Scattered Rambling Trainwreck Mother Sues Her Attorney Because She Lost Her Case!

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]Welcome to Rebel Chaser. My name is Gail and I've got a video for you from Judge Lidle in Texas and she has a woman who is suing her last attorney because she didn't win her case. Unfortunately, it was a custody hearing or custody case and she's not happy. The only problem is this is one of the most scattered rambling train wrecks I've ever seen.

[00:00:34]So, I'll let you guys watch.

[00:00:37]The court's going to call D1GN25010426.

[00:00:43]And this is Boswell versus Kofheer and Connelly PLLC.

[00:00:48]Uh Jeff Connelly and Elise Monrose. Uh we are here on a motion for summary judgement. Miss Boswell is the movement on the motion for summary judgement. Uh go ahead and raise your right hand. Miss Boswell, do you solemnly swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony that you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[00:01:13]>> I do. All right. Just a few things.

[00:01:15]Because we are proceeding on Zoom, I'm going to ask that you don't walk and talk so that you stay in a seated position just like you are now talking and addressing the court. Uh I want to remind you that recording, taking photographs, recording these proceedings uh is prohibited by law. Should you obviously we're here on on a motion for summary judgement. Do you understand those instructions?

[00:01:40]>> Yes. Yes, I do.

[00:01:41]>> Okay. With that being said, uh, let me So, uh, I didn't ask you to to introduce yourselves, but I know who you are, but I just called it, so please state your names for me.

[00:01:54]>> I still representing myself, your honor.

[00:01:56]Thank you.

[00:01:58]>> All right. And did I swear you in already? I just swore you in, didn't I?

[00:02:02]No, >> I think I was supposed to. Yeah, >> I did. I'll do it again.

[00:02:07]>> Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony that you will give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[00:02:15]>> I say.

[00:02:16]>> Okay. Thank you. All right. And then I see Mr. Connelly here.

[00:02:21]>> Good afternoon, your honor.

[00:02:23]>> Good afternoon. And then um Miss Davey and Miss Kenzie, correct?

[00:02:29]>> Yes, your honor. Danny Kenzie.

[00:02:31]>> Miss Miss Davey's the one in the red.

[00:02:34]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:02:35]>> And Miss Kenzie is the one in the white jacket. Yes, your honor.

[00:02:39]>> Okay. All right. And you all will be responding on behalf of Mr. Connley?

[00:02:43]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:02:44]>> Okay. Thank you, Miss Boswell. I'm ready for you. Um, >> may I ask a very quick question before I begin?

[00:02:50]>> Yes.

[00:02:51]>> This is the second hearing that the codefendant Elise Monrose hasn't been um present. I didn't know if that is standard or >> Well, notice was given. We're moving forward with your motion. I'm going to hear your motion. I'm going to hear the response and I'm going to make a ruling.

[00:03:09]Oh, certainly. Okay. I was just curious.

[00:03:11]I Okay. All right. Um, may I please the court? Good afternoon.

[00:03:20]I am the plaintiff in this ma matter of hearing prosay and we are here today on my traditional motion for summary judgement regarding defendants liability for legal malpractice.

[00:03:34]Excuse me.

[00:03:44]Oh, sorry. I'm a little frazzled. I don't have the glasses. Your honor, the defendants um will likely stand before you today and attempt to excuse their actions by claiming the underlying trial was chaotic. They will say state sorry cite cases like cross costgrove and Alexander v. Churcher to argue that their failures were simply trial strategy. I have it over here and that a legal expert is required to understand them. Um, but my best understanding of Dyer v. Schaefer is that the Supreme Court of Texas established that when an attorney's negligence is plain and palpable, it falls below the standard of care as a matter of law and so therefore no expert is required.

[00:04:31]Um today I will endeavor to prove to um this court that the defendant's actions were not like actual trial strategy um but in fact plain and probable election of duty under the Atkin Gump standard I am required to prove the case within a case um causation but sorry I'm nervous that But for my attorney's negligence, the outcome of my custody trial would have been different.

[00:05:07]One of the first things that I would like to um draw the court's attention to, if I may, is that the defendants possessed an internal case file containing the official Texas DFPS findings of physical abuse against my infant daughter. And that's um exhibit um P 009 and a report from the Dell Children's Hospital Care Team. Um it's a child specialist team of doctors.

[00:05:41]Um and that is exhibit P027.

[00:05:46]Yet is proven.

[00:05:49]Sorry, I'm like shaking. Oh my gosh, I'm so nervous.

[00:05:53]By the official Travis County Clerk exhibit, which is exhibit P012, defendant Connley walked away from my custody trial having introduced exactly zero exhibits on my behalf.

