[dalight]

I believe I've read the entire thread (three of them), and I still can't figure out the source for the contention that she had an actual document other than the photo that she said she had. As there are thousands of posts, I may have missed it, but do you recall where that came from?

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

Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."

This quote strongly implies that she had the document.

In the Orange County Register, August 3, 2009 Michael Mello reported,

A Mission Viejo-based lawyer claims to be in possession of a copy of what she says is President Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

....

"There are no ready means of authentication except by recovery of the original document," the motion states, noting Taitz's fear the original may be lost: "It is also apparent … that political pressure may be brought to bear to destroy all relevant evidence, whether such evidence exists within or outside the borders of the United States of America."

Taitz did not say how she came across the copy.

A photo of the purported document posted to Taitz's Web site shows a folded, typewritten document, embossed with a seal. It lists Obama's birth on "4th August, 1961, at Coast General Hospital" in the coastal city of Mombasa.

The document itself has a Feb. 17, 1964, date and reads, "Republic of Kenya." The date, Taitz said, is because it's a certified copy, not an original.

This narrative clearly separates the photo of the document from the document which is purported to be in Orly's possession.

[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.