That's, uh... news. Considering I'm a pastor and biblical scholar currently doing research work on ancient israel, not saying that I'm the know-everything guy but with 90 post graduate credit hours in the stuff so far, I'm pretty sure a scholastically verified artifact as important as relating to the crucifixion of ***** would be pretty big news in the field. Haven't seen a peep of it, only reports largely unverifiable of relics of the cross itself spread all around Europe. However, I can say with complete certainty that the one you refer to is a fake, if you were being serious.
Here's a good site for distinguishing rumored finds from actual ones:
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_rumors.asp
Despite the coolness of the prop, the inscription itself you have there is not accurate, though it's interesting and gets the point across to people of what it might have looked like. It should read, translated into English, "This is *****, the king of the Jews" as documented in all three of the synoptic gospels.
The main problem here is "*****" as a word only appeared in English translations in the mid 1100's onward. The actual Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek name, the one ***** was called, is Joshua, or Yeshua depending on which translation matrix you use.
Another problem is that a Roman centurion was the one to have written it, so it would have been in either Latin or Greek, the common languages written and spoken at the time. Unlikely that an uneducated front line grunt of the time would know how to write Hebrew. Also, the Greek is misspelled.
The other problem is the inscription you've got is not even close to that named in the synoptic gospels, in the Alexandrian historical scrolls, or in any of a few dozen other primary sources from the time that did go so far as to document it.
Still a very cool prop for its look at texture.