[00:06:07]So, not at all. Um, I don't believe that hiding official state records of child abuse is a trial strategy. I do think that it falls under plain impalpable malpractice. I don't think that um one can make the argument that they're exercising strategy when they haven't positioned themselves to even make a choice between two or more things when they kind of just abdicate their decision making all together.

[00:06:37]Um m Miss Boswell, uh let me ask you this. Do you understand the standard that needs to be met for a motion for summary judgement?

[00:06:48]>> Um that to any lay person that if I were to describe it to them that well without an expert um witness that they would understand that it is a motion for summary judgement and that there's no contention of material fact.

[00:07:09]>> Okay. All right. You may proceed.

[00:07:12]>> Thank you, ma'am. I'm sorry. I'm just a little nervous. I'll it'll go away. Um, okay.

[00:07:27]I would like to direct the court's attention to void rits and orders.

[00:07:35]Um, and I believe the defendants will attempt to argue that my discovery was untimely.

[00:07:42]Um, but the record does prove that the August 31st scheduling order that they rely on just like the defendants in the underlying custody case relied on was obtained by opposing sorry opposing council exparte without constitutional notice to me.

[00:08:00]Um, so an order obtained without adequate notice is void abito void from the start. Therefore, my request for admission were perfectly timely and the defendant's failure to utilize those deemed admissions was a gross negligence. On the other hand, even if that had not happened, there was a new trial scheduling order that was submitted on October 19th of 20123 um that reset the trial for November 27th and I submitted my um RFAS on October 25th. So the 30 days would have expired on um November 24th.

[00:08:50]Um okay. Furthermore, my attorney sat in silence while opposing council executed a root, sorry, Utah amended temporary restraining order in the middle of my trial to seize my daughter. As exhibit P13 proves the expiration date on the original exparte. Oh, sorry. The expiration date I got that confused. The original exparte um that was in opposing council's exhibits was expired, but the um amended TTRO that was served didn't have a completion date. like it didn't have until it's just completely blank. Um, and it has to have an end date for it to be temporary is my best understanding.

[00:09:48]So, it was an indefinite and unconstitutional injunction.

[00:09:54]Furthermore, a reasonably prudent attorney does not surrender a 5-year-old child to avoid blank dated warrant without voicing a single concern or objection to the court at minimum to verify and review the documentation itself. Um, in the court transcript, it there seems to be just a a lot of general confusion as to what exactly is going on, which I completely understand that it was chaos. I'm very very aware and I understand. Um, next I would like to discuss that the defendants claim I'm mutually agreed to their withdrawal.

[00:10:39]The metadata proves otherwise.

[00:10:42]As shown in exhibit P003, I assigned their original withdrawal draft in December after having been sent it, I believe, a number of five times.

[00:10:57]And then in January, they realized that their draft did not um wasn't up to snap, but that something needed to be changed about it. So they sent me a new draft that contained exculpatory clauses falsely claiming it was mutually agreed but at that juncture it wasn't. And when I questioned this they lied in writing claiming claiming that they only needed to update the date. That's um exhibit P 004.

[00:11:24]On the very morning they demanded my signature. They threatened to send my collections my my count to collections if I did not comply. threatening a domestic violence survivor with debt collection to fraudulently excuse me induce her signature on what I consider to be a malpractice shield considering what the end order resulted in is not a good faith representation. It's extortion. Um, I had been asking often um for any updates on the orders and multiple times because I couldn't really understand how the orders were. I was being told that they were going to be entered by submission.

[00:12:13]And I did have issues with watching how not only had the orders changed, I mean that happens with drafting, but didn't seem to reflect the original oral ruling. Um, and I had some other objections. But I had flown to Texas on January 17th to be there for the inerson hearing and the pipes burst in the courthouse. And when I told them that I had to be back in Utah on the 24th, but I could come back anytime. So I'm happy to reschedule anytime after that at the convenience of the court. Um, I was told that instead of paying money on plane ticket tickets, I should be paying them and that my presence there wouldn't be necessary.

[00:13:08]Um, and it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

[00:13:12]And then they moved on to tell me that it was the court's decision to enter the final orders via submission, not them. and the um sorry uh underlying steps are uh code or opposing council.

[00:13:33]Um, I think that the scariest part is that there is a wealth of state adjudicated violence against my daughter, against myself, and against my mother. And so, um, which case law is it?

[00:14:02]I can't remember which case law it is, but it's the one that says that um if someone is making a claim for judicial notice on deemed admissions solely that that case law precludes it. I apologize, Ron. I did have it here.

