The director of the municipal supervision department of Tirat Carmel Municipality filed a defamation suit against a member of the city council, who previously served as deputy mayor, for four publications he allegedly published against him. Judge Keren Anisfeld dismissed the lawsuit and charged the director of the Supervision Department NIS 10,000 in costs, and even strongly criticized the plaintiff, noting that "he is arrogant, rude and blatantly disrespectful to citizens."
A lawsuit filed by Adi Livneh, director of the municipal supervision department, against Michael Cohen, a member of the Tirat Carmel city council and the only member of the opposition, claims that the latter published four publications against him. It is also alleged that the defendant forwarded to the mayor a letter entitled "Proposal for the agenda for the city council meeting."
Municipal supervision vehicle, photo: Gideon Markowitz
"I would like to put forward a proposal for the agenda for the upcoming city council meeting - the removal of the director of the supervisory department, Mr. Adi Livneh, from his position," Cohen wrote in the letter. "Mr. Livne has behaved and treated the residents of the city in a disgraceful manner and has been abusing them for many years. As a public servant, I cannot allow such behavior for the residents of the city." Cohen argued in his defense in court, adding to the letter a private correspondence between Livne and the municipal inspector in which the prosecutor instructed how to treat the residents of Tirat Carmel. "Give his mom one, push him a report, f*** him, rip his ass." He later added: "Dismantle his grandfather, let him."
In another case Cohen showed, a photo was seen of two women in swimsuits being handcuffed by the inspector. Livneh, for his part, argued regarding the correspondence that this is the way inspectors talk among themselves about dealing with parking violations and handing out tickets in jokes and in everyday street language that is common in the existing discourse among law enforcers. Regarding the women who were handcuffed, the prosecutor claimed that the publication attributed direct involvement in the incident at the beach.
Judge Karen Anisfeld, who rejected the plaintiff's arguments, noted that there was no basis for this. According to the judge's understanding of a reasonable reader, the publication and its appendices do not attribute to the plaintiff even remotely associating with women while harassing them during the course of their work time.
Tirat Carmel mayor's car set on fire, police are investigating
"Is this how the inspectors subordinate to the prosecutor perform their duties? This was completely unacceptable behavior that justified the inspector's call for order, his reprimand, and the giving of clear instructions to all subordinates to the prosecutor that this is strictly prohibited," the judge ruled.
"The plaintiff did not allege or show that he conducted such an inquiry, he did not allege or show that he used the incident at the beach to instill proper work norms among his subordinates in the municipal inspection department."
Regarding the correspondence between Livne and the inspector, the judge added, "In these two examples, the one documented in the photographs of the incident at the beach and the one expressed in correspondence with the inspector, there is an eclipse of the lights. In law, the defendant believed that they should be brought before the city council, while considering the plaintiff's suitability to continue serving in his position."
In the end, the judge ordered the plaintiff to pay NIS 10,000 in expenses to the defendant and concluded: "In light of the fault in the filing of the lawsuit and the contents revealed in the course of the investigation – which are not flattering to the plaintiff, to say the least, regarding his conduct in connection with his position in the Tirat Carmel municipality, he should be required to pay expenses to the defendant in an amount that will express the court's displeasure with wasting judicial time for nothing, and with an attempt to use the court as a means of cooling legitimate criticism of an elected official in his field of activity and tenure."
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us