PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

CALIFORNIA MOM ROISIN CASSIDY: VICTIM OF AN ATTORNEY DISCOVERY SCAM!

Many of us have come to believe that our own attorney was working for the other side. However, when we confronted our attorneys about our suspicions or brought the issue up before the Court, we have been scoffed at and mocked.  

In the letter below, you will see how one litigant, Roisin Cassidy, actually caught out two of her attorneys working in coordination together and with the opposing attorney so that she would lose custody through a scheme that revolved around court rules in regard to discovery.  What the attorneys did was collude with each other in a post judgment custody switching scheme to allow the abusive father discovery, while Ms. Cassidy was prohibited from doing so.
Read the letter below as Catharine Sloper unravels this complex web of lies and deception that so many family court litigants fall victim to.  Think you are imagining it? Think it couldn't possibly be true?  Think again.

Attorney Jennifer Ani, Co-Conspirator
Dear Attorney Jennifer Ani:

I have been informed that, in response to a blog posted on the website "Divorce in Connecticut", you have had several objections to the content. In the spirit of wanting to be entirely accurate, I did want to run some questions by you.  

The particular issue which I hope you can address, and which came up within the context of the Divorce in Connecticut blog regarding this case, has to do with the issue of discovery as follows:

On November 14, 2015, Attorney Ani, you wrote an email to Roisin stating that Attorney Christiana Samuels refused to reopen discovery as follows:
Attorney Christiana Samuels, Co-Conspirator

"She [Attorney Samuels]...said, "your client asked for disclosure a long time ago.  It's [discovery has] been cut off."

The implication of Attorney Samuels statements was that discovery was closed and that Attorney Robert Bruening, on behalf of his client, was somehow responsible for closing discovery by sending Attorney Samuels a document requesting disclosure of discovery.  The further implication was that the inability to reopen discovery was fatal to Roisin's case because then she would be precluded from bringing any rebuttal witnesses to trial to offset the custody evaluator, Dr. Kenneth Perlmutter's report.  
Attorney Robert Bruening

As I state again, the finger for this major legal error, both Attorney Ani and Attorney Samuels appeared to be stating, was pointed directly at Attorney Robert Bruening who was held responsible for sending out this document requesting disclosure.  On the basis of these two attorney's accusation, Roisin Cassidy then refused to pay Attorney Bruening the outstanding amount of $10,000 in legal fees which she allegedly owed him at the time.

Based upon the stated concern that discovery might be closed, you, Attorney Ani then turned to a person you designated as a discovery expert--Attorney Kathryn Kirkland, a legal professional with at least 40 years of legal experience.  In a rather inconclusive email dated December 7, 2015 (copy provided to Roisin), Attorney Kirkland offered some views regarding whether or not discovery was closed in the case citing CCP 128(a)3, CCP 2024.050 and CCP 2034.220.  I am assuming that you charged Roisin Cassidy for this consultation.

However, despite these protestations on the part of three attorneys, I myself looked under Article 2, Section 2034.310 and I saw that discovery, or late disclosure of an expert witness, under section (b) of that part is acceptable if "that expert is called as a witness to impeach the testimony of an expert witness offered by any other party at the trial.  I agree that such testimony would largely be limited to that of a fact witness not an opinion witness. This is perhaps unfortunate, but it does not leave Roisin completely without options, which is what you should have told Roisin, but did not.  

To verify this particular point of law, I did send a letter of inquiry to each of the attorneys in this case--Samuels, Ani, Bruening and Kirkland--in order to give them a chance to correct me on this point.  However, thus far, not a single one of them has responded with a correction of any of the points I make here in this blog. 

A few days later, on December 10, 2015, with Roisin under the impression that discovery was closed and her expert witnesses, therefore, excluded, Roisin approved and authorized Attorney Jennifer Ani to use her limited legal funds for the purpose of crafting and submitting a motion which she hoped would reopen discovery so that she could fully defend her case.  In connection to reopening discovery, the motion Attorney Ani wrote entitled "Notice of Application and Application For Continuance of Trial Date; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Attorney Jennifer Ani; Exhibits" made reference to CACCP 2034.230(b), CCP 2034.710, and CCP 2034.720 as well as case law from 1990, 1999, and 2006.  

In response, Attorney Samuels submitted to the Court an eye brow raising two hours later on the same day her "Petitioner's Responsive Declaration to Respondent's Requste [sic] For Order in which she opposed Attorney Ani's request for the reopening of discovery solely citing CCP Section 2024.020(b).

Judge Swope, who must have known that these motions were fraudulent and should have exposed them as such, denied the request for a continuance and to reopen discovery.  This action alone calls his ethical base into question and appears grounds for a judicial complaint against him.

So this is my point towards which I have been going slowly and surely via this long winded introduction, and it is as follows: 

The entire discovery issue in the case was completely fabricated!  In reality there was no such thing! The attorneys in this case on both sides appear to have gotten together and invented the whole thing, and I will tell you how I know this.

I had the opportunity to read two articles regarding Family Code 218, one of which is entitled "Family Code 218 Overrules Marriage of Boblitt Decision and Allows Post Judgment Discovery.  What Family Code 218 apparently states is that, as of January 1, 2015 (and please note: Roisin Cassidy's trial was conducted on February 8, 2016) "discovery will reopen automatically upon the filing of a post-judgment motion as to the issues raised in the post-judgment pleadings currently before the court."  This new rule, apparently, determined that the California Civil law which all the attorneys in Roisin's case kept on citing no longer applied in any way whatsover.  In other words, Rule 218 means that discovery opens automatically once a post judgment motion is filed regardless of California Civil Law.

Thus, my puzzlement and that of Roisin.  If Family Code 218 replaces prior existing California law, why were all these attorneys in this case--Attorney Jennifer Ani, Attorney Christiana Samuels, and Attorney Kathryn Kirkland, let alone a Judge--bringing up and debating this issue at length to the point where other more significant matters in this case were left neglected?  Discovery was reopened automatically when the petitioner filed to change custody from Roisin to him.  Therefore, the entire debate over discovery was moot!  So why was it conducted?  I am very curious to know the answer, as is Roisin!

Then, if Attorney Robert Bruening will excuse me, let me close with his words.  When Roisin asked him why he had closed discovery, which was what Attorney Christiana Samuels accused him of doing, this was his response:

"I did not close discovery.  No attorney can close discovery without some kind of agreement.  I cannot imagine what [sic] any attorney would agree to close discovery prematurely.  I guarantee you there is no such agreement. Discovery ends by law/Rules, 30 days before trial.  Giving notice of your witnesses occurs 5 days before trial.  That has nothing to do with whether discovery is still open or not."

As you may recall, Attorney Ani, you provided notice to the Court and to the opposing side regarding Roisin Cassidy's rebuttal witnesses on December 7, 2015, well in advance of the February 8, 2016 trial date and so there should have been no problem including these witnesses on Ms. Cassidy's roster of witnesses for her trial.

Attorney Ani, naturally in the face of learning that it appears that the discussion over the reopening of discovery was a complete fabrication based upon nothing and a total waste of time, Ms. Cassidy is very upset. When you should have been focusing in on preparing the expert witnesses and exhibits for trial, you appear to have been wasting time and Roisin's limited financial resources on legal issues and conversations that had absolutely no basis or merit.  What is more, had you prepared properly as you should have, no continuance would have been required.

In addition, you appear to have been, and Attorney Samuels appears to have been, misrepresenting Attorney Robert Bruening's actions on behalf of his client and ascribing malpractice to him when he had not done anything wrong; this led to Attorney Bruening suffering a considerable financial loss.  Further, I understand you have made several calls to Roisin Cassidy's family members and tried to slander her reputation and standing with them.  This is unconscionable.

In putting together this extraordinarily deceptive and manipulative discovery scheme to swindle Ms. Roisin Cassidy and her family out of thousands and thousands of dollars of legal fees, and at the same time hand over custody of her children to their abusive father, you have violated your legal obligations to your client in multiple ways.  I understand that she intends to file a grievance complaint against you.  I sincerely hope that she does so.

