Standing
The Most Recent Darling of Dismissal Doctrines
On Tim Poole’s Timcast IRL podcast, October 28, 2024, James O’Keefe asked how we heal the divide in this country [U.S.A.]. Here is your answer, James. And people need to watch that Timcast IRL episode.
First, James, you need to understand the root cause of perpetuating tension between factions regardless of the issue. What happens when the arbiters of controversy abandon their mission? The mission of the judicial branch is dispute resolution. Society relies on the courts to hear evidence and make decisions in order for parties to move on. Left unresolved, disputes fester and grow, causing the chasm between factions to also grow.
Issues regarding the border, Covid mandates, vaccines, climate policy, election integrity, Trans-involved mutilation, and others are allowed to wax uncivil due to the laissez-faire posture of the courts in controversial matters.
An Amicus Curiae brief filed on September 16, 2024 in the Supreme Court of the United States in Johnson v Kotek may be the most concise and accurate explanation of the impending devolution of civil society in the United States.12
Amicus John Beaudoin, Sr. authored the brief that he refers to as a treatise. In the brief, Beaudoin explains that the root cause of the widening schism in American society is what he calls “Dismissal Doctrines,” which include Qualified Immunity, Mootness, Ripeness, Sovereign Immunity, Laches, and Standing.
In the presidential debate streamed live on September 10, 2024, President Trump explained that all cases brought regarding the integrity of the 2020 election were dismissed on Standing before any substantive arguments could be argued and heard by the courts.3 Trump called Standing “a technicality” during the debate.
In his brief, Beaudoin makes the following arguments [quoted or paraphrased].
“The courts are failing in their primary mission of dispute resolution because Dismissal Doctrines are hyperbolically interpreted by lower courts in violation of plaintiffs’ rights to redress, access to the courts, and due process of law.”
“When individual liberties and rights of the citizens are trampled by the government, where can The People find redress, if the courts reject them? The system is broken. Lujan and Iqbal have somehow been used to circumvent or overcome the most foundational right and the bedrock of civil society — the right to access the courts for redress.”
“At first, Dismissal Doctrines were designed to block highly attenuated or frivolous cases from wasting the courts’ and defendants’ time. The abstract prose of Dismissal Doctrines … tends to dismiss inconvenient cases. Such dismissals for convenience are a violation of the foundational right of redress. … Justice and equity for the parties are now routinely set aside for the convenience of the court.”
Personal jurisdiction is a gate that must be successfully traversed for a case to be heard. The two seminal cases for personal jurisdiction have been cited 394 times per year and 548 times per year on average since the cases were decided in 1945 and 2011. Two Qualified Immunity seminal cases have been cited 1,701 and 1,366 times per year since the cases were decided in 2007 and 2009. Thus, Qualified Immunity is three times the rate of Personal Jurisdiction in citations. Two Standing Doctrine seminal cases have been cited 17,933 and 16,380 times per year since the cases were decided in 2007 and 2009. These are cited thirty times the rate of Personal Jurisdiction and ten times the rate of Qualified Immunity. As judges have been dismissing inconvenient, but valid cases based on lack of Standing, attorneys noted the judges behavior and the attorneys were, thus, conditioned to file motions to dismiss for lack of standing in nearly every case. The citation rates are facts. “There is no logical reason for Iqbal and Twombly to remain in effect. This Court must deal with this, else society will continue to rapidly degrade. Then The People will not tolerate a tyrannical out-of-control government enabled by a judicial branch too fearful and laissez faire to execute its primary mission.”45
Too many ideas fell by the wayside in 2024. This particular article was found unfinished on my computer desktop at 4:41PM on December 31, 2024. Since I do not have time to finish thoroughly and it would be a shame to simply delete it, I will provide a restatement of the thesis in a short concluding paragraph next.
CONCLUSION
The overuse of dismissal doctrines in state and federal courts across the land violates the most foundational right that upholds civil society — the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. For without this right, society breaks down as people seek justice in the street after being rejected by the court. It is said that John Roberts did not take the election issue cases in 2020 because he did not want the Supreme Court of the United States to be involved in such a controversial issue. Whether true or not, all courts, including the Supreme Court, should be reminded that they exist to resolve cases and controversies. (See Article 3 Section 2 U.S. Constitution.) The courts must be fixed through legislation defining standing.
God Bless you all
John 14:6 TRUTH
Footnotes
(2024). Docket Entries page. Supreme Court of the United States. No. 24-173. Retrieved at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-173.html on October 12, 2024.
Beaudoin, J. (2024). BRIEF OF JOHN PAUL BEAUDOIN, SR. AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS. No. 24-173. Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-173/326017/20240916110703931_Amicus%20Brief-Beaudoin.pdf on October 12, 2024.
(2024). Full Debate: Harris vs. Trump in 2024 ABC News Presidential Debate | WSJ [Video]. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/live/VgsC_aBquUE?si=AaF5SLvakZnj-IOT&t=3345 on October 12, 2024.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Found here https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/662/
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Found here https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/544/
Yep. SCOTUS dismissal of the MO v Biden injunction due to lack of standing was a disgrace. I knew Amy Barrett didn't think straight, and voila! she gave the gov't carte blanche to shut up any citizen as long as they don't use the victim's name in their correspondence.
Maybe legislation is the answer. But it seems futile to legislate that 1A means what it says.
I worry about chaos if the courts don't do their job. The elephant is the murder shots and protocols. Folks are still swallowing the deaths of loved ones, but it's going to break at some point. Maybe that's what the murderers want in the first place.
You've gotten prolific, John. Good. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
John Roberts should be dismissed on standing . . . for failing to enable a redress of grievances.
We must hear the evidence -as long as it takes - of the COVID vaccine failures and the lies that promulgated it's societal death sentence.
The data doesn't lie. Only people and governments lie.