Definitely not in this lawsuit (and not in any case that I can recall since 2008 or 2009, but I may be wrong on that.)
Obama is named, but so are individuals such as Nancy Pelosi, Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., Loretta Fuddy and others. I'm pretty sure those individuals who are out of state are not being directly represented by the MDEC's lawyers.
The MDEC's lawyers are also representing Obama. I'm not sure about the other federal defendants; many of them have not appeared in the Mississippi case because Orly hasn't managed to serve them. The Hawai'i officials have hired their own lawyers.
If they were, then they could get an actual hard copy of Obama's LFBC and not a copy of PDF posted on a website with a vague letter of verification that lists no birth facts on it.
The case hasn't gotten to discovery yet, so no one has been required to produce anything. The MDEC lawyers did offer a letter of verification from Hawai'i-- not of the Birth Certificate, which they claim is irrelevant (no statute says a presidential candidate has to produce a b.c.), but of the birth facts-- that Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961.
No. MDEC never asked Hawaii to verify that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. They were very careful to NOT ask the birth facts to be verified, and to not ask for the White House image to be verified as genuine.
The 2 things they specifically said were at stake in the lawsuit, and they were very careful never to ask verification of those things.
All they would ask is for verification that a BC for Obama exists and that the information contained on the White House image “matches” the information contained on the HDOH’s BC (which they knew to have been verified as non-valid).
They know that the information on a $3 bill matches the information on any other $3 bill, even though neither one is worth a thing. So they didn’t ask if the White House $3 bill was worth anything; they only asked if the information on it matched the information on the HDOH’s $3 bill.
The MDEC request was what made me realize that Onaka’s confirmation of a non-valid record is legally blatant - since even the attorneys arguing on Obama’s behalf acknowledged it through their actions.
The motions filed by the legal team only represent the MDEC, and the letter to Hawaii, requesting a Letter of Verification specifically says the lawyers are representing the MDEC, and says NOTHING about representing Obama himself. If they were representing Obama, they shouldn't need to contact the HI DOH for a letter of verification; they could just get one of Obama's TWO hard copies of his alleged LFBC.
The case hasn't gotten to discovery yet, so no one has been required to produce anything.
Discovery is irrelevant. They've already filed a letter of verification and a printout of the PDF. They could have simply provided one of the two hard copies of Obama's alleged LFBC, which would be more legally compelling, since a legitimate certified LFBC is considered self-authenticating.
The MDEC lawyers did offer a letter of verification from Hawai'i-- not of the Birth Certificate, which they claim is irrelevant (no statute says a presidential candidate has to produce a b.c.), but of the birth facts-- that Obama was born in Hawai'i in 1961.
No statute says they have to offer a letter of verification and a printout of a PDF of an alleged LFBC, but they submitted one. Again, they COULD haved simply submitted one of the TWO alleged hard copies of the LFBC. Why settle for a vague letter of verification when there's a self-authenticating certified document available?? /i