Something in this file
doesn’t add up.
Find out before it costs you.
When records conflict, timelines don’t hold, or a case feels wrong before anyone can say exactly why, that gap is where cases fall apart. I identify where the record breaks — before a decision, a filing, or a hearing turns it into a problem you can’t undo.
Start a Rapid File Review — $150–$250 48-hour turnaround · Written findings · No intake call requiredSend your documents. I read the record, flag what doesn’t hold, and tell you what it means. You get a written findings brief — inconsistencies identified, gaps noted, and a clear read on whether you have a real problem or a manageable one. This is the fastest way to know what you’re actually looking at.
Signs the record isn’t holding up.
You don’t need to be able to name the problem to know something is off. These are the situations where a file review changes what happens next.
Three tiers. One purpose: tell you what the record actually says.
All engagements are paid before work begins. All produce written deliverables. No verbal summaries, no vague impressions — documented findings you can act on or hand to counsel.
For individuals and operational clients who need a fast, expert read before making a decision. You send documents and a description of the situation. I flag what doesn’t add up and tell you what it means.
This is the lowest-friction entry point for any situation. No intake call required. Scope confirmed, flat rate agreed, work begins after payment.
Start a Rapid Review- Case File Quick Scan — $200–$300 · 24–48 hrs
- Timeline Reconstruction — $300–$500 · 48–72 hrs
- Contradiction & Exposure Review — $400–$750 · 2–4 days
- Records Gap Analysis — $150–$350 · 24–48 hrs
- Rapid Data Read (structured data, SQL/Python) — from $250
- Full Rapid Case Read with Go/No-Go — $1,500 · 48 hrs
For matters where a quick scan isn’t enough. I review the full record, identify where and how it breaks, and deliver a written findings report built for litigation or publication. This is what you hand to counsel when you need the groundwork done before the clock starts running on their time.
Has produced a Michigan Supreme Court remand. Has predated formal institutional action by months.
Start a Case Analysis- Full case file forensic review
- Timeline reconstruction from source documents
- Cross-document contradiction mapping
- Procedural gap and failure identification
- Pre-litigation institutional exposure assessment
- Written findings report built to hold under scrutiny
- Attorney-ready intake file (case structuring track)
For litigation finance teams, SIU departments, law firms, and civil rights organizations that can’t afford to work from unreliable records. Scoped project work or retained advisory, structured around your pipeline.
Also available: Legal AI and court systems domain consultation, product red-teaming, training data quality review, and expert framing for legal reform advocacy.
Request Enterprise Scope- Project-based — scoped deliverables, fixed timeline
- Retained advisory — from $3,000/month
- Pre-investment case screening (litigation finance)
- Procedural abuse signature identification
- FOIA strategy, drafting, and appeal support
- Legal AI domain advisory and red-teaming
- Expert framing and report authorship
What this methodology actually produced.
These are not summaries of the work. They are the specific structural failures identified, and what happened when the analysis was right before the institution caught up.
What was broken: A sitting judge’s conduct pattern — docket anomalies, procedural irregularities, accountability gaps — was not yet on the Judicial Tenure Commission’s formal record. Every proceeding before this bench was accumulating reversible error. Parties had no documented basis to challenge outcomes or seek recusal because the pattern hadn’t been structured as evidence.
How the analysis worked: Primary-source document review identified the pattern across cases. The analysis mapped how individual procedural failures formed a recognizable signature when read across the full docket — invisible case by case, visible in aggregate.
What was broken: Barry County conviction and sentencing data contained anomalies that were invisible in standard case review and only visible in cross-jurisdictional statistical comparison. Affected parties lacked any statistical basis to challenge outcomes that appeared procedurally valid but were anomalous at the population level.
How the analysis worked: SQL-based cross-jurisdictional analysis identified distributions inconsistent with comparable Michigan counties. The pattern was not opinion — it was documented in counts, rates, and comparisons sourced directly from court data.
Three vantage points. Published results.
12 years as a GS-13/14 Supply Systems Analyst at the Defense Logistics Agency — data standards, interoperability, and enterprise governance across a $200B+ supply chain. That’s where I learned to read systems for what they do, not what they claim to do.
Since 2022: independent investigative accountability platform focused on Michigan courts, sentencing policy, prosecutorial conduct, and judicial fitness. Published analysis that predated formal institutional action. One Michigan Supreme Court remand traceable to the investigative record.
I am not adjacent to institutional dysfunction. I have been inside a federal agency, inside active district court proceedings, and inside an investigative desk — and I have the receipts. That vantage point is what you are hiring.
If your file isn’t making sense,
don’t guess.
Start with a Rapid File Review. Know what you actually have before the decision, the filing, or the moment when getting it wrong becomes expensive.