Home » Articles posted by Assistant Editor (Page 3)
Author Archives: Assistant Editor
Judge rules that Feng Shui Master forged Nina Wang’s will
I just love when forgeries make the headlines. This case happened in China and if you’re living in Asia, this is a huge case for you. But here in America, we didn’t hear much about it.
A woman named Nina Wang passed away leaving $13 billion at stake from a forged will. According to the court records, guess who forged it? Her feng shui master.
In Asia, having a Feng Shui master can be fairly common. However, Ms. Wang was having an affair with hers. But would you really leave him $13 billion with a will written in English when in fact your native language is Mandarin? I’m sure there were many Asian handwriting experts involved in this case as the court deemed the will a forgery.
As an aspiring handwriting expert, you should realize that this is exactly the kind of case that can put your career on the map and on auto pilot. Even if you are not hired for the case and given the chance to comment, newspapers and TV shows will put you on the air to discuss it. If you talk about any high profile murder or any famous person that is involved in a murder or a criminal act or in this case, forgery, you can comment on it and be the talking head even if you’re not hired by the plaintiff or the defense.
I wasn’t commenting on this case because this one was mainly in Asia. But if you recall back when JonBenet Ramsey was murdered, I was given the opportunity to comment on the handwritten note that was found.
On a legal note, wills differ from every state and country. There’s something called a holographic will which means that the will was written entirely in a person’s own handwriting, and signed. If somebody types a will and that person signs it, then it’s not a holographic will and so you should consult an attorney or check the laws before you really get involved with a will and testament. Your job as a handwriting expert is to confirm or deny the identity of the person that reportedly offered the will.
In this case, there is $13 billion at stake and I think the forgerer, the feng shui master, Tony Chan is going to jail for forgery because the court finds him guilty. The kicker is she actually did leave him $10 million, but since he didn’t want just $10 million, he chose to forge the will. Now he will be spending time in prison and at the same time forfeited the $10 million that his lover gave to him. Enjoy the article.
The Nina Wang case captivated Asia in much the same way the Brooke Astor case made headlines in New York last year. Only instead of questions surrounding whether a multi-millionaire’s will was invalid, the Nina Wang case involved whether Tony Chan Chun-chuen forged the will of Asia’s richest woman, to the tune of about thirteen billion dollars, according to some estimates. She died at age 69 in 2007.
The case raged for months, and The Probate Lawyer Blog featured several articles about it. The Hong Kong judge carefully deliberated since closing arguments took place in late September. Earlier today, the High Court released the 326-page ruling that declared Wang’s 2006 will to be a forgery.
Tony Chan contended that Wang had left him her fortune because, rather than being a mere feng shui adviser for her, he was also her secret lover. Of course, he was married during the affair. And he was 20 years younger than she was.
Lawyers for the Wang family and charities (the vast majority of her fortune from the prior will, in 2002, was earmarked for charity), said Chan forged the new will. They also claimed, alternatively, that Chan had tricked her into signing it by declaring it to be a “feng shui will” that he was supposed to destroy as part of a ceremony to help extend her life.
Here are the highlights:
Nina Wang did have an intimate relationship with Tony Chan, but she wanted to keep it a secret. Despite giving him lavish gifts and payments of money, she didn’t want to give him her entire fortune.
Rather, she held true to her wishes in the 2002 will, leaving most of her wealth to charity.
Wang did, in fact, sign a new document in 2006. But it wasn’t the will Tony Chan said it was. No — that one was forged . . . through a “highly skilled simulation”. Instead, Wang signed a Specific Bequest Will leaving Chan $10 million (poor guy).
The Judge didn’t find Chan believable — pointing to his criminal past, among other reasons. Chan lied and withheld relevant information from the Court, the Judge said. And, the 2006 will was written in English, not Chinese like the 2002 will.
The judge also said he didn’t believe Chan’s wife either, who also offered testimony to support the validity of the 2006 will.
