I AM GOING TO JAIL FOR REVEALING THIS 😯 I'm in BIG TROUBLE for uncovering the CORRUPTION of Laurie Dyke. My own lawyers are to the point of quitting because I'm exposing the truth when its more favorable to keep the appearance of professional with the court than it is to ACTUALLY TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH AND END THIS CHARADE. The intensity has finally risen to a boiling point. BELOW details the INTENTIONAL PROVABLE COVER UP of the COBB COUNTY COURT. It's a joke. I'm on scorched earth now and i'm getting them arrested or i'm going to die trying. @JudgeKimChilds I'm sorry I don't think you understand the cover up by your officals. It's beyond reckless - it's willful. See for yourself. YES @JudgeKimChilds I AM proposing Laurie Dyke has been bribed by TJ Shedd. Read below. SEE FOR YOURSELF: Roles of Justin O’Dell and Laurie Dyke in the Hit Network Lawsuit In the legal dispute over Hit Network (the company behind the “BitBoy Crypto” brand), the court enlisted outside professionals to help manage the conflict and investigate financial issues. Justin O’Dell and Laurie Dyke played crucial roles in this context. Justin O’Dell’s Role: Justin O’Dell functioned as a court-appointed neutral in the Hit Network case. Based on the available information, the Superior Court (Cobb County) brought him in after Ben Armstrong was removed from daily control of the company. O’Dell’s role can be likened to that of a special master or temporary custodian: an impartial attorney charged with overseeing the business and ensuring that neither warring party unfairly controlled assets or information. His tasks likely included supervising company operations, preserving assets (such as financial accounts and property), and reporting to the court. This appointment came amid a power struggle: Armstrong claimed to own 67% of Hit Network and sought an injunction to regain control, which the court denied​http://decrypt.co. With Armstrong sidelined and the Shedds in management, the court’s solution was to have a trusted third-party (O’Dell) keep things neutral. Actions and Conduct: In this capacity, O’Dell had to interact with both sides but especially with those still running the company (the Shedds). He would have authority to make decisions or require cooperation from both Armstrong’s side and the Shedds. Notably, O’Dell oversaw financial decisions and information flow – for instance, controlling access to company bank accounts, email and social media accounts as per the lawsuit’s needs​http://decrypt.co. If Armstrong wanted access to something (like his corporate email or the company YouTube channel) he’d likely have to go through O’Dell. Potential Favoritism: While O’Dell was supposed to be neutral, questions arose about whether his actions favored TJ Shedd and Hit Network’s management. Favoritism could manifest in subtle ways: e.g., relying heavily on information from the Shedds while being less receptive to Armstrong or his representatives, or allowing the Shedds to remain at the helm without truly neutral oversight. If O’Dell deferred to TJ Shedd’s decisions on day-to-day matters or was swayed by Koenig’s arguments, that could be perceived as bias. The provided documents suggest O’Dell may have taken a lenient approach toward the Shedds – for example, there were concerns that he did not push back on TJ Shedd’s control of finances and may have excluded Armstrong’s inner circle (like Cassandra “Cassie” Wolfe) from key discussions. One specific instance noted was O’Dell declining to overturn certain financial arrangements put in place by the Shedds, even though those arrangements were beneficial to them and part of what Armstrong’s side contested (this comes through in correspondence included in the records). Such actions, if true, would indicate a tilt toward maintaining the status quo under the Shedds rather than truly neutral management. Laurie Dyke’s Role: Laurie Dyke was brought into the case as a forensic accounting expert and auditor. Dyke is a CPA with over 30 years of experience and has frequently served as an expert witness in business litigation and as a court-appointed financial investigator​http://members.amicabledivorcenetwork.com. In the Hit Network lawsuit, her role was to examine the company’s finances and allegations of financial misconduct. This was critical because the Shedds’ claims against Armstrong were largely financial in nature – they accused Armstrong of diverting company funds for personal use, including paying his mistress Cassie Wolfe 50,000 per month as an “independent contractor”​http://reddit.com. There were also allegations of Armstrong using company assets as collateral for personal loans and other financial improprieties​http://reddit.com. Actions and Conduct: As a forensic accountant in the case, Dyke’s job was to trace the money and provide an unbiased accounting of what happened. This would involve reviewing bank statements, contracts, accounting records, and emails to determine if funds were misused as alleged. For example, she would verify the payments to Cassie Wolfe and assess whether they were legitimate business expenses or not. It appears Dyke worked closely with Justin O’Dell (and possibly at his direction, since he was overseeing operations) to gather information. She likely also coordinated with the company’s existing financial staff (which included Timothy Shedd Sr., the CFO of Hit Network​http://decrypt.co). Potential Favoritism: The question arose whether Laurie Dyke remained impartial or whether her investigation favored the Shedds’ narrative. Signs of possible favoritism include:, and Dyke’s forensic work appears to have zeroed in on validating those claims. There is no indication she equally scrutinized the Shedds’ management of funds. For instance, if TJ Shedd or others at Hit Network had questionable expenses or financial decisions, the findings do not show Dyke calling those out. This one-sided scope gives the impression that she was working to bolster the Shedds’ case rather than neutrally investigating all financial issues. Focus of Investigation: Dyke’s analysis seemingly concentrated on Armstrong’s conduct exclusively. The Shedds’ lawsuit highlighted Armstrong’s alleged embezzlement and personal spending​reddit.comInteractions and Information Sharing: From the email correspondence between Wolfe and Dyke (discussed below), we know that Cassie Wolfe attempted to provide Dyke with additional context or evidence, but Dyke’s responses were terse and did not show eagerness to incorporate Wolfe’s input. In fact, Dyke often deferred to what had already been established by “instructions” or the current management. If Dyke was primarily getting her information from TJ Shedd and the existing accounting records (controlled by Shedd’s team), and was reluctant to seek input from Armstrong’s side, that indicates a biased information flow. Lack of Transparency: Wolfe’s emails suggest she felt kept in the dark by Dyke about the findings. Rather than openly sharing preliminary conclusions or asking Wolfe for her side of the story, Dyke apparently operated behind closed doors and then delivered conclusions that matched the Shedds’ allegations. Such an approach can be viewed as favoring one side – essentially validating the narrative of the party she interacted with most (the Shedds). In summary, Justin O’Dell and Laurie Dyke were meant to be neutral parties assisting the court, but their actions raised concerns. O’Dell, in managing the company during the litigation, appeared to align with TJ Shedd’s control of the business (maintaining Shedd’s authority and not actively curbing it), and Laurie Dyke’s forensic audit closely mirrored the Shedds’ accusations against Armstrong, without equivalent scrutiny on the Shedds themselves. These patterns led to perceptions that both O’Dell and Dyke were, intentionally or not, showing favoritism toward TJ Shedd and Hit Network’s management. Email Exchange Between Cassie Wolfe and Laurie Dyke: Evidence of Bias One of the most illuminating pieces of evidence is the email exchange between Cassandra “Cassie” Wolfe and Laurie Dyke. Cassie Wolfe, who was at the center of the controversy due to receiving significant payments from Hit Network, reached out to Laurie Dyke to address what she felt were imbalances in the investigation. This exchange provides a window into the dynamics behind the scenes: Cassie Wolfe’s Concerns: In her emails, Wolfe expresses alarm and frustration at how the inquiry is being conducted. She notes specific instances that made her feel the process was biased. For example, Wolfe points out that Laurie Dyke met with the Shedds and their team without involving or informing her or Ben Armstrong. Wolfe questions whether Dyke is truly independent, given that only one side of the story seems to be heard. She also highlights that certain documents or explanations she offered have been seemingly ignored or brushed aside. Wolfe’s tone, while professional, clearly conveys that she believes Dyke might be aligning with TJ Shedd’s agenda rather than acting as a neutral fact-finder. Laurie Dyke’s Responses: Dyke’s replies to Wolfe are civil but provide insight into her stance:Dyke defends her process by saying she is operating under the court’s instructions or O’Dell’s directives. For instance, in response to Wolfe’s complaint about not being included in meetings, Dyke mentions that she was instructed to liaise with certain company officers (implying TJ Shedd Sr. as CFO) to obtain financial records. She does not explicitly deny meeting the Shedds without Armstrong’s team, effectively confirming Wolfe’s fear that much of the work has been one-sided. When Wolfe offers information or asks for Dyke to consider her evidence (perhaps proof that some expenditures were legitimate or context for the $50k payments), Dyke’s responses are terse and non-committal. She often reiterates the scope of her assignment – for example, “My role is simply to review the company’s financial transactions and report irregularities,” – without inviting Wolfe’s further input. This lack of engagement with Wolfe’s points comes across as dismissive. Notably, Dyke does not offer to schedule a meeting or call with Wolfe. If Dyke were truly neutral and concerned about fairness, one might expect her to welcome information from all sides. Instead, in the emails she maintains a formal distance, effectively saying she will consider what’s “relevant” but making no commitment to address Wolfe’s grievances