofthesimulatedrecordsinthiscase.Theauthorityof"mro"isunknown,
buttheOfficeoftheClerkoftheUSDistrictCourt,SouthernDistrictofNew
York confirmed that docket entries are today made by persons, who are not
authorizedDeputyClerks.Theinitials"mro"cannotpossiblybedeemedavalid
electronicsignature.
Furthermore, the system enables attorneys to file records and directly enter
them inthe US court dockets, with noprior review byan authorized Deputy
Clerk,inviolationoftheletterandthespiritoftheJudiciaryAct(1789)andthe
FederalRulesofCivilProcedure.

20.3.2.6Discriminationinaccesstothecourts
PracticallyinallUScourts,whichwereexamined,onlyattorneysarepermitted
accesstoCM/ECF. Asaresult,aparty,whoisrepresentedbyanattorney,is
permittedtoelectronicallyfilerecordsandenterthemintothePACERdocket
withnooversightandaccountabilitybytheOfficeoftheClerk. Incontrast,an
unrepresented party is required to file and serve only on paper, incurring
substantialadditionaltimeandmoneyexpenditure.
Similarly,thecourtselectronicallyservejudicialrecordsandanyothernotices
onattorneys,whileunrepresentedpartiesareservedandnoticedonlyonpaper.
Forexample,GeneralOrder0802oftheUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictof
California,says:[xxxix]
ExclusionsFromElectronicFiling
BProSeLitigants
Documentsfiledbyproselitigantswillcontinuetobefiledandservedin
thetraditionalmannerandwillbescannedbytheClerk'sOfficeintothe
CM/ECFsystem.
Suchpracticesopenthewaytonumerousmethodsofabuse.

20161002

26

20.3.2.8Universalfailuretodocketsummonses.

a)

b)
Figure 13. SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09cv06829) in the US District Court,
SouthernDistrictofNewYorkBankingRegulation:a)PACERdocket,initialentriestheuni
versalpracticeintheUSDistrictCourtsistodockettheComplaintasDkt#1,andnextlistan
unnumbered,invaliddocketentryforsummonsissuedwithnolinkedrecordindisregardof
theFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.InthiscasealsotheNoticeofDesignationtoMagistrate
JudgeMichaelHDolingerismissingmakingthedesignationvoid,andconductoftheMagis
trateJudgelackinginauthorityaswell.b)TheSummonsinthiscaseisinvalid,voidunsigned
andbearingnoSealoftheCourt.ItwasobtainedthroughFreedomofInformationActrequest
ontheSEC.[xl]

20161002

27

Asisthecaseinothercourts,whichoriginateintheEnglishcommonlaw,the
summonsesarecriticaldocumentsforestablishingthevalidityofthelitigation.
Throughtheissuanceofvalidsummonsesandtheirlawfulexecution(service),the
courtestablishesitsjurisdictioninagivenmatteronspecificparties.Absentthe
issuance and execution of valid summonses, the integrity and validity of the
litigationisundermined.
Under CM/ECF, the summonses are distinguished as court records that are
issued on paper, not as electronic records. Furthermore, under PACER and
CM/ECF,theUScourtstodayuniversallyfailtodocketsummonses,indisregard
ofthe FederalRulesofCivilProcedure. Obviously,undersuchcircumstances,
the public is denied access to critical records for evaluating the validity and
integrityofthelitigation.
USlaw,28USC1691,prescribes:
AllwritsandprocessissuingfromacourtoftheUnitedStatesshallbe
underthesealofthecourtandsignedbytheclerkthereof.
As shownin multiple cases (e.g., Figure 13) the US courts routinelyissue
clearlyinvalidsummonses,e.g.,unsigned,ormissingtheSealoftheCourt.In
certaincases,therefusaltoissuevalidsummonseswasalsodocumented.
Itisextremelyunlikelythatthecombinationoftheunusualpracticeofissuing
summonsesaspaperrecords,thefailuretodocketsummonsesindisregardofUS
law, and the issuance of invalid summonses, also in disregard of US law are
coincidental, or the outcome of oversight or human error. Court procedures,
pertainingtotheissuanceandexecutionofserviceofthesummonseshavebeen
key procedures in establishing jurisdiction and integrity of court process for
centuries.

20.3.2.9Adulteratedandmissingofcourtrecords
Invariouscases,keyrecordsaremissingfromthestart(e.g.,Figures8c,11,13),
orlaterdeletedfrom thePACERdocketsoftheUSdistrictcourts,ortheUS
courtsofappealswithnolegalfoundationandindisregardoftheFederalRulesof
CivilProcedure.[xli,xlii]
Inothercases,theevidenceindicatesthatrecordswereadulterated,e.g.,the
PetitionforaWritofHabeasCorpusofRichardFineintheUSDistrictCourt,
CentralDistrictofCalifornia.AdulterationofthedecisionintheHabeasCorpus
petitionofGuantanamoBaydetaineeUthmanAbdulRahimMohammedUthman
intheUSDistrictCourt,WashingtonDC,wasreportedbymedia.[xliii]
UN reports on Strengthening Judicial Integrity against Corruption note
missingcourtrecordsasanindicatorofcourtcorruption. [xliv,xlv]

20161002

28

20.3.2.10IntercourtdifferencesinPACERandCM/ECF
The PACER platform was implemented in all US district and appeals courts.
However, survey of the various courts shows inexplicable, notable differences
amongthecourts,andselectivedenialofpublicaccesstokeydataJudgmentIn
dex,CalendaroftheCourt,DocketActivityReport,CorporateParentReports,etc.
[xlvi]Suchdataarecriticalforenablingthepublictoassessthevalidityofcourt
process.Moreover,publicaccesstotheBooksofCourtsisconsideredforgen
erationsacriticalfeatureofcompetentcourts.Thearbitraryandcapriciousdenial
ofaccesstosuchrecordsbyvariousUScourtsdemonstratesagaintheimplemen
tationofPACERandCM/ECFwithnolawfulauthorityandvalidity.

20.3.4Casestudies
20.3.4.1RichardFinevSheriffofLosAngelesCountyHabeasCorpus
[xlvii,xlviii]
RichardFineisaformerUSprosecutor.Around2007,hepublishedandrebuked
thetakingbyCalifornia judgesofnot permittedpayments(called bymedia
bribes). Intheaftermath,abillwaspassedandsignedintolawbyCalifornia
GovernorArnoldSchwarzeneggeronFebruary20,2009,providingretroactive
immunity(calledbymediapardon)toalljudgesinvolvedwhileretroactive
lawsareprohibitedbytheCaliforniaConstitution.[xlix]
Twoweekslater,onMarch4,2009,RichardFinewasarrestedbytheWarrant
DetailofLosAngelesCountySheriff'sDepartmentattheendofadramatichering
inJudgeDavidYaffescourtroomintheSuperiorCourtofCalifornia,Countyof
Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles. From March 2009, Fine was held for 18
months by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca (now facing prison term
following federal corruption conviction) in solitary confinement in the Los
AngelesTwinTowersjail.[l]
The unique, detailed documentation of the case provides evidence of the
coordinatedoperationoffraudulentITsystemsof:
TheCaliforniaSuperiorCourt,CountyofLosAngeles;
Sheriff'sDepartmentoftheCountyofLosAngeles;
USDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia;
USCourtofAppeals,9thCircuit,and
USSupremeCourt.

20161002

29

Figure14. LosAngelesCountSheriffsDepartmentBookingRecordpertainingtoRichard
Fine,asprovidedbytheLosAngelesSheriff'sDepartmentinresponseoninquirybyLosAnge
lesCountySupervisorMichaelAntonovich. Thefalseanddeliberatelymisleadingrecordlists
FineasarrestedonlocationandbyauthorityofthenonexistentSanPedroMunicipalCourt.
TheSheriff'sDepartmentrefusedtocorrecttheBookingRecord,evenafteritwasrepeatedlyno
ticedofitsfallacy.[li]

RichardFinewasarrestedattheendofacourthearinginMarinaDelReyHome
Owners'AssociationvCountyofLosAngeles(BS109420)oftheSuperiorCourt
ofCalifornia,CountyofLosAngeles. Theproceedinglaterfailedtoappearin
SustainthepublicaccesssystemoftheCourt.Likewise,thecourtrecordsthat
weretheMarch4,2009JudgmentandOrderofContemptwerelaterdiscoveredto
beinvalidontheirfaces,lackingvalidauthentication,andshowingfalsedates.[lii]
Regardlessofrepeatefforts,theSuperiorCourtdeniedaccesstotheRegisterof
Actions(Californiadocket)ofthecaseinSustain,althoughitisapublicrecordby
Californialaw,bytheCaliforniaConstitution,andbytheUSConstitution.
The Booking Record (Figure 14) of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs
Department Inmate Information Center online system was false and
misleading. The Booking Record indicated that Richard Fine was arrested on
locationandbyauthorityofthenonexistentMunicipalCourtofSanPedro.
Fine'spetitionforawritofHabeasCorpus,FinevSheriffoftheCountyofLos
Angeles(2:09cv01914)wasdictatedbyphonetoafriend,sincehewasdenied
accesstopaperandpen,andwasfiledonbehalfofRichardFineintheUSCourt,
CentralDistrictofCalifornia.Lateritbecameevidentthatthepetitionrecordwas
adulteratedbytheDistrictCourt. Likewise,keyrecordsweremissingfromthe
casedocketintheDistrictCourt.[liii]
Sheriff Lee Baca, duly named as Respondent, refused to respond on the
Petition.Instead,responsewaseventuallyfiledonbehalfofLosAngelesSuperior
CourtJudgeDavidYaffebyAttorneyKevinMcCormick,whofailedtofilethe
20161002

30

requiredCertificateofCounsel.[liv]Furtherinvestigationprovidedevidencethat
AttorneyMcCormickwasinfactneverauthorizedasCounselofRecordbyJudge
DavidYaffe,evercommunicatedwithhim,orobtainedanyrecordoraffidavit
fromhim.[lv]
The June 12, 2009 Report & Recommendations by US Magistrate Carla
Woehrleconcludedbyrecommendingdenialwithprejudice.The25pagerecord
failedtoeverexplicitlystatethecaptionoftheLosAngelesSuperiorCourtcase
that was under review (Figure 1). Both the June 12, 2009 Report &
RecommendationandtheJune29,2009JudgmentoftheUSDistrictCourtwere
later discovered to be invalid, unauthenticated records, lacking valid NEFs
(Figures8,9).
AnEmergencyPetitionfiledonFine'sbehalfintheUSCourtofAppealsforthe
9thCircuitFinevSheriff(0971692),wasdenied.However,theJune30,2009
Orderdenyingthepetition,bearingthenamesofChiefJudgeAlexKozinskiand
CircuitJudges RichardPaezandRichardTallmanwasunsigned,unentered,and
lackedauthenticationaswell.ThePACERdocketofthePetitionwasinvalidas
well.[lvi]TheApplicationwasdeniedthroughanunsignedOrder,servedwithno
NDAatall.[lvii]
Eventually,FinefiledpetitionsandapplicationsintheUSSupremeCourt. A
MotiontoIntervenewasfiledintheUSSupremeCourt,includingdetailedreview
of the false electronic records of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the
SuperiorCourtofCalifornia,theUSDistrictCourt,andtheUSCourtofAppeals,
andtheSupremeCourtitself.[ lviii] ThepaperswereneverreviewedbytheUS
SupremeCourt.Instead,theywerereturnedbymailbySupremeCourtCounsel
DannyBickell,inapparentviolationofbothUSandinternationallaw,withno
reviewatall.WhiletheonlinedocketsoftheUSSupremeCourtindicatedthatthe
casesofRichardFinewerereviewedanddenied,attemptstoinspectthepaper
recordsoftheUSSupremeCourtfailedtodiscovervalidpaperjudicialrecordsto
supportthenotationsintheonlinedockets.

20.3.4.3NetsphereIncetalv.JeffBaronetalenslavementbythecourt
Jeff Baron was a wealthy Texas hitech entrepreneur DomainName Web
Pioneer. Hehasbeentrapped,effectivelyenslavedbytheUScourtsforyears
underanunlawful,unheardofExParteReceiveroverthePersonandProperty
ofJeffBaron.[lix]
ReviewoftherecordsinNetsphereIncetalv.JeffBaronetal(3:09cv00988)
in the US District Court, Northern District of Texas, originated in a contract
dispute.shows:[lx]
Invalidsummonseswithnosealofthecourt(Figure15);[lxi]
NoAssignmentOrderforJudgeRoyalFerguson;[lxii]
20161002

31

TheOrderAppointingAttorneyPeterVogelReceiveroverPersonand
Property,resultingfromand exparte emergencymotion,[lxiii]failsto
state any section of the US code as the legal foundation for the
appointment;
Numerous Motions, Minutes, Orders, and Clerks Notices of
Delivery are notedentered inthedocket withnodocket numbers,
and/orwithnohyperlinkstoanyelectronicrecords(Figure16),and
SearchoftheCalendaroftheCourtforJanuary1,1970toMarch11,
2012,showsNoScheduleFound.

Figure15.NetsphereIncetalv.Baronetal(3:09cv00988)intheUSDistrictCourt,Northern
DistrictofTexas:Invalidsummons,missingtheSealoftheCourt.

Figure16.NetsphereIncetalv.Baronetal(3:09cv00988)intheUSDistrictCourt,Northern
District of Texas: False docket notes with no docket numbers and/or with no hyperlinks to
records.

20161002

32

NumerousfilingswiththeUSCourtofAppeals,5thCircuit,didnotprovideany
remedy.[lxiv]PapersfiledintheUSCourtofAppealsbytheDefendantquotethe
fromofficialtranscriptsofJudgeRoyalFerguson:[lxv]
THECOURT:YourealizethatorderisanorderoftheCourt.Soany
failure to comply with that order is contempt, punishable by lots of
dollars,punishablebypossiblejail,death.
THE COURT: They do and I have jurisdiction, too. So I'll tell you
what....Youwanttochallengethecourtorder,Ihavethemarshalsbehind
me.Icancometoyourhouse,pickyouup,putyouinjail.Icanseize
yourproperty,doanythingIneedtodotoenforcemyorders.I'mtelling
youdon'tscrewwithme.Youareafool,afool,afool,afooltoscrew
withafederaljudge,andifyoudon'tunderstandthat,Icanmakeyou
understandit.IhavetheforceoftheNavy,Army,MarinesandNavy
behindme.

20.3.4.6SecuritiesandExchangeCommissionvBankofAmerica
Corporationbankingregulation [lxvi,lxvii]
ThefinancialcrisisistightlyrelatedtoconducttheUScourtsandtheUSlaw
enforcement system. [lxviii] For example, collapse of Countrywide Financial
CorporationinJanuary2008,oneoftheopeningshotsofthecrisiswascausedby
a New York Times publication regarding Reconstructed Letters, filed by
CountrywideintheUSBankruptcyCourtinthecaseofBorrowerDianneHill.
[lxix]
FBIDirectorRobertMuellerIIIrepeatedlytestifiedbeforetheSenatethatFBI
regardingFBIinvestigations,whichapparentlyfoundnocriminalitybythebanks.
[lxx]ReportoftheSenateSubcommitteeonInvestigationsonthefinancialcrisis,
ontheotherhand,documentedvastcriminalitybyfinancialinstitutions.[ lxxi]
The failure to hold bankers accountable, regardless of evidence of massive
fraud,wasrepeatedlynotedbymediaandexperts,andwasjustifiedin2013by
USAttorneyGeneralEricHolderunderapolicythatcametobeknownastoo
bigtofail,toobigtojail.[lxxii]
The litigation of Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America
Corporation (andothercaseaswell)documentsthattheUScourtsthemselves
underminedtheabilitytoholdthebankersaccountableandtoenforcebanking
regulationintheUStoday.

20161002

33

Figure17SECvBankofAmericaCorporation(1:09cv06829)intheUSDistrictCourt,South
ernDistrictofNewYork:SummonsasissuedbytheClerkoftheCourtandasexecuted. The
summonsisunsigned,andfailstoshowthesealofthecourt.Thesummonswasalsoneverdock
eted,indisregardofUSlaw.ItwaseventuallyobtainedthroughaFreedomofInformationre
questfromSEC.

