The man: A very open question. Is there another time? Let's concentrate on the question. Is there today?
The woman's counsel: Is there any.
The man: Today.
The woman's counsel: today or during the marriage.
The man: Or over the past 20 years.
The woman's counsel: That's right.
The man: Even more.
The woman's counsel: Any other loyalties that we did not mention by name, in which you have or had status during the marriage?
The man: Again a very open question, but Not that I remember. Come on, maybe you will try, Maybe you can refer me to something And I'll be able to address that. But no, no, no.
The woman's counsel: I won't turn you away.
The man: I don't get anything jumping.
The woman's counsel: No name of any loyalty that we haven't mentioned? Don't jump to you?
The man: Nope. You asked me a question whether, in the process, let's recall the question. Is it in the process, not again, following your question I don't get any name jumping, no." (See the minutes of the hearing of November 18, 2020, pp. 575-576, emphases from the source).
- Is there a simpler way than to answer "no"? The man deliberately maintained a high degree of ambiguity, and from his testimony I got the impression that he wanted to check first of all what information the woman had and only to respond, all in a conscious attempt to conceal as much as possible and reveal as little as possible.
- As presented at the beginning of this part of the discussion, the man did not prove that the trusts listed above are property that should be excluded in the balance of the parties' resources. In fact, the man's method - and I use the word method deliberately - was this: the woman would not succeed in proving anything, and all the more so because he, according to him, had no burden of proof. Therefore, when he was asked whether he had the trust documents that he confirmed were established during the marriage, the man claimed with a false innocence that he did not have any such document and could not even obtain it from the trustees, who should be mentioned that they were meticulous and had an obligation to provide him with documents. The man decided that he would be a wall in the form of a dead end when it came to revealing the truth about loyalties. Thus, he was asked and answered:
"The Woman's Counsel: Yes, I get it. Now let's make a second order. All the loyalties I have read to you Until now, that is, I will repeat briefly, all of which were established according to your method during the period of marriage, I will repeat the names: Arizona A', Virginia, Nevada, Woshington, Arizona, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska , all of these, Do you have their letters of loyalty?