Wednesday, July 9, 2014



Monday, July 7th, 2014 I filed a new 30 page law suit against Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro, his corporation of Organization for Action (OFA), the DNC its officers and the presiding elected leadership of the House and Senate in the Democratic Party, growing out of the ashes of the law suits I filed against Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama in 2008 and Obama in 2012, as a fellow candidate for president, surrounding the United States Constitution’s demand that the Office of the President be filled with a natural born citizen, in the District of Utah’s United States Federal District Court, stemming from the problems this is causing for the future Presidential Race set for 2016 as case number 1:14cv00093 with Judge Bruce S. Jenkins being assigned to the case.

With the experiences so many other litigants, as well as myself, have experienced as failures with the violated principle of the Constitution’s demand for a natural born citizen in the Office of the President secured by Article II, Sect. 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution (U.S.C.), this action is a different approach to the same questions. With this post, let me try to answer a few frequently asked questions (FAQs) I’ve received so far for the benefit and as a reference for those who haven’t asked them but are wondering.

Hasn’t this issue been adjudicated already?

If you pictured the law in the U.S.C. that the Office of the President only be filled with a natural born citizen as a whole circle, and understood that there are hundreds of different doors around the parameters of the outer wall of the circle that lead inside, we could say all the doors so far have been locked that the so called ‘Birther Movement’ has tried and the issue has never been actually adjudicated in Court.

This is not to say there haven’t been Judges that have taken the opportunity of the issue being brought to them to throw in an opinion or two on cases that were dead end cases already based on the standard of standing. These opinions you might compare to a patient walking in to the hospital for a case arising from an ingrown toe nail that was handled properly, and then listening to the doctor expanding or extrapolating on the condition of the patient’s heart condition. Of course the heart is connected to the dead toe nail in some ways but it’s an extreme reach of judgment that actually wasn’t called for in the diagnosis or adjudication in kind.

There is now a Wiki Page dedicated to the Eligibility Challenges of Barack Obama I stumbled upon which detail some of these arguments and the case that came to my mind along these lines was Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, which was dismissed on standing nevertheless received an opinion.

You will notice on that Wiki page missing any of my cases by name but I was a party under the Georgia State entry subject to Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi decision which I took to the U.S. Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 but that all stemmed out of whether Obama was qualified to be on the ballot in Georgia. In that case, Obama refused to show up at the hearing on January 26th, which normally would have received a “Default” judgment, but the attorneys arguing the case, as a mistake I think, refused it. On February 3 2012, Malihi recommended that Obama remain on the ballot. Concerning Taitz's case Malihi wrote: "The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations".

What have been the biggest factors hindering this from being properly adjudicated?

Obama has had a lot of help when it came to avoiding the issue of his eligibility. I mean really how many of the rest of us have ever been summoned by a judge to Court, and then had a judge act as your lawyer, and then rule as the Judge on your behalf excusing you for refusing to show up and dismissing the allegations brought up against you without so much as a letter from you? That’s incredible assistance!

I did my best in objecting to the qualifications of the candidates McCain and Obama in 2008 and 2012. In the 2008 case my case was artificially delayed and finally after 4 or 5 “Notices for Judgment” had been ignored by the Federal District Court Judge in Las Vegas, Nevada was ruled “moot” after the election because Obama had beaten McCain. This was a factor of timing in an election much like Obama’s ballot challenge in New Hampshire and Georgia in 2012.

Timing has played an overwhelmingly big factor in Obama’s favor. Judges in my experience as I’ve hinted at have been relatively hesitant to rule on issues “pending” elections. In other words, if the Judges’ decisions had the potential to change the election by prohibiting a candidate from being in the election Judges’ wanted no part of that and have used the “political question doctrine” to avoid such decisions, especially I suppose when it came to the major party candidates.

There are of course many cases where particular candidates have been precluded from being on the ballot when they were not ‘major’ candidates in national elections for major parties. It’s really only been in 2008 and 2012 that the issue has come to have some bearing in the race for the Republicans and Democrats in their choice as a nominee for President of the United States.

Because of the control in the Legislative Branch by those two parties, if a corrupt agreement is reached to subvert the Constitution based on say a good-ole-boys-agreement or cronyism, the only opposition that can object is really an independent candidate for President, and while he wouldn’t have any luck in the Legislative Branch because of the agreement between the two parties controlling that Branch, the only Branch of Government left to appeal to is the Judicial Branch in a Court of law.