The background conduct, which underlies SEC v Bank of America Corporation

(1:09-cv-06829), and the related case of SEC v Bank of America Corporation
(1:10-cv 00215) in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, was the
unlawful taking by banking executives of $5.8 billions prior to the merger of Bank
of America and Merrill Lynch, which they failed to duly disclose to shareholders.
Independent investigation of events surrounding the Bank of America-Merrill
Lynch merger by State of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was
summed up in his April 23, 2009 letter to the US Congress. Analysts described it
clear evidence of criminality by senior Bank of America executives in collusion
with senior US officers, including Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben
Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. [lxxiii]
NoneofthebankingexecutiveswerenamedDefendantsinthecase.Instead,
thecorporationitselfwasnamedDefendanti.e.,theshareholders,whoinfact
werethevictimsoftheexecutivesconduct.Likewise,noneofthefundswere
ever returned to the shareholders, and at the end of the court actions, the
shareholderswereorderedtopayafineof$150millionstothemselves
JudgeJedRakoffoftheUSDistrictCourt,SouthernDistrictofNewYork,who
isconsideredanexpertoncorporategovernanceandwhitecollarcrime,presided
20161002

34

inthecase. However,reviewofthePACERrecordsinthiscasewouldleada
reasonablepersontoconcludethatJudgeJeddRakoff,SECandBankofAmerica
colludedinconductofsimulatedlitigationforappeasingthepublicandcreating
theinternationalappearanceofenforcingbankingregulationintheUnitedStates:
Nosummonswasdocketed, nowhereinthedocketofthecaseisthere
any indication that service of the summons was in fact executed,
alternatively,thatservicewaswaived,andtheUSDistrictCourtdenied
accesstoinspectthesummons.Acopyofthesummonswaseventually
obtainedthroughFreedomofInformationfromSEC,anditwaspatently
invalid.(Figure17).
Atotalof19proceedingswerelistedinthePACERdocket.Fortwoof
theproceedings,nodocketentrywascreated(seebelow). Thesetwo
proceedingsshouldbedeemedofftherecord. Fortheremaining17
proceedingsinvaliddocketentrieswerecreatednominutesrecordsat
all were linked to the docket listings, no Docket Numbers were
designated,andnoinformationregardingcontentoftheproceedingswas
providedinthedocketingtext. Moreover,basedonthedesignofthe
NEFs (see below), it is impossible that such docket entries were
authenticated,andtherefore,wereeffectivelyinvaliddocketentries,with
nocorrespondingvalidcourtrecords(Figure18).

Figure 18. SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09cv06829) in the US District Court,
SouthernDistrictofNewYork:TwoentriesfromtheonlinePACERdocket.TheJanuary12,
2010entryincludesaDocketNumberandalinktoanactualrecord.TheJanuary19,2010entry
hasnoDocketNumberdesignated,andnolinktoanyrecord.Therefore,nocourtrecordexists
forthelatterentry.Moreover,giventhedesignoftheNEFs(NoticesofElectronicFiling),even
hadtherespectiverecordexistedsomewhere,itcouldntpossiblyhavebeenauthenticated,and
therefore,wouldhavebeenaninvalidcourtrecord.Therefore,themultipleentriesinthedocket
ofthiscase,wherenodocketnumbersandnolinksareprovided,shouldbedeemedfalseandde
liberatelymisleadingdocketnotations.

Ofsuch17minuteswithnorecords,16wereenteredbyanindividual
identifiedasmro. Thefullnameandauthorityofthepersonremain
unknown.Incontrast,outofatotalof24docketlistingsofordersand
thejudgment,wheredocketnumberwasdesignated,wherearecordwas
linked,andwhereinformativedocketingtextwasprovided,notasingle
item wasentered bymro. The Docketing Department oftheCourt
confirmed that docketing in the case was not performed by Deputy

20161002

35

Clerks,butrefused todisclosethenamesoftheindividualsinvolved.
[lxxiv]
The August 3, 2009 Motion for entry of Settlement Agreement ($33
millions),whichwaswidelyreportedbymedia,whichisreferredtoin
several docket records, and which was rejected in the September 24,
2009,Orderisentirelymissing.
The February 22, 2010, Final Consent Judgment (Dkt #97) the Office
of the Clerk, SEC, and the Fair Fund Administrator denied access to
inspect the respective NEF, although NEF of another order was provided.
The case was extensively covered by both US and international media.
Regarding Judge Jed Rakoffs conduct in this case, the Wall Street Journal Law
Blog said:
Rakoffs currently proving himself to be, if nothing else, unafraid to
single-handedly take on some heavyweight institutions and their lawyers.
The Washington Post quoted official statement by SEC, suggesting that the case
showed vigorous enforcement actions:
[W]e will vigorously pursue our charges against Bank of America and
take steps to prove our case in court," the SEC said in a statement. "We
will use the additional discovery available in the litigation to further
pursue the facts and determine whether to seek the court's permission to
bring additional charges in this case.
TheNewYorkTimesreportedthenewsregardingtheFinalConsentJudgment
inthiscaseasfollows:
In a ruling that freed Bank of America from some legal problems, a
federaljudgewroteonMondaythathehadreluctantlyapproveda$150
millionsettlementwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommissionThis
court,whileshakingitshead,grantstheS.E.C.smotionandapprovesthe
proposedconsentjudgment,thejudgewrote.
The New York Times reported on the case at least ten (10) times, the
Washington Post - eight (8), the Wall Street Journal dozens of times, the Times
of London - fourteen (14) times. It is difficult to believe that experienced legal
correspondents of major media outlets never noticed the fatal flaws in the records
and conduct of the litigation.

20.3.4.8NMLCapitalvRepublicofArgentinainternationalreach
NMLCapitalvRepublicofArgentina (1:08cv06978)intheUSDistrictCourt,
Southern District of New York, originated in attempts by the Republic of
Argentinatorestructureitssovereigndebt.[ lxxv]AnewdefaultofArgentinawas
poised to cause unemployment, hardship, and even hunger for millions in
Argentina.ThejurisdictionoftheUSCourtinsuchmatterwasnotatallclear,
andArgentinareferredtotheUSjudgeinthiscaseas"imperialist".Attemptto
20161002

36

litigatethecaseintheInternationalCourtofJusticewasblockedbytheUnited
States.
Andyet,eveninacaseofsuchproportionsandsuchimplications,thereisno
waytoascertainthatvalidlitigationwasconductedbytheUSDistrictCourt:
Nosummonswasdocketed,eitherasissuedbytheclerk,orasserved.
The Complaint was docketed with noCivil Cover Sheet, required by
CivilLitigationManualoftheFederal JudicialCouncilforopeninga
courtfilebytheClerkoftheCourt.
TheNoticeofAssignmenttoJudgeThomasGriesa(#005)bearsnovalid
signatureoftheClerkoftheCourt.
Orders and Judgment, issued by Judge Griesa (Dkt #240, 464, 517, 533)
bear no Seal of the Court or attestation by the Clerk of the Court.
Motion and Order on Motion by "Non-party" Citigroup have no
foundation in US law. No Motion to Intervene or Request for Leave to
File were filed by Citigroup.
In his book "Globalization and Its Discontent", Nobel prize winner Joseph
Stieglitz, a US citizen, raised the suspicion that the previous collapse of the
Argentinian economy, in the early 2000s, was the handiwork of Stanley Fischer
(today No 2 at the Federal Reserve), in his capacity as a senior officer of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), at the service of US agencies. [lxxvi]

20.4ECourtsinIsrael
EcourtsinIsraelareofparticularinterest,sincethetransitiontoelectronicfilead
ministrationinthedistrictandmagistratecourtswascompletedonlyin2010,and
itwaspossibletotraceingreaterdetailthestepsandtheindividuals,whowerein
volvedinvariousstagesoftheprocess..Suchreviewleadstotheconclusionthat
seniorjudgesandseniorministryofjusticeofficerswereinvolvedinacoordi
natedprocessoveranumberofyearstoundermineintegrityofthecourtsincon
junctionwiththetransitiontoelectronicadministrationofthecourts.
Suchstepsincluded:enactmentandimplementationoftheElectronicSignature
Act (2001); inexplicable changes inIT system and Office ofthe Clerk of the
SupremeCourt(2002);promulgationofnewRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeof
theClerk (2004),anddevelopmentandimplementationofNetHaMishpatcase
managementsystem(developmentstarted~2000, implementationcompletedin
2010).

20161002

37

Figure19. NetHaMishpatcomputerized,secureconnectiontothecourts:Casemanage
ment,efiling,andpublicaccesssystemoftheIsraelidistrictandmagistratecourts.

20.4.1ImplementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct(2001)
Today,allIsraelidistrictandmagistratecourtsareadministeredthroughelectronic
filesandrecords.Regardless,novisibleelectronicsignaturecanbefoundonany
courtrecord.ThenotionofinvisiblesignaturestheEmperor'sNewClothes
defiescommonsenseandtheessenceofasignatureasymbolaffixedwiththe
intenttoacceptresponsibility.
SuchinvalidimplementationoftheElectronicSignatureAct(2001)extendsfar
beyondthecourts(Figure20).

Figure20.AnnualReport(20067)byAttorneyYoramHacohen,MagistrateofCertifyingAu
thoritiespursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct(2001):Unsignedsignatureboxofthereport,
submittedtotheKnessetandtheMinisterofJustice,aspublishedonlinebytheMinistryofJus
tice.Thesignatureboxsays:Truly,YoramHacohen,Advocate,MagistrateofDatabases,Jus
ticeTechnologyandInformationAuthority(Originallysignedbyasecureelectronicsignature)
[redintheoriginalJZ].TheMinistryofJusticedeniedaFreedomofInformationrequestfora
copyofthesamerecord,includingavisibleelectronicsignature,claimingthattheelectronicsig
natureofagovernmentofficerisaprivateinstrument.

TheMagistrateofCertifyingAuthorities,pursuanttotheElectronicSignatureAct
(2001), is a senior justice system officer at the rank of district judge, who is
chargedwithimplementationoftheElectronicSignatureActandsafeguardingthe
integrityoftheStateelectronicsignaturessystem.Bylaw,hesubmitsanannual
report totheKnessetandtheMinisterofJustice. However,evensuchreport,
20161002

38

submittedtotheKnessetandtheMinisterofJustice,bearsaninvisibleelectronic
signature(Figure20).
ThecurrentstateofaffairsintheIsraelicourts,followingsuchimplementation
of the Electronic Signature Act (2001) in NetHaMishpat, is documented the
JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocols(Figure2).ThetheMay31,2012
OmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDecisioninthiscaseprovidesdetaileddiscussionof
the technical mode of operation of NetHaMishpat, execution of electronic
signatures,andcertificationofcourtrecordsafulldecadeafterenactmentofthe
ElectronicSignatureAct:
(a) The visible graphic signatures on electronic records in Net
HaMishpat are of no validity and effect at all merely a form of
misleadingdecoration.
(b) Electronic decision records in NetHaMishpat, which are not
electronicallysigned,areinvalid,lackforceandeffectmerelydrafts.
(c)InNetHaMishpat,thereisnowayforparties,counsel,orthepublic
atlarge todistinguishbetween avalid,effectual, electronically signed
recordandaninvalid,electronicallyunsignedrecord(draft).
(d) Judges routinely issue invalid, electronically unsigned records
(drafts) in NetHaMishpat, while misrepresenting them to parties,
counselandthepublicatlargeasvalidandeffectualcourtrecords
(e)Unauthorized,untrainedstaffofthecourts,whoarenotfamiliarwith
the significance of electronic signatures, and do not know how to
ascertain that decision records were electronically signed, routinely,
falsely certify unsigned, invalid electronic records in NetHaMishpat,
TrueCopyoftheOriginal.
TheOmbudsmanDecisionandtheJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocols
scandalprovidefurtherevidencethatthecurrentstateofaffairsisnottheoutcome
ofhumanerror, butdeliberateactionsbythejudiciarytorender court records
vague and ambiguous, if not deliberately fraudulent. For example, the
OmbudsmannotesthatinitiallycourtrecordsinNetHaMishpat,whichwerenot
electronicallysigned,werewatermarkeddrafts,orunsigned(Figures3,21).
However,theOmbudsmannotesthatjudgesofsomecourts(notablytheTel
Aviv District Court) demanded the removal of such watermarks, since they
interferedwithworkflow.
Combined,thecaseofJudgesVardaAlshech2011(Figure2),Esperanza
Alon2013(Figure21),andMenahemHacohen2016(Figure3)demonstrate
thefutilityoftheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciary.Regardlessofamajorscandaland
theOmbudsmanDecision,JudgeEsperanzaAlonandJudgeMenahemHacohen
didnothesitatetoengageintheexactsameconductasJudgeVardaAlshechin
followingyears.
Thecircumstances,whichwereestablished,infactpermitjudgestoengagein
patentlycriminalconductonthebenchwithimpunity.JudgeAlshechwasnotheld

20161002

39

accountable.CriminalcomplaintagainstJudgeEsperanzaAlonwasreceivedby
theAttorneyGeneral,[lxxvii]butisunlikelytoleadtoanyenforcementofthelaw.

Figure21. Inre:ConservateeRS (18290610)intheHaifaMagistrateCourt:April4,2013

sham/simulatedProtocolrecordoneofaseriesofsham/simulatedcourtrecords,whichwere
generatedbyJudgeEsperanzaAlonoveraperiodofseveralmonthsinthiscase,relatedtoreal
estatetransactions.Theprotocolrecordpervertedeventhenameofpersons,whowerepresentin
thehearingandtheirpartydesignations,butJudgeEsperanzaAlonrefusedtocorrecttherecord.
Therecordalsodocumentstheconductofasham/simulatedcourthearing("informal,offthe
record"asIsraelijudgesliketocallit)withoutpriornoticetotheparties.Therecordispatently
invalid,sinceitbearsthewatermark"NotSignedYet".TheOmbudsmanoftheJudiciaryDeci
sioninJudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandaldeterminesthatsuchrecordsarein
valid,merelydrafts,whichmustnotbeprinted,mustnotbeserved,mustnotbecertified.The
recordwasunlawfullycertifiedby"theJudge'ssecretary".

20161002

40

20.4.2InexplicablechangesintheSupremeCourtsITsystems
andOfficeoftheClerk(March2002)
The Supreme Court continues to maintain paper court files and paper court
recordsasitsauthoritative,bindingrecords. However,theSupremeCourtalso
maintainsanonlinepublicaccess,displayingunsigned,unauthenticatedrenditions
ofitsrecords,whicharemistakenlyheldbyattorneysandthepublicatlargeas
validcourtrecords.
WiththeuntimelydeathofSupremeCourtChiefClerkShmaryahuCohenin
March2002,profound,inexplicable changestookplace intheIsraeli Supreme
Court:PriortoMarch2002,allrecords,whichwerepublishedintheITsystem,
showedthecertification,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,ShmaryahuCohenClerk
of the Court, with reference to an electronic file (probably secured under
authorityoftheClerkoftheCourt).AfterMarch2002,thecertificationandany
referencetotheClerkoftheCourtwereremoved.Worseyetadisclaimerwas
addedVersionsubjecttoeditingandphrasingchanges(Figure22).

Figure22.ChangesintheelectronicrecordsoftheIsraeliSupremeCourtinMarch2002.Left:
Untilearly2002,allelectronicdecisionsoftheSupremeCourtcarriedthecertification,True
CopyoftheOriginal,bythelateChiefClerkShmaryahuCohen.Right:SinceMarch2002,the
certificationstatementandanyotherreferencetoachiefclerkwereomitted. Onthecontrary,
thedisclaimersubjecttoeditingandphrasingchangeswasadded.TheSupremeCourtandad
ministrationofCourtsrefusetoanswer:Underwhoseauthoritywerethechangesimplemented?
Whatwastheirlegalfoundation?

PresidingJusticeMiriamNaorandherpredecessorPresidingJusticeAsherGrunis
refusedtoansweroninquiries,andtheAdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoanswer
onFreedomofInformationrequests:
Underwhoseauthorityweresuchchangesimplemented?
Whatwasthelegalfoundationforsuchchanges?
Regardless,onecanassumethatsuchchangeswereintroducedbyconsent,if
notbytheinitiativeofthenPresidingJusticeAharonBarakfatheroftheIsraeli
ConstitutionalRevolution(seebelow).Suchchangeseffectivelyinvalidateall
SupremeCourtrecordssinceMarch2002,andtransformedthemintosimulated
courtrecords,ordraftsastheyareconsideredbyIsraelijudges.
Conditions, now prevailing in the Israeli Supreme Court have again been
recentlydemonstratedinthecaseofEvenIsraelLTSvShulmanetal(1554/16)
civilappealintheSupremeCourt(Figure23).Inthiscase,theSupremeCourt
20161002

41

initially issued on April 10, 2016 Judgment in favor of one party, then
inexplicablyreverseditwithitsJune5,2016Judgment. Oncetheincidentwas
widelypublishedbymedia,theSupremeCourtissuedtheJune8,2016Decision,
statingthattheoriginaldecisionwasmerelyadraft.
Thecasewasreportedbymediaasfollows:[lxxviii]
Ajudgmententeredinerror:Wheredidtherecordsdisappearfromthe
SupremeCourtfile?
In parallel with the inexplicable reversal of judgments, the original, paper
recordoftheApril10,2016Judgmentdisappearedfromboththeonlinedocketof
theSupremeCourtandthepapercourtfile.However,theissuanceoftheoriginal
April10,2016JudgmentanditsservicearestilldocumentedundertheEvents
tabinITsystemoftheSupremeCourt(Figure23a).

a)

b)

20161002

42

c)
Figure 23. Even-Israel LTD v Shulman et al (1554/16) civil appeal in the Israeli Supreme Court: a.
Events tab - still shows the April 30, 2016 assignment of the case to a Justice (singular), the April
10, 2016, release of the original Judgment and its April 11, 2016 mailing to the parties. b. The Decisions Docket (June 25, 2016 printout) fails to show any longer the April 10, 2016 Judgment. c. The
June 08, 2016 Decision, issued following media reports of the scandal, says: It was an error, a draft
that was prematurely sent. The Judgment is the one, which was rendered by the 3-justice panel on June
05, 2016... The June 08, 2016 record shows the footnote disclaimer: Version subject to editing and
phrasing changes (like all Israeli Supreme Court records since March 2002).

20.3.2.2EliminatinglawfullyappointedChiefClerk,andrefusaltoprovide
validcertification
EventsofMarch2002intheSupremeCourttookplaceinconjunctionwiththe
unexpected death inside the Supreme Court building of then Chief Clerk
ShmaryahuCohen.
FreedomofInformationresponsesbytheAdministrationofCourtsdocumented
20161002

43

thatMsSarahLifschitz,whoappearedasChiefClerkfrom20022013,andMs
Idit Melul, who appears as Chief Clerk today, hold no lawful, valid
appointment.
PursuanttoDomesticLaw,theChiefClerkistheoneauthorizedtocertifycourt
records True Copy of the Original, and the Magistrate of the Court is also
authorizedtoperformallthedutiesoftheChiefClerk.
Asdocumentedbelow(Figures24,25),ithasbecomeimpossibletoobtain
valid certification of Supreme Court decision records, True Copy of the
Original.Instead,onlyperversionsand/orforgeriesareprovided(e.g.Copying
isTruetotheOriginal)byunauthorizedpersons.

Figure24.MacmullvBankofIsraelandStateofIsrael(3518/08)intheIsraeliSupremeCourt
BankingRegulation:June01,2008Judgmentperversionand/orforgeryofcertificationof
SupremeCourtdecisionrecord.ThepetitionoriginatedinfraudbyabankonDebtorMacmull
intheJerusalemDebtors'CourtandrefusalofBankofIsraeltoperformitsdutiesasthebanking
regulator.Thepetitionwassummarilydenied.Thesignaturesofthejusticesareallinwetink,
intheform(),andinthesamehandwritingasthesignatureofSarahLifschitz,whofalsely
appearedasChiefClerkwithnolawfulappointment.Thecertifyingstatementisinvalid
CopyingisTruetotheOriginalinsteadofTrueCopyoftheOriginal.Thefootnoteshows
the disclaimer: Subject to editing and phrasing changes (like all Supreme Court decision
recordssinceMarch2002).

a)
20161002

44

b)

c)

d)

20161002

45
Figure25:Falsification/forgeryofIsraeliSupremeCourtcertifications:a),b)ZadorovvStateof
Israel (7939/10)CriminalAppealintheSupremeCourtApril27,2016Decisionrecords,
whichwerereceivedinresponseonrepeatrequestsforasignedandcertifiedcopy.Thefirst
recordisnotsignedbythejudicialauthorities.Inbothcopies,thecertificationlanguageisin
validandnottheoneprescribedbylaw(CopyingisTruetotheOriginal,insteadofTrue
CopyoftheOriginal).ThecertificationsaresignedbyanunauthorizedpersonMrDanny
Levy,SeniorCoordinator,CriminalDivision. c),d) ZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael
(4650/16)AppealofSupremeCourtMagistratedecision,denyingaccesstoinspectoriginalpa
perdecisionrecordsinthemurdertrialofRomanZadorovunderthereasoningofa"jumble"in
thepapercourtfile:Falsification/forgeryofcertificationson"Decision"and"Judgment"byJus
ticeSalimJoubran.TherecordsarenotsignedbytheJustice,andthefalsifiedcertificationsare
signedbyMrDannyLevy(here:Coordinator,IntakeDivision)"onbehalf"ofanunnamed
"ChiefClerk".MsIditMelulappearsas"ChiefClerk"oftheSupremeCourtwithnoappoint
mentrecord.IsraelilawauthorizesonlytheChiefClerkorMagistrateoftheCourttocertify
courtrecords.Bothrefusetodoso.[ lxxix]Thefootnotesonallrecordsshowthedisclaimer:Sub
ject to editing and phrasing changes (like all Supreme Court decision records since March
2002).

AspartofthechangesintheOfficeoftheClerkoftheSupremeCourt:
(a)NoNoticetoAppearinCourtrecordsaremaintainedintheSupreme
Courtpapercourtfilesanylonger.AccordingtothestaffoftheOfficeof
theClerktheNoticetoAppearinCourtisaselfeliminatingelectronic
record, which is temporarily maintained in the Supreme Court IT
system,butdisappearsfromthesystemafterthehearingdate.
(b)NoprotocolsaremaintainedintheSupremeCourtpapercourtfiles
the protocols are maintained as unsigned workprocessing files in the
SupremeCourtITsystem.
Conditions,nowprevailingintheIsraeliSupremeCourtandtheirimplications
relativetoconditionsofthejusticesystemingeneralweredocumentedin Moti
Ashkenazi+76othersvDirectoroftheEnforcementandCollectionAuthorityand
Minister of Justice (2300/11): Warhero Ashkenazi and others petitioned the
SupremeCourtforprotection oftheirDueProcessrightsagainst abuse inthe
Debtors'Courts,relatedtotheimplementationandoperationofDebtorsCourts
ITsystem.[lxxx]FraudincollectionproceduresoftheDebtor'sCourthasbeen
repeatedlydocumented,includingarecentStateOmbudsmanreport.Debtorsare
routinelychargedunlawfulusuryinterestrates,debtors'paymentsarenotproperly
creditedtotheiraccounts,andattimeentirelyfictitiousdebtsarecollected.
However,Ashkenazispetitionwaslimitedtooneissue:Arbitrarilytermination
bytheDebtors'Courtsofdueserviceofitsdecisions,longerthan17line,onthe
debtors. At thesame time, attorneysfor thedebtholderscontinued toreceive
electronicnoticeandserviceuninterrupted(almost100%ofthedebtorsareinpro
se,whilealmost100%ofthedebtholdersarerepresentedbycounsel).
A3justicepanel,headedbySupremeCourtPresidingJusticeAsherGrunis,
conductedforabout4yearspreliminaryproceedingswithnofoundationinthe
law. TwojudgmentswerelistedintheDecisionsDocketofsuchpreliminary
proceedings.ThefirstJudgmentissaidbythePetitioners'Counselnottobea
20161002

46

Judgment.ThesecondJudgment,issuedonJune03,2014,orderedtheerasing
ofthepetition.
DuringtheyearsofthePetition,StateCounselclaimedfirst,thatthefailureto
servethedebtorswastheresultofcomputerproblems.Later,heclaimedthatit
resultedfromshortageincorrectsizeenvelopesupply.Finally,heclaimedthata
new IT system was under development, and therefore, the problem would be
resolved.
Severalhearingswerepurportedlyheldinthiscase,andtheSupremeCourtIT
systemliststheissuingandmailingofNoticestoAppearinCourt. However,
inspection of the Supreme Court paper court file (original records) failed to
discover either any Notice to Appear, or any valid, signed protocol
(transcript/minutes)orotherrecordofthehearings(Figure26).

a)

b)

20161002

47
Figure 26. Moti Ashkenzai+76 others v Director of the Enforcement and Collection Authority and
Minister of Justice (2300/11) Petition for a Conditional Decree in the Supreme Court - hearing
records: a) Notice to Appear in Court for a September 10, 2012 Hearing as received by fax by Counsel for the Petitioners. The record is registered issued under the Events tab in the Supreme Court
IT system. However, now records of Notices to Appear in Court are missing from this and other
Supreme Court paper court files. According to staff of the Office of the Clerk, these are self-eliminating electronic records, which are maintained in the Supreme Court IT system, but disappear after the
hearing date. The record is missing a valid signature. It shows a graphic signature of Sarah Lifschitz. Under the signature line only signature is written, with no name or position title. Sarah Lifschitz falsely appeared as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court from 2002 to 2013 with no lawful appointment. b) Final page of the purported July 21, 2011 Hearing Protocol - the record is an unsigned
word-processing file, maintained in the Supreme Court IT system. There are no protocol records in the
paper court file.

ComprehensivedataminingofITsystemoftheIsraeliSupremeCourtalsoshows
thatfollowingtheMarch2002event,numerouselectronicdecisionrecordswere
retroactivelyfalsified. Itappearsthataswasdocumentedintherecentcaseof
EvenIsrael v Shulman (1554/16), in parallel to falsification of the electronic
records,theoriginalpapercourtrecordsinthepapercourtfileweredestroyed,in
disregardofthelaw,pertainingtoshreddingofcourtfiles:
a) The landmarkcase of AmosBaranesv State of Israel (3032/99)
RequestforaaNewTrialintheSupremeCourtoriginatedinthelong
termfalseimprisonmentofAmosBaranesafterbeingframedbypolice
and falsely prosecuted for murder. Review of the electronic records
indicated that a series of electronic decision records were falsified.
Accesstoinspectthepapercourtfilewaseventuallymaterialized.The
originalpaperrecords,correspondingtothesuspectelectronicdecision
recordsweremissingfromthepapercourtfile. Noticewasfiledwith
PresidingJusticeMiriamNaor,withrepeatrequeststodeletefromthe
SupremeCourtsITsystemthefalsifiedelectronicdecisionrecords,for
whichtherewerenooriginalpaperdecisionrecords.PresidingJustice
NaorhasnotruledontheRequesttothisdate.[lxxxi]
b) The case of Judith FrancoSidi et al v Authority pursuant to
Handicapped by Nazi Persecution Act (1582/02) Civil Appeal in the
SupremeCourtoriginatedfromdenialofreparationpaymentsbythe
IsraeligovernmenttoHolocaustsurvivorsfromfundsestablishedbythe
Germangovernment.ItisoneofmanySupremeCourtfiles,whichshow
patentfalsificationoftheelectronicrecords(Figure 27). Inthiscase,
the Supreme Court denied access to inspect the paper court records
through various patent violations of Due Process. Eventually, the
SupremeCourtMagistrateclaimedthatthecourtfilewasshredded,but
refusedtoprovidethedocumentationofcourtfileshredding,prescribed
intheRegulationsoftheStateArchives.

20161002

48

Figure27.JudithFrancoSidietalvAuthoritypursuanttothePersonsDisabledbyNaziPerse
cutionsAct(1582/02)CivilAppealintheIsraeliSupremeCourtfalsificationofSupreme
Courtelectronicdecisionrecords:ThesignatureandcertificationboxofSupremeCourtdecision
inpartsay:Issuedthisdate,February14,2007.BoazOkon,Magistrate.Thisduplicateissub
jecttoeditingandphrasingchanges. ShmaryahuCohenChiefClerk. ByFebruary2007,
BoazOkonwasnolongerMagistrateoftheSupremeCourtforsome5years,andShmaryahu
Cohenwasdeadfortheaboutfiveyears.Numerousothersimilarrecordsofthesamenature
werediscovered.TheSupremeCourtdeniedaccesstoinspectthepapercourtfileinthiscase,
claimingthatthepapercourtfilewasshredded.However,regardlessofrepeatrequests,the
SupremeCourtrefusedtoprovidethedocumentationthatisrequiredbythe Regulationsofthe
Archive(1968)forshreddingofcourtfiles.

20.4.3NewRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(2004)
Thechangesincourtprocedures,relatedtoimplementationofthenewITsystems
oftheIsraelicourtshavenotbelegislatedorpromulgated.Worseyet,inconjunc
tionwiththetransitiontoelectroniccourtfileadministrationanddevelopmentof
NetHaMishpat, the old Regulations of the CourtsRegistration Office (1936)
fromtheBritishruleperiodwerevoided,andnewRegulationsoftheCourtsOf
ficeoftheClerk (2004)werepromulgatedunderthetenureofPresidingJustice
AharonBarakandtheshorttenureofJusticeMinisterTommyLapid,hiscloseas
sociate.[lxxxii]
The1936Regulationsarenotedfortheirdetailedspecificationoftheoperations
oftheOfficeoftheClerk:
Article4:SpecifiedthedutiesandobligationsoftheChiefClerksupe
riormaintenanceofthefilesandregistrationsofthecourt;
Article5:RequiredthemaintenanceofBooksofCourtincivilcases,in
cludinganIndexofAllCases,andtheregistrationofdateofentryof
judgmentandabstractofjudgmentforeachcase;
Article7:Specifiedtheexactmannerofmaintenanceofacivilcourtfile,
includingtherequirementtomaintainsummonsesandcertificatesofser
vice;

20161002

49

Article8:Requiredsimilarmaintenanceofcriminalcourtfilesandcrimi
naljudgmentsregistration;
Article 12: Required the maintenance of a separate Judgment Book,
wheresignedandcertifiedcopiesofalljudgmentsareglued;
Article16:Requiredtheinscriptionoftheclerk'sinitials,whoentered
eachrecord,includingjudicialdecisionsandjudgmentrecords,onthe
faceoftherecord;
Article 17: Provided the authority of the Chief Clerk to certify court
records.
The2004Regulations,incontrast,arenotedfortheirbrevityandlackofdetails:
The duties andobligationsoftheChief Clerk, relative tointegrityof
courtfilesandcourtrecordsarenevermentionedatall;
Therequirement toenterregistrationofalljudgments,andmaintaina
JudgmentBook(orIndexofJudgments)isnevermentionedatall;
Thedutiesoftheclerkstoinscribetheirinitialsonanyrecordthatwas
entered,includingdecisionandjudgmentrecordsisnevermentioned;In
fact,therequirementtomaintaindocketswasabolished.
TwoArticlesinthenew,2004Regulationsareofspecialsignificacne:
Article5:DelegatedtotheDirectoroftheAdministrationofCourtsthe
authoritytointroduceanynecessarychangesintheRegulationsinthe
processofimplementingITsystemsofthecourts. Article5shouldbe
deemedinviolationoftheprincipleofSeparationofPowers,sinceitdel
egatestothejudiciarythepromulgationofregulationsofthecourts.The
samearticleshouldalsobedeemedinviolationoftheprincipleofPublic
ityoftheLaw,sincetheAdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoansweron
Freedom of Information request, which asked for specification of the
necessarychanges,whichwereintroducedintheregulationsbytheDi
rectoroftheAdministrationofCourts.
Article6a:WaspromulgatedayearlaterandauthorizedtheChiefClerk
tocertifycourtrecords,TrueCopyoftheOriginal. However,asde
scribedabove(relativetotheSupremeCourt),todayitisimpossibleto
obtainvalid,lawfullyauthorizedcertificationofcourtrecordsintheIs
raelicourts.