[00:14:21]Um well um I I'm not making or motioning for summary judgement just based on the deemed admissions and the underlying sapser. I believe that the ROA itself is a extraordinarily powerful tool in this case. But they had in their possession reason to believe findings from CPS that my 4-month old daughter had nine injuries on her, abrasions and bruises and that the other reason to believe finding was that he had um you know RTB or sorry reason to believe um profound evidence committed domestic violence or had commit domestic violence against me in her presence. And that was what they defined in their report as um neglectful supervision. And then from that report, which should be pointing to my gosh, I'm sorry.

[00:15:25]If I could please have um draw your attention to exhibit P009.

[00:15:34]Um, and I'll pay the page to judge.

[00:15:52]Okay. So, it is on page nine of 18 in um exhibit P 009.

[00:16:05]And I I don't want to read the entire statement. Um but I would like to point out a couple of things. Um he stated that he did not think he picked up Willow last night. He stated that he did not shake Willow. He stated that he could not remember any of that happening. He stated that he thinks those things are made up. He said stated that he had not seen a judge yet and doesn't know when he will be getting out. He stated that he's being charged with family violence.

[00:16:38]And in I'm so sorry. I'm looking for the one police report that's not it's different than the other ones.

[00:17:17]I had all of these memories. So, well, I'm so sorry.

[00:17:24]Oh, I'm so sorry. There it is. Um so in exhibit exhibit um P27 Seven.

[00:18:10]Oh, that was my interview.

[00:18:14]Oh, um, yes. So, on page 10, so this is a separate investigator that's interviewing him.

[00:18:23]Um, Stephen stated that he was drunk after his graduation.

[00:18:37]Um, and there's another statement where he said that he couldn't remember the events of the day.

[00:18:55]Oh, sorry. I apologize. Steven did not remember anything that happened and stated he did not recall shaking his child. Steven stated he was too drunk after his graduation. So, they're very similar statements, but the reason why I took the time to bring them to your attention is because it is two separate confessions to two separate law enforcement um officers. And the entire reason why I'm bringing that up is because during the underlying sapser, Steven had pretty detailed recollections of the events that evening.

[00:19:36]And it's my opinion that because he genuinely probably couldn't remember. Well, genuinely didn't remember. He admitted that that perhaps he kind of crafted those after reading law enforcement reports was informed by them in some way. Um, however, with the defendants having those police reports, it's just unconscionable that they didn't impeach him.

[00:20:15]or point out that it's not possible you could remember those exact details if you can't remember anything from that evening.

[00:20:26]Um, Miss Boswell, I do need you to organize the rest of your arguments as they pertain to the motion for summary judgement so that we have time for the other side to respond.

[00:20:38]>> Sure.

[00:20:41]>> Um, I had it.

[00:20:58]Well, I had my personal notes in my spiral. Um but um I am asking for judicial notice of the deemed admissions and they are records of this own court and I am asking for judicial recognition of the register of actions.

[00:21:26]Um but not just asking for a sum um traditional summary judgment based on that. It's having evidence of injuries on his four-month old daughter and other violence that wasn't introduced at all and that no introduc no evidence was introduced at all. Like not a single exhibit was introduced at all.

[00:22:02]Um, so I believe that there really isn't any contested material facts when it comes to that. Like the court's own records, it's law enforcement records. It's I'm asking for the court to take judicial notice of course of the DFPS records and the Dell Children's Hospital Care Teams um diagnosis or consultation file and um the Austin Police Department reports as well.

[00:22:43]>> All right. Um, the court can only consider what's been filed with the motion for summary judgement. Uh, are are you done with your presentation so we can have response?

[00:22:55]Jamie.

[00:22:56]>> Okay. All right. We're ready for response.

[00:23:00]>> Thank you, your honor.

[00:23:02]May it please the court. We're asking the court to deny Miss Boswell's traditional motion for summary judgement on her legal law practice claim. U, Mr. Connelly and his firm represented Miss Boswell in an underlying safer proceeding before Judge Garamble. And at the end of the final hearing, Judge Gary Gamble found Miss Boswell to lack credibility and appointed the father, Steven Duncan, as sole managing conservator of their child, Willow Duncan. Um, just shy of two years later, Miss Boswell then filed a lawsuit against Mr. Connelly and his firm. Um she initially brought claims from legal malpractice, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants filed a rule 91A motion and two of those claims were dismissed with prejudice. Um and so the sole remaining claim is the legal law practice claim. She's filed a Miss Boswell filed a um amended petition which is the life petition and then shortly thereafter she filed the instant motion for summary judgement. As the court has noted, the despite everything we've heard today, the basis of that motion is very narrow in scope. Um, she contends that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to obtain and use quote unquote judicially noticed adjudicative facts from the Sasser proceedings. So, in essence, the uh purported requests for admission, which are dated October 25th of 2023, that she served upon Steven Duncan.

[00:24:27]Um there are only two pieces of evidence that were attached to that motion. The first was the order granting in part and denying in part the rule 91A motion and the second was the request for admission. Um we objected to these because they were not authenticated.

[00:24:42]There was no file stamp um or any certification. They are also improper discovery requests because they're untimely. Um Miss Boswell suggested that the scheduling order was void as fraudulent. We disagree with that characterization, but either way, it's irrelevant because under the text rules of civil procedure, the discovery window had already closed. Um, the file stamp version of the requests for admission are dated October 25th, 2023, and the file final trial was set to begin on November 27th, 2023. So, the responses would have been due 3 days before the uh final trial was scheduled to begin, which is well outside the discovery window. Um, there is a case that we've included in the box for the court's convenience. It's called Enray IIIT. Uh, and it explains how untimely written requests are of no force or legal effect. So, there was no duty to respond to these discovery requests.

[00:25:42]That's just a little bit of the procedural history. In terms of the substance of her motion, Miss Boswell has not established every element of her claim. So, she can establish neither a breach of a duty or uh the causation element.

[00:25:56]Um, just to give the court a brief history of the underlying SAPser case.

[00:26:00]Um, it involved three and a half years of very heavily contested litigation in multiple states. Uh, Judge Garrett Gamble issued her final ruling on November 29th of 2023.

[00:26:13]It was after the close of a two-day bench trial. Uh, Pliff first reached out to Kofer and Connelly on November 15th of 2023.

[00:26:24]There were several late notice reschedules, but ultimately Miss Monrose was able to complete Miss Boswell's intake telephonically. And following that intake, Miss Boswell was informed that in order to formally retain Cover Connelly, she needed to do two things.

[00:26:40]The first was pay and retain her. And the second was to sign the legal services agreement.

[00:26:46]Uh, and your honor, we had submitted 10 exhibits that Miss Boswell had agreed to their admission. It was defendants exhibit 1 through 10. Um, can we formally move to admit these exhibits, your honor?

[00:27:01]>> I don't have a court reporter, so I can't admit exhibits.

[00:27:06]>> Okay.

[00:27:07]>> The we can't you can't go through that exercise when there's no record and no court reporter. I can only issue rulings on the papers on a summary judgement.

[00:27:16]There's no, just to be clear, there's no court reporter taking a record of this.

[00:27:20]>> I understand, your honor. It's attached to our response as well if the court would like to take a look at that.

[00:27:25]>> Okay. I I have taken a look at that. I can only look at what's attached in the petition, the the motion, and the response.

[00:27:34]>> I understand your honor. May we share screen to show some of the >> Yes, you can absolutely share screen.

[00:27:41]No, no problem. I just don't have a court reporter to be able to uh admit exhibits.

[00:27:47]>> Understood, your honor.

[00:27:50]>> So, we're showing you um >> Sorry to interrupt. I would like to ask you to make it uh much bigger. I do have glasses, but it's not enough. Not enough. It needs to be a little bit bigger.

[00:28:04]Yes. Thank you.

[00:28:07]>> So, this is the signed legal services agreement. Your honor, can you actually go to the last page where it's dated?

[00:28:19]Yeah, one more.

[00:28:24]So, this is dated November 22nd, 2023, your honor. Um, this was the first step to formally retain the law firm. Then, can you go to D2?

[00:28:34]The second was the retainer payment. So, as you can see, you can zoom in on the November 24th.

[00:28:42]The retainer was not paid until November 24th. So, this is the formal date that the law firm was retained. And that's 3 days before the final trial was scheduled to begin on November 27th, 2023.

[00:28:55]I'm going to take that down.

[00:28:58]And then on that Monday, November 27th, Mr. Connelly, Miss Monrose appeared on Miss Boswell's behalf to request a continuence.

[00:29:09]You zoom in on the tree of appearance.

[00:29:14]This is their entry of appearance. They also filed a motion for continuence.

[00:29:20]That's right. Let's bring it up. Which is uh A4, which is attached to the motion. Um, at this time, Miss Boswell represented that she had COVID, uh, and so that she she couldn't travel and she remained in Utah with her child. Stick it down. Judge Gamble denied the motion for a continuence, and in doing so, she indicated that Miss Boswell had a well-documented history of trying to delay judicial proceedings, and she didn't find the argument that Miss Boswell had COVID to be particularly compelling.

[00:29:52]Um, Judge Gamble did agree to reset the hearing to begin the next day if Miss Boswell would drew her request for a jury trial, which she did.

[00:30:02]Uh, to prevent any further delays, Judge Gamble also ordered Miss Boswell to appear in person for her final hearing.