Among the legal challenges in the Judicial Branch Courts filed against Obama in the States by far the biggest factor has been a lack of standing. I’d say 98% maybe were filed by non-candidates in the race ruled to have no standing meaning they were basically bi-standards affected by the horror of watching an accident happen trying to sue the party at fault rather than being a directly injured party. It’s a sensitive issue but if the Courts didn’t rule against it, people would in fact be suing the state for watching an accident happen rather than being in one and then suing. Imagine the number of cases increasing in the Court by a 1000% or 10,000%. It would overwhelm the system if standing were not protected as a relative barrier discerning “direct” from “indirect” participates.

Appropriating blame has probably governed another 1 % of cases as many Secretaries of States have been the ones dragged into court rather than Obama himself. This stemmed from a responsibility and accountability of the Secretaries of States as types of ‘gate-keepers’ to getting on State Ballots for the Primaries and the General Election. They’re failure as been relegated as a failure relative to “not proving Obama’s lie wrong.’

Candidates basically swear an oath out that should they be elected they will be able to qualify for the Office they fill, and Secretaries of States receive these as witnesses of the truth. Proving that wrong then becomes an issue that is hindered by again timing before the race and the Judges’ willingness or unwillingness to remove a candidate. Then there are probably a small percentage of the cases that have been dismissed on technical issues relating to the Plaintiff’s not adhering to Court procedure brought on more by the Court’s unwillingness to excuse a gnat for the subversion and construction on the whole Constitution.

Of course typing errors and procedure’s are important, but in kind of a balance on the flip of the coin, rarely is a Judge willing to excuse a murderer because the prosecution failed to spell a word correctly as an error of prosecution worthy of overturning the case.

What makes the case you have filed different?

Many things are the short answer, but in a few basic and distinct differences I’d say reflect a different door approach. First and most basically it’s a Civil Rights Violation case challenging that my right to run as a candidate for President is hindered by a disagreement on who and who is not qualified for President according to the standards of the Constitution. Civil Rights challenges are different then ballot challenges in nature. Civil Rights challenges might be seen as damages after an accident like an injury or wrongful death law suit, where ballot challenges might be seen as preventative care negligence’ before an accident like a defective part recall.

I’m not sure a U.S.C. Ch. 42 §1983 civil rights challenge has ever been filed by a candidate for President against another accept me with McCain in 2008, but I do know that was what scared the crap out of the Judge who delayed his ruling until after the election.

The approach comes from a strong position of directly being harmed as a candidate, under Civil Rights protections bring the blanket down to cover every American from discrimination or unfairness in treatment. As this applies to the presidential races with me as a candidate and Obama, the discrepancy of qualifications that the Republicans and Democrats came to agree upon with U.S. Senate non-binding resolution 511 actually left me and I’d say the Constitution out in the cold.

The major players in that agreement were Sen. McCain, and co-sponsors Sen. Obama, and Sen. Hillary Clinton effectively quartering the Constitution and corralling Republicans and Democrats from future objections on the issue of Qualifications for President or Eligibility, with a penalty of party power attached that might destroy any single member of Congress should it be unleashed upon them. It’s an effective blackmail tool, and I say blackmail because it demands loyalty to an action that subverts the Constitution that carries with it a penalty backlash understood to be a loss of party money and support to get reelected. That’s basically defined as corruption in a secret combination.

Another major Federal Statute that is listed on my complaint representing an entirely new approach or door of legal action in the matter, that I’m almost positive has never been employed by any Candidate for President is that of contesting the “Corporations” of individuals running for Office with the Corporations formed by major political parties like the DNC in a violation of anti-trust laws in much the same way as the U.S. Government came against Microsoft for an illegal cartel, or monopoly.

This is interesting because very recently the United States Supreme Court awarded corporations more of a “human right” as businesses being able to exempt themselves from providing contraception in an effort to opt out when it conflicted with religious or conscientious objection. Candidate for Office more and more seek the protections of incorporating campaigns to protect their own personal liability. My action seeks to hold these corporations that come together with what’s called a tying factor forming basically an illegal cartel, because their action is not in the public interest or for the public good, but rather is bent on destroying or destruction of the Constitution outlining the requirements or qualifications for the Office of the President.

Specific to this is my allegations that The Sherman Act is in violation with two or more separate corporations coming together to form an illegal cartel or monopoly against the public, in restrictions of other candidates. It is the standard of the Constitution that these corporations are subject to because of their specialty or type in the political arena.
Basically, it doesn’t make any sense for candidates to be able to hide behind corporation laws, and not be subject ALSO to laws that govern corporations like The Sherman Act or The Clayton Act as it may apply. One of the benefits of this is it also permits me as an individual to bring to the Court an action of criminality for the Judges’ consideration almost like an attorney general would without my having to occupy that position.