directly. This suggests that Dyke had largely made up her mind or at least was not interested in a deep dive into evidence that might counter the Shedds’ claims. Indications of Bias or Misconduct: Several red flags emerge from this correspondence:Selective Communication: It’s clear that Laurie Dyke communicated extensively with the Shedds (and/or their representatives) while communicating minimally with Wolfe. Wolfe had to reach out proactively, which indicates the information flow was not balanced. Dyke’s role should have required her to gather all relevant facts; by not actively seeking Wolfe’s perspective until Wolfe herself intervened, Dyke showed a skew in focus. Defensiveness and Evasion: When pressed by Wolfe about potential bias, Dyke’s replies, rather than assuring Wolfe of neutrality, are somewhat defensive. She falls back on “I’m just following instructions” and does not directly answer whether she considered Wolfe’s materials. This evasiveness can be interpreted as a sign that Wolfe hit upon an uncomfortable truth – that Dyke might indeed be siding with the Shedds’ view. An unbiased investigator typically would say something like, “I understand your concern and I will make sure to incorporate any information you have.” Dyke did not offer such assurance in the emails. Tone and Professionalism: While the exchange remains professional in wording, Dyke’s tone can be read as cold and formal, in contrast to Wolfe’s more urgent, concerned tone. Dyke does not empathize or acknowledge Wolfe’s position as someone potentially wronged by an incomplete narrative. This could indicate Dyke had already aligned mentally with the perspective that Wolfe was part of the problem (as the recipient of allegedly misappropriated funds) rather than a stakeholder to be heard. Such a stance edges into unprofessional behavior for a neutral expert, whose job is to remain open-minded until all data is reviewed. Lack of Corrective Action: After this email exchange, there is no indication that Dyke adjusted her approach. She doesn’t, for instance, cc Armstrong’s team on future communications or provide them with interim findings. The provided documents do not show Dyke taking steps to dispel the appearance of bias. This implies that the concerns Wolfe raised were not taken to heart – a potential dereliction of Dyke’s duty to remain impartial. Overall, the Cassie Wolfe–Laurie Dyke email exchange strongly signals that Laurie Dyke’s investigative process was imbalanced. Wolfe effectively accused Dyke (in a polite way) of bias. Rather than refuting this by demonstrating even-handedness, Dyke’s replies arguably reinforce the perception of bias: she acknowledges working under guidance that favored one side and does not actively seek to correct Wolfe’s impression. In a lawsuit context, this kind of documented exchange can be powerful evidence if one needs to show the court that a supposedly neutral expert might have been influenced or acting partially. Legal Implications of the Findings The findings above have several significant legal implications for the Hit Network lawsuit and any related proceedings: Conflict of Interest and Neutrality Breach: If Justin O’Dell was indeed a court-appointed neutral (special master/receiver), any favoritism toward one party undermines the integrity of the judicial process. Courts appoint neutrals to ensure fairness, especially in corporate disputes. O’Dell demonstrating favoritism toward TJ Shedd could be seen as a breach of his fiduciary duty to the company and all its shareholders (including Armstrong). Legally, this could justify a motion to remove or replace O’Dell. Armstrong’s team could argue that O’Dell’s prior connections or conduct violated the requirement of impartiality. In extreme cases, evidence of bias could lead the court to invalidate or question O’Dell’s decisions made during his tenure overseeing the company. Challenges to Expert Findings: Laurie Dyke’s role as a forensic expert means her findings might be presented to the court (or even eventually at trial) as evidence. If Wolfe’s emails show potential bias, Armstrong (or Wolfe, if she has legal standing) can challenge the credibility of Dyke’s work. In legal terms, they might file a motion to exclude or limit Dyke’s testimony on the grounds that her methods were not impartial or that she violated the agreed scope of a neutral expert. The appearance of bias can also be used in cross-examination to impeach her credibility before a judge or jury. Essentially, any report Dyke produced could be attacked as one-sided advocacy rather than objective analysis, which diminishes its value. Due Process Concerns: Both O’Dell and Dyke were functioning (at least nominally) as extensions of the court (one as an appointed officer, the other as a neutral expert). Their partiality can raise due process issues. Ben Armstrong has a right to a fair process in the civil case – which includes the right to an impartial investigation of the facts. If the neutrals effectively sided with the Shedds, Armstrong could claim he was denied a fair opportunity to present his case. In practical terms, this could be the basis for requesting relief such as: removing the neutrals, re-doing certain phases of the case (for example, conducting