2014. Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), PENGUIN PRESS, MARK HALPERIN, JOHN HEILEMAN, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, JOHN DOE 1-100, JANE DOE 1-100. United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------x : LUCAS DANIEL SMITH, Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION
NO: __________________ : v. : PENGUIN GROUP (USA), PENGUIN PRESS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MARK HALPERIN, JOHN HEILEMAN, : BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, JOHN DOE, 1-100, JANE DOE 1-100, : Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH alleges upon personal knowledge, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This civil action is brought against all of the above referenced defendants PENGUIN COMPLAINT
GROUP (USA), PENGUIN PRESS, MARK HALPERIN, JOHN HEILEMAN, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE 1-100 for inventing, writing & publishing (published November 2013) an account of a non-existent & make-believe hospital birth certificate, ostensibly issued by Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, which purportedly contains the newborn baby footprints of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II and which was, and is, central to the book's marketing appeal.
Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.
USDC Southe n Dist ict o! Ne" #o $.
2.
On February 19th, 2009 plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH procured a certified copy
of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs original hospital birth certificate, issued by Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya, which contains the newborn baby footprint (i.e., right footprint) of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II. Plaintiff procured the said hospital birth certificate, in person, from the said hospital for a direct cash payment of $5,000.00 (five thousand US dollars) to Coast Province General Hospital administrator Merry/Mary/Marry Othigo. A copy of the said birth certificate is attached as Exhibit A. 3. In the year 2010 plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH shared, by and through
personalized letters which were each individually notarized and delivered by USPS Certified Mail, defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate (2009 certified copy) with each individual member of the United States Congress: http://www.scribd.com/collections/2841163/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-of-July-Letter-to-Congress 4. As recently as November 2013 plaintiff was negotiating the terms of sale of
defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate with Michael C. Dorf for $3,000,000.00 (three million US dollars). 5. On or about the 4th day of November in the year 2013 Kevin Wayne Davidson
(06.16.1950) and his wife Virginia Ginny Hutson Davidson (11.15.1950) published an article, New revelation: Obama finds his birth certificate, on their website www.obamaconspiracy.org, promoting the new book Double Down: Game Change 2012 by authors defendant MARK HALPERIN and defendant JOHN HEILEMAN and published by defendant PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and defendant PENGUIN PRESS. The Davidsons reported that the book indicates that, in April 2011, defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II found his original hospital birth
certificate, issued by Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, and that the said certificate contains defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs infant footprints: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/double-down-how-obama-beat-the-birthers-in-2012/ 6. Michael C. Dorf informed plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH that he typically
reviews the Davidsons website daily and that after reading the above referenced (paragraph 5) article, and subsequently purchasing and reading the book Double Down: Game Change 2012 by authors defendant MARK HALPERIN and defendant JOHN HEILEMAN and published by defendant PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and defendant PENGUIN PRESS, that he would no longer be purchasing defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate for $3,000,000.00 (three million US dollars) or for any less significant number of US dollars or for any other valuable consideration. 7. Michael C. Dorf advised plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH that purchasing
defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital was no longer an inherently attractive idea because defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II had now disclosed information, by and through authors defendant MARK HALPERIN and defendant JOHN HEILEMAN and publishers defendant PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and defendant PENGUIN PRESS, indicating that defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAs authentic infant footprints are not contained within the hospital birth certificate issued by Coast Province General Hospital but rather are contained within the hospital birth certificate issued by Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.
USDC Southern District of New York.
PARTIES 8. Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH is a resident of the state of Iowa and is a private
buyer and seller of art, antiques, mature paper money and rare documents. Plaintiff also owns a certified copy (issued in 1989) of President George H. W. Bushs birth certificate. A copy of the said birth certificate is attached as Exhibit B. 9. Defendants PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and PENGUIN PRESS are book publishers
with their principle place of business at 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014. On or about the 5th day of November in the year 2013 the said publishers published the book Double Down (Double Down: Game Change 2012), ISBN-13: 9781594204401. 10. Defendants MARK HALPERIN and JOHN HEILEMAN are writers who, together,
authored the book Double Down (Double Down: Game Change 2012), ISBN-13: 9781594204401. 11. Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II is the President of the United States of
America who co-invented, wrote and published an account of a non-existent & make-believe hospital birth certificate, ostensibly issued by Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, which purportedly contains the newborn baby footprints of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II and which was, and is, central to the marketing appeal of the book Double Down. VENUE AND JURSIDICTION 12. This Honorable Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action based on
diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 USC 1332. 13. Venue is proper in this Honorable District, pursuant to 28 USC 1391(a).
USDC Southern District of New York. 4
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14. On the 19th day of February in the year 2009 plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH
procured a certified copy of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs original hospital birth certificate, issued by Coast Province General Hospital, which contains the newborn baby footprint (i.e., right footprint) of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II. Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH procured the said hospital birth certificate, in person, from the said hospital for a direct cash payment of $5,000.00 (five thousand US dollars). 15. In September 2009 Glenn Lee Beck (television & radio host, television network
producer and media personality) sent a reporter named Marc Harris to interview, in person, plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH. Marc Harris has publicly stated that, My name is Marc Harris. I am a writer and researcherI work with the Glenn Beck Show. I just gather and give them information, I dont do anything else. Harris is a freelance political researcher, writer, author and speaker. During the course of the interview plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH was asked, summarily, about a string of eBay auctions (160344374585, 160344928067, 160345002984, 160345151420, 160345324422, 160345795373, 160346224684) that plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH had listed for, and or having to do with, defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate. 16. Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH told Harris that eBay removed or canceled all
seven (7) of plaintiff auctions related to defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate and that eBay stated in support of six (6) of the said seven (7) auction cancellations that the sale of government ID is not permitted on eBay. Plaintiff then explained to Harris that some of his eBay listings were not for defendant BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate or any other government identification but rather for items such as a dissertation that plaintiff wrote about the birth of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and even a final auction for a photograph of plaintiff with a friend posing in an airport. 17. After the said interview plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH never again heard from
Harris or Beck (despite assurances to the contrary that plaintiff would). 18. Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITHs auction for one dissertation (i.e., THE TRUTH
ABOUT USA PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II - eBay item number 160345324422) about the birth of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA was cancelled without explanation as to why the auction violated eBay policy. Said dissertation auction attained bids for over $1,000,000.00 (one million US dollars) before it was pulled from eBay on June 30th, 2009. There were 80 bids, from 17 unique eBay bidders (as well as each bidders feedback score), and the precise date and time of said bid has been recorded. The last confirmable bid was in the amount of $1,000,099.01 US dollars. 19. On or about the 8th day of September in the year 2009 plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL
SMITH was physically present (escorted by US Marshalls to the witness room) and prepared to testify at a hearing in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division before the Honorable Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana, California in case number SACV-09-082-DOC in regards to defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate. 20. Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAs Department of Justice attorneys, the
Honorable US Attorney Roger West and the Honorable US Attorney David DeJuet, objected
strongly to any testimony from plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH even though the Honorable US Judge David O. Carter indicated strong interest in hearing, under oath, testimony from plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH: Honorable US Judge David O. Carter Thank you. Let me resolve it quickly and ask a question. I dont intend to hear witnesses on the fly as they come in and with each party jumping up claiming that this witness is dispositive. And I dont intend to hear witnesses in a court of law without notice to the other party. These are usually accomplished by depositions, quite frankly. And, therefore, its notice to the other party. And, yet, on the other hand, when you are bring this motion, which I have not read yet I havent seen your motion why cannot that deposition take place while this witness is here? In other words, this witness is present. That deposition could take place. Its not interfering with the jurisdictional issues that you have because its not, quote, unquote, discovery that she is seeking from you. Its some witness that she has that she believes she cant get back in a timely fashion. Hold on, I know youre opposed to it. I can read your mind. My question is, why not? First of all, it gives the government a wonderful glimpse of what is forthcoming. It lets you prepare. Number two, it allows you to put on this witness whos come all the way from Kenya, whether theyre in danger or not. Number three, if people need to get this particular witness
back, as you claim, that he or she is essential to your claim, then the government or you can bring them back. You have to know, though, that Im not favorable to depositions if we get to a trial. In other words, if we get to a trial with the issues in front of this Court, Im going to want real witnesses in court so the jury can judge their misdemeanor and their credibility. By the same token, conditional examinations are allowed in state court and federal court for those people who, quite frankly, have some inability to testify in the future. But Im not representing you that I would ever let that happen. So, from the governments perspective, what are you doing this week? Where are you from?
Honorable US Attorney Roger West Your Honor, the motion that we have filled goes to the very power of this Court to decide the case. I believe that Your Honor should at least look at our motion and examine the contentions of that were making in that motion before any discovery can go forward
Honorable US Judge David O. Carter Why dont I read the motion this week and try to get some resolution. Now, the problem is, if this witness is languishing out in the hallway and you believe that that witness is critical, that person has to continue to languish.
..
Honorable US Attorney Roger West Thats right. So, Im not really trying to ambush anybody. Im just trying to state that I think it is an unwise move at his point in time to order that the witness be deposed.
THE ENTIRE 49-PAGE TRANSCRIPT IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT JACK RYANS SCRIBD.COM ACCOUNT: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19777637/KEYES-v-OBAMAOFFICIAL-COURT-TRANSCRIPT-98200
21.
In 2010, from plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITHs house in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
plaintiff crafted a letter known as the Lucas Daniel Smith Letter to United States Congress. 4th of July 2010. A total of 539 letters were sent. Recipients: every US Senator, every US Congressman/woman including nonvoting members that represent US Territories and US Commonwealths. It should be noted that, at that time, there were two vacant Congressional seats (i.e., House District 3 Indiana & House District 29 New York), hence 539 letters rather than 541.
22.
Each letter was individually addressed to its Congressional recipient by plaintiff
LUCAS DANIEL SMITH. Throughout each letter the recipients name was again referenced. These letters had a personal touch to them which conveyed the character, honor, dedication, commitment and time that was put into each individual letter. 23. 24. Each envelope was handaddressed by plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH. Each letter was individually notarized by one of two Notary Publics at US Bank in
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This was not a simple task of one notary stamp and one notary signature being photocopied 539 times. The notary stamps/seals inked 539 different pieces of paper. The whole Notary Public procedure took several hours and had to be divided into scheduled sit-down meetings with Notary Publics at US Bank over a course of days. 25. Each letter was individually sent via United States Post Office Certified Mail.
Each Certified Mail Receipt was hand addressed by plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH. 26. A near 4000 page PDF can be found at plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITHs
Scribed.com account: http://www.scribd.com/collections/2841163/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-4th-ofJuly-Letter-to-Congress which contains a scan of every single page of every single letter to each member of US Congress. The near 4000 page PDF also contains scans of each hand addressed envelope. The near 4000 page PDF also contains scans of each hand addressed Certified Mail Receipt. All letters in the near 4000 page PDF are arranged by State. The States are listed in alphabetical order. Furthermore, under each State the letters are also arranged alphabetically by the Congress members last names. A brief table of contents precedes each group of letters under each State heading. 27. Mr. Bruce Steadman of Georgia covered the entire cost of all expenditures of the
Lucas Daniel Smith Letter to United States Congress. 4th of July 2010. Mr. Bruce Steadman
10
paid approximately $3000.00 (three thousand US dollars) to cover the entire cost of the letter to Congress project. Expenditures included (a) USPS First Class Postage (b) USPS Certified Mail fees (c) US Bank Notary fees. 28. In May 2013 Mr. Bruce Steadman and plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH launched
a footprint evaluation project, Infant Footprint Evaluation with Possible Future Comparison to Adult Footprint, which was conducted by a number of licensed finger/footprint experts. Our objectives: a. b. Is infant-to-adult footprint comparison possible? Does defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs infant footprint, contained
within the Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate, contain adequate friction ridge characteristics that could, alone, be used in a comparison (with an adult) examination? c. Does defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs infant footprint, contained
