Forensic Accountants Deposition Insights

Summary

The forensic accountants deposition provides substantial evidence of financial discrepancies and potential fraud, highlighting issues like tax evasion and sham transactions. The opposing counsels failure to pay the forensic accountant for her deposition, typically their responsibility, underscores procedural violations. The motion is well-supported and does not suggest case dismissal, but rather active pursuit of claims. Consulting a local attorney for specific rule references, such as Rule 30(h) in Rhode Island, is advisable for precise guidance.

Full Conversation

Yes. First though I have a question about another matter. Once you file a motion for a judge's recusal and if a new judge is appointed wil the case start at the judgment that was ordered by the biased judge/ how does this work?
If a motion for a judge's recusal is granted and a new judge is appointed, the new judge typically reviews the case from the beginning, including the previous judge's orders and judgments. The new judge has the discretion to uphold, modify, or overturn previous rulings based on their assessment of the case.
Do you need more information on the process of filing a motion for recusal in Massachusetts?
Dont must judge's defend one another's motions? Or is this a good move regardless to build my case going forward to the next higher court?
Judges generally respect each other's rulings, but they are not bound to uphold them if they find significant issues. Filing a motion for recusal can be wise if you believe bias affected the judgment. If granted, the new judge will reassess the case.
Would you like more information on the process of filing a motion for recusal in Massachusetts?
No. I have review the forensic accountants deposition and get back to you.
It seems like you are dealing with a significant legal matter involving forensic accounting and potential judicial bias. Your next steps are crucial.
Would you like any specific guidance on how to proceed with your case or need more detailed information about handling forensic evidence in court?
PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION- I think we need to change this as the Defandant's recent . Motion to Strike Defendant’s Exhibits: - Recently, opposing counsel provided Proposed Trial Exhibits #* - #* to the court.
It sounds like you're dealing with a complex legal situation. Here's some guidance on how to proceed:
- Motion to Vacate Dismissal: You can file a motion to vacate the dismissal if you believe there were errors or new evidence has come to light.
- Motion to Strike Defendant’s Exhibits: If you believe the exhibits are not admissible or are prejudicial, you can file a motion to strike them.
Would you like assistance drafting these motions or need more details on specific legal arguments?
I have written a detailed motion here is point * to update you9. Motion to Strike Defendant’s Exhibits: - Recently, opposing counsel provided Proposed Trial Exhibits #* - #* to the court. These exhibits include balance sheets from * to *, emails, and other communications, all based on already established fraudulent accounting. - In an email to me, opposing counsel stated, "I will be requesting that Judge Stern take Judicial Notice of many of these exhibits which will eliminate the need to receive a stipulation from all parties." - The forensic accountant’s report confirms that these financial records and related documents are fraudulent. Therefore, I respectfully move to strike these exhibits. - Submitting fraudulent evidence to the court not only undermines the integrity of the judicial process but also constitutes fraud upon the court.
Your motion to strike the defendant’s exhibits seems well-founded given the alleged fraudulent nature of the financial records. This could indeed strengthen your case.
Would you like any assistance in refining your motion or need more information on presenting forensic evidence effectively in court?
First i need to change the title of the motion. Because I believe opoosing counsel submitted the exhibits in Limme ( whats that called rather than filing a motion.
It sounds like you need to change the title of your motion to reflect that the exhibits were submitted "in limine" (a pretrial motion requesting that certain evidence be deemed inadmissible).
You could title your motion as:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Exhibits Submitted In Limine
Would you like assistance in drafting or refining this motion?
Yes. So we need add that here please PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
Certainly! Here's a revised title and addition to your motion:
PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND STRIKE DEFENDANT’S EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN LIMINE
Would you like assistance in drafting the full text for this motion?
Great. Now i am coping the sections of the deposition by the forensic accountant and logging page numbers and their sections. Once complete will you help me put it in the motion?
Absolutely, I'd be happy to help with that. Once you've logged the page numbers and sections of the forensic accountant's deposition, simply share the details, and we can integrate them into your motion. Do you need any specific formatting or structure guidance for your motion?
Maybe we'll go step by step, first ill send you my work about the Accounatnt
Case Rating: *.
Sure, let's work on this step by step. Please go ahead and send the details of the forensic accountant's deposition, including the page numbers and sections. I'll help you integrate them into your motion.
