Author - Cody Robert Judy
Conservative Independent American
Candidate for Pres 16, 12, 08
U.S. Senate 18, 10, 04, 00
U.S. Rep. 02
Book: Taking A Stand - The conservative independent Voice
With the executive privilege Obama has just pulled to cover A.G. Eric Holder one thing is crystal clear.
Obama just forgot to include a blackmail technique on Republicans when it came to devising a plan to abolish the 2nd Amendment. You see deep down that was the intent of Fast & Furious. They thought that it would provide a great reason to confiscate weapons from Americans ultimately it back fired.
Obama has down pat the ultimate blackmail technique on his Birther Score Card with U.S. Senate Res. 511 which he co-sponsored allowing McCain's "naturalization" at 11 months old to morph into a 'natural born citizen' and that closed the door on Republicans actually standing up for the Constitution's demands for a natural born citizen as President.
So, the way its shaping up, the Fast & Furious operation could easily be Obama's watergate and, of course Republicans aren't backing off this one, as its gone mainstream and doesn't sit well with the American People.
There comes a clear choice to Democrats, including all delegates, super-delegates, and homies of Obama. Either join the Birther Cause and isolate Obama for the usurpation he employed in stating he was a 'natural born citizen' on his Candidate Declaration when he wasn't, or watch the Republicans amazingly roll over Obama as an Republican promoted eligible candidate in the Fast & Furious operation.
Let me say that one more time. Republicans have allowed Obama's usurpation by not holding Congressional hearings on his eligibility in a Republican Controlled House, and have thus in treasonous action denied their oaths to defend the Constitution's demands for a natural born citizen. Republicans winked at the Constitution and that is their true colors exposed.
Not one Candidate for Republicans has had the courage to defend the Constitution's demands for a natural born citizen and offered a hint of removing Obama as a liability according to U.S.C. Amendment 14, Clause 3.
Democrat's have a choice here and now. End the Fast and Furious operation by Sponsoring Congressional Hearings in the Democrat Controlled U.S. Senate on Obama's eligibility, which will put an end to it, and at the same time will employ the U.S. Constitution far better then the Republicans have employed it in the face of thedeAmerican Citizenry.
The other choice of course? Obama goes down in flames on the Fast & Furious operation and Mitt Romney and Republicans lay waist to the Democratic Party for the last time. Think about it Democrats while you watch this hope and change video!
A few good reasons here about 'hope' and 'change' that an unqualified ineligible usurper provides Democrats. I encourage all Democrats not to go down in Obama's unconstitutional flames and provide America a constitutional hope rather then a winking-hope sponsored by Republicans.
5 BULLET POINTS' OF CODY'S SUPREME COURT CASE IN GEORGIA
WHAT WAS CODY ROBERT JUDY’S STAND IN GEORGIA SUPREME COURT ABOUT?
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 www.ObamaBallotChallenge.com , 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. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cfp-radio/2012/06/23/the-hagmann-hagmann-report
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.
Breaking News: Conservative Georgia Supreme Court denies Presidential Candidate with standing on Obama's eligibility.
REPUBILICAN PARTY LIVING IN FEAR OF THEIR RECORD ON THE CONSTITUTION?
Republicans’ right now are riding a wild high with the trouble coming out of the Democratic Party in Obama’s/Holder fumbles as Fast & Furious. Indeed Fast & Furious might be the hammer that takes Obama out, but that in no way shape or form represents his being qualified or takes the place for the Judicial Branch actually interpreting the Constitution, in the demands of the Constitution upon the Office of the President.
The Court has made a remarkable decision here [Disposition Date: June 21, 2012
Application dismissed All the Justices concur.] in that for all the reasons that 100 + cases have been tossed out on Obama's eligibility, most of those cases were denied over 'Standing'. However that is not the case here- As a Presidential Candidate the 9th Circuit Court has ruled I do have 'standing' as an official Presidential Candidate claiming harm, and especially in the same party as Obama at this particular time. Therefore the denial by the Georgia Supreme Court flies in the face of all the other Court rulings that have sported "standing" as a reason for dismissal and thus this denial, is rather historic in nature, compared to all the others.
While the Georgia Supreme Court has been noted as a conservative court, and more on the Republican side, this illustrates that the Republican Party doesn't necessarily want a change in whom the Republican nominee will face.
