These other examples are irrelevant as the motions that were filed in Mississippi and the request for the letter of verification from Hawaii were specifically filed on behalf of the MDEC alone and not Obama. The point I brought up still stand. If this firm has a direct connection with Obama, then they could or should have been submitting one of the TWO alleged hard copies of the LFBC instead of a printout of a PDF and a vague letter of verification that shouldn’t be necessary upon the submission of a legitimate LFBC.
As was pointed out by 4Zoltan in a post above, Tepper & Begley are representing Obama as well as the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee. Both are co-defendants.
It will be up to Judge Wingate to decide which exhibits, if any, he finds to be probative.
If Judge Wingate doesn’t dismiss on dispositive motions, Dr. Taitz can gain access to the hard copy (copies) from Hawai’i during discovery.
The defense is under no obligation to submit any particular copy as an exhibit, particularly since the plaintiffs used the exact same image as an exhibit.