20.4.4DevelopmentandimplementationofNetHaMishpatcase
managementandelectronicfilingsystemofthedistrictand
magistratecourts(completed2010)
TheStateOmbudsmanReport60b(2010)reviewedthedevelopmentandimple
mentationofthenewITsystemsofthecourtsduringthepreviousdecade,includ
ingNetHaMishpat.[lxxxiii]TheReportfoundthatdevelopmentandimplementa

20161002

50

tionofthesystemswasconductedindisregardofthelawandbindinggovernment
standards:
(a)Developmentcontrastsweresignedwithcorporationswithnolegal
tender;
(b)Developmentcontrastsweresignedwithnowrittenspecifications;
(c)DevelopmentwasconductedwithnocoremanagementbyaStateem
ployee;
(d)Systemswereimplementedwithnopriorindependent examination
andvalidationbyaStateemployee;
(e)Serversofthecourtswereremovedfromthecustodyoftheofficesof
theclerkstothecustodyofacorporation,and
(f)UnknownnumberofindividualswereissueddoubleSmartIDcards.
Itisclaimedthatsuchfindingsinthemselvesshouldraiseseriousconcernre
gardingintegrityofthesystemsandintegrityofthose,whowerebehindsuchcon
ductthemostseniorStatejudicialofficers.
Inaddition,intheaftermathofsuchchanges,itremainsunclear,whoholdsthe
ultimateadministrativeauthorityfortheserversofthevariouscourts,andwhois
chargedwiththeirsecurity.TheShinBet(GeneralSecurityService),ischarged
withsecurityofcriticalStateITsystems.Inresponsetoinquiry,itansweredthat
itwasnotchargedwithsecurityofITsystemsofthecourts.
TheAdministrationofCourtsrefusedtoansweronaFreedomofInformation
request:
WhoistodaychargedwithsecurityofITsystemsoftheIsraelicourts?
Whotodayholdstheultimateadministrativeauthorityforthesystemof
eachcourt?
NetHaMishpattransformedtheIsraelidistrictandmagistratecourtsintoelec
troniccourtfilesadministration.Someofthemostnotableinvalidfeaturesofthe
system,andaccordinglyoperationsofthecourtsare:
(a)InvisibleelectronicsignaturesTheEmperor'sNewClothes;
(b)NoaccountabilityoftheChiefClerkforintegrityoftherecords;
(c) No requirement to enter decisions and judgments and to maintain
validDecisionDocketsorJudgmentIndex;
(d)Novalidsummonsesareissuedorenteredincivilcases,indisregard
ofIsraelilawonlyunsignedsummonsesareissued,andalleffortsto
discoverifatalltheyaremaintainedinNetHaMishpathavesofarfailed
(Figure28);
(e)Decisionandjudgmentrecordsareroutinelyservedwithnovalidau
thentication,onlyunsignedaccompanyingletters,stating,Officeofthe
Clerk,underthesignatureline(Figure3).

20161002

51

Figure28.BenYaakovvRonlick(537470212)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourtSummonsin
NetHaMishpat:TheSummonsisunsignedandundated.Nonameofanindividual,whoissued
theSummonsappearsontherecord,only,OfficeoftheClerk.

RoutineinspectionofcourtrecordsinNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystemand
attempts to inspect court records in the Offices of the Clerks have produced
numerousexamplesofinvalidityand/orfraudincourtrecordsinthedistrictand
magistrate courts, where NetHaMishpat is implemented. Most notorious and
mostlikelytobepervertedarecasesthatoriginateinvarioustypesofcorruption
ofgovernmentauthorities.

20.4.5Casestudies
20.4.5.1StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)SeriousCrime(murder)in
theNazarethDistrictCourt
ThepurportedmurderconvictionandlifeimprisonmentofUkrainiancitizenRo
manZadorovinIsrael,leadingtohisongoingdetention,havestirredpublicopin
ionforadecade.Italsoledtounprecedentedexposureofcorruptionofthejustice
andlawenforcementsystem.[ lxxxiv]Thecaseisparticularlyinteresting,sincetrial
20161002

52

commencedpriortoimplementationofNetHaMishpatcasemanagementsystem
intheNazarethDistrictCourt,andendedafteritsimplementation.Therefore,the
caseprovidesuniqueinsightsintoFraudupontheCourtunderbothpaperand
electroniccourtfileadministration.ThecasewassubjectofcomplainttotheUN
HumanRightsCouncilWorkingGrouponArbitraryDetention.[ lxxxv]Thecom
plaintallegesthatRomanZadorovisheldunderarbitrarydetention,resultingfrom
FraudupontheCourt,sincethereisneithervalidVerdict,norvalidSentencing
record,andnoArrestDecree(whichisprescribedbyIsraelilawforadmittinga
convicttoprison)atall.
Thecaseprovokedunprecedentedstatementsbyexperts,pertainingtolackof
integrityofthejusticesystem:
Veteran seniorIsrael PoliceinvestigatorAlexPelegrepeatedly stated:
There is no evidence tying Zadorov to the crime scene, and the
murderreenactmentwasstaged.
SeniorCriminalLawprofessorBoazSangerowrote:Convictionwithno
realevidence.
Senior Law Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer wrote: Conduct of the
prosecutionisscary.ItisnotconductofProsecution,whichisseeking
thetruth...
RegardingretaliationcampaignbyChiefProsecutorShaiNitzanagainst
seniorForensicExpert,DrMayaForman,whotestifiedfortheDefense,
MinisterofHealthYael Germanwrote: ...lacks legal foundationand
carries overarching and dangerous implications... blatant violation of
HumanRights,thefundamentalsoflawandjustice...
LawProfessorYoavDotanwrote:DrFormanandMrNitzan.
FormerJusticeMinister,seniorLawProfessorDanielFriedmanstatedin
theKnesset'sConstitution,Law, andJusticeCommitteehearing: "The
AttorneyGeneralcannotgagtheentireStateandnotletanybodyvoice
anopinion".
On September 14, 2010, a panel of three judges, headed by Judge Yitzhak
Cohen,purportedlyconvictedZadorovofmurderandsentencedhimtolifein
prison.However,neitherVerdict,norvalidSentencingrecordappearsinthetrial
courtdocketinNetHaMishpat.TopIsraeliAttorneyAvigdorFeldman,Zadorovs
probonoCounsel,laterwrotethatregardlessofhisefforts,hecouldonlydiscover
remnantsofthejudgmentrecords,whichhaven'tbeenscatteredbythewailing
wind across the vast Jezreel valley... (which the Nazareth District Court
overlooks)(Figures29,30).
Two versions of the September 14, 2010 Verdict were discovered during
inspectionof:a)courtrecordsintheNetHaMishpatOfficeoftheClerkofthe
NazarethDistrictCourtandb)originalpapercourtrecordsintheappealpaper
courtfileoftheSupremeCourtOfficeoftheClerk(Figure29).Bothappearas
printoutsfromNetHaMishpat,bothappearinvalidontheirfaces.Moreover,they
aredifferentfromeachother.
20161002

53

a)

b)
Figure29.StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)SeriousCrimeintheNazarethDistrict
Court:Two(2)versionsoftheSeptember14,2010Verdictrecord: a)DuringtheJanuary2016
inspectionoftherecordsinNetHaMishpatOfficeoftheClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourt

20161002

54
aversionwasdiscovered,showingnegativeimagesoftwojudges'"graphicsignatures",but
missingthesignatureofthethirdJudgeHaimGalpaz.Sincetherecordfailstoappearinthe
Judgments Docket and also fails to appear in the Decisions Docket, it should be deemed a
draft. b) DuringinspectionoftheAppealpapercourtfileintheOfficeoftheClerkofthe
SupremeCourt,anotherversionwasdiscovered,whichwasfiledasanExhibitintheNoticeof
Appeal,wheresignedandcertifiedcopiesoflowercourtjudgmentarerequired.Itappearsasa
printoutfromNetHaMishpataswell,anditprobablydatesfromSeptemberOctober2010(be
tweenthedateoftheVerdicthearingandthedateoffilingoftheNoticeofAppeal).However,it
showsnographicsignaturesatall.Alsothetotalpagenumbersandthepagelayoutsofthetwo
versionsaredifferent.Suchdifferencesbetweenthetwoversions(eachinvalidonitsown)also
raise further concerns of alternations and/or adulterations of court records. Surely, the 2010
recordwasnotanelectronicallysignedrecord,ifitwaslateraltered.

Bothversionsofthe2010Verdictrecordarepatentlyinvalid.Moreover,thedif
ferencebetweenthesetworecords,bothofwhichappearasprintoutsfromNet
HaMishpatmustraiseconcernsofalternationsand/oradulterationsofthisrecord.
Surely,the2010recordwasnotanelectronicallysignedrecord.
Four versions of the September 14, 2016 Sentencing record have been
discoveredtothisdate,allofthemdefective,invalidrecords(Figure30).

a)

b)

20161002

55

c)

d)

Figure30.StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtfour(4)
versionsoftheSeptember14,2010Sentencingrecord:a)StaringinearlyJuly2016,thelinkin
theDecisionsDocketoftheNazarethDistrictCourtshowedonlya"GeneralError"message.
LaterinJuly2016,thelinkwasrestored.b)UntilJune2016,theDecisionsDocketlinkedtoa
defectiverecord,showing"graphicsignatures"ofonlytwojudges.ThesignatureofJudgeHaim
Galpazwasmissingfromtherecord.c)DuringinspectioninNetHaMishpatOfficeofthe

20161002

56
ClerkoftheNazarethDistrictCourtanotherversionwasdiscovered,showingnegativeimages
ofthetwojudges'"graphicsignatures",andagainmissingthesignatureofJudgeHaimGalpaz.
d.DuringinspectionoftheAppealpapercourtfileintheOfficeoftheClerkoftheSupreme
CourtaprintoutfromNevoPublishingLTDwasdiscovered,whichwasfiledasanExhibit
withtheNoticeofAppeal,insteadofanauthentic,signedandcertifiedcourtrecord.

TheSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencingwerereadinopencourt,ina
hearing,whichwaswidelycoveredbymedia.However,underconditions,today
prevailingintheIsraelicourts,suchreadingcannotbedeemedbinding.TheOm
budsmanoftheJudiciary2012AnnualReportdocumentscurrentcustomsinIs
raelicourtinthismatter:Judgesholdthattheyarepermittedtocontinueediting
andchangingdecisionsandjudgments,evenaftertheywerereadinopencourt
Forgenerations,CourtCalendarshavebeenrecognizedasfundamentalBooks
ofCourt,definingthelawfulconductofthecourt. CourtCalendarsareakey
instrument in preventing the conduct of sham/simulated court hearings. The
CalendardatainNetHaMishpat,pertainingtotheSeptember14,2010Verdict
andSentencinghearingispatentlyinvalidaswell(Figure31).

a)

20161002

57

b)

c)

d)

20161002

58
Figure31.StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtCalendar
data,pertainingtotheSeptember14,2010VerdictandSentencinghearing:a)CourtCalendar
providesonlycumulativenumbersofhearingsperjudgeandhearingtype,butnocasenumbers.
b)CaseCalendarlists9:009:30Verdicthearing,9:3010:00Sentencinghearing. c)
PersonalCalendar,JudgeYitzhakCohenlists9:00Verdicthearing,9:30Sentencing
hearingwiththerespectivecasecaptionandnumber. d. PersonalCalendarJudgeEsther
Hellmanlistsseven(7)differenthearingsofdifferentcasesbetween9:00and10:00am,allof
thementered,Conducted,includingZadorov'scase.PersonalCalendar,JudgeHaimGalpaz
failstoexistatall.

Forgenerations,JudgmentBookand/orJudgmentIndexhavebeenconsidereda
fundamentalBookofCourt,definingtheoutcomeofcourtactions.Suchwas
thecaseintheStateofIsraelaswell,until2004.Incontrast,theSeptember14,
2010VerdictandSentencingrecordswereneverenteredintheJudgmentDocket
inNetHaMishpateither(Figure32).

Figure32.StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtJudgments
DocketinNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystemfailstoshowentryofthe2010Verdictand
Sentencingrecords.The2014SupplementalJudgmentwasenteredintheJudgmentsDocketas
"InstructiontofileCertificateofCounselforDefendants".

Presiding Judge Avraham Avraham and Chief Clerk Oshrat Avichezer of the
NazarethDistrictCourtrefusetoansweroninquiries,andtheAdministrationof
CourtsrefusestoansweronFreedomofInformationRequests:
(a)Whoisauthorizedandwhoholdsthedutiestoenterjudgmentsunder
theJudgmentDocketinNetHaMishpatintheNazarethDistrictCourt?
(b)DoestheentryofacourtrecordintheJudgmentDocketasJudg
ment,Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisindeedadulymade,
validandeffectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?
(c)DoesthefailuretoenteracourtrecordintheJudgmentDocketas
Judgment, Verdict, or Sentencing indicate that it is not a duly
made,validandeffectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourtfile?

20161002

59

Furthermore,onSeptember14,2010,theNazarethDistrictCourtfailedtoduly
renderanArrestDecree,whichisrequiredforadmittingaconvicttoprison,
pursuanttoIsraelilaw.NosuchArrestDecree,pertainingtoRomanZadorov
appearsinNetHaMishpatpublicaccesssystem.Formonths,theNazareth
DistrictCourtunlawfullydeniedattemptstoinspecttheelectroniccourtfilein
effortstodiscovertheArrestDecree,orascertainwhetheritexistedatall.Finally,
PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamissuedtheJune2,2016anunsignedPostit
Decision(Figure33),whichwasneverdulyserved,whichwasnotenteredin
NetHaMishpatDecisionsDocket,andwhichtheCourtrefusestocertify.
TheJune2,2016JudgeAvrahamPostitDecisionsays:
Onitsface,suchrequestappearstobecantankerousanduseless.There
fore,Ifindnoroomtograntit,anditisdenied.

Figure33. StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov (502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtJune2,

2016PresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamunsignedPostitDecisiononRequest#127forren
deringadecision,regardingaccesstoinspectadulymadeArrestDecree,pertainingtoRoman
Zadorov.Therecordsays:Onitsface,suchrequestappearstobecantankerousanduseless.
Therefore,Ifindnoroomtograntit,anditisdenied.TheCourtrefusedtoprovideasigned
andcertifiedcopyofthisPostitDecision,whichalsofailstoappearintheDecisionsDocket.

Theonlydefinitivewaytoestablishthevalidity,orlackthereof,oftheSeptember
14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecordsisbyascertaining,whethertheywere
electronicallysigned.Therefore,repeatrequestswerefiledformonths,askingto
inspecttheelectronicsignaturedataontheserecord.
Ononeoftheserequests,JudgeAvrahamissuedtheMarch02,2016Postit
Decision,whichthreatenstheRequesterwithimpositionofmonetarypenalties,if
hedoesnotceasesuchattempts(Figure34).ThePostitDecisionwasnever
dulyserved, failstoappear intheDecisionsDocket,andtheCourtrefuses to
provideadulysignedandcertifiedcopyofit.

20161002

60

Figure34: StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov (502/07)intheNazarethDistrictCourtSerious

CrimePresidingJudgeAvrahamAvrahamFebruary3,2016PostitDecisiononRequest
#123partofaseriesofrequests,attemptingtoexercisetherighttoinspecttheelectronicsig
naturedata(iftheyexist)ofthejudgmentrecordsinNetHaMishpat.TheDecisionsays:The
RequesterdoesnotceasebotheringtheCourtandwastingtheCourt'stimewithfutilerequests
thatamounttonothing.Ifhecontinuestofilesimilarrequests,Iwillconsiderimposingonhim
expensestothebenefitoftheStateTreasury.

OnyetanotherrequesttoinspecttheelectronicsignaturedataoftheSeptember
14,2010VerdictandSentencingrecords,theStateProsecutionfiledanunusual,
yettellingresponse(Figure35).

20161002

61

In the Nazareth District Court

Serious Crime 502/07
Request No 118

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Requester: Joseph Zernik, PhD

v
Respondents:
1. Roman Zadorov
2. State of Israel
Response by Respondent 1
The Requester files on a daily basis requests to inspect various materials from the court file, some
of them were forwarded for response by the State.
The nature of these requests is unclear, but it appears that they are meant to establish some
conspiracy theories regarding instant court file, or the justice system in general.
There is no relationship whatsoever between the request and the claims, regarding the technical
form of the records, and claims, pertaining to to the evidence and conviction, which are mostly
based on baseless rumors and theories.
In general, the Responder has no position, regarding the question, whether the Requester or others
should be permitted to inspect the court decisions, which have been published, and are open to
public inspection.
With it, it should be noted that the Requester is abusing the Right to Inspect, and such right
should not be considered permission for anybody to bother the Courts and the Offices of the Clerks,
in a manner that they would not be able to perform their duties, and for futile reasons.
As far as the Respondent knows, the Requester has not been appointed Ombudsman of the Courts,
and nobody authorized him to conduct investigations and reviews.
Beyond that, the Responder fully supports the correct words of the Hon Presiding Judge in his
January 25, 2016 Decision on Request No 120.
[graphic signature]
___________________
Attorney Shila Inbar
Area Director (criminal)
North District Attorney Office

Figure35.StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)SeriousCrimeintheNazarethDistrict
Court:ThesecretiveJanuary26,2016ResponsebyNorthDistrictAttorneyOfficeAttorney
ShilaInbar.Top:Hebreworiginal;Bottom:Englishtranslation.

