First, I believe that there is a difference between a photograph of a document and a document or copy of the document. Second, even assuming that it was, I read the statute to require tha the document be “in or affect[ing] interstate or foreign commerce.” So, if it turns out that Orly purchased the document, and the person mailed, faxed, or emailed it to her, then it’s in interstate commerce. However, if it showed up slipped under her door in the morning, or if it was simply emailed to her w/o any payment or other “commercial act,” then I don’t think that the action falls under the statute.
Appreciate the reasoned response - it is a good one. Here’s what I see that may help Orly in this case (regarding your statements): “First, I believe that there is a difference between a photograph of a document and a document or copy of the document.”
I agree, but I believe Orly claimed to have a paper copy (a photo of the doc). If that is what she put before the court, then what you state would negate any possibility the court could sanction here in regards to trying to pass a document because it is a photo of a supposed doc only. Secondly, the court won’t act either because of this, so it will go nowhere - that is if they follow your logic on this.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
“Second, even assuming that it was, I read the statute to require tha the document be “in or affect[ing] interstate or foreign commerce.” So, if it turns out that Orly purchased the document, and the person mailed, faxed, or emailed it to her, then it’s in interstate commerce. However, if it showed up slipped under her door in the morning, or if it was simply emailed to her w/o any payment or other “commercial act,” then I don’t think that the action falls under the statute.”
I believe you are correct and I thought of some similar scenarios that would just barely skirt the law quoted as well - but wouldn’t that be conspiracy of some sort? Maybe not I don’t really know.