Walker Todd

[Demosthenes]

Eddie Kahn's criminal trial started on 4/28, and co-defendant Danny True is trying to get Walker Todd introduced as a witness.

Pop some corn, and enjoy the recent flurry of filings.

The gov's motion to exclude Walker:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/kahn2_256.pdf

Walker Todd's testimony in the recent Wahler case involving BOEs:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/kahn2_256_3.pdf

Danny True's motion opposing the above:

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/kahn2_284.pdf

[Demosthenes]

You know the infamous "Walker Todd Affidavit" that wingnuts like Heidi love to cite so much?

Turns out it was doctored...

Counsel forwarded the Government’s Motion to Dr. Todd, who took great offense to the assertions contained therein. Dr. Todd took it upon himself to contact Mr. McLellan to express his displeasure. Among other things, Dr. Todd took particular exception to the Government’s reliance on an affidavit found on a website purporting to be authored by Dr. Todd. In fact, the affidavit had been altered by unknown third parties and distributed online. This affidavit as it appears online had never been entered into the record of any court, until the Government made it part of the public record of this proceeding.

[fortinbras]

Please what is the source of the quotation about Todd taking "great offense" at the fake affidavit??

On the internet, the fake affidavit appears as a submission in the case of
Bank One N.A. v. Harshavardhan DAVE & Pratima DAVE,
supposedly signed on Dec. 5, 2003 (but the pdfs that I have found are not actually signed)
pending in the Oakland County (Mich.) Circuit Court, docket nr. 03-047448-CZ.

I cannot find anything about this (Dave) case; not its outcome, not whether this affidavit was actually filed and whether Todd showed up to testify, etc. etc. Maybe someone with Lexis, WL or Pacer can tell me?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Todd's 'testimony' litters the 'net, including the Dorean Group case.

[Demosthenes]

Please what is the source of the quotation about Todd taking "great offense" at the fake affidavit??

Third link, page 2.

[fortinbras]

Apart from the Buhtz case, has the "Walker Todd affidavit" actually been submitted in any court case? With what result?

[Demosthenes]

Apart from the Buhtz case, has the "Walker Todd affidavit" actually been submitted in any court case? With what result?

As far as I know, the affidavit has only been used as a marketing tool by people other than Walker Todd. Todd has been getting a few recent expert witness cases, though, including the Wahlers, who were recently acquitted.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5107

[notorial dissent]

There have been several instances where the attempt to introduce it was made, but as far as i have been able to determine that was all the further it ever went. In the Dorean case it didn't pass the sniff test with the judge and while it was mentioned, it never was introduced, in my opinion because there was no substantiation for it, since it is basically a work of fiction from start to finish.

The Dorean boys tried to get him involved in their criminal case and he suddenly had nothing to say on the subject, and I seem to recall that they tried to introduce the affidavit at that time and got shut down before they got any further.

If as Todd claims, the affidavit in general circulation is not his, then what actually did he put forth?

[ASITStands]

Apart from the Buhtz case, has the "Walker Todd affidavit" actually been submitted in any court case? With what result?

As far as I know, the affidavit has only been used as a marketing tool by people other than Walker Todd. Todd has been getting a few recent expert witness cases, though, including the Wahlers, who were recently acquitted.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5107

Haven't studied the testimony yet but were the Wahlers were acquitted because of it?

Did Walker Todd's testimony 'play' in front of the jury, such that they found not guilty?

EDIT: It would be nice to have an explanation and answer for the Wahler case.

Remember the sealed jury notes and Winterrowd's disbelief.

[fortinbras]

If as Todd claims, the affidavit in general circulation is not his, then what actually did he put forth?[/b]

In an actual court case, it would be a very unlikely circumstance for an expert to submit an affidavit (or other document) and yet not show up to be cross-examined on it. What I suspect is that the Daves (or someone earlier), who was ethically challenged, attempted to write up an affidavit which they wished Todd would have signed, and Todd of course would have nothing to do with it, leaving them with an unsigned affidavit that was actually their own writing and not Todd's.

[wserra]

Haven't studied the testimony yet but were the Wahlers were acquitted because of it?

Who knows?