Yours truly,

Catharine Sloper
Divorce in Connecticut Website


Please sign the petition at the link below and show your support.  Thanks so much.  See link:

https://www.change.org/p/irish-government-american-family-court-bias-against-irish-immigrant-mother

58 comments:

  1. It's really sad to know about such people like Jennifer Ani (BITCH).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you think it is possible that Stephen Tyrrell's attorney paid off Jennifer Ani and Judge Swope. Something is not right about this case. Please help Roisin get to the truth of how her children were taken.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If these facts are accurate, then it sure looks like Samuels arranged this with the help of Ani. If that is what happened, there is no way that was done without the approval of Stephen Tyrrell. And there is no way the attorneys would take that kind of risk without being paid for it. It sure has the appearance of Stephen Tyrrell paying off the attorneys to break the law.

    Ms. Cassidy, you have to get to the bottom of this...

    Did Samuels lie to the court when she claimed that Bruening had requested discovery be closed? If so, shouldn't she be disbarred and possibly face prison?

    If discovery was closed wrongly preventing one side from gathering and presenting evidence, then how can the judgment be valid and enforceable? And, shouldn't Judge Swope face some kind of sanction for allowing this?

    And, finally, shouldn't Stephen Tyrrell face criminal charges if he did approve and pay for this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These are the typical tactics corrupt attorneys and judges use to eliminate mothers from their children's lives. How do these people sleep at night, knowing that these kids miss their mother and cry themselves to sleep every night? Knowing that the mom and her entire family suffers deeply? It is UNCONSCIONABLE conduct; it's all about money. There is a special seat in HELL reserved for these attorneys and this judge. DESPICABLE!

      Delete
    2. Sadly, this is not isolated to mothers being the ones unjustly losing. Nor is it isolated to only a couple of states or cities.
      It's all over. It's all about the money and who can line the pockets of the corrupt. And the corrupted are plentiful!!!!
      Men are losing out the same way.
      The parent that is pushed out is quickly replaced. Most times replaced before they are even removed.
      Entirely to many cases are judged by the money instead of with "BLIND JUSTICE" as it is CLAIMED to be.
      I myself am not immune to this loss. I went through this years ago. And took years for me to finally win that battle. And then to find out that support obligations would not be enforced on her.
      Now years and years later my now adult child has learned that with just a little research of public records.......the truth is there to be seen. Well, most of it is. Some of the truth was edited out of the audio transcript. Like the comment from the judge "How can I defend her if she doesn't even show up?".
      As we all know, it's not the judges job to defend either person. But, since it was edited out and my lawyer refused to state that it happened........... there's no hard proof that it actually happened. My word against a judge. And we all know how well any of our words hold up in court against a judge.
      Sorry, my point is, this is happening everywhere to so many. It's not just again men or women, it's against those who can't shell out thousands and thousands each year.
      The most of the court system has been bought and unless you are the purchaser...... YOU LOOSE !!!!!!!

      Delete
  4. How can attorney Christiana Samuels craft a response, server Attorney Jennifer Ani and file with the clerk in the space of two hours.
    Attorney Jennifer Ani and Attorney Christiana Samuels had this coordinated, there is no explanation, it is as plain as day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Tyrrell v. Cassidy case just keeps opening more and more unanswered questions. This case could be the gold standard for a study of family court abuses of power. Family court is froth with corruption like this case, as there is little or no oversight.
      I have been involved in the legal profession for many years, I have never seen a response been file within two hour, it most certainly is eyebrow raising Catharine. Sign...these poor kids, their mother is brave to take on the family court mafia, she was surrounded!

      Delete
    2. I have personally seen, and kept a record of Attorney Ani releasing private health information about the children involved in this case. Given the context of the release of private medical information, it appears that Attorney Ani was using the information to harass and embarrass Cassidy (and possibly the children as well).

      Delete
    3. yeah it's messed up. she needs to get back to AA.

