How and Why

The Joint Expert process did not fail quietly. It failed openly.

The court-appointed joint expert concluded that my company’s value was asset-based only, consisting of the cash on hand, approximately $15,000 in equipment, and the value of my ongoing software development work. That conclusion was unfavorable to Alyson’s litigation position.

By the time that report issued, the deadline to lawfully seek or designate any additional expert under the Joint Expert Stipulation and case management order had already passed.

Three days after I retained new counsel to wind down the case, a witness list was filed assigning Jay Freedberg to me as if I had retained him. I had not. That filing did not amend the court’s expert order, did not seek leave of court, and did not invoke any rule permitting substitution or supplementation of the joint expert. . 

A witness list cannot retroactively create expert authority where none exists. As a matter of law, it cannot reopen a closed expert process or assign an expert to a party who did not retain him.

Whether or not anyone believed this approach was permissible, the record contains no lawful mechanism by which it could have been so. Advising that it was valid, or relying on it as such, is irreconcilable with the governing orders and rules.

What followed flows from this initial procedural failure and includes uncontionable and very well doucmented acts that had one goal, which was to get Alyson the income she needed to assume the 2.75 mortgage and Glassman legal fees. 

Did Alyson know this was all illegal?

The email to my sister puts that into question and what I choose to believe.