Following is the Time Line of Events, July 2008 - January 2010, of the cases related to Silman, based on records discovered so far:
- The key finding is that the Appeal of Brenner's November 19, 2009 Decision in the hat of Registrar was eventually reviewed and denied on January 31, 2010 by Brenner in the hat of De Facto District Judge.
- Additionally alarming is the appearance, that the data in the remote terminals were edited in effort to convey the impression that Brenner was unaware of the related proceedings in the Supreme Court, which clarified the nature of his double-hat appointment. The data in the local terminals provide evidence to the contrary.
- Various irregularities and discrepancies between data from the remote and the local terminals remain inexplicable. The data accessed so far in both systems is partial at best, and the full records in this case are yet to be discovered. Two requests to Inspect and to Copy are pending before Magistrate Judge Hagai Brenner, one in his hat of Registrar, and the other in his hat of De Facto District Judge.
View as PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/
Tel-Aviv-Jaffa and Los Angeles, July 25 - Joseph Zernik, PhD, of Human Rights Alert (NGO) released a Time Line of Events, related to the late Moshe Silman, self-immolated Israeli social protest activist and the justice system of the State of Israel:  1) Moshe Silman et al v Bituah Leumi-Tel-Aviv Branch et al ( 13491/2008) - Original Complaint? - in the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court [2,3]
- July 10, 2008 - date of the first record under 1349/2008 - unsigned Decision by an unnamed person in the "Legal Department, Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court".
- July 31, 2009 - unsigned Decision by The office of the Clerk of the District Court refused to receive for filing a Request to Inspect and to Copy under 1349/2008, since it did not exist.
- July 8, 2008 - is listed as the filing date of the Original Complaint under 1752-08.
- October 8, 2009 - Registrar Ethan Orenstein's Decision, unsigned, indexed under both 13491-08 and 1752-08, notes that Response by Bituach Leumi failed to be filed in the court file, although it was apparently served on Silman's attorney. Orenstein instructs the Attorney for Silman to file Bituach Leumi's Response in the Court.
4) Moshe Silman et al v Bituah Leumi-Tel-Aviv Branch et al (1752-08) - Original Complaint? - in the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court [2,3]
- November 19 (?), 2009 - the case was re-assigned (?) to Brenner in the hat of a Registrar (no normative documentation has been discovered so far of the Assignment/Re-assignment Procedures).
- November 19, 2009 - first appearance of a record by Brenner in the case - Decision - denying the Request for Waiver of Fees and ordering Dismissal of the Complaint. The electronic Public Records fail to show valid court records for the Decision and the Protocol, and the Proceeding is not listed in the Calendar of the Court. The local terminal records explicitly state the the proceeding, presided by Hagai Brenner on that date "did not take place." The Protocol lists an unknown "Bracha" as Attorney for Bituach Leumi. The records conflict on the date of issuance of the Order in the presence or the absence of the parties.
- November 29, 2009 - The November 19, 2009 Decision was served (not yet delivered) on the Complainant
- December 28, 2009 - Attorney for Silman files in the Supreme Court the Request for a Leave to Appeal the November 19, 2009 Brenner Decision.
- December 29, 2009 - Magistrate Judge Yigal Marzel of the Supreme Court issues the Order to Show Cause: Why the Appeal should not be dismissed, for having been filed with the wrong judicial authority? The Order clarifies the double-hat nature of Brenner's appointment in the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court. Magistrate Judge Yigal Marzel finds that the November 19, 2009 Decision was issued by Brenner in the hat of Registrar, and that therefore, the Decision should be appealed before the the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court.
- December 31, 2009 - Attorney for Silman files in the District Court Response on Bituach Leumi'
- January 6, 2010 - following the directives in the Order to Show Cause in the Supreme Court, Attorney for Silman files the Appeal in the District Court.
- January 12, 2010 - Judgment is issued by Magistrate Judge Yigal Marzel, dismissing the Request for Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court.
- January 25, 2010 - "Post-It Order" (in the local terminal) is issued by Brenner in the hat of Registrar, denying the Request to Stay and dismissing the Original Complaint. Brenner also notes that the Request for Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court was filed with the wrong judicial authority. The "Post-It Order" fails to be registered or be included in the electronic court file in a remote terminal.
- January 31, 2010 - the Appeal of Brenner's Decision in the hat of Registrar is assigned to Brenner in the hat of De Facto District Judge.
- January 31, 2010 - Brenner in the hat of De Facto District Judge denies the Appeal, originating in Brenner's November 19, 2009 Decision in the hat of Registrar. The record of the January 31, 2010 Decision/Judgement is missing from both local and remote terminals records.
Additional causes for alarm:
- The invalid Magistrate Judge Hagai Brenner November 19, 2009 Decision and Protocol records in the Original Complaint, which fail to appear in the Calendar of the Court should be deemed suspect simulated court proceeding and court records; likewise - the January 25, 2010 "Post-It Order" in the Original Complaint, denying the Request for Stay of the Dismissal, and the missing January 31, 2010 Judgment in the Appeal, both by Magistrate Judge Hagai Brenner.
- Overall review of the records suggests that the data, which appear in the remote terminals, were edited in effort to convey the impression that Magistrate Judge Hagai Brenner was unaware of the proceedings in the Supreme Court, and of the issue of his double-hat appointment. The data for the Original Complaint, which appear in a local terminal (particularly the January 25, 2010 "Post-It Decision"), make it clear that Magistrate Judge Hagai Brenner was fully aware of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. 
- Various irregularities, missing records, and discrepancies between data from the remote and local terminals remain inexplicable. 
"The case of the late Moshe Silman shows how a Person is required to protect his rights in the courts of the State of Israel today against the State of Israel, which took his property and source of livelihood," explains Dr Zernik. Dr Zernik claims that the conditions, which have been established in the courts of the State of Israel, following the implementation of new electronic Public Record systems over the past decade, amount to serious violation of the Human Right "to a fair and public hearing." 
LINKS: 12-07-14 Moshe Silman sets himself on fire in a Tel Aviv social protest, leaves a letter
 12-07-07 Biographical Sketch Joseph Zernik, PhD
Joseph Zernik, PhD 
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
* The 2010 submission of Human Rights Alert to the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations, regarding the United States, was reviewed by the HRC professional staff and incorporated in the official HRC Professional Staff Report with a note referring to “corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California.”
* The 2012 submission of Human Rights Alert to the HRC regarding the State of Israel, titled "Integrity or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel," is scheduled for review in early 2013.
Human Rights Alert online Flag Counter: 140http://inproperinla.blogspot.
Take away justice, then, and what are governments but great bandit bands?Saint Augustine, Civitas Dei (City of God,4.4)