He freely admits to his checkered his past. However, Smith has Showed up making himself available for the court and the general public to ask him question.
He rebutted Corsi in his video fairly well where Corsi backed off. Smith also put himself on the line by submitting an affidavit to the court that he believes is a genuine certified copy of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.
So where is the Obama's Hawaiian COLB that the media waves around as little Chrissy Mathews does proclaiming it as real? It's nowhere near a court of law. How come? It's real deal - right? LoL!
Lucas Smith is building his credibility whereas Obama is going in the other direction by losing his credibility.
Whether or not Corsi backs off his correct earlier analysis, Smith’s Kenyan BC is an obvious fake:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108005
The document appears to have the following defects:
1. Kenyan news sources have called into question the use of “Coast Province” or “Coast Provincial” as a correct reference to the official name of the Mombasa general public hospital in 1961, citing Professor Dan Branch of the University
of Warwick who noted that the term “Coast Province” was not used in the early 1960s when Kenyan provinces were typically referred to as “regions.”
2. Until 1964, Kenya was the Dominion of Kenya, not the Republic of Kenya, and Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until Dec. 12, 1963, not a coastal province of Kenya.
3. Dr. James O.W. Ang’awa, the physician who was named in the document as the attending physician at Obama’s birth, was a physician who worked in Kenya during the 1960s; however, he worked at Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. Dr. James O.W. Ang’awa never worked at any hospital in Mombasa.
4. The dates on the document are formatted in U.S. style, listing in order the month, day and year; this is not the British format which typically follows the order of day, month and year.
5. The footprint on the document appears nearly perfect in definition; real infant footprints
typically show signs of smudging because of foot movement.
6. The footprint on the document is densely black, revealing few natural lines on the sole of the foot; footprints used for document identification are typically inked much lighter to allow for natural lines to be clearly apparent.
7. Footprints taken for document identification are typically taken for both feet, just as fingerprints taken for identification are typically taken for both hands.
8. The document does not look remotely like the 1961-era birth certificates used in Kenya; infant footprints were not displayed on Kenyan birth certificates in the 1961-era.