Defending the family

Share on MeWe Share on Gab E-mail article

Pro-Homosexual Judges and "Gay Legal Mob" Versus Public Advocate's Real Marriage Justice League of Lawyers

Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio has made the final arrangements to charge the Supreme Court to overturn the wrongful 9th Circuit decision in Perry v. Brown, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2328 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 10-16696.

"Public Advocate was founded to represent the downtrodden and to right the injustice perpetrated by liberal judges who think nothing of subverting the constitution, tramping on traditional values and upending genuine moral beliefs while unfairly sustaining bizarre practices and promoting and holding on high anti-Christian and anti-family attacks. As president I am proud to annouce the call to legal arms has sounded and all good attornies are welcome to join in our holy cause of seeking remedies with our appeal to the Supreme Court," said Eugene Delgaudio, President of Public Advocate.

The outlandish and frequenly freakish 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will -- in spite of the bias and shrieks of protest-- will have to yield their obstructions, delays and subversion of American law at some point.

And even the 9th Circuit will have to "allow" an appeal of their subversion of the Constitution a request for a hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court which at present is still the top court in the United States.

Thats when the pro-homosexual judges and Gay Lobby Mob will head to the Supreme Court and they will be met with a Public Advocate army of attornies which can be termed as the Real Law's Justice League.

This wise group of capable legalists have defended the Boy Scouts of America by preparing friendly briefs explaining the serial assault by hundreds of homosexual child molesters in every major city for the past 50 years and arguing that the Boy Scouts of America has a right to prevent wholesale physical assault on the young sons of America's families.

By a close vote, 5 to 4, members of the Supreme Court agreed.

Hard to understand why four members of the U.S. Supreme Court would want to allow a physical assault on the young son's of America's children but that is America in the modern age espicially under the current Administration and its record of court appointees and nominees.


At present our costs will be substantial as Public Advocate must first petition the court to allow our friend of the court brief and then once the petition is granted we can submit our formal brief.

This two step process will be quite expensive but worth the effort as Public Advocate's team of legal counsel has been the best and most persuasive in their arguements for past briefs and also provide a serious historical testimony for the court record as well.


"These costs are necessary to our program and are directly related to Public Advocate's core mission to make the difference in close political, legal and regulatory battles over the years. Before the Court, the Congress and the respective federal agencies no single group has had more impact over the past 30 years as Public Advocate has. I point to the Defense of Marriage Act, the Internal Revenue Service decision to keep married couples as the only legitimate joint filing allowable and the Boy Scouts of America decisions and related legislative remedies as just three top victories for Public Advocate, said Eugene Delgaudio, President of Public Advocate, Delgaudio continued "these are among many more such legal issues requiring funds and support but three victories such as these could break or expose the advancing forces of the Gay Legal Mob into intellectual ruin and legitimate reversal ."

Public Advocate's not so secret legal strategy explains our plan for the two step process to save traditional marriage in California

Public Advocate's not so secret strategy to reverse the California 9th Circuit court decision to overturn the Referendum is similar to other court decisions to restrict government expansion and restrain judicial overreaching over the years.

Our amicus brief would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to return the Equal Protection clause to its original meaning.

Since the proposed brief is at the petition stage, it would
explain that this case is a good vehicle through which to scale back several decades of judicial activism, much as Public Advocate, and others, have done in amicus briefs in the Antoine Jones case (urging the Court to return to the private property origins of the Fourth Amendment) and Obamacare case (urging the Court to scale back its commerce clause doctrine) cases.