[LibertarianAdam]

If one is a fifty year old paper doc, and one is pixels, I’d go with the paper. The pixel doc was probably made from the image of the other. Sorry. All she claims to have is a jpg emailed to her (read here filing or blog if in doubt). She has no paper doc (in fact, over the last few days she has claimed she was going to Europe to obtain said physical copy). The "punk'd" copy uploaded today is of a much higher resolution that what she has to claim (though all we know is what she uploaded to her blog...she may indeed have an equally high-res copy but no one has seen it yet). Regardless, it looks bad for her case. Her inability to properly file a doc doesn't look much better. I say this having filed quite a few legal documents before.

[marron]

Sorry. All she claims to have is a jpg emailed to her (read here filing or blog if in doubt). She has no paper doc

That would settle it for me.

[El Gato]

All she claims to have is a jpg emailed to her (read here filing or blog if in doubt).

Her filing says she has and "Unauthenticated Color Photocopy". What have been looking at is a color photograph. Not the same as a photocopy. The very first line of the filing says: " 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.

Now I know her first, or second, language is not English, but her English sounds fairly colloquil, if accented, so she would very likely know the difference between a color photograph and a color photocopy. Likewise, a "copy" and a "photograph" are different things. Presumably, the photograph we have seen is of the photocopy. Although I must admit, I'd be going down to Sams Club, and buying a scanner, rather than making photographs with a digital camera.