Chan’s lawyer already promised an appeal. But, Chan has other concerns in the meantime. Chan may be referred for criminal prosecution based on the finding of forgery. And he won’t even have the $10 million from the “Specific Bequest Will”. That partial will wasn’t located and Chan didn’t offer it for admission to the Court. So he may not even get that amount.
The real irony here is that Chan’s path is eerily similar to Nina Wang’s. Her husband was kidnapped in 1990 and was never found. (In fact, that’s how she met Chan — he was supposed to help locate her husband). After Wang’s husband was declared dead, the father-in-law challenged the will that left Nina Wang with everything.
And, just like in this case, the will was found to be a forgery and Nina Wang was charged criminally.
But, Nina Wang ultimately won on appeal and was exonerated. She inherited her husband’s fortune, despite originally losing her case. Will her feng shui master/former lover be as lucky on appeal?
Feb 4, 2010 Update — Tony Chan has been arrested because of the ruling.
Posted by: Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law. You can email him at awmayoras @ brmmlaw.com.
More of this Stories, News and Articles @ http://www.probatelawyerblog.com
Parent of Cricket Champ Faces Forgery Charges
I just love the story when forgery appears in one of the world’s biggest sports and in the country of India, so don’t think forgery is just an American crime. In fact, since we started the national school we have had students in India and they submit work in Hindi, in all kinds of alphabets that I don’t understand personally, but the science behind forgery and forensic document examination does work in every language.
But what’s great about this story is one of the largest sports in the world is called cricket. It’s not very familiar to our American readers but anyone in England, Australia, India and around the world will understand it. And anyone who ever has a child that plays sports would understand the motivation for trying to get his child to get on a top winning team.
So what’s interesting about this story is one of the Goa Cricket Association’s vice presidents, he actually is accused of forging his own son’s birth certificate so that his son can play in the championship game and that’s because his son was a little bit too old to play with the kids his age. So you think it just happens in fraud and for $15 million in a court or a Ponzi scheme.
Nope. It happens so your kid can play sports and win. Enjoy this article.
Panaji: The Indian Cricket Board was on Saturday accused of turning a blind eye towards the alleged forgery of the birth certificate of his son by Goa Cricket Association’s (GCA) former vice President, Dayanand Narvekar.
Shekhar Salkar, a former GCA executive member who has filed a police complaint against Narvekar and his family members, said the BCCI had discovered the forgery two years back, but did not take appropriate action.
Based on Salkar’s complaint, the police on Friday filed an FIR against Narvekar, his wife Sushma, son Ganeshraj and two others. They have been booked for cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy.
According to the complaint, Narvekar, an ex-Goa minister, allegedly forged the birth certificate of his son Ganeshraj to facilitate his participation in an under-15 cricket tournament.
“When BCCI realized that Narvekar had let his son Ganeshraj play for the third time in the U-15 category, the Board wrote to GCA. But he was fined a mere Rs 5,000 and let off,” Salkar claimed.
Salkar said the apex cricket body in the country had failed in its duty by not taking action against Narvekar for such “gross misconduct and fraud”.
The BCCI, in a letter dated April 25, 2008, signed by Chief Administrative Officer R S Shetty, and had expressed surprise about how Ganeshraj was allowed to play in the under-15 tournament in the 2007-08 seasons under the name Anish N.
“This is a clear violation of BCCI rules and calls for punitive action,” Shetty had said in the letter, according to Salkar.
Salkar on Saturday demanded that Narvekar step down as the GCA president. “Police should immediately arrest Narvekar as offences against him are of serious nature.”
As per the complaint, Ganeshraj, after playing for two seasons – 2005-06 and 2006-07 – for the South Zone under-15 team, was allowed to play for the third time by changing his name.
It said that Ganeshraj’s name was changed to Anish, his pet name, and a fake birth certificate was submitted to ensure his participation in the tournament.
The complainant has also attached documents, obtained under Right to Information Act, showing that Ganeshraj had two different birth certificates.
As per GCA record, his birth date is September 1, 1993, while the certificate procured from the local municipality shows his birthday as February 28, 1993.
