Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 415

DECLARATION signed by James Blanco re 348 Order on Motion to Stay, Scheduling Conference, Oral Argument,,,,,,,,,,,, 414 Declaration filed by Paul D. Ceglia Expert Report. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-15, # 2 Exhibit 16-20, # 3 Exhibit 21-37, # 4 Exhibit 38 - Part 1, # 5 Exhibit 38 - Part 2, # 6 Exhibit 38 - Part 3, # 7 Exhibit 39-50)(Boland, Dean)

EXHIBIT 21

EXHIBIT 21

EXHIBIT 21

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000147

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000148

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000149

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000150

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000151

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000152

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000153

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000154

CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

FB000155

EXHIBIT 22

EXHIBIT 22

EXHIBIT 22

EXHIBIT 23

EXHIBIT 23

EXHIBIT 23

EXHIBIT 24

EXHIBIT 24

EXHIBIT 24

Questioned “Mark Zuckerberg” initials from page 1
Note the writing differences by comparing the corresponding numbers and arrows
4

2

5

1

6

7
3

9

8

______________________________________________________________________

Known specimens by Paul Ceglia
writing the “MZ” initials
2

4

2

5

4

5

1

6

6

8

9
4

2

3

5

9

8
4

2

1

6

7

3

9

8

5

1

1

5

7

7

3

4

2

2
6

4

5

1

6

6
7

7

7
3

8

9

2

4

3

5

2

1

1

9

8

4

5

3

6

4

2

1

3

8

9

7

3

9
8

5
6

6
7

9

8

7

3
8

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

9

EXHIBIT 24

EXHIBIT 25

EXHIBIT 25

EXHIBIT 25

EXHIBIT 26

EXHIBIT 26

EXHIBIT 26

Questioned “Mark Zuckerberg”
signature on Facebook Contract
Note the writing differences by comparing the corresponding numbers and arrows
2

6

4

8

11
12

1

14

3
5

7

13

10

9

______________________________________________________________________

Known specimen signatures by Paul Ceglia
writing “Mark Zuckerberg”
4

2

6

8

11

12

1

14

3
5

4

7

6

10

9

2

13
11
12

8

1
14
3
5

2

4

7

9

10
11

8

6

13

12

1

14
3

5

7

9

10

13

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 26.1

Known specimen signatures by Paul Ceglia
writing “Mark Zuckerberg”
4

2

6

8

11
12

1

3

14
5

7

10

9

2
4

6

13
11

8

1

12

3
7

5

10

13

9

4

11

8

2

14

6

12

1

3

14
7
5

4

2

6

10

9
8

13
11
12

1

14

3
5

2

7
4

9

10

6

8

13
11
12

1

14
3
5

7

9

10

13

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 26.2

EXHIBIT 27

EXHIBIT 27

EXHIBIT 27

Latent handwriting impression test using the “ESDA”

Crop from original Page 1 of Facebook Contract scan (rendered in black and white for
comparison to “ESDA lift”); this is the image of the actual hand printing on Page 1

Enhanced callout
of “esigner” from
“Designer”

Printout of scan of “ESDA lift” from Page 2

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 27

EXHIBIT 28

EXHIBIT 28

EXHIBIT 28

Designation: E2291 – 03

Standard Guide for

Indentation Examinations1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2291; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope
1.1 This guide provides procedures that should be used by
forensic document examiners (Guide E444) for examinations
and comparisons involving visualization and recording of
indentations.
1.2 These procedures include evaluation of the sufficiency
of the material available for examination.
1.3 The particular methods employed in a given case will
depend upon the nature of the material available for examination.
1.4 This guide may not cover all aspects of unusual or
uncommon examinations.
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

3.2.3 film, n—thin transparent plastic material that covers
the item during an examination using an EDD.
3.2.4 indentations, n—latent or visible impressions in paper
or other media.
3.2.5 indirect contact, n—two sheets of paper, one on top of
the other, with one or more intervening sheets.
3.2.6 lift, n—the product of an EDD examination; a selfadhesive plastic sheet adhering to a film that preserves the
results of an EDD examination.
3.2.7 primary indentations, n—impressions caused by the
act of writing or other dynamic actions.
3.2.8 secondary impression(s), n—fiber disturbances caused
by contact with the embossed side of indentations and not
caused by the act of writing.
3.2.9 side lighting, n—illumination from a light source that
is at a low angle of incidence, or even parallel, to the surface
of the item. Syn. oblique lighting.

