Dr. Conspiracy Comments

Doctor Conspiracy

Doctor Conspiracy

Here are some comments I made elsewhere (deleted or not):

A request that letters should be sent to the Supreme Court appeared in WorldNetDaily. In response to a commenter at The Right Side of Life:

I think it is seriously misguided for anyone to think that somebody writing a letter to the Supreme Court will make them any more serious about the Constitution than they already are.

These people live, eat and breathe the Constitution. To write “Wussy” on their pictures, or call them negligent, scared or clueless is not only an unwarranted insult to them, but also to the United States of America.

In another comment on The Right Side of Life I replied:

So let me get this straight: All the Secretaries of State and the Electoral College and the entire Congress (and the Supreme Court in Donofrio, Wrotnowski and come Monday Berg) are in complete agreement, and you disagree.

So that makes you right? I think that you should at least consider the possibility that somebody is yanking your chain.

And again on The Right Side of Life someone wrote:

We have now been given an enormous clue as to who’s involved in this entire coverup:

1. The Electors
2. Congress
3. State officials, including governors and the SoS
4. The Supreme Court
5. The current President
6. The press

Once this information blows over he’s not eligible and is indicted, and he will by the government or by the people, they will all lose. And by lose, it could be more than just their careers.

Let us hope that this will not happen for their sake.

To which I replied:

I can’t believe that I’m reading this outside of some cheap fictional novel. The whole freaking government (federal and state!) is in on the conspiracy? Why? Why would every single member of Congress suddenly decide to give up their normal jobs and sign on to a conspiracy orders of magnitude bigger than anything imagined, much less than ever happened?

Go over to the Wikipedia and read the article on Conspiracy Theory.

The Betrayal blog (aptly named) after declaring the entire Congress, the Supreme Court and the Electoral College to be traitors, urges US soldiers to take back the country. I replied:

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any Constitutional requirement that a natural born citizen have citizen parents. It was not in law at the time the Constitution was ratified, is not the in Constitution, it is not in the US Code and it is not in any court decision since. And I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to cite the section from the Constitution, the provision in the US Code or the court decision that says otherwise (except that it be twisted falsely through logical fallacy). You cannot because it does not exist.

In 1844 a New York judge in the opinion of Lynch v. Clarke said:

“Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”

The analysis of the history of citizenship law supporting the preceding aside comment is as valid today as it was in 1844, and fairly represents the entire history of court statements on this subject. Full text of Lynch available here.

I hope no member of the armed forces will be made into a traitor through the disinformation of legal charlatans.

ConstitutionWatch.org published an inane article saying Obama is guilty because somebody is suing him. I replied on January 19, 2009:

I note among your facts, that Obama is being sued, and that people are asking for records. What I do not understand is why you think any of these are “evidence” of anything. I have listened to the full Obama grandmother tape, not the edited YouTube version, and it is quite clear she is saying Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is no report of her telling friends and neighbors that Obama was born in Kenya. There is also a YouTube video of Obama’s uncle, standing next to grandmother Obama’s house, saying the first time Barack Obama was in Kenya was in 1987. So that “fact” is totally bogus. Barack Obama never made any statement as to which hospital he was born in, so that “fact” is bogus too. Finally the travel ban to Pakistan is a total myth, as proven by a story from 1981 in the New York Times, in the Travel section, of a reporter who traveled to Pakistan and reported that Americans could get a free 30-day visa at the border. The truth at obamaconspiracy.org.

Citizenwells criticized a commenter for saying unkind things about Dr. Orly, saying that she wasn’t running for president. I replied:

citizenwells said “Orly is not running for president”.

That’s true but she might be running for whatever post opens up after her “Patriots” in the armed forces revolt and overthrow the lawful United States government tomorrow. If you think I’m being ridiculous, then you haven’t been reading her blog.

