This case arises from Plaintiff Alvin White’s default on five mortgage loans, secured by five separate properties in Fife, Washington. In February 2006, White purchased five properties—Lot 11, Lot 16, Lot 7, Lot 10, and Lot 12—using funds borrowed from Long Beach Mortgage Company. White executed five promissory notes and deeds of trust to secure the loans.

On January 5, 2024, Quality Loan Services Corporation, as successor trustee, sold Lots 11 and 16 at a public auction to Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-4 (“2006-4 Trust”) and Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-5 (“2006-5 Trust”) (collectively “the Trusts”).

Plaintiffs White and Church of the Gardens (“COTG”) alleged that the past or potential future nonjudicial sale of White’s properties violated “the organic law of this Nation and the State of Washington.”

The core allegation is that the Trusts did not possess the original promissory notes because they were lost or destroyed within a year the notes were signed by White.

One of the Defendants, Deutsche Bank, filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses, Dr. James M. Kelley and William J. Paatalo.

Computer Engineering Expert Witness

James M. Kelley holds a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has over 30 years of experience in advanced electrical and computer engineering applications, including digital signal processing, image forensics, cryptography, and radar systems development.

Get the full story on challenges to James Kelley’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Private Investigation Expert Witness

William J. Paatalo is an Oregon licensed private investigator who has worked exclusively over the last 15 years and spent more than 15,000 hours conducting investigatory research and interviews related to mortgage securitization and chain of title analyses.

Want to know more about the challenges William Paatalo has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

A. Testimony of James Kelley and William Paatalo

To begin with, Kelley inspected the five promissory notes, deeds of trust, and riders held at the Trusts’ counsel’s office. Kelley testified that he scanned all five promissory notes, deeds of trust, and riders with an Epson V-550 photo scanner to determine (1) the presence or absence of satellite ink droplets and (2) the presence or absence of CMYK color separation.

After examining the notes, Kelley made the following findings (1) no indentation evidence that is typically left by a ballpoint pen or manual writing instrument; (2) numerous satellite ink droplets that are observable on all five signatures and endorsements; (3) CMYK color consistency between each signature and the body text; (4) in at least two cases, multiple endorsements that appear in precise alignment; and (5) evidence that suggests that at least two different ink jets printers were used.

1. Kelley’s Testimony Must be Excluded

Deutsche Bank argued that since Plaintiffs cannot establish that Kelley is qualified or that he applies a reliable methodology, Kelley’s testimony on the authenticity of the promissory notes should be excluded.

i. Qualifications

Deutsche Bank argued that Kelley “lacks extensive education, training, or experience in handwriting analysis” and admitted during a deposition in a similar case that he does not have a degree in document examination and described himself as “more of a pure science engineering person.”

The Court agreed that Kelley is not qualified to provide expert testimony on forensic document examination because he lacks the requisite “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” in the field.

First, Kelley has no formal education or training in forensic science. He received a Bachelor of Arts from San Jose State University in mathematics. He then earned a master’s in electrical engineering and a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara (“UCSB”). Kelley’s formal training at Litton Industries and UCSB is on “image processing & wavelet signal analysis” and “digital signal processing” none of which relate to forensic science or document examination.

Moreover, the only items listed on Kelley’s curriculum vitae related to forensic document examinations are his training in “ultraviolet and infrared signature detection in forensic science” and experience as an “independent forensic engineering consultant.” Under his work as “consultant,” Kelley listed “forensic document analysis using image-processing and scanning technologies,” “specialized in identification of reconstructed mortgage documents used in foreclosure,” and “expert witness and consultant in federal and state litigation.” But none of these items provided any specific work experience in the area of forensic document examination.

ii. Reliability

Kelley stated that his opinion is based on scientifically valid principles and methods consistent with the Scientific Working Group on Standards (SWGDOC). He examined the scanned copies by applying the “Standard for Examination of Documents Produced with Liquid Ink Jet Technology” established by SWGDOC. Based on his observations of the scanned documents, such as an examination of satellite inkjet droplets and CMYK color separation, Kelley concluded that the notes provided by the Trusts did not contain “a wet-ink signature produced by pen.” Each note was instead a “digitally printed copy of a previously existing note, most likely created using archived image files after the destruction of the original document.”

Review of the SWGDOC showed that Kelley did not apply it in the way it was intended. The “Standard for Examination of Documents Produced with Liquid Ink Jet Technology” applied to “examinations involving copiers, printers, facsimile devices, and multifunction devices using ink jet technology.” In other words, this standard is meant for examination of documents originally produced with an ink jet printer.

Here, Kelley applied a method that assumed the document was produced by an inkjet, to then prove that the document was created by an ink jet printer. As a result, the Court held that Kelley’s expert testimony also failed to meet the reliability threshold.

2. William Paatalo’s Testimony Must also be Excluded

Deutsche Bank argued that Paatalo’s testimony should be excluded because “by his own admission, Paatalo has no expertise in forensic document examination or handwriting analysis” and he “offers no methodology regarding the same.”

The Court agreed that Plaintiffs have not established by a preponderance of evidence that Paatalo is qualified to opine about the authenticity of the promissory notes. Paatalo has no qualifying training or experience that would allow him to differentiate original notes from forged notes. Paatalo’s curriculum vitae instead showed that he worked as a police officer, loan officer, and has been working as a private investigator since 2009. And though Paatalo testified that he is “familiar with and has sufficient training and expertise to qualify as an expert,” his declaration did not show what “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” he applied to reach his opinion that the promissory notes were fabricated.

Paatalo submitted an expert declaration opining that the assignment of the mortgage to Wilmington was “fraudulent because the endorsement in blank attached to the assignment of the note to Wilmington . . . is a forgery.” The Court found Paatalo’s declaration inadmissible because it failed the first prong of Rule 702‘s expert qualification requirements. The Court explained that “Paatalo appears to have gathered all this foundational information through searching websites on the internet” and “purports to rely on information that is available to the general public through public websites.”

Paatalo’s opinions did not rely on any “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” in a relevant discipline to determine the authenticity of the notes. Instead, Paatalo merely offered his own individual interpretation of these documents, devoid of any relevant expertise, to reach the conclusion that Defendants do not possess the original promissory notes.

Held

The Court granted Deutsche Bank’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses, Dr. James M. Kelley and William Paatalo.

Key Takeaway:

As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether a proffered witness is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Kelley’s testimony, curriculum vitae, and declaration showed that he lacked formal education, experience, or training related to forensic document analysis.

Like Kelley, Paatalo had no qualifying training or experience that would allow him to differentiate original notes from forged notes. Paatalo’s curriculum vitae instead showed that he worked as a police officer, loan officer, and has been working as a private investigator since 2009.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Church Of The Gardens Et Al V. Quality Loan Services Corporation Et Al
Docket Number:	3:23cv6193
Court Name:	United States District Court, Washington Western
Order Date:	September 02, 2025

Category: Computer Engineering Expert Witness

Computer Engineering Expert’s Testimony on the Authenticity of the Promissory Notes Excluded

Computer Engineering Expert’s Testimony on the Authenticity of the Promissory Notes Excluded