Headline: “US Judge throws out Arizona sheriff’s immigration suit against Obama”, going on to say:
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit brought against Barack Obama by an Arizona police chief who called the U.S. president’s sweeping immigration reforms unconstitutional, saying the plaintiff lacked legal standing in the case.
Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the demand by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a preliminary injunction to halt the policies.
Beryl’s 33-page decision said Arpaio did not meet the legal requirements to qualify as a person of standing in bringing the case on constitutional grounds.
Typical, huh? Nuthin’ new. How many lawsuits, claiming, for example, that Mr. Obama was not qualified to be “President” under the constitution have been dismissed for this same reason? How many legal challenges to obviously unconstitutional congressional enactments or Presidential edicts get this same judgment?
I offer the following as a very likely explanation. This is very important to the education of the local miners and “forest access” supporters, as their lawsuits against the conduct of the federal agencies all seem to end up being dismissed.
Dismissed for the likely and usual reason of “failing to make a claim for which relief can be granted”. This is the first thing taught in law school for defending a claim. But few people know REALLY what it means. It is FRCP Rule 12 (b) (6), and must be understood and handled very precisely in the original pleadings to be overcome.
It is clear that Sheriff Arpaio’s attorney did not get it, just as it is clear that the lawsuits of the local plaintiffs do not succeed in federal court.
I have not read the 33-page decision by the “Judge” in the above case. I don’t need to. I have not read the cases submitted by the local miners or the local forest access people. I don’t need to.
I already know that I have never seen any evidence that the local suitors…and likely Sheriff Arpaio… have properly set forth the necessary facts to establish their standing to make a claim.
Lawsuits, by definition, settle a claim or controversy in which someone has an obligation or duty to another, and then breaches that duty and causes injury to that other. Before the case or controversy is taken to “court”, specific acts must occur which set forth the nature and cause of the complaint, and give the opposing party a chance to correct. There are several elements to this part of the “due process” which are largely ignored by both parties.
As to the above case, in order to have requisite “STANDING” to make his claim against the defendant (Obama?), the plaintiff (Arpaio) must put on the record his compliance with due process. He must show that Obama had a DUTY to protect his rights (“rights” ARE “property”!) and in order to do that, he must show on the record exactly under what legal relations the obligation exist. And then he has to show the nature and cause of the breach of that obligation that resulted in damage or injury to his person or property.
And if the sheriff is not very specific and fails to support the elements of his claims with admissible evidence, the court will rule (justifiably) that he did not have the standing to make a claim for which relief can be granted.
Kinda simple when you look at it that way. But no matter how well-researched the claim might be, or how well the plaintiff cites his legal cases in support of his argument, if he fails to state the nature and scope of the legal relationship between himself and his adversary, he is TOAST.
So let’s look at the likely problem in the above case that killed it right out of the box.
First, he did not identify the proper constitution upon which he was relying to establish the DUTY of the defendant Obama to act. Readers of this blog already know that there are two federal constitutions, one original and organic “for the United States of America AD 1789/1791” and another corporate one “of the United States AD 1871”. The corporate charter deals solely with the business of the company called “United States”.
As a private, foreign company, the “United States” has adopted the original constitution as a bylaw, but nobody takes an oath to it. They are elected to an office of the corporation, not to any office of the organic constitution.
The difference is that under the organic constitution, the elected public servants are under a solemn duty to protect the rights of the people! Since they don’t want to have to be held to that mandate, they have deceptively switched from legal relations to “The United States of America” to legal relations with the corporate United States. Pretty cool, huh, if you are a politician who wants to have no duties to the people who elect you!
Remember that the original, organic constitution allows for Congress to have “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” over its seat of government, which is named “United States”. What deception!! That means they can make any law they want, but it only applies to their “territory”. And they certainly deceived Sheriff Arpaio’s attorney!
The “US Constitution” always refers to the corporate constitution “of the United States”, and the use and knowledge (ant the attached rights) of the original organic constitution is “lost to legal memory” and does not apply!
Originally, “the supreme court of the United States” was established as the Judical Branch of the federal government. After the corporate change-over, the three branches are in effect combined, and the Congress established the “United States Supreme Court” for its territory. NOTE THE DIFFERENCES!
An employee or sub-corporation cannot sue its parent corporation in court. It is a maxim of law. Differences have to be worked out in other ways, under their charter. Employees have NO STANDING to sue their employer, save some specific situations.
So what really happened in the case of Sheriff Arpaio? He is an employee of a corporate county that is a political subdivision of the “STATE OF ARIZONA”, itself a political subdivision of the corporate “United States”, which has no DUTY to protect his rights.
He filed his lawsuit in the “US District Court for the District of Columbia”, where the Justices (not real Judges) serve at the pleasure of the President. Wait a minute…which “President”? Please see that there are multiple “Presidents” when you read the “comments” under our previous post “Judge Napolitano is Right…and Wrong.”
Did the good sheriff properly identify the actual sworn office of Mr. Obama? Did he take his case to a neutral, constitutional court? Did he properly identify himself as possessing certain rights that are protected by and then violated by Mr. Obama? Did he establish on the record that he had fulfilled all the requisite “pre-judicial” requirements?
Of course, he had NO STANDING to appear or to make a claim for relief!
As we progress with constitutional education over time on this blog, the reader will be able to instantly grasp for himself the fraud of the court system and see how and why the natural man who does not comprehend the true commercial, corporate nature of the system always loses in their courts. BAR attorneys themselves are not taught these things in law school.
We are established to live under “laws, not men”, but we have unknowingly waived those rights when we decided to accept “residency” in the private territory over which the corporate “United States” claims jurisdiction.