A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding...unless the lawyer knows or reasonably believes that there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law. RPC 3.1
The first named plaintiff - Charles Kerchner - a 33 year veteran of the U.S. Naval Reserves - hypothesizes that if he is recalled to active duty in a “national emergency” he ““would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.”District Judge Jerome Simandle has dismissed the complaint. (Civil No. 09-253) The plaintiffs cannot, he points out, establish “an injury in fact” - that is, a “personal stake” which can be “distinguished from the interest of the general citizenry”. Kerchner’s allegation is entirely speculative and fails to meet the constitution’s jurisdictional case and controversy requirement, according to Judge Simandle’s patient, plain, and solid ruling.Paper accepts anything written upon it and citizens are free to rant against the wind and the tides, and to tilt against windmills. But lawyers are not free to file frivolous pleadings, to waste the time of the courts and of public servants on groundless matters.