This court is claiming there isn’t a case, that the claimant didn’t file anything for which they were entitled to a legal remedy. There was no ruling on “the legal stuff” because the court denied there even WAS any legal stuff. They said there was no case. Period. Everything else the court said was just bloviating about a case they had already said didn’t exist.
Differences Standing and Failure to State A Claim
I will still try to get Fabia to explain it tomorrow when I help her type and put together her brief.
My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, is here working on her brief, and she said the Indiana case was, "adjudicated on its merits" which she says means that it was NOT dismissed on the issue of "standing." She said when a case is dismissed on issues of standing, the court is usually nice enough to put something in the decision which says, "The Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the instant action." She said you will at least find the word "standing" in the decision.
She says the Indiana case DID INDEED rule on the "legal stuff", clearly holding that the "Vattle Birthers" [my words, she said "Plainitffs"]were completely wrong about the law and their interpretation of it. She said to cut and paste this part of the Indiana case:
"The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."
She said this part "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions" means that the "Vattle Birthers"[my words, she said "Plaintiffs"] did not present any legal basis for their claims---in other words, what they plead was just a "bunch of crap", not actual recognizable law. Fabia said the legal term for "Vattle Birther Law" is "Spucatum tauri."
She also said you are completely wrong on your analysis, and that you simply don't understand what you are talking about. The Court did not say the "case" did not exist---they said the "Vattle Birther" legal theories are what do not exist, at least in this Universe.
I thanked Fabia Sheen, Esq. for taking her time to explain this.