there anything more shameful than the man who lacks the courage
to be a coward?” - Peter Blaunder
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.
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:
to weigh question about Obama citizenship, Dec. 5, 2008
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.
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."
course, the "high" court did not hear the case. In his own words,
Clarence Thomas let the world know how they ducked their responsibility:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
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.
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).
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).
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
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?
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?"
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
August 14, 2015, another very important case was dismissed:
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.
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.
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.”
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…’”
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.”
a little more legalese, Judge Brown went on:
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.”
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,”
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.
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.
NPR Interview, Harry Reid Whacks 'Extreme Right Wing' Black Female
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
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.”
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.
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
can be done?
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
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.
individual who has worked tirelessly to expose corruption in the
courts and cleaning up the mess is Dr. Richard Cordero who heads
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
must read: How
to DeThrone the Imperial Judiciary
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
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
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.]
must see video on the dangers of Smart Meeters on your home, titled:
Back Your Power.]
2015 - NewsWithViews.com and Devvy - All Rights Reserved
here to visit NewsWithViews.com
This Site Served