Was Obama's COLB Forged? Did Obama Post a Forged COLB on his Campaign's Website? - Polarik's Claims

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip A. Berg alleged, in his complaint filed against Obama, that "[A]s posted all over the internet, three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website. The Forensic Expert findings were the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was in fact a forgery." (Note:  Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.  See here for current status of his appeals.)

So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence, that either supports or refutes the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

Let's break the allegations down:

---

12/3 Update:

Polarik's YouTube Video:  Mr. Berg has published a video of "Dr. Ron Polarik," discussing his claims, New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama's COLB, introduced as follows:  "This video provides an analysis of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth by Dr. Ron Polarik detailing the factors contributing to his conclusion that the document is not authentic. "Dr. Polarik" is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video."

• Steve Eddy has issued his analysis of the claims made in the YouTube video here:  Polarik's YouTube Video (Koyaan's Blog). (Updated 12/4)  

Polarik's Latest Report: Polarik has also recently published his "final report," here: Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy; Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud.  (Polarik reported this to us in an 11/22 comment tagged by Typepad as "spam," and, as such, his comment was received just today in the process of cleaning out our spam folder.)

• Dr. Neal Krawetz (real name) has issued his analysis of Polarik's final report here: Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II.

It will take us a bit to break these reports down into an issue by issue analysis. However, as Polarik's new report renders at least some of the information regarding prior reports obsolete, we have removed the information regarding other self-identified experts' analyses of his old reports.  We've included the link to the one other self-identified expert who has evaluated his new report, and will provide links/information to other reports (whether supporting or refuting the current claims) as they are reported to us.  

---

9/22 Update: Mr. Berg has now published a revised report issued by "Ron Polarik" See Certificate of Live Birth analysis - Part one (Polarik, Sept. 18, 2008).  Therefore, we have confirmed that Polarik is one of the referenced "experts" on this issue.  We are evaluating Polarik's report and will update this post to reflect that information soon. 

---

So, again, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations? 

(Note:  If you are aware of additional evidence that either supports or refutes the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly.  Thank you!)

Let's break the allegations down:

Allegation		Pleading Citation(s)	Evidence Cited in Pleadings
A	Is "Polarik" a qualified "[forensic] expert" pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?	Complaint ¶ 35; see also TRO Memo at 8.	None.
B	Did Polarik evaluate the COLB posted on Obama's campaign website?	---	---
C	Did Polarik conduct "extensive [forensic] testing" on a COLB?	Id.	None.
D	Did Polarik determine that the COLB he evaluated is a forgery?	Id.	None.
E	Have other "experts" confirmed Polarik's findings as accurate?	---	---

Analysis of "Evidence" Available on the Internet

A	Is "Polarik" a qualified " forensic(?) expert" pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
True	Polarik explains his expert qualifications in both the video noted in the 12/3 update, above and elsewhere.		See, e.g., New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama's COLB
??	12/3 Update:  Berg identifed Polarik as his (or one of his) experts on his COLB forgery claim, and  stated, in his original complaint that "extensive forensic testing" was done on the COLB (see citations above). However, Polarik has taken issue with our use of the term "forensic," commenting: "You repeatedly use the phrase, "forensic testing," in relation to my research, as if I had ever used it, or made any associations to it. The fact of the matter is that I have never claimed to be a "forensic" anything because, to me, "forensic" restricts the focus of the research to finding evidence of criminal activity. The use of the term is also inappropriate, because it obviates the entire sphere of investigative research conducted in hundreds of other fields." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, we've stricken the term "forensic" from this entry.  Polarik contends that he is not a forensic expert.  But see 12/29 update, below.  (As noted above, he describes his expert qualifications, including in the New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama's COLB and elsewhere.)		(11/22 Comment from Polarik; received 12/3)
??	12/29 Update:  In a comment submitted 12/23, Polarik now does claim to be a forensic expert: "I am the one and only one forensics expert in the field of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth documnets and document reproduction." (Emphasis supplied)		(12/23 Comment from Polarik)
Conclusion: Unclear
12/3 Update:  Polarik asserts that he is an expert both in the video shown above and in his comments to us.  However, because he uses a pseudonym (at least according to Berg), it is impossible to verify his credentials or to determine whether they meet the qualifications set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence on Expert Witnesses). See also Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II.  12/29 Update:  As to the issue of whether or not he is a forensic expert, we are unsure how to reconcile his two recent statements on the issue.

Back to Top

B	Did Polarik evaluate the COLB posted on Obama's campaign website?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
True	12/3 Update:  Polarik contends that he did and has recently offered information to support his claim, including the following: "To summarize, there was one, and only one, original source image that was forged, and four copies of this source image were distributed to (1) the pro-Obama Daily Kos blog, (2) Obama's Fight The Smears campaign website, (3) Annenberg's Factcheck website, and lastly, (4) the St. Petersburg times Politifact website. On all of these images, there is a telltale "dot" (a piece of dirt left on the scanner glass) that proves they all came from a single source file."		11/22 Comment from Polarik; received 12/3; see also, Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy; Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud.
Conclusion: True
12/3 Update:  We have modified this section to "true," in that Polarik contends that there was only one original source image and so his analysis applies to all images, including the COLB image posted on Obama's website.

