RFK Jr.: Details on the New York Ruling
Summary
TLDRThe 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
🏛️ 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.
🗳️ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Ballot Access Case
💡Supreme Court
💡Domicile
💡Residency
💡Lawfare
💡Frivolous Lawsuit
💡12th Amendment
💡National Election
💡Oligarchs
💡Democratic Party
💡Expedited Appeal
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
浏览更多相关视频
Carey v. Population Services International Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Engblom v Carey (Landmark Court Decisions in America)💬🏛️✅
BREAKING NEWS: Trump Holds Surprise Press Briefing Following Supreme Court Ballot Eligibility Ruling
9.12.24 Markets Rally On Queue, Targets & More
The REAL Reason I Got Kicked out of the DNC
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)