Court Fraud Testimony: An Unforgivable Act

When our case began, Alyson and I both agreed to use one joint expert to determine our finances. That expert, Jeremy Harkness of Causey Demgen & Moore, completed his report on March 28, 2023, and found my annual income to be about $115,000, which should have ended the debate. 

Instead, Alyson and her attorney, Carol Glassman, began testing ways to alter the record. They quietly brought in Six Consulting, Eric Six, and Jay Freedberg to prepare a second, unauthorized analysis that raised my income to $145,000. She stole money from the company to pay them. Looking back, I now understand this was never meant to be final it was a test to see how my new attorney would react after I changed counsel. When she did not challenge it, they moved forward with a much bigger plan involving court fraud. 

On June 16, 2023, Glassman filed a witness disclosure naming Jay Freedberg as my own expert. I had never met him, retained him, or even heard of him. That filing allowed their chosen accountant to enter the case undetected, under my name, as if he worked for me. Two weeks later, during my deposition, they tested the deception directly: 

Q: “Are you going to hire a rebuttal witness?” 

A: “What’s a rebuttal witness?” 

In that moment, they knew their plan was in place. 

At that stage, the plan was for Freedberg to appear as a regular witness, not an expert, so that no one would ask for formal disclosures. But then everything changed. On July 12, 2023, I forwarded them an email from my mortgage broker confirming that the family home loan at 2.75 percent interest was assumable. Up to that point, Alyson and her attorney had insisted it was impossible, even producing a letter saying so. I thought this discovery would finally allow us to keep the home in the family. 

Instead, it triggered the next phase of their scheme. Five days later, on July 17, 2023, two new “expert” reports suddenly appeared: one for valuation (Exhibit JJ) and one assigning my income at $197,200 (Exhibit OO). Freedberg’s name was on both, but he never signed, testified, or even appeared. The jump from $145,000 to $197,200 was designed to meet the income threshold needed to qualify for that assumable mortgage. 

When I asked my attorney about it, she said, “They can do that.” 

Eight days later, they sent a counter to the proposal I had made on July 14. Their message was blunt: take the $145,000 number or we’ll go to court and the judge will give us $197,200. 

From that point forward, everything the filings, the redacted billing, the staged testimony was built around sustaining those inflated numbers and keeping the court from realizing the financial deception behind how they had been manufactured. 

- Bell