Affidavids documents
November 30th, 2002 Re: Case No.
AFFIDAVIT OF MARTIN MEREL
Martin Merel provides the following affidavit pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
1. I am the owner, partner & manager of several real estate properties in the Chicago metropolitan area.
2. I have been procuring natural gas for the properties for the past 13 years from Yehuda Draiman through Multiut Corporation in Skokie, Illinois to save on natural gas costs.
3. During the month of May, 2001, it came to my attention that Multiut Corporation billed me in the past for the city of Chicago sales tax on natural gas totaling $18,836.65 plus interest totaling approximately $10,360.00, since the Chicago city tax was to have been put in an interest bearing escrow account, it was never paid and should be refunded. In addition it came to my attention that Multiut Corporation has billed me for natural gas that was never delivered to my account during the month of January 2001.
4. I reviewed my bills from Multiut Corporation and various other documents relating to the terms of my agreement with Multiut Corporation and have found the following:
a. Multiut had me execute an addendum to my agreement which extended the term of
my agreement by three years and promised me an additional 10% in savings rebates, which was never credited or refunded. (See attached exhibit).
b. Upon reviewing my bills for past years I noticed that Multiut Corporation has been over-billing me, charging me improper cost per therm, improper credit for city use tax, wrong tariffs, wrong credits and charges, not providing administrative charges credits during months that only storage was shipped and billed for, improper adjustments, not providing me proper credit for storage charges, billing me for gas that was not delivered to my account, not being reimbursed for storage not used and retained by Multiut Corporation.
c. Multiut Corporation charged me an insurance fee totaling $11,440.00 on my gas purchases for the properties in Chicago, between 1991-1994 without my explicit knowledge and/or authorization, these charges plus interest of approximately $6,292.00 should be refunded.
During the summer of 2001, I sent various letters and had various communications both oral and written with Nachshon Draiman, President of Multiut Corp. and Rita Grunfeld, assistant. The responses were not satisfactory to me. Nachshon Draiman has tried to blame Yehuda Draiman for my predicament (I have complete trust in Yehuda Draiman). (See attached exhibits).
Under penalties of as provided by law, pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
X_________________________
Martin Merel
End
December 24th, 2003 Re: jd Case No.
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK W. TAMKIN
Frederick W. Tamkin provides the following affidavit pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
1. I was the Director of Operations at Multiut Corporation, which is located at 7514 Skokie Blvd., Skokie, IL. 60077, during the years 1994 thru June 2000.
2. During the month of February 1997 I was instructed by Isaac M. Shkop, the Chief Executive Officer of Multiut Corporation to provide Yehuda Draiman with authorization to purchase Natural gas futures from NGC/Dynegy (Mark S. Ludwig & Rikki Stanley Lolles) for his own and personal financial benefit. I was instructed by Isaac M. Shkop and had Yehuda Draiman execute the following statement, each time an order was placed with NGC. I provided Yehuda and Mr. Shkop an accounting each time a purchase was confirmed on behalf of Yehuda (I, Yehuda J. Draiman, accept full financial responsibility for the future contracts listed above. I understand that they are being ordered under “Multiut Corp.” to meet NGC’s requirements, but I confirm that they have been ordered for my personal account).
3. Yehuda Purchased Natural gas futures contracts for his own financial benefit from February 1997 thru July of 1997. From March 1997 thru September 1997 Multiut Corporation purchased Yehuda’s Futures contracts and took actual deliveries of the natural gas for those contracts, Multiut Corporation Owed Yehuda Draiman $139,605.00. An additional $851,285.00 is due Yehuda Draiman from the sale of the Natural gas Futures contracts by NGC on September 28th 1997, this makes it a total of $990,890.00 that is due Yehuda Draiman plus interest. To the best of my knowledge When I retired and left Multiut Corporation in May of 2000, Yehuda had not yet received his profit from the Natural gas futures contract totaling $990,890.00 plus interest. (See attachment of accounting of Yehuda’s profits from the natural gas futures contracts prepared by me Fred Tamkin)
Under penalties of as provided by law, pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
X______________________
Frederick W. Tamkin
Date:___12/24/2003__________________
End
Nachshon Draiman - Multiut FORGED AGREEMENT – Forensic DNA of ink.
· Expert witness directory
Speckin Forensic Laboratories -- Forensic investigations, including crime scene reconstruction
· DIRECTORY OF EXPERT SERVICES
Speckin Forensic Laboratories. 4121 Okemos Road, Suite 27. Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 349-3528
Forensic results of a forged agreement presented by Multiut and Nachshon Draiman. The tests prove that Nachshon Draiman lied on the stand stating he prepared, modified and signed the document in February 1991 – when the ink was manufactured in 1993. Nachshon Draiman modified the document to suit his need
· Nachshon Draiman - Multiut FORGED AGREEMENT – Forensic DNA of ink.