After declaring “Nurenberg [sic] style trials” for anyone guilty of contradicting her version of the truth about Obama, this is what she said in an article titled “what should be done?”:

I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of Justice. If our government and our elected officials and our judiciary have failed us, then it is time for the new government, new elected officials and a new judiciary.

Back at The Betrayal, commenting on an article titled: Linda Starr Posts New Information that has the old “travel ban to Indonesia” along with the curious comment of “independent confirmation of information we’ve had and from OUR OWN State Department”. I politely commented:

I’ve never been able to track down the source of the “travel ban to Pakistan” story.

There was an early version on WorldNetDaily by Aaron Klein that it was “difficult” for Americans to go to Pakistan. This seems to be speculation based on the fact that Pakistan was a Muslim country under military rule, which grew over the months into a “travel ban” to Pakistan in a later article in WorldNetDaily by Janet Porter.

Of course I didn’t tell them (in hopes my comment would pass moderation) that the whole travel ban myth is long blown by a 1981 article in the New York Times travel section describing a tourist trip to Pakistan by an American that year. Adding “independent confirmation of information we’ve had and from OUR OWN State Department” appears to be just another stage in the evolution of the myth.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Dr. C. Comments and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Dr. Conspiracy Comments

  1. Andrew A. Gill says:

    That list (extending a conspiracy to the entire government) is simply amazing.

    I hope the Oklahoma bill requiring a birth certificate passes, because I’d love to see the head explosions on the right when they place Obama on the ballot there in `12.

  2. Anti Democrat says:

    What’s the downside to BO releasing all the documents that citizens are asking for? Nothing!!!

    There’s no down side to proving once and for all that BO is indeed a natural-born US citizen and prove his eligibility to hold POTUS. How about selective service? If BO didn’t register he can’t hold any position in the executive branch of government. Who paid for his college? How’d he travel in Pakistan without a US passport?

    BO could easily release the info and make the whole thing go away quickly and cheaply. Why doesn’t he just release the info and save a lot of time, and money?
    . Why not?

  3. bogus info says:

    Release to who?

  4. Andrew A. Gill says:

    Yeah, what’s the harm?

    Wjy doesn’t Obama release his birth certificate to the public? What could possibly be the harm?

    Obama released his birth certificate to the public and was promptly accused of forging official documents.

    Why doesn’t he release it to a neutral third-party? What could be the harm?

    So Obama released it to factcheck.org, and they promptly were accused of forgery and media malpractice.

    Why doesn’t Obama ask the State of Hawaii to release the long form document? What’s the harm?

    The harm, my dear Anti, is growing larger every time Obama concedes to these demands. I shall not take your unbaited hook, and I doubt Obama would be so stupid as to do that, either.

  5. bogus info says:

    These blogs regarding Obama are working people up into a lather. Doc Orly and Robert block people who dispell these myths yet allow this type of post?:

    “Anonymous replies:Yesterday, 4:01:41 PM“Rebellion IS the right thing in a situation such as this. “… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Please note that “usurpations” here do not mean usurpation of the office of President such as has now occurred. The latter does amount to despotism in the form of a vast and fundamental injustice.”

    And, based upon some of Doc Orly’s comments–one up above–she appears to be the “cheerleader” in this. However, she claims/implies she is working with the FBI, Fitzpatrick, CIA, and numerous other government agencies. Factual?

    This might just be people blowing off steam? Ranting and raving with no action? I suspect Berg’s case will be dismissed tomorrow. How will this bunch react to this. Then Orly’s soon to follow. Am I the only one this concerns? Is this just dribble? In today’s Economic climate, I fear it may not be.

    Dr. C., you don’t have the Betrayal blog on the above list.

  6. There have been a few instances were ineligible candidates have made it onto the ballot, and that’s probably not a good thing. Calling for legislation to remedy this is makes sense.

    Re-writing the Constitution between the election and the inauguration for the purpose of denying the people their duly-elected President is reprehensible and believing he was born in Kenya is silly.

