You wrote, “I have come to think it is very naive to rely on any measure to get rid of the usurper by our scared (corrupt ?) judicial system and is a total waste of energy which has been proven from multiple cases thrown out of court the last year!!!” (Again with the multiple exclamation points, emphasis which I refer to as hyperbole.)
If everyone in this country had “standing” then, individual Defendants would face countless suits. So, the courts have necessarily winnowed down standing to a finite number of litigants. None of the cases presented thus far was sound. They not only violated basic standards of legal reasoning but they also conflated suspicion with fact; and fact with opinion. You know how hard I am working to expose that nothing in the public record evidences BO is a NBC, and to settle this issue. But even I could not deny, each of these cases was infirm from the outset. The only objection I could reasonably register to any of the rulings is that, the judges took too personally the ineptitude of the petitioners.
I am neither defending the bench nor excoriating the lawyers. I am just saying, citing the results of these cases to support your contention the courts could be corrupt, misses the point.
What I hear is that dozens of dismissals of the court cases is OK, yet every judge with a brain and sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution knows, like you and me, that the usurper is NOT a NBC and possible NOT even born in the U.S.
The last court "hired" (?) a clerk from the defendants law-office to taint the plaintiffs case after the judge has promised that he would hear this case on its merits.
He then punted the case by not hearing the merit, that is corruption in my eyes not to uphold and defend the Constitution but sidestepping it by judicial technicality.
We have been hoodwinked by a scandalous voting fraud that have our forefathers turning in their graves. So again where have all our nice "talk" brought us?
I remember clearly when Chamberlain did the same to the Brits instead of stopping Hitler in his track and spare the world from unheard sufferings.
Everybody in the media SRM, Rush, Hannity, Beck, BOR, Greta, Geraldo, Ann Coulter, Lis Wiehl and the people in the government branches becomes enablers by covering up this atrocious political scandal, and that is sure very un-American, hello!
Even you have to admit that the "standing" is a judge-created doctrine, nowhere to be found in the text of the constitution, nor the text of federal law. (The same holds true for other notions such absolute and qualified immunity, for example.)
Let's face it: the main reason why the doctrine of "standing" (as well as the others) was created in the first place (and relatively recently in the history of the judicial system, I might add) was to protect government officials from otherwise meritorious litigation stemming from the officials' abuse of the law. The "standing" doctrine, as well as several other judge-created obstacles that plaintiffs against government now have to surmount, has the added benefit to judges of serving reduce their work load.
Here we are discussing cases in which plaintiffs are asking judges to interpret and apply the NBC clause. Rather than reaching the merit of these complaints, which they clearly have a Constitutional authority to do under the powers granted to them in Article III, the judges are wimping out by invoking "standing", which, I emphasize again, has no constitutional or legislative pedigree. Moreover, in denying even opposing candidates and military officers "standing" to challenge an individual who may well have assumed the presidency unconcontitutionally and/or via fraud, they are construing "standing" so narrowly that they are effectively closing the courtroom doors to all American citizens seeking to redress the constitutional violation that has likely occurred.
If Americans are barred from the courts as a means of redressing even egregious constitutional grievances against the government, where else are they to turn?