← litmanintelligence.com  |  ← Counsel PDFs index  |  Counsel dashboard

Anomalous Transactions Catalog

ANOMALOUS TRANSACTIONS CATALOG

Financial Irregularities, Client Renumbering, and Trust Account Manipulation

Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County Judge: Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C. Surviving Claim: Count V -- NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51 (Misappropriation of Name) Prepared: April 1, 2026 Classification: Attorney Work Product / Privileged


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This catalog documents a pattern of financial manipulation by Joshua B. Goldberg that systematically diverted, concealed, and underreported revenue generated under Richard Litman's professional name. The pattern is not one of innocent bookkeeping errors. It is a deliberate architecture of financial opacity built across five interconnected systems:

  1. Client renumbering -- Litman-originated clients assigned alternate account numbers that bypassed the standard Attorney #418 allocation tracking
  2. Trust account manipulation -- $17.5 million in trust-to-operating transfers across 2,160 transactions, with documented commingling, direct-to-operating wire bypasses, and $1.38 million in clearly problematic transfers
  3. Incomplete reporting -- Goldberg's own workup showed $0 revenue for KFU and KSU despite $13.26 million in verified trust payments from those clients; Goldberg admitted the Soluno system "didn't include payments actually made"
  4. An internal tracking system ("The Pad") -- A spreadsheet created at Goldberg's direction specifically to track Litman-originated matters, proving awareness and intentional organization around the Litman name-use revenue stream
  5. 28,503 journal entries with Goldberg's initials across 71 journal files, including 885 corrections and adjustments on matters designated to Richard Litman

The financial result: a $16.2 million gap between what entered client trust accounts ($32.7 million) and what Goldberg reported as receipts ($16.5 million). Litman's 20% share was calculated on the smaller number. The difference between what was owed and what was paid is conservatively $1.9 million and may exceed $3.2 million depending on the correct revenue base.


2. THE CLIENT RENUMBERING SCHEME

2.1 How It Works

NGM's billing system assigns each client an "Attorney Number" indicating the originating attorney. Richard Litman's code is Attorney Number 418. All clients Litman originated should carry this number, ensuring that collected fees are included in the 20% allocation calculation owed to him under the Combination Agreement and arbitration award.

The renumbering scheme assigned Litman-originated clients alternate numbers with distinctive prefixes -- numbers beginning with "1," "J," or "5" -- that are not standard Attorney #418 designations. By reassigning clients to these alternate codes, the revenue they generated could be excluded from the Soluno reports that calculated Litman's percentage.

2.2 Evidence

Date Source Description
June 16, 2025 Email screenshot (iCloud Photos) Email documenting clients being assigned alternate numbers that bypass the standard allocation system
April 17, 2025 Email (ND263868) Litman requests "a list of all clients assigned to my Attorney number 418" and notes that Middle Eastern clients "should reflect my number" -- indicating awareness that some do not
May 26, 2025 Email (ND263883) Litman requests confirmation that his "originated client list is correctly in Soluno (Attorney 418)" and asks for reports covering "all Attorney 418 clients from July 2023 to current" -- indicating doubt about completeness
June 2025 Litman email to Goldberg/Schaefer Lists "many clients not included including MSRDC, some universities and more" as missing from his allocation

2.3 Known Affected Clients

Client Standard Designation Evidence of Irregularity
MSRDC Attorney 418 Monthly $2,500 payments from April 2023 through April 2025 paid but NOT transferred from trust to operating; no $500/month allocation to Litman despite client being "identified with Attorney 418"
KFU (King Faisal University) Attorney 418 / Docket 36372 Goldberg's workup showed $0 in revenue despite $12.3 million in verified trust payments. Revenue omitted entirely from the Soluno reports used to calculate Litman's 20%
KSU (King Saud University) Attorney 418 / Docket 35610 Same: $0 in workup despite $3.72 million in trust ledger activity across 388 entries
KISR Attorney 418 Identified by Litman as among "clients left off transfers" in June 6, 2025 request
Kuwait University Attorney 418 Same -- identified as excluded from transfer reports
Sabah Al-Ahmad Center Attorney 418 Same -- identified as excluded
UAEU Attorney 418 Same -- identified as excluded
Jouf University Attorney 418 Litman noted April 2025 that Jouf University payments were missing from reports
Authentic Amish Attorney 418 Invoice #318064 ($1,040) paid July 13, 2023 but not allocated to Litman's 20%
Kan Cui Attorney 418 Invoice #332617 ($1,954) paid December 27, 2024 but not allocated

