Goodall Motion for Forensic Document Examiner

7/29/2019 Goodall Motion for Forensic Document Examiner

1/12

123

4561

B

9101t-t213141516771819202t22232425262728

Samuel H. SloanAdministrator with Will Annexed ofEstate of K. Michael Goodall46t Peachstone TerraceSan Rafae]. CA 94903415-419-59804115-349-6116samhsloan0grmail. com

Estate of K. Michael Goodall-against-

'James Raymond Hastingsand

Bank of America, N.A.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF I'IARIN

EXAMINATTONHearing Date:Time, Y,3O q--Department: d

l,lAR'l 9 2012

IFUtllgl!)FEB 2 \ 2012

- Kn4-rutrI.IEiR, Court Executive Of,EcerltARnr Coti\Ty suPrruon Co-unr4,:5. Bon4 Deputy

Case No. PR 1100596MOTION FOR EttsPARlEEr ORDER TORELEASE LODGED DOCUMENTSPURPORTED TO BE THE ORIGINALWILLS DECEDENTS KENNEFT F.COODALL A!{D RACHEL A. GOODALLrOR FORENSIC DOCUMENT

Sam Sloan declares:1. I am the Administrator with Wil-l Annexed of the Estate of

K. Michael Goodall. I have personal knowled.ge of the matters setforth herein and, if called upon to testify, could and wouldcompetently testify thereto.

2. This estate is concerned with the authentici-tY of threedocuments all purportedl-y signed on the same date of August 24,1994. These three documents consist of \\Pour O\rerz wills

Motion for Forensic Document Exannination


2/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

purportedly signed by Kenneth and Rachel Goodall on August 24,

1994 and a trust document purportedly signed by both of them also

bearing the same date.

3. I believe that these documents are all forgeries or are

otherwise not authentic. The basis of my belief is that it was

virtually impossible for Kenneth F. Goodall to have signed these

documents on that date of August 24, 1994. He was extremely ill. He

had been ill for at least two years but his condition had gotten

much worse. He had just survived an operation for esophageal

cancer. He had a feeding tube inserted in his abdomen. A witness

who visited him in the hospital with his son Mike and wife Rachel

is prepared to testify that he was on life support, was unconscious

and it was recommended that he not be awaken. The forger has

changed his testimony several times as to where these documents

were signed, first starting that it was in his office, then in his

home, then in San Anselmo. We are prepared to prove that he was in

none of those places. Most importantly, the witness to both of

these wills states vehemently that she never signed these documents

and would never have signed these documents. Her husband and

daughter agree with her that they would have been involved and that

she absolutely would not have signed these documents. Finally, it

is just inconceivable that Col. Kenneth Goodall would have written

his only son out of his will just 17 days before he died,

Motion for Forensic Document Examination


3/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

considering how devoted the father was to his son and how devoted

his son was to his father. There is a handwritten statement in the

ring binder left by Kenneth F. Goodall that states, I have never

encountered a lawyer who did not leave me feeling poluted

afterwards. I despise them as a class and as individuals. It is

thus inconceivable that on his death bed he would knowingly sign a

document that virtually took all rights away from his only child

and gave them to a lawyer.

4. As to the motivation of the forger, he was at that time an

employee of Bank of America. These documents took the role of back-

up trustee away from Security Pacific Bank and gave it to Bank of

America, of which he was the manager. This has enabled him to earn

administration and legal fees in the amount of several hundred

thousand dollars since that time. Needless to say, all of these

funds will have to be paid back if these documents are determined

to be forged.

5. In order to determine whether these documents are forged

or altered or that they are mere copies, I have agreed to retain a

Forensic Document Examiner who is vastly and eminently qualified in

this field, having worked with the FBI and other governmental

agencies to determine forgeries. He is David S. Moore. He has a

laboratory located at 9010 Barrhill Way, Fair Oaks, California



4/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

95628. This laboratory contains highly sophisticated devices such

as microscopes that easily enable him to determine if a document is

forged or not. These devices cannot be effectively transported out

of the laboratory environment. Therefore, I am asking this court to

order the release of these documents directly to him as the

Forensic Document Examiner. I will of course not handle the

documents myself.

6. David S. Moore is a forensic document examiner, with

offices located in Fair Oaks, California. He has more than thirty

years of document and investigative experience, including

assignments with the Crime Laboratories of the United States Army,

the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Las Vegas

Metropolitan Police, and the California Department of Justice. He

has received extensive training regarding handwriting

identification, ink and document analysis, and examination,

reflected in courses from the United States Army, the United States

Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the American

Academy of Forensic Sciences, and the California Criminalistics

Institute. He has been certified as a "Diplomate" of the American

Board of Forensic Document Examiners since 1978. From 1999 to 2002,

He served as one of the Directors on that Board. He has published

numerous articles in the field of forensic document examination in

the Journal of Forensic Sciences, including lie Electrostatic



5/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Detection Apparatus (ESDA) and its Effect on Latent Prints on

Paper", March 1988; "The Importance of Shading Habits in

Handwriting Identification: A Case Study", January 1983; the

"Evaluation of a Method to Detect the Site of Rubber Erasures by

Powder", October 1981. In addition, he has presented numerous

papers at meetings and conferences of the American Academy of

Forensic Sciences, the American Society of Questioned Document

Examiners, the International Association of Identification, the

Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and the

Southeastern Association of Forensic Scientists.

7. He has presented numerous classes on questioned document

subjects to federal, state and local law enforcement officials,

both government and private attorneys, as well as to bank and

insurance personnel.

8. He has testified as an expert in the field of questioned

documents in justice, municipal, and superior, federal and military

courts and administrative hearings in excess of 700 times in more

than 20 states throughout the United States, including California.

