http://www.scribd.com/doc/109209314/Letter-to-Justice-John-Roberts-Reconsideration-Standing-Mixed-up-in-Conference-Sept-24th-Emergency-Motion-not-Ruled-upon-violating-Court-Procedure
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
As Seen on:
Cody Robert Judy
3031 So. Ogden Av. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah, 84401
Ph.801 / Email / codyjudy@hotmail.com
www.codyjudy.us : www.codyjudy.blogspot.com :YouTube: CodyJudy
- - - -
Chief Justice John Roberts – United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Office of the Clerk – Mr. William K. Suter
Washington, DC 20543-0001
RECONSIDERATION: Standing Mixed up in Conference Sep. 24th Judy v. Obama 12-5276 & Emergency Motion not ruled upon violating Court procedure.
Dear Chief Justice John Roberts: October 6th ,2012
In the humblest way affordable our Founders and Framers sought justice for all under the law. Your Honor, I humbly appeal to the most basic sense of Justice because, I believe, the standing in my case was mixed up with Weldon v. Obama also a Georgia case. As a Petitioner for relief the question I have: How can “No”, and “Yes”, to the questions of my Writ of Certiorari be considered a balance?
In a Sept.28, 2012 ruling in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia Hassan v. F.E.C;11-2189, by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in principled terms concurred that the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification demand for the Office of the President within the Constitution’s Article II, Sect. I., Clause 5 had not been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[(pg.16) briefly, the Court notes that Article 5 of the Constitution provides an explicit method to amend the Constitution. See U.S. Const., Art. V. Even if a constitutional provision could be implicitly repealed in the same manner as a statute, the implicit repeal of statutes is disfavored and will not be found absent clearly expressed congressional intent. See Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 662 2007); Posadas v. Nat’l City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936) (holding that “[w]here there are two acts upon the same subject, effect should be given to both if possible”). (Pg17). - the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid. See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”); see also Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658 (1946) (same); Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944) (same). Plaintiff essentially asks this Court to declare that a provision of the Constitution is itself unconstitutional. It is beyond this Court’s authority to do so. “[T]his Court lacks the power to grant the relief sought because the Court, as interpreter and enforcer of the words of the Constitution, is not empowered to strike the document’s text on the basis that it is offensive to itself or is in some way internally (Pg.18) inconsistent.” New v. Pelosi, No. 08-Civ.-9055(AKH), 2008 WL 4755414, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff’d, 374 F. App’x 158 (2d Cir. 2010). Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail. ] Pg. 17 Hassan v. F.E.C. District of Columbia 11-2189
On the opposite side of the coin is my case where the Administrative Court ruling, the subsequent Superior Court, and Georgia Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment did in fact over-rule the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification demand for the Office of the President within the Constitution’s Article II, Sect. I., Clause 5. In these two example cases the affect cannot be given to both.
The two varying opinions are in collision with each other Your Honor. The denial of my Cert by the SCOTUS in fact catapults the latter from the realm of dicta to holding and is being used as such in malicious tread upon me as a sore loser. I am a Democratic Candidate for President.
I don’t believe I am a sore loser Your Honor when I have lost under the laws that govern all, but when I have lost under lawlessness in a contest with specific laws defined as my rights, then indeed it is not only me that is sore but the laws and rights defined as The Supreme Law of the Land that have been trampled in the election contest.
The effect of this case is felt by every registered, and future, voter in the United States of America, thus the magnitude of justice is weighted heavily in affirmation of balancing justice, straightening out the law, and stopping the momentum that seeks to destroy the law, and in such includes the very seat of Justice in which you sit.
There is one more thing Your Honor that I wonder about which came from a comment that the SCOTUS and specifically Your Honor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito were indeed laughing at me: Anonymous Comment made:
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/10/media-gloating-over-obamas-eligibility.html
[ It wasn't so much the clerks laughing but justices Scalia, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. All three of them have one or more foreign parents, and all three naturally tend to believe that their allegiance to the USA is not affected by whether the parents were naturalized before or after the justices were born. They are likely to have had friends who had foreign-born parents who were naturalized after their children were born---and they did not notice any difference in the behavior of these friends from people whose parents were naturalized before the children were born.]
[The laugh is that Judy was asking Scalia, Alito and the chief justice to vote that they believed the writers of the US Constitution may have believed that the US-born children of foreigners (who the justices ARE) are not as good as the US-born children of US citizens. Well, they do not believe it, and they certainly would not vote that the writers of the US Constitution believed it unless there were actual evidence that they did---and there isn't any. That's quite a laugh. ]
My case has a Motion that was never addressed, or put forward, and I respectfully request the attention to it as a matter of integrity toward law that the cost of it demands and a reconsideration of my lost standing if of course there is no merit to the comment in consideration and Your Honor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito are not sore at the Constitution’s demands for a ‘natural born citizen’ for the Office of President.
Sincerely,
Cody Robert Judy/Petitioner Judy v. Obama 12-5276
No comments:
Post a Comment