• Expert witness directory
Speckin Forensic Laboratories -- Forensic investigations, including crime scene reconstruction
• DIRECTORY OF EXPERT SERVICES
Speckin Forensic Laboratories. 4121 Okemos Road, Suite 27. Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 349-3528
Forensic results of a forged agreement presented by Multiut and Nachshon Draiman. The tests prove that Nachshon Draiman lied – perjured himself on the stand stating he prepared, modified and signed the document in February 1991 – when the ink was manufactured in 1993. Nachshon Draiman modified the document to suit his needs.
Mr. Brian W. Ellis, Attorney at Law Altheimer and Gray 10 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606
Dear Mr. Ellis:
I received three original exhibits in a sealed envelope that was .hand delivered by Dr. Aginsky of Riley, Welch, and Associates. They were exhibits 10A. 10B. and 38.
The examination task is to determine if the entries were written on or about their purported dates.
RESULTS:
An ESDA (Forensic Examination Services - ESDA Electrostatic Detection Apparatus. A sensitive technique to identify indented and electrostatic writing impressions on documents) examination was conducted on several of the pages from the three submitted exhibits. This test is designed to detect impressed writing in paper from entries that were written while on top of the examined page. The pages that were processed on the ESDA are from Exhibit 10A, Pages 1, 2, and 4; Exhibit 10B, Pages 1 and 2; Exhibit 38: Pages 1 and 4. Exhibit 38, Pages 1 and 4; Exhibit 10A, Page 4; and Exhibit 10B Page 1 contain no decipherable impressions. Exhibit 1 OB, Page 2 contains the impressions from the handwritten text of Page 1 of the same agreement. Exhibit 10A, Page 1 contains several impressions. As best as I can make out the impressions from the ESDA films, the first impression reads "Yehuda. sign and return this to me" and a signature __. A date of "2/4/89" is impressed. Two overlapping signatures of Miriam Draiman are present. Another impressed note reads "I need ————————", two names are also impressed the first appears to be Sidney Levine; the second appears to be Yehuda Draiman. Exhibit 10A, Page 2 contains the same impressions as in Page 1 of the same agreement as well as the handwritten text from that page.
SPKN00009
Mr. Brian Ellis May 2. 2002 Page 2
A chemical comparison test of the inks was conducted to determine which inks were written with the same formulation and which were different. There were two separate groups of inks found that were tested.
Ink A Ink B
Exhibit 10B, Page 1. "Addendum..." Exhibit 10A. Page 4, signature for "Multiut"
Exhibit 10B. Page 1, "Feb" Exhibit 10A, Page 4. "Agreed To::i portion
Exhibit 10B. Page L "Salesman/Manager11 Exhibit 10A. Page 4. "Salesman/Manager"
Exhibit 10A. Page 4. "Feb. 13:'
Exhibit 10A, Page 1. "13"
A chemical date tag test was conducted on two entries. This test is designed to determine what year an ink was first produced. One of the major North American manufacturers of ink put four chemical date tags in ink and by the combination of the four tags present in the ink, will show the year that that batch of ink was manufactured. The first entry is from the top of Exhibit 10B "Addendum to I.M.A. Agreement of Feb. 13. 1991" and the second entry is on Page 4 of Exhibit 10A, the three lines of handwritten text after the "Agreed To:" portion. Based on the results of the date tag. it is my opinion the ink used to write the top of Exhibit 10B ''Addendum to I.M.A. Agreement of Feb. 13, 1991" was not made until 1993.
A relative ink age determination test was conducted on the same two entries. The first entry is from the top of Exhibit 10B "Addendum to I.M.A. Agreement of Feb. 13. 1991" and the second entry is on Page 4 of Exhibit 10A, the three lines of handwritten text after the "Agreed To::? portion. This test is designed to determine whether the ink is still in the drying process or not. Since most inks take approximately three to three and one-half years to dry., the determination of whether an ink is still drying will disclose whether the ink is less than three and one-half years old. Although a few inks do take longer than three and one-half years to dry, NO ink has ever been seen to take eleven years to dry. -In this case it was found that the above-noted questioned portions of the pages that were tested were still in the drying process. It is my opinion, the two above listed entries were not written on or near their purported date of Feb. 13, 1991. Furthermore, the tested portion was, to a reasonable degree of forensic certainty, written in or after 1999.
The same relative ink age tests that were used to analyze the ink on Exhibits 10A and 10B were used to analyze the ink in the signature on Exhibit 38. No indications were found that the ink was written in the last three years or was in the drying process. This is unlike the reported results for Exhibits 10A and 10B.
Mr. Brain Ellis May 2, 2002 Page 3
After the ESDA testing and sampling was completed, the original documents were sealed in an envelope and signed off by both Dr. Aginsky and myself. Dr. Aginsky retained custody of the documents within the envelope.