      Delete
  5. This.. along with the system is bent and corrupt! She is being railroaded and someone needs to step up and tell the truth and do the right thing! Not surprising an attorney selling out but, really? Too bad the State Attorney General doesn't catch wind and investigate maybe she should seed this? Hmm..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great article CS. Now we all need to work to get more media to investigate and report on this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Catherine what chances would you say of Roisin having a civil lawsuit here and since i am sure there are more than just Roisin who have been lied to and swindled by these fucktard lawyers should a class action suit be started?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well if a class action gets started please contact me - my case is similar - thanks

      Delete
  8. While I have not read the case, this appears to be a case of legal malpractice in a busy law firm setting - Roisin ran out of money so the attorney stopped doing work and blew a deadline. Instead of appealing to the court to not punish the client for her law office failure, she brushed it under the carpet. Perhaps Roisin can look up legal malpractice attorneys in the area in www.avvo.com.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Respectfully, I would not agree it was about blowing a deadline or failing to pay attorney's fees at all.  During the months when Attorney Ani was declaring that the deadline for discovery had been missed she was lying; there was no such deadline.  Roisin paid her attorney in full and so Attorney Ani did receive her money as did all the experts that Roisin paid at Ani's request.  Roisin did not pay Attorney Robert Bruening $10,000 since she believed he had missed a deadline and destroyed her case when he had not and she was given false information from Attorney Jennifer Ani.  If you didn't understand what the article said, it will be hard to get the connections.  Essentially, the point of the article is that three attorneys conspired to destroy Roisin's case NOT that Roisin failed to pay her attorney's fees or that there was any deadline that was missed.  Because I make the point that Attorney Jennifer Ani had indeed noticed her witnesses well in advance and so she had not missed the deadline.

      Delete
  9. Interesting that immediately after this article was posted, it appears that Tyrrell started posting on the first article. Looks like this has Tyrrell nervous. Maybe Tyrrell knows that he could face jail time if he bribed opposing counsel.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is criminal to have children taken away from their primary parent..lawyers should be held to higher standards then their clients.. There is no evidence any wrongful acts from this loving mom!

    ReplyDelete
  11. These criminals should be punished

    ReplyDelete
  12. If this article is accurate, and there are verifiable facts in the public record that support it, then it would seem that someone funded this. Who could that be? It sure seems to me that Tyrrell would have had motive to do this, and had the funds to do it.

    I can't imagine that Fischer Investments, which seems to be a reputable company, would want their reputation tarnished, if this is proven to be true. I would hope they would do the responsible thing for their shareholders and clients. A reasonable precaution might be for them to investigate to see if their corporate assets were used by Tyrrell for his divorce case. Of course, what actions they decide to take (or not take) are at their discretion. I would not presume to tell them what to do. However, I can say that people are watching now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have read the transcript, I am appalled at the behavior of Judge Swope most of all. He has a sworn duty to report attorney misconduct.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please, please don't involve his children. Family Court and Law and Motion Court are night and day in comparison. Law 218 was a result of a month long trial, judge admitted during the trial to some acts of domestic violence, refused to hear any witness testimony, including 6 peace officers. The third district Court of Appeals overturned in part, particularly the DV, it was a unanimous decision, and the right one, Linda

    ReplyDelete
  15. What Roisin and her Children is abhorrent, I am in the same situation this is about children? This should Not be about Money. Annie clearly is in cohorts with the other Lawyer this whole corrupt team needs investigating? In the meantime these Children need returning to their mother the sooner the better. MOTHERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BECOME LAWYERS AND INVESTIGATORS TO BE REUNITED WITH THEIR NATURAL CHILDREN?

    ReplyDelete
  16. In my opinion, the real person behind this is Stephen Tyrrell of Camas, Washington who works for Fischer Investments. Attorneys don't cook up things like this by themselves for no financial gain. We'll see if this can be proven, but the evidence that CS has already found looks pretty bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope Donald Trump puts an end to family court. Children are trafficked from their loving mothers to abusers and molesters everyday in family court. This is clearly parental alienation at its worst.

      Delete
    2. Have to agree that this looks like parental alienation. Not sure if President Trump will do anything about it. Think it's up to all of us to let people know what's going on and put the pressure on. Think that's the only way things will change. One thing that does seem certain to me, Tyrrell seem like a real piece of work, and I think Cassidy will have a hard time ever seeing her kids again. A real injustice.

