Dr. Conspiracy
It’s been an interesting time. I started over at PoliticalCrossfire.com1 under the name Botox where I first realized that the Obama citizenship denial phenomenon was a conspiracy theory. I participated in a 500-message thread under the title: Why the SCOTUS wants to look at Leo Donofrios lawsuit Dec 5 and there learned the basic facts behind the stories. And there it remains today, a testament to my inability to “let it go”. Let’s call that my “undergraduate degree”. Then I started the blog here, doing my graduate work on Obama conspiracy theories, culminating in my awarding myself 2 honorary degrees in Obama conspiracy theory.
Once the votes were counted, there was never any doubt as to the outcome. The lawsuits were all garbage. All anybody had to do was read them (few did) and it was pretty obvious. They didn’t deserve any more judicial review than a newspaper fact checker.
So today Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States. This is a major relief to me, because I was getting tired of typing “president elect” never knowing when to capitalize it or when to hyphenate it. And I can say President Obama, and not have to explain whether I’m talking about father or son Barack.
The conspiracy theories will continue (such never die) but most of the interest will die. Donofrio went home a month ago (knew when to fold ’em). Berg and Orly will run out of plaintiffs and crank ideas for new lawsuits. The existing lawsuits will wend their way to the ocean where they will be lost forever. The Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories Wikipedia article will get deleted. This web site will become irrelevant. It’s ephemeral, like most of the things we obsess overs.
It was interesting to watch nObama web sites spring up, exhibiting a kind food chain. Linda Starr copied by Roving Patrol copied by The Betrayal and The Betrayal acting like an extension loudspeaker for Dr. Orly. I guess some folks thought they were being patriotic by spreading unsourced rumors and fake information. Nobody bothered to check anything. Obama material was taking over my personal blog, and so sprang up Obama Conspiracy Theories, one of those domain ideas that pop into my head driving to work. The site has grown to well over 100 feature articles and 1800 comments, with a daily visitor count (unique IP) peaking at 570 today and over 1600 pages viewed yesterday.
So what have I learned?
- If you treat people with respect, you will have no regrets.
- You can fool some of the people all of the time
- Any fool can start a blog
[hr]
1That web site is no longer in operation.
Hey Dr. C,
Unlike you, I seem to be able to “let it go” most of the time…thus my infrequent blogging, vs your reliable daily postings. Not that the freaks don’t anger me, but I don’t seem to have the same fire inside of me to battle them, that I did 4 years ago.
It gets very old after awhile. I was whack-a-moling 5-6 hours/day in 2004-2005, and back then there were very few of us battling the crazies.
I’m glad that has changed. Please keep up the fine work!
JD, by the way, Top 10 Bad Guys is the second highest page referrer over here (next to FreeRepublic.com). Make of that what you will.
Wow, that is very surprising.
We can start selling tin-foil hats on ebay. Maybe a link from here? Might be a best-seller.
On Constitutional controversies of eligibility, each and every citizen is automatically entitled to a hearing on the merits, regardless how amateurish the presentation. Those blocking access should be removed.
Hitandrun
H&r, exactly what statute or constitutional provision are you quoting there or is that what they call “original research”?
Doc,
It’s original intent rather than original research.
I’ll restrict myself to the controlling Constitutional provisions. Please don’t feel constrained to reply.
—Article II, Section 1: Executive oath.
—Art.III, Sect.1: Judicial power; tenure during good behavior.
—Art.III, Sect.2:Judicial power extends to controversies between citizens of different states.
—Art.IV, Sect.2: Entitlement to privileges and immunities.
—Art.IV, Sect.4: Guarantee of republican form of government.
—Amend.I: Right of petition for redress of grievances.
—Amend.V: No deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
—Amend.IX: Rights retained by the people. (Standing and presentment have been whittled away unconstitutionally).
—Amend.X: Powers reserved to the People.
—Amend.XII: Constitutional eligibility limits equivalent for both President and VP.