Its an easy conclusion that it is in the interest of the Republican Party to pile it on thick when it comes to Obama’s Administration and spread Obama’s dis-ease across the whole Democratic Party- Case in point an interesting conversation on face book taking place today that demonstrates the willful attempt of Republicans to ‘label’ Democrats as ‘anti-constitution’.
The Republican Party right now is living in fear that Obama might be isolated as ‘a lone wolf’ who willfully, financed by foreigners his whole life, has hi-jacked the Democratic Party and won’t make it to the Democratic National Convention the first week in September before he is escorted out of the White House by those loyal to the United States Constitution in the Democratic Party.
Think of the scrambled omelet Republicans would be making if in isolating Obama as a ‘lone wolf’ the Democratic Party returns right of Republicans left of center? The strategy involves coaxing an opponent out of a safe guarded foundation or strong hold they possess and then inserting a smaller band behind them to take the higher ground or strong hold.
The smaller band then takes that strong-hold and is able to maintain it and fight the return of the Party lured out as they see the castle so-to-speak has been taken, while they left it vulnerable, while of course they are now heeled from behind by the force they had strung themselves out to pursue.
The result is of course a surrounding of the Republican Party by the Democratic Party. While the Republicans are trying to get back to the Constitution but unable to because a small number of the Democratic Party has the record they deigned to have and a total demise of the Republican Party is what ensues.
Of course I have long held that it was the Republican’s worst nightmare not to stand up against Obama’s eligibility, but let’s take a look at the conversation that was firing away on Facebook to illustrate the point.
Heidi Anne Myers Jackson- democrat? you’re running for democrat party president, cody?
Cody Robert Judy @ Heidi Of course you probably guess that the whole wide world is against me right now. Romney doesn't want my law suits on Obama's eligibility to come to any fruition because he hasn't taken a stand for the Constitution on Obama's eligibility and he's vulnerable there. Of course the Democratic Party who still feels Obama's got a shot are hanging on by a thread but there's major movement away from Obama. The Clinton Forces actually want Mitt to fumble the ball so Hillary can run in 2016, that would be the last ditch effort for her at 69 yeas old. However, if my efforts are successful, you'll see her move heaven and earth and I would have a major battle at the Convention trying to convince Delegates I can beat Romney because he didn't do anything to take a stand for the Constitution in 2008 or 2012 on Obama's eligibility. So, publicity is pretty hard right now.., but words' getting out. This has been shared approximately 100,000 times over the last 2 weeks.http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=404722959571278&set=a.358918520818389.81790.358905374153037&type=3&theater
Heidi Anne Myers Jackson “I don’t think the world’s against you, Cody, I think you’re pissing on the wrong tree. I can’t understand why you would want to stay a member of a party that has no desire to honor the people or the constitution or support a free market. yes, there are problems in the republican party, but there’s a lot more reform needed on the democrat side of the aisle to come back to constitutionality than the republican as for mitt not speaking out on Obama’s eligibility, name me a national politician who has especially in the democrat party.”
To address your second statement , well.. maybe in a little bit of disagreement with you. Of course you understand the Democratic Party roots in protecting the Constitution in a BIG way especially in the Bill of Rights, first 10 Amendments, ACLU., American Civil Liberties Union? Remember... the "liberties" found in the Constitution being whittled away by things propelled like the 2001 'Patriot Act' signed by .. ? Yes, Republicans. The attempt to paint a party as so anti-constitution is really spread equally among both parties right now ... and that is unfortunate. You do recall McCain was the R nominee to champion what? McCain/Kennedy?, McCain/Feingold?, McCain/Liberman ?
That's really incredibly forgotten of course but in just those 3 you have a disaster recalled in the Republican Party remember?
Now throw on top of that the Obama co-sponsored McCain U.S. Sen. Res. 511 in which McCain received his "natural born citizen" crown that painted Republicans into a corner with Obama's ineligibility and I'm thinking there are holes in your theory, especially given what I have fought for within the Democratic Party.
Now, I may be only 1 in the Democratic Party but I assure you that does not mean I am alone by any means. And you’re absolutely correct in your statement that not a single major contestant in the Republican Primaries and the darling Sarah has taken a stand for the Constitution on Obama ineligibility. As for the Democratic Party's stand well, it’s well documented in mine.
IF within our Democratic Party I prevail, your argument will totally fall into chaos because of the stand of the Republican candidates so far against the Constitution in the most important issue of America's National Security and Economy- Obama's eligibility.
