Thank you. I must have used the wrong form of ‘embarrassing’ in my search. I was looking for something along the lines of:
“Obama’s lawyers have argued this would be too much of an embarassment for him to produce this document in Court.”
The quote you cited looks more like a standard piece of legalese. Don’t get me wrong. I believe Obama should have granted access to his documents years ago, and that the fact that he didn’t reveals either the complete absence of original documents or the existence of ruinous info on the original ‘birth records’.
That said, I do not see the one-for-one equation of the quote as cited at the beginning of this article and the rule you so kindly and helpfully pulled from the filing. Perhaps if I were a lawyer, I would see that the two are indeed exact equivalents.
Yeah I'm not seeing the difference. Annoyance and embarrassment still mean basically the same thing. Producing a birth certificate shouldn't be an undue burden either. After all, Obama voted for a law in 2005 that puts such a burden on everyone who wants to apply for a drivers license or ID card. Submitting a birth certificate as positive evidence in such a situation is an obligation and should have been done voluntarily. It speaks volumes that Obama's lawyers would try to fight off something they should have wanted to do on their own.
“That said, I do not see the one-for-one equation of the quote as cited at the beginning of this article...”
There was no quote cited in the article except for the phrase, “Honolulu, Huwaii”. The article is only a part of the video description, thus the larger quotation marks.
I have not read all the poexactlysts. But the judge in the terry lapin trial state that