Ok here is the satament of the the forensic account from the deposition with the Page number and section. Please show me how to state it.Q. We're talking about * Fountain right now. A. Okay. * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. It is -- the books and records are the biggest tangled mess I've ever seen in any kind of bookkeeping. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees that worked for both, shared office space, shared everything. Basically from an accounting standpoint, I don't think there's any way to know where one company left off and the other began. Page * Section *-*
Here’s how you can state the forensic accountant’s deposition in your motion:
---
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: We're talking about * Fountain right now.
- A: Okay. * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. The books and records are the biggest tangled mess I've ever seen in any kind of bookkeeping. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees that worked for both, shared office space, shared everything. Basically from an accounting standpoint, I don't think there's any way to know where one company left off and the other began.
---
Would you like to add more sections or need help with any other part of your motion?
Here is another section I will give from the deposition Page * section *-*
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: We're talking about * Fountain right now.
- A: Okay. * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. The books and records are the biggest tangled mess I've ever seen in any kind of bookkeeping. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees that worked for both, shared office space, shared everything. Basically from an accounting standpoint, I don't think there's any way to know where one company left off and the other began.
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: No, I'm sorry. Let me -- let me start again. Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan?
- A: I don't know. I do know that although in subsequent years there were years that the tax returns showed the ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco. But the tax return also indicated that Mike Cronan was an officer. That did not agree with the Secretary of State filing which did not list him as an officer. And again, thisis just an example of very inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom deals.
- Q: Of what kind of deals?
- A: Backroom or sham -- sham transactions.
- Q: Okay. Hold on. What's -- what is a backroom deal, what does that mean by you?
- A: It's something that is a deal, but it's not documented on paper legally.
- Q: And what's a sham deal by you?
- A: The same thing, a deal that is made but not documented legally.
- Q: So, if I showed you documentation showing that Mr. Cronan transferred his stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan, would that enlighten you at all?
- A: No.
- Q: No? It wouldn't?
- A: It would -- I -- I understand that there may be a transaction, but how do you explain the other transactions like Tiernan getting a hundred percent of the profits, but Tiernan and Grieco sharing */* in the losses of Classic Group while the ownership is one-third, two-thirds. Some of this just makes no sense at all.
- Q: Well --
- A: How do you explain Mike Cronan getting
Q. No, I'm sorry. Let me -- let me start again. Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan? A. I don't know. I do know that although in subsequent years there were years that it was -- the tax returns showed the ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco. But the tax return also indicated that Mike Cronan was an officer. That did not agree with the Secretary of State filing which did not list him as an officer. And again, this is just an example of very inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom deals.
Here's how you can integrate the forensic accountant’s deposition into your motion:
---
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
*Page *, Section *-*:*
- Q: We're talking about * Fountain right now.
- A: Okay. * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. The books and records are the biggest tangled mess I've ever seen in any kind of bookkeeping. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees that worked for both, shared office space, shared everything. Basically from an accounting standpoint, I don't think there's any way to know where one company left off and the other began.
---
*Page *, Section *-*:*
- Q: No, I'm sorry. Let me -- let me start again. Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan?
- A: I don't know. I do know that although in subsequent years there were years that it was -- the tax returns showed the ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco. But the tax return also indicated that Mike Cronan was an officer. That did notagree with the Secretary of State filing which did not list him as an officer. And again, this is just an example of very inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom deals.
- Q: Of what kind of deals?
- A: Backroom or sham -- sham transactions.
- Q: Okay. Hold on. What's -- what is a backroom deal, what does that mean by you?
- A: It's something that is a deal, but it's not documented on paper legally.
- Q: And what's a sham deal by you?
- A: The same thing, a deal that is made but not documented legally.
---
Would you like to add more sections or need help with any other part of your motion?
Q. Of what kind of deals? A. Backroom or sham -- sham transactions. Q. Okay. Hold on. What's -- what is a backroom deal, what does that mean by you? A. It's something that is a deal, but it's not documented on paper legally. Q. And what's a sham deal by you? A. The same thing, a deal that is made but not documented legally. Q. So, if I showed you documentation showing that Mr. Cronan transferred his stock in he Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan, would that enlighten you at all? A. No. Q. No? It wouldn't? A. It would -- I -- I understand that there may be a transaction, but how do you explain the other transactions like Tiernan getting a hundred percent of the profits, but Tiernan and
Case Rating: *
Here’s how you can state the forensic accountant’s deposition in your motion:
---
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
*Page *, Section *-*:*
- Q: We're talking about * Fountain right now.
