Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (69417)	9/11/2004 11:51:33 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793926

In Washington, there is a different standard for what you say to the press and what you present in court. Seems that way in California, too, based on what comes out of some of the trials down there. But even assume we are accepting the equivalence of his presenting them as parallel to introducing documents into evidence in court. You are assuming that at the time he presented the documents he knew they were falsified. I'm not convinced that he did. Is there any evidence right now that he knew or should have known based on the facts available to him that they were false? He claims to have relied on experts to verify their authenticity. If that's true, and if they are recognized experts, that's certainly a colorable defense to introducing false documents. Does he now know that they are false? He certainly must have suspicions, but that's not proof. He has claimed he's waiting for definitive proof that they are false. That will probably never come. I don't think one can prove absolutely their falsity. And the court in this case certainly has judicial notice that they are questioned, so if there is a question about their validity, it becomes the fact finder's job to listen to the competing evidence and decide whether they are falsified. Certainly if one introduced documents into court that one at the time believed, on the basis of expert opinion, were authentic, and then they were proved unauthentic, he would have an obligation to withdraw them. But introducing documents in good faith reliance on an expert, and then letting the factfinder determine whether they are authentic based on the evidence presented by the opposing party isn't, as far as I read Washington's RPCs, a disbarrable offense.