Don’t know if you’ve seen this yet.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142658577/McInnish-v-Chapman-AL-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Strike
The footnotes are a hoot.
Footnote 4
“The curious suggestion that the copy of the President’s birth certificate attached to the ADP’s brief is somehow a “new version” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a document and a scanned photocopy of that document. Just like a photograph of a baby is not a “new version” of the real baby, a scanned photocopy of a document is not a “new version” of that document.”
Footnote 5
“The ADP notes that the affiant signed the “affidavit” solely in his personal capacity and without any title, even an imaginary one.”
Alvin Onaka refused to say that the White House “scan” of the “baby” is an accurate representation of the “real baby”.
Nor would he verify the specific features of that “baby” - wouldn’t verify that the eyes ARE green, the hair brown, the weight 8 lbs 6 ounces, for example. By law he is required to say the features of the child if the requestor accurately named the features.
The forgers couldn’t even get the security background right when they had a copy from the HDOH right there. Now THAT’s hilarious!
No, I hadn’t seen that.
There are several things in there that I thought were funny. And the whole context adds to the humor in those footnotes you quoted.