The battle in Pennsylvania is joined. On one corner Mario Apuzzo and Karen Kiefer for Kerchner/Laudenslager; and in the other John P. Lavelle, Jr. for President Obama.
Briefs were flying today from both sides. (Check my Pennsylvania page for updates.)
- Nomination Petition Objection
- Brief on Behalf of Objectors
- Scheduling Order
- Motion to Strike and Dismiss of President Barack Obama (2/28)
- Memorandum of Law of President Barack Obama in Opposition to Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
- Memorandum of Law of President Barack Obama in Opposition to Motion for Testimony Via “Skype”
- Obama request for scheduling conference
The President’s side is giving no quarter, opposing Mario Apuzzo’s admission pro hac vice. Jablonski didn’t even challenge Orly Taitz in Georgia! This looks like a no-holds-barred battle with no empty chairs.
Update 3:
I’ve finished reading the Obama memos, and in particular the Motion to Strike and Dismiss. I must say that it looks to me like this case will be dismissed right out of the gate without any necessity to reach the question of President Obama’s actual eligibility.
The cute thing is that Lavelle argued that in Pennsylvania a candidate’s nominating petition can only be challenged by members of his own party. Kerchner is a registered Republican and Laudenslager switched from Republican to Democrat after the deadline for filing a challenge had passed. Oops!
Lavelle declares that challengers totally wrong in their claim that Obama submitted any document in Pennsylvania declaring himself eligible and so the court can as a matter of law cannot find any defect relating to a claim that is is not eligible. Lavelle further argues that since there is no valid allegation of a defect in the nominating papers, the court could only make some general ruling on the candidates eligibility which state courts are not constitutionally able to do, the sole responsibility for presidential eligibility lying with the Congress.
And finally Lavelle argues that Obama is eligible anyway and it was interesting that he cited the very three cases, Ankeny, Farrar and Tisdale, that just this morning I added to the Wikipedia article on the Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. I was pleased to know that I hadn’t missed something important. I didn’t look to see of the quotations were identical, but they were independently selected.
Glad to see that in there, as there will surely be many anguished screams of “It’s all about standing, not the merits, again!” from the birferati.
Am I correct in assuming that this paves the way for the dismissal to explicitly include that the court agrees the president is a natural born citizen — and maybe even why?
Does anyone have any idea which birther “expert” is going to be in Arizona on Thursday, presumably to attend Sheriff Joe’s press conference?
Who is John Lavelle, Jr?
John P. Lavelle, Jr. is a partner in Morgan Lewis’s Litigation Practice and co-chair of the firm’s Product Liability and Mass Torts Litigation Practice. Mr. Lavelle’s practice includes product liability, complex commercial, class action, and election law litigation.
Mr. Lavelle has over 20 years of trial and appellate litigation experience, focusing on the defense of medical device and pharmaceutical product liability claims. His product liability experience includes successful defense of cases concerning pacemakers, cardiodefibrillators, drug pumps, neurostimulators, insulin pumps, stents, knee and hip replacements, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, industrial equipment, consumer products, nutritional supplements, and chemicals.
Mr. Lavelle has successfully challenged plaintiffs’ liability experts at trial and in pretrial Daubert motions and has obtained dismissal of numerous cases on the basis of federal preemption and causation. He also has experience using alternative dispute resolution to resolve individual cases and groups of claims.
Mr. Lavelle currently serves as Pennsylvania State Counsel to Obama for America. He regularly advises campaigns and candidates on election law issues.
Mr. Lavelle serves on the boards of Community Legal Services, Inc., Philadelphia Legal Assistance and the Princeton Club of Philadelphia. He lectures frequently on product liability and litigation issues.
Mr. Lavelle is the author of the “Pharmaceutical” and “Food Litigation” chapters of Toxic Tort Litigation, published in 2006 by the American Bar Association. Mr. Lavelle has served as a special master appointed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Prior to joining Morgan Lewis, Mr. Lavelle was a litigation partner at a national law firm, where he led the product liability and mass tort group.
After graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lavelle is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and before the U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fourth Circuits; the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Pennsylvania; and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Selected Representations
Note: This list includes some engagements that were not completed at Morgan Lewis.
