Speaker 1: I'd like to hear from you, counsel that I'd like
Speaker 1: to hear from the victims, And I've got a couple
Speaker 1: of questions for you, Miss Mulder con artists Lizzie Mulder
Speaker 1: pleads guilty in federal court to scamming her victims out
Speaker 1: of more than one point five million dollars using a
Speaker 1: series of elaborate confidence tricks, impersonations, fake bank accounts, forged documents,
Speaker 1: and voice changing technology. She gets a five year prison sentence,
Speaker 1: and her victims tell a packed court room just how
Speaker 1: devastating Lizzie mulder scams are on their lives and livelihoods.
Speaker 1: Are you in business today at all? You're not. She
Speaker 1: crippled us badly. We almost lost our own homes, damaged
Speaker 1: our relationships with our staff, our family, and each other.
Speaker 1: We are facing bankruptcy because of her. Her scams put
Speaker 1: you out of business. Lizzie, you're a horrible person. You
Speaker 1: have no regard for anyone but yourself, and it will
Speaker 1: be no surprise that you'll try and present yourself as
Speaker 1: a wife and mother of the year. But that could
Speaker 1: not be further from the truth. And it turns out
Speaker 1: Lizzie Malder is super into head games. What happened in
Speaker 1: the hospital haunts me to this state. Her actions completely
Speaker 1: stick in me. She has this need to be more
Speaker 1: part of my life events than I was. Other victims.
Speaker 1: Lizzie scams from two thousand and eleven to two thousand sixteen.
Speaker 1: She stole over eight hundred and fifty three thousand dollars
Speaker 1: end up losing a lot more than money. I lost
Speaker 1: my twenty year marriage. I believe the disagreements with my
Speaker 1: husband over the financial problems created by Lizzie ruined our marriage.
Speaker 1: But when Lizzie Malder addresses the court, she sounds almost repentant.
Speaker 1: As a mother two young daughters, I feared that my
Speaker 1: actions will cause them pain and they will never forgive me.
Speaker 1: As a wife, I have a fear that my marriage
Speaker 1: will not last the unknown punishment. Most of all, I
Speaker 1: fear that I will not be able to repay my
Speaker 1: restitution fast enough of the needs of the victims, and
Speaker 1: it's a human I have fear that my legacy and
Speaker 1: life will be that the good that I did in
Speaker 1: life will not outshine all this bad. So Lizzie Mulder
Speaker 1: goes to federal prison in January, and she's released after
Speaker 1: serving four years. But guess what, Lizzie has got a
Speaker 1: big secret she's keeping from the judge and from federal prosecutors.
Speaker 1: I definitely think that's a violation of the agreement. If
Speaker 1: I was still there, like if I was still to
Speaker 1: kiss you off, I would go to the Boston say
Speaker 1: this is something we need to open up. Yes you do.
Speaker 1: I'm Jonathan Walton and this is Queen of the Con
Speaker 1: The o C Savior Episode nine total bullshit. Let me
Speaker 1: apologize to all the view folks, but we would have
Speaker 1: taken about the same amount of time with numerous interruptions.
Speaker 1: Right now, we're going from the beginning again without any interruptions.
Speaker 1: The sentencing hearing for con artists Lizzie Maulder is unusually
Speaker 1: long and gut wrenching. There were tears. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was just I've just never seen the sort of devastation
Speaker 1: like that where just small businesses were just completely destroyed.
Speaker 1: It's something former federal prosecutor Paul LeBlanc will never forget.