[00:30:09]Uh, as A5 is the order to appear and show cause. Mr. Connelly. Miss Monrose communicated this information to Miss Boswell and were adamant that she appear for her own hearing, but Miss Boswell refused to be present.

[00:30:23]On Tuesday, November 28th, Miss Boswell still did not appear despite the court order to do so. And so, Mr. Conny's firm moved to formally withdraw. Miss Boswell did agree to the withdrawal, but it wasn't until 8:55 a.m. And by that point, Judge uh Garrett Gamble had already denied the motion to withdraw and order the trial to begin without Miss Boswell present.

[00:30:48]Um when the proceedings resumed on November 28, 2023, Judge Garrett Gamble stated on the record that the court had received uh various emails from Miss Boswell overnight exparte.

[00:31:00]In response to Miss Boswell's emails, Judge Gar Gamble stated, "I don't find them particularly credible, so we're going to proceed." And then after further discussion, Judge Gar Gamble reiterated that her emails were not convincing and not credible. So the trial proceeded on November 28th, 2025 2023 without Miss Boswell present.

[00:31:24]While the trial was ongoing, Miss Boswell began sending numerous emails containing evidence that she wanted defendants to present to the court during the trial. Um, Miss Boswell made reference to this during her argument.

[00:31:35]Many of those emails were inaccessible or they could not be easily viewed during the active trial proceeding and Mr. Connelly and Miss Monrose were also actively engaged in witness examinations at the time. So, their ability to review these records was very limited. Uh, Judge Gary Gamble did allow Miss Boswell to appear remotely to provide her testimony. Uh, but she did not allow Miss Boswell to otherwise participate virtually during the trial.

[00:32:02]Um, at one point during her examination, opposing council asked for her address for her present location, and once that was provided, local police responded to Miss Boswell's location in the middle of the hearing to execute a pending rate of attachment to remove the child from her care. And this is part of the record where I believe it's Miss Boswell's mother who is explaining that the local policemen are taking the trials in the middle of the hearing.

[00:32:33]The trial concluded on the afternoon of November 29th after which Judge Gamble issued her final ruling.

[00:32:40]So Miss Bosible cannot establish a breach of the duty of the care based on the purported deemed admissions. As I already explained, these uh discovery requests were untimely, so they're of no legal uh force or effect. Mr. Duncan had no responsibility to respond and further the deemed admission standing alone do not establish liability.

[00:33:01]Cosgrove the Grimes is the Texas Supreme Court case that sets forth the applicable standard of care in illegal malpractice cases.

[00:33:10]And that case makes clear that Mr. Connelly and Mr. and Rose cannot be held liable merely because Miss Boswell is not satisfied with the outcome of the underlying case.

[00:33:20]Uh they were retained 3 days before the final hearing. They requested a continuence and they proceeded as any reasonably prudent attorneys would throughout the final hearing. They elicited testimony from Miss Boswell to support her position. They cross-examined Officer Robinson, uh who's the officer that responded to a domestic dispute very thoroughly. They also cross-examined Steven Duncan, Amy Jensen, who was the supervisor during the visitation periods, and Colin White, who was Mr. Duncan's attorney.

[00:33:52]Ultimately, Judge Gamble's determination of Miss Boswell's credibility and the rulings that flow from that are not attributable to the defendants. It's based on uh Miss Boswell's own conduct.

[00:34:03]And there are various aspects of the transcript that reiterate that it's Miss Boswell's own conduct conduct that resulted in the outcome. Uh, Judge Gamble repeatedly notes that she does not find Miss Boswell to be credible.

[00:34:19]Here's one portion. Right before Judge uh Gamble made her oral ruling, she notes Miss Boswell's extensive litigation history in the district courts. Um, she also in another portion of the hearing refers to the exparte emails that Miss Boswell has sent to the court asking for a continuence and says that they're not credible. Uh, she also decides to grant attorney's fees based on Miss Boswell's behavior and her litigation conduct. And she explains she's not particularly convinced when Miss Boswell acts confused about court orders.

[00:35:02]The judge also indicates she doesn't trust Miss Boswell and that she's shown that she will not follow court orders.

[00:35:09]One of those court orders was the show cause order and Miss Boswell failed to appear.

[00:35:17]Judge Garganell also discusses how Miss Boswell unlawfully prevented the father Steven Duncan from contacting the child.

[00:35:24]Uh which then led to the rate of attachment which was executed during the hearing. And the judge further comments on how traumatizing it was for the child to be removed with the assistance of law enforcement when the writ was executed.

[00:35:41]And then lastly, your honor, causation requires expert testimony in legal malpractice cases. Um, and Miss Boswell has not met this burden.

[00:35:49]So, because Miss Boswell cannot establish each and every element of the cla of her claim, we're asking to deny the motion for summary judgement.