Cody Robert Judy http://www.scribd.com/doc/95503922/Judy-v-Obama-Discretionary-Application-for-Review-Georgia-Supreme-Court
Cody Robert Judy- Here is my Democratic Party Platform - I'd invite all conservatives to ask themselves if voting for me would be going against their principles? Remember JFK Jr. gave his life because he wanted to get us back on the 'gold standard'. These principles did not die within the Democratic party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZIlBt8IDgY
Cody Robert Judy- I sure want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to express them. I dearly love our United States Constitution.
Heidi Anne Myers Jackson- Cody, you're claiming the bill of rights for the dems? you can have the ACLU - they have fought for protected rights unless the person was a minority in years. maybe you recall a few things about the dems? no? let me help you out.
slavery.
separate but equal.
The kkk.
opposition to all of the civil rights' acts
the attempt to keep blacks & chinese from being recognized as citizens.
banning blacks from working in the federal government
legalizing abortion in an attempt to control the black population.
welfare
esl
obamacare
no budget since they re-gained control of congress in 2006.
more than tripling the national debt since 2006.
shutting down ability for us to energy independent.
destruction of our education system.
should i continue? yes a vast majority of republicans voted for the patriot act; so did a majority of democrats - your point?
btw, most republicans don't think mccain has been a republican since the 80's.
i'm not interested in supporting a democrat in any manner. regardless of whether you're the only on or not makes no difference. the vast majority of the politicians in the democrat party - and by definition the people who support them - are not with you.
i stand by my statement that you're pissing on the wrong tree.
Cody Robert Judy- Well, I understand where your standing, and you know I think you’re going to find yourself in a bit of regret, because there is one thing I know Heidi, and that is that your presumptive nominee Mitt Romney hasn't stood up for the Constitution in Obama's eligibility.
That, I believe, truly is the biggest factor in Obama's corner. Can you actually stand up for the Constitution's demands for the Office of President or in other words our National Security and Economy? I mean think about our world if R's had the courage needed? The fact they don't or haven't, simply means they wanted to play that ace in this election.
In fact I believe that will be the biggest mistake ever associated with the Republican Party. Perhaps you have estranged yourself from McCain who was your Champion in 2008 and in whom you trusted with your vote?
Kind of sounds like it, but we are talking the 'interest of big party's here', and I really wonder about the credibility of your stand if indeed you believe and love the Constitution, yet for all I have shared with you, still insist on ridiculing me as nothing more than a Democrat without a bathroom, or proper restroom, left to urinate on a tree in open public?
What does that tell you about your belief in the Constitution verses your belief in the Party?
The Party is kind of first fiddle isn't it? That's my point. Watch .. because your going to see some amazing things transpire in the next couple of months. There is an amazing story happening in the Democratic Party that is going to captivate America's attention, and the Republicans won't have any answer to it. That's why I'm saying, "If Obama is not the Democratic Party nominee, it will be the end of the Republican shell game."
Cody Robert Judy I saw your a Ronald Reagan fan Heidi on your wall. ;) I think you might get a kick out of this Fathers Day Tribute video I made in 2010 when I was running for U.S. Senate and Fathers Day was just celebrated last Sunday. :)
In truth we as Americans may belong to different political parties and if you’ve been around politics long enough you’ve seen the evolution of many different perspectives and Mitt Romney is a classic example of that I’m sure all would agree, however the point I think we all come down on together is that we do indeed live under the banner of the Constitution as The Supreme Law of the Land.
Mitt Romney has categorically absolutely nothing to do with preserving, protecting, and defending the United States Constitution in the biggest scandal of fraud and forgery America has ever seen: Obama’s ineligibility by the demands of the Constitution for the Office of the President.
Now there is absolutely no way Obama is still in office unless Republicans in a dominated Republican House allow him to still be there. So who are Republicans hoping they get to go up against in November?
Well it sure isn’t me, and that is why right now the REPUBILICAN PARTY is living in fear of their record on the constitution.
Wow! Unreal.. you know I was thinking about calling Larry Klaymen up and telling him,' you know if you case gets dismissed and you don't have a Presidential Candidate preferably in the same party your case won't meet the criteria of "standing' as soon as you enter a 'Judicial Branch Court' so says the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals', and see if he would like to put me on an 'amended complaint' if the Judge gave him that leeway.
