On February 4, 2011, I received a letter from a certain back water law firm in Rhode Island.
Apparently, Robillard is fearful of Massachusetts law firms becoming aware of the documented facts as outlined. I will paraphrase
certain comments put forth by this well informed attorney.
~
"Dear Mr. Rice:
~
This firm represents Alan Robillard. Mr.
Robillard is one of this country's foremost forensic document examiners. With over 30 years experience in his field,
Mr. Robillard is a nationally recognized expert witness. Throughout his long and distinguished career, which included
his tenure as a questioned document and hair and fiber expert at the F.B.I., Mr. Robillard has earned a reputation for quality
of work and integrity, characteristics that have resulted in a record of success in courts throughout the country, including
recent cases in which you have been hired as an expert witness for the opposing party."
~
Rice Responds: Robillard may be all of the things his attorney alleges.
Conversely, he may not. What is in dispute is Robillard's alleged history as a document examiner for the F.B.I. All
I or any opposing expert asks is: For Robillard to PROVE his education, training and actual preparation of ANY and ALL
his court presentations and testimony while he was alleged to be a
document
examiner for the FBI. And, for Robillard to explain his national television statements that his career was as a hair
and fiber expert. Further, I cannot comment on Robillard's reputation and competence while employed with the F.B.I.
However, his competence, that I have personally experienced is, in my personal opinion, amateurish, lacking and sloppy.
~
True! Robillard
is successful in court due to, and based upon, his unverified DE employment for the F.B.I. No one stands a chance
against him because of his allegations/unproven years of experience as a F.B.I DE. Opposing clients are facing a no win
situation. Robillard tells his F.B.I. 'war stories' and quotes this and that - WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTED PROOF! He
can say whatever he wishes, at times even lying about certain facts. Who is there to verify/prove/document
and/or rebut whether he is telling the truth? Maybe, if Robillard was required to provide documented proof of his 2
years as a student and 2 years as a practicing DE during the 1980's - things might turn out different - for opposing attorneys
(due to other important facts).
~
This
has to stop!
~
The F.B.I skirt he hides behind is a hindrance to defendants and opposing counsel from conducting a fair trial! If
he is who and what he claims... he should be happy to prove it. Everyone else is required to do so. Why should the courts,
opposing counsel and their clients be forced to accept anything this man has to say - simply on face value? Remember
he is already documented as lying under oath.
~
"We are advised that you and your company..."
..."have recently posted false and defamatory comments about Mr. Robillard..." .."The knowingly false
and defamatory postings on these web sites that you control include, but are not limited to, allegations that Mr. Robillard
has engaged in myriad unethical conduct, misstates his credentials; left the F.B.I. laboratory under suspicion of wrong
doing, is "incompetent"; and is a "pseudo-document examiner." "You also publish a litany of
alleged "proof of his ethically challenged career."
~
Rice Responds: Seems
that the documented proof as put forth by the Office of the Inspector General and obtained from transcripts are false and
defamatory. I do agree that certain comments made about Mr. Robillard are based upon my own personal observations.
For the sake of argument I did remove certain of my statements, but, stand by my opinions which, as stated above, coincide
with certain comments made by Dr. Whitehurst to the OIG.
~
I am not sure what this poorly informed attorney is referring to when he mentions my
publishing "a litany of alleged proof of his ethically challenged career."
~
All I know is what I read in the OIG report and transcripts
and what I have personally observed with Mr. Robillard.
~
Anyway, the letter goes on and on about the usual attacks upon my agenda and allegations about identifying
other pseudo-document examiners ad-nauseum. This attorney demanded that I refrain from saying bad things about
Mr. Robillard and to remove or disable my websites since Mr. Robillard has, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm, etc.
And if I don't comply, legal action will follow in its various forms. During our communicating back and forth I asked
if the same action would be taken against Dr. Whitehurst and the New York Daily News - the sources of the published information?
For some unknown reason - I received no response.
~
BE ASSURED - ROBILLARD IS SCARED TO DEATH ABOUT BEING DEPOSED! HE WOULD HAVE TO
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS ALLEGED CAREER AS A
F.B.I. DOCUMENT
EXAMINER.
~
ROBILLARD TELLING THE TRUTH, UNDER OATH, WILL BE A REVELATION!
~
What
is amazing is counsel referring to my self-serving agenda of exposing pseudo-document examiners as some form of evil, nasty,
bad and unfair behavior. This coming from an 'officer of the court'? He has a problem with the truth? With
my attempt to help clean up a profession that is wrought with perjures frauds he is threatening legal action against me if
I do not shut down my sites?
~
This attorney even insisted that I remove any mention, whatsoever, about Robillard from any and all of my sites, etc.
I informed this 'officer of the court' that censorship was not in my vocabulary.
~
This
is a prime example of an attorney who does not have a clue as to what he is talking about insofar as alleged and/or pseudo-document
examiners are concerned. Apparently, his logic about lying, exaggeration, falsified credentials, perpetration of
a fraud upon the court, etc., is good and fair business practice; and, exposing certain of these frauds, being truthful
and attempting to educate the courts about pseudo-document examiners is unfair, bad, wrong, vindictive, etc., business practice.
~
I can assure you that certain of the pseudo-document
examiners identified on this site have been informed of my comments. If I have done wrong, they know how to rectify
the problem However, if I am correct, which I am, they know they are facing an issue that will resonate throughout the
country.
~
Sooner or later surgical depositions will be taken from these alleged and pseudo-document
examiners! This is what is scaring them to death! Imagine how PAST and PRESENT opposing attorneys will respond when
the true facts are brought forth.
~
When you alleged and pseudo-document examiners are ready to be deposed and feel you can present your undocumented,
unproven, false, exaggerated and unbelievable titles to rebut any and all of the scientific and true requirements for a properly
educated and trained document examiner - feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
~
The courts, attorneys, law firms, clients and the media have a right
to know.
~
What is that
old saying? "The truth will set you free!"
