“The claimant is not entitled to a legal remedy” is a denial of standing. That IS the ruling, period.
I don't think so. Dr. Taitz kept getting thrown out for standing and they didn't even rule on her legal stuff. These people lost because their law stuff was all screwed up wrong. I bet that is why they discussed the Vattle Birther legal theories and then said they were wrong. I will double check with my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. tomorrow but she may not take the time to look at it because she thinks all this stuff is stupid. If you know a lawyer, you might want to ask them too.
OH Plus, I have been working on a easier to read version of Wong Kim Ark. It is like torture, but just putting the quotes in indents helps a lot.Here is a linky thingy: