Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Democrat Candidate Pleads with U.S. Supreme Court - Democratic Party Stands Warned

From: codyjudy@hotmail.com
To: supremectbriefs@usdoj.gov
Subject: Information regarding Judy v. Obama 12-5276
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:05:06 -0600

Dear Mr. Verrilli- U.S. Solicitor General;

Sir, the reason I served you my complaint in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 was specifically because of the involvement of the Federal Elections Commission, which is a Federally Funded Organization under the Senate Judiciary Committee (please see my blog post here regarding the matter), that I believe is in the interest of your department as U.S. Solicitor General.


Dear U.S. Sen. Hatch: Sept 27th , 2011

Att: Mr. Tom Jipping

As Counsel for advice on procedural meetings with Representative Sen. Hatch as the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Judicial Committee, and his pledge and stand in doing such for the Constitution, could you please arrange a meeting for me to discuss the following that I would bring to the Senate Judicial Committee?

1- The FEC's recent stand against the Constitution in regards to allowing anyone to solicit money in a run for President without regard to that person's constitutional qualifications to do so, per age restriction and natural born citizen requirement, representing a fraud to those contributing money and services for the candidate in that specific proposal.

The six commissioners of the Federal Election Commission are being tasked with a Constitutional question: Can a foreign-born citizen run for President of the United States? Guyana-born New York attorney Abdul Hassan would like to file papers, take campaign contributions, and collect federal matching funds for his candidacy.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT ADVISORY OPINION (http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/1185406.pdf ) This is something that Congress has already ruled upon with hearings as recently as 2000.

I am also a candidate in 2012 for the Presidency, and am not only offended, but hurt financially by this, based on my own campaigns loss of revenue from potential contributions that basically are given under false pretenses to an unqualified candidate. This is fraudulent action perpetrated upon the voter and citizen contributing unawares of the candidates total lack of verification of qualification at the FEC level. A simple action by Congress mandating the FEC demand all candidates sign a statement under penalty of perjury as to their qualifications would go a long way in clearing this up. The Judicial Branch could then also have a breach of qualification standard with the candidates signature and penalty affixed of perjury.

Sir I would ask you to please help me know what to do at this point because of the recess of the U.S. Supreme Court and the deadline I have advocated necessary to call an Emergency Session of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this matter based on the rather impending disaster that is certain if the Court will not consider the case.

As you know the Tea Party is advocating heavily for Mitt Romney to call out Obama's eligibility problems after the Democratic National Convention and poll numbers have Obama slightly ahead, giving the political credence for an October surprise that would devastate the Democratic Party without room to recover. If the Supreme Court would rule on my case before the National Democratic Convention in Charlotte N.C., at least millions of Americans might have a chance of getting a eligible candidate or at the very least putting the issue to bed for the Republicans to sabotage after National Conventions.

Obama's campaign has been insistent on dragging Mitt Romney's tax returns out without so much as a whimper from Mitt Romney, but the issue isn't over with Obama's campaign desperate. Sir, one cannot expect the Republican Candidate to sit silent after being poked and poked and poked. I believe when Mr. Romney decides to go for Obama's jugular it will be after the Democrat Party's National Convention.

With my case Sir, the issue can be put to rest, taken out of the Republicans war chest, and handled with the proper supervisory authority of the U.S. Supreme Court that in fact has a major question presented to it that requires Constitutional interpretation and the upholding of precedent.

The problem is the Democratic National Convention is being held Sept. 5th, 2012 and the United States Supreme Court is in a Summer Recess right now. I would like to call upon you and ask you if by chance you know of any way to get this to the Court during this precarious time in the election cycle. I am a pro se litigant and am at my witts end in trying to 'notify', 'alert', or somehow 'flag' this issue to the Justices.

While I understand the "political doctrine question' very well and the Courts reluctance, millions of Americans may have their votes compromised and that is not an issue the Court ought to take lightly.

I noticed that your name has been taken off the Court Record as representative Counsel and Obama's attorney Michael Jablonski from Georgia was placed upon it, therefore I believe that it is appropriate, or not inappropriate ,for me to ask for your helping hand in my circumstances given the interest of the F.E.C involvement and perhaps your ability to notify the Court of this case that a decision might not lose in the standing circumstance of 'redressability'.

While I have sent an Emergency Notification to the Court detailing this matter copied to your office also, I am still unaware of any action by the Court or frankly that they have been notified of the case and circumstances.

Sir, I know Obama appointed you Solicitor General, but I'm sure you swore an oath to the Constitution and not to Obama, therefore I extend my hand and ask for your help. Please feel free to email or call me of any advice or action you feel is appropriate. Thank you kindly.


Cody Robert Judy
Petitioner pro se Case No. 12-5276 Judy v. Obama
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
3031 So. Ogden Ave.
Suite 2
Ogden, UT. 84401

1 comment:

  1. On October 1, 2012 the US Supreme Court turned down Cody Robert Judy's appeal of the Georgia court ruling and that of David Weldon. The result of these rejections is that the ruling of the Georgia court stands.