—Amend.XIV, Sect.1: No abridgement of privileges or immunities; no deprivation of liberty by any State without due process of law; no denial of equal protection of the laws.
—Amend.XIV, Sect.2: No penalty-free abridgement of right to vote by any State.
—Amend.XIV, Sect.3: Denial ofpublic office, Federal or State, elective or appointive,to any person in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, despite having taken anoath to support same.
—Amend.XX, Sect.3: President-elect and VP-elect must both qualify before being permitted to assume the office of President.
As a kicker, I’ll throw in the Declaration of Ind.’s complaint against King George for oftendepriving the colonists of the benefits of trial by jury.
Regards,
Hitandrun
H&R, let’s just pick one: Right of petition for redress of grievances. How do you feel this is not fully in force?
Doc,
The current abuse of standing to deny a hearing on the merits isnigh equivalent to the excessive petition fees of earlier years and to the early 19th C House ‘gag rule’ used to render D.C. abolitionist petitions toothless and ignored,(cf. the colonial petitions ignored by King George). JQ Adams decried such measures as illegitimate encroachmentsdepriving “the citizen of the right to supplicate for a boon”. See United Mine Workers of America v. Illinois State Bar Association (1967) and NAACP v. Button (1963). Ourpublic servantsmust hear even if they don’t listen.
Hitandrun
I don’t see much in those two cases which dealt with the right of an association to provide legal services to its members. But I need to think some more about the general question. But to clarify your position, would you deny any bar to standing? Let me pose an example:
Let’s say that I believe (or claim to believe) Ronald Polarik is a threat to national security because he’s undermining the authority of the Commander In Chief. And let’s say that I cite some law that may or not apply (doesn’t matter for the purposes of the example). Polarik’s IP address is public knowledge so my attorney issues a subpoena to Polarik’s internet service provider. Under current rules, my case would be dismissed for lack of standing. If there were no bar, I could use a meritless lawsuit to learn Polarik’s identity and then lose on the merits.
A second concern I have with this concept is exactly how Philip J Berg suing Barack Obama represents a petition to the government for redress of grievances (which I have always understood meant grievances against the government, not third parties).
While a person who is individually harmed by the government might seek redress in the courts, it seems wholly inappropriate for a grievance that applies evenly to the whole population (or all voters, or all taxpayers) is rightly petitioned in the courts and not to the legislature. While the right to petition is inviolate, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every petition may be heard before a federal court. Indeed, the Constitution lays out 9 specific classes of cases that may be heard by the federal judiciary.
It would seem to me that the government might regulate petitions to some extend, for example, to bar private individuals from speaking on the floor of the Senate. So long as a reasonable avenue for petition exists, I think the constitutional requirement is met.
By the way, did you know that Judge Surrick (the judge who ruled dismissed Berg v. Obama in Philadelphia) was sued over that decision? (Stamper v. United States of America et al.)
Take this example: Let’s say that I sue in federal court complaining that I have a very large nose and people look at me funny. Under current rules, the case would be dismissed because even assuming that I really do have a very large nose and people really do look at me funny , it is beyond the court’s power to do anything about it. This is the third rule of standing in federal court: it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)).
Let’s say I think taxes are too high. I file a federal lawsuit that says the tax rates should be lower and that the government should spend less. Let’s say that I subpoena all 535 members of Congress, the Commissioner of the IRS, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Department of Economics at Harvard. Under today’s rule of standing, my case would be thrown out. The court would say, even assuming that your taxes are too high and the government should spend less, nevertheless your harm is not individual, but the same as that of all other taxpayers.
I think that the rule of standing prevents abuse of the court.
Stamper v. United States of America et al.)
It has been dismissed too.
I think the essential mistake you’re making when asserting that merits should be assessed before standing, is that in essence merits are assessed first. When deciding whether a case will be accepted, the judge assumes that the allegations (unless they are totally facetious) are true. If you read, for example, the decision in Surrick v. Obama you will find the judge assuming that Berg’s allegations are true (of course with the exception of misstatements of law). So in essence before denying a hearing to the case, the judge makes the assumption that at trial the plaintiff gets the best possible (within reason) outcome.
