This is my first comment on any of my articles, and perhaps my last.
Beware of people who pretend to know what they're talking about, tell others they're wrong, and then confuse simple, yet disparate, things like standing doctrine versus federal question jurisdiction.
The greatest legal minds of our day agree that "standing" doctrine is a runaway train depriving citizens of rights. Where in the Constitution is there mentioned "standing".
Refer to Article III please.
"Sec. 2. Clause 1. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Land under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
From this simple clause was generated a century of language including "threadbare recitals" and other such nonsense.
My argument against Iqbal is not my argument, but rather one that I've adopted from listening to others such as Robert Barnes. If anyone thinks the current doctrine is appropriate and not restrictive against freedoms, please step aside and let others do the thinking. You've given up rights without anything in return and you've entrusted liberty to tyrannical oligarchs.
Thank you for this explanation of "standing." This and we need a Constitutional Amendment protecting bodily autonomy (including for the unborn). I have learned so much about RCTs, lack of data transparency, captured journals, etc. over the past 2+ years. In my opinion, all vaccine mandates for school, the military, etc. should fall. Where there is risk, there must be choice.
It seems to me that this "standing" issue is not only a clear perversion of the issue of "standing" on its face, but yet another distraction/time-wasting apparatus to stall for yet more abuse from the government in the coming months, as the NWO agenda continues.
The definition of STANDING, from Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition: "A party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right. * To have standing in federal court, a plaintiff must show (1) that the challenged conduct has caused the plaintiff actual injury, and (2) that the interest sought to be protected is within the zone of interests meant to be regulated by the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question."
In other words, there must be harm, physical or otherwise, done to someone who wants to sue-- one cannot simply be outraged about something. That said, the idea that any person, citizen of the country where an alleged crime took place or not, would have no standing to sue is a grave concern to anyone who has ideas about common decency regarding the treatment of anyone who is arrested and taken into custody for any reason. Imagine what can happen in a state where a person can be arrested for any reason, and then ANYTHING can be done to him or her while in custody, and... they have no standing to seek retribution if they are beaten, raped, starved, etc. while in custody. We're talking about a state-condoned removal of HUMAN RIGHTS.
Anyone who thinks "Covid" is the central issue in this global coup d'etat is missing the boat. The main issue is Absolute Domination of every life and every person, absolutely. No, I don't think it will be carried out to its full scope, but in the meantime, everyone, and especially the poor, will suffer massively, MASSIVELY, and quite possibly die, because of this Globalist plan to subvert every good thing we, and especially the Five Eyes nations, have ever known. The deliberate destruction of the system of law (which could use an overhaul, but not like this!) is the kind of tool used by tyrants, after subjecting us to two and a half years of terrorism and subversion of decency, an attack on our youth with the perversion of bodily wholeness and sexual normalcy, vast censorship of truths and our ability to have dialogue and discussion, the destruction of the jobs market, the destruction of our food supply... If we can't see that we are being set up for destruction on a scale we've NEVER KNOWN before, we'd better get ourselves another cup of black coffee, because here it freakin' comes, people.
You don’t understand the doctrine of standing. It is actually a limitation on the power of courts, which most people would appreciate if they understood. At its heart, the doctrine says you can’t proceed with a lawsuit unless you as plaintiff have a claim the courts can hear. For example, you can’t sue someone who caused a car accident if you weren’t involved in the accident. That may seem obvious, but questions as to who does and does not have the right to sue can get very tricky. Rule 12b6 dismissal for failure to state a claim is also a limitation on court power, but it’s broader because it also looks at the claim made by the plaintiff to see if it is the type of claim the (in this case federal) court is allowed to consider.
I agree, except I think the limitations actually fall more on the individuals than on the courts... It seems to me it's much more of a situation of organization and application, to keep things more orderly, not to limit a court, which has a helluva a lot of power regardless. Just my 2 cents!
Um... remember that thing about Separation of Church and State? How, exactly, do we put God on the stand, or ask God to pass judgment in a courtroom? There's a reason why we have laws, and that's because not only do Divine Entities not walk into courtrooms and proclaim guilt or innocence, but there is a LOT of disagreement about Divine Entities to begin with.
