Notwithstanding all of the above, and despite the fact that he described a sequence in which he was severely injured, both from the filing of the lawsuit against him in the Magistrate's Court, from the dismissal of the lawsuit that he himself filed with the District Court, and from the fact that the hearing in the Court of Justice did not mature into practical tracks, and in particular due to the fact that he was defined in the courts as an intruder, even though he believed that all of his actions were lawful, the defendant made sure to clarify that he had met the deceased a small number of times. There was nothing in his heart about him, for he was convinced that the law was with him and that he had the upper hand from a factual and legal point of view. With regard to the dismissal of his own claim in the District Court, the defendant did not first clarify the position of the other defendants, including the deceased, and did not explain why he deleted the claim in its entirety, and not only with respect to the heirs. We will also add that attorney Dan Zohar, who represented him in the same proceeding, unlike many others, was not summoned to testify.
Regarding the dispute compound, on behalf of the defense, additional witnesses testified.
Dvir Amar testified (1 October 2024, p. 4403, paras. 2 onwards) that he was hired by Moshe Einhorn, Dalia (who according to him was lucid) and Yosef Mandel, being the son of the head of the religious council and the mayor's nephew, in an attempt to open doors, reduce debts that were on the property, and sell it. According to him, he could not sell the property, "I am obligated to update you at every stage, obviously." He did receive an irrevocable power of attorney, but he was subject to an accompanying agreement, "The power of attorney is conditional on this agreement, neither they nor I can take such an action to transfer rights in the property without mutual consent." Yosef Mandel introduced him to the defendant who was interested in purchasing the heirs' share in the property. The agreements in the matter were signed at the office of Adv. Ron Barnett, and he himself was supposed to receive 20 percent of the land area. According to the witness, he did not receive his share because the transaction was not completed, Moshe Einhorn tried to reduce the applicable debts, and he personally walked out of the picture. Later, although he ostensibly led to the signing of an agreement, he did not see fit to sue the heirs for his work. As for the claim filed by the defendant, also against him, according to him, there was no hearing in his case because he was in bankruptcy proceedings. If Adv. Moran Vaknin claims that Adv. Ron Barnett denies his claims, this is not true. In his cross-examination, it became clear that he had rented part of the property to a person who had illegally built a gallery in the building. According to him, he did so in the name of Moshe Einhorn by virtue of the power of attorney he had. He denied that he had acted together with the defendant to take over the compound illegally.