The One Question No Attorney in This Case Can Answer Honestly.

If you are an attorney, a judge, or a regulator, ask yourself this:

"If Jay Freedberg was 'Just a regular... Witness' according to the trial transcript, and his 'stipulated expert' status was a 'typographical mistake' according to Mr. Freedberg's letter to DORA, then upon what legal authority was he permitted to provide expert opinion testimony without a report that resulted in a $197,200 income finding specifically formatted to hit a mortgage target?"

And why does Alyson believe they have done noting wrong?

The Foundation of a Forensic Failure: The Rules vs. The Record

In the American legal system, the truth is supposed to be discovered through a set of mandatory rules. In Case No. 2022DR30458, those rules were established on Day One to ensure that financial evidence was independent and transparent.

The evidence below documents how those rules were systematically bypassed to produce a specific financial outcome: a $197,200 income finding that precisely matched an external mortgage requirement.

1. The Rulebook: The Joint Expert Stipulation

On January 31, 2023, both parties signed Exhibit 105: The Joint Expert Stipulation. Under the Case Management Order (Exhibit 104), this was a binding contract:

The Single Expert Rule: The parties agreed to one joint expert (Jeremy Harkness) to value the business and determine income.
The Dispute Rule: The stipulation states that any dispute regarding additional experts "shall be resolved by the Court."
The Disclosure Rule: Expert reports must be provided 56 days before trial.

2. The Timeline: Formatting the "Truth"

The following timeline reveals that the "expert" evidence wasn't driven by data, but by a mortgage deadline:

March 28: The Joint Expert (Harkness) submits his official, independent report.
June 16: (68 days before trial) Jay Freedberg is disclosed as a "retained expert" for the Petitioner—a direct violation of the Joint Stipulation.
July 12: The Mortgage Trigger. Alyson Varvel receives an "income review" trigger from a mortgage lender.
July 13: Within 24 hours of the trigger, the income figure is "formatted" to hit the $197,200 target needed for the loan.
July 17: (Only 37 days before trial) A late "rebuttal disclosure" is filed. No expert report is produced.

3. The Trial: "Just a Regular Witness"

On August 23, 2023, the foundation collapsed on the record. When the Judge asked for the report serving as the basis for the testimony, Counsel Carol Glassman admitted:

"That is correct. Just a regular... Witness." (Transcript p. 43)

The Judge noted there was "no report serving as the necessary basis for anything." Under the rules, a "regular witness" cannot give expert opinions on business valuations or complex income formatting. Yet, that is exactly what happened.

4. The "Binary Fraud": The Typo That Anchors a Judgment

To protect this record from a civil lawsuit (2025CV80), the attorneys told the Judge that Jay Freedberg was a "stipulated expert" to secure "absolute immunity."

However, to avoid an investigation by the Board of Accountancy (DORA), those same attorneys admitted that the "stipulated" label was actually a "typographical mistake."

The Forensic Reality:A "typo" is a misspelling. Using a false legal status to win absolute immunity and anchor a $197,200 mortgage loan is not a typo—it is a material misrepresentation of legal standing.