Emotionally charged divorced couple with Bibi Badejo
In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by barrister and advocacy coach Bibi Badejo.
Watch Bibi cross-examine both Steve and Olivia, who portray a divorced couple where neither party has clean hands. Bibi skillfully challenges each of their stories and their roles in a complex, multi-suit case involving large sums of money, kids and old wounds.
What’s covered in this episode:
- The foundation you can lay that boxes any witness in—and pays off big time
- A go-to framework for defending your client (even when their actions make zero sense)
- What your listener is really thinking when you’re sticking a witness to the question
- The sneaky way to trap a witness in their own admissions
- How to slice away a witness's opinion from the real evidence
Time Stamps
00:00 What’s Cross Lab?
2:20 The question to ask yourself that steers the judge and jury where you want them
3:14 How to adjust your language for judges and juries—and what juries don't want from you
6:18 A genius ‘common sense’ strategy to defend your client’s actions (even when they don’t make sense)
17:00 Mock Case Overview: Butler vs. Butler
19:38 Bibi’s Cross on Dane Butler: One fact questions that lay the foundation for a big payoff!
38:18 Painting a picture with facts that corner the witness and let their discomfort tell your story.
43:01 How starting with general questions can trap a witness with their own admissions
48:28 What your listener is thinking when you hold a witness to the question
55:26 Cross of Lily: Expertly separating a witness's opinion from the real evidence
1:20:02 Repetition that works for you—no matter what the witness says
Bibi’s website: https://www.theadvocacycoach.com/
The Advocacy Podcast https://www.theadvocacypodcast.com/
To get free resources for your next trial go to HausImprov.com
Transcript
We're not just actors. We've been cross-examined over 1,500 times in cross simulations to help train and coach some of the world's top trial attorneys.
We're not just trial consultants.
(:Through live witness sparring, we'll test constructive cross techniques, share fresh insights, and explore new strategies.
And even though the testimony may be fake, the trial skills? Totally real.
So let's experiment, discover what works, and have some fun in CrossLab. This show is brought to you by Trial House Consulting and powered by Lopods.
Welcome to CrossLab, I'm Steve Homan.
And I'm Olivia Espinosa. Today we are bringing a mock divorce case to life.
(:You might have heard the saying, in criminal defense, you get bad people on their best day. With family law or divorce, you get good people on their worst day. Today, our focus is going to be on emotionally charged witnesses.
And to help us do that, we have joining us barrister, Bibi Bodejo, coming all the way from London. She is the host of the advocacy podcast. And also she founded the advocacy coach where she coaches lawyers from all around the world on their advocacy skills. Welcome Bibi. So great to have you.
Thank you so much for inviting me. It's great to be here.
Before we dive into the case, you have such an amazing specialty. And I want to talk a little bit about your background and the overall approach to the cases that you work on. Because you coach other barristers and helping them become better storytellers in the courtroom. So I'd love to know a little bit about that work that you do.
Okay, where to even start? I guess I'm quite technique driven in terms of what I teach other people. But before we even get to that, we need to look at the case analysis aspect. Because I find if you delve into your cases, analyze them as much as you can, then you really get the story. And once you've got the story, then the cross examination, the direct examination.
(:you're closing, it all flows from there. So that's what I found is really important.
So everything sort of starts from there, that's the seed.
Yeah, definitely. That's the seed. So when I say case analysis, obviously, we're looking at, you know, what our strong points are, what our weaker points are. But I go further than that. I try and penetrate as many levels as possible. So I will also be thinking about why my opponent should lose, not just why I should win. I look at how I want to feel. So I set an intention for myself. And that drives how I shape my cross-examination. I think about the witness. I have a profile of them. I think, hmm.
What are going to be like? How am going to deal with you? How do I want you to feel when I'm asking you questions? And how do I want you to feel afterwards? And also for the tribunal, whether or not it's a judge or jury. And in my jurisdiction, family law, we have judges, no juries at all. So I'll be thinking about the way that I want the judge to think about this witness in particular. So all of that goes on in my head and shapes the way that I deal with witnesses and also my closing too.
We were actually going touch on that when you're talking about a jury versus trials with juries or a bench trial with a judge. Knowing that you primarily try cases in front of a judge, how does that affect the language that you use and also how you create the narrative that you're building?
(:It's really about taking a lot of the emotion out, whereas I think for a jury, they will be persuaded because of the rising emotions and so on. But judges, number one, they're probably more experienced than you, that is at the bar. They know the law, they're very experienced and they often don't want to hear it. So I tend to have to tone that down. And instead what I'm dealing with is the facts and drawing everything back to the evidence.
making sure what I'm saying is very much tied into the evidence to make it even more persuasive. So if I'm going to say that this person was an absolute scoundrel, I had better have something to back that up. So even if I might not use that word, which I would think is emotive, the fact that I've been able to build some building blocks to show that this person is a scoundrel, I know that the judge is going to think it in their head. So that's the way that I work instead of just relying on
getting emotions from my tribunal.
Well, I love that because it's actually do it is what we talk about with with attorneys who are doing sort of jury trials when it comes to allowing the jury to add it up for themselves. And we're not going to believe that because you're an attorney and you say that he's a scoundrel that, you know, automatically in our head, he's a scoundrel. But it's just like exactly what you're saying. If you add up the facts, then I'm going to think not just is he a scoundrel, but I might think, oh, my God, he's a dirtbag. He should be, you know, in jail or whatever that might be. I might even think.
steps ahead and more because you're allowing me to, you know, suss out the facts myself.
(:Exactly. And the beauty of that, I think, is because maybe I was thinking scoundrel and they thought dirt bag. Because they come up with dirt bag themselves, they own it. That's their conclusion, not something that I've pushed down their throat. But the other thing that I should actually say in terms of emotional emotions and a bench, I think I still try and dip in a different way. And it's a lot more subtle than being obvious.
And that would be in the sense of maybe justice and wanting the judge to root for my client or want them to do right by my client. So I will have to think about that in a much more subtle way. But I still want you to feel something. You will. They're obviously professional. I want you to feel something. It might not be the righteous indignation that I would want a jury to feel, but it would probably be something of the, well, that wasn't fair. No, I'm going to correct this and I'm going to make a decision that deals with this issue.
I do it in that sense instead.
Yeah, you know, and it goes into some of the types of cases that you do where there could be a lot of traumatic or sensitive topics that you do. And with all the challenges that there are, you know, going into those challenging and sensitive topics, you know, including non-accidental injuries or fabricated or induced illness and sexual and physical abuse, how do you go about painting that picture
knowing that the judge is who you're speaking with and how do you do that so you don't get too hyperbolic about anything and you can paint a really concise picture.
(:I probably again tie it down to concrete facts, one, but then I also try and use logic and common sense, which are, I think, two slightly different things, but things that we use in every day. And if I am able to tie someone's actions or non-actions to something that is within a spectrum of how a reasonable person would behave, then that makes it a lot more persuasive. People are going to react in different ways. So for example,
If I'm cross-examining someone and they're describing an incident that happened to a child, just imagine like, you know, they bumped their head. I'll make it as, not kiss as that, they bumped their head, but they don't cry. But they only cry when they're talking about themselves. I'd be pointing that out to the judge. It's those kinds of things that we'll be looking out for. So looking at their kind of reactions, but then there are other people who would be crying. Doesn't mean that they're telling the truth, but I think that would be within the range of
reasonable reactions. Also reasonable actions. People deal with things in different ways. So I can't always say that someone's going to, you know, run and call the police immediately. They might not. They might have to take a breath. They might have to call their mum and get their mother to do it. But is it within that range of what you would expect someone reasonable to do? So when it's my clients, I try and put them in that range.
