yeah...no. i'm going to disagree. this was an intentional redaction meant to deceive the Court, regardless of how little she spoke of it in the motion.
bottom line is that documents like these...if obtained properly...are self-authenticating as public records. she knows that...hell, EVERY 2L and beyond knows that. it's Evidence 101 (see Fed. R. Ev. 902(2)(a-b)). and it's extraordinarily easy to get a true and correct copy of a self-authenticating public document.
her entire conjucture is she purports to be a fact, when it fact it's not due to her own intentional malfeasance.
this is intentional on her part...she's playing fast and loose. she should be sanctioned at minimum, most likely she should be immediately barred from practicing in that Court and prosecuting the present action barring a show cause hearing on why shouldn't be barred and sanctioned.