This is a reconstructed archive of the original StevieLovesEvie blog. Some minor edits have been made to correct grammar and formatting, and contextual notes have been added at the bottom of posts for clarity, but it is otherwise a true representation of the original archive.

A lot has happened since this blog was silenced.

Russell's battery and domestic violence case against Walsh was heard by a jury in San Francisco. After a five-day trial, the jury found Walsh guilty on every count — battery, domestic abuse, and intentional infliction of emotional distress — and awarded $325,000 in damages. Walsh appealed. The First Appellate District affirmed the judgment in its entirety, finding none of Walsh's arguments persuasive.

Those were huge wins. They should have meant something. They should have led to resolution — to accountability, to a path back to his daughter. Instead, they were met with silence. And a gag order.

The Westchester Family Court entered an order on default directing that all of Dad's blogs be erased, deactivated, and deleted. The court entered the order claiming Dad had defaulted — despite the fact that his attorney was present and actively participating in the proceedings.

Dad appealed. The Appellate Division struck down the bulk of the gag order as unconstitutional, ruling that the blanket deletion provision was not narrowly tailored as required for a prior restraint on speech. The higher court also called into question the orders entered "on default," finding that the characterization was false — the proceedings were contested, not defaulted. This called into question not just the gag order, but the custody and restraining orders entered under the same false pretense, all without a hearing on the merits.

The Family Court has not yet responded.

And the Walshes have been silent. Save for a demand from Tara that maybe, if I drop my cases and show her family some "respect," then just maybe I can see my daughter again.

Evie turned eight this year. I have not seen her in years.

This archive exists because the story matters. The evidence matters. And Evie, when she is old enough to find it, deserves to know what happened and how hard her Dad fought for her.

The First District Court of Appeal recently affirmed the judgment against Walsh in a complex case involving charges of battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and domestic violence.

The Appeal

Following the February 2022 jury verdict finding Tara Walsh liable for battery, domestic abuse, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Walsh appealed to the First Appellate District, Division Four (Case No. A165356).

Walsh, who represented herself at trial and again on appeal, raised two arguments:

1. The trial court erred in refusing to continue the trial — Walsh told the court she was "not mentally fit to go through the trial" and offered to obtain a letter from her psychiatrist. However, the appellate court found the trial court acted within its discretion. By the time Walsh first made her request for a continuance, the jury had been sworn and she had already delivered an opening statement. The trial court observed that Walsh had "been able to withstand the examination by opposing counsel" and "seemed to have the ability to understand the nature of the proceedings, what's going on, and to proceed with the case." Although the court made clear Walsh could present a psychiatrist's note, she never did so.

2. Insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict — Walsh argued that no substantial evidence supported a finding that she committed battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or domestic violence. The appellate court found these challenges were waived because Walsh's opening brief summarized only her own testimony, neglecting Russell's testimony about symptoms he experienced, blood tests revealing high levels of lithium in his body, and the statements of a nanny who witnessed Walsh drugging his wine. By failing to set forth all the material evidence, Walsh's claims on these points were deemed waived.

The Ruling

The court's opinion, filed September 15, 2023, stated plainly:

"Stephen Russell sued Tara Walsh for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and domestic violence, and a jury found her liable for all three torts. Walsh, who represented herself at trial and does so again on appeal, argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict. She also contends that the trial court erred in declining to continue the trial when she told the court about her mental health issues. Finding none of these arguments persuasive, we affirm the judgment."

Even addressing the merits beyond the waiver, the appellate court found substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict to all three torts. The remittitur was issued November 15, 2023, making the opinion final.

San Francisco Jury Finds Walsh Guilty of Drugging, Domestic Abuse & Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm

After four years of denials and delay, a San Francisco jury finds Walsh guilty.

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

On March 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, handed down a Decision & Order that struck down the blanket deletion provision of the gag order and — critically — found that the order was never actually entered on default, directly contradicting the lower court's characterization of its own proceedings.

The Ruling: Matter of Walsh v Russell

The case, Matter of Walsh v Russell, 2023 NY Slip Op 01522 (Docket Nos. V-7641-18, O-12635-19), came before Justices Betsy Barros (J.P.), Robert J. Miller, Lara J. Genovesi, and Lillian Wan. Dad appealed through Advocate, LLP (Jason A. Advocate of counsel). Mom was represented by Christopher S. Weddle, and Donna M. Genovese served as attorney for the child.

The Appellate Division addressed two key issues: whether the order was properly characterized as a default, and whether the speech restrictions satisfied constitutional requirements.

The False Default

In a finding that cut to the heart of the lower court's proceedings, the Appellate Division ruled that the order was not entered on Dad's default — directly contradicting what both Mom and the Attorney for the Child had argued on appeal.

The court found that although Dad failed to appear in person at the January 2022 hearing, his attorney appeared on his behalf, participated in the hearing by making objections and cross-examining Mom. Under established New York law, that made it a contested proceeding — not a default.

This matters enormously. A "default" label strips a litigant of their ability to appeal directly and forces them into a much harder motion to vacate the default first. By marking the orders "on default" when Dad's attorney was present and actively participating, the lower court effectively created a procedural trap — one that the Appellate Division saw through.

The Unconstitutional Speech Restrictions

Turning to the substance of the gag order, the Appellate Division applied the constitutional framework for prior restraints on speech. The court stated plainly that a prior restraint on speech must be "tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case." The party seeking such a restraint bears a "heavy burden of demonstrating justification for its imposition," and must show the speech is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

The court found that the blanket provision directing Dad to erase, deactivate, and delete "any existing blogs and likenesses" was not tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case. The problem was clear: the order required Dad to delete any existing blogs and likenesses — regardless of whether they related to the child, Mom, Mom's family, or the custody proceedings at all.

The Appellate Division modified the order, deleting the blanket deletion provision and substituting a narrower one directing that only blogs which specifically reference the proceedings or disparage the child's relatives, and likenesses of the child posted in connection with such blogs, need be removed.

What Was Upheld

The court upheld the remaining restrictions — prohibiting Dad from posting blogs displaying the child's likeness and disparaging the child's relatives — finding those provisions were narrowly tailored to the case's needs.

The Significance

This ruling mattered on multiple levels. First, it established that the lower court had mischaracterized its own proceedings as a "default" when they were in fact contested — a finding that has implications far beyond the gag order itself. Second, it struck down an overly broad speech restriction as unconstitutional, affirming that even in the heated context of custody litigation, the First Amendment imposes limits on how far a court can go in silencing a parent.

The irony is bitter: by the time this ruling came down in March 2023, the gag order had already achieved its purpose. StevieLovesEvie.com had been taken offline. The blogs had been silenced for over a year. And the jury verdict finding Mom guilty of battery, domestic abuse, and intentional infliction of emotional distress — handed down in February 2022 — had gone largely unnoticed by the Westchester court system.

This ruling confirmed what Dad had argued all along: the gag order was used as a weapon to silence legitimate speech about official proceedings, not to protect a child. The higher court saw through the false default label and the unconstitutional breadth of the restrictions — but the damage of years of silence had already been done.

Four years of denials and delay culminated in a five-day trial in San Francisco the week of February 14, 2022. After deliberating over the Presidents Day Weekend, the jury ruled on the causes of action before it including battery, domestic abuse and more.

Did Tara Walsh "Drug" Stephen Russell repeatedly and commit "Battery?" YES

Did Tara Walsh commit "Domestic Abuse" against Mr. Russell? YES

Was Tara Walsh's conduct "Outrageous?" YES

The judgment included loss, suffering and punitive damages totaling around $400,000 though the number could go higher. Still pending from the Court was a separate finding regarding Walsh's attempts to avoid a mental health evaluation and the filing of false claims against Mr. Russell. Ms. Walsh's counter claims were dismissed "with prejudice."

The New York Courts declined to comment on the ruling, or the kidnapping of Mr. Russell's daughter from San Francisco. While the trial of Ms. Walsh was pending, the Westchester Court elected to accept Walsh's version of events despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"We are very pleased with the verdict and expect Judge Schauer and the Westchester Court to take judicial notice of the ruling. The facts in this case have always been very clear for those willing to look. A judgment like this doesn't leave much room for interpretation. It's never too late to do the right thing."

The Judgment

The case, Russell v. Walsh, Case No. CGC-18-570137, came before Department 504 of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the Hon. Garrett L. Wong presiding. Plaintiff Stephen Russell appeared through attorney Brian D. Waller of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Defendant Tara Walsh appeared in pro per.

The jury returned its verdict finding that plaintiff Stephen Russell was entitled to judgment against defendant Tara Walsh consisting of:

• Past economic loss: $185,000.00
• Past noneconomic loss (physical pain/mental suffering): $90,000.00
• Punitive damages: $50,000.00
• Total: $325,000.00

The original complaint filed on September 26, 2018 included four causes of action: Battery, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Domestic Violence under California Civil Code Section 1708.6, and the California Drug Dealer Liability Act under Health & Safety Code Sections 11700 et seq.

Mom admits in open court to drugging Dad

Mom admits in open court to drugging Dad with her anti-psychotic medication

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

I made a family decision: Multiple eye witnesses, sworn testimony, and text from Mom confirm the druggings

Multiple eye witnesses, sworn testimony, and text from Mom confirm and attempt to justify the druggings.

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

In November 2021, the Westchester Family Court issued an "Order on Default" — a gag order — restraining Dad from posting blogs and displaying Evie's likeness, and ordering that existing postings, blogs and likenesses be "erased, deactivated and deleted."

The Order to Show Cause

On October 14, 2021, the court-appointed Attorney for the Child, Donna M. Genovese, Esq. of Goldschmidt & Genovese, LLP, initiated an Order to Show Cause requesting that:

(i) Dad, Stephen Grant Russell, and/or any persons, entities and/or agents acting on his behalf be restrained from posting, uploading blogs and displaying the likeness of Evelyn Grace Walsh (i.e. photographs, animations, screen shots, drawings and the like) and disparaging Evelyn Grace Walsh's relatives in any and all public forums and/or social media platforms; and that the existing postings, blogs and likenesses be erased, deactivated and deleted;

(ii) Dad and/or any persons, entities and/or agents acting on his behalf be restrained from recording any visits between Evelyn Grace Walsh and Dad and/or Linda Russell.

Entered on Default

The Order to Show Cause was served on October 22, 2021. Opposition papers were due on or before October 29, 2021, with an in-person court appearance required on November 5, 2021.

No opposition papers were filed. Dad, who was representing himself pro se, did not appear on November 5, 2021. The court proceeded to hear the Order to Show Cause with the following parties present: Attorney for Child Donna M. Genovese, Petitioner Tara Katelyn Walsh, Attorney for Petitioner Christopher S. Weddle of Timko & Moses, LLP, Linda Russell and Attorney for Linda Russell Max Di Fabio of Di Fabio & Associates, P.C.

The Hon. Michelle I. Schauer of the Family Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, granted the order on default.

The Impact

This is the order that ultimately led to StevieLovesEvie.com being taken down. The gag order did not address, nor was it issued in response to, any finding of falsehood in the blog's content. Rather, the order was framed around the child's likeness and "disparagement" of the Walsh family.

The timing is notable: it came after the Walsh family depositions had been completed and their scheme had begun to unravel, as documented in the Scheme Undone post, and just months before the February 2022 battery trial verdict that would find Walsh guilty on all counts.

Dad later filed a motion to vacate the gag order. On March 22, 2023, the Appellate Division struck down the blanket deletion provision as unconstitutional and found the order was never actually entered on default — contradicting the lower court's own characterization of its proceedings.

The court-appointed substance abuse evaluator who played God with families' lives had his license revoked after a state investigation revealed years of misconduct.

For years, Raymond Griffin was the go-to substance abuse evaluator for Westchester Family Court and Supreme Court judges. He operated out of a small office at 5 Waller Avenue in White Plains, conducting drug and alcohol evaluations that could determine whether a parent kept or lost custody of their children. Courts had been appointing him since at least 2005.

In our case, Griffin was appointed to evaluate Dad for substance abuse — despite the fact that Dad was the victim of drugging, not the perpetrator. The toxicology evidence showed Dad had been administered lithium and Seroquel without his knowledge. Nevertheless, Mom and her family's attorneys successfully steered the court toward ordering Dad to be evaluated by Griffin.

The OASAS Investigation

In July 2019, the New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS) launched an investigation into Griffin after complaints were filed. The probe revealed a staggering pattern of misconduct. Within months, OASAS revoked Griffin's license as a Credentialed Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Counselor (CASAC), forcing courts across Westchester to scramble for new evaluators.

The violations cited by OASAS included:

• Engaging in prohibited private practice using his CASAC title
• Grossly negligent handling of toxicology testing
• Failure to protect confidential patient information
• Inaccurate documentation
• Disregard for patient welfare, conduct outside the scope of a CASAC
• Unauthorized practice of medicine or misrepresenting himself as a medical doctor
• Fraudulent renewal of his CASAC license by using falsified documents
• Exploiting patients by charging for unauthorized services

The Journal News Investigation

On October 5, 2020, the Journal News (lohud.com) published an investigative report by Jonathan Bandler revealing that Griffin had also been working as an alcohol and drug counselor in Connecticut since 1998, and that Connecticut's Department of Public Health had reached out to OASAS about Griffin in November 2019 and was conducting its own investigation.

A spokesman for New York's court system confirmed that judges had stopped using Griffin for evaluations in July 2019, but cited only a "handful" of cases Griffin handled in Family Court and said it would be "too burdensome" to review all cases for any involvement by Griffin.

"He played God with me and my kids. He pressed his thumb on the scales of justice to get the outcome he wanted."

Griffin's Declaration and Stipulation

The evidence archive contains two key Griffin documents: a signed declaration letter and a signed stipulation from August 2019, both produced during the OASAS investigation period. Griffin also left a voicemail that has been preserved in the archive.

Griffin listed himself on multiple professional directories as "Dr. Raymond Griffin, PHD" and "Griffin Raymond A MD" — misrepresenting his credentials to courts, patients, and the public. His office at 5 Waller Avenue in White Plains was described as a "self-service drug-testing lab" where the integrity of urine samples was compromised.

This is one of the "court-appointed experts" referenced in The Courts post. The "COMING SOON" section about "Recused Judges, Fake Doctors, and a Corrupt Network of Westchester Experts" — this is the fake doctor.

In a custody case that defied all norms, three consecutive Westchester judges recused themselves. Combined with the firing and delicensing of court-appointed experts and the turnover of six attorneys for Mom, the result was a custody battle that went years without a single substantive hearing — while Dad was denied meaningful access to his daughter.

A Pattern of Recusals

After Mom fled San Francisco with Evie in June 2018 — following Dad's emergency custody order and a restraining order against Mom — the custody matter landed in Westchester County courts. What followed was an unprecedented series of judicial recusals.

The first judge to take the case eventually recused herself, passing the matter to a second judge. That judge was followed by a third — Judge Morales-Horowitz — who also recused, after which the case was reassigned to Judge Gordon-Oliver. By early 2020, the last of the three Westchester judges had stepped aside.

Each recusal meant a fresh start: new case review, new scheduling, new delays. Meanwhile, Dad's access to Evie remained severely limited. The visits that did occur — Visit 6 through Visit 16 — were supervised, limited, and subject to constant interference and cancellations by Mom and her family.

Why the Recusals Mattered

Each time a judge recused, the clock reset. New motions had to be filed. New appearances scheduled. The system's built-in delays became a weapon, whether intentionally or not, that kept Dad from his daughter. By the time a new judge in Yonkers finally took the case — one who, unlike every previous judge, actually read the briefs — years had been lost.

The recusals did not occur in isolation. They happened against a backdrop of:

• Six different attorneys representing Mom cycling through the case
• Five court-appointed experts being fired, delicensed, or removed — including Raymond Griffin, the fake substance abuse evaluator whose license was revoked by OASAS
• Mom's escalating series of false claims to police, courts, and child protective services
• Grumpa's open defiance of court orders, telling Grandma Linda he didn't care what the court orders said

A New Judge Brings Hope

Eventually, the case was assigned to Judge Michelle I. Schauer in the Yonkers courthouse. Unlike her predecessors, Judge Schauer read the briefs, admonished Mom, and immediately put an order in place for visits — three remote visits per week for Dad and in-person visits for Grandma Linda.

But the gag order that followed in November 2021, and the continued obstruction by Mom's family, meant that even judicial attention could not easily undo the damage of three years of delay.

This post expands on the "COMING SOON" section from The Courts post, which promised backgrounds on the three judges who recused themselves.

So, this in an update: It's Monda...again. Nothing but silence from Grimma, Grumpa or Mom. No attorney cross talk. Not even a signed court order.

Well, Grumpa did write something to Dad's attorney Max about "ethics." It was short and softer than the last four times he threated to take Dad's lawyers' licenses, but that was still kind of the point.

Dad writes every day asking that Grimma, Grumpa, and Tara all just agree among themselves, and confirm the visits; so Grandma Linda won't be stuck driving another 13 hours for nothing.

There was one exception, Grandma Linda reached out to Mom. The exchange is below and I will let you read it without comment. It stands on it's own.

If you are here for the poetry, skip Grandma Linda's letter and scroll down to read Monday by Stephen Russell, a poem he wrote for his little girl. Today he emailed the Walshes asking that they read it to her, so she knows how much she means to him.

Grandma Letter to Mom:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Linda Russell <l[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:39 PM
Subject: Visit
To: Tara Walsh <[email protected]>

Tara,
This is unacceptable.

Last week I drove 13 hours to see my Granddaughter and was denied. She has no idea that I was there and tried to spend time with her.

I also made it very clear that this week was off limits due to long term plans.

Today I learned that there is a new order for us to spend time together this Thursday.  I asked you for confirmation since last week there was a court order and still I did not see Evie. I asked your parents for confirmation because last week you blamed them when the court order wasn’t followed.

In fact I specifically requested your “approval or disapproval in writing before changing my plans” because this behavior is the rule rather than the exception. Meanwhile, I have been cautiously optimistic and figuring out the logistics to get from the other side of the country to Chappaqua for a full day visit in less than 48 hours. Frankly, I would move heaven and earth to see Evie and it has been really lovely to think about and plan.

But, despite all of this, and the hurdles ahead for this Thursday, you told Evie that I would spend the day with her? You tell me Evie is 'so excited to see me,' before I confirmed? You knew it would be difficult for me to make it. Then you tell me Evie will be so disappointed? And imply to the court that I’m not making a “genuine attempt to forge a relationship with Evie if. I don't show up?” Really?!??

When I first saw your email I jumped into gear to get there, but I’m not now. I will be there for every other visit the judge designated and will confirm each of them 24 hours prior.

What you are doing is abusive. I pray you were just trying to be hurtful to me and didn’t actually tell Evie I would be there. I know you did a similar thing to Steve last week and can only hope that was a lie meant to hurt him too. As difficult as you have been in this process I can’t imagine a mother doing this to her daughter deliberately.  

Sincerely, Linda


---------- Excerpted from ---------
From: Tara Walsh <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Seeing Edie
To: Linda Russell <[email protected]>
CC: Chris Weddle <[email protected]>

"It is inappropriate to include my parents in these emails and they asked to be kept out of this. I also ask that you respect their privacy and not contact them.
You are able to visit with Evie from 8:30 AM to around 5:30 PM on Thursday. I already told her about the visit and she asked that I be there- I have told her it would be funnier without me and I need to work. However, I do predict she will be upset to be handed over to you given she is unfamiliar with you- or she might not be which would be great!"

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 20:02, Linda Russell <[email protected]> wrote [excerpted]:

"I am asking for confirmation from you that Evie will be made available for all day visits this Thursday and next Thursday. Given that last week I drove out and was turned away, I want to get your approval or disapproval in writing before changing my plans."

Dad is going to fly out to New York tonight to see if he can get any clearer answers as well. He plans to do his remote facetime calls from a room a few doors down from Evie, while she visits with Grandma Linda. Mom made her agree that Dad not be present as a condition. Crazy.

Grumpa must really care about his money, reputation, or something else to do so much harm to his family.  Agamemnon only sacrificed one daughter, but Grumpa is down at least two.

Dad has always only proffered the same reasonable settlement proposal, never wavering:

He asks Mom tell the truth, stays in treatment, let Evie have a father, and attempt to make amends for the harms she caused.. That's it, and he won't seek full custody, and would provide a better life for Mom and Evie than an attic and NY mandated child support.

Grumpa says, "No" as if Evie belongs to them.

This is Evie's Story:

The Crime: Mom and Dad meet and Evie is born, but a crime disrupts their life in San Francisco

In Book One: The Crime, Mom is caught drugging Dad as part of an extortion attempt. Evie’s father receives emergency custody. A “higher standard of care” is recommended for Mom after a diagnosis of Borderline Personality with sociopathic traits.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Three judges, six lawyers, and five court appointed experts are fired, delicensed, or recuse themselves over a three year period where a custody battle without a single hearing ensues

Three Judges, six lawyers, and five court appointed experts are fired, delicensed or recuse themselves over a three year period where a custody battle without a single hearing ensues

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Abuse - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Mom’s drugging and abuse of Evie’s Dad is not unique. Stories of violence, alcoholism, and abuse span generations of Mom’s family. Children labeled ‘difficult’ and ‘mentally ill’ are prescribed a cocktail of drugs, the same as those in Dad’s toxicology reports. Even the adopted Walsh children seem t…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

The Coverup - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Over three years, Mom makes a series dramatic and escalating claims to police, the court, family and attorneys. Three Judges, 6 attorneys, and five court appointed experts will recuse themselves, be fired, and in one case lose his license and flee the state. A confusing bramble of distractions and p…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

With the fake custody & restraining order vacated, and the last of the three Judges in Westchester recused from the case, it was time to see Evie. The last visit allowed by Grumpa and Mom was in Sept 2019. [That's when Mom's brother Stuprendan and cousin waited outside the gates of the estate in the woods – in the pitch black, wearing cammo – with what looked to be baseball bats.]

“I HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SHEER FRIGHT AS I HAD JUST GONE THROUGH”

“I HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SHEER FRIGHT AS I HAD JUST GONE THROUGH.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The new Judge in Yonkers gives reason for hope. Unlike every other Judge she actually read the briefs. She admonished Mom and, and put an order in place for visits immediatly. Three remote visists per week for Dad and in-person for Grandma Linda, who lives in Punxatawny, Pennsylvania. In two weeks, she will do more.

Oh, we don't need an order for Grandma Linda, says Mom. We can just set up something ourselves. Okay, the plan is among ther things to do facetime visits with Evie while she is with Grandma Linda and has set up toys and maybe showed her vidoes of her last visit with Dad. There is a court monitor assigned to make sure the calls and visits happen and to protect dad from any shenanigans, her name is Jen.

Dad sets up a time with Jen. Grandma Linda talks to Mom and hits the road. The drive from Punxatawney, PA is just over six hours. On the drive, Mom goes silent. Nothing.

After arriving in Chappaqua, NY and renting a room at a nearby hotel, she hears from Mom. She wants to change things around. Her parents say no. And she's no longer comfortable with the one-hour visits the court ordered. She states that doesn't think there is even a court order, she hasn't seen it, and that the attoreneys needed to get involved. The visit is off.

Grandma Linda calls Grumpa's cell phone and he picks up.

Grumpa: Yes, Evie was with him and Grimma. They are her primary caregivers. She and Tara live at their home. Evie is there all day every day, but will be starting camp soon and does things like swimming.

Grandma Linda: Well great, that makes it easy. I am happy to watch her some days so you can have a break. When can I come by?

Grumpa: You can't just drop in unannounced. Grimma and I need two weeks notice. I don't care what the court order says. That order doesn't affect Grimma and me. Furthermore, I am just not comfortable letting visits happen while Dad has his lawsuit. [Obviously this is paraphrased, the recording will be posted later.]

Note: Grumpa had said the same thing to Dad, when he called to wish Evie a happy birthday on January 27. As long as the SF lawsuits were going on, Dad wouldn't see Evie. He'd let Evie know Dad called though, and hung up without even letting Dad wish Evie happy birthday on a phone call.

🎵 Full call between Dad and Grumpa uploaded soon.

Grandma Linda: Well, can we get together for Lunch or Dinner. We are adults and should be able find some time to talk while I am in town.

Grumpa: No. And I will call you if I ever need to talk to you.

Mom's attorney never contacted us.  The time of the appointment came and went. But, Mom had the visit anyway. She didn't tell Jen that she had cancelled the call claiming there was no court order and that attorneys needed to be talk. She left Jen with the impression that Dad had stood Evie up, because he is a bad person and doesn't prioritize Evie.

Meanwhile, a half mile away, Grandma Linda has set up a baby paradise with videos of her and Daddy having fun ready to play on the TV. Dad keeps a treasure trove of toys and stuffed animals in the area. Dad was told by an expert, who reviewed past visits, that it was important to make the visits fun and to have a buffer between the stress of the Walsh home and general good-times she has with Dad.

Everything got packed up and Grandma Linda headed home. Another 6 1/2 hour drive.

Back to Mom and Jen:  Jen worries that Evie might be upset that Dad's Facetime didn't happen. Evie wasn't in the room for their talk, but she told Tara how to handle things just in case. Say things like – "The times got mixed up." "We are going to talk to your Daddy very soon." Your Dad loves you very much, and can't wait to see you." You shouldine.

A couple of hours later, Mom calls Jen back and the court appointed attorney. Evie is devastated - extremely upset. How could Dad to this to her deliberately? We don't know if that is actually true, because we never do with Mom, but wow. Just wow.

Grandma Linda arrives at home in Pennsylvania and she and Mom talk again. Mom blames her parents for the very limited availability. She needs two weeks notice. She is afraid that Grandma Linda and Dad will take Evie out of Westchester, as well. And Grandma Linda is still a "stranger," and she knows Evie will be upset. Besides, Evie is very very busy meet new strangers everyday at Camp and Swimming, so it hard to fit Grandma Linda in.

"Okay Tara," Grandma Linda says. You tell me when can I see Evie. I have my calendar right here.

Mom: Well, you can drive back today and see her for 20 minutes (said deliberately and maliciously).

The message was clear, she planned to make Grandma Linda suffer if she persisted in trying to see Evie. Thirteen hours of driving for 20 minutes? Grumpa Walsh refused to come to San Francisco when Mom started her delusions, was caught drugging Dad, and was diagnosed BPD.

Grandma Linda called or wrote every day that week and the following, but Mom's attorney was MIA, and neither Mom, Grimma, or Grumpa returned any phone calls.

For three years, the Walsh family had been silent. They refused subpoenas and called the court documents arriving at their door “harassment.” At first, they simply stated they didn’t want to be involved. Later, they didn’t want to testify against their daughter. Finally, they claimed that they had nothing relevant to say.

Those three little lies exploded into whoppers during this week’s video depositions. Compelled by the court after years of evasion, the Walsh family surprised everyone with a bizarre and coordinated act of perjury and evasion.

The Walshes were deposed to confirm the veracity of a few, straightforward facts:

1) Grimma, Maura Walsh, demanded the mental health evaluation of her daughter. The Psyhiatrist, Dr. Gopal, had been recommended by Mom's primary care physician Dr. Alpers. (See posts A & B for texts and messages confirming these facts).

2) Through that evaluation, Mom was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and sociopathic traits. Her family had long suspected this diagnosis. (See posts C & D for messages and texts of the family discussing her diagnosis and treatment plan).

3) After she was caught by the Nanny slipping drugs in Dad's wine, Mom attempted to flee San Francisco WITHOUT her daughter. Instead, the family talked her into staging a fake vacation to Westchester instead – fearing her loss of custody (see posts E & F for related messages).

4) The Walsh family has a long and well-documented history of crime, abuse, druggings, alcoholism, violence, and mental illness (see posts G & H).

These facts surely aren't flattering, and you can understand a desire to keep it off the record, but now – after three years of delay and court orders to testify – aren't they here to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Not so much.

Matan "Just Friends" Gavish:

Attorney: "Why was Ms. Walsh's name Monster Schitzo in your phone?"

Mom: "Objection, speculative and based on no evidence you've obtained; that's something your client has provided as his...version of events that he got from hacking into my phone. But there is nothing that has ever been provided to substantiate that claim.* So, that is completely accusatory and harassment to say that."

*Note: Text messages were produced to substantiate the claim.

Attorney: "You can respond."

Matan: "I don't know what you are talking about."

Grimma "Hush now and take your medicine" Walsh

Most of Grimma's multi-hour deposition was spent repeating the phrases "I don't recall," "Private Family Matter," and the ever-persuasive, "You are harassing me."

Attorney: "Did Tara go to San Francisco for money?"

Grimma: "You're harassing me. You're harassing me."

However, when questioned about a letter attributed to Grimma, previously proven to have actually been written by Mom, Matan, and Brie, Grimma provided a clear response:

Grimma: "I wrote that."

Munchausen-by-Proxy is a disorder where a parent, typically the mother, drugs her child for the attention and praise she receives while caring for her 'sick' offspring. Every Walsh child, adopted or biological, has been taken to the same doctor and diagnosed with the same disorder, and given the same medicine right about the time they enter adolescence.

Grimma is shown the text message from her youngest daughter to Mom. The youngest daughter confides in Mom that she believes that she is being secretly drugged with Lithium and Seroquel by Grimma.

Grimma: "Private family matter."

Grimma was also asked about the day Dad thought he had been drugged in New York and was being followed. He had been drugged and indeed, the Walshes had him followed. They kicked him out of the apartment "tripping," confused, and exhausted from four days at Mom's side in the hospital.

Grimma: "I KNOW a psychotic episode when I see one. He was having a psychotic episode [...] I have training."

Attorney: What training do you have?

Grimma: I was trained as a nurse.

Attorney: Are you a nurse?

Grimma: Already asked and answered.

Attorney: No you haven't.

Grimma: I KNOW what a psychotic break looks like.

Grimma was waiting in the car the day Mom was taken home to the apartment where Dad was waiting. Only Grumpa Walsh, Mom, and the Bronx NYPD Cop, Joe Prendergast – who Grumpa had bonded with at the hospital – entered the apartment and talked to Dad. They kicked Dad out. He called an Uber and left. No one offered him help, or to take him to the hospital. No one called or even texted to see how he was doing. The drugs wore off, he got some sleep, and eight hours later he was fine.

Brendan "Stewie" "Dexter" Walsh

Brendan Walsh, aka Dexter, aka Stewie, aka Stuprendan, depending on who you ask gave a creepy performance worthy of his name. "You are harassing me." "Stop smiling." "It puts the lotion on it's skin, or it gets the hose again." Well, maybe not that last one, but he sure looked like he was thinking it.

Brendan Walsh and Mom's attorney, Frank S. Moore, took turns insulting Dad's attorney, Joy Llaguno, over the next few hours.

Frank S. Moore: "[A]ct like a lawyer [...] Do you know anything about the evidence code and character? [...] Go back to law school! [...] This is law school 101. [...] Come on man [...] You're a disgusting human being."

Joy Llaguno: "Have you ever worked for Tara?"

Brendan Walsh: "Your comments are meant to harass me. I will not answer private information."

Joy Llaguno: "You believe the question 'Have you ever worked for Tara?' is harassing?

Brendan Walsh: "I am not answering private information, and I do. You continually ask questions that are private information [...] and continue with only the intent to harass me.

Joy Llaguno: "Your older sister Brienne testified that she lives in Savannah, GA now. How often do you speak with Brienne?"

Frank S. Moore: "Objection relevancy."

Brendan Walsh: "I don't believe you are pronouncing her name right. Please try again."

Joy Llaguno: "Can you tell me ho..."

Brendan Walsh: "You said it correctly the first time, at the beginning of the deposition. So, just say it that way again and I'll see if I am pronouncing it correctly."

Joy Llaguno: "Brienne."

Brendan Walsh: "Yes, try that again. You said it earlier correctly. Just say it once more."

Joy Llaguano: "I am just going to continue, if you are not going tell me how to pronounce it."

Brendan Walsh: "Well, I can't answer. I don't know who you are referring to unless you can pronounce the name properly."

Joy Llaguno: "Your older sister, Brienne Walsh."

Brendan Walsh: "Ok, can you say it again. You said it correctly the first time. Just say it oooone mooore time."

The pattern repeats one or two more times.

Joy Llaguno: "How often do you speak to her?"