The complaint also stated that Ganeshraj has given another birth certificate claiming his birth date as February 28, 1992 to get admission in a school.
When contacted, BCCI CAO Shetty declined to comment.
More News and Article @ http://cricketnext.in.com
Altwiji vs. Zdenek
This is a great example of why you want to work with a competent attorney if you decide to become an expert witness for court cases. No matter how prepared you are, and no matter how “right” your opinion is… it won’t matter if you don’t ever get to take the stand.
There are many reasons an “expert witness” might not get to take the stand… the case settles, the case is postponed, the opposing side stipulates to your findings, or your sides attorney failed to follow the
procedure of DESIGNATING his expert within the legal time frame.
ALTWIJI v. ZDENEK
ABBOTT ALTWIJI, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
GENE W. ZDENEK et al., Defendants and Respondents.
No. B213416.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two.
Filed January 5, 2011.
Abbott Altwiji, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Fonda & Fraser and Craig Donahue for Defendant and Respondent Gene W. Zdenek.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Howard A. Slavin, Jeffry A. Miller, and Matthew B. Stucky for Defendants and Respondents Kenneth R. Diddie and Edgar I. Thomas.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
Plaintiff and appellant Abbott Altwiji (plaintiff) challenges a trial court order dismissal following a successful motion for summary judgment by defendant and respondent Gene W. Zdenek, M.D. (Zdenek) and a successful motion to preclude plaintiff’s presentation of expert witnesses at trial by defendants and respondents Kenneth R. Diddie, M.D. (Diddie) and Edgar I. Thomas, M.D. (Thomas) (Zdenek, Diddie, and Thomas collectively are referred to as defendants). We conclude that the trial court properly granted Zdenek’s motion for summary judgment and Diddie and Thomas’s motion to preclude plaintiff from presenting expert witness testimony. Accordingly, the order of dismissal is affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this medical malpractice action on December 6, 2007. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants negligently treated him in connection with an “eye surgery and the complications arising therefrom.”
Zdenek’s Motion for Summary Judgment
On August 25, 2008, Zdenek filed a motion for summary judgment. In support, he offered an expert declaration from Dr. John D. Hofbauer. Dr. Hofbauer, a board certified opthamologist, declared that he was “familiar with the standard of care, as it existed in Southern California, from 2005 through 2006, applicable to ophthalmologists, with regard to office care and surgeries of the eye. Based upon [his] review of the materials [identified], as well as upon [his] education, training and experience, it [was his] opinion that the care and treatment rendered to [plaintiff] by [Zdenek] complied with the applicable standard of care.” Dr. Hofbauer also opined “to a reasonable degree of medical probability [that] there [was] nothing [Zdenek] did or failed to do which caused or contributed to any claimed injuries of [plaintiff].”
Plaintiff opposed Zdenek’s motion. He did not provide an expert declaration in support of his opposition.
Following oral argument, the trial court granted Zdenek’s motion. It ruled: “`When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.'” (SeeMunro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 985 (Munro).) “Plaintiff failed to submit an expert declaration to controvert the expert declaration in support of [Zdenek’s] motion. Plaintiff has therefore failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding [Zdenek’s] compliance with the applicable standard of care.”
Diddie and Thomas’s Motion to Preclude Plaintiff’s Presentation of Expert Testimony
On October 27, 2008, Thomas and Diddie served plaintiff with a demand for exchange of expert witness information pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.220. In response, plaintiff served a “Method for Exchange of Expert Trial Witnesses Information,” indicating that he “decided that he should not presently intend to designate an eye expert witness to offer testimony in this action because [he] believes that to the extent that each defendant herein will play his own as an expert witness because each defendant is an expert live witness because he himself has been there as a live witness to the other defendants who were before him, who came after him knowing the damages beforehand. . . . [¶] . . . [A]ll defendants knew each and every damage which was done and by whom, and as each defendant would be testifying about his own role in causing the damage to the plaintiff which would be proven as each defendant testifies at the trial to which extent that his part caused more damages to cause plaintiff’s loss of vision to his right eye. [¶] . . . [T]hat means each defendant plans a defendant and an expert witness against the other two defendants. [¶] . . . Plaintiff was planning on bringing [Dr.] Peter Zeegen to testify as to what extent that he can testify and plaintiff does not see it as necessary.”