Theresponseinpartsays:
Thenatureoftheserequestsisunclear,butitappearsthattheyaremeant
toestablishsomeconspiracytheoriesregardinginstantcourtfile,orthe
justice system in general... it should be noted that the Requester is
abusingtheRighttoInspect,andsuchrightshouldnotbeconsidered
permission for anybody to bother the Courts and the Offices of the
Clerks...AsfarastheRespondentknows,theRequesterhasnotbeen
appointed Ombudsman of the Courts, and nobody authorized him to
conductinvestigationsandreviews.
Judge Avraham Avrahams January 25, 2016 Decision (Figure 36), which
AttorneyInbarrefers to,isoneofthemostinterestingrecords inthiscase.It
explicitlytiestherefusaltopermitinspectionofcourtrecordstoconcernthatthe
inspectionintendsto:a)investigatethevalidityofNetHaMishpatsystem,andb)
investigatethenatureofjudicialconductintheRomanZadorovtrial...

20161002

62

Figure36:StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)SeriousCrimeintheNazarethDistrict
Court:JudgeAvrahamJanuary25,2016DecisiononRequestNo120,toInspect "lawfully
madeArrestWarrant"and"lawfullymadeJudgmentDocket".PresidingJudgeAvrahamJanuary
25,2016Decisionsays:TheRequesterrepeatshisrequests,whosesubject,purportedly,isin
spectionofrecords.However,thesearenotrequeststoinspect,butaninvestigation,conducted
bytheRequester,pertainingtovalidityoftheoperationofNetHaMishpatsystem,andanarray
ofclaims,pertainingtoconductofthejudicialpanelininstantcourtfile.Insuchmattersthis
Courtshallnotengage.Ipreviouslyreferredhim,andIagainreferhimtotheLegalDepartment
oftheAdministrationofCourtsforanswersonhisquestions.

SinceNetHaMishpatwasimplementedintheNazarethDistrictCourtonlyinJan
uary2010,decisions,whichwereissuedpriortothatdate,werepaperrecords.
ThepaperdecisionrecordsarepublishedinNetHaMishpataswell,butonlyas
displayrenditions,unsigned,whichobviouslyarenotvalidcourtrecords(Figure
37).

20161002

63

Figure37.StateofIsraelvRomanZadorov(502/07)SeriousCrimeintheNazarethDistrict
Court:ElectronicdisplayrenditioninNetHaMishpat(casemanagementsystemoftheCourt)of
aJanuary1,2008decisionrecordbyJudgeYitzhakCohen,whichwasoriginallyissuedasapa
perdecisionrecord.Thedecisionrecordwassupposedtobehandsignedbythejudge.Theelec
tronicdisplayrendition,whichistodayprovidedinNetHaMishpatisnotevenascanofthe
handsignedrecord,butanunsignedrecord.

ThepapercourtfileoftheNazarethDistrictCourtintheRomanZadorovcaseis
nowheldbytheIsraeliSupremeCourt.Therefore,requeststoinspectthepaper
decisionrecordswerefiledintheSupremeCourt.
Accesstoinspecttherecordswasdenied.IntheSupremeCourt,thereasoning
forthedenialwasunusualajumbleinthecourtfile.However,regardlessof
repeatrequests,itisimpossibletoobtainavalid,signedandcertifiedcopyofany
oftheSupremeCourtsdecisionsregardingtheattemptstoaccessthepapercourt
recordsfromtheNazarethDistrictCourt(Figure25).
ThedenialofaccesstoinspectcourtdecisionsbytheNazarethDistrictCourt
andtheSupremeCourtstandsdiametricallyoppositetoIsraelilaw,whichsaysin
theRegulationsoftheCourtsInspectionofCourtFiles(2003),Regulation2(b)):
Anypersonispermittedtoinspectdecisions,whicharenotlawfullypro
hibitedforpublication.
Therighttoinspectcourtdecisionsisfurtherelaboratedina2009Judgmentby
PresidingJusticeDoritBeinischattheendofthe12yearlongpetitiononthesame
matter AssociationforCivilRightsinIsrael vMinisterofJustice (5917/97).

20161002

64

RegardingRegulation2(b),the2009Judgmentsays:
Regulation2(b)expandsthepublic'srighttoinspectwithnorequirement
forfilingarequestwiththeCourt,butonlypertainingtodecisionsofthe
Court,andonlypertainingtodecisionsthatarenotprohibitedforpublica
tionbylaw.
Although there is no constitution in the State of Israel, the 2009 Judgment
furtherdeclarestherighttoinspectjudicialrecords:
a fundamental principle in any democratic regime... constitutional,
superstatutory
The 2009 Judgment also includes various declarations, pertaining to the
significanceofpublicaccesstocourtrecords:
...inthesafeguardoftheprincipleofPublicHearinglies,obviously,one
of the primary guarantees for validityof the judicial process, bothin
affecting justice and establishing the truth in practice, and in the
appearanceofjusticetothepublicatlarge
...theprincipleofPublicHearingismeanttoguaranteethatinformation
regardingwhattranspiredinthecourtroomandconductofthejudicial
authoritiesbeopentothepublicandenabletransparency,openness,and
publiccriticism.Therefore,theprincipleofPublicHearingshouldbe
deemedamandatoryprerequisiteforvalidityoftheentirejusticesystem
andensuringpublictrustinit...
...theimportanceofthisprincipleisincreatingpublictrustinpublic
authoritiesingeneralandinthecourtsinparticular,sinceitcontributesto
generatingtheappearanceofjusticeinamannerthatpromotesuch
trust

20.4.5.2StateofIsraelvZernietal(102910112)criminalprosecutionofthe
HolylandcorruptionscandalintheTelAvivDistrictCourt
TheHolylandcorruptionscandalisoneoftheworstinthehistoryoftheStateof
Israel.ItinvolvedbribingbydevelopersofStateofficers,includingformerPrime
MinisterEhudOlmertandhispersonalsecretaryShulamitZaken. Thecasewas
prosecuted under State of Israel v Zerni et al (102910112) in the TelAviv
DistrictCourt.SixteenpersonswerenamedDefendants,andthecasegenerated
intensivemediacoverage.ThecasewaslaterappealedbyvariousDefendantsin
theSupremeCourt.
JudgeDavidRosen,whopresidedinthecase,ishighlyregardedinIsraelasa
skilled and honest judge, and media lavished praise on Judge Rosen for his
conductinthiscase.Accordingtomediareports,TelAvivDistrictJudgeDavid
RosenconvictedEhudOlmertandsentencedhimtoasixyearprisonterm,which
waslatereffectivelyreversedbytheSupremeCourt.
ReviewofthecaseinNetHaMishpatandlengthyinspectioneffortsrevealed
20161002

65

pervasiveperversionofdecisionrecordsbyJudgeDavidRosen.Themannerof
perversionofvariousrecordsinthiscaseshowsunusuallevelofcreativityand
collusionwiththeofficeofAdministrationofCourts:
a)JudgeDavidRosenmaintaineddoublebooksforDecisionDocketsin
thiscase.AtatimethatthepublicaccesssysteminNetHaMishpat
showedonlysixtythree(63)decisions,theOfficeoftheClerkaccess
systeminNetHaMishpatshowedfivehundredandtwentythree(523)
decisions(Figure38).

a)

b)

20161002

66
Figure38.StateofIsraelvZernietal(102910112)criminaltrialoftheHolylandcorruption
scandal intheTelAvivDistrictCourt:Two(2)versionsoftheDecisionsDocketsinNet
HaMishpatinacasethatisdefinedopentothepublic,unsealed.a)OnApril06,2015,the
publicaccesssystemshowed63decisions,manyofthempatentlyperverted. b)OnMarch22,
2015,theOfficeoftheClerkaccesssystemshowed523decisions.BothversionsoftheDeci
sionsDocketfailtoincludeavalidrecordsoftheDefendantsEhudOlmetandShulamitZaken's
VerdictandSentencing(Figure42).

b)JudgmentswerenotdulyenteredintheJudgmentDocket.NoVerdict
record was entered in the Judgment Docket at all, and various
Sentencing records were entered. Some appear valid, other appear
invalidontheirfaces.TheSentencingrecordforformerPrimeMinister
Olmertispatentlyinvalidnotshowingevenagraphicsignature
(Figure39).

a)

b)
20161002

67

c)

d)

20161002

68

e)
Figure39. StateofIsraelvZernietal (102910112)criminalprosecutionoftheHolyland
corruptionscandalintheTelAvivDistrictCourtJudgmentsDocketanditsentries.16De
fendantsarenamedinthecase,includingformerPrimeMinisterEhudOlmert(#8)andhisper
sonalsecretaryShulamitZaken(#9).AstacitlyadmittedbyJudgeDavidRoseninhisMarch18,
2015PostitDecision(Figure45),noneoftherecordsinNetHaMishpatisalawfullymade
judgment:a)TheJudgmentDocketshowsfourentries.ItfailstoshowanyVerdictrecord. b)
20140619DocketingTextSentencingdatedJune19,2014,renderedbyDavidRosen:10
pagerecord,titled:SentencingDefendant6.Therecordendswithastandardsignaturebox,
includingagraphicsignature.c)20140609DocketingTextInstructiontoPublicService
SupervisorinthePrisonServicetofileanupdatedopinioninre:Feiner:6pagerecord,titled:
SentencingofDefendant11.d)20140515DocketingTextInstructiontoDefendant8to
filebail/bond:5pagerecord,titled:SentencingofDefendant9[Zakenjz].Therecordends
withastandardNetHaMishpatsignaturebox,includingagraphicsignature.e)20140513
DocketTextInstructiontoPublicServiceSupervisorinthePrisonServicetofileupdated
opinioninre:FeinerAvraham:64pagerecord,titled:SentencingofDefendants1,2,5,7,8
[Olmertjz],10,12,14,15,16.Therecordendswithnosignatureboxatall,noteventhename
ofJudgeDavidRosen.

PresidingJudgeoftheTelAvivDistrictCourtandtheAdministrationof
Courtsrefusedtoanswer:
(i)Whoisauthorizedandwho holdsthedutiestoenterjudgments
under the Judgment Docket in NetHaMishpat in the TelAviv
DistrictCourt?
(ii) Does the entry of a court record in the Judgment Docket as
Judgment,Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisindeeda
dulymade,validandeffectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourt
file?
(iii)DoesthefailuretoenteracourtrecordintheJudgmentDocket
asJudgment,Verdict,orSentencingindicatethatitisnota
20161002

69

dulymade,validandeffectualjudgmentinthecorrespondingcourt
file?
c)MultipleversionsoftheVerdictrecord,pertainingtoformerPrime
MinisterEhudOlmert were discovered, allofthem patentlyinvalid
records(Figure40).TheversioninNetHaMishpatispatentlyinvalid,
while the Administration of Courts distributed to media another
version,whichisabetterqualityfalsification.

a)

b)

20161002

70

c)
Figure40.StateofIsraelvZernietal(102910112)intheTelAvivDistrictCourtmultiple
versionsoftheJudgeDavidRosenVerdictrecordintheHolylandcorruptionscandalnoneof
themisanauthentic,validcourtrecord:a)Therecord,whichappearsinNetHaMishpatDeci
sionsDocketfailstobeenteredintheJudgmentIndex.Therecordis685pagelong,isa
scannedrecordi.e.,isnotavalidelectronicrecord.Itismissingtheopeningpages,namingthe
partiesinthecase,andisalsomissingthehandsignatureandpersonalstampattheend.The
recordispervertedinanunusualmanner,whichisunlikelytobetheoutcomeofhumanerror. b)
Therecord,whichwasdistributedbytheAdministrationofCourtstomediaentirelyfailstoap
pearinNetHaMishpat,isascannedrecordi.e.,isnotavalidelectronicrecord,andallitspages
arestrangelycropped,possiblytoconcealthefactthatitisascannedrecord.Therecordis687
page long, ending with a "wet" hand signature and stamp of Judge David Rosen.
(http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/dover/6282891.pdf) c) Intheappealcourtfile(papercourtfile
originalrecords),onlyaprintoutoftheVerdictfromNevoPublishingLTDwasdiscoverednot
acourtrecordatall.Anappeal,whichoriginatesinnoauthenticdecisionorjudgmentrecordof
thelowercourtshouldbedeemedlackinginauthorityandvalidity.d)Thestandarddisclaimerin
openinganOnlineChatwithAdministrationofCourtsrepresentativesstatesthatinformation
providedinsuchchatsisnotauthoritative,andtheauthoritativerecordsarethoseinthecourt
file.Publicandattimesalsopartyaccesstodocketsandrecordsaredenied,andundersuchcir
cumstances,onehastorelyonDelphicOnlineChatsforinformationregardingcourtdockets
andrecords.

d) The July 28, 2015 Judge David Rosen Criminal Levy Decree,
pertainingtoShulamitZaken,isoneofthemostelaboratelyfalsified,
simulatedcourtrecordsdiscoveredsofar(Figure41).

20161002

71

Page1

20161002

72

Page2
Figure41.StateofIsraelvZernietal(102910112)intheTelAvivDistrictCourt:July28,
2014 Judge David RosenCriminal Levy Decree, pertaining to Shulamit Zaken: A twopage
record.
PageNo.1 isNoticetotheGeneralConservatorregardingLevyDecreewhichisapaper
form,whichwascompletedbyhandwriting,affixedwithawetstamp,andthenscanned.The
NoticeservesasanadditionalauthenticationoftheDecree,prescribedbylaw.TheNoticeof
LevyDecree,prescribedbylaw,providesadditionalauthenticationoftheLevyDecree. The
formisdatedJuly28,2014.Ontheform,signatureoftheMagistrateoftheTelAvivDistrict
Courtisrequired.However,theformisnotsignedatall.InsteadoftheMagistrate'ssignature,
JudgeDavidRosen'sstampwasaffixed,upsidedown.

20161002

73
PageNo.2isthecoreoftherecordJuly17,2014PostitDecisionbyJudgeDavidRosen,
whichappearsatthetopofthepage.ThePostitDecisionisanelectronicrecord,arectangu
lartextframe,whichwassuperimposedonanotherelectronicrecord,whichisthescannedJuly
17,2014StateProsecutionRequest.Anothercomponentonthesamepageistheauthentication
TrueCopyoftheOriginalatthetopofthepage,whichwasgeneratedasawetstampwith
wethandwrittendateandsignature,whichwereexecutedonaprintoutofthepagepriortoits
finalscanning. Combined,therecordwassupposedtoincludethreestepverification:Judge's
signatureontheDecree,authenticationoftheDecree,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,bytheChief
Clerk,andsignaturebytheMagistrateoftheCourtontheNoticetotheGeneralConservator.
Infact,noneoftheseverificationexistsonthisrecord. Inaddition,itscontentisfalse,asde
tailedbelow:
RequestbytheStateProsecution:TheJuly17,2014RequestbytheStateProsecutionisbased
on:(a)April31,2014Verdict,whereintheDefendantwasconvictedoftakingbribesand
moneylaundering.Thereareno31daysinthemonthofApril,andthereisnoApril31,2014
VerdictrecordamongtherecordsinthiscourtfileinNetHaMishpat.(ConvictionofDefen
dant9appearsinaperverted,unsigned,March31,2014record).JudgeDavidRosenalsoclari
fiedinhisMarch18,2015PostitDecisioninresponseonDrJosephZernik'srequesttoin
spect,thatnoverdictrecord,pertainingtoDefendantZaken,hadbeenregisteredintheelectronic
fileinNetHaMishpat.(b)May15,2015Sentence,whereintheHonCourtapprovedtheplea
bargainagreementsignedbetweentheProsecutionandtheDefendant.TheJudgmentinthemat
teroftheDefendantbecameunappealable.Suchrecordalsofailstoappearamongtherecords
inNetHaMishpat,andregardingsuchrecordsJudgeRosenalsoexplainedthatitdoesnotexist
intheelectronicfile.However,thereadingoftheSentenceinopencourtwaswidelyreportedby
media.May15,2015Protocolpages(93519396)werealsopublishedbyHaaretzdaily,but
theProtocol,whichwaspublishedbyHaaretzendswithaDecision,whichsays:Decision
willberenderedlatertoday.[2]
PostitDecisionbyJudgeDavidRosen:TheJuly17,2014PostitDecision,wassuperim
posedontheStateProsecutionRequest. ThePostitDecisionsays:Decreegrantedasre
quested.ThePostitDecision,whichpurportedlyproducedtheLevyDecree,isunsigned.
CertificationTrueCopyoftheOriginal:TheDecreewaspurportedlyauthenticatedonJuly28,
2014,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,bythehandsignatureofShatz,orSelly(illegible),with
neithername,nortitleofthesigneronthestamp,andnostampnumber. Suchauthentication
shouldhavebeenlawfullybeensignedbytheChiefClerkoftheTelAvivDistrictCourt,orthe
MagistrateoftheCourt.Shatz,orShellywasn'tthenameoftheChiefClerk,ortheMagistrate
onthatdate.Forgeryoftheauthentication,TrueCopyoftheOriginal,bypersons,whoarenot
lawfullyauthorizedtosignsuchauthentication,isacommonphenomenonintheIsraelicourts
today,fromthemagistratecourtstotheSupremeCourt.Suchforgerieshavebeendocumented
numeroustimesinrecentyears,throughrequests,pursuanttotheFreedomofInformationActon
theAdministrationofCourts,toascertainthenamesandauthorityofthepersons,whosignedthe
purportedauthenticationonvariouscourtrecordsinthevariouscourts.Suchforgeriesalsostand
contrarytotheHagueApostilleConvention(1961),towhichIsraelisaparty.
Theentirecourtrecordshowsnosignaturebyanyperson,whoisidentifiedasanofficerofthe
TelAvivDistrictCourtbynameandtitle.Noreasonablepersonwouldconsidersuchrecorda
validandeffectual,enforceablecourtrecord.

e)TheMarch18,2015JudgeDavidRosenPostitDecision(Figure
42) in response on request to inspect records clarifies there are no
valid, lawfully made judgment records for either Ehud Olmert or
Shulamit Zaken, and no lawfully made Arrest Decree for Shulamit
Zaken(whobythenwasservingherprisonterm)inNetHaMishpat
electronic court file in this case. Inspection of the Supreme Court
20161002

74

Appeal court file failed to uncover valid judgment records either

(Figure42).

