The "I DON'T KNOW MEN"

There was a civil suit that paralleled the criminal case.  The two false insurance claims (thus the civil suit) were likely one of the main reasons for the criminal case instigated by my ex-client and his business partner.  The attempt to replace the charitable contributions made to The NOAH Project with insurance proceeds, when his separate property came under attack in the divorce proceedings, cannot be underestimated.  That is only next to the attack on me to make certain I did not reveal where all the skeletons were buried by destroying my credibility.

While on the face it was a collaborative divorce, litigation had been threatened.  Once threatened, within a month and half the charitable contributions ended. That was the time it took them to put the specific scheme in place.  Divorce had been imminent for years, with trial runs, but when there is so much money at stake, the plan requires time and fine tuning of intricate details along with a great deal of estate planning techniques.  It appears The NOAH Project and I became part of that plot (unknowingly) and we were the ultimate scapegoat as well as a significant distraction.  The NOAH Project was not the only dumping grounds for money he planned to recover once divorced it was just the most public.

The late afternoon of October 1st, 2003  I was notified of the end of the contributions and was asked if I wanted to stay with NOAH or go back full-time consulting with them.  Upon my choosing NOAH it appears the final details were worked out over the next six weeks and then the police were contacted.  If there had truly been a theft the police would have been contacted from the start.

The men who falsely accused me were real estate developers but also owners in the insurance agency that provided The NOAH Project's Directors' and Officers' policy (D&O), as well as the Property and Liability policies.  It was NOAH's D&O policy where one false claim was made.  The other false claim was with their own employee theft policy.  I had NEVER been their employee as I was self employed from the start of their businesses. 

The law suit relating to the D&O claim never even named me, although I was a Director and an Officer.  The law suit was filed days after the police were notified and was settled (for pennies on the dollar) approximately a year and a half before the trial, although it took some time for them to sign it as they took months working out a confidentiality clause preventing my Board members and ex-employee/officers from talking to me or anybody else about the settlement.  The main thing accomplished by saying they would settle is it stopped the computer forensics at the civil suit level.  As part of the civil suit discovery the insurance company had called for the computer that I had used so they could do forensics.  The fact that my ex-clients had my computer had been an omission on their part and came out during the depositions.  After many delay tactics the computer was turned over to the insurance company.  Just after the computer went to the insurance company and  BEFORE it underwent the forensic testing my false accusers decided to settle.  The threat of forensic testing appeared to be the catalyst for making a settlement of pennies on the dollar. 

It is thought the settlement only covered legal fees so little to no contributions were even recovered by the claim on the D&O policy.  The claim on the employee theft policy was out right turned down since it could not be proven I was ever an employee.  During the trial my ex-client admitted he received practically nothing on the insurance claims as part of his victim statement.  That statement was strategically placed after the conviction so he would never be questioned as to why his claims were not successful.  In fact I was told the insurance company settled on the D&O policy to "get rid of the bottom feeders", the insurance company knew they were lieing, it was obvious in the depositions...they just couldn't get them to go away any other way without expending a great deal more money.

The depositions relating to the civil suit were hundreds of pages long with my ex-clients and their company controller making several verifiable lies.  My trial attorney refused to investigate the lies I marked (with additional information) in the depositions, so nothing about the depositions was brought up in the trial.  In fact, placing those three depositions side by side, the answers among them were not even consistent.  They didn't agree among each other as to my job responsibilities, the date they supposedly found out about this or what they did within their own work responsibilities.  Sometimes they even changed their answers within their own deposition when a question was repeated.  Plus the false testimonies they made in my trial did not match the lies in the depositions.  But you know the old adage...people who lie cannot keep their stories straight.  My trial attorney also refused to bring up the inconsistencies between the civil case depositions and the trial testimonies.  One difference that was very obvious:  in the depositions they could "not recall" as a response to well over a hundred questions, thus they became known as the "I DON'T KNOW MEN".  In contrast,  in their trial testimonies (2 years after the depositions) they had answers to everything asked and had obviously been coached.  The choreographed performance by prosecution and state witnesses could have won Oscars.  As I sat at the defendent table I felt like I was at the movies...what was said coudn't be further from the truth and the jury bought their drama. My attorney played right into it, he could have brought out the lies,  all the inconsistencies and hundreds of questions that should have been asked were never asked.  Had he only been prepared and willing to defend me there would have been a different outcome.  It would appear my trial attorney joined the club of the I DON'T KNOW MEN.

My next blog will line out a list of the top questions that were never asked in the trial....and then, what about that computer?