One of the problems I see with the lawsuits in general, is that few of them seem to specify what remedy they want. They want to compel Obama to produce documents, but that’s discovery. They claim (e.g. Kirchner) that the Congress should have done this or that, but of course the Court cannot compel Congress to hold a hearing — that would be a violation of separation of powers. Lots of these suits are like my “big nose” argument. They don’t like what’s going on, but there’s really nothing the courts could do about it, should the case be heard.
Doc,
Think of judges as traffic cops in black robes, their beat Constitution Ave, and their official duty to keep traffic flowing. Someone, maybe a fellow cop,throws a piece of junk on the street. Others throw more junk on the same spot. Rather than remove the pile of junk impeding traffic,the copjudgeshave formallydubbedthis standing pilestare decisis, reinforced perhapsbyformally enactedRules of Procedure or Evidence. Not satisfied, the cop judges, on the narrow passage left,place roadblocks, which theyremove and replaceat their discretion. Such is the situation motorist/plaintiffs now face.
What then are the optimal criteria for standing? To discourage frivolous lawsuits, losers should pay allopposition court costs with ceiling. The judge should preliminarily assume that all plaintiff’s factual allegations are indeed true, as even now the court is obligated to do. Also, the plaintiff(s)mustappear to the judge to be actually or imminentlyinjured by action or inactionof the defendant(s), that conductviolating one or more specific laws or Constitutional provisions. The injury needNOT be restricted to the plaintiff(s) alone, nor must it be presently redressible by the court other than by declaratory judgment. Should these conditions be met, thejudge would be compelled to grant standing, permit limited discovery, and rule on the merits. More later.
Hitandrun
Valid points concerning what the law of standing perhaps ought to be. But you can thank conservative Supreme Court justices for making the standing doctrine so difficult to meet. It was under the stewardship of Burger court during the 1970’s that the line of cases shutting the courthouse doors to citizens/taxpayers/voters was refined. Attempting to foreclose suits by anti-war protesters, the Court established the standards that are causing these birth certificate cases today to be rejected. Where was your outrage about the standing doctrine when liberal causes were undertaken?
In his opinion in Berg v. Obama, District Court Judge Surrick quoted from Chief Justice Warren Burger’s majority opinion in the 1974 case, United States v. Richardson. Essentially, CJ Berger wrote that it is up to Congress to determine whether to amend the jurisdictional requirements of federal courts to grant citizens/voters standing to litigate.
Perhaps it is time to revamp Title 28 to enlarge jurisdiction of the federal courts, broaden the definition of injury in fact and couple it with mandatory attorney fee awards for the plaintiff who cannot prevail. But be careful what you wish for. What you propose is basically to do away with the screening device that keeps our courts from becoming overwhelmed by cases filed by every disgruntled person with a beef against the government. Are you ready for the cost of administering such justice?
Well, do any of us fit this description? Is this a O-bot profile?
“surely they aren’t a dumb bunch but what else can you call them? Naive? Lazy? Something is definitely wrong with a group of people who take FactCheck and like sites as their authority. Why don’t they check with the hospitals in Hawaii….where none of them have records of SA Dunham being a patient or BHO ever being born in any of them? Is it so hard to believe that a person who will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid showing a $15 birth certificate is hiding something? Are they proud of his past associations? Do they truly believe that the years and years spent with his past associations have no bearing at all on his current thought processes? Are they so naive that they believe ‘hope and change’ is coming? Can’t they see what is happening to our country in just 12 days? Not hope and change! Where do these people come from?”
“They keep making fun of people trying to honestly get to the bottom of this crisis while they blindly follow a fraud. Is something wrong with this picture? I think even if I were an obot, I would want answers. My guess is that they are so blind and fooled by the fraud that the letdown is going to be horrendous. Of course, they would say that we are in for a real awakening. Unfortunately, they don’t honestly seek the truth but rely on fraudulent websites and pass it off as gospel.
