Website title text is arguably the most important on-page factor for search engine optimization.
It’s really important. Really. Very important. Awfully important. Tremendously important. It’s kind of a big deal. That might be why it’s called the title.

If you imagine your website – and subsequently each web page – is a magazine article, what would you call it? (Well, what would you call it if you weren’t trying to be witty?) If you sell something, what do you sell? ␣is is the place to be clear, concise, and direct. Do not be funny if you want SEO traffic.

Find your website title text by looking at the very top of your browser window. It’s the words up there. If you’re blogging, it will likely be the title of your blog slapped up there automatically. You’ll probably see the name of the page or post up there, too.

Important: You will want to adjust your SEO settings to make sure the name of your blog and it’s tagline doesn’t come ␣rst in the title. Google looks at the words at the beginning of any title with more scrutiny because that’s where the more relevant keywords tend to be.

Meta Description
(From the book IttyBiz SEO by Sonia Simone).

Meta description, on the other hand, is really, really, really important, but not for the reason you think.
Your meta description is the description of your site that comes up under the page title when you see it in Google.
For example, if you Google practically anything you get a set of search results showing big, bold titles and some descriptive text underneath it.

Your meta description is the description of your site that comes up under the page title when you see it in Google.
For example, if you Google practically anything you get a set of search results showing big, bold titles and some descriptive text underneath it.

That descriptive text is the meta description.

The meta description has no impact whatsoever on your search results. NONE. ZERO.
What you put in there has absolutely zero impact on how well you rank.
So why are we saying it’s so important?
Because your meta description has EVERYTHING to do with whether people click.

Think about it. ␣e reason you want to be number one in Google is because you want people to click on your link.
You want to be number one in Google because you want to be the ␣rst thing people see, and therefore the ␣rst thing they click on.

So if you’re number one and your meta description is boring or irrelevant, nobody will click. If nobody clicks, you may as well be number 1,000,000 for all the good it does you. All your work is down the drain. So you want to make sure you put compelling text here.
Now you can’t always guarantee Google will use your description. Sometimes they don’t. If it’s not relevant or they found a snippet from your page that they liked better or if they’re just having an o day, sometimes they will completely disregard it. Fine. Whatever. But give them a good description in case they do use it.

Because your meta description has EVERYTHING to do with whether people click.
␣ink about it. ␣e reason you want to be number one in Google is because you want people to click on your link.
You want to be number one in Google because you want to be the ␣rst thing people see, and therefore the ␣rst thing they click on.

So if you’re number one and your meta description is boring or irrelevant, nobody will click. If nobody clicks, you may as well be number 1,000,000 for all the good it does you. All your work is down the drain.    So you want to make sure you put compelling text here.

Now you can’t always guarantee Google will use your description. Sometimes they don’t. If it’s not relevant or they found a snippet from your page that they liked better or if they’re just having an ol day, sometimes they will completely disregard it. Fine. Whatever. But give them a good description in case they do use it.

Click to Enlarge 400% and read entire article. Click Twice.

If you thought the recent George Clooney movie “Ides of March” made the political process seem a bit less than “ethical”… you should read about the reality of forged ballots in Indiana.

The signatures of dozens, if not hundreds, of northern Indiana residents were faked on petitions used to place presidential candidates on the state primary ballot in 2008, The Tribune and Howey Politics Indiana have revealed in an investigation.

Several pages from petitions used to qualify Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the state’s Democratic primary contain names and signatures that appear to have been copied by hand from a petition for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim Schellinger. The petitions were filed with the Indiana Election Division after the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office verified individuals’ information on the documents.

St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak’s name appears twice on the Clinton petitions. After The Tribune faxed one of the signatures to him, Dvorak identified that signature as his own and confirmed that he had signed the petition. Dvorak did not respond after a copy of the second signature on the same petition was faxed to him by The Tribune.

Spokeswoman Lora Bentley later said the prosecutor could no longer comment on the matter because it was now under investigation. Falsifying a ballot petition is a Class D felony in Indiana. According to Dale Simmons, co-legal counsel for the Elections Division, the statute of limitations for Class D felonies is five years.

Terribly obvious

The Tribune has talked with more than 30 people besides Dvorak whose names are on both the Clinton and Schellinger petitions. All but one of them have confirmed their purported signatures on the Clinton petition are not genuine.

Example: View signatures of five random individuals whose names appear on both the Clinton and Schellinger petitions against those individuals' known signatures. Click on above photo to enlarge 400%.

 Erich Speckin, a forensic document analyst, examined the petitions at the request of The Tribune and Howey Politics.

Example: See some of the obvious mistakes that are clear to any reasonable person.

He said there is clear evidence, based on the consistency of the handwriting, that about 10 pages in the Obama petition were filled in by the same person, and another person apparently filled in nine pages. He said it’s possible another two people filled in several more pages. Each page in the petition contains up to 10 signatures.

“It’s obvious. It’s just terribly obvious,” Speckin said, pointing to one of the writer’s idiosyncrasies repeated throughout the petition’s pages.

Consequences

The full extent of the fakery, which appears to be limited to the state’s 2nd Congressional District and specifically St. Joseph County, is not yet known. The situation, however, calls into question whether either Clinton or Obama, both of whom were U.S. senators at the time, should have been on the Indiana primary ballot.

Example: See writing samples from the petitions that clearly illustrate the same handwriting across multiple pages.

Candidates for president, senator and governor must submit ballot petitions signed by at least 500 registered voters in each of Indiana’s nine congressional districts to quality for the statewide ballot.

Clinton edged Obama by about 2 percentage points in the Indiana primary but lost the overall Democratic nomination. Obama, of course, went on to be elected president, defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in the general election.

County voter registration offices are responsible for verifying that those who sign the petitions are registered voters in that county. Staff in the offices check to make sure each signer’s name, birth date and home address match the information on his or her voter registration card.

The chairs of the two major parties, Democrat and Republican, each appoint one member to serve on the two-member voter registration board in the county. They also appoint a first deputy and three staff members each to work in the voter registration office.

In St. Joseph County, certified petitions are stamped, initialed and signed by both members of the board — Republican Linda Silcott and Democrat Pam Brunette, in the case of the Obama and Clinton petitions — and then returned to the person who submitted the petition.

That person is then responsible for delivering the petition to the state Election Division by noon on the final day candidates can declare they’re running for office. In 2008, that deadline was Feb. 18.

During August’s Live Marketing Class, I will discuss the importance of Search  Engine Optimization and Free Traffic.

You will want to watch some free YouTube videos on the following topics before our live tele-class:

Here are a few you might find useful, but you might found better:

Google’s Webmaster Tools:

Inbound links:

Site Map Index:

The filing aims to expedite a discovery process that includes producing the original emails Zuckerberg allegedly signed, native digital copies of those documents and Ceglia’s computers. Facebook and Zuckerberg say in their filing that Ceglia is conducting fraud.

Related: Facebook: Ceglia claims ‘brazen and outrageous fraud’; Read the response Paul Ceglia vs. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg: Here’s the complaint and it’s a good read

Zuckerberg also denied he signed any contract from Ceglia and sent emails. “The evidence Defendants have gathered to date corroborates Zuckerberg’s sworn statements and confirms that Ceglia’s documents are forgeries,” said Zuckerberg and Facebook in a filing.

Among the key excerpts:

1. In addition to being impossible as a matter of historical fact, the purported contract is an obvious cut-and-paste job. This is apparent from the face of the document. Among other things, the column widths and margins are inconsistent, which indicates that the document has been altered and reproduced. Many words and sentences simply make no sense, and the document is riddled with internal inconsistencies and contradictions strongly indicative of fraud. Tellingly, there are many discrepancies between page 1 (which purports to convey an interest in “The Face Book”) and page 2 (the page with Ceglia’s and Zuckerberg’s signatures, and which makes no mention of “The Face Book” or anything similar). Ceglia appears to have taken page 2 of the signed StreetFax contract and appended it to a doctored version of page 1, which Ceglia has edited by adding references to “The Face Book.”

