Posted on 01/18/2013 3:43:14 PM PST by Bridgetteb
A History of “Standing”
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.)
(Excerpt) Read more at wtpotus.wordpress.com ...
I do not think you are correct.
Actuallly that's not true. The ruling only says that Orly failed to provide evidence that Obama's is not Constitutionally eligible, but the dismisal was actually based on a variety of procedural grounds. I've already shown where this judge misapplied Indiana rules of evidence.s not true. The ruling only says that Orly failed to provide evidence that Obama
It has been so since the ratification of our Constitutions, State and Federal and the prior Compacts. I wrote this on my signature page years ago and find it ever more truthful:
I now realize that we are infested with parasites; as destructive as termites, dangerous as rabid dogs, and invisible like bed-bug mites. No, I don’t mean the welfare grifters or robbers in our society – indeed I wish they were all we had to worry about.
The real parasites are the lawyers, especially those in any legislative position or the bureaucracies that support them. We have allowed (?) them to create our laws AND interpret our laws. Meanwhile they blithely steal our time, treasure, and heritage “for the common good” – which they consider to be their wallet!
Keep fighting!
I was hoping that the Posse’ would complete their investigation and turn their evidence over to the Maricopa County Attorney for a Grand Jury investigation before the Election and certainly before Inauguration Day, but that didn’t happen. Now that he’s been sworn in again, the only legal action that can touch Obama is impeachment or resignation.
The reason Courts can dismiss lawsuits before discovery is because either side in a civil action can submit dispositive motions and if a judge finds those arguments to be probative, the lawsuit is dismissed in its pre-trial phase.
In a trial on the merits in Georgia, the judge ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born citizen. (Farrar, Swensson, Powell & Welden v Obama).
There have been seventy appeals of those lawsuits and zero reversals. There have been 23 Supreme Court petitions and applications, all denied.
In any event, you don’t try forgery in a civil suit. forgery is a crime and criminals are indicted by grand juries.
Yes..... This is one way courts are ignoring the evidence and not hearing the issue on merits. If a court does not want to hear a case it is so easy for the judge to use confusing legal logic, like standing, and dismiss the action.
However, the opposite is also true. If a court wants to hear a case, it can deny motion to dismiss, continue the trial, make a ruling and then let the rest be sorted out on appeal. At least then, there would be a record.
""""In a trial on the merits in Georgia, the judge ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born citizen. (Farrar, Swensson, Powell & Welden v Obama)."""
I believe this was the case where....
First the court rules against a motion to dismiss.
Then, Obama ignored all subpoenas.
Then, Obama and his attorneys refused to participate in the proceedings. They even challenge the court by boldly stating they will not participate nor provide subpoenaed material.
The Georgia Secretary of State says such action on their part will be at the attorney’s and his client’s (Obama's) peril.
The judge offers plaintiffs a summery judgement.
Plaintifs attorneys wanting the evidence presented and an official record of the same refuse the summery judgment.
The hearing proceeds without Obama or his attorneys present. Substantial evidence and testimony is presented being only against Obama.
One week later, the Judge finds in favor of the defendant?
How is this possible? What evidence was presented in court to support the judges findings? How can Obama and his attorneys disrespect the court, ignore subpoenas, fail to present evidence,and yet prevail?..... The judge did not even find them in contempt!!!
Something is really fishy here. Don't you agree?
Yes, that is the lawsuit. The administrative law judge’s ruling was re-filed with the Georgia Superior Court for Fulton County and the original judge was upheld. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court which refused to reverse the decision. Then the lawsuit was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States which denied a petition to hear the appeal.
There were 49 other ballot challenges to Obama’s eligibility in the 2012 election cycle. They were heard in 21 other states besides Georgia plus one was heard in the District of Columbia.
I recall reading a document, much more lengthy and eloquent than your post, but on the same point.
It started, “When in the course of human events...”
We all know many paid with their lives for those principles. I thank them for their courage.
Yet, this constitutionally ineligible usurper just assumed the highest office in the land. This whole thing makes me sad for the once great Republic that I love. At least ther is February 15th.....
http://minutemennews.com/2013/01/supreme-court-opens-door-to-obama-eligibility-challenge-on-february-15th/
Let us continue to fight and pray....
That was an administrative court hearing and not a conventional trial. There was no legal evidence Obama was born in Hawaii. The judge said he just "considered" that he was born there and then he cited a state appeals court that didn't declare anyone to be a natural born citizen. IIUC, the ballot-challenge process can't technically be appealed which is why the state's other courts refused to take any action. that he was born there and then he cited a state appeals court that didn
I’m not certain if you and I are saying the same thing, just using different phraseology or not, but the Georgia Superior Court granted Obama’s attorney’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the political parties alone control whose names are allowed on primary election ballots and the Court also ruled that in the general election, you can challenge a candidate’s electors with a ballot challenge because that’s who the voters are actually casting their ballots for.
We weren't saying the same things at all. Some states don't allow for appeals of a SOS's decision for allowing a party to be on a ballot after a hearing has been held. In Georgia, appeals are allowed, but the law certainly does NOT grant sole power to control names on primary election ballot over to the political parties. First, candidates still have to be eligible for office:
Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
Second, the SOS has statutory authority to challenge and remove any name AND to hear challenges from any voter:
The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.
- - -
Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering.
Feel free to provide some actual direct quotes from the Georgia Superior Court. I suspect all they did was sweep this under the rug instead of giving it a fair review. The ALJ's decison was not based on ANY actual legal precedent. The appeal may not have explained specifically how the ALJ's decision lacked precedence, or the Superior Court may have simply seen the ALJ as giving nothing more than an advisory opinion and simply allowed that the SOS made a decision without determining any basis in fact or law.
Here’s the complete Fulton County Superior Court’s Order:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83539865/GA-2012-03-02-ORDER-Dismissing-Farrar-Swensson-Powell-And-Welden-Complaints
Thanks for showing the ridiculous lengths a court will go to avoid following a state’s actual laws. This judge claims that Obama was not technically a candidate, thus the law didn’t apply to him, even though the law that a challenge may be made at ANY time prior to an election. Then the court cites a ruling that has no applicability to this case because it refers to personal association with a political party. No one was denying this in the ballot challenge. It never says anything about Obama being a natural-born citizen, only that the defendants weren’t properly served.
If we were talking about a picture posted on YouTube, or Yahoo, or even on FR, you would be correct.
But, that's not what we are talking about. The "picture" in question was posted on an official government website, whitehouse.gov. This is not only a government website, it is the official website of the White House and represents the Office of the President of the United States. NOTHING gets posted on that website that does not have the approval of the president and/or his senior staff.
Which means that, barring the website being hacked (something the WH never claimed), the forged "picture" was posted with the knowledge and approval of senior WH officials, if not the president himself.
You're a smart guy, you retired from the Air Force, so you know how tight the security is on government websites. So, the fact that a forged document was posted on a government website with the knowledge and approval of senior WH officials (if not the president, himself), strongly suggests a deliberate attempt to commit fraud.
And, that, Mr. Rogers, is something that a judge WOULD be interested in.
This is true in the case of small claims courts and similar civil actions. But, if it applied equally to ALL courts, how could a DA bring charges against a murder or robbery suspect, for example? The DA has NOT suffered any specific harm, the murder and robbery victims did. And, if it were true, how could a group of Congresscritters bring suit against the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act almost as soon as the ink was dry?
So, your contention that a plaintiff must have suffered some specific harm in order to have the standing to bring an action to court is incorrect in the case of criminal courts.
The courts are not meant to overturn national elections based on “I don’t like the outcome”.
While no court has, to the best of my knowledge, ever overturned a national election, courts HAVE overturned election results before. The precedent exists for them to do it if a legitimate basis can be proved. In this particular case, as I noted to you in my previous post, a case of deliberate fraud is suspected since the LFBC posted on whitehouse.gov has been proven to be a forgery.
Further, courts HAVE heard the merits of these cases at times, and rejected them.
To date, NO court has heard the merits of this case, the case has typically been dismissed on the basis of the plaintiff's lack of standing (in the Court's eyes) to bring the action.
This, then, brings us to the crux of this issue and why, IMO, no court has recognized an individual's standing to bring charges against the POTUS. The issue at hand is a Constitutional one that goes to the heart of the Constitution. While every court in which this issue has been filed has denied the standing of the plaintiff to bring the action, NO court has defined who DOES have standing to bring such an action. Therein is a deliberate misrepresentation of the court system by those who run it. The Founding Fathers made it clear that no one was above the law and that the court system existed to resolve disputes between opposing parties. IMO, this extends to ANY American citizen having the standing to bring any fundemental Constitutional issue to court to be resolved.
I believe that these case are being dismissed out of hand because they are political hot potatoes that the courts do not want to touch. As the arbitrator in the dispute, no matter how the court rules, they will be portrayed as the "bad guy" and subjected to intense public and political condemnation. And, NO one wants to be the "bad guy" because it, ultimately, undermines the credibility of the judicial system.
“This is true in the case of small claims courts and similar civil actions. But, if it applied equally to ALL courts, how could a DA bring charges against a murder or robbery suspect, for example?”
