Giving the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume that your use of the word “new” in your response was not to be dependent on the what the meaning of ‘is’ is. Because, as you well know, any “new” cases would be handled by DOJ. Perkins Coie is responsible only for a few suits filed before the Inauguration.
That said, I would refer you to the docket for Hollister v. Soetoro. You will note that during the months of August/September 2009 there was extensive activity, including Perkins Coie’s filing of a 6,532 word Appelllees Brief, and receipt of Hollister’s 32 page Appellants Brief and Appendix, together with various motions, letters, etc.
I look forward to your retraction.
There is no retraction necessary. I’ve already documented (earlier in this conversation) the only two eligibility lawsuits in which Perkins Coie defended Obama: Berg v. Obama and Hollister v. Soetoro. I’ve documented the total number (8) of filings that Perkins Coie made in those two cases and that last dates of activity by Perkins Coie in those cases, October 2008 and December 2009, respectively.
Perkins Coie did not represent Obama in any new eligibility lawsuits during that time. Yes, the DOJ would provide such defense.
I see the confusion now about the word “new.” My first response included it. My second didn’t. The first should have included it as we’ve already established the two existing eligibility lawsuits in which Perkins Coie provided representation. It was simply a typo in omitting it the first time. For that confusion, I certainly do apologize.