As for Mr. Dahari, Mr. Shimoni claimed, "I don't know if he is guilty. We sued him because he made this whole performance, whether he knew or not" (p. 1429 of Prov. S. 6-8). When Mr. Shimoni was asked why Mr. Dahari acted improperly when he relied on documents signed by the deputy mayor, by virtue of which he learned that there was a chance of changing the designation of the land, Mr. Shimoni claimed, "Whether Dahari knew that there was a matter of restitution or not, I, I don't know how to say..." (p. 1430, s. 25 to p. 1431, s. 1; ibid., p. 1432, s. 16-17). In paragraph 22 of the plaintiffs' summaries, it has already been explicitly claimed that Mr. Dahari did not know about clause 15. In these circumstances, if the plaintiffs admit that Mr. Dahari did not know about the possibility of returning the land, it is in any case not clear why the lawsuit was filed against him, especially when he himself purchased land in the area from defendant 4, and naturally he would not have acted to worsen his situation if he had known that the documents of the deputy mayor reflected a prima facie misrepresentation (in his interrogation, Mr. Shimoni admitted that even in the matter of the documents of the deputy mayor, Mr. Dahari did not mislead the plaintiffs - ibid., at p. 1541 (paras. 12-14 and paras. 15-25). In this context, it should also be said that if Mr. Shimoni, who testified that he was "the active spirit in this transaction" (p. 1416, paras. 9-10), admitted that he did not know whether Mr. Dahari knew about clause 15, it is not clear why Mr. Zidon approached another Mr. Dahari who discovered in 2012 that there was a chance that the manager would take the land back into his possession.
With regard to the transfer of the Mualem venue, Mr. Shimoni admitted that the plaintiffs did not tell the transfer of the Mualem hearing venue that the amount recorded in the contract was different from the amount they actually paid (ibid., at p. 1436, paras. 5-14; ibid., from paras. 22 to p. 1437, para. 2; p. 1478, paras. 1-2). The only argument that remained, therefore, against Mu'alem was that he did not tell them about section 15. However, I have already factually rejected this argument. In fact, in response to the court's question, Mr. Shimoni admitted that if the plaintiffs had acted in real time, the damages they claim in the lawsuit would never have come (p. 1526, s. 15 to p. 1527, s. 1).