within the Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate, contain adequate flexion creases characteristics that, alone, could be used in a comparison (with an adult) examination? 29. The footprint evaluation project, which was conducted by a number of licensed
finger/footprint experts, was in idea that developed from what Mr. Bruce Steadman deemed, in writing, to be a very important literature research find: Infant to Adult Footprint Identification", Sinclair & Fox, Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol. 57, No. 4, July/August 2007 (pp. 485-492). (Relevant sections of the said journal, including pages 485 thru 492 are attached as Exhibit C.) 30. An abstract from the above referenced journal states that, A case report involving
the examination of an infant footprint against an adult exemplar to establish citizenship in the
11
United States [of America] is presented. The size differential was eliminated through the use of enlarged ridge tracings which were used to demonstrate the comparison. 31. An introduction from the above referenced journal states that, The comparison of
footprint records to establish positive identification of individuals is a universally accepted practice within the fingerprint science. 32. The said introduction goes on to state that, There is no biological or physiological
difference between the friction ridge skin on the palmar or plantar surfaces, and they each possess the same value for identification purposes. Generally, most cases concerning footprint identifications arise from the examination of latent footprints developed at crime scenes or on evidence connected with criminal offenses and involve adult-to-adult footprint comparisons. 33. The said introduction continues with, The recording of infant footprints after birth
for the purposes of identification does not appear to be a routine practice around the world, and it seems to be done as more or a memento for parents. However, some hospitals in several states in the United States [of America] have a policy of footprinting newborn infants, ostensibly for the purpose of proving the identity of the baby in the event of a mix-up (or abduction of the child) at the hospital. There have been only a handful or reported cases where the comparisons of infant footprints have been used in criminal investigations. Notably, each of these cases involved the comparison of the flexion creases detail in each of the infant footprints, because the fine friction ridge detail was insufficiently recorded on the hospital records because of poor recording practices. 34. The said introduction closes with the following, Although it is certain that infant-
to-adult footprint comparisons have been undertaken in the past, a search of the major forensic identification literature failed to locate any previously reported cases of this kind, either in
12
Australia or elsewhere in the world. This fact became significant after the authors were tasked with carrying out an infant-to-adult footprint comparison at the request of the United States [of America] Consulate in Sydney. 35. The above referenced Infant to Adult Footprint Identification includes a segment
which provides case background: In May 2004, the New South Wales Police Forensic Services Group received a formal request from the United States [of America] Consulate in Sydney to record the footprints of an adult female and compare them with the footprints taken from an infant born in the United States [of America] in 1979. 36. The said case background goes on to state that, The purposes of this request was to
determine the veracity of the individuals application for a United States [of America] passport and recognition of United States [of America] citizenship, based on her claim that she was the infant referred to in the relevant birth records containing the infant footprints. 37. The said case background continues with, The applicant claimed that she had been born in the United States [of America] and had migrated to Iraq with her parents as a young child. Within the last few years, the applicant and her mother had fled Iraq for Australia without any current formal documentation to positively establish her identity. Temporary refugee status was subsequently granted by the Australian government, pending further investigations. A formal application for a United States [of America] passport was then lodged by the female concerned to the United States [of America] Consulate. She presented an unofficial United States [of America] hospital birth certificate as supporting evidence of her identity. The unofficial birth certificate contained what the applicant claimed to be her left and right footprints, taken shortly after her birth in a hospital in the United States [of American] in 1979.
13
38.
The said case background closes with the following, Authorities in the United
States [of America] confirmed the authenticity of the applicants birth certificate containing the infant footprints with the relevant hospital in the United States [of America] and established that the document and the names and signatures contained thereon were genuine. Based on this, the U.S. State Department accepted that the person matching the footprints on the certificate would be acknowledged as a citizen of the United States [of America]. 39. The above referenced Infant to Adult Footprint Identification includes a segment
which is labeled as Acquisition of Infant and Adult Footprints: Detective Senior Constable Craig Fox of New South Wales Police Fingerprint Operations attended the United States [of America] Consulate in Sydney and took possession of the subjects birth certificate containing the infant footprint records. On initial inspection, the infant footprints contained on the birth certificate were found to be almost completely unsuitable for comparison purposes. Unfortunately, it appears that the medical staff who obtained the infant footprints exercised minimal care when recording the prints, resulting in smudged and over-inked prints, rendering most of the fine friction ridge detail illegible (a common problem identified in the literature). 40. The said Acquisition of Infant and Adult Footprints segment goes on to state that,
The only part of either infant footprint that appeared suitable for possible friction ridge comparison was one small area located directly below the big toe of the right foot, and enlarged photographs were later taken of this particular area to assist with the comparison process. Samples of the persons footprints were then obtained by utilizing a powdering and lifting technique, where a light coating of standard black fingerprint powder was brushed onto the ridge skin on the underside of both feet. Several recordings of each footprint were then carefully lifted, first with white adhesive labels and then with gel-lifters.
14
41.
The above referenced Infant to Adult Footprint Identification includes a segment
which is labeled as Analysis and Comparison Method: Detective Sergeant Rick Sinclair of New South Wales Police Fingerprint Operations was then handed the task of analyzing and comparing the infant and adult footprints. Unfortunately, it was soon found that the poor clarity and limited quantity of friction ridge skin detail in the infant footprint, coupled with significant differences in size through expansion of the ridge skin due to growth, proved to make the comparison both challenging and problematic. 42. The said Analysis and Comparison Method segment goes on to state that, As with
all friction ridge comparisons, the process commenced with a thorough analysis being undertaken of all available friction ridge detail contained in the infant footprint at three levels: first level detail (pattern type and overall ridge flow and shape), second level detail (friction ridge characteristics) and third level detail (friction ridge shapes). Additionally, the paths and arrangement of the available flexion creases in the footprints were also noted during this phase of the examination. 43. The said Analysis and Comparison Method segment continues with, Transparent
tracing paper was placed over the enlarged comparable areas of both the infant and adult fingerprints, and the friction ridges were traced with pencil, noting overall friction ridge shape and flow (first level detail) and the relative location and relationship of the friction ridge characteristics present in each record (second level detail). Also recorded were the paths of available flexion crease detail present in both footprints. The end result of the tracings appeared to look somewhat like the striations of a fired bullet, with the relative lengths and paths of the friction ridge and the relationship of the friction ridge characteristics at the ends of each traced friction ridge being compared and evaluated in conjunction with the original images.
15
44.
The above referenced Infant to Adult Footprint Identification includes a segment
which is labeled as Evaluation and Identification: Sufficient agreement was found at both the first and second levels of detail. There was some minor third level detail present consisting of sweat pore formations; however, these were lacking sufficient quality and quantity for comparison purposes. Nonetheless, in excess of fifteen matching friction ridge characteristics were noted in both footprints in the same relative position and sequence with no unexplainable differences, establishing a positive identification (independently verified by another senior fingerprint expert). Interestingly, during the comparison it was noted that the paths of the available flexion crease detail present in both the adult and infant footprints were also found to be in agreement. This lends further support to the theory of palm and foot flexion crease persistency referred to in previous cases and research. 45. The above referenced Infant to Adult Footprint Identification ends with the
following conclusion: As a result of this examination, the U.S. State Department accepted the identification and the applicant was granted a United States [of America] passport. She now resides in the United States [of America]. Significantly, inquiries made by the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C. revealed that this method of identification has never before been used by them to verify a United States [of America] citizenship or passport applicants identity. As indicated in the introduction, while undoubtedly cases similar to this have occurred in the past, a search of the major forensic identification literature failed to reveal any previously reported infant-to-adult footprint identification cases. The authors would most certainly be interested to hear about the experiences of any practitioners who have handled similar cases in the past.
16
- footprint examination.
46. In early June 2013 Mr. Bruce Steadman contacted IAI (International Association for , whose principle principal and whose , to request a footprint evaluation of the infant footprint
Identification) Certified Latent Print Examiner, place of business is email address is
contained with defendant Barack Hussein Obama IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate. 47. In early June 2013 conducted the above referenced (paragraph
46) footprint evaluation and sent the following emailed evaluation results (June 6th, 2013), attached as Exhibit D, to Mr. Bruce Steadman: Hello Mr. Steadman: I have completed my examination of the electronic scan depicting a footprint per your request. I do not detect any friction ridge characteristics (unique characteristics on the skin of our feet and hands) in the scan. This, as you know, is not unusual as the individuals who take the footprints of infants at birth are not skilled in the process. I know you have read an article(s) concerning footprint identification and that you are aware that some believe the creases in the footprint (commonly referred to as flexion creases) could be used in the identification process. Essentially, there are three schools if thought in this regard: 1. Those who believe that flexion creases alone can be used to positively
identify an individual. 2. Those who believe that flexion creases alone cannot be used to positively
identify an individual. 3. Those who believe flexion creases coupled with visible ridge characteristics of
friction ridge skin can be used to positively identify an individual.
%&
48.
email went on to state that, I fall into category # 3. Without
the presence of visible ridge characteristics, Im afraid your footprint is of no use in a comparison examination with a known footprint. I hope I have been clear in my explanation and I wish you good luck in the future. Regards, 49. Mr. Bruce Steadman thanked . for the emailed evaluation
results and then requested a hard copy of the evaluation results. subsequently sent a postal letter (postmarked 10 June 2013) to Mr. Bruce Steadman which contained the following REPORT OF LATENT PRINT EVALUATION (attached as Exhibit E): This report pertains to forensic examination conducted at request of Mr. Bruce Steadman, 2548 Midvale Forest Drive, Tucker, GA 30084. 50. s REPORT OF LATENT PRINT EVALUATION continued
with a segment labeled as Items Examined which stated, One electronic scan depicting one right footprint. Per Mr. Steadman, the footprint in that of an infant. The scan did not depict a measuring device without which the actual size of the footprint could not be determined. 51. s REPORT OF LATENT PRINT EVALUATION continued
with a segment labeled as Examinations Requested which stated, Examine the scan of the footprint to determine the presence of friction skin characteristic that could be used in a future comparison examination with a known footprint. 52. s REPORT OF LATENT PRINT EVALUATION continued
with a segment labeled as Results of Examination which stated, Examination of the scanned footprint did not reveal the presence of friction ridge characteristics that could be uses in a comparison examination. Note: It is not unusual for infant footprints to not depict friction ridge
18
characteristics as medical personnel recording the footprint are not trained or skilled in recording impressions of friction ridge skin. 53. The segment labeled as Results of Examination continued, and ended, with, The
examination determined the presence of flexion creases readily visible. It is the undersigneds opinion, however, that comparison examinations utilizing flexion creases alone as a means of positive identification (particularly those depicted in a new born infants footprints) should not be attempted without the presence of friction skin characteristics to compare as well. (signed) , CLPE 06/10/2013. 54. The digital scan of the footprint (right foot) contained within defendant BARACK
HUSSEIN OBAMA IIS Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate, IAI (International Association for Identification) Certified Latent Print Examiner, provided directed below (and attached as Exhibit F): , is
19
- footprint examination.
55. In late June 2013 Mr. Bruce Steadman contacted (in partnership with
), a Forensic Identification Consultant, Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst, and IAI (International Association for Identification) Certified Latent Print Examiner, whose business address is listed as and whose email address is
, to request a footprint evaluation of the infant footprint contained with defendant Barack Hussein Obama IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate. 56. In late June 2013 sent the following email (1st email) reply (June 24th,
2013) to Mr. Bruce Steadman: Mr. Steadman, This is interesting and might be something I'd like to be of some assistance. I'm somewhat busy today, but tonight I'll look up data on infant footprint identifications. I have several questions to ask about this "case", and so on. Tomorrow I hope to be able to respond with information & my questions. I am a latent print comparison expert and have testified in court after I id'ed a dead infant by foot creases. 57. In late June 2013 .
sent the following email (2nd email) reply (June 25th,
2013) to Mr. Bruce Steadman: I am in the process of searching for foot crease identification experts. I regret to say that so many in my field of identification have retired and have even ceased doing consultant work. At age I've slowed down myself. Also, I am getting some data
on crease identification collected which will be mailed to you. As for myself, I fall into category #1 [Those who believe that flexion creases alone can be used to positively identify and individual.] regarding the 3 groups of experts you mentioned in your e-mail. Naturally, category #3 is always a nice situation to have.....a combination of ridges and creases. However, creases alone if the individual kind and clear enough can be the basis of an identification. There is one
%&
question I'd like to ask. Of course you don't have to answer. I'd understand. Is the infant footprint you are referring to on a Kenyon birth certificate? 58. In late June 2013 .
sent the following email (3rd email) reply (June 27th,
