The Concept of Standing Used by Attorneys and Judges is a Canard

©Bridgette@WTPOTUS 2013

A History of “Standing”

Montgomery Blair Sibley – 2007 (Getty)

4

Multiple nationwide lawsuits against Obama citing his ineligibility were dismissed because of lack of standing.  None were dismissed by judges who heard, understood  or read the charges and evidence against Obama.  With the thump of their gavels, they refused to uphold their oaths of office and dismissed citizen’s lawsuits questioning Obama’s right to be president under our U.S. Constitution because of their lack of standing.

It appears from the judges  and attorneys who used standing as a reason to deny or dismiss lawsuits, that absolutely no one has  legal standing or the right to question Obama’s  qualifications to hold office.  Some  state that no one can take Obama to task except the Attorney General or Congress.  We the People have no standing,  so the complicit cowardly judges say.  We can only wonder if they have all been threatened or bribed by those in the Obama administration.  (Recall historically that judges were bullied or bribed during the tyrants  Hitler and Stalin’s reigns, as were judges in other despotic countries.  This is not a new phenomenon, but are tactics often used by totalitarian regimes.   Within our own cities, i.e., Chicago are known for judges being bribed. )

As we have seen time after time that  Obama’s corrupt progressive attorneys have commonly relied on filing a dismissal motion based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing.   They seldom file anything based on facts presented by the plaintiff’s that prove Obama ineligible,  and they don’t present a side that negates the charges that Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible.  They skirt the issues by attacking the attorneys for lack of standing, or ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the lawsuit.  Nor do Obama’s attorneys  present a case for Obama against the  forged documents and the investigative evidence presented by their opponents.   We must question the integrity of these so called “judges” who haven’t yet shown a backbone or stood by their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

In one of three of  Montogomery Blair Sibley‘s lawsuits against Obama, it is interesting to read the historical background on this overused judicial concept called “standing”.  It is presented below for your education, and is directly from “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Reply to Defendants’  Omnibus Response”  that was served on December 25, 2012 upon Andrew J. Saindon, Assistant Attorney General.

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Reply to Defendants’  Omnibus Response

Pages 6, 7 and 8  [Emphasis is mine.]

A.  STANDING IS A CANARD

Sibley first challenges the darling-of-the-government argument that citizens may not challenge the wrong doing of government actors as they no longer have “standing”.  Sibley asserts that the judicial fiat of “irreducible constitutional minimum” found first in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) has no Constitutional basis and – if this Court is to be true to its oath and not its judicial overlords – this Court must state such.   Simply stated, a system of law that fails to satisfy certain moral minima is not to be considered a legal system. An unjust positive law – such as the doctrine of  “standing” – can be refused the character of law if its injustice is so great that it no longer deserves the title of law.  Here, that injustice is the notion that the only person who can challenge Mr. Obama’s legitimacy is the Attorney General whom he appointed. This, of course, is madness and raises significant equal protection concerns.  Do only some get protection from government malfeasance while other are destined to suffer that wrong without a remedy?

-6-

A review of the growth of the grotesque doctrine of standing reveals its uncertain historical roots and the real basis for its cancer-like spreading through the judicial system.  As of 1992, in the history of the Supreme Court, standing has been discussed in terms of Article III on 117 occasions. Of those 117 occasions, 55, or nearly half, of the discussions occurred after 1985 – that is, within seven years of 1992. Of those 117, over two thirds of the discussions occurred after 1980 – that is, in just over a decade before 1992. Of those 117, 109, or nearly all, of the discussions occurred since 1965. The first reference to “standing” as an Article III-limitation can be found in Stark v. Wickard, 321 US 288 (1944).   The next reference does not appear until eight years later in Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485 (1952). Not until the Data Processing v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970) did a large number of cases emerge on the issue of “standing”.   The explosion of judicial interest in “standing” as a distinct body of constitutional law is an extraordinarily recent phenomenon.   Its rise can be seen as part of the continued expansion of federal power encouraged by the judiciary which has ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments expressly raised by Sibley here as the Constitutional authority to bring this suit.

