I was approached by several couples who signed with Ami Manor a year and eight months ago and to date only 4 rehearsals have been made for them!!
I signed with you a year ago. If you saw that you were not meeting your alleged obligations, why did you sign an agreement with me?
As a journalist, I tell you, in order to judge well what is written in the newspapers.
*In the next chapter... My opinion on "defamation",
And why am I not afraid"
There is no room to accept the argument that the publication is defamation of the plaintiff, and in this regard the following will be brought:
- The first reason why we should not accept the argument that the first publication is defamation (the publication refers to the surrogacy company) - the publication, in essence, refers to the surrogate company and not to the plaintiff himself. It is true that the surrogacy company's name includes the plaintiff's last name, but the publication mainly referred to the company's substantial losses; to the company's going concern and to the company's own conduct.
- The second reason why the argument that the first publication is defamation (expression of opinion) should not be accepted - the publication is an expression of opinion. And if this was not clear, the defendant clarified and emphasized that this was an expression of her personal opinion and in her words - "in my opinion and again this is my opinion only".
That expression of opinion was not detached and unfounded - and as presented in clause 10.3 above - the failed situation of the surrogacy company was made public. The representations regarding the failed state of the surrogacy company were presented in various publications, and even the plaintiff did not deny it - but decided to direct the accusations regarding this situation to Danel, the company that acquired ownership of the company.
In such a situation - when the financial data that were publicly published indicated that the acquisition of the surrogacy company was an economic failure, and when the figures involved in the transaction - both the managers of Danel, which acquired the company, and even the plaintiff himself, related to the failed situation - there is certainly no room to complain about the plaintiff, who also referred to the failed situation of the surrogacy company.
- Third reason why the claim that the first publication is defamation should not be accepted - treating the proceeding as a clear silencing lawsuit
The lawsuit is a suit for silencing in which the plaintiff tries to settle scores with the defendant. In this regard, we may refer to the following:
- First, about the fact that this is a silencing lawsuit (the owners of the surrogacy company that was allegedly harmed did not join the proceeding at all and did not testify in it) - while the plaintiff was called out for the harm to the surrogacy company, the owners of the surrogacy company ("Danel") did not claim anything and certainly did not file a financial claim and did not testify in the proceeding here. On the contrary, if the defendant had indeed harmed the plaintiff and the surrogate company, a parallel lawsuit by Danel would have been expected. It could have been expected, at the very least, that Danel would take an active part in the proceeding here and that someone on its behalf would testify 'against' the defendant. None of this was done - and it is possible that the reason is that Danel is not interested in silencing the defendant. It is not interested in the silencing suit filed by the plaintiff here.
- Second, regarding the fact that this is a suit for silencing (the plaintiff's legal hunt) - the plaintiff was not satisfied with the proceeding here, and in August 2024 he again filed a defamation suit in a different proceeding and before a different panel. In the additional lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, he referred to two publications, including one publication that appears in an affidavit of the main witness filed by the plaintiff in the proceeding here. In other words, while the plaintiff is conducting a proceeding against the defendant, he does not hesitate to compile his claims and file an additional and recycled lawsuit. This conduct is suitable for those who make use of the filing of the lawsuit itself, as a tool to silence the opposing party. The filing of the additional lawsuit is another stage in the plaintiff's attempts to silence him.
- Third, regarding the fact that this is a suit for silencing (reference to court rulings) -
- The term "estoppel lawsuit", which is the result of case law, recently found its way to court rulings in the framework of Civil Appeal Authority 1954/24, Netanel Vaknin v. Kibbutz Nir David - Cooperative Society (dated January 7, 2025, Acting Judge Y. Amit, Judge v. Sohlberg, Judge A. Stein) where a suit for estoppel was defined as follows: "In essence, this is a pattern of action in which powerful and financial parties make use of lawsuits, In order to silence public discourse and criticism directed at them. The 'sting' in the aforementioned process is that regardless of the outcome of the claims, the very fact of exposure to the legal proceedings - which will be, in most cases, defamation proceedings - is capable of imposing heavy prices on defendants, and therefore also in order to create a 'chilling effect',...
- Silencing public discourse - It has many characteristics of a silencing lawsuit, and not all of them appear in every lawsuit. For our purposes, I will relate to the characterization of the lawsuit as one that seeks to harm public discourse. In the words of the judgment in the Civil Appeals Authority 1954/24, Netanel Vaknin v. Kibbutz Nir David - Cooperative Society - 'A lawsuit filed in respect of statements made in the framework of a debate and discourse on a subject that is likely to arouse public interest - in most cases, silencing claims are aimed at harming the achievement and discourse in society, with regard to matters that may arouse public interest, and to exclude statements that are not to the liking of the plaintiff. This is due to harm to interests, or damages that the plaintiff believes that a certain public activity causes him, even though these are damages that are not compensable (for example, because it is based on true claims)."
This characteristic exists in our case - when the sale of ownership in the surrogate company by the plaintiff was criticized by professionals, criticism published in the press, and the company was even criticized by customers or anyone who had been in contact with it in the past. All of these are detailed in sections 10.3 and 10.4 above. And while the criticism became a public discourse, the plaintiff decided to take action against the defendant. Someone who in his opinion was the relevant link and perhaps the weakest link in the sweeping criticism of the sale. The same attempt to silence the public discourse satisfies, as noted, the definition of a "silencing lawsuit."
- The plaintiff's conduct - and another characteristic that it has for the silencing claim - the plaintiff's conduct. In this regard, and in the words of CivilAppeal Authority 1954/24, Netanel Vaknin v. Kibbutz Nir David - Cooperative Society - "The entirety of the plaintiff's conduct - In addition to all the characteristics that have now been presented, there is also room for a general view of the plaintiff's conduct, while paying attention to whether this raises indications of 'silencing' activity. Possible examples of this are letters and warnings that appear to be aimed specifically at silencing the defendant, as opposed to an attempt to obtain compensation for the damages he caused, as well as other procedural moves that are heavy on the defendant and abuse him."
This characteristic is also relevant to our case. The plaintiff, whose sale transaction received so much and extensive criticism (see paragraphs 10.3 and 10.4 above), decided to file a lawsuit specifically against the defendant, while doing nothing with regard to the entirety of the criticism leveled at him and the transaction he executed. And if that were not enough - the fact that the plaintiff chose to file lawsuit after lawsuit, both the lawsuit here and another proceeding in August 2024 (see section 3.2(a) above) - indicates an interest in holding the defendant accountable and silencing the defendant, a silence that will also deter other customers of the surrogacy company as well as other parties who criticized the conduct.
- This is not an "innocent" lawsuit by the plaintiff for an injustice that was allegedly done to him - but rather as part of a campaign of silence that the plaintiff undertook, when he refrained from taking action against the main slanderers - such as Danel, Danel organs, journalists in the economic press, and more - but rather chooses to "tail" the campaign of criticism by harming the defendant and silencing her. Silencing that will be in the form of "they will see and they will see."
- Second of seven publications - the publication detailed in section 6.1(b) above (in which the plaintiff is not mentioned personally)
In November 2022, the defendant contacted about 150 doctors and IVF department directors in an email, in order to gather evidence for the investigation she requested to conduct. The notice referred to the foster care company and the plaintiff's name was not mentioned, and as the publication put it, "When I began researching the matter, I discovered dozens of couples telling different stories about Manor... Those who point to alleged serious conduct - illegal contracts that were signed, contracts that could not be fulfilled, the whitewashing of documents relating to alleged fetuses, suspicion of surveillance by the company of couples... The concerns raised by the testimonies are serious."