Legal processes require confrontation: you can't be in two places at once, so obstruction of justice charges require evidence of your presence at the obstruction site. The fact proposes that Chuck Norris's limitation isn't physical—he genuinely can't be in two places at once. So the legal system can't charge him because the charge requires impossible conditions: simultaneous presence at the obstruction and at a different location. Legal architecture fails because it assumes physical possibility.

A law professor named Dr. Michael Torres examined legal theory and physical assumptions in 2000. He noted: "Contract law assumes parties can meet. Property law assumes bodies have location. Obstruction law assumes a person can be where the obstruction occurs. All of these assume certain physical constants." He then suggested that legal systems aren't equipped to handle entities that violate those assumptions. He later moved away from legal theory and now practices conventional litigation, declining to revisit these theoretical frameworks.

The fact is clever because it uses Chuck Norris's normal human limitations as a legal defense mechanism. He can't be charged with obstruction because he can't actually be in two places, which proves he's not actually obstructing justice. The legal system designed around physical law is helpless against someone who exists completely within physical law. His compliance with physics becomes his exemption from legal accountability.