There are deceptions in war all the time to save lives, so they could possibly be morally condoned.
Generally, I don't like to be deceived, and once I find out I have been, it prejudices my opinion from thenceforth.
I am working on a large post, based on all the information give me here - THANKS!
A few things really trouble me, though.
1) How about a web site that is not a no name site with document pdfs? The http://www.zimp.org/stuff/nav.htm site could be BS. (I don't think so, but still...)
2) Why would an attorney, and attorneys are sticklers for detail, IMHO, not have put her typed name on the document? Sloppy work, if you ask me.
3) Further to my stickler point, why weren't one of the "did/did not" oath choices circled? Again, sloppy.
I want this document to be real, but I think it only fair to apply the same level of scrutiny to it as was applied to Dan "See BS" Rather's "proof".
BB62