You are correct ethical:
"Most were dismissed on standing grounds; a question not directly at issue in this case because plaintiff purports to bring this case under RCW 29A.68.011, subparts 1 and 3, which confers standing on any elector."
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/superior/court%20opinions/Jordan%20v%20Reed%20Opinion.pdf
Reading the rest of the courts "opinion" and decision is pretty stunning.
She offers as evidence the musings of the infamous Arizona sheriff Joe Arpiao, supported by the report by a part-time computer programmer last employed in May 2007, who examined a copy of the pdf image of President Obama’s birth certificate and concluded that the original was forged. She offers the affidavit of a private investigator who opines that President Obama is fraudulently using the social security number of another person who was born in 18904 and was issued the social security number in 1977. The investigator is not able to identify the person and does not offer any insight as to why this hypothetical person waited until he or she was 87 years old before applying for and receiving a social security number. The rest of plaintiff’s evidence is the standard fare of the blogosphere that has been floating around since 2008.
It's clear, the lefties have successfully stigmatized the issue...and unfortunately too many on the right have sided with them.
Thanks for the link to that decision. I would like this prick of a judge to tell me how the Constitution gives the responsibility for Congress to determine eligibility of a President elect in the instance where there are no legally-determined birth facts and HI state law says that the birth record that’s been presented must have its probative (legal evidentiary) value determined when it is presented as evidence to a JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OR BODY. Congress is legislative; there is no way it can lawfully determine the probative value of Obama’s non-valid Hawaii birth certificate. How, then, could Congress resolve this eligibility issue, since he specifically claims that the Constitution does not allow the courts to deal with Presidential eligibility.
(And how the HECK does he get away with blowing off the 20th Amendment, which says that a President elect (who can’t even be a President elect until Congress is all done with what the Constitution allows them to do with Presidential elections) can still fail to qualify before Jan. 20th? Who has the power to act on Presidential qualification once Congress has done their part - if not the courts? Sheesh. This guy is a MORON!)
Furthermore, the Congressional Research Service rightly noted in its advisory opinions to members of Congress that Presidential elections are run by the STATES according to the Constitution. That is the reason that Congress has ducked out of doing anything on this issue for the past 4 years. This judge contradicts the CRS, so maybe he should give his reasons as to why the CRS is just a bunch of internet “flakes”.
Furthermore, this judge should be sued for libel, presuming to say that Jordan filed this lawsuit just to add to the internet “noise”.
As many know Linda Jordan was sanctioned $13,000 for challenging Obama's identity document fraud and his placement on the state of Washington's ballot. Linda reached out to many attorneys seeking advice on what she could do about the unjust fees levied against her. Only one was brave enough to step up to the plate and take on her case. His name is Richard B. Sanders from the Goodstein Law Group in Tacoma, Washington. Mr. Sanders was a justice on the Washington Supreme Court from 1995 to 2010.
BirtherReport.com contacted Mr. Sanders for a public statement on why he decided to take on Linda Jordan's plight. Mr. Sanders provided the following statement on February 3rd, 2013. And, he didn't hold back!
Statement from the Honorable Richard B. Sanders:
"For the first time in 17 years, 15 of those sitting on the Washington Supreme Court, I have agreed to represent a private citizen. And I am pleased to lend Linda Jordan a helping hand.In good faith Ms. Jordan commenced an action to question President Obama's name on the ballot. She did the best she could with limited resources and no legal training. The government's response was immediate and in some respects heavy handed. Having obtained a summary dismissal of her case, and then her appeal, the attorney general went further to demand the Secretary of State be reimbursed, claiming attorney fees amounting to almost $13,000. However what the attorney general did not tell the court is that the Secretary never actually paid this amount, nor was he billed this amount, nor probably anything close to it. The number is made up, pure fiction. The AG did not disclose the actual amount to the court probably because the objective is to get a punitive judgment for as much as he can without regard to actual expenditures which were much less.
My motion to modify and reduce the court clerk's award of almost $13,000 will attempt to direct the court's attention to the truth of the matter: that once again the government is hiding the ball to oppress a patriotic private citizen of modest means because she exercised her right to access the courts. This is not compensatory but punitive. It is not justice but oppression. Moreover $13,000 is truly an outlandish sum to obtain dismissal of an appeal the AG claimed was entirely lacking in merit. No wonder people mistrust the government, lawyers and the court system. It's time to fight.
Richard B. Sanders
Lawyer - end - "
Linda Jordan provided the following statement on February 3rd, 2013:
"I am humbled, grateful and hopeful to have Richard Sanders representing me. The Courts do, after all, play a role in the effort to reveal the truth and serve justice." - Linda Jordan -"