Opposition Brief does not address Kerchner case

BUT RATHER, A SELF-SERVING ONE OF THEIR OWN CREATION

Guest Editorial

The DOJ's brief fails to address Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

(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.

5 Responses to "Opposition Brief does not address Kerchner case"

  1. Cinncinatus Dogood   Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM

    The senate is preposing to question the constitutionality of the Healthcare bill, perhaps we can have the NBC argument attached to the SCOTUS litigation. Obama breaks the law at every opportunity, and I would assume he has always walked scot free. I would hope that the NBC argument would get the attention of the public even more than the unconstitutional bill. This is assuming that Obama cannot just deem himself to be a NBC. IF I AM RIGHT and healthcare passes we can all file suit againest OBAMA for making us pay for healthcare we dont want.

  2. Patriot35   Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 6:49 PM

    Further to syc1959’s observations above, Amendment XX, Section 3 also says: ‘if the President elect shall have failed to qualify (which he obvioulsy has), then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified’.

    Since it is also obvious that Biden is complicit in the treason that installed a usurper into the Office of President, then he also has failed to qualify. The same conspiracy of treason would also include and apply to ‘Speaker of the House’ Nancy Pelosi.

    (NOTE: They would have difficulty fulfilling their duties – while languishing in Leavenworth, Alcatraz, or Guantanamo).

  3. A pen   Monday, March 15, 2010 at 7:08 PM

    For want of a Nail the Shoe was lost; for want of a Shoe the Horse was lost; and for want of a Horse the Rider was lost; being overtaken and slain by the Enemy, all for want of Care about a Horse-shoe Nail. ~Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack, June 1758

  4. jtx   Monday, March 15, 2010 at 2:08 PM

    syc1959

    “Obama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.”

    Exactly so … and the defense “team” is trying to con the Appeals Court (on fraudulent grounds as the article points out) into denying a hearing on merit or into believing that someone, somehow has shown the man to be Constitutionally when he clearly is not.

  5. syc1959   Monday, March 15, 2010 at 12:38 PM

    As was written in the article; “Obama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.”
    Amendment 20 – Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933.

    3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify…

    Note; the ‘President elect shall failed to qualify’

    After the DNC nomination, prior to and after the General election, and again prior to and after the electorial college, challenges were raised to the courts, representitives, senators, and cases filed, that the citizens of the United States challenged the eligibilty and qualifications of the candidate, President elect Barack Hussein Obama, all the above failed in their sworn duty as elected officials, judicial representitives and with a complacent media allowed an undocumented illegal and unvetted British subject free reign over the citizens and law of the United States.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.