Balita beirne parting of lying evident in ruby sexon deposition


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Balita beirne parting of lying evident in ruby sexon deposition

  1. 1. Balita/Beirne’s Pattern of Lying Evident in Ruby Sexon DepositionBy Rene Villaroman with PWD Investigative Team The ‘pattern of lying’ in the Balita/Beirneorganization once more came to the fore during a court-ordered deposition of Atty James G.Beirne’s staff member Ruby Sexon conducted by Atty Joel Bander in connection with theDuldulao family lawsuit.In this lawsuit, the Duldulaos seek unspecified damages against Atty James G. Beirne and theLaw Offices of James G. Beirne, due to the loss of their home in Eagle Rock, California, afterBeirne failed to file a bankruptcy petition in their behalf even though they had paid the attorneythe fee that he had demanded. Beirne admits that Sexon is the only law office staff member toever speak to the Duldulaos before he failed to file their bankruptcy thus losing their home.Sexon has been prominently promoted as a key Beirne staff member in earlier is inviting all its readers to watch portions of the videotaped deposition ofMs. Sexon to disprove its claims that she lied through her teeth answering almost all of thequestions asked by Atty Bander in the presence of their defense attorney, Jack Lapedis.The independent videographer officially taping the court ordered deposition commented that Ms.Sexon couldn’t have been telling the truth. He perceived she would put her head down everytime she was is saying, without any reservations, that Ms Sexon is factually lying in theportions of the videotape that can be seen on our website. This is not an opinion, but astatement of fact. PWD is encouraging its readers to watch the videoat to validate this claim.Atty Bander has been seeking to depose Ms Sexon for more than four months, but shecontinued to avoid deposition based of the stalling tactics of Beirne’s attorney. But finally JudgeSusanna Bruguera had enough and ordered the deposition to proceed.Ms. Sexon’s testimony that she had worked with Atty Beirne for more than 10 years was unableto state a year, or even estimate the year when she began working there. One Filipino who
  2. 2. asked not to be identified stated “Filipinos are always filled with pride when they have workedmany years for an employer. It makes no sense she would not know when she started.” Sexon was also unable to identify hercolleagues’s job description, stating that they ‘worked in the back’ and she did not know. Eventhough she has been working with Beirne General Manager Anthony Allen for about 15 yearsshe even testified not knowing his job functions, beyond being seen in ‘accounting.’Sadly, after all those years Ms. Sexon, working on Filipinos bankruptcy cases, did notremember a single time being trained in bankruptcy law.In the Duldulao lawsuit Sexon was the only Beirne staffer to ever talk or interact with theplaintiffs before they lost their home. But she did not know anyone but Beirne who worked onthe Duldulaos’ case, and that the attorney allegedly assigned tasks to people ‘in the back room.’
  3. 3. She also testified that there is no system to track incoming documents (she does not know ofany), and just give the paper to the proper persons. Ms. Sexon said that she did not rememberhaving received a notice of default from (Diosdado) Duldulao, even though it is in the file; therewas no record of when it was received. This can all be seen on the video on line.Sexon’s court-ordered videotaped testimony had a chorus of ‘I did not recall’, includingreceiving a call from Mr. Duldulao in September 2009 about receiving a short sale notice to stopa foreclosure; that she told Mr. Duldulao the bankruptcy petition had already been filed,whether she was upset that the house was foreclosed upon or that she even spoke with AttyBeirne about Duldulao’s house being foreclosed. This should be particularly disturbing to allFilipinos, because Attorney Berine admits she was the only communication point betweenhimself and the Duldulaos.Ms. Sexon testified that when Mr. Duldulao came in she said “Beirne had to make sure he(Duldulao) qualified for a Chapter 13” but case documents indicate she took the Duldulaos’money on that first visit anyway.Ms. Sexon is the same Beirne staff member involved in the Pecaoco couple bankruptcy filingmess covered in prior editions of , and in yet another pending legalmalpractice court case of De los Cientos v. Beirne.In the Pecacoco case a federal bankruptcy judge called Beirne’s filing ‘a mess’ and dismissedher case, providing only a partial refund. That case was also handled by Ruby Sexon. In the Delos Cientos case, the court file indicates that Ms. Sexon instructed the plaintiff to withdrawpension money and stop working a second job. But again, Beirne Law Office never filed thebankruptcy petition either.
  4. 4. The complaint in the De Los Cientos case states that Beirne has “a law firm business model thatsteers clients away from the only attorney tangentially involved in the practice and almostcompletely depends on the 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, Ruby Sexon, a legal assistant with noformal legal training, and upon information 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 a receipe for disaster. Andbecause of these lies and deceit the Duldulaos lost their home.