Libel Action - a Civil proceeding 4685/99
@ the Israeli Supreme Court

עתירה אזרחית 4685/99
בבית המשפט העליון

ערעור על פסק-דין חלקי בית משפט המחוזי בירושלים בתיק 1360/98
שהועבר מבית משפט השלום בפתח תקווה 1194/97.

Appeal from the May 24, 1999 partial verdict of
Jerusalem District Court,  Civil Action 1360/98
disposed from Petach Tikva Magistrate Court, Civil Action 1194/97

להורדת תוכנה לצפיה ב - PDF

( 'מע 2) 29/12/1999 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 1) 25/1/2000 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 3) 21/2/2000 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 1) 26/3/2000 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 2) 11/4/2000 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 1) 9/7/2000 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 1) 7/11/2000 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 2) 7/1/2001 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 2) 1/4/2001 החלטה מיום
( 'מע 2) 20/1/2002 פסק-דין מיום
דורון טל
1. מרק לביד, ד"ר
2. גיורא שלגי
3. זהבה שמואלי
4. דליה פת
5. אסתר נבון
6. דן דודיוק
7. יוסף פנקובסקי
4685/99 ע"א



RAFAEL dismissed a civil servant, after putting a libelous letter in his file. The OSC (USA) assumed there had been fraud, yet stayed away deliberately. RAFAEL - Armament Development Authority, Israel, RAFAEL Armament Development Authority, RAFAEL, abuse, alien, alienage, conspiracy, corruption, corruption, coverup, cover up, cover-up, white collar crime, crime, deception, defamation, ML Energia Inc. Moshe Lavid Energia, Moshe Lavid, New Jersey, Movement for Quality of Government in Israel, due process of law, foreigner, fraud, fraudulent action, fraud, high court, supreme court, injustice, libel, libelous letter, national origin, political corruption, privacy protection, transgression of privacy, privacy, public right to know, whistle blower MQG, לשון הרע, פגיעה בפרטיות, הוראות שירות המדינה, רפא"ל, רשות פיתוח אמצעי לחימה, קונספירציה, קשר, פיטורי צימצומים, הונאה, גיורא שלגי רפא"ל Lawsuit is pending in Israel over a libelous letter planted in a personal file of an employee at RAFAEL. Moshe Lavid, Energia, New Jersey, Israel, RAFAEL Armament Development Authority, abuse, high court, supreme court, deception, conspiracy, coverup, fraud, corruption, libel, crime, injustice, due process of law, fraud, political corruption, privacy, privacy protection, privacy, whistle blower. victim of a plot Whistle Blower American citizen dual citizenship, Dr. Moshe M. Lavid, networking with RAFAEL. State of Israel defraud the peope of the United States Hebrew, documents, Israeli Courts Cause of Action - libel, predicated under the provisions of the Israeli Law. Pleading that the District Court overlooked testimonies and that the lawsuit was alternatively alleging negligience. The lower court accepted a forged letter and had improperly barred me from bringing crucial evidence. The remaining dispute is over the amount of liability over non-monetary damage. Then the Court realized that the expert's testimony on my behalf would show that the previous (May 1999) ruling was wrong! Judge Ben-Zimra proposed (in fact forced) the two parties to file affidavits, provided that he would ignore the expert testimony on my behalf. Parties who have already filed affidavits agree to waive cross examinations. The court ruled in part against defendant #1 Dr. Moshe Lavid, partial decision was later given. The court denied my lawsuit over malicious actions of State employees, considering that I had not filed my lawsuit over neglegience (even though I did). Moreoevr, the court again disregarded the allegedly forged documment that had been filed on behalf of State employees. Court counted it as addmissible evidence and absolutely overlooked my complaint over perjury and fraud had been timely filed by me at the police (see above). I was granted to amend my lawsuit over defendant 1, Dr. Moshe Lavid solely. Then, I filed an appeal from the above partial decision with the Israeli Supreme Court. The proceeding against Dr. Lavid continued. On Oct 5, 1999, the court denied Dr. Lavid's numerous motions, and advised the parties to agree that there was no dispute over the my claimed facts, i.e. Dr. Lavid damaged me by making a libel.  The remaining legal question is the liability, amount to be paid due to this damage. The Court abstained from accepting an expert testimony on my behalf and advised the parties to file both affidavits.