2013) to Mr. Bruce Steadman: I managed to make contact with another outstanding foot crease expert. I regretted to learn he has totally retired from teaching, writing, and ceased all forms of his and my mutual profession. As I said in a prior e-mail, I am not taking on many consultant projects. Yours was very tempting. I appreciate your asking me. It was extremely difficult to turn down, but I must pass. Please be assured, our messages to each other are, and will, remain confidential. I am mailing you several items. *An excerpt from an very good fingerprint text book It has a chapter on palm creases. Palm creases apply to foot creases, too. A bookstore or an internet site may have data on a price, etc. * A copy of an article on foot creases. * The name of a fingerprint expert. I consider him to be well qualified in this field. I do not know if he handles the type of consultation you need. I have not spoken to him about your project. My best to you and your project. 59. . , was later received by
A postal letter (postmarked JUN 28, 13), sent by
Mr. Bruce Steadman.
and the first case of flexion creases to be accepted by a court of law in the United States of America. 60. wrote and published ( ) an article, issue of
, which was published in an April-June
21
the T.D.I.A.I. (Texas Division of the International Association for Identification) newsletter. The criminal case, and book, (published 61. When, in 1958, ). began a career in the field of identification, it was s testimony, was also discussed in David R. Ashbaughs
stressed that creases were not points of identification. All emphasis was placed on friction ridges. Creases in the palm were considered simply reference points and although mentioned in texts were still in a state of study. The creases latent examiners were taught to avoid were those described by Sir E.R. Henry in 1900. Concerning those creases and permanent palm creases he wrote, In addition to the creases which are permanent, such as those marking the divisions between the phalanges of the fingers and those on the palm caused by the doubling up of the hand, creases not permanent may appear on the bulbs of the fingers (see Classification and Uses of Fingerprints, published by Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, p. 201 (1900 & 1934). 62. During the spring of 1995, in Sulphur Springs, Texas, the body of a 19 year old
female was found in her apartment. She had literally been butchered. It was one of the worst dismemberment homicides that had seen in 37 years. Without going into graphic
detail, the victim had been stabbed, mutilated and dissected with several weapons. Knives, razor blades and forks were used. Numerous body parts and organs were removed. Some were placed in her throat, along with part of the weapons. Not all severed or removed parts and organs were located. Initials were carved in her back. The attack took place on her bed. 63. The Sulphur Springs Police Department began a comprehensive crime scene
investigation. They were assisted by the Texas Rangers, Dallas County Sheriff's Department, The Dallas County Medical Examiner/Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences and others.
22
They collected physical evidence which eventually led to the 27 year old defendant, an exboyfriend of the victim. Some of the major evidence consisted of the victim's blood (DNA) on his clothing, his hair on the victim, his latent fingerprint in her blood on the apartment's window blind adjustment rod and the bloody latent palm print with the creases. compare the palm latent with the defendant's palm. 64. The latent was a bloody palm print on a sheet where the victim had been lying. was asked to
There were no friction ridges present in the print, but the palmar flexion creases were exceptionally detailed and discernable. 65. Using crease terminology suggested by David R. Ashbaugh (Palmar Flexion Crease
Identification. Journal of Forensic Identification, 41 (4) 1991, p 271--272.), the creases present in the bloody latent and the defendant's left palm were major palmar flexion creases, minor flexion creases, secondary flexion creases and finger creases. There were sufficient random formed creases in conjunction with the major flexion creases to form an opinion that the defendant's left palm made the bloody palm print on the sheet. 66. prepared a court exhibit of the unknown and known palm prints. The
similar characteristics were charted, depicting both possible hereditarily influenced creases and individual creases formed at random. Also, a demonstrative exhibit was constructed to acquaint the jury with the differences in flexion creases as they vary from palm to palm. Fifty left palm prints of individuals selected by chance were mounted beside the defendant's left palm print. 67. Prior to testifying met with the Hopkins County District Attorney's
office to acquaint them with this less than common type of identification. During the trial they allowed to conduct a mini-school for the benefit of the jury. Their direct and
23
redirect examination questions were outstanding. The jury deliberated for 15 minutes. The defendant received a life sentence. The conviction was, unsuccessfully, appealed. aka 68. - footprint examination s postal
Found within, and among other documents, the contents of
letter (postmarked JUN 28, 13) to Mr. Bruce Steadman was a noted which recommended a fingerprint expert by the name of 69. (Decided In the STATE OF ), docket v. , or , & Associates, Inc. Supreme Judicial Court
asserted that the trial court erred by
failing to exclude the testimony of the States expert palm print identification witness, aka 70. . In April 2005 a two-year-old girl who lived next door to Tina Bickart and her
husband Stephen Bickart spent the night at the Bickarts apartment. On that night, after Bickarts husband, Stephen, returned home from his job, he and Bickart used marijuana and cocaine and drank alcohol. Bickart told her husband that she had a gift or present for him later on, and later that night she told him to go into the bedroom and get ready. Stephen went into their bedroom and undressed; Bickart then entered the bedroom naked, carrying the two-year-old victim, who was also naked. Bickart and her husband had previously discussed their sexual fantasies involving children. 71. Bickart put the victim on the bed or in a chair in the bedroom and then inserted her
finger into the victims vagina. Bickart then had Stephen join them on the bed, and assisted Stephen in having anal intercourse with the victim. Bickart and Stephen both took photographs throughout these assaults with their digital camera.
24
72.
Prior to trial, Tina Bickart filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the . was expected to testify that, utilizing
prosecutions expert witness,
palm print analysis techniques, he concluded that it was Bickarts hand penetrating the victim in the photograph of the assault. In an evidentiary hearing, Bickart argued that this testimony was unreliable, as this was the first time or anyone else had attempted an identification using
only palm creases (the lines that develop across the palm) without the accompanying friction ridges (the detailed patterns on a persons palm and fingers used in fingerprint identification), and where the medium was a photograph and not a latent print. Bickart also presented her own expert, Gregory Michaud, who testified that crease-only identification was not a generally accepted technique in the relevant scientific field and was not aware that it had ever been subject to peer-reviewed research. The court, applying the standard from State v. , found that testimony was sufficiently reliable and that it should be left
to the jury to decide the weight to be given to his conclusions. Both experts subsequently testified at trial. 73. After a jury trial, Tina Bickart was found guilty of all counts. She was sentenced
to concurrent terms of imprisonment resulting in an ultimate sentence of eighteen years, with all but fifteen years suspended, and four years of probation. 74. Tina Bickart contends that testimony should not have been admitted at
trial because it represented a novel application of a methodology, normally utilized to analyze friction ridges in latent prints for fingerprint and palm print identification, to instead analyze palm creases in a photograph. This application allowed to make an identification of a
hand using only its creases. Friction ridges are the tiny ridges found throughout the hand, the imprint of which can be used to identify a person depending on the level of detail available.
25
Creases are similarly found throughout the underside of the hand, and can be used by examiners of friction ridges to help orient the print (i.e. to determine the correct up and down position and spatial relationship of the ridges). 75. Tina Bickart asserts that the use of creases for identification purposes without
accompanying ridge detail is not generally accepted and has not been subject to peer-reviewed research. 76. At an evidentiary hearing held prior to the trial, testified to his
professional background as a latent print examiner, and explained that he had done extensive research on palm crease analysis. testified that although he often uses the creases of a
palm as a means of identification, as do all print examiners, there is usually accompanying friction ridge detail to aid in the identification. 77. testified that the photographs sent to him for evaluation in this case had been
exhibited no friction ridge detail. This case also represented the first time
asked to identify a palm using only a photograph of the hand itself as opposed to a latent print. testified that the analytical methodology he employedthe ACE-V methodto reach his conclusion that it was Tina Bickarts hand in the photograph was a standard methodology thats used by most agencies that examine latent print type evidence, and that it was the same methodology he would use to examine a latent print with friction ridge detail. 78. Tina Bickart presented the testimony of her own expert print examiner, Gregory was generally
Michaud, who testified that although the ACE-V methodology employed by
accepted within the scientific community, and a very small contingency of latent print examiners, including himself, believe that it is possible that creases could be used as the sole means of identifying a palm print, the application of the ACE-V methodology to palm creases
26
alone was not generally accepted. He testified that
work in the field of palm creases was
unprecedented, but that because there was a lack of training and standards on crease-only identification, most print examiners believe it should not yet be done. Michaud was particularly concerned that a lack of friction ridge detail makes it difficult to understand the sequencing of the palm creases (i.e. the spatial relationship between the creases and their location on the hand). Although he agreed that the ACE-V method was the proper method for photograph analysis, he testified that the hard copies of the photographs of Bickarts hands and the photograph of the abuse he had been provided lacked sufficient clarity to allow him to reach any conclusions with regard to identification. 79. In terms of individual expertise, there was no dispute regarding his
qualifications and extensive experience in the area of palm print analysis, and Gregory Michaud himself acknowledged the high esteem he had for . The court reasoned, We did have the
benefit . . . of the person who [is] attempting the analysis is a person who has enormous experience, is clearly very very highly regarded in his field, and thats one of the factors . . . to consider. also made reference to the extensive research he had done in the course of
teaching certification classes on finger print and palm crease analysis, and it is worth noting that he has taught more than 300 three-day seminars across the country and around the world on this and related subjects. Both Michaud and all the examiners of the Michigan State Police where Gregory Michaud is employed have taken 80. Though never published, palm print and courtroom testimony courses. studies examined thousands upon thousands upon acknowledged that his research never had the
thousands of inked palm prints.
specific purpose of crease-only identification, but he testified that over the years I found out what the different types of creases are, where they happen, what they look like, what the
27
commonalities are and what the uniqueness is and how the uniqueness manifests itself across the palm. 81. The trial court also noted that opinion was tailored specifically to the lab also did their own analysis of the photographs and Michaud carefully
facts of this case. Other technicians in
and came to the same conclusion. It is undisputed that both
reviewed the specific photographs they received in light of their own expertise. 82. In weighing all of the testimony, the trial court concluded that when its all
weighed and realizing that while general acceptance [is helpful], its clearly not required, and that one can utilize newly ascertained knowledge or newly applied principles that have not yet achieved [widespread] acceptance if the claim is sufficiently reliable . . . . The court considered all the evidence before it and concluded that 83. testimony was sufficiently reliable.
[Tina] Bickarts claim that there was insufficient evidence has no merit. The entry Supreme Judicial Court. & Associates, Inc.,
is: Judgment affirmed. 84.
In late July 2013 Mr. Bruce Steadman contacted
whose principle place of business is listed as and whose email address is , to request a footprint evaluation
of the infant footprint contained with defendant Barack Hussein Obama IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate. 85. On or about the 2nd day of August in the year 2013 Mr. Bruce Steadman received the , CLPE Senior Consultant / Technical Manager of
following email from & Associates, Inc.: 86.
Mr. Steadman, I have reviewed your email and have a couple of thoughts. First of
all, we cannot make a determination regarding the extent of conclusions without first seeing the
28
evidence. Anatomically, the way the major creases are anchored in the skin does make them permanent. However, additional creases can develop as the skin ages, and the quality of the reproduction of these creases in known prints can vary significantly. Secondly, our company does not typically work cases for private individuals, but rather through attorneys. It sounds as though you foresee the potential for a court proceeding, and in that regard we would need you to have your attorney contact us regarding the examination. The reason we do this is that there may be other legal factors involved in your case. Without having an attorney review and address those factors, it is possible that even if we could make a definitive conclusion on your case, there may be something about your case that would make the findings inadmissible in court. Please feel free to contact me at the below phone number and we can discuss your email further, or have your attorney contact us and we can discuss with your attorney the services we can provide. Thank you, 87. , CLPE Senior Consultant / Technical Manager. Mr. Bruce Steadmans thoughts regarding the email from & Associates, Inc.: are as follow: at and Associates did , CLPE
Senior Consultant / Technical Manager of 88. As I see it, the good (?) news is that
NOT say that they had to work with 'friction ridge characteristics', and by extension of this omission, they definitely appear willing to work with prints containing ONLY flexion creases. They appear to be a high quality, prestigious and capable company. In other words, and Associates places themselves in Category #1 - Those who believe that
flexion creases alone can be used to positively identify an individual. 89. I was disappointed, of course, in learning that the company work's only through
attorneys and not directly for private individuals. However, it this 'infant-to-adult-footprintcomparison' case ever looks like it is going to a court hearing, getting an attorney involved would
29
be a natural first step.
has already told us that - The examination determined
the presence of flexion creases readily visible. 90. Thus, although it would have been nice, I don't think we really NEED a second
expert opinion on the quality of the 'Pristine Image' footprint! IN OTHER WORDS - I think we have now done everything that we can reasonably do at present to prepare for a possible future court challenge to BHO-II on the footprint comparison matter. Who is Kevin Wayne Davidson and why has he been hacking into plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITHs computer and planting malware? 91. Induction of circadian electronic break-ins by Kevin Wayne Davidson began on or
about the night of the 3rd day of May, 2013 or the morning of the 4th day of May, 2013 and persisted daily until, in or around, July 13, 2013 (and possibly at later dates). 92. Kevin Wayne Davidson remotely accesses plaintiff LUCAS DANIE SMITHs
computer, without plaintiffs permission, and accessed files, including PST files, which contained data regarding the footprint evaluations which were discussed in the foregoing (pp. 1130) as well as defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs original hospital birth certificate, issued by Coast Province General Hospital, which contains the newborn baby footprint (i.e., right footprint) of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II. 93. Remotely accessing another individuals computer, regardless of location, is
