A Real Expert's Opinion.....

sent the two declarations in the dismissed Hawaiian Supreme Court case Keyes v. Lingle et al to the various people I've been trading notes and information with on the Birthers and the like. And since it included Polarik and his claims, I passed it on to Dr. Neal Krawetz of "HackerFactor", whom Polarik seems to have decided is a mortal enemy for daring to be a real forensic computer and security specialist who's called Polarik on his false claims.

He seems to be amused by it. Since he gave me permission to repost his email, I'm doing so.

------------------------------------
Hi Patrick,

Thanks for the pointer to the legal declarations! Very entertaining.

http://goexcelglobal.com/share/Anonymous_Digitable_Expert_Declaration_signed.pdf

In #2, she basically says the same thing I have been saying: based strictly on the picture, the document cannot be authenticated.

My main argument is that there is no indication of digital modification beyond the censored number, scaling, and cropping. However, "not modified" is not the same as "authentic". I cannot prove authenticity from the scanned document.

Item #2 is the only claim she makes to support Polarik. And the only part she explicitly says that she agrees with is that the image cannot be identified as genuine.

In #3, she questions why the number was removed. (The fact that the number was censored directly goes with the image not being genuine. That does not mean any wrongdoing, just that it cannot be authenticated.)

However, I thought someone from Hawaii answered the question about the censored number: the number could be used to illegally request a copy of the original document. In fact, on the Hawaii web page for requesting a reprint, they ask for that number. Providing the number makes it easier for someone to commit fraud.

In #4, she basically says that there is no point in examining the online document since it cannot be used to prove authenticity.

That's it. Nowhere do I see her saying that the image artifacts identify tampering nor that she agrees with any other points from Polarik.

http://goexcelglobal.com/share/Anonymous_Digitable_Expert_Declaration_signed.pdf

Hmm... Why is Polarik's report undated? Declarations must be dated, otherwise there can be raised questions about when the statement was made.

According to the PDF meta information:
Creator Tool : Print Server 110
Modify Date : 2008:12:04 11:29:36-10:00
Metadata Date : 2008:12:04 11:29:36-10:00

And then there are the other missing things:

- Where is Polarik's dual PhD? It's not listed under experience.

- Where is his background in handwriting analysis and masters in statistics that he claimed? (He says he has worked as a Statistician, but that is not the same as having a Masters in statistics.)

- (As you mentioned) Where are the death threats? Instead, he works as a government contractor. In court, anything Polarik has said in any forum can be brought up in order to question his credibility. So let's see:

- Polarik claimed in public forums to have more education and experience than he declared.
- Polarik claimed to be worried about death threats -- even mentioned in Lines' declaration. Yet it is not mentioned here. This seems inconsistent.
- Polarik made many more claims -- many of which are provably false -- in online forums. Why are those claims not made here? More importantly, when did he sign this declaration? Was it before or after he made those false claims?

- Polarik mentions a lot of old knowledge.

- He used computers in 1969. Is computer experience from the pre-home computer era relevant to today's computer capabilities? Nowhere does he mention more recent experience.
- He learned about high-end cameras in the 1940's. Is he claiming that high-end cameras from 60 years ago are comparable with high-end digital cameras today?
- He does mention using digital cameras in 1998. However, "using" is not the same as having detailed technical knowledge. I "use" a car, but I'm not a mechanic.
- He says he is trained in using Photoshop and Image Ready for making web graphics. Using a tool to draw pictures is not the same as knowing how to identify tampering. That's like a phlebotomist claiming to understand blood splatter forensics just because he knows how to use a needle.

Basically, I question whether ANY of his knowledge or stated background is even relevant. I see nothing that even hints at Polarik being an expert. (His paragraph #5.)

In contrast, Lines definitely has the background. However, she never once makes the same grandiose claims that Polarik makes.

- In #6, Polarik mentions rumors. He fails to mention that he was behind many of those rumors and that he was an active participant in forums where many of those rumors started.

We could even go into the guilt-by-association claims. For example, Parker Shannon (aka "Beckwith") supports Polarik's claims. Yet he even states that his website contains less than 20% factual statements.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008062703939&pos=

"If 20 percent of what's on my Web site is true, this guy is a clear and present danger"

In #7, Polarik even opens himself to guilt-by-association by mentioning forums that cite his work and that have spread provably false statements.

