This may be a flimsy theory but I was just thinking, what if "standing" is just a red herring?
Is it possible that due to the influence of a foreign power in this case, the issue isn't that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing, but that the courts themselves lack jurisdiction?
Q always said the military was the only way--is it possible that military courts are the only way too when election fraud involves foreign actors?
Was it filed in an Admiralty Court, or Civil Court?
Oh, wait. It doesn't matter. The last half dozen POTUS's were all basically appointed by the Temple Crown Corp. Except maybe Trump. I think Q Team games the system "inside" our "voting system" for Trump. They made sure public perception was strong enough to get him "elected" thru the public's perception. That's why [they] thought [HRC] wouldn't lose. [They] weren't expecting the public to perceive him as a viable candidate and replacement to [their] "power."
I'm thinking this is why the "courts" have said there's no legal standing. [They] simply can't let another outsider become POTUS, so now the "court" of the Crown has to "rule" like they are.
Make sense?
You're talking over my head there, pal. Wanna help a brother out and explain what you're talking about?
Bar association. ..... origin, function, influence.
It’s all complete gibberish, from the standpoint of the US legal system.