Replies

I hear you, and that blanket statement is made by most people here. But, if the forgery has no use, except for political damage, I wonder if the forgery statutes kick in.

They do.

Unlike a forged ID, or a forged credential that can be used to gain access, etc., these forgeries have no effect to the benefit of the bearer.

The law makes no differentiation as to benefit or non-benefit. It's in place to preserve the integrity of government records.

The law makes no differentiation as to benefit or non-benefit. It's in place to preserve the integrity of government records.

These documents (with the exception of the order to GWB) are not passed off as government documents. Most are personal notes.

The government records are unaffected by the presence of these forgeries.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to read a statute or a court case on facts that resemble these. So far, after seeing 10 or so cases, I have found none. The cases involve immigration, identification, insurance, money, checks, testimony/evidence to be used in judicial proceedings, professional credentials, 18 USC relates to forgery of money, etc.

Still looking ...

The law makes no differentiation as to benefit or non-benefit. It's in place to preserve the integrity of government records.

Here's one, UCMJ ...
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl123.htm <-- UCMJ - Article 123 - Forgery

"Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to defraud--"
"(1) falsely makes or alters any signature to, or any part of, any writing which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change his legal right or liability to his prejudice; or"
"(2) utters, offers, issues, or transfers such a writing, known by him to be so made or altered; is guilty of forgery and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

These documents, if genuine, do NOT impose a legal liability, or change a legal right.

The law makes no differentiation as to benefit or non-benefit. It's in place to preserve the integrity of government records.

Here's one, UCMJ ...
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl123.htm <-- UCMJ - Article 123 - Forgery

If under all the circumstances the instrument has neither real nor apparent legal efficacy, there is no forgery.

That line is buried later on in the statute. Now, I don't think these documents are under the UCMJ, and offer this statute only as a way of example.

Still looking ...

The law makes no differentiation as to benefit or non-benefit. It's in place to preserve the integrity of government records.

Here is a paragraph from a case where the defendant forged a military document ...

Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Gooden Brown said the indictment alleges that Clark, formerly employed as a customer service representative by the Palisades Safety and Insurance Management Corporation located in Berkeley Heights, told her employer that she had been called to active military duty by the United States Army. An investigation by the Division of Criminal Justice - Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor determined that Clark submitted forged documents to support her claim, including a copy of U.S. Army active duty military orders in which she (Clark) was to report to Fort Dix, NJ en route to Fort Leonard Wood, MI, for a period of 12 months in support of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." While the investigation confirmed that Clark was a member of a New Jersey National Guard Reserve Component Unit, it was determined that Clark had not been called to active duty but had actually become employed at the American International Group (AIG) Insurance Company. During the eight-month period (March 24 through Nov. 28, 2003) in which it is alleged Clark perpetrated the fraud, the Palisades Corporation paid Clark her $12,678 salary.
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/newsreleases04/pr20040611a.html <-- Clickit

Definitely used the forgery for legal effect.

Still looking ...