top of page
  • Jim Costa

Jim’s Daily Rant. Per Se and the Flaw In Juan O’Savin’s Logic Today.

Per Se is defined as:

"In a civil lawsuit, proving someone is guilty of an act that is illegal per se generally requires only proof that he violated a statute, and that the violation was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s damages. In most cases, the defendant has no defense, because he committed an illegal act, even if it happened accidentally." Source

The Brunson Brothers filed a Per Se case with the SCOTUS. That is why they need not hear from the defendants.

In his podcast today, Juan O’Savin goes on to say that the court did not have to take the case if they wanted to remain out of the fight.

He suggests the court wanted the case as a self defense in case the Congress tries to stack the SCOTUS with more judges, watering down their votes.

He continues by saying the court may wait until after December 21st, the last day of the current Congressional session. He then suggests that the Court may never vote on the case if the Congress does not tray “anything”. This statement is illogical. If we believe in the definition of Per Se above, then the court does not have the legal right to now vote in favor of the Plaintiff!

If the complaint says the government has been usurped by an enemy set of destroying the country and Constitution, and the Court is afraid that government will act to destroy the Judicial Branch of that government outside of the Constitution, then Per Se they believe all that is in the complaint and agree with it. Therefore, they must vote in favor of the Plaintiff – they have no choice in the matter.

110 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page