Brendan Walsh: "I am not answering private information."

Joy Llaguno: "Brienne testified in her deposition that she writes a personal blog called ABrieGrowsInBrooklyn?"

Brendan Walsh: "I have no recollection."

Joy Llaguno: "I have a second follow up question."

Brendan Walsh: "I have no current recollection."

Joy Llaguno: "Brienne has also --"

Brendan Walsh: "You continue – can you record for the record that she is continually laughing at me and I find it offensive."

Joy Llaguno: "I am not laughing. I am not laughing"

Frank S. Moore: "It is being recorded, so don't worry about it."

As evidence by the recording, Ms. Llaguno was, of course, not laughing – despite the obvious absurdity of the exchange.

Brendan Walsh: "Is the court reporter allowed to make faces too? She continually makes facial expressions in reaction to the testimony, like rolling her eyes right now."

The deposition builds to crescendo and Brendan is asked about the day he and cousin Brian Meenan had waited in the bushes at Evie’s drop-off  in the pitch black giving the court-appointed supervisor the “worst sheer fright of [her] life.” Brian wore a camo hat, and they both had what looked to be baseball bats tucked between their legs (see post XYZ). Dad’s attorney had Brendan read the court appointed supervisor’s account of the interaction.

Brendan deflated ever so slightly, and his eyes deadened.

Brendan Walsh: "No current recollection."

Attorney Joy Llaguno asks Brendan Walsh to read the sworn account of the Court Supervisor. "Does this refresh your recollection?"

Brendan Walsh: "I am not discussing a private incident that happened or did not happen within my family."

Grumpa "I don't understand what you are saying so I will take it as an insult" Walsh

Grumpa Walsh was last. He is a fraudster, convicted of financial crimes and the kind of liar you never see coming. His job at Drexel was to build relationships with people, traders, investors and friends then sell them out. The SEC came down on him hard and he “retired.” Years later he returned to work selling Mortgage Backed Securities and managed trade out before the crash. He sits in a dark office of polished wood, the kind you see in movies like Wall street.

It’s clear the parroted phrases used in the previous depositions "harassment", "private matter", "I don’t recall that," are his. They come out of his mouth in a way that is more comfortable and he owns.

When asked about whether Mom tried to flee SF without her baby after being caught in a crime he states a clear “No.”  Then after a short pause lifts his right hand and holds it flat and shaking in the motion that generally implies “Well... kinda... sorta.” His shoulders and eyes suggest that too, but he doesn’t correct his answer, instead he chuckles.

Joy Llaguno asks why Steve Walsh never went to San Francisco if he felt his daughter and granddaughter were in danger.

Joy Llaguno: "Do you know if anyone in your family went to San Francisco to help Tara?"

Stephen Walsh: "No. Nobody in our family went to San Francisco."

Joy Llaguno: "Why not?"

Stephen Walsh: "Why not? San Francisco is a six hour flight...Right?...from New York. It's not somethin' you just go and do."

In contrast, Dad has flown to Chappaqua two dozen times and spent nearly a year there fighting for his daughter.

Grumpa Walsh states that Tara and Evie live with him under his care. It’s stated in a way that might imply an end of discussion, that he’s handling it,  that this patriarch has the situation under control. He doesn’t seem to know that Mom has told the court that she moved out, has a job, and can care of herself and Evie – and needs a lot of child support.

Joy Llaguno: "So, you mentioned that Tara and your granddaughter Evie live with you...how long have they lived with you?"

Stephen Walsh: "Since roughly June 2018 – no, since June 2018, not roughly – early June.  I don't know the exact date."

Joy Llaguno: "And since June 2018, they have lived with you consistently?"

Stephen Walsh: "That is correct."

Joy Llaguno: "Does Tara pay you any rent?"

Stephen Walsh: "She does not."

Joy Llaguno: "Does she help with any house expenses such as groceries?"

Stephen Walsh: "She buys her own groceries."

Evie belongs to Grumpa. Mom can buy her own food for all he cares.  Again as the deposition goes on he becomes more agitated, but also more confident.  He repeats a well-known lie: Dad is mentally ill, a court said so and took Evie from him, and gave Mom a 5 year restraining order.

He knows this to be untrue. The orders he refers to were never provided by the court, no hearing was held, and the papers somehow magically got to Mom or her politically-connected parents ex parte just prior to that Judge recusing herself without comment.

The matter is settled. Leave his family alone. He and Grimma will raise Evie.

A week later, the orders he referred to were vacated and expunged.  The back-room deal was undone by a Judge in Yonkers after the last and final Judge in Westchester recused himself.  There were no Judges left and Mom had admitted her lie to Chappaqua police six months earlier.

Maybe Grumpa just didn’t know about this. Maybe Mom hadn’t spoken of it in their dark and silent house on the hill. Or maybe he was lying.

This website was created by Kelly Turnure (Aunt K) with the help of many individuals connected to Evie's case, her family, concerned friends, and members of the Court and Press in both San Francisco and New York. It is dedicated to telling Evie's Story, keeping her safe and bringing her home.

Subscribe to become a member and get full access to the site. To subscribe is only $1 per month. The charge lets us verify the identity of everyone on the site...and that just seemed wise given the content. Subscribing for a year is $127. We know that makes no sense and is not a great deal, but January 27 is Evie's birthday and we will make sure she gets it when she is older.

Wherever possible, the site refers to Evie's Mom Tara Walsh, simply as Mom. To Evie's Dad, Steve Russell, simply as Dad. And to Tara's parents,  Stephen and Maura Walsh as Grumpa and Grimma, ahem, to escape the search engines. We also thought that was wise...and kinda funny.

All of the information was legally obtained in either the criminal investigation in San Francisco, legal discovery, court proceedings, or was provided by whistleblowers in Westchester County, New York. Every effort has been made to preserve the original content and context; and to balance that against the privacy of those involved...including me.

Evies Story:

The Crime: Mom and Dad meet and Evie is born, but a crime disrupts their life in San Francisco

In Book One: The Crime, Mom is caught drugging Dad as part of an extortion attempt. Evie’s father receives emergency custody. A “higher standard of care” is recommended for Mom after a diagnosis of Borderline Personality with sociopathic traits.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Courts - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Despite a hearing in San Francisco in October 2018, Mom never returns. Over the next three years, Dad will only see his daughter a dozen times. Five supervisors and five nannies will testify on Dad’s behalf after Mom makes series of escalating maneuvers to dissuade visitation including vandalism, SW…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

The Abuse - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Mom’s drugging and abuse of Evie’s Dad is not unique. Stories of violence, alcoholism, and abuse span generations of Mom’s family. Children labeled ‘difficult’ and ‘mentally ill’ are prescribed a cocktail of drugs, the same as those in Dad’s toxicology reports. Even the adopted Walsh children seem t…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

The Coverup - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Over three years, Mom makes a series dramatic and escalating claims to police, the court, family and attorneys. Three Judges, 6 attorneys, and five court appointed experts will recuse themselves, be fired, and in one case lose his license and flee the state. A confusing bramble of distractions and p…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

One might wonder why all this is necessary. Us too.

To those who have have suffered and helped us...thank you. To everyone else...as Evie's Dad is fond of saying...it is never too late to do the right thing.

But, this isn't Dad's story. This is Evie's story, and it is not over.

Be vewwy vewwy quiet.

This Privacy Policy endeavors to describe to you our practices regarding the personal information we collect from users on our website, located at stevielovesevie.com (the “Site”), and the services offered through the Site. If you have any questions about our Privacy Policy, our collection practices, the processing of user information email [email protected].

The use of our services will automatically create information that will be collected. For example, when you use our Services, your geographic location, how you use the Services, information about the type of device you use, your Open Device
Identification Number, date/time stamps for your visit, your unique device identifier, your browser type, operating system, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and domain name are all probably collected, we don't really know to be honest and aren't totally sure.

This information imay be used to help us deliver the most relevant information to you and administer and improve the Site, or more likely it will sit unused and unreviewed until its bytes are overwritten on our servers with more important things.

As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically and store it in log files, we think. This information probably includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp, and clickstream data. Who knows what else?

We use this information to maintain and improve the performance of the Services, or more likely it will sit unused and unreviewed on our servers until deleted.

We use, or more honestly said, have had various analytics services attached to the Site (including, but not limited to, Google Analytics, Stripe, and Ghost.io) without our full understanding as a condition of use the various free and paid services that underpin it.

Analytics services use "Cookies." Cookies taste good.

There is probably also A LOT of tracking being done on you while you use this site. This tracking is done on an anonymous basis they tell us, but we don't buy it.

Some of the companies we "work" with are Google, AppNexus, Stripe, Ghost.io, and the NSA.

We use your personal information in the following ways:

• We are not totally sure. Expect the best, but assume the worst maybe?
• Honestly, we'd probably sell it to the highest bidder if we thought it would help Evie.
• Best bet, is that we won't need to sell it, but somebody else out there will. What can we say? It's a strange world we live in.
• Stuff that MAY / WON'T / ALMOST-CERTAINLY-WILL be shared include everything you know you are sharing with the Site and other stuff you naively assumed wasn't being shared with the Site.

We may store and process your personal information on servers located in both the United States and Europe; and given the whole Interweb-Starlink thing, probably the Moon & Mars too.

In summary, we reserve the right to do anything and everything with you personal data, including passing it on to Evie when she is older. So, if you can't be nice on this Site, be vewwy vewwy quiet.

I once heard a saying that went like this. If you meet an a$$hole in the moring, he's probably an a$$hole. But, if you meet an a$$hole in the morning, the afternoon, and the evening, it is you that's probably the a$$hole.

That's kind of the way it is with Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MPBS). If you think a family member is mentally ill and get them help, they probably have an illness and actually need help. But, if you think every single one of your five children (biological & adopted), husband, and even your daughter's baby-dady suffers the same mental illness and deserves the same medication...hidden in their food if necessary...while you pat yourself on the back...for being a good parent – well, in that case, you are probably the one with the mental illness.

Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MBPS)

MBPS is a relatively rare form of child abuse that involves the exaggeration or fabrication of illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker.

Also known as "medical child abuse," MBPS was named after Baron von Munchausen, an 18th-century German dignitary known for making up stories about his travels and experiences in order to get attention. "By proxy" indicates that a parent or other adult is making up or exaggerating symptoms in a child, not in himself or herself.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is a mental illness the needs treatment.

About MBPS

In MBPS, an individual — usually a parent or caregiver— causes or fabricates symptoms in a child. The adult deliberately misleads others (particularly medical professionals), and may go as far as to actually cause symptoms in the child through poisoning, medication, or even suffocation. In most cases (85%), the mother is responsible for causing the illness or symptoms.

Usually, the cause of MBPS is a need for attention and sympathy from doctors, nurses, and other professionals. Some experts believe that it isn't just the attention that's gained from the "illness" of the child that drives this behavior, but also the satisfaction in deceiving individuals whom they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves.

Because the parent or caregiver appears to be so caring and attentive, often no one suspects any wrongdoing. Diagnosis is made extremely difficult due to the the ability of the parent or caregiver to manipulate doctors and induce symptoms in the child.

Often, the perpetrator is familiar with the medical profession and knowledgeable about how to bring on illness or impairment in the child. Medical personnel often overlook the possibility of MBPS because it goes against the belief that parents and caregivers would never deliberately hurt their child.

Most victims of MBPS are preschoolers (although there have been cases in kids up to 16 years old), and there are equal numbers of boys and girls.

Diagnosing MBPS

Diagnosis is very difficult, but could involve some of the following:

• a child who has multiple medical problems that don't respond to treatment or that follow a persistent and puzzling course
• physical or laboratory findings that are highly unusual, don't correspond with the child's medical history, or are physically or clinically impossible
• short-term symptoms that tend to stop or improve when the victim is not with the perpetrator (for example, when the child is hospitalized)
• a parent or caregiver who isn't reassured by "good news" when test results find no medical problems, but continues to insist that the child is ill and may "doctor shop" to find a professional who believes that
• a parent or caregiver who appears to be medically knowledgeable or fascinated with medical details or seems to enjoy the hospital environment and attention the sick child receives
• a parent or caregiver who's overly supportive and encouraging of the doctor, or one who is angry and demands further intervention, more procedures, second opinions, or transfers to more sophisticated facilities

If you have any concerns about a child you know, it is important to speak to someone at your local child protective services agency — even if you prefer to call in anonymously.

Causes of MBPS

MBPS is a psychiatric condition. In some cases, the perpetrators were themselves abused, physically and/or and sexually, as children. They may have come from families in which being sick was a way to get love.

The parent's or caregiver's own personal needs overcome his or her ability to see the child as a person with feelings and rights, possibly because the parent or caregiver may have grown up being treated like he or she wasn't a person with rights or feelings.

In rare cases, MBPS is not caused by a parent or family member, but by a medical professional (such as a nurse or doctor), who induces illness in a child who is hospitalized for other reasons.

What Happens to the Child?

In the most severe instances, parents or caregivers with MBPS may go to great lengths to make their children sick. When cameras were placed in some children's hospital rooms, some perpetrators were filmed switching medicines, injecting kids with urine to cause an infection, or placing drops of blood in urine specimens.

In most cases, victims of MBPS need hospitalization. And because they may be deemed a "medical mystery," hospital stays tend to be longer than usual. Whatever the cause, the child's symptoms — whether created or fabricated — ease or completely disappear when the perpetrator isn't present.

According to experts, common conditions and symptoms that are created or fabricated by parents or caregivers with MBPS can include: failure to thrive, allergies, asthma, vomiting, diarrhea, seizures, and infections.

The long-term prognosis for these children depends on the degree of damage done by the illness or impairment and the amount of time it takes to recognize and diagnose MBPS. Some extreme cases have been reported in which children developed destructive skeletal changes, limps, mental retardation, brain damage, and blindness from symptoms caused by the parent or caregiver. Often, these children need multiple surgeries, each with the risk for future medical problems.

For a child who is old enough to understand what's happening, the psychological damage can be significant. The child may come to feel that he or she will only be loved when ill and may, therefore, help the parent try to deceive doctors, using self-abuse to avoid being abandoned. And so, some victims of MBPS are at risk of repeating the cycle of abuse.

Getting Help for the Child

If MBPS is suspected, health care providers are required by law to report their concerns. However, after a parent or caregiver is charged, the child's symptoms may increase as the person who is accused attempts to prove the presence of the illness. If the parent or caregiver repeatedly denies the charges, the child would likely be removed from the home and legal action would be taken on the child's behalf.

In some cases, the parent or caregiver may deny the charges and move to another location, only to continue the behavior. If the child is returned to the perpetrator's custody while protective services are involved, the child may continue to be a victim of abuse while the perpetrator avoids treatment and interventions.

Getting Help for the Parent or Caregiver

To get help, the parent or caregiver must admit to the abuse and seek psychological treatment.

But if the perpetrator doesn't admit to the wrongdoing, psychological treatment has little chance of helping the situation. Recognizing MBPS as an illness that has the potential for treatment is one way to give hope to the family in these rare situations.

Related Posts:

The Chappaqua Poisoner: Mom’s younger sister suspects Grimma slipping Lithium and Seroquel into her food

When Mom was later caught drugging Dad with Seroquel, she defended it in open court by saying she thought it was the best decision for their ‘family.’

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Mom researches famous women poisoners and lethal doses of Seroquel

Mom researches famous women poisoners and lethal doses of Seroquel shortly after a failed attempt to have Dad committed.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

I don’t want to be an abusive parent, a screamer, a hitter, or medicate my kids from the time they can sit on a toilet, like Grimma did

“I don’t want to be an abusive parent. I don’t want to be a screamer, or a hitter. I don’t want Cleo to have an eating disorder, or a complex, or be medicated from the time she can pee in an adult toilet.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Visit 14: After two cancelled visits due to Evie suffering health issues, she arrived for her visit

Visit 14: After two cancelled visits due to Evie suffering ‘health’ issues, she arrived at the Crab Tree Kiddle House.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

This is not Grumpa's first rodeo. The SEC and DOJ indicted his junk bond firm with multiple felony counts of fraud years ago. In addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars in criminal sanctions paid by the firm, Grumpa was personally penalized with an extremely large fine, as well. Up until that time he was known to some as "the best bond trader on Wall Street," only to be revealed as a fraudster and the kind practiced manipulator other trading desks didn't see coming.

Members - The following is for members of the site only, so please sign up and verify your identity if you'd like to read more about Grumpa's deposition.

Grumpa drops some bombshells, though.

• He met Dad exactly twice during the three years that Mom and Dad dated. Once on Easter 2016, and then at Evie's birth. That and a few emails and texts and phone calls are all he knows of Dad. Grumpa "didn't form an impression" of the man when they met.
• He admits to deceiving Dad when he and Grimma helped Mom kidnap Evie. They never "supported" Mom's move to San Francisco, or her return.
• He STILL keeps Evie and Mom at his home.

In other news, he doesn't think Dad is an abuser. Three years to say that?

He didn't come to San Francisco when Dad begged him and Mom was diagnosed BPD, because it's like a six hour flight, or something. And he took Mom's accusations with "a grain of salt," but, er, helped her kidnap Evie anyway.

The top SF Psych he and Grimma insisted on, recommended by Mom's doctor, is a quack because he shared "private information" in communications to GRUMPA about Mom's illness and Evie's safety.

Everything is "private information." And he knows 'nothing...nothing' about Mom drugging Dad.

More interesting take aways:

• The subpoenas he ignored for years and delivered by the town Sherrif under Court Order were "harrassment." Harumph, bristle, harumph, and how dare more Court Orders come again, when those before were 'thrown in the trash.'
• And the ongoing attempts by Dad to get justice and reunite with his daughter? Well, they are indications of Dad's mental instability of course. Why can't he just let Grimma and Grampa keep and raise Evie? Doesn't he get they are helping and the bestest?
• Mom's an adult, she can make her own decisions. She buys her own food. She is free to move out, totally free. Evie, 'precious my precious,' not so much.

Grumpa tells you exactly the kind of family he plays patriarch to. He's in charge. He's got this.  He and Grimma would never abandon a baby in need... babies taste best.

Stephen Walsh April 26, 2021 NDT Assgn # 50631                                    

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record. The time is 12:03 p.m., East Coast Time. The date is April 26, 2021. This is the beginning of the deposition of Stephen Walsh. The case caption is Stephen Russell versus Tara Walsh. Will counsel introduce yourselves and state whom you represent.

MS. LLAGUNO: Good afternoon. My name is Joy Llaguno, and I represent Plaintiff Stephen Russell with the law firm Hook & Hook.

MR. MOORE: Yeah. This is Frank Moore, Law Offices of Frank S. Moore. I'm representing Mr. Walsh for purposes of this deposition only.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter will now swear in the witness. (p.5)  

Q. Okay. Thank you. And have you ever been deposed before, Mr. Walsh?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times?

A. Twice, I believe.

A. Yes.

Q. How many times?

A. Twice, I believe.

Q. Okay. When were those times?

A. I -- I -- I -- I don't recall. It was so long ago. I have no idea.

Q. What was the nature of the lawsuit?

A. Do I have to answer that? I mean, I -- I don't see what -- what connection it has to this case.

Q. It's just general, basic questions we ask at most depositions.

A. I -- I -- I'm not going to answer it.

Before Grumpa was Grumpa he sold ‘junk’ with a bunch of criminals

Before Stephen Walsh of Chappaqua was Grumpa, he sold junk bonds with Michael Milken.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Q. -- review all of the requests for production listed here?

A. They didn't apply. [...]

Q. Okay. And so your position is you did not have any responsive documents in your possession; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Where did you search for documents?

A. I -- I -- I didn't search for documents because I didn't know that any existed.

Q. How are you able to confirm that nothing existed if you didn't do any searches for documents?

A. What -- what -- I -- I don't understand your question. What would I have searched for? I didn't have emails with Russell. I didn't have text messages with Russell. I didn't create any documents to send to Russell. So what -- what exactly are you implying or asking for?

Q. So sitting here today, you did not search your email for responsive documents; is that accurate?

A. That is correct.

Q. You accepted service of the subpoena for your testimony today in September, and you also accepted subpoenas to Maura Walsh, Brendan Walsh, and Matan Gavish. Did you speak with any of them about the subpoenas?

A: No

Q. Did you provide them with the subpoenas you accepted --

A. No.

Q. Brienne has also written about her and the rest of your family receiving subpoenas in this litigation and that you screamed at her for responding to the subpoena and that she should just throw out the paperwork and ignore the subpoena; do you recall this?

A. No.

Q. Were you angry with Brienne for suggesting at any time that she might respond-

A. No.

Q. -- to a subpoena --

A. No

Q. -- from Steve Russell?

A. No, no.

Q. Did you tell Brienne that she should throw out any paperwork pertaining to this proceeding?

A. I have no recollection of doing that, no.

Q. Did you tell her husband, Caleb, the same thing?

A. I have no recollection, no.

Grumpa throws subpoenas into the trash; Rages at Aunt Brie to do the same

“They wanted to have a quorum so that they could scream at us for betraying the family. My family called me multiple times to scream at me that I didn’t know what I was talking about, I could just throw out the paperwork, and ignore the subpoena.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Q. Okay. So during this deposition, you're not allowed to receive any off-screen guidance or instruction. And I'm going to trust that you're not going to do that. Is that agreed?

A. Agreed. Is Stephen Russell participating? Is he in your office, by any chance?

Q. No. It's just me in the room.

A. So he's not -- he's not tuned in anywhere?

Q. No, I don't believe so. He may join in later, but currently --

A. Well, I -- I think it -- I think that should be clear.

Q. Okay. I will -- you will --

MR. MOORE: Yeah --

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. -- you will know when -- if he comes on. He's not on --

A. I -- I'm sure he's on right now, but whatever.

THE REPORTER: Stop. Please -- please do speak one at a time, or the record won't be clear. Please restate your statement you were in the middle of, Ms. Llaguno. Thank you.

MS. LLAGUNO: Thank you. I was just telling Mr. Moore, reminding him, I let you finish your speaking objection even -- although it was improper. Please let me finish my statements before interrupting me, as the court reporter has pointed out. You continue to do that. I'd really appreciate it if you refrain from doing that for the remainder of this deposition.

MR. MOORE: I'm not going to argue with you, so stop arguing.

MS. LLAGUNO: The court reporter pointed it out, Mr. Moore. But thank you.

Q. Okay. You mentioned that Tara Walsh and your granddaughter, Evie, are living with you. How long have they been living there?

A. Since, roughly, June of 2018 -- no, since June of 2018, not roughly -- early June. I don't know the exact date. But ...

Q. And from June of 2018, they lived with you consistently?

A. That is correct.

Q. Does Tara pay you any rent?

A. She does not.

Q. Does she help with any house expenses such as groceries?

A. She buys her own groceries.

Q. Do you talk about this legal proceeding with Tara Walsh?

A. We have -- yeah, I mean, we -- we -- of course we talk about the legal cases because they seem to be numerous and ongoing and forever and because we have strange people knocking on our doors at all hours of the night. We have police here. We've had a sheriff with a gun, who I didn't know was a sheriff, knocking on our back door. So there's -- yes. Do we talk about it? Yes because it's constant and it's -- and they've tormented our family for three years. And Russell has knowingly done this, and -- and that's -- so do we talk about the case? It's impossible not to talk about the case.

Q. And do you know if Tara Walsh gave Steve Russell Seroquel in New York?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. And do you know if Tara Walsh gave Steve Russell Seroquel in San Francisco?

A. No. Absolutely not. [...]

Q. Do you know if Tara Walsh was able to get access to lithium from her mother, Maura Walsh?

A. Absolutely not. I -- it -- I -- I don't recall ever seeing lithium in -- in our household. [...]

Q. Do you have an understanding of why Tara Walsh would drug Stephen Russell?

A. No.

MR. MOORE: Assumes facts not in evidence.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. You can respond, Mr. Walsh.

A. I do not, no.

Q. Has Tara Walsh ever told you that she drugged Stephen Russell because she wanted him to go to sleep?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of Tara Russell-- I'm sorry. Scratch that. Do you have any knowledge of Tara Walsh explaining that she drugged Stephen Russell because of self-defense?

A. No. Who -- what -- where -- where are you reading from? You're not reading for -- are you reading from a screen, or are you being fed these questions as we speak

Q. I'm sorry. What was that?

A. You appear to be looking at something when you -- when you ask the questions. Are you being fed these questions from another source like Stephen Russell, or are these questions you have prepared? Because it looks to me as if you're reading the questions before you ask me the questions.

Q. I do have an outline of categories that I prepared of questioning for you. No one is feeding me questions live, if that's your question.

A. Yeah. That is my question.

Q. So you do not have an idea from -- or -- or -- sorry. Let me rephrase. You do not have an idea of where Tara got the idea to give Steve Russell prescription drugs --

A. I have --

Q. -- without his knowledge.

A. -- no idea whatsoever. I -- I have no knowledge of Tara Walsh ever drugging Steve Russell in any manner, shape, or form.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, I'm asking him to review the text messages so we can establish that foundation. Please stop interrupting, and please stop with your improper speaking objections. [...]

THE REPORTER: Again, stop. Stop. We can go off the record if you cannot speak one at a time, or the record will not be clear. Please, again --

MR. MOORE: Lacks --

THE REPORTER: -- refrain from speaking over each other.

MR. MOORE: Lacks foundation; assumes facts not in evidence.

THE REPORTER: All right. And Ms. –

MR. MOORE: You have not predicated this.

THE REPORTER: All right. Great. Ms. Llaguno, can you please repeat your question?

‌Q. Mr. Walsh, do you recognize these text messages?

A. No.

Q. These text messages are between you and Steve Russell from Steve Russell's phone.

MR. MOORE: I will object as mischaracterizing the evidence. There's no foundation for it. There's no foundation for this document. You cannot state what it is without a witness actually establishing the foundation of what it is.

MS. LLAGUNO: At deposition, I am able to state what it is and ask him questions about the document.

MR. MOORE: Again -- again, this is a deposition to preserve trial testimony. I'm making objections on foundational basis. This has not been properly authenticated.

MS. LLAGUNO: And again, I've explained to you this is a deposition, and I am able to ask questions about documents regardless of their admissibility at this --

MR. MOORE: But you're -- but you're just wrong on the law. So that's just a problem. You – you seem not to get it in your head that you're wrong on the law.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, again, I'll ask you then state your objections succinctly. You don't have to attack me on the record.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Walsh, would you agree that you and Steve Russell communicated frequently while Tara Walsh was in San Francisco in 2018?

A. Frequently? No, definitely not frequently.

Q. Did you -- but you did communicate; is that correct?

A. Yes, I did. [...]

Q. Okay. And so these text messages, would you agree that Steve gave you routine updates on Tara Walsh during her time in San Francisco in 20- --

A. No. I -- I -- I wouldn't say that. No. No. I -- I think there were times of crisis. And you know -- and -- and that's when he would communicate, when he believed there was crisis. But you know, I was also communicating with Tara, and she was telling me some pretty horrific things about Russell. So I -- I -- I -- I -- quite frankly, I – I took both sides with a grain of salt. I wasn't sure what was accurate and what was not accurate. But I certainly didn't take Stephen Russell's correspondences as -- as factual or accurate either.

Q. And did you ever tell that to Stephen Russell?

A. No.

Grimma recommends emergency psychiatric care for Mom

Mom texts friend that she is suffering from postpartum psychosis. Grimma and Dad are getting her help.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Q. So I am going to point you to this text message where it says you state, "Excellent. Thank you Steve, we appreciate your assistance and understanding. And thank you for the timely updates."

A. Yes.

Q. Would you say you were not being genuine when you thanked Steve Russell for the timely updates then?

A. I would say –

MR. MOORE: Objection --

A. -- I -- I would be less than 100 percent genuine, yes."

Q. And you stated that you also took Tara Walsh's statements during this time with a grain of salt. What was your reason for doing so?

A. Well, Tara had, you know, against our wishes, gone out to San Francisco even after we had witnessed, you know, the situation with Stephen Russell. So I was -- you know, we -- we -- we were disappointed and -- and angry with her for -- for going out there in the first place. So I wasn't going to allow her to play the victim by telling me that, you know, this or that was happening. So I -- I -- I -- I -- I didn't necessarily pay a lot of attention to -- to that stuff either. I -- I started to pay more attention when things seemed to get worse.

Q. And do you believe Tara Walsh plays the victim regularly?

A. No, no. But I think people, like, on occasion, make bad decisions and then try to justify them.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Sorry, Mr. Walsh. I don't want to be rude. But for the court reporter's sake, just try to let me finish the -- until the end of the state -- the question before you answer. And during this time Tara Walsh was in San Francisco, did you believe Steve Russell was genuinely concerned about Tara Walsh's wellbeing?

A. No.

Q. And why do you think that?

A. Because I -- I don't think Steve Russell is an honest or sincere person.

Q. Do you believe Tara to be an honest and sincere person?

A. Yes.

Q. Although you've stated that you take her statements with a grain of salt; is that accurate?

A. I -- I -- I did say that, and I believe I also explained why I said that.

Q. Tara never discussed with you that she was seeing psychiatric doctors in San Francisco?

A. I -- I -- I don't recall whether she did or not.

Q. Did Tara ever state to you that she had fired her psychiatrist in San Francisco?

A. No.

Q. In these text messages, Steve Russell also states that, "Absent you coming to get her, I don't think it's safe for her to fly or be alone with the  baby right now." Did you believe that to be true?

A. I didn't believe anything he said to be true.

Mom fears doctor recommended in-patient treatment; Grumpa confirms that fear

Mom to Grandma Linda: “I’m not ready to get inpatient treatment. It could be used against me.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Q. So Tara texted Matan Gavish in February of 2018 that, if she sued Steve for child support, she would "get, like, 2-K a month, which is not enough to live off of." And she said, "I'm better pretending I want to be with him and getting the most while I can than leaving him for good." Did she ever express similar thoughts about Steve Russell to you?

MR. MOORE: Objection --

BY MS. LLAGUNO:

A. No.

Q. Do you believe Tara was dating Steve Russell for his money?

A. No.

Mom and boyfriend conspire to get money and exact the “sweetest revenge” on Dad

Mom and boyfriend conspire to get money and exact the “sweetest revenge on Dad.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Q. Why did you believe Tara wanted to go to San Francisco to be with Steve Russell against your wishes?

A. I'm not really sure, quite frankly. I – I -- I -- I was at a loss for why she wanted to go to San Francisco.

Q. Okay. The question -- going back, I asked: Were you speaking with Tara while she was in San Francisco after Evie's birth?

A. Infrequently.

Q. How often would you say you two spoke?

A. I -- I -- I really don't know.

Q. Do you know the basis for his statement?

A. I -- I -- I would just say it was, you know, there were -- there were numerous things that Russell was doing that -- that -- that led him -- and -- and -- and I think he was also trying to basically kind of force Gopal to say and do whatever he wanted him to as long as he kept paying him his fees. Russell has a history of using money to get people to do his bidding. And -- and, unfortunately, Joyce (sic), I -- I kind of -- I -- I -- I view you the same way. You are -- you're not doing this case because it's ethically the right thing to do or because your client has a very valid charge and needs to be defended. I believe you're doing this because he's writing checks. And he had no lawyers in -- in San Francisco that would -- he -- he had lawyers, and – and they basically -- I think that they realized they were pushing the ethical line, and -- and -- and that is why you in Pennsylvania are representing Russell in a case in California that has nothing to do with people who are in New York because he couldn't find any other lawyers to do it, thankfully.

[Note: Ms. Llaguno has worked on Dad's case since the beginning. She moved from California to Pennsylvania during that time.]

Q. Did Tara ever share the same to you?

A. There were times -- and -- and I don't have a very full recollection -- where she would just call and -- you know, and say that things were pretty crazy out there. And you know, again, I would say it was a decision you made to go out there that we didn't support, and -- and we emphasized that again and again. And we also emphasized that, you know, if -- if the baby, if she needed to -- to come back, that we would -- you know, we would provide a safe haven and -- and atmosphere for -- for the baby. We were very concerned about the baby.

Q. So would it be fair to say you encouraged Tara Walsh to return to New York with the baby?

A. I -- I -- no. It -- it wouldn't be fair to say that. Tara is an adult. She made her own decision. She made her own decision to go to San Francisco. And when she returned, for the record, it was her decision. She's an adult. We could not force her to do anything. She -- you know, she knows the type of people we are. She knows the type of family we are. And we would never turn our backs on someone in distress, particularly an infant.

Q. And so did you encourage Tara to return with Evie to New York from San Francisco?

A. I -- I -- I did not.

Q. Steve Russell asked you to, quote, support me in getting her into a facility or fly out here and talk/meet with everyone before deciding to help her back to New York if that ends up being what's best. Could you read your response to that text message?

A. Where is it, exactly?

Q. This first column. I can zoom in.

A. "I will do my best"?

Q. Yes.

A. Yeah, okay.

Q. Would it -- would it be fair to say that Steve Russell was depending on you to work with him to get the help Tara needed?

MR. MOORE: Objection.

A. No.

Q. During this time in early June, were you speaking to Tara about leaving?

A. I -- I really don't recall. I don't recall.

Q. And -- sorry. This same text message, you state that -- you texted Steve Russell, "Hopefully some solutions exist." What did you mean by that?

A. I -- I don't know. I don't know. Again, in -- in many of these interactions and -- and correspondences, I would -- I would -- I would humor him because I -- I -- you know, I viewed him as unstable and dangerous.

Q. So you -- with your responses, you wouldn't be completely genuine so as to humor him; is that --

MR. MOORE: Object -- objection; misstates the testimony; argumentative.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. You can respond, Mr. Walsh.

A. No response.

Q. You do not want to respond to that question?

A. That is correct.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, please do not coach the witness. I'm asking --

MR. MOORE: I'm not coaching. I'm instructing him not to answer. He's already decided not to answer. So move on.

MS. LLAGUNO: So you are instructing him not to answer that question? I just wanted to clarify.

MR. MOORE: He -- he -- I -- well, I will clarify that he himself decided not to answer the question, and -- and for -- there was a good basis for it. When you tried to put words in his mouth that misstate what he testified to, that's a problem. So he's a very competent witness here, and he can make these decisions himself. But I tend to agree with his -- the basis for which he's refusing to answer your argumentative question.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, he was actually in the middle of responding before you interrupted him --

MR. MOORE: No, you're wrong. Just move on.

THE DEPONENT: I --

MS. LLAGUNO: Again, Mr. Moore --

THE DEPONENT: -- I am making the decision myself not to respond. It has nothing to do --

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

THE DEPONENT: -- with Frank.

MS. LLAGUNO: Got it. Mr. Moore, again, can you let me finish my statement before you interrupt? [...]

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. So you do not remember, Mr. Walsh, the solutions you were referring to in this text message?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember solutions to what exactly you're referring to?

A. No.

Q. And in this same text message string, Steve Russell texted you his belief that, quote, I think the first order of business is simply to fix the difficult living situation and get Tara to agree to allow you to act as her advocate. I am happy to be very flexible in where she lives, nanny, type of care, et cetera, end quote. Could you read your response to this text message?

A. "I agree -- let me know how and when I need to be involved." [...]

Q. So when you said you were in agreement that you should allow to act as her advocate, would you say you were being genuine in your response to that text message, or were you again humoring him?

A. I was not -- I would say I was not entirely genuine. And again, I -- I was trying to defray what -- what I viewed as a caustic situation.

Q. So was your understanding of why Steve Russell believed Tara needed an advocate was because Tara was going through mental health episodes?

A. No.

Q. So what is your understanding of why Steve Russell wanted you to be involved as an advocate for Tara?

A. I have no idea.

Q. And do you believe Tara to have mental health issues?

A. I don't. I -- like I said, I -- I -- I'm -- I -- I -- I have -- I do not believe that, and I could not diagnose her.

Q. And you do not know if Tara is seeking mental health treatment for mental health issues; is that --

A. No. That's her business. It's her business, not mine.

Q. So you do -- you don't know.

A. I don't know.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, you are allowed t0 to make your objections at deposition. But I please  --

MR. MOORE: And I just did. So you don't need to argue with me about it.

THE REPORTER: Counsel, again, I understand you are attempting to do this. But please speak one at a time, or your record will not be clear. So please -- please restate your statement, Ms. Llaguno. My apologies.

MS. LLAGUNO: Thank you, Monica. Mr. Moore, again, while I am speaking, I give you the chance to do your improper speaking objections and do not interrupt you. Please stop interrupting me, and let me finish my statement. I am allowed you to make your objection, albeit improper. I'd like to ask you again to refrain from these long winded speaking objections. You're allowed to make very succinct objections to my questions, but you cannot take up my deposition time to make these long, improper speaking objections, going in about the procedural history of another case that's not in front of us here.

MR. MOORE: I am going to make my record, and I will do it as -- on your dime as long as I want. You are improperly using and abusing the court system, and the record will reflect that that is such the case. It will be potentially before a court, and that is why I'm making my record. Thank you.

MS. LLAGUNO: You can make your record with a succinct objection and not --

MR. MOORE: No. I have to explain your improper conduct.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, again, you're interrupting me.

MR. MOORE: Why do you insist on arguing with me? And just get to the task at hand, and finish this deposition.

MS. LLAGUNO: The court has noted four or five times now that you are the one interrupting me. I have not once interrupted you in the middle of one of your statements. So I want to make that clear.

MR. MOORE: There's no court in session, so I don't know what you're talking about. But just move on.

Q. So you wrote that quote, "She's seeing doctors and maintaining a healthy lifestyle;" is that correct?

A. Yeah. Yeah. I -- I did write that. Absolutely.

Q. And you were referring to psychiatrists; is that correct?

A. I'm not sure I was. I'm not sure I was. [...]

A. But I don't know the specific doctors I was referring to.

Q. So you do believe around this time in July of 2018 that Tara was seeking mental health treatment; is that correct?

A. Yeah. I -- I -- I -- I guess it's correct. But yeah, I mean, again, I'm not -- I'm --I'm not fully recollecting exactly what that would be or who it was with.

Q. Do you know if Tara was seeking --

A. Certainly -- certainly didn't imply that she needed to be institutionalized, or anything like that.

Q. Do you know if Tara was seeking for her – her borderline personality disorder

A. That -- that's kind of a silly question because I don't know if she -- I don't know that she was ever diagnosed with borderline personality deficit, or whatever you call it.

Q. Did you speak with Steve Russell's security personnel?

A. I did, yes.

Q. What were the names of the guards?

A. I don't remember, and -- and I wouldn't – I wouldn't -- if I did, I wouldn't give you the names. And -- and, you know, of anything they told me in confidence I -- I wouldn't share with you.

Q. Did any of the security guards inform you that they reported to Steve Russell that they had, indeed, found a listening device in Steve Russell's walls?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. If they had reported that to you, would that change your understanding of the situation?

MR. MOORE: Incomplete hypothetical; misstates the record; lacks foundation.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. You can respond, Mr. Walsh.

A. I agree with Frank.

Q. I don't believe -- Frank can state his objections. But unless he directs you not to respond, you're able to respond.

[...]

MS. LLAGUNO: -- proper objection. Again, please let me finish my statement before interrupting me. Just please uphold the rules of civility at this deposition. Because the court reporter did not get my last statement due to your interruption, I'd like to remind you again to refrain from improper speaking objections. Please --

MR. MOORE: Stop arguing.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, please keep your objections succinct, and refrain from improper coaching and speaking objections. Thank you.

MR. MOORE: Stop arguing.

MS. LLAGUNO: Would you like to say that one more time?

MR. MOORE: Stop arguing.

THE REPORTER: And counsel, when we are at a good stopping point, could we go off the record? We've been going for an hour and 40 minutes on the record.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. We can take a break. Let me - yeah, we can. That's fine. We can take a break right now.

THE REPORTER: Okay – THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. The time is 1:39 p.m., and we are off the record. (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:53 p.m., and we are on the record.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Walsh, I'm going to have the court reporter repeat the last question that was asked.

THE REPORTER: And the last question that was asked was, "If they had reported that to you, would that change your understanding of the situation?

‌‌‌‌A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. And do you have personal knowledge --

A. I don't.

Q. -- of --

A. I don't. Has he joined us on the call, by the way, Joy?

Q. No. No, Mr. Walsh, he has not.

A. Okay. And you -- you stated that you will let us all know if he does.

Q. Yes, I will. I believe we'll be able to see if he joins as well.

A. Okay.

Q. So you've never discussed with Tara about Steve Russell being conned by his security team.

A. No, not specifically. And -- and if it – if we did discuss it -- and -- and I'm trying to recall -- it would have been empathetically whereas she was concerned that they were taking advantage of him. But I -- I don't remember specifics, no.

Q. Did you help Tara with her move back to New York from San Francisco?

A. No.

Q. Were you aware there was a restraining order preventing either her or Steve Russell from removing Evie from the State of California without each other's written consent?

A. No.

Q. And you do not know what the serious acts are that he's referring to in this email?

A. I have no idea. You know, we -- we live in Chappaqua, and Hillary Clinton lives in Chappaqua. And as you know from QAnon, which I imagine that Russell is a big fan of, you know, she kills babies and eats them. So maybe Steve was concerned that her being -- Evie being in Chappaqua, she could be subject to the same cobble of, you know, these people. So now -- now I can sort of understand his -- his concern more.

MR. MOORE: Yeah. I was going to say the whole --

BY MS. LLAGUNO:

A. (Audio disruption) yourself, Joy, because conspiracy theories seem to run through this testimony.

MR. MOORE: Exactly. It sounded lik QAnon --

MS. LLAGUNO: I --

MR. MOORE: -- as a -- as a basis of the question, it sounds QAnon-ish. Can -- do you have more? I mean, let – this is real far afield from what the case is about. So where -- where are we going with this?

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes. Mr. Moore, again, I'd like to remind you to stop with your improper speaking objections and insults on the record --

MR. MOORE: I'm -- I'm -- you know, you're -- you're -- you -- it sounds like you're out of questions. Do you have something for this witness that is relevant?

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes. We -- our position is it's all relevant.

MR. MOORE: No, it's not. You know it's not. So let -- let's get to the task at hand of what the case --

THE DEPONENT: Yeah. Let's --

MR. MOORE: -- is about.

BY MS. LLAGUNO:

A. Let's -- ask me some real questions, Joy, and -- and let's get -- you know, if there's answers I can provide that have anything to do with the case, I will do that. But if you're just going to keep going around in circles and make ridiculous presumptions or ask me to answer questions that I couldn't possibly answer, let's -- let's finish it up.

Q. In this email, Steve Russell emailed to you that, "She's threatened suicide on multiple occasions, has unpredictable reactions to her meds and alcohol, and recently suffered a full-blown delusion that led to an unavoidable accident with Evie."

A. I -- I didn't --

Q. Has --

A. -- I --

MR. MOORE: That's not -- there's – there's not --

BY MS. LLAGUNO: --

A. -- didn't --

MR. MOORE: -- a question pending -- not a question pending. Don't -- no -- no answer is required.

THE REPORTER: Stop. Please -- please do speak one at a time. I would like to stipulate for the record that, if you do not speak one at a time, the record will reflect as such, will not be clear. So before we move forward, do you agree that the record --

MR. MOORE: You know --

THE REPORTER: -- will not be clear if you do not speak one at a time --

MR. MOORE: We -- we know this. Court Reporter, we know this. We heard this many times from you, and you -- you're really starting to get on my nerves, okay?

THE REPORTER: All right. We can go --

MR. MOORE: So you know --

THE REPORTER: -- we can go off the record at this time --

MR. MOORE: No. You -- you can do your job and stop interrupting us.

THE REPORTER: It is impossible to keep a clear record if you keep interrupting. So before we move forward, I would like to stipulate that the record will not be clear if you keep doing that --

MS. LLAGUNO: And --

THE REPORTER: -- this deposition. So --

MR. MOORE: We --

THE REPORTER: -- before we move forward - -

MR. MOORE: -- we -- we might --

THE REPORTER: -- I'd like to stipulate --

MR. MOORE: -- get a better court reporter because, you know, I --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, please --

MR. MOORE: -- this stuff happens all the time in --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- please don't insult --

MR. MOORE: -- depositions.

MS. LLAGUNO: -- the court reporter. The last court reporter made the same comment saying she cannot get a clear record because of your interruptions. So please stop interrupting when someone is speaking.

MR. MOORE: You -- you --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Walsh --

MR. MOORE: -- need to ask --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- was speaking --

MR. MOORE: -- ask a question --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- Mr. Walsh --

MR. MOORE: -- that's reasonable.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm speaking. Please wait until I'm finished speaking, and then you can speak. That is how a deposition works. One person speaks at a time. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Walsh was speaking, and you interrupted what he was testifying. So I'd appreciate if you don't do that again. You have to let your client speak. You cannot coach him to not speak.

MR. MOORE: I'm not coaching. I am stating things for the record. This Zoom process is not very conducive because there's not enough delay between your question, his answer, my ability to get an objection in before he answers. So if the court reporter can't keep up with it, then everyone's going to have to slow down and give some pause between so I can get my objections in. The court reporter doesn't seem to have the capacity as what -- what I've seen in California to be able to do this type of work. But nevertheless, I think we need to get back on track what the case is about. And if you would ask -- ask him questions about that, then we can get done.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, please refrain from insulting the court reporter, or anyone else on this deposition for that matter.Thank you.

Q. Since Tara turned 18, did you ever have power of attorney over her?

MR. MOORE: Objection; privacy.

A. Not going to answer that.

[...]

Q. And I just wanted to clarify for the record you do -- you're refusing to respond to the question of if you've ever had power of attorney over Tara; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know when Tara and Steve began dating?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Do you know how Tara met Steve Russell?

A. No idea.

Q. Prior to Tara being in San Francisco, did you ever speak with Tara regarding Steve Russell?

A. He came to our house one time for Thanksgiving. I don't -- I don't know when it was. If it was before that, after that, I really don't know.

Q. On --

A. First time I met him, I didn't know anything about him.

Q. What was your impression when you met him at Thanksgiving?

A. I really tried to like him. He -- he seemed to be friendly. But we didn't have enough of an engagement to -- for me to really draw any kind of opinion.

‌Q. And did you say the first time you met Steve Russell was at Thanksgiving at your house?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes.

Q. And to the best of your recollection, how many times have you met Steve Russell in person?

A. Outside of that, I met him at the hospital and then in Brooklyn at the apartment. So it's – it's less than, you know, maybe three or four, at most.

Q. Did Tara ever tell you that Steve had hurt her or abused her prior to giving birth to Evie?

A. I really don't recall. I -- I -- I didn't -- I -- I didn't have much knowledge of the guy one way or the other until Evie -- until she became pregnant with Evie.

Q. So after became -- she became pregnant with Evie, did Tara ever tell you that Steve had hurt her or physically abused her?

A. I -- I don't remember specifics, but I --I seem to think that she did mention it one time when she was in San Francisco.

Q. What did she say?

A. I -- I don't -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm going to say I -- I -- I -- I really don't know. I really don't know.

Q. Did you do anything about it when she did tell you that?

A. If I had felt that she was physically abused, I probably would have done something, but I don't -- I would have told Tara to get out of the situation as fast as should could. So -- but – but, no, I have no -- no recollection.

Q. Did -- did you ever witness any concerning behavior from Mr. Russell prior to Evie's birth?

A. I didn't -- I didn't meet the guy prior to Evie's birth other than that one time.

Q. So other than those two times you stated that Mr. Russell was acting bizarrely, was there any other concerning behavior from Mr. --

A. Yes.

Q. -- Russell?

[...]

Q. And so this was according to what Tara told you, correct?

A. Yes. It's according to what Tara told me.

Q. You never personally witnessed that.

A. I didn't, no, because I didn't see the guy. And quite frankly, I had no interest in going to Brooklyn to see the guy.

‌Q. And so Tara never told you that Mr. Russell physically hurt or assaulted her at any time; is that accurate?

A. I -- I don't know. I don't know if she ever mentioned it. I've never witnessed it, no.

Q. Do you have an understanding of why Tara Walsh would drug Stephen Russell?

A. No.

MR. MOORE: Assumes facts not in evidence.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. You can respond, Mr. Walsh.

A. I do not, no.

Q. Has Tara Walsh ever told you that she drugged Stephen Russell because she wanted him to go to sleep?

A. No.

Q: Do you have any knowledge of Tara Walsh explaining that she drugged Stephen Russell because of self-defense?

A. No. Who -- what -- where -- where are you reading from? You're not reading for -- are you reading from a screen, or are you being fed these questions as we speak

Q. I'm sorry. What was that?

A. You appear to be looking at something when you -- when you ask the questions. Are you being fed these questions from another source like Stephen Russell, or are these questions you have prepared? Because it looks to me as if you're reading the questions before you ask me the questions.

Q. I do have an outline of categories that I prepared of questioning for you. No one is feeding me questions live, if that's your question.

A. Yeah. That is my question.

Q. So you do not have an idea from -- or –  or -- sorry. Let me rephrase.You do not have an idea of where Tara got the idea to give Steve Russell prescription drugs -

A. I have --

Q. -- without his knowledge.

A. -- no idea whatsoever. I -- I have no knowledge of Tara Walsh ever drugging Steve Russell in any manner, shape, or form.

Q. I am going to now continue with my questions --

MR. MOORE: Here, here.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. -- appreciate it if we stop getting on these tangents, we don't take time at the depositio --

MR. MOORE: You're -- you're on the tangent, counsel.

BY MS. LLAGUNO:

A. You've been on one continuous tangent. You just -- it's the same nonsense you keep spinning over and over again, okay? If you want to stick to the facts of the case, Steve Russell is a man with serious mental instability. And you are one of the few lawyers in the world that would take payment from this guy to basically allow him to run rampant and -- and -- and ruin people's lives, okay? So that's the basis of the case. There is no other basis.

Q. So back to my question, has Tara ever lashed out at --

A. No.

Q. -- other --

A. No. Never. She's been a perfect saint her entire life. She's a model citizen. I've never met a more genuine, wonderful, beautiful woman in my life.

Q. And yet you take what she says with a grain of salt; is that correct?

A. No. I believe everything she says. She's a very, very straight-forward person.

A. You already asked me that. He's a friend of hers. Did Steve forget to -- did he -- that he already asked that?

MR. MOORE: Yeah. You know, I mean, we – we now are treading over --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore –

MR. MOORE: -- asked and answered questions. It seems like you've run out of questions. Can you ask a question that is not a repetitive question? This is --

MS. LLAGUNO: Can you stop?

MR. MOORE: -- really off track here.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, it is for the judge to decide what isn't and what is off track. You can object --

MR. MOORE: I'm telling you what's off track because I can -- I can determine whether or not you're just harassing a witness. And that's what this appears to be. So if you're going to continue down this road --

MS. LLAGUNO: State your objection --

MR. MOORE: That's my objection. You're harassing and you're -- because you're asking questions you already got answers to. If you've run out of questions -- it's becoming very obvious you have -- we should end this. If you have something additional that's relevant, ask it.

MS. LLAGUNO: And this is all relevant. And I'm continuing with my --

THE DEPONENT: It's not all relevant. Let's -- let's wrap it up because this is -- it's just more of the same nonsense. We're going around in circles. And -- and I -- I don't believe for a second that Steve Russell is not involved here. (p.165)

Q. While Steve was at the hospital, how was he acting?

A. Bizarre.

Q. How, specifically?

A. The security guards were there. He had security guards with him at the birth, ok?

Q. Did Tara tell you that Steve believed the apartment had broken -- been broken into?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Tara tell you --

A. No --

Q. -- that --

A. And -- and Steve -- Steve told me that himself.

Q. Did Tara tell you that Steve and his security personnel had set safety triggers to let him know if somebody had entered the apartment without their consent?

A. Tara didn't tell me that, no.

Q. Did Tara tell you that, in fact, Matan Gavish had been in -- in the apartment without Steve's knowledge and triggered the safety triggers?

A. No. I had no knowledge of that whatsoever.

Q. So if Steve believing that -- seeing that somebody had triggered the safety triggers, that wouldn't change your opinion of -- on why Steve thought he had -- the apartment had been broken into?

MR. MOORE: Assumes facts not in evidence; incomplete hypothetical. You can answer if you have an opinion.‌‌‌‌

A. No. No.

Q. And did you ever see any actual evidence of that happening, or you just base – solely relying on what Tara told you?

A. Joy, I'm going to - - ask you this against because it's clear that you're - - you're communicating with Russell right now. And - - and I wish you'd be honest about that because you turn your eyes and you read the questions. And you - - it – – it – it's – you – you're you're being fed the questions. There's no doubt in my mind.

Q. Okay. Well, I'll represent to you that that's not true. I've prepared my own topics -

A. Okay. Well – well, your - your - your reputation is on the line. And if we discover otherwise, it's – it's going to be – I – I– I think it's going to be an issue. So...

‌ Q. Do you know if anybody in your family went to San Francisco to help Tara?

A. No. Nobody in our family went to San Francisco.

Q. Why not?

A. Why not? San Francisco is a six-hour flight, right, from New York. It's not something you just go and do.

Q. Brienne also produced text messages in which she called Tara a liar. Would you agree that Tara is a liar?

A. No.

Q. Has Tara ever lied to you?

A. No.

Q. Has Tara ever lied about you?

A. No.

Q. Can you recall any times Tara has lied to someone?

A. No.

Q. Do you have the impression that Tara has no qualms about lying?

A. No.

Q. Is lying something Tara does to get what she wants?

A. No.

Q. Tara has stated that being in your home is an unsafe environment for Evie. Do you think that's true?

A. Evie is in a very, very loving environment. She prospers in the environment she's in.

Q. So would you say Tara Walsh stating that your home is unsafe, would you consider that a lie?

A. I would say that it was not a lie. I would say it was -- it was a bad interpretation.

Q. Brienne testified at length about your family and how she and Tara were raised.

MS. LLAGUNO: Where did Mr. Walsh go?

A. Personal question; not going to answer; has nothing to do with the case or anything else.

Q. For example, Brienne testified that she described the environment in which she was raised as emotionally abusive. Do you agree with Brienne's characterization?

A. Absolutely not.

We were abused. Grumpa told us to throw Court Orders in the trash. And other revelations from Aunt Brie’s deposition

It took two years, but the first of the Walsh houshold finally sat for a deposition. Aunt Brie and her husband both spent several hours with attorneys and swore to tell the truth. The couple and faced significant retaliation from Grumpa and Grimma, and as a result. Her father demanded

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Q. Do you believe Brienne was lying?

MR. MOORE: You can't -- that's impermissible vouching.

THE DEPONENT: Just it's --

MR. MOORE: This is a -- this is a vouching question. It's not --

A. Yeah. It's --

MR. MOORE: -- appropriate.

A. -- an obnoxious question. It's unprofessional. It's -- it's pathetic, quite frankly. And it's -- you know what? I'd blame you, Joy, if I -- more so if I didn't think you were just reading off a script. So -- but I wish you -- I wish you great success in your career once you dislodge yourself from this guy because you're – you're taking yourself down a bad path here being his -- being his -- you know, his disciple.

Q. Brienne also called her childhood -- or – traumatic --

A. Go ahead. Great. Great. Fantastic.

Q. You disagree with that characterization as well?

A. Yeah. Brienne went to Brown University, and her entire tuition and living expenses were paid for by her abusive parents. Her European vacations were paid for by her abusive parents. She went to one of the best high schools in the country as a result of her abusive parents. So you tell me, okay? You make the – (p.171)

‌Q. Brienne also testified that when she and Tara were teenagers, Tara or her attorney called Child Protective Services on you and Maura Walsh multiple times; is that true?

A. It's ridiculous.

Q. Why was Child Protective Services called?

MR. MOORE: Assumes facts not in evidence.

A. Yeah. It has nothing to do with anything; not answering; personal question; personal information.

Q. Are you refusing to answer if it was true or not?

A. I am, yes.

Q. Brienne also described a legal proceeding over custody or emancipation of Tara involving Tara and Brienne's aunts. Do you recall this proceeding?

A. Not going to answer that; personal question --

Q. Will you answer --

A. No.

Q. -- will you answer --

A. I will not --

Q. -- who brought --

A. -- answer. I will not answer.

Q. Just to clarify, you're not going to answer anything in regards to -- on emancipation or custody proceeding.

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you remain Tara's --

A. You're --

Q. -- legal guardian?

A. You're going to -- you're going to follow it up with an emancipation question, right? Did I remain? Yes. We were Tara's guardians, yes, through her --

Q. No one else --

A. -- pre-adult life, yes.

Q. So no one else became Tara's legal guardian.

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

CPS called on Grimma and Grumpa over 35 times; An act that’s never been forgiven

The abuse was so extreme that Mom even sued her parents for emancipation as a teenager.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Q. Is Tara currently living at your home willingly?

A. Other than the 12 hours she's kept in shackles in the basement, she can walk around.

Don’t move out! Grimma and Grumpa threaten to sue for custody if Mom and Evie leave

“I told my family and now they have all joined up to say they will take legal action against Steve and I for custody of Evie if we leave.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Q. Tara told the court that she was living in a cold attic with no heat at your house; is that true?

A. Did -- she didn't mention the bats? Or the wild animals?

Q. Mr. Walsh, please respond to the question. Is that true?

A. Of course not.

Q. So Tara is not living in a cold attic with no heat in your house.

A. Absolutely not.

MS. LLAGUNO: Again, please refrain from your speaking objections, Mr. Moore, and let me continue with my --

MR. MOORE: I'm going to make my record. You can't tell me what to do. So sorry.

‌Q. Do you know if she has ever had any employees?

A. No. I'm not -- I'm not going to answer these questions.

Q. Can you explain the basis for your refusal to answer?

A. Because they have nothing to do with anything that involves this case or -- or with me personally.

Q. We are able to conduct discovery onto Tara's background.

A. I --

MR. MOORE: No, you're not. You're far afield of what this case is about. You're harassing the witness now. So you -- you better get to something that's relevant and germane to your case.

MS. LLAGUNO: So are you directing him not to respond?

MR. MOORE: I'm directing you to stop harassing the witness. That's what I'm directing you to do.

MS. LLAGUNO: Noted. Are you directing him not to respond?

MR. MOORE: I am directing you to stop harassing the witness.

MS. LLAGUNO: And you can state your objection for the record. I'm asking --

MR. MOORE: That's what I just did three times now. So shut up and move on.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Tara also started a company called Vital Branding; is that right?

A. You know, Joy, it -- the -- we're -- it's the same line of questioning and, you know, about her character and things like that. You're trying to get me to say that she's an awful person who's capable of drugging your -- you know, your -- your esteemed client. And you know, it's -- well, you – you haven't gotten there yet, and you're not going to get there. We're never going to get there. So let's -- unless you have any real questions, let's wrap this up, okay? I'm done answering question after question about absolute nonsense, so questions that have been dictated to you by your client, who has gone out of his way to harass us for years and which you're not part and parcel --

Q. And so just to confirm, you -- you prefer not --

A. -- aiding and abetting. So ...

Q. I'm sorry if I interrupted you. I -- it cut out a bit. I was -- okay. I just -- to clarify for my understanding, you are refusing to answer questions regarding Tara's background.

A. Yeah. I -- at this point, no, I -- I --I'm not refusing. I'm refusing from this point on because I've been asked so many of them. But I -- I -- I did not refuse to answer. I've answered quite a few questions, hundreds of questions from you. So to put it in the -- you know, to -- to -- for -- for purposes of stating that I refuse to answer, the -- the -- that's just not fair, and it's ludicrous. What I'm saying is I'm just tired of answering the same questions over and over and over again that -- that are -- are, I think, designed to get me to say something terrible about Tara, which will then validate all of Steve Russell's, basically, fears, paranoid responses to, and all the other stuff. And it's just -- it's just silly, and -- and -- and we should wrap this up.

MR. MOORE: Yeah. I mean, we've been going on now for, it looks like, almost four hours. And you've really gotten off the deep end and are now into just character assassination, harassing conduct, irrelevant questions, some of them which are repetitive of questions already asked and answered. I have other things to do. I'm going to have to move on and get out of this. So I'd like you to wrap this up and be done with it.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, respectfully, you can't dictate when the deposition --

THE DEPONENT: Yeah. I -- I'm -- I'm going to --

MR. MOORE: I -- I can --

THE DEPONENT: -- I'll -- I'll make that decision, and I'll let the chips fall as they may. And if a judge figures I'm in violation of, you know, refusing to be held hostage for nonsense for hours, I'll leave that up to the judge. So I'm willing -- I'm willing to take my chances. If you have some real questions you want to ask me, ask me. If you want to just maybe get Steve Russell to summarize his most pertinent concerns and have him run them by me right now, we can finish this up.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Currently, I was just asking about your understanding of what Tara does for a living and her company called Vital Branding. You --

A. I'm not going to answer. I'm not going to answer anything to do with her career. Zero.

‌ MS. LLAGUNO: So I think, Court Reporter, we've been going on for more than an hour now. Can we take a quick, five-minute break?

THE DEPONENT: No. I'm done. I'm done --

MR. MOORE: No. I -- yeah. You -- you – if you're -- if you're -- if you're going to continue, we're -- we're -- we're going to finish now, or we'll give you a few more minutes if you've got some additional questions. But you -- you've running -- kind of run the ship aground at this point.

THE DEPONENT: Yeah. If -- if -- if you have questions, a couple of them, we can wrap it up. But if you go to break, I'm gone.

THE REPORTER: Would you like -- would you like to go off the record at this time?

THE DEPONENT: No --

MR. MOORE: No.

THE REPORTER: Would --

MR. MOORE: Not -- not unless we're finishing. If we're finishing, let's --

THE DEPONENT: No.

MR. MOORE: -- let's finish. If -- if not, then -- if we're not finishing, she's -- you know, whatever your last questions are, let's wrap it up.

MS. LLAGUNO: I would like to take a five-minute break.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. The time is 3:44 p.m., and we are off the record.‌‌2 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)

MS. LLAGUNO: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. I will be ending the deposition for today, but I will be adjourning it based on that there were no documents produced today and reserving my right to continue if we need to do so to get those documents compelled.

MR. MOORE: Yeah. So just so you understand, Mr. Walsh, the -- that only means that you -- you -- you -- you only have to come back if there's a court order from a San Francisco Superior Court.

THE DEPONENT: Okay.

MR. MOORE: You've met your obligation of the New York order. And so in order to compel you further, she would have to get an order from the San Francisco Superior Court.

THE DEPONENT: Thank you, Frank.

MS. LLAGUNO: And we --

MR. MOORE: You're welcome.

MS. LLAGUNO: -- we disagree --

MR. MOORE: Thank you.

MS. LLAGUNO: -- we'd agree -- disagree with that representation. But the counsel can direct you how he wishes. Frank, did you have any follow-up questions or anything else to add?

MR. MOORE: I have nothing.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. This is the end of the deposition of Stephen Walsh. The court reporter will now take the orders for the transcript.

THE REPORTER: All right.

MR. MOORE: Nice meeting you, Stephen --

THE REPORTER: Ms. Llaguno, would you like to order the original of this transcript at this time?

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes. And --

THE REPORTER: And --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- get a rough draft expedited as well?

THE REPORTER: Yes. I'll just note for the record Mr. Moore has discontinued the call. But he did note off the record that he does not wish to order a copy at this time.

MS. LLAGUNO: Right. Correct. And --

THE REPORTER: And --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- and -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

THE REPORTER: Yeah. Oh, no. Sorry. My apologies. For the rough, when -- when do you need that by? (p.186)

Bromide: Video Depositions give you some interesting side-by-side views, as well.

After nearly three years, Brendan Walsh sits for a deposition. He is the second member of the Walsh family deposed on this matter, with his mother's scheduled to follow on the same day. Brace yourself, and maybe get out some popcorn.

Brendan aka Dexter, aka Stewie, aka Stuprendan and his "attorney" Frank S. Moore put on quite a show. It's creepy, abusive, bizarre and outrageous. It is a masterclass in mansplaining and Westchester privilege broadcast from the "Carriage House" on the Walsh family estate. It is also pretty entertaining.

Throughout the three-hour deposition, Dad's attorney is constantly berated by Mr. Moore and Mr. Walsh for allegedly smiling, for asking too many questions, for not asking enough questions, for rushing, for taking too much time – the list of contradictory accusations is as long as the deposition itself. If you're looking for any substantive information from Brendan Walsh, you will need to "read between the lines."

