I’ll take a crack at your questions. But understand that like you I am merely speculating.
Butterdezillion: “Why didn’t he [Scott Tepper] ask for it all in his verification request, but instead asked verification of something irrelevant?
Maybe because he realizes that the court is only going to be interested in the information on the birth certificate and not the PDF. In his verification, he got exactly what he needed no more, no less. The court is going to be smart enough to figure out that no one forges a document but uses the same information on it as the original.
Remember you’re legal theory was rejected by 50 Attorney generals and secretaries of state.
Butterdezillion: “And exactly how did the literary agent get the information that Obama was born in Kenya?”
Again pure speculation, but remembering that in 1991 Barack Hussein Obama was not exactly a household name, I would guess that the agency assistant who edited the bio confused the names of Barack Hussein Obama, who was born in Kenya with Barack Hussein Obama II who was born in Hawaii.
He asked for irrelevant information because it’s not irrelevant information? Is that what you’re saying? He’s such a good, solid attorney that he would consider it “evidence enough” to say, “Well NOBODY would forge a BC to hide the non-validity of the record on file”? The ONLY relevant information was whether the claims on the White House image are claimed on a legally-valid BC at the HDOH, and he never asked for the ONLY RELEVANT information, even though he is one of the few people that the HDOH would acknowledge as having an absolute right to verification of all the facts of birth and the legal status of the record on file.
I’ll ask it again. Is Scott Tepper stupid? He had a chance to absolutely nail this down with legal evidence and he chose instead to argue speculation that “this can’t be a forgery because nobody would forge”? He coulda had the smoking gun .22 in the hand of the killer and chose instead to prove that the suspect had possession of a watergun?
He could have had EVIDENCE (take note, BigGuy22) and instead chose to present mere speculation just like you and I are stuck doing. Why would he choose to argue speculation when he had the absolute right to legal evidence that was actually relevant?
This assistant didn’t say that Barack Hussein Obama, II worked in Kenya, was married to several women, was dead, or anything else that fit Barack Sr’s life. If she looked up information on Barack Sr then why didn’t she screw up anything else? If she looked up a birth place in any official source there would have been a birth date; did she report the wrong birth date?
“Maybe because he realizes that the court is only going to be interested in the information on the birth certificate and not the PDF. In his verification, he got exactly what he needed no more, no less. The court is going to be smart enough to figure out that no one forges a document but uses the same information on it as the original.”
Given the Onaka “verification” of the WH pdf LFBC “information” no court will touch any challenge to HI’s right to full faith and credit for state vital record document...UNLESS a congressional investigation proves a criminal conspiracy to protect forgery of HI vital records, IMO.
“Again pure speculation, but remembering that in 1991 Barack Hussein Obama was not exactly a household name, I would guess that the agency assistant who edited the bio confused the names of Barack Hussein Obama, who was born in Kenya with Barack Hussein Obama II who was born in Hawaii.’
So Obama Sr was raised in Indonesia & HI?
This is another stellar example of Obot logic. You have a literary agency. The agent approaches Obama, not vice versa, & pitches a book deal entitled, ‘Journeys in Black & White’. The Obot wd have you believe the agent did this while (1) having no idea where Obama was born, or (2) erroneously imagining he was born in Kenya, yet carefully concealing that fact from Obama.
Absurd is too kind a word.
But it gets better. Having signed Obama on as a client & secured out a 6 figure advance, the agency wants to let the literary world know about their new client. So they work up a catchy bio blurb to be included in their trade publication—& religiously, you might say pathologically, refuse to allow Obama to see it. Now they are going to print w the FACT of a Kenyan birth, yet they are at pains not to let Obama know that’s how they’re advertising him.
If the agency had a snake-oil, lying, fraud-perpetrating reputation [they don’t] this still wd not make sense. Finding out where someone was born is not on the order of finding a cure for cancer. It’s easily enough done. If the agency planned to have even modest success w their new client, & if his HI birth was a matter of fact, it wd be lunatic to advertise him as being born in Africa. When the truth came out, as it inevitably wd, the best the agency cd hope for wd be to cement a rep for blithering incompetence. The more natural assumption wd be fraud.
None of this attains. The agency has a good rep, & it is SOP both to ask the client to furnish basic bio facts & to have the client proof their bio blurb prior to print. No, Obots, it’s not acceptable to say, ‘Well everything is always different w obama’. That is a lunatic, alternate universe explanation that flies only w your fellow Obots. In the real world the agency wd have ascertained the truth & published it. No other course of action wd serve their purpose even in the short run, much less over time.