DON'T BE FOOLED BY ELAINE PUDLOWSKI'S LAW FIRM PROFILE PICTURE; DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU HIRE PUDLOWSKI AS YOUR LAWYER
Don't let Pudlowski's new picture on her law firm's website fool you. Pudlowski can switch the picture to fool the public that she was not involved in the Zoom meeting and Tolu v. Reid & Pudlowski. Pudlowski, however, can never change who she is as a person, a GAL, and a lawyer. For more information watch the Zoom and read Tolu v. Reid. Don't be fooled about who you hire to protect your family and your children.
Missouri parents learned of Elaine Pudlowski after Pudlowski and her friend, Sarah Pleban, hosted an infamous Zoom meeting to raise money for Pudlowski’s computer hacker to illegally access Evita Tolu’s computer to destroy Tolu’s lawsuit against Pudlowski and her friends, James Reid, so-called custody evaluator trained in geriatric and end of life psychology and Jennifer Van Luven, a licensed clinical social worker, whom Pudlowski hires in her cases to alienate the children from a parent that Pudlowski targets.
Pudlowski was a guardian ad litem in Tolu’s case. Pudlowski brought her friend, James Reid to evaluate Tolu's and her ex-husband, Robert Stientjes' psychological health. Reid fabricated false diagnoses against Tolu while ignoring the Department of Family Services’ findings that Tolu’s ex-husband abused and neglected the couple’s children. Pudlowski brought Van Luven to alienate Tolu’s children from their mother by disclosing Reid’s false diagnoses of Evita to her children during family reunification therapy, although the court ordered Pudlowski not to disclose Reid’s findings to anyone and especially to Tolu’s children. Pudlowski delayed Tolu’s case for three years during which Evita’s children were alienated from her by Pudlowski and Van Luven. Pudlowski, Reid, and Van Luven's financial exploitation cost Evita around $250,000 and loss of any contact with her children.
Tolu filed a lawsuit Tolu v. Reid, Pudlowski and Van Luven, Case 20SL-CC04680, in St. Louis County Circuit Court once Tolu investigated Pudlowski, Reid, and Van Luven and their financial racket. Do not be fooled Pudlowski does it to every parent who naively hires her to protect their children. Tolu was not her first victim, nor was Tolu Pudlowski’s last victim. Pudlowski has the highest case volume of any GAL and family court cases in the St. Louis Metropolitan area. In December 2020 and the first 2-weeks of January 2021, Pudlowski had 86 hearings in 86 different cases while the entire court system was partially shut down due to COVID-19 and seasonal holidays. Out of 86 hearings, 56 hearings were Pudlowski’s GAL cases.
In the 56-GAL cases alone Pudlowski collected $290,000.00 in GAL fees. While involved in Tolu’s case, Pudlowski disclosed to Evita Tolu the names and medical diagnoses of Kim Richmann,[1] who Reid diagnosed as delusional, and Caroline Van Den Berg, who Pudlowski diagnosed as “crazy[2] fabricating sexual abuse.” Pudlowski was GAL in these cases. Both Kim Richmann and Caroline Van Den Berg lost access to their children and were victims of Pudlowski’s financial racket. Kim Richmann sued Pudlowski and Caroline Van Den Berg filed a Motion to Disqualify Pudlowski from her case.
The St. Louis
County Circuit Court Case 20SL-CC04680 Tolu v. Reid (Tolu v. Reid)
In 2020, Evita Tolu filed a professional negligence suit in the St. Louis County Circuit Court, Case No. 20SL-CC04680, Tolu v. Reid, Pudlowski & Van Luven, against Pudlowski and Reid among others. The suit alleged that Pudlowski breached the fiduciary duty she owed Evita Tolu when Pudlowski released the Reid Report containing Evita Tolu’s HIPAA and PHI to Van Luven and Ottolini.
