It was either Berg or Donofrio. Actually I think both of them were labeled as without standing. Which means frivilous.
The bottom line is you have to have evidence of the claim you are making first. Right now none of the cases have any evidence of their claim.
They are making the fallacious argument that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Without standing does not mean frivolous, it means that he (Burg) has no legal right to initiate a lawsuit, meaning he is not affected by the action he finds grievous enough to sue for.
It is the same as saying you slipped and fell in a Wal Mart and I sued Wal Mart for damages I say I incurred from your fall.
I say that as an officer of the court sworn under a legal oath of office in the State of Pennsylvania, Phillip Berg is legally bound for his life to defend the constitution, that is all the standing he needs to file this suit.
There you go with more falsehoods. In the Donofrio case the stay against the Sec State of CT was denied but the writ for Certiori was put in the pending categorization which means it is still active and yet to be decided. You are not uniformed on this so you're just a liar.
To Just a Nobody,
You have a poor understanding of the law. “Lack of Standing” and “Frivious” have completely different meanings. Lack of Standing means that the person filing the lawsuit does not have a legal right to file. For example, if someone stole your car I could not file a lawsuit to recover damages for your stolen car. I would lack standing. Frivilous means “Without Merit”. The two terms are completely different.
When a lawsuit is dismissed for lack of standing no judgement is made regarding the merit of the lawsuit. The only judgement made is that the person filing the lawsuit does not have the right to file.