  7. Anti,

    I won’t try to speak for Obama as to why he hasn’t made some records public. However, I will say that “the whole thing” will not go away “quickly and cheaply” should such record(s) become available. The current furor is over the redefinition of the term “natural born citizen” which no amount of documentation will quell. Some of the “documents” being requested are most reasonably fictional and never existed.

    Obama’s Selective Service registration was obtained some months ago and is available on the Internet. So he did register. He obviously traveled to Pakistan on a US Passport. That “travel ban” for US Citizens to Pakistan is just a rumor. I have an article on that on this web site.

  8. laughinghysterically says:

    Technically, in many states, you need not be eligible to RUN for office, only to actually TAKE office. This is why the socialist party was able to run an admitted non-qualified candidate on the ballot in many state (I believe his name was Roger Calero or close to that). Their plan had been (in their wild and crazy dreams) that when he won, they would push for a constitutional amendment allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible as pres.

  9. laughinghysterically says:


    Really, be honest here both with yourself and everyone else. Your issue is NOT at all where Obama was born. Let’s say (for sake of example) that in the first scenario he ACTUALLY is born in Hawaii (which I am sure he was). Ok, so, now you are completely ok with him as Pres? I’d doubt it!!

    Now compare that sceanrio to one where he was born in Kenya and four days later his mom brought him to Hawaii and registered him as a US Citizen. NOW let’s say he NEVER KNEW she did this and truly believes he was born in Hawaii.

    Ask yourself this: In your opinion, does the soil he was born on suddenly make him 1)qualified to be Pres 2)trustworthy to be Pres or 3)suddenly in line with your politics and ready to be Pres?

    I imagine the answer is a still a resounding “NO”!!

    The “natural born” issue is what those who argue for a living (lawyers, philosophers) call a “red herring”! This is why the real world is ignoring you (the courts, the media, all the campaigns and politicians)

    Break your argument down logically, IF Obama is born on other soil than USA then he has no character and is not able to lead.

    IF Obama is born on US soil then he has great character and is able to lead.

    Clearly, the soil he is born on has NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to his ability to lead. Where he spent his first 72 hours of life DECIDEDLY DID NOT SHAPE HIS CHARCTER OR ABILITIES.

    Now, I know, you will say “but no, the Constitution says so, and I am upholding the Constitution!!” Well, that is a great delusion to justify your actions if you choose to believe it. I’d challenge you, though, to really think about your motivations here by considering my above comments in some depth. Really, be honest with yourself.

    BTW- The name of the “red herring” logical fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a “red herring” argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. (such as IF I am born on US soil, I am a good person leader/ if I am born on non-US soil I am a bad person/leader). Here, the premisses bear NO relation to the conclusion.

    The thing is, some people will simply never be happy with Obama. That is their right, and it is their right to organize for a different candidate and hope to vote him out in 2012. But this ongoing absurdity that “We’d be fine with him IF he could prove he is TRULY a citizen” is, as my grandma would say, a bunch of poppycock (it’s bull)!

    Whether he is born in Hawaii or not, he was born to a US Citizen and IS a US Citizen. The fringe that are now involved in these lawsuits will never accept Obama no matter what he does. They will continue to be exploited for their $$ by the grifters who manage to stoke their hate and churn their anger. And they will lose again in 2012 because they aren’t using their time and energy to organize within the political system to vote him out.

    Don’t be sucked in, don’t waste your time and money and sopent all these months paranoid and filled with anger and hate and disappointment. Move on and start organizing for 2012 if you dislike him so much! That is a more productive use of your time, IMHO.

  10. bogus info says:

    Actually, even when Obama proves he was born in Hawaii, they won’t accept him because his parents aren’t “two citizen of the U.S.” and he is a “muslim.”

  11. bogus info says:

    Dr. C.,

    What I have also seen in comments on these blogs is people looking for “someone to blame” for our current economic problems. We also have wars and unrest in the entire world. During the election, people blamed Bush. On these blogs, I see some people trying to blame Obama and stating that Obama and the rest in on this “conspiracy” staged this economic crisis.

