Has Orly Jumped The Shark?

Well that’s the impression I get on Dr. Taitz at least based upon what Van Irion, Lead Counsel for the Knoxville, TN-based Liberty Legal Foundation had to say.

A letter posted to Birther Report stated how frustrated Irion is with Dr. Taitz and her way of handling the greatest threat to our republic.

Her conclusions are also wrong for several reasons. First, we have other FEC-registered candidates as class members that are running as independents. Therefore they will be part of the general election.

Second, she mistakenly assumes that standing requires a plaintiff to be in exactly the same position as a defendant. In this case she claims that only a candidate on the ballot in the general election will have standing. This is simply wrong. Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. Any candidate running in the election will be less likely to win if their opponent appears on the ballot. This is true whether the plaintiff appears on the ballot or not. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. She mistakenly equates the speculative nature of winning an election with the certain nature of the harm. The harm of lowering a candidates chances of winning is certain. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections.

Third, Orly assumes that standing can be disproven simply because many plaintiffs have standing. This is also wrong. Standing is proven if a plaintiff can show that he will be harmed. This analysis doesn’t require the harm to be limited to a small number of people. Courts don’t like standing that any citizen can assert, but 250 FEC-registered Presidential candidates is not the same as 330 million American taxpayers. By Orly’s argument, her military members didn’t have standing because there are “too many” members of the military. Such an argument runs contrary to her own assertions.

Fourth, different courts rule very differently on standing depending upon the specific circumstances. Since no court has ruled on exactly these facts, especially with a class of FEC-registered candidates with different circumstances, to dismiss our case out of hand without even reading the complaint puts Orly in the same category as the corrupt judges that she complains about in her blog. I agree that the courts are corrupt, but that is no excuse to treat others that are striving for the same goals as poorly as the corrupt courts have treated Orly. She owes us an apology.

Fifth, Orly states that filing this as a class action has no purpose. This is also wrong. As mentioned above, by filing this as a class action we end up with more plaintiffs which leads to more individual circumstances likely to have standing. Any specific facts that the defendants or the court claim to be “good enough” for standing will likely be met by SOMEONE in our class action. If only one plaintiff has standing, ALL the others get to proceed. Rather than taking the time to consider this, or better yet, ask, Orly simply makes another incorrect assumption and blogs to the world. Also, by filing our case as a class action we give voice to all of the disenfranchised people that want to be represented. Finally, any judge seeing 30,000+ plaintiffs is less likely to simply dismiss their complaints. None of these reasons were perceived by Orly. Nor did she ask. Again, she owes us an apology.

I do have some suggestions for Mr. Irion…try people like Phil Berg or Mario Appuzo.  Leo Donofrio might give you some arrogant resistance.  And if you want to know how ridiculous an excuse Standing is, may I suggest this 2008 article from Edwin Vieira, Dr. Constitution as I call him.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

Bold–my emphasis.  Or of course we could think the way Obot turned phony Republican plant Jon Huntsman thinks as he Declares The Constitution Nonsensical AND Calls 65% of S.C. Republican Voters Fringe

I mean, even Kevin DuJan of Hillbuzz told Andrea Shea King last night about Huntsman playing the possible third party spoiler, despite reports of Texas Liberty Icon Ron Paul indicating he wouldn’t rule out the third party run himself if the establishment neocon warhawk GOP screws him royally.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: