Tuesday, September 25, 2012




According to a phone call I received today, from a source I cannot disclose but to say it was credible, my case in the United States Supreme Court JUDY v. OBAMA Case No. 12-5276 was delayed. My case was divided into four parts by the Analyst because of its length, and with the load the Court received it was determined would be delayed.

My case was indeed lengthy, 79 pages, pressing the legal limit which in no way, shape or form is recommended and was supplemented with another 3 pages Emergency Application.
In reference to the Court new statute as it pertains to this- ' Miscellaneous orders may be issued in individual cases at any time. Scheduled Order List will continue to be posted on the Court's web site (http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/orders.aspx) immediately following their release by the Court. Miscellaneous orders will continue to be posted on the Website the day of issuance or the next day in the instance of some emergency applications. The change in practice will go into effect on Tuesday, September 25th, 2012.' 'Otherwise, all orders coming out of that Conference will be released next Monday at 9:30am. '

The courtesy call from the anonymous source seemed to be directed at the 'fall out' that would also be determined publically which I thought was a comment about it being blogged, twittered, and publically scrutinized. I suppose this could be perceived to be more on the part of violence that might be attributed to Birther outrage, then of the celebratory nature of the denial Obama supporters might have.

According to a new procedure which is just this Session being implemented that I commented upon in a previous blog, was directed for this exact circumstance, workload for the Court and length of the petition.

I was actually very impressed with this because of the understanding that my petition was in fact being dissected piece by piece by the Court and wasn't summarily being trashed dead on arrival.

Many people have pinned the United States Supreme Court Justices down regarding 'cases to be watched' or those with 'more merit' based on the Court's recommendation that the Respondent actually file a response, however this case does not represent the norm of cases filed with the Court because of the deadline factor of the General Election, which most cases do not have.

I shall also note here that a rather unprecedented thing happened I think causing a little consternation with this particular case. The very unprecedented and unusual factor is that in this case Obama and his Counsel basically snubbed the Court in which Judge Malihi denied a Motion to Quash and almost simultaneously acted in Obama's best defense.

In most cases this would have led to a grant of contempt or default against Obama, but in this case Judge Malihi reached outside the Court for a decision and acted as Obama's best defense allowing Obama's contempt in not showing up to Court, clearly providing a flood of catastrophe for not only justice, but the illusion of justice so far away from jurisprudence. The theory of Justice would be to have a Judge deciding against two arguments. In this case, Obama or his Counsel refused to attend but were favored, clearly making the Judge Obama's best defense.

The new statute for releasing the status for cases 'delayed' or 'dismissed' is for the following Monday, so again we are put in the ship of possibility.

Cody Robert Judy

1-79 page Petition for Cert: http://www.scribd.com/doc/100156244/Judy-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Revision-per-U-S-Clerk-Case-Analyst-Appendix-Stamped-Orders-Included


3-Previously referenced Blog : http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-update-on-scotus-24th-conference.html


  1. Hi Mr. Judy,
    I do not understand what your post means. Are you saying that someone has told you that your case is still being considered? Or are you saying that it is possible that your case has not been turned down yet? I thought I read both your case and Van Irion's case were not granted cert. But normally, don't they have a place where the case is listed as denied? Thats what I remember.

    Good luck, this is very hopeful.

  2. You're certainly impressed with yourself, Cody. Too bad you've yet to realize no one else is nor is there reason to believe your case would cause any problems for the court in comparison with all the other crap that has been filed by you and other idiotic birthers. You're a lot like Taitz, in this for all the publicity you can get. She's just a slightly more famous idiot than you.

  3. Hey, Not a Birther, why don't you get a life instead of being a busy body worrying about what other people are wasting their time on.

    I swear you obots are such Debbie Downers. Going around disparaging other people and their efforts on something you say is not worth it, a waste of time and wrong. So what the heck are you doing here??

  4. I think they're just really scared that if Obama is eliminated and I became the D Nominee late in the game they would actually have to vote for me or Romney. They'd be biting their tongues, and swallowing their own words, which is why I publish their comments...just in case. ;) Hey in my opinion we are all Americans and even Obots want their free speech and 1st Amendment protected, which means deep down they really do love the Constitution just like I do.
    Its been a wonderful and spirited debate we have all had bringing the Constitution in to the front of the argument, which I have seen as very positive!
    Cheers to all

  5. Dude, you are intelligent enough to know both birther cases have been DENIED cert!They always publish on Monday but it's over, another loss for another birther loser!!!!


  7. On October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down Cody Robert Judy's appeal http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-5276.htm.

    The result of this rejection of the appeal of the ruling Georgia court, and the rejection of another appeal of the ruling of the Georgia court is that the ruling of the Georgia court stands.

  8. well... DENIEd CERT!!! I heard the clerks got a lot of laughs over your"inchoherent, rambling , no-sensical" lawsuit!! It's tough when SCOTUS upholds your defeat to an EMPTY chair!!

    1. It wasn't so much the clerks laughing but justices Scalia, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.

      All three of them have one or more foreign parents, and all three naturally tend to believe that their allegiance to the USA is not affected by whether the parents were naturalized before or after the justices were born. They are likely to have had friends who had foreign-born parents who were naturalized after their children were born---and they did not notice any difference in the behavior of these friends from people whose parents were naturalized before the children were born.

      The laugh is that Judy was asking Scalia, Alito and the chief justice to vote that they believed the writers of the US Constitution may have believed that the US-born children of foreigners (who the justices ARE) are not as good as the US-born children of US citizens. Well, they do not believe it, and the certainly would not vote that the writers of the US Constitution believed it unless there were actual evidence that they did---and there isn't any.

      That's quite a laugh.

    2. That is a good laugh for them I suppose.., and a good reason they should lose their nice cushy jobs because they failed the Constitution. There's a legislative mandate that says so, as we all know how many times the 'attempt' was made to change it in the Legislative Branch and the attempts failed. Its NOT their job to re-write it, and the construction prohibitions of the Constitutions say so. I do think your comment was very insightful, and I appreciate it.

  9. There is a difference between an attempt to change the US Constitution (which is perfectly legal by the way, and we have done it many times) to allow naturalized citizens to become president, and the belief that the term Natural Born citizen excludes US-born children of one or two foreigners. A naturalized citizen is a person born overseas who become a US citizen through a specified process. But no child born on US soil requires that process; she or he is a Natural Born citizen.

    According to birther notions if Scalia's, Alito's and Roberts's parent were naturalized after they were born, none of them would be Natural Born Citizens. If the parents were naturalized before they were born, the three justices would be Natural Born.

    This kind of arbitrary rule can be perfectly legal, of course. But the Constitution really has to tell you about that situation. If the Constitution DOES NOT SAY that Natural Born refers to parents (even one parent, much less two) justices will naturally ask whether it makes any realistic difference in the behavior of a person if her or his parents were naturalized after their birth or if the parents were naturalized before their birth.

    MILLIONS of Americans had foreign parents who never were naturalized at all, and yet those millions of people were just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens, fought in two world wars and paid their taxes. The empirical evidence is that there is no difference in the behavior of the US citizens of foreigners who have not been naturalized at all from those whose parents were naturalized or whose parents were naturalized before their birth. In fact there is no difference between the behavior of the US-born children of foreigners from the US-born children of US citizens.

    This, of course, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts (whose mother's maiden name was Podrasky I believe) would know very well. So their natural question would be: If we today do not believe that the US-born children of foreigners are different or should be treated differently than the US-born children of US citizens---then what makes you think that George Washington, James Madison and Ben Franklin did either?

    And then they would say: "Yes, if even one of them had said 'two citizen parents are required,' or 'we are following the definition of Vattel.'" But then the justices would say: "but if the writers of the US constitution did not say anything like that in the Constitution or in an article or in any way---then I do not believe that THEY believed it.

    There is, by the way, absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to change Article II to make naturalized citizens eligible. Some people are for it, others are against it. It has been tried for decades. In the 1950s, it was attempted when it was noticed that Irving Berlin, the author of God Bless America, would not be eligible to be president. It is no longer a pressing issue, as it was when millions of Americans were immigrants. The most recent attempt was to change the Constitution to make Schwartzenegger eligible---but it is far from likely that anything like that will be attempted again.

    So their natural question would be. "If there is no evidence that the US-born childr

  10. So.. you probably think the first Supreme Court Justice was probably out of his mind to permit the suggestion that only a 'natural born citizen', in the interest of national security, be devolved upon the office of the Pres and VP?

    John Jay, in a letter to George Washington while he served as president of the Constitutional Convention, went further with a pointed question: "Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."[3] The implication is that the President of the United States should have loyalty to no country other than his own, which is naturally-guaranteed by birth to two citizen parents.

    You told me there was no evidence for this? But there's some.

  11. Loyalty becomes a tricky question when your sliding off the edge of a cliff. Pretty soon the middle of the cliff is loyal.. and pretty soon, the bottom of it is just as loyal.

