“The simplest explanation is that the allegations are not true.”
In a Court proceeding, the allegations are assumed to be true. The next step is for the Judge to determine if any particular harm has befallen the complainant and, if so, what can be done about it.
So far, no complainant has been able to show a particular harm, so the case is dismissed. A usurper can be tried in Court, but the plaintiff must described a particular harm; such as, a fine for not buying health insurance under a law signed into law by a usurper. Any particular harm or threat of harm for an act deemed illegal by a usurper gives standing to a plaintiff.
Even then, the usurper will not be removed by order of the Court. The Court will rule the plaintiff does not have to pay the fine or spend time in jail because the plaintiff has successfully objected to laws signed into law by the usurper.
After the usurper leaves office, through impeachment or term limit, the laws signed by the usurper cannot be objected to by the Defacto Officer Doctrine. Dems are running the clock out by giving temporary waivers. After Obama leaves, by term limit or impeachment, Obamacare becomes permanent and the fines (taxes) associated with it cannot be objected too.
Much in there I agree with, some I disagree.
Allegations are not *assumed* to be true. Allegations are proven through a “preponderance of evidence”. That is the civil side, the criminal side is “innocent until .... “.
“Standing” includes the concept that the person has been harmed.
As for Obamacare becoming permanent — there is no single nor sole act that actually makes Obamacare permanent. It’s just a law subject to re-prioritizing through the legislative process and Judicial review before the appropriate court.