Did you know that lawyers for Florida Republican Govenor Rick Scott joined with Obama lawyers to fight the eligibility challenge in Florida?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/18/2855160/florida-judge-hearing-obama-ballot.html#storylink=cpy
Wow! Unreal.. you know I was thinking about calling Larry Klaymen up and telling him,' you know if you case gets dismissed and you don't have a Presidential Candidate preferably in the same party your case won't meet the criteria of "standing' as soon as you enter a 'Judicial Branch Court' so says the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals', and see if he would like to put me on an 'amended complaint' if the Judge gave him that leeway.
Comments I made about the hearing from WND's article here:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/obama-attorneys-argue-hes-not-dem-nominee/
1- Any law conflicting with the order of Supreme Law of the Land, U.S.C. is by its nature un-constitutional, more especially dealing with the right of the people to vote in the Primary and for the Delegates to be bound to the People's wishes by their vote. That's exactly why anything Obama signed is 'moot', he's not an eligible candidate, he is not an eligible person in office, that's what usurpation means. He needs to be removed from the White House on the 14 Amendment's clause of a 'Disability' in Sect. 3.
2- 'I know the eligibility question has been argued with the Briefs pretty well, and its not really necessary to argue in Court unless the Judge is asking questions. Argument in Court really plays to the "key" issue hanging the Motion to Dismiss out for a decision. If its denied, further deliberations on the merit might go ahead along with 'discovery'. So Klaymen was a little 'controlled' in his argument of the 'purpose' of the hearing. However, I do think he failed in pointing out the money trail to the Democratic Party sponsored by the State tax payers. And that is that State voters are 'paying' for the primary results and process, so that burdens the Democratic Party to adhering to a qualified candidate by the Constitution. Any political party participating in any form of State procedure is using tax payer money, so is at least obligated to adhere to eligibility requirements. That is why the SOS is obligated!"
3- "No decision was announced immediately. The judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides. He asked Klayman about the presidential eligibility of a person who is born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizens, but the parents later emigrate to Israel." .. Klayman could have followed up with the other requirement here, and "14 years a resident", but he missed the slam dunk.
4- The biggest problem Klaymen did allude to briefly was that its a "shell game" I believe was the term he used. Obama's strategy exist, and counts on shoving the argument down stream. The reasons' are obvious: 1)Less contention exist when Parties want to be seen as co-hesive for the general public viewing them at the National Conventions. They don't want 'war on the floor'. 2) Again, Money.. the more a candidate has been contributed to the more appealing. Ride the coat-tails of a winner theory. 3) The Courts then become subject to a less talked about doctrine called, "The Political Doctrine Question" where the Judicial Courts arbitrarily resign themselves to not confounding the Peoples wishes. Obama knows this one very well and has already thrown it as red tomatoes at the U.S. Supreme Court Justices over the Obama care hearings. The concept however was not meant to impede our Judicial Branch from being a balance in the check and balance of our system where Legislatures can find themselves making a law that is unconstitutional, or the Executive Branch can find itself overstepping the Constitution on law enforcement like privacy issues. That's the role of the Judicial Branch so to will that to a 'bully' through the election process is sickening!
5- If he goes to "Appeal" with his Plaintiff he's done, just like most of the Plaintiffs in Georgia went to the Supreme Court and were denied Application for Review. If by chance mine isn't (Judy v. Obama S12D1584) denied, we will know for sure that you have got to have a presidential candidate and 'standing' is removed from the Ballot Challengers once they enter a Judicial Branch Court from the Administrative Court.
Writing about this might be really good because these attorneys aren't remembering/ getting / employing the lesson that the 9th Circuit taught us.
Klaymen indicated he would go to Appeal no matter what, but how can he see an Appeal winning when a State Judicial Branch Court, is under or lower then say a 9th Circuit Federal Court, and the 'Standing' issue will come into play again just like it has over 100 times. Isn't that enough for these eligibility attorneys to KNOW they are done if the step into a Judicial Court?
I understand there may be Judges in States that don't rule the same way, but when it comes to unseating a guy in the White House, most administrative court Judges are gonna say, "Hey, that belongs to a panel of Judges, not to my shoulders". They aren't gonna want to have the world come tumbling down on them, so what's the motive not to just let the Plaintiff appeal?
The Problem is if they appeal, in the Judicial Branch, we're playing under a different set of rules about 'standing' again.
If that's the case, Klaymen probably won't have time to 'amend' a complaint in Florida before my case is ruled upon by July 1st, Klaymen would have to amend and add me now.
Cody Robert Judy
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy for President 2012
www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
Youtube: CODE4PRES
www.facebook.com/CODE4PRES
No comments:
Post a Comment