Medical Devices
Obtained the first Pennsylvania appellate decision recognizing that strict liability does not apply to prescription medical devices.
Obtained the first decision in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recognizing that state law tort claims challenging the design and labeling of a PMA-approved medical device are preempted by federal law.
Obtained dismissal of contribution claim by hospital concerning personal injury suit arising from misuse of medical device.
Pharmaceuticals and Biologics
Served as lead defense counsel in a mass tort proceeding concerning a vaccine product.
Represented a vaccine manufacturer in a nationwide class action involving consumer protection and fraud claims.
Defended product liability litigation concerning a withdrawn pharmaceutical product.
Food and Consumer Products
Defended the owners and operators of a hotel in a putative class action alleging that class members contracted illnesses from food served at the hotel.
Defended personal injury claims concerning ephedra-containing dietary supplements.
Represented a toy manufacturer defending personal injury litigation.
Represented a construction products manufacturer in personal injury and property damage product liability litigation.
Commercial Litigation
Argued and obtained a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that loss-of-use damages cannot be awarded to the owner of a telecommunications cable for property damage to the cable, the first such state supreme court ruling in the country.
Represented companies in litigation concerning termination of distribution agreements.
Represented consumer financial services companies in class action litigation in state and federal court.
Election Law
Argued and obtained a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upholding the right of voters who have moved to vote in their district of registration under federal and state law.
Led statewide and regional voter protection programs for candidates and campaigns.
education
Harvard Law School, 1988, J.D., Cum Laude
Princeton University, 1985, A.B., Magna Cum Laude
That’s who.
I was thinking it would Mr. Joe hisself. Is that too preposterous?
IOW, Lavelle is going to kick Mario Apuzzo’s ass back to New Jersey.
Yeah, ok, not bad, but tell this: how many dog bite or DUI cases has he taken on?
I thought so.
Yeah, but is this Lavelle piker a “Constitutional Article II Expert”??? “Cause I learned that Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is, and sooo, I really truly believe that Lavelle is going to get smeared all over the courtroom.
In spite of that fact, and just because I am such a nice person, I am willing to bet that Lavelle will win, just to give you Obots a chance to win some easy money betting your wad on Apuzzo.
This is NOT a trick. I promise.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I really enjoyed reading the Brief on Behalf of Objectors. I think it is the best (albeit lengthy) presentation of the birther two-citizen argument that I have seen, although I cannot claim to have read them all. Certainly heads and shoulders above anything Orly Taitz has ever authored. It is still B.S. but at least it is literate B.S.
Here is something I have been thinking about: In the 1990’s I did a number of cases attacking “repressed memories” of abuse and sued a lot of therapists and psychologists. I divided them in my mind into those that knew it was B.S. but did it for the money and those that really believed it. Psychics are like that too. There are some charlatans and some who really think that they have special powers. Among the birthers clearly Jerome Corsi should know he is slinging B.S., Joseph Farah too. How about Orly Taitz? Do you think she really believes? How about Mario Apuzzo and Karen Kiefer? Others? I know we cannot look into their hearts and minds but I would be interested in your opnions.
I think Orly believes. Anything and everything. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t post things like the screed from the guy suing the 29 Georgia judges.
Corsi is the only one I’m convinced without a doubt to be utterly cynical and opportunistic, but Farrah and Hatfield are close behind. Don’t know Karen Keifer, which probably exposes me for the shallow dilettante that I am.
I found this part of Apuzzo’s Brief interesting and poignant.
Martin Van Buren’s mother was of Dutch ancestry, and she still clung to customs of the “Old Country. Because of this, life was sometimes hard for Little Martin. He tried to keep up with the other children, but he kept stumbling over his own little wooden shoes. When Martin was 8 years old, his Granfather Gert gave him a pair of Moccasins. However, when Young Martin picked them up, they bit him.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
taitz believes but i would REALLY like to know about her background and how it figures into this
Here’s what I think:
In Orly’s case, based on her behavior in and out of court, she’s lost the ability to separate fact from the confused miasma of her imagination. For her, whatever she thinks is true at any particular moment is absolutely true–until it changes. She seems able to embrace any myth, lie, or exaggeration that will satisfy her need to see her opposition as monstrously evil and to see herself as either a righteous martyr or a glorious victor. Mario seems more in touch with reality than Orly, but like her, he’s driven to prove he’s right, no matter how wrong he actually is. As for Karen Kiefer, she’s a corporate lawyer with an M.B.A. who is probably involved with this case because she hopes it will mar Obama’s cases for re-election.
