Atty James Beirne Scam | Balita Media Anthony Allen
The ‘pattern of lying’ in the Balita/Beirneorganization once more came to the fore duringa court-ordered deposition of Atty James G.Beirne’s staff member Ruby Sexon conducted byAtty Joel Bander in connection with theDuldulao family lawsuit.In this lawsuit, the Duldulaos seek unspecifieddamages against Atty James G. Beirne and theLaw Offices of James G. Beirne, due to the lossof their home in Eagle Rock, California, afterBeirne failed to file a bankruptcy petition intheir behalf even though they had paid theattorney the fee that he had demanded. Beirneadmits that Sexon is the only law office staffmember to ever speak to the Duldulaos beforehe failed to file their bankruptcy thus losingtheir home.
Sexon has been prominently promoted as a key Beirne staff member inearlier advertising.PinoyWatchDog.com is inviting all its readers to watch portions of thevideotaped deposition of Ms. Sexon to disprove its claims that she liedthrough her teeth answering almost all of the questions asked by AttyBander in the presence of their defense attorney, Jack Lapedis.The independent videographer officially taping the court ordered depositioncommented that Ms. Sexon couldn’t have been telling the truth. Heperceived she would put her head down every time she was lying.
PinoyWatchDog.com is saying, without any reservations, that Ms Sexonis factually lying in the portions of the videotape that can be seen on ourwebsite. This is not an opinion, but a statement of fact. PWD isencouraging its readers to watch the videoat www.pinoywatchdog.com to validate this claim.Atty Bander has been seeking to depose Ms Sexon for more than fourmonths, but she continued to avoid deposition based of the stallingtactics of Beirne’s attorney. But finally Judge Susanna Bruguera hadenough and ordered the deposition to proceed.Ms. Sexon’s testimony that she had worked with Atty Beirne for morethan 10 years was unable to state a year, or even estimate the yearwhen she began working there. One Filipino who asked not to beidentified stated “Filipinos are always filled with pride when they haveworked many years for an employer. It makes no sense she would notknow when she started.”
Sexon was also unable to identify hercolleagues’s job description, statingthat they ‘worked in the back’ andshe did not know. Even though shehas been working with BeirneGeneral Manager Anthony Allen forabout 15 years she even testified notknowing his job functions, beyondbeing seen in ‘accounting.’Sadly, after all those years Ms. Sexon,working on Filipinos bankruptcycases, did not remember a single timebeing trained in bankruptcy law.
In the Duldulao lawsuit Sexon was the only Beirne staffer to ever talk orinteract with the plaintiffs before they lost their home. But she did notknow anyone but Beirne who worked on the Duldulaos’ case, and thatthe attorney allegedly assigned tasks to people ‘in the back room.’She also testified that there is no system to track incoming documents(she does not know of any), and just give the paper to the properpersons. Ms. Sexon said that she did not remember having received anotice of default from (Diosdado) Duldulao, even though it is in the file;there was no record of when it was received. This can all be seen on thevideo on line.
Sexon’s court-ordered videotaped testimony had a chorus of ‘I did notrecall’, including receiving a call from Mr. Duldulao in September 2009about receiving a short sale notice to stop a foreclosure; that she toldMr. Duldulao the bankruptcy petition had already been filed, whethershe was upset that the house was foreclosed upon or that she evenspoke with Atty Beirne about Duldulao’s house being foreclosed. Thisshould be particularly disturbing to all Filipinos, because Attorney Berineadmits she was the only communication point between himself and theDuldulaos.Ms. Sexon testified that when Mr. Duldulao came in she said “Beirnehad to make sure he (Duldulao) qualified for a Chapter 13” but casedocuments indicate she took the Duldulaos’ money on that first visitanyway.
Ms. Sexon is the same Beirne staff member involved in the Pecaococouple bankruptcy filing mess covered in prior editions ofPinoyWatchDog.com , and in yet another pending legal malpracticecourt case of De los Cientos v. Beirne.In the Pecacoco case a federal bankruptcy judge called Beirne’s filing ‘amess’ and dismissed her case, providing only a partial refund. That casewas also handled by Ruby Sexon. In the De los Cientos case, the courtfile indicates that Ms. Sexon instructed the plaintiff to withdrawpension money and stop working a second job. But again, Beirne LawOffice never filed the bankruptcy petition either.The complaint in the De Los Cientos case states that Beirne has “a lawfirm business model that steers clients away from the only attorneytangentially involved in the practice and almost completely depends onthe use of legal assistants. The involvement of attorneys in client casesis almost non-existent as a matter of predetermined design.
In this plaintiff’s case, and following this business model, RubySexon, a legal assistant with no formal legal training, and uponinformation and belief, an alleged illegal alien, almost exclusivelyhandled plaintiff’s case on behalf of defendants.”With no training or system to keep track of documents, this is areceipe for disaster. And because of these lies and deceit theDuldulaos lost their home.Go to goo.gl/uGdlW to watch the Ruby Sexon Deposition Footage.