Posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Ping.
Mario Apuzzo’s lawsuit dimissed.
Ping Barry’s enablers! High fives all around!
“Attorney Mario Apuzzo called me a few minutes ago. Judge Simandle has granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. More on this later. Mario will post some initial comments in the blog but he still has to read the Judge’s decision in full. I also need to read the full decision. But we will definitely appeal.”
It appears that no Citizen in America has legal standing in this case. What a CROCK of Fecal matter (this situation, not the president. That’s a whole differant “can of worms.”)
Another chicken sh*t reading of the law.
Time to join oathkeeper friends
oathkeepers.org
It seems only the pro-0bama people have standing in the courts. Are we witnessing the rise of the 4th Reich?
I wish I understood who exactly does have “ standing”
So far citizens don’t, a presidental candidate doesn’t and active duty military don’t
Who does?
OR as more likely all judges will rule for odumbo
In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure on our elected representatives to slow down the juggernaut, to organize our efforts for upcoming elections, and wake up our fellow citizens to the threat we are facing.
That what I’m thinking. Just who the He!! has standing?
No. It is simply the application of the law. If McCain had won, would you want the courts involved to throw him out because pro-Obama people were suspicious about him being a citizen, or NBC, or whatever?
parsy, who says it was the proper decision
If you read the federal rules of civil procedure, it becomes clear that we don’t have standing. There is no unique injury that is particularized and concrete to one plaintiff. Every voter suffers the same injury from an ineligible POTUS. And there is no remedy that the court can grant. The court can’t remove a sitting president.
That doesn’t mean Obama is eligible. It just means, we can’t pursue this method of removing him. We’ll have to find another way.
In brief, “standing” requires some personalized injury to the person suing. If it is an injury that befalls all Americans, then it is not personalized. This is one reason why individual taxpayers can not sue over gov’t waste. It is an injury that befalls all of us.
parsy, who hopes this helps
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Brief explanation of who has “standing”:
STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person
must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
Now we need to decide if these suits are brought about by someone who has “standing”.....comments???
2) Are any of Orly's plantiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been recinded?
3) Question: With regards to "Natural Born":
Can you read the decision and find anything that specifically is wrong? If so, I would love to see it.
parsy, who thinks the decision was well written
I am trying to understand that. But I think Keyes had a particular injury from odumbo running even while ineligible
I also thought surely an active duty military member would have particular injury having to take orders from an ineligible President.
Since this isn’t working it looks like all we have is election 2012
By then he will have done a ton of damage an by then MSM will have convinced a ton of people he really is the chosen one
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.