      Delete
  17. The corruption and terrorism in U.S. Courts is off the charts. Due to immense corruption I encountered at San Mateo Superior Court in CA in 2008 I subpoenaed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and at the time Attorney Gen. Brown who now committed election fraud twice to be Governor. They both violated my Constitutional Rights after the fact and forced me into poverty when I have a fraud ruling against an Attorney Eileen Avila. My harm has continued for years cause NO oversight or authority exists cause a traitor DEFACTO Gov't is in operation. Cover-ups immense aided by Mainstream Media there is NO FREE PRESS. Roisin Cassidy and many other families lives were destroyed after the fact as cover-ups and injustice continue at the expense of many families lives NOT just in San Mateo but in every Court in the nation. The U.S. Constitution is NOT abided by so laws and rights are violated in droves. This inhumane criminal insanity and injustice must end! All children deserve both parents in their lives instead of the parental alienation, theft and harm purposefully committed by crooked judges, attorneys and the den of crooks running County/State/D.C. gov't operations. A top crook from San Mateo County is ex-D.A. James Fox whose now the head of the California State Bar, his crooked County Attorney relative Timothy Fox another major crook. Nepotism of crooked families big in San Mateo County too!

    ReplyDelete
  18. It sure looks like Samuels and Ani were, at the very least, communicating inappropriately. Question for Cassidy. Since all this happened, did you ask Attorney Jennifer Ani to explain herself? And, just a guess, but did Attorney Ani bring Samuels into any of the discussions? If she did, that would pretty much convince me they were working together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The article is interesting, and there are several good points. Like the closing of discovery. Really don't understand how the Judge could have allowed that. And, Attorney Bruening says that he did not close discovery, but Attorney Samuels says he did. One of them has to be lying.

      Here is where I part ways with some of the posts here... Attorneys kind of know what they can get away with and what they can't. I kind of doubt that Attorneys Ani and Samuels would work together directly. It just seems a bit conspiratorial.

      But Ms. Cassidy, if you have any evidence that you can share, I'd be interested in learning more about this case too.

      Delete
    2. This corruption has been going on for 37 years - only difference is now you have the computer - and the numbers of women shafted by our corrupt legal system has increased to alarming levels. Women fight the very same way within the law while the lawyers operate outside the law. We need a fed law that will not allow a judge to give custody to an abusive man. Just tells me women don't have the rights they think they do.At least more of these cases are being exposed- no thanks to the media.

      Delete
    3. One interesting thing. I contacted Attorney Jennifer Ani to request records. Attorney Jennifer Ani replied copying Attorney Samuels (the former opposing counsel). Note this was after Samuels had apparently removed herself from the case.

      Why would Attorney Ani do that? Why would she not simply arrange for an easy transfer of records?

      Delete
    4. If that's true, then I take back my comment about this being a bit conspiratorial. There was no legitimate reason for Attorney Ani to copy Attorney Samuels, particularly if Samuels had already removed herself from the case. That makes me wonder if Samuels only took herself off the case to make it harder for Cassidy, but is actually still working for Tyrrell. And, makes me wonder if you're right and Attorneys Ani and Samuels are cooperating in some way.

      Delete
  19. Catharine do you know why the family court mafia went to so much trouble to bury Roisin's evidence. What did they want to hide?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they know that Roisin would fight tooth and nail for her children and that it would take heaven and earth to separate her from them and so they went into this elaborate deception in order to blockade her and take her children. I think what is most disturbing is that so many professional people who are sworn to a code of professional ethics would simply go out and plan a deception of such extensive proportions which includes not only lying and misrepresentation but stealing thousands and thousands of dollars from Roisin and her family who are good people.

      Delete
    2. Catharine I have to disagree with you a little bit. What was done was not elaborate or complex. All they did was pretend discovery was closed, and then Attorney Ani did not file papers. Simple and transparent. Any idiot could come up with this, which explains why Tyrrell, Samuels, and Ani were perfectly capable of it.

      Delete
    3. I know Steve personally, at one time it might have even been accurate to say we were friends. To call Steve an idiot is an insult to idiots everywhere.

      Yes, technically he fits the definition of an idiot, but most idiots are harmlessly ignorant. Steve is a different kind of idiot. His idiocy has led him to believe that he is constantly bullied and always the victim, no matter what the situation.

      Steve starts a court case to take 100% custody of the kids. Roisin tries to keep some custody. Well, in Steve's mind that's her attacking him. Steve beats up one of the kids. In Steve's mind that's Roisin's fault because she didn't make sure the kids were behaving well enough, so she forced him to beat the kid.

