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?
“He asked for irrelevant information because it’s not irrelevant information?”
It is your theory that he asked for irrelevant information or legally non-valid information. I am sure to Mr. Tepper having Dr. Onaka issue a certified verification that the information on the PDF matches the information on the original on file record is both very relevant and legally valid. And I would guess he knows that the courts will agree with him. Just as the 50 attorney generals and secretaries of states did.
“If she looked up information on Barack Sr then why didn’t she screw up anything else?”
Why are you assuming she did a detailed examination of Sr.’s life? They would only need his name and where he was from to make a mistake.
BTW, here is a reprint of the 1990 Los Angeles Times article about his birth narrative. Apparently it was created before 1990.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html
And here is the 1990 New York Times article
What’s interesting about it is that they had to make a correction and posted an update:
“Correction: February 7, 1990, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final Because of an editing error, an article yesterday about the election of Barack Obama as president of the Harvard Law Review misidentified the United States court on which Patricia M. Wald is Chief Judge. It is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, not for the Federal Circuit.”
But I thought that articles never have editing errors.