Erich J. Speckin
Forensic Chemist
EJS
SPKN000010
End
Speckin Forensic Laboratories is an International forensic firm specializing in consulting with plaintiff and defense lawyers involving issues concerning: Forgery, Sequencing of Entries, Alterations, Additions, Rewritings, Ink Dating and Paper, Typewriting, Facsimiles, Photocopies, Fingerprints, Narcotic and Street Drug Analysis, Analytical and Forensic Chemistry, DNA, Firearms and Toolmark Examination, Shoe and Tire Prints, Handwriting, Crime Scene Reconstruction Criminal Forensic Matters and Computer Forensics.
The Cases
Speckin Forensic Laboratories has been involved in cases all around the world, from North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Asia, Japan, Hong Kong and all 50 of the U.S. states. Our examiners have presented testimony in over 30 states in the United States, as well as, Israel, Mexico, Japan and Canada in Federal Court, Circuit Court, District Court, employment arbitration's, depositions, Municipal Court, Federal Grand Juries, Detroit Recorder's Court, and Union arbitration's on over 1000 occasions.
The Staff
We employ three document examiners, one fingerprint examiner, a forensic ink dating chemist, a DNA consultant, a trace evidence and impression evidence examiner, two computer forensic examiners as well as two secretaries. Our examiners are specialists not only in the area of signatures and handwriting problems, but also in alterations, additions, and the rewritings of medical and business records. We occupy 6,000 square feet of professional office space where our state-of-the-art instruments are located.
Contact Us
If you are a lawyer and need consulting in the area of forensics, Contact Us for a quote.
Speckin Forensic Laboratories
2105 University Park Drive, Suite A, Okemos, MI 48864
Phone: 517-349-3528 or 888-999-1009
FAQ's
Can an examination be conducted of a signature or handwriting from only a photocopy?
Yes, but if it is possible to obtain the original it allows a more thorough examination of the document and the circumstances of its production. The possibility of a tracing of a machine copy transfer forgery cannot be ruled out.
Is it possible to date pencil or typewritten documents?
Yes, in some cases.
Is it possible to determine when a questioned document was produced?
Yes, through several different methods that can be conducted in our laboratory.
Some Methods Dating for Handwritten documents
1) Dating of the ink
2) Dating of the paper
3) Impressions found and sequencing of writing with impressions
Some Methods for Dating Photocopied documents
1) By comparing the unique photocopy damage pattern that changes over time, to a series of documents of unquestioned date from the same office.
2) Comparison of the toner used as in the same manner above, noting the time frames that toners matching the questioned document were used.
Some Methods for Dating Computer Generated documents
1) Examination of the computer and hard drives that created the document.
2) Toner analysis as described above for copiers.
3) Damage patterns that may exist from the printer, commonly seen in inkjet printers.
4) The type of paper used and any associated watermarks.
What is necessary to make a signature examination?
The original questioned document or the best generation copy available; also undisputed known signatures of the alleged signatory as contemporaneous with the date on the questioned document as possible.
Can a signature examination be conducted from only a microfilm or facsimile copy?
Yes, again the original is best if available.
What are good sources for known signatures?
-> Affidavits
-> Bank signature cards
-> Bills of sale
-> Checks, including endorsements
-> Employment applications
-> Leases, real property
-> Passports
-> Registered mail return receipts
-> Tax estimates and returns
-> Drivers licenses and applications
In many states we can obtain the last several drivers license applications as known signatures for use in comparison to a questioned document. This is especially useful when the other party is not available or refuses to produce known signatures.
Can an examination be conducted to restore a document that has been damaged or faded?
Yes, we can restore information on documents which have been damaged by fire, water, heat or sunlight.
Is it possible to detect the removal of a warning label from a product?
Yes, it is also sometimes possible to determine if an attempt has been made to conceal its removal.
A lot of people have handled the document, can I still get fingerprints from it?
Yes, paper is a very good source for fingerprints. Fingerprints will stay on paper for several years and the presence of contaminating prints does not preclude an identification.
My document is a number of years old. Can I still get fingerprints?
Yes, fingerprints will stay on paper for several years.
Can documents or files deleted or hidden on a computer be recovered?
Yes, through specialized techniques allows us to search disks and recover files.
What if someone attempts to artificially make a document look older?
The most common means to attempt to artificially age a document are typically through exposure to sunlight (ultraviolet) and heat. These attempts can routinely be detected through a visual, UV, infrared, and microscopic examinations.
What if the medical records are computerized or scanned into a computer with no originals?
1) The date the file was created can be determined. 2) Most systems also have a built-in audit trail that can be examined to determine if any changes or substitutions have been made. 3) There is no violation of other patient’s confidentiality of information on the system with this type of analysis.
END
|