If they're outside of it, I'll try and look at how I can extend that and expand that range. So, you know, it might not be what you did or you would do, but this is something that someone else could do and that's reasonable. And if I'm on the other side, I'll absolutely be trying to reduce it and just using different types of examples and analogies to demonstrate that. So it's really interesting that you set the parameters for what's reasonable.
and you set the parameters for what's common sense as well. So you can play around with that as much as possible.
(:When it comes to crossing adults versus crossing a child or a minor, how would you say your approach might differ?
It differs hugely. And the reason for that is because I'm not even allowed to cross a child or a minor, anyone under 18, in the way that I cross adults. So their class is vulnerable witnesses. So we have an advocates toolkit, which tells us how we can ask questions. So even in terms of leading, we're not allowed to use leading questions. It's honestly, it used to really frustrate me, but I think it's fair. Because, you know, we've had, I think, the youngest child to give evidence might have been about three.
And I have a three year old, I cannot imagine him being cross examined at all. And of course, very suggestible, they'll go with whatever it is that you say if they're trying to please. So instead, what has happened is we are meant to ask open questions. If we're going to put our case, we will have to say, well, did you, well, sorry, I'll just start that again. If we're putting our case, we might say, well, Mr. Smith says X.
but you said why, are you telling the truth? And then they can give us that. It feels unfair to the advocate because of course we want to be able to push through our case, but for the witness is so much fairer. And if they're not telling the truth, more often than not, they'll trip themselves up and then things don't make sense. So I still think that there's a fairness and there's a justice that comes out of that, but we make sure that we're treating people fairly. And so it's completely different.
How about, I was going to ask tonally, even when you're approaching a minor or child versus an adult. Obviously, you could bring a whole different energy obviously with adults than kids. But as far as the ...
(:The way that you keep an even keel or keep yourself as neutral as possible, does that change at all between a minor and an adult?
Yes, I think it does. Mainly because you don't want to sound like a teacher or that you're about to tell them off. And you don't want to sound like you're their friend either. That's quite disingenuous. So you kind of have to tread that line and think, am I going to be gentle but firm? Am I just going to play it straight? How am I going to be for this person? And of course, depending on their age as well.
Because I think 16 year olds, you have lots of 16 year olds who are sharp, so we can just have a conversation and I'll perhaps have a more conversational tone. And then if it was a very young child, say nine years old, I'll definitely be softer and I'll just be putting things out in a matter of fact way. I'll be using their names. So maybe it's Tommy, I'll be saying Tommy, I'm going to start asking you questions about the puppy might be, and that would be my tone. Whereas if I was with a 16 year old,
I might say, right, Janet, we're moving to the topic of the puppy. I'm going to start asking you some questions. You understand that? Yes. Okay. And then I might ask questions. So there's a slight shift. And then with an adult, again, I'd have a think about how I'm going to approach them. And when I say adults, I'm saying one without vulnerability. if they don't have any neurodivergence or anything else that makes them vulnerable.
I might be a lot firmer depending on what it is that I want to get out of that person. But ultimately it comes down to that analysis of the witness and who they are, how old they are, what you want to get out of them, how you think they'll respond and how you can most effectively get the answers that you want.
(:Before we move on, I want to touch on real quick, you mentioned that you're a parent of a three-year-old. Steve and I have almost five and almost a three-year-old. And the cases that you work on specifically that we talked about can be sensitive, can be traumatic, involve sexual, physical abuse. How do you sort of separate yourself or stay focused when some of the cases that you work on can really tug on your heartstrings?
To be honest, I think that the sheer volume is in a way, in a very strange way, a protective factor because I only have time to deal with it in a compartmentalized way and I don't take it home so much. But that's not to say that there isn't that drip effect of seeing horrible things, quite traumatic things that have an effect on you and it comes out in a different way.
So because I work in family law, my niche is children. I do a lot of public children work, which involves local authorities, social workers, et cetera. My thing is when they separate siblings, I get really upset about that. And so you would think it would be the more awful, traumatic stuff, but I can just think, OK, this is what's happened. I've prepared a schedule. I'm not meeting the child. So I can be quite distanced from it.
But then when I have things like that, it's just so sad. It's incredibly sad. it comes out in different ways. But I have to say, full disclaimer, I do have a therapist. So if there's anything that is overwhelming or I'm having difficulty with, I do go and make sure that I can talk that out because otherwise you just keep going on and it can be really difficult. But I can't say that I've got any strategies that I have in place beyond my therapist.
Yeah, I'm so glad that you mentioned that. Thank you for that because I think attorney wellness in that way and mental health is so important, especially with the cases that you're dealing with. Even if they're not on the spectrum, you know, to the extent that you are, you're still bearing a lot of weight. You're still bearing a lot of stakes, you know, high stakes in people's lives, you know, are in your hands. So thank you for sharing that. think that's really important.
(:Self care is so important, especially when you're doing such important work and speaking for, you know, being involved in really, really tough situations. that's, that's, that's, that is very, very important paramount. You can't take care of others if you can't take care of yourself, that whole kind of.
I will say there are some witnesses that Steve and I have prepared recently where, you know, in our preparation, we are playing the attorney that is going to about to, they're being prepared to depose or cross, right, or go up against in their depo and cross. you know, Steve and I, we have to take them to that level of what they might experience on the extreme end. And there are, you know, times where we, you know, a witness that we're helping prepare break down and
Yeah, that weighs on us and that weighs on our heart. And sometimes we have a good cry afterwards because it's tough, but we know ultimately that is, you we're helping them so that they can be better prepared when they go into whatever they're about to face.
We don't want any witness that we work with to be surprised by anything awful that the other side's attorney is going to say to them. Get it out now and then have a very warm afterwards saying, you did well. We are just playing a part, but now you know what it feels like, you don't have to deal with that surprise in the future. But it's never very easy. The more we like the witness,
Not that it's easy even when they're not our favorite person, but it's never easy to throw some really gnarly, some really mean stuff at them.
(:You're so nice. I'm like, that's the best part. I love it.
We always make sure we're prefacing, like, this is not Steven Olivia. Steven Olivia, I really love you and I like you a lot and want to work with you, but yeah.
Well, great. We've talked a lot about what you do in your normal day-to-day. Today is going to be a little vacation for you because we're going to deal with a divorce case with two probably very interesting couple that is parting ways or has parted ways. They're trying to figure that all out. Let's hear about today's test case.
th,:citing concerns that Dane might relapse due to his history of alcohol abuse and gambling addiction. Later, Lily totaled her vehicle in an accident with her two children in the car. No serious injuries occurred. Dane is suing to recover half of the withdrawn funds, arguing Lily's actions violated their 50-50 agreement. In response, Lily's claims that she experienced a manic episode related to her bipolar diagnosis
(:that was triggered by the situation and the inability to access her medication after Dane allegedly removed her from his health insurance plan early. Lily is countersuing for a larger share of the assets, citing financial disparity, primary caregiving responsibilities, and the alleged breach of their divorce settlement.