We had a poster "Anon" who claimed (credibly, IMHO) to have been a juror. Anon's take was just that the govt tried a poor case. I can believe that considerably more readily than that Todd's testimony about the nature of money (if indeed that's what it was) caused an acquittal.

Still, it can be quite frustrating to speak with jurors after a verdict. I have had jurors justify verdicts (including a couple in my client's favor) by notions that are only adequately described as "nuts". I have spoken to other jurors whose perception and memory were astounding.

Did Walker Todd's testimony 'play' in front of the jury, such that they found not guilty?

No way of knowing.

Remember the sealed jury notes and Winterrowd's disbelief.

In my experience, that is unusual. Notes are usually unsealed after the verdict. Maybe just no one thought of it here. But "Winterrowd's disbelief" and $5 will get you a Starbuck's coffee.

[LPC]

I cannot find anything about this (Dave) case; not its outcome, not whether this affidavit was actually filed and whether Todd showed up to testify, etc. etc. Maybe someone with Lexis, WL or Pacer can tell me?

It's a state court case, so it's not going to show up on PACER, but fortunately Oakland County has its dockets on-line (http://www.oakgov.com/clerkrod/courtexplorer/index.html) and I found the docket to the Dave case.

However, it's not clear when the affidavit was filed. It might be the affidavit that was filed on 1/7/2004, which would make sense chronologically. But there are two entries for "Affidavit Filed Walker Todd," one on 1/21/2005 and 9/13/2007, both filed *AFTER* the judgment was entered (1/29/2004) *and* after the judgment was satisfied (9/29/2004). (Yes, the Daves lost.)

Here's what is supposed to be a signed copy of the affidavit, and it's obviously doctored, if for no other reason than that there are two identical paragraphs 19: one on the page with the signature and one at the bottom of the page immediately preceding the signature. (The excessive underlining, bolding, italics, and change of fonts sizes also suggest the hand of a fanatic at work.)

I'd be curious to know what the original affidavit said, pre-"enhancement," but I'm not willing to spend a dollar a page to find out.

[Demosthenes]

but I'm not willing to spend a dollar a page to find out.

I am.

[Demosthenes]

Here's the signed 14-page Todd affidavit plus judgment that I've seen used by redemption idiots over the years:

http://www.fourwinds10.com/resources/up ... cision.pdf

The date stamp on the signature page is December 11, 2003 but there are no filings in the docket that match (or come close to) that date.

This is every affidavit ever filed in the Dave case:

05/30/2003 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED OF TODD ELLIS/SWANSON/CET PUBIC ACCNT
05/30/2003 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED SPRT OF MTN FOR SD
10/08/2003 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED PRATIMA DAVE
10/09/2003 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED PRATIMA DAVE
10/10/2003 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED PRATIMA DAVE
10/14/2003 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED PRATIMA DAVE
11/12/2003 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED PRATIMA DAVE
11/14/2003 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED PRATIMA DAVE
01/07/2004 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED (3 pages)
05/03/2004 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED OF PRATIMA DAVE
01/21/2005 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED WALKER TODD (1 page)
09/13/2007 AFF AFFIDAVIT FILED WALKER TODD (14 pages)

The only affidavit that could be the one adapted by scammers was the one filed in 2007, years after the case was closed. So I ordered a copy, along with the one pager dates 1/21/2005.

[LPC]

The only affidavit that could be the one adapted by scammers was the one filed in 2007, years after the case was closed.

It's possible that the one filed in 2007 is the one that was doctored, and that there is no undoctored affidavit on file. In other words, the affidavit was not copied from the court records and then altered, but first altered and then filed with the court.

Here is how (and why) it might have happened: You're Mr. Dave (or a friend/associate/whatever) and you have this affidavit that you never filed in the case you lost, and it doesn't really say what you'd like it to say. If you're angry and still delusional, you might fix it so it says what you'd like it to say, and then file it with the court so it's an "official" record, so that now you've got "proof" of why you *should* have won.

I suggest this scenario because it actually makes more sense to me than the idea of filing the original undoctored affidavit in 2007, three years after the case is closed.

[LPC]

Incidentally, the defendants keep referring to him as "Dr. Todd." Yes, he has a Ph.D. It's in French.