2.4 The Standard vs. Alternate Numbering System

System Format Effect on Litman's 20%
Standard (correct) 5-digit docket prefix (e.g., 33120.91U), Attorney 418 Revenue captured in Soluno, included in 20% calculation
Alternate prefixes ("1", "J", "5") Non-standard client numbers Revenue bypasses Attorney 418 reports, excluded from 20% calculation
Umbrella dockets (36372, 35610) General trust holding accounts Bulk client payments land here; allocation to sub-matters and operating happens at Goldberg's discretion

2.5 Significance

Each renumbered client is evidence of intent. Changing an originating attorney code is not a clerical error -- it requires administrative access to the billing system and a deliberate decision to reassign the client. Litman's repeated requests for a complete client list under Attorney 418 ("please confirm my originated client list is correctly in Soluno") demonstrate that he suspected the list was incomplete. Goldberg never provided the confirmation.


3. TRUST ACCOUNT ANOMALIES

3.1 The Three-Account Structure

NGM maintained multiple accounts through which client funds flowed:

Account Type Ledger Code Key Facts
Bank of America Escrow (ending 8777) Trust t3 $27.8M in receipts; primary trust account through 2024
EagleBank Trust (ending 0495) Trust t23 $4.9M in receipts; became primary after BOA migration
Bank of America Wire (ending 8751) Wire Receipt N/A Received international wires; NOT a designated trust account
Bank of America Operating (ending 2417) Operating N/A Firm's operating account
Freedom Bank Trust (historical) Unknown Litman requested closure or name removal (Feb. 2024)

3.2 Deposits Under Wrong Client Numbers

Trust ledger analysis reveals client payments deposited into umbrella docket accounts (36372 for KFU, 35610 for KSU) rather than into specific patent matter dockets. While bulk wire processing may justify an initial deposit into a general account, the subsequent allocation to sub-matters was entirely at Goldberg's discretion, with no transparency to Litman.

Specific examples from June 2025 Litman emails:

KFU Docket Problem Identified Amount
33110.43U Trust payment transferred to operating, but no 20% RCL credit applied Not specified
33110.63U Trust payment received but NOT transferred to operating, no credit issued Not specified
33110.92U Trust payment made WITHOUT any invoice or transfer record Not specified
33120.22S Trust transferred but no RCL credit Not specified
33120.26S Trust transferred but no RCL credit Not specified

3.3 Trust-to-Trust Transfers That Obscure the Trail

Category Amount Transactions Effect
Trust-to-trust bank transfers $1,698,673.32 299 Money moved between Eagle Bank and BOA trust accounts; creates matching debit/credit that inflates gross trust figures
Sub-matter allocations $4,451,713.62 1,216 Internal moves from umbrella dockets (36372, 35610) to individual patent dockets; no money leaves trust but creates complex paper trail
BOA-to-EagleBank migration $1,478,867.09 561 Bulk transfer of trust funds between banks; $86,871.87 discrepancy between outgoing and incoming amounts

3.4 Transfers Routed Through the Operating Account

Date Amount Description Problem
March 18, 2024 $595,214 KFU wire from Wire_8751 directly to Operating_2417 Client trust funds bypassed trust accounts entirely
March 18, 2024 $1,000 Recording discrepancy Wire recorded as $594,214 -- exactly $1,000 less than actual
April 9-10, 2024 $587,358.87 KFU trust funds routed through operating to transfer between banks Temporary commingling; should have been trust-to-trust
July 16, 2021 $90,000 "Op to Trust RCL" correction $90,000 in client funds had been held in operating; returned to trust Case 36056
September 3, 2021 $20,000 "Op to Trust RCL" correction Same pattern; $20,000 returned to trust

Total clearly problematic transfers: $1,380,444.74

3.5 The $1.2 Million Still in Trust

As of the most recent trust ledger:

Account Balance
Eagle Bank Trust (0495) $1,174,930.40
Bank of America Escrow (8777) $45,909.33
Total undisbursed $1,220,839.73

This money was received from clients, generated by work performed under Litman's name, but has never been disbursed to operating or allocated to anyone's compensation. It sits in trust -- money earned under Litman's name that he has never been paid on.

3.6 Schaefer's Trust Account Closure Statement

NGM's own CPA, Deborah Schaefer, told Litman that trust accounts were being closed because the firm was "not supposed to have trust money for your own money." This is an admission of awareness that trust accounts contained firm funds rather than solely client funds -- the definition of commingling under Virginia RPC 1.15 and New York Rule 1.15.


4. THE SOLUNO REPORTING GAP

4.1 Goldberg's Admission

In a June 2025 text message exchange, Goldberg acknowledged that the Soluno reports for Attorney #418 "drew its data from account ledgers that didn't include payments actually made."

This is a direct, informal admission by the person who controlled the accounting system that the reports Litman relied upon to verify his 20% share were structurally deficient. The reports did not capture all revenue. The undercount was not disclosed to Litman until he discovered it himself and pressed the issue.

4.2 What Soluno Showed vs. What Actually Happened

Metric Soluno/Workup Showed Actual (Trust Ledger) Difference
Total client receipts $16,506,604.92 $32,708,669.08 $16,202,064.16
KFU revenue $0.00 $10,737,709.88 (Docket 36372 alone) $10,737,709.88
KSU revenue $0.00 $3,720,000+ (Docket 35610) $3,720,000+
20% due to Litman $2,402,451.86 $4,299,347.35 (quarterly summary) $1,896,895.49
Payments to Litman $2,403,125.66 $2,403,125.66 $0.00
Net balance owed ($673.80) -- "fully paid" $1,896,221.69 $1,896,895.49

4.3 The $16.2 Million Gap Decomposition

Component Amount % of Gap
Time period mismatch (Trust Ledger = lifetime; Workup = Soluno period only) $8,461,393 52.2%
Trust-to-sub-matter internal allocations $4,451,714 27.5%
Trust-to-trust inter-bank transfers $1,698,673 10.5%
Trust balance remaining (undisbursed) $1,220,840 7.5%
Litman percentage account (compensation escrow) $244,918 1.5%
Direct trust payments bypassing operating $124,526+ 0.8%
Total $16,202,064 100%

4.4 Why the Gap Matters

Goldberg's workup bottom line shows Litman's 20% was $2,402,451.86, and payments of $2,403,125.66 were made -- a difference of negative $673.80. This suspiciously clean reconciliation only works because:

The quarterly compensation summary -- calculated differently -- shows $4,299,347.35 due against $2,403,125.66 paid, a shortfall of approximately $1.9 million.


