Visconi`s final letter to 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 1
RECE~VED
April 18, 2014
Cheryl Borkowski
Case Manager
United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
100 East Fifth Street, Room 540
Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse
Cincinnati, OHIO 45202-3988
APR 2 1 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNl Clerk
RE: Case No. 13-5827, Frank Visconi v. United States Government
Originating Case No.: 3:12-cv-01012
Dear Ms. Borkowski:
I am in receipt of your cover letter accompanying U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District
"ORDER" affirming/upholding the decision made by the U.S. District Court for Middle
Tennessee in my appeal reference the above noted case.
I do not know if a response from me is even acceptable however I am compelled to respond at
the very least to your office and express my dissatisfaction with the decision that has been made
after ALL the evidence that I provided to the appeals court throughout the entire (very lengthy)
period that my appeal has been pending.
Obviously, I have read through the "Order" handed down and I suppose I must accept it.
However, I am once again compelled to note that in the Court's decision and throughout the
entire "Order", once again it appears, as in the District Court's decision, that only, or at least for
the most part, evidence provided by the Assistant U.S. Attorney/Defense Attorney for the
Government was taken into consideration.
I am not a licensed attorney but I do have a Law Degree but am unable to take the bar
examination. Thus, in this matter I filed my case and appeal both as a Pro Se litigant. That
aside, I am at least somewhat familiar with and knowledgeable of the law. I can certainly tell
when the results are "one sided"· since this is not the first time this has occurred in my quest to
get the government/naval records to correct my definitely incorrect records and to rid mys"elf of
the defaming individuals who commit their heinous acts under the protection of the First
Amendment as they set out to ruin the lives of honorable veterans. The "one sidedness" has been
very obvious to me in all of the court decisions that I have had the displeasure of receiving over
the past five years (beginning in 2009). Furthermore, it has also become very obvious to me that
attempting to litigate one's own case is frowned upon by the courts (Pro Se). In fact, in my
Circuit Court lawsuit against Mr. Killeffer (a familiar name I am sure), the judge actually made a
biased and unethical comment while my wife and I stood directly next to him (both me and
Kille.ffer were Pro Se litigants in that matter). As the judge spoke with his clerk to set a trial
date, he said aloud, "Boy, two pro se litigants; I can't wait to hear this one". Then on the date I
appeared in court and carried boxes of documents and evidence into the court building, I ran into
the judge's secretary/clerk and I asked her if I could put my boxes inside the court room. She
1
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 2
asked me if I had a case before the court and I said yes and when she asked me my name and I
told her "Visconi", she giggled and made the statement: "Oh yes, we've been waiting all day for
this one."
I mention the above not to sway my appeal in any way but to let you know that the court
processes and decisions I have dealt with over the past five years have left me wondering what
ever happened to the system of justice in America. After 30 plus years of law enforcement and
studying the law for four years, I am truly dismayed at the lackadaisical attitude of officers of the
court and in that I include judges. Obviously) there is NO JUSTICE given the evidence I have
provided to the BCNR and to both the District and Appellate court. It has become very apparent
to me over the years that it is very rare, if ever, that an Appellate Court overturns a lower court's
decision no matter what the evidence. That is very dismaying to me and I am sure to all of the
innocent litigants that have gone through this same experience.
I mention evidence specifically because in my review of the Court's Order, I find the text
particularly on pages 5, 6, and 7 of the Court's decision to be offensive and actually countereffective in a supposed unbiased decision by a Court. Thus, I refer to the following:
a. Page 5, middle paragraph reference to the letter from Major General William Kenneflick
Jones: I ask WHY is a letter from a Major General to inform me of my receipt of the
Purple Heart NOT RELEVANT. If there is no further "medical" information to support
it, that is not the fault of this appellant. As I have said all along, it has become obvious to
me after obtaining a copy of my Service Record Book (SRB) which includes medical
records that the Naval Records Department personnel FAILED to maintain proper
records. Please recall that I also mentioned my visit to the Aid Station where I received a
Tetanus shot for a rusty nail puncture in my right instep which was NOT RECORDED. I
fail to see, even if not recorded in my medical records, how a legitimate letter from a
Commanding General acknowledging my receipt of the Purple Heart cannot be.legitimate
corroborating evidence of receipt of the Purple Heart.
b. Last paragraph on Page 5: This is not accurate. I began my claim with the BCNR in 2006
and it was probably the second or third communication with them, still in 2006, that I
provide copies of my Bronze Star and Purple Heart citations. It was not until 2009 that
the BCNR advised me of their "not authentic" determination which I was able to refute.