His other academic degree is a J.D. from Boston University. He was admitted to the NY bar in 1975, and to the Ohio bar in 1995.

[LPC]

Incidentally, the defendants keep referring to him as "Dr. Todd." Yes, he has a Ph.D. It's in French.

The more I think about this, the more I think that the defense lawyers have come close to an ethical violation here.

The documents filed by True's lawyers refer to "Walker Fowler Todd, Ph.D.," as their expert witness with "an impressive background in law and economics that includes twenty years with two Federal Reserve Banks and sixteen years of experience in academic environments." Failing to mention that his Ph.D. is in French seems to me to be misleading.

If I were the judge, I would be annoyed to learn of that omission. It will be interesting to see if the government points it out to him, and whether it makes a difference worth mentioning.

[notorial dissent]

The only affidavit that could be the one adapted by scammers was the one filed in 2007, years after the case was closed.

Which is exactly right. The Patimas lost big time in the state court, and I have seen various versions of it, but the straight record was that they were committing fraud, tried to use the Todd nonsense to justify it, and the court didn't buy it and it was never actually allowed to be entered at trial, the "affidavit" was filed long after they lost, but that seems to be the one, or at least a version, of the one all the gurus cling to.

And, as I've said, I have yet to find even one instance of it ever getting past the sniff test from the bench. The Dorean boys tried it and Judge Alsop wasn't having any. The closest they got were a few questions they were allowed to ask that were what I would call evasive at best, and generally useless in total.

The affidavit, whichever version, would never survive upon challenge, since it is nonsense from beginning to end, and Todd isn't going to get up in court and further perjure himself, since perjury in open court would be a real career ender.

I find the bit about his degree interesting, I'd never been able to find out what it was from, and they let people assume it is in economics or something similar, since he is promoted as an "expert" in these matters, yet nothing in his so called CV indicates this. He may be a licensed attorney, but so are several hundred other snipe hunters, including one who is on his way to complete disbarment and jail as we speak, and despite his claims of working for the FED, they insist they never heard of him. Even if he was working there as a temp or contract employee, it appears that the department he worked in dealt not at all with what he claims expertise in. As far as I can determine, he has no background in economics or banking, other than possibly having worked for the FED and possibly owning a bank account. Just because I worked for a law firm once upon a time doesn't mean I am a lawyer or a legal expert, anymore than he can claim being a banking expert, as his material plainly proves he is not.

[Demosthenes]

despite his claims of working for the FED, they insist they never heard of him. Even if he was working there as a temp or contract employee, it appears that the department he worked in dealt not at all with what he claims expertise in.

???

It appears he published many papers while working for the Federal Reserve in Cleveland.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedcwp/8805.html

His bio from 1988:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Wo ... wp8805.pdf

Walker F. Todd is an Assistant General Counsel and Research Officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Helpful comments on earlier drafts were provided by Anna J. Schwartz, George G. KauEman, Mark Sniderman, and Charles P. Kindleberger, who do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in this paper.

Working Papers of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland are preliminary materials circulated
to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The views stated herein are those of the
author and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland or of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

[LPC]

The affidavit, whichever version, would never survive upon challenge, since it is nonsense from beginning to end, and Todd isn't going to get up in court and further perjure himself, since perjury in open court would be a real career ender.

From an evidentiary point of view, the real problem with the Todd affidavit is that it's all hearsay, because it's an out-of-court statement being introduced for the truth of the matters asserted in the statement.

In the original case, the affidavit seemed to have been prepared in connection with a motion for summary judgment, and in that context the affidavit is perfectly proper because it states the testimony that Todd was prepared to give if called as a witness and helps to determine if there are issues of material fact.

In any other case (other than Dave), the affidavit is irrelevant. If Todd were serving as an expert witness in that other case and was prepared to testify in that case, then he would prepare a new affidavit for that case. If Todd were not serving as an expert witness, then the affidavit is hearsay (as well as irrelevant) and inadmissible.

The only way the affidavit could ever be relevant to another case would be in a "Cheek defense," in which a defendant claimed to have found, read, and relied upon the affidavit. But even in that case, the court would probably only allow the defendant to testify about the affidavit but would not allow the affidavit itself into evidence because it's hearsay.