RFK Jr.: Details on the New York Ruling

Summary

The speaker discusses a recent ballot access case loss in New York's Supreme Court, emphasizing their long-standing New York residency despite owning multiple homes in different states. They detail their ties to New York, including voting history and various licenses, and express confidence in winning the appeal. The speaker criticizes the DNC for bringing a 'frivolous lawsuit,' costing their campaign millions, and accuses the Democratic party of undermining democracy by restricting voter choice. They outline legal actions, including an appeal and a federal lawsuit under the 12th Amendment, asserting their eligibility to run for president.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The speaker lost a ballot access case in the New York Supreme Court, which is the lowest court in the state, and plans to appeal the decision.
• 🏠 The speaker maintains a domicile in New York, despite having multiple residences, and has lived there for 60 years since the age of 10.
• 🎟️ The speaker's driver's license, car registration, law license, and law office are all in New York, and he pays more income taxes there than in any other state.
• 🗳️ The speaker has always voted in New York and intends to return there after his wife's acting career ends, specifically to the town of Bedford.
• 📜 The speaker was advised by his attorney to use his New York address for ballot petitions to avoid potential lawsuits in multiple states.
• 🤝 The speaker's father also faced residency challenges when he ran for Senate, which the speaker finds paradoxical as he now faces a similar battle.
• 📉 The speaker criticizes the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for bringing the lawsuit, which he views as frivolous and part of a broader strategy to keep him off the ballot.
• 💸 The cost of defending against the DNC's lawsuits is projected to be over $10 million for the speaker's campaign.
• 🏛️ The speaker accuses the Democratic party of undermining democracy by trying to control who can run for office, contrasting with its past efforts to ensure voting access.
• 📜 The speaker is filing an appeal in New York state courts and a federal action under the 12th Amendment, asserting that states cannot impose additional burdens on presidential candidates.
• 🚀 The speaker expresses confidence in prevailing in both the appeal and the federal lawsuit, despite potential negative press coverage.

Q & A

What legal case was recently lost in the state of New York?

The legal case that was lost is the ballot access case in the Supreme Court in Albany, New York.

Why is the speaker appealing the court's decision?

The speaker is appealing the decision because they believe they will prevail in the court of appeals or appellate division, viewing the loss as just a road bump.

What is the significance of the speaker's domicile being in New York?

The speaker's domicile being in New York is significant because it is where they are officially registered for various legal and personal matters, including voting and paying taxes.

How does the speaker's father's past political experience relate to the current situation?

The speaker's father was once castigated as a carpetbagger, meaning his New York residency was doubted when he ran for Senate, which is now a similar battle the speaker is facing to prove his New York state residency.

What is the speaker's argument for their New York state residency despite living in other places?

The speaker argues that their domicile, or the place where they intend to return, is New York, as they have always voted there and plan to retire there.

Why did the speaker's attorney advise them to use their New York address on all ballot petitions?

The attorney advised this because most states require a consistent address on ballot petitions, and using the New York address would help avoid lawsuits in different states.

What is the speaker's stance on the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) involvement in the lawsuit?

The speaker views the lawsuit as frivolous and believes the DNC is using lawfare to keep them off the ballot, which they see as contrary to the democratic principles of the past.

What is the speaker's view on the current state of the Democratic party compared to when they were a child?

The speaker believes the Democratic party has changed from fighting for every American's right to vote to limiting choices to candidates chosen by party elites.

What is the speaker's strategy to counter the court decision and the DNC's actions?

The speaker is filing an appeal in New York state courts and a federal action under the 12th Amendment, arguing that states cannot impose additional burdens on presidential candidates.

What are the three requirements for running for president according to the 12th Amendment?

According to the 12th Amendment, the requirements are being at least 35 years old, being born in the United States, and being a citizen and resident of the country.

How does the speaker expect the press to portray the court decision and why?

The speaker expects the press to portray the court decision in a way that is disadvantageous to them, and they wanted to ensure their supporters understand the truth and not to worry.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Legal Battle Over Ballot Access in New York

The speaker discusses a recent legal setback in New York's Supreme Court regarding ballot access. Despite the loss, they express confidence in an appeal and provide a detailed account of their New York residency, including owning property, paying taxes, and having a domicile there. They also recount their father's history with New York residency challenges during his Senate run. The speaker outlines the advice of their attorney, Paul Ross, to list their New York address on all ballot petitions for consistency across states, which led to the current lawsuit. They describe the lawsuit as frivolous, brought by the DNC, and costing their campaign millions in defense.