"The Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits by citizens against state agencies, or arms of the state like UMass Lowell and UMass Boston, “regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” O’Neill v. Baker, 210 F.3d 41, 47 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)); United States v. Univ. of Mass., Worcester, 812 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir. 2016) (finding that UMass is arm of the state). Plaintiffs concede this point and assent to dismissal of all claims against UMass Lowell and UMass Boston. See D. 17 at 1. Accordingly, the Court allows the motion to dismiss as to UMass."
I don't know... That suit was against a school, not the state government. Where would you sue a state government? Not in the state, as they might be a bit biased.
In that case, the suit was against the university as well as a few of its employees (who were involved in denying the religious exemption). The university was deemed to be a "state entity" and, thus, could not be sued (based on the 11th amendment). So, the claims against the university itself had to be dropped.
The university also argued that the claims against its employees should be dropped for the same reason. I don't know what the decision on that point was.
But the long and the short is that you cannot sue the state or a state entity in federal court and have to sue it in state court. From what I understand, the 11th amendment didn't directly forbid it. It forbade residents of one state suing a different state in federal court. But the courts then extended the scope of the amendment to include residents suing their own state.
Yeah, I think you're right. I'm not an expert, or an attorney. But I can tell you this, for sure: Suing the govt. is like trying to go fishing for salmon from a bathtub--- Don't get your hopes up...
Having standing is a specific thing, and of course, the "system" wishes to keep things to only those things they MUST deal with. Otherwise, we'd be doing a giant class action against Monsanto et al, most of the social media sites, the AMA and all the pharmaceutical companies, and so on and so on...
This is my first comment on any of my articles, and perhaps my last.
Beware of people who pretend to know what they're talking about, tell others they're wrong, and then confuse simple, yet disparate, things like standing doctrine versus federal question jurisdiction.
The greatest legal minds of our day agree that "standing" doctrine is a runaway train depriving citizens of rights. Where in the Constitution is there mentioned "standing".
Refer to Article III please.
"Sec. 2. Clause 1. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Land under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
From this simple clause was generated a century of language including "threadbare recitals" and other such nonsense.
My argument against Iqbal is not my argument, but rather one that I've adopted from listening to others such as Robert Barnes. If anyone thinks the current doctrine is appropriate and not restrictive against freedoms, please step aside and let others do the thinking. You've given up rights without anything in return and you've entrusted liberty to tyrannical oligarchs.
Please somebody film the governor being served. That's gold.
Agreed 😃
The governor’s agent would be served.
Thank you for this explanation of "standing." This and we need a Constitutional Amendment protecting bodily autonomy (including for the unborn). I have learned so much about RCTs, lack of data transparency, captured journals, etc. over the past 2+ years. In my opinion, all vaccine mandates for school, the military, etc. should fall. Where there is risk, there must be choice.
Now we're talking. Let battle commence!
I have read the complaint. Fantastic work. You are making history here. Great contribution to humanity. Thanks
Thank you for your erudite, understandable writing. I am a nurse and write my Covid story here: nancyrbenedict.Substack.com
I feel the tide is turning. Will it be a tsunami? None of us knows but the vaccine skeptics are starting to look prescient.
It seems to me that this "standing" issue is not only a clear perversion of the issue of "standing" on its face, but yet another distraction/time-wasting apparatus to stall for yet more abuse from the government in the coming months, as the NWO agenda continues.
The definition of STANDING, from Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition: "A party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right. * To have standing in federal court, a plaintiff must show (1) that the challenged conduct has caused the plaintiff actual injury, and (2) that the interest sought to be protected is within the zone of interests meant to be regulated by the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question."
In other words, there must be harm, physical or otherwise, done to someone who wants to sue-- one cannot simply be outraged about something. That said, the idea that any person, citizen of the country where an alleged crime took place or not, would have no standing to sue is a grave concern to anyone who has ideas about common decency regarding the treatment of anyone who is arrested and taken into custody for any reason. Imagine what can happen in a state where a person can be arrested for any reason, and then ANYTHING can be done to him or her while in custody, and... they have no standing to seek retribution if they are beaten, raped, starved, etc. while in custody. We're talking about a state-condoned removal of HUMAN RIGHTS.
