Document Fraud REPORT submitted by Bill Freeman

William Freeman Report November 17, 2016 27151Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

William Freeman Report November 17, 2016 28152Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

William Freeman Report November 17, 2016 29153Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

William Freeman Report November 17, 2016 30154Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

EXHIBIT A155Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

CERTIFICATION JOHN L. SANG FELLOW Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionAMERICAN BOARD OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OFFORENSIC DOCUMENT Forensic Document Examiner FORENSIC SCIENCES EXAMINERS One Harbor Lane Member Glen Head, New York 11545 Northeastern Association _______ of Forensic Scientists (516) 656 0443 American Society of Testing and Materials International CURRICULUM VITAE OF FORENSIC SCIENCES by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures Summary of Qualification Forensic Document ExaminerACCREDITATIONCERTIFIED AS Diplomate, American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE).Board certification was based upon my personal and professional education, training, experience, and thesuccessful completion of a three-part formal examination process. The three phases of the examinationprocess consisted of: a comprehensive written examination, practical examinations, and an oral boardexamination. All phases of the examination process are based upon the broad range of problemsfrequently encountered in forensic document examination to include handwriting and hand printingexamination comparison. ABFDE is accredited by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board, Inc.www.thefsab.org.EDUCATION1980 Master of Science, Forensic Science, John Jay College of Criminal Justice,1977 New York, New York.1975 Bachelor of Science, Forensic Science, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, New York. Associate of Science, Police Science, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, New York.HONORS American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Questioned Documents Section2012 “ORDWAY HILTON AWARD” in recognition of outstanding contributions to Forensic Document Examination.1980 Graduate Studies Award, John Jay College of Criminal JusticeFormal Training Photos SignaturesI received my formal training in Forensic Document Examination at the New York City PoliceLaboratory Document Section in 1970 under the direct supervision of senior forensic documentexaminers. The two (2) year formal, structured, apprenticeship type training program was followedup by 2 years of supervised casework. In addition to the successful completion of the primary trainingprogram I have also attended numerous workshops, and courses in document examination given byFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Postal Service, Georgetown University, John JayCollege of Criminal Justice and courses given by American Academy of Forensic Science, AmericanSociety of Questioned Document Examiners, Northeastern Association of Forensic Sciences and theAmerican Board of Forensic Document Examiners. I continue to take continuing education courses. Ihave been an active Forensic Document Examiner for the past forty (46) years. Fraud 156

Curriculum Vitae Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionJohn L. SangPage 2TEACHING EXPERIENCE by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents SignaturesLecturer: John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1981/82, 2001/2003, 2006/7 University of New Haven, CT 1997/2001, 2004 Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, N.Y. 1974/83 New York City Police Academy, Advanced and Specialized Training NYPD Crime Laboratory, Questioned Document SectionPROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 2010-11 Vice President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences 2009-15 Trustee, The Forensic Sciences Foundation 2005-9 Director, American Academy of Forensic Sciences FELLOW, American Academy of Forensic Sciences 2004-5 Chairman Questioned Document Section 2002-3 Secretary Questioned Document Section 2002-4 Continuing Education Committee 1997 Program Chairman Member, Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists 1999 Program Chairman Member, ASTM International (American Society for Testing and Materials.) SWGDOC 2001 Handwriting Sub Group ChairmanPROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE1970-Present FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINER1980-Present PRIVATE PRACTICE, FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINER1968 - 1997 Member New York City Police Department. Last position held, Photos Signatures Lieutenant. Specialties include scientific and criminal investigation.1970 - 1985 Technical Supervisor/Forensic Document Examiner, Forensic Document Section, New York City Police Laboratory, with the responsibility for the supervision, administration, and training of Document Section personnel. Duties also included the investigation and scientific analysis of questioned document evidence in criminal and civil cases. Experienced in Analytical Chemistry, Instrumental Analysis, Microscopy and Photography. Have been responsible for the collection, collation and preservation of Forensic Evidence at Crime Scenes. Technical liaison with other government agencies. Fraud 157

Curriculum Vitae Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents SignaturesJohn L. SangPage 3 Photos SignaturesCOURTROOM EXPERIENCE Fraud Qualified and testified as an expert in handwriting identification, typewriting identification, ink, paper, physical matches, photography, and fingerprint processing in the following Courts: United States Federal Courts, Eastern and Southern Districts, U.S. Federal District Courts of New Jersey and Hartford Connecticut, New York State Supreme Court, Criminal and Civil Parts, Superior Court State of Connecticut, Florida and New Jersey NASD and Supreme Court, In the High Court of Justice, Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis. Reports have been accepted by the United Nations, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Secret Service, United States Postal Service, Port Authority State of New York and New Jersey.PUBLICATIONS/PRESENTATIONS American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) Interdisciplinary Symposium, Past Presidents Future Science: Hot Leads in Contemporary Forensic Science, “The Future of Forensic Document Examination” February 17, 2015. Symposium, John Jay College of Criminal Justice Forensic Science on Trial: The Impact of the National Research Council Report. Topic: \"Rising to the Challenge of the NRC.\" April 19, 2010 Workshop Co-Chair: AAFS 58th Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington February 21, 2006. \"How Frye and Daubert Have Changed the Presentation of Criminalistics and Questioned Documents in Court.\" \"Demonstrating Natural Variation-Write-On Software A New Tool\" presented at The 2nd International Symposium of Forensic Examination of Questioned Documents, Co-Hosted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Division and Forensic Investigation Center New York State Police, Albany, New York June 15, 1999. \"Pencils in the Making\" published in the Forensic Document Examiners News. April 1996 \"Credit Cards and the Forensic Document Examiner\" presented at the 10th Triennial Meeting of the International Assocation of Forensic Sciences, Oxford, England and published in Forensic Science International 28 (1985) p121-129. \"A Classification System for Typewriter Ribbon Inks\" presented at 37th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Questioned Documents meeting in Rochester, New York. 158

EXHIBIT B159Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

Testimony Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionU.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York12/22/97 Trial Judge Koetetl Francois Botha, Plaintiff, -against- Don King Productions, INC., Defendants.U.S. Federal District Court, Hartford Connecticut1/28/98 Trial Judge Thompson USA v. James V. Monaco ET.ALSupreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York11/25/98 Hon. Julius Birnbaum SR Lig Shing Zee & Yue Wah Chao Plaintiffs, vs., Tek-Chang Pu, Wan-Hai Wu, et al.U.S. Federal District Court, Southern District of New York2/22/99 Trial Judge Mc Kenna USA v. Raymond Cintron & Mark E. Gromisch by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents SignaturesSuperior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County7/7/99 6/26/00 Trial Judge Clyne Bankers Trust Co. of California v. Richardson et al.5/18/2000 Deposition Bankers Trust v. RichardsonSupreme Court Of The State of New York, County of New York1/27/2000 Deposition The Mount Sinai Hospital, Plaintiff, vs. .Peter Chiopelas and Effie Foods, LTD.defArbitration National Securities Dealers, Inc. NASD2/29/2000 Arbitration Helen M. Richardson v. Merril, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.Supreme Court Of The State of New York, County of New York8/10-11/2000 Trial Justice Solomon The Mt. Sinai Hosp vs. Peter Chiopelas & Effie Foods, LTD. Index #606345/98U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of New York10/16/2001 Trial Justice Ross USA v. Tunde AdeyiSupreme Court of State of New York, County of New York3/08/2002 Trial Justice Solomon Hearing Yakov Adzhiashvili, Plaintiff, v. JOY-LUD Distributors International,3/20/2002 & Trial Inc., DefendantU.S Federal District Court, Southern District of New York2/28/2003 Deposition Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo PharmacuticalSupreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York2/26/2004 Hon. H. Leventhal Isla Kaye v. Malcolm KayeSupreme Court of State of New York, County of New York3/24,29/2004 Trial Justice B. Fried Healthworld Corp. v. Gottlieb et al.U.S. Federal District Court, District of Delaware7/12/2004 Deposition St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon Inc. et al.U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of New York3/12-13/2005 Trial Judge Block USA v. Tin Yat ChinU.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of New York8/10/2005 Deposition Pena v. Gutierrez8/19/2005 Trial Judge Stein Pena v. GutierrezNY State 2/08/2007 Workman's Compensation Board Donna Ferrar Chair and 6/27/2007NYC Transit and 2/14/2008 Authority Arbitration NYC TA v. Arnie Cox10/15/2007 Arbitrator Alan Viani NYC TA v. Arnie CoxSupreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings Hon. Michael A. Ambrosio Thomas v. Rogers Auto Collision, Inc. and Roger Leveille10/22-23/2007Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, In the High Court of Justice, Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis11/18-19/2008 Justice Francis Belle Lynn Bass v St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank LimitedSupreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings3/13/2009 Justice Platt Leslie Gray v. Kernella Walker-GraySupreme Court State of Connecticut State of Connecticut v. Richard Roszowski6/11-12/2009 Justice Kavanewsky Photos SignaturesSupreme Court of State of New York County of Nassau Gail Farber, Individually and as Personal Representative8/20 & 25/2010 Justice Warshawsky of Estate of Jack Farber v. Wilber Breslin & East Meadow Associates2/10/2011 NYC Transit Authority Arbitration NYC TA v. Alfred AlfonzoSupreme Court of the State of New York County of New York7/1/2011 Justice O. Peter Sherwood Azmina Bhaji vs Abbas Baluch (Index No. 650834-2010)U.S. Federal District Court, Hartford Connecticut6/5/2012 Hon. Alvin W. Thompson Chief U.S.D.J. Jane Pascale Kite v. John Pascale, Jr.U.S. Federal District Court of New Jersey4/10, 4/15/13 U.S.D.J Chesler Daubert Hearing US v. Michael DuranteU.S. Federal District Court of New Jersey4/24-25/2013 U.S.D.J Chesler Trial US v. Michael DuranteSupreme Court of the State of New York County of Richmond5/23,28/2013 Paino v. Reitano, Antonino, Tambarello et al Justice John A. FuscoSupreme Court of the State of New York Nassau County Fraud2/8/2016 Hon. Steven Bucaria Spodek v. Neiss 160

APPENDIX C-D (QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS)161Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

162Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

163Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

164Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

165Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

166Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

167Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

168Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

169Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

170Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

171Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

172Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

173Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

174Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

175Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

176Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

177Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

APPENDIX E-F (QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS)178Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

179Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

180Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

181Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

182Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

183Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

184Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

185Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

186Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures



The Supplementary Report on the William Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents SignaturesFreeman Questioned Loan Documents byDr. James Madison KelleyDr. James Madison Kelley, BA, MSEE, Ph.D EECSDecember 1, 2016FreemanSupplementary Report-12-1-2016-452PM--DrKelly.pdf Photos SignaturesReport of William Freeman Loan Document Forensic Examinations Fraud 188

THE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON THE WILLIAM R. FREEMAN QUESTIONED LOAN DOCUMENTS BY JAMES MADISON KELLEY, PhD DECEMBER 1, 2016 1189Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionFraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures

Table of Contents Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History IntroductionSupplementary Analysis and Conclusions 3 by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents SignaturesSide Road Property 3Randolph Avenue Property 4Critique of Sang's Report 5Signature 12Exhibit 2.5 List of ExhibitsExhibit 2.6 Side Road SignaturesExhibit 2.7 Randolph Ave SignaturesExhibit 2.8 Randolph Ave Signatures OverlayExhibit 2.9 Mortgage Recorder’s Stamp Ink Warranty Deed Recorder’s Stamp InkExhibit 3.1 Sang Final 18Exhibit 3.2 Sang Final 18Exhibit 3.3 Sang Final 27Exhibit 3.4 Obsolete Technical ReferencesN.B: The Exhibit Numbering system between the two reports has Photos Signaturesbeen maintained to avoid confusion. Fraud 2 190

Supplementary Analysis and Conclusions Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents SignaturesAfter the examination and initial report, I was requested to Photos Signatures (1) Review the Sang Report and its conclusions Fraud (2) Compare the ink in the Warranty Deed with the ink in the purported original mortgage for the Randolph Avenue property to determine if the purported original recorded documents are actually original.In the process of doing these tasks, many more anomalies in the documentswere found which are reported and discussed herein. The additionalfindings are consistent with the previously reported opinion that theRandolph Ave and Side Road Loan documents have been fabricated andare at best facsimiles of the original documents. In addition, thedeficiencies in the Sang report have been identified.This report incorporates by reference in its entirety my original report.Side Road PropertyExhibit 2.5 is the collection of the high-resolution RGB color scans of thesignatures in the Side Road Loan Documents. Differences in the amount ofink and color can easily be discerned between the different signatures withthe naked eye. The Questioned Prepayment Fee Addendum is quitedifferent in color and ink volume from the signature on the questionedNote. This is consistent with the other evidence that the documents havebeen recreated from the archival digital images captured in tiff formatgreyscale color mode shortly after loan origination. 3 191

Randolph Avenue Property Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents SignaturesExhibit 2.6 shows that the ink color in the signature on the Randolph Ave Photos SignaturesMortgage does not match the ink color of the signature on the questionedPrepayment Fee Notice Addendum. The color difference can be discerned Fraudwith the naked eye but is more precisely measured using the ColorSampler Tool in Photoshop.The ink color of the signatures on the questioned Note and Prepayment FeeAddendum are a loose match to each other while neither match the color ofthe signature on the Mortgage.The shape of the signature on the Prepayment Fee Addendum exactlyExhibit 2.7 shows that the shape of the signature on the Mortgage and thesignature on the Prepayment Fee Addendum are exactly the same once thesize is adjusted slightly.The color mismatch and the exact match is proof that the signature on thePrepayment Fee Addendum is not the original signature but a copy of thesignature on the Mortgage.The fact that the ink colors of the Note and the Prepayment Fee Addendummatch each other but not the Mortgage supports the conclusion that thesignature on the questioned Randolph Ave Note is not the originalsignature.Exhibit 2.8 is the Notary page (page 17) of the Mortgage. The color of theink was measured in Lab Color mode in Photoshop and the results of thatmeasurement are shown on the exhibit. The Recorder’s book and page #stamp is shown at the top left. 4 192

It is my understanding that the purple ink used in the stamp is unique to Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signaturesthe Recorder and not generally available on the market and that this hasbeen so for many years. Photos SignaturesExhibit 2.9 is a high resolution RGB scan of the Warranty Deed. TheWarranty Deed is an unquestioned document for two reasons. First, it was Fraudrecorded by the Attorney and returned directly to Mr. Freeman. Second, itis my understanding the Recorder has confirmed that ink color of the bookand page number stamp is the same that of the ink used by the Recorder.A comparison of the ink color between Exhibit 2.7 and Exhibit 2.8 showsthat the ink color of Recorder’s book and page # on the questionedMortgage is not the same as that of the Warranty. This can be seen with thenaked eye.The evidence is probative of the conclusion that the questioned mortgagedocument is not the original Mortgage but merely a facsimile thereof. 5 193