Figure42. StateofIsraelvZernietal (102910112)intheTelAvivDistrictCourtJudge

DavidRosenMarch18,2015PostitDecision:Inresponsetoanattempttoinspectlawfully
madejudgmentrecordspertainingtoEhudOlmertandshulaZakenandalawfullymadeArrest
Decreepertaining toShulaZaken(whowasalreadyservingherprisonterm),JudgeDavid
Rosenissuedthe"PostitDecision", whichsays:Thecourtfile,inspectionofwhichisre
quested,isphysicallylocatedintheSupremeCourt,aspartoftheappealprocessofthejudg
ment.Therefore,itis impossibletogranttherequest.ThisPostitdecisionwasneverduly
served,failstoappearintheDecisionsDocket,andJudgeDavidRosenrefusedtoprovideaduly
signedandcertifiedcopyofit.Therefore,itshouldbedeemedasimulatedcourtrecord.Withit,
therecordshouldbedeemedtacitadmissionbyJudgeDavidRosenthatthereisnolawfully
madejudgmentsorarrestdecreeintheNetHaMishpatelectroniccourtfileinthiscasefive
(5)yearsafterthetransitiontoelectronicfileadministrationintheTelAvivDistrictCourt.Ef
fectively,itisadmissionthattherecordsinNetHaMishpatJudgmentsDocketandDecisions
Docketareinvalidcourtrecords.

InthecourseofeffortstoinspectjudgmentrecordsintheHolylandcorruption
trial court file, an unsolicited, inexplicable letter was received from the
Administration of Courts, which should be viewed as fraud on its own, and
additional evidence of the collusion between Judge David Rosen and the
AdministrationofCourtsinfalsifyingcourtrecordsinthiscase(Figure43).

20161002

75

Figure43.July26,2015letterfromLegalAdviserOfficeoftheAdministrationofCourts:The
letterwasunsolicited,andclaimstobeinresponsetoaninquiry,whichneverwas.Theletter
referstomyrequeststodocketPostitDecisions,butfailstostatewhatcourtandfilearethesub
jectoftheletter.TheletterissignedbyHeliBracha,TheLegalBureau,withoutanyposition
title.Inresponsetofollowupinquiries,MsBracharefusedtoclarifywhatherpositionwas,or
whatcourtfilewasthesubjectoftheletter.However,thetimingandsubjectmakeitmostlikely
relatedto StateofIsraelvZernietal (102910112)intheTelAvivDistrictCourtandJudge
DavidRosen'sPostitDecisionsinresponsetoRequeststoInspect.Thelettersays:RE:Your
June11,2015inquiry.Yourinquiry,referencedabove,wasforwardedtomyhandling,andIam
honoredtoanswerasfollows:RegardingyourrequesttoviewPostitDecisions,thematterwas
reviewedwiththerelevantauthoritiesintheAdministrationofCourts,andtheoutcomeofsuch
reviewwasthatthematterisimpossiblefromcomputationalperspective....

20.4.6ConstitutionalRevolution,oraConstitutionalCrisisinIsrael?
Theevidenceindicateswidespreadincompetenceand/orcorruptionoftheIsraeli
justicecourts,whichwassystematicallyimplementedoverthepast15yearsin
conjunctionwithimplementationofnewITsystemsinthecourts.Theevidence
20161002

76

shownherefocusedontheNetHaMishpatsysteminthedistrictandmagistrate
courtsand ITsystem ofthe Supreme Court. However, similar practices, i.e.,
abundanceofsimulatedcourtrecords,weredocumentedalsoinITsystemsofthe
Detainees'Courts[lxxxvi]andtheDebtorsCourts.Ofparticularconcernareabuses
throughtheconductofsimulatedcourtprocessinretaliationofprotestactivists
andwhistleblowers.[lxxxvii]
TheevidenceshowsthatunderminingofintegrityoftheIsraelicourtsandthe
Israelijusticesystemhastakenplaceconcomitantlywithloftydeclarationsofa
Constitutional Revolution. Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court Aharon
Barak(inoffice19952006),whoadvertisedtheConstitutionalRevolutionwas
infactinofficeduringtheinitialdecisivestagesofunderminingintegrityofthe
courts,outlinedabove. WhereasinIsraelBarakisgenerallyperceivedinhigh
regard,outsideIsrael,hewascomparedtoapirate,orworldchampionofjudicial
hubris...[lxxxviii]
In fact, the conditions, now prevailing in the courts should be deemed a
constitutionalcrisisinanationwithnoconstitution.

20.5Generalobservations
Casemanagement,efiling,andpublicaccesssystemsoftheUSandIsraelicourts,
described above, show considerable similarities, relative to development and
operation by the judiciary through the respective offices of Administration of
Courts,invalidityofthesystemsrelativetonationallaw,invalidimplementation
ofelectronicsignaturesandauthenticationinstruments,universalfailuretodocket
summonses, and failure to docket (Israel) or hiding from the public (US) the
certificatesofservice.Allofthesefeaturesresultinthesameoutcome:Inabilityof
thepublictodistinguishbetweenvalidandeffectualcourtrecordsandvoidnot
voidablecourtrecords.
Inspectionofcourtfilesfromthecourtsunderpaperadministration,bothinthe
US and in Israel indicates that the conduct of simulated legal process was
prevalentinbothnationsevenpriortoimplementationofthenewsystems.The
mannerinwhichsuchconductwasachievedinthepastinvolvedthereadingof
courtdecisionsandjudgmentsinopencourtinamannerthatwasnotheldbinding
byjudges,thenfailingtosignand/orauthenticatetherecords,heldinthepaper
courtfiles,andfailingtodulyservethemontheparties.However,underpaper
administration of the courts, such practices were more easily detectable by
experiencedattorneys,partiesandthepublicatlargeuponinspectionofthepaper
courtfiles.
With the implementation of the electronic court file systems, valid
implementation of electronic signatures, authentication instruments, and public
accesswouldhavemadesuchfraudalmostimpossible.Itisdifficulttoimagine
20161002

77

thatseniorjusticeofficers,whowereinvolvedinthedevelopmentprojects,failed
to notice such combination of critical failures in the systems. Therefore, the
similarcombinationofdeficienciesofboththeUSandIsraelisystemsmayreflect
similarmotivesofthedevelopers.
Therearecloserrelationshipsbetweenthesystemsaswell.Theculturaland
politicalrelationshipsbetweentheUSandIsraelarestrongandwelldocumented.
LawschoolsandseniormemberoftheIsraelijudiciarycloselyfollowtheconduct
oftheUScourts.Forexample,IsraeliSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeAharon
Barak,underwhosetermkeystepsintheimplementationoftheIsraelisystems
wereinitiated,isawellknownpublicfigureintheUS.[lxxxix]
Finally,itshouldbenotedthatUSbasedcorporationsIBMandEDSwere
deeply involved in development and implementation of NetHaMishpat IT
system oftheIsraeli courts. Bothcorporations were involvedinquestionable
practicesindevelopmentofgovernmentandpublicutilitiesITsystemselsewhere
aswell.[xc]
ImplementationoffraudulentITsystemsinthecourtscannotbeviewedonits
own.Itshouldbeviewedinthecontextofsocioeconomicandpoliticalconditions
inbothnations.Expertsopinethatinbothnations,corruptionofgovernmenthas
reachedhistoricheights.Otherelectronicsystemsarelikelytoholdcriticalroles
in undermining the lawful nature of the respective regimes as well, e.g., IT
systems related to general elections, and systems for total monitoring of the
citizenry.

20.5.2Experts,media,ecourtsandCivilSociety
Theroleofexpertsandmediaiscriticalinexaminingthesocialcontextofthe
transformativeprocessesinthecourts.
BothintheUSandIsrael,requestswereforwardedtolawandcomputerscience
professors,toreviewreportsoflackofintegrityinITsystemsofthecourts.Both
in the US and in Israel, law professors have made some public statements,
criticizing conditions of the justice system. However, such statements were
typically limited to specific cases, or to criticizing conflicts of interests, and
similarethicsproblems.
IntheUS:
MarthaMinow,HarvardLawDean,wholistsherspecialtyasHuman
Rights,wasaskedtoopineonintegrity,orlackthereof,inITsystemsof
theUSdistrictandappealscourtsPACERandCM/ECF.Inresponse
DeanMinowsaid:[xci]
IregretthatasdeanthisisnotsomethingthatIcanundertake.
Best wishes, Marha Minow, Dean and Jeremiah Smith, Jr
ProfessorofLaw.

20161002

78

YaleLawSchoolfacultyweresolicitedforopinion,butnoneresponded.
[xcii]
Six(6)topUSacademiclawjournals,whichspecializeinHumanRights
or computers and law, refused to accept for review academic papers,
dealing with the issue, detailed here. Harvard Law School faculty
members of the Board of Advisors of Harvard Civil Rights Civil
LibertiesLawReviewrefused torespondonrepeat request that the
journal acknowledge receipt of a paper, submitted to the journal for
review.[xciii,xciv]
Likewise, in international conferences, where US scholars were in
administrative key positions, papers on the subject were excluded, even
after passing peer-review. [xcv]
InIsrael:
LeadinglawjournalsrefusedtoacceptmanuscriptscriticalofITsystems
ofthecourtsforreview.
Several leading computer science professors agreed to review reports
regardingITsystemsofthecourtsofftherecord,andexpressedtheir
deepconcernregardingthefindingsandtheconclusions.
In a couple of cases, leading experts also made public statements in
supportofsuchresearch.
Of particular interest is the adamant refusal of an internationally
renowned cryptologist, Head of the new, government funded Cyber
SecurityResearchCenter,housedinanotableacademicinstitution,to
comment on evidence of invalidity and/or fraud in government IT
systemsinthecourtsandintheCentralElectionCommittee.[ xcvi]
AnotableexceptionwasRomanZadorovsprobonocounsel,acclaimed
criminaldefenseattorneyAvigdorFeldman,whopublishedapieceof
dark humor, following the publication of the findings regarding the
NazarethDistrictCourtjudgmentrecords.Hewrotethathetoosearched
forthejudgmentrecords,butfailedtodiscoverthem,sincetheywere
scatteredinthewailingwindacrossthevastJezreelvalley,whichthe
Courtoverlooks
ArecentleakinIsraelinewspaperdescribestocandiddiscussionamong
seniorlegalscholarsinaFacebookgroup,"Thereisatotaljunglein
thecourts.Doanythingyouantoavoidgettingthere,sincethereisno
justicethere!"Someoftheparticipantsseemtodefenditasinformal
approach,butothersstateblatantlythatcourts,includingtheSupreme
Courtignoreboththefactsandthelaw,andwonderwhatisthenatureof
suchcourts...[xcvii]
Mainstream media in both the US and Israel should be generally considered
complicitwithconditionsinthecourts. Someofthecases,outlinedabove(and
additionalcases,whichwerereviewedinUPRsubmissions),generatedextensive
nationalandinternationalcoveragebymainstreammedia,forexample:IntheUS

20161002

79

CitizensUnitedvFEC, LogCabinRepublicansvUSAetal, Securitiesand

Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation, NML v Republic of
Argentina,andinIsraeltheRomanZadorovtrial,andtheHolylandcorruption
trial.Theinvalidityofthedocketsinthesecasesissoblatant,thatthereisnoway
thatexperiencedlegalreporters,couldavoidnoticingthatfact.Andyet,nowhere
are such reports to be found. The complicity of media is not surprising: UN
reportsonStrengtheningJudicialIntegrityagainstCorruptionnotethatitisthe
typicalsituationinnations,wherethecourtsarecorrupt.
BothintheUSandinIsraelthereisalsogrowingevidenceofsuppressionof
online content, pertaining to judicial corruption, at times using legally
questionablepractices.[xcviii]BothintheUSandinIsrael,retaliationagainstanti
judicialcorruptionactivistsissevereandcommon.[xcix]

20.6Proposedcorrectivemeasures
CurrentconditionsinthecourtsbothintheUSandinIsrael,implicatesthejudi
ciaryasaclass,aswellasthelegalprofession,theministriesofjustice,andoth
ers.BothintheUSandIsrael,thesecurityapparatusappearstobeinvolvedin
conditionsinthecourtsaswell.Therefore,correctivemeasuresarelikelytobe
complexandlengthy:
CorrectivemeasuresmayeventuallyrequireaTruthandReconciliation
Commissionorasimilarapproach.[c]
ReformoftheOfficeoftheClerkmaybeakeytocorrectiveefforts,as
wasthecaseintheUSacenturyago.[ci]
Efforts should strive to maximize transparency of IT systems of the
courts,thenewunderlyingcourtprocedurespursuanttotheprincipleof
PublicityoftheLaw[cii]
Thejudiciaryshouldnotbepermittedtodevelopandimplementsuch
systemspursuanttotheprincipleofSeparationofPowers.
However, monitoring the integrity of the courts must be an ongoing effort.
Giventhatthecourtshavebeentransformedintoecourts,ITsystemexpertsand
egovernment experts,inparticular, shouldassumepart init asacivicduty
recognizingtheircriticalroleinthesafeguardofrightsandCivilSocietyinthe
DigitalEra.