“Thankfully….truth always wins. Maybe not as soon as we would like but win we will and in spite of my dislike for these people, I will feel sorry for them on many levels….that intelligent people can be so fooled, that blind followers will always have to face the truth and the truth will be devastating. So while you are trolling and looking for tidbits for you to have fun with, remember this….I really do feel sorry for you but you have created this crisis and you DO NOT have truth on your side. Your world will crack open like an earthquake and I hope you are not lost in the abyss. ”
So let’s say that I’m a billionaire. I can ruin anyone (since I don’t need standing) I want by filing frivolous lawsuits because I tie them up for years until they go broke, and I just have to pay a modest ceiling.
Hitandrun, your ideas are naive and unworkable.
There are many rules of standing. I realize that Surrick relied on some specific Supreme Court guidance related to lawsuits brought under particular sections of the constitution. But he also relied on other rules.
It seems to me that it is one thing for a an individual drafted into the army and being put into harms way to sue, saying that the war is illegal, because that person is individually and immediately affected. Berg on the other hand is just suing because he doesn’t like what the government did to everyone equally. That’s a difference in kind.
I don’t know how to put a tin foil hat detector on the court house door. If standing were to go away as a filter, you’d see lawsuit kits on the Internet and web sites recruiting plaintiffs by the tens of thousands to jam the courts. Lawsuits would become another form of civil disobedience.
Name calling and condescension (on either side) is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. I do wonder sometimes about what makes Phil and Orly tick, but it really doesn’t matter. What matters is evidence, plausibility and plain talk. That’s what I deal in here and that’s what I see very little of over at Orly’s place.
Remember “RatherGate?” The bloggers won then because they had the facts on their side. If Orly Taitz had any real evidence, she wouldn’t have to complain about the mainstream media ignoring her. It’s ingenuous of Orly Taitz to say her supporters are “trying to honestly get to the bottom of this crisis”. They are trying to “get something on Obama,” and nothing else; honesty has nothing to do with it.
And for the record, Hawaiian hospitals have refused to discuss whether Obama was a patient there or not.
Dr. C.,
Yes, I know they have and it has something to do with HIPAA. LOL
Doc,
May I suggest that you reck your own rede and restrain your own condescension before it comes back at you tenfold?
Rather than address your misunderstandings of my position one by one, let me pose for now a counter-hypothetical nearer to the situation at hand. Put the case that foreign-bornGovernor Schwarzenegger, having in the interim pandered to the usual voting blocs, decides to run for the Presidency. The electorate of course would be aware of his unnatural-born status. He would argue that only the public can truly decide his eligibility, and not any party or FEC or any ‘responsible’ state official. He would therefore demand access to the ballot at every stage of the process. Let us further assume the Republic has devolved to such a point where no official demands proof of eligibility or denies him that access (Sound familiar?). Would the Phil Bergs, Leo Ds, et al, under presentcriteria, have standing anywhere in any court at any time in their efforts to stop him on Constitutional grounds?
Hitandrun
Your example lacks punch. Schwarzenegger is not a natural born citizen and Obama is. The Republican Party Chairman would never certify Schwarzenegger and various states including California and Hawaii that have set precedents by disallowing obviously ineligible candidates would not put him on the ballot. The news media would universally point out that Schwarzenegger was not eligible, most voters would not vote for him for that reason. And finally Congressmen would object to his certification. There are many steps along the way where Schwarzenegger would be rejected.
The reason Obama had no trouble at any of these junctures is there was never any reasonable doubt of his eligibility.
Doc,
You’re evading the issue. Given the devolution of the Republic afterseveral years, where no vetting or certifying authority would object to the Governor’s right to ballot access, would the ‘crank’ defenders of Constitutional eligibility, under the present criteria, be entitled to standing in any court at any stage to stop Gov. Schwarzenegger from assuming Presidential office?
Hitandrun