2. Defendants engaged digital forensic examiners to review all of Zuckerberg’s emails contained in the email account he used while a student at Harvard. That account contains emails from the 2003-2004 time period. The emails Ceglia quotes in his Amended Complaint do not exist in the account. They are complete fabrications.

3. Ceglia is a professional con artist. A comprehensive background investigation conducted by the nationally renowned investigative firm Kroll Associates, Inc. established that Ceglia is a career criminal who has engaged in fraud, subterfuge and falsification of documents. From his 1997 felony conviction through his 2009 arrest for scamming New Yorkers, Ceglia has a long record of criminal and fraudulent behavior that spans decades.

See full article here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/facebook-zuckerberg-open-fire-on-ceglia-emails-forged-by-professional-con-artist/49856?tag=content;siu-container

Download the full Lawsuit here : http://www.scribd.com/doc/56955596/zuckceglia3#open_download

Now, having had six months to live with the new rule, the assessment of many attorneys and experts remains favorable but somewhat muted. While there is general agreement that the change was for the better and has simplified the process to a degree, most attorneys and experts report that the actual impact on their practices has been negligible.

“It has simplified the report process and removed some of the archaic hurdles in the process,” says David Donoghue, a partner at Holland & Knight in Chicago. “But I do not think it has simplified expert discovery overall because many are still testing and litigating the boundaries of the new rule, particularly what information is in fact discoverable.”

The Dec. 1 revision of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure changed what had been the practice ever since the rule’s last major revision in 1993. No longer does the rule require full discovery of draft expert reports and broad disclosure of any communications between an expert and trial counsel.
Instead, those communications now come under the protection of the work-product doctrine, prohibiting discovery of draft expert reports and limiting discovery of attorney-expert communications. Still allowed is full discovery of the expert’s opinions and of the facts or data used to support them.

The change was approved by the U.S. Judicial Conference in September 2009 and by the Supreme Court in April 2010. To learn more history of the revision, you can read our first coverage of the changes to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Practice Has Been Simplified
Attorneys and experts generally agree that the revised rule has made the process of preparing an expert’s report easier for them.
“It’s made dealing with experts easier and less time-consuming, because I worry less about avoiding creating discoverable documents,” says Ted Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington, D.C., and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “I haven’t yet dealt with discovery disputes over the issue.”

“It has simplified the process because neither I nor the expert has to worry about fighting over the discovery of drafts,” agrees Paul W. Reidl, an IP and business attorney in Modesto, Calif., “but so far I can’t say that it has reduced costs and contentiousness. In my experience, these kinds of issues did not arise that much in trademark cases because most experts are experienced enough to know how to work with counsel properly, and vice versa.”

But the Impact is Negligible
Despite high expectations that changes to Rule 26 would greatly reduce litigation expenses and ease attorney-expert communications, most attorneys claim the revisions have had little practical impact. Experts sound a similar note, saying the rule change has made the process of preparing reports simpler, but with little overall effect on the way they work.

One reason that the impact has been minimal is that, even before the rule change, parties often agreed to keep draft reports privileged. “For a number of years, the parties in most matters that I have testified in had reached an agreement that drafts were not discoverable,” says Alexander Glew, president and CEO at Glew Engineering Consulting in San Francisco. “Thus the immediate impact has been negligible.”

Even when they did not have a formal agreement regarding expert drafts, many attorneys seemed to agree, at least tacitly, not to exchange drafts. “Historically, not every opposing counsel asked for my draft reports anyway,” says Simon Z. Wu, managing director of forensic consulting at FTC Consulting, Washington, D.C. “In fact, in my experience, most of them didn’t because they wanted to avoid providing their experts’ draft reports to our side as well.”

