August 17, 2015
“Is there anything more shameful than the man who lacks the courage to be a coward?” - Peter Blaunder
Many Americans had never heard the term 'standing' as it applies to our legal system until the first eligibility cases were filed against the criminal impostor in the White House, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama.
The first of those cases filed by Leo Donofrio in New Jersey went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. His case was not rejected because of 'standing' in New Jersey. It was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court because they're gutless cowards. If you think most of them don't understand the issue of what constitutes a 'natural born citizen', I submit to you they absolutely do. This is what happened in Leo's case:
Court to weigh question about Obama citizenship, Dec. 5, 2008
"Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the judges’ conference. "The decision to put the case on Fridays docket resulted from more than a dozen lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s right to be president based on his citizenship at birth. The issue preoccupied many conservative bloggers in the weeks before the Nov. 4 election.
"Some legal analysts say the lawsuits have little chance of success. The Supreme Court rarely grants the kind of court orders - or stays - sought by Mr. Donofrio. “Nothing in what we've seen from the court so far suggests any likelihood the court is actually going to take the cases,” said Eugene Volokh, constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. Nevertheless, for the lawsuit even to make it to the docket raises the possibility of an unprecedented case going before the Supreme Court . At least four of the court's nine judges must approve before the case is heard."
Of course, the "high" court did not hear the case. In his own words, Clarence Thomas let the world know how they ducked their responsibility: "We're evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility. He and those at that committee hearing all laughed like the subject matter was some big joke. The 800 pound gorilla standing in the room and everyone damn well knew it was the issue of constitutional elibility and the fraud in the White House.
Yes, it's so funny ineligible candidate, Ted Cruz, has adopted the same deceptive dodge-the-issue method vomited by Soetoro/Obama over the years regarding his eligibility: Ted Cruz Cracks to Press: ‘I Am Secretly a Citizen of Ethiopia’, August 23, 2013.
Like Soetoro/Obama, Cruz believes he can get away with it by making jokes. What's so sickening is he made the comment on the day he was renouncing his Canadian citizenship thereby acknowledging he was born with dual citizenship making him ineligible to be president of these united States of America. Cruz is not stupid. Since Soetoro/Obama has gotten away with it while the Republican Party remained mute, so can he.
As to the standing issue, I believe Dr Edwin Vieira summed it up back in October 2008 regarding the galactic poop storm swirling around the gangster from Chicago who committed fraud to get on the ballot:
"The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:
regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. *** [A] candidate's ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.
"This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
"First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant's claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.
"True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary's so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution's explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1).
"For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America's constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).
"Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg's “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.
"To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America's voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention?
"What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?"
I bring this up because 'standing' continues to be the vehicle judges, federal and state, use to dodge issues they don't want to deal with - like my Seventeenth Amendment lawsuit which is now in the appeals court in Austin, Texas. [I will have an up date on my case soon.]
"An appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s lawsuit against the Obama administration over his amnesty-by-executive-order plan because the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined he didn't have “standing” to bring a complaint. That is, he couldn't identify a specific and personal injury that he would suffer because of the amnesty.
"But one judge said it's time for changes. “Today we hold that the elected sheriff of the nation's fourth largest county, located mere miles from our border with Mexico, cannot challenge the federal government's deliberate non-enforcement of the immigration laws,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown.
"She said while precedent requires the appeals court to uphold the dismissal of the case, “I write separately to … note the consequences of our modern obsession with a myopic and constrained notion of standing.” "She explained “what the government views as permissible prosecutorial discretion, Sheriff Arpaio views as a violation of the president's duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ … and the non-delegation doctrine.”
"His concerns, Brown wrote, “run deeper than a difference in philosophy or politics. He claims [Obama's amnesty] impose clear and ‘severe’ harms on his ability to protect the people of Maricopa county. In particular, he argues that deferring removal proceedings and providing work authorizations to undocumented immigrants ‘harmed … his office's finances, workload and interfered with the conduct of his duties…’”
"Brown said it's logical for the sheriff to believe he has a case. But Brown wrote that the case had to be dismissed because of precedent, even though “the relevant judicial guideposts do not exactly ‘define standing ‘with complete consistency.” “And some cases suggest standing can be satisfied based on fairly ephemeral injuries and attenuated theories of causation.”
After a little more legalese, Judge Brown went on:
“Of course, the link may be no more attenuated than that connecting a potential twenty-centimeter rise in sea level with greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles.” She concluded, “Today's holding puts the consequences of our standing jurisprudence in stark relief. If an elected sheriff responsible for the security of a county with a population larger than 21 states cannot bring suit, individual litigants will find it even more difficult to bring similar challenges.”
"She pointed out that the opinion only concludes that “general conditions” do not support a lawsuit. “Our decision holds only that Sheriff Arpaio lacks standing … not that [amnesty] programs are categorically shielded from suit,” she wrote. And, she said, “Today's decision does not take issue with the claim that unlawful immigration carries consequences.” Our jurisprudence on standing has many shortcomings,” she said."
