Friday, June 15, 2012
Is WND secretly propping up Obama Underhanding the Eligibility Solution?
IS WND SECRETLY PROPPING UP OBAMA UNDER-HANDING THE ELIGIBILITY SOLUTION?
Delivered to WND
I was wondering why WND had not done a feature story on the Georgia Supreme Court Case : Cody Robert Judy v. Barack Obama Case No.S12D1584 ?
Reporter Bob Unruh did these stories on the Georgia Supreme Court cases that are over now. These were very informative and up-to-the-minute reporting
1)March 7th ,2012 http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/georgia-supremes-asked-to-halt-primary-certification/
2) March 16,2012 http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/georgia-supremes-accused-of-being-sham/
3)April 4th,2012 http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/georgia-supremes-dodge-eligibility-question/
With WND receiving some 4 press releases to multiple reporters frequently published by WND, Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Bob Unruh, Diana West, and J. Kovaks all receiving all 4 press releases not a single story has been featured on World Net Daily on the importance of the coming decision that should be coming to us between around July 1st,2012.
WND featured in several of their reports mentioned above quotes from the attorneys representing the clients as well as the Plaintiffs that were a part of the actions such as Swenson, Attorney Irions from Liberty Legal Foundation and J. Hatfield representing Swenson and Powell. Quotes featured seemed to embody a disgruntled view of the law in Georgia and a basic contempt bordering hostility for the actions represented by the Georgia Supreme Court.
What clearly was not represented was that Irions and Hatfield did not represent a Candidate for President who was running in the 2012 election, even though I actually received a call from Irions who then declined to represent me as we had talked about.
Orly Taitz represented Farrar v. Obama in the Georgia Supreme Court and was also turned down here: http://www.gasupreme.us/docket_search/results_one_record.php?caseNumber=S12D1180
More recently, June 11,2012 WND featured a story about the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to hear an appeal from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals here: http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/supremes-refuse-to-hear-birth-certificate-challenge/ ,that was represented by Orly Taitz in Barnett v. Obama and Keyes v. Bowden – here: http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/349217/ and here: http://www.wnd.com/2011/11/351473/
In the important 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, reported by WND, is here basically following the story from none other than, stunningly, The Huffington Post: http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/supremes-refuse-to-hear-birth-certificate-challenge/ (Link Here) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/supreme-court-obama-birth-certificate-case_n_1586695.html?ref=politics
The decision of the 9th Circuit is found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76328694/Keyes-Barnett-v-Obama-Appeal-9th-Circuit-AFFIRMED-Filed-Opinion-12-22-2011
Perhaps the most important part of the 29 page ruling condensed was this:
"Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama was sworn in and took office as President of the United States. The Plaintiffs are
active, inactive, or retired military personnel; state political representatives; private individuals, including federal taxpayers and at least one individual who claims to be a relative of Barack Obama; and political candidates during the 2008 general election"
"For ease of analysis, the District Court divided the plaintiffs into six categories: (1) active military personnel; (2) former military personnel; (3) state representatives; (4) federal taxpayers; (5) relatives of President Obama; and (6) political candidates in the 2008 election. The District Court concluded that the plaintiffs in the first five categories lacked standing, because they failed to show an injury-in-fact or showed only a generalized grievance insufficient to establish standing"
"The District Court assumed, without deciding, that plaintiffs who were political candidates in the 2008 election could potentially show an injury-in-fact based on their claim that they were denied a fair competition during the election because they had to compete with someone who was ineligible to be President. But the District Court concluded that neither they nor any other plaintiffs could satisfy the redressability requirement of standing, because the remedy they sought—a determination that President Obama is ineligible to be President and, therefore, his removal from office—would be beyond the power of the federal courts to grant, and implicates the political question doctrine and separation of powers."
"Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were no longer “candidates” for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future. Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the “potential loss of an election.”
"Owen 640 F.2d at 1132. Plaintiffs’ competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had lapsed. Similarly, Robinson’s interest as an elector—derived from the competitive interest of his preferred candidates—was extinguished by the time the complaint was filed. For the foregoing reasons, the political candidates failed to establish redressability sufficient to establish standing. They cannot claim competitive standing because they were no longer candidates when they filed their complaint."
The crucial part of this decision is the opinion, explaining the law that the Federal Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit held, and that to be candid, is the reasons that the ballot challenges brought by Citizens out of the executive branch courts absolutely lose standing in the Judicial Branch.
One can hardly see one County of a whole state for example overreaching a Federal Circuit Court covering a whole region of States.
Now covering the challenge set in Florida, WND has printed no less than 10 Feature stories on the Florida Ballot Challenge of a Democratic Party Member, which is really the Broward County of Florida challenge, yes that’s one county in Florida, that also has claimed affidavit’s of the Cold Case Posse team, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Speaking of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution demanded for the Office of the President, Counsel Klaymen told WND “The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.’ Klayman also stated, ““The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation,”
Lending the assumption that maybe all these eligibility attorneys were stupid for not having a Presidential Candidate in their arsenal just in case the Administrative Court flat out denied them and they had to go to a Judicial Court to appeal, again having the “standing issue” come into play, and falling flat.
