Anti-God Zealots Shocked By Public Advocate's Amicus Brief Defending Hero Roy Moore
Anti-God Zealots Shocked By Public Advocate's Amicus Brief Defending Hero Roy Moore
Statement of Eugene Delgaudio to supporters.
Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate said Friday morning Dec. 9 at 9 a.m. the
following in a letter to supporters:
This "SILENCE" referred to by leftwing news does not apply to Public Advocate.
Public Advocate issued a statement on October 2 to our supporters. Leftist "news sites" missed it and also missed Public Advocate's expose on the Obama Administration falsely claiming there was a "growing chorus" of support to put men in women's bathrooms at the same time.
Liberal news sites are openly celebrating the overwhelming silence from most in the Christian movement over the improper removal of a conservative Alabama Chief Justice who simply wrote an opinion advizing his fellow judges that they should first comply with Alabama laws protecting traditional marriage before implementing the illegal U.S. Supreme Court edict abolishing one man one woman marriage.
They gloated and asked "who will speak up and defend Judge Roy Moore?"
The liberals mocked the legal crew surrounded by a hostile media and a few supporters.
I can not speak for other groups.
But as your president I immediately alerted you to the illegal assault and removal of Judge Roy Moore and the actions by a lawless tribunal in Alabama is similar to a lynch mob.
And we worked hard through the Thanksgiving holiday and night after night with other attorneys from around the country.
Our legal group included the top conservative legal firms and 9 attorneys in all.
We pooled our resources for a 55 page brief.
Thanks to your help we came to the aide of an embattled and now removed conservative hero.
The liberal fake news sites are now in shock and reeling from our explosive legal brief.
Public Advocate beat back these moronic forces in Federal District court once before and we defeated them in elections head to head with our winning pro-family positions.
See Public Advocate's 55 page brief here
http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/library/Moore_v_AL_JIC_Amicus_Brief_Final.pdf
We did what we promised you our supporters.
In our legal appeal of this assault on one Christian Judge doing his sworn constitional duty, we pointed out:
Chief Justice Roy Moore's Administrative Order should not have been responded to by extremists with removal. Like jailing Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky, I could not ignore this ugly and wrongful action against a fellow Christian.
Our amicus brief filed December 7, coincidentally the anniversary of the Japanese sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, explains how The Court of the Judiciary ("COTJ") in finding Judge Moore guilty of ethics violations wrongfully based the entire case on a 2003 ruling that had nothing to do with the current 2016 case in any way.
TRIBUNAL VIOLATED ITS OWN RULES
The COTJ also violated its own rules requiring a unanimous vote by declaring a majority was enough to suspend a Judge without pay for his entire term.
TRIBUNAL REFUSES TO UNDERSTAND LAW VS. CONSTITUTION
Neither the Judicial Inquiry Commission which prosecuted the case, nor the Court of the Judiciary that suspended the Chief Justice, saw any problem with a bare 5 to 4 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court requiring Alabama to ignore its own Constitution and statutes and impose same sex marriage on the people. However, the Supreme Court's opinion was a lawless act of political will, as one Supreme Court Justice said, had nothing to do with the Constitution.
In Alabama's case there was no broad permanent federal court injunction against the State's marriage law until June 7, 2016 - nearly a year after Obergefell was decided and five months after the Administrative Order.
So in fact and in logic, Chief Judge Roy Moore is guilty of nothing. Yet he was removed from office as the elected Chief Justice of Alabama.
See Public Advocate's 55 page brief here
http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/library/Moore_v_AL_JIC_Amicus_Brief_Final.pdf
SERIOUS HEALTH RISKS SHOW HARM
In addition to the serious health risks to partners in same-sex marriages, there are serious health risks to opposite-sex marriages as well as the public in general that have been reported, including the following:
Disproportionately, same-sex coupling invites the Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV") weakening the immune system of men engaged in same-sex activity which is already at epidemic proportions and increasing.
Since the decision in Obergefell was issued, two eminent scholars13 issued a lengthy report debunking the commonly held assumption that homosexuals were "born that way." This report finds: "There is virtually no evidence that anyone, gay or straight, is 'born that way' if that means their sexual orientation was genetically determined."
On the merits of the illegal action by the Supreme Court, our brief pointed out:
There was no majority response in the Alabama sham tribunal of Judge Moore to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts' charge that the "Constitution ... had nothing to do with [the majority decision]." on the Obergefell decision.
In its haste to condemn Chief Justice Moore, the COTJ improperly transformed a difference over the basis for the ruling in Obergefell into a breach of judicial canons. An entire class of conservative judicial thought is now grounds for removal. That can not be legal.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell Decision Constituted a Violation of Natural Law, and Was Therefore Not Law at All.
SPLC LIED ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY
The SPLC's crusade against Chief Justice Moore employed the worst type of revisionist history. Contrary to their claims Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and George Mason, all three, adhered to the view that laws which violated the laws of nature were void and must be disobeyed.
ENTIRE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT OUTLAWED
Legal ethics were never designed to force judges to adhere to one school of constitutional interpretation or another.
This is a dangerous game that can be played both ways, depending on which school of thought has dominance at any one time.
KAGAN AND GINSBURG DID WORSE ON UNETHICAL REFUSAL TO RECUSE
Finally regarding the ethics of recusal in which this "ethics" group assailed Moore.
Our brief details many reasons Moore is innocent of this charge.
The gist of the JIC charge is that the Chief Justice should have recused himself from participation
in the matter pending before the Supreme Court.
Our brief details many reasons Moore is innocent of this charge.
It is deeply troubling that the COTJ findings concerning Chief Justice Moore relate to state versions of the same federal ethics rules that should have prevented Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan from participating in the Obergefell decision because of their clearly demonstrated partiality with respect to the constitutionality of traditional marriage.
We list the many public actions taken by Ginsburg and Kagan which violate federal law and ethical practice.
If you are punishing somebody on "ethics" based on a five - four decision, you should take into account 2 of five members "in the majority" are refusing to recuse themselves on a ruling you are proposing to punish Judge Moore for not recusing himself on!
VACATE THE DECISION
Our proposed solution:
The decision of the Court of the Judiciary should be vacated and Chief Justice
Moore reinstated as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama.
The left celebrates but Public Advocate lawyers were directed to come up with a defense. We have filed that defense.
The scummy SPLC and New Republic teased and taunted "why the silence", but Public Advocate responded with a strong voice on your behalf, the people of America." said Delgaudio
End of Statement
#30#
See Public Advocate's 55 page brief here
http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/library/Moore_v_AL_JIC_Amicus_Brief_Final.pdf
P.S. As I have told you above the extreme left celebrates:
from the liberal anti-Christian New Republic
In a 50-page ruling on Friday, the state Court of the Judiciary found Roy Moore guilty of six judicial ethics violations for ordering the state's probate judge to resist the U.S. Supreme Court's marriage equality verdict. Moore is now suspended without pay for the rest of his term, which ends in 2019. It's an impeachment de facto........."
The new Republic attempts to tease and mock the Christian pro-family movement:
"The religious right should be in uproar. But outrage has thus far been mostly restricted to the Liberty Counsel, whose founder, Mat Staver, represented Moore in his failed bid to keep his seat on the bench. From the pews, crickets: The Family Research Council has said nothing on social media or in a press release. Neither has FRC's president, Tony Perkins, though he's defended Moore in the past. The First Liberty Institute has been similarly quiet. So too has the Alliance Defending Freedom and even Focus on the Family.
Why the silence?"
from leftist New Republic:
https://newrepublic.com/article/137358/loud-rise-quiet-fall-roy-moore