So today, Bibi, you're going be playing, you're going to be wearing two hats today. You're going to be representing Dane and you're also going to be representing Lily in a different capacity because you're going to cross both of us. We've already talked about it. You're going to start with a cross examination of my character, Dane. But before we get into that, what stands out to you about this case?
think what stands out is that neither one of them have come to the court with clean hands. So there's quite a bit for me to dig into. But also, it's quite emotionally charged because you can probably see why each person feels the way they do and why they've acted the way they do. But it doesn't necessarily justify it. So that's what's jumping out to me already. It's very interesting.
So we're going to give you about 10 minutes, we're just going to have time on the clock just to kind of so we can talk about it afterwards. But if it's a little under that or over, it's totally fine. But in sort of knowing what you're going to go for, is there anything that you want to confirm potentially that has already been admitted by Dane once you get to where you want to be? I'm excited by this. Let's do it.
No, no, I'm...
(:Ooh, that's fine. right. Thank you. Mr. Butler, when you were married, Lily and both children were on your health plan, weren't they?
Yes.
th of March,:There was.
, was it the end of December,: (:Yeah, we agreed to leave her because she couldn't sign up for her own insurance until the next year.
st of January,:That's correct.
(:Yes.
(:Yes.
(:Yes
And of course you would know that if she's not compliant with her medication, this might affect her mental health.
I suppose, yeah.
This would include things like unstable moods.
Yes, definitely.
(:And it was all definitely thank you. And it could also increase the risk of manic episodes, couldn't it?
I mean, I'm not a doctor. don't know exactly like, you know, how that all works or whatnot. I mean, I would say on her, even when she was on medication, she was pretty unstable most of the time. I don't know how much that affects things either way.
I'll ask you again, if she's not taking her medication, the risk of her having a manic episode would increase, wouldn't it?
I suppose.
And also, if she's not taking her medication, the risk of her having a depressive episode would increase.
(:Once again, I don't know exactly. I haven't been in those appointments and talked to her doctor about this. I don't know 100 % how much of that is like... I don't know. I don't know.
Well, let's have a look about it in this way. She had been taking her medication for nine years, hadn't she?
yeah.
And in general, her mental health was stable, wasn't it?
Campbell would say that's debatable with the way that she acted in our time together.
(:And before she has started taking regular medication. before the nine years of taking medication before that, she had more episodes, didn't she? Either manic or depressive.
It really started after Liam was born. That's when we really started seeing, or she started experiencing things for my recollection.
And Liam is 10 years old.
Yes.
And so 10 years before her mental health wasn't as, her mental health was poor. Is that right? Is that what you're saying?
(:Yeah, she had a real hard time after Liam was born.
So manic episodes, depressive episodes.
Yes.
Yes, absolutely.
These episodes were quite severe at times. Then she started taking her medication when Liam was maybe about a year old. Yes. Yes. And then these manic episodes reduced, didn't they?
(:Yes.
(:Yes.
(:Yes.
sorry, please finish.
No, but that being said, our relationship, when it comes to the way that she reacted with me, was very unstable. She would present to other people, pretty much anyone else in one way. And then when it came to our relationship, she was all over the place. Overall, yeah, her mood's regulated. But with our relationship,
It just kept getting worse and worse throughout the years.
Just looking at today's date, it's the 15th of February, this hearing, and at this point, Liam is still on your health insurance plan, isn't he? And Sophie, Sophie's still on your health insurance plan, isn't she? But Mrs. Butler is not, is she?
(:He is.
(:Yes.
(:Well, no, but I didn't know that she got kicked off. since she didn't, she didn't let me know what was happening until it was way too late. And I offered to put her back on, but you know, then all of this happened.
Well firstly, she didn't take herself off, did she?
No.
You've removed her from the plan.
No, really am still baffled about how that all occurred. I don't know how that happened.
(:and you haven't investigated it because you don't know.
No.
You haven't looked into it at all, have you?
Well, I have, but by the time I started looking into it, things escalated so much. Now we're at this gridlock.
st of December,: (:Yes.
th of March,:Yes.
With her benefits, I'll just say that again, when she was removed from your health insurance, it means that she doesn't have access to any of the benefits that health insurance provides. Yes?
Yes, that's true.
(:Okay, that includes doctor's visits, includes lab tests, prescriptive medication.
Yes.
Yes.
(:Yes, I will say this though, there are there's ways that she could get her medication and she knows she needs to take it. There's other ways that she can get her medication. wasn't, you know, just because she didn't have insurance doesn't mean she can't do the right things.
And in terms of the prescriptive medication, I think we've already established that if she wasn't taking her prescriptive medication, it could have an impact on her mental health, couldn't it?
I mean, I suppose so, yes.
Now, I'm going to continue saying that you removed her from their health insurance because that's what we say. Do not think that you bear some responsibility for her having an episode in May because she wasn't having her prescriptive medication because she wasn't on your health insurance.
No, if she was actually would have dialogue with me, if she would actually talk to me, I would have known that what the problem was with the insurance when she got the notice and I could have done something about it. so, you know, I don't know, I think she, you know, once again, I believe that she she had planned this, that that whole situation.
(:Okay, she planned the situation. Yeah. Absolutely. I'm talking about the health insurance. Are you saying that she planned no longer being on your health insurance? Is that what you're saying?
Taking the money?
(:No, I think she got angry with me, though, and that's when she planned to take all the money.
And she wasn't responsible for her removal from the health insurance, was she?
(:No, but I could have done something if she would have been, if she would talk to me.
You could have done something if we agree with what you're saying and somehow she has been removed from the health insurance and you found out. You could have done something about it, couldn't you? You could have told them to put her back on, but you didn't do that.
Absolutely.
Yes.
I didn't know.
(:And so you think you didn't know at all.
No, I didn't know until after.
And what are you saying happened then? Is it that your health insurance company decided that she was no longer going to be your wife because you are still married at this point, that your wife should no longer be on your health insurance and they removed her unilaterally?
Campbell, do know that in the beginning part of the year, I did change the level of coverage that we had. I think just something happened in that. I still don't know 100 % why that happened. But if you've ever dealt with an insurance company, you can know that they'll screw things up all the time.
th of May,: (:I am.
(:Yes, that's correct.
You went with a Miss Dawson, correct?
Yeah, I was dating her for short period of time.
And was this your idea?
I think we both came up with the idea. I'm not sure. I know that she had some friends that were from the... Basically it was a meeting place for some of her friends that were around the country. And so she, you know, we started talking about it. So I think that's, it was kind of a mutual idea.
(:this wasn't the first time you had been in Vegas, was it?
Now you went in October:Yes.
(:Yes.
lots of alcohol.
I was there for my cousin's bachelor party and it was a time for celebration.
Okay, time for celebration. So when I asked you if you're drinking lots of alcohol, the answer is yes, isn't it? And you were gambling as well.
Yes.
(:Yes.
Drinking affected the choices that you were making while you were gambling, right?
I don't know.
You know you you were gambling in full control of your senses. Is that what you're saying?
I mean, I knew what I was doing.
(:and were drinking as well. You were drinking a lot.
Yes.
(:I can't remember how much I was drinking that weekend.
Is it that you can't remember how much you were drinking because you're drinking so much? Mr. Butler?
You lost $20,000, didn't you? And that's a large amount of money to lose, isn't it?
Yes.
(:Well, with the dealings that I do in my work, that's not a whole lot of money. That's something that can be made in a morning sometimes. So I guess it's just the way that you look at it. And I don't believe that's a large amount of money.
Is it a small amount of money?
(:because it's a large amount of money, $20,000.
