In this regard, it should be noted that Ms. Jennifer's testimony left me with the impression of a "witness on behalf of me" - as will be presented at length below. She was careful with her language, answered more than once lacunatically, gave evasive and partial answers, hid behind claims of confidentiality regarding loyalties, but answered questions about them selectively, while turning her gaze to the side many times and changing her answers while testifying in a visual conference (for my comment on this matter, see the minutes of July 16, 2020, pp. 537, paras. 16-24 and pp. 538, paras. 1-11). My impression is that Ms. Jennifer came to testify in order to please the man, who is the real owner of the company and its de facto employer, as the manager of five trusts on his behalf.
- In addition to owning the residence being Alabama's sole business, it was proven that the man and his family lived in the residence at a very symbolic cost. The man presented the court with a lease agreement signed with an Alabama company according to which they would live in the residence for a period of 24 years, in which the annual rent was 120,000 pounds.
However, the woman found a copy of the same rental agreement in which it was stated that the annual rent was only £1 (see Appendix 15 to the woman's summaries).
The man did not bring any support for the financial transfers, insofar as they were made, to prove the payment of rent for the residence as he claimed. Moreover, the woman located a document containing the man's correspondence with Vermont trust representatives in which the man himself states that the family's annual rent in the residence is only $1 (see Appendix 78 to the wife's summaries) and another document in which the man hints to potential buyers that a skilled buyer will estimate that the purchase of the residence listed in a different appeal from Alabama is a lucrative financial arrangement according to which it is possible to live in the house 'virtually without rent' (see Appendix 81 to the wife's summaries, The original is in English).
- Hence, I accept the argument that the rent under the lease with the Alabama company, insofar as it was, was indeed £1 a year, a symbolic price which represents nothing but a prima facie contract, and that the existence of a number of lease agreements shows that the man, in his sophistication, managed the property of the parties in a manner that enables him to present various agreements to different authorities, according to his needs.
- The above is a microcosm of the general conduct of man and society. Our eyes see how the man invents documents from Alabama as he pleases at that moment, which clearly proves both the man's control of Alabama and the absolute identity of the two entities, the man and society. We also see how the man tries to offer his professional services, or at least the corporate structure, to a potential purchaser of the property, so that he will live in it, in fact, for free, and this single action of the man should teach both the real ownership of the property and the man's professionalism.
- Beyond that, as is well known, the overarching goal of any corporation is to increase its value, and how can it be explained that such a luxurious residence will be rented out by a corporation for a sum of only £1 per year? It is clear as day that there is no real business purpose in Alabama's existence other than being a straw company. And now to the question of logic - given that the man is telling the truth and has no connection to Alabama or the Alaska Foundation or any one corporation, it is clear that there are other entities with economic interests behind these corporations, and now the questioner will ask, what economic interest can anyone have in renting out a spacious villa in the prestigious community for $1 a year?! An outgoing worker, and all in the simplest sense of things, The man has a complete grip on all those corporations that he claims hold rights to the house. It will be said from now on, society is the man and the man is the company - and this will be brought at length under the third element below.
The third element: Alabama is owned or controlled by the man
- The man reported to the tax authorities in the United States that he owned 100% of the shares of the Alabama company (see Appendix 44 to the woman's summaries). His statement, as mentioned, shows that there is an absolute identity between the man and the Alabama company. The man did not prove, even slightly, that he had made a false statement in the United States, as he tried to claim in his interrogation. An examination of the multitude of evidence shows that this evidence fits well with them and is also directed, and clearly, to the ownership of the man in the company.
- The man's absolute control of the Alabama company can be clearly learned from the testimony of Ms. Jennifer, the only director of the Alabama company who also serves as a trustee in other trusts established by the man, including the Alaska Foundation, which the man claims owns the Alabama company. My impression from Ms. Jennifer's interrogation and from the totality of the testimonies is that she was employed by the man with the intention of serving as a 'rubber stamp' for his actions, and indeed Ms. Jennifer served as the man's executive arm, with the clear knowledge that her continued tenure in the various entities established by the man and the payment of her salary depended on the fulfillment of the man's wishes with regard to the management of the trust assets, including the Alabama company. Accordingly, her testimony before me is colored by the conflict of interest in which she finds herself vis-à-vis the man, who is her de facto employer.
- Thus, in her interrogation, Ms. Jennifer testified that it was the man who approached her and asked her to be loyal to the Alaska Foundation, and that her working relationship with the man was characterized by regular and frequent contact:
"The Woman's Counsel: When was the last time you met or spoke to [the man]?