relatively easy to do. Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH once worked in tech support for Western Digital (one of the largest, if not the largest, computer hard disk drive manufacturers in the world) where level 2 agents routinely directed customers to a website where the level 2 agent could gain access to the customers computer. Such websites can be disguised as blogs or new
%&
outlets giving the owners of such websites access to your computer can be as simple as clicking on buttons may be disguised as, for example, read more or home or contact. 94. Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH advised (on or about May 16th, 2013) Kevin
Wayne Davidson that he could, possibly, be charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The law was passed in 1984 (before the Internet was commercialized) and makes it illegal to gain unauthorized access to a computer system. 95. Kevin Wayne Davidson was born on June 16, 1950 and it appears that he was born
in Citronelle, Alabama. He graduated from Citronelle High School in Citronelle, Alabama in 1968. He studied at that University of Alabama during the years 1968 thru 1972 and graduated with Bachelor of Science in Mathematics. At that time he became a member of the Association for Computing Machinery which is a U.S.-based international learned society for computing which was founded in 1947 and is the worlds largest and most prestigious scientific and educational computing society. He was also, at that time, the resident manager of the Baptist Student Center. 96. Kevin Wayne Davidson studied at Clemson University (South Carolina) during the
years 1972 thru 1974 and graduated with a Masters Degree in Mathematics. Between the years of 1974 thru 1980 he worked at the following in the listed capacities: (1) Manager (Management Information Systems Manager) Appalachia II District Health Department. Greensville, South Carolina. (2) Systems Analyst III Greensville County Health Department. Greensville, South Carolina. Between the years of 1980 thru 2006 Kevin worked at QS Technologies in Greensville, South Carolina. QS Technologies was a provider of public health software for local public health departments. In July, 2006 a company called Netsmart acquired QS Technologies. Netsmart provides on-demand and traditional software solutions to automate key financial,
31
clinical, management process solutions and electronic medical records. Kevin went on to work for Netsmart until he supposedly retired at the end of the year 2010. 97. Kevin Wayne Davidsons primary place of business and telephone are as follows: 225 Holly Dr, Duncan, South Carolina 29334-9144, United States, (864) 949-2553. 98. According to Michael C. Dorf the White House and the Obama administration have
received, and continue to receive, data and other valuable information from Kevin Wayne Davidson, including PST files, and data regarding the footprint evaluations which were discusses in the foregoing (pp. 11- 30) as well as defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs original hospital birth certificate, issued by Coast Province General Hospital, which contains the newborn baby footprint (i.e., right footprint) of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II. Michael C. Dorf 99. As recently as November 2013 plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH was negotiating
the terms of sale of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate, which contains the newborn baby footprint (i.e., right footprint) of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, with Michael C. Dorf for $3,000,000.00 (three million US dollars). 100. Michael C. Dorf informed plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH that he typically
reviews the Davidsons website daily and that after reading Kevin Wayne Davidsons November 4th, 2013 article, New revelation: Obama finds his birth certificate, on Davidsons website www.obamaconspiracy.org (promoting the new book Double Down: Game Change 2012 by authors defendant MARK HALPERIN and defendant JOHN HEILEMAN and published by defendant PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and defendant PENGUIN PRESS) and subsequently purchasing and reading the book Double Down: Game Change 2012 by authors defendant
%&
MARK HALPERIN and defendant JOHN HEILEMAN and published by defendant PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and defendant PENGUIN PRESS, that he, Michael C. Dorf would no longer be purchasing defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate for $3,000,000.00 (three million US dollars) or for any less significant number of US dollars or for any other valuable consideration. 101. Michael C. Dorf advised plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH that purchasing
defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital was no longer an inherently attractive idea because defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II had now disclosed information, by and through authors defendant MARK HALPERIN and defendant JOHN HEILEMAN and publishers defendant PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and defendant PENGUIN PRESS, indicating that defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAs authentic infant footprints are not contained within the hospital birth certificate issued by Coast Province General Hospital but rather are contained within the hospital birth certificate issued by Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital. 102. Michael C. Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell Law School.
He has written over seventy law review articles and essays on constitutional law and related subjects. He is the co-author (with Laurence Tribe) of On Reading the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 1991), the co-author (with Trevor Morrison) of The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press, 2010), the editor of Constitutional Law Stories (Foundation Press 2004, second edition 2009), and the author of No Litmus Test: Law Versus Politics in the 21st Century (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006). Professor Dorf writes a biweekly column for Justia's free web magazine Verdict and posts several times per week on his blog, Dorf on Law.
Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al. USDC Southern District of New York. 33
103.
A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Michael C. Dorf spent
the year between college and law school as a Rotary Scholar at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, playing rugby and co-authoring three articles for refereed physics journals. After law school, Michael C. Dorf served as a law clerk for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States. He has represented clients on a paid and pro bono basis, including a constitutional challenge to NAFTA in the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court defenses of affirmative action on behalf of the Association of American Law Schools ("AALS") as amicus curiae in Fisher v. Univ. of Texas (2013) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). He was the main author of the AALS amicus brief in support of the winning side in the 2010 Supreme Court case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Before joining the Cornell faculty, Professor Michael C. Dorf taught at Rutgers-Camden Law School for three years and at Columbia Law School for thirteen years. At Columbia, he was Vice Dean from 1998-2002 and when he left, was the Isidor & Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law. 104. Michael C. Dorf contacted the plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH in May 2103
and informed the plaintiff that he had read some of the letters that the plaintiff has sent to every member of US Congress (discussed in the foregoing, pp. 2, 9, 10, 11). 105. Michael C. Dorf informed the plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH that had also,
long ago, written about presidential eligibility. On or about July 31st, 2000 Michael C. Dorf published a paper called THE CASE FOR A GORE-CLINTON TICKET which can found at http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dorf/20000731.html, in which he indicated that (paraphrasing here): The 22nd (twenty-second) amendment disqualifies/bars Bill Clinton (and any other President) from being elected to a third term but does not make him ineligible to office of President. After
Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al. USDC Southe n Dist ict o! Ne" #o $. %&
serving two terms as President there is nothing, no language, in the US Constitution which would prohibit Bill Clinton from being elected to the office of Vice President. Moreover, upon the Presidents removal, death, resignation or inability to discharge the powers and duties Vice President Bill Clinton would become, for the 3rd term, President Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton will have been elected to the office of US President twice (2 times) and served as US President three (3) times. Nothing unconstitutional about it. 106. Michael C. Dorf advised plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH he (plaintiff SMITH)
was welcome to use the information contained with the said paper and write an article regarding defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA being constitutionally eligible to serve a 3rd term as US President. Plaintiff wrote and published (May 27th, 2013) such an article and titled it, If Barack Obama were a natural born citizen it appears that the US Constitution would permit Barack Obama to serve a third (3rd) term as US President, and published it at http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/if-barack-obama-were-anatural-born-citizen-it-appears-that-the-us-constitution-would-permit-barack-obama-to-serve-athird-3rd-term-as-us-president/ 107. Michael C. Dorf informed plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH that he (Dorf) would
(and did) get a kick out of Kevin Wayne Davidson are his (Davidsons) readers, among a number of other silent readers, dismissing the article written by the plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH as absolute nonsense when in, in fact, the information was true and correct and originally published by the distinguished Michael C. Dorf approximately 13 (thirteen) years earlier in the year 2000.
35
Double Down: Game Change 2012 108. Defendants BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARK HALPERIN, JOHN
HEILEMAN, PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and PENGUIN PRESS invented, wrote and published (published November 2013) an account of a non-existent & make-believe hospital birth certificate, ostensibly issued by Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, which purportedly contains the newborn baby footprints of Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II and which was, and is, central to the book Doube Downs marketing appeal. 109. Beginning on just a few pages (literally) into Part 1 of the book Double Down we
are told that, Obama was looking forward to spending the night at his house in Kenwood, on the citys South Sidethe redbrick Georgian Revival pile that he and Michelle and their daughters left behind when they took up residence in the White House. He arrived fairly late, after 10:00 p.m., but then stayed up even later, intrigued by some old boxes that had belonged to his late mother, Ann Dunham. 110. Dunham had died seven years earlier, but Obama hadnt sorted through all her
things. Now, alone in his old house for just the third night since hed become president, he started rummaging through the boxes, digging, digging, until suddenly he found it: a small, fourpaneled paper booklet the world had never seen before. On the front was an ink drawing of Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, in Honolulu. On the back was a picture of a Hawaiian queen. On one inside page were his name, his mothers name, and his date of birth; on the other were his infant footprints. 111. The next morning, Marty Nesbitt came over to have breakfast with Obama. The
CEO of an airport parking-lot company, Nesbitt was part of a tiny circle of Chicago friends on
36
whom the president relied to keep him anchored in a reality outside the Washington funhouse. The two men had bonded playing pickup basketball two decades earlier; their relationship was still firmly rooted in sports, talking smack, and all around regular-guyness. After chatting for a while at the kitchen table, Obama went upstairs and came back down, wearing a cat-who-ate-awhole-flock-of-canaries grin, waving the booklet in the air, and then placing it in front of Nesbitt. 112. 113. Now, thats some funny s__t, Nesbitt said, and burst out laughing. Clambering into his heavily armored SUV, Obama headed back north to the
InterContinental hotel, where he had an interview scheduled with the Associated Press. He pulled aside his senior adviser David Plouffe and press secretary Jay Carney, and eagerly showed them his discovery. 114. thought. 115. 116. Carney was bewildered, too, but excited: This is the birth certificate? Awesome. Obama didnt know what to think, but he flew back to Washington hoping that Plouffe studied the thing, befuddled and wary: Is that the birth certificate? he
maybe, just maybe, he now had a stake to drive through the heart of birtherism, killing it once and for alland slaying Trump in the bargain. Striding into a meeting with his senior advisers in the Oval Office the next Monday morning, he reached into his suit pocket and whipped out the booklet, infinitely pleased with himself. 117. 118. Hey, Obama announced, look what I found when I was out there! Later on in the book we are told that, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL BOB BAUER
took one look at the booklet in Obamas hand and knew it wasnt the birth certificate. It was just a commemorative keepsake, the kind of thing hospitals give to parents as a token of the
37
blessed day. But that Monday morning, April 18 [2011], in the Oval Office, the booklet proved to be something more: a spur to the Obamas to revisit a question they had debated many times whether to make a run at obtaining the actual long-form certificate from Hawaii. 119. Defendants BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARK HALPERIN, JOHN
HEILEMAN, PENGUIN GROUP (USA) and PENGUIN PRESS have indicated, by and through the book Double Down, the following: a. Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs infant footprints are contained
within his Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital birth certificate. How can defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs infant footprint (i.e., right foot) be contained within the Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate if he was born at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital? The Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate is not genuine, and the said infant footprint (i.e., right foot) contained within is not that of defendant Barack Hussein Obama II. b. Hospital birth certificates are not birth certificates. Hospital birth certificates
are just commemorative keepsakes, the kind of thing hospitals give to parents as a token of the blessed day. Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate is not a birth certificate because it was issued by a hospital and such certificates are just commemorative keepsakes. 120. It should also be noted that in defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs book
Dreams From My Father (1995) the he writes, on page 26, that he discovered a birth certificate of his while in high school: I discovered this article, folded way among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.
38
121.
Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II did not provide an image of the birth
certificate referenced in Dreams From My Father (1995) nor an image of the hospital birth certificate with infant footprints referenced in Double Down: Game Change 2012 (2013).
JURY DEMAND 122. Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH hereby demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief against Defendants: A. Award actual damages resulting for Defendants wrongdoing in excess of
$1,000,000 (in excess of one million US dollars); B. C. D. and equitable. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; Pre-judgment and post-judgment costs, interest and attorney fees; Such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem appropriate
DATE: _____________________
BY: _________________________________________ Plaintiff LUCAS DANIEL SMITH, Pro se 1626 5TH AVENUE SE CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52403 TELEPHONE: 319.804.0440 EMAIL: Lucas_d_Smith@Live.com
39
EXHIBIT A
Certified copy (2009) of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIs original (1961) hospital birth certificate, issued by Coast Province General Hospital, which contains the newborn baby footprint (i.e., right footprint) of defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II.
EXHIBIT B
Certified copy (1989) of President George Herbert Walker Bushs birth certificate. .
EXHIBIT C
Infant to Adult Footprint Identification", Sinclair & Fox, Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol. 57, No. 4, July/August 2007 (pp. 485-492). .
International Association for ldentification