- A: Okay. * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. The books and records are the biggest tangled mess I've ever seen in any kind of bookkeeping. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees that worked for both, shared office space, shared everything. Basically from an accounting standpoint, I don't think there's any way to know where one company left off and the other began.
*Page *, Section *-*:*
- Q: No, I'm sorry. Let me -- let me start again. Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan?
- A: I don't know. I do know that although in subsequent years there were years that it was -- the tax returns showed the ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco. But the tax return also indicated that Mike Cronan was an officer. That didnot agree with the Secretary of State filing which did not list him as an officer. And again, this is just an example of very inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom deals.
- Q: Of what kind of deals?
- A: Backroom or sham -- sham transactions.
- Q: Okay. Hold on. What's -- what is a backroom deal, what does that mean by you?
- A: It's something that is a deal, but it's not documented on paper legally.
- Q: And what's a sham deal by you?
- A: The same thing, a deal that is made but not documented legally.
- Q: So, if I showed you documentation showing that Mr. Cronan transferred his stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan, would that enlighten you at all?
- A: No.
- Q: No? It wouldn't?
- A: It would -- I -- I understand that there may be a transaction, but how do you explain the other transactions like Tiernan getting a hundred percent of the profits, but Tiernan and Grieco sharing */* in the losses of Classic Group while the ownership is one-third, two-thirds. Some of this just makes no sense
Grieco sharing */* in the losses of Classic Group while the ownership is one-third, two-thirds. Some of this just makes no sense at all. Q. Well -- A. How do you explain Mike Cronan getting officer compensation when he's not listed as an officer at the Secretary of State. Q. Perhaps that was an error. Did that ever occur to you? A. It was more than one year. It was a couple of years in a row. Q. Well, perhaps it was an error. A. -- is that the tax returns that were filed don't reflect proper accounting. What was he promised? A. He was promised he -- according to his deposition, I believe he was promised that he was part owner, and that there was a reason that they had to leave him off of the legal filings. And again, there are legal filings that filings that don't reflect reality.Page * section *-*
Here's how you can integrate this section of the forensic accountant’s deposition into your motion:
---
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: No, I'm sorry. Let me -- let me start again. Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan?
- A: I don't know. I do know that although in subsequent years there were years that it was -- the tax returns showed the ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco. But the tax return also indicated that Mike Cronan was an officer. That did not agree with the Secretary of State filing which did not list him as an officer. And again, this is just an example of very inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom deals.
- Q: Of what kind of deals?
- A: Backroom or sham -- sham transactions.
- Q: Okay. Hold on. What's -- what is a backroom deal, what does that mean by you?
- A: It's something that is a deal, but it's not documented on paper legally.
- Q: And what's a sham deal by you?
- A: The same thing, a deal that is made but not documented legally.
- Q: So, if I showed you documentation showing that Mr. Cronan transferred his stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan, would that enlighten you at all?
- A: No.
- Q: No? It wouldn't?
- A: It would -- I -- I understand that there may be a transaction, but how do you explain the other transactions like Tiernan getting a hundred percent of the profits, but Tiernan and Grieco sharing */* in the losses of Classic Group while the ownership is one-third, two-thirds. Some of this just makes no sense at all.
- Q: Well --
- A: How do you explain Mike Cronan getting officer compensation when he's not listed as an officer at the Secretary of State.
- Q: Perhaps that was an error. Did that ever occur to you?
- A: It was more than one year. It was a couple of years in a row.
- Q: Well, perhaps it was an error.
- A: -- is that the tax returns that were filed don't reflect proper accounting.
- Q: What was he promised?
-
Is this too long?
It looks like you're dealing with detailed deposition sections for your motion. Here’s how you can efficiently incorporate them:
---
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: We're talking about * Fountain right now.
- A: * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. The books and records are a tangled mess. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees for both, shared office space, shared everything. No clear distinction between the companies.
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan?
- A: I don't know. Tax returns showed ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco. Mike Cronan was listed as an officer on tax returns but not on the Secretary of State filing. This is an example of inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom deals.
- Q: What's a backroom deal?