Individuals can bring Corporations to task in allegations of violations of The Sherman Act that actually carry felony charges and $100,000,000 in fines against the corporations, as well felony charges against individuals and up to $1,000,000 dollar fines for individuals in the corporations responsible for fraud or a collusive agreement that forms a monopoly. If the Court were to hear the argument it might have a colossal effect of political parties governing themselves in a much higher regard for the Constitution as a standard.

Violations of Civil Rights and The Sherman Act are definitely actions brought correctly as far as jurisdiction is concerned to the Federal Court rather than a state court and my allegations form a collective argument over a continued process of discrimination, defamation, and libelous standards being afforded the defendants by smashing the standards of the Constitution in the public arena that is working against me as a standard bearer.

It is only the lack of a Court decision on the merits that allows the Main Stream Media to constantly whip candidates with what’s understood to be a negative backlash as a “Birther”. If the Court were to rule on the standards positively, the perception of the public for “Birthers” would dramatically change from a negative to a positive. Thus we see it is a standard of the law neglected by the Defendants in my case that make up the corruption charges of a few people changing in an act of corruption the Constitutional standard in violation of the whole will of the people.

Now, something else is very different in this case. It repeatedly insists this action is NOT brought to the Court with a demand that Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro be removed from the Office of the President. It insists repeatedly that is an action for Congress to take up whenever or should it ever decide to. The only matter this action insists upon is an accountability and responsibility to paying for damages.

In other words, personally speaking, if I had never entered the race as President in 2008 and 2012 and in my election endeavors so far for 2016 all the time, talent, and fortune that has been used thus far in those endeavors be held at the responsibility of the Defendants. In other words, I’m recognizing Obama did win the election, but that he did so at the expense of my injury and my campaigns injury illegally and that demands a responsibility for the injury using the standards of law demanded for the Office of the President in the U.S.C.

The Democratic Party was responsible for 1.4 Billion just in the Presidential Race in 2008 and 2012, thus the statute penalty of $100,000,000 for The Sherman Act Violations represents less than 10% of the total raised by Obama and the DNC in conjunction with only the presidential race, and then as compensatory damages I’ve asked for $40,000,000 that considers damages to my campaign and person over that extended period of time, so $140,000,000 as a modest penalty of subverting the Constitution that might curb political parties in the future from putting unqualified candidates on the ballot or choosing unqualified candidates to represent them. At least if they do, they would be seen as responsible for other candidate’s campaigns and have to be accountable to paying them for the time and money based entirely on breaching the standard of the Constitution’s qualification for any office.

The message here is you may indeed subvert the Constitution’s qualifications for office with a candidates lie, you might also additional corral the majority of members in Congress strongly tied to party power and money subverting the Constitution, but you may not run over independent candidates associated with your corrupt agreements without being held accountable to those candidates in the Judicial Branch’s Courts of Law. This is indeed a very clear part of the check and balance duty that the Judicial Branch has upon the Executive and Legislative Branches and I think my case speaks strongly on that basis and on the basis of rules of reason is accountable.

My case also includes and references all legal findings of the Cold Case Posse on the fraudulent documents provided by Obama to the White House Press core, as well as the investigation on his draft registration, and use of a dead man's social security number, as well as setting on the table two DNC nominations forms of varying attestments, Obama's own bio reporting his birth in Kenya in his literary bio, Indonesian Citizenship through his adoption by step father Lolo Soetoro,and his claim of a Kenyan father as a birth father with the argument that should be honored, and that a dual citizenship is prohibited in the Office of the President as it links in a first generation an alien or foreign citizen ship.

In the realistic terms my argument also outlines the facts that if Obama is not held accountable to the standards in a ruling for me as a plaintiff that he basically gets away with the subversion if the burden of appeal is placed upon me with the time left in the term of office. It could easily take me two years to get to the U.S. Supreme Court with the burden of appeal; however the appeal could still necessarily come into play with other illegal candidates perhaps even running in the Republican Party in 2016.

2016 Candidate for President of the United States

First 2016 Presidential Campaign Commercial

Can you help me out today? Just go right over to my contribution button and do it. I think my taking on the argument alone with McCain and Obama clear to the U.S. Supreme Court is past and now you have to kick in because without you I'm just one guy and I can only do what I've done and that didn't come cheap you know.

Cody Robert Judy
For U.S. President 2016

If you think “Truth” is worth it, support it and quit supporting the lie. That is the beginning of change, or we can just keep on going down this road and see where it leads with Obama. Which is it going to be?


I'd sure appreciate your helping me out in the American Birther Campaign (ABC) Campaign for Cody Robert Judy for President 2016. Thank you for your consideration.

Cody Robert Judy
YouTube: Code4Pres

No comments:

Post a Comment