Read the brief. "Preposterous" is the word.
Appellant Berg's allegations are preposterous and patently false.
"Preposterous" pretty much sums up Berg's whole public history for the past 8 years.
1. The idea that three Supreme Court justices would disbar themselves because Berg claimed he "represented" a few thousand moonbats who signed an online petition about a conflict of interest in Bush v. Gore was preposterous.
2. The idea that George Bush and Dick Cheney should be imprisoned for treason and murder for allowing or orchestrating the attacks on 9/11 was preposterous.
3. The idea that an online petition would convince the Democratic superdelegates they should vote for Hillary Clinton on the ground that Obama was "not electable" was preposterous.
4. And now, the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya or lost his citizenship in Indonesia is preposterous.
They oughta put it on his headstone: "Beneath this stone lies a preposterous charlatan."
Jeez, if you read my previous comments about all the extraneous, useless crap that Berg puts in his briefs -- like the first seven pages of his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in Hollister v. Soetoro
, where he mostly bitches about how his case has been treated, and makes your eyes glaze over before he ever gets to the meat of the matter -- now you see the exact polar opposite. Lavelle and Bauer don't waste any words, but they hit all the necessary points, and hit 'em hard, with surgical precision.
They don't use a lot of BS legalese, either. They use legal terminology to convey legal concepts, but otherwise, they use plain English language with vigor and vitality and meaning.
This case raises important, recurring questions relating to the presumptive scope of the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2 Standing issues which pertain to questioning the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States
Constitution, to serve as President of the United States.
Yuck. WTF does it mean, if you aren't already immersed in the controversy?
Lavelle and Bauer:
Berg made the preposterous and entirely baseless allegation that President -- then Senator -- Obama was not eligible to serve as President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, because he was not a "natural born citizen".
OK, now I get it, even if I don't remember Clause 4 off the top of my head.
You don't have to be a lawyer to see the difference ... all you have to be is a writer
Whoa. That's a masterful brief, IMHO. I couldn't have written it better, and I might not have written it as well. The only sentence I have a problem with is this one:
"This appeal is yet another in a long line of frivolous and vexatious filings by Appellant Philip Berg."
I mean, that's true, but I would have said, "This appeal is the FIRST in a long line ..."