WTF?! That was amazing . . . I’m going to have to read all of that thing.
“A fool can throw a stone in the water that takes 10 wise men to retrieve.”
I think Mad Orly is truly too far gone and believes all of her megalomaniacal delusions. The others are all a bunch of B.S. peddlers. However, I think some of them are so steeped in their own sh*t, that they too are starting to brainwash themselves… The true common denominator here is that they’ve all gone off the rails in terms of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
It is interesting that Mario was able to come up with 200 page brief in such a short period of time. The Kerchner Lawsuit does mention a witness from Arizona. I would not be surprised if the majority of this brief is really the culmination of research into the NBC issue by Sheriff Joe’s Posse. The Cold Posse did report that were going to research everything including the NBC issue. I do notice in the brief, there is discussion of Conflict of Law and reference to Justice Story. A blogger on Mario’s blog did state a while back that the Cold Case Posse was investigating the NBC issue and was considering these avenues of legal analysis. Mario might have received much of the content of his brief from the Cold Case Posse and used in construction of his legal brief to help out Charles Kerchner’s suit.
199 pages is a “brief?”
I see John is back.
John, do you have an answer yet on getting the Indonesian school record into evidence, or are you just going to wax not so eloquently about Mario’s “brief”? Mario did not cover the topic, despite his, what do you call it, oh, yes, “brief.”
I call it “Apuzzo’s Not-So-Brief Brief”. I am about 40 pages into it, and if it was a mop that you could wring out, it would be 99% dirty water.
BTW (which means By The Way) congratulations on The Birther Dictionary!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I think it is an ego thing. He’s clearly trying to compete with Leo’s recent omnibus “friend of the court” brief. They clearly are both going for quantity over quality.
Do judges get pissed very often?
If you look at footnote 3 on page 7 of the memorandum in support (page 11 on Scribd you will see that Lavelle is accusing the objectors and their attorney of trying to lie to the court by submitting only part of a document they received from the election commission.
That sounds like something which would piss off a judge and lead to severe sanctions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83119492/PA-2012-08-28-Kerchner-Obama-Motion-to-Strike-and-Dismiss-Tfb
Thanks, Squeeky.
I to have made it about 40 pages in — ignoaring the warning that reeding the thing is likely to make you dummer. I am hoaping that if it does, that will onley be only a temparary affect.
My honest conviction is that Mario is being paid by some right-wing movement to further the idea in the public’s mind that “anchor babies” are not “real Americans” and is using the Obama/two parents citizens angle to further that view.
If you remember the lawyer who represented Tony Soprano in that wonderful HBO series, well, I think that’s Mario. He’s being paid to lie.
I am on record as stating that she actually did not believe this stuff at the end of 2008. What drove her to get involved? Narcissism. And racism, the old Southern Russian fear of the “brown” Muslim men from the Caucasus.
An alternative version was that Putin (now DO mention the war, the South Ossetian war) or the Israeli left were paying her to make the republicans look crazy (mission accomplished). But her recent mental decline contradicts that.
In her troubled mind today, she probably does not know what she is supposed to believe herself of the crap she has been filing. If people only let her finish.
We had Jonathan Kay (author of Among the Truthers) on R.C. Radio once. He has met and spent time with Corsi and Farah. One chapter of the book (not a very good effort, to be honest) is about the birther movement.
Mr. Kay certainly thinks that both Corsi and Farah are true believers. Yes, they’re using the issue to make money too. But he told us — and I’m unable to prove otherwise — that they both sincerely believe that President Obama is ineligible.
Most of my limited personal experience in front of judges has been as an expert witness on maritime casualty and marine loss claims in courts in the Middle East and Europe, but in that limited personal experience and in my wider general experience of judges as just another reasonably informed and circumspect member of the general public, I’d say that judges (including those in sharia courts as it happens) can get extremely hacked off, sometimes quite quickly.