Too Little Transparency
But not everyone is in favor of the new rule. Clifton T. Hutchinson, a litigation partner in the Dallas office of K&L Gates, says the new rule was “misguided” and allows counsel to take a more active role in drafting experts’ reports and crafting their opinions. “I think we need more, not less, transparency. Some of the important gatekeeping decisions of the past few years only came about because discovery revealed that counsel ‘spoon fed’ the opinions to the expert. … Now such practices will go undetected.”

Only more time will tell if the revisions to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will have any long-lasting impact, positive or negative. At the moment, most attorneys and experts seem appreciative of the changes, even if the direct impact on their daily activities is negligible.

More New and Articles at http://www.ims-expertservices.com/blog/

In a little more than a month, Mobile lawyer Richard Horne was repudiated by a jury reviewing the will; was hit with a $159,000 civil judgment over a loan default; filed for bankruptcy protection and was facing an ethics complaint made to the state bar.

It is a shocking turn for a man who has been a respected member of the city’s legal community for years, once serving on the bar’s ethics committee. His high-profile clients over the years have included former Orange Beach Mayor Steve Russo and former Prichard Mayor Jesse Norwood.

Mary Beth Mantiply, a Daphne lawyer who represented two of Joseph Brunson’s daughters, said she was slow to accept that the will was a fake.
“That was hard for me to believe because of Richard Horne,” she said.
Horne, a longtime friend of Brunson who helped the attorney get his law license back after a federal drug conviction, said the state bar’s confidentiality rules prohibit him from commenting.

The bar complaint, made by the stepfather of the women who contested the will in Mobile County Probate Court, accused Horne of perjury and accessory to forgery. He had 14 days to respond.

The will listed Judy Harold – Brunson’s “companion and life-long friend”  as administrator and sole beneficiary of his estate. Horne and Pauline Phillips, who worked for the company that owned the building that housed Horne’s law practice, were listed as witnesses. Horne’s secretary, Megan Graham, notarized the document.

At a trial in Mobile County Probate Court, Mantiply presented evidence that the will was created on March 12, even though Brunson died on March 10. On Dec. 13, a probate court jury took less than an hour to rule that the document was a forgery.

Mantiply said that the role of Horne, Phillips and Graham are not in doubt.

“If that will was not created until two days after Joe died, and they said they were there when he signed it, that is perjury,” she said.

Harold’s attorney, Marion “Tut” Wynne, has asked Probate Judge Don Davis to throw out the jury’s verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence. The probate judge set a hearing for Feb. 22 to hear arguments on the matter.

Wynne could not be reached for comment.

If the verdict stands, Brunson’s estate would go to his children, under state law. Mantiply said it is unclear how much money remains in Brunson’s estate. Records show that Brunson gave Harold power of attorney over his finances two days before his death.

Mantiply said that Brunson was loaded with drugs and near death.

“I have no doubt he was incompetent when he signed that,” she said.

Brunson’s home and 5 acres on Fowl River – which was assessed for almost $300,000 for tax purposes but which Mantiply said could be worth more than twice as much – will now be available to his daughters.

David Stroecker, who married Brunson’s ex-wife and helped raise Katie Brunson and Micki Brunson with their mother, said the verdict offered something more valuable than money or real estate to two young women who had a strained and distant relationship with their father for much of their lives. “The real upside is that the two children have proof that their dad loved them,” he said.

Micki Brunson, a 21-year-old Auburn University student, said the fight over her father’s estate has heaped heartache on her and her sister, a 24-year-old fashion account executive in New York.

“It’s not anything I would ever wish on anybody, because it was awful,” she said.

Brunson’s death followed a brief bout with liver cancer and a lifetime filled with alcohol, drugs, women and fast living. He gained notoriety in the 1990′s when law enforcement authorities busted him with a sport utility vehicle full of marijuana.

