In a message dated 7/4/2005 5:13:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Pallorium
Don't know what you mean by "interested". We have been working this sort of
case since they first appeared - everything including PBN, PBG, bank doc,
foreign / bogus bond, roll program, trading program, blocked funds scams, etc
etc - and we've put more than a few people in jail. If you have a way to make
the processing of these cases easier, we'd be very interested -- but I don't
see any way to avoid doing the interviews and looking through all of the
paperwork. The key moment in each case is when you conclusively confirm that the
documents / entities are bogus, and software can't handle that. The paperwork
is the prosecutors' / attorneys' problem, anyway. <G>.
Hi Steve Rambam,
If you have worked complex fraud cases since they first appeared, you must
be very old indeed. I am always interested in a few good pointers - where
would I need to go to see some of your case work on the net?
I do not suggest that there is any substitute for interviews or reading
through all the paperwork, but I am simply not smart enough to read thru a phone
toll records and tell you who called whom, when, how many times and which
pages of the documents entered into evidence provide the proof. While I am sure
there may be idiot savant investigators out there somewhere, as a mere mortal
fed, I relied upon "Telan" assistance to process that aspect of a case.
Of course, I no longer have the luxury of sending phone toll records to the
support staff that handled that - but that's okay because there is a better
way since mastery of the Telan documents does not make the case. It isn't
I need to track the financial records too. Unlike the idiot savant, I
simply cannot read so much as one bank statement for a single account for a single
month and remember who paid what to whom and when. As a mere mortal fed, I
needed a forensic accounting of my documents - which I could do myself. As
was the case with Telan, forensic accounting doesn't make the case either. It
isn't usually enough.
I was pretty good at collecting statements and remembering what most people
said - assuming I knew what would be relevant when they said it - and being a
lot younger I could occasionally recall significant portions of witness
statements and recite them verbatim when I later determined what the relevant
I can do better now.
If you died Steven, I could take your most complicated case, delivered in a
hundred bankers boxes, read every document and every note, review every
statement and every deposition, categorize each separate factoid derived
therefrom, miss virtually nothing, and tell your attorney everything there ever was to
know about your case making it possible for him to have complete control
over all the evidence, all the facts, and any inconsistent statements - whether
they were the consequence of fabrication or mistake.
For example, if the investigator for the opposition asserted that he had
interviewed Joe Blow on the afternoon of February 12, 2004, neither of us would
know offhand that he was either lying or mistaken, but within seconds I could
consult my chronology and tell you that I have seventeen factoids recorded
for that date, and two pertain to Joe Blow. Given ten more seconds, I could
review those factoids, and put my hands on the bank statement showing that
someone used Joe Blow's bank card to withdraw $400 from his account via an ATM
in Los Angeles at 9:42AM local time and the cell phone record showing that
someone used Joe Blow's cell phone to call his mother while roaming in LA later
Feds working organized crime cases take things real seriously, or they don't
continue that sort of work.
The world is plumb full of wannabes, but folks like you and me who actually
work these cases can separate sheep from goats by referring people to real
pleadings in real cases in real courts that they can review themselves - such as
the one appended hereto. The clowns and actors cite "confidentiality
issues," but the rest of us know that real work yields real public filings. If
the document is stripped by yahoo, here's the link
It was filed as an exhibit to the Motion for Summary Judgment dated June 20,
In looking at this document, note that it is a 66 Page Probable Cause
Declaration -- in other words, an INTRODUCTION to the case, NOT the final work
product, although I believe that many investigators would satisfy their clients
if they could produce this and stop here. You be the judge.
Currently, I am working up the Prosecution Summary as we speak and I thought
it might be of interest to some investigators who might not do these as well
as they would like to walk thru the process and see how it's done.
As you have posted to the lists, I want everyone to be assured that I am
willing to accept the representation that you are the expert, and I am more than
willing to shut up and learn something from those who have been doing this
longer and better than I.
Please feel free to publish some of your work that those who wish to learn
might make an informed decision where to go for that.
Otherwise, let's keep it off the lists.
Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
PO Box 10728
Naples, FL 34101
(239) 304-1640 Fax
Illegitimi non carborundum
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]