5. SPECIFIC DOLLAR DISCREPANCIES

5.1 Catalog of Identified Irregularities

Item Amount Date Identified Description Status
$35,120 missing KFU allocations $35,120.00 June 19, 2025 Four KFU invoices paid but not allocated to Litman's 20%: #405667 ($9,440), #407698 ($11,040), plus others Goldberg acknowledged: "I need to figure out why"
$156,010.60 chased payment $156,010.60 April 2024 Series of text messages documenting repeated efforts by Litman to obtain this specific payment Eventually paid (appears in April 11, 2024 payment record)
"$20K/month allocated, should be 7 figures" ~$240K/yr vs. 7 figures June 2025 Litman noted his allocation was $20,000/month despite massive revenue under his name Goldberg did not dispute the "7 figures" claim
$79,150 discrepancy $79,150.00 June 2025 Difference between Verified Financial Summary ($2,481,602 due) and NGM Workup ($2,402,452 due) Explained by missing allocations Litman identified
$132,637 missing January 2024 payment $132,636.68 Identified in analysis Appears as "Paid" in quarterly summary but does NOT appear in NGM Litman Workup Unexplained omission of a six-figure payment
$1,000 recording discrepancy $1,000.00 March 18, 2024 $595,214 KFU wire recorded as $594,214 in Soluno Correction entry filed March 19, 2024
$86,872 inter-bank migration gap $86,871.87 Sept-Nov 2024 Difference between outgoing BOA trust ($1,478,867) and incoming EagleBank trust ($1,391,995) during bank migration Unexplained
MSRDC trapped trust funds ~$60,000+ April 2023 - April 2025 Monthly $2,500 payments received but never transferred from trust to operating; no $500/month Litman allocation since March 2023 Identified by Litman; no resolution
Authentic Amish missing allocation $1,040.00 July 13, 2023 Invoice #318064 paid but not allocated to Litman's 20% No resolution
Kan Cui missing allocation $1,954.00 December 27, 2024 Invoice #332617 paid but not allocated to Litman's 20% No resolution

5.2 The "$20K/month vs. 7 Figures" Gap

This single data point encapsulates the entire pattern:


6. JBG JOURNAL ENTRIES -- GOLDBERG'S FINANCIAL FINGERPRINTS

6.1 Scale of Goldberg's Financial Control

Metric Value
Total JBG journal entries 28,503
Journal files containing JBG entries 71
Unique docket numbers with JBG activity 1,955
Period covered February 2022 -- June 2025
Peak month June 2025: 18,482 entries

6.2 Entry Types

Type Count Significance
Trust Bank entries 18,328 Goldberg personally controlling client trust deposits, withdrawals, and transfers
Billing entries 10,035 Goldberg entering or approving time entries and fee charges on RL matters
Corrections/Adjustments 885 Goldberg modifying financial records on Litman-designated matters
Fee allocation entries 62 Direct control over how fees were credited
Trust transfers 52 Inter-matter fund movements at Goldberg's direction
Invoice entries 26 Goldberg generating invoices on RL matters

6.3 Documented Trust Authorizations

The trust ledger CSV records 54 specific trust actions attributed to Goldberg by name:

Authorization Type Count Examples
"JBG em approval" 8 Dockets 33020.00, 32720.11, 32387.02
"JBG email" -- directed trust actions 7 Dockets 32809.12, 33007.56, 33007.57, 33007.63
"JBGverbal" -- verbal authorization 7 KFU dockets 32087.08, 32087.14, 32087.50, 32805.15, 32905.62
"Transfer to different client per JBG" 2 Docket 33050.00 to 32833.03
"JBG close .01" -- closing sub-dockets 2 33049.01 to 33049.00
"EM Auth JBG -cor docket #" -- correcting docket numbers 1 11060.46 to 11060.50
"billed JBG" -- billing instructions 3 KSU general trust 35610
"JBG. em" -- Kuwait University payments 3 23588.72, 23588.86, 23588.93

Every entry shows RESP = "RL" (Richard Litman). Goldberg controlled the money. Litman's name was on the matters.

6.4 The JBGverbal KFU Transfers (August 19, 2021)

Four trust fund transfers on KFU docket 36372, all verbally authorized by Goldberg on August 18, 2021:

Entry No. From Docket Amount Authorization
2488679 32087.50 $298.00 JBGverbal 8.18.2021
2488683 32087.14 $3,000.00 JBGverbal 8.18.2021
2488688 32087.08 $1,100.00 JBGverbal 8.18.2021
2488691 32087.19 $810.00 JGBverbal 08.18.2021*

*Typographical transposition ("JGB" vs "JBG") -- same person, same date, sequential entries.

