UPDATED 11/15/2022 - BakerHostetler, law firm "representing" Alex Saab in criminal proceedings against DoJ in Florida, has filed a forged copy of Venezuela's Gaceta Oficial to prove that Saab is "officially" a diplomat. This site, and many others, have the original Gaceta that exposes it. Adobe Acrobat Pro leaves no doubt as to the fraudulent nature of filed forgery. Isn’t there a law in the United States that criminalise presenting forged evidence in legal proceedings? Can David B. Rivkin Jr. & co actually get away with not only taking corrupt proceeds but knowingly presenting fabricated documents? As argued previously, Saab has an insurmountable problem here...
How to disprove Alex Saab's claim of diplomatic status?
One clue: the U.S. Library of Congress.
New court filing shows 4/26/18 e-version of Venezuela's Official Gazette provided by Saab's attorneys doesn't match a printed copy of same edition-- #6,373-- held at @librarycongress pic.twitter.com/cVoOfc6UEP
— Joshua Goodman (@APjoshgoodman) November 8, 2022
Dude it gets better. The original Gaceta, at the TSJ website, has this metadata: pic.twitter.com/0Z9tsNt9OB
— Steven Bodzin, an actual live human being (@guacamayan) November 8, 2022
Saab instructed his counsel to argue, given his newly claimed expertise in Venezuelan law, that his appointment did not have to be published in Gaceta Oficial to make it official. The announcements and letters -to the effect that he is a Venezuelan diplomat- previously presented and rejected in both Cape Verde and ECOWAS' courts sufficed.
Why did it take Saab more than two years after his arrest to argue that official acts of the Venezuelan government published in Gaceta -such as his alleged diplomatic status- are "permitted but not required"? Ergo, if publication in Gaceta is not needed (according to Saab), what prompted him to file now an altered version showing his appointment? If his alleged appointment did not have to be validated by a corresponding publication in Gaceta, why bother fabricating one?
Baker Hostetler claim -as a matter of fact- that his client-expert-in-Venezuelan-law relies on Article 9 of the Venezuelan Official Publications Law of 1941 to stress that diplomatic status can be published, but is not required. A quick check of article 9 of now abolished* Venezuelan Official Publications Law 1941 (amended February 15 2022, signed by Jorge Rodriguez and published in Gaceta Oficial number 6688) says absolutely nothing of the sort. It reads:
"Artículo 9. La publicación de la Gaceta Oficial de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela acoge el sistema mixto que comprenderá uno digital y automatizado, y otro físico. La publicación física deberá contener todo el contenido publicado en la versión digital y automatizada y generará los mismos efectos establecidos en esta Ley, incluyendo su carácter público y de documento público. La contravención de esta disposición generará responsabilidad civil, administrativa y penal, según corresponda.
La Vicepresidenta Ejecutiva o Vicepresidente Ejecutivo establecerá las normas y directrices para el desarrollo, manejo y funcionamiento de las publicaciones digitales y físicas de la Gaceta Oficial de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, incluyendo el sistema informático de las publicaciones digitales."
If anything, that law casts even more doubts about Saab and his lying lawyers. Evidently, Jorge Rodriguez forgot to tell Saab that the law he's relying on to keep lying about his "diplomatic status" had been changed.
* Article 17 of current Venezuelan Official Publications Law:
"Artículo 17. Se deroga la Ley de Publicaciones Oficiales, publicada en la Gaceta Oficial de los Estados Unidos de Venezuela número 20.546, de fecha veintidós de julio de mil novecientos cuarenta y uno."