LETTER OF ATTORNEY AVIGDOR FELDMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT, JUNE 2016
Avigdor Feldman – Law Offices
10 Huberman Tel Aviv 64075
Tel: 03-6852220 Fax: 03-6869775
Supreme Court of Jerusalem Criminal Appeal8104/13
Sitting as Court of Criminal Appeal8027/13
The appellant Daniel Ambash ID
Legally represented by his Lawyer Zvi Zer
In accordance with the decision of the Court, asking the undersigned to submit his response …
.…"13 defense witnesses testified that the Ambash family did not function as a cult but as a polyamory, loving and warm family, but the District Court for no apparent reason did not believe."
It is understood that these 13 witnesses were brought by the undersigned defense attorney and everything in order to prove what was said above, that the Ambash family was not a cult and did not function as a cult and any statements relating to a cult are irrelevant to them.
See also in this regard section 14 of the main argument which emphasizes, that 5 out of 6 women who allegedly made up the cult "remained strong in their position that they do not have anything to "open up about" and that all charges against the appellant and against them are baseless." The accusation of slavery is out of touch with the fact that the Ambash family did not function as a cult, it did not have any characteristics of a cult, and the undersigned has doubts about this question whether a cult can affect the mental independence of a person and stresses that this theory was not accepted anywhere in the world and has no relevance to the present case.
All the evidence, which the undersigned had brought, shows that the "Ambash women" are opinionated, resolute women, who acted out of their own free will, and by no means were enslaved to the will of Daniel Ambash.
Among the grounds of appeal the appellant cites the words of the judge Freedman Feldman of the Jerusalem District Court, asking during the oral summaries that were presented by the undersigned and as a result of the statement of the undersigned: "Out of six women, five are still attached [to the defendant], that is, one testified against him and 5 of them we see them consistently arrive after he has been detained for a long time ... there still needs to be an explanation for that when you (the prosecution) claim that they are deprived of any own will."
Another quote of the judge Freedman, (Article 529 of the grounds of the appeal) following the arguments of the undersigned in the summary of the defense: "But Feldman argues that this is nothing else than what is really good for them, that is what they want."
Also on page 530 of the grounds of the appeal the words of the judge Zaban are cited which were addressed to the prosecution:
"Look at the women here, have you noticed that every one of them, I'm talking about the general cognitive impression, they are high level girls with good abilities of articulation and explanation. Where have they been deprived (of free will, even though) according to your theory they had no other way / choice".
The Court is requested to have a look at the summaries of the undersigned in the District Court (both written and oral) where the undersigned firmly argues against the- according to his opinion - false thesis that the Ambash family functioned like a cult and that the daughters of the house were deprived of free will and the ability to understand their actions and activities and as had been proven during the trial all the crime of enslavement is totally unfounded in these circumstances.
The undersigned showed videos and testimonies (N / 5, N / 12 N / 13 N / 21) indicating that the members of the Ambash family functioned independently, none of them showed signs of detention or abuse and have a look for example at the video on a Dutch TV show (N / 21) which was presented and was shown in court and submitted to the court, as well as other videos about the lifestyle of the Ambash family.
In the lower court extensive evidence was presented regarding the general behavior, daily life and social ties of the Ambash women and unfortunately the District Court rejected this argument, according to the opinion of the undersigned, with due respect, by mistake.
Similar arguments to those the undersigned brought forth in the case Ambash, were accepted in the judgment of the District Court in Tel Aviv, which was given after the sentence in the case at hand had been handed down, in the serious criminal case of 23751-02010 of State of Israel versus Goel Ratzon.
Needless to say that the undersigned agrees with all of the appellant's claims regarding the crime of holding in conditions of slavery, this was the line of argument in the District Court and the evidence and argument in the District Court were those that prepared the argument of the appeal.
In any event, the undersigned reiterates that no expert was brought in the Ambash file who claimed that the Ambash family operated as a cult and that therefore the members of the house of Daniel Ambash were deprived of free will and as stated in the Grounds of Appeal that had been filed, to which the undersigned agrees in this chapter, the decision of the Jerusalem District Court was not based on any expert opinion and is like an independent creation of the court that has no precedent neither in this country nor anywhere else in the world and therefore the undersigned holds that the verdict of the honorable lower court ought to be canceled.
It should be emphasized that the undersigned has invested considerable legal efforts to refute the claim that the Ambash family was conducted like a cult and that the "Ambash-Ladies" were held in conditions of slavery because of their belonging to a Cult, in addition, even at the stage of the argument for punishment, the undersigned brought the Ambash-Ladies back to testify in court in order to demonstrate that although many years have passed during which Daniel Ambash was held is in custody, and had lost all ability to influence the witnesses, they repeated and insisted that he had never ruled over their free will and all they did was operated out of their real and own will which had never been deprived in any way.
The undersigned has set a clear defense line to prove that all the Ambash-Ladies acted voluntarily, including Simcha and Hodaya. That the Ambash family did not conduct a cult, that Simcha, who the undersigned of course interrogated thoroughly and in the most detailed manner, incriminated Daniel for self-serving, ulterior motives because during the police investigation she was promised immunity from prosecution for serious acts she had committed and because of an invalid police interrogation where they threatened her that her daughter would be taken from her [if she does not agree to testify against her husband]. It goes without saying that these claims are listed in the notice of appeal as a result of the evidence, cross-examinations and argument of the undersigned at the trial court.
And even in retrospect, the undersigned ran the trial to the best of his understanding of the legal court and if the District Court chose to convict Daniel Ambash for most of the offenses it is not due to a negligent representation but to decisions which the District Court made and on which the undersigned, with due respect, at least in part, disagrees.