MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 7 workflow

Hermitian writes:

Assuming that NBC and Kevin are correct about the court ALWAYS adding the case labels and page numbers then the preferred work flow would be:

1. Secretary types page 1 of document 15-1.pdf in WORD and then exports the page to PDF.

2. She then downloads the WH LFCOLB PDF image from:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

3. She then opens both PDF pages in Adobe Acrobat and merges the two pages to create court document 15-1.pdf.

Of course, a more careful researcher would have checked the actual metadata

/Creator (Preview)
/Producer (Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext)
/Title (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf)
/Keywords ()
/ModDate (D:20120504150447-07'00')
/Subject ()
/CreationDate (D:20110427120924Z)

So the document has a title reflecting the URL. Downloading using Google Chrome replaces the title with the the URL and the Creator with Chrome and creation and modification date with today’s date. So that’s not it. Same for Firefox.

Very interesting… Of course, scanning into acrobat would have shown different tags.

8 thoughts on “MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 7 workflow

  1. “NBC Bloviates

    “Hermitian writes:

    “”Assuming that NBC and Kevin are correct about the court ALWAYS adding the case labels and page numbers then the preferred work flow would be:

    1. Secretary types page 1 of document 15-1.pdf in WORD and then exports the page to PDF.

    2. She then downloads the WH LFCOLB PDF image from:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    3. She then opens both PDF pages in Adobe Acrobat and merges the two pages to create court document 15-1.pdf.”

    “Of course, a more careful researcher would have checked the actual metadata

    “/Creator (Preview)
    /Producer (Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext)
    /Title (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf)
    /Keywords ()
    /ModDate (D:20120504150447-07’00’)
    /Subject ()
    /CreationDate (D:20110427120924Z)
    So the document has a title reflecting the URL. Downloading using Google Chrome replaces the title with the the URL and the Creator with Chrome and creation and modification date with today’s date. So that’s not it. Same for Firefox.

    “Very interesting… Of course, scanning into acrobat would have shown different tags.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    For sure a “careful researcher” would check the METADATA of document 15-1.pdf.

    application/pdf

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    2011-04-27T12:09:24Z
    Preview
    2012-05-04T15:04:47-07:00
    2012-05-04T15:04:47-07:00

    Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext

    uuid:ebab04b1-d2f9-4822-b08a-549f72c5257e
    uuid:a6a4896d-5de4-42d3-8985-1f40796809ea

    —————–

    And then this “careful researcher” would notice that both the creator tool and the producer tool of document 15-1.pdf are the same as for the WH LFCOLB PDF image.

    —————-

    2011-04-27T12:09:24Z
    2012-10-02T13:56:18-04:00
    Preview

    Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext

    application/pdf

    PDF-XChange Viewer;2.5.205.0;Aug 14 2012;17:26:20;D:20121002135618-04’00’

    ——————

    And then this same “careful researcher” would conclude that the two-page document 15-1.pdf was created by the same individual who created the WH LFCOLB PDF image.

    So that person would be the forger or his White House accomplice.

  2. And then this same “careful researcher” would conclude that the two-page document 15-1.pdf was created by the same individual who created the WH LFCOLB PDF image.

    So that person would be the forger or his White House accomplice.

    Hilarious… Now we have another claim of forgery without any evidence of such. We already know that document 15-1 shows the exact same jpeg as is embedded in the White House PDF, which should be obvious as the document was obtained from the whitehouse site. One need not look further than the metadata.

    The creator and producer are indeed exactly the same as the Whitehouse PDF. That was self evident. So it is clear that the document was captured in a manner that did not change the metadata.
    You jump to the conclusion of forgery where there is no need to do so. We have seen several examples now where claims of forgery were shown to be nothing more that algorithmic artifacts resulting from the work flow.

    Of course, Hermitian claimed, erroneously that the document was somehow scanned into Acrobat. Now, embarrassed about his amateurish mistakes, he is implying forgery where there is evidence of none..

    Our poor friend is so convinced that the document was forged that he lets this guide his conclusions.

    Not very good research…

  3. A court workflow could end up with metadata such as the following (from Document 2 in Taitz v. Donohue):

    application/pdf

    Mon Jul 08 09:39:38 2013

    Pixel Translations (PIXPDF Ver.7.5.48); modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT

    2013-07-12T20:09:43-05:00
    2013-07-12T20:09:43-05:00

    uuid:8bd1f880-f019-4ad3-8efe-4c7fb3e3d90a
    uuid:85f4c780-14ac-4ffc-947b-55de6d3f72d3

    Note it is produced by Pixel Translations (technology now owned by EMC Captiva). I suspect the use of iText is to allow the bulk processing and adding of the header. As one would expect in a high volume office, the document has a GUID and probably may added with iText as part of the process of posting the link to the docket related XML tab (docketText for the Appellate version).

    I would figure, the header is not typed but inserted from XML tags for the case and docket entry.

    I doubt Hermie has much experience with modern day document management in high volume offices.

  4. Well, the metadata did not turn out as well I as I had hoped due to the coding and using Blockquote. The main items are there but it is not complete. If you want a clean copy, NBC let me know and I will post it for you as a text file on my “blog.”

  5. I cannot get 15-1 to load in Pacer but I went and checked Doc 34 which was likely submitted directly to ECF by the MS Democratic Party.

    Producer(~Microsoft. Office Word 2007; modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT)

    Adding the header is an automated process by ECF.

  6. All these comments seem to assume that there’s only one type of problem with the birth certificate. There are many categories of problems. Here is a generic example. If a guy made a $20 bill with the phrase “legal tender” written as “eagle tender,” it would not matter how many copies, copies of copies, PDFs, layers, or anything else you looked at or manipulated or created a pretext for, you would always have indisputable evidence that the thing was counterfeit.

  7. And then this same “careful researcher” would conclude that the two-page document 15-1.pdf was created by the same individual who created the WH LFCOLB PDF image.

    So that person would be the forger or his White House accomplice.

    Why? Are you saying that the metadata is always changed? Even worse, now Hermitian is talking about a White House forger but provides no evidence of such.

    If the document was created the same way as the one he claims to be a forgery, then it too must be a forgery… Sigh… Not very consistent in his reasoning and worse, still lacking any evidence of forgery other than the presumption of such.

  8. So what other problems are there with the birth certificate. None really… Certainly none that can be seen as providing evidence of something nefarious or which can be used in a court of legal evidence.

    Many of these ‘experts’ and their ‘testimony’ have been rejected by courts for a variety of reasons. There is just nothing there…

    The use of the term African instead of Negro is well understood, the numbering is a red herring. What else…

Comments are closed.