Like I said, it depends on who you're talking to.
I'm talking to you. Is it a large amount of money or not?
No.
You have a history of alcohol misuse, don't you?
(:Nice. Okay, let's do it. Let's do it. Okay, go, go, Get him. him.
(:We could go to the kids, yeah. You have a history of alcohol misuse, don't you?
I have come to terms with my alcoholism since then.
When was the last drink that you had?
I've been sober for about two years now.
eted a rehab program, you, in: (:I
hat rehab program in February:I suppose so.
there was the very obvious risk of a potential relapse, wasn't there?
Yes, but I mean I have the tools that I use now that that keep me keep me clean.
(:And there was a risk of undoing the good work that you did do in rehab, wasn't there, by placing yourself in Las Vegas.
I mean for some maybe, but for me I was very confident that I remain dedicated to my recovery.
It's unnecessary to test yourself in that way, isn't it?
Well, I would just say it's not about testing myself. It's about living life. I want to be able to live life and know that I have the strength and the understanding of my issue. I don't have to deny myself being in certain cities.
If you relapsed in Las Vegas, that would be a problem though, wouldn't it?
(:If I relapsed anywhere, it would be a problem.
She agreed that it was poor judgment for you to go on this weekend to Las Vegas, given your history.
No, I didn't do anything wrong and I was not going to drink or gamble that weekend.
If you were going to drink and gamble, or even just gamble, isn't it right that the only way to prevent you from spending large sums of money would be to remove large sums of money from your account?
I don't even understand that question. I'm sorry. don't. I don't understand.
(:No problem. I'll rephrase and that's my fault of course, Mr. Butler. Now, you've gone to Las Vegas where as a general thing that people know, people do gamble in Las Vegas. Yes. You have gambled in Las Vegas.
Yes.
(:Yes, I have but
Yes, you have lost what you say is not a large sum of money, but $20,000 in Las Vegas, haven't you?
I have, that was something that happened in my past, yes.
And my question was about your ability to spend large amounts of money in your account. If those large sums of money were not in your account, it's quite obvious that you couldn't spend it, could you?
No. But you know what? This is totally indicative of the way that Lily would do anything. Whenever we had any kind of agreement, she would always go back and try to play a mommy role, which she didn't need to do. I was not going to be gambling. I've already established that that was not my plan. There's lots of things to do in Las Vegas. There's great restaurants. There's great shows to see. There's other things to do.
(:You didn't speak to her before you went, did you? Her being Mrs.
No, I didn't need to.
And of course, she wouldn't know what your intentions are with you going to Las Vegas, would she, if you haven't spoken?
but at that point, we were a month and a half from making an agreement. We were just a matter of months from finalizing. We didn't need to have those kinds of interactions. And by the way, she would never reply to any of my texts or calls anyways unless she wanted something from me.
Text messages, well, that's a way that you could communicate. Hey, Lily, I'm going to Las Vegas. Don't worry, not going to be gambling. You could have sent something like that to her, couldn't you?
(:Yeah, maybe, yes.
I'm now going to move on to another topic, which is about your children. Now, they are with their mother from Monday to Friday every week, aren't they? You have them two weekends a month?
Yes.
That's all I could get from Lily, yes.
What days?
(:It's usually the second and fourth weekend of the month, Saturday and Sunday. Sometimes she'll let me have them Friday night as well.
Okay, so between two to three days every weekend. Every, sorry, every other weekend, not every weekend, that's right. So you have them between four to six days in a month. So it's quite clear that she has them for the majority of the time, doesn't she?
Guess.
(:Yes.
(:Yes.
(:But that's her choice. I tried to get more days. In the interest of trying to resolve this for the kids so they didn't have to go through a long divorce, I tried to come up with an agreement or agree to terms with her so we could move this along. I would love to have more days.
So the answer to my question is yes, she has them for the majority of the time, doesn't she?
Yes.
She has them for, and I can break down the calculations if you like, but you'd agree with me that she has them for well over 70 % of the time, doesn't she?
(:But is what you're saying that you think it's fair that despite her having the children for more than 70 % of the time, she should only have half of the marital assets?
I'm also going to be giving her $120,000 a year for the next 10 years, maybe longer. It's not like she's just getting half of the assets. She's also getting that support as well.
My question was whether or not you thought it was fair that despite the fact that she has them for more than 70 % of the time, she should only get 50 % of the marital assets.
Yes, absolutely.
And then I would end it there because I'm going to use that in my submissions.
(:Fantastic! How did that feel, Bibi?
Oh that was fun! I liked it!
Some good stuff. Yes. Oh man. Yeah. I love the idea that you, you really painted some great pictures in terms of mental health. didn't just say the general mental health that affects her mental health, but you went into unstable moods, manic episodes. And when you were adding those things up, think the next thing you said was depressive episodes. That's when he was like backed into a corner. He started like, you could tell that he was
visualizing it in his head that he remembers things that these are memories that that come up for him and affect him. And you went there because here's what you did after that. You he started to kind of waffle on you and then you made him remember it. Well, before you talked about the severe past versus the present now. And so you you said, OK, let's go there and and let's let's paint a clear picture of what she was like before the medication.
and what she is like with medication. And I just, thought that was really, really effective because he was already going there. And that's really the point that you wanted to make, that the medication is what, you know, affects her in a positive way that she absolutely needs in order to live her life. I really thought that the other wonderful thing that you painted a picture of, because it's not just about the idea of medication. That's just one thing. But when somebody is taken off of insurance,
(:They can't go to a doctor. They can't have lab tests. And of course, they can't do the medication. So I loved that trilogy that you had in there because it just paints a picture of everything that could potentially affect her. If there was an emergency, she'd be screwed, right? She wouldn't be able to have any of that. Yeah, Steve, how did that feel?
it was terrible for me. It was awesome. Well, I had a couple things. I just imagined that this guy had a lot of excuses with a lot to back it up, you know? But I loved that you got me to an emotional place too by kind of ratcheting it up and like putting the screws to me. And at the end, felt like I wanted to lash out a little bit at what you were, you know, what you were suggesting, what you're doing.
I had to defend myself because this was so unfair, that kind of thing. But you just walked me down all those different paths, first with the medicine or the health insurance issue, and then with the Vegas thing. I think that's when I really got started getting upset. I didn't do anything wrong, that whole thing. And she acted all crazy. So that was fun to get to that place.
I would have, I think there was one point where I think we could have gone a little bit further. For example, what he didn't do. He didn't, you said he hasn't looked into it. And then potentially like he hasn't called the insurance. He hasn't done these things because later you did a great loop when he says like, I could have done something if she told me and you looped it. And you said, you could have done something.
And so then at that point you could bring back anything that you would have established before. You didn't call, you didn't, know, whatever all the things that he didn't do, just nail him with all of the things, know, looping that back around, the whole thing back around.
(:good trilogy right there would have been really really nice.
Yes. The thing that you that I think was so like knife in the heart to him was she didn't take herself off of the insurance. That was so fantastic. So fantastic. The other thing too is I think even starting generally might have helped him to to admit to some of the things like either like something like most alcoholics don't put themselves in situations where they would get triggered. Right. Yes.
People gamble in Vegas, people drink in Vegas, people do things they regret in Vegas. So that maybe if we're starting general, then he's like backed in a corner again, where he just shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But that was the only thing. And I think it maybe, in a sense, could save you time if he's admitting that thing in general first. But I think it was effective when it was like, you clearly got him and made him uncomfortable for sure.
