[hoosiermama]

Dad, who is soon to be ninety, graduated top of law class, worked as a clerk in the Federal system and practiced law for fifty years says:

The only reason Orley has petitioned the court is to establish a Chain of Possession between the origin of the documentation and it's appearance in court as evidence.

Only documentation that has this criteria established are allowed to be presented in a court of law.

There may be hundreds of copies, butare no good unless they meet this criteria to be evidential.

[silverleaf]

What else does Dad think about this whole case?

[Lurking Libertarian]

The only reason Orley has petitioned the court is to establish a Chain of Possession between the origin of the documentation and it's appearance in court as evidence. Only documentation that has this criteria established are allowed to be presented in a court of law.

The problem is that Orly's motion doesn't say where she got this copy. So the chain of custody is already broken.

The document presented to the Court is also completely unauthenticated, and thus violates Rule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. You cannot just go into federal court and say "this is a piece of paper and I want to conduct discovery to find out if it's genuine." There first has to be a showing of where the alleged copy came from sufficient to give the court a reasonable basis to conclude that it might be genuine.

My prediction (based on 31 years' experience practicing law in federal court) is that the court will reject it out of hand based on Orly's failure to present any evidence of where or how she got it.