And it's long past time to get rid of it or make it fair instead of a tool for cowardly judges. I fully understand the problem with drowning courts in lawsuits that are absurd, silly or for a vendetta. But, along the way, as is so clear from Edwin's application regarding eligibility to Sheriff Arpaio's very legitimate lawsuit, 'standing' is just a tool to get rid of any hot potato issue a court doesn't want to address - too many times out of loyalty to the party [president] who nominated them.
In the case of Judge Brown, it's refreshing to see a federal judge in this country actually take on a very serious issue. But, then again, Judge Brown is quite well known in judicial circles. She sat on the California Supreme Court. She was nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarded as probably the second highest court in the land. Democratic/Communist Party USA members of Congress went ballistic; Judge Brown became the target of useful fools who call themselves progressives.
"Later, Reid added that “we put on that court some of the most extreme right wing people you could find. Janice Rogers Brown thinks there's a Communist behind every bush even now.” That's a little harsh, even compared to scare quotes from the Think Progress blog, which recently lamented:
"Brown labeled the New Deal a “socialist revolution,” and she likened Social Security to a kind of intergenerational cannibalism — “[t]oday’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.” Since joining the federal bench, she authored a concurring opinion suggesting that all labor, business or Wall Street regulation is constitutionally suspect. The very first sentence of her birth control opinion labels the Affordable Care Act a “behemoth.”
If Dirty Harry Reid was against her nomination, she must be right for the job. The fraud in the White House also slammed her back in 2005: "Justice Brown has also gone out of her way to use her position in the courts to advocate for increased protections for property owners." Spoken like the true Marxist he's always been.
"The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:326
What can be done?
The U.S. House Committee on the federal judiciary has "...jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. Its infrequent but important role in impeachment proceedings has also brought it much attention." At the state level say here in Texas, the House has a Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee. Those committees make the rules that get voted on by their full body.
If enough people - like maybe a hundred thousand or so lawyers in this country, a few thousand retired federal, state and lower court judges and many Americans demand they get rid of standing. That judicial invention has been a tool of tyrants that deny a private citizen like me from moving forward with a very important lawsuit (non-ratification of a constitutional amendment) [my case is on appeal] or in the case of illegal aliens, a duly elected sheriff trying to stop the human invasion wreaking havoc on his county and the rest of the country.
One individual who has worked tirelessly to expose corruption in the courts and cleaning up the mess is Dr. Richard Cordero who heads up The Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. It's a movement that needs to grow because judges across this country screw Americans every day of the week in decisions that ruin lives and livelihoods. They make decisions that affect generations that are purely agenda driven stripping Americans of their God-given rights and shredding the Bill of Rights.
Corrupt judges are seldom if ever held accountable for their crimes against the Constitution and we the people. Why? Because the American people pay little to no attention to our federal and state courts - until the system bites them. One of the most important branches of government that affects everyone is allowed to run amok by cowards in the U.S. Congress and state capitols. When deplorable decisions come down, they all wring their hands and cry politics instead of removing bad judges.
Attorneys, retired judges, current members of state legislatures and the U.S. Congress (yeah, I know that one's a long short) need to become involved with Dr. Cordero's efforts as well as Americans who want to see the court's cleaned up and bad judges held accountable. One of his publications is here; a huge undertaking. Dr. Cordero sends out regular emails about on-going plans that will bear fruit if people get involved.
A short bio: Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England, M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School, D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris, Judicial Discipline Reform, New York City. I had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Cordero on the radio. A true gentleman; I learned quite a bit from the interview and his postings and emails. You can reach Dr. Cordero by email: email@example.com
A must read: How to DeThrone the Imperial Judiciary
- GOP Senators Ignore
Sotomayor's Criminal Activities
2 - Sotomayor's Confirmation Vote Rescheduled - Here's Why
3 - Justice Sotomayor: Tax Evasion, Perjury - What Did Obama Know and When?
4 - Will standing remain an obstacle to data breach lawsuits in the 7th Circuit?
5 - Missouri Law Review, 2006. Standing On Hallowed Ground: Should the Federal Judiciary Monistor Executive Violations of the Establishment Clause?
6 - Harvard Law Review: Litigating Challenges to Federal Spending Decisions: The Role of Standing and Political Question Doctrine
7 - Standing - Cornell University law School
[Just a short note about 9/11. The cost of America's undeclared "war" (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion borrowed dollars - massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation, but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or give a copy as a present. I've purchased half a dozen copies and given them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It's very powerful simply because it's one 'ordinary' man's story who ask a simple question that led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in this film that many have never heard about but everyone should. Just a suggestion, order more than one and give one to a friend.]
[ Please, must see video on the dangers of Smart Meeters on your home, titled: Take Back Your Power.]
© 2015 - NewsWithViews.com and Devvy - All Rights Reserved
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.
E-mail is: firstname.lastname@example.org