  12. Re: "So.. you probably think the first Supreme Court Justice was probably out of his mind to permit the suggestion that only a 'natural born citizen', in the interest of national security, be devolved upon the office of the Pres and VP?"

    You are referring to John Jay, and he was an expert on the common law, and he was referring to the common law meaning of Natural Born, which refers to the place of birth---not to the parents. It was a security concern, as you say, but John Jay's recommendation of following the common law definition of Natural Born removed two enormous security concerns: (1) it required that the commander in chief must be a citizen----thus eliminating billions of people who were not citizens; and (2) it required the commander in chief must be a citizen who was not naturalized---thus eliminating millions of naturalized citizens who he did not trust.

    But there is NO evidence that he went beyond that. If there is a shred of evidence that John Jay meant "two citizen parents"---please show it.

    Unless you can show that John Jay meant two citizen parents NO member of the US Supreme Court will rule that he believed that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible to be president as the US-born children of US citizens.

    Re the "implication." Under strict construction principles, honored by conservatives, justices are not allowed to vote on "implications." They can only vote on actual evidence.

    Worse than this for you is the statement by Madison that there is only one criterion of allegiance in the USA---the PLACE of birth. In other words, Madison knew that there were two possible criteria of allegiance, parents and the place of birth---but that only one applied, place. Clearly the implication (yes, I am deliberately using your word) is that Madison understood that there could be dual citizens, but that he believed that allegiance could not be divided, and that when there was dual citizenship the PLACE of birth applies and makes someone have allegiance to the place where born. Thus there is NO evidence that the writers of the US constitution worried about dual citizens.

    Oh and by the way, the USA before Obama already had four, repeat at least FOUR US presidents who were dual citizens either at birth (Wilson and Eisenhower) or while they actually were president (Jefferson and Madison---who had been made full voting citizens of France during the French Revolution).

    I repeat, there is NO evidence that the writers of the US Constitution believed that the US-born children of foreigners should be more distrusted for the presidency than the US-born children of US citizens.

  13. If you don't think "discrimination" is good, why not let all the Dictators in the world, have children with American women, and finance their way to the Presidency as an off-shoot of tyranny?

    What I don't think you understand was that the 'grace' of the Constitution allowed the example I just gave to actually do that the very next generation.

    The consideration was only for the Pres and VP, that much we agree. Hey, Congress was a pretty big olive branch and Sen. Rubio has done great and is an honor to his country. His children could be President if they're born in the U.S.

    We both know "Citizens" before the Constitution was adopted was the grandfather clause of not being a'natural born citizen', so why has it failed to change through over 200 years of attempts through the Legislature? That's were it should be changed, not through the Judicial Branch.

    If you had read the transcripts to hearings held in Committee's of Congress assigned to this matter, you would see and read that two generations in America brings something more to the character and loyalty of a family, and rushing it to include only 1 generation as you advocate leaves an open door for an anchor baby to be born, and taken to another country and raised, and implanted/financed into the Presidency, just as Barack Obama was.

    The question is does a tradition of 2 generations make a difference?

    It places distance of a whole generation of leaders, not just our leaders, beyond the reach of influencing, controlling,or manipulating the Presidency.

    All the leaders would have died by the time the 2nd generation natural born citizen comes along and "nature" as well as "nurture" has done its best.

    Obama bowed to the Saudi Prince very low. Obama used America's military to place into power the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law.

    The evidence you suggest is needed will without a doubt dawn upon you way to late, and with no available recourse, because the office of the Presidency is a commander-in-chief.

    There is already little doubt thousands would still be alive in Egypt and Libya if our Military sequestered by Obama without Congressional approval had not been used at all.

    Instead our military was used to implant a theocracy. Such a move would have never been undertaken by a natural born citizen.

    What 'vital' U.S. interest was in Libya and Egypt? No, Obama has proven himself not a natural born citizen defending, preserving, and protecting, the U.S. Constitution not only with his identity but with his actions.

    And we wait for further proof. Well perhaps his words caught unawares with Putin would be a matter for you to research, something along the lines of, " I will have more latitude to implement after my second term"

    Obama himself acknowledges he's only got one more election and in his mind leveling the playing field is a truth he holds self evident that all men are created equal, and so we should level the playing field with every enemy of the the United States. That is a recipe for much more blood shed.

    And to think just adhering to our Constitution might have saved so many lives? Indeed, it was wise and sound wisdom that a check be given to the office of President and Vice President, which created the necessity for the grandfather clause for our Founders that expired long before Obama was born.