For people reading Judge Greenaway's order in the document 20110803_Judge_Greenaway_Order_Denying_Pending_Motion_Requests.pdf it is important to remember that the issue before the Court is a 'standing' issue. Because the DOJ never answered the original Petition the DOJ admitted each and every Count in the Petition was and is correct. By Law the case was won in the District Court by default. The ruling in the case "Bond v United States" recently delivered also establishes a person has standing to challenge the Constitutionality of a federal law. In this case the challenge was based upon Amendment 10 which is also one of the Counts in our case. Many of the anti-standing arguments are that we are not effected by the law as well. But when one examines what the the law does we and all of us will be effected. That is one of the key issues of standing. The Sixth Circuit Ruling in "Thomas More Law Center v Obama" and other cases related to the "H.R. 3590" have clear and distinctly stated individuals have standing. So the idea of us not prevailing in proving standing is very dubious since case law already says we have standing - provided the Judges follow the Law. So when people say we have no standing they are trying to pretend the law does not yet effect anyone. And while not all of the law is active yet it will effect everyone and 'standing' is not dependent upon the action being immediate but that it will occur.