That whole part where you were saying, basically, if I didn't have money, I couldn't do bad things. was like you first. I understood the question, by the way. I totally understood the question. I didn't like that question. I didn't want to answer that question. So that was that was one of my favorite parts of the cross. I say because the best thing about that is you backed up and you're like, OK, fine, let's go ahead and break it down then.
Let me ask you in a different way. It didn't break your stride at all. Your tempo and your tone and everything never changed at all, unless you wanted to ratchet it up a little bit. That was one of my favorite parts of that cross.
(:Did he respond the way you expected him to be or was there anything that surprised you?
think where what I wasn't expecting was when he says, I don't know what happened. Actually, she just came off. I don't know what happened. And so was like, darn it. So he didn't do it. So how did she come off? So I just had to spend a little bit of time just talking that through. It didn't necessarily matter because I thought, well, at the end of the day, he's responsible as the policy holder. So he would have found out and he could have done something. So that's where I decided to pivot.
That's great. the she didn't take herself off it was something that you just got in the moment. Yeah. Love.
Campbell Well, the whole thing is, because you broke it down factually, I don't think anybody would believe that it just happens. mean, that's the whole thing, right? Like, he's a liar. He's full of it. Or he's just negligent. Those are the two options. Either he's a liar or he was super negligent and not on top of things. Because if she got a notice that she was getting kicked off, he would have got a notice as well as the named insured. it's a mystery.
anything that she knew he would have known too by documentation.
(:also it's selective, like wouldn't the kids have gotten kicked off too? If everybody was doesn't make any sense. Yeah. His story is a bullshit.
Exactly.
(:I thought that's why I could push and basically say to him that he's lying. I thought I could push further and do that. It just didn't make any sense. Yeah. Yes. The thing in terms of my last question about whether or not he thought it was fair that despite her having the children for more, he thinks 50-50 is fair, was because I was thinking about submissions. I want to quote from him and I want to show how unreasonable he is.
So I was happy for him to say, either you think no, no, actually, it's not fair. She should have more. I win. Or carry on with your, you know, very stubborn position that's completely inequitable. And then I can, I can argue that as well. So that's why I thought I'd end strongly, I hoped.
Yeah. Well, I want to go back to because even there was a conclusion on a lot of money. Twenty thousand dollars is a lot of money. That's a conclusion. But holy crap, he went with you on it and said no, in comparison to what I do in my day to day job, that's not a lot of money. And so you just pinpointed him to that. Twenty thousand dollars is not a lot of money. And he said no. But obviously most people listening.
That's a lot of money, right? I don't need that conclusion or even that because there was a conclusion there. I'm, I still know in my head that that's a ridiculous answer. That $20,000 is a lot of money.
That goes into something that we know from all the work that we do. We see this sometimes with attorneys we work with. They get really stuck on wanting the witness to answer in a certain way. You did it multiple times, B.B., where it didn't matter. It didn't matter what he was going to say. You trapped him. You put him in a box that no matter which way he went, he loses. Like you said.
(:Either, like at the end, either he agrees that your client deserves more or he gives you a nice sound bite about how ridiculous he is and unfair. And that's the point. I think that was such a... Anytime we get to work with you, Bibi, it's always lovely because you're so good at creating those traps and putting that foundation in there so you can...
create those traps for the witness. Well done!
And we're
Can I ask you this? Because one thing that as an advocate that I don't like is when people don't answer my questions. So I apologize to my family again and again for this. But if I ask a question, I expect an answer. So when you didn't answer my question, there was an element that I don't mind what you say, but answer my question. So I felt that I could push you and press you to make sure that you answered my question or maybe I would just give you the answer. So the answer is yes, then.
And you'd have to say, did you feel pressure from me saying that? Or was it just something that you felt you could ignore?
(:Campbell, know that my job is or my expectation is to answer that question. I owed you a yes or a no. I could add anything afterwards, obviously. I tried to do it the other way, where I'm giving the preface first about why. But when you do that, though, every time you do that and you say yes or you gain more control every single time you do that.
It irritated me. I didn't like it. I knew I had to give you a yes or no. But I just think that's a, you know, you're keeping your upper hand when you do that. it might have made me more mad, but I think that works for you, right?
Yeah, and as a listener, all I'm hearing is he's not answering the question, right? I'm just hearing him waffling. And especially when you repeat it and make note or allow us to realize, oh, wait, yeah, he didn't answer what she just asked. that's what I'm getting as a listener, he's yeah, he's being, yeah, he's being an ass.
This is exciting. We're halfway through. We get to see now you're going to change hats, BB. you're going to, you're going go, you're going to be my advocate now. You're going to be Dane's advocate and you're going to go after poor Lily or is it poor Lily? You know, you know, I don't know. We're going to find out. But let's go ahead and take a quick break and we'll be right back. Since we're taking a break, let's quickly talk about our partners at Law Pods.
A lot of people think that that's the company that just produces the podcast for TLU, our trial lawyer nation, but actually what they mostly do is work with lawyers just like you to reach non-lawyers, AKA potential clients.
(:Yeah, podcasts like your audience get to know and trust you and Robert Ingalls and his team make podcasting easy.
With over 100 million people expected to listen to podcasts this year, there's never been a more effective way to market your practice.
To get more information, visit lawpods.com. That's L-A-W-P-O-D-S dot com. Tell them we sent you.
Welcome back, and we are going to have our second half of this episode. So we get to see Bibi take on Lily. But before that, we do have some more questions about just how you approach things, Bibi.
Yeah. So Bibi, we just saw with Dane that he was definitely getting emotional. He was being irrational at times, or at least not to stick into really what I think as Lily as the facts. But in terms of your typical control techniques, you did some great looping. Is there anything else that you, when it comes to a witness like this, to kind of help keep you stay on goal with dealing with someone that is emotionally charged in this way?
(:Yes, a few, a few techniques, which is keeping your questions short. Because if I keep them short, I can remember them. If I have a preamble, I will not remember it and then the questions gone. So if I keep them short, then and I'm listening closely, and I realize that he's not listening, my witnesses and answering my question, I can just repeat that again, and get them to answer the question in that way. And also, I think keeping an
balanced approach. So in my head, I was thinking of being like a steamroller. So just constantly putting on the pressure, not letting up at any point to keep the witness under pressure a bit. So having that in mind meant that I was pretty steady, not being flustered or taken off track by any of his responses. And there were some responses that he made that I wasn't expecting, but that was fine.
I definitely saw that where it's like he's trying to take you down a rabbit hole and you just, and you're not going to bite because you have a goal. You have a, yeah, absolutely. that's, I'm glad that you talked about short questions because, as, when we're playing a witness, when a attorney gives us a long question, multiple facts or a big explanation before the actual question,
it actually subliminally gives us permission to also answer a long-winded question or a long-winded answer. And so the shortness of it helps with that. But also then as a listener, if we're hearing your short question and the witness is going off on a long one, then we immediately start to tune out to them and just listen to you because you're the short into the point one, right? So it can do a couple different things.
subliminally to the listener and to us as a witness having those short questions. So I'm glad that you mentioned that. All right. Well, I got to get geared up because after seeing that I'm a little nervous.
(:Before we go into the second cross, BB, any goals or any insight on what you're looking at as far as your cross of Lily?