- The next items (#7 - #14) are all effectively heresay. Polarik is citing people who never claimed to be authoritative subject matter experts. In fact, Polarik is primarily citing forums that have cited or argued with his own findings. The question the defense attorney should ask: what is the issue? That non-expert people are questioning the document, or that Polarik claims that the document is fake? Items #7 - #14 make no statement about whether the documents are authentic.

- #15 gets to the real meat. Polarik makes the following claims:

1. The COLB is just a transcript of a birth record on file. That's fine, but Polarik never mentions whether it is good enough for claiming citizenship. Moreover, Polarik never says that the document must be made public (because no laws say that it must be made public).
2. The COLB is a graphic that was printed. But Polarik never says that this is harmful or misleading.
3. The COLB should have a seal. Ah, Polarik says this is not visible, even through it absolutely is visible. Polarik has misspoken in his declaration. Was it an intentional lie, or ignorance?

- Item #16 says that all of the online sites show variants of the same image. So what? None of those sites claimed they were different. Moreover, Polarik fails to identify which of the variants was the original.

But it gets funnier: Then Polarik says that he saw anomolies that "would never exist in a genuine scan of a real document." This is a provably false statement. Again, Polarik is wrong in his declaration: Was it an intentional lie, or ignorance?

- Item #17 says that he enlarged the image beyond the information level found in the image. ("After enlarging the image four times its size...") If you scale a JPEG larger than 2x, then the chromatic information becomes approximated by the viewing application. This is not showing the information actually stored in the JPEG. This is mock science.

- Item #18 addresses copies of a document posted to unofficial political websites. He has not addressed the original document. And he has not identified the paternity of the documents: which came first, how was each version derived, and was the original an "original" or was it derived from some other image. (Hint: we KNOW it was derived from another image because the censored number was added after it was scanned.)

As an aside, which image is Exhibit A? All four images? Or just one image? Later on he says that Exhibit A are all of his postings. I'm sure the attorney will want each item separated out for clarity. Right now, Polarik is just saying "look over there" but not what people should look at. (It is like Polarik has zero experience as an expert witness.)

- In Item #19, Polarik claims that subsequent images posted on the web in an unofficial forum are forgeries. But there are problems here:

1. He provides no information to support this claim.
2. Other people lined up markings on the folds with the original web image and found a solid alignment. (Back to the "wrong or ignorant" issue.)
3. If this makes it to court (I doubt it, but if...) then all it takes is for the people from Factcheck to show up with the actual piece of paper to make Polarik a liar. And I believe that can do it.

- Item #20 says that Polarik has "thoroughly examined the photographs that FactCheck published". Wait... didn't that other expert (Lines, the real expert) says "In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined". So Polarik's #20 is bogus since he is examining the wrong document for authenticity.

- Items #21 and #22 are conclusions drawn from all of the previous items.

So let's summarize:

- Polarik is an anonymous entity who gives conflicting reasons why he wants to be anonymous.
- Along with anonymity, Polarik's declaration is undated.
- He does not declare any relevant or recent background information that would identify him as an expert. And, his background differs from his public statements in forums where he mentions his background.
- He makes provably false statements. (Sorry Polarik, but I can see the seal. And I see no evidence that the paper held by Factcheck is not the same paper that was originally scanned.)
- He uses mock science be scaling images beyond the information content.
- He cites forums that have actively spread provably false information.
- And he uses this non-background with non-scientific methods and unauthoritative sources to claim that the online documents are forgeries.

Wow, that's a whole lotta bullshit.

- And in Item #23? But those are just his "opinions".

The final sentence says, "I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct." Polarik had better hope this never gets to a court, because this is perjury.

Finally, this document is a "declaration" and not a "deposition" as claimed by Polarik. Is he unfamiliar with the legal system?

[Feel free to post any or all of my comments. I have no desire to post this on my own blog -- it's too out of context from my other blog postings.]

-Neal
--
Neal Krawetz, Ph.D.
Hacker Factor Solutions
http://www.hackerfactor.com/
Author of "Introduction to Network Security" (Charles River Media, 2006) and "Hacking Ubuntu" (Wiley, 2007)

Comments

[Litlebritdifrnt]

WTF? I didn't even know that you could file a declaration in Federal Court as XXXXXXXX, I thought (and I still do until I get back to the office next week and check out my Rules of Federal Court) that you had to have a person to file a declaration. I mean how the hell can a declaration be considered without a name? I could file a declaration stating that I am Mickey Mouse, I mean WTF?

[GeorgetownJD]

File a Daubert motion to strike Polarik's affidavit!!!

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 governs "testimony" offered by someone who presents himself as an expert. That Rule provides that an expert may testify if "(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."