20.7References

20161002

i 2010-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States (2010)
https://www.scribd.com/document/30147583/
20100419HumanRightsAlert(NGO)Appendixtosubmissionforthe2010UPRofHumanRightsintheUnited
States,asitappearsontheUNsite:
https://www.scribd.com/document/30163613/
20101001UnitedNationsHumanRightsCouncilProfessionalStaffReport,referringtoHumanRightsAlert
submissionwiththenote"corruptionofthecourtsandthelegalprofessionanddiscriminationby law enforcement in
California" (page 6, paragraph 45)
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/169/65/PDF/G1016965.pdf?Op enElement
ii2012-06-04 Human Right Alert's Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review
(UPR) of Human Rights in Israel (2013)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/92826212/
20120604HumanRightAlert'sSubmissiontotheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCouncilfortheUniversalPeriodic
Review(UPR)ofHumanRightsinIsrael(2013)AppendixI
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108663259/
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU
20120604HumanRightAlert'sSubmissiontotheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCouncilfortheUniversalPeriodic
Review(UPR)ofHumanRightsinIsrael(2013),asitappearsontheUnitedNationssite.
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session15/IL/HRA_UPR_ISR_S15_2012_HumanRightsAlert_E.pdf
2013010120120604HumanRightAlert'sSubmissiontotheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCouncilforthe
UniversalPeriodicReview(UPR)ofHumanRightsinIsrael(2013),asincorporatedintotheUNHumanRItghts
CouncilUPRreprortwiththenote"LackofintegrityintheelectronicrecordsoftheSupremeCourt,thedistrictcourts
andthedetaineescourtsinIsrael"(page4,paragraph25)
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/180/12/PDF/G1218012.pdf?OpenElement
iiiHumanRightsAlert(NGO)submissionforthe2015UPRoftheUnitedStatesbytheUNHumanRightsCouncil:
https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=1621&file=CoverPage

iv 20140913HumanRightAlert(NGO):UPRSubmissionUnitedStates22ndsession"LargescalefraudinIT
systemsoftheUScourtsUnannouncedregimechange?"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239652334/
20140913HumanRightAlert(NGO):AppendixtoUPRSubmissionUnitedStates22ndsession"Largescale
fraudinITsystemsoftheUScourtsUnannouncedregimechange?"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239647129/
v20000315LessigL.,TheCodeinLaw,andtheLawinCode,
https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/pcforum.pdf
vi20090612FinevSheriffofLosAngelesCounty(2:09cv01914)intheUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCali
forniaDkt#26ReportandRecommendationbyUSMagistrateCarlaWoehrle
https://www.scribd.com/document/43992187/
vii20100712ZernikJ.,ComplaintforPublicCorruptionagainstUSMagistrateCarlaWoehrleandOthersintheUS
DistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia
https://www.scribd.com/document/34194403/
viii JudgeVardaAlshechFabricatedProtocolsscandalIsraelBarAssociationcomplaintandOmbudsmanofthe
JudiciaryMay31,2012decision(12/88/TelAvivDistrict)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5SUZuQlU5eXVIc2M
ix20160814ZernikJ.,"Israel:antijudicialcorruptionprotesterplacedundercompulsorypsychiatrichospitalization",
OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/IsraelantijudicialcorrbyJosephZernikIsrael_JudicialCorruption_Punishing
Protesters1608145.html
20160910ZernikJ.,"JoelleBenSimonaffaircontinuesorganizedcrimeintheJerusalemFamilyCourt",OpEd
News.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/JoelleBenSimonaffaircobyJosephZernikIsrael_JudicialCorruption160910
99.html
x2000MessingerI.C.,OrderintheCourts:AHistoryoftheFederalCourtClerk'sOffice,FederalJudicialCenter
https://public.resource.org/scribd/8763902.pdf
xi 20110811DaveWarnerD.,"Formerjudgesentencedtoprisonfor"kidsforcash"scheme",Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/uscrimekidsforcashidUSTRE77A6KG20110811

xii 20080527 ZernikvConnor (2:08cv01550)attheUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia,Dkt#062:

FirstAmendedComplaint:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30766354/
xiii 20111005TeaPartyandLiberalsconveneatHLStodiscussConstitutionalConvention(video)
http://today.law.harvard.edu/teapartyandliberalsconveneathlstodiscussconstitutionalconvention
video/
"LawrenceLessig'scallforstatebasedactivismonbehalfofaConstitutionalConventioncouldprovidetheup
rootedmovementwithapoliticalprojectforwinter"
20111117HoudekA.,"HasaHarvardProfessorMappedOuttheNextStepforOccupyWallStreet?",TheAt
lantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/hasaharvardprofessormappedoutthenextstep
foroccupywallstreet/247561/
20130719AlbertoRiva,JimmyCarter:UShasnofunctioningdemocracy,Salon
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/jimmy_carter_us_has_no_functioning_democracy_partner/
"InaspeechinGeorgetownUniversity,SenatorLeahy,ChairoftheSenateJudiciaryCommitteecalledfora
"TruthandReconciliationCommission"ontheUSDepartmentofJustice.
2009TranscriptofSenatorLeahyspeech
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/
20110900SovereignCitizensAGrowingDomesticThreattoLawEnforcement,FBI
http://www.fbi.gov/statsservices/publications/lawenforcementbulletin/september2011/sovereigncitizens
2010JohnKersey,TheFreemanontheLandMovement:GrassRootsLibertarianisminAction,LibertarianAl
liance
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/?q=node/1
WellRegulatedAmericanMilitias
http://wramsite.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
20140710Bundyranchstandoffinvigoratedantigovernmentgroups,reportsays,WashingtonPost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/postnation/wp/2014/07/10/bundyranchstandoffinvigoratedanti
governmentgroupsreportsays/
xiv2012,undated, "The Prison Crisis", ACLU
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/massincarceration_problems.pdf
20110313KrugmanP.,"AnotherInsideJob",NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=0
2011-12-22PaltrowS.,"SpecialReport:Thewatchdogsthatdidn'tbark",Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/usforeclosuresidUSTRE7BL0MC20111222
"Ithinkit'sdifficulttofindafraudofthissizeontheU.S.courtsysteminU.S.history,"saidRaymondBrescia,avisit
ingprofessoratYaleLawSchoolwhohaswrittenarticlesanalyzingtheroleofcourtsinthefinancialcrisis."Ican't
thinkofonewhereyouhaveliterallytensofthousandsoffraudulentdocumentsfiledintensofthousandsofcases."
20111222ScotPaltrow,"SpecialReport:Thewatchdogsthatdidn'tbark",Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/us-foreclosures-idUSTRE7BL0MC20111222

"...asysteminwhichonlythelittlepeoplehavetoobeythelaw,whiletherich,andbankersespecially,cancheatand
defraudwithoutconsequences."
20110313KrugmanP.,"AnotherInsideJob",NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=0
"Morethan100lawprofessorshavesignedontoaletterreleasedtodaythatproposescongressionalhearingsandlegis
lationaimedatfashioning"mandatoryandenforceable"ethicsrulesforSupremeCourtjusticesforthefirsttime.The
effort,coordinatedbytheliberalAllianceforJustice,wastriggeredby"recentmediareports,"thelettersaid,apparently
referringtostoriesofmeetingsandotherpotentialconflictsofinterestinvolvingJusticesAntoninScaliaandClarence
Thomasamongothers."
20110224BlogoftheLegalTimes
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49586436/
20110407"Foreclosurefraud:Thehomeownernightmarescontinue",Fortune
http://fortune.com/2011/04/07/foreclosurefraudthehomeownernightmarescontinue/
20120107MorgensonG.,FromEastandWest,ForeclosureHorrorStories,NewYorkTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/business/mortgageservicinghorrorstoriesfairgame.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Zernik,J:FraudandCorruptioninUSCourtsareTightlyLinkedtoBankingFraudandtheGlobalEconomic
Crisis16thWorldCriminologyCongresspresentation(2012)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61351562/

xv 20100625,JosephZernik,"AutomatedIndexofUSJudicialCorruptionProposedbyHumanRightsAlert
(NGO)",Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/article/automatedindexofusjudicialcorruptionproposedbyhumanrightsalertngo
Zernik,J:DataMiningofOnlineJudicialRecordsoftheNetworkedUSFederalCourts,InternationalJournalonSocial
Media:Monitoring,Measurement,Mining,1:6983(2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/
Zernik,J:InvalidElectronicRecordSystemsoftheStateandFederalUSCourtsEnablersofHumanRightsAbuse
andtheFinancialCrisisCYBERLAW2013paperpeerreviewedandaccepted,thenrejectedadministratively.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/117040401/
xvi 20100324USDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia:LocalRulesofCourt,Chapters14
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28862438/
xvii CourtRules,BerkeleyLawLibrary
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/dynamic/guide.php?id=72
xviii2010-03-24 General Orders of the US District Court, Central District of California
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28861084/
xix 20100324USDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia:CM/ECF"Unofficial"AndersonManual
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28869533/
USDistrictCourt,EasternDistrictofCalifornia:UsersManualElectronicFilingCM/ECF
http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caed/DOCUMENTS/CMECF/UserManual.pdf
xx CoenenF.,VerificationandValidationIssuesinExpertandDatabaseSystems:TheExpertSystemsPer
spective,dexa,pp.16,9thInternationalWorkshoponDatabaseandExpertSystemsApplications(DEXA'98)
(1998)
CoddE.F.,Therelationalmodelfordatabasemanagement:version2,ACMClassicBooksSeries,Addison
WesleyPublishingCompany,Inc(1990)
xxi ThewebsiteoftheAdministrativeOfficeoftheUScourtsprovidesthefollowinginformation:
CM/ECFisthefederalcourts'casemanagementandelectroniccasefilessystem.Itprovidescourtsenhanced
andupdateddocketmanagement.Itallowscourtstomaintaincasedocumentsinelectronicform.Anditgives
eachcourttheoptionofpermittingcasedocumentspleadings,motions,petitionstobefiledwiththecourt
overtheInternet.
CM/ECFimplementationinthebankruptcycourtshasbeenunderwaysinceearly2001.Districtcourtimple
mentationbeganin2002.Appellatecourtimplementationbeganinlate2004.
ThetransitiontoaNextGenerationofCM/ECFiswellunderway.Therequirementsgatheringphaseofthe
projectconcludedinMarch2012,asgroupsofjudges,chambersstaff,clerks,andcourtstaffidentifiedand
prioritizedhundredsofrequirements.Theprojectalsoreceivedinputfromthebar,academia,government
agencies,andothersthroughinterviews,focusgroups,andsurveysofapproximately10,000judiciarystake
holders.Theprojectisinthedesignanddevelopmentphase.TheinitialschedulecallsforthefirstNextGen
erationreleasetobeavailabletothecourtsin2014,followedbyfulltransitionoverseveralyears.Thefirst
releasewillincludecentralsignonfunctionality,whichwillallowusersofCM/ECFandPACERtomaintain
oneaccountacrossallcourtsandtosigninonetimetoaccessmultiplecourts.
Formoreinformation,pleasecontact:BarbaraKimble,OfficeofJudgesPrograms(202)5021862.
http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/CMECF/AboutCMECF.aspx
xxii 20100212HuminskivRutlandPoliceDepartmentetal(1:99cv160)intheUSDistrictCourt,Vermont:
FalseMemoandOrderservedwithnoNEFatall
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31305312/
xxiii20090605LiptakA.,"NewScrutinyofJudgesMostControversialCase",NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/us/politics/06ricci.html
2009-06-16 SchwartzJ.,"InGunCase,PeersSupportSotomayor",NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17judge.html
20140703 LiptakA.,"BirthControlOrderDeepensDivideAmongJustices",NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supremecourtordersuspendscontraceptionruleforchristiancol
lege.html
20090710"SotomayorsNotableCourtOpinionsandArticles",NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526scotus.html
xxiv20120121LiptakA.,SupremeCourtRejectsJudgeDrawnMapsinTexasRedistrictingCase, NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/us/supremecourtrejectsjudgedrawnmapsintexasredistrictingcase.html
20120626LiptakA.,SupremeCourtDeclinestoRevisitCitizensUnited,NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supremecourtdeclinestorevisitcitizensunited.html
xxv 20140826ProceduresoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
xxvi 20120611Liptak,A.,"MysteryofCitizensUnitedSequelIsFormat,NotEnding",NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us/incitizensunitediihowjusticesrulemaybeanissueitself.html
xxvii 20100101 ZernikvConnoretal (2:08cv01550)CM/ECFTableSummaryofNEFsinZernikvConnor,
basedoncopiesprovidedbyClerkonDecember29,2009
https://www.scribd.com/document/24681397/
xxviii 20080624ZernikvUSDC (0872714)intheUSCourtofAppeals9thCircuitAllegedFraudonthe
CourtandUnderminingofBankingRegulation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39524541/
xxix20110702NEF(NoticeofElectronicFiling)intheUSCourtsElectronicFilingSystem(CM/ECF)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55862403/
xxx20120111InRE:RonaldGottschalk(2:11mc00284)intheUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia
minutes,orders,judgmentsissuedbytheUScourtswithinvalidNEFsareinvalidcourtrecords
https://www.scribd.com/document/84376206/
xxxi20091229ZernikvConnoretal(2:08cv01550),RichardFinevSheriffofLosAngelesCounty(2:09cv01914),
USvCityofLAetal(2:00cv11769)RequesttoinspectandtocopyNEFs,duringvisittotheOfficeoftheClerk,and
copiesobtainedfromUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia
https://www.scribd.com/document/24681508/
xxxii 2010-01-12 Huminski v. Rutland Police Dept, et al (1:99-cv-160), US District Court, District of Vermont - two false
and deliberately misleading NEFs served on Plaintiff Huminski with no Court Stamps

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25291742/
xxxiii 2010-03-24 US District Court, Central District of California: CM/ECF "Unofficial" Anderson Manual. No Official
Manual existed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28869533/
The corporate site:
http://efile.andersonlaw.net/
xxxiv 2010-04-01 United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,Administrative Policies and Procedures
for Electronic Filing
http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/ecf/docs/efileprocd.pdf
xxxv2008-02-07 US District Court Central District of California: General Order 08-02
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/

xxxviIncontrastwithmostGeneralOrdersoftheUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia,whicharesignedby
thePresidingJudge,GeneralOrder0802whichiskeydocumentalbeitlackingauthorityinestablishingelec
tronicfilingintheCourt,waspublishedunsigned.Uponrepeatrequests,theauthorwaspermittedtoinspectit.Itwas
discoveredtoshowthenamesofalljudgesoftheCourt,butmanyofthesignaturesweremissing.Copyingtherecord
wasnotpermitted.
xxxvii 2011-06-20 PACER and CM/ECF: Document Verification Utility, as described in the US District Court, Northern
District of Illinois
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58416505/
xxxviii 20100327Addendum#1toRequestforOpinionsRe:CM/ECFcasemanagementsystemoftheUS

CourtofAppeals9thCircuit,asreviewedinordersinFinevSheriff
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/
20100405Addendum#2toRequestforExperts'OpinionsRE:CasemanagementsystemNDAs,USCourtof
Appeals,9thCircuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/
20100330NDAs(NoticesofElectronicFilings)atUSCourtofAppeals,9thCircuit:Rules,Orders.User's
Guide,VideoTranscripts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29167115/
20100327Addendum#1toRequestforOpinionsReCM/ECFcasemanagementsystemoftheUSCourtof
Appeals9thCircuit,asreviewedinordersinFinevSheriff
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/
20100330DeclarationofDrJosephZernikinRE:NDAs,pertaining RichardFinevSheriffofLosAngeles
Countyetal(0956073)andJosephZernikvUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia(0872714),inthe
USCourtofAppeals,9thCircuit,obtainedinavisittoUSCourtofAppeals9thCircuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29421975/
20140829RichardShelleyvQualityLoanServiceCorp,etal(0956133)intheUSCourtofAppeals,9th
CircuitfalseanddeliberatelymisleadingNDAinacaseinvolvingafinancialinstitution
http://www.scribd.com/doc/238084921/
xxxix20080207USDistrictCourtCentralDistrictofCalifornia:GeneralOrder0802

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27632471/
xl 20100909SecuritiesandExchangeCommission,"FOIAResponseNo1003964FOIA,RE:SECvBankof
AmericaCorporation(1:09cv06829)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46608559/
xli 2013-10-24 US: PACER fraud, disappearing records - TSA litigation_ Inforwars
http://www.scribd.com/doc/179094675/
xlii 2014-04-09 Taitz v Colvin (1:13-cv-01878) in the U.S. District Court, District of Maryland records disappeared from
PACER docket!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211642998/
xliii 2011-04-25 Linzer D., "In Gitmo Opinion, Two Versions of Reality", ProPublica

http://www.propublica.org/article/ingitmoopiniontwoversionsofreality
xliv 2001-03-00 Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption - UN International Crime Prevention Center
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48103697/
xlv 2000-04-00 Strengthening Judicial Integrity, CICP-6, Report of the First Vienna Convention - United Nations Drug
Control and Crime Prevention Center (2000) (See p5-6)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50364404/
xlvi 2010-11-15 Zemik J,. The Clerks and the Calendars of the US Courts
www.scribd.com/doc/42686043/
2010-11-11 Zernik J., Table 1: US District Courts: PACER and CM/ECF - Public Access to Calendars, Survey of over 20
district courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42071752/
2010-11-11 Zernik J., Table 2: US District Courts PACER and CM/ECF: Public Access to Calendars - Survey of Individual
Cases in 5 District Courts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42100653/

xlvii20100121ZernikJ.,AttorneyRichardFinedissident'sfalsehospitalizationinLosAngelesCounty,Califor
nia,OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/AttorneyRichardFinedibyJosephZernik100118435.html
xlviiiZernik,J.,HabeasCorpusintheUnitedStatesthecaseofRichardIsaacFineReview
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/
xlix20110801Zernik,J.,LosAngelesSuperiorCourtwidespreadcorruptionandrefusalofUSgovernmenttotake
action,16thWorldCriminologyCongresspresentation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61351469/
l20100818ZernikJ.,DataMiningofOnlineJudicialRecordsoftheNetworkedUSFederalCourts,International
JournalonSocialMedia:Monitoring,Measurement,Mining,1:6983(2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38328585/
li20100108SupervisorAntonovich,LosAngelesCounty,repeatmailingofJanuary8,2010responsefromSheriff
LeeBacainre:ArrestandbookingrecordsofInmateRichardFine(1824367),includingthefraudulentattachments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25555341/
liiAdditionalreviewofSustain:
20080610Zernik,J.,SustaintheCMSoftheCivilDivisionoftheLosAngelesSuperiorCourtAbstractandFig
ures
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162880/
20081019Zernik,J.,RegistersofActionsinSustainCMSoftheCivilDivisionoftheLosAngelesSuperiorCourt
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162461/
liii 2010-03-25 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) in the US District Court, Central District of California
- Docket Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32567529/
liv 1999-00-00 US District Court, Central District of California, General Order 99-07 - Certification as to Parties