9. In order to conduct a proper forensic document examination

of the original questioned wills and trusts in this instant case,



6/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

it is his professional opinion that the following tests may be

necessary.

a. Visual examination;

b. Microscopic examination;

c. Photographic examination;

d. Ink examination;

e. Handwriting examination;

f. Indentation examination; and

g. Any other non-destructive examination necessary to

determine the authenticity of the questioned document.

10. All proposed examination will be entirely non-

destructive to the document and will be conducted in a manner so as

not to compromise future additional or confirmatory examinations or

testing. Additionally, the original document will not be altered or

changed by any of the proposed examinations.

11. These types of examinations are necessary to evaluate

the genuineness of questioned documents. An ink examination allows

him to analyze the inks used in the documents and draw conclusions

about the use of different inks and to detect whether alternations

and/or interlineations have been made. Indentation examination

permits him to draw conclusions about whether certain documents

were together when they were originally created and also to

ascertain whether there is other information contained on the



7/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

documents in the form of indentations that may provide insight into

when the document was created and under what conditions. The other

examinations requested may enable him to draw conclusions about the

timeframe in which the document was created and about the

genuineness of the document.

12. It is important that he conduct the examination of the

questioned documents at his laboratory using specialized equipment.

The indentation examination, the ink examination, the fluorescence

and luminescence examinations require the use of laboratory

equipment. For example, the microscope that he uses is a

stereoscopic trinocular microscope that is not readily portable.

The video spectral comparator (VSC) that he uses for ink evaluation

is also not readily portable. Furthermore, it is often imperative

to strictly control lighting conditions during an examination; this

can be done in a laboratory setting, but often cannot be done

elsewhere.

13. The various examinations that I have listed and the

equipment that he proposes to employ during the examination of the

questioned documents are routine in cases of this nature. Failure

to examine the questioned document in a laboratory setting, with

proper instrumentation, may result in loss of valuable evidence

that would directly address the issue of the document's

authenticity.



8/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. The wills are on file at the Marin County Superior

Court. Kenneth Goodalls will is number W001916 and Rachel

Goodalls will is number W001919.

15. We are also seeking forensic examination of the trust

documents. There are three known trust documents. They are:

A document entitled The Goodall Trust and dated September

12, 1990.

A document entitled Declaration of the Goodall Trust and

dated August 24, 1994.

A document entitled Second Amendment to Goodall Trust and

dated January 19, 1999.

16. We believe that the documents dated September 12, 1990 and

January 19, 1999 are genuine but that the document dated August 24,

1994 is a forgery. We want all three documents examined by the

Forensic Document Examiner, David S. Moore. The problem is that

these documents are not in the files of the court. They are in the

possession of James R. Hastings and/or Bank of America and/or Guide

Dogs for the Blind, Inc. who refuse to let us see them. We want



9/12

1234561

o

91011L213I415161"7

181920272223242526272B

this court to order.these three documents to be turned over to,thesarne Forensic Document Examiner.

IilHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth aLove, this courtshould order that the Wills of Kenneth and Rachel Goodall filed inthis court as will number }IOO1915 and will number I[OO1919 be turnedover Lo David S. Moore, Forensic Document examiner andit should order that the originals of Goodall Family TrustDocuments dated September L2, 1990, August 24, 1994 and.]anuary 19,1999 be handed ower to Dawid S. Moore for Forensic Examination.

I declare under penalty of perjurl, under the laws of theState of California and the contents thereof are true and correctto the best of my knowledge and belief.

DATED: Februaxy 24 , 2OL2



10/12

123

456

I9

1011L213L415L61718t9202t22232425262728

Sam Sloan declares:I hawe read the Motion for an

a Forensic Document Examiner fi].edunder trrenalty of perriury under theand the contents thereof are trueknowledge and belief.

DATED: February 24, 2OL2

Verification:order to turn over documents toin this matter, and I declarelaws of the State of California

and comect to the best, of mY



11/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICEI hereby state that I am not a party, I am over 18 years of age andI served a copy of this motion and the exhibits attached thereto tothe following:

James R. Hastings1003 3rd Street

San Rafael, CA 94901

Bank of America

1000 4th St.


Gary D. Rothstein

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor

San Francisco CA 94111

Roy Hoppe

461 Peachstone Terrace

San Rafael CA 94903

Frank Thornally

461 Peachstone Terrace

San Rafael CA 94903

Julia Bentley LemonsApt. 308

12800 Marion Lane W

Minnetonka, MN 55305-1368

Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall

Robert Bentley

Bradford Village #504

906 N Boulevard Street

Edmond, OK 73030


Helen Beth Bentley Perry

7926 Praver Drive W

Jacksonville,FL 32217




12/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Clenda Fern Bentley Zinar

4536 Chatman Street

The Colony, TX 75056

Beverly Gale Bentley Young2316 Trenton

McKinney, TX 75070

Vickie Bentley Hankins

14580 NE 6th

Choctaw, OK 73020

Jeffrey Bentley

4701 N Douglas Boulevard

Spencer, OK 73084

Chad Everett Bentley

1609 Teepee Trail

Kingsland, TX 78639

Jeanette Goodall Phillips

152 S llth Street

Salina, Kansas 67401

Kristin KaneUniversity of California

Berkeley College of Engineering

College Relations

208 Mclaughlin Hall #1722

Berkeley, CA 9472A-1722

Guide Dogs for the Blind

Mr. Thomas Horton

Planned Potential Beneficiary

Giving Director

Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc.

350 Los Ranchitos Road



Goodall Motion for Forensic Document Examiner

Documents

Transcript of Goodall Motion for Forensic Document Examiner