|
|
| By Israel Insider staff May 19, 2008 |
|
| |
 Bookmark to del.icio.us |
| |
While serving as minister of industry, trade and labor, and not just during election campaigns, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert received, in person, cash envelopes from American business Morris Talansky, State Attorney Moshe Lador told the Supreme Court monday, adding that new details of Olmert's alleged corruption would be revealed in the coming day.
Ehud Olmert allegedly received the cash both in Israel through his office manager at the Ministry, Shula Zaken, and in the United States," Lador said, as judges deliberated on the appeal by the prime ministers' lawyers against the decision to allow the state to take a "preliminary testimony" from Talanksy, described by Zaken in her appointment diary as "The Laundry Man."
The state attorney confirmed that there were two suspects in the case -- he did not state that the second suspect was Zaken, but that is believed to be the case. He said that the suspicions also pertained to the period in which Olmert served as mayor of Jerusalem.
The prime minister's lawyers are fervently trying to prevent the early testimony of Talansky, arguing that their client's rights would be violated should the Supreme Court uphold the Jerusalem District Court ruling to permit police to take "preliminary testimony" from Talanksy.
Olmert has not yet responded to a police request for additional questioning in the case.
"The prime minister is not entitled to an excess of rights, but it is inconceivable that he be stripped of all his rights as a regular citizen, and as one who is being interrogated," Eli Zohar, an attorney for Olmert, told justices hearing the case. "The request for a [preliminary testimony] is not necessary, and there is no evidence that it supports the position of the prosecution, that it is impossible to take the testimony of Talansky [at a later time]," Zohar continued, adding that "permitting the preliminary testimony would be a dramatic change to criminal law."
The court ruled that Olmert's attorneys were deliberately delaying and that the argument that they lacked time to prepare was without foundation. "With regard to the claim [by the appellants] regarding the large amount of evidence in the possession of the prosecution and the difficulty to prepare for the cross-examination of [Talansky] according to the timetable that has been set, it should be pointed out that the lower court's decision was conveyed to the parties on Friday afternoon (May 9)," the prosecutors wrote. "The state informed the counsel for the appellants that it was ready to hand over most of the evidence by Friday evening! Nevertheless, the defense, for its own reasons, did not do anything to receive the material up to this very moment."
The state accused the lawyers of deliberately dragging their feet. The prosecutors - Lador, Jerusalem District Attorney Eli Abarbanel and Tamar Boorstein, who is in charge of criminal matters in the State Attorney's Office - wrote that while the Jerusalem District Court had been quick to hear the state's request to examine and cross-examine Talansky and quick in handing down its decision, it had taken the defense attorneys six days after it was handed down to appeal against it.
The state told the Supreme Court that there was a real concern that, despite his promises, Talansky might not return to Israel because he would not want to testify against Olmert, his friend of 15 years. Talansky, a frequent visitor to Israel with a home in Jerusalem, has plans to leave the country at the end of the next week -- thus the rush to take his testimony before he leaves.
The state rejected the argument raised in the appeal that there were other ways to obtain Talansky's testimony, even if he did not return, should Olmert be indicted. For one thing, taking testimony or holding a closed-circuit hearing from the US would require Talansky's cooperation. For another, the judges would not be able to see and hear the testimony from up close.
Attorney Eli Zohar, representing Olmert, told the court, that if Talansky testifies, the trial of Olmert would have begun, in effect: "the moment he testifies, the trial will begin. At the end of the day, we will be under an inappropriate, impossible and unjustified investigation." He complained that "The State's motion is unprecedented and has no corroborating evidence? granting the motion may substantially alter due legal process practiced in criminal law." He said there was no reason to fear that the witness would not come back for a trial. Zohar noted that Talansky had promised to return, "not to mention the fact that his family lives in Israel."
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
