Kalban, who raised the charges, claims to have photographs proving abuse • In response, the tribunal filed a defamation suit • "I treated them like family members"
Photo submitted to the court
Photo:
From the appendices to the letter of defense
The head of the tribunal of the Israeli Kennel Club (HJL), who was recently appointed to the position, filed a defamation lawsuit against a canine activist who posted on the Facebook post that he said harmed his good name, claiming that he had allegedly neglected and abused dogs in the past.
The lawsuit is being heard in the Magistrate's Court in Kfar Saba.
Advocate Benjamin Kessler, who is currently in pain at the Supreme Court, argued in the statement of claim that the things attributed to him were regarding the defamation, which the defendant did not bother to contact before publication in order to verify the content and get his response and that this has the potential to cause harm. Due to his involvement in the canine field for many years, Kessler demanded NIS 142,446 in compensation from the defendant activist, Eli Blumenfeld.
On the other hand, the defendant activist claims in his defense that everything he wrote is true.
The activist also attached to the defense a series of documents, photos and press clippings that he allegedly documented complaints about the animal conditions in the court's possession, complaints about a lot of noise and bad odor coming from the place and a dispute between him and the landlord that eventually led to his arrest and eviction. Of his property and dozens who stayed with him in the same house.
According to the lawsuit, Blumenfeld published a post and a comment on the Facebook group "Documented Kennel", which brings together canine activists in Israel, near the election date for the senior position - the head of the court of the Israeli Kennel Club, in which he claimed: "It is very surprising that the parent committee Maintaining proper growing conditions in the breeders' homes and the chairman of the HYL give their hand and wish that one of the most senior positions in the organization will be selected a person from whose dogs dogs were previously confiscated as a result of criminal neglect ... "The lawsuit states that the dogs and other property were evacuated. February 25, 1999, but following an eviction procedure initiated by the property owner following non-payment of rent by Kessler and not because of allegations of abuse or neglect of the animals (which were also returned to him later).
The defense letter filed by Blumenfeld through his attorney Advocate Ben and Adam Karpel allegedly revealed the events on which Blumenfeld relied in posts he published: “It is important to emphasize: the plaintiff abused animals there is no other way to call it.
Carefully it will be said, when the person - the judge - who serves as a commentator on the matter in the title is exposed to testimonies and evidence proving the abuse and neglect, it will be clear that indifference can not be shown for this.
Anyone who washes an emotion flowing in his veins, will shed a tear over the fate of the dogs;
Those who were punished when sentenced to be at the mercy of the plaintiff "was argued in the written defense.
It was further alleged that: "The 'publication' the subject of the lawsuit attributes to the plaintiff - factually - a past of abuse and neglect (which in the defendant's opinion is a criminal), which included confiscating unfortunate dogs kept in disgraceful conditions for years; involving law enforcement. And what turns out? Everything is true and stable. Indeed, dogs were confiscated from the plaintiff's home due to criminal neglect that can only be called abuse; indeed, in the evacuation and seizure operation, law enforcement agencies, police, lawyers and councilors intervened; and the seizure orders were indeed handed over by the court. Indeed, any professional who watched the shocking treatment The least) that the plaintiff chose for the dogs, said out loud that this was a very serious case of abuse and criminal neglect of animals. "
Blumenfeld's defense brief was accompanied by appendices containing documents, press clippings and photographs from those alleged incidents.
Appendices to the letter of defense contain a series of allegations from the council veterinarian, animal rights organization and neighbors regarding the conditions of the dogs kept in the same home.
Thus, for example, is a letter from Dr. Yechiel Mani, a veterinarian at the Azor local council, in which he demanded the evacuation of the dogs from Adv. Kessler because the "conditions under which the dogs are kept are against the law."
A copy of the veterinarian's application on the subject from October 1999 to the director of the Veterinary Bureau in Rehovot is also provided, where he wrote that "it should be noted that the above kept the dogs in very poor conditions.
Overcrowding, stench and dirt "further indicated to me that" the large quantity (of the dogs YA) and the small space do not allow for adequate holding ".
