Raw LLM Responses

> Well...technically her testimony is evidence, but yeah. This is a tough hill to climb. Yea, most definitely. Of course I know her testimony is evidence, but it's not going to fly. I don't even know what cause of action would fly based on her (and witness) testimony alone, trying to invalidate the 2257 docs. > That said she does assert that she didn't meet the ID issues, so as you said the Sect 2257 path may be the way to go. Though a quick review of the statute itself doesn't indicate a requirement for two forms of ID: ..."ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations." An Identfication Document is clearly in the singular. (The relevant code of federal regulations section, 28 C.F.R. 75.2 likewise does not appear to require 2 forms of ID). You're 100% correct. While many producers ask for two, it's not legally required.