From the way your question is framed it’s not absolutely clear to me if you are speculating about the judge getting pissed about the act of objectors intentionally submitting somewhat misrepresentative partial extracts from a wider exchange of correspondence or whether you are speculating about the judge getting pissed over Lavelle pointing such a thing out in a footnote to a brief. I’m assuming the far more likely of the two ie the former.
The answer probably revolves around that particular judge’s initial first impression view of whether this was intentional. If he forms that ‘intentional’ view initially I would doubt that he could be convinced otherwise without great difficulty and wouldn’t be at all surprised to see at the very least a suitable back handed verbal slap from him, if not more. Here’s hoping for that anyway, assuming it wasn’t an innocent or incompetent error of course as the latter in particular can rarely be wholly ruled out when birther lawyers are involved.
I would be very careful about assuming someone is being paid, unless there’s clear evidence for it.
In the case of Corsi and Farah, at one point Corsi claimed to have been on track to sell 100,000 books. Those go for about $20 a pop. If those figures are correct (who knows if he really was on track to sell that many books), that would add up to around $2 million gross (not net). One might reasonably assume that they are profiting from the issue.
Thanks.
I awoke this morning with some kind of hangover from reading the first 43 pages of Mario’s “brief.” I think about 40 pages at a time is all I can do. The warning that people might be stupider from having read it may have some validity.
Fortunately, if you’re careful to insulate yourself with good exercise and nutrition the effects appear to be only temporary. Your mileage may vary. May causes side effects. Consume at your own risk.
Frankly, Foggy, if Corsi doesn’t understand what claptrap he’s peddling — at least in regard to the forgery theories I debunked in the book — then he’s either not very bright or not very with it for a guy who has a PhD from Harvard, or he’s gotten way too committed emotionally to his conspiracy theories. Which could be. Even intelligent people sometimes sometimes buy into all kinds of rubbish. Seems a bit unusual, though.
Based on his other writings, he is other a serial exploitationist, or a serial conspiratorialist. The lay’s effect of CTs …. can’t believe (or sell) just one.
A lot of funny business, and speculation about the funny business here and elsewhere, around sales of WTBC?. Safe to say, a gross of $2 million was not realized.
I went through the whole Brief last night. I figured I would not be able to sleep if I had to worry about it hanging over my head like a Pinata filled with Poop, just waiting to burst and rain down on me. Sooo, I fixed some coffee and pushed through it. Then I put out a Condensed Version to save other people from having to read the whole thing. Could that get me made into a “Saint”???
St. Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Pennsylvania Ballot Challenge: Apuzzo Pro Hac Vice–DENIED
February 29, 2012 Order Filed 02/29/2012
Per Curiam
Document Name: upon consideratrion of obectors’ amended motion for admission pro hac vice of Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Comment: the motion is DENIED
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=22093
as an aside – taitz: send money
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=22083#more-22083
Just read the Motion Pro Hac Vice of Apuzzo was DENIED!
Also, Vattelvision gets no love:
February 28, 2012 Order Denying Application for Relief 02/28/2012
Per Curiam
Document Name: upon consideration of objectors’ motion for audio and video recording, the motion is DENIED.
Finally, a court w/ self-respect!
… which means no popcorn. Dang.
I’ve made it up through page 54 of Apuzzo’s “brief,” which really appears to be a compilation of all of the arguments he’s come up with over the course of 3 years for his position.
I think Apuzzo makes about as “good” a case for his position as he can. But if you know the actual history and law (or bother to look it up), he comes across as a weasel lawyer trying to convince the reader that black is white and white is black. This is unavoidable, since in fact he is attempting to convince the reader that black is white and white is black.
There’s his out.
Now he can go home to his blog and crow about the injustice of the court from the sidelines, immune from the possibility of sanctions for his frivolous nonsense.
http://sadtrombone.com/
Exactly. Also, the reason he comes across as a weasel laywer is because he IS a weasel laywer…
That might explain my headache today. I thought it was the weather.
I fear some birther lawyers did not potty train well. They leave lots of poo in their briefs.
