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...
Tell that to Alan Keyes.
is that it costs more to have 3 law firms working for you than it does to send a copy of a birth certificate,
Not if those lawfirms are working for you anyway. Ever heard of a retainer?
which would start to resolve the entire situation.Do you dispute that?
Yes. If he had sent the birth certificate to the court, it would have to be accompanied by a brief, so lawyers are already involved no matter what. By sending that brief, his legal team would be admitting that the plaintiffs have standing. That, in turn, would open the door for the plaintiffs to start challanging the authenticity of the birth certificate and could potentially tie him up in legal battles for months.
From a pure legal strategy, it is a far to get the court to deny the plaintiffs standing, which resloves the entire situation in one stroke without necessitating any further briefs. To date, as far as I am aware, his legal team has had to file exactly one brief to be rid of this nonsense.
What were the statutes in 1961, if you think that was 1982 or have changed since 1961?
The statute in question is here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
The history of all statutes, including their amendments, are in brackets at the end of the statute. In this case it is:
L 1982, c 182, §1
Which means legislated in 1982. If a similar statute existed before, then there would be a history indicated in the brackets, with amendments listed afterwards. As, for example, in this statute:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0007.htm
There is a difference in the amount of information between the two documents,
Yes, but the information that's missing from the short form is not relevant to his eligibility.
nor does it show if the birth was out of state,
Are you blind? The short form clearly shows PLACE OF BIRTH.
I do dispute that, and here's why:
If he had produced his COLB to a court, the plaintiffs would have demanded the original vault birth certificate. If he had produced that, they would have demanded that document examiners examine it. After both sides' examiners made their reports, there would have had to be a trial to decide if it was legitimate. If the court found the certificate legitimate, the plaintiffs would have demanded evidence about his adoption in Indonesia, about whether he ever travelled on a foreign passport, if he had registered in college as a foreign student, and on and on. If Obama had conceded for one minute that any court had any role in this process, he would have been tied up in litigation for 8 years.
No. The real point is that one of many claims being made is that Obama spent $800,000 - $1,000,000 on legal fees.
If nobody can know that without having the bills in hand, then this would be an unsupported claim wouldn't it? That's the point. It is one of many.