I am certain that both the District Court and the Appellate Court relied on the text
in the motion for dismissal by government counsel AUSA Roden which was
erroneous (just one of several misinterpretations of the text of all the previous court
documents).
At this point I must say once again the same thing as I mentioned in my appeal to
the appeals court appears to have again taken place at the appellate level. When I
fded my appeal I mentioned to this Court that it was fairly apparent to me that the
District Court judge merely copied his order of dismissal directly from the text of
the government counsel's motion to dismiss and I found nothing in that court's
decision that even vaguely resembled any text from my original complaint. Please
excuse my brashness, but once again, it appears to me that this Court's ORDER and
the text supporting it certainly bears a very close resemblance to the past motion to
dismiss by the government's counsel and to the District Courf's order of dismissal.
2
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 3
The Court's order reeks of reasons given by the BCNR for not considering my
claim. Yet in contrast, this court's decision once again very similar to the District
Court's decision, does the exact same thing.
c. Page 6 of the Court's ORDER again makes several references to Naval Records and to
the Navy-Marine Corps Awards Manual, only further repeating what the BCNR and
District Court already said. I am very, very familiar with the Awards Manual
SECNAVINST 1650. I've read it from front to back at least twice. The Court's decision
never once mentions my claims that this manual is outdated and riddled with ambiguity
to say the least. In fact, it is downright contradictive in many places. Again, I mention
this because it seems that all decisions made by the BCNR and apparently by the Courts
are based on the content of this outdated and ambiguous manual no matter how relevant
and legitimate the evidence provided is more convincing than the information in the
manual.
d. Finally on Page 7 of the Order, particularly the second paragraph wherein the MMMA is
mentioned: Once again this text appears similar in context to the statements made
by the BCNR, the District Court and now the Appellate Court and I will say as I
have said before, I FIND IT VERY OFFENSIVE TO EVEN APPEAR TO CLAIM:
THAT ONE'S MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECJALTY (MOS) HAS EVEN
THE SLIGHTEST CONNECTION WITH THE "REALl1Y" OF WAR! I have
been attacked and insulted and defamed on websites that contain this kind of
rhetoric from dishonorable "bullies" who claim to be defending honor of others. To
use the EXCUSE that I simply do not have a "grunt" MOS did not/does not put me
in harm's way and present the opportunity to become involved in "ground combat
action" is nothing less than INSULTING! And it is not accurate. If one researches
the history of past wars, including the Vietnam War, one will find men of many
different MOS's were not only involved in ground combat, but also were awarded
very high level valor awards up to and including the Congressional Medal of Honor.
This "claim" of not being involved in ground combat action is only exacerbated
by the fact that this is the exact issue that I am fighting in my claim to the BCNR.
SOMEONE that was responsible for maintaining proper records failed to perform
his duties. I could not have spent the amount of time I spent in Vietnam, especially
in the early years when ground troops (gmnts) were still not fully deployed because
Vietnam was considered a "conflict" and not yet a "war" because we were still on
the defensive.
I can guarantee this Court, the District Court and the BCNR that I
DEFINITELY served in ground combat on a number of occasions and just because
someone failed to record it in my records does not make that fact go away. In fact,
the Naval Records Department's malfeasance alone does not nullify my actions in
Vietnam nor does it nullify the awards that I rightfully and honorably earned while
serving in Vietnam. Jn my initial claim to the BC~ I related several stories told to
me by clerks and even Commanding Officers who told me very plainly that
record keeping was the least of their concerns while trying to survive in Vietnam.
Once again, I find it significantly disrespectful, degrading, and insulting to me and
the thousands of others with non-infantry MOS's to even assume that we did not
have ample opportunity in Vietnam to become "engaged" with the enemy. This is
especially disconcerting due to the fact that during boot camp while training to
3
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 4
become a United States Marine, one of the finest and bravest of all military
personnel, a recruit is constantly reminded of the fact that ALL MARINES ARE
BASIC RIFLEMEN "FIRST". That is their SOLE MISSION, to fight and kill the
enemy. And whatever MOS is given to you "by chance only" is merely secondary to
that of basic rifleman - a grunt!
It is also very disconcerting that I find reference to the BCNR's disproven accusation of the nonauthenticity of my documents yet it appears that the Court did not take into account 1) my
refutation of their reasons for their accusation, but 2) and even more convincing, the presentation
of AUTHENTICATION and VALIDITY of those documents by a licensed and certified,
competent, and professional experienced Handwriting and Document Analyst (and of course, the
results of a professionally administered polygraph examination stating that I was truthful in
responding to questions such as participation in Operation Starlite (not on my record) which
most certainly involved ground combat and for which my actions put me in grave personal
danger while bodily carrying wounded Marines from the field, while under fire, to an awaiting
medical evacuation helicopter which was also riddled with enemy fire as all helicopters are when
talcing off from a "hot zone". This sustained action over a two day period earned me the Bronze
Star Medal for Valor which apparently no one wants to believe simply because the "records" do
not reflect it, but the OVERWHELMING evidence presented DOES! It was also during that
same action that I received a second wound. small and not debilitating, but rating of a second
Purple Heart in accordance with the qualifications outlined in the Awards Manual.
The above issues/problems are further complicated by the fact(s) that 1) many of the persons in
the position to verify my actions are deceased, 2) I did not carry my records back to the CONUS
when I left Vietnam therefore they were likely mailed and any number of things could have
happened to make them disappear, 3) the documents that I personally was able to retain were
destroyed in a basement flood of TRAGIC PROPORTIONS, and 5) when all of this began, forty
years had passed since I returned home from Vietnam.
One must and in fact is OBLIGATED to not only base a decision on the words in a manual that
is outdated and ambiguous in its content. ALL factors and evidence must be taken into
consideration in such serious matters. I personally have been involved in fact I was the
supervisor of the group that put policies and procedures together for a national organization. Me
and a team of fifteen management personnel that had been pretty much through everything the
organization could experience in that "crime fighting" organization were unable to put into
writing EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE ACTION OR ACTIVITY THAT AN EMPLOYEE
MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT. It is
practically impossible to think of every situation that might arise over the course oftime. Even
more difficult than that, is attempting to determine the correct and appropriate response and/or
punishment for non-compliance to those policies, procedures, regulations. Eventually, in every
instance of every single organization, SOMETHING will arise that is NOT COVERED "IN THE
MANUAL". That is when men of good judgment and integrity must "read between the lines"
and make a decision that could have grave consequences for the individual or group of
individuals who have done something that is contradictory to the policy and procedures manual
that is NEVER, EVER FULLY COMPLETE and that can stand up to the number of possible
actions either covered or not covered in the manual.
4
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 5
I send this response with the utmost respect for the Court's decision. I am not satisfied with the
outcome but I must live with it. I am not however, EVER GOING TO GIVE UP ON MY
QUEST TO HAVE MY MILITARY RECORDS MADE WHOLE AND I WILL GO TO MY
GRAVE DOING SO.
rank J. v; oni
434 Hickman Shores Rd.
Dover, TN 37058
fjv l 946@yahoo.com
931/232-2287
Copy to:
Mr. Michael L. Roden
U.S. Attorney's Office
110 Ninth Avenue, So.
Suite A-961
Nashville, TN 37205
Executive Director
Department of the Navy
Board for the Correction of Naval Records
701 S. Courthouse Road, Suite 1001
Arlington, VA 22404-2490
Department of the Navy
Office of the General Counsel
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20350-1000
Military Awards Branch
Manpower Management Division
Department of the Navy
Headquarters United States Marine Corps
3280 Russel Road
Quantico, VA 22134-5103
s
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 6
Curtis Baggett
Expert Document Examiner
908 Audelia Road, Suite 200-245, Richardson, Texas 75081
Phone: 972.644.0285"' Fax: 972.644.5233
cbhandwriting@gmail.com
www.ExpertDocumentExaminer.com
Questioned Document Examiner Letter
Subject: Frank J. Visconi
Date:
December 12. 2013
I have examined three (3) documents with the kno,vn signatures of Lt. Col. I.A. Polidori and
General Leonard F. Chapman Jr. For the purpose of this examination I have labeled these
exhibits "JAPKl" "JAPK.2", and "LFCK1":
Today I have compared signatures of Lt. Col. J.A. Polidori and General Leonard F. Chapman Jr.
on the ''K" documents to the Lt. Col. J.A. Polidori and General Leonard F. Chapman Jr.
signatures on the questioned documents, identified herein as "Q l" and "Q2" to determine ifthe
author of the LL Col. J.A. Polidori and General Leonard F. Chapman Jr. signatures on the ''K~'
documents was the same person who authored the name of Lt. Col. I.A. Polidori and General
Leonard F. Chapman Jr. on the questioned documents: Bronze star and purple heart citations
dated in the year 1969 and purportedly signed by Lt. Col. J.A. Polidori and General Leonard F.