wwza.theiai.org
Diana Castro, President
Joseph P. Polski, Chief Operations Olficer 2535 Pilot Knob Road, Suite 117, Mendora Heights, MN 55120-1120 (6s1) 681-8s66, Voice (651) 681-8443, Fax email : iaisecty @ao1.com
I ourn al of F or ensic I dentific ation

o.o,# ltol*Yf}",l "Ii,: !,1', 0,,
P.O.
Box 8931 Sg,Temecula, CAg258g-3'7 89
if
(951) 587-8337, Voice (951) 587-8347,Fax email : j fi editor@theiai.org
The Journal of Forensic Identifcarlon (ISSN0895- 1 73X) is the olficial publication of the International Association for Identification and is devoted to publication ofresearch
and information about Forensic Identification in its various disciplines. These include Friction Ridge Skin Identification, Footwear and Tiretrack Examinarion, Firearm and
Toolmark Examination, Questioned Documents, Polygraph Examination, Forensic Photography and Electronic Imaging, Forensic Art, Crime Scene Investigation, Blood Stain Pattern Identification, Forensic Laboratory Analysis, Forensic Odontology, Digital Evidence, and Forensic Anthropology. Matters ofinterest in other forensic disciplines, as well as Letters to the Editor, may also be published. Copyright A 2001 by the International Association for ldentification,
All rights
reserved. Unless otherwise stated, noncommercial photocopying ofeditorial material is permitted according to the policy listed on the last page ofthis issue. Editorial assistance in the preparation ofaccepted manuscripts will be provided after the editorial review. Reviews of manuscripts submitted for publication are normally completed within three
months from receipt of the complete manuscript submitted according to the format specified in the instructions for submissions. Information for submissions can be found on the last two pages ofthis issue. The Intemational Association for Identification, the Editor, and the Editorial Board assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced in this publication.
The Journal of Forensic Identificalton (USPS 256-280) is published bimonthly and is the
official publication ofthe International Association for Identification, with offices at
253 5 Pilot Knob Road, Suite I I 7, Mendota Heights, MN 5 5 120- 1 120. periodical postage paid at Mendota Heights, MN 55120, and at additional mailing offices. Subscriptions per year: US member, $60.00; non,US member, $50.00; US student member, $30.00; nonUS student member, $25.00; individual nonmember subscription, $ 130.00; institutional or library subscriptions, S 155.00 in North America, $ 175.00 outside North America (all rates quoted in $US). Bookseller rates are discounted 10%.
POSTMASTER: Send change of address to: Journal of Forenslic ldentificarion, 2535 Pilot Knob Road, Suite I 1 7, Mendora Heiehts. MN 55 I 20- 1 120.
Case Report
Infant-to-Adult Footprint ldentification
Rick Sinclair Cruig Fox