Plaintiff claims that he served a supplemental designation of expert witnesses on or about December 2, 2008, but Diddie and Thomas claim they never received it.
On December 4, 2008, Diddie and Thomas filed a motion in limine to preclude inquiry into the current medical opinion of undesignated physicians. They argued that since plaintiff failed to designate any expert witnesses on the initial exchange, he should be precluded from presenting expert opinion testimony at trial.
Plaintiff opposed their motion, admitting that although he “at first did not want to designate an expert witness[, he] later decided to designate” Dr. Zeegen.
Ultimately, the trial court granted Diddie and Thomas’s motion in limine on the grounds that plaintiff did not properly designate expert witnesses.
The trial court then dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit on the grounds that, inter alia, given the nature of plaintiff’s case, expert witness testimony was essential to establish his claims and, because plaintiff failed to properly designate experts, he could not meet his burden at trial.
Order of Dismissal and Appeal
Plaintiff’s case was dismissed, and his timely appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION
The major problem with plaintiff’s appeal lies in his opening brief. It is largely unintelligible and even a cursory review of the opening brief reveals that it does not provide us with the basic information we need to determine what is being challenged by plaintiff. As another court observed in describing a similarly inadequate brief, “[i]ndeed, this document is strongly reminiscent of those magazine puzzles of yesteryear where the reader was challenged to `guess what is wrong with this picture.'” (People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 280.)
Despite being given an opportunity to submit a proper opening brief, plaintiff’s amended opening brief violates California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a): It does not “support each point by argument and . . . by citation of authority” (rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); see also Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [appellant bears the burden of supporting a point with reasoned argument]; County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591 [appellant must present argument on each point made]). It does not “[s]upport [each] reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears” (rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)). It does not “[s]tate the nature of the action, the relief sought in the trial court, and the judgment or order appealed from” (rule 8.204(a)(2)(A)). It does not “[s]tate that the judgment appealed from is final, or explain why the order appealed from is appealable” (rule 8.204(a)(2)(B)). And, it does not “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record” (rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); see also Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115).
The opening brief contains numerous sections, which largely consist of a rambling discussion of plainly irrelevant facts. There is no legal authority; there is no discussion of the procedural history of the case; not until page 14 is there a citation to the record. Worse, both the opening brief and the reply brief are riddled with unfounded attacks on both defense counsel and the trial court.
“`The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel [or the litigant if, as here, the litigant chooses to represent himself]. Accordingly every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.’ [Citation.] [¶] It is the duty of [an appellant], not of the courts, `by argument and the citation of authorities to show that the claimed error exists.’ [Citation.]” (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050.) Since the issues as raised in plaintiff’s opening brief are not properly presented or sufficiently developed to be cognizable, we decline to consider them and treat them as waived. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793; People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 214, fn. 19; In re David L. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1655, 1661; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.) Nor does plaintiff’s election to act as his own attorney on appeal entitle him to any leniency as to the rules of practice and procedure; otherwise, ignorance unjustly is rewarded. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Lombardi v. Citizens Nat. Trust Etc. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-209.)
Moreover, an appellate court presumes that the judgment appealed from is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) We adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960)53 Cal.2d 567, 583.) The appellant has the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness, even when the appellate court is required to conduct a de novo review. “Although our review of a summary judgment is de novo, it is limited to issues which have been adequately raised and supported in [the appellant’s] brief.” (Reyes v. Kosha (1998)65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6.)
Instead of focusing on these deficiencies, Zdenek’s opposition brief argues why the judgment should be affirmed. Reviewing the judgment de novo (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476), we readily conclude that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Zdenek.