Critique of Sang's Report Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures1. Sang assumes without citing any research articles that an inkjet Photos Signatures cannot reproduce a signature or initial made by a ball point pen. Sang is tacitly asserting that striations, skips, gaps, and goop are Fraud probative of a ball point pen and cannot be reproduced by an inkjet printer. The loan Documents were scanned by ACS Image Solutions in grayscale TIF format shortly after loan origination. Grayscale tiff files retain the all the striations, gaps, goop, and texture of the original ball point pen signatures and initials. This allows the signatures to be recreated later from these files.2. Sang also asserts that the ink in the signatures and initials is “paste like”. In so doing, Sang ignores the ink wicking into the fibers surrounding the initials and signatures. Wicking is evident in most of the microscope photos and implies that the ink is fluid enough to migrate along the fibers. What Sang concludes is a paste like ink it is more likely the result of the coalescence of ink droplets.3. Sang seems to be asserting that inkjet printers cannot use viscous ink. The Ricoh Geljet printer is an example of an inkjet printer that uses viscous ink. See http://www.ricoh.com/geljet/ In fact, Inkjet printers are being used to print counterfeit money and printed circuit board interconnects:http://gizmodo.com/its-surprisingly-easy-to-print-fake-money-on-an-inkjet-1573134734http://www.instructables.com/id/Print-Conductive-Circuits-With-An-Inkjet-Printer/ 6 194

Mr. Sang seems completely unaware of the versatility of inkjet Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures printers. Photos Signatures 4. Sang assumes that C, M, Y, K dots will always be visible in an inkjet printed signature without discussion or research citation. Fraud The dot assumption is common fallacy used by old school forensic document examiners. The fallacy can be understood to be false by examining a line produced by an inkjet from the black ink (“K”) print head nozzles. The line is solid and without dots because the nozzles are very close together and the ink droplets spread to form a sheet on the paper under the force of meniscus and coalescence. It logically follows that if the black ink cartridge is refilled with blue ink then a signature stroke can be produced without dots.1 5. In Figure 2a of his report, Sang focuses again on the opaque black toner particles that were created by a laser printer. Significantly, he is blind to the multicolored background of the photo. The background of the photo shows magenta, cyan, and yellow discoloration typical of a C, M, Y, K printer. 6. Figure 12g also shows the separation of Cyan, Magenta and yellow in the background. 7. In Figures 3 through 7 Sang launches into a ball point pen description citing Hilton whose research was done long before the day of the inkjet printer. Sang also references the largely obsolete “Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents” that is1 This is not the only way to recreate a facsimile of a ball point pen signature with Photoshop and aninkjet printer. 7 195

now 10+ years out of date. If Hilton were alive today, he would Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures probably be shocked by the naivete of the old school forensic document examiners. He would embrace the new technology. Photos Signatures8. Exhibit 3. 1 is a copy of the Sang Figures 8a-d. This purports to be a collection of microscope photos made of the initial on page 1 on the Side Road Adjustable Rate Note.2 Figure 8a shows bluish background discoloration which Sang ignores without explanation. Mr. Sang offers no explanation for the faint blue ink in the background of Figure Q1a page 1 initial. This cannot have been produced by black ink or the form which was printed on a laser printer in toner. Mr. Sang magnifies two parts of the initial on page 1 of the Side Road Note as shown in Figures 8b1 and 8b2. He offers no explanation as to why the background color of 8b1 and 8b2 do not match or why the ink color is blue when he said it was black. Figures 8b1 and 8c show the tiny blue ink satellites around the initial even though Sang has turned down the light making them harder to see. In Figure 8b2, Mr. Sang claims that the magnification is 140X. In Figure 8c, Mr. Sang claims that the magnification is also 140X. These two statements cannot both be true because the stroke width in Figure 8c is approximately twice that of 8b2. This is a plain error.2 The brightness has been increased because Sang's photos are very dark. The Frauddarkness hides evidence of ink jet satellite droplets and background inkdiscoloration typical of an inkjet printer. 8 196

Both Figure 8b2 and 8c show blue ink against a pinkish colored Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionbackground. This contradicts Mr. Sang conclusion that the ink isblack. Sang offers no explanation for this contradiction.9. Sang purports to show pen track depth in Figure 8b2. The photo by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures is even darker and no pen tracks are visible.3 Sang purports to show pen track depth in Figure 8c which is somewhat lighter than Fig. 8b2, but the alleged pen tracks are not visible in either 8b1, 8b2 or 8c.In each figure, 8b1, 8b2, and 8c there is evidence of satellite inkdroplets and tails in Sang's microscope photos. This is asignificant fact that is probative confirming that the initial onpage 1 of the questioned Note was not made with a ballpoint pen.10. Sang in figure 8d shows a microscope photo with a lot of droplets and toner particles. Sang ignores the ink droplets. Sang ignores the complete lack of pen tracks. Sang ignores the lack of striations, goop, gap, skips and the other artifacts that he attributes to ball point pens. No infrared photos of 8d. Infrared photos the could have shown which artifacts are ink satellites that disappear under infrared light and which are toner particles that do not disappear.11.Sang's microscope exhibits were made abnormally dark to Photos Signatures obscure the satellite ink droplets in the microscope and scanner photos while accentuating the black toner particles which are entirely opaque.12. Exhibit 3.2 shows Sang's Figure 8e for the initial on page 1 of the Side Road Prepayment Fee Addendum. Again, we have the3 Sang without critical discussion or research citations seems to be asserting that Fraudindentations (pen tracks) are probative of the authenticity of a document. 9 197

contradiction apparent that the Microscope photo shows that Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures the ink is blue not black as Sang has claimed. The artifacts that Sang relies on to support his contention that Photos Signatures the initial was made with a ball point pen are not present. There are no skips, no gaps, no striations, no pen tracks, and no goop. However, there is a “mountain of ink”. The peak of the mountain occurs in the center of the stroke. The topology of the mountain of ink is atypical of a ballpoint pen. With so much ink flow one would expect to see pen tracks indicative of the pressure on the ball that would allow that much ink to flow on to the paper. The mountain of ink can be made using an inkjet printer. Thus, this figure is actually evidence that the initial was not made with a ball point pen. Tiny ink droplets (circles) of various sizes can be seen scattered in the background. Also in the background are toner particles (rectangles) which are all approximately the same size because they are polymer solids made in one size only. This is further proof that the initial on Prepayment Fee Addendum was made with an inkjet.413. Exhibit 3.3 shows figure 11d-g are the Sang infrared microscope photos of part of the Freeman signature. This corresponds with a part of Kelley’s Exhibit 2. Sang uses two infrared microscopes to show how the ink becomes transparent while toner particles do not.4 A dirt or dust particle would also be opaque under infrared light. Fraud 10 198

The toner particles are marked with a rectangle. The satellites Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introductionby 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures disappear moving from figures 9b to 9d. The toner particles do not. Photos Signatures The ink satellites are circled. At 760 nm, there are 3 ink satellites Fraud still visible. At 850 nm, all circled ink satellites have disappeared. The toner particles are marked with a rectangle. The satellites disappear moving from figures 9b to 9d. The toner particles do not disappear. Thus, Sang choses to ignore a plurality of satellite ink droplets scattered about his microscope photo. Proof of ink satellites is probative evidence that the Side Road Note is not the original but just an inkjet copy.14. Exhibit 3.3 shows figure 11d-g are the Sang infrared microscope photos of part of the Freeman signature. This corresponds with part of Kelley’s Exhibit 2. Sang uses two infrared microscopes to show how the ink becomes transparent while toner particles do not. The toner particles are marked with a rectangle. The satellites disappear moving from figures 9b to 9d. The toner particles do not. The ink satellites are circled. At 760 nm, there are 3 ink satellites still visible. At 850 nm, all circled ink satellites have disappeared. The toner particles are marked with a rectangle. The satellites disappear moving from figures 9b to 9d. The toner particles do not disappear. 11 199

200Accounting Microscopic False Notary Photoshopping Examinations Manipulated Duplicates of the Duplicated History Introduction Fraud Photos Signatures by 4 Experts Signatures, Stamps Same Documents Signatures