2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:2
E444 Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic Document
Examiners
E1732 Terminology Relating to Forensic Science
E2195 Terminology Relating to the Examination of Questioned Documents

4. Significance and Use
4.1 When sheets of paper are in direct or indirect contact
with one another, impressions on the top sheet can produce
indentations on the sheet(s) below.
4.2 This guide establishes procedures for visualizing those
indentations.
4.2.1 These procedures are essentially non-destructive;
however, pencil writing and single-strike ribbon typing can be
partially lifted from the document by EDD. Although this
effect can be minimal, adequate documentation of such items
should precede EDD.
4.3 Paper fiber disturbances caused by erasures or present in
torn paper edges may be visualized using this guide.
4.4 Electrostatic detection device (EDD) examinations may
be useful in developing other types of impressions on paper
items (for example, typewritten material, shoeprints and latent
prints).
4.5 The procedures outlined here are grounded in the
generally accepted body of knowledge and experience in the
field of forensic document examination. By following these
procedures, a forensic document examiner can reliably reach
an opinion concerning indentations.

3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions—For definitions of terms in this guide, refer
to Terminologies E1732 and E2195.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2.1 direct contact, n—two sheets of paper, one on top of
the other, with no intervening sheets.
3.2.2 electrostatic detection device (EDD), n—an instrument used to visualize paper fiber disturbances (for example,
indentations, erasures, typewritten material/lift off).
1
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 on Forensic
Sciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.02 on Questioned
Documents.
Current edition approved April 10, 2003. Published June 2003. DOI: 10.1520/
E2291-03.
2
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at [e-mail]. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.

1

E2291 – 03
5. Interferences
5.1 Certain items submitted for examination may have
inherent limitations that can interfere with the procedures in
this guide. Limitations should be noted and recorded.
5.2 The size, shape, density or condition of an item may
make it unsuitable for the EDD portion of the procedure (for
example, some book covers, large file folders and items that
have been wet or damaged after indentations were made).
5.3 A complete examination involves the use of both the
optical and EDD portions of the procedure. All indentations
may not be revealed if the optical and EDD portions of the
procedure are not conducted.
5.4 The results of prior storage, handling, testing, or processing may interfere with these procedures. Chemical processing for latent prints generally interferes with indentation
examination results. Indentation examinations should be conducted prior to any chemical processing. Items should be
handled appropriately to avoid compromising subsequent examinations (for example, with clean cloth gloves).
5.5 Items should be handled as little as possible prior to
EDD examination to prevent contamination (for example, the
introduction of latent prints and additional indentations). Improper handling (for example, rubbing the item surface with
cloth gloves) may also impede EDD examination results.
5.6 EDD examination may yield secondary impressions as
well as primary impressions. Caution should be taken when
attempting to determine whether impressions are primary or
secondary.
5.7 In some locations (that is, areas with low humidity),
conducting an EDD examination without prior humidification
of the document may impede examination results.
5.8 Periodically check the condition of the glass beads
utilized in EDD examinations. They can deteriorate with use,
affecting the quality of the developed EDD image.
5.9 Repeated processing with EDD can result in degraded
images.

