The man: Nope.
The woman's counsel: Nope. Which of them do you don't have and why?
The man: At the moment I don't have any of them, because as my lord knows if I had anything in the house, anything, everything that was actually hacked and taken by your client. I mean, there was a break-in.
The woman's counsel: Did you break into the trustees' offices? I didn't understand.
The man: No, I'm talking, did you ask if I have one or in the trustees' offices?
The woman's counsel: I don't hear you.
The man: Did you ask me if I have the documents or with the trusts?
The woman's counsel: No, I asked you if you have it.
The man: Lee, I don't have that, no.
The wife's counsel: You don't have that.
The man: What I had I submitted.
The woman's counsel: You can have them, right? If you want.
The man: No, no.
The woman's counsel: Nope.
The man: This is not true" (See the minutes of the hearing of November 18, 2020, pp. 633-634).
- In this regard, the words of the Honorable President Shamgar are appropriate in other municipal applications 5814/91 Guy v. Guy (published in Nevo: December 15, 1992), which described the conduct of a litigant that is similar to the conduct of the man in the proceeding before me: "When things remain incomplete and unreliable on the face of it, it turns out that one who did not tell the truth and undermined confidence in his version loses" (paragraph 4(b)).
- Moreover, the man refused to testify the various lawyers who were of assistance to him in establishing the trusts and who had vital and critical information regarding the property of the parties, including Adv. G., Adv. Y. and Adv. P. The man made use of his right to maintain the confidentiality of an attorney-client, but his precise use of this right with regard to the issue of trusts was against him, when he could have refuted and contradicted the woman's claims, but chose not to do so, in a manner that strengthens my conclusion regarding his method of action as described above.
- The man was also unable to provide a satisfactory explanation, or any explanation, regarding the changes that occurred in the trusts after the date of the separation between the parties. For example, when Ms. Jennifer was asked why the name of one trust, Nevada, was changed to two different names, Washington and Tennessee, who requested it, and why the woman would have benefited under the original name and no longer enjoyed under the new names - her answers remained vague and unsatisfactory:
"The Woman's Counsel: Please tell me, I understand that in recent times the names of loyalty have also been changed Nevada of loyalty Arizona. True?