Tony Padilla Q&A

[Spangle]

My point exactly. How could an original (ink) signature be cut and pasted digitally? Added to the end of a fake document perhaps but not reproduced digitally.

They can be scanned or a photo taken of it. Then there would be a digital copy of it.

 

[Intermezzo]

The judge bends over backwards to cut him slack, but it is shameful what a novice Baez is at this. In the end he will deny his motion and allow their testimony, imo.

Wondering if Baezs' inexperience was the reason for not notifying TP, LP et al..or if it is a delay tactic? or was he being underhanded and hope that the judge would rule on the motion that same day and TP,LP etc...would be none the wiser?

It's not the first time in this case Baez has brought forth a motion and did not send copies and notify all parties involved.

So do we still chalk it up to inexperience at this point? IMO I am not buying that arguement any longer, at least when it comes to submitting motions and notifying the correct parties.

 

[I Din Doot]

They can be scanned or a photo taken of it. Then there would be a digital copy of it.

That can be done but it still would not be ORIGINAL or signed in INK.

 

[iamkimba]

My point exactly. How could an original (ink) signature be cut and pasted digitally? Added to the end of a fake document perhaps but not reproduced digitally.

My point was that people are saying it is a COPY of a physically cut and pasted document, and that is not necessary, when you can manipulate documents digitally.Of course, if it is manipulated, no original in the manipulated form exists. Many posters were saying that he deliberately showed up with the copy, thinking he wouldn't have to show the original, knowing that the signatories didn't have their original copies, because he didn't send it to them.
The thing is- if Baez produces the original..and he had been trying to pawn off a faked copy then it would be incredibly obvious, and he would be caught.
Baez submitted a COPY of the document. NOT the original. I am not suggesting that you can somehow replicate an ink signature digitally.
What I am saying is- you can manipulate the document digitally - without physically taking scissors and cutting it....if you produce only a COPY of it.
Which Baez did.

 

[Spangle]

Wondering if Baezs' inexperience was the reason for not notifying TP, LP et al..or if it is a delay tactic? or was he being underhanded and hope that the judge would rule on the motion that same day and TP,LP etc...would be none the wiser?

It's not the first time in this case Baez has brought forth a motion and did not send copies and notify all parties involved.

So do we still chalk it up to inexperience at this point? IMO I am not buying that arguement any longer, at least when it comes to submitting motions and notifying the correct parties.

JB likes to smirk, and talk about others being 'skooled.' Yet he has been constantly schooled since this case started. And I'm just guessing, but I bet it also happened in the Polk county case, and other cases.

What JB has learned is that he can play dumb over and over again, and just not do what is expected and requested. Since he gets away with it, then his system works. He doesn't have to do it.

Why pay a staff, when you don't have to?

 

[LambChop]

My point was that people are saying it is a COPY of a physically cut and pasted document, and that is not necessary, when you can manipulate documents digitally.Of course, if it is manipulated, no original in the manipulated form exists. Many posters were saying that he deliberately showed up with the copy, thinking he wouldn't have to show the original, knowing that the signatories didn't have their original copies, because he didn't send it to them.
The thing is- if Baez produces the original..and he had been trying to pawn off a faked copy then it would be incredibly obvious, and he would be caught.
Baez submitted a COPY of the document. NOT the original. I am not suggesting that you can somehow replicate an ink signature digitally.
What I am saying is- you can manipulate the document digitally - without physically taking scissors and cutting it....if you produce only a COPY of it.
Which Baez did.

We cut and paste people are dating ourselves!!!!! :bang:

 

[iamkimba]

I think that, if Baez truly thought he could get this past the judge- with a faked document, then it was a deliberate tactic, to not notify the people involved.
I think he grasps at straws, he uses what's available at the time, but I don't think he thinks things out, I don't think he is that devious.

 

[Spangle]

That can be done but it still would not be ORIGINAL or signed in INK.

No one is saying that it would be.

The talk of cut and pasting, is dealing with the document which is not the original, but a copy, that was submited to the court. It is ok that a copy was submited. Even that is not the problem. The problem is that at least 1 signer of the document is stating that it's not the document that was signed.

NOW the original document needs to be seen. Cause that document can not be a copy of any sort, hence not messed with.. to verify the copy that was submitted in court is a "true copy".

 

[iamkimba]

We cut and paste people are dating ourselves!!!!! :bang:

:crazy:

ah the good old scissor and jar o' paste days!
Good times...good times....

 

[ChasingMoxie]

Wow.I made my way through this WHOLE thread. Very informative.And thanks to Tony for participating. But - I have a question, or maybe it's more of a comment over the whole fraudulent document thing.
Why is everyone so sure that you could tell because it was cut and pasted.
I'm sorry, but we live in the digital age now. Why would anyone have to manually cut and paste, when you could just open it up in photoshop, and cut and paste there, without leaving tell tale signs? I agree the documents are shady with the staple holes, looks like the pages have been reshuffled and restapled. But there would be no lines around cut and pasted copy if it was simply manipulated in 'shop- or even in the original document software.
(CM snipped for clarity)

My point was that people are saying it is a COPY of a physically cut and pasted document, and that is not necessary, when you can manipulate documents digitally.Of course, if it is manipulated, no original in the manipulated form exists. Many posters were saying that he deliberately showed up with the copy, thinking he wouldn't have to show the original, knowing that the signatories didn't have their original copies, because he didn't send it to them.
The thing is- if Baez produces the original..and he had been trying to pawn off a faked copy then it would be incredibly obvious, and he would be caught.
Baez submitted a COPY of the document. NOT the original. I am not suggesting that you can somehow replicate an ink signature digitally.
What I am saying is- you can manipulate the document digitally - without physically taking scissors and cutting it....if you produce only a COPY of it.
Which Baez did.

