Thursday, January 3, 2013
SCOTUS Election Challenge presents: The Standing Argument Wipe Out
UPDATE: Friday - Jan 4th, 2013
I have been informed that a more comprehensive understanding will be generated Monday at 9:30 AM from the United States Supreme Court on case 12-5276 Judy v. Obama http://www.supremecourt.gov/
SCOTUS Election Challenge presents: The Standing Argument Wipe Out... again.
The pesky "Standing Doctrine" again haunts Orly Taitz again at the Ca. State Supreme hearing challenging the electoral college vote count, just as it did in California Courts in Keyes (Barnett) v. Obama which went to the 10th Circuit Appeals Court and was met with rejection because none of the plaintiffs who were running in 2008 continued their run for President in 2012.
Throughout Birther History, or since the dawn of Obama's opposition to the Constitution's demand for a 'natural born citizen' required by Article II, Section I, clause 5, "STANDING" has been the biggest challenge and a Presidential Candidate is needed for standing.
Orly didn't have a presidential candidate as a plaintiff today in the State Supreme Court of California ... again. Pastor James David Manning had me testify at the CIA COLUMBIA OBAMA SEDITION AND TREASON Trial, specifically because I had 'Standing'as a Presidential candidate who suffered harm in the general election. It was very compelling for the jury who found him guilty to understand my campaign had been formidably hurt and maliciously maligned by Obama's belief he could run on a different set of rules then are outlined by requirements in the Constitution.
When lawyers who have been told over and over and over again they have to have a petitioner who has "standing", or in other words are hurt by the action very directly and thereby substantiating good cause that a restraining order is sought for, what makes them think they don't? I don't get it.
It hurts the whole Birther movement accept for accounting for negative publicity. That should be the first line of offense for a plaintiff, not the best defense for the defendant. I am sorry for the money Orly spent and her effort, because I had hoped for the Constitution.
However,WE in the Birther movement have known and do understand the "standing" argument, made very clear or if we don't we should know greater standing is achieved with a presidential candidate straight from O's defense lawyers.
Report from the Tribune on Orly Taitz attempt to halt electoral college vote count.
You know what. I've been involved in some 13 case in the Birther Movement and none of mine have been dismissed because I lacked "standing". That should tell people something. The most important or acknowledged pronunciation of judgement coming out of any case I've been involved in was either a 'guilty' verdict as happened in the CIA COLUMBIA OBAMA SEDITION AND TREASON TRIAL or , a ruling that in fact over ruled with the 14th Amendment the demand for a natural born citizen made in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 in direct violation of construction laws prohibiting that action.
This is what is being heard tomorrow in conference of the United States Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama 12-5276.
The worst part of this is not being able to be a fly on the wall in the conference.I won't ever know what Justices voted to hear the case and which voted against hearing the case. Every member of the Supreme Court of the United States will be there, its not just a single justice of the United States Supreme Court, they will all vote thumbs up or thumbs down to hear this case. I need a majority of the Court to give me a thumbs up to hear it. I need 5 thumbs up of the 9 Justices.
Just as a refresher course "standing" is best understood by the following three criteria:
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.
In light of this one can understand how being competitively in a race with a campaign that is hurt or maliciously maligned with another candidates fraudulent practices in the race can account for a sincere standing.
If the Court refuses to hear my case tomorrow it won't be because of 'standing' that's for sure. A negative response may be purely political rather than suited on constitutional principle.
The standard pillar which stands center court in our Constitution as a principle is the qualification that the President be a natural born citizen. If foreign influence can perpetrate the Office of the President the affect is no less than having a nuclear bomb at the center of the Constitution.
Its easy to remember with the New Year being 2013, that 13 of the 48 pages of The Constitution pamphlet are referenced to the President, far outweighing any other constitutional principle by at least 10 to 1.
What does that say to you if for instance you wanted to destroy the Constitution? What office do you do it through?
A great spectacle has taken place in front of the America populous just the last 3 weeks over what? 435 Members of the House of Representatives 100 U.S. Senators and how many in the Executive Branch- One - have positioned themselves over the U.S. Economy.
Obama upped the ante from 800 Billion to 1.6 Trillion. Obama effectively just beat the hell out of 435 Representatives who were shaking in their seats with fear that they would be saddled with the blame if the largest tax increase in history went into affect.
Rush Limbaugh's side kick announced yesterday, that Republicans were no longer the party of tax cuts. They have effectively ponied up to the Democrats and done so after repeated kicks to the groin in which a condition of blue-balls was developed. Having a case of blue balls is often worse then the case of not having any at all.
One wonders why on Earth the new Republican House doesn't throw down the Constitutional gauntlet and open up investigations into the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama rather then fighting with one hand tide behind their back continually?
The Electoral Votes are being counted and Objections to the Vote could open up such an investigation. I have standing and would be happy to testify in front of Congress of the malign done to me and my campaign for President due to the "rules" that Obama has run under verses the "rules" the rest of us have run under.
You know, many times in our department of justice things happen that aren't or don't seem fair to one or more persons. Some guy gets off with a technicality that we have to honor because if we didn't it would deprive others of the same right. Sir William Blackstone himself said famously- 1765 " It is better to let 10 guilty go free than to let 1 innocent suffer" and I agree.
What the Untied States Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 and Congress is deliberating in Obama's ineligibility however is justice for every American, not just Obama. Every America is being affected by our economy and payroll tax increases, income tax increases, wither it be by a job that is not created because that money is sent in, or wither it is from the shrinking of one's business rather than the expansion.
Those who are wealthy from assets are not really going to be affected that much, so if your rich already kudos to you. Raising taxes on income may have been the surest way to shrink an economy that was immediately available. The Constitution's eligibility demand for the Office of the President to be a "natural born citizen" may be the surest way to shrink Obama's pen that is immediately available.
Please pass it along and help any way you feel you can.
Cody Robert Judy
A New Ride
Doritos- Has Justice been Jacked Women?
If you'd like to help Cody in the fight at the United States Supreme Court please contribute here:http://www.codyjudy.us/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody Robert Judy for President
Plaintiff/ SCOTUS Case No. JUDY v. OBAMA 12-5276
YouTube: CODY JUDY
FEC REGISTERED http://fec-candidates.findthedata.org/l/4426/Judy-Cody-Robert
Candidate ID P20003372
Committee ID C00501593
Petition for Rehearing under consideration:
Writ of Cert under consideration Judy v. Obama 12-5276