7.3 View the item being examined using side lighting that is
directed at the item from various angles and directions. In some
instances, the use of side lighting in a room with subdued light
may provide better visualization of indentations.
7.3.1 Document any indentations observed.
7.3.2 If indentations are not observed, document the lack of
visible indentations.
7.4 Determine whether the item is suitable for EDD examination.
7.4.1 If the item is not suitable, discontinue examination and
report accordingly.
7.5 Each suitable item should be examined using an EDD.
7.5.1 The EDD shall be operated utilizing the instructions
provided in the operating manual, laboratory procedures, and
current technical research.
7.5.2 A control indentation shall be successfully developed
and recorded on the day of examination. This control can be
conducted prior to, or concurrently with, the EDD examination
of the item(s).
7.5.2.1 If the control indentation is not successfully visualized, the problem shall be corrected before any further indentation examinations are conducted with that instrument.
7.6 Results of the EDD examination may be preserved by
making a lift.
7.7 If no indentations are developed, the results will be
documented or preserved, or both, according to laboratory
policy.
NOTE 1—In situations where the developed results are faint or there is
background interference, or both, results may be difficult to see. In such
instances, the results should be lifted and evaluated using an appropriate
background.

7.8 Lifts shall be maintained according to laboratory policy.
7.9 Evaluate and document results of the EDD examination.
7.10 If indentations or other images are visualized, conduct
other examinations as appropriate.
8. Report
8.1 Conclusion(s), or opinion(s), or other finding(s) resulting from the procedures in this guide may be reached once
sufficient examinations have been conducted.
8.2 The bases and reasons for the conclusion(s), opinion(s),
or finding(s) should appear in the examiner’s documentation
and may also appear in the report.
8.3 Once examinations and evaluations have been completed, reports may include the following types of conclusion(s), opinion(s), or finding(s):
8.3.1 Whether indentations were observed.
8.3.2 Whether decipherable indentations were observed.
8.3.3 The text of deciphered indentations.
8.3.4 Information as to the source of indentations.

6. Equipment and Requirements
6.1 Light source(s) of sufficient intensity and appropriate
form to be used for side lighting.
6.2 Electrostatic detection device (EDD).
6.3 Imaging or other equipment for recording observations
as required.
6.4 Sufficient time and facilities to complete all applicable
procedures.
7. Procedure
7.1 All procedures shall be performed when applicable and
noted when appropriate. These procedures should be performed in the order given.
7.2 Examinations performed, relevant observations, and
results shall be documented.

9. Keywords
9.1 electrostatic detection device (EDD); embossing; forensic science; indentations; questioned documents

2

E2291 – 03
ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.
This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.
This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or [e-mail] (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the ASTM website (www.astm.org/
COPYRIGHT/).

3

EXHIBIT 29

EXHIBIT 29

EXHIBIT 29

EXHIBIT 30

EXHIBIT 30

EXHIBIT 30

EXHIBIT 31

EXHIBIT 31

EXHIBIT 31

Page 1 of Facebook Contract (rendered in red) showing
area of staple holes & location of the hand printed interlineation

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 31.1

Page 2 of Facebook Contract (black and white) showing area of staple
holes & location of where the latent hand printed interlineation was found

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 31.2

Full page 2 of Facebook Contract (in black) with the left half of page 1
rendered in red and overlaid over page 2. With the staple holes of both
pages lined up, note that the latent hand printed interlineation from page
2 also lines up with the visible hand printed interlineation from page 1.

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 31.3

EXHIBIT 32

EXHIBIT 32

EXHIBIT 32

Left Margin Positioning of Interlineations
Facebook Contract vs. Street Fax document
Facebook Contract document
Interlineation indented 15 characters

1
1

2 3

2
1

2 3

4

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

Street Fax Document
Interlineation indented 4 characters

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 32

EXHIBIT 33

EXHIBIT 33

EXHIBIT 33

Latent handwriting comparison to printed text
Crop from original Page 1 of Facebook Contract scan. Note how “PC” is positioned higher than
the main line of hand printed text as indicated by the dashed red line that rises.

