[pissant]

I don’t like or dislike the information. But you are jumping to conclusions in your title that Sinclair does not support.

Did the acquaintance forge the doc on Rhode’s behalf or did he just fax something Rhodes gave him? Do we know that this person is really an acquaintance following Rhode’s request? Did the court contact Rhodes to verify? I’m sure her cell phone was working on friday. Is that signature even Rhode’s? It doesn’t look like it. And even if it was, is a cut and paste even legal? Lots more questions than answers that you seem to have conjured up in your mind.

Time will tell.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Larry's update does support the title I included. So, I'm not jumping to conclusions. Tim Frost, the court clerk, spoke with his boss and the acquaintance before the letter was faxed and was sufficiently convinced that the acquaintance was truly representing CPT Rhodes that he allowed the letter to be faxed and accepted it as authentic. There's no other conclusion that can be made from that report than that the faxed letter is authentic and not a forgery.

Did the acquaintance forge the doc on Rhode’s behalf or did he just fax something Rhodes gave him?

It's not forgery when you have verbal permission from the person whose signature you're representing. And yes, it's legal to paste an electronic signature in a document if one has permission from the person whose signature it is. It's also legal to sign someone else's name yourself if you have their permission.

Remember the court clerk spoke with this person before the fax was sent. We don't know what conversation took place, but we can deduce from the facts presented that the court was sufficiently convinced that he was representing CPT Rhodes to allow the fax.