Chapman Jr.
An examination of handwriting includes establishing patterns of writing habits to help identify
the author. HandwTiting is formed by repeated habits of writing by the author, which are created
by neuro-pathways established in the brain. These neuro-pathways control muscular and nerve
movement for writing whether the writing is executed by the hand, foot, or mouth.
In support of my opinion, I have included an excerpt from Handwriting Identification, Pacts and
Fundamentals by Roy A. Huber and A.M. Headrick (CRC Press LLC, 1999, pp 50-51) wherein
the leading forefathers of document examination in the USA agree that one significant difference
in the fundamental structure of a writing compared to another is enough to preclude common
authorship:
[Ordway] Hilton stated: "It is a basic axiom of identification in docwnenl problems that
a Jjmited number of basic differences, even in the face of numerous strong similarities,
are controlling and accurately establish nonidentity."
[Wilson R.J Harrison made similar comments: '' ... the fundamental rule which admits of
no exception when handwritings are being compared.. .is simple -- whatever features two
specimens of handwriting may have in common, they cannot be considered to be of
common authorship if they display but a single consistent dissimilarity io any feature
which is fundamental to the structure of the handwriting, and whose presence is not
capable of reasonable explanation."
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 7
[James V.P.] Conway expressed the same theme when he wrote: "A series of
fundamental agreements in identifying individualities is requisite to the conclusion that two
writings were authored by the same person, whereas a single fundamenta1 difference in an
identifying individuality between two writings precludes the conclusion that they were executed
by the same person."
and :finally,
[Albert S.] Osborn and others have generally agreed that despite numerous similarities in
two sets of writings, a conclusion of identity cannot be made if there is one or more
differences in fondamental features of the writings.
Based upon thorough analysis of these items and from an application of accepted forensic
document examination tools, principles and techniques, it is my professional expert opinion that
the same individuals authored the names of Lt. Col. J.A. Polidori and General Leonard F.
Chapman Jr. on the questioned documents. Lt. Col. J.A. Polidori and General Leonard F.
Chapman Jr. did indeed sign their own signatures on the questioned documents, "Ql" and "Q2".
Therefore, I declare that these citations are authentic_
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law and I will provide exhibits to the Court
showing that I had sufficient data and that my opinion is correct. My Curriculum Vitae is
attached and incorporated herein by reforence.
Respectfully submitted,
~-~(\
..:n:- Curt Baggett
~State of Texas
County of Dallas
§
§
§
The above Letter of Opinion was sworn to and subscribed before me by Curt Baggett this
day of December 2013.
J..k.
~«:~-.-Notary Public
~~~"{:",,,,
JESSICA SLACKSHEAI?
Ro".··' ·-~~ Notary Public. State of Texas
,.=;.§
~~;;:,~~
My commission Expi1es
AugustOB,2016
Case: 13-5827
BS-l.png
E!f:t
k hwa.vn- that
if.
<eJc.m-mawdzn.t
'fE£<mlmJ.
Document:
(.in
~
63htrp~Ahmfi;~~.i_ql~/u/0~18nbox/l42e28da71af65 ...
xj w~ 9' ~J969,
;I & ~ne. ~~.
~ _~ aa<a?"ded
f<•
tk ~ ~
~ ur.ckr. ~de
!3VJa/
r.cd/,,
G:J/sf' @'Olf-e<!Vk-~~-J... 6JJ£:.n1-
E 12£{)0(fa;:; aclk--nJ daionbed&n· ti<: tda" eitalkVJz,
re1.t.atiLJ.11-
6}/t/Je Jen.0ny a6 a; ~~ 81£;-n. ati//,, ~a;oruut.erJ &att.ak.,n, !f' 9J.£j:/:ne
§f;-;;;_JlcVJ?, ct/;111.ed r;;fat&J 9/§)iine 16.;pJ in· ~ 96£ 6}td>1uunv dlt,;:tny- the
jx:n<<d/rvm- 8 9JJ;'~ 1'966to /0S~:il1966, t:Mtv @O':>i.oal'l!' ~ ~iha;
(rff!J:,J ..#.r.an4J 6J~.,,d dWinpdJ/wd/u~~- tLC.ftuzta~~riff {71.
a. n.1unber- g/~ cmd c/d,tr</? miMio.;k! in, and
th.e ~ !il:zt %
CUQ/tlfui
~(6,3,
<On• .mer.al c~-n:J dt-.r<-t'fffu:.,-a AB t/i.hteen, mc..nth. ~<t.VF htr r;;fc-<1t1.4
G·tdnam. -~· 6J~n4 qfe-1'- w11r.h4W in. !lid,/JJ:itnubrtp 9!filu.(l;'? CkxtJxUWnal
~ff dwri171.ff- ~ ck,;'l t<e411rdt;eJ«Jdj6?> C<OePf~ dt'!Jt' t<;Y,f.lat1r.dt/ief10Rmd,e-,: :J/t
rWr
~
t/ie j_ffe, ~ade IL.~·
aia&
8C<¥1:5fa.nt{t hnff he,eef,d
r M?BmJ"
-
6Jtdeo-n,1
ln6r1.-';l~ntti aHeuptm# ID- dait«;? af.r.er-.y?- CW2d a-mmanit.ic-n JI~ c.n· and a?'.c.;md
~ ai'!ftdd .__k, adduk..n.
@ft.
c)~m.: tK./anJ~_/>F ~ ~k<n,
6.:::aPA· and cleu.FC;;rr " mi!xJic'1W hit6 aQ'(ea.;j In- and a?"<'llJRd tfw ~kt·
1Ltfter-e
f:);z. tJid,?1ifJI·
milu~-M'l.t.e//~ent'.B r-t.jic<?'ld~,?] g/,1rc"JM fl1'11BmJ" 6J.fdam.?fl<m@.
ODE EXHIBIT
Q\
BS-2.png
Case: 13-5827
QDE EXHIBIT
PH-1.png
I
!
l
!,
r
MVMC.16-PH
PH-2.png
Case: 13-5827
QDE EXHIBIT
G2...
Discharge.png
Case: 13-5827
~~~~
""'
~~
"·~~,
~-......_,_
.._ "
-·~
·~
·~.
'"
~,
,,,;:,:
'
~~~,
::::.
...,, :::
...
~~~~;
">,
l:J
...
......
..........,
.!::;:;"'
~
!31
~
.,__ •
-..
et"
......
~
~
.t~
{.O
-=
"l:/fi
t 7;
.fE
~
~
·,_
~·· 'l
S1
~
=:t
....
"""
-
QDE EXHIBIT
Jff~\
l'olidori Signature.png
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
hl!ff.i'l~m.~~26h1tihail/~Ji3/inbox/142e90ff213f35...
ADMINISTRATIVE RIMAlKS
VISCONI,
Prank
Joseph
NAii~.tJ- ··-~--,Fi-;:;;;-· ---(1>1iddk1
21_22007
_"=!=S=ER=V""IC£'===N=O.~======-·
tll\f!a( lll(llj-l'D (.IE\I. 6-611 SllftR!SllS PRIYKIU~ tDITIOI!' WlllOI Will Ii US!ll
"'""' ,..._ o ......,
ADMINISTRATIVE REMAll
11.. ·- ..
· - - - · - - - - - --- ..
·----ODE EXHIBIT
Jf\fUj
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 14
CURT BAGGETT
Expert Document Examiner
908 Audelia Road, Suite 200-245, Richaidson, TX 75081
Phone: 972.644.0285 - Fax: 972.644.5233
cu rtba__gggtt@msn.com
www.ExpertDocu:qu~ptExammer.com
Curt Baggett is a document examiner and expert witness. He is also a skilled authority in handwriting
identification and completed over 3,500 cases. Mr. Baggett has examined documents and/or testified in
court cases as a handwriting expert in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., the Bahamas, Bmzil, Canada,
Chile, England, Ireland, Mexico, Pakistan, Puerto Rico, Thailand and New Zealand, Korea, China,
Australia and Denmark.