Unlike “case or controversy” which the Framers understood and expressly employed in Article III, “standing” is not mentioned in our Constitution, nor was it in the records of the several conventions. Thus it can be fairly said that “standing” was neither a legal term-of-art nor a familiar doctrine at the time the Constitution was adopted.5   Nowhere in English common law practice can be found the requirement that a plaintiff must show an actual or threatened direct personal injury in
______________
5 Raoul Berger, Standing to Sue in Public Actions: Is It a Constitutional Requirement?,78 Yale L.J. 816, 818 (1968).

-7-

order to have his or her “case or controversy” heard in a court of law. Hence, Sibley calls into question the validity of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) and its noxious progeny given its invalid historical roots and the failure of the courts to reconcile such a doctrine with the overriding authority of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

-8-

#####

Judge John Deacon Bates, United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Unfortunately, Sibley’s lawsuits were dismissed by Judge John D.  Bates in his  Court Opinion or Order MEMORANDUM OPINION signed on December 19, 2012.   In response, Sibley  filed a lawsuit against Judge Bates on December 25, 2012,  Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate December 19, 2012, Order of Dismissal and to Disqualify the Honorable John D. Bates.   He is “seeking to vacate the order by US District Judge Bates and seeks to disqualify him as criminally complicit to fraud and forgery committed to Obama, motion quotes the rule, whereby Judge Bates can get up to 15 years in prison for being criminally complicit. It is time to hold corrupt judges accountable.”

#####

Most aptly said by Sibley about Obama’s failure to allow discovery or evidence to be presented showing he is ineligible by the use of fraudulent documents,  was said in Sibley’s Plaintiff’s Response to his Motion of the United States to Stay Discovery or Quash Subpoenas and Reply to Response to Plaintiff’s State Department Motion,  “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”1   Failing to address the seminal question of “relevance”, the government’s desperate attempt to keep documentary evidence from the purview of this Court cannot be allowed by this Court without this Court becoming an accessory-after-the-fact to arguably the largest election fraud ever perpetrated in the United States.

#####

We agree, the Usurper doth protest to much,

and the reason is obvious.

4

For additional information, press releases,  and the lawsuits filed by Montgomery Sibley, click here and here.

#####

UPDATE:  I planned to publish this tomorrow, Friday, when I noticed that Montgomery Sibley added a new article about Judge Bates dismissing his lawsuits based on  standing.  It is published with permission from Mr. Sibley.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones . . .

Thursday, January 10, 2013

My second Quo Warranto suit against Mr. Obama was predictably dismissed by Judge Bates on December 19, 2012.  His Order of Dismissal was premised upon the now familiar ground of  “standing” — a relatively recent judicial invention which imposes upon every lawsuit filed a requirement — not found in the Constitution or enacted laws and unknown to the Framers — that one have an “injury” before the Court has jurisdiction.  The absurdity of this notion is found in applying the reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate that this “doctrine” creates an absurd result that necessarily follows from its acceptance.  But I digress for this is not the time to detail the complexities and absurdities of the “standing” doctrine.  I will take that up here and on appeal in due course.

Rather, a significant footnote to the Order of Dismissal:   I timely moved to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and asked that Judge Bates Disqualify himself  for — among other reasons — his employment of the pejorative term “birther” to describe me in the Order of Dismissal.  The common understanding and ad hominem use of that term is:  “A conspiracy theorist convinced of his/her intellectual superiority and rightness about Obama’s birth on another planet, star or galaxy far, far away and long, long ago–or anywhere as long as it’s not in the U.S.“

In response, Judge Bates employed in his Order of Dismissal only one powerful legal argument to justify his use of the offensive term “birther” to me:  “Other courts have applied this term to describe the same challenges that Sibley makes to President Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President.”  Oh, that makes it O.K. does it?

By that fine legal reasoning, because Hitler called the Jews “disease” and “vermin“, Judge Bates could use those terms as well when determining a lawsuit brought before him by one of that faith.

Are we sure that life-time appointments for federal judges with absolute judicial immunity is really the way to go if this is the intellectual firepower we are getting?

4

4