Las Vegas woman driven mad
Candice Bock has been targeted by a psychological technique made famous by a 1940s movie starring Ingrid Bergman.
Candice Bock says her ex-husband tried to poison her, while he claims she is crazy and makes things like this up.
Stop, if you’ve heard this before.
Unfortunately, this kind of shocking back and forth is not that uncommon in divorce and child custody.
I recently interviewed John Cortesi who made his own poisoning claim against his ex-wife.
Candice also says they started the divorce with millions, but Tim has almost all of it now.
Though they made millions, Tim was only ordered to pay just over $1,000 per month in child support and maintenance when the divorce decree was first signed in 2012.
Finally, Tim got their custody switched in 2018 under specious reasons. In 2012, the couple’s divorce decree stated that the couple would share their child 50/50.
Here is part of the order from 2018.
So, because Candice allegedly talked about her son’s diagnosis in public, this is enough to overturn an order which was working for six years. The judge in the case, Arthur Ritchie, used that alleged discretion to give Tim sole custody.
Because it was temporary, Candice could not appeal it.
Worse yet, she told me that in the ensuing four years, she cannot get a hearing to challenge this order.
She told me a few other things; she said this hearing in 2018 was a set up.
To understand why, we do finally need to go to the very beginning.
Candice and Tim Bock were married on September 17, 2000. Tim filed for divorce April 16, 2010.
During their marriage, they built a business called Summit Portfolio Management, a wealth management firm.
Candice said when they got married the company, which was already started, was making $125,000 yearly and by the time the divorce started, it was making nearly $1 million per year.
Candice said she was poisoned over Christmas holiday in 2009. She believes that Tim was trying to kill her to collect on life insurance.
When that didn’t work, he filed for divorce. Candice told me.
When I asked Candice how Tim got nearly all the assets she said, “what do you mean, from the judge.”
The judge who issued that order in the 2012 divorce decree is named Cynthia Giuliani.
Giuliani is no stranger to controversy.
In 2018, Janet Phalen wrote a series of articles on Judge Giuliani which included Candice’s story. Janet accused Judge Giuliani of not disclosing a bankruptcy along with othe financial shenanigans.
Cynthia Giuliani was voted onto the Clark County bench in November of 2008. She assumed office on January 5, 2009.
Before the year was over she and her attorney husband, Roger Giuliani, filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy. Judge Cynthia Giuliani did not disclose this on her yearly financial disclosures, which every judge in Nevada must file with the Administrative Office of the Courts. She failed to disclose her creditors and she failed to disclose her Chapter Seven.
A bankrupt judge poses an interesting dilemma. According to the Nevada code of judicial conduct, "A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Questions may be raised as to the fitness of a bankrupt judge to serve on the bench, and particularly to preside over money-intensive cases.…
The fact that she homesteaded her house prior to the BK, listing its value at about $175,000 less than she paid for it when purchased in January of 2009, allowed her to retain her residence. In Nevada, a homesteaded property cannot be protected from creditors in excess of $550,000. Giuliani paid $701,000 for the property less than a year before she filed her Chapter Seven and declared its worth at $525,000.
Another property, located at 11104 Vasari Court, was retained by Giuliani, who declared in her bankruptcy documents that she and Roger were merely on the title of the property and that his parents made all the mortgage payments. This property is currently listed on the Clark County Assessor's website as 60% owned by Cynthia and Roger Giuliani's LLC, BAJ Properties and 40% by Giuliani's parents.
Here is what Janet said about Candice’s case in one of those articles.
This reporter has reviewed Commission complaints referencing Giuliani's BK and filed by Candice Bock, who was seared by Giuliani's decisions in her money-intensive divorce proceedings. Bock was forced into the trial on the divorce without counsel, after Giuliani denied attorney's fees to her lawyer and then refused to grant Bock a continuance, falsely stating that the matter had previously been continued. Giuliani subsequently ignored evidence of false declarations made by Bock's husband, resulting in financial computations which could be seen as robbing Candice, who is African American, of an appropriate divorce settlement from Tim Bock, who is white. At one point Giuliani had the temerity to state on the record that Candice had "wanted" to go pro-sec, a clear misstatement of the disadvantage the litigant was put in by Giuliani's own actions.
The Commission repeatedly turned a blind eye. Neither Tim Bock nor his attorney, Curtis Rawlings, responded to requests for comment.
Those articles coincided with Candice having to move to California, from Nevada, to seek treatment for health issues she said relate to the poisoning.
While in California, Candice said, Tim filed claiming she abandoned their son.
The motion, written by attorney Curtis Rawlings, also alleged that Candice was releasing private financial records, but it does not allege that she was releasing their son’s medical information, which is what the judge, Arthur Ritchie, ultimately alleged.
I reached out to Rawlings by email but received no response.
Tim was also previously represented by Kirby Wells; I reached out to him by email also received no response.
Candice was in California, and she was denied a continuance.
They held the hearing without her; her lawyer did attend but they switched custody nonetheless.
“I did not abandon him,” Candice told me, while explaining that she had been in contact with her son throughout her time away.
There is a legal document which sums up the case well, in my opinion. It is from Candice’s attorney and describes the poisoning. It is below in full.
There is a term which often happens in court: gaslighting.
Gaslighting is derived first from the play but more so from the popular 1944 movie Gaslight starring Ingrid Bergman and Charley Boyer.
Bergman is driven mad by her husband played by Boyer, who then starts accusing her of being crazy. The best way to define gaslighting is to try and drive someone crazy while calling them crazy. This scene is the best example of the gaslighting process from the movie.
When the target is gaslighted, it is terrifying, maddening, and exhausting all at once.
That’s what has been happening to Candice; even as her ex-husband has attempted to destroy her life, he calls her crazy for thinking her life is being destroyed.
Candice was previously represented by Emily Benson, but she did not respond to an email for comment.
I reached out to Tim by email, but he also did not respond.