Total moved by Goldberg's verbal command: $5,208. The significance is not the dollar amount but the proof that Goldberg could pick up the phone, tell accounting staff to move money between Litman's patent dockets, and it was done immediately. This is operational control.

6.5 Timeline of JBG Financial Activity

Period Monthly Average Entries Notable
Feb 2022 88 Earliest records
Aug-Dec 2023 235/month Post-arbitration ramp-up
Jan-Jun 2024 401/month Peak control period
Jul-Dec 2024 713/month Heavy trust bank activity
Jan-Jun 2025 4,189/month Massive activity; June alone = 18,482 entries

The escalation from 88 entries/month to 4,189 entries/month coincides with the period when Litman was demanding financial accountability. More journal activity during a period of financial scrutiny raises the inference that records were being created, modified, or reorganized.


7. "THE PAD" -- GOLDBERG'S INTERNAL TRACKING SYSTEM

7.1 What "The Pad" Is

"The Pad" is an internal Excel spreadsheet created and maintained at Goldberg's direction, specifically organized around matters where Richard Litman is the originating attorney. It tracked:

7.2 The Directive

On January 24, 2024, Karen Van Giezen (IT Specialist, NGM) sent a firm-wide email to the DC Office at Goldberg's direction:

"Josh has requested the following procedure: When you complete work on any matter where Richard Litman is the originating attorney, update the spreadsheet named 'The Pad' with the following information..."

The email specified the file location: Team -- Nath Law -- General/Nath Assoc/Pad/The Pad

7.3 Prior Existence

"The Pad" predated the January 2024 directive. Earlier references show:

Date Source Reference
January 3, 2022 Litman to Martha Long "Martha, please send me the pad through 12/31/21"
July 2023 Goldberg to Litman "I suspect work needs to make it onto the Pad" (re: KFU A/R)
January 24, 2024 Van Giezen directive Formalized the process; shifted from Martha Long to staff-wide entry

The January 2024 directive was a formalization of a pre-existing system. Before that date, Martha Long accumulated "Pad information from incoming emails" or researched "what work was completed." The new procedure freed Martha from this role by requiring all staff to update the spreadsheet directly.

7.4 Litman's Concerns About The Pad

On the same day as the Van Giezen email (January 24, 2024), Litman forwarded it to Deborah Schaefer with pointed questions:

"This is when the work is sent to clients. Shouldn't the invoice numbers always be known at this point in the work flow process? If work is sent out without linkage to an invoice, how is the firm sure that all work is being done and all work invoiced?"

Litman identified the fundamental problem: work was being tracked on The Pad without corresponding invoice numbers, meaning revenue could be generated under his name without appearing in the billing system.

7.5 Evidentiary Significance

"The Pad" proves:

  1. Goldberg knew exactly which matters bore Litman's name. He built an internal system to track them.
  2. The tracking was organized around Litman specifically. The directive says "any matter where Richard Litman is the originating attorney" -- not "all matters" generally.
  3. Revenue tracking was Goldberg's priority. The fields include Attorney's Fee, USPTO Fee, Associate's Fee, and Foreign Transaction Fee -- this is a revenue monitoring tool.
  4. The system was separate from Soluno. The Pad operated alongside the billing system, creating a parallel record of Litman-originated work that may not have fully migrated into the formal accounting.
  5. Goldberg directed the tracking. "Josh has requested" -- not the accounting department, not the CPA, but Goldberg personally.

