Legal truth, but still a lie?
This may be one of lawyers’ strategies in a legal battle. They are also (probably) trained to do so, as a part of the curriculum in their education.

In our case in court, opponent lawyer(s) may want to find faults of my complaint, but they may also try to make legal truth in their response, even if it is not true.

However, there are more than clear and convincing facts and evidence in our case; and further, they are more legally evident.

Besides, not like many other lawyers, the attorney general can not illogically lie because he is a public figure and any of his (supposedly) legal statement has a great impact on our lives.

So, this can be his dilemma.

Simply, he may not have much choice but to answer my complaint with admission, which the election office’s initial response was wrong , discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

Even if he wants to file a pre-answer motion by finding a loophole in my complaint, at the worst scenario, I don’t think my case can be dismissed, knowing there exists at least the actual dispute or a constitutional question, (unless the court is so unreasonably wrong).

Therefore, the court and the attorney general may only have the choice to disqualify Ms. Hanabusa, according to the mandate, “resign to run”.

Aloha.