Speaker 1: These small businesses are the lifeblood of the community. Most
Speaker 1: sentencing hearings are twenty minutes. This sentencing hearing for Lizzie
Speaker 1: Maulder was like the gone with the wind of sentencing
Speaker 1: hearings because it went on for hours. It did and
Speaker 1: drama and tears, and it was the judge got so invested,
Speaker 1: and that surprised me because judges are jaded, judges have
Speaker 1: seen every kind of bad thing under the sun. But
Speaker 1: Judge Carter really seemed to care and want to know
Speaker 1: more and kept asking questions. Eventually, I want to know
Speaker 1: what the money was spent for, how much personal aggrandizement,
Speaker 1: horse riding or plastic surgery. Judge Carter has a lot
Speaker 1: of experience on the bench and I've had cases in
Speaker 1: front of him. He takes his time and he's thorough
Speaker 1: and meticulous. But here's where things get really interesting. During
Speaker 1: the victim impact statements. After causing me hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of dollars and damages several times throughout the hearing, destroying
Speaker 1: my business, harming my relationships, victims like Laurence Gisha from
Speaker 1: the Toni and Guy hair Salon start mentioning the fact
Speaker 1: that Lizzie brought her herself at home this year. Home
Speaker 1: ver Samons told me about the home um down the
Speaker 1: street from her parents. I don't know anything much else
Speaker 1: about it. Print shop owner Mike Cochrane brings it up
Speaker 1: to she bought a house. Here's a picture of its
Speaker 1: beautiful track home. I wish I could afford that home.
Speaker 1: I can't qualify for that loan right now. I have
Speaker 1: no ability to buy that property. So the fact that
Speaker 1: Lizzie Mulder buys a house while she's in the process
Speaker 1: of pleading guilty to scamming a dozen victims out of
Speaker 1: one point five million dollars kind of just sits there
Speaker 1: in open court and eventually gets forgotten about until I
Speaker 1: start digging into the Lizzie Mulder case for this podcast.
Speaker 1: Now we know after she had bought her house, she
Speaker 1: then goes in and signs a plea bargain confessing that
Speaker 1: she has no assets. Forensic accountant gen Rodriguez is a
Speaker 1: real stickler for details. Remember she's the one who assists
Speaker 1: Detective Jordan Miracian early on in his investigation. And Rodriguez
Speaker 1: is really kind of the person that helped keep me
Speaker 1: organized and also helped explain that scheme because that was
Speaker 1: tricky to follow. It's very tricky. Well, it appears Lizzie
Speaker 1: Mulder has another very tricky scheme up her sleeve, and
Speaker 1: at a time when everyone least suspects it. You uncovered
Speaker 1: public records that clearly show while Lizzie was negotiating her
Speaker 1: ple deal with federal prosecutors, she was transferring her assets
Speaker 1: and what records are those records? So she bought a
Speaker 1: house about a house with her husband. She bought a
Speaker 1: house with her husband, and the transferred ownership to him
Speaker 1: with no concession, and that means what meaning that he
Speaker 1: didn't pay her for it. So, based on public records
Speaker 1: and court proceedings, here's the timeline for how it all
Speaker 1: goes down. In March of Lizzie's lawyer reaches out to
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Scott Tenley and said, I'm going to represent
Speaker 1: Lizzie Mulder, and we walked through the evidence and then
Speaker 1: pretty quickly Lizzie wanted to resolve the case with a
Speaker 1: plea agreement, and that's when negotiations for her guilty plea
Speaker 1: agreement officially begin March of But the very next month
Speaker 1: in April, while Lizzie and her attorney are going back
Speaker 1: and forth with prosecutors about which charges she'll plead guilty to,
Speaker 1: public records show that Lizzie Mulder actually buys a house
Speaker 1: for six hundred and seventy seven thousand dollars in San
Speaker 1: Juan Capistrano, a city in Orange County, twenty minutes south
Speaker 1: of Laguna Beach. That house, by the way, is now
Speaker 1: worth one point two million dollars according to Zillo, and
Speaker 1: right after Lizzie buys that house, according to public records,
Speaker 1: she transfers full ownership to her husband, Jesse Mulder. Then
Speaker 1: the next month, in May of Lizzie signs her guilty
Speaker 1: plea agreement and communicates to the court that she has
Speaker 1: no money and no assets to pay victims. There one
Speaker 1: point five million dollars in restitution and the cherry on
Speaker 1: top of this duplicity. Sunday is months later, while Lizzie
Speaker 1: is in federal prison. According to court records, her husband