[00:35:58]>> All right. Thank you, Miss Boswell. I I'll give you a brief moment to respond to that if you wish to to utilize it.

[00:36:06]>> I would like to take a moment to um respond to a few things. Um, if we could all take a look in regard to closing statements.

[00:36:18]Um, it's just it's very brief and it's um Elise Monroe's closing statement actually right before the judge makes her determination.

[00:36:31]So, it's that it's huge. It's volume two and it is page 80 and Elise Monroe states, "Miss Boswell was abused by Mr. Duncan.

[00:36:50]We have heard testimony about how about an alcohol program and how he would act.

[00:36:55]We have heard her concerns about Willow and the lack of concern maybe due to alcohol. We have heard that Miss Boswell is fearful of Mr. Duncan because of that relationship. And yes, they have since ended their relationship, but her concern for her daughter has not subsided.

[00:37:11]And importantly, she goes on to state, "She is a traumatized individual from what has happened and what has carried over into her struggle to acquies in giving her child to someone who has hurt her and in her opinion has hurt their daughter and has not been present in her life since, I suppose, last summer when things started." um to be litigated and then oh sorry this is the one I meant to read. So on page 92 this is you also heard Miss Boswell claim that a lot of what has gone on in here in the last few days and honestly the last few years is that this is all an attempt to use Willow to hurt Miss Boswell. And again, I would urge the court to take notice of the fact that what happened here just an hour or two ago was not in the best interest of this child. Miss Boswell did say she offered to turn over the turn over the child two days ago before the trial started. She could have done this and said, "Mommy will see you."

[00:38:17]Mommy can tell you that you're going to see whoever you're going to go see. They did not take that offer. They wanted to wait until the child couldn't say goodbye to their mother. Couldn't be explained where she was going, who she was going with. In the middle of the trial, when mom was in a different room, they received the email that I had sent to my own counsel. That was the only offer that was ever made, and my council didn't respond to me. And I think just a really important contrast is not the it's super short but at the beginning of the proceedings in the court at the beginning um the defendant state that they hadn't been able to get a hold of me since last night. I'd been emailing them all morning. I had offered to sign the withdrawal before they lied to the court and said that I hadn't. But on page, let's cover it up 10.

[00:39:27]Starting on line 15, I suppose 13. Colin states, "He has done everything in his power to see his daughter. File a rid of habius corpus equivalent in Utah with a rid of attachment to collect his daughter. He still can't find her." Apparently, he knew the day before.

[00:39:47]An enforcement in Texas, which he served her with in Utah. He doesn't specify which. She has ignored order two appears. She violated third supplemental temporary orders, fourth supplemental temporary orders, fifth supplemental temporary orders. She's denied all of those. And then the one other thing that I'd like to point out on that record, if I could be a little more organized, that would be helpful.

[00:40:30]I just don't know the exact page number.

[00:40:32]I believe it's it's page 125 of volume one because it's a statement that Stephen Duncan makes. So I'm almost positive.

[00:40:45]So Stephen Duncan, I'll get to the exact page number so I can give you the line on page 125 starting at five.

[00:41:02]He's asked, "All right, I'm going to show you what's been marked as petitioners 147. Do you recognize this document?" They go on to entered into the record.

[00:41:13]Um, and then Colin says, "And to be clear, it's saying a petition the petitioner proposed of assistance to the child is denied. Who's the petitioner in his style?"

[00:41:26]Oh, I think he's talking about one of my older ones, but he stated when he was asked about his that he was in possession of a amended CRO and a writ that could be executed at any point in time, which I'm sure it could have been. um but that it didn't have um an end date. But the last thing that I'd really like to draw the court's attention to is the defendants and this happened in the last hearing more than once and it happens in almost all of their filings. And it's actually so another statement that they make in their internal investigation when they've lost their malpractice insurance.

[00:42:20]Um they stated it to the investigator But hello.

[00:42:37]This is the problem with having genie.

[00:42:41]Um Oh, come over here. Sorry about that.

[00:42:57]should be.

[00:43:09]Ah, so it's um petitioners 13 and it's the case file sent by defendant um Jeffrey Connelly. And inside the pleadings folder there is enclosed a Utah exparte amended taro in red.

[00:43:36]And in Colin's box upload, there's only the original.

[00:43:42]Um I believe that the return of service is in that one as well. That's why um the reason why I bring up a return of service is because like I made clear in the last hearing, Mr. Duncan called and made a custodial interference complaint against me and then went and got a exart.

[00:44:13]It had expired. The minutes from the ensuing hearing, the commissioner states on the record that it hadn't been served. He procures an amended um TTRO the day before the trial starts.

[00:44:27]And on the return of service, it states that Steven's father was charged 515 or $513.

[00:44:37]I feel like I've presented all sorts of evidence that it's not possible that there was a custodial interference investigation going on and I provided custodial interference entire record and not once did Steven's family or Steven make any mention to actual law enforcement and have it actually taken care of and I was in communication with them. since I wasn't on the lamb.

[00:44:57]Instead, for whatever reason, it being $513, it was $513. But to conflate a rid of assistance with the rid of habius corpus is to raise a spectre of criminality that just doesn't exist.

[00:45:13]And I find the defendants tend to do this quite a bit. But law enforcement does not charge people $513 to execute Rosabius corpus when someone has been found to have kidnapped their child.

[00:45:27]That that is a civil service and either version of that civil document.

[00:45:35]One was expired and you cannot execute a temporary restraining order that doesn't have an end date on an individual.

[00:45:47]Both Texas and Utah have lost about that. Um, it's my belief that after reading the application for the amended TRO, it's missing a 65A, which that might be different in Texas that after Colin White found out after my jury demand that the hearing was going to be rescheduled, they intentionally let the first one expire.

[00:46:14]And then they made sure to get another one to do as much damage as possible during specifically my trial because otherwise if you were so concerned why did you get an emergency writ and let it go for so long. In addition to that, his attorney during that time was sending me inappropriate Facebook messages and emailing me and sending letters to my home. I was not missing. Mr. Duncan was hanging missing child flyers that were not through law enforcement all over Salt Lake City and posting them on the internet. The defendants had copies of these and had copies of APD cease synthesis harassment stalking orders to Mr. Duncan. Any one of these things any one of these things could have possibly but there are some that absolutely would have because again under rule 153.004 004 when there's on a child.

[00:47:13]It is the mandate of the court to intervene and to do what's in the best interest of the child. And I would argue that maybe not specific words are there for it, but when there's an infant that's been involved that it's taken extremely seriously. to not introduce any evidence of that whatsoever.

[00:47:38]But for their failure to introduce a single evidence like piece of evidence, not even one, but let alone in their evergreen agreement on the last page, they have an entire clause about it's very lofty about how if they're made aware of in any way, shape, or form that they'll, you know, as mandatory reporters do everything in their power to help protect this child. They stood in the most arguably effective and important room on the face of the planet, an actual law, like court of law, and did not say a word.

[00:48:17]But for they're not informing the judge of any of this, the judge couldn't possibly have known what the situation was. How could the judge possibly have known that it wasn't actual law enforcement when Colin White had mischaracterized it as the equivalent as of a rit of habius corpus and for the defendant to take the utterance of my mother who was watching who was scared and had no idea what was going on and said the word police as if that is some sort of actual grounds that the police were there is just like what they did in the last hearing. ing where they read the custodial interference report. They saw that on November 2nd, two of the sergeants, which is routine, had cleared me for parental they do for every other case. I wasn't like on investigation. In the last hearing, they said there's a report that says parental and now when my mom says police, there's police.

[00:49:19]It's just not credible.

[00:49:22]All right. Is there anything else, Miss Boswell, as you wrap up your argument?

[00:49:27]>> Um, well, I do believe that I've shown causation in many ways.

[00:49:37]I don't want to waste any more of the court's time, but there's a litany of evidence that but for their action to not introduce it, but for them not to impeach people, the court would have made a different decision. And the distinction is because of the level of the violence. And on the other hand, duty did exist the moment that they signed the retainer too.

[00:50:04]conflate the date that the payment went through with the date that it was signed, I think, to shave off two days of responsibility. But what that actually shows you is that they were willing to go and open their office to run my card again to get $10,000, but yet not do anything on the case until a few days later and then blame me for that.

[00:50:24]But the duty existed from the moment that officers of the court agreed to take on this case.

[00:50:34]They can complain until they're blew in the face that I retain them, but it is their responsibility.

[00:50:47]That's the reason why I believe that Judge Gamble wouldn't just let them abandon it because they signed up for this and that's their responsibility to vaselate between blaming me and then emails to me blaming the court and saying that it was the court's responsibility to bring up retroactive child support and they neglected to do so. These sorts of statements.

[00:51:15]Anyway, as far as material facts, I'm I'm going to need you to conclude your argument. And so, can you summarize the conclusion of your argument for summary judgement?

[00:51:35]Apologize.

[00:51:40]curious.

[00:52:05]I'm sorry, guys.

[00:52:22]Well, um I did have it right here.

[00:52:32]It seems that I am unable to find it.

[00:52:38]Um, I do have like a final statement to make end.

[00:52:57]Okay.

[00:53:02]The defense relies on re it to demiss my deemed admissions but that case is distinguishable. I'm not asking this court to adjudicate the underlying SAP serve right now.