He has been retained by the U.S. Department of Justice, the State of Arizona, State of Arkansas, the State
of California, Louisiana Public Defender Board, and the State of Texas. Mr. Baggett has appeared as a
handwriting expen on WOLF-BLITZER-CNN; CHARLES GIBSON-ABC, INSIDE EDITION, CBS
Network Radio, CBS, CNBC, CNN, FOX, JUDGE ALEX, TEXAS JUSTICE and GOOD MORNING
TEXAS and was a consultant as a forensic document examiner for a number one television show, "CSI:
Crime Scene Investigation". Mr. Baggett is the co-author of"The Handwriting Certification Home Study
Course" and has been a guest on various other lelevision and radio programs discussing handwriting and
forensic document examination.
Mr. Baggett once held the position as Dean of the School of Forensic Document Examination at
Handwriting University. In addition to lecturing and teaching document examination, Mr. Baggett has
analyzed handwriting for over 30 years. He has been qualified as an expert witness in Justice of the
Peace, Municipal, District, State, U.S. District, and Federal Bankruptcy Courts.
His education and training in document examination and psychology include: U.S. Army, Military Police
Officer's School; B.A. and M.Ed., McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana; and post-graduate
studies at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Curt Baggett's library is extensive and includes literature on questioned document examination, forensic
handwriting analysis, behavior profiling, and statement analysis.
Laboratory equipment used for examination consists of a Stereo Star Zoom American Optical 7x - 30x
twin microscope; Micronta illuminated 30x microscope; stereo microscope S/ST series; universal
DigiScoping adapter; numerous magnifying devices; protractor and metric measuring devices; Pentax ME
camera; Pentax macro 1.4, 50mm flat copy lens; overhead projector; light table, and transparencies.
Curt Daggett•s Education and Training in Handwriting and Document Examination Include:
An in-person, two-year apprenticeship wilh Dr. Ray Walker as a handwriting expert and questioned
document examiner. Dr. Walker's qualifications have been affirmed in the Court of Appeals, Fifth
District of Texas at Dallas, and had historical rulings in his favor. A leading authority in the field of
handwriting analysis and docwnent examination. Dr. Walker is the author of The Questioned Document
Examiner and the Justice ~ystem.
Mr. Baggett is certified by the American Bureau of Document Examiners. He also has a certificate of
completion from the American Institute of Applied Science.
Rev ?120113
1
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 15
Lectures, Conferences, and Classes Attended:
2004 School of Forensic Document Examination's Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas
Attended classes taught by Reed Hayes, QDE, Katherine Koppenhaver, QDE, Bill Koppenhaver,
QDE
2004 School of Forensic Document Examination's Teleclass Curriculum
Examination of Anonymous Writing by Reed Hayes, QDE
Document Examination Terminology by Don Lehew, QDE
Notary Public by Don Lehew, QDE
Advanced Forgery Identification by Don Lehew, QDE
Instructor
2005 School of Forensic Document Examination's Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas
Attended the following lectures, in addition to general sessions:
Tremors and line Quality taught by Reed Hayes, QDE
Demonstrative Evidence taught by Katherine Koppenhaver, QDE, Bill Koppenhaver, QDE
Photography through microscopes by David Babb, QDE
Paper and Watermarks by John McGuire, QDE
Lecturer
2005 School of Forensic Document Examination's Teleclasses
Natural Variation taught by Reed Hayes, QDE
The Discrimination ofHandwriting by Don Lehew, QDE
Procedures for Examining Signatures by Don Lehew. QDE
Courtroom Procedures and Roles by Don Lehew, QDE
Instructor
2006 School of Forensic Document Examination's Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas
Attended the following lectures, in addition to general sessions:
Deposition and Cross Examinations by Dr. Richard Frazier, QDE
Medical Problems Affecting handwriting by Dr. Richard Frazier, QDE
Legal lssues for Document Examiners by Dr. Richard Frazier, QDE
Deposltlon and Cross Examinations by Dr. Richard Frazier, QDE
Health Factors Affecting Handwriting by Dr. Joe Alexander, QDE
Prescription Forgery and Medical Crimes by Diane King
Lecturer
2007 Handwriting University Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas
Trainer and Instructor