His half brother and close friend, Murnie Raley, said Brunson was on his way to Dauphin Island to interview for a position as the town’s attorney. He said his brother started selling drugs to feed a cocaine habit.

Brunson spent about three years in federal prison and lost his law license for a time. When it came time to apply for reinstatement, it was Horne who helped make his case. Horne also rented Brunson office space as he tried to re-establish his law practice.

Even before Brunson died, Raley said, he and others began to grow concerned about the actions of Harold, whom they called an on-again, off-again girlfriend.

Mantiply introduced documents at the trial showing that Harold signed her last name as Brunson on funeral home documents. According to testimony at the trial, Horne made calls to marriage officials inquiring about marrying Brunson and Harold.

Raley said that Harold’s daughter performed a sort-of-marriage ceremony – with Brunson practically unconscious – the night before he died.

Raley said that when he went to his brother’s house the next day, his safe had been emptied. Harold testified that the safe contained old report cards of Brunson’s children, and other sentimental artifacts with no monetary value.

But Raley said his brother told him on the last day of hunting season – Jan. 31 – that the safe contained his will, two gold bars, gold coins, money, legal documents and other valuables. Raley said Brunson told him he wanted his house sold, with the profits distributed evenly among Katie, Micki, two daughters from other relationships and Harold’s granddaughter.

“He had a big soft spot for kids,” Raley said.

Handwriting, computer experts attacked fake will.

A Daphne lawyer who contested the will of a deceased attorney from Theodore used a handwriting expert, a computer analysis and the document itself to convince a jury the will was fake.

Joseph Brunson, who died inthe month of March after a brief battle with liver cancer, purportedly made the will a month earlier. It lists Brunson’s girlfriend, Judy Harold, as the administrator and sole beneficiary. Richard Horne, a prominent Mobile lawyer, is listed as a witness.

The handwriting expert, Curt Baggett, prepared a report concluding that Brunson’s signature on the will is a forgery.

Horne declined to comment, and Marion “Tut” Wynne, Harold’s attorney, could not be reached for comment.

Attorney Mary Beth Mantiply, who represented two of Brunson’s daughters at a trial in Mobile County Probate Court last month, also had the computer from Brunson’s office seized, and hired a computer expert to examine it.

The expert, Gus Dimitrelos, testified that the will was created on March 12, two days after Brunson died – not on Feb. 9, as it appeared. Dimitrelos testified that the person who drafted the will took elaborate steps to conceal the date on which the document was created.

But the kicker, Mantiply said, was the will, itself. She said the three-page document had numerous typographical errors – including the misspelled middle name of one of Brunson’s daughters.

“Joe wasan English major and had a photographic memory,” said Dave Stroecker, the stepfather of the women who contested the will.

Murnie Raley, Brunson’s half brother and close friend, said he and other relatives went to Horne’s office on March 12 to ask about funeral arrangements. When Brunson’s mother asked about a will, Raley said, Horne said he did not know if one existed.

Horne then asked his secretary, who brought a will to him, Raley said.

Raley said that Horne would not show the will to the family, but informed them that Brunson had left everything to Harold.

Mantiply said it was odd that Horne first claimed not to know if Brunson had a will, given that he ended up listed as a witness to the will.

Mantiply also pointed to inconsistent statements. She said that Pauline Phillips, the other witness to the will, said in a tape-recorded statement that only Brunson and Horne’s secretary were at her office when the will was signed and notarized.

By the time she testified at a deposition in October, however, she changed her story to match Horne’s, according to transcripts.

In his deposition, Horne testified that he did not prepare paperwork giving Harold power of attorney over Brunson’s finances. After Mantiply found a witness who said otherwise, Horne took the unusual step of submitting a correction to his deposition in December, less than two weeks before the probate trial.

In the revised statement, Horne said he realized his mistake during a review of his deposition and a conversation with Harold. He testified at the trial that his revision had nothing to do with the witness that Mantiply produced, according to a transcript of the proceeding.