So in terms of Lily, I thought that she's this mum who has been looking after her kids. She's been taking her medication up until this awful client of mine stopped her. So I thought that I have in approaching her, I need to be quite careful and not particularly abrasive or anything like that. So that's what's going on in my head at the moment in terms of just even just having a different approach.
Probably being a bit shorter with her in terms of length, of course,
Well, good. I can't wait to see what happens. Please, let's get her! Bibi, I need to keep my money! I need to keep half my assets! Please! I have a condo to pay for! New condo, new bachelor pad!
I'm digging girlfriend. Yeah. Yeah.
(:One of probably a few girlfriends. All right. So anything that you want to set up before you go into this cross with
No, think I'm good to go. Thank you.
All right. Well, BB, the witness is yours.
Thank you. Mrs. Butler. Is it Mrs. Butler or Ms.?
I am not going by that man's name anymore. I am Lily Sharp. Please, that's my maiden name.
(:Thank you, Ms. Sharp. Ms. Sharp, you're still working, aren't you?
Yes, I own an Etsy shop.
And you know that Mr. Butler is still working as a venture capitalist, don't you? And that money is still being paid into the joint account that you shared.
Yeah, it is.
And before you liquidated the assets, your investments were still providing return, weren't they?
(:I mean they were, yeah sure.
On the 17th of May of last year, you removed the money from those bank accounts, didn't you?
to protect my family, my kids, yes, I did what I had to do.
you also liquidated the investment portfolio, yes?
like I said, to protect my family. I did, yes.
(:And you transferred money to new accounts, didn't you? With Chase Bank. And only you have access to those accounts.
Yes, I did.
Yes?
(:That's right.
You agree that these are marital assets?
I mean, they were, but when my husband decides, my soon to be ex, decided to act in an irrational way that could squander everything that we worked hard for as a family, yeah, I took it upon myself and I have access to that. I do not trust him. He should not be trusted.
These are marital assets, aren't they? The money and the accounts and the investments.
They were, yes.
(:And what you did by transferring the money to other accounts is that you denied Mr. Butler access to these assets, didn't you?
If he needed money, he could certainly come to me and get that. mean, if he was gonna be actually trustworthy and a husband that I could count on and a person that was an actual parent to our children, then yeah, sure, he could have whatever he needed. He just needs to come to me.
And you denied him access to those assets, didn't you?
Yeah, I did.
From my understanding, the reason you did that was because you were worried about him gambling in Vegas.
(:That's exactly why I did it, yes. And he lost a lot of our money before. Money that could go to our kids' education, their classes for tennis, their gymnastics, things that our family relies on were taken away by him.
rring to, this was in October:Yes, that's not the only time though. That's just the biggest one, but he is a gambler through and through and he'd go and be like $500 here, $1,000 there, $3,000. That's just the biggest one that I could remember.
e attended rehab in February,:I mean, yeah, as far as I'm aware, if you're trying to say that he didn't, but I'm pretty sure he did.
(:If you're sure that he did, then that's absolutely fine. And again, as far as you know, and I only want to know what you know, he hasn't relapsed since he attended that rehab in February 2022.
I don't know that for sure, no.
(:So you don't know that for sure, meaning you don't have any evidence that he has relapsed.
I mean, who goes to Vegas and doesn't drink?
You don't have any evidence that he has relapsed.
I don't have any evidence, but I know him. I've known him for a really long time.
ing about is between February: (:I don't. mean, like I said, if you want to take his word for it, sure, but I know him and I doubt that he has not been drinking.
You know him, but you don't have any evidence.
I don't have any evidence, no.
You know him, but you don't have any information about him drinking.
Have I literally seen him with my own eyes? No. But like I said, who goes to Vegas and doesn't drink?
(:So you're speculating as to what he's done in that 15 months between him coming out of rehab and him going to vacus. Yes?
I guess so.
Now I'm going to put to you that the way that you behaved in transferring the money was a disproportionate response. Do you agree with that or not?
No!
% of: (:Yes.
(:Well, I didn't do the math, but to me and my family, $20,000 is a lot.
So what we're talking about is less than 10%. So you're saying you were so concerned of him spending less than 10 % of the total amount of your joint account that you removed the entire sum. Is that what you're saying?
$20,000 is a lot to my family. And if he would have had the funds of just whatever was in our bank account, who knows if he would have done 40, 50, 100,000. I don't know that. He's an alcoholic and a gambler. That's what they do.
So you're speculating again, aren't you?
No, that's what alcoholics and gamblers do. They spend money and drink.
(:You don't know whether or he was going to spend any money, do you?
I mean, I don't, but listen, I did that for a reason. He took things already from our family. He took the fact that I have to be on medication. Like, that's a big deal. Things that are a big deal to me and my family, he took away.
You also liquidated the investment portfolio, didn't you?
Yeah, I did.
And that's $4.2 million of investments, yes.
(:Yes. And listen, the part that we're not talking about is that I was having a manic episode. Like these weren't necessarily the choices that I would have wanted to make in the moment, but these are the choices that happened because of the lack of medication and the lack of support.
Given that you wouldn't necessarily have wanted to make those kinds of choices, do agree that you made the wrong choice in that moment?
I did what was right at the time.
Since you were having a manic episode, do you think that your decision making was completely reasonable?
(:Can you ask me that again? Yeah.
You were having a manic episode, weren't you? Yeah. And I'm just picking up on what you said. I'm just trying to find out whether or not you think that the decision you made to move all of that money was a reasonable decision whilst you were having a manic episode.
Yeah, I did what I thought I should do at the time. And based on my past experience with Dane, I did what I thought was right.
Now I'm going to go back to the total assets. You've already accepted that you transferred $4.2 million. The total is $4,420,000. And again, your counsel will correct me if I'm wrong, but that $20,000 that you were worried about only represents 0.45 % of the total liquid wealth. Firstly, do you accept that?
I mean, if that's what you say the math is, sure.
(:And would you agree that if he had spent 0.45 % of your total liquid wealth, that your response was disproportionate?
If he spends anywhere near $20,000, like listen, beforehand, if we had something big that we were gonna purchase, like a car or when we bought our house, that was a mutual decision. Anything big like that is a mutual decision unless he goes to Vegas and decides to gamble it all away. That's a decision that involves me and my family that he is doing without any regard to us at all.
I did what I had to do to protect us.
You knew he had gone to Vegas with a new girlfriend, didn't you?
Yeah, I found out about it. Like, he didn't tell me directly, but I found out about it.
(:and you don't like it.
I didn't like it because people gamble and drink in Vegas and he is a...
(:He's a drunk and he would gamble away everything if he could.
He's a drunk, you're calling him a drunk now.
to this quote.
drunk, always drunk. So really trying to embarrass him then.
I mean, that was just between us at the time. didn't know that. Like, obviously, like, it was something that I thought would just be between us. But listen, I don't.
(:That was not my intention, no, to embarrass him, no. Why would I do that? It was to protect my family.
Well, let's have a look at the effect of removing the monies from the account. It means that if he tried to use his card to buy chips in a casino, his card would decline, wouldn't it?
Gap.
And if he tried to use his card for other reasons, it would also decline, right?
Like buying alcohol, yeah.
(:and also paying for accommodation.
I guess so.
trying to get an Uber.
Yeah.
paying for a restaurant.
(:And you did this when he wasn't even at home. He was away from home, didn't you?
I mean, he doesn't travel without money in his pocket. So come on, he had money. He also had credit cards. So please, don't make him out to be like a saint here or like me, the bad guy. Okay, like he has money. He has credit cards, come on.