Speaker 1: Jesse Mulder actually divorces her, so he now owns that
Speaker 1: one point two million dollars. San Juan Coppastrano home free
Speaker 1: and clear. Total bullshit, okay. Victim Mike Cochrane is furious
Speaker 1: when I tell him about this, and his emotions are
Speaker 1: just as high at Lizzie's sentencing hearing. I just ask him,
Speaker 1: closing in your honor, that you take consideration in the
Speaker 1: in the proper penalties for this person. She hurts middle
Speaker 1: class America. We're all just hard working people busting our ass,
Speaker 1: risking it all, helping to support other people as our
Speaker 1: staff and employees were trying to pay our dues, pay
Speaker 1: our taxes, and unfortunately we had a predator using our
Speaker 1: emotions to leverage us, find out where our weaknesses were,
Speaker 1: and and capitalize on. She's filled money right out of
Speaker 1: the gate with people. She spilled money sixty days within
Speaker 1: my dad's death, so she is not remorseful. She also
Speaker 1: used to tell me about how smart she was. I
Speaker 1: still think she thinks she's smart. I think she's constriving
Speaker 1: this deal with her husband in order to have a
Speaker 1: life in the near future. Mike figures out exactly what
Speaker 1: Lizzie's up to. While she's up to it, I mean,
Speaker 1: they had a house in escrow at the sentencene. Actually,
Speaker 1: according to public records, Lizzie had already bought the house
Speaker 1: and transferred ownership to her husband in April of one
Speaker 1: month before signing her guilty plea agreements in May. End
Speaker 1: up whopping five months before that sentencing hearing in October.
Speaker 1: How can that legally go through? Well, I think it's
Speaker 1: a matter of one hand doesn't know what the others doing.
Speaker 1: So while prosecutors were focused on how she scammed all
Speaker 1: of you, they have no idea that simultaneously she's scamming
Speaker 1: them because it's illegal to be hiding assets while you're
Speaker 1: working on a plea deal for for stealing. That's highly illegal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: don't tell me that guy didn't now. That guy being
Speaker 1: Jesse Mulder, I believe he did know. And I think
Speaker 1: evidence that you brought up in the sentencing hearing brilliantly
Speaker 1: is you visited them and he played along. He was,
Speaker 1: He was a collaborator, and he was a freaking partner
Speaker 1: as far as I'm concerned. So, as of the beginning
Speaker 1: of this year, Lizzie Mulder has been out of federal prison.
Speaker 1: She's supposed to be living in a halfway house, but
Speaker 1: I have heard she's not in that halfway house. She's
Speaker 1: actually living at her house that she bought with Jesse
Speaker 1: and Sam. Juan Capistrano, co owner of the salon powered
Speaker 1: by Toni and Guy Geneva Mendoza is keeping close tabs
Speaker 1: on Lizzie Mulder. And you have this unreliable source, yes,
Speaker 1: from our bookkeeper is married to Lizzie's brother, uh Mad,
Speaker 1: and we do trust her. Your bookkeepers married to Lizzie's brother,
Speaker 1: so so she is she. I thought she was divorced.
Speaker 1: They filed for divorced. I found the divorce records. So
Speaker 1: that's all a scam. I don't know that you're still together.
Speaker 1: She lives with her family there in San Juan Capistrano.
Speaker 1: Maybe Jesse Mulder isn't aware that by helping his wife
Speaker 1: to hide assets i e. Buy a house and transfer
Speaker 1: ownership to him during the negotiation of her plea agreement,
Speaker 1: that could make him look kind of like a co conspirator.
Speaker 1: Do you think Jesse helped her? And that's the thing,
Speaker 1: and we all are. We go back and forth with
Speaker 1: that because we believe that Jesse, she's so controlling. If you,
Speaker 1: if you actually ever talked to her, you could see
Speaker 1: that it was It's very easy that she did handle
Speaker 1: everything in the household. Um, because of how easily she
Speaker 1: took over all of our stuff, you know, like let
Speaker 1: me handle it, let me handle it, let me everything,
Speaker 1: just let me, let me do it. And if she
Speaker 1: has that dominating personality, then I could see her doing
Speaker 1: it with her husband. And he's always been very quiet,
Speaker 1: kind of timid. He didn't seem like you had much
Speaker 1: of a backbone, not compared to her, who is just
Speaker 1: loud and you know a lot um So I I
Speaker 1: don't know. I really don't. Shortly after my conversation with Geneva,
Speaker 1: I'm on her street. I drive down to San Juan Coppas,
Speaker 1: Toranto to get a look at this real estate that
Speaker 1: Lizzie buys a month before she signs her plea deal.
