In addition, witnesses on behalf of the man stated in their interrogation that the trustee (i.e., the man) has indirect control over the trust, the authority to dismiss an existing trustee, add or remove categories of trustees, and even change the law that applies to the trust (see the testimonies of Ms. Lisa, Ms. Veronica and Mr. Steve in the minutes of the hearing of December 15, 2021, at pp. 1157, 1068, and 1082, respectively).
- The woman proved that the man had more than once used his authority to dismiss a trustee and appoint another in his place for narrow personal considerations - that is, when the existing trustee did not do as he
- Thus, when he needed a bank guarantee in the amount of $2 million for the legal proceedings taken against him in the United States in 2005, he fired the Idaho trust management company, which refused to issue him a bank guarantee in the name of the Alabama company, and appointed the Oregon Trust Management Company, which agreed to issue the guarantee as requested (see Appendix 37 to the wife's summaries).
- In addition, in 2014, the man demanded that the Vermont trust management company make every transaction with the trust funds in consultation with him and reported to him, and threatened to replace it with another company if the aforementioned was not carried out. Thus, he wrote to the representative of the Vermont company (see Appendix 60 to the woman's summaries, emphasis not in the original), and went on to note that this demand has nothing to do with the fact that he "may or may not" be a beneficiary of the trusts:
"I want to refer your attention to the trust's settlor's letter of wishes where he makes specific request that you consult and report to me every transaction. That letter of wishes is completely independent to the fact that I may or may not be a beneficiary [...] you leave the protector [the man] with no choice other than replacing [Vermont] as trustees and nominate a different trust company."
- I will note that in his interrogation, the man was asked whether he had approached the Vermont company with the aforementioned threat, which he denied with outrageous and defiant innocence:
"The woman's counsel: Thank you Now, I'm telling you that you're turning to Morris from a Vermont trust and drawing his attention to the fact that every transaction in an escrow has to go through you, right or wrong?