On January 21, 2021, while Tolu v. Reid, was pending, attorney Sarah Pleban (Pleban) sent an email (Pleban email) to gal@groups.outlook.com, attorney Hank Miller and Judge Michael Burton, (michael.burton@courts.mo.gov) (Judge Burton) then the Presiding Judge of the 21st Judicial Circuit Court. Pleban called “to mobilize and do what we can do,” against “the reprehensible lawsuit [Tolu v. Reid]” and “to get court involvement to stem this libelous narrative to protect the integrity of the GALs and the courts.” Judge Burton replied to Pleban stating that he planned a meeting “with leaders from the bar orgs,” domestic judges, including Judge Hemphill (then Presiding Administrative Judge of the St. Louis County Family Court) who “are all on board” to deal with Evita Tolu’s suit against Reid and Pudlowski. Judge Burton asked Pleban to share his email with “all that you trust” to gather support against Evita Tolu.
In his email, Judge Burton referred to Evita Tolu and other family court litigants as “jilted parents,” who “spread garbage about certain GALs and experts,” “acting in ways far from their best” in their “most toxic cases,” “unhinged, blaming everyone but themselves including the judges.” Judge Burton attached the Tolu v. Reid lawsuit to his email stating that:
Judge Hemphill and I thought that we could reach out to some leaders of the bar to discuss this
problem. We want to be proactive in
some way. The ability of anonymous trolls [referring to the Daily Docket
News, [DDN] was an email newsletter circulated to attorneys, GALs, therapists,
and court litigants which discussed cases pending in Missouri Family Courts and
offered its opinions on the conduct of the court involved professionals] to
harm people’s reputation is very troublesome.
We would like to meet with you [GALs] via Zoom/WebEx in the near future to brainstorm. … I really appreciate any help you can offer.
Pleban distributed her and Judge Burton’s emails, to all members of gal@groups.outlook.com. Evita Tolu was never a litigant and/or an attorney before Judge Burton or Judge Hemphill. Evita Tolu never met Pleban or Miller.
On January 27, 2021, Pleban held a Zoom meeting (the Zoom meeting) with the members of gal@groups.outlook.com, to discuss Evita Tolu’s Tolu v. Reid suit. This Zoom Meeting was recorded and posted on YouTube.
Around 40 attorneys attended the Zoom Meeting. [3] Among them were Shevon Harris (Harris) and Maia Brodie (Brodie), who are Special Representatives of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Region X Disciplinary Committee. Harris was introduced to the Zoom participants as the OCDC attorney. Harris provided legal advice at the Zoom meeting. Brodie observed the Zoom meeting.
Summary of the January 27, 2021, Zoom Meeting & the
OCDC’s Participation
The Zoom Meeting addressed two topics: the DDN emails which Burton attached to his email to Pleban and the Tolu v. Reid suit. At the Zoom Meeting Pleban stated, “we all have each other's backs” and “I and all of you will now support you, Elaine,” because “there is strength in numbers” and because “that sixty-page suit [Tolu v. Reid] is disgusting, and it disgusts all of us and …we are supporting you 100%,” and “we also want to do what we can do collectively,” and “hire our own investigator/IT guru.”
Pleban informed the Zoom attorneys that Pudlowski had retained forensic computer experts who provided 4 Tiers of investigation. These experts had already completed Tier 1 and “it came up with nothing.” Pleban asked everyone to contribute toward a $10,000 fee to pay the forensic computer experts (who charged a $425 hourly rate), to conduct forensic computer investigations of Tier 2 through Tier 4 into Evita Tolu and her attorneys.
Justin Ruth (Ruth) inquired whether their efforts to pay for computer forensic investigators would aid Elaine in her case as well as investigate the DDN which would assist all GALs. Pudlowski stated that “it’s [the DDN] a fake” and “there is no such thing.” Therefore, the only computers to be forensically investigated were Evita Tolu’s and her attorneys since the DDN “was a fake” and “there was no such thing.” Pudlowski said that she was committed 100% to complete the forensic computer investigation. Arthur Nissenbaum (Nissenbaum) asked the Zoom attendees to donate to pay forensic computer experts because “we need this,” and “it affects all of us.” Amy Diemer (Diemer) agreed, “we need this,” “[i]t is self-serving,” “once they [Tolu and her attorneys] take you down, then we're all next.” Pleban said, “they [Tolu’s attorneys] will be going after everybody they can find, … these lawsuits with women, mad women.”
