This kind of rant about the Muslim stuff is unacceptable in an affidavit. That, as appalling as it is, is NOT a crime nor the subject of this case. Further, it will serve to add credence that this case is submitted by a bunch of crackpot extremist right wingers.
Stick to the facts.
One other defect I see in this is that 2 exhibits are marked ‘6’. This is sloppy and again makes this case look like its amateurish and anything but serious. Let's use some of those funds Berg collected from supporters on an editor for this kind of statement, instead of a 3rd grader.
I hate to be harsh, I sincerely want to win. I don't want the MSM to pick it up and focus on the sideshow of defects and irrelevant rants within the case while continuing to ignore the salient points (of which there appears to be no answer).
Get it together, and take the fight to them.
In a lawsuit anything that can be used for the purpose of impeaching the credibility (or veracity) of a witness is admissable. It might be legally but not logically relevant. His religion is not relevant to Article 2, but he has made it clear he’s a Christian.
So here’s a Holy Man, a bishop, sworn, sayingt he’s a fuzzy muzzie. It’s something like trying to pass off a birth certificate as genuine, then saying, `No good? Oh never mind—here’s a better one. No? OK, try this one.
I can see your point but enquiring minds might want to know ... work with us a little bit.
Yes, the affidavit could be better written, but do we want perfect prose, or the truth?