I understand everything you’re stating perfectly, but I still have a few questions:
Weren’t there several people discussing doing this very thing on the internet (DU, DKos, etc...)? And if that’s the case, a conspiracy could be proven provided there is actual interstate commerce occurring (selling of the document, electronic transfer of the document, whatever). Is that correct based on your take of the law?
I could swear that the interstate commerce clause wasn’t mutually exclusive though (in my initial reading of the posted law/statute). I thought the mere act of doing it was enough provided that it was intended to be used as an Identifying document of some sort...
As I have already explained in this thread, the jursidictional means clauses in federal fraud statutes are worded and interpreted so broadly that there are probably at least a dozen ways this forger has come within federal jurisdiction.
In the "production" of this document did the forger view or download the Bromford original over the Internet? Bingo -- federal jurisdiction.
Did the forger mail the photographic copy of the document to Orly? Bingo -- federal jurisdiction.
Or did the forger use a courier company operating in interstate commerce, such as FedEx or UPS, to deliver the document? Bingo -- federal jurisdiction.
Even the very paper used in the "production" of the forgery may be sufficient to give federal jurisdiction under "interstate commerce" depending on how it was acquired by the forger.
Unless your client lives in a cave from which he has never emerged to greet his fellow humans, it is practically impossible to successfully defend federal fraud charges by contesting the jurisdictional means clause.
Furthermore, the forger may also be guilty of fabricating evidence or attempting to fabricate evidence in a federal legal proceeding. This would depend on the content of any communications accompanying the item sent to Orly and the circumstances in which it was delivered.
With democrats in control of the Justice Department and given the politically sensitive nature of this case, as someone correctly pointed out earlier, it is one thing for there to have been a crime committed but another thing for any prosecutor to be willing to seek charges. But if there is a willing prosecutor, and the identity of the forger can be determined, the elements of the crime can be established.
If you want to complain about the overly broad nature of federal fraud crimes, take that complaint to Congress and the federal courts.