Rachna Lien said, “at the end of the lawsuit [Tolu v. Reid], when all this is behind us” Pleban interrupted saying, “we will all have a victory party!” Lisa Sigmund said, “other lawyers want to donate money” to pay forensic computer experts “because they’re being thrown under the bus. This is not just the 38 of us. This is larger than this call.” Greg Brough (Brough) volunteered to serve as a treasurer to collect the $10,000.00. The Zoom attorneys discussed how to pay Brough, who insisted on depositing the $10,000.00 into his IOLTA account. Meeting attendee Harris was involved in this exchange:
Harris: And did I? This is Shevon. I
understand that this [$10,000.00] is going in a separate account, correct?
Nissenbaum: That’s correct.
Harris: Okay.
Brough: Does anyone have an opinion? I mean, I
was figuring on using my trust account.
But do you think that I should set up a separate account for this?
Harris: Yes, separate account.
Brough: Okay. I’ll do that.
Harris: Absolutely.
Jackson: We do not want to get in trouble with the
OCDC. If you put it in your IOLTA account and you get audited, you will get in
trouble.
Pleban: OCDC
attorney [Harris] is speaking.
Harris: I would certainly recommend a
separate account.
Brough: Okay.
Harris: Yes. That is not for clients.
Brough: Yeah.
Harris: And
you do not want anything to happen to that IOLTA account because it will be
combed through [by the OCDC].
Pleban: What if we just made it to Greg?
Harris: Okay, that’s fine. It wouldn’t go
into his IOLTA. He would just deposit it in a separate account obviously.
Pleban: Is it like could be placed into his
checking account. ... But would it get him in trouble?
Harris: No. …
Bauer: Is that a complication for Greg?
Harris: Sorry….
Betz: Is there a reason we cannot pay Elaine’s forensic company directly? …
Pleban: I don’t think Elaine wants us to know
what that is. All these paper trails. Look at who’s infiltrating. So, I think
that’s it’s got to go through her lawyer...
Brough: I think, I think the thing, the
approach I would want to take would be to just put it in my trust account. I
understand that may be a problem. …
Reichert: Hey Greg, make sure you listen to what
Shevon Harris has to say. She is on the
Disciplinary Committee, and she said …
Harris: in your operating account, yes.
Pleban: Okay. Not trust, the operating
account.
Harris: Stay away from the trust.
Zoom attorneys asked Pudlowski what else they could do to help her. Pudlowski promised to talk to her lawyers who had warned Pudlowski not to “spearhead” the forensic computer investigation herself and whom Pudlowski told that “other GALs and professionals were already working with an expert.” Nissenbaum suggested “to keep [forensic computer investigation] quiet or “it [was] going to become a part of the scheme” which “they [Tolu and her lawyers] can make even bigger” “if they [Tolu and her lawyers] figure it out.” Sharon Remis questioned whether their activities exposed Zoom participants to liability because they acted as a group. Pleban said that “they [Tolu and her lawyers] made up a whole bunch of things in the lawsuit against Elaine” and “they [Tolu and her lawyers] do that as well if it [the forensic computer investigation] becomes public.”
Brough suggested calling the organization “a GAL Committee.” Pleban questioned, “if we somehow have a committee that they [Tolu and her lawyers] come across, they [Tolu and her lawyers] then … file a lawsuit against every single person that's on this committee in some sort of a class action.” The Zoom attorneys discussed the structure of their entity and whether they should incorporate or set up an LLC to protect themselves from lawsuits. Betz joked that Pudlowski was running a Ponzi scheme involving kids. Pleban said, “when you’re selling kids, there’s got to be some money attached to it.” Brough suggested calling themselves Cash for Kids. Pleban added “LLC.” No one objected to being called Cash for Kids LLC.
The Zoom participants urged Pudlowski to ask her lawyers what steps their organization should take against Evita Tolu and Tolu v. Reid and what to do to protect themselves from any “potential backfire.” Pleban informed everyone that she planned to attend a meeting led by Judge Burton at 4:00 pm the same day because “it [the DDN and Tolu v. Reid] got judges attention… and threaten[ed] to take down the entire system and judges are in on it.” Nissenbaum asked if the judges were “pretty versed in this [Tolu v. Reid]” and if “Burton was doing anything” and “whether [Burton] understood what was going on with this lawsuit [Tolu v. Reid].