New South Wales Police F ing erp rint O p er ati o n s Forensic S ervices Group New South Vl/ales, Australia
Abstract: A case report involving the examination of an infant foot-
print against an adult exemplar to establish citizenship in the United
States is presented. The size diff'erential was eliminated through the use of enlarged ridge tracings which were used to demonstrate the comparlson.
Introduction
The comparison of footprint records to establish positive identification of individuals is a universally accepted practice within the fingerprint science. There is no biological or physiological difference between the friction ridge skin on the palmar or plantar surfaces, and they each possess the same value for identification purposes. Generally, most cases concernlng footprint identifications arise from the examination of latent footprints developed at crime scenes or on evidence connected with criminal offenses and involve adult-to-adult footprint
comparlsons.
Received May 21,2006; accepted August 23,2006 Journal of Forensic Identification 57 (4),2007 \485
The recording of infant lootprints after birth for the purpose of identification does not appear to be a routine practice around the world, and it seems to be done as more of a memento for parents. However, some hospitals in several states in the United 'Stut.r have a policy of footprinting newborn infants, ostensibly for the purpose ofproving the identity ofthe baby in the event of a mix-up (or abduction of the child) at the hospital. There have been only a handful of reported cases where the comparisons of infant footprints have been used in criminal investigations of [1-3]. Notably each of these cases involved the comparison
ihe flexion crease detail in each ofthe infant footprints, because the fine friction ridge detail was insufficiently recorded on the hospital records because ofpoor recording practices'
Although it is certain that infant-to-adult footprint comparisons havqbeen undertaken in the past, a search of the major forensic identification literature failed to locate any previously reported cases of this kind, either in Australia or elsewhere in the world. This fact became significant after the authors were tasked with carrying out an infant-to-adult footprint comparison at the request of the United States Consulate in Sydney.
Case Background
In May 2004,the New South Wales Police Forensic Services Group reieived a formal request from the United States Consulate in Sydney to record the footprints of an adult female and compare them with the footprint records taken from an infant born in the United States in 1919. The purpose of this request was to determine the veracity of the individual's application for a United States passport and recognition of United States citizenship, based on her claim that she was the infant referred to in the relevant birth records containing the infant footprints.
States and had migrated to Iraq with her parents as a young child' Within the last few years, the applicant and her mother had fled Iraq for Australia without any current formal documentation to positively establish her identity' Temporary refugee status was iubsequently granted by the Australian government, pending furthei investigations. A formal application for a United States female concerned to the United passport -Stut"r was then lodged by the presented an unofficial United States She Consulate.
Journal of Forensic ldentification 486 | 57 @\,2007
The applicant claimed that she had been born in the United
hospital birth certificate as supporting evidence ofher identity. The unofficial birth certificate contained what the applicant claimed to be her left and right footprints, taken shortly after her birth in a hospital in the United States in 1919.
Authorities in the United States confirmed the authenticity of the applicant's birth certificate containing the infant footprints with the relevant hospital in the United States and established
that the document and the names and signatures contained