Back to Top

C	Did Polarik conduct "extensive forensic (?) testing" on a COLB?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
True	12/3 Update:  As evidenced by his most recent report, the multiple prior reports and published comments, and the post-final report publications of clarifications, etc. it is reasonable to conclude that Polarik conducted extensive testing on Obama's COLB.		See Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy; Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud.
??	12/3 Update:  Berg identifed Polarik as his (or one of his) experts on his COLB forgery claim, and  stated, in his original complaint that "extensive forensic testing" was done on the COLB (see citations above). However, Polarik has taken issue with our use of the term "forensic," commenting: "You repeatedly use the phrase, "forensic testing," in relation to my research, as if I had ever used it, or made any associations to it. The fact of the matter is that I have never claimed to be a "forensic" anything because, to me, "forensic" restricts the focus of the research to finding evidence of criminal activity. The use of the term is also inappropriate, because it obviates the entire sphere of investigative research conducted in hundreds of other fields." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, we've stricken the term "forensic" from this entry.  Polarik contends that he is not a forensic expert.  But see 12/29 update, below.  (As noted above, he describes his expert qualifications, including in the New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama's COLB and elsewhere.)		(11/22 Comment from Polarik; received 12/3)
??	12/29 Update:  In a comment submitted 12/23, Polarik now does claim to be a forensic expert: "I am the one and only one forensics expert in the field of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth documnets and document reproduction." (Emphasis supplied)		(12/23 Comment from Polarik)
Conclusion: True
12/3 Update:  See discussion above.  12/29 Update:  As to the issue of whether or not he is a forensic expert, we are unsure how to reconcile his two recent statements on the issue.

Back to Top

D	Did Polarik determine that the COLB he evaluated is a forgery?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
True	12/3 Update:  See his "final report."		See Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy; Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud.
Conclusion: True
See above - Polarik's report concludes that the COLB was a forgery.

Back to Top

E	Have other "experts" confirmed Polarik's findings as accurate?
What's Your Evidence?			Citation
????	12/3 Update:  We have been unable to find other self-identified experts to verify Polarik's findings.		n/a
	As to his prior reports, which contained some information and contentions that he's revised in his latest report, several other self-identified experts evaluated Polarik's findings and concluded that they were not valid. Note:  Because we have not yet compared prior reports to new reports, to determine whether the elements of Polarik's new report addressed in prior self-identified experts' challenges to his analysis and findings, we have removed references to those other self-identified experts' analysis at this time.		n/a
????	12/29 Update:  Polarik recently commented as follows: "I am the one and only one forensics expert in the field of Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth documnets and document reproduction. I meet all of the criteria, but if there are any loose ends then they have been tied up by questionable document forensics expert Sandra Ramsey Lines who has corroborated my final report." We have not been able to locate a copy of a report by Ms. Lines corroborating Polarik's forgery claims. However, we were forwarded a link to a declaration that appears to have been filed in a Hawaii case (that has since been dismissed). You can read the full declaration, along with Ms. Ramsey Lines' credentials and background here. In that affidavit, Ms. Ramsey Lines declares that: "Mr.Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document."  (Declaration) She concludes that if an original exists, that original must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or nongenuiness. (I.e., stated another way, it is impossible to determine whether an online image is genuine.) In the affidavit, Ms. Lines does not discuss or confirm Polarik's specific findings of forgery * but, rather, as summarized above, states that genuineness cannot be determined based on a digital image. *The only image-specific claim addressed in the Ramsey Lines affidavit is the obliteration of the Certificate No. on the online COLB image. Ms. Ramsey Lines described that aspect as "clearly questionable," and noted: "That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, "Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?" It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for obliterating it." (Declaration) With respect to the blacked out certificate number, Factcheck.org reported as follows: "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." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641." See Born in the U.S.A., Factcheck.org; see also image of COLB with certificate number shown, posted by Factcheck.org here.		12/23 Comment from Polarik; Sandra Ramsey Lines Declaration; Born in the U.S.A., Factcheck.org
False	12/3 Update:  However, Dr. Neal Krawetz (real name) has reviewed Polarik's "final report," and concluded that it was based on "bad science." 12/29 Update:  Polarik takes issue with Dr. Krawetz's report here.		See Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II.
False	12/4 Update:  Additionally, Steve Eddy (real name) has reviewed Polarik's YouTube video claims, and concludes that the findings cannot be supported.		See Polarik's YouTube Video (Koyaan's Blog).
See also	Chris Hanson (real name) reported on his detailed analysis of the COLB image file posted on the Obama website. Hanson did not directly address Polarik's claims; however, he conducted his own analysis and concluded that the file was not manipulated improperly.		See Barack Obama Birth Certificate Image Tampering Analysis (from www.xenon.arcticus.com)
See also	Click here for other reports that have concluded that Obama's COLB is authentic and/or that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Note, however, that these reports do not expressly address Polarik's specific claims or reports, although some discuss investigations and analysis of the COLB and their determination that the COLB is authentic.		See Reports that Obama's COLB is Authentic.
Conclusion: Unclear
See discussion above.

Back to Top

Federal Rules of Evidence re: Expert Witnesses

DISCLAIMER:  The information provided below is legal information found to date, but we wish to make clear that we are not providing independent legal analysis on these issues. If and when we find additional legal analysis from a qualified attorney posted online, we will post that information. As noted above, Mr. Berg's complaint alleges that "three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts" evaluated the COLB posted on Obama's website. Therefore, the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702-705 will apply to determine their "expert witness" qualifications as well as their "expert witness" testimony. Rule 702. Testimony by Experts If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, 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. Notes Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their  prejudicial effect.  Notes Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. (b) No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone. Notes Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination. Notes

Back to Top