An overseas website dedicated to Israel has published banned details in the Naveh case • In the courts, it has been clarified: "There is no objection to disclosing the case in order to put an end to the bans"

• Effie Nave // ​​Photo: Joshua Yosef

Afi Nave affair: The court administration released a statement on Friday about the case involving the former bar association, calling for the removal of the publication ban on its details, due to what they have identified in the authority as the campaign of imprisonment under the scope of the order.

"In recent days, we have witnessed various publications on allegedly taken material from Atty Neve's cell phone and on recordings and correspondence allegedly with ministers, politicians, judges and journalists about three years ago," the statement said.

Effie Nave is out of house arrest

"Following these publications, the judiciary considers it appropriate to state that, according to the media reports, the publication ban issued on these materials was granted at the request of Attorney Nephi, as part of legal proceedings, to him and for protection he requested for his privacy.

"The judiciary, for its part, does not seek to cover anything and has no objection that the materials will be exposed, as far as it is concerned, to end the irresponsible campaign against Israeli judges as a whole who are doing their work with dedication, professionalism and faith," the court administration said.

More on:

• Sexual Case for Appointment: Indictment Subject to Hearing Against Effie Nave and Judge Ethie Crief

• Efi Nave, the interns and secret correspondence

• Epi Nave's Attorney: Investigate the identity of the cellphone leak

The site that posted details - previously posted on Anat Kam

Along with this announcement, a website abroad, which deals with publications on Israel in disregard of the prohibition on advertising and censorship, published additional details in the affair, which became known as "sex for appointment". According to the report, the affair deals with sensitive correspondence with a senior justice system, and previously published details on Anat Kam's affairs and prisoner X.

Remember, Naveh was suspected of using his power in his roles, and especially as chairman of the Bar, Naveh had a significant influence on the selection of judges in Israel and was involved in his role in selecting judges even though he was not a member of the committee at that time. The committee's attorneys and their consultation with him as a result of his role, as well as through his professional relations with other members of the committee who are not representatives of the bureau, also decided to indict Naveh in the case, subject to the hearing.

The affair, as stated, was subject to a blanket prohibition order because of her personal information, but according to Naveh's lawyer, Boaz Ben Tzur, the information - which came from his client's personal phone was leaked and passed on. In a complaint filed by Ben Tzur to Lahav's Office 433, Attorney Ben Tzur states that "the more the cause of the leak is indeed Stiff, as the evidence as well as common sense teaches, it is strong that the competent body will take care of it."

The complaint also claims that despite the explicit prohibition on the order, "it was repeatedly violated, and the content of the phone was leaked despite the fact that Noah had repeatedly warned it." According to Ben Tzur, in January 2019, Neve contacted the police, stating that criminal activity on this issue is ongoing, and that "Stife still holds the stolen property and talks to various parties about correspondence found on his mobile phones, revealing the secret of many conversations."

Advocate Ben Tzur: "Responsible for the leak - Hadas Steif"

In light of this, Advocate Ben Tzur argues, "Noah again demanded that the police act according to its authority, as one who believes in keeping the law, and will act to clarify and treat the matter without delay." Ben Tzur also emphasized that "the State Attorney's Office announced that it intended to continue to hold the Appellant's mobile devices, and a copy of the information on the Appliance has not yet been transferred to the HM or the Appellant. Accordingly, only two parties were able to leak the Mobile Content: the enforcement authorities or Stief. Leaked by the law enforcement authorities, no other interpretation can be found, moreover, as part of a Globe newspaper publication, the material was leaked as follows: "The materials transferred to the folders are systematically arranged by the party holding the phone." Steif distributed the breakout products to folders on disk. "

According to Ben Tzur, it is "an unequivocal view that the factor that leaked the information from the mobile phones is Stief or who on her behalf." He added: "This kind of behavior cannot be reconciled. Stiff solicited to take stolen property, broke it, rummaged it, received immunity from prosecution despite the serious crimes she committed, and at the same time continued to hold and leak the products. All these, to the best of our knowledge, have not been investigated, and all, according to the 'immunity' granted, must have led to her being prosecuted as she lied and violated her statements that the material was not in her hand. "