I would like to clarify hereby that my sister Irit Intertur and I were indeed father's guardians, only because of the Alzheimer's disease from which he suffered, and as such we were forced to represent our position in court in the Golani family's lawsuit against father and mother. We reached a compromise that was signed as a judgment and when we left the court, we were very happy that we had found a decent and clear solution that we were willing to implement immediately and in good faith. In our understanding, the area adjacent to Erez's plot should have been restored And even We agreed together with the plaintiff to meet in the field. Everything is done in a good spirit.
In those days, Dad was hospitalized twice and died a short time later (the judgment was given on December 29, 2020 and my father passed away on January 17, 2021) When we came out of the mourning days, we thought of continuing the process despite the fact that in fact our legal powers as guardians and family powers had expired due to a family dispute and there was no agreement on where the land should be given to us. Despite this, we continued our efforts to persuade and find the right area that would be agreed upon by everyone. We recruited a retired judge who came to the field and explained what was right to do in order to carry out the judgment in good faith. My older sister, a clinical psychologist by profession, tried to take the reins into her own hands, came especially from the United States, approached the surveyor who prepared a number of proposals for the execution of the judgment adjacent to Erez's property , but returned in disgrace. In conclusion, we are interested in executing the judgment as soon as written, in its word, and in its spirit."
Go out and see, the existence of the judgment and the fulfillment of the agreement, included plans for the return of the stolen area so that it would be adjacent to the plaintiffs' territory; it can also be seen that the existence of the judgment and the fulfillment of the agreement included an application to the surveyor "who prepared a number of proposals for the execution of the judgment adjacent to Erez's territory" and it can also be seen that they agreed with plaintiff 1 to "meet in the field".
- And now, despite the defendant's conduct, through three of her children, after the judgment, she now wishes to leave the land she stole in her hands and to transfer to the plaintiffs a detached and uncontiguous area of their territory.
- The third of three reasons for accepting the claim - the defendant's testimony shows that she is aware that her conduct was in bad faith
- The defendant, at the end of her ninth decade, appeared in the courtroom in a wheelchair. I warned myself while giving my opinion to the defendant's age, and a reference to this can even be seen in the minutes of the evidentiary hearing. However, still, on the merits of the matter, the defendant's testimony teaches that it was clear that the 34 meters that would be added to the plaintiffs' territory should be adjacent to and bordering that area, and if not, how would the area of 34 meters be added to the plaintiffs' territory? It was also clear from the defendant's testimony that she was afraid to say something that would not correspond to the words of her son, Elad Kehati, the older son who lives with her. The same son whose opinion differs from that of the other descendants, some of whom were also present in the courtroom as part of a civil case in civil case 49046-03-20 and who also issued the letter mentioned in paragraph 10 above.
- In her testimony, the defendant admits that she was not present at the hearing in which the parties reached a compromise (P., p. 43) and that the decisions were made by her children, Avshalom Kehati and Irit Intertor, who at the relevant times were the custodians of the property of the defendant and her husband Shimon Kehati z"l according to an order dated December 23, 2018 (see paragraph 8 of the statement of defense incivil file 49046-03-20, p. 47 of the plaintiffs' affidavit).
The defendant also admitted, in practice, to the theft of the land, and once again it will be emphasized that this is the correct expression of the conduct of the defendant and her husband over the years, and to a certain extent the conduct of the defendant even now. The defendant actually admitted to theft when she defined the claim as one in which plaintiff 1 "needs his land, he deserves it from us." Thus the defendant was asked and replied (Tax Appeal 40-41 per per, emphases not in the original):