[Update: Full deposition video added for verified members.]

Members - The following is for members of the site only, so please sign up and verify your identity if you'd like to read more about Stupredan's deposition.

Brendan Walsh April 23, 2021 NDT Assgn # 50597

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record. The time is 1:08 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The date is 4-23-2021. This is the beginning of the deposition of Brendan Walsh. The case caption is Russell v. Walsh.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will counsel please introduce yourselves and state who you represent?

MS. LLAGUNO: My name is Joy Llaguno from the law firm Hook and Hook representing Plaintiff Stephen Russell.

MR. MOORE: My name is Frank Moore. I'm with the Law Office of Frank S. Moore. I am representing Brendan Walsh for purposes of his deposition today and solely in that capacity.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Our court reporter will now swear in the witness.

THE REPORTER: Thank you, Vincent.

THE REPORTER: Do you solemnly affirm under penalty of perjury that you are Brendan Walsh and that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

MR. WALSH: Yes.

THE REPORTER: Thank you. Counsel, you may begin.

Q. I will try my best to speak slowly and clearly but let me know if you need me to repeat or rephrase a question. If you answer the question I will assume that you did understand it. Is that clear?

A. Yes.

Q. Please let me finish my questions before responding so we are not talking over each other, and Regan, our court reporter today can get a clear transcript. So even if you may know the question I'm trying to ask, if I stop you or interrupt, please don't be offended. I'm just trying to finish my question to ensure the court reporter can get a clear record. Do you understand?

A. Yes.

Q. If you don't know the answer to a question, please say so, but I'm entitled to your best estimate. Agreed?

A. Yes.

Q. So Mr. Walsh, have you ever been deposed before?

A. No.

Q. Okay. I'm going to share with you now what we're going to mark as Exhibit 1. It is your deposition notice. Can you see this document?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize this document?

A. I don't have a current recollection of that.

Q. So you have not viewed your deposition subpoena?

A. I don't have a current recollection.

Q. And so you did not review these document requests attached as Attachment 3 to your deposition subpoena?

A. I do not have a current recollection.

Q. Do you see this document? Do you recognize this document, Mr. Walsh?

A. I have no current recollection of this document.

Q. Okay. Did you prepare this document?

A. I have no current recollection of preparing this document.

Q. Did you file this document?

A. I have no current recollection of filing this document.

Q. Did you authorize the filing of this document on your behalf?

A. I have no current recollection of filing this document on my behalf.

Q. Is this your signature on this page?

A. I have no current recollection of signing on that line you are showing.

Q. Do you know if this is your signature?

A. My signature varies depending on where I'm signing, how I'm signing.

Q. So did you sign this page?

A. I have no current recollection.

Q. Looking at this signature here today, could you tell me if it's your signature or not?

A. As I said, I need to know how this was signed. My signature can vary. It's certainly not consistent depending on how it's being signed, what device is being used.

Q. So you can neither confirm nor deny that this signature is your signature on this page?

A. Correct. (p. 24)

MR. MOORE: I've made many depositions. And I can tell you haven't. So let's move on and we'll see how you stumble through this. (p. 33)

MR. MOORE: Ask a question.

BY MS. LLAGUNO:
Q. I think you're on mute.

A. The only person who is slowing down the deposition is yourself.

Q. Thank you. I appreciate the commentary.

A. That was not a compliment in case you were confused. (p.34)

Q. Have you ever worked for Tara?

A. Your comments are meant to harass me. I will not answer private information.

Q. You believe my question have you ever worked for Tara is harassing?

A. I'm not answering private information and I do. You continually ask questions that are private information and despite the fact that I'm telling you private information you continue with the only intent to harass me. (p.35)

MS. LLAGUNO: Frank, I've told you repeatedly this is not a trial deposition.

MR. MOORE: No, no, no, no. Are you going to accept the stipulation? Because otherwise I'm going to object for each question. Will you accept the relevancy objection under both the Evidence Code of the Discovery Act as a standing objection? If not, I'm going to make them each time.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. You can make them each time.

MR. MOORE: I will.

MS. LLAGUNO: Your older sister, Brienne, testified that she lives in Savannah, Georgia now. How often do you speak with Brienne?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I don't believe you're pronouncing her name right. Please try again.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Can you tell me how --

A. You said it correctly the first time at the beginning of the deposition so just say it that way again. I'll see if you're pronouncing it correctly.

Q. Brienne.

A. Yes. Try that again. You said it earlier correctly. Just say it once more.

Q. I'm just going to continue if you're not going to tell me how to pronounce it.

A. Well, I can't answer. I don't know who you're referring to unless you can pronounce the name properly.

Q. Your older sister, Brienne Walsh.

A. Okay, can you say it again? You said it correctly the first time. Just say it once more, please.

Q. Can you repeat how you would like me to say it so we have an understanding of who I'm talking about?

A. Okay. You said it correctly the first time. Just say it one more time. I'll see if you're saying it correctly.

Q. Can you just say me how to say it correctly? We're taking up too much time at this deposition, and as you know, I don't want to bring you back a second time if we go over.

A. Okay. Ask your question again.

Q. Your older sister Brienne Walsh testified that she lives in Savannah, Georgia now. How often do you speak with her?

MR. MOORE: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE WITNESS: I'm not answering private information.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Your sister Brienne Walsh testified at her deposition that she writes a personal blog called a Brie Grows in Brooklyn. Have you ever read her blog?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy. Privacy.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. You may respond, Mr. Walsh.

A. I have no current recollection.

Q. So you do not read it regularly?

A. I answered your question.

Q. I had a second follow-up question.

A. I have no current recollection.

MR. MOORE: If he doesn't recall, then how does he do it regularly? How does he not recall regularly? I don't understand the question.

THE WITNESS: She's clearly --

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Okay. Brienne has also --

A. You continue -- can you record for the record that she continually is laughing at me and I find it offensive?

Q. I'm not laughing. I'm not laughing.

MR. MOORE: It's being recorded, so don't worry about it.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Because I find it very offensive. This is a stressful event and she continues to laugh.

MR. MOORE: I know.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like to note for the record I am not laughing. I did not --

THE WITNESS: Okay. The video shows you laughing on multiple occasions. So there's evidence. I appreciate that. Thank you, Frank, for letting me know.

MR. MOORE: Sure.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Brienne testified that -

A. You're smiling again. Can you please stop laughing?

Q. I'm not laughing. This is just my face. I apologize if you're offended by the status of my face. Brienne testified that in the past –

A. You're continuing to smile. Can you please stop laughing?

Q. Mr. Walsh, I am not smiling. I am speaking. This is just how I speak. Brienne testified that in the past your family has gotten angry with her over certain blog posts. Do you know if that's true?

A. No current recollection.

Q. Have you witnessed Tara engage in physical violence?

MR. MOORE: What does this have to do with this case, counsel? What does it have to do -- I want an offer of proof what this has to do with anything in this case.

MS. LLAGUNO: It's clearly relevant to Tara --

[...]

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, please again refrain from --

MR. MOORE: I'm asking for an offer of proof.

MS. LLAGUNO: -- our position.

MR. MOORE: I'm asking for an offer of proof.

MS. LLAGUNO: And I just stated, our position is this is germane to Tara's character and credibility and it's relevant to the claim she stated in her discovery responses.

MR. MOORE: What claim? What claim is she making? She's not making a claim. Your client's made a claim, a dubious one at that.

MS. LLAGUNO: Your written discovery responses, Mr. Moore. Again, I kindly request that you stop your speaking objections and stop coaching the witness.

MR. MOORE: You know what? This is harassing. This is becoming very harassing. What is – what does a blog of his sister have to do about this case? What – just tell me. How does it – how does it relate to the disputed factual issues in the case?

MS. LLAGUNO: Simply state your relevance objection for the record --

MR. MOORE: No, I want an offer of proof.

MS. LLAGUNO: Please simply state your objection --

MR. MOORE: You're going to have to make an offer of proof in a motion to compel. You have to make an offer of proof in front of a judge. Come on. Get with it, man. You're supposed to be trying this case in a month or two. Come on. Let's see how you perform. Let's do it.

MS. LLAGUNO: I just stated our position, Mr. Moore.

MR. MOORE: I know. Your position is weak so why don't you come up with something better?

THE REPORTER: Can you guys --

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm sorry, Regan, I'm trying to not speak over him. Mr. Moore, just for the sake of the court reporter can you please not speak over me? I'm giving you the same respect --

MR. MOORE: Why don't you move onto something relevant, please.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm giving you the same respect --

THE WITNESS: Is the court reporter allowed to make faces, too? I think that also is in the video reference. She continually makes faces and is expressing certain reactions to the testimony, like rolling her eyes right now.

MS. LLAGUNO: Only because --

THE REPORTER: I'm trying to follow the conversation, sir. And when you guys talk over each other I can't make heads or tails. So what I'm trying to do is follow it and that's --

THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, it's inappropriate for you to be rolling your eyes in response to certain questioning.

MR. MOORE: All right. Let's get back to the depo. Let's go.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Okay. Mr. Walsh, have you ever witnessed Tara engage in physically violent acts?

A. Say that again.

Q. Have you ever witnessed Tara engage in physically violent acts?

A. I'm sorry; can you please say that again?

Q. Have you ever witnessed Tara engage in physically violent acts?

A. You're cutting off at the last second. Please, can you say that again?

MS. LLAGUNO: Regan, are you able to hear me or is it on my end?

THE REPORTER: I can hear you.

MS. LLAGUNO: Could you please repeat the last question back to Mr. Walsh?

THE REPORTER: I'll play the recording. Just one second, please.

MS. LLAGUNO: Regan, I can --

(WHEREUPON, the reporter complied.)

MS. LLAGUNO: Regan, I'll just repeat it. Don't worry about it.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Walsh, have you witnessed Tara engage in physically violent acts?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Walsh, you can respond. I think you're muted, Mr. Walsh.

A. I'm not answering private information.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Brienne also wrote in her blog that Tara wanted a pet hamster. When she wasn't given one she -- I'm sorry. Brienne --

MR. MOORE: A pet hamster? Really?

BY MS. LLAGUNO:
Q. I'd like to know for the record --

A. Stop laughing. Thank you. I'm taking great insult that you continue to laugh.

Q. I wanted to point out on the record that Mr. Moore just laughed on the record.

A. He's my attorney -

MR. MOORE: I laughed at the --

THE WITNESS: He is not harassing me. You are harassing me and then proceeding to laugh.

BY MS. LLAGUNO Q. Mr. Walsh, I'm not trying to harass you.

MR. MOORE: A pet hamster is really to the level of harassment, so I'll take note of that.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Okay. Let me repeat my question since Mr. Walsh stated he couldn't hear it. Brienne also wrote in her blog --

A. I didn't say I didn't hear it. I heard that question very clearly.

Q. I didn't finish it though. I said scratch that. I wanted to rephrase it. Brienne also wrote in her blog that Tara wanted a pet hamster and when she wasn't given one
14 she purposely threw herself down a flight of stairs. Has Tara ever purposely hurt herself because she did not get something she wanted?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy. Invasion of privacy. Harassing.

THE WITNESS: I'm not answering private information.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Has Tara to your knowledge ever threatened to hurt herself to get something she wanted?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy. Invasion of privacy.

THE WITNESS: I'm not answering private information. (p.52)

THE WITNESS: Okay. And can you please stop smiling, too?

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm not. I'm taking the picture off the screen.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, I think anyone can judge your smiling --

MR. MOORE: I'm going to make --

THE WITNESS: -- and smirking --

MR. MOORE: I'm going to make a record because it's appropriate at this time to do so.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, I'd like to remind you -

MR. MOORE: So, no, no, no, no. I'm making a record. Just shut up. Shut up. I'm making a record. Okay?

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm speaking. I give you the same respect –

MR. MOORE: I'm not listening to you. I'm making a record.

MS. LLAGUNO: I give you --

MR. MOORE: I'm making a record.

MS. LLAGUNO: I give you the same respect --

MR. MOORE: I'm making a record.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, please. I give you the same respect. I let you finish – (p.57)

THE WITNESS: And Frank, I'd like --

MR. MOORE: I mean, this is really disgusting.

THE WITNESS: Frank, I would like to make-- I would like for the record -- I can answer your question. I would like for the record to note that I read through the text. I found it very distressing. And whatever her name is continued to keep it up and then at the last second was smirking. Now she's not but, of course, there's video evidence of that. I found it distressing and you refused to put it down. Are you going to let me speak or are you going to talk over me

MS. LLAGUNO: I want to represent to you that this was produced by Brianne --

THE WITNESS: Okay. So you're not letting me finish. So you're here to hear my voice -- oh, you're still talking over me. Are you going to let me finish or not?

MS. LLAGUNO: I didn't ask a question. So I can speak.

THE WITNESS: I was explaining something to you. Do you want to hear my testimony or do you want to just speak and harass me?

MS. LLAGUNO: No, you're able to say your response in response to my questions.

THE WITNESS: I just answered -- asked you a question. Do you want --

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm able –

THE WITNESS: And you did not answer it.

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes, I'll give you a moment if I can please finish my -

THE WITNESS: I asked you a question. I said, do you want to hear my testimony here today or do you want to harass me? That is a yes or no question.

MS. LLAGUNO: I do want to hear your testimony but I need to lay my foundation for the record that Brienne Walsh, your sister, produced this text message at her deposition.

THE WITNESS: Okay

MS. LLAGUNO: That's all.

MR. MOORE: It doesn't -- that doesn't --

THE WITNESS: Okay. That's a statement.

MR. MOORE: -- unwind anyone's invasion of privacy.

THE WITNESS: Yeah, she's backtracking because she knows that she's harassing me and she' -- after this question she's going to continue to harass me.

MR. MOORE: So let me make -- let me make a record here. I need to make this record. So the United States --

THE WITNESS: A judge will see all this.

MR. MOORE: Just hold on, Brendan. Let me make this statement. So the Supreme Court has recognized the right of familial rights to privacy in the case Prince v. Massachusetts 321 U.S. 158. The State of New York in the case Matter of a and M at 61 A.D. 2d 426, a 1978 case, also recognized the familial privilege between family members. The case of People v. Fitzgerald, another New York case, 101 Misc. 2d 712, New York County Court 1979 case extends the familial privilege to adult children.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, I appreciate --

MR. MOORE: No, no, no, no, no. I'm not finished. Just don't interrupt me. In Allstate Insurance Company v. Hague, a 1981 case, 449 U.S. 302, held that the Federal system contemplates that individual states may adopt distinct policies to protect their own residents. In People v. Conklin, a California case in 1974, R. Supreme Court at 12 Cal. 3d 259 held that Congress intended that the states be allowed to enact more restrictive laws designed to protect the right of privacy. In the case --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore --

MR. MOORE: In the other -- shut up. Shut up. I am -- I'm not done. In Kearney v. Solomon Smith Barney, Inc.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, this is my deposition.

MR. MOORE: At 39 Cal. 4th 95, the --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: -- the California Supreme Court has said in analyzing the choice of law issue, California courts apply the so-called government interest test under which a court carefully examines the government interests for purposes served by the applicable statute or rule of law of each of the affected jurisdictions to determine whether there is a true conflict. So in a case where New York law may apply, Kearney v. Solomon Smith Barney, Inc. at 39 Cal. 4th 95 has to take into account the New York State's rights of familial privacy.

MS. LLAGUNO: Got it.

MR. MOORE: Well established. So I'm making this record because I may not be the person who is representing parties going forward but I want anyone who has to review this record to know that not only is the right to privacy sacrosanct in New York but the familial rights of privacy has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. And our state also has --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore – (p. 62)

Q. Mr. Walsh, would you agree with your sister Brienne stating that Tara  is "psychologically disturbed"?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I'm not answering private information.

MR. MOORE: Invasion of privacy.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Brienne also produced at her deposition text messages with Tara in which she called Tara "selfish" and "self-consumed." Do you agree that Tara is selfish?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy. Invasion of privacy.

THE WITNESS: I'm not answering private information.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Would you agree that Tara is self-consumed?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy. Invasion of privacy.

THE WITNESS: I'm not answering private information.

BY MS. LLAGUNO:

Q. Brienne also produced text messages in which she told Tara, "I'm sick of this victim act." I'm sorry. Scratch that and let me repeat it. Brienne Walsh also produced text messages in which she told Tara, "I'm sick of this victim act. Take some fucking responsibility."  Would you agree that Tara plays a victim act?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy. Impermissible character evidence. Invasion of privacy.

MS. LLAGUNO: I --

MR. MOORE: Do you really think you're going to get away with this in front of a judge? Really? I mean, come on. How many cases have you tried by the way?

MS. LLAGUNO: Please refrain with your speaking objections and insults, Mr. Moore.

MR. MOORE: I mean, you are really pathetic. Pathetic.

MS. LLAGUNO: Would you like to repeat that one more time? I didn't hear you.

MR. MOORE: Pathetic is what I said.

MS. LLAGUNO: Oh, okay. Thank you.

MR. MOORE: You're pathetic.

Q. Mr. Walsh, can you please answer the question?

MR. MOORE: No, he's not answering the question.

THE WITNESS: Did --

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. So you're directing the --

THE WITNESS: You heard my response?

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, you're directing your client not to respond?

MR. MOORE: No, no, he made a response. So listen to his response.

THE WITNESS: So I made a response and you won't accept my response? Okay.

MS. LLAGUNO: I didn't hear your response. I apologize. I didn't hear it. I think I might have talked over you, so I apologize. Can you please repeat it?

THE WITNESS: I'm not going to repeat something three times. Your intent is to harass me.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. Regan, the court reporter, I just want to confirm that you got that on the record, his response on the record. Then I won't re-ask the question. I just want to make sure our record is clear. Were you able to capture his response to my previous question?

THE REPORTER: No, I was not.

THE WITNESS: Okay. That sounds like that's something that is your problem to figure out.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. So could you please repeat your response, Mr. Walsh?

A. I'm not going to answer a question already answered.

Q. It was not captured by the court reporter so I'd appreciate it if you repeated your response so she can get it on record.

Is that a no, Mr. Walsh?

A. Why would you assume that's a no?

Q. I didn't hear your response.

A. I am formulating a response but you're putting words in my mouth assuming that I'm going to say no. Can I ask you why you're doing that?

Q. It was silent for a few seconds so I wasn't sure if you wanted to respond or not.

A. Okay. So you're making assumptions?

MR. MOORE: She's testifying for you actually, so.

THE WITNESS: Exactly. So she's testifying for me, won't give me proper time to make a response, and smiling again.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. I said, is that a no, with a question mark. I didn't say, "Mr. Brendan Walsh is stating no," Court Reporter. I said, I'm asking you, is that a no. Let's move on if you do not want to answer that question.

A. Okay. So you don't want an answer to that question?

Q. Okay. Sure. I welcome an answer to that question.

A. Okay. So there's no confusion, start at the very beginning.

Q. Would you agree that your sister Tara Walsh plays a victim act?

A. I believe that there was more to that question. Can you please ask the original question how it was originally phrased?

Q. I don't want to take up any more time. We can just move on if you don't want.

A. Well, you asked me to repeat the question at least three times so it seemed like it was a pretty important question. So can you please ask the question again as it was originally phrased?

Q. Would you agree that your sister Tara Walsh plays a victim act?

A. That was not the original question. There was more to it when you first asked it.

Q. I can't recall and I don't want to take up time having the court reporter --

A. Okay. You can have the court reporter play it back, please.

Q. I'm going to -- we're just going to move on. Thank you, though.

A. Okay. So just for the record --

MR. MOORE: She's withdrawn -- she's withdrawn the question. So go ahead and ask the next question.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Has Tara lied -- I'm sorry, scratch that. Has Tara ever lied about you to your knowledge?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Frank, it's very hard. She keeps on changing and re-changing her questions.

MR. MOORE: I know. It's -- it's -- I don't know how she gets through life but, you know.

THE WITNESS: And I think this is just harassment because you're asking a question and then withdrawing it and saying scratch it constantly so it just makes me think you have no questions prepared and you're here at this session only to harass me.

MR. MOORE: Yeah, and the whole subject matter is just ridiculous. So, you know, I mean, why don't you ask a question about the case?

THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's why I'm here to testify and she refuses to ask any questions about it. She makes up questions on the whim.

MR. MOORE: I know, it's just really outrageous. If you could just ask a question that's germane to the case we could get done.

MS. LLAGUNO: And our position is these are all questions --

MR. MOORE: No, I know what your position -- your position is to harass this guy but that's you know, you're making a fine record for that, counsel. So just -- just continue your stuff. At some point we'll end it because you won't ask a question that's germane to the litigation.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So you have no question prepared. Can you please ask it? You said you want to finish this deposition as quickly as possible but you're not going with a question. Can you please not interrupt me, too?

MS. LLAGUNO: (Inaudible)

THE WITNESS: Okay. So you're interrupting me as we speak. You said that's what bothers you but as I'm trying to answer a question and speak you're interrupting me. So just please stop doing that, especially since my deposition is so important to you. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Instead of asking the direct question of if I believe Tara is credible, she's asking 100 million questions to harass me.

MR. MOORE: That's right. It's all harassing.

THE WITNESS: The judge -- if your intent  is to see if Tara is credible, I'm right here. You could ask that question. But you refuse to. Instead you're asking a million questions under the disguise of your purpose of just seeing if she's credible. If you wanted to make this a brief deposition you could ask questions that you directly want answers to but you won't do it because you want to ask 100 questions. More than 100. Tell me how many questions you have prepared. How many more questions do you have prepared? Just tell me that?

MR. MOORE: Yeah, why don't you ask him whether he has an opinion as whether his sister is credible. That's what you're trying to get.

MS. LLAGUNO: I actually --

MR. MOORE: Why do you have to front-load it with all these things that her sister said on a blog?

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, this is my deposition. And I did ask him if he thought Tara was a liar and he didn't want to respond. So I'm asking other questions. Please refrain from your speaking objections. I do not want this to go like the last deposition where a quarter of the deposition was you speaking. Thank you.

MS. LLAGUNO: You can't tell me how to ask my questions. You can state your objection for the record.

MR. MOORE: You could ask, you know, improper questions and I can comment on them because that's what I'm going to do.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

MR. MOORE: I'm objecting -- objecting to the form of the question.

MS. LLAGUNO: You can object to form but -

MR. MOORE: That's what I'm doing. Just why don't you formulate it that is a proper way?

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Walsh, would you agree that you and Tara are close?

MR. MOORE: There you go. Very good.
(Clapping)

THE WITNESS: I'm not answering private questions about my personal relationships with family members.

MS. LLAGUNO: I just want to note for the record that Mr. Moore again is just waving insults. He just clapped at me for rephrasing a question and --

MR. MOORE: It was a direct question. Finally, we got to one. You don't have to front-load it with what other people testified to or what other people said or what your impressions are of the evidence. If you do that, if you just ask a basic question that was without all the editorial commentary we'd get through this.

MS. LLAGUNO: I can formulate the questions as I see fit. Please stop with your speaking objections.

MR. MOORE: You can and it's not admissible, so I'm sorry, that's the way -- that's why lawyers exist.

MS. LLAGUNO: Exactly. You can state your objection for the record --

MR. MOORE: That's what I'm doing. That's what I'm doing.

MS. LLAGUNO: Thank you, Mr. Moore

MR. MOORE: Move on.

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes, please. So Mr. Walsh never responded.

Q. Do you know what Tara is referring to when she says, "I went through Family Court and it destroyed my family forever"?

A. I have no current -- I have no current recollection of anything shown in this document.

MR. MOORE: I'll also object to the extent this invades various individuals' privacy including familial privacy.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm going to represent that this was filed in a public court filing, but okay.

BY MS. LLAGUNO Q. Mr. Walsh, could you read the next text message out loud on that same center line?

A. Okay, this is personal information that is going to disturb me --

MR. MOORE: Yeah, I'm not going to have --

THE WITNESS: -- and read out loud. I mean, if you have a problem reading this

MR. MOORE: I'm not going to have him --

THE WITNESS: That sounds like a problem with you, not me. I don't need to read information that's personally upsetting.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay --

THE WITNESS: That serves no intent --

MR. MOORE: He can read it to --

THE WITNESS: -- but to harass me.

MR. MOORE: He can read it to him -- he can read it to himself. He's not going to read it into the record.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. That's fine. Could you please read it to yourself, Mr. Walsh

A. I told you before we started that I had reviewed the entire document so why are you telling me to read something I already read?

Q. I didn't realize you had read the entire document. I apologize.

A. Again, you should be listening to my responses. This is ridiculous.

THE WITNESS: Frank, I'm telling -- I told her and she refuses to accept anything I say.

MR. MOORE: I know.

Q. Mr. Walsh, do you recognize this document that I've marked as Exhibit 66?

A. I have no current recollection.

Q. Is your email address [email protected]?

A. I have no current recollection of anything in this document.

Q. I'm not asking about the document. I'm asking about this email, if your email address was ever [email protected].

A. The email is included in the document and I said I have no current recollection of anything in the document. Do you understand my response?

Q. Okay. I'm pulling down the document. Mr. Walsh has your email address --

A. Okay. So again you've done it twice. So I told you I have no current recollection about anything in the document. Then you proceeded to ask me about something in the document and asked if I remembered it.

Q. Yes. Independently --

A. Okay. So why did you do it? You didn't accept the first question I gave -- answer I gave, rather?

Q. Has your email address ever been [email protected]?

A. No current recollection. You're still asking. I said I had no current -- you've asked the same question three times now. I said I have no current recollection of anything in the document. Then you asked me again, is this your email? And then you asked me again, is this your email? I said I have no current recollection of anything listed in that document. Do you understand?

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. I'm going to mark --

THE WITNESS: Okay. You're going to move on; right? But again, you asked four questions after I gave you an answer the first time.

Q. Okay. Have you ever spoken to Tara about her putting drugs in Russell's drinks without his knowledge or consent?

A. I have no current recollection.

Q. Do you know if Tara Walsh was afraid of Steve Russell?

A. I have no current recollection.

MS. LLAGUNO: Thank you for commentary, Mr. Walsh. I kindly request that you refrain from doing that. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Refrain from what?

MS. LLAGUNO: So I'm going to move on.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. So Tara has admitted --

A. I asked you a question. Can you please respond to it before you ask me another question?

Q. I'm sorry; that's not how depositions work, Mr. Walsh.

So my question was, Tara has admitted that on occasions she's put certain drugs into Steve Russell's drinks without him knowing it. Has Tara ever spoken to you about putting drugs in Steve Russell's drinks without him knowing?

MR. MOORE: He's asking you to repeat the last question

MS. LLAGUNO: Oh, I apologize.

THE WITNESS: Well, are you listening to me or not?

MS. LLAGUNO: I heard your response. You said you have no recollection so I moved on.

THE WITNESS: No, I paused because I wasn't sure what the previous question was and I said please repeat the last question. And then you asked a new question. So do you understand me when I said, can you please repeat the last question?

MS. LLAGUNO: Oh, now I understand. I guess I didn't hear you.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. So I have to speak that slowly for you to understand? That's unfortunate.

MS. LLAGUNO: Maybe a little louder because I can't hear as much. Sorry about that.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I've been speaking in that same voice the entire deposition and you seem to be hearing me very well.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. Thank you. Madam Reporter, could you repeat what the last question was?

THE WITNESS: He's asking you to ask a question, which is why you want me here. So why don't you ask your question?

MS. LLAGUNO: Not for me, for the court reporter, please stop speaking over me. I know you don't respect me but please respect Regan who is trying to get this on the record.

MR. MOORE: I certainly don't respect you at all. I find you disgusting asking the kind of questions you're doing and harassing this witness. So go ahead and continue on with your harassment. We want to hear the next question.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. I don't believe I received a response from the last question. I stated, Tara declared to the court that she was living in the attic without any heat at your parents' home. Is that true?

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Have you ever witnessed Steve Russell do anything towards Tara Walsh?

A. Do anything? Is that -- that's a real question? That seems kind of vague to me.

MR. MOORE: It is vague and overbroad. Can you narrow it to a time frame and to an incident?

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes.

THE WITNESS: You keep on apologizing so it just sounds like you're harassing. You can't ask a single straightforward question. So just ask questions that you're supposed to ask. Don't ask questions that you know you shouldn't be asking. You're asking questions and then apologizing as if you know that these questions are nonsensical.

MS. LLAGUNO: No, I'm just trying to rephrase it for your benefit.

THE WITNESS: Then why did you apologize? You're trying to rephrase a question that you know you shouldn't have asked?

MS. LLAGUNO: No, Mr. Walsh. And can you please stop with the commentary? I really am trying to get this deposition done within the next hour. I don't want to have to call you back --

THE WITNESS: Then stop asking questions repeatedly and stop asking questions that you shouldn't be asking.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Do you know if Tara spoke with anyone else in your family about drugging Steve without his knowledge or consent?

A. I have no recollection of that.

Q. Okay. Have you ever called the police on Stephen Russell?

A. If you have something that you'd like to refresh my memory with you can do that but please stop asking vague questions.

Q. I don't believe that's vague. Have you ever called --

A. Okay. If you have something that could refresh my memory, you're welcome to share it.

Q. No, I'm just asking you to your memory --

A. I answered your question. I said if you have something that you could refresh my memory with I am happy to see it.

Q. Okay. And your current memory, without me having to refresh it, do you remember ever having called the police on Stephen Russell?

A. So you're asking about my current memory which is what you asked the first time and I said I have no current recollection. If you have something you'd like to refresh my current memory with you would be happy -- I would be happy to see it.

Q. I think we may be confused on the questions. I'm asking if you --

A. I'm not confused at all. You seem to be confused.

Q. Independent of any document, I'm asking --

MR. MOORE: He answered -- he's already answered that question. He doesn't have a current recollection.

THE WITNESS: Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not confused. If you're confused that's one thing but don't say that I'm confused.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. Noted.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Do you have any recollection of meeting Steve Russell in person?

MR. MOORE: It's been asked and answered.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. You can respond, Mr. Walsh.

A. I answered the question.

Q. I don't believe you did. I believe I asked you if you ever communicated with Mr. Russell.

A. You're 100 percent sure I never answered that question?

Q. Would you humor me and please answer it again?

A. No, I'm not going to humor you. This is not a joke. Don't -- why would I humor you. This is not a light, you know, like a fun experience or a joke.

Q. I don't believe that you've answered that  question. I asked you if you've ever communicated with Steve Russell and I'm asking --

A. Okay. So then say it that way. Don't say humor me as if you're taking this as some sort of joke.

Q. I'm not taking it as a joke. You just keep objecting to every single question and I want to make sure that I get answers to my questions.

A. Take better notes. Then you'll know whether I answered the question or not. I answered it.

Q. I'm going to ask again to stop being so argumentative. I really do want to finish. We're almost done. I have maybe four pages of questions left and --

A. Okay. So answer questions -- ask questions, rather, that you didn't already ask. I said I answered that question. That's my answer to you.

Q. I don't believe you answered it. Can you answer it again?

A. I'm not changing my response. So if you have no other questions then that's it. If you have other questions, ask them. I'm not changing my response to that question.

THE WITNESS: She knows she stands zero chance -- she's making --

MR. MOORE: I bet you -- I bet you -- I'll put money on it --

THE WITNESS: -- trying to harass me. So I took that as a threat. Are you threatening me that if I don't answer your questions in a certain way you're going to compel me to come back?

MS. LLAGUNO: Well, if we're not able to finish my questions --

THE WITNESS: I took that as a threat on top of all your harassment today.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

Q. Okay. Do you remember an incident where you encountered Steve Russell and a court appointed visitation supervisor in September of 2019?

A. No current recollection.

Q. Okay. I'm going to show you now what we're going to mark as Exhibit 76

(WHEREUPON, Exhibit 76 was marked for identification.)

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. This is the Declaration of Claudette Lamelle. If you could please review the section of the document beginning with -- I'm sorry; do you recognize this document?

A. I have no current recollection of this document whatsoever.

Q. Okay. I'm representing to you this was a document filed by -- a declaration filed by Ms. Claudette Lamelle, the court appointed supervisor. Can you please review from where it says here "Mr. Russell initially"?