      Steve actually said that about beating one of his own kids.

      There are more accurate words to describe someone like him. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide what those words are.

      Delete
  20. Stephen Tyrrell of Vancouver, Washington (formerly of Camas, Washington) who works for Fisher Investments did use Fisher Investments assets for his divorce and the custody battle he initiated against his ex-wife Roisin Cassidy.

    This includes, computer equipment, fax machines, internet connections, etc. He worked on his divorce and the custody battle he initiated against Cassidy in the Fisher Investments office during office hours when he was being paid to do other work.

    This is provable by phone numbers, IP addresses, and other easily verifiable information.

    It would seem to me that Fisher Investments would have a fiduciary duty to investigate this and take the appropriate action to protect it's shareholders' and clients' rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you send Fisher Investments this information? I am sure you could do this anonymously, even with a mailed, unsigned letter.

      I think you should. Fisher Investments handles a lot of people's money, and from what it sounds like here, Stephen Tyrrell defrauded his employer.

      Delete
  21. "Family Code 218. With respect to the ability to conduct formal discovery in family law proceedings, when a request for order or other motion is filed and served after entry of judgment, discovery shall automatically reopen as to the issues raised in the postjudgment pleadings currently before the court. The date initially set for trial of the action specified in subdivision (a) of Section 2024.020 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall mean the date the postjudgment proceeding is set for hearing on the motion or any continuance thereof, or evidentiary trial, whichever is later."

    Yes, discovery was automatically re-opened when Tyrrell initiated his effort to take the kids away from Cassidy.

    But perhaps more importantly, closure of discovery was not tied the initial date set for trial as in the old 2024.020. It was supposed to be determined by the continuance date due to 218. So discovery was not actually closed, it was automatically set to close 30 days before feb. 10, 2016.

    How could Samuels not have known this when she claimed discovery was closed, months before it was actually to be closed?

    How could Ani, and her discovery expert, Kirkland, not have known this?

    And, Finally, how is it even possible that Judge Swope could not have known this?

    Ms Cassidy, it appears you and your children were denied a fair hearing in court. The more I read about your case, the more shocked I am by how it was handled. I hope you are doing well, and wish you success in your appeal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And again, based upon the CA rules of procedure, Ms. Cassidy was perfectly within her rights to call her own expert witness without prior notice purely as a fact witness, so even if rule 218 wasn't in place, she still had options which the attorneys and the judge went around pretending didn't exist. For purposes of rebuttal, you can bring in a last minute witness and last minute exhibits.

      Delete
    2. The fact is that Ms. Cassidy had noticed all her witnesses well in advance of trial, so this was not an issue. I did not see that her exhibits were noticed in advance. However, as I say, for rebuttal, she was allowed to submit whatever was necessary for that purpose. This is why discovery can never truly be said to be closed until after the trial is over, because at any point some discovery might be necessary. For instance, if during trial the expert witness says he or she based her opinion on a specific document that neither party has seen. Well, that document is discoverable in order that both sides have the due process opportunity to see a copy of the document an opinion was based upon, so that either side can rebut it.

      Delete
    3. In other words, that document I spoke of, newly referenced at trial as the basis for an opinion, can become immediately discoverable, right at trial. This is why discovery isn't over, not until the fat lady sings, which is when the trial is finished. And theoretically even after trial, if it is determined that one side or another made a statement at trial based upon a document that the other side didn't see and now it has become crucial to the final judgment, even post trial I would suspect a party could subpoena it, if some fraud were suspected. And the newly discovered document could become the basis for a motion for a new trial. So the whole, "discovery is closed" thing makes no sense at all and I'm sure everyone knew this involved in this discovery scam, even the judge. That is the most shocking aspect of this part of Ms. Cassidy's case.

      Delete
    4. Never mind last minute documents or anything extraordinary. Just the simplest most basic fact... Closure of discovery was automatically moved to 30 days before the second trial date was set. So, Judge Swope should have just stated that, and sanctioned Attorney Samuels for causing Cassidy to waste time and money on an obvious obstruction.