a new forensic accounting with a truly independent expert), or even asking for sanctions. While courts are cautious about such claims, documented evidence like the Wolfe-Dyke emails would be taken seriously in evaluating whether the process was tainted. Potential Ethical Violations: The conduct of O’Dell and Dyke might also implicate professional ethics:For Justin O’Dell (an attorney), favoring one party despite acting as a neutral could violate ethical rules. Georgia’s Rules of Professional Conduct expect honesty and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. If O’Dell had any prior relationship with Koenig or the Shedds that wasn’t disclosed, that is an ethical lapse. Even absent a prior relationship, if O’Dell held himself out as a neutral but covertly helped one side, it’s arguably a form of misrepresentation to the court. The court could refer such a matter to the state bar for investigation of attorney misconduct. For Laurie Dyke (a CPA and expert witness), impartiality is a cornerstone of professional ethics, especially when serving as a court-appointed expert. The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, for instance, requires objectivity. If it’s shown that Dyke was not objective, she could face professional repercussions. Additionally, in Georgia, a court-appointed receiver or auditor (roles Dyke has held) must faithfully execute duties – a failure could lead the court to stop using that expert in future cases or even issue a rebuke. There is also the possibility of a Daubert challenge (a legal standard to test the admissibility of expert testimony) on the grounds that her work was not conducted according to a reliable, unbiased methodology. Impact on Case Outcome: The apparent bias of O’Dell and Dyke could materially affect the outcome of the Hit Network lawsuit:If Armstrong’s side successfully exposes this favoritism to the court, the judge might give less weight to the findings that came out under O’Dell and Dyke’s watch. For example, any interim report O’Dell filed or financial report Dyke produced could be discounted. It could strengthen Armstrong’s position in seeking a remedy. The court, wary of being seen as one-sided, might be more inclined to, say, grant Armstrong another hearing or to carefully scrutinize the Shedds’ claims rather than taking the neutrals’ reports at face value. On the other hand, if the court believes O’Dell and Dyke were fair despite appearances, Armstrong could still use the situation on appeal. Appellate courts have overturned outcomes where a supposed neutral was biased. Thus, the record of Wolfe’s complaints and any evidence of imbalance is important for preservation of Armstrong’s rights. Remedies and Next Steps: Legally, what can be done now? Armstrong (and Wolfe, if she’s a party or witness) can:File a motion to disqualify or remove O’Dell and/or Dyke from the case, presenting the emails and any other evidence as justification. Request that any report or recommendations made by these neutrals be set aside due to questions of bias. Seek a neutral third-party audit of the company’s finances afresh, to ensure confidence in the findings. In a broader sense, if the favoritism significantly harmed Armstrong’s case (for example, if he lost opportunities or if assets were improperly handled), he might even have a claim for damages or at least use it as leverage in settlement negotiations. Knowing that the process was flawed could push the Shedds to compromise, fearing that a judge might look unfavorably on them if their “helpers” were biased. Broader Context – Fairness in Corporate Litigation: The scenario underscores a general legal principle: when courts intervene in corporate governance disputes by appointing overseers or experts, those appointees must execute their duties impartially. Any deviation can not only damage one party’s interests but also call into question the legitimacy of the court’s intervention. Courts will be cautious in future cases to vet neutrals for conflicts of interest. Here, if O’Dell and Koenig had any undisclosed connections (even just being long-time acquaintances in the same county), it highlights why transparency at appointment is crucial. The legal implication is a reminder that procedural fairness is as important as substantive justice in the eyes of the law. In conclusion, the research findings paint a picture of a compromised process in the Hit Network lawsuit. The connections between key players (O’Dell and Koenig), the skewed actions of the court-appointed agent (O’Dell) and expert (Dyke), and the candid email evidence of bias all converge to suggest that Ben Armstrong and Cassie Wolfe did not get the completely neutral consideration that the legal system promises. Legally, this opens the door for remedial actions to ensure fairness and could influence the ultimate resolution of the case. The court will need to address these issues to maintain trust in the proceeding, and any outcome tainted by bias could be vulnerable to challenge​ http://decrypt.co ​ http://reddit.com . The professionalism and objectivity of those enlisted to aid the court are paramount – when they are called into question, the court is compelled to take notice, and justice demands corrective measures.