Horne’s mounting financial problems

Mobile lawyer Richard Horne, who has come under fire for a will that a jury determined was a fake, has battled mounting financial problems over the past year.

Here is a summary of those troubles:

Feb. 10:  Two federal tax liens totaling $53,819.71 are levied against Horne.

Aug. 3:  Baldwin County Circuit Judge J. Lang Floyd awards $4,985.16 plus interest to Citibank for an unpaid credit card bill issued to Horne’s wife, Patricia.

Aug. 11:  Baldwin County Circuit Judge Robert Wilters awards Citibank $5,111.27 for an unpaid credit card bill issued to Patricia Horne.

Sept. 17:  Richard Horne signs a “deed in lieu of foreclosure,” in which he agrees to give up his home on Main Street in Montrose. That same day, Citibank wins a default judgment in the amount of $4,400.50 plus court costs over failure to make payments on a credit card.

Sept. 22:  NSA Agencies, which owns the building at 261 N. Joachim St. in Mobile where Horne had a second-floor law office, files a lawsuit in Mobile County Circuit Court. The suit accuses Horne of breaking the lease and failing to pay $26,400 in rent.

Dec. 27:  Chief U.S. District Judge William Steele awards Wells Fargo $159,880 plus interests and attorney fees over a pair of loans that Horne defaulted on.

Jan. 5:  Horne’s home in Daphne is sold for $165,000 in a public auction following a foreclosure.

Jan. 10:  Horne files for bankruptcy protection, claiming assets of $461,604 and debts of $1.046 million. The bankruptcy halts all debt collection by Horne’s creditors while he works out a repayment plan.

More Article here:  www.marybethmantiply.com

Hi, this is Bart Baggett. I’m driving back from San Bernardino as I write this. Actually, I’m dictating this.

Today I went to San Bernardino to testify in a probate case where there was a handwritten will of an 80-year old woman, but in my opinion, was forged. I didn’t get to give that opinion because the opposing attorney had some very clever moves up her sleeve. Now, by clever moves I don’t mean that she was able to get me disqualified or make me look silly on the stand. She was able to not let me on the stand. After sitting for an hour while she offered a settlement to my client, she then finally asked the judge to continue the case for another month. The judge said, “Well why should I give you a continuance when the expert witness is sitting right here? It cost $1,000 to bring him back.”  She responded to the judge, “Well, you let him have a continuance last month. You owe me a continuance.” And I’ll be darned if the judge didn’t grant her a continuance, send her expert witness away, and thus I was not allowed to testify today.

The back story is that the handwritten will was one of the worst forged wills I’ve ever seen. In fact, I discovered today that the writer of the forged will was in the courtroom. Her ex-husband looked at the will and said, “I recognize my ex-wife’s handwriting. She wrote the will…not the dead lady.” Now that, combined with my testimony, would have been quite strong if, of course, I was able to take the stand.

The one reason my client might decide to settle without calling me back is that he is not an attorney. He could not afford an attorney, and since it’s a civil case the state doesn’t give him one. So out of his own pocket he’s paid my company over $1,800 so far to prove the will is forged…which it is…and he risked the prejudice of the court ruling against him because he may not know the protocol to get an expert witness accepted, get evidence into admission, or even function normally in a trial. If you are an aspiring expert witness, realize that if your client is a pro se attorney, you are risking your credentials unless you are very experienced on the witness stand. I actually watched a seasoned, veteran expert witness get slaughtered because the pro se attorney was unable to ask basic questions such as, “What do you do?” … “Tell me how your training occurred.”… And “Why do you consider yourself an expert?” He was unable to articulate those questions and thus the expert was severely discredited because the pro se attorney was so inarticulate.

One of the things that you also need to be wary of with any testimony–especially expert witness testimony with a pro se attorney– is the Federal Rules of Evidence. You might want to familiarize yourself with the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 through 705 which talk about the admissibility of evidence that the expert witness relies on. In general, they give wide discretion on the judge allowing evidence into the court if the expert witness relies on that evidence. The problem is:  If the evidence is “inadmissible” in another area, such as ‘the gun was found in the apartment but the search warrant wasn’t properly executed, so the gun is inadmissible’, but the opinion of an expert relies on the gun, the judge still may have that expert testify as to his opinion, but he may choose not to allow him to talk about the gun, because the jury would be tainted. So there’s a lot of room in the world of evidence for that.

In the case of expert witness, if you relied on the document to bring into the courtroom, you may have to produce that document a week ahead of the trial. Then, if you fail to produce that document on time for the opposing attorney to inspect, the judge may decide not to let you talk or render an opinion on it. Now, this is not common, but it has happened to me. When I went to court three weeks ago, the exhibits that I prepared were not allowed into evidence because the opposing attorney said he didn’t get them the night before. That’s silly, since that’s usually when I make my exhibits…the night before. But once in a while at trials, the exhibits aren’t allowed because the attorney didn’t follow the proper protocol. So as an expert witness you’ve got to be very wary of these things going wrong, and if you have a pro se client you have to do extra-careful mentoring to make sure he has the right questions.

In this case we actually sent our pro se client an e-mail, listing questions for him to ask: What is your name? What is your career? What do you do? How did you get trained? What are your credentials? Have you been on TV?   This list of questions was  in sequence for him so that he wouldn’t get up there and get tongue-tied. Unfortunately, he never got to ask those questions because the continuance was granted. So if he calls me back on the witness stand in a month, he would have to pay another $1,000.

To make the long story a little bit longer, or at least to wrap up this trial, the nice man who spent money because the caregiver of his sister decided to fake a will, will probably end up getting what is rightfully his. He’ll get the house, and he’ll get the car, and he’ll get other material items. The attorney showed up today with a settlement agreement which essentially admitted that they are willing to exclude the will. They didn’t admit to forging it, but they agreed to excluding it. Of course, the estate would go back to the will on file which was properly prepared and executed at an attorney’s office in 2004. Of course, that is fair, but in negotiations the caregiver, or the woman living with the decedent, wants the two dogs, the dishwasher, the couch, a lamp and all her clothes.  Really, all her clothes and the two dogs!!!  That is what they are negotiating and settling in the judge’s chambers at the courthouse as I speak.

So in conclusion, the life of this expert document examiner is very interesting. Sometimes it’s sad to see a woman that handwrites a will and signs a dead woman’s name to not get prosecuted for perjuryor forgery, and walks away with the two dogs…. but so is life.

“I totally recommend the International School of FDE  to anyone who wants a new career in the field of forensic document examination.”
– Topanga Bird

If you’re interested in a new career, this short series of newsletters and blogs that I call Diary of a Forensic Document Examiner will help you decide if this field is right for you.

We do like to have students who are a perfect fit, and we pay very special attention to the applications. These simple diary emails will help you understand the ‘day in the life’ of an examiner.

Overview and Video Tour:

http://internationalschool.us/docexam/overview.html

Download the Application, Reserve Your Spot:

http://internationalschool.us/docexam/enroll.html

FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINER DIARY ENTRY #43

I’m submitting this diary today via my iPhone record function as I drive home on the 101 in Los Angeles eating my Haagen Dazs Vanilla Chocolate Almond ice cream that I treated myself to because I just finished testifying in court… and I deserve a treat.

Court today was absolutely an amazing experience for me, as I was able to help someone who had been wronged… and make a difference.

Most cases do not fall into the category of the case I just testified in.  Mainly, most cases which get to court have more exemplars to compare the purportedly “forged document” against.

In this case, I actually had six questioned documents and just one sample of the suspected forger and one sample of the victim of the forgery.   Naturally, weeks ago, I determined there was indeed a forgery and now I am asked to identify the forger… with just one “smoking gun” of a handwriting sample.

After much lab time, my official opinion was that the person did not sign her own name on the Questioned six documents… a forgery did happen.  Furthermore, the suspect they identified probably forged her signature on the six documents in question.  This is rare when we identify the forger; in most cases the criminal goes undetected.  The handwriting in this case had many profound indicators pointing to this one guy.

So, I was driving to court this morning, a little nervous.  According the attorney who hired me, today’s court appearance is “just a prove-up  hearing, it’s going to be really simple”.

I’ve learned that any time anyone tells you it’s going to be really simple… it ends up not being very simple.  But in this case, the attorney was telling the truth, it was actually that simple.

I showed up and sat in the back row of the courtroom.  I waited for the attorney to make opening remarks, talk to the judge, and iron out some details.  The defendant actually didn’t even show up… but the hearing went forward anyway.  When it was my turn, I took the witness stand and stated my name, my occupation and the usual “swear in” procedure.  Then, I answered some basic questions in regards to the documents analyzed and told the judge my official opinion.

The judge asked a few clarifying questions about how I got to my opinions and why I use ASTM guidelines when rendering an “official opinion”.  Since I teach at the International School, those questions were easy to answer… as I have probably answered them for students a hundred times over the past few years. There is protocol for everything we do and we follow a “system”… so explaining a system is quite easy, even to a judge sitting 2 feet above you in a black robe.

I have to tell you, I think I was on the stand maybe 25-30 minutes… at the very max.  It was very easy.  I guess what they say about being well prepared is true.  Even though this was not my first time testifying in a court of law, I still was a bit nervous as I took the stand.

I felt good about my testimony, and I really felt a sense of “justice” identifying the person who forged this poor woman’s name on six contracts.

Before I left the building, I discovered something that really made me feel good. It isn’t often that document examiners get confirmation that their opinion is 100% correct, before we leave the courthouse.  At most, we hear the judge agrees with us.  What I discovered isthat  the plaintiff had hired a private investigator and caught the guy “on tape” admitting he did indeed forge the documents. I was right, and there was an audio testimony to back me up.  Whooo Whee! It’s good to be right and help right a wrong.

So today was a pretty amazing experience, Every time I go to court I learn that my role is just a small piece of a huge, giant legal puzzle that the attorney is putting together.   It feels really good to know that I did my part to help the attorney make his case… and find justice for his client.

Not everyone is cut out to analyze forged documents or testify in court.  Twenty years ago, I wouldn’t have guessed it would be me sitting on that witness stand earning $1000 for my testimony… but I did the training and now I’m that person.

If you’re interested in being a document examiner and you think that you have a good eye for detail and enjoy getting to the bottom of something, then look into this as a career for you.

If you’re interested, please give me a call, chat with me about this career that is so amazing.  Our next class starts soon, and spaces are very limited.

Beth Chrisman

Telephone:  310-926-18222
http://handwritingexpertcalifornia.com
http://internationalschool.com (Director of the International School)

As I said, I’m going to write more stories over the next few weeks…small clips from the life of an examiner.

Before you submit your application, and especially before you commit to attending Doc Exam school for the 4-6 semesters, you will want to know this is right for you.

As your mentor and teacher,  I want to make sure that this career is right for you.  When we deny applications for admission, it is normally because we don’t think the applicant is a good fit and we don’t think they will succeed in the business, not just pass the classes.

We’re the only school in the world where you can get trained and the only school where you will get help in launching a career as a certified document examiner. It’s a unique opportunity, but it’s not for everybody.  So please take time, watch the videos, explore the online website and call us with any questions before  the next class starts.

We’d like you to be in it, if it’s a good fit for you.

Overview and Video Tour:

http://internationalschool.us/docexam/overview.html

Download the Application, Reserve Your Spot:

http://internationalschool.us/docexam/enroll.html

Beth Chrisman

Questions: 310-926-1822

“First class people and first class training.  Bart and Beth were always  there to support me and guide me to launch my document exam business. I deeply appreciate their unyielding support to me and my new career.  I highly recommend their training.”

Paul Lockyer, Australia