Printout of scan of “ESDA lift’ from page 2 of Facebook Contract scan. Note how “PC” is
positioned higher than the main line of hand printed text, the same as the visible text from Page 1.

Crop from the best available scan of the STREET FAX image. However, one can observe that
the “PC” initials are positioned much lower than the interlineation from page 1 of the
Facebook Contract- more evidence that it was the hand printing from page 1 of the Facebook
Contract that created the latent image on page 2, not the STREET FAX interlineation.

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 33

EXHIBIT 34

EXHIBIT 34

EXHIBIT 34

TEST REPORT
December 13, 2011
Page 1 of 2
IPS FI 02956-11
Report to:

Larry Stewart
Stewart Forensic Consultants
793 A East Foothill Blvd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405

Sample identification: 2 Vials
Date received: November 1, 2011
Test requested: Fiber Identification
Purchase Order: Credit Card
Report of Fiber Analysis
Enclosed are the results of the analysis performed on the sample we received with your
Test Services Request Form.
If you have any questions concerning this work, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Authorized By: ______________
Gregory J. Fox
Lab Manager

Signed _______________________________
Walter J. Rantanen
Technical Leader, Fiber Science
[phone] Ext. 127

WJR/jml

3211 E. Capitol Drive ~ Appleton, WI 54911
[phone] ~ Fax: [phone] ~ www.ipstesting.com

Report to Stewart Forensic Consultants
IPS FI 02956-11
Fiber Identification

December 13, 2011
Page 2 of 2

The paper samples did not have any detectable mechanical (high lignin) pulp fibers
which would be effected by photodegredation from UV light. There is a strong UV
fluorescence in both samples, which indicates optical brightening agents. In the small
punch outs, significant fluorescence differences were not detected. It could not be
determined if these samples were effected by contact with UV light, but long exposure
to UV light has been known to lower the whiteness of paper. A noticeable particulate
material was observed on one side of the punch outs. This particulate may also affect
the UV fluorescence of paper. The main inorganic substance in these particulates was
found to be iron. The EDS spectra are enclosed. The nature of this material implies
contact on one surface of the papers.
Spot tests show the same consistent reactions for starch and pH levels between the two
samples. The fiber content of the two vials is consistent with coming from the same mill
and production run.
Table 1. Fiber Identification of Vial 7
Hardwood Bleached Kraft – Principally Redgum and Oak with some Blackgum, YellowPoplar, Cherry, Southern Magnolia
Softwood Bleached Kraft – Hard Pine (Except Red & Pine)

Table 2. Fiber Identification of Vial 9
Hardwood Bleached Kraft – Principally Oak and Redgum with some Yellow-Poplar,
Blackgum, Cherry
Softwood Bleached Kraft – Hard Pine (Except Red & Pine)

Method: TAPPI Test Method T 401 om-03 “Fiber Analysis of Paper and Paperboard.”
Analyzed by WJR
Quality review by JML, KTM
Date(s) of testing November 8, 2011
Notes: These results relate only to the item(s) tested. This test report shall not be
reproduced, except in full, without written consent of IPS. See the TAPPI test
method(s) cited for estimates of measurement uncertainty.

EXHIBIT 35

EXHIBIT 35

EXHIBIT 35

Test using VSC4: New office paper exposed to UV light
These areas were exposed to light resulting in damage to the document

These areas were covered by wide strips of black
heavy stock paper and were not exposed to light

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 35.1

Test using VSC4: New office paper exposed to UV light
These areas were exposed to light resulting in damage to the document

These areas were covered by wide strips of black heavy stock paper
and were not exposed to light- note their lighter appearance

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 35.2

EXHIBIT 36

EXHIBIT 36

EXHIBIT 36

EXHIBIT 37

EXHIBIT 37

EXHIBIT 37

Facebook Contract / “WORK FOR HIRE” CONTRACT
Page 1- crimp/divot/gouge marks

1

2

BLANCO & Associates Inc.

EXHIBIT 37