8. TIMELINE OF FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

Date Event Amount Significance
June 15, 2020 SOL cutoff -- All financial activity after this date is within the actionable period
May 27, 2020 KSU trust-to-operating transfer $125,800 Earliest post-SOL transfer in the record
July 16, 2021 $90,000 returned from operating to trust $90,000 Client funds had been held in operating account
August 18-19, 2021 Goldberg verbally authorizes KFU trust fund transfers $5,208 "JBGverbal" notations prove personal control
September 3, 2021 $20,000 returned from operating to trust $20,000 Second correction of commingled funds
January 3, 2022 Litman requests "The Pad through 12/31/21" -- Pad system operational; Litman monitoring revenue
Q4 2022 Trust balance reaches $1.26M $1,264,518 Massive client funds accumulating under Litman's name
January 12, 2023 KSU trust alone = $520,044 $520,044 Single client trust balance; all under Attorney 418
June 14, 2023 Arbitration decision -- Establishes Litman's right to 20% of collected fees
July-September 2023 Post-arbitration payments begin $539,458 First three payments to Litman after arbitration
August 15-17, 2023 Schaefer meets with Litman re accounting controls -- CPA identifies concerns after meeting with Litman
January 24, 2024 Van Giezen sends "The Pad" directive at Goldberg's request -- Goldberg formalizes tracking of Litman-originated matters
February 9, 2024 Litman asks about Freedom Bank trust accounts -- Requests closure or name removal; asks why funds remain in trust
March 18, 2024 $595,214 KFU wire bypasses trust entirely $595,214 Wire_8751 to Operating_2417 direct transfer
March 18, 2024 $1,000 recording discrepancy discovered $1,000 $595,214 recorded as $594,214 in Soluno
April 9-10, 2024 $587,359 in KFU funds routed through operating $587,359 Trust-to-operating-to-trust creates temporary commingling
April 2024 Litman chases $156,010.60 payment $156,011 Multiple text messages over days to obtain single payment
August 14, 2024 Litman states "7 figures owed"; Goldberg does not dispute $1,000,000+ Adoptive admission of seven-figure obligation
September 18, 2024 Litman notes payments dropped to "5-10% of what they had been" -- Dramatic decline in monthly payments
Sept-Nov 2024 BOA-to-EagleBank trust migration $1,478,867 $86,872 discrepancy between outgoing and incoming
January 14-21, 2025 Attorney name switchover on patent Line 74 -- Litman replaced by Goldberg; proves ability to control name use
April 17, 2025 Litman requests complete Attorney 418 client list -- Suspects client list is incomplete
May 26, 2025 Litman requests Soluno reports for Attorney 418 -- Demands proof that client list is correctly entered
June 2025 Goldberg admits Soluno "didn't include payments actually made" -- Admits accounting reports were structurally deficient
June 2025 Trust account deposits under incorrect client numbers discovered -- Client renumbering scheme documented
June 2025 "$20K/month allocated, should be 7 figures" $240K vs. $1M+ Quantifies the allocation gap
June 7, 2025 Litman identifies specific KFU trust irregularities $35,120+ Missing credits on dockets 33110.43U, 33110.63U, 33110.92U
June 11, 2025 Goldberg admits possible non-payment: "I need to figure out why" -- Acknowledges system failure but does not correct it
June 16, 2025 Client renumbering email screenshot preserved -- Alternate numbers bypassing Attorney 418 allocation
June 19, 2025 Schaefer generates trust account summary $32,708,669 Confirms total trust receipts; basis for $16.2M gap
June 25, 2025 Schaefer statement: "not supposed to have trust money for your own money" -- CPA admits awareness of commingling
July 15, 2025 Litman: "you control the accounting and money, and now the clients" -- Contemporaneous accusation of financial control
July 18, 2025 Litman's email accounts eliminated -- One day after litigation threat; access to financial records cut

9. EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE

9.1 This Is Not Innocent Bookkeeping

The anomalies documented in this catalog are not the product of an overwhelmed accounting department making occasional errors. They form a coherent pattern:

9.2 Support for Punitive Damages

Under New York law, punitive damages are available in a Section 51 action where the defendant's conduct is "willful." The financial manipulation documented here establishes willfulness:

Element Evidence
Knowledge 28,503 journal entries with Goldberg's initials; "The Pad" tracking system; trust ledger authorizations
Control Sole signatory authority on trust accounts; "I will continue managing the firm as I have been" (June 15, 2021)
Concealment $0 KFU/KSU in workup; Soluno reports that "didn't include payments actually made"; client renumbering
Scale $16.2 million gap; $17.5M in trust transfers; 2,160 transactions across 5+ years
Persistence Pattern continues from 2020 through 2025 despite Litman's repeated objections
Retaliation Email access eliminated July 18, 2025 -- one day after litigation threat; cutting off Litman's ability to verify financial records

9.3 Each Renumbered Docket Is Evidence of Intent

Every client reassigned from Attorney 418 to an alternate number is a separate, affirmative act to divert revenue. Combined with the 905 patents bearing Litman's name and the 206 outgoing USPTO documents, the renumbering scheme proves that Goldberg was simultaneously exploiting Litman's professional identity for commercial gain while engineering a system to minimize the financial accounting of that gain to Litman.

9.4 Goldberg Controlled the System and Chose to Make It Opaque

The person who signed 16 Powers of Attorney placing Litman's name on patent filings is the same person who:

This is not a case of accounting complexity. It is a case of one person controlling both the name-use mechanism and the financial mechanism, and using that control to maximize revenue while minimizing the accounting of that revenue to the person whose name generated it.

9.5 The $16.2M Gap Is the Financial Signature of the Name Use

The $16.2 million accounting gap is not separate from the Section 51 claim -- it is the financial consequence of it. Litman's name was used to generate $32.7 million in client revenue. Goldberg reported $16.5 million. The difference represents revenue attributable to the use of Litman's name that was never accounted for in calculating Litman's compensation.

Under Section 51, damages include "any profits attributable to the use." The trust ledger documents what came in. The workup documents what was reported. The gap between them is the measure of concealment.


SOURCE DOCUMENTS

Document Location Key Content
iCloud Photos Evidence Memo output/ICLOUD_PHOTOS_EVIDENCE_MEMO.md Renumbering scheme, trust manipulation, $35K KFU gap
Admissions from iCloud Texts output/ADMISSIONS_FROM_ICLOUD_TEXTS.md Goldberg's Soluno admission, control admissions
Financial Gap Analysis output/FINANCIAL_GAP_ANALYSIS.md $16.2M decomposition, client-by-client reconciliation
Consolidated Financial Exhibit output/CONSOLIDATED_FINANCIAL_EXHIBIT.md JBG journal entries, SOL-window financials, fee allocations
Commingling Evidence Memo output/COMMINGLING_EVIDENCE_MEMO.md 2,160 trust-to-operating transfers, Wire_8751 bypass
Goldberg Trust Control Memo output/GOLDBERG_TRUST_CONTROL_MEMO.md JBGverbal authorizations on KFU docket 36372
Forensic Accounting Demand output/FORENSIC_ACCOUNTING_DEMAND.md Discovery demands and deposition outlines
Quarterly Trust Ledger Analysis output/QUARTERLY_TRUST_LEDGER_ANALYSIS.md Q1 2020 - Q4 2022 baseline; $7.2M in quarterly receipts
Verified Financial Summary output/VERIFIED_FINANCIAL_SUMMARY.md $79,150 discrepancy with Goldberg's workup
Counsel BOP Cover Memo output/COUNSEL_BOP_PACKAGE_COVER_MEMO_UPDATED.md Accounting fraud pattern (Section III.F)
Trust Ledger CSV output/goldberg_financial_attachments/20250616_Trust_Ledger_0723-0525.csv 27,898 rows of raw trust data
JBG Journal Entries CSV output/JBG_JOURNAL_ENTRIES.csv 28,503 rows of Goldberg financial activity
Litman Sent Items output/LITMAN_SENT_ITEMS_ALL.csv "The Pad" directive, Attorney 418 requests, MSRDC discovery

This catalog was prepared for counsel review in connection with Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025. All figures are based on financial documents produced in discovery and communications preserved in Richard Litman's email and iCloud Photos accounts. A forensic accountant should verify all figures before use in court filings.