    People are scared about their futures right now. This type of fear makes people who are normally rational individuals do irrational things. Then add a President who is “different” to the mix. Some on these blogs even believe the election was “fixed.”

    Maybe once Obama is sworn into office on Jan. 20th, things will calm down. I certainly hope so.

  12. laughinghysterically says:

    Which is yet another “red herring”!! Why don’t they all just admit they don’t like the guy and just work on organizing for 2012? All this other crap is just diverting their energies from rebuilding their base– which is actually just fine with me,BTW. Hopefully they run Palin and some other “know-nothing” in 2012 ans we win in a landslide of electoral votes yet again!

  13. Hitandrun says:

    Rather than respond in detail to the twisted logic, special pleading, ad hominem arguments (all beside the point), and misframing of issues that hys revels in, I’d ask her one simple question:
    Hys has conceded elsewhere that Mr Obama’s place of birth is the only relevant Constitutional issue under discussion—with which I agree. If it were proven to her satisfaction that Mr Obama was not born under US jurisdiction, would he be to her mind a ‘natural born citizen’, and should he then be prevented from assuming or removed after ‘assuming’ Presidential office? Let’s see if hys is capable of a simple direct slur-free reply.

    Warm regards,

  14. bogus info says:

    I cannot for the life of me figure out why a lawyer would consider these two cases still being procedurally active. I know the Wrotnowinski isn’t because I called the Supreme Court myself. So, somebody smarter than me please explain why a lawyer would think this.

    Procedurally Active at the Supreme Court

    Pennsylvania (James Schneller): (01/08/09)
    Application (08A592) denied by Justice Souter.
    Schneller v. Cortes
    Connecticut (Cort Wrotnowski): (01/02/09)
    “Pidgeon reminds us that the Wrotnowski case is still “pending” and procedurally alive.“
    DENIED application for stay and/or injuction

    Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz

    Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz Docket / Application
    Schneller v. Cortes Docket

    Both are just applications for stays and both have been denied.

  15. …and a communist, and the puppet of George Soros, one of the Lizard people and a draft dodger.

  16. laughinghysterically says:


    The ONLY argument on the table is that of standing for any of these cases. And they have none. PERIOD.

    Even IF someone could prove Obama were not born on US soil, I would still say he is NBC because he is born to a US Citizen parent. PERIOD.

  17. laughinghysterically says:

    I would have to venture a guess and say a lawyer “would think like that” if s/he were simply an incompetent lawyer and did not understand SCOTUS procedure.

  18. laughinghysterically says:

    Further, some of them are filing apps for stay and within the app requesting that the app itself also be treated as a writ of cert petition.

    They seem to not grasp that once the stay app is denied their added request that the app also be treated as a writ of cert petition dies with it. Berg filed his app for stay as a separate request from his petition for cert.

    I think they base the idea on the fact that Bush v. Gore asked for a stay that was also subsequently treated as a writ of cert petition. However, as we all know, the stay app was GRANTED in Bush v. Gore.

    That’s my nicer explaination. I still think overall it’s simply because they are incompetent fools.

  19. Hitandrun says:

    Clearly, the ONLY argument that the judges will hide behind is their bizarre unconstitutional construal of ‘standing’. As for who has standing among the plaintiffs and petitioners on matters of Constitutional eligibility, they ALL do, as do we. PERIOD

    With respect to the hypothetical of a foreign Obama birth, at least Doc, for one, is willing to obey US law, then in force, by ruling out natural born citizenship for Mr Obama. You apparently are not. Interesting!


  20. laughinghysterically says:


    We disagree about what particular law was in force and interpretations of it. That’s all.

  21. Andrew A. Gill says:

    Clearly, the ONLY argument that the judges will hide behind is their bizarre unconstitutional construal of ’standing’.

    Now *I’m* laughing hysterically.

    A great synopsis of standing can be found in Roe v. Wade (1973).

    I’m pro-life, and this is one of the few places that I agree with Roe v. Wade:

    We thus have as plaintiffs a married couple who have, as their asserted immediate and present injury, only an alleged “detrimental effect upon [their] marital happiness” because they are forced to “the choice of refraining from normal sexual relations or of endangering Mary Doe’s health through a possible pregnancy.” Their claim is that sometime in the future Mrs. Doe might become pregnant because of possible failure of contraceptive measures, and at that time in the future she might want an abortion that might then be illegal under the Texas statutes.

    This very phrasing of the Does’ position reveals its speculative character. Their alleged injury rests on possible future contraceptive failure, possible future pregnancy, possible future unpreparedness for parenthood, and possible future impairment of health. Any one or more of these several possibilities may not take place and all may not combine. In the Does’ estimation, these possibilities might have some real or imagined impact upon their marital happiness. But we are not prepared to say that the bare allegation of so indirect an injury is sufficient to present an actual case or controversy. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S., at 41 -42; Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S., at 109 -110; Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d, at 1124-1125; Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d, at 839. The Does’ claim falls far short of those resolved otherwise in the cases that the Does urge upon us, namely, Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617 (1971); Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970); [410 U.S. 113, 129] and Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). See also Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915).

    The Does therefore are not appropriate plaintiffs in this litigation. Their complaint was properly dismissed by the District Court, and we affirm that dismissal.

  22. bogus info says:


    I see what you are talking about. Berg filed the petition for cert and the application for stay separate–in fact different days. So, when Justice Kennedy denied Doc Orly’s application for stay, the cert was also denied because of the way Doc Orly filed it, correct? Same with Donofrio.

  23. laughinghysterically says:

    I haven’t read Orly’s papers (just can’t bring myself to wade into that drivel) but if she only submitted a stay app and then asked that the app ALSO be treated as a petition for cert, then yes, I’d guess it is the same. That is what Wrontnowski did.

  24. Mary Brown says:

    I am old enough to remember the time when the John Birch Society was active. This bunch of conspiracy theorists must be related to the members of that group. If you are interested go and research some of thier theories. At one point, they had Impeach Earl Warren (then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) billboards all over highways. It went on for years. I am sad to say I belive these people will go on and on and on.

  25. bogus info says:

    No. 08A524
    Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
    Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State

    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
    Case Nos.: (S168690)

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.

    No. 08-570
    Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
    Barack Obama, et al.

    Docketed: October 31, 2008
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Case Nos.: (08-4340)
    Rule 11

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
    Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.


    I’m basing it on their dockets.

  26. Hi Mary,

    We share some history: I remember those Earl Warren billboards too from lower Alabama where I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s 😉

    My Christian faith teaches me that I should not speak falsely against my neighbor. That is why this web site exists, to try to tell the truth about my neighbor. I get angry sometimes, which I regret, but that’s why I am here.

    To me telling lies to achieve what is believed to be a worthy goal is a denial of the faith. Jesus told his followers to be trustworthy in their speech. To tell a lie is to distrust Jesus, and substitute our own anxiety-driven expedients.

    (Mark 7:21-22 NASB) “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, {22} deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. (Mark 7:23 NASB) “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

    (Col 3:8 NASB) But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.

  27. laughinghysterically says:

    Amen to that! I too recall the lovely John Birch Society, and not fondly. They are still around, BTW. If you wander over to their website (just google the name) and visit their Constitution blog (click the blog tab at the top of the homepage, then navigate to the Constiution blog), you’ll see that even they think Berg’s suit is a nightmare.

  28. laughinghysterically says:

    An Oldie but goodie courtesy of Bob Dylan. Very much reminds me of these folks we are dealing with today if you simply substitute a few words! LOL

    Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues

    Well, I was feelin’ sad and feelin’ blue,
    I didn’t know what in the world I was gonna do,
    Them Communists they wus comin’ around,
    They wus in the air,
    They wus on the ground.
    They wouldn’t gimme no peace. . .