Speaker 1: These are some nice houses. San Juan Copastrana is a
Speaker 1: sleepy city of about thirty five people. It's a two
Speaker 1: hour drive south of Los Angeles. This is a nice
Speaker 1: suburban neighborhood. There trees, there are mountains in the background.
Speaker 1: It is a beautiful day. Destination is on your left.
Speaker 1: Who on the left. I drive right past that million
Speaker 1: dollar house. It's a single level suburban track home, three bedrooms,
Speaker 1: two bathrooms. I'm trying to see if she's living here,
Speaker 1: because on paper, she's not living here. On paper, this
Speaker 1: is just her husband's house, her ex husband. It's nine
Speaker 1: in the morning. I parked my car way down on
Speaker 1: her block. I'm wearing workout clothes. My plan is to
Speaker 1: get some exercise, walking around her neighborhood while trying to
Speaker 1: figure out if he's living there. Okay, there's no one
Speaker 1: on the street. Ye oh who approaching the house on foot,
Speaker 1: I see a big cement mixer in the driveway and
Speaker 1: a construction worker holding a shovel. It looks like they're
Speaker 1: doing some renovations to the house. Then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: coming out of the house and getting into a car.
Speaker 1: I think it's just so busy. Well there, Um, she
Speaker 1: looks completely different. She has long brown hair. This woman
Speaker 1: that I saw, she came out of that house that's
Speaker 1: supposedly she's not living now, and I think she was
Speaker 1: talking to her daughters. One of her daughters came just
Speaker 1: arrived home in her own car, and she was talking
Speaker 1: to before she left. I walked right past her and
Speaker 1: she looked directly in my eyes. But again, I just
Speaker 1: look like a neighbor walking, you know, for exercise. I'm
Speaker 1: wearing shorts of the calf. I could beat us out
Speaker 1: for a walk for exercise in the morning. You know,
Speaker 1: you see guys walking. I don't think she suspects I'm
Speaker 1: looking for her or at her. Wow, I think that
Speaker 1: was her. So I'm pretty sure I just confirmed what
Speaker 1: Geneva Mendoza said earlier. She's actually living at her house
Speaker 1: that she bought with Jesse and Samuel Capastronto. Fraud investigations,
Speaker 1: you've got to play the long game. Jordan Iraqi investigated
Speaker 1: Lizzie Meulder back in as a detective for Laguna Beach
Speaker 1: p D. Today though he's a sergeant at the Seal
Speaker 1: Beach Police Department, but still nothing surprises him about Lizzie Melder.
Speaker 1: Absolutely nothing. I think if she's not already scamming people,
Speaker 1: I think she's concocting her next scamp. I agree. So
Speaker 1: while she was negotiating her plea agreement, was anyone aware
Speaker 1: that she was buying a house and then transferring ownership
Speaker 1: of that house to Jesse Mulder And then she signed
Speaker 1: her plea deal. So technically, by the time she actually signed,
Speaker 1: because a plea deal is negotiated over months, it's not
Speaker 1: like a coming and signed today done. It was a
Speaker 1: back and forth with her attorney for a long time.
Speaker 1: By the time she signed it, she had no assets
Speaker 1: that the victims could claim for restitution. Isn't that illegal?
Speaker 1: It's immoral because in a sense, she entered into this
Speaker 1: plea agreement under false pretense that she has no assets.
Speaker 1: She had assets, but she transferred them right before the signature.
