The defendant also claimed that none of the plaintiffs listed in the title of the statement of claim had given their consent to be parties to the proceeding.
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff and his counsel acted with bullying and force in a consistent and continuous manner, while in the statement of claim they concealed the facts that preceded the defendant's first decision in the plaintiff's case, due to his bullying behavior.
The defendant claimed that "... It is a very successful association, which serves as a representative body recognized by the State of Israel for the purpose of coaching as well as managing competitions in the sport in which it specializes both in Israel and abroad, and since it is such, it can already be understood that the State of Israel will not allow the body that is run as described in great exaggeration and slander in the statement of claim to be the head of the organization, and it will certainly not pour millions of shekels of support money on this body without regulation, supervision and control.
... Because the criticisms, the issues raised in the statement of claim, were also raised in the criticism, and none of the budgeters considered to slander the association in their reports as the plaintiffs do, or more precisely, plaintiff 1 and the attorney general, who are the living spirit behind all this commotion that is on our table."
As to the applicability of the provisions of the existing bylaws, as claimed in the lawsuit, the defendant responded: "... Not relevant. From the date of the association's establishment until today, the association has changed its bylaws in order to comply with the budgeting regulations, and these very days, the association is in the process of changing another bylaw and making adjustments to it, not in order to exclude any of the plaintiffs, but in order to conduct its activities only according to the rules of budgeting and the conditions that they set in order to provide budgeting, otherwise the budgeting will be stopped.