Of course furious fever pitches the emails of all the Birthers claiming legal expenses that attorneys aren’t cheap, and please help to offset attorney expenses in these Ballot challenges handled by half a dozen action funds dedicated to their expenses.
What’s interesting is that Klayman and many of these attorneys fail to admit to the public what happens at the Judicial Branch as far as the “Standing Doctrine” and the reason Courts haven’t got to the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” being no one bringing the case to the Court had standing, again exclamation mark added, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on who has standing noted above.
While it wouldn’t seem strange for WND to cover this story ever so thoroughly as they are in Broward County Florida, what is strange is the absence of a story from a Democratic Candidate for President who was the first to actually submit Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s whole investigation as evidence upon entry of the Judicial Branch’s Superior Court, and has established “Competitive Standing”, and is now in the Georgia Supreme Court.
There are 3 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
What is mysterious here, is outstanding upon comparison, of preferred coverage of WND in relation to the subject of prior covered stories regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama with the legal criteria WND has covered for years involving standing.
Cody Robert Judy
Presidential Candidate – Democratic Party
Georgia (entire State Electorate )
Supreme Court of Georgia
Superior Court of Fulton County
Administrative Court (executive branch)
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse
High Court Circumstances No Priors being rejected
Meets Judicial Court Conditions of Standing
Pro Se Representation
Democratic Party Member
Florida Broward County Elector
Administrative Court (Executive Branch)
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Posse
10+ Feature Stories WND
Ballot Challenges all Dismissed
High Priced Attorney
This then begs the question that Barack Obama is a money-making machine for the WND coverage and while they might come close to the gate they really do not want to cover the story that has a real chance of unhinging Obama’s eligibility, or ramping up support for that end.
WND has by every media standard been a leader in the Birther Movement and coverage. WND CEO Joseph Farah has raised thousands perhaps millions of dollars with the “Where’s the Birth Certificate Billboard” and then after Obama’s release of the long form fabrication re-hoisted the “Where’s the real Birth Certificate" Billboard.
Recently I received a letter from WND entitled “A very important letter to WND friends” from David Kupelian Vice President and Managing Editor which cordially carefully extolled the virtues of WND’s coverage of the eligibility issue in no less than 5 examples, which were the only ones given as to the virtues of WND, begging the question: “What would happen to WND revenues if the Obama Eligibility issue was resolved?”
Might that explain the lack of coverage on a case that truly threatens to pull out of the Court the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” ,seen as the unique requirement of the Office of the President, by fulfilling for the Supreme Court of Georgia the Standing question?
This then leads us to the creditable question for WND “Where’s the real Coverage?”
I, Cody Robert Judy, simply want the Constitution upheld, but have been left to represent this myself without any high priced lawyers wanting to represent me in this stand, or WND coverage of my campaign in a single feature story.
I am poor and of meager means, but I am qualified as a “Natural Born Citizen” to run for the highest office of the United States and I’m poor because I’ve put so much time into my campaign building it from the ground up without compensation or attention to my self employed business, which I have worked to maintain a bare minimum.
There are many in America who could identify with me, and I identify with them. We are Citizens clinging to our Bill of Rights, our independents, our desire for freedom and liberty, our Nations sovereignty.
Our Judicial Branch of Government was given a specific charge as a check and balance to the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. The Judicial Branch was charged with checking our Legislative Branch to not pass unconstitutional laws, and checking our Executive Branch from dictatorship or tyranny according to the “Republic for which we stand”, based upon our Constitution from things like unreasonable searches, seizures, and an overbearing intrusion into our privacy.
When one of our Branches of Government breaks, we lose our balance and problems begin compounding themselves. I hope you can recognize what I do, and we can work together in fixing our problems.
I would ask you for your support and help for my campaign, not as a high priced attorney demanding compensation for the legal work I have filed to get to the Georgia Supreme Court, which most attorneys would say cost upwards of $30,000, but as someone who really understands you and what you’re going through because I’m experiencing those same things.
The work I have done on my Campaign represents what other politicians would say cost upwards of 15 million dollars but from its conception a week before R-TX Gov. Rick Perry got in the Presidential race till now has received less than $500, but that I have built with my own sweat equity from the ground up.
I’m still in this race and I’m not giving up. I’m hanging on with all my might because I know I am the only Presidential Candidate in America right now who has standing, a viable competitive campaign, who can court the delegates at the National Democratic Convention when Obama is declared ineligible, and there is no other answer in America to what my campaign can do, and will do.
Join me now if you believe in our Constitution and the United States of America.
If my case is not denied, that will then settle for all the cases in Georgia, and the Nation, that the law is not remiss in its duty towards the Constitution, but that the Court could not over rule itself by admitting standing when it had been ruled on so many times and clear up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
What an honor that would be, and how happy I would be for our Constitution and the Judicial Branch. The very real and heavy burden upon the Justices who have ruled upon this issue would be realized by all of America. Their burden truly has been a heavy one to bear.
Cody Robert Judy
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign