Home » News (Page 3)
Category Archives: News
An Australian woman steals $88,837.00 from a junior rugby league.
In this case, this is from the State of Queensland in Australia and the former McKay Junior Rugby League treasurer, Jody Sainsbury, was jailed and pending sentences for stealing more than $160,000.00.
She actually tendered a check and returned $88,000.00 of it, but she still faces charges, but as in good sportsmanship the game must go on. No matter where you are in the world, their are people who forge signatures but there are also forgery experts that will help you.
JODY Sainsbury stole more than $160,000 from the Mackay Junior Rugby League and the Hastings Deering social club at Paget.
And when she faced the District Court in Mackay to be sentenced yesterday she was going to tender four allegedly-forged references.
So now she is under investigation for allegedly forging fake references.
Sainsbury pleaded guilty to two charges of dishonestly causing a loss to the Mackay Junior Rugby League and Hastings Deering between July 1, 2007, and December 1, 2008.
Crown prosecutor David Morters told the court that he had been provided on Thursday with copies of four references which Mrs Sainsbury’s barrister was going to tender in court.
One was said to be from her current employer, CQ Nurse, two were from representatives of Hastings Deering and there was another one from a representative of the Mackay State High School.
“I made some inquiries of at least one of the Hastings Deering representatives and it (the reference) was not made by the person who was purported to have made it,” Mr Morters said. “It appears there is no legitimacy for the references provided.”
Barrister Bronwyn Hartigan, for Sainsbury, tendered a bank cheque for $88,837 to repay the “balance of the amount owing” to the Mackay Junior Rugby League.
She then asked for the sentencing to be delayed.
Judge Stuart Durward, SC, remanded Sainsbury in custody for sentencing on a date to be set. Police are investigating the claims that Sainsbury’s references were forged.
During yesterday’s proceedings it was disclosed that the amount of money missing from the Hastings Deering social club was $83,707. Sainsbury was treasurer of the Mackay Junior Rugby League which held an emergency meeting in December 2009 to discuss the loss of funds from its bank accounts.
The MJRL had eight local clubs – Brothers Bulldogs, North Mackay Magpies, Proserpine, Northern Suburbs, Sarina, Southern Suburbs, Walkerston and Western Suburbs.
Despite the loss of funds, the MJRL season went ahead in 2010.
More articles @ http://www.dailymercury.com.au
When your girlfriend dies in a tragic mass murder the first thing you do is not to fake a will and take her entire estate, but that’s what Edgar Bloomfield of Santa Barbara County, California did.
Bloomfield forges the will and takes the $750,000.00 his girlfriend had and named it to him which was a very bad did. This is unusual in the fact that when it all played out he actually spent time in jail because they decided to prosecute him on the criminal courts so he had to face two courts, the probate court, which is where the handwriting expert was called in to look at the will and testament; this is where you come in and I found that probate courts are very fair which means when they get a handwriting expert they’ll let you have access to the will and you can microscope, and bring your magnifying glass, you can take pictures of it and can actually touch and feel the original will and makes a good decision on that because they really do want to get it right.
And in this case, they did get it right but you’ll also notice that if you read the full article Edward Bloomfield actually had two witnesses to the crime and they actually had to plead guilty for forgery, conspiracy and perjury, because his sister, Jeannie Bloomfield, and two acquaintances, Lena Star and Heidi Hodges signed as witnesses.
So he had four people lying under oath to steal this dead woman’s money and her family had already suffered a tragic loss in a mass murder. I tell you, when there is a big estate involved, there are no doubts to the scummy actions of unscrupulous people and as a handery expert you’ll see it all. Enjoy this article.
More than three years after he produced a forged will after his girlfriend was fatally shot,Edward Blomfield – who pled guilty to the crime – was sentenced Tuesday. He will serve one year in Santa Barbara County Jail and five years of felony probation. Judge Brian Hill also granted District Attorney Mary Barron two additional requests: that Blomfield not be allowed to act in a fiduciary capacity for anyone and that any current or future employers know of his psychiatric condition.
Authorities claim Blomfield forged the will of Beverly Graham after she was shot and killed in her apartment by Jennifer San Marcojust before San Marco went on a shooting spree at the Goleta U.S.Postal Service distribution center in January 2006, killing six others and then herself. The forged will left Graham’s entire estate, estimated to be worth $750,000, to Blomfield.
Less than a month after Graham’s death, Blomfield produced the will, which Graham’s family immediately contested in probate court. As the result of a complicated civil suit, in which a forensic examiner determined the will was forged, Blomfield was ordered to pay $340,000 in restitution to the Graham family and indicted in criminal court for burglary, financial elder abuse, forgery, conspiracy, and two counts of perjury. Blomfield pled guilty to all charges.
His final sentencing was pending almost a year, in part because Blomfield underwent a competency test, a several months-long process during which psychiatrists reviewed his mental state and determined that he was competent to be sentenced. At the request of Blomfield’s defense attorney, Steve Balash, Judge Hill exonerated the $25,000 bail and reduced Blomfield’s restitution fines from $10,000 to $1,000. Barron said she recognized that the court had already made a decision on Blomfield’s sentence but stated, “It does not seem fair or just that he should be able to buy his way out.” Although Hill granted two of Barron’s requests, he denied a third, that Blomfield not be able to serve as caretaker for the elderly or disabled, noting that this was a financial crime.
In his final comments, Hill said that although Blomfield’s crime was serious, being premeditated and done without due regard to other people in the descendant’s life and therefore deserving of a felony, it was not a horrific crime. He said Blomfield’s crime was deserving of the year in
County Jail, and the man could face up to 10 years in state prison if he violates any terms of his probation. Noting that because there was no indication Blomfield ever engaged in similar actions and had no prior criminal history, Hill said there was not a strong argument for a state prison sentence.
Blomfield’s sister, Jeanne Blomfield, as well as two acquaintances,Lenae Stahr and Heidi Hodges, signed as witnesses on the forged will and had previously pled guilty to will forgery, conspiracy, and perjury.
More news and articles @ http://www.independent.com
This case is unbelievably common. A woman’s caregiver who took care of her for the last two years of her life decided that after the woman passed away she could just steal all her material possessions, including a very sexy 1965 Mustang.
As a previous owner of a red ’65 Ford Mustang convertible, I can tell you how attractive this car makes you feel when you drive it. But, does that really give her an excuse to commit forgery, write checks on a dead woman’s bank account and make a fake will?
The reason I want you to look at this story is that it is incredibly common for whoever is around an older person when he dies to feel ethically obligated to take all his stuff, because many people such as caregivers and the one brother that spends the last ten years of life really feels entitled to have everything.
Forgeries incredibly common, and if I were a police inspector I would always look at the caregiver first and whoever was around during the last few years in that person’s life. They are normally the suspects of the crime, and these are not sophisticated forgeries. These are very simple cases that you as a forensic document examiner will be able to help solve and get the estate back into the hands of the people that deserve it.
LAS CRUCES, N.M. — A dead woman’s caregiver was charged with forgery after Las Cruces police said she named herself to inherit a home, car, and money.
Las Cruces police detectives said in the months prior to the Aug. 2 death of Mary Fix, Maria E. Hobbs created a last will and testament naming herself as the recipient of the woman’s residence, a 1965 Ford Mustang, and the funds from the woman’s bank account.
Hobbs worked for Adult Protective Services, a division of New Mexico’s Aging and Long Term Services Department, and took care of Fix, who was suffering from advanced dementia, police said.
Detectives discovered on the day Fix died, Hobbs took a $300 check from the woman and deposited it into her own checking account. The memo on the check, apparently written by Hobbs, stated the check was for “Mary’s car title and registration.”
Detectives also learned that Hobbs forged and deposited a $70,000 check, dated June 15, from Fix into her account on Sept. 7. A $35,000 check that was dated July 8 was deposited into Hobbs’ account on Sept. 9. That same day, Sept. 9, Hobbs wrote out a personal check in the amount of $48,548 to purchase a mobile home from Palm Harbor Homes, detectives said.
Detectives learned that Fix established a living trust in 2004 naming Washburn University as the beneficiary of her estate upon her death. LCPD began investigating the case when a financial adviser with Prudential Financial Group contacted police after attempting to execute Fix’s trust.
Hobbs was charged with eight counts of forgery including two second-degree felony counts, five fourth-degree felonies, and one third-degree felony.
She was arrested Thursday by the U.S. Marshall’s Service and is being held at the Dona Ana County Detention Center with bond set at $55,000.
More News and articles @ http://www.kfoxtv.com/index.html
This is really big news if you’re involved in the mortgage crisis in the United States. And even if you’re not in the United States, you have to understand that the entire world economy crashed.
And part of the reason was excessive loans to people who couldn’t afford homes throughout the United States and North America. And that the same philosophy trickled down into what they called secondary mortgages and financial crisis.
A company called MERS, and it still exists, was in the news because of a judge in Florida.
How is forgery involved in this? Great question, so much of the real estate in America is currently in a state of foreclosure or pre‑foreclosure because of the loans that were granted in the last five to ten years that homeowners can’t afford.
Instead of getting proper paperwork to foreclose on these loans, the banks and the companies hired to assemble the foreclosures simply made up signatures. They mocked up documents and they actually forged people’s names that no longer worked there, and they forged notaries’ names that no longer worked at the companies in order to get the documentation needed to file the foreclosure notice.
If you are a handwriting expert or you are a document examiner, this is a great opportunity for you to get paid to help somebody save their home by entering into the discussion of whether or not the paperwork in the mortgage foreclosure is correct or it’s fraudulent. This has been a very, very popular type of case that we’ve had in our office here in Los Angeles.
All of our associates around the United States have also had paperwork like this, because fraud and forgery are so rampant in the real estate industry. And it’s not just the last five years, but specifically in the foreclosure area you can help save somebody’s home if indeed they made a mistake.
This article is about MERS, but if you’re going to get into the real estate business, you need to understand about the mortgage and mortgage loans and how to speak to attorneys who are dealing with this sort of thing. It’s an important article and I hope you keep up with it.
Merscorp Inc., operator of the electronic-registration system that contains about half of all U.S. home mortgages, has no right to transfer the mortgages under its membership rules, a judge said.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Grossman in Central Islip, New York, in a decision he said he knew would have a “significant impact,” wrote that the membership rules of the company’s Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, don’t make it an agent of the banks that own the mortgages.
“MERS’s theory that it can act as a ‘common agent’ for undisclosed principals is not supported by the law,” Grossman wrote in a Feb. 10 opinion. “MERS did not have authority, as ‘nominee’ or agent, to assign the mortgage absent a showing that it was given specific written directions by its principal.”
Merscorp was created in 1995 to improve servicing after county offices couldn’t deal with the flood of mortgage transfers, Karmela Lejarde, a spokeswoman for MERS, said in an interview last year. The company tracks servicing rights and ownership interests in mortgage loans on its electronic registry, allowing banks to buy and sell the loans without having to record the transfer with the county. It played a major role in Wall Street’s ability to quickly bundle mortgages together in securitized trusts.
MERS was still reviewing Grossman’s decision and didn’t have an immediate comment, Lejarde said in an e-mail Feb. 11. Lejarde didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment today.
“‘Don’t come around here no more,’ is basically the message to MERS,” said April Charney, a senior attorney with Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Jacksonville, Florida. “The judge basically deconstructed MERS and said there’s no possible way in any case you can come in and show you have this appropriate proper status to transfer the note.”
“MERS and its partners made the decision to create and operate under a business model that was designed in large part to avoid the requirements of the traditional mortgage-recording process,” Grossman wrote. “The court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50 percent of all residential mortgages in the country, that is reason enough for this court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply with the law.”
In the case Grossman ruled on, Credit Suisse Group AG’s Select Portfolio Servicing, a mortgage servicer, sought to bypass the automatic shield against legal claims triggered by Ferrel L. Agard’s filing for personal bankruptcy in September.
Select Portfolio wanted permission to foreclose on Agard’s home in Westbury, New York, on behalf of U.S. Bancorp’s U.S. Bank unit, the trustee for the mortgage-backed trust the home loan was in. The house is worth about $350,000 and the mortgage amount was $536,921, according to the decision.
Grossman ruled in favor of Select Portfolio because he couldn’t overrule a November 2008 foreclosure judgment the servicer won in state court, he said. Without that state-court ruling, Select Portfolio wouldn’t have had the right to bring its motion, Grossman said.
He then addressed whether a mortgage transfer by MERS is valid, because “MERS’s role in the ownership and transfer of real-property notes and mortgages is at issue in dozens of cases before this court,” including those where “there have been no prior dispositive state-court decisions,” he wrote.
Select Portfolio argued in part that MERS’s February 2008 assignment of the mortgage to U.S. Bank was valid because Agard agreed that MERS would hold title to it for the original lender,Bank of America Corp.’s First Franklin, and for whichever banks it was further assigned to. First Franklin transferred the promissory note the mortgage secured to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s Aurora Bank and Aurora to U.S. Bank, according to the decision.
“An adverse ruling regarding MERS’s authority to assign mortgages or act on behalf of its member/lenders could have a significant impact on MERS and upon the lenders which do business with MERS throughout the United States,” Grossman wrote. “It is up to the legislative branch, if it chooses, to amend the current statutes to confer upon MERS the requisite authority to assign mortgages under its current business practices.”
MERS intervened in the case and argued that Agard’s mortgage, the terms of its membership agreement and New York state law gave it the authority to assign the mortgage. MERS says it holds title to mortgages for its members as both “nominee” and “mortgagee of record.”
Grossman said Select Portfolio had to show that U.S. Bank owned both the note and the mortgage, and there was no evidence that it held the note. The judge disagreed with Select Portfolio’s argument that U.S. Bank held the note because the note “follows” the mortgage, which it said U.S. Bank owned.
“By MERS’s own account, the note in this case was transferred among its members, while the mortgage remained in MERS’s name,” Grossman wrote. “MERS admits that the very foundation of its business model as described herein requires that the note and mortgage travel on divergent paths.”
The judge said that the membership agreement wasn’t enough to assign the mortgage and that to do so the lender would have to give power of attorney or similar authority to MERS.
MERS’s membership rules don’t create “an agency or nominee relationship” and don’t clearly grant MERS authority to take any action with respect to mortgages, including transferring them, Grossman wrote. Because the interests at issue concern “real property” — land and buildings — under state law, any transfer has to be in writing, which isn’t done under the MERS system, he said.
“Without more, this court finds that MERS’s ‘nominee’ status and the rights bestowed upon MERS within the mortgage itself, are insufficient to empower MERS to effectuate a valid assignment of mortgage,” the judge wrote. “MERS’s position that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best.”
Grossman said parties coming to him to seek to lift the automatic ban on legal claims in cases involving MERS will have to show they own both the mortgage and the note.
More on this @ http://www.bloomberg.com
Why hire an expensive divorce attorney if you are working for the Nigerian Army, just forge your own divorce papers, submit them to the Army, move out of your house and kick your wife and family to the curb.
If this sounds harsh, well it is. This recent story is about a Nigerian Army Major alleged forged his divorce papers so he could leave his wife and take up with another woman.
It’s a long article but the bottom line is this. If you have enough clout you can simply forge paperwork and your employer in this case the Nigerian Army, will simply look the other way and say “ahh, so what. He didn’t like his wife; he left her, kicked his kids out on the street, but he should get the house.” It’s a long drawn out story in a country where the law is not as just as it should be.
On a signed note I have been contacted numerous times from people in African countries to fly over to Africa to testify in a Nigerian court and other courts which quite frankly scare me.
I am also helping people get justice but I am not for flying to a third world country with a questionable justice system and ending up in an African prison because somebody in power didn’t like my opinion. No thanks. I’ll stick to the Western European court systems where at least there is some semblance and reasonableness and fairness. Enjoy the article.
The forgery of court document is a criminal offence which carries a seven-year jail term. But the Nigerian Army does not seem to consider the offence such a big deal. When told how Paul Egbo, a Major in the army’s medical corps, allegedly forged divorce papers to enable him leave his wife and take up with another woman, a female army officer, an official letter from the Chief of Army staff said the offence is of no concern to the army.
In May 2006, Mr Egbo, a native of Delta State, while serving in Maiduguri, Borno State, decided he wanted out of his 12-year marriage to Uche Egbo. He called Mrs. Egbo, a house wife and mother of their three children living in their home at the Ojo military cantonment in Lagos State, and told her that the marriage is over because God had told him to marry another woman.
He then changed his salary account from which Mrs. Egbo and the children take money for their monthly upkeep. Mrs. Egbo remembers that for the next eighteen months, up till September 23, 2007, her husband and father of their children only came home once; and that was to pack his belongings.
“He came from Maiduguri to pack his things. I told him that if he takes everything how does he want us to cope, that why has he abandoned his family, that he should make arrangement for his children’s upkeep,” Mrs Egbo said, “Instead he accused me of being a criminal and got me arrested. I was taken to the guardroom and would have remained there if not for an officer who intervened. But he took everything and left us with nothing.”
Mrs. Egbo’s ordeal was not over. On May 20, 2008, Military Police personnel came to her home and handed her a Lagos State High Court order dated December 31, 2007, which declared her marriage to Mr. Egbo dissolved. On the orders of her husband, they had come to evict her with immediate effect from the house.
“It was only because the cantonment commandant, Lieutenant Colonel Apere, intervened that I was spared. He instructed Paul to come and sort things out himself because the army gave the house to him and not me,” said Mrs. Egbo, who hails from Anambra State.
Being the only child of an elderly pensioner mother, Mrs. Egbo was totally dependent on her husband. Now abandoned, she became a wreck. Unable to bear the psychological trauma any longer, she moved out of the barracks in September 2008 and began squatting with some acquaintances.
To put food on the table, she started doing menial jobs. She could not pay her children’s school fees, and they had to miss one year of school. She and her three children practically lived off handouts from sympathizers.
A case of forgery
It was in this condition that Kayode Ogunjobi, a lawyer, met Mrs. Egbo. Filled with compassion, he took up her case free of charge and ran a check on the decree nisi and the decree absolute allegedly issued by the court dissolving the marriage. The response from the Lagos State judiciary in a letter dated July 17, 2008 revealed that Mr. Egbo’s documents were fake.
“We have checked our records and we report that the document did not emanate from the High Court of Lagos State as Suit No. HD/241/2007 does not exist in our records,” wrote Mariam Emeya, then a Chief Magistrate. “Furthermore it is very obvious that the document is fake as Mr. A. Ola Dada, the ACR (Assistant Chief Registrar) Litigation who purportedly signed the letter in 2007 retired in 2005.”
Mrs. Emeya, who at the time was also the deputy chief registrar of administration in the Lagos State High Court, further observed that a decree nisi only becomes absolute after three months but Mr. Egbo’s decree absolute terminated his marriage after two months.
“In the final analysis, there is no indication of the court or judge who purportedly dissolved the said marriage. It is therefore clear that the document is fake,” concluded Mrs. Emeya.
The army didn’t care
In December 2008, Mr. Ogunjobi, through Rouq & Company Solicitors and Advocates, petitioned the Office of the Chief of Army Staff, then headed by Abdulrahaman Dambazau, a lieutenant general; and Mike Okiro, the then Inspector-General of Police. While the Police never responded, the Army through its Special Investigation Bureau (SIB) in Apapa, Lagos State, between August and September 2009, investigated Mr. Egbo’s forgery case and the abandoning of his family responsibilities.
“We were invited by the SIB and we went. The investigation was concluded and the report forwarded. They said they were sending recommendations to Defence Headquarters, and that it is an internal thing, so they will get back to us when they need us. And that is the last we have heard from them, till now,” Mr. Ogunjobi said.
By June 2010, the army had still not responded and Mr. Egbo had not rendered any financial help to his family in years. During this time, Mrs. Egbo said her husband had married another woman, a female army captain she identified as Rachael Gashua, serving in the army’s Military Police Corps in Maiduguri.
After her children were sent away from school just before their promotion exams for non-payment of school fees, Mrs. Egbo approached Project Alert, a non-governmental organisation promoting women rights. They assisted her with N35,000; and together with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) petitioned the present Chief of Army Staff, Onyeabo Ihejirika, over Mr. Egbo’s forgery of judicial documents and abandonment of family.
But Mr. Ihejirika’s response to the Commission was that the army would not entertain the matter. Through his staff, one Lieutenant Colonel A. A. Ali, via a letter received by the NHRC on November 22, 2010, the army chief further recommended that if Mrs. Egbo felt so aggrieved, she could lay her complaints at the law courts.
“The issues raised are purely domestic in nature and should be settle between the spouses. On the other hand, if she feels strongly about the alleged ill treatment by her husband, she may take up a legal action against him. The Nigeria Army does not have the capacity to impose a wife on a personnel,” read the letter signed by Mr. Ali “for Chief of Army Staff”.
Mr. Egbo could not be reached on his mobile telephone. When contacted, his lawyer, Jonah Daniel of KC Okolodia & Co, said the media does not have any merit in reporting the case.
“I don’t think it is safe for your paper to publish this story. Paul’s wife has reported to the Nigerian army and it’s being investigated,” Mr. Daniel said. “Also the Human Rights Commission is investigating. This matter is under investigation, so I don’t know what you want me to say.”
But when asked if he procured the fake divorce documents for Mr. Egbo, he replied: “I can’t answer that question. I won’t be part of a campaign of calumny”.
The waiting game
The head of the Directorate of Army Public Relations, Chris Olukolade, a brigadier-general, when contacted, requested that he should be left out of the matter.
Kayode Ogunsanya, a lieutenant colonel and the spokesperson for the Army’s 81 Division, which oversees Bonny Cantonment, where Mr. Egbo is said to be currently serving, promised to contact him and then get back to NEXT. Two weeks have gone by and he is yet to respond. With tears in her eyes Mrs. Egbo said all she wants is for the father of her children to live up to his parental duties. As she wakes up early every day to prepare the food she sells on a roadside, she worries about raising enough money to pay her children’s school fees, as schools resume February.
“For five years I have been struggling on my own. I have made up my mind to move on. I am not out for revenge but if Paul wants to divorce, he should do it the right way. He should also have compassion on his children and cater for them and not leave them to suffer this way,” Mrs Egbo said.
More news and articles @ http://234next.com
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
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
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,
GENE W. ZDENEK et al., Defendants and Respondents.
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
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.
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.
The order of the trial court is affirmed. Defendants are entitled to costs on appeal.
BOREN, P. J.
DOI TODD, J.
Read more articles at this site: http://www.leagle.com
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
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