Replies

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.

And, I appreciate your response too!

As for I believe Orly claimed to have a paper copy (a photo of the doc), dalight pointed out statements from WND and OC Register to the effect that she had the actual document. However, as I noted, she told the COURT that she had a photo only. The "original source" court documents say the following:

"The undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs has acquired possession of a color copy of one certain document (attached as Exhibit A to this motion), regarding which there are no ready means of authentication except by recovery of the original document."

"Exhibit A: Unauthenticated Color Photocopy of Certified Copy of Registration of Birth...." (Exhibit A is the photograph.)

I don't see how one can read into that that she has anything other than the photograph.

As for wouldn’t that be conspiracy of some sort, there can only be a "conspiracy to commit a crime" if there is a crime - and a conspiracy requires at least two people. So, if (a) "producing" a photograph is not the same as producing a document and/or (b) giving someone a photograph (as oppose to selling it) does not affect interstate commerce, then there is no crime and there is no conspiracy.

If you're referring to other comments that Orly may be in trouble, she's not in criminal trouble for submitting the document. And since the motion and document were stricken from the record, she's not going to be in Rule 11 trouble either. Had it not been stricken from the record, she could possibly have been in trouble, if it turns out that she conducted no investigation of the validity of the document before submitting it. I think that that would have been a long shot.

I mean, I don't think she would have received Rule 11 sanctions for submitting it. I think that the motion would have been denied, and the reasons for the denial would have been that she provided no evidence to indicate that the document shown in the photo might be "real." (And, the fact that she wanted it to be real just isn't enough.)