Any layperson can readily see that Polarik fails the Rule 702 test to be an expert. Wright and Miller explain Rule 702 thus:

"Sec. 6266 Scientific Evidence, Non-Scientific Experts, and Reliability

...

Rule 702(1) requires that expert testimony be "based upon sufficient facts or data." The Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 702(1) states that this calls for a quantitative rather than qualitative analysis. The question is whether the expert considered enough information to make the proffered opinion reliable. ... Included in the analysis under Rule 702(1) is whether the expert considered all the pertinent physical and eyewitness evidence. For example, assume that in an auto accident case plaintiff calls an accident reconstruction expert who testifies defendant must have been traveling over the speed limit. The expert bases her opinion entirely upon the extent of damage to the vehicles and admits she did not measure the skid marks, consider the extent of the personal injuries, or examine any other physical evidence pertinent to estimating speed. This opinion may be challenged under Rule 702(1) on the ground it is not based on sufficient facts or data. In the same case, assume that defendant's expert testifies that, based on an inspection of plaintiff's car, the cause of the accident was brake failure due to defective design. But this expert admits she failed to question eyewitnesses who could testify as to whether plaintiff properly serviced the brakes. This opinion also can be challenged under Rule 702(1) because the expert failed to consider facts or data that might lead to alternative theories of causation."

Polarik failed the first test -- he didn't (a) consider the actual document, only an image posted on the Internet.

Okay, lets check the second test. Wright and Miller explain:

"Rule 702(2) requires that expert testimony be "the product of reliable principles and methods." This means that the foundation for admitting expert opinion testimony should address both the principles and methods underlying that evidence. ... While "principle" refers to the theories an expert employs to explain observed facts, "method" refers to how the expert derives those theories. Expert testimony regarding scientific matters is reliable if the expert's theories were derived through the so-called scientific method. This includes the use of testing, appropriate standards and controls, and acceptable error rates."

What standards did Polarik apply? What controls? What are the error rates, and does his within the acceptable range? Dr. Krawetz demonstrates that Polarik's principles and methods are unreliable. Strike two.

How about the third test?

"Rule 702(3) states that expert testimony is admissible only if the witness applies her principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Thus, even if the expert employs reliable general principles developed by reliable methods, evidence may be excluded under Rule 702(3) if the specific application of those principles to the facts of the case is suspect. ... The questions are simply whether the expert properly applied the established scientific principle to the facts and whether the expert's credibility is compromised for reasons such as bias."

Bias is something that is brought our through cross-examination. We don't know what biases Polarik has (although we can take a pretty good guess), but good cross examination will delve into personal, political and professional matters that are likely to demonstrate that Polarik's work was compromised by bias and he sought to confirm a pre-conceived outcome.

I would LOVE to get this guy in the witness chair. ;>)

[Patrick McKinnion]

Litlebritdifrnt - Well, Dr. Orly and Berg have both supposedly gotten declarations from Polarik, but in those cases he's claimed they know the names but is keeping it secret due to supposed "death threats". Which is NOT what the document in the Hawaiian Keyes v. Lingle case said.

GeorgetownJD - The single reason I'd LOVE to see one of these go to trial is to see Polarik, (and TechDude, and others), in the witness chair and have to give their real names, bona fides, and PROVE their work and qualifications to make such an analysis. I suspect strongly they would be eaten alive

[Litlebritdifrnt]

Georgetownjd - you are so evil. I like that in a person. :)

[John Dean]

Patrick, I am sending you something important via email. Feel free to share the email with Dr. Neal, if you think it deserves a closer look.

For everyone else - maybe, just maybe, Polarik outed himself with his BS.

John

[John Dean]

BTW, what kind of expert is an Anonymous "Digitable" Expert?

Ummm, shouldn't that be "digital?"

John

[GeorgetownJD]

Litlebritdifrnt: Thanks. Mischievous, perhaps.

