The series of decisions given by all the judicial instances were of no avail, to the extent that in my decision of May 30, 2023, I was required to reiterate the plaintiffs' counsel's argument regarding the existence of the alleged procedural arrangement, while once again expressing my displeasure with this conduct (see my additional decision of June 4, 2023). When on July 10, 2023, I was forced to re-address the plaintiffs' claim regarding the alleged procedural arrangement, I ordered that they be charged with actual expenses.
So yes. All of the judicial decisions of this court, in which the plaintiffs' argument regarding an alleged procedural arrangement between them and defendants 1 and 4 was rejected, did not cause them to withdraw their position. In this regard, the plaintiffs filed two applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and then another claim to the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, demanding that it in effect become preliminary decisions made by the District Court and the Supreme Court. This is an abuse of court proceedings and an unnecessary delay and complicating of the process.
On July 12, 2023, another "notice" was received from the plaintiffs, in which it was initially stated, "It is with great astonishment and sorrow that the undersigned accepted the decision of the honorable court of July 10, 2023" (paragraph 1 of the "Notice"). Counsel for the plaintiffs reflected, not for the first time, reflections and insights regarding the judicial decision. In another decision from the same day, I noted, "There are many cases under the handling of this panel, a significant part of which is extremely complex, but in few of the cases I encountered such a large number of requests, references and unnecessary requests as in the case at hand. Naturally, in the judgment weight will be given to the court's impression of the conduct of the parties and their counsel in the case" (see further response submitted without a permit on October 1, 2025, and my decision of October 5, 2025).