You tried to paralyze him financially, didn't you?
He tried to paralyze me, literally. Do you know, like, what can happen without my medication? Obviously, like, that's a really big deal. And he tried to paralyze our entire family, gambling away all of our money.
Let's look at how you conducted yourself. I'm now going to just move this on. So you found out he was in Vegas on the 17th of May. What time did you find out? In the morning, how early in the morning?
(:in the morning.
(:My kids were having breakfast, it was like 9 a.m. or something.
What time are you at the bank?
when they opened, I think it was like 10.
So within an hour, you're finding out you were in the bank.
Yes.
(:Mr. Butler has explained to me that you didn't share any advice about tax implications. Is that right? You didn't share anything with him about tax implications of you removing the money in the way that you did.
No.
And that's because you didn't get any advice about that, did you?
(:I mean at the time, no, I did not.
And at the time you didn't get any information or any advice about any penalties for withdrawing the money.
At the time, I was worried about my family and keeping my family safe and protected. My kids have to go to college, they have to eat, I have to put food on the table.
So you didn't get any advice or information about penalties, did you? You didn't get any information or advice on the loss of the investment position either?
No.
(:No.
and nothing about trading fees.
No.
So no advice whatsoever. You just did this on a whim within the hour of you finding out.
It's, I did not make the decision lightly. I feel like he made the decision for me based on his actions. He made the decision for me.
(:But you didn't tell him about this decision, did you?
He already made the decision for me.
No, you didn't tell him about your decision to move the money, did you?
At the
You didn't tell him before, and you didn't tell him after at all.
(:No, I didn't.
You closed all the checking accounts, didn't you?
Yes I did.
How many of those?
to.
(:and you sign for each of those. The savings account, how many of those are there?
Yes.
(:One.
and you had to sign for that one, didn't you? And then, please forgive me if I've got this wrong, but with the investment portfolio, that's a Schwab account. Is that with the same bank that you have your checking accounts and savings accounts with? It is. But you only liquidated that portfolio, didn't you?
Yes.
(:Yes.
(:Yes, I did.
And then when you opened a new account, it was with another bank, wasn't it?
Yes. Right.
That was with Chase. And you had to go to Chase in order to get that sorted.
Yeah, I did.
(:and you need to take your identity documents with you, don't you?
(:Yep. And you were ready with those because you opened the accounts on that day.
I did.
Because all of this was planned, wasn't it?
could it have been planned? I found out that morning that he was going to gamble it all away. so no, I before that morning, no, absolutely was not planned.
You planned it in the sense that you heard that he was in Vegas, you decided you were going to take all the money and you got your identity documents so that you can do this. That's right, isn't it?
(:Yeah.
Now, when we look back in time, we know that there was an agreement on the 28th of March, wasn't there?
Yes.
And you had agreed that you would split it equally, haven't you? That's 50-50, yes?
I That wasn't just what I agreed, that's what we both agreed to.
(:It's right that this agreement wasn't changed, was it?
(:What do mean?
No one changed the agreement, did they?
Well, I mean, listen, if he's going to gamble it all away, then clearly he had other ideas for that money more than just, you know, protecting and taking care of his family.
Mr. Butler did not say to you, I would like to change the split, did he?
Well, he showed me with his actions that he didn't care.
(:He did not say to you, I want to change the agreement in terms of the split.
No, he did not.
So you didn't have his consent to change the agreement.
He didn't have my consent to go to Vegas and gamble all of our money away.
Sorry, he needs your consent to go to Vegas.
(:To gamble our money, yeah, he needs my consent.
These are two things. Does he need your consent to go to Vegas?
No.
he needs your consent to spend any money in his account. Is that what you're saying?
Whose money is he going to use? Like when he does it, he uses the money that's in our account. And I know him. He's a gambler and an addict and he's going to gamble it all away. And so he made that decision for me. He's the one that broke that 50-50 agreement first. And I had to step in and protect my family.
(:So are you saying that he needs your consent to spend any money in that bank account?
No, but I had to protect my family.
And in protecting your family, you didn't get permission from the court, did you? To change the agreement?
I didn't have time, had to make a quick decision before it was all good.
We know that you didn't tell him before, so we know that you didn't give any notice in advance.
(:I had to do it quick before it was gone.
And when you were reaching this agreement, you had lawyers, you?
The 50-50 agreement? Yes, cause we- Yes.
the 50-50 agreement.
(:And they gave you advice. And please don't tell me what the advice was. But they did give you advice, didn't they?
Yeah
And course, if you didn't like something, you didn't have to agree with it.
No, it was a mutual agreement. We both agreed at the time.
A mutual agreement that you both agreed, but you decided based on speculation that you were unilaterally going to change it. Isn't that right?
(:he made the decision for me. He can, I have seen him sit at a craps table and bet $10,000 each time. Like that's how quickly our money could be gone. And so yeah, I had to make a quick decision. I'm sorry, but it was for my family.
And you breached this agreement, didn't you?
he breached the agreement. I had to do what I had to do to protect my family.
Well, the agreement wasn't that he couldn't go to Las Vegas, was it?
No, but the agreement was that it would be something that would be for both of us, for all of our family, the four of us, 50-50. And clearly, if he's going to go to Vegas, he doesn't care. He doesn't care.
(:So we have you, Ms. guessing, speculating, changing agreements unilaterally. That's poor judgment, isn't it?
No, that is, you know who made poor judgment is him.
I think you are saying to this court that what you did was right in breaching the agreement that both of you had signed up to with the advice of lawyers.
I am thankful that we have that money in the bank because it would have been gone in a split second. That is how much of a gambler he is. That's how much he doesn't care. That is how much of a drunk he is.
Thank you,
(:How did that feel, BB?
Yeah, that was good. So with someone like that, I was thinking about numbers as well, and trying to look at proportionality and using that as a way to drive my point home because I thought she'd be quite likeable. Actually, I thought she'd be quite likeable. So if I can show, for example, that what she was so scared of was such a minute, literally a drop in the ocean in comparison to.
their combined wealth, then it would show that she's been, she's overreacting, possibly. So that's why I did the calculations there. And, you know, again, some responses that I wasn't expecting, but I loved because she called him a drunk and I was like, great, insult him in your evidence. That's fantastic. And every time she kept saying that
this is what he does and so on. It didn't bother me too much because I've already established that she didn't have any evidence or information that he was actually drinking. So what I was thinking about, again, it's all relating to my closing speech, is that despite having any information whatsoever, her story that she has created with no backing is that he's a drunk and he's going to spend that money. And that's been the driving force, which is quite dangerous.
So yeah, it was fine. It was cool. It was cool. Then she started crying. I was like,
(:Didn't faze you at all Oh, yeah
I can wait. I was going to say she want me to wait. She want this issue. I'll just be quiet and wait until you get yourself together.
Yeah, I think you could tell it worked for you for sure. Either way, it doesn't matter.
Bibi, there's a lot of things that I was just absolutely loving. I love the whole chapter of, know him, but, and there was just a list of, you know him, but, and then summing it all up at the end where you said, you're just speculating. And that was such a nice theme that you did in the beginning and you saw all the way throughout. Now, the other part I really loved is when you asked her if, and this is a conclusion, but it worked really well because
Were your actions completely reasonable? Because she's even saying that she was in a bad state at that moment. If she's doubling down on that it was reasonable, but it wasn't, there's a contradiction there. That was such a wonderful thing. Like you said, I love the whole idea of her reaction was disproportionate to...
