What's wrong with this picture

[jberryhill]

This is an actual piece of evidence, certified as authentic by an actual attorney:

http://www.johnberryhill.com/procprcard.jpg

Look at it closely. (no cheating)

 

[Rockefeller]

On the left the card is issued in 2003 and expires in 2004. On the right the card says that it follows national guidelines ECC Subcommitte 2005. How can it follow guidelines from 2005 when it was issued two years earlier?

 

[jberryhill]

How can it follow guidelines from 2005 when it was issued two years earlier?

Sharp eye there, Rocky.

Time travel I suppose.

Not enough for an RDNH ruling, mind you.

 

[Biggie]

This is an actual piece of evidence, certified as authentic by an actual attorney:

http://www.johnberryhill.com/procprcard.jpg

Look at it closely. (no cheating)

On the left the card is issued in 2003 and expires in 2004. On the right the card says that it follows national guidelines ECC Subcommitte 2005. How can it follow guidelines from 2005 when it was issued two years earlier?

must either be actual evidence of "forgery" or a typo on "either" side of the card.

which is more likely to happen?

 

[Theo]

It's actually a case of pre-crime.

In 2005, Mrs. Colucci wrote several bad checks, then erased all evidence by traveling back to the past using proprietary nuclear technology her late husband, Dr. Phil Colucci had devised. Special agent John B. hunted her down through a wormhole preventing the crime by altering the exam results; eventually the duo emerged in 2007 after the crime would have happened, but never did.

Simple.

 

[maroulis]

This is an actual piece of evidence, certified as authentic by an actual attorney:

http://www.johnberryhill.com/procprcard.jpg

Look at it closely. (no cheating)

"FOLD HERE" in the middle?

Funnily enough, the sample online shows same dates i.e. 2003 issue, 2004 re-registration and guidelines 2005
http://www.procpr.org/sample.html

 

[tomsa]

I have found the original Roy Shaw signature. It looks really similar to the one on your document
http://www.procpr.org/images/royshaw.gif

Edit: Maroulis was quicker

 

[jdk]

They were teaching a future curriculum back in 2003-2004.

 

[jberryhill]

must either be actual evidence of "forgery" or a typo on "either" side of the card.

Oh, that's really good. You definitely have a mind that considers alternate theories, and avoid jumping to conclusions.

I'll add some additional facts.

The referenced guidelines were published in 2005. The card was offered as evidence of trademark use of "PROCPR" as of April 2003. The company was incorporated on that date.

They were teaching a future curriculum back in 2003-2004.

I like that one, too.

Here's another interesting set of facts:

http://www.procpr.org/faq.php#Q16

When is your next training session?
ProCPR does not offer any training courses.

Compare this to:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77180541


(words only): PROCPR

Educational services, namely, conducting cardiopulmonary resuscitation classes in person and over the Internet for professional recertification of healthcare professionals.

 

[Gerry]

Caught the dates immediately. Plus, most actual health care provider cards are issued by the American Heart Association with logo. Those are the only ones that should be acceptable by any institution.

 

[scrsteven]

procpr.org is the #1 sponsored link on procpr.com. should've chosen a different name with all the money they waste that way.

 

[Gerry]

Oh, that's really good. You definitely have a mind that considers alternate theories, and avoid jumping to conclusions.

I'll add some additional facts.

The referenced guidelines were published in 2005. The card was offered as evidence of trademark use of "PROCPR" as of April 2003. The company was incorporated on that date.



I like that one, too.

Here's another interesting set of facts:

http://www.procpr.org/faq.php#Q16

When is your next training session?
ProCPR does not offer any training courses.

Compare this to:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77180541


(words only): PROCPR

Educational services, namely, conducting cardiopulmonary resuscitation classes in person and over the Internet for professional recertification of healthcare professionals.

The whole thing is totally bogus.

The American Heart Association directs and dictates all standards of issuance of the CPR (known as BCLS), as well as ACLS and Neo-Natal and PALS (pediatric).

There is no such thing as being done "over the internet" or recert online. In some instance you can with the AHA but proof of prior certification is needed.

A certified instructor must conduct the initial and recertification process in person, one on one, and must certify the individual being tested. This is hands on practicum and post-test.

In addition, the card must be issued by the American Heart Association.

As for CPR initial or renewal, the new AHA guidelines require all participants to watch a DVD or film, followed by lecture, followed by hands on, includes the new AHA guidelines, then a post test.

