[blindLaw] ascertaining fraudulent documents

[Gerard Sadlier]

I'm sure this will be obvious to colleagues but another thing I have
always found helpful in a case is a really good detailed chronology.
That isn't just for cases where there is an allegation of fraud but it
will let you see clearly if something looks strange or as though it
requires further enquiry.

On 1/21/24, Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nikki
>
> That's a good and thoughtful answer. To add to it - think about where
> these documents would have been filed if genuine. Think what may be on
> relevant registers relating to the documents. You'd be surprised how
> often you will find relevant documents or information in documents in
> what we call the Companies Registration Office (it will have other
> names in different jurisdictions) in the Registry of deeds, in the
> Land Registry, or in accounts.
>
> While I completely agree with all Nikki has said, signatures and maps
> (if relevant) do need to be checked and you need to see them to check.
> Things like what colour ink the signature was made in can be relevant.
> (That will be rare but the one time it matters, it can be a slam
> dunk.)
>
> See if there has been previous litigation regarding the matter at
> issue. For example we recently had a case about a piece of property.
> There had been previous litigation in another Court, in which the
> other party had made claims which directly contradicted their case in
> our proceedings. We got the files relating to that litigation (unknown
> to the opposition) as we were perfectly entitled to do and were ready
> to cross-examine on that basis, though the case settled.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Ger
>
> On 1/21/24, Nikki Singh via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> Hi Rahul,
>>
>> I am not an IP trial attorney, but at some point, I will be dealing
>> with fraudulent documents in discovery. One important thing to keepin
>> mind is that the documents are rarely going to plainly show that they
>> are fraudulent on their face. Sure, you will focus on dates and
>> signatures. However, you need to learn the story about the documents:
>> who reviewed them? When? For what purpose? What did the reviewer or
>> signer know about the documents? How did they get to his or her desk?
>> Why? Who else saw them? What was going on in the professional or
>> business context at the company where the review or signer was
>> employed?
>>
>> You learn that story through a variety of discovery devices. In
>> America (whose discovery process I know best), you will have other
>> documents that you can compare to the ones you believe are forged. You
>> may need a human reader to assist with this specific portion. You can
>> depose a witness, the person who signed the documents in this case,
>> and ask questions. You can clarify what you heard in the deposition
>> with interrogatories, questions posed in written form. You can build a
>> chronology of the key events and evaluate based on the evidence you
>> gathered what fact is more likely than not. Discovery is a long and
>> often indirect process. Things become clearer near the end once you
>> have the universe of facts pinned down. The essential goal of learning
>> the story--discovering what happened--is not dramatically impeded by
>> blindness, though you may have to work around certain issues. Parties
>> are not going to have accessible documents because they cannot know
>> that they will be involved in a law suit in the future where one of
>> the attorneys is blind.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Nikki
>>
>> On 1/15/24, Rahul Bajaj via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I am currently attending an appeal in the Delhi High Court that my firm
>>> is
>>> involved in. While I am not staffed in this matter, while listening to
>>> the
>>> appeal, my mind has travelled in the following direction. How can a
>>> blind
>>> lawyer ascertain if some documents that the other side is relying on are
>>> fraudulent. This is a trademark infringement and passing off case. Our
>>> argument is that the documents that the other side has cited to state
>>> that
>>> they are prior user of the mark. We argue that those documents are
>>> forged
>>> and that the court below erred in relying on them. How would a blind
>>> lawyer
>>> be able to conduct such a fact-finding exercise, as part of the
>>> discovery
>>> process?
>>>
>>> Look forward to your inputs.
>>>
>>> Warmly,
>>>
>>> Rahul
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Rahul Bajaj
>>> Rhodes Scholar (India and Linacre 2018), University of Oxford
>>> Co-Founder, Mission Accessibility
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BlindLaw mailing list
>>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> BlindLaw:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/nikki.singh%40aya.yale.edu
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BlindLaw mailing list
>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> BlindLaw:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/gerard.sadlier%40gmail.com
>>
>