The certification statement, used by the Chief Clerk, is not the one authorized by the Regulations of the Courts, and the purported certifications are executed on unsigned copies of the purported decisions, "subject to editing and phrasing changes". No certified electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act (2001), have been established in the Supreme Court. Since early 2003, all the electronic decisions of the Supreme Court been published online unsigned and uncertified. A fraudulent, unsigned, undated, apostille certification arrangement has been published online by the "Judicial Authority". Nations, including but not limited to those, who are parties to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961), should re-assess any faith and credit, given to legal public records originating in the courts of the State of Israel.
Jerusalem, April 5 - following repeated requests, Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO), has received for the first time purported certifications by Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz on three judicial records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel. All three records originated in challenges by Dr Zernik to the integrity of the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court. [1,2] All three records are claimed to be simulated decisions of the Supreme Court. [3,4]
All three certifications are deemed false and deliberately misleading as well, for the following reasons:
- If valid original judicial records had existed for any of the three decisions, they would have been the records signed by the respective justices/judges. However, the Chief Clerk's certifications are executed on unsigned copies of the respective records, which bear the disclaimer, "subject to editing and phrasing changes".
- The certification statement used by the Chief Clerk is invalid:
- The Regulations of the Courts - Office of the Clerk (2004), Regulation 6a explicitly states, that the certification statement, which the Chief Clerk is permitted to execute is “Copy Corresponds to the Original” (He’eteq Mat’im la-Maqor). 
- The March 29, 2012 cover letter of the records, signed by Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz, also purports the same: that the attached records bear the certification statement, “Copy Corresponds to the Original”.
- In contrast, the attached records are stamped “Copying Corresponds to the Original” (Ha’ataqah Mat’imah la-Maqor).
The findings, pertaining to the records at hand, are not unique:
- Since January 2003, all decisions of the Supreme Court have been published online unsigned, uncertified, and with the disclaimer - "subject to editing and phrasing changes."
- Although the Supreme Court relies on electronic records, no visible certified electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signature Act(2001), have been established in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court to this date.
- Numerous decisions of the Supreme Court have been falsified, particularly in 2002, following the sudden death of Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen. Decisions, issued years after his death, bear his purported certifications. 
- The evidence indicates that Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz is not in control of the electronic records systems of the Supreme Court. And given that a valid certification by her on any judicial record of the Supreme Court is yet to be discovered, the nature of her appointment remains unclear. The Administration of Courts has denied a Freedom of Information request for her appointment record, claiming that it was exempt as a "record of internal deliberations". 
- The "Judicial Authority" has also published online an undated, unsigned, false and deliberately misleading certification arrangement, relative to theHague Apostille Convention(1961). The arrangement delegates the apostille certification authority, which is vested in the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court (or other Deputy Clerks) to outside notaries. The arrangement is alleged as fraud on the courts of other nations, which are party to the Convention. The Administration of Courts refused to disclose, who authored the arrangement, who authorized its publication on the web, who the Justice Minister was, whose authority was invoked in the arrangement, and what the legal foundation for the apostille certification arrangement was. 
"A court, which refuses to certify its own records, is certified corrupt," concludes Dr Zernik.
The requests for certification of the three decisions at hand, were filed by Dr Zernik, as part of preparation of submission for the 2012 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of human rights in the State of Israel by the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations. The submission is narrowly focused on "integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel."
The draft submission alleges:
- Conditions, now prevailing in the electronic record systems of the national courts of the State of Israel, are in violations of any article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where integrity of the courts and the justice system is a prerequisite. Conditions, which have been established over the past decade should be deemed a simulated justice system, reflecting corruption of the courts, the Ministry of Justice, and the legal profession.
- The validity of any legal public records, originating in the State of Israel, and employed in the UPR process, should be re-assessed;
- Recruitment of all possible civil society agents in effort to resolve a constitutional crisis, in a nation with no constitution.
- Institution of a thorough, public investigation of events surrounding the death of Supreme Court Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen in 2002.
- Establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (NGO)____
 12-03-12 Request forwarded to Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court Sarah Lifschitz for Certification of Supreme Court decisions s (Eng)http://www.scribd.com/doc/
 12-03-25 Request for Certification by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel of the December 4, 2011 Decision in Dr Joseph Zernik v Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court (8835/11) shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/
 "Simulated litigation", "simulated decisions", "simulated service", "simulated justice system" here refer to conduct defined as felonies in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.  11-12-19 Zernik, J: Simulated Records, Simulated Litigation Enabled by the Electronic Record Systems of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel (English) s
 12-04-04 Request forwarded to Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz for correct certification of copies of decisions of the Supreme Court.http://www.scribd.com/doc/
 12-03-21 Evidence of Large-Scale Fraud in the Electronic Systems and Electronic Records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel: Appendix 06 Invalid on Their Faces Decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel
 12-04-02 Draft Human Right Alert's 2012 State of Israel UPR Submission: Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic records of the courts (REVISED)
Human Rights Alert (NGO) online
Flag Counter: 135http://inproperinla.blogspot.
Take away justice, then, and what are governments but great bandit bands?Saint Augustine, Civitas Dei (City of God,4.4)