A May 23rd court ruling has certified Jason Cardiff flouting court orders will see acquaintances forfeit over half a million dollars.

Back in March a Californian court ordered Cardiff (right) staying in Ireland, in direct violation of multiple court orders, warranted bail forfeiture.

Cardiff’s bail was secured by

  1. $500,000 through a property owned by Lilia Murphy; and
  2. $30,000 in cash paid by Brian Kennedy.

After the bond forfeiture judgment was ordered, Cardiff filed a motion requesting it be set aside and/or modified. Murphy and Kennedy also filed a motion requesting the same on March 20th.

The Bondholders respectfully submit that they should not be punished for Mr. Cardiff’s decision not to return on January 19, 2025.

Both Ms. Murphy and Mr. Kennedy, have asked the defendant to obey the order and return to the United States. Indeed, Ms. Murphy has asked Mr. Cardiff, on numerous occasions, to return to the United States as her home was at risk.

The Court should not proceed with forfeiture of property or assets from innocent third parties unless or until it becomes clear that Defendant does not intend to return to the United States.

Jason Cardiff owns Redwood Technologies. Brian Kennedy’s connection to Cardiff is he is Redwood Technologies’ Board of Directors.

Lilia Murphy is married to Stephen Cochell, Cardiff’s attorney. The property she put up to secure Cardiff’s bond is from a prior marriage.

As per an affidavit filed by Murphy in support of her motion;

I was living with Steve Cochell when I first met Mr. Cardiff. I understood that Mr. Cardiff was in detention and would remain in jail until his trial unless he made bail.

Steve told me that the Court was potentially open to having Jason released to his custody to live with us and my home could be posted as security. I felt compelled to help.

I was confident that my husband and I would have control over the situation and could oversee Mr. Cardiff’s bond conditions.

After he moved in, Mr. Cardiff was so grateful that I had helped bail him out that he offered to give 900,000 shares of stock in Redwood. I told hm that it was unnecessary because I did not expect anything in return for helping him.

I thought it was kind of hm, but I basically saw the shares as monopoly money and still do.

After [Cardiff] saw his doctor in Ireland, he told me about the visit and told me about his medical problems. I asked “Are you coming back? He replied “Of course, I’m coming back. i would never do that to you. I would never want to be a fugitive.”

He then asked if he could have the downstairs bedroom when he came back. I believed and trusted him.

For me, my home is my refuge and security. i am a “home-body” with my husband and three dogs. I did sign the Affidavit of Surety and understood that my house might be at risk if there was a violation of the bond conditions.

However, we did assure Jason’s compliance with the bond conditions while he was under our control and living at our house in Houston.

I do not think it would be fair to lose my home for actions taken by Jason that are beyond my control and which I do not support.

In denying Cardiff’s, Murphy’s and Kennedy’s motions, the court did not mince words.

On February 5, 2025, the Court granted an order that:

(1) declared Defendant a fugitive;

(2) vacated Defendant’s trial date and the tolling of the Speedy Trial Act; and

(3) issued an arrest warrant against Defendant.

To date, Defendant seemingly remains in Ireland and has not returned to the United States.

First, the Court finds that Defendant willfully breached his conditions of release and remains a fugitive in violation of multiple orders from this Court.

Cardiff has repeatedly used his medical condition—which the Court carefully considered and rejected as a reason preventing him from traveling—to delay and purposefully evade returning to the United States as ordered by the Court.

The Court is also gravely concerned that Cardiff does not intend to return to the United States any time soon or even at all, despite Defendant’s assurances to the contrary.

For instance, Defendant initially represented to the Court that he needed to remain in Ireland to undergo a “three to four month [medical] treatment plan.”

After four months, Defendant now represents that it may take “several months [to possibly over a year] while his doctors complete the course of treatment necessary for his return.”

Further, even though Cardiff asserts—contrary to the Government—that he has continued to report to Pretrial Services while in Ireland, his periodic one-sentence emails are wholly insufficient.

In sum, the Court finds that Cardiff lacks credibility, and his continued disregard to his conditions of release and this Court’s orders amount to unacceptable and egregious conduct.

Cardiff has filed five motions to dismiss so far. A hearing on Cardiff’s fifth motion to dismiss is scheduled for June 2nd.