Work Product

Adults Fighting over Kids’ Toys: Thwarting Forgeries to Claim another’s Profits

This was a trial where Plaintiff claimed Defendants manufactured toys for which he held all legal rights. A series of digital documents were submitted as proof, all e-mailed from Russia. They were conclusive evidence for Plaintiff, provided one ignored the fact that the same signatures by Defendants were used on several documents and that Plaintiff had never submitted any originals available to be examined, even by his own document examiner.

Case: Kriman v Yorkis

Can’t Fight the Government? At Least Limit its Victory When Documentary Evidence Takes far too much for Granted

Defendant in a Federal criminal case, U.S. vs. Floresca, was accused of making forged documents. The question at issue was were the precise documents filed with the court those he had allegedly admitted forging. Only copies were available of all documents at issue. The Government filed a motion both to exclude defense document examiner’s evidence on grounds of its not being relevant, the defense examiner’s report already having been filed with the court, and to bar all similar evidence in the future. I could not find in the Court’s on-line docket a ruling on the Government’s motion. Thus, only the motion by the Government and the reply affidavit that the defense document examiner had submitted to Defense Counsel for filing with the Court are included. Since a settlement was reached by a plea bargain, there was no trial.

The defense examiner’s reply affidavit provides ideas how to evaluate and reply to like motions against your proffered evidence. Since most forensic examiners lack the research skills, the mastery of logic and the ability for critical analysis needed for such replies, I would be pleased to explore what I might be able to do to assist you on the technical aspects of the issue.

Case: U.S. v Floresca

Rape by an Ink Expert! How to Protect an Innocent Piece of Paper from Expensive Destruction of Evidence

The following declaration has been modified only to mask the identities of those involved, other than myself. The essentials are common to all such proposals to have a so-called ink expert spoliate a document at an initial cost of $3-5,000 with promise to the expert of more money to come for depositions, court testimony, further testing, further consultations, and more declarations in support of it all before both the paying customer and opposing party are off the baited hook dipping into their bank accounts. The opposing party cannot take comfort in the costs to the ink expert’s client, since the opposing party will have to hire a similar expert or expect to lose the case and be taxed for the other side’s ink expert. Thus the handful or so of American ink experts have an interest in common: They help enrich each other by upping the ante in any case one of them becomes involved in.

The following gives a general idea of what the ink experts seem never to be so expert at that they can candidly inform either their clients or the courts of the problematic aspects of their esoteric and costly expertise. Since they all seem to use different ways of testing inks already on paper, one cannot use something like the attached as a universal answer to every demand that you submit your original evidential document to their ability to damage it permanently and unalterably. Of course, do not expect any ink expert or many a document examiner, who might ride the well inked coattails to further enrichment for oneself, to agree with my choice of word to describe the effects of their ministrations on a document.

One needs to fashion a specific reply to a specific demand that an evidential document be surrendered to the spoliations by an ink expert. In this little collection of consultations of me by attorneys and my services rendered, there will be another case where, like this one, the ink expert’s proposal was thwarted. That other case shows how current reports about the latest scientific research need to be surveyed and how one’s argument must be built to counter the specifics of the particular proposal from the other side.

Case: Rape by an Ink Expert

Blocking a Blitz of Lab Tests: How Not to Pay far too much for Unnecessary Tests on Evidential Documents

Four cases involving the same opposing document examiner are described. In each an attorney and/or a colleague consulted me as to how to handle a thorny problem the opposing examiner posed. The four cases are good representations of several kinds of problems I have been consulted on, though that might have been only one element of my work in the case. For one a redacted version of a declaration under penalty of perjury is provided that best illustrates an effective reply to a crate blanche demand for unrestricted and unsupervised testing of an evidential document you hold for the good of your client. You want to honor an honest request for production but need to know just what these document examiners are up to and what are they really aiming for.

Cases: Blocking the Blitz of Tests

Charging once more into the Crossfire: Sorry, but Documents Proving Lt. George W. Bush went AWOL were for sure Made on a Typewriter

An Informal, but Technically Accurate Paper on Documents Related to Lt. George W. Bush While Serving in Texas Air National Guard

On Labor Day, 2004, Dan Rather interviewed me for that week’s 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast regarding documents related to the younger President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. I shall refer to him by his military rank at the time of his military service, Lt. Bush, out of respect for the rank he achieved and for the military service itself. Overnight the 60 Minutes folk were viciously attacked by bloggers who seemed to think that anyone disagreeing with them in the least was an enemy, and each enemy apparently perceived as an opponent to be destroyed. The underlying irrationality, illogical assumptions and false assertions upon which the bloggers’ attacks were based perplexed me. For the vilified it seemed like being the main course for a feeding frenzy by sharks that have only the smell and taste of blood to unite them.

In this paper, I hope to redirect this focus to observable physical realities. I respectfully submit that in any debate one can be courteous and civil, as well as willingly admitting of contrary physical facts, and simply tell the truth about the basis of an irrational belief: “I believe 3 in my political philosophy because I choose to believe in it. I concede that any number of demonstrable and undeniable physical facts are contrary to my belief, but I am tolerant and will endure their impertinent existence. I believe because I believe and prefer to believe. I suspect you have similar beliefs, but I do not wish to argue the matter. Will you now do me the favor to let me buy you a drink?” Therefore, in this paper I will limit myself to demonstrable physical facts that are, as Albert S. Osborn was wont to say, as plain as the nose on your face.

Full Report with Document Specimens and Analysis: Charging once more…