A 28-year-old man met a boy on a website intended for 18-plus-year-olds. He approached the boy, who had a boy’s profile picture, they corresponded a bit about themselves and very quickly the young man initiated a sexual conversation and even a sexual encounter with the boy, even though he knew for sure that he was 14 years old. The young man rode his bicycle for about 45 minutes on a winter day and when he arrived at the meeting, he was captured They were caught red-handed by the team. The conversation I had with the young man was broadcast live on Facebook and the young man apologized in front of the camera and asked for forgiveness for his actions. In the meantime, the police were called and when they arrived after seeing the evidence, they detained the young man for questioning. After a few weeks, the young man filed a lawsuit against me for defamation through the lawyer G. C. MTA for one hundred thousand NIS. In the lawsuit, the young man claimed that he was persecuted due to his sexual orientation and that he was sexually harassed. Most of the statement of claim was a product of his and his lawyer’s imagination and inventions. I filed a statement of defense and, among other things, I asked him to present his investigation to the police. Judge Udi Hacker, who heard the case, realized that he was dealing with a lawyer who did not know the law against defamation and ordered the police to give him a copy of the investigation.

After the investigation report was revealed, it was already clear that the lawsuit is in fact a series of lies and fabrications, none of which are in line with reality and what really happened. After several discussions and a repeated explanation by the judge to the young man what will happen if his claims are not accepted and what the meaning of such a verdict is ( that he is a pedophile), the young man and his failed lawyer retracted the lawsuit. As part of the settlement agreement approved by the young judge and his lawyer, they retracted all the claims they made in the statement of claim and I agreed out of pity that his details would remain confidential and the video in which he was seen arriving at a meeting with A minor will not be uploaded back to Facebook. In the lawsuit I was represented pro bono by attorney Tomer M. Israel from Haifa.

This is the second case of its kind in which a defamation claim filed by a pedophile against an advertisement I made turned out to be valid. The first case was also a crushing loss for attorney G.C., who represents the pedophiles. This is another young man named Niv Avital who filed a lawsuit (TA 42937/11/17) against Esther Hazan who shared my post in which I published that he came to a meeting with a 13-year-old minor for the purpose have sex with her Niv, who did not listen to the recommendations of judge Eli Brand, lost. The judge looked at Niv’s police investigation file and determined that he really corresponded and came to have sexual relations with a minor and rejected the claim that the publication of what Niv Avital did was done in order to warn the public and today Esther Hazan put it on the air a website where she told about her nightmare In front of Niv Avital. Esther was represented in the pro bono case by attorney Yuval Haresh Marshall. 

Before you rush to file a lawsuit against Dubitsky : The court put an end to lawsuits filed exclusively by a lawyer who is not in compliance with the defamation law. As mentioned, the same lawyer himself was sued by a person who advertised him as a crook and behind a sophisticated real estate sting, lost and was reprimanded by the judge who heard the case, and paid tens of thousands of shekels in compensation from his own pocket.

Claims of people caught red-handed are full of the lawyer’s theories and are not based on real data. For example, the plaintiff claimed that he was persecuted due to his sexual orientation, and in response the court was presented with a list of 400 complaints submitted to the police against men who harassed girls. As mentioned, this claim was also rejected, and the plaintiff withdrew the claim. Remember, before filing a defamation lawsuit, you need to check if the person you are suing has protections according to the law. Truth in advertising, even if it is unpleasant for others to find out, (like meeting a child for the purpose of sex) does not give the right to receive financial compensation.  It is recommended to consult with several lawyers and see solid successes in similar claims, and not judgments given in the absence of a legal invention or in the absence of a defense.

 If you want to publish about a pedophile in your area or are considering filing a defamation lawsuit against Avi Dubitsky and are afraid, you should read the article written by Tomer Israel on the subject.