Okay, so lawyers on retainer working for Obama and the DNC filed a brief. So what? How does that prove he's spent "millions" on the lawsuits?
As to your link, it's argument pretty much rests in argument on the following claim:
1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.
Which is true. The only trouble, it wasn't true in 1961. The law that allows foreign births to be registered in Hawaii wasn't passed until 1982, which can be clearly seen here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
That means it wasn't possible in 1961 to register a foreign birth in Hawaii, which in turn means if Hawaii has Obama's birth certificate on file (as has been verified), it proves he was born in Hawaii.
The rest of the article is just a bunch of unsupported assertions which are in fact not true. For example, it says:
The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama's birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence.
Which is simply untrue. For the purposes of proving birth in Hawaii, the certified copy of the birth record is just as good as the vault copy.
Nobody said he’s spent “millions”. However, he’s hired 3 lawfirms - that’s FIRMS who’ve been responding to the legal issues for the last 4+ months.
That certainly amounts to a larger amount than paying $12.00 for a copy of the original certificate.
I knew this was a waste of time. I did not say how much was spent. It’s speculation, since the only people who know are the law firms and Obama (accountants or whomever). The real point, if you can get past your nitpicking about dollar amounts, which you can’t really refute without having the bills in hand, is that it costs more to have 3 law firms working for you than it does to send a copy of a birth certificate, which would start to resolve the entire situation. Do you dispute that?
What were the statutes in 1961, if you think that was 1982 or have changed since 1961? Show me those... Then I’ll consider your inferences.
There is a difference in the amount of information between the two documents, which is clearly seen if you look at both of them side by side, and the certification does not reflect any additions or changes to the records, nor does it show if the birth was out of state, residence requirements, and evidence submitted if this was the case, etc...
The Certification, which is what the released images purport to be of, is not a "certified copy of the birth record", it's an abstract, generated by a computer at the time the document is requested. A "certified copy of the birth record" would *be* a photo copy (Xerox type most likely) of the "vault copy", aka the Certificate of Live Birth.
Even if the law was not passed until 1982, and I'm not sure that the 1982 at the bottom of that section indicates that the law was first passed in 1982, or just updated in some way in that year, it clearly applies to births occurring well before 1982, and even before 1959, when the Territory of Hawaii became the state of Hawaii.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
Why bother to mention births outside the Territory if the law did not cover births prior to 1982?