All in person. No matter how many years a person has been doing this, these are the requirements. There are no alternatives and no substitutions.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I caught the dates right away... knew nothing of what Doc Com posted, good stuff there It is amazing what some people will do.


me: heart.. stopped... not... breathing
alleged CPRer: I'm certified from ProCPR.org
me: Our Father....

 

[Gerry]

I caught the dates right away... knew nothing of what Doc Com posted, good stuff there It is amazing what some people will do.


me: heart.. stopped... not... breathing
alleged CPRer: I'm certified from ProCPR.org
me: Our Father....

Always looking for the dates on something like this.

Plus, under the old 2000 AHA guidelines, annual renewal was required. But under the new 2005 guidelines, renewal is only required every two years.

So that is why I was looking for the corresponding dates.

Clearly is shows that someone was not paying attention to the dates when this was "forged".

 

[chatcher]

It makes no sense to me that someone with access to a time machine would ever need to employ CPR. Or an attorney, for that matter...

 

[Biggie]

must be coincidence

our company is having CPR training next week!

I sent reply email asking "who is certifying the training?" ....only because of the thread.

waiting.....

 

[jberryhill]

There is no such thing as being done "over the internet" or recert online. In some instance you can with the AHA but proof of prior certification is needed.

From the FAQ:

Will my employer accept this card?

It is up to the discretion of each individual employer to decide whether or not they will accept the ProCPR certification. It is suggested that you show the certificate or website (www.procpr.org) to your employer and let them decide. If you call any other Curriculum provider, ie. American Heart Association or Red Cross, they will most likely tell you they do not recognize or accept our certificate. This is to be expected because they are competitors to ProCPR.

Doc com, you seem to know a bit about CPR certification. Bluntly put, what do you see going on here?

 

[Gerry]

From the FAQ:

Will my employer accept this card?

It is up to the discretion of each individual employer to decide whether or not they will accept the ProCPR certification. It is suggested that you show the certificate or website (www.procpr.org) to your employer and let them decide. If you call any other Curriculum provider, ie. American Heart Association or Red Cross, they will most likely tell you they do not recognize or accept our certificate. This is to be expected because they are competitors to ProCPR.

Doc com, you seem to know a bit about CPR certification. Bluntly put, what do you see going on here?

I don't have the actual piece of paper before me to examine.

So, I am going to have to make some assumptions.

If the back of the card is indeed unaltered, and it is dated 2005, and it is Mr. Shaw's signature, then there is a great possibility he signed these cards in advance and someone stole this card, added the name and dates.

Or, there is a possibility that Mr. Shaw was doing someone a "favor" by giving them a card to fill out on their own or actually committed the offense.

In either case, if this involves the actual performance of CPR by someone who is not authorized or checked off, then I would pity anyone who was involved in any forgery or false certification.

There should minimally be a roster kept somewhere by someone showing the dates and the times of the class and the instructors as well as all in attendance and the instructor.

I have never personally seen anything other than a card issued by the American Heart Association so naturally I would be suspect to anything but one with their logo. Plus, the cards issued by the AHA can not be altered, as best as I recall.

My hunch was this was someone who was an EMT or Paramedic or first responder or home care provider who let their certification lapse of never was certified to begin with.

If you call any other Curriculum provider, ie. American Heart Association or Red Cross, they will most likely tell you they do not recognize or accept our certificate. This is to be expected because they are competitors to ProCPR.[/I]

That is the most pathetic disclaimer I have ever seen.

The American Heart Association or the Red Cross is not their competitors...they are the ones that CERTIFY THE INSTRUCTORS, THE COURSES, AND THE PROVIDERS.

Wow, what a line of BS.

 

[Dave Zan]

Lemme guess:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0823.html

Now this doesn't happen to be the one you hinted back at NP that'll like make
your fingers cringe?

 

[jberryhill]

Now this doesn't happen to be the one you hinted back at NP that'll like make
your fingers cringe?

Yup.

Oh, and by the way, if you live in New Zealand or Australia, and the case commences on a Monday - then the UDRP response time is 16 days, not 20. Every case commenced on a Monday - 20% of UDRP cases - runs to a Sunday deadline.

Been filing on Mondays on a Sunday deadline for 7 years. NAF explicitly accepts that in their supplemental rules. WIPO never raised a question about it. Until now.

Dead bang forgery sworn to in front of them - federal felony - no RDNH.