tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2374290665921138797.post6672953288275696450..comments2023-06-16T07:16:35.729-07:00Comments on STONES : BREAKING NEWS: JUDY V. OBAMA IN CONFERENCE - What's in the Balance?Cody Robert Judyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17604281956365622417noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2374290665921138797.post-87570256795754571302015-01-05T14:38:22.516-08:002015-01-05T14:38:22.516-08:00@Witch Get out of the ditch. Distributed for Confe...@Witch Get out of the ditch. Distributed for Conference as it applies to the United States Supreme Court, but not for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals., but the term can be applied to notice a decision is in chambers. Meaning you are not paying attention and haven't a clue to what Court your making reference to or that's the only thing you could think of to say. As you did beg an intelligent question, "What your excuse will be when you lose, after posting this "hopeful" message?<br /><br />I trust that answer will come to me like the answers have come to others who have lost appeals in Appellant Courts and moved on to the U.S. Supreme Court and won if it comes at all. <br /><br />Hope in our U.S. Constitution is never vein hope. . regardless of the way I'm treated by the Courts and you have to admit the political landscape has changed since 2012 hasn't it now. If anything, the Justices might be sensing a change in America political score, and that could effect a much different outcome from the time when the D's controlled the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch. They lost now 2 of them, what do you say to that hope of reality we are in now? Realities can and do change.<br />As ever, your humble servantCody Robert Judyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17604281956365622417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2374290665921138797.post-71729153227583617192015-01-05T14:27:59.021-08:002015-01-05T14:27:59.021-08:00@French Legal Scholar - Thanks for your Comment. J...@French Legal Scholar - Thanks for your Comment. James Madison was actually exempted through the 'grandfather clause which states ' or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution', so did not have to qualify as a 'natural born Citizen'. As the purpose of the unique qualifications of the Office of the President, and the purposes of national security to keep 'foreign alienship' out of that particular office, I must disagree with your analogy simply on the basis that we do not allow foreign alienship to command our armies as Commander-In-Chief or President. <br />THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT: In a July 25, 1787 letter to Gen. George Washington as the Constitution was being debated, John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote:<br />Dear Sir, <br />Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of [foreigners] into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a [natural born citizen]. [SIC-Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. ]<br />I remain, dear sir, <br />Your faithful friend and servant, <br />John Jay.<br /><br />Though I'm not a respected scholar I will forward a link to one whom I believe focuses on this very well. <br />http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/mario-apuzzo-natural-born-citizenship/<br />Cody Robert Judyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17604281956365622417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2374290665921138797.post-49958810642121093352015-01-01T00:49:26.736-08:002015-01-01T00:49:26.736-08:00Dear sir: I respect your efforts, but (and I say t...Dear sir: I respect your efforts, but (and I say this as a French legal scholar) there is nothing that prevents your President from being a dual citizen. James Madison was offered and gladly accepted in writing French citizenship before he ran and was elected US President, and while mentioned during the campaign, no one saw that fact as an obstacle. Before you raise the point, I will add that there is no such thing (and never was) as a "French honorary citizenship". We have no such concept. We also do not differentiate in law between natural-born (through soil or parentage) and naturalized citizens. Madison was simply a dual-citizen: natural-born to the US, and naturalized to France. Some of your other arguments might prevail, but I'm pretty certain that your Courts, aware of this precedent, would not agree that dual citizenship disqualifies someone from being elected President of your country. (As an aside during the 1940s your Courts recognized the US citizenship of a male descendent of the Marquis de Lafayette based on a document issued by the Commonwealth of Virgina, I believe, very early on in the history of your country; so I'm pretty sure they would do the same research here and arrive at the same conclusion I have.) Respectfully, L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2374290665921138797.post-10981708585203602702014-12-31T14:57:00.051-08:002014-12-31T14:57:00.051-08:00Considering the number of court cases you've l...Considering the number of court cases you've lost... ie all of them, you'd<br />think you'd know by now that "distributed for conference" means your appeal<br />is dead. Distributed for conference only happens when the assigned judge<br />doesn't think it's got a hope in hell, and just sends it around one last<br />time in case one of the others wants to pick it up, which nobody does 99.9%<br />of the time (no exaggeration).<br /><br />So either you have no clue even after all of the cases you've lost.... or<br />you're just trying to string your readers along..... all three of them.<br /><br />Which begs the question of what your excuse will be when you lose, after<br />posting this "hopeful" message?Witchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07764452558629223773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2374290665921138797.post-10980143179734021042014-12-31T05:16:42.327-08:002014-12-31T05:16:42.327-08:00@Anonymous That has been mentioned in several blog...@Anonymous That has been mentioned in several blog post prior in case you missed it, you are welcome to do some research. To the rusty assertion that there " is no reason to think that your 'appeal' will arrive at a different conclusion', do you recommend all Appeal Courts be disbanded or just one for me? <br /><br />History has a great lesson on Appeals and Civil Rights for us all to remember and the three tiered Judicial Branch gives us reason a-plenty to understand there was wisdom in their conception. What you are really interested in is "prediction" or "prophesy" for which there will be no credit for not leaving your name. Perhaps you'd like to remedy that so we all have you on record? It might be your big chance?<br /> Cody Robert Judyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17604281956365622417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2374290665921138797.post-58411808381381037662014-12-30T19:01:16.245-08:002014-12-30T19:01:16.245-08:00You failed to mention that the trial court conclud...You failed to mention that the trial court concluded your suit was "frivolous, irrational and wholly incredible." There is no reason to think that your "appeal" will arrive at a different conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com