2007 School of Forensic Document Examination's Teleclasses
Instructor - Handwriting Basics and Exemplars
Instructor - Multiple Classes on Case Studies and Examinations
2008 Handwriting University Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada
Trainer and Instructor
2009 School of Forensic Document Examination's Live Teleclasses
Attended a variety of classes taught by Robert Baier, QDE, Police Instructor
2009 Handwriting University Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada
Critical Incident Stress: Statement Analysis and Interview v. Interrogation by Faith Wood
Rev 7120/B
2
Case: 13-5827
Document 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page:
Forensic Document Examination Application by Robert Baier, QDE, Police InstTuctor
Trainer and [nstructorfor Introduction to Forensic Document Examination
2010 Handwriting University Annual Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada
Advanced Statement Analysis by Faith Wood
Identity Theft and Prevention by Robert Baier, QDE, Police Instructor
Trainer and Instructor for Introduction to Forensic Document Examination
2010 Speaker- «Introduction to the Science of Handwriting and Forensic Document Examination", Clear
Lake High School
20 I l Lecturer and Instructor, "How to Spot a Forgery'\ Denver Elections Division,
Denver, Colorado
2012 Lecturer and Instructor, ..How to Spot a forgery", Denver Elections Division,
Denver, Colorado
2012 Speaker- "How to Avoid a Forgery'', Military Order of Purple Hearts Annual Meeting, Dallas,
Texas
2013 Speaker - "Introduction to the Science of Handwriting and Forensic Document Examination";
Appointment as Guest Lecturer and Consultant by Stefanie Page, Instructor, Forensic Science
Department, Jesuit College Preparatory Schoo 1 of Dallas
2013 Speaker- "Introduction to the Science of Handwriting and Forensic Document Examination", Irma
Lerma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School, Dallas, Texas
Current Memberships
American College of Forensic Examiners International
American Legion
Center of Forensic Profiling
Forensic Expert Witness Association
IMS Expert Services
Military Order of World Wars
National Questioned Document Association
Sheriffs Association of Texas
Texas Police Association
Veterans of Foreign Wars
World Federation of Handwriting Experts
Published Articles and Books
Ethics for Experts
Handwriting Certification Course
How to Help Attorneys With Your Case
How to Spot a Forgery
Taking the Witness Stand
Rev 7120/13
3
\..o,.p J ::>Yf-00~9
Case: 13-5827
.-:;
'~
Document: ~vv.fill~aB~£~¥~11ygrfp'Y!~i-v1Zes.com
email: michaelsa·wyer55@gmail.com
Attention: Mr. Prank Visconi
RE: Polygraph Examination
Subject: Mr. Frank J. Visconi
DOB: 06/2111946
Pre-test
Dear Mr. Frank Visconi:
On Monday, May I, 2012 approximately 10:00 a.m. a specific polygraph examination was
administered to Mr. Visconi. During the pretest intervie\v, Mr. Visconi was questioned regarding whether or
not he falsified his United States Marine Corp record with reference to the Vietnam Conflict. Mr. Visconi
fi.trther stated his military record doesn~t reflect the Bronze Star and Purple Heart Citations received in Detroit,
Michigan in May 1965.
The fol!owing rele\'ant questions were discussed and reviewed prior to Mr. Frank Visconi's Polygraph
examination.
L Regarding whether or not you falsified your United States tvlarine Corps record, do you intend to answer
truthfully to each of my questions? Answered yes.
2. Have you told the complete truth concerning your Military record? Ans"vered yes.
3. Did you self-produce your Bronze Star Citation? Answered no.
4. Did you self-produce your Purple Heart Citation? Answered no.
5. Did you plan or help with anyone to falsify your Mi1itary record? Answered no.
6. Have you been comptetely truthful with me concerning this matter? Answered yes.
7. Did you receive your Bronze Star Citation in Detroit. Ml in May l 969? Answered yes.
8. Did you receive your Purple Heart Citation in Detl'oit, Ml in May 1969? Answered yes.
9. Did you serve in Operation Starlite in August 1965 in Vietnam? Answered yes.
Post-tes1
After three consecutive polygrams were administered and a careful review was made, it revealed no significant
criteria to indicate deception to questions number 1, 2, 3, 4~ 5 6, 7, 8 and 9. It is therefore the professional
opinion of this examiner tllat Mr. Frank Visconi has been truthfu) in respect to his answers concerning this
matter.
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page: 18
.-S;.-l . ··~.