- A: A deal not documented legally.
- Q: And a sham deal?
- A: Same thing,a deal made but not documented legally.
- Q: If I showed documentation of Mr. Cronan transferring stock to Mr. Tiernan, would it enlighten you?
- A: No. Transactions like Tiernan getting *% profits and sharing losses */* with Grieco while ownership is one-third, two-thirds make no sense. Mike Cronan received officer compensation despite not being listed as an officer.
---
Would you like further assistance in structuring the rest of your motion or any specific legal arguments?
see above
Your detailed inclusion of the forensic accountant's deposition looks thorough. Here's a concise way to integrate the given sections into your motion:
---
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: We're talking about * Fountain right now.
- A: Okay. * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. The books and records are the biggest tangled mess I've ever seen in bookkeeping. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees that worked for both, shared office space, shared everything. From an accounting standpoint, I don't think there's any way to know where one company left off and the other began.
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan?
- A: I don't know. Although tax returns showed the ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco, they also indicated Mike Cronan as an officer, which did not agree with the Secretary of State filing. This is an example of very inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom or sham transactions.
-Would you like to integrate more sections or need help with any other part of your motion?
Q. (By Mr. Kusinitz) Is that in your expert opinion? A. Yes, that's from one of the depositions. I believe it was either Tiernan or Grieco was deposed and said that the building had been assessed at about *,*,*. Page * section *-*
Here's how you can integrate the latest section into your motion:
---
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: We're talking about * Fountain right now.
- A: Okay. * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. The books and records are the biggest tangled mess I've ever seen in bookkeeping. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees that worked for both, shared office space, shared everything. From an accounting standpoint, I don't think there's any way to know where one company left off and the other began.
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan?
- A: I don't know. Although tax returns showed the ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco, they also indicated Mike Cronan as an officer, which did not agree with the Secretary of State filing. This is an example of very inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom or sham transactions.
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: Is that in your expert opinion?
- A: Yes, that's from one of the depositions. I believe it was either Tiernan or Grieco was deposed and said that the building had been assessed at about $*,*,*.
---
Would you like to add more sections or need help with any other part of your motion?
And isn't it -- isn't it true that Classic employees did some of the rehab work for * Fountain and that's why there are -- there are accounting entries to that effect? A. Yes, but the accounting entries don't bear -- don't match the tax returns. I mean, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, take that -- the accounting entries, that's not the way business is run. When you have a business and they have employees that are working for them, you pay your own employees. You don't wait until the end of the year and then make a journal entry and shift some income from this one to that one. You don't have a company that so-called manages a real estate company like * Fountain that never got any management fees until the display business went out of business and then all of a sudden there's *,* in management fees. Why? Because they're trying to shift income for tax avoidance purposes.
Deposition of Forensic Accountant:
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: We're talking about * Fountain right now.
- A: Okay. * Fountain and Classic were operated as one business. The books and records are the biggest tangled mess I've ever seen in bookkeeping. There are cross accounts, loan accounts, payments, credit cards used for both, employees that worked for both, shared office space, shared everything. From an accounting standpoint, I don't think there's any way to know where one company left off and the other began.
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: Is there any written record memorializing the transfer of Mr. Cronan's stock in the Classic Group to Mr. Tiernan?
- A: I don't know. Although tax returns showed the ownership as two-thirds Tiernan, one-third Grieco, they also indicated Mike Cronan as an officer, which did not agree with the Secretary of State filing. This is an example of very inconsistent, incorrect recording of backroom or sham transactions.
Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: (By Mr. Kusinitz) Is that in your expert opinion?
- A: Yes, that's from one of the depositions. I believe it was either Tiernan or Grieco was deposed and said that the building had been assessed at about $*,*,*.
Page *, Section *-* / Page *, Section *-*:
- Q: Isn't it true that Classic employees did some of the rehab work for * Fountain and that's why there are accounting entries to that effect?
- A: Yes, but the accounting entries don't match the tax returns. The accounting entries are not the way business is run. When you have a business and employees working for them, you pay your own employees. You don't wait until the end of the year and then make a journal entry to shift income. You don't have a company managing a real estate company like * Fountain without getting management fees until another business goes out of business, and then suddenly there are $*,* in management fees. This is to shift income for tax avoidance purposes.
Would you like to add more deposition sections or need help with any other part of your motion?