Ms. G.'Nipper: That's right.
B"20 The woman: But you didn't say [Shehish] He didn't enjoy it. I mean, does he remain enjoyed?
Ms. G.'Nipper: That's right." (See transcript of July 16, 2020, p. 470, paras. 3-17, translated from English).
- In Ms. Jennifer's interrogation, you will not find an answer that will satisfy you as to why the woman automatically ceases to be a beneficiary when a divorce proceeding begins, but nothing happens to the status of the other beneficiaries, and in particular the status of the man. Also, the opposite and you will still not find an answer to an extremely simple question - how did Mrs. Jennifer know and who informed her about the outbreak of the divorce dispute? At this stage, I will assume the most logical one - it is the man who guides Mrs. Jennifer, it is he who determines the exclusion of the woman as a beneficiary at the outbreak of a divorce dispute, and any other answer will be a sin against the truth (see Ms. Jennifer's full interrogation in the transcript of July 16, 2020).
- This is even more evident than the man's refusal to answer the simplest question in the hearing that took place before me in the alimony case - whether, according to him, the woman lost her status as a beneficiary of the Alaska Foundation Trust. In his interrogation, the man does not admit that the woman was a trustee of the Alaska Foundation in the first place, merely that the legal terminology in English is "spouse" and he expects this to satisfy the court. I will preface the latter by saying that if judgments had been given the title of movies or books, at that point the judgment would have been called "How to Lose All Your Property Overnight." The woman's counsel described it well, saying, "There is a person who has a house and there is a person who has deposited millions of dollars in trust and it is still his, and he does not have to pay less alimony. If today claims that she is not enjoying it now, it is important for her sources, certainly for the issue of alimony. If overnight the woman went from a millionaire to someone who has nothing, it is important that the court know" (see transcript of March 8, 2018, pp. 47-48).
- Similarly, the method of operation that excludes women only can also be seen in relation to the Oklahoma Company, a subsidiary of the Arizona Trust, until the outbreak of the dispute as well as the change in the method after the outbreak of the conflict:
- Until the outbreak of the dispute, the man had deposited funds into the account of Credit Suisse Bank in Switzerland The woman appealed differently from the various subsidiaries established under the trusts in which the man, the woman and their children were beneficiaries. The man even confirmed this in his interrogation:
"The wife's counsel: Confirm to me that from time to time the trusts and companies that are related [They were] [Transfers] to you [And the wife] Funds through a Credit Suisse bank account, registered in the name of [The woman].