      Delete
    5. No, that is not correct. CCP 2024.020 (b) states: "Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings." CCP 2024.050 states "On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." FC 218 doesn't seem to apply here because there was no post-judgment motion. FC 218 doesn't not solve the problem with discovery in family law because it doesn't not allow, in some cases, sufficient time for discovery for a motion.

      Delete
    6. That's nonsense. Absolute nonsense. There was a post judgment motion for a change in custody, so you don't even know what you are talking about. Are you just commenting to see if you can fog the issues and kick up dust. Just stop it.

      Delete
    7. I do know what I'm talking about. I was discussing specifically about Anonymous's incorrect statement about the tolling of the closure of discovery when there was a continuance of the trial date: "Closure of discovery was automatically moved to 30 days before the second trial date was set." So we are talking about a trial, not a post judgment motion.

      Delete
    8. Right, a trial on a post judgment motion which opened up discovery as stated in the article.

      Delete
    9. Quoc Pham what got you interested in this case?

      Delete
    10. Perhaps Quoc Pham isn't really Quoc Pham but someone else? Fake name?

      Delete
  22. I read the document when Christiana Samuels and Stephen Tyrrell were blaming Roisin Cassidy's previous counsel for closing discovery early, but also in that motion both Christiana Samuels and the court refused Ms. Cassidy a long cause hearing and it was set for a short cause trial. These rules of discovery only apply to long cause trials, surely Jennifer Ani, Kathryn Kirkland, Christiana Samuels and Judge Swope all knew this, they could not all profess ignorance of the rules of court. Something was cooking in that case way before trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely correct on this. The direct manipulation of the outcome for months in advance, the demonization of Roisin Cassidy created out of nothing, that is highly evidence.

      Delete
  23. I'm thinking of writing up something to help Cassidy on her appeal. Even if it's very short. Just to list the specific reasons why she should have been allowed to have expert witnesses to question facts, question opinions, present their own collections of facts, and state their own opinions based on their collection of facts, re-interpretation of Perlmutter's presentation of facts, and their own expertise.

    Each of these categories of evidence should have been allowed without the need for a request to re-open discovery. De facto, None were allowed.

    I think we need to help Cassidy put together the relevant law for each kind of evidence she would have presented (if she had not be prevented from doing so), and then demonstrate how the law was not followed. Hopefully, Cassidy will then add this to her appeal, and any Bar Complaints that she may file.

    There is also the issue of equal representation. I'm trying to get in contact with Cassidy because of the fees hearing that I read about. It seems that Judge Swope may not have followed the rules. But that is an entirely new topic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is very exciting...great work Catherine. Tyrrell needs punished and Cassidy is an obvious victim. Maybe we should start a fund for the appeal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely right--a go fund me account would be a fine idea!

      Delete
    2. I posted earlier about helping to write up some of the relevant law for discovery.

      I think it's awesome that people are looking to maybe starting a gofundme page, but honestly the potential costs will not be met. It's just not possible. Don't mean to discourage people, but I think that research and writing are more likely to help Ms. Cassidy and her children in the long run.

      Delete
  25. Waw, such lawyers should be put in prison for misconduct and abuse of trust!
    Greetings from Anonymous Belgium!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I see kids being kids. This is not only an infringement of their rights, our constitution and our amendments. It's a sad realization of our corrupt, greedy, sick joke of a judiciary system. These undercover rackets cannot continue to be acceptable and or accepted by we the majority. The same majority that fund these so called, "civil servants". JB

    ReplyDelete
  27. There definitely would appear to be some serious concerns about the professionalism from the legal representatives. There should be a avenue available where Roisin and anyone else is able to request a investigation into the impropriety on the behalf of her/their legal representative. There would appear to be a lack of support for the mother and the wellbeing of the children concerned. Custody issues should not be decided on the size of the check, I also feel that there should have been a opportunity for the mother to be able to present any evidence and for the complaints about the professionalism of the family report writer to be investigated.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So sorry to read your story. Family courts around the world do not work in the best interests of the child (for many reasons, not always corruption) - it is time for transparency and change in order to protect our children from such unnecessary trauma (which will affect them throughout their lives if you know about the research into ACE - adverse childhood experiences). Hope a solution will be found one day soon and may those who have placed children with abusers be brought to justice. x

    ReplyDelete