Speaker 1: Well technically speaking, she had no assets when she signed.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing, like I you know, getting divorced
Speaker 1: from somebody is also a strategic move. Yeah, if you're
Speaker 1: going through this, yeah, because now the house is his
Speaker 1: and if you want restitution, she has nothing. It's like
Speaker 1: she scammed again. She's scamming while she's pleading guilty to
Speaker 1: these scams. She's scamming, all right, and these victims would
Speaker 1: have to sue Jesse, right but there, but now you're
Speaker 1: talking about time and nowhere, and you slap a lean
Speaker 1: on the property and it goes nowhere and then they
Speaker 1: transferred to the daughters and and you die, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean. Lizzie continued her scheming during the plea deal.
Speaker 1: She carved I believe, carves the word cunt in the
Speaker 1: side of her vehicle and says one of the victims
Speaker 1: did it. I couldn't prove it, but listen, I talked
Speaker 1: to the deputy that investigated at the patrol deputy and
Speaker 1: she told me she goes Yeah, she was hysterical and
Speaker 1: she was making a big scene and the neighbors were
Speaker 1: coming out, and I talked to neighbors on that street.
Speaker 1: She was giving tours of her house to these people.
Speaker 1: Knowing that this trial or this sentencing was coming. She
Speaker 1: was all ready ingratiating herself with her neighbors. What she
Speaker 1: was trying to do is build this narrative that she's
Speaker 1: the victim, and was hoping that she could bring that
Speaker 1: up in court. But she wasn't able to bring that
Speaker 1: up in court because she couldn't prove it right because
Speaker 1: she did it. Who who carves the word? Who? Which? Which?
Speaker 1: One of my victims exactly? Who have gone through two
Speaker 1: years now an upheld battle to try to get this
Speaker 1: case charged and their day in court, they're not gonna.
Speaker 1: You know, by the way, they don't know that address.
Speaker 1: There are so many like it was such a half
Speaker 1: asked attempt at trying to gain some sympathy, Like the
Speaker 1: address isn't public record yet, so unless all the victims
Speaker 1: are following her around. I knew the new address, because
Speaker 1: this is the new How she bought with? What money
Speaker 1: did she buy that house with? Probably the money that
Speaker 1: she had left over that she scammed from these people,
Speaker 1: Well you'd call it a fraudulent conveyance. That would be
Speaker 1: kind of the legal term of art if you are
Speaker 1: moving property under fraudulent pretexas to disguise your assets. Federal
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Scott Tenley, who working with i RS criminal investigator
Speaker 1: James Kim and the FBI, charges Lizzie Moulder with the crimes.
Speaker 1: She eventually pleads guilty too, but he wasn't aware. Lizzie
Speaker 1: bought a house and transferred ownership to her husband while
Speaker 1: her attorney was negotiating her plea deal with him. If
Speaker 1: I had found out that that was going on, it
Speaker 1: would have caused been a huge problem. Right, we would
Speaker 1: have tried to reverse the transfer, or we would have
Speaker 1: potentially we could have probably backed out of the plea agreement.
Speaker 1: But it's certainly troubling. By the time the sensing here happened,
Speaker 1: she had signed the plea deal. Um, I have the
Speaker 1: plea agreements public, but I think there's a provision in
Speaker 1: the plea agreement that says something like you have to
Speaker 1: be truthful at all times, blah blah blah. So she
Speaker 1: has violated the pla agreement. Scott Tinley is not with
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice anymore. He's a defense attorney for
Speaker 1: the firm Michaelman and Robinson in Orange County. But now
Speaker 1: reading over Lizzie Mulder's plea agreement, which is in the
Speaker 1: public record, he sees how what she did is not legal.
Speaker 1: She's required to be truthful at all times with pretrial services,
Speaker 1: the United States Probation Office, and the court. She's also
Speaker 1: she agrees to truthfully disclose to law enforcement officials the
Speaker 1: location ownership interest in all of the information known to
Speaker 1: defend it about all Moneys properties or assets of any kind.
Speaker 1: So she it does look like she had an obligation
Speaker 1: under the plea agreement to disclose all those assets to us.
