However, some of the question marks mentioned above in the matter of plaintiffs 3-7 also arose in the matter of plaintiffs 1-2. Mr. Attias claimed that Mr. Dahari told him that when signing the contract at the office of the movable venue, "the owner of the land will come, not to talk to him and not to ask anything..." (Paragraph 23 of his affidavit). Mr. Attias testified that he wanted to meet with the seller and that "I sat down, I won't forget it, I sat with Shlomi in the office, I told him, but why doesn't the owner want to meet with me? Why doesn't he want to meet with me?" (p. 946 of Prov. Sh. 8-11). He also testified that he wanted to ask the seller "piercing questions" (paragraph 29 of his affidavit; His interrogation at p. 947 (paras. 2-4) later claimed that Goren told him that the transactions must be carried out in cash and that it was not possible to write the real amount in the contract (paragraph 60 of the affidavit). Accordingly, Mr. Attias decided, together with his mother-in-law, that she would travel to Israel in order to sign both her and his transaction, and for this purpose he signed an irrevocable consular power of attorney.
The factual sequence that Mr. Attias noted in his affidavit indicates that he is a particularly cautious person, largely suspicious. According to him, his mother-in-law and he signed the contracts only after conducting meticulous examinations, and as he claimed in the interrogation, "I am chronically hesitant" (p. 896 of Prov. S. 1). Thus, Mr. Attias claimed that he learned about the lands that are the subject of the lawsuit from an acquaintance of his mother-in-law, who goes by the name Avishai Nitzan, and who works in Mr. Dahari's office. Mr. Attias noted that after a number of telephone conversations between him and Mr. Nitzan, he felt that the latter was not as professional as he had said. Therefore, he continued to talk to Mr. Dahari himself and came to Israel in order to see the relevant ground. According to him, "I stayed there for about 7 hours in a split manner throughout the day" (paragraph 15 of his affidavit). Mr. Dahari showed Mr. Attias, as he claimed, "a complete binder of all the customers who had already bought, names, dates, sums of land...(ibid., section 19), and he also learned from Mr. Dahari that another member of Knesset had also purchased on the spot. Mr. Dahari even presented him with a map that included markings in different colors of the areas in question intended for thawing, but Mr. Attias had not yet decided on purchasing the land. Mr. Dahari further showed Mr. Attias on the map a number of plots that he claimed the then mayor of Ashkelon had purchased. After all this, Mr. Attias claimed that "Shlomi's conduct and questionable speech led me to doubt the deal..." (ibid., section 27). Mr. Atias further claimed that throughout his stay in Mr. Dahari's office, he tried to find out with him who owned the land, but his request was denied. According to him, he had come to the conclusion that he did not intend to purchase the land through Mr. Nitzan or Mr. Dahari, but before he left the city of Ashkelon, he suddenly received a phone call from his mother-in-law, plaintiff No. 2, in which he was told that the owner of the land was a transfer of the place of discussion Goren, the brother-in-law of Rabbi Menachem Noy, who lives permanently in London next door to plaintiffs 1-2.