La Supreme Court Candidate

[Emperor]

Thanks Curmudgeon. I am and have for many have described myself as a professional peoples' attorney. That means I represent people, not a specific kind of problem. If an expertise is required that I do not have, I find it. My hero was my father, an attorney, who taught me that we must be of service in this lifetime in order to find our purpose in life. Because I idolized him, I thought what he did was of the utmost importance and highest good. It is this ideal that I have always brought to the practice of law. I was trained by the most respected and ethical attorney in Baton Rouge in the last fifty years, a gentleman named Sam D'Amico. It is love of our natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which motivate me to represent the people who so often are fighting against overwhelming odds of a government prosecution, a big corporation or an insurance company. As in my practice, it is the protection and preservation of these rights for which I am running this campaign.

 

[Jeffry Sanford]

If it wasn't personal, why did you address "The Honorable Judge Welch"? I understand your stance on "Politicians" and the way that the parties conduct their business. There are some positions that I disagree with that the Republican party agrees. They are the closest to my belief and morals that is out there, but with that said I too am an Independent and I vote as to where my beliefs and morals guide me. As I hope the rest of the public would do in the upcoming elections.
I have no "Facebook" account so I'm not sure if I can see your page or not. So if you would clarify a few things for me as to your stance on a couple of questions I would thank you. Are you a member of the NRA? Do you have a Conceled Carry Permit? Did you ever serve in the military? If so what branch and for how long? These are things that concern me about the candidates in the upcoming election. I can't find an answer to these questions on the web sites that the candidates have set up to campaign for election.
I have more concerns than this only but the candidate that I support has a record as to where he stands on these issues and others. These records are public record and can be seen by all, and are not opinion based. With this posted I will await the answer. I wish the best for you in the upcoming election and hope that my post hasn't been seen as an attack or un-tasteful. I am nearly trying to make rebuttal. Thank you and may God bless you.

BigJakeWelch:

It was not my intention to indicate a lack of trust for Judge Welch, personally. In my post, I mentioned his name, specifically, because he had been identified in the post already and I wanted it clear that my distrust of professional party politicians is a philosophical one at this stage, not a personal one directed to him.

Regarding "concealed carry" I believe that to be an unnecessary permit. I prefer to deal with issues of concealed carry as a conscientious objector rather than a compliant. It is my position that I dont need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I'm willing to fight it out in court in front of a jury if prosecuted. As far as the NRA, I feel that they are not nearly aggressive enough in regard to protection of our right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to keep and bear arms adequate and necessary to defeat our government's forces should that become necessary. The NRA accepts all forms of restrictions that I do not. And that is why I do not belong to the NRA. As far as military service, I have not felt that our country was threatened in any way shape or form such as to justify military service during my lifetime. Our latest war of aggression in Iraq was a waste of American treasure and blood and counterproductive to our interests in balancing the Middle East powers. It only served to futher the interests of Halliburton and the administration's corporate friends and backers. The war in Afghanistan is a waste of treasure and blood and, if history is any indicator, cannot be won. In point of fact, it is not even being fought for victory. I welcome you to name a war for which I should have volunteered and did not. Thanks for the conversation, Big Jake.

 

[Cat]

Cat. I am opposed, always have and always will oppose forceful detention of people without probable cause. I was born and raised with an understanding of freedom to mean we need not submit to an unconstitutional exercise of authority. Like with gun control, I oppose any unjustified infringement on my freedom with reasonable force. That is my right as a citizen of a country which is founded and exists on the principle of freedom. A law-abiding law enforcement officer would never forcefully detain someone without probable cause and one who does should be resisted with all force necessary to prevent the constitutional violation.

I understand that. And to an extent I agree. I realize not all law enforcement are honest good men serving their community. But it never ends well when a citizen attempts to avoid forceful detention, rightful or otherwise. I would rather my loved ones cooperate and fight the detention lawfully on your side of things, inside a courtroom, instead of on the street.


At any rate I appreciate the response.

 

[Jeffry Sanford]

And to an extent I agree with you, Cat. I always tell my clients to comply with police instructions. It is usually only me who stands and fights. The problem is that when the day comes for us all to stand up and be counted (at least in the political process) those of us are not practiced in fighting, may sit still at the critical moment. Which may be right now. In this Supreme Court race. Because of the shift in demographic to an independent affiliation, the large number of candidates in this race, and the clarity with which the presidential election allows us to see the failure of our one party system, we have a chance to change the way politics is done in this State. He question is whether we will stand up and spread the message. Or stay seated and let the party muscle grind us up. STAND UP!