    So I run down most hurriedly
    And joined up with the John Birch Society,
    I got me a secret membership card
    And started off a-walkin’ down the road.
    Yee-hoo, I’m a real John Bircher now!
    Look out you Commies!

    Now we all agree with Hitlers’ views,
    Although he killed six million Jews.
    It don’t matter too much that he was a Fascist,
    At least you can’t say he was a Communist!
    That’s to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

    Well, I wus lookin’ everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
    I got up in the mornin’ ‘n’ looked under my bed,
    Looked in the sink, behind the door,
    Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
    Couldn’t find ’em . . .

    I wus lookin’ high an’ low for them Reds everywhere,
    I wus lookin’ in the sink an’ underneath the chair.
    I looked way up my chimney hole,
    I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
    They got away . . .

    Well, I wus sittin’ home alone an’ started to sweat,
    Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
    Peeked behind the picture frame,
    Got a shock from my feet, hittin’ right up in the brain.
    Them Reds caused it!
    I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

    Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
    Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
    Followed some clues from my detective bag
    And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
    That ol’ Betty Ross . . .

    Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
    Ninety percent of ’em gotta be burned away.
    I investigated all the people that I knowed,
    Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
    The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.

    Now Eisenhower, he’s a Russian spy,
    Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
    To my knowledge there’s just one man
    That’s really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
    I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.

    Well, I fin’ly started thinkin’ straight
    When I run outa things to investigate.
    Couldn’t imagine doin’ anything else,
    So now I’m sittin’ home investigatin’ myself!
    Hope I don’t find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

    Copyright 1970 Special Rider Music

  29. laughinghysterically says:

    Bogus, I am guessing she did exactly what Donofrio did with the app and petition in the same filing, also going off the dockets. I am too scared to read her filing, I am sure it would make me nuts! Her blog is quite enough for me!

  30. bogus info says:

    Dr. C.,

    Evidently David Crockett from The Betrayal blog or one of his followers came over here and copy and pasted you response to what asked you to respond to by one of the bloggers there. Here was my response to him. I hope it was appropriate:

    David Crockett,

    I am not Dr. Conspiracy so I cannot respond. My given name is Karen. You will need to ask Dr. Conspiracy to get answers to your questions. I’m sure Dr. Conspiracy would welcome you to the website. Unlike other websites, there is no censorship unless you are abusive. Facts are presented there, not fiction backed by evidence, not heresay and fabricated evidence.

    Guess they are coming over here to “look around”, just like we go over there to “look around.” LOL This is getting ridiculous!

  31. Hitandrun says:

    Let me reiterate for Mr Gill’s hysterical amusement:

    Clearly, the ONLY argument that the judges will hide behind is their bizarre unconstitutional construal of ‘standing’. As for who has standing among the plaintiffs and petitioners on matters of Constitutional eligibility, they ALL do, as do we.

    Prof Weinberg in her 2002 BULR article puts it this way:

    “Courts cannot win legitimacy points by denying access to meritorious claims. Rather, in shying away from controversy courts are rightly perceived as shirking a duty. Moreover, since to decline jurisdiction persistently is to favor defendants persistently, faithfully exercising “the passive virtues” are rightly seen as actively unfair. No doubt judicial intervention in a contested election invites the opprobrium of the political faction on the losing side. But the possible wrath of the loser does not justify a court in refusing to perform its judicial duty.”

    Judges, on occasion, are openly mindful of the dangers of using ‘standing’. The ruling decision in US v SCRAP (1973) reads in part: “To deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody. We cannot accept that conclusion.”

    Other judges pass the buck on to Federal and State lawmakers to define who in fact has standing.

    I invite Mr Gill and his fellow hysterics to join me in recommending impeachment of all judges who unconstitutionally abuse the ‘standing’ excuse to escape their sworn duty.