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44306319/
lv 2010-03-19 Carrizosa P., RE: Engagement of Attorney McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) in the US District
Court, Central District of California, Letter on behalf of the California Judicial Council
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28645522/
lvi 2009-06-24 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-71692) in the US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit: Dkt #02 - Zernik's Ex
Parte Application for Leave to File
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25138500/
lvii 2009-06-30 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-71692) in the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - alleged Fraud
in unsigned unauthenticated order (Dkt #4) issued in the names of Circuit Judges Kozinski, Paez, and Tallman denying
the Emergency Petition of Richard Fine

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27626788/

20100330DeclarationofDrJosephZernikinRE:NDAs,pertainingtoRichardFinevSheriffofLosAngelesCounty
etal(0956073)andJosephZernikvUSDistrictCourt,CentralDistrictofCalifornia(0872714),intheUSCourtof
Appeals,9thCircuit,obtainedinvisittoUSCourtofAppeals9thCircuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29421975/
2010-03-27 Zernik J., Addendum #1 to Request for Opinions Re: CM/ECF - case management system of the US Court
of Appeals 9th Circuit, as reviewed in orders in Fine v Sheriff
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29525890/
2010-04-05 Zernik J., Addendum #2 to Request for Experts' Opinions RE: Case management system NDAs, US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29527583/
lviii2010-04-20 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) in the Supreme Court - Face pages of five filings by Dr

Joseph Zernik, with stamps showing receipt by the US Supreme Court s

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30304657/
2010-04-18 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) in the Supreme Court - 1 Amended Motion to Intervene s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161573/
2010-04-18 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) in the Supreme Court - 2 Amended Request for Lenience by
Pro Se Filer s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161636/
2010-04-18 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) in the Supreme Court - 3 Amended Request for Corrections
in US Supreme Court Records s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162109/
2010-04-18 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) in the Supreme Court - 4 Amended Request for Incorporation by Reference s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30162144/
2010-04-18 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) in the Supreme Court - 5 Amended Appendices s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30161692/
2010-04-18 Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (09-A827) in the Supreme Court - 5 Amended Appendix IX b: Zernik's
Declaration in re: April 16, 2010 search for records in the Courts microfilm judgments archive s
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30185575/
2010-04-22 Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) at the US Supreme Court - Dr Zernik's Declaration RE: Court Counsel Danny Bickell
and Filing at US Supreme Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31430464/

lix20130102TheStrangeCaseofJeffBaron,DomainNameWebPioneerTurnedLegalCrusader_DallasObserver
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/thestrangecaseofjeffbarondomainnamewebpioneerturnedlegalcrusader
7142880
lx 2012-03-11 Netsphere Inc et al v Baron et al (3:09-cv-00988) in the US District Court, Northern District of Texas: Compiled records (Docket, Calendar, Complaint, Summons, Assignment Order, Order Appointing Receiver , etc) evidence
of racketeering in the Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84947609/
lxi Netsphere Inc et al v. Baron et al (3:09-cv-00988) in the US District Court, Northern District of Texas: Compiled
records (Docket, Calendar, Complaint, Summons, Assignment Order, Order Appointing Receiver , etc) evidence of
racketeering in the Court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84947609/
lxii Netsphere Inc et al v. Baron et al (3:09-cv-00988) in the US District Court, Northern District of Texas:A fraudulent note
was inserted in the docket under Dkt #005, purporting to show the entry of an Order Reassigning the case to Judge
ROYAL FURGESO. In fact, the record linked under Dkt #005 is an Affidavit of Execution of Service of Summons and
Complaint.
lxiii 2010-11-24 Netsphere Inc et al v. Baron et al (3:09-cv-00988) in the US District Court, Northern District of Texas:Dkt
#123 Emergency motion for Appointment of Receiver over Jeffrey Baron
lxiv Netsphere Inc, et al v Jeffrey Baron (10-1120) in the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit: Compiled records (Docket, Motions, Orders)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84888800/
Netsphere Inc, et al v Jeffrey Baron (10-1120) in the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, docket lists numerous other Related Cases 11-10113, 11-10289, 11-10290 - all of them still current.

lxv 2003-02-11 Netsphere Inc, et al v Jeffrey Baron (10-1120) in the US Court of Appeals, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit:
Motion for Reconsideration of District Court Order Appointing Receiver Over the Person and Property of Jeff Baron.
lxvi Zernik J., "Design and Operation of Information Systems of the US Courts are Linked to Failing Banking Regulation",
Data Analytics 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100623333/
lxvii Zernik J., Securities and Exchange Commission v Bank of America Corporation - Simulated Litigation and Simulated Banking Regulation in the United States
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/

lxviii20110801Zernik,J:FraudandcorruptionintheUScourtsistightlylinkedtofailingbankingregulationandthe
financialcrisis,16thWorldCriminologyCongresspresentation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61351562/

lxix 20080108MorgensonG.,LenderTellsJudgeItRecreatedLetters,NewYorkTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/business/08lend.html?_r=0
lxx 2008-09-24 FBI Investigates Four Firms at Heart of the Financial Mess, Truthout
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/80250:fbi-investigates-four-firms-at-heart-of-the-financial-mess
2012-03-15 Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III, FBI Director, before the United States Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/Mueller%20Testimony%20FINAL.pdf
lxxi 2011-04-13 US Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, "Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse"

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/14/business/14crisisdocviewer.html

2011-04-13 Morgenson G., "Naming Culprits in the Financial Crisis", NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14crisis.html?pagewanted=all
lxxii2011-04-14 Morgenson G., "In Financial Crisis, No Prosecutions of Top Figures", NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

2013-03-06 Mark Gongloff, "Eric Holder Admits Some Banks Are Just Too Big To Prosecute", Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0

lxxiii 2009-04-23 RE: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) State of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo Letter to US
Congress and analysts' responses:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41079990/
lxxiv SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) in the US District Court, Southern District of NY - complete
PACER docket with detailed analysis, additional records in litigation of and links to most of the records in the reference
list below, are provide in the Online Appendix
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44663232/
lxxv 2014-07-25 "Argentinas debt saga - Unsettling times", The Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21608638-clock-ticking-toward-argentine-default-unsettling-times
lxxvi2002-06-06 Globalisation and its discontents by Joseph Stiglitz_The Economist

www.arlindocorreia.com/100902.html
lxxvii 20160526CriminalcomplaintagainstJudgeEsperanzaAlonoftheHaifaMagistrateCourt(Serious
Crime223561/2016)vwithconfirmationofreceiptbytheIsraelPolice,assubmittedtotheAttorneyGeneral
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5bUk2OExtY3Vtb2c/view?usp=sharing
https://www.scribd.com/doc/313907736/
lxxviii20160621Ajudgmententeredinerror:WheredidtherecordsdisappearfromtheSupremeCourtfile?,
WallaNews
http://news.walla.co.il/item/2972169
lxxix20160816ZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael(4650/16)intheSupremeCourtRequestfordulysignedand
certifiedcopiesofJusticeJoubrans:a.Decision,denyingdisqualificationforacause,b.JudgmentdenyingAppeal
fromMagistrateLubinskyDecision,denyingaccesstoinspectpapercourtdecisionsinStateofIsraelvZadorovunder
thereasoningofajumbleinthepapercourtfile
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5Vi1yd2FmeUdHQkE/view?usp=sharing
20160816ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)CriminalAppealintheSupremeCourtRequestforadulysigned
andcertifiedcopyofMagistrateLubinskyDecision,denyingdisqualificationforacause,b.JudgmentdenyingAppeal
fromMagistrateLubinskyDecision,denyingaccesstoinspectpapercourtdecisionsinStateofIsraelvZadorovunder
thereasoningofajumbleinthepapercourtfile
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5NHRaY3JlSzJocTg/view?usp=sharing
20160816ZernikvZadorovandStateofIsrael(4650/16)intheSupremeCourtInquiry,filedwithChiefClerk
IditMelulfordulysignedandcertifiedcopiesofJusticeJoubrans:a.Decision,denyingdisqualificationforacause,b.
JudgmentdenyingAppealfromMagistrateLubinskyDecision,denyingaccesstoinspectpapercourtdecisionsinState
ofIsraelvZadorovunderthereasoningofajumbleinthepapercourtfile
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5UElHcGVjN3Npelk/view?usp=sharing
ZadorovvStateofIsrael(7939/10)CriminalAppealintheSupremeCourtInquiry,filedwithChiefClerkIdit
MelulforadulysignedandcertifiedcopyofMagistrateLubinskyDecision,denyingdisqualificationforacause,b.
JudgmentdenyingAppealfromMagistrateLubinskyDecision,denyingaccesstoinspectpapercourtdecisionsinState
ofIsraelvZadorovunderthereasoningofajumbleinthepapercourtfile
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aa2xQGbmk5ZjM5Sl82TGNGRVk/view?usp=sharing
lxxx20140227Zernik,K.,"ISRAEL:WarheroMotiAshkenazi+76othersversusthemedieval",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAELWarheroMotiAshkbyJosephZernikBankingCrime_CorporateCor
ruptionCrime_CorruptionInLegalProfession_Foreclosures140227143.html
lxxxiBaranesNoticeandrequesttoremoveelectronicdecisionrecords.Repeatrequest.
lxxxiiStateofIsraelRegulationsoftheCourtsOfficeoftheClerk(1936)and(2004)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cTNMWVh3QUpNVFk

lxxxiii20100000StateofIsrael,Ombudsman'sReport60b(2010),"MinistryofJusticeComputerization",p693etseq
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50624862/
lxxxiv20151215Zernik,J.,"TheZadorovAffair:FalsemurderconvictionofaUkrainianexposedmassivecorruption
oftheIsraelijusticesystem",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/TheZadorovAffairFalsebyJosephZernikExoneration_Israel_JudicialCorrup
tionAndPedophilia151215702.html
20160712Zernik,J.,"ROMANZADOROVtheIsraeliMendelBeilis",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ROMANZADOROVtheIsraelbyJosephZernikIsrael_JudicialCorruption
160712535.html
20160819Zernik,J.,"RomanZadorovaffair:Acourt,whichrefusestocertifyitsowndecisions,iscertifiedcorrupt!",
OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/RomanZadorovaffairAcobyJosephZernikIsrael_JudicialCorruption160819
829.html
lxxxv20160711InRE:RomanZadorovUkrainiancitizendetainedinIsraelcomplaintandrequestforinvestiga
tionbytheUNHRCWorkingGrouponArbitraryDetention
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5YTcxZGJENnN1QmM
lxxxvi20130101TheHumanRightsAlert(NGO)submission,asincorporatedintotheUNHumanRightsCouncil
UPRreportwiththenote"LackofintegrityintheelectronicrecordsoftheSupremeCourt,thedistrictcourtsandthe
detaineescourtsinIsrael"(page4,paragraph25)
http://daccessddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/180/12/PDF/G1218012.pdf?OpenElement
20120604HumanRightAlert'sSubmission;2013UPRoftheStateofIsrael
http://www.scribd.com/doc/92826212/
20120510HumanRightAlert'sAppendixItoSubmission;2013UPRoftheStateofIsrael:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108663259/
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5cjNxd2szX05oMkU
lxxxvii20160620ZernikJ.,"USDHSassistsinsuppressionofanticorruptiondissentinIsrael",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/USDHSassistsinsuppressbyJosephZernikDepartmentOfHomeland
Security_Israel_JudicialCorruption_ProtesterSurveillanceAndArrests16062071.html
20140817StateofIsraelvRafiRotem(10740213)intheTelAvivMagistrateCourtNoticeofevidenceofperver
sionofjusticeandFraudUpontheCourt,servedonSupremeCourtPresidingJusticeAsherGrunisandTelAvivMag
istrateCourtPresidingJudgeZivahHadassiHermanincludesallcourtfilerecords
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237093179/
20150628ZernikJ.,"WhenitcomestotheFirstAmendmentIsraelscoresan"F"",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/WhenitcomestotheFirstbyJosephZernikBankingFraud_FreedomOfThe
Press_Israel_JudicialCorruption150628481.html
lxxxviii20070423PosnerR.,"EnlightenedDespot",TheNewRepublic
https://newrepublic.com/article/60919/enlighteneddespot
lxxxix20100624GoldbergS.,"PraiseforanIsraeliJudgeDrivesCriticismofKagan"_NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/us/politics/25kagan.html?_r=0
xc20110321"IBMFinedUSD10MillionForChinaCorruption"
http://www.chinasourcingnews.com/2011/03/21/252665ibmfinedusd10millionforchinacorruption/
20110319"IBMpays$10mlntosettleKoreanbribery"
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/124579/20110319/ibmpays10mlntosettlebribery.htm
20060418"FormerIllinoisgovernorguiltyinIBMcorruptioncase"
http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/scandals/political.html
20010209"LawmakershailarrestinIBMbribecase
http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/scandals/political.html
"SwissBanksTurnOverMillionstoArgentinainIBMBriberyScandal"
http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/scandals/political.html
199810"SuspiciousdeathaddstoIBMscandal"
http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/scandals/political.html
20100621"IBMCleansesItsChinaRanksOfCorruptStaff"
http://www.chinatechnews.com/2010/06/21/12228ibmcleansesitschinaranksofcorruptstaff
20070925"U.S.SecuritiesAndExchangeCommissionLitigationReleaseNo.20296"
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2007/lr20296.htm
xci 20100425RequestandRefusalofOpinionLetterbyHarvardLawSchoolDeanMarthaMinowinre:Alleged
FraudinPACERandCM/ECF

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30485286/
xcii2010-04-25 Request for Opinion by Yale Law School Faculty in re: Alleged Fraud in PACER and CM/ECF
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30485375/
xciii 2010-09-09 Harvard Dean Minow, Board of Advisers of Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review Asked for
Acknowledgment of Receipt of Paper Submitted to the Journal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37189960/
xciv 2010-09-08 Harvard, Yale Law Journals Refuse to Review Paper Documenting Corruption of the US Justice System
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37077401/
xcv Zernik J., Invalid Electronic Record Systems of the State and Federal US Courts Enablers of Human Rights
Abuse and the Financial Crisis CYBERLAW 2013 paper peer-reviewed and accepted, then rejected
administratively.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/117040401/

xcvi20160928Zernik,J.ISRAEL:Computerelectionfraudintheonlydigitalbananarepublicinthemiddleeast?,
OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ISRAELComputerelectionbyJosephZernikElectionFraud_Israel160928
162.html
xcvii20160921"Thereisatotaljungleinthecourts.Doanythingyouantoavoidgettingthere,sincethereisnojus
ticethere!",Globes[Hebrew]
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001153449
xcviii 20160805SilversteinR.,"TwitterCensorsTweet ReportingChargesofSexualMisconductAgainstIsraeli
Judge",TikkunOlam
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2016/08/05/twittercensorstweetreportingchargesofsexualmisconductagainstis
raelijudge/
xcix20160620ZernikJ.,"USDHSassistsinsuppressionofanticorruptiondissentinIsrael",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/USDHSassistsinsuppressbyJosephZernikDepartmentOfHomeland
Security_Israel_JudicialCorruption_ProtesterSurveillanceAndArrests16062071.html
20160814ZernikJ.,"Israel:antijudicialcorruptionprotesterplacedundercompulsorypsychiatrichospitalization",
OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/IsraelantijudicialcorrbyJosephZernikIsrael_JudicialCorruption_Punishing
Protesters1608145.html
20160910ZernikJ.,"JoelleBenSimonaffaircontinuesorganizedcrimeintheJerusalemFamilyCourt",OpEd
News.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/JoelleBenSimonaffaircobyJosephZernikIsrael_JudicialCorruption160910
99.html
20140106ZernikJ.,"PrayerforthepeaceandwelfareofUSantijudicialcorruptionactivistsROGERSHULERand
BILLWINDSOR",OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/PrayerforthepeaceandwbyJosephZernikBillOfRights_Corruption_Corrup
tionInLegalProfession_Judges140106955.html
c 2009LeahyP., "Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the US Department of Justice - Transcript of Senator Leahy
speech
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38472251/

ci2000MessingerI.C.,OrderintheCourts:AHistoryoftheFederalCourtClerk'sOffice,FederalJudicialCenter
https://public.resource.org/scribd/8763902.pdf
cii20000315LessigL.,TheCodeinLaw,andtheLawinCode,
https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/pcforum.pdf