Notary Geek Investigation JSON
Public working record:This landing page will collect the investigation's published, source-backed work as it develops.

Website investigation

Specific claims. Preserved evidence. Checkable findings.

This is the public landing page for Notary Geek's investigation of identified statements on the Attorney Wu website. We preserve each statement, identify the source type, compare it with primary authority, and publish the bounded result.

Why this investigation exists

Complaint materials opened a focused branch of a broader investigation.

Correspondence concerning Notary Geek's website and services prompted this focused review of public claims on the Attorney Wu website. No complaint or response text is reproduced here, and this page does not adjudicate the complaint.

Notary Geek was already investigating professional authority, online-notarial risk, and public source quality. The correspondence brought identified claims on the Attorney Wu website into that broader work. The first audit compares those published claims with cited primary authority and states its limits.

Context source: Greg's firsthand account and retained correspondence, kept outside this public website repository. This context explains why the review began; it does not prove an allegation, authorship, motive, harm, or professional misconduct.

Published work

The first completed module: public claims audit

Five claims checked against primary authority

The audit reviews identified statements in five public articles about FBAR penalties and foreign-trust tax rules. It reports four identified claim errors and one context-only reporting clarification.

Read the full audit

Structured evidence

The companion JSON preserves stable finding IDs, source-page captures, bounded excerpts, primary authorities, corrections, limitations, review status, and confidence.

Open the audit JSON

Method and boundaries

Public claims are tested one at a time.

  • A complaint or criticism can trigger review, but it is not treated as proof.
  • Each published finding must identify the public claim, retained source record, authority type, correction, and material limitation.
  • Statutes, regulations, controlling decisions, agency guidance, form instructions, and internal manuals are identified by type and are not treated as interchangeable.
  • No complaint or response text, private communications, client facts, customer data, signatures, contact details, or private intake material is reproduced here.
  • No published finding by itself establishes intent, reliance, harm, or professional misconduct.

This is an investigation index—not a verdict.

New topics will be added when the evidence is specific enough to review and the public presentation can remain bounded, sourced, and fair.