    Breath unheld,

  32. Judge Surrick gave an excellent primer on standing in the Berg decision.

    No matter which way I twist my brain, “meritorious claim” just doesn’t fit anywhere next to Berg v. Obama et al. I read Berg’s brief and it is garbage. Off hand, I don’t know what he included that is even admissible in court, much less consideration of the fact that he misstates the law. Not merit, Crank!

    And Berg was in fact not “injured” any more than I was injured when Bush got elected and the court stopped the Florida recount. I had no standing then no matter how many hanging chads I found, and Berg has no standing now.

  33. If I need to reply to something, let me know.

  34. bogus info says:

    Dr. C.,

    I don’t think so, do you? The way I see it, I extended him a invitation to this website. The ball is in his court and if accepted, you will be on “home turf.” Will be interesting to see what David Crockett does.

  35. Hitandrun says:

    Both you and Phil Berg were and are entitled to standing and a hearing on the meritsin controversies that affect every voter. Every citizen suffers when the Constitution is undermined. Judge Surrick merely rehashes the self-serving and unconstitutional construal of standing his colleagues have concocted to escape their sworn duty.
    Stand up for your rights, Doc!


  36. If I am individually injured, I have standing to bring a lawsuit. If I am collectively injured (as part of the whole people) I have the right to petition Congress and the right to collectively vote them out. And I can blog my fool head off.

    Don’t tread on me!

    Would you care to provide evidence that Judge Surrick’s finding that Berg lacked standing is “unconstitutional”? His order looked pretty documented to me. If the Court of Appeals takes your side, I’ll have to rethink my view.

  37. Hitandrun says:

    But Doc,
    Why must you wait for someappellate authority’s permission to reconsider the merits of standing in its current incarnation? Do you accept that the morecitizens that areactually or imminentlyinjured, the less standing you have? How bizarre!


  38. The more citizens who are injured, the more effective it is for them to seek legislative redress.

    For example in this eligibility issue, it will be very effective for citizens (assuming enough care) to get their state legislatures to put a law on the books requiring some kind of eligibility screening to be performed by the state in order to get on the ballot. That makes much more sense than every voter who thinks this should happen to file a lawsuit.

    We shouldn’t seek judicial solutions to political problems.

  39. Hitandrun says:


    When political problems involve the violation of specific statutes or Constitutional provisions, it is imperative that the judicial option remain open for anyone injured, no matter how many others are similarly injured.


  40. Tes says:

    Hit & Run said “When political problems involve the violation of specific statutes or Constitutional provisions, it is imperative that the judicial option remain open for anyone injured, no matter how many others are similarly injured.”

    The Founding Fathers thought differently. And the Supreme Court, for 200+years has thought differently.

    (And, no one yet has made a valid argument that any statute or constitution was violated by anyone. At most, they argue that the statutes (and caselaw) that apply to this situation should be changed.

    Arguing for a change in the law to address political process should take place – within the political process, not in courts.

  41. Hitandrun says:

    Thank you, Tes.
    I fear we are talking past each other. Are you not prejudging the situation? Before deciding standing shouldn’t the judge accept preliminarily as truethe factual allegations of the plaintiff or petitioner?

    For example,a givenplaintiff alleges that Mr Obama was in fact born in Kenya and by law is ineligible to serve as President, and that Mr Obama himself andthose permitting him ballot access are violating the Constitution’s stricture on eligibility. The judge must decide preliminarily whether such allegations, were they true,do in fact render Mr Obama ineligible and therefore, along with those granting him access, in violation of the Constitution. If the Court agrees, then standing should be granted and limited focuseddiscovery permitted to confirm or disprove the allegation.If the Court believes, however,that evenwere all the factual allegations truthful, no law or provision would be violated, then standing should be denied. Any supplementary political considerations are or should be irrelevant.


  42. Expelliarmus says:

    Your argument demonstrates exactly WHY “standing” is a prerequisite to bringing a claim. By your argument, any individual could file a lawsuit based on unsupported or imagined allegations and the courts would have to spend time with litigation — it would put the courts in the position of adjudicating every act by every political appointee.

