Conservative law student Jamie Freeze has written a scathing criticism of the birthers, those who believe Barack Obama was born outside the United States. Attorney Phil Berg, a leader in putting forward that version of the birther point of view, has replied in kind in a December 24, 2009 article, JAMIE FREEZE CALLS ANYONE QUESTIONING SOETORO/OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP STATUS “INCOMPETENT IDIOTS” at his ObamaCrimes.com blog.
Berg, as an experienced litigator, immediately pounced on the weak point of Freeze’s article, its gratuitous insults, ridicule and name calling. Berg can cast himself as the wise instructor of the inexperienced student. He becomes a sympathetic figure, and quickly brings the jury over to his side. Whenever Freeze (or I for that matter), makes a gratuitous criticism or a sarcastic remark, attorneys like Berg (or Apuzzo) can pounce on it, answer it, and divert attention from the more substantial points.
For example, in a very long response, Berg fails to acknowledge and answer the fact that the head Hawaii Department of Health said unequivocally that Barack Obama’s birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, but continues to claim that Obama’s birth in Hawaii is unsubstantiated. Berg continues to say that the COLB has been “deemed to be forged” while not admitting that those claiming it was a forgery were themselves fakes and forgeries (anonymous persons claiming credentials they never had and using fake analysis).
They cross swords over the situation that would be the case should Obama have been born in Kenya of a US mother and Berg continues to claim Obama’s name is Soetoro so that his campaign was a fraud. You can read it if you want. I’ve lost that fire in the gut to go swim in the sewers.
What attorneys must learn is to focus their message on what is necessary to persuade the audience, and not to try to appear sarcastic, witty, or irrelevantly well-informed.