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.
Np. Onaka confirmed to AZ SOS that the White House image is NOT a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained on the White House image is NOT “identical to” the information on the original record.
So when Taitz submitted the White House image, she did NOT submit the “exact same image” as the hard copy from Hawaii. That’s the whole point of Onaka’s verifications.
Maybe you can tell me this: Why did Tepper certify that he served the opposing party with true and correct copies of what he gave the judge? Why didn’t he just say that he gave the opposing party information that matched the information he gave the judge?
Nobody said anyone was under an obligation to submit any particular copy. The point, which apologists don’t seem to want to admit, is that it should have been EASIER and much more legally compelling to get one of the TWO alleged hard copies of Obama’s alleged LFBCs than to request a vague letter of verification from an agency that previously had shown little willingness to cooperate. If these lawyers were actually defending Obama, then they shouldn’t need to obtain third-party evidence on solely on behalf of the MDEC, as was specifically requested. As for what evidence the plaintiffs use, they obviously did NOT have any easy access to one of the two alleged hard copies that the defendants’ lawyers should have had.