EX-NAIDER RAIDER ATTACKS REASON AND JUSTICE, TO SUPPORT TYRANNY
Legal analysis by John Charlton
(Oct. 23, 2009) — Judge Jerome B. Simandle took 2 months to write his eleven page Opinion, granting the Motion to Dismiss in the case Kerchner vs. Obama. But in the final analysis, his ruling was just that: an “opinion,” without weight or authority.
Simandle began his public career as a Naider’s raider. The Post & Email documented his apparent membership in the radical communist student organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), from which Bill Ayers and the other Weatherman were nurtured into an American-hating terrorist organization.
I say , “apparent membership”, because other than the fact that 90% of the students at Princeton University, while Simandle was there, participated in the Anti-War protests organized by SDS, or the fact he was never drafted, but left the country immediately after graduation for Sweden, where he stayed until Ford offer pardons for draft-dodgers, The Post & Email has no evidence he was a SDS member.
But the mind of an anarchist is impetuous, passionate, violent and absurd; traits which never are lost without repentance, because they are the symptoms of the final collapse of reason and conscience. And such appears to be the mind of Judge Jerome B. Simandle in his “Opinion piece.”
Let’s take a look at how Simandle attacks the American Order of things, in his ruling.
FACT IS BELIEF AND OPINION IS TRUTH
In the mind of an anarchist everything is inverted, perverted, and skewed. For the anarchist facts are subjective beliefs, and his own subjective opinions are truth. Whatever the historical or legal record shows is no matter. The Anarchist will always thus resort to an ad hominem because he long ago overthrew his own power of reason with passion.
That this is the mind of Simandle, is evident from the first paragraph of his Opinion:
Under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, a person must be a “natural born citizen” to be eligible for the office of President of the United States. Four individuals, believing that President Barack Obama is not eligible for his office on this ground, have filed suit seeking a court order to require various officials to look into their claims and to remove the President from office. Plaintiffs present various arguments for defining the term “natural born citizen” accompanied by allegations of how President Obama does not meet their definition.
That is not what Apuzzo’s pleadings said: he did not speak about “beliefs” which are subjective judgments, which may or may not be truth, or religious tenets which are based upon revelations.
Apuzzo cited 4 Supreme Court Cases and several others in Federal and State Courts regarding the notion of “natural born citizen.” It’s an objective, historical category of citizenship in U.S. jurisprudence and Constitutional law.
It is not an opinion.
The plaintiffs were not afflicted with an “opinion,” they were adherents to a certitude. An opinion, as Aristotle defines iy, is the “holding of one side of a contrariety, while admitting that the other side may be true.” There is no such doubt or concession in the Plaintiffs complaint.
Therefore Simandle is signifying not the objective text of the complaint, but his own subjective reading of it. And is terming the adherence of the Plaintiffs to objective historical facts and cited texts as if it were a belief.
ASSERTION IS EVIDENCE AND PROOF IS ASSERTION
Following the topsy-turvy logic of Simandle, the criteria of truth, as known by the mind, is itself inverted.
For normal, sane folks, who are not anarchists the ancient rule of debate holds true: gratis asseritur, gratis negatur: that is, what is gratuitously asserted, can be gratuitously denied. Or in other words, you have to back up claims with proof, otherwise they are baseless claims and can be dismissed.
Let’s compare two things, then:
1. Obama’s claim to be a natural born citizen (which he made in the AZ filing) and no where else — he effectively denied it in the Keyes vs. Obama debate — is a baseless claim. He does not fit the definition; so it is more than baseless, IT IS A FALSE CLAIM.
2. Whereas the claim that he is not a natural born citizen, is not a baseless claim: it is supported by Obama’s own public, continuous claim of a British subject as his biological and legal father.
A normal sane observer, would say that #2 trumps #1, simply because evidence is proof, and baseless or false assertion is worthless, especially in a court of law.
But Simandle does the exact opposite, in on the second page of his Opinion:
Plaintiffs’ claims, as set forth in their Second Amended Complaint, arise from allegations that President Obama has failed to sufficiently prove that he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency and that the legislative branch has failed to sufficiently investigate President Obama’s citizenship and place of birth.
Wait 1 moment, Judge Simandle! Obama has not proven that he is a natural born citizen AT ALL: he has merely claimed it, asserted it; without evidence of any kind. It is not an allegation that he has failed to sufficiently prove that he is a natural born citizen, UNLESS there is contrary evidence that he has proven it already in some manner.
But he hasn’t; he never has; he never could; his lawyers never claimed he did!
YOUR RIGHT IS NOT TO HAVE, NOR TO KNOW
The third absurdity of Simandle’s anarchical mind, is that he does not consider the objective state of things; the violation of the Constitutional order, but concerns himself with pyschoanalyzing the Plaintiffs state of mind.
He does this on p. 5 were he writes:
The harm alleged for all of these constitutional violations is that Plaintiffs have been deprived of their right to know whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen” and to have a president who is truly a “natural born citizen.”
It’s not a right to know per se, whether the President is legitimate, it’s a right to have a legitimate President. To reduce the complaint of the Plaintiffs to an argument based on their subjective state of mind, is to use ridicule to obstruct their access to the courts and their defense of their intangible rights.
Simandle’s game here is the old and tired argument of the liberal hack, who never admits the objective basis of any complaint, but turns every complaint back on the aggrieved citizen, by implying he has a mental problem.
THE RIGHT TO PETITION IS NOT A RIGHT TO BE HEARD
On the next point, only a tyrant lover could agree: that the mere right to plead is not a right to be heard. The logic here is like saying that a starving man has the right to ask for food, but no right to the food itself; or a dying man has the right to seek medical assistance, but no right to receive it. A liberal would violently disagree if it were a case of welfare legislation, but never being consistent folk, the liberal here takes the opposite view and says in the footnote to his Opinion on p. 5:
To the extent Plaintiffs also allege that they were 2 injured merely by the government’s failure to respond to their petitions requesting investigations and hearings, this is not a cognizable constitutional injury. Plaintiffs “have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views.” Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 284-85 (1984). As the Supreme Court has explained, “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals’ communications on public issues.”
In the case of the Constitutional Crisis the appeal to Minnesota State Bd. vs. Knight is laughable. We are not talking about policies here, but unequivocal, absolute, objective Constitutional obligations and requirements; if the Bill of Rights meant anything, it first of all presupposed that the Constitutional Order would be maintained and observed. If the Bill of Rights has force when that order is upheld; it sure has greater force when that order is not upheld, for the Bill of Rights pertain to the rights of those who inaugurated and promulgated the Constitutional Order, so that the subject of these rights, We the People, is anterior and superior to that order and the powers in it.
For Simandle, having “set his mouth in the heavens,” he is quite comfortable “to dictate to the earth” of mere plebs! Saying, “Away with you peons, you trouble makers!”
AGAINST A MASS-CRIMINAL NO ONE HAS STANDING!
What follows in Simandle’s “Opinion piece” are, then, the standard arguments on Standing which are constitutionally inappropriate criteria to apply in cases of unconstitutional actions of government and non-government officials; because in the case of such actions, the perpetrator has no rights; and therefore even a general minor injury of one who has even 1 right, gives an absolute right to standing against the one who has no rights; otherwise the doctrine of standing would result in the overthrow of justice, which as a fundamental notion of law requires that “a thing be rendered to him to whom it is owed” (cf. Plato’s Dialogues). And that is the purpose of the Article III Judiciary, to hear cases and controversies; the injuring of a right is a case, therefore it must be heard.
In summation: if you took a college anarchist from the 60’s and put him on a federal bench, after a decade or two of fermentation and practice in the law, you could not expect a philosophy of jurisprudence any different from that which Simandle distilled into his Opinion. That’s his origin, that’s his mind.
But does this surprise you? Seeing that President Jimmy Carter nominated him as an Attorney General; and President Bill Clinton promoted him to the bench.