Now I know what Mr. Hawkins will claim if he reads this–I am slandering him, but being a lawyer, he knows that truth is the absolute defense against slander and libel. If you search his name on the net, you will find that many suits he has filed have been dismissed, meaning they were without merit. I suspect, but can not prove as yet that the defendants in those suits may have suffered my fate. All I can speak to are the facts in MY case
I have been an expert for over 40 years. When my phone rings, I take that to mean that God is sending me that person to help and I am eager to do so. That being said, there are those who seek to take advantage of that. Working in fraud as I do and did, one learns the cues when you are dealing with people. In addition to being able to analyze signatures for forgery I can also determine deception, in accordance w/the principles in the book by Robert Saudek Also there is something in the voice I pick up that raises a red flag. Such was the case w/Hawkins and his jive and unprofessional talk, using such words as “flippy-floppy when he called that day. Also, it was an election petition case which ALWAYS raisesa red flag as the majority of the clients I have worked for in the past have proven to be dishonest. One attorney even said when he gave me the check: “This means we own you, right?” I handed the check back to him and showed him the door.
So againt my better judgement, I took the case and asked for a retainer of $2000, due to the fact that there were 144 signatures that needed to be analyzed. He countered by saying, how about if I pay you $1000 now and the other thousand when I get more signatures: Translation: If your initial signature is favorable I will pay you the other thousand. He was buying a favorable opinion in my opinion. I have seen this over and over in the past in my practice.
So I worked over the weekend on the case. As an expert, even without looking at known samples, if a group of signatures or entries were made at once sitting, this can be determined by measuring the speed of the signatures. See the case on my web site I did for Saul Krenzel Esquire and the Data Store in Federal Court in Philadelphia. I looked for evidence of this in Hawkins case but found none so Monday, I told him I needed the known samples from the Voter Registration files
They were never provided. Instead I got a law suit. Clever attorney that he is, he saw his chance to sue w/o a written agreement, but verbal agreements are binding, especially when they are recorded. I record ALL of my conversations.
The law suit was a pack of lies, even going so far as to suggest I was running a criminal under RICO. Of course, he provided no evidence of that because it was a flagrant LIE. However, he will soon have to produce that “evidence” to the Ethics Board. He even went so far as to repeat those assertions in court TWICE again providing no proof.
One of my reasons for writing this blog is to see if there are others who have been also victimized by Hawkins.
You can write to me at DocumentExaminers @comcast.net.
My next step is to give Hawkins a chance to produce his evidence that I am part of a criminal enterprise under RICO and if he does not, which he can’t because it is NOT true a formal complaint with be filed w/the Disciplinary Board and a suit filed.
When one looks at this in a more compassionate vain, after all, its hard to imagine the time and effort Mr. Hawkins went to to cheat an expert out of $1000.00 once he realized there was a legal loophole he could exploit. His file was pretty thick and he came down from Orange New Jersey in the middle of a Nor’easter. Its very sad when you think about it, yet when you “google” him you might understand why. There is seething anger that certainly has nothing to do with me. He is to be pittied for his behavior, but what I find more troublingis the ruling of the arbitor. Perhaps he was just saw this simply as a way to make a few bucks to pad his pension since he did such a poor job and did not realize the absurdity of being expected to review 144 signatures for $1000 or maybe he wasn’t upset that an attorney could make up such an absurd and outlandish claim that I was operating a criminal enterprise under RICO-a claim he repeated THREE TIME under oath.
What puzzles me is that the rather experienced arbitrator did not see this nor consider the principle of “faith and fair dealing” Surely I did SOME work. Hawkins sent me 144 signatures to review over the weekend.
I would be willing to testify in any case where Hawkins is involved for free to tell my story
ROBERT J. PHILLIPS