A. You'd like me to do what?

Q. Please read to yourself beginning from "Mr. Russell initially" up here on the top line. And let me know if you'd like to scroll down to the end of the paragraph, please.

[...]

Q. And does this account of the incident refresh your recollection of the incident

A. -- discussing a private incident that happened or did not happen within my family. This is something that you're -- based on the document it appears happened at my house. I'm not discussing any incidents that happened at my house that involved my family.

Q. Okay. Just I wanted to clarify. So you're refusing to answer based on --

A. No, I'm not refusing. I'm saying I'm invoking my right not to answer about private information. That is my answer. If I was refusing to answer it, I'd tell you I'm refusing to answer.

Q. Okay.

A. I have a right not to answer private information about discussions and events that happen between me and my family that the public would not know that happened on our property within the confines of our home.

Q. So Ms. Claudette Lamelle, the declarant of this account, described the incident -

A. I have no current recollection of who that is. Remind me who that is.

Q. She's the court-appointed supervisor.

A. I have no current recollection of that. So you can ask me about her but I have no current recollection who she is.

Q. Okay.

MR. MOORE: Again, this line of questioning is -- I don't see the relevance to the

THE WITNESS: And you want me to talk about a person I have no idea who she is?

[...]

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Did you know that Tara filed a police report --

A. Okay? That's okay with you that you're harassing me?

Q. I just want to finish this deposition. Can I just continue with the questions?

A. You can't continue to harass me.

Q. Did you know that Tara filed a police report stating that Stephen Russell came to your house?

A. You're asking me -- you're asking me questions that, again, I have no recollection of and that don't involve me at all.

Q. Okay. So just a simple yes or no would suffice, Mr. Walsh. Do you remember or do you not know?

A. I answered your question. It doesn't – no, it's not a yes or a no. A yes or a no would be if I had a recollection or I did not have a recollection. I said I do not have a current recollection. How is that not a sufficient answer?

Q. Okay. And did you know that Tara filed a declaration with the court stating that Steve Russell came to your house to threaten you?

A. I would like to remind you that I have absolutely nothing to do with what Tara did or did not file. I'm not involved in it at all.

Q. You were involved in the incident according to Ms. Lamelle and I'm just trying to get to the bottom of --

MR. MOORE: You know what? You're not a witness, counsel. You don't get to say what the evidence is --

THE WITNESS: Yeah, she's assuming --

MR. MOORE: -- in this case --

THE WITNESS: She's testifying for me.

MR. MOORE: Right. So just ask a question and stop trying to pepper the record with your opinion of what the evidence is in this case. You're actually summarizing things in other cases that have nothing to do with the gravamen of your client's claim in this case.

MS. LLAGUNO: You know that is fairly, squarely within the scope of discovery.

MR. MOORE: It certainly is not. And it certainly isn't when you're trying to preserve for trial testimony.

THE WITNESS: This is -

MS. LLAGUNO: I've repeated multiple times --

THE WITNESS: -- so grateful that a judge gets to see this because hopefully she could be disbarred or sanctioned.

MS. LLAGUNO: Right. Mr. Moore, I've repeated multiple times this is not a trial deposition. This is a discovery deposition.

[...]

THE WITNESS: She doesn't know what the hell is going on.

MS. LLAGUNO: We expressly reserved our right for the ability to use it at trial if it is deemed admissible. But I'm not -- we never noticed this as a trial deposition.

MR. MOORE: But one of the things that you don't seem to grasp, okay --

THE WITNESS: So you're just doing this to harass me, not use this at trial?

MS. LLAGUNO: We only have --

THE WITNESS: Got it.

MR. MOORE: One of the things that you don't seem to grasp is that --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore --

MR. MOORE: -- this deponent is outside of  --

THE WITNESS: (Inaudible)

MR. MOORE: -- the jurisdiction of California.

MS. LLAGUNO: We only have 20 minutes left and I'd like to finish my deposition. I do not want to have to --

MR. MOORE: I'm making a record, counsel. I'm making a record.

MS. LLAGUNO: You've been making a record --

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Did Tara ever tell you she believed Steve Russell had a gun in their house?

A. Do you want me to answer that question? Because you never waited --

MR. MOORE: Same objections.

THE WITNESS: -- for my response. You just asked a new question without ever me responding to the first one.

MR. MOORE: Yeah, but that's, you know what? That's her problem. So just let her go with the next question.

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I guess you just asked that question to harass me because you're asking a question you didn't want an answer for because you asked a new one.

MR. MOORE: This is a very -- that's a very good observation.

THE WITNESS: Stop apologizing. It's – if you make a mistake one time that's an apology. If you keep harassing me it doesn't matter if you keep apologizing. Apologies mean nothing if you continue to do what you're doing.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Walsh, I'm not trying to harass you. I'm just trying to get through this deposition. You --

THE WITNESS: Well, then don't harass me and don't harass me and then apologize every five seconds because if you're apologizing every time you harass me the apologies mean nothing. They're insincere. So don't even bother to apologize.

MS. LLAGUNO: I don't believe I'm harassing you. I'm trying to get through this deposition and just ask questions. Please refrain from the additional commentary because --

MR. MOORE: Please ask another question, please.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You're going on a tirade, a speech again. And you can't stick to the questions because you have no real questions. You just want to make commentary and speeches. So like make -- ask a question

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Did Tara Walsh ever tell you that she believed Steve Russell had a gun in their house?

A. I'm not discussing private information.

Q. Do you see this document, Mr. Walsh?

A. I can.

Q. In this document Tara texts -- this is – I'm sorry, this is a text message that Brienne produced at her deposition. In this text message Tara Walsh texted her, "I'm going all out and Brendan is going to help me." The next exhibit that I'm going to show you is a continuation of this text message. I'm going to mark that as Exhibit 74.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm sorry, Court Reporter, it's pre-marked as Exhibit 30 already. Apologies.

BY MS. LLAGUNO:
Q. So this exhibit is pre-marked as Exhibit 30. Can you see this document, Mr. Walsh?

A. Yes.

Q. In this text message that Brienne produced at her deposition, Tara Walsh texts Brienne Walsh, "I'm going all out and Brendan is going to help me." Did Tara ever ask you to help her go all out?

MR. MOORE: Objection; relevancy. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE WITNESS: I'm not discussing private information.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Okay. Have you ever helped Tara take any action against Steve Russell?

A. I'm not discussing private information.

THE WITNESS: Well, go ahead and finish it. You're pressed for time and you won't go ahead and ask your questions. Go ahead and ask the questions.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like to note for the record that your improper speaking objections have taken up the majority of --

THE WITNESS: Ask your question. You keep on going on tirades but you said you're on limited time and you won't ask your questions. Ask your questions.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm able to make a record for my deposition.

THE WITNESS: Okay. You're still -- you're still not asking questions which leads me to believe you don't have any. Ask the next question. Again, you're smiling which is so -- it's so distressing to me.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like -- I am talking. I'd like to kindly request --

THE WITNESS: You were smiling.

MS. LLAGUNO: This is just how I talk. You can get the video. I don't mind submitting the video to the court.

THE WITNESS: We all have the video. Yes.The smirking is -- I don't smirk when I'm talking. I haven't smirked the entire time. People don't - talking doesn't involve smirking. There's a difference.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Walsh -- both Mr. Walsh and Mr. Moore, please, I'd like to get through this deposition. Can you --

THE WITNESS: Well, ask your next question. I'm ready. We've been waiting for it and you won't ask it. You keep on making speeches.

MS. LLAGUNO: I believe your counsel is the one making speeches. I can talk as much as I like --

THE WITNESS: Please just ask your next question. Ask the next question.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Walsh, can you please not scream at me on the record. I'd really appreciate it. I'd really like to keep --

THE WITNESS: The problem is in the past 25 you said you weren't able to hear me so I don't know if you're hearing anything I'm saying so I want to make sure that it's very loud because I'm asking you to ask the next question and you're not asking it. So do you hear me?

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore --

MR. MOORE: It ain't working.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me, ma'am. I'm going to answer your question. Instead of getting into an argument you'd like an answer; right?

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Sure.

A. Not discussing private information.

Q. Got it. I'd like to state for the record we believe this goes towards Tara's credibility.

A. Ask your next question. We don't need your --

MR. MOORE: Yeah, we don't need your -- we don't need your speeches. We know exactly what you're doing. We know exactly what you're doing.

MS. LLAGUNO: I actually can make a record.

THE WITNESS: Move on to the next one.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like to make a record stating that this goes to Tara's credibility. She stated in her discovery responses --

MR. MOORE: No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. Move on. Ask the next question.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, I'd really appreciate you stopping this abusive behavior.

MR. MOORE: Ask the next question. Just ask a question. Don't -- don't argue with me. Just use your time appropriately. Ask a question.

THE WITNESS: You're harassing me.

MS. LLAGUNO: Please stop screaming. I'm trying to get through my deposition.

THE WITNESS: Did you say complaining --

MR. MOORE: You're not doing a very good job of it.

MS. LLAGUNO: Could you repeat that again, Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: You're not doing a very good job of it.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. Noted.

MR. MOORE: You're wasting our time.

MS. LLAGUNO: As Mr. Moore scheduled himself, there is another deposition coming up in two minutes. So I'm going to have to adjourn this deposition and continue it.

MR. MOORE: No, you're not.

MS. LLAGUNO: I reserve the --

MR. MOORE: No, you're not. You're going to continue. We'll start the other one late.

MS. LLAGUNO: I reserve the right to continue this deposition for another time.

MR. MOORE: You don't reserve any right. You don't have any right. Finish your deposition. You've been wasting our time.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, you're the one who told me to start the next deposition at --

MR. MOORE: Wasting our time, again. Arguing. You know, just ask your question. I want the record to reflect that you're just wasting our time. So keep wasting our time with your next question.

MS. LLAGUNO: Regan and Vincent, could you please conclude this deposition so that we may prepare for the next deposition that's --

MR. MOORE: Ask your question.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm available now to do your deposition and you are ending it.

MR. MOORE: That's right. So you better -- you better finish. You better do it now.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, will you stipulate --

MR. MOORE: She's got no questions. It's over. We consider this deposition over. You'll need a court order, counsel. Go for it. We have a good record. I'm done.

MS. LLAGUNO: Great. I'd like to state on the record for this deposition that based on counsel's conduct similar to the prior deposition of numerous speaking objections, taking up time on the record and coaching the witness, laying basis objections --

MR. MOORE: Coaching the witness? You are misrepresenting the record.

THE REPORTER: Can we please let her  finish her statement, please?

MS. LLAGUNO: Please let me finish, Mr. Moore. I always let you finish. I let you speak --

MR. MOORE: No, you don't. You argue over me all the time. So what are you talking about?

THE WITNESS: And argue over me, too. And insult me.

MS. LLAGUNO: I do not --

MR. MOORE: So we're adjourned. You asked to be adjourned. We're done. Let's leave. Goodbye.

THE WITNESS: I'm with you.

MS. LLAGUNO: I had no intention of insulting you. Court Reporter, let me -- can I lay my record? I know the deponent already left but I just wanted to complete my record that based on counsel and deponent's conduct, I believe they're obstructing this deposition based on their speaking objections and just their conduct of insults and long narratives taking up the time during this very brief deposition. Mr. Moore provided a three-hour window that the deponent could appear and I specifically stated in an email to Mr. Moore that we are entitled to seven hours and if he's only going to produce them for three hours there may be a chance, although I'm going to try my best not to need a second day, that we were going to need to continue the deposition to a second day. Despite that, Mr. Moore requested that I notice a second deposition today that was supposed to begin at 4:00 p.m. for Maura Walsh and did not want to stipulate to another date so that we may continue this deposition of Brendan Walsh, and that is why I'm forced to adjourn so I can make sure that I appear at the next noticed deposition. Thank you so much. With that I just want to adjourn. Thank you for your time, Regan and Vincent.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. All right. This is the end of the deposition. And the time is 4:08 p.m. and we are off the record.

(WHEREUPON, at 4:08 p.m., the deposition of BRENDAN WALSH concluded.)

Grimma spends most of this depostion saying, "Private family matter." Or, "You are harrassing me," when she wants to change the subject. She doesn't remember much. But, about the multi-hour period when Steve was drugged in NY after spending four days awake by Tara's side in the hosptial, it's clear. She confidently states that SHE KNOWS what psychosis looks like, she "has training" as a nurse, and even from inside a parked car outside Mom and Dad's apartment, she was able to make a diagnosis. So good was her training, that she has remained steadfast in that diagnosis ever since, depite five psychatrists who attributed the episode to be drugged and followed by the Walshes.

[Update: The full Maura Walsh deposition video is now available for members after the deposition transcript below.]

Maura Walsh April 23, 2021 NDT Assgn # 50597

Fantastic though, someone with training. They will help Steve, right? Get him to hospital? Stay to watch over him and Tara? Whether drugged or off his meds or worse, he still needed help. They are decent people. A really good family, as they are fond of stating. Not the kind who would ever just kick the father of their grandaughter, exhausted and sick, onto the street. They wouldn't have him followed in hopes of getting him committed to maintain custody and protect the family trust? They just aren't that kind of family. Cringe.

Grimma and Mr. Moore accused Ms. Llaguno of 'harassing' Grimma over 47 times during this deposition. What prompted this parroting of this depositions' keyword?  

Members - The following is for members of the site only, so please sign up and verify your identity if you'd like to read more about Grumpa's deposition.

Matan Gavish April 20, 2021 NDT Assgn # 50508

Wow, what a $hit $how.  In this first few minutes of the Deposition, Mom states she is representing herself pro se and Frank S. Moore, is just there as attorney for Matan? Later in the depo Tara slips that he her lawyer too, but it is too late the two are already tag-teaming the witness in a way that will make you cringe. The two fed off each other, gobbling the time with insults of Ms. Llaguno.

Mom plays dumb and looks like a cat, for now. And because of the strong reaction to Mr. Moore's behavior, a full video content of their speeches will be made available to forward to an ethics board (along with his other depositions.) Mom knew exactly what she was doing. Obstructing the deposition and case while pretending to be an idiot so she wouldn't get in trouble. She stated to Joy that she does it all the time and doesn't get in trouble, and that is true.

[Update: The full Matan Gavish deposition video is now available for verified members after the transcript below.]

Members - The following is for members of the site only, so please sign up and verify your identity if you'd like to read more about Grumpa's deposition.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record. The time is 12:03 p.m. The date is April 20th, 2021. This is the beginning of the deposition of Matan Gavish. The case caption is Russell versus Walsh. Will counsel introduce yourselves and state whom you represent?

MR. MOORE: Frank Moore and I'm here Matan for his deposition solely.

MS. LLAGUNO: And my name is Joy Llaguno, representing plaintiff, Stephen Russell.

MS. WALSH: And my name is Tara Walsh. I am a pro se litigant representing myself.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter will now swear in the witness.

MR. MOORE: I'm sorry. There -- there appears be someone still on, but not identified. I'm seeing a screen that's got an arrow on it. What is that?

MS. LLAGUNO: Steve, can you go ahead and state your name for the record

PLAINTIFF RUSSELL: Hi, this is Steve Russell.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter will now swear in the witness.

THE REPORTER: All right. And just before I do swear in the witness, for all counsel present, I'd just like to stipulate for the record that the swearing in and testimony will be captured remotely by a professional digital reporter and that all present agree to this method of preserving today's record. The testimony will be transcribed and certified. Ms. Llaguno, do you agree?

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes.

THE REPORTER: And, Ms. Walsh and Mr. Moore, do you agree?

MR. MOORE: Are -- are you a California court reporter?

THE REPORTER: Counsel, I am a certified federally with the electronic reporter, sir. I am located in Portland, Oregon.

MR. MOORE: Okay. And you're -- but you're authorized to be the court reporter for California jurisdiction; correct?

THE REPORTER: Yes, sir.

MR. MOORE: Okay. With --

THE REPORTER: All right.

MR. MOORE: With -- with that representation, I agree.

THE REPORTER: Excellent.

Q. Have you speak -- spoken with Ms. Walsh your deposition today?

MS. WALSH: How -- how is that relevant?

MS. LLAGUNO: It's -- it's relevant as a basis for his deposition testimony.

MS. WALSH: That has nothing to do about the deposition, the time frame that you're deposing him for. How does any conversations with me have to do --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- of his testimony if you've talked to him, so I'm -- I'm entitled to ask him those questions.

MS. WALSH: I -- I think that those questions would lead to expanding the scope of your discovery, which is my fear and concern. So I -- I don't understand why it would be relevant as to why he talked to me about any matters --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: -- preceding the time frame you're addressing.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh, you're not allowed to have speaking objections. You can only object as to form or if you believe it's privileged

MS. WALSH: Well, it has to do with me; right? And I'm a pro se litigant, so I believe it's privileged whether or not he spoke to me about the lawsuit.

[...]

MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Okay. And so I'm going to scroll down to -- did you go over this document with Ms. Walsh?

A. No.

Q. Did you contact Ms. Walsh after you received deposition subpoena?

A. No.

Q. And how many times have you spoken with her regarding this lawsuit?

MS. WALSH: Again, I think that that's a privacy concern, so I think that that's a privileged conversation.

MS. LLAGUNO: You can state your objection for the record, but he's still entitled to respond.

MS. WALSH: Okay. I object to that.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Gavish, can you please respond if you've spoken with Ms. Walsh about this lawsuit?

MS. WALSH: That has to do about my confidentiality. No. As a pro se litigant, whether or anybody's spoken to me about the lawsuit. Just like you have confidentiality with your client, I have confidentiality as a pro se litigant.

MS. LLAGUNO: You're not an attorney and you're not providing -- you don't -- there's no --

MS. WALSH: Well, I'm a pro se litigant, so -- and I have a restraining order against Mr. Russell, so anything that has to do with my communications with as per my restraining order, is confidential here in New York State.

MS. LLAGUNO: We are -- okay. You -- there's no attorney-client privilege between you and Mr. Gavish, Ms. Walsh.

MS. WALSH: Okay. But any communications -- any communications that I had -- Mr. Russell's on this phone all. Any communications that I have, email, anything, he's not privileged to know as per the restraining order. He cannot have any information having to do with me as per the restraining order in a deposition like this. And you can bring that up with the New York courts if you want to.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. Noted. We will.

Q. Okay. And I'm going to show you now what we're going to mark as Exhibit 38. Do you recognize this document?

A. No.

MS. WALSH: Sorry. I just --

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

MS. WALSH: -- have an objection. I don't know why this is in the scope of what you're deposing him. You're showing him --

THE DEPONENT: Oh.

MS. WALSH: -- legal documents that have been involved in proceedings --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: -- that have --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- you cannot --

MS. WALSH: -- they're legal --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- make an objection. You - -

MR. MOORE: Well, I -- I'm going to join the objection. What -- what's the point of this? I mean, here, okay?

MS. LLAGUNO: I --

MR. MOORE: We -- we -- we -- we've gone past this whole issue of whether he can resist this. This – he's chosen to be here, so what's the point of all this?

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like to know whether he prepared this document.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Gavish, did you prepare this document?

MS. WALSH: This document is completely irrelevant. It's a document that was submitted in order defend the order to show cause, I'm assuming. It has nothing to do with the scope of what you're deposing him for. You could be sitting here all day going through documents from the past three years --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: -- and maybe that's why you think it would take seven hours.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Okay. Mr. Gavish, can you please respond? Did‌‌you prepare this document?

A. Ma'am, I'm sorry, I'm just really confused right now. We've been here an hour and we haven't talked about anything relating to --

Q. Okay.

A. -- Steve and Tara.

Q. Okay. So we will get to that.

MR. MOORE: Yeah. I -- I -- I agree with this. This is a -- a lot of just nonsense and -- and this is a deposition --

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

MR. MOORE: -- that was -- was -- was noticed preservation for trial testimony. None of this is going

MS. LLAGUNO: This is my --

MR. MOORE: -- to be admitted --

MS. LLAGUNO: This is my --

MR. MOORE: -- into a trial.

MS. LLAGUNO: This is --

MR. MOORE: And -- and --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, that is my decision to make and you cannot make speaking objections.

MR. MOORE: I -- I'm --

MS. LLAGUNO: Please --

MR. MOORE: I'm saying this is irrelevant. move on.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Gavish --

MR. MOORE: Let's get to the heart of --

MS. WALSH: I agree with that.

MR. MOORE: -- what this deposition's about.

MS. WALSH: This is -- this is some sort of baiting thing that you're doing to try and catch him up or something. This has -- this is about you trying to create additional issues for Matan. It has nothing to do with scope of --

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Please respond to the question. Did you prepare this document?

A. Ma'am, I have a lot of things going on in my personal life right now. I would -- I'm here voluntarily. Can we please get to the actual questions that you need to help Stephen in his case?

Q. And this is relevant to this case.

MS. WALSH: Objection. Privacy concerns.

MR. MOORE: I'm going to ask for an order -- I'm going to ask for an offer of proof as to why it's

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like to know if he produced this document -- if he prepared this document.

MR. MOORE: What you would like to know is -- is -- is irrelevant. What -- what's the --

MS. LLAGUNO: That is --

MR. MOORE: How is it relevant to --

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

MR. MOORE: -- the dispute --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh represented in this case that Mr. Gavish authorized and prepared this document. it is -- it goes to her credibility that he did not. He‌‌ said that he did not recognize this document and that goes to her credibility.

THE DEPONENT: I --

MS. WALSH: He said he did not --

MR. MOORE: Okay.

MS. WALSH: -- recognize the prior document. He‌‌ said he's overwhelmed with personal issues right now --

Q. Okay. So you and Ms. Walsh still have an amicable relationship then; is that correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. I understand you've helped care for her two dogs quite a bit; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you still?

A. I help to take care of them, yes.

Q. What are their names?

A. Riley and Cooper.

Q. When did you first get involved with caring for them?

A. It was --

MS. WALSH: That is so creepy.

THE DEPONENT: -- when -- when she came back California.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Can you tell me the year?

A. I -- I don't recall what year that was. What that, three years ago? I --

Q. 2018 sound correct to you?

A. 2018's -- 20 -- I -- I mean, yeah, I'll -- I'll -- do you have papers in front of you that state that? I -- I -- I don't want to say anything that I don't know for sure, so --

[...]

MR. MOORE: -- deposition of Matan. So you – you -- she's not entitled to ask you questions. If you want to volunteer the date just so that we all know, but, you know, I can represent it's 2018, so let's just --

MS. LLAGUNO: And --

MR. MOORE: -- move on.

MS. LLAGUNO: -- I appreciate --

MS. WALSH: I don't think it was 2018. I don't recall. I was in a relationship. I had a daughter.

MR. MOORE: Oh, no, no, no.

MS. WALSH: And then my --

MR. MOORE: When you came back to New York. That's the -- that was the -- the -- the frame of reference, as I understand.

MS. WALSH: Oh, yeah. We weren't in any formal relationship. We've been friends primarily.

MR. MOORE: So --

THE DEPONENT: No, that's not what she was asking.

MR. MOORE: So -- so, Tara, refrain from -- from testifying in this -- in this deposition.

THE DEPONENT: Can -- Joy, can we just say it sometime around 2018? Does that --

BY MS. LLAGUNO Q. Yes.

MS. WALSH: I'm sorry -- I'm sorry, Frank, he's your client. I don't know why this stuff is relevant, to -- to get into all this history.

MR. MOORE: It -- it -- it just goes to -- it just goes to your relationship with them and as -- that – that goes to relevancy of his -- of his bias as a witness. That's all it is. So let's --

MS. WALSH: Okay.

MR. MOORE: -- let's move along.

MS. WALSH: Okay.

THE DEPONENT: I -- I -- I'll tell you right I had no bias, okay? I -- I am Switzerland, all right?

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, as -- until there is a court order, for all intents and -

MR. MOORE: I don't care --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- purposes --

MR. MOORE: You can say all you want. I'm just telling you that's the position.

MS. WALSH: I think, Joy, if you don't agree this, I think you should reach out to the San Francisco court. You should reach out to the judges in the San Francisco Superior Court and tell them that you want to questions about the cross-complaint and see what they say. I think that that would -- before we proceed with any depositions, if you feel like that's something that you want to do, because I will not be addressing any of those issues. And I have formally revoked my cross-complaint. It was accepted by the clerk. It is formally revoked.

MS. LLAGUNO: Noted, Ms. Walsh. We are still entitled to take discovery into matters related to you, so --

THE DEPONENT: I mean, I'm -- I'm just trying to strike a middle ground between whatever I'm helping Steve with and whatever I'm helping Tara with. And I just, like -- like, it seems strange that, first of all, Steve is not showing his face and that we're not asking him questions.

MR. MOORE: Well, hold -- hold on a second. Counsel, represent whether your client is continuing to monitor this deposition because he's not appearing on the screen anymore.

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes, he's -- he's listening in via phone.

MS. WALSH: Is he -- is he asking --

MR. MOORE: And why -- why isn't he listed on – as a participant on the -- on the Zoom call?

MS. LLAGUNO: He is listed. We gave the court reporter his name.

MR. MOORE: No, no. He's not listed currently a box. That's how Zoom works. If you're on the phone --

MS. LLAGUNO: Can we -- can we --

MR. MOORE: -- or you're --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- go off the record --

MR. MOORE: -- you're --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- to discuss this --

MR. MOORE: -- engaged, you appear on the Is he on or not?

MS. LLAGUNO: Can -- would you like to go off -- we've taken so much time from this deposition.

MR. MOORE: No, no, no, no. He can -- if he's on, he can just pipe up and say he's on.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Court Reporter, can you that Steve Russell is listed as a participant in this deposition?

MR. MOORE: That's not my question. My is he currently listening in on this deposition?

PLAINTIFF RUSSELL: I'm -- I'm currently listening into the deposition via Zoom. Zoom has an --

MR. MOORE: Okay.

PLAINTIFF RUSSELL: -- audio phone call --

MR. MOORE: Okay.

PLAINTIFF RUSSELL: -- that you can dial in. I‌‌don't --

MR. MOORE: Right.

PLAINTIFF RUSSELL: -- believe that there was an opportunity to type in my name. But I did give it to the court reporter. Is that sufficient?

MR. MOORE: Yeah. When -- when you -- when you speak, your name -- your -- your name appears. When it – when you're not speaking, it goes to the court reporter's emblem, so that's -- that's why we wanted to know. Thank -- thank you -

PLAINTIFF RUSSELL: Okay.

MR. MOORE: -- for clarifying.

PLAINTIFF RUSSELL: Well, I'm represented and not testifying today, so I won't be speaking.

MS. LLAGUNO: Thank you.

MR. MOORE: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Russell.

Q. Mr. Gavish, did Tara ever tell you she was drugging Steve without his knowledge or consent?

A. No. I learned about something to do with that after -- after some kind of litigation started in -- well, I guess in this -- this -- this case right now, I -- I think. So, yeah, I -- I learned after this whole thing started sometime.

Q. Okay. I'm going to present you with a few documents where Tara has admitted to giving drugs -- Steve drugs without his knowledge or consent. I'm going to with you now what we're going to mark as Exhibit 39. And --

MS. WALSH: Okay. First of -- I just need to --

MR. MOORE: No, let -- let -- Tara -- Tara, just -- let's just let her lay a foundation and let's – let's move on.

MS. WALSH: But this is a hacked text from my phone, Frank. I just got to --

MR. MOORE: But let --

MS. WALSH: -- say that --

MR. MOORE: And the -- the --

MS. WALSH: -- that he took.

MR. MOORE: Okay. Whatever. It's -- let's just-- let's just move on.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. I'm sharing a document that is -- I'm marking as Exhibit 39, which Ms. Walsh produced in this litigation, Bates stamped Walsh_00168. This is a text message that Tara produced in this litigation from her phone in which she texted her doctor, Dr. Gopal. Mr. Gavish, can you please read the first text message?

MS. WALSH: So just one thing -- one last thing, Frank. Can you -- you said that I provided this in litigation; right? Correct? Can you -- can you tell me where in litigation I provided this text, just for the record?

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes. Bates Stamp Walsh 000168 in this action.

MS. WALSH: Okay.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Gavish, can you please read the text message out loud?

A. "So I came home and the nanny told Steve about another thing I'd told her in confidence. Sometimes when he was out of his mind on drugs and won't sleep, I have Seroquel in his wine because I don't know what to do. The nanny has been -- the nanny's been throwing me under the bus every night. Last night, she told him I wanted her to stay -- to say he was a bad dad. "I told Steve I was sick of the nanny throwing under the bus to him and didn't feel comfortable with her working -- working her" -- probably here -- "and sent her home."

Q. Thank you, Mr. Gavish. And I'm also going to show you now what we're going to mark as Exhibit 40.

MS. WALSH: Excuse me. You did -- just one thing. Can you -- can you please confirm who that text between and just confirm that it wasn't Mr. Gavish? Because it doesn't say Mr. Gavish, so can you confirm who this text was allegedly to?

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. And, Mr. Gavish, Ms. Walsh produced this in this litigation --

MS. WALSH: Who --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- after --

MS. WALSH: When I communicated this text, who was I communicating to? Because it wasn't Mr. Gavish. you say who I was --

MS. LLAGUNO: So --

MS. WALSH: -- allegedly communicating to?

MS. LLAGUNO: As stated prior, it was Dr. Gopal, as you can see in the text message.

MS. WALSH: And can you state on record who Dr. Gopal was?

MS. LLAGUNO: The -- I don't have to --

MR. MOORE: Well, can you represent -- who is Gopal?

MS. WALSH: Dr. Gopal was my psychiatrist in San Francisco, so this is, like, a complete violation --

MR. MOORE: How --

MS. WALSH: -- of HIPAA.

MR. MOORE: How -- how -- how -- how did -- how -- how did -- how did this get in the possession of you, Ms. Llaguno?

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh produced it, as you can see with the Bates stamp, Walsh_00168, in this litigation. She produced it --

MS. WALSH: I'm not sure that it was, though, so I would need to look through the --

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm --

MS. WALSH: -- discovery.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm representing to you that this was produced.

MS. WALSH: All of my texts were given to you in an Excel sheet.

MR. MOORE: All right. Well, look, I mean, there somewhere else that there's an admission of the same thing, somewhere else that's not a --

MS. LLAGUNO: I'll -- I'll move on to --

MR. MOORE: -- a -- a private document?

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. I'll move on to another document.

MR. MOORE: Because, you know, if there is a privacy right and a HIPAA right and a California Medical Information Act right, it has not always been waived. You know, we -- it would be better to use something that doesn't have all that problems with it.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay, Frank. But Ms. Walsh produced this specific document in this litigation. We are getting it from her own document production.

MS. WALSH: It --

MS. LLAGUNO: I'll move on to the next --

MS. WALSH: I do not -- I do not -- I am self-represented now. I do not recall providing this in any discovery document. I know that this is a text that Mr.‌‌Russell got from hacking into my phone that he used in family court. I don't even know if I sent it. I know written to my psychiatrist, but I --

MR. MOORE: Well --

MS. WALSH: -- but whatever.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: I don't --

Q. And when she did speak with you about this drugging of Steve, what other information did she relay to you?

A. That's all that I recall. I think there was something about a stove being left on or something like that. Apparently, Mr. Russell, I think he -- he left on a stove or -- or something or was maybe sleepwalking or I -- I don't know what and something about the nanny – actually, I think the nanny, like, locked herself in a room with Evie. Yeah, something like that.

BY MS. LLAGUNO:Q. And did Ms. Walsh tell you if anyone helped her‌‌ give these drugs to Steve?

A. No. Oh --

Q. Do you --

A. -- actually -- actually, no. So I think the nanny and some of Steve's security were aware of it.

Q. Ms. Walsh explained that to you?

A. I mean, at some point, I got -- yeah. I mean, -- it -- it's not going to be Steve. I mean, Steve and I have never talked. So, yeah.

Q. So just to clarify, Ms. Walsh told you that the nanny and Steve's security guards had helped him -- her put drugs in Steve's drink; is that correct?

A. They were -- they were aware of it. They were encouraging it, yeah.

Q. Mr. Gavish, have you had a chance to review text messages? Do you want me to scroll --

A. I --

Q. Let me know if you'd like me to scroll or if you want me to zoom out.

A. Yeah, just the second page, please. Down there, yeah. And I -- I -- I -- I don't recall them -- no, I don't -- it doesn't refresh anything for me.

