Argued: Any person eligible to vote in the 2008 election for president has standing to sue Obama on grounds he is not eligible as a candidate on due process and equal protection grounds as part of a common controversy.
Common Controversy: Who is eligible to participate in the 2008 election either as candidate or voter.
Nutshell: If the candidate can sue the voter as not qualified to vote and has standing, then as part of the same common controversy the voter has standing to sue the candidate as not eligible to participate in the election. If one can initiate a suit against the other as ineligible, then the other can plead as defense the ineligibility of the other. Either may initiate a defense he can plead. Denial of symmetry in the same common controversy to voter or candidate is denial of due process of law and equal protection of the law.
Common controversy argument: Who is qualified to vote and who to run form a common controversy. The common controversy is who is eligible to participate in an election as a whole including voters and candidates. Candidates can sue voters on which voters are qualified already. Therefore as part of the same common controversy, voters can sue candidates as unqualified.
Denial of the right to challenge the other side in a single common controversy of who is eligible to participate in an election is denial of due process of law, equal protection of the law, access to the legal system, and fair election laws at state and federal levels.
Asymmetric standing is everywhere and always denial of due process of law and equal protection of the law. If C can sue V on eligibility to vote as part of an election controversy on then V can sue C on eligibility to be a candidate as part of the same common controversy, the election.
The standing of C and V to sue the other is based on their own eligibility. If C isn’t qualified to run, he lacks standing to sue V as ineligible to vote and V can plead that as a defense in a suit by C against V. Therefore V does have standing to challenge C’s eligibility as a candidate as a defense. Therefore V should have standing to initiate a court case against C challenging C’s eligibility as a candidate.
C can plead that V is not eligible to vote and so lacks standing as a defense. Its symmetric. If its not symmetric it denies due process of law and equal protection of the law to who is limited. If it can be plead as a defense but not sued on only its denial of equal protection, due process and equal access whichever one is so impaired.
http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/berg-v-obama-dismissed-on-standing-grounds/
==Comment from ForMySons at Texas Darlin
ForMySons
Posted on SCOTUS Docket as of 5:05 pm EST
No. 08A469
Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
v.
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
The saga continues
==More here
== Donofrio case was denied certiorari.
July 8, 2009 at 5:33 pm
A political party has standing to sue a voter as unqualifed based on the party having all its candidates be qualified to run. If it lacks procedures for that or runs unqualified candidates it lacks standing to challenge voters to vote.
The Democratic Party and related organizations to it and to Obama and to Obama’s campaign challenged the eligibility of voters to vote. Acorn was also linked to Obama and Democrats and itself registered voters ineligible to vote. The right to challenge Acorn and the others means the right to challenge Obama as one common controversy.
Many detailed posts on this subject were at the website of Berg in 2008 but were not tried in Berg’s suit or those of others. Some of these are posted in various posts at this site, but not all.
July 8, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Any voter whose qualification to vote is challenged can plead Obama as unqualified as a ground to dismiss a challenge from the Democrats as without standing, since they run (as claimed by the voter) a candidate whose qualifications were not checked despite various questions raised widely. Thus Democratic Party lacks procedure to check its candidates qualifications so the Democratic Party and all its subunits and allies and candidates lack standing to challenge the qualifications of any voter to vote until the Democrats and its candidates including Obama and its allied entities institute procedures to validate its candidates. That includes public disclosure of Obama’s files in Hawaii, Indonesia and US Passport and his college records.
Every time a candidate or party or allied entity brings any legal action or files any form they are implicitly pleading that their candidates are qualified to run and that the party has adequate procedures to check the candidates qualifications to run and has already done so. That is false in the case of Obama.
Anyone sued by Democrats on qualifications to vote by the Democrats to vote can sue them to recover the costs because Democrats have not checked on Obama’s qualifications. Every suit by Democrats against any voters eligibility to vote or any procedure should be challenged in court as lacking standing because the Democrats have not checked Obama’s qualifications.
All the money Obama and the Democrats got and get from the government or voters can be challenged in this way as well. Specifically, every benefit the Democrats get from the government or contributors or states or any entity is derived by the implicit guarantee and implicit pleading by the Democrats that they check the qualifications of their candidates for eligibility including Obama. Since this is false, every piece of paper from Democrats for any benefit to any organization or person is fraud and thus can be challenged on these grounds.
August 7, 2009 at 10:30 pm
[...] http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/common-controversy-standing-to-sue-obama-birth... Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Barack Obama: American identity is an accessory like birth certificateObama America and Britain only connected by languageSpeculation on Possible Legal Defenses of Kos and McKinnon TimelineMedia Use “Citizen” As Smokescreen, The Presidential Test Is Natural Bo… [...]