    In any case, “standing” is jurisdictional. The courts do not have the legal power to act unless jurisdictional prerequisites are met. The powers of the federal courts are specifically limited by Article III of the Constitution. You seem to think that the courts are the ultimate arbiter of all disputes, but actually the Constitution gives the courts much narrower powers.

  43. I think your average Joe would have difficulty sorting out exactly what Article III covers, based on the language.

  44. Hitandrun says:

    Thank you, Expelliarmus.

    Please let me elaborate. I don’t oppose standing per se, merelycertain unconstitutional criteria which currently comprise it and by which it is abusedto block any furtherhearing. Those include whether the injury is generalized, whether the injury can be redressed by the particular court, and whether the issue is political. I have no problem that the injury mustinclude the plaintiff(s) or petitioner(s) and must be traceable to the defendant(s). I’d add that the injury must be a violation of a specific law or provision and that the factual allegations, were they true, would, in the eyes of the court, substantiate that violation. Otherwise, there’s no point to proceeding further by granting standing and focuseddiscovery.

    Also, my proposals are not limited to Federal courts. Any plaintiff denied standing, could, as now, appeal. Once those appeals are exhausted up to and including the Supreme Court, the case would become an early form of res iudicata. Any lower court judge in any subsequent action would have the option to deny standing when confronted with the same factual allegations and samealleged violation. This option would terminate with the change of a single Supreme Court Justice, when the cycle would begin anew.

    Hope this isn’t even more confusing.


  45. Ok, under your rules of standing, what prevents me from suing Walter Cronkite for shooting JFK? That would involve a specific law, I suffered mental anguish because of JFK’s death and Walter Cronkite would be directly responsible.

  46. Hitandrun says:

    Nothing prevents you or anyone else from suing at the risk of court costs. The question is whether standing and focused discovery should be granted. It’s my understanding, perhaps mistaken, mental anguish, to be considered,must be accompanied by personal physical or financialinjury in most jurisdictions. On thisbasis, the plaintiff would be denied standing. However, s/he may claim injury as a citizen whose President has been removed unconstitutionally. In this case, no reasonable doubt would existas tothe falsityofplaintiff’s factual allegations, unaccompanied as they areby any supporting evidence that Mr Cronkhite is indeed the perpetrator. Hence, standing would be denied. There must exist in the court’s eyes a reasonable possibility that the allegations may be true.


  47. In the current rules of standing the court does the opposite, assumes (within reason) that the allegations are true. You would have the court make some kind of preliminary finding of the cases strength before the case is heard. At best, this would be a drain on the court’s resources. While Walter Cronkite is a bad example, because everyone knows he wasn’t in Dallas when Kennedy was shot, we could come up with someone who was in the city.

    It seems to me to open the floodgates to, well, conspiracy theories being litigated in the courts.

  48. Expelliarmus says:

    That’s true, but the main point is that under our constitution and system of laws, the jurisdiction of courts is limited. A court can’t render a decision unless the litigant can show that the court has jurisdiction over the people involved and over the subject of the litigation. This seems to be something that a lot of lay people don’t quite understand.

  49. Expelliarmus says:

    The question is whether standing and focused discovery should be granted.

    Hitandrun, ‘standing’ is not something that courts have the option of “granting” or denying — rather, they have no authority to act unless there is standing.

  50. Hitandrun says:

    Your parenthetical “(within reason)” echoes my own “reasonable possibility.” The courts already make such preliminary findings, even if unstated, before denying standing.


  51. Hitandrun says:


    You say ‘potayto’, I say ‘potahto’.
    Same thing.


  52. While we haven’t delved into the details of what we mean by “within reason” or “reasonable possibility”, let’s choose an example out of the air, say, Berg v. Obama, to look at. Do you think it meats the reasonable test?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.