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

©Bridgette@WTPOTUS 2013

A History of “Standing”

Montgomery Blair Sibley - 2007 (Getty)

Montgomery Blair Sibley – 2007 (Getty)


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.]


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.



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.


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?

27 responses to “The Concept of Standing Used by Attorneys and Judges is a Canard

  1. A couple of Congressmen ard threatening impeachment, so I advised them re : “quo warranto” If there is enough Congressional pressure, can they force the US DC Attorney to hear the case?

    • Obviously if politicians exert “enough pressure” then they can accomplish much. Look how successful Barry is exerting “pressure.”

  2. On the open thread, I linked a story about how 9/11 Truthers have adopted a highway in MO. If they clean up litter, then the Dept. of Transportation has to post a sign with their name on it, thus advertising their group (and its philosophy). A case in MO went all the way to their Supreme Court, when the KKK wanted to adopt a highway and many protested their right to do so. The KKK won. So it would be hilarious, imho, if a group of MO “birthers” would do the same. WND ought to look into organizing this, like they did with their “Where’s the Birth Certificate” campaign. It would be fun just to watch the DemoncRATS and obots go berserk. Would Barry try to withhold highway funds? I bet so!

    • We should also start a “Turn your TV off Day” the day of the inauguration to promote any good cause (such as Family Day, Save Energy Day) so no ratings will show for The Emperor.

      • but you forgot, this is a “create your own ratings Presidente’ ”
        I’ll gladly do it though…not watch TV if it will make you feel better. It could work, I guess. I’m in.

        • I wouldn’t watch it for any reason. I have no desire to hit myself over the head with a hammer. Why watch Barry usurp once again? Has anybody ever heard whether ANY of the media will get their way and get to SEE and HEAR the first swearing in on Sunday? Or did they, like all good little obots, just stick their heads in the sand and drop the subject?

  3. Great post, Bridgette. I was surprised to read that the concept of standing is so RECENT and that there’s nothing in the Constitution or even common law concerning standing. I used to believe it was just a way for judges to reduce their caseload. Sibley alleges that it’s a leftist theory, to allow them to just boot cases they don’t care to deal with. It’s outrageous and it makes perfect sense the way he puts it. It’s idiotic to believe that Barry can evade EVERY challenge to his eligibility by appointing the only person that the courts say can accuse him (other than Congress as a whole). Where is justice for the people?

    It is SUCH a simple issue and so easily decided: Allow discovery. SINCE Obama and his peeps claim that his real birth records have ALREADY been provided to the public, then it’s a NO BRAINER to simply ask the Hawaiian government to provide the same to ANY of the courts via discovery, which is the USUAL process by which EVIDENCE is brought to the court. WHY do all the judges throw out the cases on standing? It appears to be so that Barry doesn’t EVER have to submit ANY EVIDENCE. Why? Because there is none or what does exist will prove everything he’s said in the past about his birth to be LIES.

  4. excited we have this post up…. ecstatically happy! Yippee
    PUSH PUSH PUSH PUSH… Congressional Pressure 4 sure!!!

  5. Standing is in the Bill of Rights – first amendment. “Or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances”. I believe its right from the Magna Carta.

  6. Never ever FOOLED US (WTPOTUS) ONCE so ….

  7. Waiver of right of respondent Barak H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond . . ..
    Thursday, January 17, 2013

    The title of this blog post comes from my Quo Warranto suit which is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court for conference on February 15, 2013.

    Achieving a conference hearing before the Supremes is no big thing — by properly filing a petition — a task made difficult by the Supremes arcane petition printing requirements — anyone will get a conference before the Supremes. I have had dozens.

    And like those I have had before, I expect the Supremes to deny my Petition which seeks to challenge Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be President and our fundamental and Congressionally-granted right as citizens to access the Grand Jury to present evidence of criminal behavior of government officials.

    But what really bothered me about Mr. Obama “waiving his right” to respond to my properly presented allegations of ineligibility is that I firmly believe that our elected officials don’t have a “right” to respond; but rather an “obligation” to respond.

    And that is why I continue to press forward upon all legal fronts: I like to believe I live under the rule of law, though my faith is tested every time another court sticks its head in the sand for fear of offending the powers that be.


    Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – 34 pages

  8. Amazing that all the suits that have been filed against Obama yet none have born fruit. 😯

    • More amazing that most citizens haven’t a clue about these lawsuits and the sheer number of them. And that all have been stymied on technicalities and not one judge ordered Obama to simply respond to the charges by producing the documents he already claims on the WH blog EXIST. Why fight and spend millions and waste the courts’ time INSTEAD OF MERELY PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE? We know the answer. Most don’t, BECAUSE THE MEDIA COVER FOR HIM BY REFUSING TO REPORT THE STORIES.

    • We didn’t know how corrupt our judicial system was until all of these suits were filed and judges and attorneys filed motions. It is truly amazing and heartbreaking for those who believe in law and order and thought and believed that our judicial system would work, and that Congress would protect Americans from a fraud and his actions.

      Instead we see the cowardly judges taking the easy way out for either bribes, threats, or for getting a payoff such as a position in a higher court. We didn’t know that integrity would be replaced with such dishonesty and it is all in our faces. Just like we didn’t realize how corrupt the DemoncRats/communists had become until they have been in office for 4 years going on 5. They showed their true colors and what they believe and don’t believe, i.e., in God and the Constitution, at their farce of a Democratic Convention. That is the only benefit that I can see from the lawsuits and the reign of tyranny that we are now encountering with a conman in the Oval Office. We have czars accountable to just the Fraud, and liars in every high office in government but at least now we really know. We have to figure out what to do to restore our country, societal mores, and morality that has been replaced by depravity and debauchery.

      My hats are off to all of those who have attempted to raise the issue and do it via our court systems – according to the Rule of Law. History, when written by honest men, will honor these true patriots for their persistence and tenacity in attempting to uncover the biggest con ever perpetrated.


    Charles R. Coombs of Texas
    orly has tons of work that can use some of our?? HELP

  10. Tonight, I posted this at Free Republic because I think many Freepers would like to know about it. There have been so many lawsuits that it is hard to keep up with the information presented in each one. Standing and its roots stood out for me so I thought many would be interested.

  11. My LLN (local liberal newspaper) had an article saying that the emperor is going to do a state by state campaign to enlist his gun control laws! I hope the Rep Govs stand their ground.

    • Of course he will. He must campaign because it’s all he knows how to do. So he’ll go state by state to threaten governors about withholding federal funds, is my guess. He knows that these laws cannot be federal. The Constitution forbids the FEDERAL government from infringing. Of course, it seems that it follows that state laws can’t infringe, either. But with some states standing upon the 10th amendment, he knows he has his work cut out for him. They hope that they can FOOL the DemoncRAT Congressmen and Senators into believing that their jobs aren’t at risk, as they found out they WERE in the 1990s, when Clinton and those DemoncRATS foolishly first banned “assault weapons”. That’s why the ban ran out and nobody wanted to re-up it in 2004. But it’s all about appearance with Barry and so they’re going to create a flood of astroturfed mail and phone calls to Congress and hope they’re stupid enough to believe it won’t affect them in 2014. IT WILL.

    • Aren’t you just loving on this “all inauguration, all the time” stuff in the “news”? The JournOlist under orders to “cover, cover, cover” the inauguration and Barry’s bs “day of service.” I’m sick of his face. I can’t turn channels fast enough.

  12. TruthandFreedom

    With the signing into law of NDAA by Obama, everyone has standing! His being in office has now made it possible to kill a US citizen! As we are US citizens we have standing as this affects are rights under the Constitution!! Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness…… Thus, we all have legal standing as we are all affected directly by his decision!

  13. This seems like a good spot for this story:

    Washington D.C. – A new front on the legal battle to establish that Barack Hussein Obama, II, is ineligible to be President was opened today by Montgomery Blair Sibley. To date, no federal court has taken up the merits of Obama’s eligibility relying instead on the dubious legal doctrine of “standing” to dismiss every lawsuit. Accordingly, Sibley has released his Stuxnet-like Motion to Dismiss Indictment into the federal prison system. The Motion makes the simple argument that: (i) no federal law is valid under Article I, § 7, cl. 2, of the Constitution unless it is presented to the President, (ii) Obama is not a legitimate President and thus (iii) his signing of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”) is void. Accordingly, every person charge and/or convicted under FERA is entitled to be released. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees: “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Thus the Motion demands federal subpoenas for Obama’s: (i) certificates of live birth, (ii) college applications from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, (iii) U.S. Passport application, (iv) Social Security application and (v) Selective Service registration information – documents Obama has refused to reveal despite repeated requests. Sibley has sent the Motion to prisoners convicted under FERA and their defense attorneys and expects his Motion to be filed in dozens of FERA cases by them in the near future. …”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s