Speaker 1: You look at when she bought the house, and the
Speaker 1: money she used to buy that house was the victim's
Speaker 1: money she stole, and then she moves it, transfers it
Speaker 1: to ownership to her husband, and then later gets a divorce,
Speaker 1: like she's clearly hiding her assets. Did she get a divorce?
Speaker 1: She got a divorce, a real divorce or fake divorced? Well,
Speaker 1: I think to fake divorce. Has a plea deal ever
Speaker 1: been provoked because of something like this because someone didn't
Speaker 1: hold up their end they lied? Oh, well, I've certainly
Speaker 1: had instances where somebody has had to make payments to
Speaker 1: the government as a result of their plea agreement, and
Speaker 1: they defrauded us about those payments, and we did what's
Speaker 1: called a breach of the Pola agreement, and we filed
Speaker 1: new charges against somebody. And just your opinion as a
Speaker 1: private citizen who's familiar with the law, doesn't she appear
Speaker 1: to have violated it? If there was a fraudulent conveyance
Speaker 1: that was intended to hide assets, Yeah, I mean that
Speaker 1: that certainly would have been a breach of the police agreement.
Speaker 1: I think that the more difficult question for you is
Speaker 1: is it something that the U. S. Attorney's Office is
Speaker 1: going to throw its resources at it to declare a breach.
Speaker 1: It's incredibly rare. I will tell you I've done it. Um.
Speaker 1: I actually did it against another fraudster who is the
Speaker 1: CEO of an investment firm that stole people's retirement accounts
Speaker 1: four million dollars in time retirement accounts. I reached him
Speaker 1: because he lied to me about something. After talking to
Speaker 1: Scott Tenley, I run this all by Paula Blanc Today.
Speaker 1: He's got his own firm in San Diego, the le
Speaker 1: Blanc Law Group, but back in he was another federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor with the Department of Justice working on the Lizzie
Speaker 1: Mulder case. Like I know, it's a breach, so definitely is.
Speaker 1: Paul reads directly from the plea agreement Lizzie signed, which
Speaker 1: is a matter of public record. Now there it is
Speaker 1: right there, truthfully to disclose the law enforcement the location
Speaker 1: of defendant's ownership, interest in and all other information known
Speaker 1: to defend about all moneys, properties, and or assets of
Speaker 1: any kind derived from or acquired as a result of,
Speaker 1: or used to facilitate the commission of defendant's illegal activities,
Speaker 1: and to forfeit right title. So she did the direct
Speaker 1: opposite of that. She hit the money, she stole. She
Speaker 1: bought a house, signed it over to her husband, then
Speaker 1: later divorced to make it stick. What does that agreement mean?
Speaker 1: She has breached it, So then the ramifications are what Well,
Speaker 1: she could be charged with another crime, which would be
Speaker 1: a fraud. She could potentially be brought back into court
Speaker 1: in front of the judge and asked to vacate this
Speaker 1: plea agreement. In April, a month before she actually signed,
Speaker 1: she bought a house. Here's the deed and the second
Speaker 1: page is her transferring that to her husband in April. Now,
Speaker 1: there's no way you can tell me that while she
Speaker 1: was buying that house she didn't know what she was doing,
Speaker 1: because by then Morakian had got the FEDS involved in
Speaker 1: August of Yep. I mean she didn't have a legitimate employment.
Speaker 1: Her employment was consistently illegitimate. Exactly wasn't a c p A.
