Is arguing that someone changed the date stamp on a printed document

>>57539835
Of course it is.
It's considered tampering with evidence.

And you don't really need to study law to know that, although I do.

>>57539835
not really. if the date isn't verifiable or corroborated then it's usually not accepted as valid, and if it's either or both then claiming it's fake just looks like any dumb nigger screaming he's been set up.

What did you steal?

>>57539894
Plebs call embezzlement "stealing" but it's actually creatively favorable accounting.

>arguing
>date stamp
>printed document
>tactic
>court

never get caught and if you do, even if you're innocent, that's totally messed up

itt people feel smarter than others+the law

>>57539910

that's fucking fraud which is a serious offense

>>57539923
t.justice department

>>57539923
itp anon feels smarter than other itt