Q. So your testimony sitting here today under penalty of perjury is you do not recall these text messages?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that these are -- these -- this is not you texting Ms. Walsh in these messages?

A. It's possible. It's possible the entire thing was fabricated, but it's also possible that I sent. really couldn't tell you.

Q. Okay. Thank you. And I'm going to scroll further down. Could you also read this -- this February 21st, 2018 text message?

MS. WALSH: I -- I'm going to object to its – I'm -- I'm sorry, Frank, and I'm -

MR. MOORE: Tara --

MS. WALSH: -- sorry --

MR. MOORE: Tara -- Tara -- Tara, let -- there's no question pending, so let's just wait until we get --

MS. WALSH: Okay.

MR. MOORE: -- a question.

MS. WALSH: But this is completely fabricated stuff that Steve has used in family court.

MR. MOORE: Right. But --

MS. WALSH: All of this text stuff.

MR. MOORE: Regardless, you've already got a foundation and an authenticity objection --

MS. WALSH: Okay.

MR. MOORE: -- so let's -- let's have him -- him read it to see if it refreshes his recollection.

THE DEPONENT: Is the question that it – or not I remembered these messages or, like, the time surrounding it?

Q. Just remember the text messages.

A. I don't recall them.

Q. Do you remember the time frame surrounding them?

A. Well, it says 2018, but no.

Q. Okay. And so you no longer would have record of‌‌ these messages from 2018; is that correct?

A. Say again?

Q. You no longer have these text messages in your possession; is that --

MS. WALSH: Objection. You're stating that there's some factual basis to these texts when I've stated that there isn't. And they are -- would have been from my phone in conversation to Mr. Gavish. So, I mean, you're -- you're making it seem like this is -- these are, in fact, real texts when I can't even confirm that they're real texts. So --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh, this is --

MS. WALSH: -- just for the record.

MS. LLAGUNO: -- in discovery.

MS. WALSH: And you know what, I -- if they were in discovery, I just realized they were in discovery in proof of Mr. Russell's hacking into my phone. So you're also not giving context to what this discovery is because this actual document is something that Mr. Russell's provided to family court. It's not something I wrote or ever provided to any -- anything. So that's probably the context of it in discovery.

Note: Mom contradicts herself by saying the messages are fake and can't be verified AND that they are true and proof that Dad 'hacked' her. In reality, the police told Mom there was nothing wrong with the way the messages were obtained.

MR. MOORE: -- against any --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore --

MR. MOORE: -- privacy interests.

MS. LLAGUNO: -- are you representing Ms. Walsh?

MR. MOORE: Sorry?

MS. LLAGUNO: Are you representing Ms. Walsh today?

MR. MOORE: Ms. Walsh is representing herself here.

MS. LLAGUNO: And you're only representing Mr. Gavish; correct?

MS. WALSH: In representing --

MR. MOORE: That's correct.

MS. WALSH: -- Mr. Gavish, he has to include me in that representation --

MR. MOORE: But -- but she --

MS. WALSH: -- because the --

MR. MOORE: But she --

MS. WALSH: -- the complaint is against me, not Mr. Gavish; right? So I'm the core of it.

MS. WALSH: And it's -- and it's compound – compounded by the fact I live in New York State and I have a full stay-away, me and my daughter, order protection against Mr. Russell. We've had it for almost three years. It extends until 2022.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: It's the most -- the highest-level order protection that you can possibly have, which is indicative of the type of behavior that he's shown towards me. So --

NOTE: The order of protection was vacated a couple of weeks after this deposition. It was granted by default and the court later learned that Tara had admitted her allegation was false and that Dad had been granted a permanent restraining order over essentially the same facts after a long form hearing in San Francisco.

Q. Did Ms. Walsh ever communicate with you about benefiting from Ms. -- Mr. Russell's wealth because she's dating him?

A. No. Tara comes from tons of money. She doesn't need anybody's money, so, no.

MS. LLAGUNO: Let me continue.

MR. MOORE: You're not a witness, Counselor. can't testify in this case. Sorry.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh has testified and I responded back to what she said.

MS. WALSH: You -- you -- you directly asked me questions, Joy, so that's on you.

MS. LLAGUNO: I didn't ask you a question directly.

MS. WALSH: Yes, you did. In the beginning of the deposition, you directly asked me a question.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh and Mr. Moore, please stop with these speaking objections. I'm trying to get through this deposition. And we're --

MS. WALSH: We have a right -- I have a right to defend myself, particularly when you're being inappropriate, invading my privacy and privacy of a stranger.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: So, I mean --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh, you produced these documents, again, in discovery.

Q. What did she tell you?

A. I mean, obviously, I can't, you know, recall verbatim, but this was something that kind of alarmed me. So I remember -- and this stuck out because when you have somebody that's reportedly has -- or is not in the best state of mind that has a high-caliber weapon, then, I that's just not a good combination. So I -- I -- I recall her mentioning that he had  a high -- a -- a -- she said a sniper rifle, I think, or‌‌22 that it was a marksmanship rifle -- I don't remember exactly -- that had a computerized telescope. And, yeah,  that -- I do recall that and that was concerning.

Q. Ms. Walsh relayed that information to you?

A. Correct.

Q. When did she tell this to you?

A. I think that was early on in their relationship, but I'm -- yeah. I -- again, I -- I mean, I can't -- I  don't know what month or year precisely. That's -- I -- I -- I feel like it was earlier in their -- early on in relationship.

Q. But she eventually told you that he didn't actually have a gun; is that correct?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. She never told you that one of his security personnel told her there was no gun

A. No, I don't recall that.

Q. She -- Ms. Walsh never told you that she had imagined the gun; is that correct

A. Can you -- can you restate that question,

Q. Ms. Walsh never told you that she had imagined the gun that she thought was in Mr. Russell's possession; is that correct?

A. That never happened, correct.

Q. Ms. Walsh never explained that she was experiencing post-partum psychosis; is that accurate?

A. I've -- I have no knowledge about that.

Q. So Ms. Walsh never discussed any post-partum psychosis with you?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Were you aware that Tara called her mother, Maura Walsh, and Steve to get her an emergency psychiatric evaluation in May of 2018?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. Were you aware that -- or I'm sorry. Did Ms. Walsh ever tell you that her parents and Tara agreed that she should have emergency treatment with a doctor named Gopal in San Francisco?

A. I -- I don't recall.

Q. You've never discussed her -- that evaluation with Ms. Walsh?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. Okay. Were you aware that Tara called her mother, Maura Walsh, and Steve to get her an emergency psychiatric evaluation in May of 2018?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. Were you aware that -- or I'm sorry. Did Ms. Walsh ever tell you that her parents and Tara agreed that she should have emergency treatment with a doctor named Gopal in San Francisco?

A. I -- I don't recall.

Q. You've never discussed her -- that evaluation with Ms. Walsh?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. And Ms. Walsh never discussed with you her – diagnosis of borderline personality disorder; is that accurate?

A. So she's mentioned that in the past. She's mentioned it. I -- I -- it's not my opinion that it -- it -- so I recall some conversations around that, but it's -- I don't know. I -- I -- I think the two people in that house, that they shouldn't have been together. And it created, you know -- they did what they did, okay? I think they both -- I think they both got on each other's nerves a lot. That's what I -- that's my opinion.

Q. Okay. And so during this time, did Ms. Walsh speak with you about a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder?‌‌A. So I think there was a -- there was a tim again --

MS. WALSH: Sorry --

THE DEPONENT: -- I was --

MS. WALSH: -- sorry, sorry. I just wanted say you're completely leading. You're not a psychiatrist, Joy. You're diagnosing me with borderline personality disorder.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: You're saying -- you're saying I was diagnosed with borderline. You're not saying, "Did she believe?" You're putting -- you're diagnosing me with something --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: -- I've never been diagnosed with.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: So just for the record, you're assuming the roles of a medical provider or psychiatrist

MR. MOORE: Yeah, Tara -- Tara, the -- the question is, did -- did -- the question is, did you tell him that you were diagnosed? So that's the question.

MS. WALSH: Okay.

THE DEPONENT: So -- so, no, I don't believe she ever said to me that she was diagnosed with -- what is it again? Borderline -- borderline personality disorder. And I think one of the reasons I'm struggling to answer this right now is that my understanding of it doesn't a good portrait of Steve. And I -- you know, I -- I'm -- I'm trying to be impartial here. I can't see Steve. You know, I've never met the guy. I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to say things that I've heard about him that are negative, okay? But that's where you're leading me.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Okay. Understood, Mr. Gavish. I'd like to note for the record that after -- after Mrs. Walsh's speaking objection, you changed your testimony as to what she discussed with you. But I'll on now. So what do you --

Q. This document was produced by Tara Walsh in this litigation and bears the Bates stamp Walsh 003441. Do you recognize this document?

A. Not particularly in detail, but, again, it looks like an email between me and Vital Branding.

Q. And there's no basis for you to believe that isn't an email between you and Vital Branding, is mean, sorry, Ms. Walsh; is that correct?

A. I -- I'm suspicious of everything, so -- but,

Q. Okay. And so this is an email that Tara sent on June 7th -- I'm sorry. That's June 7th, 2018; is that correct?

A. Yes.

[...]

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, I do not appreciate the insults on the record. If you could please cease your speaking objections and maybe have a little drop of professional conduct, I'd really appreciate that so we can complete this deposition. Thank you.

BY MS. LLAGUNO: Q. Mr. Gavish, so did you have a chance to review this email? I'd like to just put on the record that your counsel, Mr. Moore, does not want you to read any exhibits into the record.

MS. WALSH: I -- I would like to also put on record that I do not verify that any of these are real either, so I don't know the context of what they were submitted to in the discovery, if they were at all, so I would also like to put that on record.

MS. LLAGUNO: So, Ms. Walsh, again, you produced this document in discovery. It has your Bates stamp at bottom right-hand corner.

MS. WALSH: A lot of the documents I provided in discovery were documents that Mr. Russell got in by fabricating or he obtained them by hacking into my I mean, how else would you have text conversations between me --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: -- and a stranger from four years ago, which literally has nothing to do with anything? So the nature of all the documents in discovery, a lot of are, you know, demonstrating for us then, so --

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like to --

MS. WALSH: -- that's -- that's very, very important.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh, I'd like to remind you that were sanctioned previously in this litigation for not producing documents and the Court ordered --

MS. WALSH: I was not sanctioned for not -- I sanctioned, I believe, for being late on producing documents. And that is only because I had maybe, like, four other court proceedings that were important about custody of my daughter. And --

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

[...]

MS. WALSH: So the -- the -- it needs to be – everything needs to be within context; right?

MS. LLAGUNO: Correct, Ms. Walsh. And I'd also like to remind you that I think it was within a week or of the Court's order sanctioning you and compelling you to produce documents. These are the documents you produced.

MS. WALSH: I -- I don't know that that's a but, again, you're making a lot of facts that I don't know are facts, so --

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. Well, I'm going to to you that I have communications from your counsel producing these documents. Can I please continue --

MS. WALSH: Again, Joy, I have upmost respect the court system and judges and lawyers, but -- and I'm a respectful person in general, but your position and what‌‌21 you're doing here and not being honest and stuff, I -- I‌‌22 don't respect that, so I'm not trying to be disagreeable. It's just not a very respectable position.

MS. LLAGUNO: Well, it -- it's not appropriate for you to go on these diatribes on the record. You can please just lay your --

MS. WALSH: Oh, I go on these diatribes in court when I'm on the stands and the -- the judges allow it, I think we're good.

MS. LLAGUNO: But this is my deposition. I'm entitled to ask the questions. You are entitled to lay your objections and let the deponent respond or instruct him not to respond, but you're not allowed to take up the entire deposition time with these diatribes.

Q. Okay. Let me rephrase the question. So is it correct that Ms. Walsh communicated to you that she was planning on filing legal proceedings against Steve Russell while she was in San Francisco?

A. I don't know. I -- I know that, like, right before she came back, there was a lot of, I guess, chaos going on. But I -- I don't know what she was planning.

Q. When you respond to Ms. Walsh, "What is your nickname?" what was your intent with that response?

A. That would be to verify the sender.

Q. So you were trying to get Tara to confirm her identity?

A. Likely.

Q. Why? Why would you do that?

A. Maybe it was -- what -- what was the email sent it?

Q. What was it?

A. Can you pull up -- can you pull up the -- pull the document back up, please? So it's at Tara. Okay. So it must have been after all the hacking stuff. So somebody's devices get hacked, then it stands to reason that you can't be sure who's -- who's on the other end, you're talking to.

Q. Has someone emailed you from Tara's email that wasn't Tara before?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't know how you --

Q. I'm --

A. -- prove a negative.

[...]

Q. This document was produced by Tara Walsh in this litigation, bearing the Bates stamp 003634. Do you recognize this document?

A. Is there a way that you could rephrase instead saying "recognize"? Like, I don't know -- I don't know exactly, precisely what you mean by that and how you're going to use it.

Q. Is it -- is this an email between you and Ms.Walsh

A. Looks like it, yeah.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe this is not an email communication between you and Ms. Walsh?

A. It's possible.

Q. Okay. So I'm going to represent to you that Ms. Walsh produced this in her document production. And I believe this to be a continuation of the prior email. As you can see, "What is your nickname?" is on the bottom and there are further communications above. Do you agree with my understanding of this document, Ms. -- Matan?

A. Yes. Yeah.

Q. So after you asked Tara for her nickname, what does she say to you?

A. "Matan -- Matan, seriously, just see a number. Wtf, you can't see my email."

Q. Why didn't you respond to that?

A. That's a -- that's a personal question.

Q. Okay. So you --

A. You -- you -- you want to -- you want -- you to -- to get into things -- no. You know what, I'm sorry. No -- no -- I have nothing further to say.

Q. Okay. And in the following email, Tara says to you, "What do you think of my abuse journal? Spent all writing it." Do you recall receiving that email?

A. I do not.

Q. So you don't recall receiving an email with the attachment "SRabuselog.pdf"?

A. Correct.

Q. Have you ever seen a document titled from Tara Walsh?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. So you don't recall receiving an email with the attachment "SRabuselog.pdf"?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. I'm going to show you now what we're to mark as Exhibit 49. This document was produced by Tara Walsh in this litigation, bearing the Bates stamp 003442 to 003443. Is this an email between you and Ms. Walsh, Matan?

A. Likely.

[...]

Q. So it looks like you never responded to Tara's email about the abuse log; is that accurate?

MR. MOORE: Assumes facts not in evidence, calls for speculation.

Q. You can respond.

A. Repeat the question.

Q. Did you ever respond to Tara's email about the abuse log?

A. I don't know.

Q. Can you tell me why you were so skeptical that this email was Tara emailing you?

MS. WALSH: Objection. Already asked that question. I was just gone for five minutes and you asked that question before I left. Sorry. Woo.

MS. LLAGUNO: This is a --

MS. WALSH: Keep on asking that same question, Joy.

MS. LLAGUNO: This is a different email, Ms. Walsh.

[...]

Q. Why were you so skeptical that these emails were not from Tara?

MS. WALSH: And just to -- you said "these emails," not this email, just to correct.

Q. Is this an email communication between you and Tara Walsh?

A. Can you -- can you enlarge it a little bit, please?

Q. I'm going to represent to you this is a document produced by Ms. Walsh bearing the Bates stamp Walsh 003448 to 3449.

A. Okay.

Q. And is this an email between you and Tara Walsh?

A. Likely.

Q. Do you need me to scroll down or did you finish reading it?

A. I mean, I -- I didn't read the entire other – the entire chain, no.

Q. Can you please make sure you've reviewed the entire document before I ask questions? Let me know if need me to scroll up or down.

A. No. I recognize some of the content in here.

Q. Okay. So in this document, Tara states that her dad has a very short fuse. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. To your knowledge, do you know if that's true?

MS. WALSH: Objection. Relevancy. It has nothing to do with --

MR. MOORE: Yeah. What -- what does this have do with being drugged?

MS. LLAGUNO: You can lay your relevance objection and he has to respond.

MR. MOORE: Yeah. I'm going to -- I'm going to instruct him not to answer. It's not relevant. It's – it's -- it invades people's privacy. I don't know where you're going with it, so --

MS. LLAGUNO: We're going with Tara's She states that she has a --

MR. MOORE: That's not -- that has nothing to do with Tara's background. What -- what -- what does this have to do with --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MR. MOORE: -- the drugging of Stephen Russell?

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh states that she has a pattern of abuse and in other text messages that I'm – me ask my questions. You can lay your objection for the record and let him respond. Let me clarify. Are you directing him not to respond?

MR. MOORE: What's the question?

MS. LLAGUNO: In this communication, Ms. Walsh states that her father has a very short fuse. I'm asking him if -- does he have any knowledge if that's true.

MR. MOORE: You can answer.

MS. WALSH: You said, does her father have an anger problem? But --

MR. MOORE: Well, what -- if you have any knowledge, you can answer it. Your own --

THE DEPONENT: I have no --

MR. MOORE: -- observations.

THE DEPONENT: -- knowledge. I have no knowledge.

Q. Okay. Can you read this top-most email that you responded to Tara Walsh?

THE DEPONENT: It's okay that I read this,

MR. MOORE: Yeah. Yeah. You can read it to --

THE DEPONENT: Okay.

MR. MOORE: -- yourself or -- or you can even read it out loud. I don't -- I don't care about that

you -- you authored it. If that's you, then you can read it.

THE DEPONENT: Yeah. But I don't know -- I -- I don't know who provided them with this document, so --

BY MS. LLAGUNO:

Q. I'll represent to you that Ms. Walsh produced this email in discovery.

MR. MOORE: Yeah, I know. And there's all kinds of --

THE DEPONENT: All right.

MR. MOORE: -- questions about whether things authentic or not, but, I mean, if you -- if you have an independent recollection that you authored that, then that's fair game. You can -- you can testify that you did and -- and -- and then you can own the words if you want own the words. But if you don't, then you don't. But --

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, again --

MR. MOORE: -- you know --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- I need -- this is numerous I've told you please don't lay speaking objections. You can clearly --

[...]

MR. MOORE: -- you would have to lay a for the kind of questions you're asking and you're not laying the proper foundation, so I'm having to do it for you. Unfortunately, you don't know how to do your job. MS. LLAGUNO: We're at --

MR. MOORE: So --

MS. LLAGUNO: -- deposition.

MR. MOORE: -- the question here is, if he wants to say, "Yes, that's my words," then he can read it. If says, "I don't know those are my words," then that's a different -- that's a different answer.

MS. LLAGUNO: His testimony is that this is an email communication between himself and Ms. Walsh.

THE DEPONENT: My -- my testimony is that I remember that I recall vaguely some of the -- of the subject. But I can't -- I can't sit here and tell you that's exactly the email that I wrote and that I sent. I don't know that.

Q. Okay. So you never told Ms. Walsh that, "I'd like to meet your dad and his short fuse"?

MS. WALSH: Objection. Rephrasing of the same question. He already stated that he doesn't know if these emails are actually from him. He can't verify them. He didn't submit them as discovery.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'm asking independently of this email.

Q. Mr. Gavish, you can respond.

A. Sorry, the question was, independent --

Q. Do you know if --

A. -- of the email, do I -- go ahead. Sorry.

Q. Did you ever state to Tara Walsh, "I'd like to meet your dad and his short fuse"

A. I don't recall.

Q. Thank you. In 2018, had you ever met Tara's father?

A. I don't -- I don't know.

Q. What is your understanding of why Ms. Walsh repeatedly sends you emails to revise?

A. What do you mean, repeatedly --

MR. MOORE: Lacks foundation, assumes facts no in evidence.‌‌7 BY MS. LLAGUNO:

Q. You can respond.

A. So what -- what is it that you want to know?

Q. What is your understanding of why Ms. Walsh you emails to revise?

A. So --

MR. MOORE: Same objections.

BY MS. LLAGUNO:

Q. You can respond.

MR. MOORE: I don't know if he can respond. not actually been able to recall any of these emails, so, you know, the -- the foundation for your -- your question is -- is missing.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, I'd, again, like to let you –

MR. MOORE: I'm making my objections. Move on, Counsel.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like to remind you to stop your speaking objections. They're --

MR. MOORE: I'd like to remind you that I've heard it enough and I'm not going to stop.

MS. LLAGUNO: And I've heard your objections enough. Are you directing him not to respond?

MR. MOORE: I'm directing him to respond to a question that is proper, so can you rephrase it, please?

MS. LLAGUNO: And I rephrased my question. He was about to answer and you laid another objection, speaking objection.

MS. WALSH: I object to your questions because they are completely without any scope. They're talking about a matter of years. You're talking about a friend. Literally is completely ridiculous and has nothing related to the complaint. I mean, let's be real here.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh --

MS. WALSH: So let's get that on record. You're asking him the most broad-stroke questions, like, "What is your favorite color?" Like, these aren't things that are specific to the -- the complaint at all, so I --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. --

MS. WALSH: -- object to them, too. I mean, we're just spinning wheels here and wasting --

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay.

MS. WALSH: -- time.

MS. LLAGUNO: I'd like to explain to you you cannot make speaking objections and narrations like that. You can lay your objection for the record, but you can't

MR. MOORE: We are making our record, so can you move on with the question?

MS. LLAGUNO: And please allow him to respond.

MR. MOORE: Do you know what the question is?

Q. Matan, what is your understanding of why Ms. Walsh sends you these emails?

MR. MOORE: Again, I'm going to -- lacks foundation, assumes facts not in evidence. If you have an opinion as to why there are documents that suggest that you were supposed to review them, go ahead.

THE DEPONENT: I -- I think that's a question Tara. I mean, you're asking me to speculate on what's inside of her head and that's not something I can do.

Q. I'm asking you what your understanding is. If you have no understanding, you can state -- state so.

A. If somebody's sending me a -- a piece of literature to review, they obviously want my opinion on

Q. So you believe Ms. Walsh sends these to you for your opinion?

A. I don't know. It could be -- it could be for an opinion. It could be for entertainment. It could be by accident. I don't know.

Q. Thank you. You testified earlier that you've known Tara for quite a while, since high school. Are you aware that Ms. Walsh sought emancipation from her parents as a teenager?

MR. MOORE: Objection. Relevance and privacy. What's the point?

MS. LLAGUNO: We're able to conduct discovery into her mental --

MR. MOORE: No, you're not.

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes, we are.

MR. MOORE: You're absolutely not able to do that.

MS. WALSH: An emancipation isn't a mental for the record, and we're talking about when I was in high school. And I'm --

MR. MOORE: Yeah.

MS. WALSH: -- 36 years old.

MR. MOORE: This is --

MS. WALSH: So two --

MR. MOORE: -- way off --

MS. WALSH: -- decades.

MR. MOORE: -- out of bounds. Way out of --

MS. WALSH: Two decades.

MR. MOORE: -- bounds, Counsel. Instruct him to answer. You can bring a motion.

MS. LLAGUNO: Okay. I'd like to note that they're both instructing the deponent not to answer.

Q. Has Ms. Walsh ever spoken to you about a history of abuse in her household?

MR. MOORE: Same objection.

THE DEPONENT: Not that I recall.

MR. MOORE: Instruct him not to answer.

Q. Did Tara ever send you videotapes -- or, sorry, did Tara ever -- scratch that. Did Tara ever send you video recordings of Steve Russell?

A. No.

Q. Thank you. Did Tara communicate with you her belief that Steve had -- was crazy?

A. Yeah. I think towards -- I -- I don't know what -- what point of the relationship, but at some point, she believed that he started to evidence or show very strange behavior.

MR. MOORE: Exactly. So you -- do you know anything about the -- the evidence

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, can you please stop these insults? Will you let me continue my --

MR. MOORE: Well, I mean, look -- look, man, is just --

MS. LLAGUNO: You can lay --

MR. MOORE: -- this is, like, basic stuff. This is, like, you know, Law School 101, you know, first year. Come on, man. You don't get into character. Criminal cases, you can get into character if it's put at issue. I need to read the evidence code to you, I will, but, you know, let's get something that's specific, concrete, an example of something that he -- he witnessed. And then he can give his -- his personal knowledge and -- of observation of that incident.

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore --

MS. WALSH: It's not -- you might as well just you might as well just start interviewing me and Frank if this is where the questions are or the people that are recording the deposition because that's essentially what you're doing. I mean, you're just literally throwing things at the ceiling.

MS. LLAGUNO: That is --

MS. WALSH: Maybe you should ask somebody to come in and ask them the questions.

MS. LLAGUNO: This is how discovery is We're entitled to conduct discovery until --

MS. WALSH: You can't just -- you can't conduct discovery and just ask people what they had for lunch and what they thought about pop music five years ago. That's essentially what you're doing. It literally has nothing do with -- with your case. It's --

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh, that's exactly what discovery is. So are -- you can either concisely lay out your objection for the record or --

MS. WALSH: I concisely lay out my objection to your questions that I assume are going to be moving like this. It's a privacy concern. It's not relevant to the case. It's repetitive. It's redundant. It's accusatory. It's harassment. It's ambiguous. It's leading. It's completely pointless, so I'm not going to say anything else.

MS. LLAGUNO: Are you instructing him not to answer or are you laying your objection?

MR. MOORE: I'm laying my objection. I'm -- I'm asking for an offer of proof.

MS. WALSH: I'm objecting as well.

MR. MOORE: You know what an offer of proof is; right?

MS. LLAGUNO: Mr. Moore, if you insult me on the record one more time, we'll end the deposition and I will compel Mr. Gavish to appear a second time and seek sanctions.

MR. MOORE: No, you won't. You won't get an order for it, so -- so why don't you give me an offer of proof as to why this is relevant?

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh, are you done with your speaking objections? This is -- I've repeated numerous times you can't go on --

MS. WALSH: Are you done --

MR. MOORE: You know what --

MS. WALSH: -- harassing me --

MR. MOORE: -- just move on. Get --

MS. WALSH: -- and my --

MR. MOORE: Get done with the --

MS. WALSH: -- my friend?

MR. MOORE: Get done with the deposition because you're -- you're just now wasting --

MS. LLAGUNO: No.

MR. MOORE: -- time.

MS. LLAGUNO: No, Mr. Moore. You've been -- you've been obstructing my deposition.

MR. MOORE: Move on. Move on. Ask a question.

MS. LLAGUNO: Every step of the way, you've been obstructing my --

MR. MOORE: Ask a question.

MS. LLAGUNO: Speak to me like that again, I'm going to seek sanctions against you. That's –

MR. MOORE: Ask a question.

MS. LLAGUNO: Let me state for the record that I am ending this deposition based on counsel's -- both counsel and defendant's conduct. I will –

MR. MOORE: Ask a question. He's here. He's ready to answer.

MS. LLAGUNO: I have --

MR. MOORE: Give him a question. Quit fighting over this ridiculousness. Ask him valid question.

MS. LLAGUNO: I've already laid out what I'm going to do. I'm ending this deposition.

MR. MOORE: That's your choice. He's here ready to ask -- answer questions. But they got to be germane. They got to be material and not just the character --

MS. LLAGUNO: If you --

MR. MOORE: -- assassinations, so --

MS. LLAGUNO: You aren't the -- you aren't the one --

MR. MOORE: -- get with it.

MS. LLAGUNO: -- to decide whether it's Mr. Moore.

MR. MOORE: Get with it. Ask a question.

MS. WALSH: I can tell you right now there's no judge in New York State that's going to sign an order for him to give a second -- second deposition. No judge in York State. A, because I will get him a lawyer and, B, because there's no reason to get him to give a subpoena.

MR. MOORE: Yeah. And -- and --

MS. WALSH: So you can make those threats, but this is your last chance, Joy.

MR. MOORE: Tara --

MS. WALSH: Okay?

MR. MOORE: -- let's -- let's just let her ask a question and proceed and end this deposition.

MS. LLAGUNO: No. Thank you so much. I agree, Tara. Court Reporter, we are ending this deposition. Did you have any follow-up questions, Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: No. I'm demanding that you finish this deposition.

MS. LLAGUNO: Ms. Walsh, did you have any up questions?

MS. WALSH: I demand that you finish the deposition. Stop wasting his time because he's a victim here.

MS. LLAGUNO: So neither of you have any follow- up questions; am I correct?

MS. WALSH: I have a follow-up --

MR. MOORE: I do.

MS. WALSH: -- question.

MR. MOORE: I --

MS. WALSH: Why --

MR. MOORE: Yeah, I do.

MS. WALSH: -- are you ending the deposition?

MR. MOORE: Are -- are you ending this deposition? Are you done?

MS. LLAGUNO: No. I'm ending it due to your continued obstruction.

MR. MOORE: No. I -- I'm asking whether you're done.

MS. LLAGUNO: Did you not understand what I just said?

MR. MOORE: I'm asking whether you're done with this deposition.

MS. LLAGUNO: No, I am not.

MR. MOORE: I mean, this guy -- this guy's harassing her. You know it. So let's just finish this deposition so Matan doesn't have to come back. Get on your questions.

MS. LLAGUNO: Court Reporter, I'm stating for record that I'm ending the deposition due to defendant's conduct and deponent's counsel's conduct. I believe they are obstructing the deposition. Every single question asked, he's laid baseless objections stating that this is trial testimony when this is obviously a deposition. That is my --

MR. MOORE: No. It's -- you -- you -- you are wrong there. You have noticed this for preservation of trial testimony. That's what you've done. So you -- you have to follow the rules of evidence. So let's do it.

MS. LLAGUNO: Please --

MR. MOORE: Get done with the -- with the depo.

MS. LLAGUNO: Please state your -- would – I'm going to end it now. Could you please state your objection? Otherwise, I'm going to end it.

MR. MOORE: That is my objection.

MS. LLAGUNO: Thank you.

MS. WALSH: My objection is that you're just continuing the pattern of harassment and intimidation by not completing this deposition when you've been -- you're -- you're free to ask questions. We're just not asking you to ask inappropriate questions. So you're ending this deposition. We're both telling you you can ask questions. You're ending this, which I interpret as a continuation of harassment and intimidation. So the -- I mean, that's -- that's, frankly, what it is or else you would ask the remaining questions, no?

MS. LLAGUNO: Thank you. Court Reporter, I believe we've made the objections for the record and we can go ahead and end this deposition.

MR. MOORE: That's fine. Mr. Court Reporter, you can now end the deposition.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Please stand by. This is the end of the deposition of Matan Gavish. The court reporter will now take the orders for the transcript.

THE REPORTER: At this time, Ms. Llaguno, would you like to order this transcript?

MS. LLAGUNO: Yes, please.

THE REPORTER: Understood. And would you like a copy, sir, Mr. Moore?

MS. LLAGUNO: I think he's gone, so I suppose not.

THE REPORTER: Ah, I see. Okay.

MS. WALSH: I would like a copy. I would like a copy, please.

THE REPORTER: I was going to get -- okay. And Ms. Walsh would like a copy. Okay.

Well it took a long time, but Mom finally admits to police the truth. She made it up because of a "psychiatric condition" and given there were custody issues at play, she had "a lot of emotions and fears."

That's exactly what Grandpa Steve Walsh said in his text messages to Dad back in 2018, and yet, it is two and one half years later before she tells the truth.

That is all Dad ever asked of her in every discussion. "Just tell the truth, stay in treatment, let Evie have a father, and try to make amends for what you did," Dad what would always say, never wavering.

After providing the letter to police, Mom got second thoughts. The letter was "coerced," she said. That was one of the things she accused Dad of doing, too. He "coerced" her into coming to San Francisco, because that was the only way to get his money. She keeps using that word. I don't think she knows what it means.

Here is the exchange with the attorney when Mom was "coerced:"

Attorney: "We sent over multiple options of people who could accompany the visits and every single one was rejected. Regarding the obstacles [...] you told police he threatened to kill you [...] you filed a TOP (temporary restraining order) against him for  filing a police report [against your father]. That along with fabricating to everyone that [he] is a violent drug addict are obstacles.

Mom: "See attached letter does this work?"

The rest of the content is only available to Friends of Evie. Hit the Subscribe button below to to join the site if you are not already a member.

Coincidentally, Mom decided the letter 'coerced' the same day court papers arrived at the family compound with questions about Grandpa Steve Walsh.

