Note the lawyerly parsing. They don’t say Barry is NBC or that he was born in HI. If they did that they could be forced to defend such claims with evidence if the matter went to trial.
Sorry, I'd have to disagree. The lawyer specifically said that Obama wasn't "born ....anywhere outside of the state of Hawaii." That can only mean he was they are stating he was born in Hawaii. There are actively denying that he was born anywhere but Hawaii.
Try put it into other words yourself and see how you get on.
See #106 and your #116
The lawyer specifically said that Obama wasn’t “born ....anywhere outside of the state of Hawaii.” That can only mean he was they are stating he was born in Hawaii.
You can’t apply normal logic to legal filings. I speak from experience. DOJ and DHS lawyers are issuing a simple technical denial of plaintiff’s claim in an ANSWER to a lawsuit. Those lawyers do not have to and did not in fact state (aver) that Barry “was born in Hawaii.” That would be a counter-claim that they would then have the burden of proving. The DOJ and DHS lawyers stopped short of that. They only denied the claim that Barry was NOT born in Hawaii. This is attorney speak for “If you think you can prove your claim that Barry wasn’t born in Hawaii before the judge we will see you in court where we will be able cross-examine your claimed evidence and present our evidence to the contrary.”
It is left to a discovery hearing or to the trial on the merits, if the judge grants one, for any evidence to be presented but there has never been a discovery hearing or trial on the merits regarding Barry’s 1961 BC.
A simple technical denial of plaintiff’s claim in an ANSWER merely precludes a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff for FAILING to answer.