Both Mario’s & Leo’s omnibus blatherings certainly do come across as massive bouts of explosive diarrhea.
G: grazie mille for the giggle!!!
Prego. :thumbsup:
The interesting thing about Apuzzo’s “brief” is that so far (I’m getting close to 1/3 of the way through), most of the authorities that Apuzzo cites actually refute his position.
It takes a lot to piss a judge off. I really don’t see this being cause for sanctions for anyone. The judge certainly isn’t going to get pissed about Mario and Co being called liars (he’s already denied Mario’s pro hac, so clearly he agrees Mario is shady), and if anything, it’s just further grounds to dismiss the Objection, and grant costs to the respondent. I think it becomes one of those small mental footnotes that floats in the background (afterall, Marios “brief” is sanctionable on it’s own for so many more reasons, by bother with that small detail?)
Another common tactic we see in Birthers and other con artists out there – they cite authorities that don’t actually say what they claim they say.
It is a deceptive form of the Appeal to Authority tactic.
I think a lot of this is done on purpose. They know that their gullible “marks” don’t actually read or research what they say and simply swallow whatever they tell them it means. So they have little fear that anyone will actually check into the references they make.
You see that same dishonest tactic all the time in the tons of irresponsible chain-emails that are sent out. A lot of them will now cite Snopes or some other fact-checking organization to back up their claim. But those actual sources actually DEBUNK them! Of course, folks would have to actually click on the link or read the original source to learn that…and the con artists out there know their audience is too lazy and ignorant to actually do that…
Don’t know about Saint… but certainly some kind of Angel. Your synopsis was studious, and, as we’ve come to expect, hilarious. You’re a bright spot on a dull world.
Now that was funnie! 🙂
Even I fall for that one sometimes.
What some of them think is that they can twist and parse contrary authority to support them. Cite any quote to Mario and he thinks he is clevor enough to twist and parse its meaning to his benefit. There are other birthers who do this all the time to even the most unequivocal quote or citation. Courts are not amused by this however. A good lawyer distinguishes or diminishes contrary authority, he doesn’t dispute what it says in plain English. A good lawyer would argue that Wong Kim Ark should be read narrowly and limited to its facts, they would not make the absurd claim that it says one needs citizen parents to be natural born which is about as incorrect a statement one could make. Making such a statement would result in loss of all credibility with a court.
IOW, it only applies to people of Chinese descent?
Another trick is the “subsumed assumption presumption” or SAP, for lack of another term. Apuzzo does this a lot. Here is an example of how it works:
First, Apuzzo assumes that nbc means two citizen parents.
Next, he subsumes (absorbs) that definition into a quote or reference. For example, John Jay wanted the nbc, aka two citizen parent, presidential requirement out of fear of foreign influence.
Then, he presumes that the fear of foreign influence is why two citizen parents are required for nbc.
Which then makes the SAP Cycle complete, because obviously nbc means two citizen parents because the Founders were afraid of foreign influence.
This permits the quote by John Jay to be turned from a quote with a still unanswered question as to what is meant, into a form of proof.
(I know what I am trying to say, but I am not sure I am getting it out right. It is close to being circular reasoning, but I think a little different, too.)
Plus, Thank you TBrown!!! But I guess I should have said Ste. As it is, I am calling myself a street.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here is an example of the twisting and parsing I was talking about. He claimed the 1783 Virginia citizenship statute that supposedly was written by Jefferson did not make citizens of anyone born in Virginia following adoption of such Act. Here is the statute:
“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this Commonwealth; all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the Act, intituled, ” An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth;” and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth……”
Pretty clear to anyone above the 2nd grade. However, he made some argument too convoluted to even repeat to find Vattel or something else between the lines. Twisting and parsing cannot change plain English.
LOL!!! I used to worry about stuff like that even back when I was little. Like,”What’s really in that thing???” and “Do I really want to be standing under it when it opens???”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I noted that, Ballantine. And it isn’t just Thomas Jefferson who refutes him.
