Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 416

DECLARATION signed by Larry Stewart re 348 Order on Motion to Stay, Scheduling Conference, Oral Argument,,,,,,,,,,,, 414 Declaration filed by Paul D. Ceglia Expert Report. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement 46-55, # 2 Supplement 56-66, # 3 Supplement 67-90, # 4 Exhibit p. 1-82, # 5 Exhibit p. 83-167, # 6 Exhibit p. 168-229, # 7 Exhibit p. 230-290)(Boland, Dean)

285.

The Ceglia to Argentieri scan (Lesnevich “Q-1”) is poor

resolution as can be noted by the stair-stepping or jagged edges found along
the characters once the image is enlarged.
286.

Following is the experiment that clearly shows that the same

document, simply scanned at different settings can create the appearance that
characters sometimes merge. (See Exhibit 16):

Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

56

287.

In another instance, Lesnevich describes that the letters

dramatically change in slant between the two document groupings again, in
his opinion, indicating that page 1 had been substituted (Document 329, page
6 of 46).
288.

There Lesnevich goes so far as to report that in one group of

documents the interlineation lettering slants downward while in the other
they slant upward again, leading Lesnevich to the opinion that page 1 had
been substituted with a different page 1 by Ceglia (Document 329, page 4 of
46, para 3).
289.

On the surface his argument seems quite convincing, but if you

examine his results closely it is easy to see his mistake.
290.

If Lesnevich wished to compare the angularity of lettering

between two scanned or printed images, he would, at minimum, need to
conduct his experiment similarly between each image.
291.

A proper experiment would be one where the slant was measured

by drawing a reference line similarly in each image.
292.

Lesnevich did not draw the reference lines similarly. Instead he

misled the Court by providing an improper experiment, one where his
reference lines were not consistently drawn.
293.

Proof of the misleading nature of Lesnevich’s argument is his

intentionally misleading method of drawing the reference lines in the
exhibits he presented to the Court.
294.

In those exhibits, Lesnevich does not even draw his arrows that he

uses to show the “different” slant the same way, therefore pushing the
viewer into an inaccurate observation.
Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

57

295.

Following is a diagram showing his Figure 3 and the inaccuracy

of his line drawings (See Exhibit 17):

The red arrows are
placed inconsistently
by Lesnevich. The
black arrows were
placed by me
consistently to show
his error.

Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

58

296.

In the figure above, you can see where Lesnevich drew his red

arrows to show what he perceives as a different slant between the Q-1 and
Q-2 document versus the Q-3 and Q-4 document. The black arrows are
mine.
297.

If you look closely at his red arrows you can see that he did not

place them consistently on the images. As an example in Lesnevich’s Q-1,
you can see he drew the red arrow from a point well below the leftmost staff
of the “M” in “MAY” and drew it across to the junction between the bottom
of the bowl and where it meets the staff of the “Y” in “MAY.”
298.

Now, if you draw your attention to Lesnevich’s Q-3 image you

will see that he drew the arrow completely differently. There he draws it
from the bottom edge of the left staff of the “M” in “MAY” to the junction
between the bottom of the bowl and where it meets the staff of the “Y” in
“MAY.”
299.

To correct his error, I placed the black arrows the same way for

each of the images. The black arrows extend from the bottom edge of the
left staff of the “M” in “MAY” to the junction between the bottom of the
bowl and where it meets the staff of the “Y” in “MAY.” When the arrows
are placed consistently, as in my black arrows, you can see that the images in
fact do have a consistent slant from the beginning of the word to the end of
the word.
300.

Lesnevich placed his attention primarily on the letter “A” within

the word “MAY.” In so doing he mislead the Court into not considering the
entire word as well as not considering the effect on letter shape, size, edge
detail and spacing that can come from differences in software, as well as
printer and scanner resolutions. Following is an experiment showing that the
Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

59

same document can be scanned and printed and then the two appear to have
differences in their printing characteristics, when in fact they are the same
document:

Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

60

Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

61

301.

Defendants’ Expert’s Claim of Different Papers is Wrong:

302.

Laporte attempts to show that page 1 and page 2 of the Facebook

Contract are different papers based on his measurement using a micrometer.
He states that his micrometer is accurate to 1/10,000th of an inch (Document
326, pg 12 of 67, para 1). That is a false statement. Handheld micrometers
will vary in measurement readings based on many factors, to include how
tight the user turns the knob. This could certainly explain any reported
difference of 1/10,000th of an inch.
303.

Furthermore, for Laporte to report a difference in the paper used

to create pages by measuring the two pages as 0.0042 +/- 0.00005 inches and
0.0043 +/- 0.00005 inches is equally ludicrous since the two measurements
can be equal based on his own reported variance (i.e. 0.0042 + 0.00005 =
0.00425 and 0.0043 - 0.00005 = 0.00425).
304.

Paper Composition Analysis Shows Defendants are Wrong:

305.

Laporte, Lesnevich, Romano and Tytell each concluded that page

1 of the 2-page Facebook Contract was substituted at a later date.
Interestingly, the paper used for the two pages has been analysed and
determined to have a fiber content consistent with the two pages “coming
from the same mill and production run.”

(See report on paper testing by

paper expert Walter Rantanen) (See Exhibit 18)
306.

Likewise, the two pages exhibited consistent reactions for starch

and pH levels.
307.

