WHAT DID JUDGE MASIN OMIT FROM HIS OPINION LAST WEEK?
by Cody Robert Judy, Presidential Candidate, ©2016
(Apr. 19, 2016) — [Editor’s Note: The following letter was sent by email to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and his lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno, regarding last week’s opinion issued by Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin that Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a Cuban father and presumed U.S.-citizen mother, qualifies to serve as president under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5 eligibility criterion of “natural born Citizen.”]
The New Jersey Adminstrative Law Judge Masin recently gave a 26 page advisory opinion on the Ballot Challenge of Sen Cruz’s Constitutional Qualification for the Office of President which I have made a Brief and plain spoken Critique of in Opposition that I hope you will consider.
As an interested party with Standing to sue Sen. Cruz if he were to become the Republican Nominee, I am the only Presidential Candidate with a Bi-Partisan Federal Court Record taking a stand for the [natural born Citizen] Principle Qualification in America. Judy v. McCain Judy v. Obama 12-5276 14-9396. If such standing were needed a [Vice Presidential] Position would also solidify standing as a Democratic Candidate.
After careful examination reading the Executive Court Administrative Law Judges Masin’s Opinion in New Jersey in the matter filed questioning Sen. Cruz’s Eligibility for the Office of President, I find it absurd on many Levels.
1- On page 8 he infers that “Born in the U.S.” is not attributed to Naturalization and in such dismissed cause and reason to the 14th Amendment.
2-On page 9 The Judge infers that “Subjects” of the King were so qualified to be King and for the the Kingship, as he infers “Subject” was the equivalent of “Citizen”. Of course such would be the laughing stock in the King’s Court the Judge seen as the Joker subject to ridiculous and rancid ridicule.
3- Page 12 Why are children of a Foreign Parent attributed a naturalization or adopted statute by Congress in The Title 8 Naturalization Act Citizens at Birth and Foreigners §1401 (a-h)? Clearly condescending or breaching to his opinion.
4- Page 16 Judge Mason goes to great length first to establish the Common Law of England as our own when our Founders made clear the perils of English Common Law had drifted so far away from the much more sturdy laws of nature as to give cause for Revolution. Judge Masin acknowledges ever so slightly with reference of Vatell’s work in France.
Judge Masin regards a “Judicial Heritage” but denies the Legislative Mandates of the U.S. Congress striking down 8 attempts since 2002 to change the meaning of [natural born Citizen] to something other than [Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] preferring Parliament’s foggy bottom as remotely close to [subject] able to contest the Throne of the King as a [Natural Born Citizen] can run for U.S. President. This is offensive to common sense, let alone common law and throws down his illogical stack of cards.
Subjects given status as adopted by the King were given such to claim defense, to be taxed, and perhaps to own property, as soldiers were sending money home and having children abroad with foreigners, but never did that extension confer the right to run for King in an Election every four years. Totally absurd and mischievous to think of in English Common Law for subjects.
5- Page 17 In what could be called a Grand Dialectical Larceny, Judge Masin equates “Naturalization” to equalize with “natural born Subject” that leaves the child conceived on no better footing to heir as one Adopted and on equal terms of born of the same mother and father. Hence he ruled Adoption the new process of Conception and ones Signature to adopt as tools of reproduction defying both Parent any satisfaction of copulation. Why no wonder the wives-tales of “not holding hands” as pregnancy was imminent?
6- Page 17 Judge Masin acknowledges Art. 2, Sect 1, C-5, but never John Jay, George Washington, and all the Founders were in fact [Naturalized] by that Qualification clause in stating [Citizens at the Time of the Adoption of this Constitution] so to his [Jay’s] children born abroad would be considered eligible under this considered Adopted Time Frame. This renders his quagmire of a quarry a mindless bog of the Standard we call the U.S. Constitution.
Our Founders knew indisputably they were not [natural born Citizens] but Citizens, and as the U.S. Constitution was Adopted and the Sovereignty of a New Nation born, their heirs would be [natural born Citizens] when Born in the States to Citizen Parents [natural born Citizen] Americans.
Judge Masin gives credence to every word with the reference to Marbury v. Madison, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison] but fails to state the course that [natural Born Citizens] cannot be Adopted, as naturalization invites. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles (Matt 9:17). He does show an understanding of differences between 1790 and 1795 but fails to address this same fact – Natural Born Citizens cannot be naturalized unless an absurdity or oddity of nature is employed most unnatural.
7- Page 24 While Judge Masin spent half his papered Opinion making homage to English Common Law, he spent the good portion of the latter setting it aside as heretical to American Standards as he lashed at English common law with the [Equal Protection Laws] in the U.S. Constitution; speaking of equality of mother and father in the deposit of [Inherited Citizenship] to a child, over-ruling English Common Law.
Judge Masin offered no argument as to why Cruz’s Father’s Cuban Citizenship should not be equally honored in the person of Ted Cruz, or perhaps his father’s Adopted State of Canada that Cruz denounced 20 months ago.
Of course Judge Masin did not consider Cuba’s warning that those children born to Cuban parents in foreign lands might be subjected to Cuba’s Military Draft nor did he elaborate on the Equal Respected Protection of Inherited Citizenship with a Foreign Parent choosing instead to “let those problems of Dual Citizenship be worked out later.”
My intention and hope is that as Americans we Democrats, Republicans, and Independents can join hands under our U.S. Constitution Banner and Standard coming together in the preservation of our sovereignty, freedom and liberty working hard for a better America tomorrow.
Thank you for your consideration and Notice of Intent to take Action against Sen. Cruz should he become the Republican Nominee.
If I may be of any further assistance please let me know. Thank you.
Candidate for U.S. President 2016
Cody Robert Judy
It has been reported that Cruz and Rubio may be in consideration to be Trumps VP. Neither Cruz or Rubio are NBCs. They are barred under both A2S1C5 from being President and both A2S1C5 and the 12th Amendment from being VP.