The Defendants' Conduct
Our work will not be complete if, in light of the aforesaid, we draw an erroneous conclusion that none of the defendants has any part or share in the conduct that led to the filing of the statement of claim. In view of this, and taking into account the relevance of the question of the plaintiffs' alleged damages, we would like to review the defendants' course of action and the derivative thereof with regard to the remedies sought.
Defendant 1, Transfer of Alon Goren Hearing Place
The evidence that was laid out before me showed, unequivocally, that defendant 1, the transfer of the Alon Goren hearing venue, weaved a lost, orderly and structured system of the sale of agricultural land in which the rights belong to defendant 4, to various purchasers. Each link in the extensive fabric of the sale proceedings was the result of premeditation, the purpose of which was to distance the purchasers from the possibility of raising claims against the transfer of the venue of the Goren and defendant 4.
All the testimonies of the plaintiffs and others on their side, some of whom have no prior acquaintance, interpreted a uniform and clever pattern on the part of the plaintiff who moved the place of the Goren hearing, some of which is incomprehensible except against the background of his desire to establish a claim regarding the lack of prior acquaintance with the potential purchasers and the lack of prior representation towards them.
First and foremost, after the transfer of the venue of the hearing, Goren used defendant 4, a company owned by him, as the seller of the lands to the various purchasers. I am persuaded that the registration of the lands in the name of defendant No. 4, with a desire to differentiate the part of the transferee of the Goren hearing place, on the basis of their separate legal personality, is not coincidental. In any event, as was clearly interpreted from the testimony of the Deputy Mayor, Mr. Shimon Cohen, Goren turned to Mr. Cohen - his friend by virtue of their many years of acquaintance (p. 386, question 14), with whom he met "in the synagogue every day" (p. 387, question 6) - and asked him to produce a letter for him in which it would be noted that there is potential to change the designation of the area in which the land that is the subject of the lawsuit is located (testimony of Mr. Cohen at p. 399, questions 23-24; Ibid., p. 403 (questions 6-10 and questions 25-27).