The man: Because I'm in Israel.
Counsel for the plaintiff: I get it. And can you show me a document in which Jennifer asked you to try to sell the property?
The man: No, I don't. Everything I have I have given you" (See transcript From the day November 24, 2020, pp. 834-835).
- From the correspondence that the woman attached to her summaries, it is clear that the man planned the chain of possession of the residence (where the residence is held by the Alabama company held by the Alaska Foundation) - for the purpose of protecting the property in the event of a divorce. Thus, the man turned to the Florida Trust Management Company and explained that this chain of corporations is completely 'dormant' except for the possession of the residence, it has no tax value at all, and its only value is the protection of the residence in the event of a divorce (see Appendix 63 to the wife's summaries, emphases added):
"In terms of [Alaska/Alabama], it is a completely dormant structure. All it has is the house I live in. Again, if it costs more than $7000 a year to administrate, we can eliminate it as well. I don't really need a trust structure there. It would be nice from an asset protection point of view (divorce etc.) but has no tax benefit whatsoever."
- The only director in Alabama, Ms. Jennifer, also testified in her cross-examination that Alabama's entire purpose is to hold the residence and that it does not, and never has, any activity or additional possession of real estate or any other property. Thus, she was asked and answered:
"The woman's counsel:
Do you know what the value of the assets held by the [Alabama] Company are?
Ms. G.'Nipper:
The property is the sole asset. I don't know what is the value of the property.
The wife's counsel:
Just to make sure, we are discussing a property in [home address], Israel?
Ms. G.'Nipper:
That's correct, yes."
(See transcript of July 19, 2017, p. 52, paras. 21-28).