Here is my current list of authorities referenced by Apuzzo in his paper, who actually REFUTE his claim:
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Lord Coke
St. George Tucker
Lynch v Clarke
Attorney General Edward Bates
The 1857 New York Statute
Justice Gaston
James Scott Brown
William Rawle
US v Wong Kim Ark
This is the type of behavior that gets one sanctioned for lack of candor with the court. One would think Mario, having to answered a show cause order for just that issue, would be a little more careful.
Mario’s motivation just evades me. He was a real lawyer once. Albeit a DWI attorney, but still, a real practice, unlike Orly. I have to wonder if the DWI bar is really this piss poor that this work would be considered acceptable. Besides completely misrepresenting authority, what real attorney would every consider submitting a 200 page, single spaced brief to a court? And to add insult to injury, no table of contents, or authorities! (I suppose he figured since he dispensed with section heading, he doesn’t need a table of contents? ). This tome is quite Orly-esque. At least Orly has some excuses…English isn’t her first (or second, maybe even 4th) language, and she got her JD from a Crackerjacks box. Mario was born speaking Eglish, even it if was Jersey English, and he went to a real law school (Temple I believe). I think I would rather never practice law again than become what Mario has become.
You call what Mario’s doing “practicing law?”
WIth Mario, I’ve always suspected it comes down to money. Kerchener and whoever else might be backing Kerchener have been funding him.
At some point early on, I think his ego also got addicted to suddenly developing a smal following of syncophants. For someone who slums life as an ambulence chaser, even this type of small and fringe “15 minutes of fame”, made him feel like he is “somebody”.
As misha, Lupin and others have suggested, there are also reasons to suspect that Mario is also directly connected or attached to some bigger bigotry-based movements. So any furthering of certain memes and propaganda can be seen to simply be furthering that cause.
I always thought it has more to do with getting to the “big show”. After a promising start out of law school, he finds himself dealing with DWI’s. He must hate going to class reunions. So along comes an opportunity to try that one big history making case and argue in front of the Supreme Court. No more drunks for him.
There’s a new Wong Kim Ark thread over at freerepublic.com in the Natural born citizen forum.
Any one willing to surf over there and teach them a thing or two? I would do it but I’m banned as a “TROLL!” 🙂
No one can’t teach edge919 or DiogenesLimp anything. They are way too delusional. Their ramblings are often not even consistent from one moment to another. They are just crazy people on the Internet.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Agreed.
Also, why bother? Freepers are going to Freep. That is what they do. Who really cares that they chatter like a bunch of angry and crazy people amongst themselves… I mean seriously. They are not some mainstream destination. They are just another insular group preaching to their own choir.
Well… At least in Mario’s case it will never “make perfect.”
I said that I read Mario’s brief but I lied. I really read the first 15 pages or so in which he said everything of importance to his argument. I have no intention of reading the rest of it. A couple of comments from a trial attorney who has practiced for 34 years:
Misrepresentation of authority is a serious matter and grounds for sanction or discipline. It is one thing to try and distinguish a case that does not support your position by parsing it and arguing that it does not apply to the facts of your case, it is quite another to misrepresent the holding of a case.
An attorney has the obligation to point the court to contrary authority. You cannot submit a brief that selectively cites only to those cases that support your position while ignoring contrary authority. This is especially true when the contrary authority is from a superior court, a more recent date, or overrules the cases you are relying upon. As officers of the court we have the obligation to present our arguments in he context of existing law.
Every jurisdiction I have practiced in has a page limitation on briefs. Briefs in excess of that limitation require approval from the court for filing. Currently the limitation in the court I usually practice in is 10 pages. If you can’t say it in 10, closely reasoned pages, you probably have nothing to say.
The limit in the Commonwealth Court for any principal brief is 70 pages, doublespaced. Seeing how Mario has 199 pages of single spaced drivel, and there is no motion for leave to exceed the page limit (and Mario was denied pro hac), I’m guessing there is a slight problem with his brief (as well as the issue of his brief is missing the required table of contents and table of authorities, and is generally a hot mess of as much garbage as he could throw onto paper in a willy nilly fashion worthy of Orly…although Orly would have more formatting issues). And in other fun news, they’ve filed a motion for recon for the denial of Pro Hac. (and their “expert reports” a couple of days ago….those should be interesting).