Friday, June 22, 2012




From Georgia on my mind to DC, where goes the money?

The question deserves some consideration as nearly over 100+ cases on Obama’s eligibility have been brought to Court. Some assert more than 400 cases have been brought on or surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility.

Leading in this effort is Obama Ballot Challenge found here at , which has been spear-heading a national effort to bring Obama’s eligibility front and center within each and every one of the fifty States in the Union, according to the demands of our Constitution for the Office of the President.

Two of the leaders in ObamaBallotChallenge , retired army Captain Pamela Barnett and Leader in the Ventura County California Tea Party George Miller recently were featured on the Hagmann & Hagmann Show here about work being done at Obama Ballot Challenge.

I was a part of the first Ballot Challenge in New Hampshire which went to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, and also one in Georgia that has recently been denied in the Georgia Supreme Court. In an interest of my case I was asked by Pamela and George to outline a few bullet points of my case just so people could get an idea of what it was about.

It is very important to realize right now that between jurisdiction, standing, and statute all the cases have been dismissed. In a recent pending case in Florida Voltz v. Obama, which has gained a lot of press due to it being heard Monday June 18th,2012, and of course the Judge Terry Lewis who oversaw Bush v. Core, and famous plaintiff representative Larry Klayman, a discussion of ‘standing’ takes place, but from a different perspective.

Rather than harm to the plaintiff Voltz , because he is not a presidential candidate deemed to have standing, the question has shifted to wither the Primary elected anyone to the particular party in question. The answer is ‘no’. Barack Obama has not been elected as the Democratic Party nominee because the nominee for the Democratic Party isn’t officially elected until the National Convention.

In watching the hearing with Esq. Larry Klayman leading the charge, there was no doubt that an expert was at the stand. Judge Terry Lewis has asked both the plaintiff and defendants counsel to submit proposed orders this coming Monday.

The problem with the Ballot Challenges is that Citizens bringing those do have ‘standing’ to bring the challenge to the State executive court, but may not have ‘standing’ to fulfill all the requirements of the standing doctrine in order to stop a party from submitting the parties preference simply because the submitted name has not become the official party nominee.

Presidential Candidates standing is without question, because from the time of the race to the end of the race contributions and publicity drive the success into a campaign without which campaigns close shop. So it’s an easy call for a Presidential Candidate to assert his competitors weaknesses including not being qualified to enter the race by the demands of the Constitution, but what about the general citizens?

The delegates selected from each State have heretofore been charged, as we understood, with voting at the National Conventions for the presidential candidate who won the State Primary assumed to be the candidate with the most votes in the Primary, selected by the general population voting for the candidate.

In this respect the general population felt like their vote counted at their preferred Party Primaries, and the delegates were simply the carriers of the message. Recently however a shift is being felt away from the general populations preferred candidate to the delegate’s favorite candidate. “What?”, you say.

As an example, on the Republican side 140 delegates who were presumably chosen to represent their State’s wishes in California have sued to have their votes unbound from Mitt Romney because they wanted to vote for Ron Paul.

They make the claim that the Republican Party leadership in their States have wronged them unfairly in the selection of Mitt Romney. So you can see the Delegates want a mind of their own in both parties. This then begs the question what about the general population actually being able to feel or understand their vote counts in a Primary? Remember primaries are not sponsored by the political parties, but rather are paid for by State Funds from the pool of all tax payers.

Basically, the population is being regulated out of any vote, and taxed for every dollar used. You begin to understand a concept of ‘taxation without representation here’ if you ask me. One thing that has indeed been very prevalent in the Judge’s comments summarily in these Ballot challenges is the ‘general population’ doesn’t select the President, but that the electorate does, and that means the delegates.

The Judges do not trace the delegates chosen or tied to the general population’s vote in the primary, or the general population’s taxes paying for the primary. Of course there are advantages to an electoral vote or delegates counted, but this is not one of them.

Here we have a few delegates along with State party leadership wanting to decide upon their best calculated interest who should be their nominee. The mentality suggests that the general public doesn’t have a clue which candidate is best.

Basically usurpation begins here, and has even entered the realm of the parties selecting unqualified candidates or in other words usurping the Constitution’s demands articulating the qualifications for the offices.

As candidates gain steam and contributions through the primaries, one can see a ‘run-away train’ formulating with no Constitutional stops whatsoever to rein in the usurpation of our elections, and through the elections the fabric of our United States Constitution that is being shredded into split-ends.

The issue that is in question because every single State Ballot Challenge has been dismissed thus far, is whether the Judicial Branch is recognizing that ‘standing’, or if they are deferring to a ‘standing’ that is articulated by the Federal Court of Appeals definition we have been given by opinion in the 9th Circuit that only Presidential Candidates could really be harmed and show ‘standing’ from another candidate who was receiving contributions and running as an ineligible candidate?

This is one of the reasons that my case is in fact a little different from a Candidate’s perspective who has standing. Again very briefly standing includes 3 elements we all need to remember very clearly so we can support that which the Courts say has credibility.
There are three standing requirements:
1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[

Now briefly to address the question from George and Pamela to me on some of the major bullets of my action as a Candidate for President in the Democratic Party attempting to disqualify Obama as unqualified as a natural born citizen and thus ineligible:

1- Whether the major parties had a responsibility towards assuring 'eligible candidates' for President based on the contingency they were using "State Funds" for the Primaries?

2- The Party's claim freedom from States on Candidate selection with association clauses and freedom of speech, however, what about when that conflicts with Constitutional requirements for Office?

3- Same argument applies for the responsibility of Secretaries of State's in vetting candidates, and receiving names from the Parties, as they swear oaths to the Constitution are they responsible for vetting based on taxes allocated to State Primaries?

4- Whether a Obama is eligible as a Natural Born Citizen as a Candidate for the 2012 election, with probably cause set forth of fraud and forgery in a Sheriff's investigation submitted from a Candidate with Standing who is a 'natural born citizen' and is legally qualified?

5- Whether the FEC (Federal Election Commission) should knowing a candidate is not qualified, allow them to run for office and collect a single dollar, which by all intensive purpose is a Federal Agency keep the books for fraudulent actions as candidates not eligible by the demands of the Constitution are actively representing themselves as eligible for office to your grandmother and everyone else who trust if a candidates running he’s at least qualified?

This amounts to sponsored fraud upon those who unknowingly contribute to an ineligible candidate who in no way is going to be able to be voted for legally. How does everyone feel about their vote being unwittingly cast for a candidate who is constitutionally unqualified?

Well, everyone who voted in 2008 ought to have an answer because in my book neither Obama nor McCain was qualified and I said as much in my law suits.

McCain isn’t running this time around, so by default, Obama has inherited the continued constitutional crisis of his lie that he was indeed a natural born citizen as he attested to in his Candidate Declaration.

With the dismissal in the Georgia Supreme Court given without opinion we are still left guessing if the Georgia Supreme Court really beliefs its a Federal issue and is delegating that issue to a U.S. Supreme Court Writ that I will of course be fast tracking to them.

Cody Robert Judy

1 comment:

  1. All I read was a sad loser whining that the court wouldn't indulge in their sick fantasy.