Another appendix mentions the request of Mrs. Etty Altman from the Let the Animals Live Association to the Animal Welfare Commissioner at the Ministry of the Environment from February 1999, where accommodation was provided for the dogs' keeping conditions: "After many complaints to the Let the Animals Live Association about the way dogs are kept in their yard Of Mr. Benny Kessler. "
Altman went on to write: "You can easily see from the outside that the place is badly neglected. Dirt and dirt are thrown in the area and the stench comes from the kennel. All these are signs of neglect that is not suitable for animal husbandry and raises very difficult question marks about hygiene and sanitary conditions ... I expect From the animal protection system to act immediately on the issue. "
In his reply to the defense, the tribunal's father denied all that was alleged against him and claimed that it was irrelevant information and an attempt to continue to defame him: "From the above ... it appears that the eviction of the dogs from the property, as well as all other equipment, is due to a dispute between the plaintiff and the landlord. "Between this evacuation and" a person from whose house dogs were confiscated as a result of criminal neglect, "something and that the publication is false and defamatory."
The Israeli Kennel Club is an association that has been operating for over 45 years;
Serves as an "umbrella association" for 25 associations that coordinate the activities of dog kennels in the country.
The role of the head of the tribunal is related to the position of arbitrator, inter alia in situations of neglect and abuse.
Advocate Sivan Rubin-Naveh, who specializes in animal law, told Israel Today that "the prosecutor serves as the head of the Israeli Kennel Club, the most senior position in the association, which has regretted its flag as the right-wing marker and the compass and moral signal of raising and breeding dogs in Israel.
The defense letter and its appendices contain alarming and difficult allegations. "
"The head of the tribunal is supposed in his role to decide cases involving the denunciation of breeders and dealers in dogs without any supervision from the association's bodies, certainly those who breed their dogs under conditions of the kind alleged in the written defense."
Advocate Robin-Naveh added that "the period in which things took place was during the 1990s, a period in which enforcement actions under the Animal Cruelty Law - 1994 were in their infancy, as well as the enactment of animal husbandry regulations under the law setting minimum conditions for keeping pets. "They were installed only in 2009. Therefore, it is not possible to learn from the fact that the dog was not apprehended or no indictment was filed at the time, on the question of whether there was neglect or abuse or not."
The Israeli Kennel Club responded: "The Israeli Kennel Club is home to dog-loving kennels, and as such it opposes and condemns any activity such as animal abuse and harm. The article refers to events that allegedly occurred more than twenty years ago. We have not yet addressed the parties' claims. "
On behalf of the law firm of Ben Karpel & Co., representing the defendant, Blumenfeld, it was stated: "The professional and regulated canine system (headed by the Supreme Court) is an important, high-quality and essential system for introducing canine culture into the State of Israel; "Animal abuse. When this is the starting point, the background to the lawsuit is unfortunate and to understand this, there is no need to add to what is written in the written defense. We believe that the plaintiff erred in choosing to file a defamation lawsuit against our client in the circumstances."
Advocate Kiesler responded: “1.
My dogs were never neglected, I treated them like my beloved family members, and they were best treated - both with the much love they received, both with quality food and veterinary care, as much as it took and I did not spare a penny to provide them with their full needs and everything they needed.
I wish the dogs of the defendant, his attorney, as well as any other dog, that they will receive the best treatment my dogs have received.
It is not for nothing that many of the dogs I own and / or breed have won beauty championships both in Israel and abroad - including two that have won world titles, four European championships and beauty championships from about 20 countries in Europe. Few dogs in the country have won so many beauty titles 'Neglected' dogs can not win so many degrees and not even one degree.
2. All the allegations in the written defense and especially regarding the neglect of the dogs and the abuse of them are nothing but another libel designed to discredit and humiliate me, for no wrongdoing, and they are completely denied and apparently the person behind the false and slanderous publicity has a conflict of interest and tendency with me.
3. The defendant uses the court as a stage for the continuation of the slander against me and the libel, which does not provide a good defense against the libel lawsuit I filed against him, under the guise of legal proceedings.
4. None of my dogs have ever been confiscated - neither for neglect nor for any other reason - and any allegation of confiscation is a false lie.
"No professional has ever claimed that this is a serious case of abuse and criminal neglect - a robbery because there was no abuse and / or neglect - so this is a baseless and false claim."