"There exists prima facie authoritative and reliable data concerning various acts and omissions on the part of Ofer Nimrodi, aimed at promoting the appointment of Dan Avi-Yitzhak as Minister of Justice or Attorney-General, while Avi Yitzhak worked to promote the grant of a pardon for Nimrodi in the State’s jubilee year". This allegation is made by Adv. Shmuel Linzer in a defence filed today, Tuesday, with the Jerusalem District Court, in the libel suits brought separately by Nimrodi and Avi-Yitzhak against various media concerns and journalists.
The lawsuits relate to published material according to which former "Maariv" correspondent Erez Rotem requested details from State Attorney Edna Arbel, concerning the prima facie involvement of Nimrodi and Avi-Yitzhak in the latter’s proposed appointment to the job of Attorney-General. Following these reports, Linzer was interviewed by the "Galei Zahal" (IDF radio station), as Rotem's legal counsel, and repeated the essential elements of his allegations.
According to Linzer, there exists a statement by Adv. Motti Katz (one of the accused in the wiretapping affair), that was passed on to Rotem, to the effect that Nimrodi had told Katz that Avi-Yitzhak had been promised an appointment as Minister of Justice or Attorney-General, and would arrange a pardon in Israel’s Jubilee year, and that Nimrodi would benefit from the pardon.
Linzer also alleges that in another communication to Rotem, Katz said Nimrodi had clearly told him that he was in possession of a promise from Avi-Yitzhak that he would be given a pardon. To that end, the conduct of the case against Nimrodi must be drawn out until the end of the year.
Linzer moreover alleged that MK Aryeh Deri, in his police deposition, had said that another reason why Avi Yitzhak wanted the job of Attorney-General was so as to be able to devise an amnesty law for Nimrodi’s benefit, and that Avi-Yitzhak had in fact acted to realise an amnesty law. Also, Nimrodi had contacted Deri dozens of times asking him to exert his influence to have an Attorney-General appointed who would help Nimrodi by legislating an amnesty law.
Linzer moreover alleges that Nimrodi and Avi-Yitzhak refrained from suing "Yediot Ahronot", even though it too repeated the report subject of the lawsuit, the reason being that Avi-Yitzhak was the counsel, in another case, for some of the shareholders of "Yediot Ahronot". (This refers to the representation of Tami Mozes-Borowitz and Oded Mozes in a dispute between the newspaper’s shareholders).