[00:53:16]I am not asking the court to determine custody today.

[00:53:23]I'm offering the deemed admissions which were filed in this very court's file before the November trial setting as adjudicated facts to prove the case within a case for malpractice.

[00:53:40]It's not necessarily about whether the admissions would have definitely won the custody battle on their own. It's about the fact that a reasonably prudent attorney would have at least tried to use them or leverage a settlement with them.

[00:53:59]Then blend the very end.

[00:54:12]I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. Um all right.

[00:54:34]Um I don't know if it matters a whole lot. Um but on March 13th, this court did issue an order on the defendants amended rule 91A and um although only my legal malpractice claim survived. It did survive.

[00:55:01]Um, but today I've shown that there isn't a genuine issue of material fact regarding breach or causation.

[00:55:12]I've met the standard of akin gump and the defense's reliance on enry it is fundamentally fundamentally flawed as far as breach or sorry duty breach causation and damages if the facts are left undisputed the law dictates the income Um the defendants are asking this court to ignore evidence that currently lives inside the court's own filing cabinet that they previously um asked for judicial estoppel in the underlying SAPs themselves.

[00:56:09]I would just like to say the last thing is that as far as after the trial itself, and we don't need to go back and forth about how many times things were sent to be signed for a withdrawal, etc., etc., etc., it did in fact run out.

[00:56:35]um my window until an appeal and I think it's called a plenary period and I did explicitly ask them to help with enforcement and defendant Miss Monrose told me that with my extensive prosay experience I should be able to handle that on my own and it wasn't her responsibility and that's what I'd like to close with.

[00:57:02]>> I'm sorry. What did you say last?

[00:57:10]>> I asked um Miss Venrose after like the fourth time I didn't get to see well if she would file a motion for enforcement or anything or talk to the other party.

[00:57:27]and she said, "Well, with all of your extensive prosay litigation history, you can just do that yourself."

[00:57:36]And um she said it wasn't her responsibility.

[00:57:52]All right, Miss Boswell, does that conclude your argument on the uh pending motion for summary judgement?

[00:57:58]>> Yes, your honor. Thank you.

[00:57:59]>> Great.

[00:58:00]>> Uh, Miss Miss Kenzie, uh, briefly, anything else?

[00:58:06]>> We would just refer you to the pleadings, your honor. I think you've probably heard enough from us.

[00:58:12]>> All right.

[00:58:17]>> All right, Miss Boswell.

[00:58:20]>> Yes. The law provides that for illegal malpractice action requires proof of four different elements. The first one is that the attorney owed the plaintiff a duty. The second is that the attorney breached that duty. The third is that the breach approximately caused the plaintiff's injuries and that the damages occurred. As your claim for this malpractice action uh as you know arises from prior litigation. So you have the burden at this stage where we are right now of proving that that but for the attorney's breach of duty you would have prevailed on the underlying cause of action and that you would have been entitled to judgment based on the evidence and the arguments of the parties as presented today. The court does not find that you have met that burden. Therefore specifically and I'm referring only for the motion for summary judgement that is going to be denied. Uh obviously this case has already had a prior motion to a motion to dismiss uh that went before Judge Kandu Hexel. Uh in those rulings uh she indicated that the case um she dismissed one of the claims and then the other one survived and you're here on on the motion for summary judgement and at this time based on what was has been presented um it is denied. uh because you represent yourself, I feel compelled to tell you that that doesn't mean that your case is denied. It means that your motion for summary judgement is denied, which is the only thing that is set before me today. Um >> so with that being said, I do want to thank all of you for your preparation and uh both Miss Boswell and Miss Kenzie for your preparation and I hope that you have a good rest of your day. I do not need you to send me any orders. I will have my own order uh ready to enter and I'll be able to do that by the end of today. All right, I wish you all well and um safe travels home if you're driving home from wherever you are. Have a good afternoon. You're dismissed from the virtual courtroom at now. Now, if this was your case and you were going to sue somebody like her old attorney, don't you think you would be very organized and have everything that you wanted to say written down in an organized manner and then practiced and read what you were going to say?

[01:00:54]some of the things I you know I swear she she had written down some stuff that she wanted to say but it was like she was reading it all for the first time and she couldn't read her writing.

[01:01:09]I was just baffled at how unorganized and scatterrained she was.

[01:01:18]And then she kept arguing the custody case, which didn't help her at all. That's not what they were here for.

[01:01:30]I was just baffled. I was just baffled through most of it.

[01:01:35]She didn't deserve to win this.

[01:01:39]Not with how prepared and ready she was to argue it. She just wasn't. So, please hit the like button. Thank you guys so much for watching and I will see you all next time.