Anyone who thinks "Covid" is the central issue in this global coup d'etat is missing the boat. The main issue is Absolute Domination of every life and every person, absolutely. No, I don't think it will be carried out to its full scope, but in the meantime, everyone, and especially the poor, will suffer massively, MASSIVELY, and quite possibly die, because of this Globalist plan to subvert every good thing we, and especially the Five Eyes nations, have ever known. The deliberate destruction of the system of law (which could use an overhaul, but not like this!) is the kind of tool used by tyrants, after subjecting us to two and a half years of terrorism and subversion of decency, an attack on our youth with the perversion of bodily wholeness and sexual normalcy, vast censorship of truths and our ability to have dialogue and discussion, the destruction of the jobs market, the destruction of our food supply... If we can't see that we are being set up for destruction on a scale we've NEVER KNOWN before, we'd better get ourselves another cup of black coffee, because here it freakin' comes, people.
You don’t understand the doctrine of standing. It is actually a limitation on the power of courts, which most people would appreciate if they understood. At its heart, the doctrine says you can’t proceed with a lawsuit unless you as plaintiff have a claim the courts can hear. For example, you can’t sue someone who caused a car accident if you weren’t involved in the accident. That may seem obvious, but questions as to who does and does not have the right to sue can get very tricky. Rule 12b6 dismissal for failure to state a claim is also a limitation on court power, but it’s broader because it also looks at the claim made by the plaintiff to see if it is the type of claim the (in this case federal) court is allowed to consider.
anyone have examples where standing was denied which were terrible decisions?
I agree, except I think the limitations actually fall more on the individuals than on the courts... It seems to me it's much more of a situation of organization and application, to keep things more orderly, not to limit a court, which has a helluva a lot of power regardless. Just my 2 cents!
Cry out for justice.. to the one who can bring it.. and rules supreme over every court.. Father God.. that’s standing! And He invites us to do so..
Um... remember that thing about Separation of Church and State? How, exactly, do we put God on the stand, or ask God to pass judgment in a courtroom? There's a reason why we have laws, and that's because not only do Divine Entities not walk into courtrooms and proclaim guilt or innocence, but there is a LOT of disagreement about Divine Entities to begin with.
You'd be hard pressed to find any level of government across the country that isn't corrupt. It will be interesting to see how far this goes.
Great post!
Can you sue a state entity in federal court? Most of the case against UMass (Harris et al. v. University of Massachusetts at Lowell et al., https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mad-1_21-cv-11244 ) was dismissed based on the 11th Amendment. Quoting from the judge's ruling (p. 11 of the PDF here: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mad-1_21-cv-11244/context ), also in the same district court as your suit:
"The Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits by citizens against state agencies, or arms of the state like UMass Lowell and UMass Boston, “regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” O’Neill v. Baker, 210 F.3d 41, 47 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)); United States v. Univ. of Mass., Worcester, 812 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir. 2016) (finding that UMass is arm of the state). Plaintiffs concede this point and assent to dismissal of all claims against UMass Lowell and UMass Boston. See D. 17 at 1. Accordingly, the Court allows the motion to dismiss as to UMass."
I don't know... That suit was against a school, not the state government. Where would you sue a state government? Not in the state, as they might be a bit biased.
In that case, the suit was against the university as well as a few of its employees (who were involved in denying the religious exemption). The university was deemed to be a "state entity" and, thus, could not be sued (based on the 11th amendment). So, the claims against the university itself had to be dropped.
The university also argued that the claims against its employees should be dropped for the same reason. I don't know what the decision on that point was.
But the long and the short is that you cannot sue the state or a state entity in federal court and have to sue it in state court. From what I understand, the 11th amendment didn't directly forbid it. It forbade residents of one state suing a different state in federal court. But the courts then extended the scope of the amendment to include residents suing their own state.
Yeah, I think you're right. I'm not an expert, or an attorney. But I can tell you this, for sure: Suing the govt. is like trying to go fishing for salmon from a bathtub--- Don't get your hopes up...
Having standing is a specific thing, and of course, the "system" wishes to keep things to only those things they MUST deal with. Otherwise, we'd be doing a giant class action against Monsanto et al, most of the social media sites, the AMA and all the pharmaceutical companies, and so on and so on...