“`California courts have incorporated the expert evidence requirement into their standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting evidence.’ [Citations.]” (Munro, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at pp. 984-985, see alsoHanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607.) Here, Zdenek supported his motion for summary judgment with an expert declaration from Dr. Hofbauer. Plaintiff failed to provide a conflicting expert declaration.1 It follows that Zdenek is entitled to judgment.
For similar reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Diddie and Thomas’s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from presenting expert witness testimony at trial. (Dickison v. Howen (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1476.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 permits a party to demand the exchange of expert witness information by all parties. The parties must simultaneously exchange expert witness information for any expert that the party expects to call at trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.260.) If a party unreasonably fails to designate an expert, the opposing party may object and the trial court must exclude from evidence the expert’s opinion testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.300; see also Richaud v. Jennings (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 81, 88-90.)
That is exactly what occurred here. Diddie and Thomas demanded an exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiff indicated that he would not be calling any expert witnesses. He was thus precluded from presenting any expert witness testimony at trial.
Plaintiff’s supplemental designation was simply too late. The statutory scheme requires a “`simultaneous’ exchange of information, in which each side must either identify any expert witnesses it expects to call at trial, or state that it does not intend to rely upon expert testimony. When it comes to issues that both sides anticipate will be disputed at trial, a party cannot merely `reserve its right’ to designate experts in the initial exchange, wait to see what experts are designated by the opposition, and then name its experts only as purported `rebuttal’ witnesses.” (Fairfax v. Lords (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1021.) Given that this action is a medical malpractice case, which requires expert testimony (Salasguevara v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 385), plaintiff reasonably should have anticipated that expert testimony was required and he should have designated experts in response to Diddie and Thomas’s demand. (Fairfax v. Lords, supra, at p. 1027.)
Without requisite expert testimony, it follows that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action against Diddie and Thomas.
DISPOSITION
The order of the trial court is affirmed. Defendants are entitled to costs on appeal.
We concur.
BOREN, P. J.
DOI TODD, J.
Read more articles at this site: http://www.leagle.com
Widow of film tycoon in court for forgery
Whether you are working in the USA or South Africa, dying without a will brings out all the forgers in the family.
Widow Debra Terry appeared in the Cape Town Regional Court on Thursday for the first time in connection with the forged will of her late husband, which left local film production giant and Intellvision owner Bruce Anderson-Terry’s entire estate to her.
With the testimony of handwriting experts, Cape Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso declared in 2003 that the signatures of both Bruce and now deceased witness Ricky Cox had been forged on a will that itself was questionably authentic.
The will would have distributed Bruce’s assets – valued at between R10-million and R20-million, including a Ferrari, a yacht and a large family home – only after Debra’s death, and then they would have been divided equally among the four children, including Debra’s son and daughter from a previous marriage.
Following the court case in which Traverso ruled that Bruce had died without a will, the estate was divided between Debra, Brett (Bruce’s son from his first marriage) and half-sister Kim.
Bruce’s stepchildren did not inherit anything.
Thursday’s court appearance was the result of an investigation into the forgery, ordered by Traverso three years ago for a possible criminal prosecution.
Magistrate Vic Gibson ordered that Debra – wearing a black leather jacket and high heels with her auburn hair cut into a short bob with chunky blond streaks – appear again on July 21 when a court date would be arranged.
Gibson said the time would allow for Debra’s defence to gather “further particulars”.
Public prosecutor Jannie Knipe said yesterday that Debra had not yet been charged, but she knew the allegations against her.
According to the charge sheet, a main charge of fraud is listed along with a first alternative charge of forgery and uttering and a second alternative charge of contravening the Administration of Estates Act.
“… the accused when she gave out and pretended … knew that in truth and in fact that the document described as the ‘Last will and testament of Bruce Anderson-Terry and Debra Helen Anderson-Terry’ was in fact not signed at Claremont on 24 February 1999 by the late Bruce Anderson-Terry and the accused as their last will and testament,” the main charge states.
Under forgery and uttering, the charge sheet states that the accused “… unlawfully, falsely, with the intent to defraud and to the prejudice or potential prejudice of Brett Bruce Anderson-Terry, drafted a false document described as the ‘Last will and testament of Bruce Anderson-Terry and Debra Helen Anderson- Terry’.”
Bruce died, aged 52, in a car accident five years ago this month.
Well known as a major player in the local movie-making fraternity, his film facilities company, Intellvision, was housed in a gracious old Cape homestead in Mowbray.
Read more news here:http://www.iol.co.za
Miss. Woman Sought by Del. Police on Burglary, Forgery Charges
Here is a case that appeared in the WBOC-TV 16. If you’re going to break into somebody’s house, steal three checks, then to pass them to the bank, here’s a tip: Don’t use your own driver’s license and Social Security card to prove your I.D.
LONG NECK, Del.- Delaware State Police are looking for a Mississippi woman wanted in connection with the burglary that occurred at a home in Long Neck.
Active arrest warrants are on file for Jennifer Lynn Robbins of Columbia, Miss., who when caught will be charged with second-degree burglary, identity theft, three counts of theft under $1,500 where a victim is 62 years of age or older, attempted theft under $1,500, and two counts of second-degree forgery.
Police say that on Oct. 28, troopers investigated a burglary that occurred on Joann Drive in the Mariner’s Cove development of Long Neck. The burglary is believed to have occurred between Oct. 27 and Oct. 28.
According to police, an investigation revealed that Robbins entered the victim’s home and stole three bank checks.
Troopers say they later discovered that Robbins cashed one of the checks in the amount of $325 at the Smyrna branch of Wilmington Trust. Police say Robbins then unsuccessfully attempted to cash a second check in the amount of $955 at both the Harrington and Milford branches of Wilmington Trust.
According to investigators, Robbins used her Mississippi driver’s license and Social Security card when attempting to cash the checks. This information assisted police in identifying Robbins as the suspect.
Police are asking anyone who knows the whereabouts of Robbins to call investigators at (302)856-5850, ext. 221 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-TIP-3333. Tips may also be submitted online at www.tipsubmit.com.
More News at http://www.wboc.com
Jury finds Finch guilty of forging receipts during county audit
Here is what happens when the director of community service is set loose with a county credit card. She spends the money and fabricates $2,000 worth of FEDX receipts. Hmm. What did she buy at Fed X… or rather, what did she really buy with the $2,000.
A Knox County jury found Cynthia Finch guilty of 2 counts of forgery Wednesday afternoon after four hours of deliberations.
The former Knox County Community Services Director was accused of falsifying receipts for purchases made on her county credit card, known as a P-card.
Prosecutors also charged Finch with fabricating evidence, a allegation jurors found Finch not guilty of.
Tuesday, in testimony not heard by jurors, Finch’s former executive assistant, Requitta Bone told the court Finch would write county functions as explanations for charges that were associated with a sorority. Bone’s testimony was off court record and ultimately, she was never called by prosecutors to speak in front of jurors.
Wednesday, prosecutors downplayed Bone’s significance as it related to their case in the fabricating evidence claim.
“Whenever you are doing a case you just view all the evidence and view what you need to present it in,” Bill Bright, a prosecutor from the Tennessee District Attorney’s office said. “I wouldn’t signal out any one witness that was called or not called to the stand as crucial for any count.”
Finch faces a maximum of 8 years behind bars according to state statute for level D and level E felonies. The judge will likely sentence her in March. The former Knox County Community Services Director has no criminal history. It is possible she will not receive jail time and could be offered diversion, that decision is up to judge Jon Kerry Blackwood.
“He could decide to impose some term of incarceration, he also could impose probation, he also has something available to him calling pretrial diversion so there’s a whole range of things that could happen,” Mike Meyer, a prosecutor from the Tennessee District Attorney General’s office said.
Neither of the prosecutors said they could comment on what sentence they would ask the judge to impose on Finch.
Shortly after the verdict was read, Finch left the courtroom with several supporters and one of her attorneys at her side. She walked quietly as reporters asked her questions, other than to say, “God is good, God is good” before entering an elevator.
Commissioners React
A pair of Knox County Commissioners in 2007, Paul Pinkston and Lee Tramel played significant roles in initiating the purchasing card audit that ultimately led to the charges Finch faced and was convicted of.
Pinkston spent hours digging through financial records and ultimately was the one who brought many of the concerns to the public and commission. Wednesday afternoon, Pinkston said it was somewhat vindicating to see justice and something come of the case but he would not go so far as to say he felt jail time was appropriate for Finch.
Lee Tramel was another commissioner who played a big role as the commissioner who suggested they instruct the Knox County Auditor to conduct the p-card audit.
Both men say they don’t think Finch was the only one that abused the system but Tramel says while others paid back any misguided expenses, Finch chose not to.
Still, it’s hard for either to consider the convictions a “win” for taxpayers, the county, or anyone involved.
“You know it’s not a victory, you know, by any stretch for Knox County or anyone else. Nobody wants to see anybody go through this. Things happened that were wrong and I think now we know exactly what happened and what has been done and it was just as was reported by the County Auditor,” Tramel said.
Previous story
The case against Cynthia Finch, Knox County’s former Community Services Director is now in the hands of a jury.
Prosecutors wrapped up their case mid-day Tuesday with UPS Store manager, Nathan Mishu.
Mishu testified that Finch came into his store and asked if there was anything he could do to help her get some receipts from Kinko’s. He said the only thing he could do was take the logo off their website and tape it to the top of UPS Store invoices.
“I took the receipt and went to the website and put it over where the UPS logo should be,” Mishu told the court. “Sometimes when you help somebody you feel so stupid and you don’t know what you got into.”
The defense team then grilled Mishu about exact dates and the timeline of everything that happened.
Mishu started to contradict some of his statements regarding the exact date Finch visited his store when questioned by Bob Jolley, Finch’s defense attorney. Mishu said he couldn’t pinpoint the date but remembered Finch coming in and then faxing copies of the doctored receipts to a ‘215’ fax number that fits Knox County’s City/County Building.
The biggest confrontation of the day came as prosecutors tried to call Requitta Bone, a former mayor’s office staffer and Finch’s executive assistant to the stand.
Jolley argued Bone should not be allowed to testify as many of the documents she would speak to were not included clearly in evidence before the trial. Prosecutors denied that charge and insisted her testimony was relevant.
Ultimately, Judge John Blackwood told the attorneys to bring Bone in to testify with the jury outside the room. He would then hear what she had to say and would determine it’s relevance in the case.
Bone testified with no jury in the room that she would run errands of sorts for Finch, shipping and purchasing things with the county purchasing card both for county business and their sorority.
“I was told the Mayor was ok with us doing sorority work during county time,” Bone said. “Any purchases I made with the p-card, I was given permission to make them by my supervisor (Finch).”
For whatever reason, prosecutors chose not to call Bone to the stand in front of a jury. They told 10News “we simply didn’t call her”.
During her testimony Tuesday, Bone presented Judge Blackwood with a copy of a receipt the former assistant said was associated with t-shirts for Finch’s sister’s organization, TennCorp.
The receipt had a handwritten note allegedly from Finch that described a t-shirt purchase was for a “senior summit”, an explanation of a county function that would justify the purchase.
However, the same document in the case file, gathered from the auditor does not have the handwriting on it. It is believed the handwritten note came after the document was submitted to the county.
Bone resigned from county government following her own troubles with p-cards, including a trip to Disney World paid for with the card.
Additionally, several Finch supporters served as character witnesses, testifying Finch is an honest, hard-working, and trustworthy member of the community.
The jury is expected back in the courtroom tomorrow morning and will then retreat to a private room to begin their deliberations.
Previous Report
Facing a trio of counts and possibly jail time, Cynthia Finch’s defense team pulled out a case arguing everything from race to a spat between the Knox County Auditor and Mayor’s Office are to blame for her legal situation.
Prosecutors meanwhile are relying on a dozen forged receipts from FedEx-Kinko’s that someone turned into auditors bearing Finch’s signature.
The trial for former Knox County Community Services Director, Finch, started Monday in Knox County Criminal Court. In the midst of a 2007 audit of county purchasing cards, Finch is accused of making up receipts and turning in about $2200 worth of false purchases.
Attorneys for both sides gave opening statements after a jury selection that lasted about two hours. 8 women and 4 men will serve on the board that ultimately will determine if Finch is guilty.
“One one person when unable to produce receipts decided to make them up,” Prosecutor Michael Meyer said. “We believe our case will show she chose to go out and have somebody else create false receipts.”
For the first time, Finch’s side of the story came to light inside a Knox County courtroom. Her defense team argued she was singled out in part because of race and in part because of a spat between the County Mayor’s office and Knox County Auditor Richard Walls.
“Ms. Finch did not forge those receipts,” Defense Attorney Bob Jolley told the jury. “You will hear names like Mike Ragsdale, Dwight Van de Vate, and Mike Arms, but the only person who is charged, is Cynthia Finch.”
The state called Walls to the stand as its first witness. The auditor testified that there was something that just didn’t seem right about the receipts Finch turned in detailing the purchases made at FedEx-Kinko’s (now FedEx Office).
Finch’s defense team pushed to prove the chain of custody was shoddy at best when it came to who controlled the documents that made up the audit.
“But you don’t know who brought you the receipts, do you?” Jolley asked.
“No sir, I don’t know who delivered it,” Walls testified.
A district manager for the office store testified she could tell right away the invoices turned in as receipts were not standard issue from the company. The logo on the hard copy paper wasn’t consistent with what the company used.
“Anytime we use that beacon it’s on top, between the ‘o’ and the ‘s’ (in ‘Kinko’s’). It appears to be off our website,” Cindy Katlin, of FedEx Office said.
Katlin testified 12 invoices turned in as proof of purchases bearing Finch’s name were likely fake.
Jolley continuously asked witnesses if there was anyway to prove that Finch abused her county purchasing card by buying items that were for personal use. None of the witnesses could provide evidence she did so. Jolley has previously told the courtroom that Knox County declining to seek damages against Finch should serve as further proof Finch did not commit fraud.
Finch’s trial is expected to last at least until Tuesday afternoon and likely will go into Wednesday. Tuesday, an employee who dealt first hand with creating the false receipts at FedEx-Kinko’s is expected to testify. Former Mayor’s office staffer Requitta Bone is also expected to testify at some point during Finch’s trial.
Previous Story
The jury has been seated for the forgery trial of Knox County’s former Community Service’s Director, Cynthia Fincn, and opening statements have begun.
The jury consists of 4 men and 8 women, but none of them are African American. There were 38 jurors called for this case, and only one of them was African American. That woman was dismissed because she belonged to the same sorority as Finch.
The jurors were questioned about their personal credit card use, whether they kept receipts for their purchases, and whether they belonged to a fraternity or sorority. They were also asked about their familiarity with purchasing cards and the audit process.
Finch’s defense attorney, Bob Jolley, is already making some allegations that race is a factor in the case
“Ms. Finch is different from us, isn’t she? That’s right. She’s black,” said Jolley.
Jolley also pointed out that Finch was a high-ranking black official and because of that, she shouldn’t have been singled out and shouldn’t be facing these charges.
Previous story
Knox County’s Former Community Services Director Cynthia Finch will face a jury of twelve as she stands trial accused of forging receipts in the midst of a county audit into purchasing cards.
Jury selection began Monday morning. There are thirty-eight potential jurors.
The judge denied the defense’s second motion for a continuance. They wanted more time now that Requitta Bone was added to the witness list. Requitta Bone was Finch’s assistant.
Finch faces two counts of forgery and one count of fabricating evidence. She is accused of falsely reporting more than $2,000 worth of purchases from FedEx/Kinkos.
Read more News and Articles at http://www.wbir.com