Replies

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.)

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...