BUT RATHER, A SELF-SERVING ONE OF THEIR OWN CREATION
(Mar. 15, 2010) — Fool me once, shame on you…
The present response by the defense in the Kerchner et al action genuinely reminds one of the above idiom in that the defense counsel had already used what amounts to the same response in their original efforts to subvert and destroy the U.S. Constitution. They apparently think that a repeat is in order and that since they originally misstated the complaint and fooled the original court into siding with them on all points, they can once again fool the court with the same antics and the same basic response. No need at all to address the plethora of facts and citations raised in the ACTUAL action – and they certainly have not done so. They’ve not responded to any of them, but perhaps that’s because they realize they cannot do so in any valid or ethical fashion, as the facts of the case do not favor the positioning they are attempting. Who was it who said, “If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, make something up”? Indeed, they have made something up, and out of whole cloth to boot.
All the defense has done is to claim a set of issues and facts never stated in either the original Kerchner complaint nor in the Initial Appeals Brief. That, of course, makes their job childishly easy, as they only have to respond to a “case” they themselves devised, very much a legal straw man that they can demolish forthwith. The problem is that I can find no clauses in the Constitution which allow that sort of behavior on the part of either the Legislative or the Executive branches of our government (and, after all, the Department of Justice, although misnamed in this instance, is part of the Executive branch). I doubt that any genuine legal ethics would allow that sort of shenanigan either.
The Italians have a Proverb:
“He that deceives me Once, it’s his Fault; but Twice, it is my fault.” To translate that into English for you non-Italian-speakers, the epigram reads as:
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!!”
So we now have the “delicious” spectacle of attorneys well-paid by taxpayers’ money freely attempting to run roughshod over – and destroy – the very Constitution they took an Oath of Office to protect. In their legal version of the Potemkin Village, they merely ignore the Plaintiffs’ works submitted to the court and proceed to outright lie about the issues and facts of those submissions. As most who have read those submissions know, the Kerchner et al action plainly states that Obama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies. That is the key concept, is required by the black letter law of this country, and is COMPLETELY ignored by the defense response.
That’s not too difficult a concept to grasp, unless you wish not to. It is certainly much easier to warp that around into the lie of the Plaintiffs allege that “Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States because he is not a “natural born citizen…” (and note they do NOT capitalize the word “citizen” as is done in the Constitution). There is a vast and manifestly meaningful difference between stating the obvious FACT, as the Kerchner action does, and the claimed ineligibility statement proffered by the defense team which appears nowhere in the mainline Kerchner actions. A lie is a lie is a lie, as Gertrude Stein might have said.
Even more than that, in their present attempt to mislead (fool, if you will) the court a second time, the tax-funded barristers see fit to throw in decisions and backgrounds of various other inapplicable cases in which they have participated (where they obviously believe they “won” despite the fact that NONE were ever decided – or even heard – on merit and which do not, in any event, relate to the Kerchner facts and circumstances) also undoubtedly to try to push the court over the edge into unsound Constitutional reasoning and decisions. None of these citations offered by the defense are at all relevant to the Kerchner action and do nothing to show anything having to do with Obama’s eligibility.
The original judge took the bait – hook, line, and sinker, but not all judges think alike, and possibly some are not so easily led by the nose. We shall see if the word games, misdirection, and outright misstatement-of-contentions tactics of the DOJ manage to fool the court a second time as the old proverb says when it includes:
… Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me.