It took two years, but the first of the Walsh houshold finally sat for a deposition. Aunt Brie and her husband both spent several hours with attorneys and swore to tell the truth. The couple and faced significant retaliation from Grumpa and Grimma, and as a result. Her father demanded that Court Orders be thrown in the trash, and her mother instructed family members to ostracize her.

Aunt Brie and her husband, now live in Savannah, Georgia with their children and one of the two youngest Walsh daughters. Aunt Brie tells some hard truths at her deposition about abuse, druggings, and the reasons why she and her younger sister fled the Chappaqua Estate.

Highlights from Brienne Walsh Deposition:

1) Yes, we were abused.

2) Mom moved to San Franicso to get money from Dad and the Walsh family was well aware of it.

3) Estranged now, Aunt Brie's family put terrible pressure on her to lie, take down her writings about the family from her blog, throw court orders in the trash and threats of lawsuits if she did not.

4) She describes the dysfuntional household where Evie is kept, now fled by one of "The Twins." She had enough of being treated as one of Grimma's dolls.

5) She provides communications with her family about Mom's drugging of Dad that shows the family knew what Tara did and the harm that was caused.

1) Yes, we were abused.

Brienne confirms in her deposition that her childhood was abusive and that it was bad enough that Grimma and Grumpa were sued for custody.

Q: "I'm asking you to think back on your childhood and to just – and if you had to describe it, would abusive be one way that it could be described?"

A: "Yes, I would."

Mom's Aunts attempted to emancipate her.

They called CPS dozens of times in attempts to free her from Grimma and Grumpa.

Q: Sure. You used the term 'emancipation.' What did you mean by that?

A: Again, this is a good example of me writing without being concerned for fact. I don't know, and I really truly don't know if my sister was filing for emancipation for my – for herself or if she was – if my aunts were going to take custody over her. You would have to ask her. Or you could call the court documents.

2) Mom made no secret of the fact she had gone to San Francisco to 'take [Dad's] money' and do him harm.

Her text messagess with her siblings express no concerns for Mom's safety, or her plan for Dad.

Q: Can you read the first paragraph of your brother Brendan's email?

A: Yeah she called me last night to say the same thing – [she's] just with Steve to take his money and then she will leave. I get the impression that she is now planning to head back here and is greasing the skid so everyone is happy to see her.

3) Throw court orders in the trash, says Grumpa.  

The pressure finally drives her to move to Savannah, GA near her husband's family. Aunt Brie has since become estranged from her family. [Update: Aunt Brie was not invited by the Walshes to her Grandmother's funderal in May.]

Then the lawyers delivering subpoenas set a court date to compel us to appear. Mine is next week. When Caleb saw this, he got very angry and said that we are just going to go to the depositions and get them over with. When I told my family about this they wanted to have a quorum so they could scream at us for betraying the family. My family called me multiple times to scream at me that I didn't know what I was talking about. I could just throw out the paperwork and ignore the subpoena.

Mom threated legal action against Aunt Brie

She sent her notices that she intended to sue her for defamation.

"Two weeks ago, I wrote about moving to the suburbs. In that time, my sister has threatened me, and sent me legal actions letting me know her intention to sue me for defamation in court... All of this has made Caleb and I seriously reconsider moving to the suburbs... Instead, we're talking again about Savannah, where we frequently are our most happy." - Excerpted from 10/15/19 post titled "The Preview of This Should Scare Family Members Away From Reading Further" from "A Brie Grows in Brooklyn."

Aunt Brie and her husband are now ostracized by the Walshes

Aunt Brie confirms that neither she nor her husband are speaking to her parents. On 4/1/21 Aunt Brie talks about learning of her grandmother's death, "Caleb who came home from his studio, found me lying on my back on the floor while the kids fought in the bathtub, and rubbed my feet. Caleb who just got how painful it was that my parents called my sister to tell her about my Nana's death, but never called me." - Excerpted from 4/1/21 blog post titled "Does Marriage Accrue Value As Time Passes?" from "A Brie Grows in Brooklyn"

4) The oldest of Aunt Brie's younger adopted Walsh siblings moved to Savannah, Georgia

Though three years apart, Grimma forced them to dress alike and concluded they too shared the same hereditory Walsh mental illness, despite being adopted from Korea. Aunt Brie shares that Grimma had lied and told one of The Twins was told that her adoption paperwork had not been finalized in an effort to prevent her fleeing the nest.

The eldest of the two turned 18 on April 24, in the midst of it all. Before the pandemic hit New York, she had made plans to move out, on her 18th birthday, and in with a friend. The friend’s mother had agreed to house and feed her until she went to college. The friend’s mother told her two weeks after the lockdown begin that they no longer had room for my little sister. My parents are rich beyond imagination, but my little sister has no money. They never completed her adoption paperwork, so she has no social security card, and no way to get a legal identification. She cannot apply for a job. She was going to fly down to Savannah this week to come live with us, but she cannot legally board an airplane. - Excerpted from 6/29/20 blog post titled "If You Treat A Living Thing Right" from "A Brie Grows in Brooklyn"

5) Aunt Brie shares a text exchange with her friends regarding Mom's drugging of Dad

The communication leaves no question the family knew the severity of the crime and references another strange incident of a Walsh family member playing tricks with Seroquel.

Aunt Brie: Brendan wonders if you've ever taken Seroquel, Mark.

Mark: no, I don't think so

Aunt Brie: That shit will put you to sleep.

Mark: I looked it up. It sounds just like trazodone.

Aunt Brie: It's way more intense than that. Brendan gave me some for a flight to China, and I couldn't move for 14 hours. That's what Steve said Tara drugged him with.

Mark: Thinks she did

Aunt Brie: No it did happen without his consent but the lines were blurred *

* Aunt Brie goes on to explain that Mom excused her actions by claiming the bodyguards and nanny conspired to put the Seroquel into Dad's wine too.  This is contradicted in sworn depositions. In fact, the nanny was the person who caught Mom and warned Dad what was happening, causing Mom to immediately fire her. Later, on the stand, Mom explained that she did it because, "We were living as a family. I made a family decision." Following the same logic Grimma uses to justify her approach to medicating the Walsh children.

Dad grew up in Detroit, Michigan. He was born just a few years after the riots and fires of the late '60s that devestated that city. Dad's mother was a cardiac care nurse at a downtown hospital there. Dad and I think Black Lives Matter so we wanted to head to Portland to be with the protesters and to better understand the movement. It was all very different that we expected. Below is something that Dad wrote during the trip.

July 21, 2020

Made it to Portland to show my support for the protesters and see first hand what is going on. The streets are empty. There is no sign of either protesters or police. No military. It's a beautiful day, but there is an eerie sense about the place. By the river families picnic and stroll in masks. The streets are clean and open, but free of traffic and the downtown shops are closed and boarded. There is a tent encampment by the bridge. Young people in their 20s and 30s sit on the ground laughing and talking in the sun. Their faces are uncovered save for a little scruf.  We pass a bar called Outrage. It is empty. Crossing the Columbia River, Mt.Hood rises in the distance amidst blue skies. There is no sound but the whisper of the wind. - Dad

July 22, 2020

The sun has set in Portland. Six hours earlier the city was quiet.

Then all we saw were boarded streets lined with messages of Black Lives Matter and graffiti scrawled on the wood of boarded windows on otherwise ordinary streets. The messages repeat every block or two. "Everything has changed" screams a warning in red spray paint.  The 'A' has been replaced with an Anarchist symbol. We see the mark again and again with the regularity of Starbucks.

Closer to the city center stands a young woman in a trench-coat, Ray Bans, and knee-high rubber boots meant for an eastern storm.  Her eyes dart back and forth nervously. On the ground next to her, three young men with bushy blond hair are penning messages on stacks of white poster board.

We can not see what they say.

A few blocks further we come to the Federal Court House and see a parked police cruiser. There is no one inside. It is the second of the night. Around the building 200 people stand in quiet protest. They honor the six foot social distancing guidelines and stand in single file as if waiting for something. They are older than we expect, 30s to 60s, and wear bright clothes.The line ends where it began. On the steps and stone of the courthouse there are more messages in dark paint. Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter. The only Black person we see near the line is selling masks and hand sanitizer.

In the park opposite the Court House, the scene is more festive. Another 200 or so young people, mostly dressed in black, sit around a smoking BBQ pit. The scent of cooking mingles with other familiar festival smells and sounds. Time for dinner...and maybe a change of clothes. My baby-blue Polo Shirt and Kelly's sundress don't seem quite right for the moment.

At 10:00 pm we resolve to head back to the park. According to our waiter, this is the time things start to happen. "Don't go to much after that," he warns. At midnight the police come through like clock work and clear the grounds.  It is almost 11:00 pm when we arrive and we aren't disappointed.

Parking is easy, so we leave our SUV straddling two spaces. Next to us, a woman pulls in with the same idea. Her gray hair is pulled back in a practical ponytail and three DSLR cameras are draped across her shoulders. "You aren't going to pay are you," she asks pointing to the automated parking machine at the far side of the lot. "I am," I say, but the machine is broken and a notice covers the screen.

We start walking to the protest.

It's only about four blocks from our car to Pioneer Square. Every hundred feet or so we pass a small group of people. There is a food truck selling snacks, some homeless. and repeating clusters of men and women in black garb and masks of varying ages and race. Eighty to ninety percent of those we pass under 30 and white.

Pioneer Square looks, smells, and sounds like a festival. At the front of the square, SW Broadway Street has been converted into a kind of stage with the flat brick wall of the Department Store behind it serving as a projection screen. A spotlight moves with the music and lasers dance. Around the stage, it's packed. We guess 1-2000 people are gathered, maybe more. People hold signs. Black Lives Matter. Dump Trump. No Feds. etc.  One woman holds a sign that says, "Teach the Truth."

Center Stage and Stage Left have the greatest concentration of people. They are getting ready for something. Just beyond them  a small number of police in blue and cammo have begun to gather as well. There are no Federal Agents or vehicles anywhere that we can see. At the other side of the park, the crowd thins out considerably. A small line forms at the snack area and chalk on the pavement points the way to even more refreshments a block away. Here small groups stand, or sit, or mill about. The music and sound system are excellent, so I catch myself swaying to the beat.

The protest is well organized. Young women in reflective vests play the role of usher and provide directives or help, now and then, to a wobbly protester.  The side streets have all been blocked by large pickup trucks in which sit women 30-40 yrs old on radios slumped down so as to make the vehicle seem empty. They remind me of my RA at Stanford.  Across 5th street, next to the court house, the organizers have provided an ambulance and recovery area.

We make our way to Stage Right, farthest from the action, where we see a camera crew. The area is lit with studio lights and at the center are about a dozen women with linked arms. Their backs are to the department store and they are facing the small video crew and set of photographers. We approach from behind the the camera crew and meet the steadfast gaze of the linked women. For about 10 minutes or so while pictures are taken the freeze and project nothing but looks of solidarity and grim determination toward he empty rear of the park.  We keep turning around expecting to see Police, but there are none in sight anywhere.

Today captions on those photos read "Moms Link Arms to Protect the Protesters."

We walk up toward the Courthouse again to see more people arriving.Three young men in matching black outfits have their backpacks out and are checking equipment in the fashion of soldiers. They wear helmets, have goggles and what looks to be padding under their jackets. They are serious, moving quickly, but in no rush.  White, late 20s, skinny and about 5'7"-5'9". Next to them we can hear a woman encouraging a protester in a yellow shirt and glasses to join them for what is next. "Oh, no. I really can't," she says. "If I get arrested I could lose my income."

There is loud noise, like a gun shot, but it is just a firecracker or noise maker. No one even flinches. The new arrivals buckle their helmets and head off to the front of the protest.  It's now almost midnight and our waiter's advice has turned out to be true. "Show starts at 10 pm. Cops clear everyone out shortly after midnight." In the distance off Stage Left up Broadway you can hear the muffled megaphones of the Portland Police starting their march.  Some wear Blue/Black uniforms and some wear cammo. They march together with large patches that say Police velcroed to their chests.

The music continues to play and there is surprisingly little tension in the air as the various players hit their marks for the 50th night in Portland. Chants of "Hey Ho. Hey Ho. President Trump has got to go" erupt briefly then die down.  The Moms linked arm and arm remain at the rear of the crowd with the TV cameras. The serious men in helmets and jackets break free of through to the front in an attempt to provoke a reaction from Portland Police dressed in Army fatigues. Everyone else seems a little bored.

We are a little bored too, so we decide to walk back to our hotel.  The walk is surprisingly quiet. The hum of the crowd fades away completely in a block or two. There is not a single fire, or broken window, or police car between the square and our hotel. We fall asleep expecting to hear some signs of trouble in the city, but there none.

The next day we wake up to the sounds of large street cleaning machines lumbering down the empty boarded city blocks. There is a ticket on our car despite the broken meter and the lot is full of city contractors. - Dad

The Twins refers to Aunt Brie's two youngest sisters. Adopted from Korea and three years apart. Grimma made them dress alike for most of their lives. In Aunt Brie's blog, she talks about how these two bright young women dealt with Grimma's abuse. (Update: In Aunt Brie's deposition, she revealed the oldest of The Twins had run away to Savannah, Georgia).

"There were subtle abuses, and there were overt abuses. There was a lot of violence. There was a lot of punishment. There was almost no logic to the way that things operated inside our home."

"My little sisters were there. They grew up in the same household, with the same mother. They are not genetically the same as me, but their reactions to the abuse were identical. One reacts by being super good, and the other reacts by acting out, and they still get punished equally."

Here is an excerpt from Aunt Brie's blog from June 29, 2020:

If You Treat A Living Thing Right, It Will Live For You

June 29, 2020

On Sunday, my oldest and best friend Kim arrived from New York. Her visits make me feel really loved. She has been actively quarantining, and she broke the quarantine

I knew that my mother had just stopped watering it.

You leave a plant at someone else’s house, and they just forget about it. The thing is, we left our ficus tree next to my mom’s many different potted plants. She loves plants, and she has many that are decades old. While we were staying at her house, Caleb tenderly watered those plants so that my mother didn’t have to.

My mother, every day, walked into the carriage house to water her plants. She looked at our plant, and decided not to give it any water.

“So what?” you may be saying to yourself.

Imagine if your mother purposefully killed something that was alive, and belonged to you.

This is one of the many, many subtle abuses I was subjected to as a child, and as an adult. My mother, when faced with the task of caring for me, her child, either turned her back, or purposefully hurt me. There were subtle abuses, and there were overt abuses. There was a lot of violence. There was a lot of punishment. There was almost no logic to the way that things operated inside our home. I was a good kid who got good grades, didn’t drink or do drugs, and still, I was often denied basic human rights such as food, security and love.

As an adult, I began to forget what that was like. You can almost convince yourself that you’re just being dramatic.

And then, the pandemic happened.

We moved in with my parents. My little sisters were there. They grew up in the same household, with the same mother. They are not genetically the same as me, but their reactions to the abuse were identical. One reacts by being super good, and the other reacts by acting out, and they still get punished equally. The eldest of the two turned 18 on April 24, in the midst of it all. Before the pandemic hit New York, she had made plans to move out, on her 18th birthday, and in with a friend.  

Mom claims shes living in her parent's "cold attic," and provides some evidence. It's a finished attic, but small, and in a 250 year old house probaby not without problems. Not quite a cupboard under the stairs though.

[Update: Steve Walsh says this is not true in his deposition on April 26,2021. Who you gonna believe me, or your lying eyes?]

Related Posts:

The Abuse - A battery and kidnapping case in San Francisco reveals a disturbing pattern of mental illness, druggings, and abuse by Mom’s Westchester family

A Battery and Kidnaping case in San Francisco reveals a disturbing pattern of mental illness druggings and abuse by Mom’s Westchester family

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Grumpa’s Deposition: His family is super-duper honest...except when they are talking about him

Stephen Walsh, aka Grumpa, Deposition: His family is super-duper honest...except when they are talking about him

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Grumpa pretends to be a nice guy but quickly becomes enraged at any provocation

“This may get me in trouble, but I get my bad temper from my father”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

“I HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SHEER FRIGHT AS I HAD JUST GONE THROUGH”

“I HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SHEER FRIGHT AS I HAD JUST GONE THROUGH.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Over three years, Mom makes a series dramatic and escalating claims to police, the court, family, and attorneys. Three Judges, six attorneys, and five court appointed experts will recuse themselves, be fired, and in one case lose his license and flee the state. A confusing bramble of distractions and prevarications prevent progress in Westchester, New York, but courts in San Francisco slowly uncover the truth.

All Posts tagged with the Coverup:

The Coverup - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Over three years, Mom makes a series dramatic and escalating claims to police, the court, family and attorneys. Three Judges, 6 attorneys, and five court appointed experts will recuse themselves, be fired, and in one case lose his license and flee the state. A confusing bramble of distractions and p…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Lies, Damn Lies, and Chappaqua Poison:

The Lies: Dad is mentally ill like me, he needs help Grimma-style

The Truth: Mom exhibits drug-seeking behavior and Dad has a clean bill of health.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Lies: “Dad frightened me with a gun”

The Truth: There was no gun.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Lies: “There is no history of abuse in my family”

The Truth: Mom’s family has a long and storied history of abuse. As a child, Mom sued for emancipation and called CPS over 35 times.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Lies: “My parents just want to help with Evie”

The Truth: Grimma and Grumpa threatened to sue for custody. Mom confided to Grandma Linda that when she expressed a desire to move out of their home with Evie, they threatened legal action.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Lies: Mom dodges mental mental health resources laid out for her at every turn

Mom’s side of the story tells the story of a woman who is battling every single day to get her mental health in a place that is good for her and her daughter. This is the truth.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Lies: “Dad ‘gaslit’ me into thinking I was mentally ill”

The Truth: Mom struggles with her mental health. Mom has struggled with diagnosed mental illness her entire life and has a family history of mental illness. Dad, her own family members, and mental health professionals have all unsuccessfully extended a helping hand.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Lies: “Dad doesn’t want to see Evie”

Dad loves his daughter. He has done and is doing everything possible to develop and maintain a relationship with Evie. Mom and her family are concerned that Dad would be granted custody and have done everything in their power to keep Dad from even visiting his little girl.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

'Fake Experts,' 'Professional Curtesty,' 'Court Rats' and the 'Banality of Evil'

Coming Soon: Wait for it. It's going to be worth it...guaranteed.

Evie's Story:

The Crime: Mom and Dad meet and Evie is born, but a crime disrupts their life in San Francisco

In Book One: The Crime, Mom is caught drugging Dad as part of an extortion attempt. Evie’s father receives emergency custody. A “higher standard of care” is recommended for Mom after a diagnosis of Borderline Personality with sociopathic traits.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Courts - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Despite a hearing in San Francisco in October 2018, Mom never returns. Over the next three years, Dad will only see his daughter a dozen times. Five supervisors and five nannies will testify on Dad’s behalf after Mom makes series of escalating maneuvers to dissuade visitation including vandalism, SW…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

The Abuse - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Mom’s drugging and abuse of Evie’s Dad is not unique. Stories of violence, alcoholism, and abuse span generations of Mom’s family. Children labeled ‘difficult’ and ‘mentally ill’ are prescribed a cocktail of drugs, the same as those in Dad’s toxicology reports. Even the adopted Walsh children seem t…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

The Coverup - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Over three years, Mom makes a series dramatic and escalating claims to police, the court, family and attorneys. Three Judges, 6 attorneys, and five court appointed experts will recuse themselves, be fired, and in one case lose his license and flee the state. A confusing bramble of distractions and p…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Book One of Evie's Story covers the period from when Mom and Dad met through Mom's arrest for drugging Dad and the emergency custody hearing in San Francisco in 2018.

The evidence archive contains extensive documentation of this period including: toxicology reports showing lithium and Seroquel in Dad's system (March 2017, March 2018), text messages between Mom and her boyfriend Matan Gavish discussing schemes to defraud Dad (February 2018), and multiple sworn declarations from witnesses including nannies, a retired FBI agent, and Dad's treating psychiatrist.

Key events include Mom's arrival in San Francisco in August 2017, Dad's unexplained illness beginning in late 2016, the discovery of drugging through toxicology tests in March 2017, Evie's birth on January 27, 2018, and Mom's departure with Evie to New York on approximately June 9, 2018.

Mom's drugging and abuse of Evie's Dad is not unique. Stories of violence, alcoholism, and abuse span generations of Mom's family. Children labeled ‘difficult’ and ‘mentally ill’ are prescribed a cocktail of drugs, the same as those in Dad's toxicology reports. Even the adopted Walsh children seem to have been diagnosed with these same hereditary conditions and are given the same drugs. The youngest complains of drugs being put in her food and Evie arrives to a visit with signs of abuse.

All posts tagged with Abuse:

Abuse - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Abuse, projections of abuse, dysfunction and cruelty. The Walshes abuse each other. Grimma and Grumpa abuse their children. Mom abuses Dad.

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

The Chappaqua Poisoner:

The Chappaqua Poisoner: Mom’s younger sister suspects Grimma slipping Lithium and Seroquel into her food

When Mom was later caught drugging Dad with Seroquel, she defended it in open court by saying she thought it was the best decision for their ‘family.’

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Mom researches famous women poisoners and lethal doses of Seroquel

Mom researches famous women poisoners and lethal doses of Seroquel shortly after a failed attempt to have Dad committed.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

After four days in the hospital sitting in a chair by Mom’s bedside, she gave him some drugs that made him act crazy

After four days in the hospital sitting in a chair by Mom’s bedside, she gave him drugs that made him act crazy.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Mom abandons Evie and heads to the airport after being caught by the nanny putting drugs in Dad’s wine

Mom abandons Evie and heads to the airport after being caught by the nanny putting drugs in Dad’s wine.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Mom admits in open court to drugging Dad. Here is the first (of many) times she talks about it.

Mom admits to secretly drugging Dad on the stand in San Francisco in August 2018.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Shrinks and Docs conclude Dad OK, blame his being drugged and followed for a year for his “symptoms”

It turns out that you think you are being drugged and followed, and you are ACTUALLY being drugged and followed you aren’t really crazy. You just probably are dating a Walsh.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome: The mental illness that makes others sick

Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome: The mental illness that makes others sick.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

A History of Violence as told by Mom's Sister Aunt Brie in her blog ABrieGrowsInBrooklyn.com

Well-behaved in public, home life was a ‘horror movie’

“My siblings and I were very well behaved in public, but our house in private was basically like a horror movie”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

CPS called on Grimma and Grumpa over 35 times; An act that’s never been forgiven

The abuse was so extreme that Mom even sued her parents for emancipation as a teenager.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Grimma punched me; Denied me food

Young Aunt Brie was unable to tell her mom she was angry at her without getting severely punished. Grimma would punch her or refuse basic needs.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Grumpa struggles with uncontrollable rage; Anger Management

Aunt Brie struggles to suppress her own anger that she gets from Grumpa. “Because sometimes I do lose my temper, I act lesser than, I let my worst self get the best of me, I can also be a fucking asshole. Especially via text message. Every day, I struggle to

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Aunt Brie wet the bed until 16 due to father’s ‘punishment’

The Walsh parents apply an abusive level of control over their children and tell them their “bad behavior” is the reason they are so “strict” with them.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

“You’re an alcoholic” Grimma told Aunt Brie at 8; Making her take a shot of Whiskey

Grimma gave Aunt Brie a shot of alcohol at 8 years old, and then told her “You know you’re an alcoholic, right?”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

I don’t want to be an abusive parent, a screamer, a hitter, or medicate my kids from the time they can sit on a toilet, like Grimma did

“I don’t want to be an abusive parent. I don’t want to be a screamer, or a hitter. I don’t want Cleo to have an eating disorder, or a complex, or be medicated from the time she can pee in an adult toilet.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Collectors and abusers of children:

Mom’s family adopts two Korean girls 3 years apart and forces them to dress alike among other abuse and cringe-worthy indignities

Mom’s family adopts two Korean girls 3 years apart and subjects them to humiliating abuse.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

“The Twins” react to family violence in a way that parallels Mom and Aunt Brie

“They grew up in the same household, with the same mother. They are not genetically the same as me, but their reactions to the abuse were identical.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Bath time! Mom posts Evie giving Grimma the stink eye in Chappaqua

“It’s almost like she needs to be de-programmed after years of living in a cult.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Grimma becomes furious at Mom and stops feeding her for 48 hours for wanting to leave the gated family compound

Grimma becomes furious at Mom and stops feeding her for 48 hours for wanting to leave the gated family compound

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

I “really can’t stand living here” and things “get’s bad when I say I want to leave,” says Mom

I “really can’t stand living here” and things “get bad when I say I want to leave among many complaints Mom has about the Attic in which she and Evie live.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Don’t move out! Grimma and Grumpa threaten to sue for custody if Mom and Evie leave

“I told my family and now they have all joined up to say they will take legal action against Steve and I for custody of Evie if we leave.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Despite a hearing in San Francisco in October 2018, Mom never returns. Over the next three years, Dad will only see his daughter a dozen times. Five supervisors and five nannies will testify on Dad's behalf after Mom makes series of escalating maneuvers to dissuade visitation including vandalism, SWATing, and the recruitment of friends and family to follow and harass Dad. Three Judges, six attorneys for Mom, and five court appointed experts will recuse themselves without a hearing.

All posts tagged with The Courts:

The Courts - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Despite a hearing in San Francisco in October 2018, Mom never returns. Over the next three years, Dad will only see his daughter a dozen times. Five supervisors and five nannies will testify on Dad’s behalf after Mom makes series of escalating maneuvers to dissuade visitation including vandalism, SW…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Manipulations and Deception:

“I HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SHEER FRIGHT AS I HAD JUST GONE THROUGH”

“I HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SHEER FRIGHT AS I HAD JUST GONE THROUGH.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Grumpa throws subpoenas into the trash; Rages at Aunt Brie to do the same

“They wanted to have a quorum so that they could scream at us for betraying the family. My family called me multiple times to scream at me that I didn’t know what I was talking about, I could just throw out the paperwork, and ignore the subpoena.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieBrienne Walsh

Mom comes clean with Chappaqua police in lovely letter that nobody reads

Mom tells the truth to the Chappaqua police

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Grandma Linda drives thirteen hours trying to see Evie; Grumpa tells her to turn around, doesn’t need to follow court orders

Evie’s other Grandma drives over six hours hours to see Evie, but Grumpa tells her to turn around

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

(Updated) The weeks go by - They disappear - Another Monday’s come I fear - The sun flew by my head - And then - I prayed for it to come again

A poem written for my little girl on Friday. It’s called ‘Monday.’

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Dad and Evie's Recent Visits:

Visit 6 and 7: Evie practices her language and music...and napping skills

Visit 6 and 7: Evie practices her language and music...and napping skills.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visit 8: Toys galore and the great outdoors

Visit 8: Toys galore and the great out doors.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visit 9: Evie’s first steps and Dad is there!

Visit 13: Evie’s first steps and Dad is there!

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visit 10: All smiles with Dad. With Grandpa? Not so much.

Visit 10: All smiles with Dad...Grandpa, not-so-much.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visits 11, 12, & 13: Denied by a shaking and red-faced Steve Walsh

Visits 11, 12, & 13: Denied by a shaking and red-faced Steve Walsh.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visit 14: After two cancelled visits due to Evie suffering health issues, she arrived for her visit

Visit 14: After two cancelled visits due to Evie suffering ‘health’ issues, she arrived at the Crab Tree Kiddle House.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Evie arrived for Visit 15 (Part 1) with strange bruises on her right leg

Evie arrived for visit 15 with suspicious bruises on her right thigh and shin.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visit 15 (Part 2): Dad’s Here For You

Visit 15: Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visit 15 (Part 3) Steve Walsh had been warned by police twice not to be present at Evie’s pickups and drop-offs

Visit 15 (Part 3) Steve Walsh had been warned by police twice not to be present at Evie’s pickups and drop-offs.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

It’s finally time for Visit 16 on September 19, 2019 (Part 1)

It’s finally time for visit 16 on September 19, 2019.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visit 16 on September 19, 2019 (Part 2)

Visit 16 on September 19, 2019 (Part 2)

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visit 16 on September 19, 2019 (Part 3)

Visit 16 on September 19, 2019 (Part 3).

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Depositions after three years of delay and evasion:

We were abused. Grumpa told us to throw Court Orders in the trash. And other revelations from Aunt Brie’s deposition

It took two years, but the first of the Walsh houshold finally sat for a deposition. Aunt Brie and her husband both spent several hours with attorneys and swore to tell the truth. The couple and faced significant retaliation from Grumpa and Grimma, and as a result. Her father demanded

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Matan’s Deposition: Evasive but generally pleasant deposition overshadowed by fantastically entertaining ‘legal’ antics

In this first few minutes of the Deposition, Mom states she is representing herself pro se and Frank S. Moore, is just there as attorney for Matan? Later in the depo Tara slips that he her lawyer too, but it is too late the two are already tag teaming the witness in a way that will make you cringe.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Stuprendan’s Deposition: A creepy, defensive, bizarre and outrageous dead-eyed masterclass in privilege and mansplaining

Brendan Walsh’s deposition broadcast from the carriage house of the Walsh family estate.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Grimma’s Deposition: She knows best when it comes to diagnosing mental illness...even from a parked car, across the street, and outside Dad apartment

Grimma’s Deposition: She knows best when it comes to diagnosing mental illness...even from a parked car, across the street, and outside Dad apartment

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Grumpa’s Deposition: His family is super-duper honest...except when they are talking about him

Stephen Walsh, aka Grumpa, Deposition: His family is super-duper honest...except when they are talking about him

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Grimma and Grumpa’s Scheme Undone: Courts in SF and NY vacate Mom’s Orders and dismiss claims with prejudice after family depositions

Grimma and Grumpa Walsh’s Scheme Undone: Courts in SF and NY vacate Mom’s Orders and dismiss claims with prejudice after family depositions

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Recused Judges, Fake Doctors, and a Corrupt Network of Westchester 'Experts:'

COMING SOON: Backgrounds on the three Judges who recused themselves, the story of the 20+ year expert on drugs and alcohol that turned out to be a conman and fake, and the retaliation Dad faced turning whistleblower.

Evie's Story:

The Crime: Mom and Dad meet and Evie is born, but a crime disrupts their life in San Francisco

In Book One: The Crime, Mom is caught drugging Dad as part of an extortion attempt. Evie’s father receives emergency custody. A “higher standard of care” is recommended for Mom after a diagnosis of Borderline Personality with sociopathic traits.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Courts: Three judges, six lawyers, and five court appointed experts are fired, delicensed, or recuse themselves over a three year period where a custody battle without a single hearing ensues

Three Judges, six lawyers, and five court appointed experts are fired, delicensed or recuse themselves over a three year period where a custody battle without a single hearing ensues

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Abuse - A battery and kidnapping case in San Francisco reveals a disturbing pattern of mental illness, druggings, and abuse by Mom’s Westchester family

A Battery and Kidnaping case in San Francisco reveals a disturbing pattern of mental illness druggings and abuse by Mom’s Westchester family

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

The Coverup - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Over three years, Mom makes a series dramatic and escalating claims to police, the court, family and attorneys. Three Judges, 6 attorneys, and five court appointed experts will recuse themselves, be fired, and in one case lose his license and flee the state. A confusing bramble of distractions and p…

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

Mom told people Dad wasn't safe. Concerns about her own fitness and well-being lurk in the shadow of those lies. These are their truths.

The Truth: Mom projected fears about her own competency onto Dad.

In March of 2020, Mom told her attorney at the time that leaving Evie alone with Dad, Grandma Linda, or even a court-appointed supervisor would be equivalent to "giving her up for adoption or signing her death warrant." She also insisted on being present at all of Dad's visits with Evie, despite court orders to the contrary. Mom's fear of losing Evie manifested itself into brutal accusations completely not founded in truth.

However, despite her allegations, Mom's own actions have presented safety concerns in the past.

Members can see the evidence for themselves:

The Lie: Leaving Evie alone with Dad, Grandma Linda, or even a court-appointed supervisor would be equivalent to "giving her up for adoption or signing her death warrant."

The Truth: Mom bargained access to Evie for a house. She specifically noted that the "sooner you [buy] the house for Evie the sooner the visits can start," promising unlimited visits in 'Evie's' new pad as soon as they moved in, but not before.