05:01

🗳️ The Changing Democratic Party and Ongoing Legal Actions

In this paragraph, the speaker contrasts the Democratic Party of the past, which fought for voter choice, with the current party, which they accuse of restricting voter options to party-elite-approved candidates. They mention President Trump and Vice President Harris as examples of candidates chosen by the oligarchy rather than through primaries. The speaker details ongoing legal actions, including an appeal in New York state courts and a federal action under the 12th Amendment, arguing that states cannot impose additional burdens on presidential candidates beyond the constitutional requirements. They express optimism about winning these cases and address potential media misrepresentation, urging supporters not to worry as they are confident of eventual victory.

Keywords

💡Ballot Access Case

A 'ballot access case' refers to a legal dispute concerning the eligibility or right of a candidate to appear on a ballot for an election. In the video's context, the speaker mentions losing such a case in New York, which is central to the theme of legal challenges faced by the speaker in his political endeavors.

💡Supreme Court

In the U.S., the 'Supreme Court' is the highest court in the judicial system. Here, the speaker humorously notes that the 'Supreme Court' in New York state is actually the lowest court, indicating a misunderstanding of the term's usage and highlighting the legal complexities involved.

💡Domicile

A 'domicile' is a legal term indicating a person's permanent home or the place where they have their true, fixed, and permanent home and to which they intend to return. The speaker discusses his domicile in New York, emphasizing his lifelong ties to the state, which is crucial to establishing his eligibility to vote and run for office there.

💡Residency

'Residency' refers to the state or condition of living permanently or temporarily in a place. The speaker's father was accused of being a 'carpetbagger,' a term used to doubt his New York residency when he ran for Senate, drawing a parallel to the speaker's own situation regarding his New York state residency.

💡Lawfare

'Lawfare' is a term combining 'law' and 'warfare,' referring to the strategic use of legal proceedings to impair or hinder an opponent, often used in a political context. The speaker accuses the DNC of using lawfare to keep him off the ballot, illustrating the theme of political obstruction.

💡Frivolous Lawsuit

A 'frivolous lawsuit' is a legal action that is considered to be without merit or lacking a legitimate cause of action. The speaker describes the lawsuit against him as frivolous, indicating his belief that it is baseless and intended to cause unnecessary legal trouble.

💡12th Amendment

The '12th Amendment' to the U.S. Constitution outlines the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. The speaker mentions this amendment in the context of a federal action, emphasizing that only three qualifications are needed to run for President and that states cannot impose additional burdens.

💡National Election

A 'national election' refers to an election that is held across an entire country to choose leaders or representatives at the national level. The speaker argues that states cannot obstruct national elections by adding burdens to candidates, which is central to the legal argument he is making.

💡Oligarchs

An 'oligarch' is a member of an oligarchy, a form of power structure in which power is concentrated in the hands of a few. The speaker uses the term to criticize the selection of party nominees, suggesting that they are chosen by a privileged few rather than through democratic processes.

💡Democratic Party

The 'Democratic Party' is one of the two major political parties in the United States. The speaker contrasts the party's past commitment to ensuring broad voter choice with its current actions, which he perceives as limiting voter options to candidates chosen by party elites.

💡Expedited Appeal

An 'expedited appeal' is a legal process that is given priority and handled more quickly than other cases. The speaker mentions that election cases receive faster treatment, indicating the urgency and importance of resolving such legal disputes promptly.

Highlights

Lost ballot access case in New York State Supreme Court, with plans to appeal.

New York State Supreme Court is the lowest court in the state.

Confidence in prevailing in the Court of Appeals or Appellate Division.

Maintaining a domicile in New York despite owning multiple houses.

Primary residence is in California but official domicile remains in New York.

Historical context of father's Senate run and residency issues.

Driver's license, car registration, and law license are all in New York.

Paying more income taxes in New York than any other state.

Only law office is located in New York.

Possession of various licenses in New York, including hunting and falconry.

Voting only in New York as the domicile of intent to return.

Agreement with spouse to return to New York post-acting career.

Bedford, New York as the intended retirement location.

Legal advice to use New York address on all ballot petitions to avoid lawsuits.

States requiring consistent address usage on ballot petitions.

Sworn oaths in other states regarding New York voting address.

Characterization of the lawsuit as frivolous, brought by the DNC.

Cost of defending against DNC lawsuits exceeding $10 million.

Critique of the Democratic party's current stance on ballot access.

Filing an expedited appeal in New York state courts and a federal action under the 12th Amendment.

12th Amendment requirements for presidential candidates and the states' inability to impose additional burdens.

Preemptive lawsuit in federal court expected to be won quickly.

Anticipated media portrayal and reassurance to supporters of the campaign's confidence in prevailing.

