I have already made my decision which I will share with you and why I have made these choices. You may agree or disagree with me, that's your option.
My First Choice is Bob Roddis. When I went to Bob's web site, he had posted for all to read, the answers of all Five candidates to the League Of Women Voters. CLICK HERE for this Q&A.
The first thing about Bob Roddis that caught my eye was he isn't already a member of the corrupted black robe society. The second thing that stood out was his answers to the League of Women Voters.
Q 3. What do you preceive as the greatest obstacle to justice, if any?
A 3. The Constitution protects your natural rights to personal liberty, financial liberty and sound money. The greatest obsticale to justice is the almost universal belief that government has the magical healing powers which, unfortunately, is taught in the law schools and academia. In fact, government is the primary cause of our current social and financial collapse. This "Fairy Godmother" theory of government encourages judges to override our essential liberties and approve government programs that are not only unconstitutional, but which lead inevitably to more crises and more unconstitutional programs. Judges have a basic duty to strike down such unconstitutional Laws.
Holy Cow!!! This is the type of Judge we have all been screaming for and yet how many of you have even heard of him? Oh, I forgot, Bob Roddis doesn't have a POLITICAL PARTY backing him and can't afford to buy media time to run campaign commercials like Republican backed Young and Kelly.
Here we have a candidate who understands the Constitution and Rule of Law, and I'm pretty sure that Bob Roddis would never tell you that Jury Nullification is "CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE" as Bob Young believes. Justice William Goodloe, Washington State Supreme Court, retired, believes that JURY NULLIFICATION is just the opposite. Read his article - JURY NULLIFICATION: EMPOWERING THE JURY AS THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a Judge on the Michigan Supreme Court who would uphold Habeas Corpus? Individual Property Rights? (Smoking ban on business???) (Illegal Bank Foreclosures???)
I believe that if we elect Bob Roddis to the Michigan Supreme Court, it will encourage other Constitutionalists to run next time.
Q 4. What is your vision for the future of our judicial system? What changes would you advocate and why?
A 4. My vision for the future is that judges might understand and enforce the written Constitution. Pursuant to the Constitution: "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". If this provision had been properly enforced, there would have been no unconstitutional creation of the Federal Reserve, no Great Depression, no recent housing bubble and no unconstitutional bank bailouts. In 2008, Fed chairman Bernanke unconstitutionally created $1 trillion of bank reserves out of thin air which unconstitutionally diluted your purchasing power. The Founding Fathers would have executed Bernanke for such a stunt.
You can find more information on Bob Roddis HERE.
Second Choice. Alton Thomas Davis. I'm not as impressed with Davis as I am with Roddis, but I feel he is the better choice of the other three remaining candidates.
Committee Commentary 1.02
(current through December 1, 2009)A panel of the Sixth Circuit quoted paragraph (4) of this instruction and stated that it
cured any confusing statements made by the district court during voir dire. United States v.
Okeezie, 1993 WL 20997 at 4, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993) (unpublished).
The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the
facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts
and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United
States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-07 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625 (1894).
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty
verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v.
Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir. 1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th
Cir. 1983); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-97 (6th Cir. 1974).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.