(:to what was actually happening. And I knew you were aggravating her when she said, listen. And then she went on to a thing. I was like, yeah, get her, BB, get her. And I love the chapter on embarrassing him and all of the different things. Embarrassed him because he wouldn't be able to get chips. He wouldn't be able to get an Uber or go to eat.
or pay for his hotel, you absolutely paralyzed him. And I love that. And then walking through all the steps. I mean, it just shows like when you break stuff down to its individual action, how powerful that can be. We spent a lot of time like working that muscle with people who train with us or who work with us. But I love the whole idea.
of breaking that down for the steps she would need to take to shut those accounts down, to transfer that money, to liquidate all the funds they had and investments and all of that. And then, was so impulsive, she didn't ask for any advice at all. She didn't go to their tax preparer, they didn't go to whoever was doing their investments.
Talk to her lawyer. She just acted without any reason at all. I very much enjoyed that. Thank you
so much, think the 4.2 million, regardless of whether or not like, you know, she's going to say, you know, it's a drop in the bucket compared to 4.2 million. The fact that you're repeating 4.2 million so often and and just the what that sort of picture of 4.2 million dollars looks like in a listener's head is that's a lot of money, regardless of how much she was worried about or not worried about.
(:$4.2 million is a lot of money to move and to just be flippant about it almost, like that it was done so quickly and on a spur of the moment. So I thought that was just a great image in our head. I'm trying to pin him on, he's just gonna use that money to buy alcohol and gamble. But I don't know if you had this ready to go, but the Uber, the food, what really got me was the hotel. I'm like, crap, he has.
like to work off his money somehow with Caesars or something because he's not going to be able to pay it. Did that just come at the, you know, in the moment for you?
I had, I thought about it before, because I kept trying to break everything down. Because again, I just thought, she's gonna wiggle out of this because she seems like quite a nice lady when I read the papers. So I think maybe I had cab, and I switched it to Uber, because you definitely need like a credit card for that. So I had planned that already. Yes.
That great. Yeah. And I will say, and even the amount of things that I would have needed, like you were trying to get me on premeditated and I wasn't going for it, but the idea that I would have needed documents, not just my driver's license, but something a little bit more extensive is definitely painting that picture of a little bit of premeditation there, at least preparation for what she needed to do and knew what she was doing.
Definitely. Steve, your point about the things that you didn't get advice for, I was like, oh, as you were saying, I was like, I could have developed that even further because like I said, you've actually harmed your marital assets by removing it in the way that you did. And you can then subject to all those penalties, we could have had you've changed the position like we could have suffered a loss. Yeah. And I didn't even think of that. But now you said I was like,
(:Yeah.
(:I'll admit, because we wrote this, when you brought that up, I was like, oh yeah, we totally missed that. They would have gotten hit hard with the taxes and all the fees and all of the penalties and whatever. That was such a good point, Was that something, so you're saying that you discovered that in the moment or is that something that you thought about?
Something that I thought about, but when we were just discussing it at the end, when you said that, I liked it. And yes, of course, this is, she didn't do this. And I just thought, the obvious thing is these maldolasses that you were protecting, actually weren't by removing them in the way that you did. And so that's what I can see that I missed.
That's where can compare the fees and all the money that she lost because of the way she handled it versus that $20,000. Then you've got another comparison there. I'm sure if you're moving that kind of money, it's going to probably be at least $20,000, if not more, in some kind of taxes and penalties and all that. Oh, well, that's good!
Mr.
You did touch on something at the beginning that could tie into this too, where you said you moved it out of here. It was accruing money. was accruing, you know, all of this $4.2 million was accruing, like whatever happens in a fund, right? That where it kind of ties into that, that all of that is now gone. Like I'm just, it's just in the savings or checking account, Not actually making any money in there.
(:That's true. There's always something that you can do to make it even sharper. But yeah, that's so true.
Yeah. We do this too, you know, we want our listeners, if they had to cross this witness tomorrow, you know, that they could use some of your chapters, that they could use the word choice and really some of the work that you've already done to kind of help what they've got to do next. So, yeah.
much fun.
(:just want to say this was so much fun, Bibi. Anytime we get to talk, we love it so, so much. You're so talented. You have so much to share. And I hope that our audience appreciates it even more than we do. But I just can't thank you enough for having some fun with us today. But before we wrap it up, Olivia has a question.
Yeah, BB, how can people find you and kind of keep in touch with you, hear your voice more, stay connected?
so many ways. So you can go on the advocacy podcast. It's really simple. The advocacy podcast, you can listen to that anywhere that you listen to podcasts. Also visit me on www.theadvocacycoach.com. You can book a meeting with me. We can speak. I'm always happy to give people advice. And I'm quite sure I'm on Twitter, but I don't use it that much. Or should I say X?
But I can provide you with those details. It should be in the show notes or something.
We will do that. And did I read that your podcast is also can be found on British Airways?
(:Yeah it can, it's on the in-flight entertainment, it's so cool.
is very cool. That is fantastic entertainment.
It really is. So I'm very grateful for that. And I'm glad that people listen and enjoy it. I really appreciate that. I have to say, guys, it's been five years since I met you. And I've loved every single interaction. It's always so much fun. So thank you so much for having me on the podcast. It was really great.
Thank you so much. And you might just catch us on an episode on British Airways as well of the advocacy podcast. So thank you. We appreciate it. real quick, Steve, did you want to do three things from today?
Yes, my first thing, I'll hand it off to you, Olivia, was the Embarrass Him chapter. I really love the You Meant to Embarrass Him.
(:Mine was, well, she didn't take herself off the insurance, did she? So that was a fantastic question. And of course, I think we both agree, he couldn't take an Uber, he couldn't buy food, and his accommodations would be compromised as well if he didn't have his money. All right. So we want you to follow and subscribe here to us too at HouseOfImprov.com. have two...
resources for attorneys when it comes to helping you tell a story and create a narrative, as well as getting some good storytelling bits from your witness. So find that at HouseImprov.com.
Also, if you are interested in being a guest on the show or suggesting a type of witness or case that we can base an episode off of, go ahead and email us or contact us. There's information in the parts below this podcast. Other than that, thank you so much, baby. We really, really enjoy you being a part or enjoyed having you be a part of this. Thank you so much.
Well, that's the end of today's experiment.
We hope you take the best with you to court.
(:and we'll see you next time on Cross Lab.
you
(:Please like and subscribe to Cross Lab wherever you get your podcasts or webcasts. If you really liked this podcast, please write a review. If you didn't, this podcast has been Paul Hollywood's Baker's Podcast.
Thank you for listening to Cross Lab, a trial house consulting production powered by LawPods. To get free resources for your next trial, go to houseimprov.com, H-A-U-S improv.com. This program is written and produced by Steve Homan and Olivia Espinosa and edited by Mark Crespo.
The discussions and content presented in this podcast are for educational and informational purposes only. They are not a substitute for professional legal advice, guidance or representation.
Participation in this podcast, including cross-examinations and feedback, takes place in a simulated training environment with fictional witnesses and scenarios. Any resemblance to real persons, cases or events is purely coincidental. The views expressed by the hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any organization or entities they may be affiliated with. House Team Productions and Law Pods are not responsible for the accuracy, outcomes or application of any content or strategies discussed during the podcast.
If you have any specific legal questions or concerns, encourage you to consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
