Monday, July 11th, 2016
To:
The Second Authority for Radio & Television (Channel 2)
Mr. Moshe Nussbaum
Mr. Guy Peleg
Mrs. Yonit Levy
Of the Neve Ilan Communication Center
D.N Harei Yehuda 90850
Via Email, fax: 02-533-9809
And registered mail
Re: Defamatory speech – a demand for an immediate retraction and apology
On behalf of my client, the esteemed Rabbi Eliezer Berland, I request
your attention into the following matter:
1.
In a series of articles,
broadcasts and promotional advertisements that you published and broadcast in a
variety of media (television, print and online), you broadcast and advertised
false, libelous, slanderous and malicious statements that did not contain a
kernel of truth, and did so methodically, consistently, harmfully and
disproportionately, like a targeted killing.
2.
Not only were these
statements unrivaled in their falseness and maliciousness, they also severely
damaged my client—to his good name and reputation, to his personal and family
life, and to a great extent financially, due to the great losses he incurred as
a result of the damage you caused.
3.
In these statements, you
referred to my client using clearly offensive, false expressions such as
"suspected of rape", "escaped criminal",
"wanted", "completely criminal behavior", "making a
mockery of the police", and other such offensive expressions.
4.
These statements you made
throughout the period of time that included articles published on April 3rd,
2013, April 4th, 2013, April 8th, 2013, May 7th,
2013, July 21st, 2013, November 5th, 2013, September 11th,
2014 and September 16th, 2014 destroyed my client's good name and
honor, as you labeled him a rapist, even though my client had never even been
suspected of committing rape, and even though you were well aware that you had
completely fabricated these allegations.
5.
Moreover, you brazenly
dubbed my client an "escaped criminal" and ascribed information about
a police investigation into my client at the time of your statement, although
my client had never been summoned for questioning at that time, and had no
knowledge of it until he heard about it later, from said statements.
6.
Moreover, you really went
overboard when you tied my client to criminal elements in order to tarnish his
reputation and shame him, without qualifying your speech to retain even a small
measure of journalistic integrity or responsibility, thereby flagrantly
violating the code of ethics to which you are bound.
7.
The false statements are
especially severe considering that, at the time they were broadcast, you were
well aware that the man you had interviewed on March 14th, 2013, who
had made unprecedented allegations against my client, was none other than the
man who confessed to shooting the home of one of the rabbi's adherents, thereby
committing a crime himself (as you were aware when broadcasting your
statements). This man was later convicted for this crime. During the actual
broadcast, in which you gave the interviewee sympathetic and extensive
coverage, he was actually under house arrest—a fact that you intentionally hid
from the public, along with other relevant details.
8.
Moreover, in that same
broadcast, you aired an interview with the wife of said shooter, dubbing
her the "chief complainant", while hiding the fact that she is
actually married to the shooter, and not simply a complainant who is unrelated
to the other interviewee. In reality, you interviewed a couple in which the husband
committed a crime related to my client, without revealing this fact. A
reasonable viewer is led to believe that you interviewed two unrelated people,
each with his own serious claims against my client, when in reality you
interviewed a wife covering for her husband and trying to save his hide, in
light of the crime he had confessed to. Most jarring fact you hid from the
public, however, is that the complaint against my client stemmed from the
investigation into the complainant's husband's shooting (and not sooner).
Although you were well aware of this fact, you hid it in order to tarnish my
client and create a more interesting "scoop" defaming him in a
clearly biased piece rife with inaccuracies that went to the heart of the
matter.
9.
In addition to the above
and without detracting from it, it must be noted that, although your
interviewee fabricated a story from his wild imagination about a naked woman
who lay on top of the esteemed rabbi, you never once bothered to verify this
information, even on the most basic level, as required before broadcasting such
information. You never bothered to verify whether this had actually happened,
even though you were broadcasting very harsh claims about someone well known
and recognized in a strong community, which you knew would destroy his entire
world in one fell swoop.
10.
All of the above and in the
context of the string of misdeeds you perpetrated, which will be detailed
below, constitute defamation and a violation of the rules of journalistic
integrity the reflects upon a level of misconduct unworthy of your profession.
You have trampled the rules of journalistic ethics when you strayed so far from
any accuracy or reliability in transmitting information, as expected of any
reasonable journalist. As if that were not enough, in this highly offensive
broadcast, so clear-cut and so biased, one can certainly see your intent
to sully my client's good name and defame his character. The existence
of any "public right to know" does not give the journalist a "green
light" to make whatever statements he so chooses, and any
reasonable journalist is obliged to carefully examine the news items he wishes
to broadcast and ensure he does not make false vilifications.
11.
In light of these facts and
proof in this matter, which cannot all be contained in this short document, but
will be listed in detailed the appropriate time and place, it must be
noted that the false statements publicized by you in a one-sided and
tendentious manner clearly constitute malice and bad faith, contrary to
the law and without taking the necessary and reasonable precautions. These
serious statements destroyed and decimated the magnificent legacy and life's
work of my client, who was effectively tried and convicted in the court of
public opinion—on television screens and print media—by your viewers and
readers, before he was questioned and before any charges had been brought
against him.
12.
It should be noted and
emphasized that the details listed herein do not serve to indicate that any
statements you made not listed herein were not false and defamatory.
13.
Due to the frequent,
biased, and multiple news items, my client incurred significant damages in
the millions of shekels (and my client is owed compensation for each
publicized news item, including future news items, without further proof of
damage, in accordance with the Law Against Defamatory Speech of 1965). My
client reserves the right to make future claims against any and all
parties for false and defamatory statements made about him, and this letter does
not limit or detract from my client's rights.
14.
Furthermore, and without
detracting from the aforementioned in any way, you must immediately act to
minimize the extent of the damage by publishing posthaste an apology from
yourselves to my client for the false statements, inaccuracies and bias in
presenting the issues, and the concealment of meaningful facts, and to print
a retraction of your publicized statements.
15.
My client emphasizes and
notes that the publicity in question by its very nature caused immense harm
that will continue to grow if a denial, clarification and apology is not
published. Also note that the failure to print such a clarification and apology
will be seen as further evidence of your bad faith and malicious intent to
sully my client's good name.
16.
In light of the above, you
are hereby afforded the opportunity to deny, clarify and apologize as
necessary, in order to slightly rectify the damage and injustice you have done
to my client. The extent of the correction, denial and apology will affect the
claim against you.
17.
To be clear, neither the
contents of this letter nor the lack thereof detract in any way from the rights
and/or claims and/or demands to which my client is entitled under the law.
Respectfully,
Michal Saar, Attorney-at-law
