Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-4178 #9098

13-4178 #9098

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
[10149098]
[10149098]

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 18, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Duane Morley Cox, Pro Se 4056 West 3830 South West Valley City, Utah 84120 Ph: 801-755-3578 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, TENTH CIRCUIT DEREK KITCHEN et. al.
Plaintiffs
and Appellee's v. GARY
R
HERBERT et. al. Defendants and Appellants MOTION
FOR
LEAVE TO SUBMIT BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF UTAH'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 Case: 13-4178 (UTAH) COMES NOW: Duane Morley Cox,
ProSe
requesting leave
of
the Court pursuant to Fed.
R
App. 29, to file an Amicus Curiae
Brief
in support
of
Utah's Constitutional Amendment No.
3
MOVANT'S INTEREST: Utah's Amendment
No.3
is asserted to protect Movant's
st
Amendment religious
beliefs
and the Free Exercise and does not create a religious Test , but Movant argues that the Decision
of
the Court below improperly targets his 1 stAmendment rights and those
of
his Church and Faith while creating a religious
1
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019201737 Date Filed: 02/12/2014 Page: 1
Docket Reference Number: [10149098]
 
 ··.1
·
Test contrary to Article VI
of
the U.S. Constitution. AMICUS BRIEF IS DESIRABLE: Because the Court below was not adequately briefed on the issue
of
religious freedom, the findings
of
the Decision are not accurate
as
regards its impact upon religious institutions or their membership. Although the State did not directly present an argument based upon religious freedom, the court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about n1arriage.
Decision,
Pg
49
The Supreme Court has held that a vigorous prosecution and a vigorous defense are essential to sound judicial decision making. Sound judicial decision making requires 'both a vigorous prosecution and a vigorous defense' and a constitutional rule announced sua sponte
is
entitled to less deference than one addressed on full briefing and argument. Cf. Lander
v
United States, 358 U.S. 169,
173
(1958) (declining to address
an
important and complex' issue and the court thought it 'should have a full argument before it dealing with the question.')
Church
of
The Lukumi
Babalu Aye v. City
of
Hialeah, 113 S.Ct. 2217, Pg. 2247 (1993)
And the Supreme Court recently demonstrated the correct manner in which to deal with such a deficiency. We appoint H. Bartow F arr III to brief and argue in support
of
the Eleventh Circuit's judgement with respect to severability, and Robert A. Long to brief and argue the proposition that the Anti-Injunction Act bars the current challenges to the individual mandate.
Footnote in
Nat.
Fed.
Of
Ind. Businesses v. Sebelius,
567
U.S._
(2012) as given ou
Pg
11
of
Slip Opinion
2
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019201737 Date Filed: 02/12/2014 Page: 2
 
To avoid injustice and offense to the
st
Amendment and religious Test mandate
of
Article VI
of
the U.S. Constitution, the
1
h
Circuit must hear Movant's arguments. RELEVANCY: The Supreme Court has held that the Operation
of
a law is very important to consider, and the Decision did not deal with the effect
of
Amendment
No 3
on the protection
of
st
Amendment rights in Utah. Movant argues this is best seen by contrast with the success or failure in protecting
st
Amendment rights in other jurisdictions. Neither was adequately briefed. Apart from the text, the effect
of
a law in its real operation is strong evidence
of
its object.
Church
of
The Lukumi
Babalu
Aye v. City
of
Hialeah, 113 S.Ct. 2217,Pg. 2228 (1993) Experience in New Jersey and New York
is
particularly relevant because these States have enacted substantive statutory protections for religious institutions, clergy, employees and related property which preclude lawsuits against these entities by same sex couples demanding participation or support
of
their same-sex Marriages , which provisions Operate in an equivalent manner as Utah's Amendment
No 3
to protect P
1
Amendment rights
of
the above entities. Unfortunately, the Decision
of
the Court below operates to nullify all such protections in every State
of
Nation while also creating
3
Appellate Case: 13-4178 Document: 01019201737 Date Filed: 02/12/2014 Page: 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->