Forgery: Garden Variety and the Real Deal Part 2

Now that weve established what garden variety forgery is, we can take
a look at some of the more serious forgery which took place in gathering
petition signatures for Paul Vallone by his campaign.
The most common type of serious forgery usually occurs when a witness
either personally knows the forger or forges the signatures themselves.
Typically, the forgery consists of numerous false signatures in a row,
often called runs in the parlance of professionals, usually accompanied
by similar handwriting for the printed portions of the signature and ad-
dress boxes (though not necessarily for the signature date area on the
left that will be addressed more in-depth at a later date). Here are two
excellent examples of this type of forgery, compliments of James Lynch
and Daniel Randell, both campaign workers who answer directly to Pat-
rick Jordan.
As stated in my first presentation, James Lynch had purportedly
witnessed 19 petition pages with 256 signatures for Paul Vallone, all
dated June 28th, the evening of the Fort Totten fireworks event. This was
also where I caught underage petitioners gathering signatures for Paul
Vallone, as shown on video at my press conference last Monday. It
stands to reason that most of the pages signed by James Lynch are, in
fact, one and the same. Heres where the fun begins:
Volume QN1700047, Page 18 again, purportedly witnessed by James
Lynch on June 28th - is a case study in forgery and fraud. Take a look at
this page closely. What stands out?
It is extremely obvious, even to the untrained eye, that most of the signa-
tures and printed names/addresses are written by the same hand; again,
the handwriting expert stated that it is highly probable that lines 10
through 18 were forged by the same person. It is my belief, based on buff
cards and other additional information, that lines 6 through 20 were
forged (not to mention the suspouse pairing at lines 2 and 3, Christina VOL QN1700047
and Vasilis Aragnostopoulos).
I was able to get printed buff cards for lines 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15
(see buff card pages). There is not a single match not even close. My
personal favorite forgeries are lines 12 and 13, Theofani and Mary Bakti-
dy (buff cards, right). The forger both signed and printed their names
incorrectly as Theofanis and Maria Baktity.
Certainly, the printed handwriting on the page which pertains to the for-
geries closely resembles James Lynchs handwriting on the Statement of
Witness. Additionally, the hurriedly written run of signature dates on the
left hand side all 6/28 resembles the 6/30 printed in the Statement
of Witness as well (a pattern that we will see throughout Lynchs peti-
tions and others and which will be addressed in later discussions).
This leaves two likely scenarios: 1) James Lynch, or someone else that
James Lynch witnessed, forged the signatures; or 2) one of the underage
petitioners forged or witnessed the signatures, with James Lynch fraudu-
lently signing the Statement of Witness afterwards.
Based on the kind of fraud that is shown here, there is no question that
there would have been a finding that the petition was permeated with
fraud which would have ultimately led to all of James Lynchsor who-
ever actually witnessed the pagespetitions to be invalidated.
A similar situation can be found on a petition witnessed by Daniel Randell.

A little background: Randell , 24, was a field director for State Senator Toby
Stavisky in 2016 tasked with specifically reaching out to Asian-American vot-
ers. However, the New York Post discovered that Randell had written incred-
ibly disparaging remarks about Asians on Facebook and Stavisky fired him
minutes after getting a call from The Post about his online antics.
Randell witnessed five petitions in all Volume QN1700047, Pages 2, 3, 4, 5
and 29, and signed Volume QN1700017, Page 4, Line 2 which was witnessed
by Patrick Jordan (a petition sheet that we will revisit in at a future date).
However, it is Page 29 which deserves immediate inspection. There are
some telltale signs that this page is also permeated by forgery similar to
James Lynchs, particularly on lines 15 through 20. Again, not only is there
similar handwriting both the signature and printed name lines are in print-
ed handwriting which appears to resemble Randells but buff cards that I
reviewed revealed completely different handwriting to what was submitted
to the Board of Elections.

VOL QN1700047
BuffcardVoula Dilos BuffcardZoe Alikakos
BuffcardStelios Andreou BuffcardPantelis Antonakis
BuffcardTheofani Bakt(i)dy BuffcardMary Baktidy
BuffcardElias Betzios BuffcardJulia Betzios