Sa·wyer Polygraph Services
Old Hickory. T~ 3i138
tL~
.,,-~J; (615) 554~6699
www.michaelsawyerpolygraphsen'iCes.com
email michaelsa\.vyer55@gmail.com
Attention: Mr. Frank Visconi
RE: Polyg£aph Examination
Subject: Mr. Frank J_ Visconi
DOB: 06/2111946
Pre-test
Dear Mr. Frank Visconi:
On Monday, May J, 2012 approximately 10:00 a.m. a specific polygraph examination was
administered to Mr. Visconi. During the pretest interview, Mr. Visconi was questioned regarding whether or
not he told the truth concerning events that took place while serving in Vietnam in March 1965. Mr. Visconi
stated his military record does 1101 reflect his correct arrival date while serving in Vietnam in March 1965. Mr.
Visconi further stated he received a body rash w11ile serving in Vietnam in March 1965 which is not reflected
in his military record nor his visit to the aid station in reference to his body rash \vhile serving in Vietnam in
1965.
The following relevant questions were discussed and re..,.·iewed prior to Mr. Frank Visconi's Polygraph
examinalion.
t. Regarding your military records while serving in Vietnam in 1965. do you intend to answer truthfully to
each of my questions? Answered yes_
2. Have you been truthful to the Board for Corre.ction ofNavel Records? Answered yes.
3. Did you arrive in Chu Lai, Viemam in March 1965? Answered yes.
4. Did you receive a body rash in Chu Lai, Vietnam in March 1965? Answered yes.
S. Did you visit the aid station in Chu Lai, Vietnam in March 1965? Answered yes.
6. Have you been completely truthful with me concerning this matter? Answered yes.
Post-test
After three consecutive polygrams were administered and a careful review was made, it revealed no significant
criteria to indicate deception to questions number l, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, It is therefore the professional opinion of
this examiner that Mr. Frank Visconi has been truthful in respect to his answers concerning this matter.
Michael Sawyer
Polygraph Examiner
State of Tennessee #023
Case: 13-5827
Document: 63
Filed: 04/21/2014
Page:
f-..L.
Sav\.'yer Polygraph Services
Old Hickory, TN 37138
(615) 554-6699
)1 ~
>.
~,l~~~
vvv.r;,v.michaelsawyetpolygraphsenices.com
email: michaelsawyer55@grnail.com
Attention: Mr. Frank Visconi
RE: Polygraph Examination
Subject: Mr. Frank J. Visconi
DOB: 06/21/1946
Pre-test
Dear Mr. Frank Visconi:
On Monday, May I. 2012 approximately 10:00 am. a specific polygraph examination was
admit1istered to Mr. Visconi. During the pretest interview, Mr. Visconi was questioned regarding whether or
not he told the truth about his second visit to the aid station in Chu Lai, Vietnam in May 1965. Mr. Visconi
stated these were the facts to the best of his knowledge.
The following relevant questions were discussed and reviewed prior to Mr. Frank Visconi's Polygraph
examination.
l. Regarding whether or not you told the truth concerning your second visit to the aid station in Chu Lai.
Vietnam in May 1965, do you intend to answer truthfully to each of my questions? Answered. yes.
2. Have you been completely uuthful to the Board for Correction of Navel Records'? Answered yes.
J. Did you arrive in Chu Lai. Vietnam in March.l 965? Answered yes.
4. Did you receive a nail puncture wound while serving in Chu Lai, Vietnam in May 1965? Answered yes.
5. Did you visit the aid station in Chu Lai, Vietnam in May 1965'.? Answered yes.
6. Have you been completely truthful with me concerning this matter? Answered yes.
Post-test
After three consecuti\'e polygrams were administered and a careful review was made, it revealed no significant
criteria to indicate deception to questions number 1. 2, 3, 4. 5 and 6. It is therefore the professional opinion of
this examiner that Mr. Frank Visconi has been truthful in respect to his answers concerning this matter.
Michael Sav.yer
Polygraph Ex.aminer
State of Tennessee #023
I AP~
,..p;': .:,. ~-~.I;
ii!ll
~
__,, 111111
PQST.Al.SER.V/t:G
1000
Cheryl Borkowski
Case Manager
United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
100 East Fifth Street, Room 540
Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse
Cincinnati, OHIO 45202-3988
u.s.PAIC
PC
DOVER.