Polarik and TechDude would be oh-so-easy to take down. An expert has to provide a written report and include: (1) a description of his education, professional affiliations, certifications and other qualifications; (2) a list of publications he has authored; and (3) other cases and courts in which he has testified. Through document discovery, I typically obtain all documents relied on, copy of the retention agreement setting out the terms and scope of his work, and his hourly billings, and copies of other expert reports he has prepared using the same methods. I check the outcomes of the prior litigation -- whether the expert's testimony was allowed or was stricken; whether the court ruled for or against the position he advocated; the reasoning spelled out by the court for accepting or rejecting the expert's methodology; etc. After that, I take a deposition, and in that we cover his credentials, who assisted in the drafting of the report, how much input from the attorney who hired him (sometimes the other attorney actually drafted the darn thing!). Then, pull out the literature on the subject and get him to agree or disagree with the others whose methodologies have been accepted. Then we go sentence by sentence through the report and pin down the source and supporting facts to back up each assertion, make him define all terms used, etc. I pin down what evidence he did not consider. We next go into his methodology, how he tested it, etc. Finally, I hand the report and deposition transcript over to my expert and instruct, "critique this." There is always fertile ground for a rebuttal report.

BTW, my firm always has the deposition video taped by a court-certified videographer. Polarik and TechDude would not be able to hide.

Like Patrick, I harbor a secret desire to see one of these birther cases actually go to trial.

Yep, I'm evil.

[GeorgetownJD]

Oh, and I want to whip Orly's ass in court, too. Too bad I don't practice in California, where she is limited by her unaccredited legal education.

[John Dean]

Well Tech Dude has already been taken down...Adam Fink of Missouri.

For me at least, Polarik and TexasDarlin are the "crown jewels."

[Patrick McKinnion]

GeorgetownJD - Yeah, last I heard she's complaining about delays in getting admitted to the SCOTUS bar, despite having submitted the sponsor and supposedly a certificate of good standing. They're blaming the same clerk that Donifrio was blaming for his problems.

[opendna]

From Polarik's declaration: "It is also worth mentioning that no copy of the reverse side of this "birth certificate" document was ever scanned, a side that contains all of the official certification instruments, such as the official Hawaiian Seal, State Registrar's signature, and date stamp of when the document was printed."

On August 21 2008, FactCheck published an article titled "Born in the U.S.A."
including several images, one of which is the reverse side of the COLB with the caption "Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp" on http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The full-size image is here: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

Will we get to read testimony explaining how a "digital photo" isn't really a "scan" and no false statement was made? I'm sure the judge would be pleased.

[GeorgetownJD]

Patrick: I don't know why she's getting her underwear in a twist about the Motion for Admission to the court. It's not like her case is going to be heard. Orly probably wants the pretty certificate to frame and hang in the dental clinic.

[John Dean]

P a Rk
Pol a rik
Polarik
PARKer Shannon, aka Beckwith

I previously uncovered quite a bit of stuff leading me to this conclusion, but the "word games" I just noticed cinch it for me.

Polarik is Parker Shannon, aka Beckwith.

I need to capture all evidence I found, in various formats, before writing more about this.

SluggoJD
John Dean

[GeorgetownJD]

Great discovery, Sluggo.

Could the Tedbot robo-posts be the work of smear machinist Ted Sampley?

[not a fan of puma]

GeorgetownJD

I am also DYING to see any one of these merry band of morons show up in court and attempt to get through even the initial discovery phase of a case...THAT would be HYSTERICAL!

The Berg followers are under the impression over at the mothership that somehow Obama dodged a "federal subpoena" issued by the fed gvt (somehow as a part of Berg's laughable discovery request) because, of course, EVERYONE is in on the conspiracy to protect him! They have yet to discover the difference between a civil and criminal case over there. LOL

Also over at the Berg mothership- they are awaiting BIG developments in some case or another on Jan 4th! Apparently the 4th is a "deadline" for something in some super-secret case which no one can discuss--the "case that shall not be named" if you will. LOL! I am guessing this is some deadline in the "whistleblower" case... and I am guessing NOTHING big is happening, but, his main volunteer did make sure to post a new plea for more $$ to keep the fight going.

These batsh#t-crazies sure make for some terrific late night amusement when one needs a break from work!

[not a fan of puma]

Probably already old news here, but, I thought this was pretty interesting and not at all surprising! See the links below for some of Berg's history tangling with Judges...I do so hope they get this case into a court, then maybe we can knock this fool out of the legal profession for good!!

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0679P.pdf

[not a fan of puma]

FYI--pa law disciplinary board link on how to report a complaint:

http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/faqs/report_consumer.php

[JR]

So, if "Polarik" is Parker Shannon...what are Shannon's credentials? I mean, Polarik is clearly a bullshit artist regardless.

