[Non-Sequitur]

You don’t have to spell out exactly what damages would occur to you if a fraud is allowed to run its course

You do in a civil suit to demonstrate standing.

Are you trying to annoy me, or are you having problems with cognition, or...?

If people pointing out where you're wrong is annoying then you must be annoyed a lot.

[VigilantAmerican]

Earlier, I believe you assented to the idea that a court will stop a fraud that is underway in order to prevent future damages. Those damages, I also believe, do not have to be exactly enumerated when they haven’t even occurred yet.

If Berg doesn’t have standing, why didn’t the judge throw the case out?

In Berg’s case, or in my hypothetical class action to stop Hussein, the prospective total “damages” presented by having an ineligible POTUS utterly defy tabulation. Yet you persist.

I’ve admitted that I’m not an attorney, yet my familiarity with the principles involved(along with common sense) allows me to confidently say you’re wrong.

What are your qualifications to comment as you have been? And BTW, are you a supporter of Hussein?