8 Responses to “Fed court lays ground rules in immigrant court case”

1. Bev
   August 31st, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

   Concerning this statement: “Hanen said that the question before the court is if the government has a policy that is directly injuring an individual, does that individual have standing to bring a lawsuit.”

   Wasn’t one of purposes of the original case to have the government provide to the court the policies that are being enforced presently, which they believe allow them to transport illegal immigrants, etc.? It would seem that it’s not the government’s policies that are directly injuring an individual, but rather the non-enforcement of present policies. Could that interpretation be made of Judge Hanen’s question?

2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   August 31st, 2014 @ 9:00 pm

   yes, it could

3. Rich
   September 1st, 2014 @ 6:01 am

   What is stunning to me about all the rhetoric coming from the legal minds in our courts across the land is overlooking the fact that existing laws are being broken by our elected officials and appointees by way of granting themselves impunity from the laws they have sworn to uphold. If the courts say we have no standing to demand that the law be enforced than we do not have any freedom or rights at all. They are dictators. The SCOTUS has ruled that “shall not be abridged” means just the opposite for the purpose of abolishing our first article freedoms. We have been lulled to
   sleep by deficit spending entitlements and the granting of “special rights” to enough voter blocs to make it happen. And when that is not enough they open the borders and stuff the ballot box with undocumented voters.

4. Red Pine
   September 1st, 2014 @ 6:56 am

   Here is what we learn from the article.
   A. [“This is not a forum to resolve political issues,” U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen said in a hearing last week as he laid out the ground rules for the parties to the lawsuit.] The main focus of the lawsuit is to stop trafficking of illegals through the southern Border and their illegal transport into USA by US Government. THIS ISSUE IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. It appears to be a criminal issue, a national security issue, and a treason. There is no political content in all of these dramatic concerns.
   B.[“We’re not here to resolve any kind of immigration crisis, political questions, or border security issues. That’s not why we’re here,” Hanen said.] I am completely lost here. Political questions appear not to be in the Dr. Taitz lawsuit. The illegal immigration through the border is a fact and is in the heading of the lawsuit: STOP TRAFFICKING ILLEGALS THROUGH THE BORDER. Border security breaches were raised in the hearings during questioning of the testimonies: presence of the terrorists in the illegals’ traffic, and transmission of diseases into and inside of USA.
   C.[Hanen said that the question before the court is if the government has a policy that is directly injuring an individual, does that individual have standing to bring a lawsuit.]
   Government policy? The US Border is breached since October 2013. These breaches are national security violations of the BORDER which occur every day for about 9 months since October 2013 and will continue unabated if not forced to stop by the forces outside of the executive branch of US Government. This is more than a Government policy, this is a criminal act by the government at the very least on the basis of the surface look at the border conditions. Whether a Government has a policy that directly injures the plaintiff (the individual) does not appear to be within the scope of the lawsuit as it is presented to the Judge by the plaintiff – Dr. Taitz. Whether that individual (the plaintiff) has standing to bring the lawsuit is the issue that emanates from the Judge. The issue of standing is not in the lawsuit as Dr. Taitz has originally presented to the Judge.
   What constitutional grounds does the Judge have to introduce the issue of standing into this lawsuit?

   Historically the issue of standing was relatively recent and appeared in hearing due to 2 judges who have introduced it: Brandeis and Frankfurter in 1920s. Standing got used since then to eliminate the lawsuits that question the constitutionality of actions and statutes adopted by the executive branch. The point of the idea of standing is to eliminate the lawsuits from hearings without any consideration of their substance in the court room. This was exactly the case with seemingly more than a hundred lawsuits brought up with regard to Obama eligibility issues. They all have been dismissed due to lack of standing. The US Constitution has no intent expressed in it to limit the volume of lawsuit cases to be considered in federal courts.

   What are the constitutional grounds that allow federal judges to demand standing with regard to lawsuits that address illegal, criminal, or treasonous actions of US Executive branch of Government?

5. Kevin J Lankford
   September 1st, 2014 @ 9:58 am

   This notion of “standing”” is absurd and has no support anywhere in the Constitution or from an logical standpoint.

   A crime is committed and it is the duty of every citizen to report any knowledge and the duty of any and every court official to pursue the prosecution of crimes to which they are aware.

   It is also just as absurd that any government official would assert every action of the government is protected as the government has sovereign immunity.

   Any how, it seems hanen has been given his out.

6. David
   September 1st, 2014 @ 9:59 am

   Red Pine brought up some great points. These judges’ use of “standing” is obviously being employed as a scape goat to shut down all debate of government wrongdoing. If the government is committing treason or some other illegal act, we shouldn’t need to find one specific individual who can prove a monetary loss or physical injury as a result. The general act of government committing treason is the only standing needed to convict government officials of treason and execute them. This needs to be a lawsuit in and of itself.

7. Nutmegger
   September 1st, 2014 @ 10:57 am

   THERE ARE NONE.

8. JAK
   September 1st, 2014 @ 11:50 am

   My public and private experiences of/with judges from a public administrative viewpoint is that most if not all are no more tuned to the foundation of this Nation and all the Founders intentions than millions of ordinary citizens.

Leave a Reply