Venus Jackson confirmed that Burton “understands the issues,” “he reached out to multiple bar associations,” and “he is taking it very seriously.” Nissenbaum said “the people [family court litigants, including Evita Tolu][4] ... are people with personality disorders … [who] will take an unbelievable vengeance and will not stop at anything” and “that would … give them [Tolu and her lawyers] a whole lot of fuel … to try to destroy the system.” Nissenbaum urged, that it was “really important for us to try to do whatever we can, … to get to the bottom of this.”
On January 27, 2021, at 4:00 pm, Judge Burton had a meeting with “the leaders from the bar orgs,” judges, and “anyone Pleban trusted,” who “[were] all on board,” regarding Tolu v. Reid and the DDN. In February 2021, Evita Tolu’s Outlook email account was hacked. Evita Tolu lost access to her account for a day and a half. On February 12, 2021, Timothy Roldan’s (Roldan) [Evita Tolu’s attorney] phone registered an unauthorized attempt to download “an alleged software update” which was not sent by Apple. In 2021, on Mother’s Day, Roldan and his entire family were surveilled and videotaped by an unknown man while Roldan and his family were sitting outside of a restaurant, waiting for a table, in St. Louis City.
In Tolu v. Reid, Reid, Pudlowski, and Van Luven filed motions to dismiss, arguing that their conduct was protected by the defense of quasi-judicial immunity. The St. Louis County Circuit Court agreed with the defendants and ruled that the defendants were all immune from liability because they were court-appointed and served as the court’s agents in Evita Tolu’s custody case. Evita Tolu appealed the decision to the Eastern District Court of Appeals. On September 15, 2021, the entire Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District recused itself from considering Evita Tolu’s appeal in Tolu v. Reid, ED 109972 “based on appearance of a conflict,” because Reid’s spouse, retired Judge Lawrence Mooney had served as an Eastern District Appellate Judge before his retirement. In December 2021, the Court of Appeals found that Pudlowski and Reid were immune from professional negligence claims relying on State ex rel. Bird v. Weinstock, 864 S.W.2d 376, 386 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) which held that:
Extension of
judicial immunity to guardians ad litem in custody matters does not …. remove
all accountability. There are
numerous mechanisms in place to prevent abuse and misconduct. Attorney
guardians remain subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
[Emphasis added]. 864 S.W.2d at 386.
In Tolu v.
Reid, 639 S.W.3d 504, 520 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021), the Eastern District Court
of Appeals reaffirmed Bird (864 S.W.2d at 386), also holding that:
The Rules of Professional Conduct, and other statutory
or regulatory provisions applicable to Pudlowski's performance of her duties as
a court appointed GAL, serve as "mechanisms in place to prevent abuse and
misconduct," diffusing the concern that quasi-judicial immunity leaves
non-judicial officers unaccountable for purported misconduct. [Emphasis added]. 639 S.W.3d at 520.
Despite Bird’s and Tolu’s rulings and the Missouri Office Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC) Guidelines on Reporting Lawyer Misconduct to the OCDC (May 1, 2020) stating that only the OCDC can investigate and discipline Missouri lawyers (which includes GALs), the OCDC has not investigated and has not held GAL’s accountable for their purported misconduct.
For at least the past ten years, the OCDC declined to investigate complaints against GALs because the OCDC “does not have jurisdiction over GAL’s” and “does not investigate GAL’s case strategy.” There are no published Missouri cases in which the OCDC and/or the Missouri Supreme Court investigated GAL misconduct and imposed discipline.
Evita Tolu asked the OCDC to investigate Pudlowski, Pleban, and other Zoom participants. According to Tolu, Harris’ conduct was prejudicial to Evita Tolu and to the administration of justice. Harris’ advice on depositing $10,000 to pay forensic computer experts to conduct Tiers 2-4 of the forensic computer investigations of Evita Tolu’s and her attorneys’ computers (with personal and confidential client files) without any lawful process, was not appropriate. On July 7, 2022, Allan Pratzel, the Chief Counsel of OCDC replied to Evita Tolu stating that Tolu’s allegations regarding Harris’ participation in the Zoom meeting in “her official capacity as the OCDC officer” and “[y]our [Evita Tolu’s] assertions regarding Ms. Harris’ role in attending the subject Zoom Meeting are false.” In his July 7, 2022 letter, Pratzel stated that Harris attended the Zoom Meeting as a GAL. Pratzel refused to investigate Evita Tolu’s complaints against Zoom attorneys.