thereon were genuine. Based on this, the U.S. State Department accepted that the person matching the footprints on the certificate would be acknowledeed as a citizen of the United States.
Acquisition of Infant and Adult Footprints

Detective Senior Constable Craig Fox of New South Wales Police Fingerprint Operations attended the United States Consulate in Sydney and took possession ofthe subject's birth certificate containing the infant footprint records (Figure l). On initial inspection, the infant footprints contained on the birth certificate were found to be almost completely unsuitable for comparison purposes. Unfortunately, it appears that the medical staff who obtained the infant footprints exercised minimal care when recording the prints, resulting in smudged and over-inked prints, rendering most of the fine friction ridge detail illegible (a common problem identified in the literature) [1-4].
The only part of either inlant footprint that appeared suitable
located directly below the big toe of the right foot (Figure 2), and enlargement photographs were later taken of this particular area to assist with the comparison process. Samples of the person's footprints were then obtained by utilizing a powdering and lifting technique, where a light coating of standard black fingerprint powder was brushed onto the ridged skin on the underside ofboth feet. Several recordings ofeach footprint were then carefully lifted, first with white adhesive labels and then with gel-lifters (Figure 3).
for possible friction ridge comparison was one small
area
Journal of Forensic ldentification 57 (4),2007 \487
i"t ' ot'ii I i,
't
!u {o bc si
ed *y,
;$
dt,
a':aa
-8"
i= :=.
F,i
::r:i;:;'r: i:.ii itjr..ii:1r' " '
I nfa
nt
fo
o tp r i n
s,
"! "t* olo n, h, b
ce
r t i.l
ic
a t e.
Figttre
Enlargement of area below the right big toe.

