-
- - -SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESMr. WILLIAM D. SUTER -Office of the Clerk 1 First Street N.E. Washington DC 20543-0001RE: Your May 17
th
, 2012 letter in re: Judy v. ObamaDear Mr. Suter: May 20,2012
Thank you for your letter and attention May 17
th
, 2012 in which you stated : “ Dear Mr. Judy: The
enclosed papers were received again on May 17
th
, 2012 , and are herewith returned for the reasons statedin my letter dated April 10
th
,2012. Until and unless you receive a decision from a United States Court of Appeals or highest state court within which a decision could be had this Court does not have jurisdictionof your case. Sincerely, William K. Suter, Clerk by: Gail Johnson (202) 479-3038.Sir,
I understand what you‟re alluding to, however
your statement is just not true and please,follow me as I explain because I do feel, while it is unusual, that the Court has Original Jurisdiction in my
case. Now keep reading.. don‟t stop there. Please Sir, L
et me explain this as I understand it.While it is true that the Court may only review "final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had" if those judgments involve a question of federal statutory orconstitutional law, the Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise
as well as when a Act of Congress is called into question: See #1 in Jurisdiction Statement. i.e. the Courtis hearing the
The PatientProtection andAffordable Care Act(PPACA)
- Action by Congressconsidered in Joint Session is an Action of Congress the Court has jurisdiction to hear in a Direct or
Original Appeal as underlined in my Writ.
I do understand that in most all cases, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction and that itconsiders cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; while almost all cases are brought to theSupreme Court on appeal and in practice the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are
disputes between two or more states, or when an Act of Congress is called into question- my case
involves both- two states with two Secretaries of States official capacity in a Federal Election question inwhich I as a party INDEED CAN RECEIVE RELIEF FROM INJURY with a favorable decision in futureprimaries of western States, and also in the Democratic Party National Convention where I am free tocourt delegates who are un- bound in the Primaries of New Hampshire and Georgia by a decision of theU.S. Supreme Court that Barack Obama is not eligible under the U.S. Constitution Art. II, Sect.1, clause 5referring to us only a
„
Natural Born Citizen
‟
is eligible for the Office of the President.
Arizona‟s Secretary
State is now in contention of not placing Obama‟s name on the Ballot because he‟s not eligible. How is
this not an Original Jurisdiction moment in our history Sir?The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federalcourts, was created by theJudiciary Act of 1789and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulingsin
court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are several
devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases, in my jurisdiction statement I include the
act of Congress that also invites original jurisdiction as Joint Session of Congress Action failed to ask fordissention or hear those hands raised in the electorate count of Jan. 8
th
, 2008.
Since Article Three of the United States Constitution stipulates that federal courts mayonly entertain "cases" or "controversies", the Supreme Court avoids deciding cases that are mootand does not render advisory opinions, as the supreme courts of some states may do. Forexample, in
,416U.S.312(1974), the Court dismissed a lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of a law school affirmative action policy because the plaintiff student had graduated since he began the lawsuit, and a decision from the Court on his claimwould not be able to redress any injury he had suffered, however,
the mootness exception is notabsolute
.If an issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review", the Court will address it eventhough the party before the Court would not himself be made whole by a favorable result. In
Roev. Wade
, 410U.S.113(1973), and other abortion cases, the Court addresses the merits of claims
pressed by pregnant women seeking abortions even if they are no longer pregnant because ittakes longer than the typical human gestation period to appeal a case through the lower courts tothe Supreme Court, and it is the same with the contention of one PresidentialCandidate against another in the eligibility of a candidate in regards to this very case.You Sir, are prohibiting the U.S. Supreme Court from acting on a case while the Court
still can without desecrating the „political doctrine question‟ in the 2012 election. As a candidate
I have provided the case precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court and the violations of thatprecedent the NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, and Georgia lower Courts that with alldue diligent conscience could be heard by the 1
st
Circuit, the 11
th
Circuit, or the Chief Justicehimself in Original Jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction seems the logical action in my case so I
didn‟t place “for the 1
st
Circuit” or “for the 11
th
Circuit” in the caption of the case.
Regarding your insinuation that action is denied based on a case in which
“a decisioncould be had‟,
while the Primary is over and a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court cannotundo the results
of New Hampshire‟s Supreme Court decision
, remedy is available by thedelegates in the electorate who CAN be unbound with the exclusion of an unqualified candidate
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Crt. Clerk Ltr. May 20,2012
May 20th,2012 lettter to U.S. Supreme Court Clerk William K. Suter challenging for Original Jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court to get a case number for Petition of Writ of Certiorari
677
Reads
4
Readcasts
2
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
