The witness, Mrs. A. Milstein: And according to her agreements, and I worked if necessary, if there was a need for consultants.
Adv. Bar: Okay, so you weren't supervised, I'm telling you,
The witness, Mrs. A. Milstein: Again, my mother, a person who was qualified, even in the lawsuit for the appointment of a guardian, so they started appealing no, don't tell me that, my mother supervised me, my mother was my employer who supervised me.
Adv. Bar: How did she supervise you?
The witness, Mrs. A. Milstein: How did she supervise me? She was, she was a partner in every decision, she was, I responded to every request, she was a partner in many meetings, she is a human being who herself sold a property for millions, did thousands of actions over decades, financial operations, opened an account, improved assets, sold, signed contracts, a woman of the highest level in her intellect and competence and alertness, no one in the immediate and distant environment ever challenged wrong judgment, About somebody,
Adv. Bar: That wasn't the question.
The witness, Mrs. A. Milstein: No, but I say then she supervised me, you asked if she supervised me, so I said, 'Mom was smart.'
Adv. Bar: Many thanks
The witness, Mrs. A. Milstein: She was supervised from full cooperation.
(p. 16 of P.)
- The plaintiff did not present us with a single piece of evidence that her mother supervised her or that she received instructions from her.
- As appears from the pay slips , no record was made of the utilization of vacation days, and it is clear that the plaintiff was the only one who could have reported this to anyone.
According to the court's decision of May 29, 2023, the plaintiff was required to produce a certificate of entries and exits from the country for the years 2019-2/2022 in light of her claim for payment of vacation redemption for 487 vacation days that were not used over the years, according to her. The plaintiff did not produce this certificate despite another decision issued on the day of the decision of July 26, 2023. The plaintiff did not comply with the court's orders. Failure to comply with the court's orders regarding the approval of entry and exit from the country, a grave omission in itself, indicates that if it had been presented, it would have been detrimental to the plaintiff. This avoidance, together with the plaintiff's refusal to provide the plaintiff's income tax returns (above in sections 9 and 10), shows that the plaintiff acted to conceal the situation from the court.
The plaintiff used vacation days, did not ask for vacation days from her employer and did not maintain a vacation booklet. As can be seen from the plaintiff's correspondence with her brother, the plaintiff had a tradition of long vacations (P/11):