These paper tests were conducted by Walter Rantanen, the

Technical Leader of what is considered a predominant paper testing facility
in the country; Integrated Paper Services, Appleton, Wisconsin.
Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

62

308.

It becomes a stretch of the imagination for the Defendants’

experts to argue that the two Facebook Contract pages were created
separately, at widely different times, and on different systems, when we now
know the pages are consistent with being from the same paper mill and
production run.
309.

Defendants’ Own Experts Disagree About the Ink:

310.

Lyter, the more experienced of the two Defendants’ ink experts,

determined that no result could be achieved from the ink analysis of the
Facebook Contract as the ink was,
“deteriorated in a way that changed the chemical composition.”
310.

Because of this deterioration, Lyter chose not to opine regarding

identification of the ink(s), or the ink age (Document 328, page 9 of 13).
311.

On the other hand, Laporte (the lesser experienced ink expert)

attempts to further the argument of a page substitution by reporting that the
inks used to sign the Ceglia and Zuckerberg signatures on page 2 of the
Facebook Contract are different than the ink used to create the interlineation,
found on page 1 (Document 326, page 26 of 67, section 5d).
312.

Here, Laporte misleads the Court by implying that the finding

reveals that the 2 pages of the Facebook Contract “were not produced
contemporaneously, at the same time …”
313.

In addition, Laporte has misled the Court by not explaining that

there is no way to determine the amount of time that lapsed between filling
in the interlineation and signing the two signatures on the back page.
314.

Laporte determined that the Ceglia and Zuckerberg signatures

found on page 2 of the Facebook Contract were signed with different inks
Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

63

(Document 326, page 26 of 67, section 5d).
315.

Using Laporte’s biased logic, Laporte should have also argued

that the two signatures found on the back page were themselves also not
produced contemporaneously.
316.

In fact, it would be very difficult to ever have two signatures on a

document that were created at the exact same time as logically one would be
written before the other.
317.

Laporte’s definition of “contemporaneous” can in no way be used

to imply deception.
318.

It implies no wrongdoing, that two people used different pens

when signing their own names to a document.
319.

Equally, it implies no wrongdoing that the interlineation was

placed on page 1 of the Facebook Contract while using a third pen.
320.

What is important here is whether Ceglia and Zuckerberg created

and signed the completed Facebook Contract.
321.

Laporte’s Personal Attacks Against the Plaintiff’s Experts:

322.

Laporte takes the opportunity here to use his forensic report as a

platform to disparage some of the Plaintiff’s experts, to include myself.
323.

As far as qualified and reputable forensic examiners go, one

would seldom find an instance where an analysis report was used as a
platform for such comments.
324.

In the case of Laporte, it has become quite common for him to try

to eliminate opposing experts by providing one-sided information to the
Courts.
Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

64

325.

He cloaks his personal attack against me by indicating it is a

“matter of disclosure” (Document 326, Page 20 of 67, para 2). He proceeds
to describe how he testified against me in a federal perjury trial.
326.

The trial he is speaking of was the 2004 Martha Stewart/Peter

Bacanovic trial in the Southern District of New York. I was the sole federal
forensic expert asked to testify on behalf of the Government.
327.

Nearly five months after Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic

were found guilty and just before their sentencing there were threats by the
Defendants’ team of a multi-billion dollar suit against the government for
wrongful prosecution, based in part on the notoriety of the accused.
328.

I was questioned about my knowledge of the subject. I provided

first hand information regarding a meeting in the prosecutor’s office during
which the Chief Prosecutor disclosed pertinent case background information.
329.

The next day following my questioning I was told I was being

charged (by that same prosecutor’s office) with perjury for my testimony
from five months earlier.
330.

Afterwards, I found out that Laporte and another of my

subordinates had obtained a transcript and then accused me of not testifying
truthfully at the earlier trial.
331.

The substance of their accusation dealt with whether I (myself)

had conducted forensic examinations, in the case and whether I had
knowledge of information found in a book Laporte was writing a chapter for.
332.

Luckily, I had kept copies of the pertinent documents,

experiments, notes, etc. that precisely showed my involvement in the
analysis of the evidence and preparation for the trial.
Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

65

333.

It was made clear to the jury that I had, in fact, testified truthfully.

I was completely exonerated at the trial and found Not Guilty.
334.

Based on Laporte’s previous and numerous similar attempts to

disparage my impeccable reputation, I was informed that it is a matter of
fundamental law that arrests which do not result in convictions are
inadmissible, either as proof of guilt or for impeachment (People v. Williams
(2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 587, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 401).
335.

In a video readily available online, Laporte discusses his views

regarding testifying as an expert witness. The video can be found at:
(http://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?file=16335) (Time 7:10-7:56)
336.

In the video, Laporte states,
“every time you testify, people are attacking you.”

He

characterizes these as “personal attacks” that are “part of the
game” and that testifying as a forensic expert is a “mental fencing
match.”
337.

Laporte ends by stating,
“it gets old”

338.

Despite his own words, Laporte continues to initiate and engage in

this demeaning activity as evidenced by his March 25, 2012 report.
339.

Laporte, presenting himself as a “scientist” should understand

that the courtroom should be no place for such personal attacks.
340.

Laporte maintains a respected position in our Washington D.C.

Government while at the same time is a partner/owner and maintains a
caseload within a private forensic laboratory in Michigan.
341.

That private forensic laboratory performs casework where the
Declaration of Larry F. Stewart

66