Comments I made about the hearing from WND's article here:
1- Any law conflicting with the order of Supreme Law of the Land, U.S.C. is by its nature un-constitutional, more especially dealing with the right of the people to vote in the Primary and for the Delegates to be bound to the People's wishes by their vote. That's exactly why anything Obama signed is 'moot', he's not an eligible candidate, he is not an eligible person in office, that's what usurpation means. He needs to be removed from the White House on the 14 Amendment's clause of a 'Disability' in Sect. 3.
2- 'I know the eligibility question has been argued with the Briefs pretty well, and its not really necessary to argue in Court unless the Judge is asking questions. Argument in Court really plays to the "key" issue hanging the Motion to Dismiss out for a decision. If its denied, further deliberations on the merit might go ahead along with 'discovery'. So Klaymen was a little 'controlled' in his argument of the 'purpose' of the hearing. However, I do think he failed in pointing out the money trail to the Democratic Party sponsored by the State tax payers. And that is that State voters are 'paying' for the primary results and process, so that burdens the Democratic Party to adhering to a qualified candidate by the Constitution. Any political party participating in any form of State procedure is using tax payer money, so is at least obligated to adhere to eligibility requirements. That is why the SOS is obligated!"
3- "No decision was announced immediately. The judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides. He asked Klayman about the presidential eligibility of a person who is born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizens, but the parents later emigrate to Israel." .. Klayman could have followed up with the other requirement here, and "14 years a resident", but he missed the slam dunk.
4- The biggest problem Klaymen did allude to briefly was that its a "shell game" I believe was the term he used. Obama's strategy exist, and counts on shoving the argument down stream. The reasons' are obvious: 1)Less contention exist when Parties want to be seen as co-hesive for the general public viewing them at the National Conventions. They don't want 'war on the floor'. 2) Again, Money.. the more a candidate has been contributed to the more appealing. Ride the coat-tails of a winner theory. 3) The Courts then become subject to a less talked about doctrine called, "The Political Doctrine Question" where the Judicial Courts arbitrarily resign themselves to not confounding the Peoples wishes. Obama knows this one very well and has already thrown it as red tomatoes at the U.S. Supreme Court Justices over the Obama care hearings. The concept however was not meant to impede our Judicial Branch from being a balance in the check and balance of our system where Legislatures can find themselves making a law that is unconstitutional, or the Executive Branch can find itself overstepping the Constitution on law enforcement like privacy issues. That's the role of the Judicial Branch so to will that to a 'bully' through the election process is sickening!
5- If he goes to "Appeal" with his Plaintiff he's done, just like most of the Plaintiffs in Georgia went to the Supreme Court and were denied Application for Review. If by chance mine isn't (Judy v. Obama S12D1584) denied, we will know for sure that you have got to have a presidential candidate and 'standing' is removed from the Ballot Challengers once they enter a Judicial Branch Court from the Administrative Court.
Writing about this might be really good because these attorneys aren't remembering/ getting / employing the lesson that the 9th Circuit taught us.
Klaymen indicated he would go to Appeal no matter what, but how can he see an Appeal winning when a State Judicial Branch Court, is under or lower then say a 9th Circuit Federal Court, and the 'Standing' issue will come into play again just like it has over 100 times. Isn't that enough for these eligibility attorneys to KNOW they are done if the step into a Judicial Court?
I understand there may be Judges in States that don't rule the same way, but when it comes to unseating a guy in the White House, most administrative court Judges are gonna say, "Hey, that belongs to a panel of Judges, not to my shoulders". They aren't gonna want to have the world come tumbling down on them, so what's the motive not to just let the Plaintiff appeal?
The Problem is if they appeal, in the Judicial Branch, we're playing under a different set of rules about 'standing' again.
If that's the case, Klaymen probably won't have time to 'amend' a complaint in Florida before my case is ruled upon by July 1st, Klaymen would have to amend and add me now.
Cody Robert Judy
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 www.codyjudy.us www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
Youtube: CODE4PRES www.facebook.com/CODE4PRES
Cody's Taken A Stand for the Constitution and needs your help for his Georgia Supreme Court Case. He's asking that you send him the 'hope and change' Obama gave you represented by the "Change" in your pocket America. Cody says, 'Help Me Help You" in this funny but true plea for 'change'.