There was never an issue with Dad and Evie spending time together, supervision was a way for Mom to have the restraining order dropped against her dropped and spend time with Dad.

The Lie: Mom told Dad she would "never affect you seeing Evie."

The Truth: Mom has put Evie in danger

In a Sworn Declaration from Evie's nanny in San Francisco, it was revealed that Mom dropped Evie during a psychotic episode.

Evie's nanny also noticed that she needed to visit the cardiologist. Mom initially refused to take Evie, using their baby's health as leverage in an argument with Dad.

Don't worry – Dad made sure Evie was immediately cared for and taken to the doctor where she was in need treatment for her heart.

Additionally, and without warning, Mom unexpectedly didn't come home one night. Evie was left alone with Grimma and Grumpa, and Mom got called out by her sister.

The Truth: Westchester Family Court gave credence to the questionability of Mom's competency as a mother by confining Mom to her parent's home – for Evie's safety.

The Truth: Mom intentionally kept Evie from Dad, afraid she would lose custody if her actions caught up with her.

Mom even considered fleeing with Evie when the court ordered a visit with Dad.

Mom send Dad a note chastising him for not being present at his daughter's birthday. If only he had done the right thing and marry her.

"Then the lawyers delivering the subpoenas set a court date to compel us to appear. Mine is next week. When Caleb saw this, he got very angry, and said that we were going to just go to the depositions, and get them over with.

When I told my family about this, they wanted to have a quorum so that they could scream at us for betraying the family. My family called me multiple times to scream at me that I didn’t know what I was talking about, I could just throw out the paperwork, and ignore the subpoena."

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog from January 15, 2020:

Families Are Worse Than Lawyers

January 15, 2020

"Over my many years writing this blog, my family has often come after me for not keeping their privacy. In fact, my blog is used an excuse for other people’s bad behavior. My sister is getting sued in multiple states by the man she had a child with? It’s because of my blog.

Well, I’m not going to stop fucking writing it. I have very little power in my life, but I have the power to tell my own story.

For the past year or so, every few weeks, a creepy guy shows up at our apartment right as we are putting our kids to bed, and delivers me and Caleb with subpoenas to appear as witnesses in a court case involving my sister and her ex-boyfriend. The conventional wisdom in my family is that we can ignore them. They are not from a judge — yet. Everyone told us that we could throw them in the garbage.

Then the lawyers delivering the subpoenas set a court date to compel us to appear. Mine is next week. When Caleb saw this, he got very angry, and said that we were going to just got to the depositions, and get them over with.

When I told my family about this, they wanted to have a quorum so that they could scream at us for betraying the family. My family called me multiple times to scream at me that I didn’t know what I was talking about, I could just throw out the paperwork, and ignore the subpoena.

Caleb and I consulted multiple friends who are lawyers. All of them went to the best law firms in the country, have done clerkships, and work at the best firms in the Southern District of New York City. They all told us we have to appear. Unanimously. Without hesitation. We cannot ignore the subpoenas. One way or the other, we will be deposed.

“Any smart lawyer would tell you to throw it in the garbage,” my dad just yelled at me when I told him that I had spoken to another lawyer friend about the deposition. I called him in a last ditch effort to get him to help us to hire a lawyer.‌‌

Because we are not involved in this because we did something wrong. We are involved in this because my sister and the man she had a child with did something wrong. Many things wrong. I really wish I could write about the things they did wrong because they are truly unbelievable, and also hilarious, but I don’t want to get fucking sued anymore.

What we did do was take care of my sister throughout her pregnancy, and when she first had her baby. I mean, maybe I did some shitty things, but Caleb definitely did not.

And all of that money we saved? Now we have to use it to hire a lawyer.

I finally got mad at my father over the phone. “I am fucking sick of dealing with this bullshit,” I screamed back at him.

“If you didn’t write bad things about the blog on the family, none of this would be happening!” he screamed back at me.‌‌

But here’s the truth — what I write on the blog doesn’t matter one bit. Every single bad thing I could have even thought of writing was already written directly by my sister to her ex-boyfriend in text messages. Those are much stronger pieces of evidence. The difference? They’re private! So much better for everyone, right?

WRONG. It doesn’t matter to the court. The reason why we’re getting subpoenaed, in the end, is because my sister fucking named Caleb and I as witnesses.

If you have any advice, I would love to hear it. But I am fucking mad."

The evidence archive documents a pattern of the Walsh family claiming compliance with court orders while actively undermining them.

Court transcripts from multiple hearings — including proceedings before Judge Gordon-Oliver, Magistrate Furman, and subsequent judges — record attorneys and the court addressing failures to comply with visitation orders. Five supervisors and five nannies testified on Dad's behalf regarding Mom's pattern of disrupting and discouraging visitation.

LaMelle supervision reports document specific instances where planned visits were cancelled or obstructed. The pattern is reflected in Grumpa's own words to Grandma Linda: "I don't care what the court order says."

Mom's side of the story is riddled with inaccuracies, shifty storytelling, and straight-up lies. These are their truths.

The Truth: Mom surreptitiously recorded and took photos of Dad in the privacy of his home. She then used these videos to extort him.

Mom recorded videos and took photos of Dad in the privacy of his own home and during medical examinations. Once caught she hid under the guise that she might "show him" how he was behaving. These recordings, made without consent, were illegal.

Not only were the recordings illegal in their creation, the myriad of purposes that Mom used them for were also highly illegal – she extorted him, she claimed she was going to use them to write a book, she was sanctioned for refusing to produce them, and she offered them to known con men.

Members can see the evidence for themselves:

The Lie: Mom secretly recorded Dad to "help" him and to "show" him.

The Lie: Mom never intended to release the videos.

The Truth: Dad did not know he was being recorded.

This is illegal under California Recording Law:

The Truth: Mom's recordings often occurred shortly after Dad suspected he was drugged.

Mom's first secret video was taken in September 2016 – the same time Dad started feeling ill, and shortly before he tested positive for Lithium.

The Truth: Mom set up hidden cameras in her New York apartment in early 2017, before Evie was even conceived

• She also set up hidden cameras in Dad's San Francisco home in March 2017. This was the same month Dad tested positive for Lithium.

The Truth: Mom distributed the videos to friends and family, and intended to release them.

• She sent the videos to Matan via email for "safekeeping."

• She sent the videos to her sister, Brienne, and contemplated writing a book.

The Truth: Mom has offered the videos and other fabricated evidence to con men Nir and George – who are currently under FBI indictment.

• She claims the videos might be "useful" in their case.

The Truth: Mom threatened to release the videos if Dad did not drop the civil case and give her more 'child support.'

The Truth: Mom has refused court orders to produce the videos for a hearing and refused to agree that they not be released.

• Mom was sanctioned $5,000 by the court for refusing to turn the videos over in discovery.

• She also failed to sign a stipulation agreement not to release the videos as promised.

The Truth: At the close of these proceedings, Dad was granted a permanent restraining order against Mom in San Francisco.

In civil discovery in San Francisco, picture after picture of pregnancy tests are revealed. Dozens and dozens of pregnancy tests. The nanny states she witness Mom purchase novelty pregnancy tests.

Mom's side of the story reflects a disillusionment with her own mental health and an attempt to paint Dad as a mentally ill, dangerous figure. Those are her and her family's lies, this is the truth.

The Truth: Project much? Mom has struggles with her mental health and Dad has a clean bill of health.  

After Mom hurled accusations of schizophrenia, narcissism, and addiction in emails and court documents, the truth comes out. Dad's doctor, psychiatrist, and even Mom herself admit that none of those things are true.

Ironically, Mom is the one who has exhibited drug-seeking behavior and struggled with mental health diagnoses.

The Lie: Dad is schizophrenic.

Mom texted her brother on 9/22/2017, in the midst of an attempt to get Dad involuntarily committed. Dad had to be taken to the hospital because he suspected he was being drugged.

The Lie: Dad is a narcissist.

Mom emailed a friend on July 5, 2016 that she had "figured it out"....

The Truth: Dad has a clean bill of health.

Dad's psychiatrist wrote extensively, assuring the court that not only did he not suffer any of the accused mental illnesses – but that he was in an excellent position to provide a safe and healthy household for his child.

The Truth: Mom has a pattern of "diagnosing" those close to her with mental illness.

The Truth: Mom's "diagnosis" of Dad was all part of a coordinated scheme that she shared with her brother and sister.

• Aunt Brie openly joked about it on her blog before Evie was born. Too bad Dad didn't read it.

• Aunt Brie and Brendan discussed Tara's motivation for being in San Francisco shortly before she fled back to NY to escape her crime.

The Lie: Dad is an addict.

Mom's Reply Affidavit to the Westchester Family Court doubles down on her claims, none of which have been substantiated.

The Truth: Dad is not a substance abuser.

Dad's primary care physician also wrote extensively in regards to the fact that Dad properly uses prescription drugs for his diagnosis and does not exhibit any dangerous patterns of use or abuse.

In addition, Dad has taken multiple toxicology tests since 2017. Every test has confirmed Dad does not have a drug problem.

The Truth: Mom herself admits the accusations of drug abuse were a lie.

The Truth: Mom herself exhibits drug-seeking behavior and has abused prescription drugs in the past.

"Two weeks ago, I wrote about moving to the suburbs. In that time, my sister has threatened me, and sent me legal actions letting me know her intention to sue me for defamation in court. She blames me for everything that has gone wrong in her life. All of this has made Caleb and I seriously reconsider moving to the suburbs. Living near to my sister, when she lived near us in Brooklyn, was akin to living in a war zone. Moving back near her would be willfully submitting to insanity. "

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog from October 15, 2019:

The Preview of This Should Scare Family Members Away From Reading Further

October 15, 2019

"It seems impossible to me that I could love him anything but more the more time we spend together as a family. What I’m saying is, we’ll have sex again. Sex feels important, but it also feels like something we have time for, because I want to be with Caleb forever.

Lately, I have visions of my own death frequently, if only because I feel so lucky, I just know someone is going to take it all away from me. Give me depression, Lord, instead, please.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about moving to the suburbs. In that time, my sister has threatened me, and sent me legal actions letting me know her intention to sue me for defamation in court. She blames me for everything that has gone wrong in her life. All of this has made Caleb and I seriously reconsider moving to the suburbs. Living near to my sister, when she lived near us in Brooklyn, was akin to living in a war zone. Moving back near her would be willfully submitting to insanity. I’m growing older, Lord. I’m learning. I’m getting better. I know this isn’t a good idea.

Instead, we’re talking again about Savannah, where we frequently are our most happy. Caleb, if we lived there, would have even more time to spend with us. His family is there. Our two best friends are there. We could have a good life."

Mom got angry that Grimma and Grumpa offered Aunt Brie money to move closer to the family in Chappaqua.

“Your a disgusting piece of shit,” she said. “You get rewarded for sitting on your ass, getting fat and doing nothing.”

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog from October 9, 2019:

I’m Not Mary, Mother of God, But That Bitch Only Had One Child

October 9, 2019

“What do you guys talk about, what your husbands or partners do?” Caleb asked me when I relayed to him that I had gone to the playground with this French friend.

And he was not joking. He was completely serious. I am working harder than I ever have in my entire life, like by a fucking long shot, and when my husband looks at my day, he sees a blank void filled only by his own career.

When my parents said they would help me put a down payment on a house in Chappaqua, the sister closest in age [Mom] texted me.

“Your a disgusting piece of shit,” she said. “You get rewarded for sitting on your ass, getting fat and doing nothing.”

“*you’re” is what I texted back to her.

I don’t care what she thinks about me. But her text illuminated a truth, and that truth is that now that I’ve become a mother, even those closest to me actually think that I do nothing all day. That could not be further from the truth, but I’m not sure the perception will ever change."

Mom's side of the story is riddled with inaccuracies, shifty storytelling, and straight-up lies. She is telling anyone who will listen that Dad has no interest at all in his daughter. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

The Truth: Dad has tried tirelessly to be an integral part of his daughter's life; he's been roadblocked every single step of the way.

Dad loves his daughter. He has done and is doing everything possible to develop and maintain a relationship with Evie. Mom and her family are concerned that Dad would be granted custody and have done everything in their power to keep Dad from even visiting his little girl. While Grumpa wouldn't fly 6 hours to help his daughter when she broke down, was caught in a crime, and diagnosed BPD, Dad has travelled to Chappaqua dozens and dozens of times and spent nearly 1/3 of the the last three years there.

The irony is, Dad would never isolate Evie from the other half of her family.

Members can see the evidence for themselves:

The Lie: Mom told the Court that Dad was not interested in seeing Evie.

The Truth: Mom told Dad she intended to deny his rights as a father.

The Truth: Dad has been attempting to form a co-parenting agreement since before Evie's birth.

The Truth: Mom lured dad across the country to New York with a 'verbal agreement' between their attorneys, then denied visits completely. Dad returned to San Francisco after a week of not seeing their daughter... and being harassed.

• After arriving to NY, Dad's attorney sent a settlement offer that Mom didn't like. Instead of countering it or going through the court system, Mom and Stuprendan planned to, "go all out," against Dad. The worst part was denying his time with Evie.

The Truth: Dad spent months finalizing a schedule to come back and visit Evie – having learned that verbal agreements couldn't be trusted. This time Mom cancelled the last minute for a "family party," and Dad pleaded with the court to intervene.

The examples of this go and on and on and on. They are chronicled in other posts...

Photos - Stevie ♥︎ Evie

You know what they say... A picture’s worth a thousand words.

Stevie ♥︎ Evie

“I HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SHEER FRIGHT AS I HAD JUST GONE THROUGH”

“I HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A SHEER FRIGHT AS I HAD JUST GONE THROUGH.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Visits 11, 12, & 13: Denied by a shaking and red-faced Steve Walsh

Visits 11, 12, & 13: Denied by a shaking and red-faced Steve Walsh.

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

Light up, light up as if you had a choice - Even if you cannot hear my voice, I’ll be right beside you dear

Last Thursday June 10th, 2021 was the first time since September 23, 2019 that the Walsh family let Evie ‘see’ her Dad. Over the past several weeks, debates raged in the courts as to whether Evie could even handle seeing him. He was a “stranger.”

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

In September 2018, Tara orchestrated an event during a visitation with Evie to cause Steve to break the restraining order she obtained against him. Despite the court Order prohibiting Ms. Walsh and her father Stephen Walsh from being present at Evie’s pick-ups and drop-offs, Tara requested that Evie be dropped off at the Walsh residence. However, no one was there to pickup Evie. Instead there was a car parked in the bushes with its lights off.

“As we stopped, Mr. Russell and I both notice a car parked on the grass among the bushes. Entering the roadway, I noticed a dark car parked behind the bushes on the right side with blacked out windows and no lights on." - Claudette LaMelle affidavit.

A voice yelled out from the darkened car. Was this the Walshes? It must be. Pickups and drop offs had occurred her before. The gate to the private road leading to the Walsh family compound remained closed.

There were still no lights on in the car, as Supervisor LaMelle walked toward it. Evie in her arms she stumbled as the pavement turned to grass and dirt.  The vehicle was oddly parked back among trees and bushes.

Claudette ran back to the car yelling, "Those aren't the Walshes. Those aren't the Walshes. I don't know who those people are."

Dad got out of the car and stood between the men and his daughter. Movement had triggered the gate, causing it to open and Claudette and Evie drove through up the long private road leading to the Walsh estate.

When the lights, of Claudette's car faded, Dad was left in pitch darkness. Still no lights were on in vehicle of the side of road, but as his Eyes adjusted Dad clearly saw the silhouettes of two young men. He pulled out his phone, turned on it's flashlight and started recording, as he walked toward the car.

It was Mom's brother Brendan Walsh and her cousin, Brian Meenan. Pushed down between their legs were what looked to be baseball bats.

They turned their lights on. The younger Meenan went pale as Dad approached the car gripping something that looked like a baseball bat with both hands.  He held it between his knees, just barely visible as Dad approached the window. The older Brendan Walsh, pulled out his phone and dialed 911. Someone is trying to break into my car...trespassing...violating a restraining order.

It was the second time that Brendan Walsh had called 911 on Dad. A year and half earlier, he called 911 in San Francisco from New York stating that Dad had beaten Mom unconscious. Police reached out and found Mom and Dad contentedly watching a movie on the couch.

Brendan is odd guy. We call him 'Dexter.' He fell in love with blood and body parts after an internship with a surgeon. He then went on to start a blog where chronicles shootings, suicides, etc. He rushes to the scene with a press badge and starts taking pictures. Creepy.

Brendan wants to be a doctor, but something tells me no medical school who does any digging will wan't want anything to do with him.

Here's looking at you kid.

Sharing is caring.

Dance party!

Okay that made me hungry. You want some too, Dad?

Hungry and just a wee bit sleepy.

Time for a quick costume change.

And a big hug for Claudette and Grandma!

Back in New York to see Evie, this time with a new appointed court supervisor named Claudette. Grandma, Millie and Aunt K were there too.

We headed for the visit and both dad and Evie’s seemed tohave a happy time. Mr. Russell had toys, food, water and milk for ‘Evie’ to consume during the visit. She moved easily between the toys, dad’s lap and Millie, who had found a place on the couch.” - Claudette LaMelle

Evie likes tech gadgets, like her Dad.

Oooh, more technology.

Mine, mine, mine.

What adventures to have next?

"This may get me in trouble, but I get my bad temper from my father"

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog from September 17, 2019:

On Rage and Motherhood

September 17, 2019

"This may get me in trouble, but I get my bad temper from my father. My father is Mr. Nice Guy to strangers, and especially those who society perceives as lesser, like the homeless. Approach my dad smelling like BO with your toes sticking out of your shoes, and he will find out your life story, and treat you like his equal. But cut my father off on the highway, and he will practically whine from the intensity of the rage that fills his body."

Mom told an intricate tale about Grimma needing to collect social security and charging $25/hour to watch Evie. The produced receipts were hastily written with the same pen and were dubious at best. Dad requested that Grimma confirm the charges. The trial spilled over to another day and Mom never mentioned the thousands of dollars she had requested for Grimma again.

Update: Grumpa swore in his recent deposition that Mom did not pay any expenses in their household, except for groceries, and had never moved out with the down payment she requested, and was given, by the court.

Grumpa’s Deposition: His family is super-duper honest...except when they are talking about him

Stephen Walsh, aka Grumpa, Deposition: His family is super-duper honest...except when they are talking about him

Stevie ♥︎ EvieAunt K

"I had an abusive childhood, and abusive situations are what I crave."

"When I was younger, if I told my mom that I was angry at her, she sometimes punched me, she sometimes stopped feeding me, she sometimes stopped paying for basic medical care or college."

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog from August 20, 2019:

All My Life, I've Wanted Unconditional Love

August 20, 2019

"The truth is, I am a women who has a lot of conflicts with other women. I don’t know if this is normal, or if there is something wrong with me. I don’t have a good barometer for what normal is because I grew up in a very fucked up family. Last week, at the rehearsal dinner for my brother’s wedding, my mother wore a cableknit sweater in 85 degree heat, and sang off-tune lullabies to my niece rather than say hi to the guests who were approaching her to shake her hand. If my mother reads that last sentence, there is a good chance she will stop talking to me for many months, even though that means that she will not see her grandchildren, who love her."

"Last night, when I was formulating this post, which isn’t even a good post, I wrote that all of my realizations are therapy 101. I had an abusive childhood, and abusive situations are what I crave. I learned that expressing negative emotions leads to violence and hatred. When I was younger, if I told my mom that I was angry at her, she sometimes punched me, she sometimes stopped feeding me, she sometimes stopped paying for basic medical care or college.

My struggle is now that I’m a mother, I need to find a way to have healthy relationships with other people. With Caleb, with my friends, with my community, even the assholes within it. And not healthy in the sense that we’re best friends with everyone, but healthy in the sense that we build and nourish the good relationships, and learn how to build strong, fierce and kind boundaries against the bad ones. But how to tell the difference when you’re a fucked up person?"

"Men referred to me as my father’s daughter, and told me, to my disbelief and delight, that my father had been the top bond trader on all of Wall Street."

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog from August 1, 2019:

Are We Fucking Kidding With This Al Franken Shit?

August 1, 2o19

"You may hate New York, but you can’t deny that it is a center of power.

I grew up worshipping my father, and my father is an investment banker. I grew up spending my summers trotting behind him as he raced through Grand Central so that he could get to work, and I could get to whatever internship I was lucky enough to score, most of the time though family or Ivy League connections.

I’ve said this before, but almost all of the jobs I’ve ever been offered were secretarial. I’m much more educated than my father, but I will never, ever make as much money as he does. Twenty-one years ago, when I was 16, and had my first internship at my father’s best friend’s publishing house, it seemed natural that the head of the publishing house was a man, as were all of the top editors, while all of their support staff were women. At the bank where I interned the next summer because my uncle got me the job, I worked in the back office doing spreadsheets, which I ran up to a floor on my high heels, where men referred to me as my father’s daughter, and told me, to my disbelief and delight, that my father had been the top bond trader on all of Wall Street."

"I peed the bed until I was 16, and part of the reason for that was that if I couldn't fall asleep at night, my father used to make me go sit at the kitchen table so that I wouldn't keep on waking him up"

Here is an excerpt from Aunt Brie's blog from July 16, 2019:

Read Here For Tips on How To Do Potty Training in 3 Hours With No Accidents, Guaranteed, Promise

July 16, 2019

"The popular way to potty train in Brooklyn is something called the “oh shit” method or something. Basically, you take your children’s pants off, and stay in the house for three days. If God exists, and I go to hell, my hell will be having to stay confined in an 800-square-foot apartment for than 24 hours. So I knew that method wasn’t for me. Also, I don’t get how that works better than saying to your verbal almost-three-year-old, 'Pee on the toilet, and then we can go to the playground.'

What has potty training been like? It’s a lot like having an incontinent Yorkshire Terrier named Frankie, which is the Yorkshire Terrier I already have. Yesterday, I followed Cleo around the woodsy section of the local playground, scooping up little droplets of diarrhea that she released onto the bed of pine needles, any spots that I missed quickly uncovered by a swarm of flies, and I was like, 'This is basically what I do with Frankie every night at 7:15pm to get a little time to myself out of the house.' Cleo, for her part, is very comfortable in her own body, and had no problem squatting, full monty, in full sight of the street, while gripping onto the fence around the playground, until all of the poop was out. 'I’m pooping,' she told any friends who came near us. Maybe, in the future, she will develop major issues reading this blog post, who knows.

The other moms watched with open judgement on their faces from the safety of the pavement. I know I should have brought like one of those fancy portable potties, and made her sit on it, but I don’t give a shit. Literally. The nice thing about having a 'difficult' kid is that it’s inured me to judgment. Yeah, I’m letting my child shit like a Chinese peasant in an airport in Shenzen, but at least I won’t have to take her to a therapist for retaining her poop for weeks at a time. My strong ass kid is a pain in the ass, but she loves her body, and she’s not afraid of anything, not even what people might think of her if she’s being gross in open sight. Every parent has their strengths. I have a lot of weaknesses, but one of my strengths is that I don’t get that grossed out by bodily functions. Looking back, this strength served me. It probably served me during sexual encounters. It serves me every time one of my kids has diarrhea, which is a lot of times. It also served me when I used to babysit a congenitally disabled girl. She sometimes didn’t make it to the toilet. When she got a fever, I had to immediately give her shot of valium in her butt. I loved her, and I loved taking care of her. Yesterday, when Cleo was finished pooping, I just brought her over to the sprinklers, and washed her with my hands, and when I did that, another mother literally said to her daughter, 'Get away from them.'

Cleo will probably have accidents until she’s 16. I peed in the bed until I was 16, and part of the reason for that was that if I couldn’t fall asleep at night, my father used to make me go sit at the kitchen table so that I wouldn’t keep on waking him up. The difficult phases of motherhood, I’m finding, don’t end, they just get larger, and more gross, and more physical, and if you’re not into it, sucks for you, because unless you can find someone to adopt your child, you’re in it for life.

At night, when I’m going to bed, I frequently think of all of the ways my children will help me when I’m too old to take care of myself, and for that reason, I wish I could have more children, because two doesn’t seem like a home run in terms of being surrounded by love at the end of my life."

Aunt Brie questions who she is outside of her mother's controlling hand. Knows that she wants to raise her children differently.

"I don't want to be an abusive parent. I don’t want to be a screamer, or a hitter. I don’t want Cleo to have an eating disorder, or a complex, or be medicated from the time she can pee in an adult toilet."

Here is an excerpt of Brie's blog from June 17, 2019:

15-Year-Olds Don’t Care About My Issues

June 17, 2019

"Anyway, the reason why I think that there is something wrong with my kid, and my parenting, and my entire being is because my own fucking mother will not reassure me that I’m doing ok, I’m ok in who I am as a person, I’m normal, I’m not an outlier, I’m not dark with shame, I’m not a firebrand, the way I was born does not prevent me from being a successful, kind, and loved person, etc. I don’t know what her deal is, but I do know that being a parent is the hardest fucking thing in the entire world, not just because of the sleeplessness, or the physicality, or the boredom, or the pain, but because it forces you to confront yourself, and either change, or become an abusive fucking parent. And you have someone else’s life in your hands, and it’s no fucking joke, and you can’t fuck up because it all means something. Unlike all of the writing jobs I’ve done in the art world.

And I don’t want to be an abusive parent. I don’t want to be a screamer, or a hitter. I don’t want Cleo to have an eating disorder, or a complex, or be medicated from the time she can pee in an adult toilet. But I honestly do not have the tools at my disposal to figure out how to be a “good” parent. My mother is not there for the lesson. She’s playing tennis. I’m an amateur, and I don’t have a lot of time or energy to learn, and I’m scared. I don’t know who to consult, or what to read, or what the right thing is."

You can see our neighbor's dog trooper also taking up A LOT of space on the couch.

Aunt Brie struggles to suppress her own anger that she gets from Grumpa.

"Because sometimes I do lose my temper, I act lesser than, I let my worst self get the best of me, I can also be a fucking asshole. Especially via text message. Every day, I struggle to suppress this part of myself, the part of myself I get from my dad."

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog post from June 4, 2019:

These Pictures Tell A Lie, I Am a Very Flawed Mother

June 4, 2019

"Most people are assholes. Caleb’s general belief is that one should go through life fighting with as few people as possible, and whenever I tell him a story about someone pissing me off, he gets a look on his face like, “Oh no, you didn’t go psycho on them, did you?” Because sometimes I do lose my temper, I act lesser than, I let my worst self get the best of me, I can also be a fucking asshole. Especially via text message.

Every day, I struggle to suppress this part of myself, the part of myself I get from my dad, who last weekend, at the Memorial Day parade in Chappaqua, was the sole person screaming at the people who had come in from Michigan to heckle the Clintons as they walked by, and it is fucking exhausting."

"Quickly, she decided that I couldn’t write a book if I made her look like shit, and even quicker, she decided it need to be fiction."

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog post from May 17, 2019:

Life is Not Fair Except If You’re Caleb

May 17, 2019

"I finally came up with a solution of how I’m going to “make” it this week. My sister and I are on good terms right now. I know this because she FaceTimes me multiple times a day to talk about the handbag line she’s been trying to get off the ground since 2004.

The truth is that the best writing I do is about my family. And motherhood is a hot topic these days that everyone is writing about, but motherhood done like my sister is a unique fucking specimen.

“Can I write a book about you?” I asked my sister. I was walking the dog, which is my nightly routine now so that I can have a moment to myself away from my husband and children. Her adorable daughter was chirping “hi! hi!” on the screen next to her. My cousin Brian was also there, which I didn’t find out for a full five minutes into the conversation. In the background, my dad could be heard screaming about where the car keys could be found.

“Yeah, sure!” my sister said. “But can I get a part of the proceeds?”

“Of course,” I said. “We can get famous and go on a speaking tour together.”

“I don’t need the fame,” my sister said. “I am already going to get that from the handbags.”

Quickly, she decided that I couldn’t write a book if I made her look like shit, and even quicker, she decided it need to be fiction. I came to a clump of lilacs, and wanting to smell them, ended the conversation.

I could write a book about my sister easy. It would be magnificent, and if life is any indication, no one would read it but my family, who would disown me for it."

"When she [Grimma's Mother] was younger, my great-grandmother hit her with a belt, and blinded her right eye."

Here is an excerpt from Aunt Brie's blog from May 8, 2019.  

In Which My Nana, on Her Deathbed, Taught Me To Stop Expecting Everyone Will Give Me a Fucking Medal For Doing This Mother Thing

May 8th, 2019

"Life is not fair, and life has especially not been fair to my Nana. Or so it appeared to me until this past weekend. When she was younger, my great-grandmother hit her with a belt, and blinded her right eye. The past few months, her left eye has developed glaucoma, and weakened, stealing away her eyesight entirely. She once told my sister and I that she never would have married our grandfather if she hadn’t gotten pregnant with our Uncle Kevin. The two of them met, got engaged, and then he went to train in the air force for the Korean War. While he was gone, he met another woman, and wrote a letter to my Nana, asking for her ring back. Back in New York, he returned, got her pregnant. She raised their six children while also caring for him."

"He [Grimma's father] had four open heart surgeries over the course of their marriage, and also, was schizophrenic, unable to work for long periods of time. Somehow, she was strong enough to not resent him."

Grimma would suggest Aunt Brie should think twice about having children given the history of mental illness in their family, but Aunt Brie wonders if they weren't just over-medicated.

"My challenge is myself, and my whole fucked up family history, and my own flaws. I need to stop caring what other people think so much so that I don’t extinguish what makes my daughter a heroine — or even worse, medicate and prescribe her with disorders where none exist."

Here is an excerpt of Aunt Brie's blog from April 24, 2019:

Is Your Child a Piece of Work? Come out of the Woodwork

April 24, 2019

"Before I had kids, I would often have telephone conversations with my mom in which she would say: “Are you sure you want to have children given the history of mental illness in our family?”"

"My challenge is myself, and my whole fucked up family history, and my own flaws. I need to stop caring what other people think so much so that I don’t extinguish what makes my daughter a heroine — or even worse, medicate and prescribe her with disorders where none exist. I struggle every day with what makes a person who they are, and what is good or bad. I think often about whether or not my siblings were victims of our circumstances, or born the way we were. I wonder especially if we were over-medicated. But I also need to up setting boundaries, especially in regards to sugar, which 100% makes Cleo crazy. I have a hard time with the sugar thing because I was not allowed to eat sugar, and any sort of control is triggering, for me, reminding me of the miserable parts of my childhood."

Mom's side of the story is riddled with inaccuracies, shifty storytelling, and straight-up lies. Her family's history of behavior reveals a much darker truth.

The Truth: The bruise Mom reported were normal, but Dad noticed other concerning bruises.

Mom reported suspicious bruises to Evie's court-appointed attorney after a visit with Dad. Evie's attorney, Jennifer Jackman, noted that a bruise on the shin wasn't unusual for a child.

However, both Dad and the court-appointed Supervisor noticed numerous other bruises of a more concerning nature.

Members can see the evidence for themselves:

Mom previously confided in Dad and her therapist about her family's dark past. But, the story switches as she and the whole family deny anything of the sort. This is the truth.

The Truth: Mom's family has a long and storied history of abuse.

Despite a letter from Mom's family lawyer, Mom had her therapist confirm her parents' abusive behavior. As a child, Mom sued for emancipation and called CPS over 35 times. Mom's sisters have gotten into 'physical fights' with their parents.

In addition, all of the siblings have been diagnosed with, and sometimes covertly medicated for, the same hereditary mental illness.

This cycle of abuse is not a healthy dynamic for Evie.

Members can see the evidence for themselves:

The Lie: There is no history of abuse in Mom's family.

The Truth: A long and storied history of abuse haunts Mom's family.

Aunt Brie confirmed in her deposition that Mom and/or her Aunts sued Grimma and Grumpa for custody when Mom was a teen.

Mom herself wrote an account of the abuse she suffered as a child and requested her therapist give statement as to its veracity, "[Grimma and Grumpa] have a long history of being abusive (custody was taken away from them when she was a teen.)"

Her therapist responded, attesting to its truth.

Mom also told Dad about abuses that continue with her younger siblings.

The Truth: Mom's sister, Brie, also recounts incidents of abuse in their childhoods on her blog, ABrieGrowsInBrooklyn.com.