Journal of Forensic ldentification | 57 (4),2007
4BB
et!
,..
-'
' **
*l
,:.. ...=.: :::-:---.
=%rc
-+
,
e :-
,, ,,-
'i:1,'rjottBrt:
Figure
Contporcrtive si:es o.f'the inJ'ant and gel-li.ft adult Jbotprints
Analysis and Comparison Method

Detective Sergeant Rick Sinclair of Neu' South Wales Police Fingerprint Operations was then handed the task of analyzing arld comparing the infant and adult fbotprints. Unfortunately, it rvas soon found that the poor clarity and limited quantity of friction ridge skin detail in the infant footprint, coupled with significant differences in size througlr erpansion of the ridged skin due to grorith. proved to make the comparison both challenging and problematic (Figure 3 shou s a comparative size of both records).
Journal of Forensic ldentification 57 (4).2007 \489
with a thorough analysis being undertaken of all available friction ridge detail contained in the infant footprint at three
As with all friction ridge comparisons, the process commenced
levels: first level detail (pattern type and overall ridge flow and shape), second level detail (friction ridge characteristics), and third level detail (friction ridge shapes). Additionally, the paths and arrangement ofthe available flexion creases in the footprints were also noted during this phase of the examination' comparable areas ofboth the infant and adult footprints, and the friction ridges were traced with pencil, noting overall friction ridge shape and flow (first level detail) and the relative location and relationship of the friction ridge characteristics present in each record (second level detail). Also recorded were the paths ofavailable flexion crease detail present in both footprints. The end result of the tracings appeared to look somewhat like the striations of a fired bullet, with the relative lengths and paths of the friction ridges and the relationship of the friction ridge characteristics at the ends of each traced friction ridge being compared and evaluated in conjunction with the original images
Transparent tracing paper was placed over the enlarged
(Figures 4a and 4b).
Evaluation and Identification
Sufficient agreement was found at both first and second levels of detail. There was some minor third level detail present consisting of sweat pore formations; however, these were lacking sufficient quality and quantity for comparison purposes. Nonetheless, in excess of fifteen matching friction ridge characteristics were noted in both footprints in the same relative position and sequence with no unexplainable differences, establishing a positive identification (independently verified by another senior
fingerprint expert). Interestingly, during the comparison it was noted that the paths ofthe available flexion crease detail present in both the adult and infant footprints were also found to be in agreement. This lends further support to the theory of palm and foot flexion crease persistency referred to in previous cases and
research [5].
Journal of Forensic ldentification 490 | 57 (4),2007
{@,
Figure 4a
Enlarged tracing
infant footprint.
/ i \\\\ /;
,,M
Figure 4b
of
Tracing of adult Jbotprint.
Conclusion
As a result of this examination, the U.S. State Department accepted the identification and the applicant was granted a United States passport. She now resides in the United States. Significantly, inquiries made by the U.S. State Department in Washington D.C. revealed that this method of identification has never before been used by them to verify a United States citizenship or passport applicant's identity. As indicated in the introduction, while undoubtedly cases similar to this have occurred in the past, a search ofthe major forensic identification literature failed to reveal any previously reported infant-to-adult footprint identification cases. The authors wouid most certainly be interested to hear about the experiences of any practitioners who have handled similar cases in the past.
Journal of Forensic ldentification 57 (4),2007 \451
For further information. please contact:

Detective Sergeant Rick Sinclair Detective Senior Constable Craig Fox NSW Police - Fingerprint Operations Forensic Services Group Level 48, NSW Police Headquarters 1 Charles Street Parramatta NSW 2150
Australia
sincl ric@po1ice.nsw.gov. au
fox lcra@police.nsw.gov.au
References l.
2.
3.
Blake, J. W. Identification of the New Born by Flexure

Creases. Ident. News 1959,9 (9), 3-5.
5.
Ortlee, M. An Evaluation of lnfant Footprinting. Ident. News 1964, r4 (7),4, Il. Lohnes, R. C. Infant Footprint Identification by Flexure Creases. Ident. News 1986, 36 (8), 10-13. Taylor, R. A. "Flexure Creases" Alternative Method for Infant Footprint Identification. Ident. News, 1979,29 (9), r2-r4. Massey, S. L. Persistence of Creases of the Foot and Their Value for Forensic Identification Purposes. J. For. Ident. 2004, s4 (3),296-303.
Journal of Forensic ldentification 492 I 57 (4),2007
EXHIBIT D
emailed evaluation results (June 6th, 2013).. .
EXHIBIT E
hardcopy evaluation results, REPORT OF LATENT PRINT EVALUATION (June 10th, 2013). .
EXHIBIT F
Digital scan of the footprint (right foot) contained within defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IIS Coast Province General Hospital birth certificate. .

2014. Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), PENGUIN PRESS, MARK HALPERIN, JOHN HEILEMAN, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, JOHN DOE 1-100, JANE DOE 1-100. United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2014. Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), PENGUIN PRESS, MARK HALPERIN, JOHN HEILEMAN, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, JOHN DOE 1-100, JANE DOE 1-100. United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------x : LUCAS DANIEL SMITH, Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southe n Dist ict o! Ne" #o $.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southe n Dist ict o! Ne" #o $.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southe n Dist ict o! Ne" #o $.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southe n Dist ict o! Ne" #o $.

Each letter was individually addressed to its Congressional recipient by plaintiff

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

The above referenced Infant to Adult Footprint Identification includes a segment

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

The above referenced Infant to Adult Footprint Identification includes a segment

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Identification) Certified Latent Print Examiner, place of business is email address is

friction ridge skin can be used to positively identify an individual.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southe n Dist ict o! Ne" #o $.

email went on to state that, I fall into category # 3. Without

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

sent the following email (2nd email) reply (June 25th,

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southe n Dist ict o! Ne" #o $.

sent the following email (3rd email) reply (June 27th,

A postal letter (postmarked JUN 28, 13), sent by

Mr. Bruce Steadman.

, which was published in an April-June

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

Found within, and among other documents, the contents of

asserted that the trial court erred by

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.

prosecutions expert witness,

Lucas Daniel Smith v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA), et al.

USDC Southern District of New York.