[Sibre Fan]

In the original article it never said they only had a photo, it was always discussing the document.

Oh, so WND said she had it. The OCRegister said she said she had it. Interesting.

Well, as stated, Orly's website published the actual pleadings -- in which she clearly said that she was in possession of a color photo copy. If she had actually had the document, she would have said that she had the document itself and was providing the court a photo copy of the document, not a copy of a photo of the document.

In her various pleadings, she has attached dozens of exhibits. Those exhibits are copies of documents. Orly did not attach photos of the documents as exhibits - she has attached copies of the actual documents. If she had the actual document, she would have attached a copy of it (after putting the original she received in a safe deposit box or something). There is no rational (or even mildly irrational) reason to attach a PHOTO of a document in a court pleading -- unless that is all you have.

However the media may have reported what she had, it was very easy for people to go read the original source - the pleadings she filed. This is why I contend that it's far better to find and read the "original source" rather than relying on what someone says the source says.

[dalight]

In her various pleadings, she has attached dozens of exhibits. Those exhibits are copies of documents. Orly did not attach photos of the documents as exhibits - she has attached copies of the actual documents. If she had the actual document, she would have attached a copy of it (after putting the original she received in a safe deposit box or something). There is no rational (or even mildly irrational) reason to attach a PHOTO of a document in a court pleading -- unless that is all you have.

If this is indeed the case, we all would have been far better served to know that all she had was a picture. Anyone would have known this was equal to exactly zero.. just like the COLB at FactCheck.