[John Dean]

Well here's Parker Shannon's resume:

http://web.archive.org/web/19981202040902/www.dbstuff.com/PSresume.htm

And here's another variation, where he is registered as a supposed expert:

http://www.intota.com/expert-consultant.asp?bioID=708110&perID=721802&show=Full

He owned dbstuff.com for years:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://dbstuff.com

Yet was ridiculed by others who, I guess, knew more than he did...and was known as Parker, Parker Shannon, and Beckwith:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_thread/thread/75341a4dc253758e?q=#11739058a93ac5ba

He posts as PShannon at Newsbusters:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9390

And he also posts as Rick007 at Newsbusters:

http://newsbusters.org/bios/rick007.html

A name he uses at other places:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:6W-4F5ccoIMJ:hotair.com/archives/2008/10/15/surprise-negative-ad-that-hits-obama-on-fannie-and-freddie-proves-highly-effective/+rick007+obama&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

There's more, but I need to get ready for work.

John

[John Dean]

Wow, what happened to my post?

[Patrick McKinnion]

John Dean - Too many URLs, and the spam filter holds it until someone with moderator access allows it to be published. It's been released now.

[Mary Brown]

I am an Obama voter and evangelical christian. I have been exposed to these "theories" recently. Can you help me? Who is this Dr. Taitz? Is she a United States citizen? She promotes comments on Pravda? I cannot find her biography on line or much about her from sources other than her pals. Has anyone looked into who she is connected to. There are a bunch of theories about the US breaking up by some Russians. I may be way off but I am puzzled. I may be posting this in the wrong place but maybe you can help me.

[Abroadsider]

Really, Mary, you'd be well served by looking through some of Patrick's recent articles here, and also some of the comment threads where we've discussed Taitz and the other isues you ask about. Here's a very brief rundown on Orly Taitz, to wich I'ms sure others here can add.

She runs a dental practice in Mission Viejo, California. She qualified as an attorney via a distance learning program, and is only licenced to practice in CA. She's been in the US for around 20 years. I believe she is indeed a US citizen. She does promote comments and smears published in Pravda Online (note: not the same as Pravda the print newspaper) by minor Texan oil wholesaler and non-journalist Mark S. McGrew, but she's not alone in that among the COLB crew.

I'm sure that factions within Russia would love to see the US break up (even some within the US!). That doesn't meran it's going to happen. I've no idea where Taitz stands on such an idea - publicly at least, she's no fan of the old Soviet Union, having fled to the US to escape its evils.

[Abroadsider]

Apologies for the typos in the above - taking an all to brief break from work and my hands are cold! I hope it's still legible.

[Patrick McKinnion]

Mary Brown - Dr. Orly Taitz is a dentist and attorney in Mission Viejo, California. She is a naturalized US citizen having immigrated from the former Soviet Union. According to the California Bar and the California Dental Association, she is licenced to practice both specialties in California. Her JD legal degree is from an on-line law school based in Santa Ana, California. California is the only state to allow graduates of on-line schools to take the bar exam and practice law.

[kevin]

As to why the original Obama certificate image is blacked out, the answer is on FactCheck.org (who gets to ask people directly why they do things).

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world."

Having the certificate number does not help one get a certificate. Anyone requesting a certificate has the same proof of identity requirements. In Hawaii, a photocopy of a driver's license is required for mail orders.

[kevin]

Dr. Taitz was the attorney of record for Alan Keyes' lawsuit in California. I'm not sure how much she is involved in the Natural Born Citizen...Orly? web site. Someone named Robert Stevens posts there and talks like he owns the place.

[StrangeAppar8us]

Patrick -- A poster on FreeRepublic writes breathlessly that Ed Hale of PlainsRadio has obtained the Obama/Dunham divorce papers (which I thought Dr. Taitz already possessed) and will "reveal all" on his radio show tomorrow night...but when you check out the PlainsRadio site there's only a banner that says they need to raise $1,000 in 24 hours to "purchase the documents."

A cynic would assume that the poster at FR is a PlainsRadio plant hoping to drive contributors to the PayPal button. As for the intrinsic importance of any Ed Hale "scoop," I'll let history be your guide. ;->

[JR]

I guess PlainsRadio has learned a bit from Sammy Korir.

[StrangeAppar8us]

JR -- Unfortunately, Ed hasn't learned anything from his earlier direct dealings WITH Chief Editor Korir, who screwed him over on cash-participating in the release of the "Michelle Obama tapes." Now, he's buying documents from a "private investigator." Duh.

Patrick -- Apologies -- Taitz had the Dunham/Soetoro divorce papers. THIS batch is the REAL DEAL from the earlier marriage that will PROVE, ONCE AND FOR ALL that Barack Obama is the bastard son of Ronald Reagan!