Category Archives: Supreme Court Justice

Judge Alito orders all PA county boards “all ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated… separate from other voted ballots” 

Judge Alito orders all PA county boards “all ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated… separate from other voted ballots”

“An U.S. Postal Service Insider told Project Veritas founder and CEO James O’Keefe his supervisor instructed mail carriers at his work site here that all new ballot envelopes should be segregated in bins, so that postal clerks could fraudulently hand-postmark them as received Nov. 3.”…Project Veritas

“Judicial Watch Finds Millions of ‘Extra’ Registrants on Voting Rolls – Warns California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia to Clean Up Voting Rolls or Face a Federal Lawsuit”…Jan 2, 2020

“This election is far from over.”…Citizen Wells

 

Supreme Court of the United States
No. 20A84
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Applicant
v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR, SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
O R D E R
All county boards of election are hereby ordered, pending further order
of the Court, to comply with the following guidance provided by the Secretary
of the Commonwealth on October 28 and November 1, namely, (1) that all
ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated and
kept “in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other voted
ballots,” and (2) that all such ballots, if counted, be counted separately. Pa.
Dep’t of State, Pennsylvania Guidance for Mail-in and Absentee Ballots
Received From the United States Postal Service After 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 3, 2020 (Oct. 28, 2020); Pa. Dep’t of State, Canvassing Segregated
Mail-in and Civilian Absentee Ballots Received by Mail After 8:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 and Before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 6, 2020
(Nov. 1, 2020). Until today, this Court was not informed that the guidance
issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question
whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified. The application received today also informs the Court that neither
the applicant nor the Secretary has been able to verify that all boards are
complying with the Secretary’s guidance, which, it is alleged, is not legally
binding on them.
I am immediately referring this application to the Conference and
direct that any response be filed as soon as possible but in any event no later
than 2 p.m. tomorrow, November 7, 2020.

/s/ Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States

Dated this 6th
day of November 2020.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett opening statement Supreme Court nomination hearings October 12, 2020, Released Sunday

Judge Amy Coney Barrett opening statement Supreme Court nomination hearings October 12, 2020, Released Sunday

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires,” ..Joe Biden, Georgetown Law School 2016

“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination … There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”...Barack Obama 2016

“Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,”...Joe Biden 2020 

 

“Chairman [Lindsey] Graham, Ranking Member [Dianne] Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.

I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.

As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.

My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve.

Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.

My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.

My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.

I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys. My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.

Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now.

I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.

Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.

A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.

When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed— requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.

I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.

If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.

As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/11/amy-coney-barrett-opening-statement-supreme-court-428635

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Amy Coney Barrett President Trump pick for SCOTUS, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

Amy Coney Barrett President Trump pick for SCOTUS, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires,” ..Joe Biden, Georgetown Law School 2016

“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination … There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”...Barack Obama 2016

“Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,”...Joe Biden 2020 

 

The NY Times is calling it:

“President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.

Mr. Trump plans to announce on Saturday that she is his choice, according to six people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance. As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans.

But he is not known to have interviewed any other candidates and came away from two days of meetings with Judge Barrett this week impressed with a jurist he was told would be a female Antonin Scalia, referring to the justice she once clerked for. On Friday night, Judge Barrett was photographed getting out of her car outside her home in South Bend, Ind.

“I haven’t said it was her, but she is outstanding,” Mr. Trump told reporters who asked about Judge Barrett’s imminent nomination at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington after CNN and other news outlets reported on his choice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html

From The University of Notre Dame Law School.

“The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in October 2017. She is a Notre Dame Law School alumna and has taught as a member of the Law School’s faculty since 2002.

Judge Barrett teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Her scholarship in these fields has been published in leading journals, including the Columbia, Virginia, and Texas Law Reviews. From 2010-2016, she served by appointment of the Chief Justice on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She has been selected as “Distinguished Professor of the Year” by three of the Law School’s graduating classes.

Judge Barrett earned her B.A. in English literature, magna cum laude, from Rhodes College, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and, among other honors, was chosen by the faculty as the most outstanding graduate in the college’s English department. She earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from Notre Dame, where she was a Kiley Fellow, earned the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor, and served as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.

Before joining the Notre Dame faculty, Judge Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. As an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. Judge Barrett has served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School,  as a visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia and is a member of the American Law Institute (ALI).”

Read more:

https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/

Lawyer and law clerk endorsement letter:

https://law.nd.edu/assets/253073/amybarrettscotus.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent right about mandated arbitration, “insulated powerful economic interests from liability”, Thrivent powerful example

Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent right about mandated arbitration, “insulated powerful economic interests from liability”, Thrivent powerful example

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“I worked at Thrivent Financial full-time (More than 8 years)”                      “Claims to be based on Christian values but does not adhere to them.”…Former Thrivent employee

 

I got quite an education at an enormous financial and emotional cost when I filed claims with Thrivent Financial (for Lutherans) on 2 occasions.

They retroactively changed the contract on a disability policy I paid on religiously for 25 years to require mandated dispute resolution including arbitration.

They committed documented fraud on both occasions and demanded that even fraud go to arbitration.

They took away my day in court.

From Citizen Wells July 1, 2018.

“People around me and online may try to put me in a nice neat box such as Republican.

I do not fit.

What I am is an American who adheres to the US Constitution and rule of law.

I am not against arbitration on principle. Mutually agreed to.

I am against forced, mandated arbitration which strips away one of our basic rights.

Our day in court.”

“The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to prohibit workers from banding together to take legal action over workplace issues.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority. The court’s decision could affect some 25 million employment contracts.”

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a sign of profound disagreement. In her written dissent, she called the majority opinion “egregiously wrong.” In her oral statement, she said the upshot of the decision “will be huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well being of vulnerable workers.””

““Under those contracts, Justice Ginsburg wrote, it is often not worth it and potentially dangerous to pursue small claims individually. “By joining hands in litigation, workers can spread the costs of litigation and reduce the risk of employer retaliation,” she wrote.

The contracts may also encourage misconduct, Justice Ginsburg wrote.

“Employers, aware that employees will be disinclined to pursue small-value claims when confined to proceeding one-by-one, will no doubt perceive that the cost-benefit balance of underpaying workers tips heavily in favor of skirting legal obligations,” she wrote, adding that billions of dollars in underpaid wages are at issue.”

“In a 2015 dissent, Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer protection laws.””

https://citizenwells.com/2018/07/01/us-supreme-court-decision-to-uphold-mandated-arbitration-further-erodes-our-rights-our-day-in-court-deprivation-of-consumers-rights-to-seek-redress-for-losses/

From Citizen Wells March 26, 2019.

“From Insurance Business Magazine.

Clicking “accept” on a company’s terms and conditions – something we do daily to use and pay for products and services – usually subjects us to lengthy contractual agreements, many of which contain mandatory arbitration clauses. Proponents of arbitration might think it’s the greatest thing since whole wheat artisanal sliced bread, but mandating arbitration in consumer contracts is troublesome, and it has no place in insurance policies for individuals and small businesses.”

“However, placing mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance policies restructures this crucial aspect of the insurer-insured relationship. Companies presumably employ pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions because they believe arbitration generally benefits them – and a growing amount of research suggests they are right.”

“From the NAIC, The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016.

“Why arbitration clauses should be banned”

“Insurers that would insist on mandatory arbitration of policyholder disputes have selected the forum that they believe will be more favorable to them than to their policyholders, if not on each individual claim then in the aggregate. However, manipulating the dispute resolution process in this manner conflicts with the duties insurers owe their policyholders and is not holding their policyholders’ interests “at least equal to their own.”

If arbitration was truly a neutral forum rather than one favoring insurers, then there would be no need for an insurer to insist on its use before a dispute has even arisen.”

https://citizenwells.com/2019/03/26/mandated-arbitration-has-no-place-in-insurance-policies-for-individuals-naic-reviewing-mccarran-ferguson-act-allows-states-to-regulate-arbitration-in-insurance-over-federal-arbitration-act-faa/

Arbitration can be a valuable tool. But it should not be mandated.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg  was right.

God bless.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Biden 2016: “Under my chairmanship, every Supreme Court nominee was given a hearing and a vote in the Judiciary Committee”, NY times

Biden 2016: “Under my chairmanship, every Supreme Court nominee was given a hearing and a vote in the Judiciary Committee”, NY times

 

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires,” ..Joe Biden, Georgetown Law School 2016

“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination … There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”...Barack Obama 2016

“Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,”...Joe Biden 2020 

 

Is this the man you want for our next president?

Corrupt career politician Joe Biden.

A liar and hypocrite.

From The Daily Mail September 20, 2020.

“Former Vice President Joe Biden appealed to Senate Republicans Sunday not to allow President Trump to ‘jam’ through’ a Supreme court pick – and said if he himself wins in November, it should be he who gets to make the selection.

‘This appointment isn’t about the past. It’s about the future. And the people of this nation are choosing their future right now as they vote,’ Biden said in a speech in Philadelphia Sunday.

‘To jam this nomination through the Senate is just an exercise in raw political power, and I don’t believe the people of this nation will stand for it,’ Biden said.”

“‘Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,’ he added. ”

Read more:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8753323/Joe-Biden-calls-Donald-Trumps-Supreme-Court-nominee-WITHDRAWN-loses.html

From the NY Times March 3, 2016.

“IN my 36-year tenure in the United States Senate — nearly half of it as chairman or ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee — I presided or helped preside over nine nominees to the Supreme Court, from both Republican and Democratic presidents. That’s more than anyone else alive today.

In every instance we adhered to the process explicitly laid out in the Constitution: The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend.”

“Under my chairmanship, every Supreme Court nominee was given a hearing and a vote in the Judiciary Committee. And I made sure every nominee was given a full vote on the floor of the Senate, even those whose initial vote in the Judiciary Committee had failed, and even those whom I opposed. Only those who withdrew did not get floor votes. This position earned me the anger of my own party. But I believed strongly that the Constitution, clearly and plainly, calls for all 100 senators to advise and consent on nominees — not just the handful on the Judiciary Committee.”

“I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of Ronald Reagan’s second term. I know. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. And we promptly gave him a hearing, a vote in committee and a full vote on the floor.”

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/opinion/joe-biden-the-senates-duty-to-advise-and-consent.html

USA Memes

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Attorney General Barr on passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg September 18, 2020, “Her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt”

Attorney General Barr on passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg September 18, 2020, “Her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt”

“In a 2015 dissent, Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer protection laws.””...NY Times May 21, 2018

“Having experienced the abuse of mandated arbitration first hand, I agree with Justice Ginsburg. It may be the only time it happens, but injustice is injustice.”...Citizen Wells

 

From Attorney General William P. Barr September 18, 2020.

“On behalf of the Department of Justice, I extend my deepest sympathy on the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Justice Ginsburg led one of the great lives in the history of American law.  She was a brilliant and successful litigator, an admired court of appeals judge, and a profoundly influential Supreme Court Justice.  For all her achievements in those roles, she will perhaps be remembered most for inspiring women in the legal profession and beyond.  She and I did not agree on every issue, but her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt.  She leaves a towering legacy, and all who seek justice mourn her loss.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-passing-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision

Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

From  H. Brooke Paige.

“A quick read finds that the court chose not to reach the merits and
rendered a split (3-2) decision on the issue of mootness. While not
stated, it appears that they did not find that plaintiff/appellant lacked
standing or that the court lacked jurisdiction.  The court erred in
assigning blame for procedural delays entirely on plaintiff as I did not
make requests for elongation of time in filing while the defendants did so
on five occasions.

Robinson, with Eaton concurring, took exception with the court’s failure
to find that case presented a permissible exception to mootness.”

From the decision:

“¶ 12. As to the second prong, appellant recognizes the change in the facts, acknowledging in his brief that “[w]e are beyond the primary election in Vermont.” In response, he re-directs his argument away from the fall 2016 election and toward future elections. First, he maintains that
addressing the issue of whether Senators Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally qualified to appear on future ballots not only would redress his injuries but also would be practical for the public as a whole:
The Court can give plaintiff a remedy which will redress his injuries,
that remedy being a declaration that Cruz and Rubio are not Article
II natural born citizens and that the Vermont Secretary of State is
not to place their names on the primary or general election ballot in
future presidential elections. . . . At this stage, it will not cause the
State of Vermont any inconvenience or extra expense for it to follow
a judgment of this Court as to whether the names of Cruz or Rubio
should be allowed to be printed on future election ballots.
Addressing the issue at this early stage will avoid any confusion or
interference with the rights of Vermont voters to cast their ballots
during future elections. (Emphasis added)
And later appellant directly argues that the issue is bound to come up again:
The issue of what is a natural born citizen and the state’s role in
answering that question as it applies to placing candidates for
president on the state election ballots remains even though the
election is over . . . this issue just keeps coming up but is never
resolved for one reason or another. (Emphasis added)
¶ 13. Without assessing the first prong of the test for cases that are capable of repetition but evading review, we determine that appellant is unable to satisfy the second prong—he is unable to show that there is a reasonable expectation that he “will be subjected to the same action again.”
Id. ¶ 6. Appellant’s argument here boils down to mere speculation: “Cruz and Rubio will probably be running for President again in 2020.” While it is true that the Senators may run for president during the next election, appellant must show that it is more than just “theoretically possible” that the situation he currently objects to will repeat itself; rather, he must show a “demonstrated probability” that he will become embroiled again in this same situation. In re Green Mountain
Power Corp., 148 Vt. 333, 335, 532 A.2d 582, 584 (1987). But appellant offers nothing to support his speculation—no legal filings by either Senator and no statements by either Senator to the effect that they will run for president in the future.
¶ 14. A decision by this Court regarding the meaning of the phrase “natural born
Citizen”—and, ultimately, whether the Senators may run for president in Vermont—cannot be based on mere speculation. Appellant’s case is similar to those in which we have found that the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception does not apply. See In re P.S., 167 Vt. at 68,
702 A.2d at 101 (holding that appeal of revocation of nonhospitalization order of mental patient who had later been released under separate order did not meet mootness exception because court’s findings regarding first order were specific to month in which they were made and any future revocations would “be based on new fact patterns”); Dor ia, 156 Vt. at 119-20, 589 A.2d at 319
(finding that mootness exception did not apply in case in which defeated gubernatorial candidate objected to poll conducted by university professor, because candidate did not “show any reasonable expectation that he will be subjected to the same type of political poll” in future elections); see also State v. Gundlah, 160 Vt. 193, 196, 624 A.2d 368, 370 (1993) (holding that no
mootness exception applied in journalist’s appeal of contempt-of-court conviction for refusing to testify at prosecution of prison escapee who subsequently pleaded no contest, because “[a] repetition of the fact pattern presented seems highly unlikely and certainly does not rise to a
reasonable expectation.”). ”

“¶ 17. Appellant’s case is moot because it no longer involves an actual controversy, appellant no longer has a legally cognizable interest in its outcome, and it does not meet either exception to the mootness doctrine argued by appellant. At this time, any opinion issued by this Court on the issues raised by appellant would merely be advisory, and would not be within our
constitutional authority to render. See Doria, 156 Vt. at 117, 589 A.2d at 318. We therefore affirm its dismissal by the trial court.”

Click to access op16-202.pdf

Thank you Mr. Paige for your efforts.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

From Montgomery Blair Sibley April 6, 2016.

“Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied myApplication to be relieved from the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing any of the D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records.  This follows: (i) the refusal of the U.S. District Court to allow me to file a Motion to Modify that Restraining Order and (ii) the refusalof the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rule upon my Petition which sought to Order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify.

Before I simply release the records in my possession, I must exhaust all judicial remedies. Accordingly, invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I am renewing the Application with a second Justice, the estimable Clarence Thomas.  I will wait to see what he says before taking my next step.”

Read more:

http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/

Renewed application to SCOTUS:

Click to access Clerk2a.pdf

Scalia dead with pillow over head, No autopsy, Blagojevich appeal before conference Feb 19, Ted Cruz eligibility ruling likely which affects Obama, Obama has been eager to appoint SCOTUS justice, Strongest constitutional justice gone, Reason for conspiracy theories?

Scalia dead with pillow over head, No autopsy, Blagojevich appeal before conference Feb 19, Ted Cruz eligibility ruling likely which affects Obama, Obama has been eager to appoint SCOTUS justice, Strongest constitutional justice gone, Reason for conspiracy theories?

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,”…John Poindexter, owner of ranch

“Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Orlando Jones?
Who benefited most from the murder of Donald Young?
Who benefited most from the murder of Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.?
Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Christopher Kelly?
Who benefited most from the murder of Bill Gwatney?
Who benefited most from the death/murder of Andrew Breitbart?
And now
Loretta Fuddy?”…Citizen Wells

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

Justice Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his head.

There was no autopsy.

This Friday, February 19, 2016, the Blagojevich appeal is scheduled for conference.

The US Supreme Court will likely be called on to rule on Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen. This of course affects Obama too.

The SCOTUS justice with the strongest record of adhering to the US Constitution is gone.

Obama has been eager to appoint another liberal justice to add to his left wing legacy.

Any reason for conspiracy theories?

Nah.

Read more about how Justice Scalia was found here:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

Read more about the Blagojevich appeal and associated Amicus Brief:

https://citizenwells.com/2016/02/15/justice-scalia-blagojevich-obama-blagojevich-appeal-response-due-by-february-19-in-us-supreme-court-no-scalia-to-respond-has-protecting-obama-reached-a-new-high/

Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?

Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

As reported at Citizen Wells, a response from the US Supreme Court on the Rod Blagojevich appeal is due February 19, 2016.

“The US Supreme Court website reveals the following status of the Rod Blagojevich appeal:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

An amicus brief was filed on December 21, 2015 by attorney Alan R. Friedman on behalf of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al.”

“From the brief:

“Summary of Argument

Amici urge the Court to grant the writ on the first
question presented by Petitioner in order to address an
issue of national importance. Although amici take no
position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any
of the counts of conviction, they submit that this Court’s
guidance is needed to distinguish the lawful solicitation of
campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal
extortion, bribery, and fraud laws.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/01/18/blagojevich-amicus-brief-urges-supreme-court-to-hear-case-blagojevich-scotus-appeal-update-january-18-2016-time-to-file-response-to-petition-extended-twice-brief-amici-curiae-of-current-and-former/

A Justice Scalia position in 1998 affected the Blagojevich trial.

From the American Spectator.
“BLAGOJEVICH AND SCALIA”

“A federal jury convicted Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday of one single count, remaining undecided on the other 23. And for that one guilty charge, we can thank Justice Scalia.

No, Justice Scalia had nothing to do with the Blagojevich case. But in a way, he had everything to do with it.

Governor Blagojevich was convicted of making false statements to federal agents. He told the FBI that he did not track campaign contributions and kept a “firewall” between his campaign and his official duties as Governor. In other words, federal agents asked him if he broke the law — and just like any child who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar — he said “no.”

Before 1998, this decision might have been different. Until then, federal courts routinely excused people for what they called the “exculpatory no.” If a federal agent came to your house and asked if you did something illegal, and you said “no,” you were off the hook for making false statements.”

“Brogan argued that a defendant had to be excused for his denial to federal agents because the spirit of the Fifth Amendment would be violated when someone is “cornered” and given a “cruel trilemma”: tell the truth (and admit guilt), remain silent, or lie (and falsely deny guilt).

Scalia snapped back, saying lying is not an option. An innocent person, after all, would not face the same trilemma. The innocent person only has two options: tell the truth or remain silent.”

Read more:

http://spectator.org/articles/39072/blagojevich-and-scalia

From the Washington Post December 7, 2009.

“Supreme Court to take up corruption law”

“At issue is the law’s language that it is illegal for public or private employees to “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” The flexible standard has been part of the law for more than 20 years, but lately it has been subject to a slew of contradictory lower-court rulings and criticism, not the least of which has come from Justice Antonin Scalia.

Last term, in dissenting from his colleagues’ decision not to review the law, Scalia said the provision “invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators and corporate C.E.O.’s who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.”

He said the assertion that “officeholders and employees owe a duty to act only in the best interests of their constituents and employers” was so loose it could be construed to “cover a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ballgame.”

Apparently, the court took Scalia’s alert to heart, accepting appeals for two high-profile convictions in the corporate world and the case of an obscure Alaska lawmaker.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602390.html

And now we have a decision affecting the prison sentence of Blagojevich and ultimately Obama, and no Justice Scalia to speak up.

What a curious time for Justice Scalia to die of “natural causes.”