A History of “Standing”
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, January 10, 2013