Yes. If it wasn’t for all those other Freepers with their outlandish ideas. Not to mention all those feeble attempts by those supposed lawyers; Berg, Martin, Apuzzo, Taitz, Donofrio, Keyes&Robinson, Ankeny&Kruse, Hendershot, Epperly, Allen, Kreep, Klayman, and all the others! What did they think they would accomplish?
The attempts by the lawyers were basically attempts to get “standing “. Standing is the problem. Nothing legal about it or at least no written law. It was originally an arbitrary clerical standard to assist the judicial system -—A method of moving cases along so docute would not become overwhelming.
That and the reliance on case history and not going back to foundation of the constitution for ultimate guidance. If I remember correctly from dad’s lessons the last case to not rely on previously decided cases was in the very early twentieth century. He said even when he went to law school in the 1940’s less than fifteen minutes or a paragraph or two was spent on arguing a case with original intent. None of those lawyers seemed to be knowledgeable of that concept. And the judges in many of the cases knowing that such a decision could only be made by the SCOTUS were lack in even attempting to hand down judgment but were too eager to send it on. Dad also said that many of the lawyers had the premise and the defendants wrong which also did nothing to solve the problem. His answer was to charge democrat party (including all officers) and O with fraud. Moist of the cases were trying to prove damages an impossible premise to prove against one’s government
The attempts by the lawyers were basically attempts to get “standing “. Standing is the problem. Nothing legal about it or at least no written law. It was originally an arbitrary clerical standard to assist the judicial system -—A method of moving cases along so docute would not become overwhelming.
That and the reliance on case history and not going back to foundation of the constitution for ultimate guidance. If I remember correctly from dad’s lessons the last case to not rely on previously decided cases was in the very early twentieth century. He said even when he went to law school in the 1940’s less than fifteen minutes or a paragraph or two was spent on arguing a case with original intent. None of those lawyers seemed to be knowledgeable of that concept. And the judges in many of the cases knowing that such a decision could only be made by the SCOTUS were lack in even attempting to hand down judgment but were too eager to send it on. Dad also said that many of the lawyers had the premise and the defendants wrong which also did nothing to solve the problem. His answer was to charge democrat party (including all officers) and O with fraud. Moist of the cases were trying to prove damages an impossible premise to prove against one’s government