Point taken and agreed to. In fact, it appears the best he has ventured so far is "native-born".
Of course, my #67 responded to a quite different point - Obama never claimed that what he posted online was his actual birth certificate - which you may or may not have said.
To pursue my point, clearly either or both the client or his attorney bear responsibility for the information in the footnote of the Motion to Dismiss. The material was not just an incidental reference, it went further and was a veiled, if not direct, attempt to request that the court take judicial notice of the information. That responsibility would include, among other things, the assertion that what was published on the internet was certified by HI>
In some high profile cases, the attorney might admit to be mistaken; that the information was his best information as to what he thought the client had said - so long as such was not likely to result in disbarment. That is not going to happen in this case, however, since the WH spokesman sometime later announced to the press "we" have already posted [the BC] on the internet. And then, of course, there was the later disclosure of what was essentially the same sort of document.
My money, which is quite a bit less than yours, says Obama wears the NBC assertion around his neck.
In any event, it is disappointing that the material in the footnote was not pursued by plaintiff. (This eerily reminds me of a post I made several years ago.)
Ooops, meant to say “Point taken and agreed to so long as one is not responsible for the actions of their agents.”