Speaker 1: And she was holding herself out to be a c
Speaker 1: p A. She wasn't, and so everything that she got
Speaker 1: was illicit and most of it was stolen um. So
Speaker 1: whatever legitimate work she did, there's that much on top
Speaker 1: of it. I definitely think that's a violation of the
Speaker 1: plea agreement. And if they wanted to try to avoid
Speaker 1: the plea agreement, if I was still there, like if
Speaker 1: I was still a kiss you off, I would I
Speaker 1: would say, Yeah, I would go to the Boston say
Speaker 1: this is something we need to open up and we
Speaker 1: need to go take that house. Yes you do, because
Speaker 1: this house is bought was stolen money. We know that
Speaker 1: that's all she had from those people. And I bet
Speaker 1: she hasn't paid back the one five million dollars, not
Speaker 1: at all. In your experience with the U. S. Attorney's
Speaker 1: Office or as a lawyer in general, have you ever
Speaker 1: seen repercussions for people who breach their plea agreements? There are,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a cost benefit on analysis that the
Speaker 1: government goes through is like is it worth hauling this
Speaker 1: person back in. Normally, what happens is, you know, they'll
Speaker 1: do their time, they'll get out that beyond it's called
Speaker 1: supervisor release in the federal system. It's somewhat similar to
Speaker 1: like being on probation in the state system, where you
Speaker 1: have a like a probation officer and checking in, living
Speaker 1: in a halfway house or you know, going to a
Speaker 1: a or whatever it is you're doing. They'll do something
Speaker 1: else that violates a lot and then they'll be brought
Speaker 1: back in front of the same judge who can then
Speaker 1: make decision as to what is the appropriate sentence because
Speaker 1: they're still under the custody of the court or they're
Speaker 1: still under the supervision of the court. And that happens
Speaker 1: a lot um and those are low level. But with
Speaker 1: this where you have somebody that appears to have violated
Speaker 1: the plea agreement and knowing way, trying to to secrete assets.
Speaker 1: It would be something that is actionable by the federal
Speaker 1: government and if the evidence is there. You know, I
Speaker 1: can't speak on behalf of leadership. Um, but if I
Speaker 1: was still in the office, then I would go to
Speaker 1: the boss and say, this is something that I believe
Speaker 1: should be investigated further. Can we open it in estiation?
Speaker 1: Can we start doing some subpoenas and get some information
Speaker 1: to verify what we believe And if so, then maybe
Speaker 1: present that to a grand jury for an indictment. She
Speaker 1: could be indicted again. I can tell you if she
Speaker 1: showed up in front of Judge Carter, he would not
Speaker 1: be happy. Oh, I'm gonna tell him. Does he have
Speaker 1: the power to do something? Yeah? I mean she's still
Speaker 1: in her supervision, so he can call her and he
Speaker 1: can't canty. She is under his supervision and he does
Speaker 1: not suffer fools. So I compose an email to federal
Speaker 1: Judge David o' carter with links to public records that
Speaker 1: clearly show while Lizzie Mulder was negotiating her plea deal
Speaker 1: with federal prosecutors, she bought a house and transferred ownership
Speaker 1: to her husband, and then claimed she had no assets
Speaker 1: to pay the victim's restitution. So does Judge Carter have
Speaker 1: the ability to revoke the plea agreement? I mean, I
Speaker 1: guess he could. She is under his supervision. Next time,
Speaker 1: on Queen of the Con The O C Savior, I
Speaker 1: knew her from junior high and then we both went
Speaker 1: to high school together. We examine Lizzie Mulder's crime ridden adolescence,
Speaker 1: so she was always scamming since she was a child.
Speaker 1: And I take some of those voice changing apps on
Speaker 1: a disturbing test drive. I sound like a real live
Speaker 1: woman using this one. I don't sound like me Jonathan
Speaker 1: Walton at all. If you're enjoying Queen of the Con,
Speaker 1: leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 1: for bonus content, check out at Queen of the Con
Speaker 1: on Instagram. Queen of the Con The O C Savior
Speaker 1: is a production of a y R Media and iHeart Media,
Speaker 1: hosted by Me Jonathan Walton, Executive producers Jonathan Walton for
Speaker 1: Jonathan Walton Productions and Eliza Rosen for a y R Media.
Speaker 1: Written by Jonathan Walton, Consulting producer Evan Goldstein, Senior Associate
Speaker 1: producer Eric Newman, Sound design by baked ZD Media, Mixed
Speaker 1: and mastered by Cameron Taggy, sound editing, audio and studio
Speaker 1: engineering by Matt Jacobson. Legal counsel for A y R Media,
Speaker 1: Gianni Douglas, Executive producer for iHeart Media. Maya Howard