On July 11, 2022, Evita Tolu replied to Pratzel and
attached the transcript of the Zoom meeting referencing attributions to Harris
being an OCDC representative and Harris’ advice on how and where to deposit
$10,000 to pay forensic computer experts to investigate[5] Evita Tolu and her
attorneys. Evita Tolu explained to Pratzel
that Harris did not inform the Zoom participants that she was present as a GAL
or Pudlowski supporter. Harris was
addressed as an OCDC representative and attorney. Harris provided legal advice to
the Zoom attendees as an OCDC representative attorney versed in the OCDC
disciplinary process. Evita Tolu asked
Pratzel why the OCDC never stated publicly that Harris and Brodie were present
at the Zoom Meeting as Pudlowski supporters and not as the OCDC Region X
representatives. Evita Tolu stated that the OCDC’s silence ratified Harris’ and
Brodie’s participation in the Zoom Meeting as the OCDC’s representatives.
Evita Tolu questioned the OCDC’s policy of not investigating GALs due
to the OCDC’s “no jurisdiction over GALs” and the “the OCDC’s policy of not to
review the trial strategy of a GAL.” The
OCDC routinely investigates and disciplines lawyers, who are not GALs, who
violate the MRPC during litigation. Pratzel did not answer Evita Tolu’s inquiry
why GALs were absolved from the OCDC’s investigation and discipline if they
commit professional misconduct while representing the best interest of “the
most vulnerable group in the family courts, Missouri children.”
Evita Tolu provided to Pratzel information on eight
cases, in which two children, Christian Ferguson and Mikaela Haynes, died and
six children suffered permanent trauma because of GAL misconduct. Evita Tolu offered to provide additional
cases in which GALs placed Missouri children in harm’s way and asked Pratzel to
assist in protecting Missouri children and in restoring public faith in our
judicial system. On August 3, 2022,
Pratzel replied to Evita Tolu “I reject legal arguments and factual allegations
contained in your July 20 letter” “in the course of my official duties as Chief
Disciplinary Counsel, your request is denied again.” Pratzel did not ask for evidence of other
“tragic cases where children were placed in danger” by GALs.
If you want to learn what happened further, visit us frequently, hug your kids, and protect yourself, and your children from any danger, including people like Elaine Pudlowski.
[1] Richmann v. Richmann, Case
15SL-DR05045, St. Louis County Circuit Court, Pudlowski’s $80,857.81 bill in the
Richmann case.
[2]
Van Den Berg v. Van Den Berg, Case 15SL-DR05021, St. Louis County Circuit
Court. The DFS substantiated sexual
abuse of the child and all therapists recommended no contact between the child
and the abusive parent. Pudlowski did
not report abuse and therapists’ recommendations to the court. The court ordered joint custody.
[3]
At one point the Zoom attorneys refer to 48
attorneys present at the meeting.
[4] Evita Tolu never met Nissenbaum.
The attendees discussed other families they represented. Pleban talked about “a crazy mother,” Michelle
Perrotta, whom she had been dealing with in a pending custody case.
[5] Evita Tolu referred to an article about tasks performed by forensic
computer experts who “retrieve data from computers” “to use in criminal
investigations,” in conjunction with law enforcement, and “gather evidence
found on computers.” The Zoom attendees discussed a forensic computer
investigation into Evita Tolu and her attorneys’ computers, “for Elaine to use
in her case [Tolu v. Reid]” because “once they [Evita Tolu and her attorneys]
take you [Pudlowski] down, then we’re all next.” At that time, Pudlowski had
already completed Tier 1 forensic computer investigation “which came up with
nothing.” Pudlowski needed $10,000 to pay for Tiers 2-4 for forensic computer
investigation of Evita Tolu and her attorneys, which was not authorized by any
legal process.
Comments
Post a Comment