Transcripts

hey everybody we just lost our ballot

access case in the state of New York we

lost it in the Supreme Court in Alban

the Supreme Court Ironically in New York

state is the lowest court in the state

and we will be appealing this and uh

we're very confident and the court of

appeals or the Appel at division that we

will prevail that this

loss is just a road bump but I wanted to

explain to you what happened I've always

kept an address in New York even though

I have three houses Cheryl and I have a

house on cap God that I've that's been

in my family for many

years um we also have our our primary

residence right now which is in

California and I keep a residence in New

York because that's where my domicile is

officially it has been my whole life

I've lived in New York for 60 years

since I was 10 years old I moved here

when my

father uh ran for Senate ironically he

was castigated as a carpet bagger

meaning people were doubting his New

York state residency at the time so it's

interesting for me and paradoxical that

I'm now in the same battle that my dad

was trying to prove my New York state

residency um I uh I my driver's license

is in New York my car is registered in

New York my law license is in New York I

pay income taxes more in New York more

than any other state my law office is

New York my only law office and um I

also have a lot of other licenses in New

York my hun hiding licenses here my

fishing license my falcony license Etc I

vote here it's the only place that I

vote um the rule in in virtually every

state is that your domicile is the place

where intend to return oh I have lived

in other places I've lived in Alabama

I've lived in South Dakota I've lived in

Massachusetts I'm living now in

California but I've always voted in New

York and I've always intended to return

here and when Cheryl and I married in

2014 we agreed that when her acting gate

career is over that we'll come back to

New York and we'll live in the town of

Bedford I've lived in this town for 40

years I've actually lived in 13

different addresses in this town and

this is the town where I intend to

retire to um the here's the the problem

with the court

decision I was advised by my attorney

who was the Paul Ross he was arguably

the best ballot access attorney in the

country that I needed to put my New York

address down that it's the only address

as that that a lawsuit that my own that

I would survive lawsuit he said you're

going to get sued either the TNC no

matter what state if you put

Massachusetts you'll be

sued if you put California you're going

to be sued and you're going to be sued

in the New York state

court so uh in front of probably in

front of the same judge so I acted on

the advice of council and when you do

that you cannot be convicted of fraud if

you acted in good faith the advice of

council which I did and here's why he

told me that the in most of the

states required the candidate which

would be me to use the same address on

their ballot petitions so you have to

use a consistent address around all 50

states and there are many States

including for example New Hampshire that

require that the domicile has to be the

place where the candidate votes well

I've only ever voted in New York so the

only doile I could put and I had to

swear in California in New

Hampshire I had to take an oath in front

of a

notary that my voting address was my New

York

address and so I I had to use that

address in those states which means I

had to use it in every

state and um as you guys can

imagine this lawsuit is a frivolous

lawsuit it's a lawsuit that was brought

by the

DNC um the the cost of these lawsuits by

the DNC to us to my campaign is going to

be over $10 million defending these

frivolous losses we've won everyone and

we're going to win this one um but

they're using

lawfare to try to keep us off of the

ballot is the opposite of what the the

Democratic party was doing when I was a

kid the Democratic party of Robert

Kennedy of John Kennedy was a Democratic

party that was fighting to make sure

that every American could vote for the

candidate of their choice the Democratic

party of today is doing everything in

its power to make sure that Americans

can only vote for the candidates that

the party Elites choose and as you know

president Trump and vice president

Harris

both managed to uh get their party's

nomination without actually running in a

primary they were simply chosen by the

the

oligarchs the donor class and the

Democratic Elite the Democratic party in

other now the Democratic party is doing

everything it can to make sure that

democracy does not

happen it is uh it it's it it's

pretending that it wants to preserve

democracy by actually destroying it um

so that's where I am today we we filed

there's there's we're filing an appeal

in New York

state and in the state courts and then

we'll go up to the Supreme Court if we

have to and it's an expedited appeal

these election cases get faster

treatment than any other case they get

presidents over every other claim we're

also filing a federal action under the

12th Amendment the 12th Amendment says

that there's only three requirements for

president to run for president the

United States one is that you're 35 two

you're born in this country and three

that you're a citizen of this country

and a resident and I meet all three of

those the states are not allowed to

impose additional burdens and the courts

have been particularly wary of any state

laws that could create a patchwork they

say this is a national election is the

only national

election and the states cannot obstruct

that by adding burdens to candidates

appearing on National ballots in all 50

states so we're filing a preemptive

lawsuit in federal court and we expect

to win that too and to win it very very

quickly but I wanted all of you to know

um what we're doing and to tell you to

you know the Press will probably play

this in a way that is disadvantage ages

to me to put it mildly and I wanted you

to know what the truth was and and to

not worry because we will prevail thank

you