Criminal acts are against the state. The DA can bring action because he represents the state. Murder isn’t just a crime against the person, but against the state - in a nation-state model of justice. If we had a tribal society, that wouldn’t be true.
And Congressmen were affected by limiting their ability to collect money for running.
“courts HAVE overturned election results before.”
As I noted, “The courts are not meant to overturn national elections based on “I don’t like the outcome”.
“To date, NO court has heard the merits of this case”
Not true. Ankeney was the first that I can think of, and there have been multiple others since.
“This, then, brings us to the crux of this issue and why, IMO, no court has recognized an individual’s standing to bring charges against the POTUS.”
Because in the majority of cases, the plaintiffs had suffered no specific damage. The rules for the courts say that if everyone suffers equally, then no one suffers. This prevents nuisance cases, and it is applied all the time.
“The “picture” in question was posted on an official government website, whitehouse.gov.”
The government posts pictures that have been altered all the time. In this case, the posted picture is not considered legal evidence. Further, the state of Hawaii has not contradicted the information shown, so there is no reason for the courts to assume any intent to deceive. Alterations could be for clarity. Many of my family pictures I’ve posted on the web have been altered for contrast, darkness, or other color adjustments to make it a clearer picture. That doesn’t imply deceit.
The "alterations" were not for clarity, they were outright forgery and have been proven. That's why the graphic was withdrawn from the WH website.
I agree that the posted picture would not be considered legal evidence were it not posted on the official website of the White House which, as I noted previously, represents the Office of the President. NOTHING gets posted on that website that has not been closely scrutinized by the president and/or his senior staff to ensure that the information it contains is cleared and approved for posting. And, adjusting a graphic image for contrast, etc., is vastly different from forging the document in an attempt to prove something that is untrue. In this case, the image provided information that, to date, the WH has been unwilling or unable to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.
We both know that it would not be that difficult for the POTUS to present his LFBC and put this issue to rest if he had one to provide. So, it begs the question, why not shut the birthers up and make them all go away by providing his actual LFBC unless he has something to hide?
Finally, the State of Hawaii doesn't have to verify or not verify the information when the issue is suspected forgery. The defendant, in this case the POTUS, can call them as a witness, but their testimony would not necessarily add or detract from a potential criminal case involving fraud.
No, they weren't. What it did was place an extra layer of bureacracy between them and their donors in the form of 501c's which made it inconvemient, but did not prevent them from collecting campaign donations. It also violated the free speech rights of the people by preventing individuals from presenting ads that mentioned specific candidates.
As I noted, “The courts are not meant to overturn national elections based on “I don’t like the outcome”.
When courts have overturned election results in the past, it WAS on the basis of "I don't like the outcome". However, the plaintiff used a section of the law to codify their claim, but the effect is no different. Someone still didn't like the outcome of the election, thus the court challenge.
Ankeney was the first that I can think of, and there have been multiple others since.
The Ankeny case was a hearing to obtain a writ to block the state's election results. A hearing does not require all the evidence to be presented the way a jury trial does. In addition, since that time, additional information has been developed that shows the intent to decive that was not available at the time of the Ankeny hearing.
Because in the majority of cases, the plaintiffs had suffered no specific damage. The rules for the courts say that if everyone suffers equally, then no one suffers. This prevents nuisance cases, and it is applied all the time.
Again, that applies to CIVIL court cases, NOT criminal court cases. The rules of evidence are different between civil and criminal court cases and, contrary to your contention about nuisance cases, those are filed all the time. This is why there has been a push of late to develop "loser pays" conditions for lawsuits to reduce the number of nuisance cases.
No. Criminal cases always have ‘standing’ because the crime is against the state, and the DA represents the state.
Nor has anyone shown any evidence of FRAUD in the posting of Obama’s birth certificate. To do that, you would have to prove he altered information, and was using it to deceive a court. If we could nail politicians for simply lying, we wouldn’t have anyone left in Congress.
And no, courts do NOT overturn elections based on “I didn’t like the outcome”. There had to be a specific LEGAL reason.
There have been multiple cases where judges held hearings. That is normal. You don’t get a jury trial all the time. If the defendant, in this case Obama, says you don’t have the basis for a trial, then you get a hearing. And to date, Obama has won. Not because judges are all corrupt, but because...you don’t have a case. And yes, a lack of standing and a lack of jurisdiction are common causes for a court to reject a case without it going to jury trial.
Also, please remember that ALL of the birther cases have been CIVIL cases. If you think you have a CRIMINAL case, you need to convince a DA, not a judge. And to date, there isn’t even ONE DA in the USA who agrees with birthers. That should tell you something...not 1. Anywhere. ZERO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.