Court Fraud Testimony: An Unforgivable Act

The Truth

As difficult as this is to hear, and as uncomfortable as it may be to understand, over the last eight months I have assembled the evidence that explains what actually happened in this case and why it has not been meaningfully addressed.

None of this was discovered through a single revelation. It emerged slowly, through reconstruction of the record, backups of electronic files, billing statements, metadata, transcripts, and court filings that were never read together. What initially appeared to be isolated irregularities resolved into a single, coherent pattern.

The most significant discovery was Exhibit III-UR. This document was not produced in discovery. It was recovered from a backup of a company computer. Unlike Exhibit III, which the Court saw only in heavily redacted form and less than 48 hours before trial, Exhibit III-UR contains the unredacted billing entries from 

November 2022 through June 2023. Those entries document direct coordination with Six Consulting and Jay Freedberg, drafting and formatting of rebuttal expert reports under Freedberg’s name, and the transmission of joint-expert materials into a parallel expert pipeline that was never disclosed.

Equally critical was the discovery of the June 16, 2023 witness disclosure. That filing assigned Jay Freedberg to me as my rebuttal expert. At the time, no one challenged it. My new counsel had just entered the case. The Court did not scrutinize it. I did not understand its significance. Only later, after reviewing metadata and billing records together, did it become clear that this filing was the pivot that allowed an undisclosed expert to be planted under my name, shielding the true origin of the work and insulating it from scrutiny.

The burden of debt was shifted at trial in the same way the income narrative was shifted. Litigation fees and expert costs were framed as Alyson’s personal debt, while payment records show they were funded by Tool Studios. That misallocation mattered. It reduced the company’s value. It altered the division of marital assets. It supported a fee award that was later reversed on appeal for lack of evidentiary support. But the underlying distortion was never examined because the unredacted billing was never before the Court.

The courts’ repeated rejection of my filings is not because the evidence lacks substance. It is because the wrong legal framework has been applied. I have consistently invoked C.R.C.P. 60(b), final paragraph, the rule designed for fraud upon the court. Instead of addressing that standard, courts have treated my filings as ordinary collateral attacks, applying timeliness rules, waiver doctrines, or deference to prior rulings. That is a category error. Fraud upon the court is not about dissatisfaction with an outcome. It is about whether the Court itself was deprived of reliable inputs.

In the absence of a merits ruling under the correct rule, opposing parties have been able to piggyback on judicial silence. Silence has been treated as rejection. Procedural dismissals have been reframed as vindication. This is not a conspiracy. It is a structural failure that rewards obfuscation.

There is also a phenomenon I can only describe as judicial gaslighting. When a litigant presents documentary evidence showing that a report was never admitted, never authenticated, and never sponsored by testimony, and is then told the issue was “already litigated” or “not preserved,” the effect is disorienting. The record says one thing. The ruling assumes another. Over time, that gap erodes credibility not because the evidence is weak, but because it is never engaged.

The response pattern has followed a classic DARVO maneuver. Deny the irregularities. Attack the person raising them as vexatious or unstable. Reverse victim and offender by framing the exposure of misconduct as harassment or abuse of process. Once that framing takes hold, the substance no longer matters. Motive is assigned. Evidence is ignored.

Technology played an unexpected role in breaking that cycle. AI tools allowed me to compare redacted and unredacted documents line by line, extract metadata from PDFs, correlate billing entries with filing dates, and reconstruct timelines that no human reader could easily assemble from the fragmented record. AI did not invent facts. It revealed relationships already present in the data.

Three courts missed the same core issue. The burden of debt and the income narrative were altered through unauthenticated expert material that entered the case without compliance with the governing rules. Each subsequent ruling relied on the prior one, assuming the foundation was sound. None examined the foundation itself.

Only within the last few weeks did I receive materials from Alyson that further complicate the narrative. Those materials suggest that she may not have understood key actions taken in her name, including how experts were retained, how reports were characterized, and how funds were used. That evidence does not exonerate misconduct, but it does matter. It indicates manipulation rather than mutual strategy.

This case is no longer about numbers. It is about how a court-ordered framework was bypassed, how expert evidence was laundered through procedure, and how the legal system struggled to correct itself once that happened. The law already provides the mechanism to address this. It simply has not been applied.

That is why the filings continue. Not to relitigate the past. But to ask one court, finally, to look directly at the evidence under the only rule designed for what the evidence shows.

Dad