The Solicitor General’s Decision

 

The Solicitor General is under no obligation to publicly explain his reasoning as to why he admitted as true and correct asserted facts and law so damning to his clients, the members of Congress. While no public statement from the Solicitor General exists, the reasons nevertheless are obvious and straightforward.

 

In its purpose Supreme Court Rule 15.2 is nearly identical to 28 U.S.C. 530d except in the case of Rule 15.2 the report, in the form of a legal brief, is sent to the Supreme Court rather than Congress. Both federal laws require that the writer of the report (or brief) state the reasons for the action in question. In the case of Rule 15.2, this action is objecting to the assertions of fact and law made by an appellant. The Solicitor General identified himself as “attorney of record” in his waiver he submitted to the court. Therefore by this action he identified himself as the legal representative for the members of Congress at the Supreme Court level. This identification legally means his admission is legally the same as if all the members of Congress had presented themselves to the Supreme Court and admitted in open public court for the purposes of public record that crimes were committed by the members, Congress must call etc.

 

Rule 15.2 clearly states the Solicitor General is required to present his reasons for such objection and further the rule gives the appellant a right to respond. In other words, the Solicitor General, had he objected to the assertions of law and fact, would have been required to explain the legal reasoning behind Congress asserting its members could disobey the law of the Constitution. To do this, he would have been required to advocate this position in public himself thus violating his oath of office. The Solicitor General could have faced criminal charges for doing so. Additionally, for the first time in the Walker lawsuits, the law was on the side of the appellant. Rule 15.2 specifically requires the reasons for such objection be provided and disallows assertions of lack of standing or lack of jurisdiction. The rule therefore mandates the Solicitor General directly respond to the issues of law and fact surrounding a convention call. Hence, the Solicitor General could not hide behind lack of standing as the lower courts and Karen D. Utger had done and avoid the core issues of fact and law relating to the actual issue of an Article V Convention call.

 

To have contested the assertions of fact and law would have exposed the lawsuit to even more potential public scrutiny. Mr. Walker took great care to only assert violations of criminal law that might be termed “textbook” criminal violations, that is, violations by the members of Congress which exactly matched the text of the criminal law without any interpretation required whatsoever. In short, the violations were obvious and clear to anyone actually reading the law.

 

It is possible the Solicitor General decided to gamble the certiorari would not be accepted by the Supreme Court or perhaps he even knew. However it may be he and the members of Congress counted on their interpretation of the American people: that they believed the American people don’t care about such things, don’t want to, are too wrapped up in their own lives and are too distracted to care that a criminal coup of their own government had been accomplished right under their noses.