I don't necessarily agree that everyone was stating that the document was physically cut and pasted. The phrase "cut and paste" is also applicable in the digital manipulation circumstance that you're referring to. I think many people (myself included) assume that "cut and paste" refers to digital manipulation (as opposed to physical alteration) of the document. Hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings about terminology.

 

[Tulessa]

Thank you Tony.:clap:

 

[Marina2]

I don't necessarily agree that everyone was stating that the document was physically cut and pasted. The phrase "cut and paste" is also applicable in the digital manipulation circumstance that you're referring to. I think many people (myself included) assume that "cut and paste" refers to digital manipulation (as opposed to physical alteration) of the document. Hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings about terminology.

When I see the phrase "cut and paste" I think "right click" not scissors and a jar of paste.

I think some were thinking of the term in a physical sense. After reading some comments, I remember thinking "Why would he risk staple marks and faint lines around cut portions when he could've just cleaned it up digitally in photoshop?"

Maybe he didn't know how to use the eraser tool in photoshop. Or, maybe it is a physical cut and paste job because he doesn't use photoshop at all and was unwilling to disclose his fraud to anyone who could do it for him.

 

[Spangle]

When I see the phrase "cut and paste" I think "right click" not scissors and a jar of paste.

I think some were thinking of the term in a physical sense. After reading some comments, I remember thinking "Why would he risk staple marks and faint lines around cut portions when he could've just cleaned it up digitally in photoshop?"

Maybe he didn't know how to use the eraser tool in photoshop. Or, maybe it is a physical cut and paste job because he doesn't use photoshop at all and was unwilling to disclose his fraud to anyone who could do it for him.

I guess it's all my fault. I'm the one that brought up the line marks that physical cut and paste job would have, if not done correctly. And the damage it would do to the paper, etc.

I had a job, where I did both. So I didn't automaticlly assume it was photo shopped. And I have had employers who were not computer savy, and would do things "ole school", just because they didn't know how to do it the modern way.

Sorry for the confusion folks!

 

[ChasingMoxie]

When I see the phrase "cut and paste" I think "right click" not scissors and a jar of paste.

I think some were thinking of the term in a physical sense. After reading some comments, I remember thinking "Why would he risk staple marks and faint lines around cut portions when he could've just cleaned it up digitally in photoshop?"

Maybe he didn't know how to use the eraser tool in photoshop. Or, maybe it is a physical cut and paste job because he doesn't use photoshop at all and was unwilling to disclose his fraud to anyone who could do it for him.

I also think "right click" when I hear "cut and paste" - but you're right, I wouldn't put anything past Baez at this point. Off topic, I wanted to quickly add that I LOVE your sig/avatar pics, they are SO cute!

Back on topic: Many thanks to Tony for answering our questions and curiosities!

 

[Jolynna]

Even with digital cut and paste technology, the signature on the original document (which the SA has asked JB to produce) would be in ink and the notarization would tie directly to that signature.

I agree that the original will tell a lot.

However, IMO, this document is still compromised because the signature pages are separate and NOTHING in the signature pages ties them to the Privacy Agreement.

There are no initials or anything in the first two pages of the agreement showing that those pages were the ones to go with the signatures.

I don't think the contract as it is is worth the paper it was printed on. It was done in a way that left it open for dispute and it is being contested.

JMO

 

[marspiter]

I just don't understand why the originals weren't brought in the first place. That's not exactly some finer point you learn in law school....it's pretty common knowledge. You always bring originals with you into court or any legal proceeding. To me that is such common sense that you can't chalk it up to inexperience but certainly hints at fraud on JB's part. I'm curious to see how long it takes for the "originals" to appear.

 

[Jolynna]

I don't necessarily agree that everyone was stating that the document was physically cut and pasted. The phrase "cut and paste" is also applicable in the digital manipulation circumstance that you're referring to. I think many people (myself included) assume that "cut and paste" refers to digital manipulation (as opposed to physical alteration) of the document. Hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings about terminology.

I've got photoshop and to me, cut and paste mean X and V not scissors and glue.

That is why in this day and age, copies don't cut it. It's too easy to make a forged copy since photoshop.

From the appearance of the documents in the motion, I'd say exhibit A was copied from a copy. There is more copier/scanner dirt & more staple mark on the Privacy Agreement than on the rest of the motion.

 

[Spangle]

I just don't understand why the originals weren't brought in the first place. That's not exactly some finer point you learn in law school....it's pretty common knowledge. You always bring originals with you into court or any legal proceeding. To me that is such common sense that you can't chalk it up to inexperience but certainly hints at fraud on JB's part. I'm curious to see how long it takes for the "originals" to appear.

I guess you missed it. But we were talking about JB. Who is not known for having a common knowledge of things taught in law school. :blowkiss: :angel:

 

[marspiter]

I agree that the original will tell a lot.

However, IMO, this document is still compromised because the signature pages are separate and NOTHING in the signature pages ties them to the Privacy Agreement.

There are no initials or anything in the first two pages of the agreement showing that those pages were the ones to go with the signatures.

I don't think the contract as it is is worth the paper it was printed on. It was done in a way that left it open for dispute and it is being contested.

JMO

I just started reading this thread and didn't realize the signature pages were separate from the actual document with no initials on the document page. No lawyer worth his salt (I understand this is JB) would draw up a document like that. It simply won't hold up as there is no way to prove those signatures go with that document once its contested. Once again I don't think this is just plain inexperience here......

 

[JBean]

I have not read this thread sorry. But my first question is does the notary support the document she notarized? or don't we know? Here the notary has to note what kind of document(title of it etc.) she is notarizing otherwise separate jurats could be swipped and swapped all day long. TIA