Friday, January 22, 2016

BREAKING REPORT:White House Shoplifting is Stealing - No Individual too Big to Fail or too Big to Jail

~Shoplifting is Stealing ~
No Bank too Big to Fail or Individual too Big to Jail
Shoplifting is a crime most people would recognize as wrong. Taking someone's property that isn't yours is not right. As I was at the throne in Walmart brainstorming a political post, my head cocked to the right as I read the sign staring me in the face. "Shoplifting is Stealing. It's a crime. Even if it's your first offense, you could be punished with a lengthy prison term and a substantial monetary fine, plus a record that will haunt you for the rest of your life. "What", I thought, "made the Office of the President any less valuable to the U.S. Supreme Court than anything sold at Walmart?"

Most Constitutional Scholars do recognize the importance of 'Standing' in legal doctrine. It is the doctrine that prohibits those who witness an accident from suing for shock from those actually suffering the accident who are in shock or critically injured. Sarah Helene Duggin of the Constitution Center opined "in the absence of an Amendment the clause should be narrowly interpreted.", recognizing attempts to change the definition Legislatively have failed through the Elected Leaders of the People, the Court's definite Challenge in waiting for Presidential Candidates to bring a case to them, and the difficulty in navigating the case through the political minefields of particular party nominees that bring the ship so close to elections. 

Obama's first big challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court came in 2008 from a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania ,Democratic Party chairmen of Montgomery County, and author of recently released ObamaScare,  Phil J. Berg. The lawsuit  was dismissed due to a lack of standing. (Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)  Phil Berg was not a Presidential Candidate and his assertion of standing due to an infringement of his voting capacity to vote for an eligible candidate did not convince the U.S. Supreme Court. 

That technicality of "Standing" however has never been used in any of the Cases brought by '08, '12, and 2016 Presidential Candidate Cody Robert Judy (CRJ) - the only Candidate in America with a bi-partisan Federal Court Record in the defense of the [natural born Citizen] ie. [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] , qualification for the Office of President in the U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. See: Judy v. McCain and Judy v. Obama.

In CRJ's latest U.S. Supreme Court case considered closed only 2 months ago due to the SCOTUS refusing his forma pauperis Motion, that had been granted by his two lower Court in the Federal District Utah Division and the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and which was coincidentally granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 12-5276, he stated, "It's just a real shame that the Office of the President is valued less in the U.S. Supreme Court Justice's minds, than stolen property from Walmart or the value of a dog. "

Like small businesses struggling to survive the Campaigns of Presidential Candidates often also incorporated, demand huge amounts of time, talent, attention, products and services. "In the malfeasance of Justice represented by the Justices Review, in light of their decisions and the evidence had in the Motion for forma pauperis with the balance of the Writ of Certiorari hanging, small businesses that are subject to the same rules can fail and the big ones are aloud to survive. Its basically Open Season to Steal all of the hard work that has gone into my Campaigns for President over the last seven years", Judy said. "I'm sure any business owner would agree with me, it really hurts when shoplifting is rampant. "

The assertions in Judy's complaint actually do address the illegal formations present in Presidential Political Campaigns as businesses or Corporations, that can form illegal cartels with each other apposing the U.S. Constitution. These are indeed Standards subject to rules and regulations of big businesses like the Sherman Act and Clayton Act afford in the formations of giant monopolies meant to curb the illegal actions of wiping out small businesses or in CRJ's case smaller campaigns, who are still beholden to rules. This begs the question- are Big Campaigns too big to Fail based on violations of the Constitution as a Standard or the money that is collected in contributions? 

by SCOTUS for THE PEOPLE in the Checks and Balance Assignment

In the last Democratic Party Debate held on a three-day weekend on a Sunday Night receiving just barely half of the viewership that Republican Debates have received held during the week days, mostly in prime time, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in a warning to Big Bank Bailouts 'There should be no Bank too big to fail, or individual too big to jail".

Sept 2nd 2015 PF The Fact-Checker's Guide
Of course what came out of Hillary Clinton's Debate did not represent what she voted for. As a U.S. Senator she in fact supported "too Big to Fail" in the support of Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP I.

It was even shocking to hear those words come out of Hillary's mouth while a pending FBI Investigation, continually denied as ongoing, was mired in recent revelations of SAP evidence  exceeding TOP Secret  that have the FBI legitimacy pitted against Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign.

On that subject, all things are Political according to the defense of Hillary Clinton's Campaign against the FBI Investigation despite laws, regulations, and  Hillary Clinton's own signature subjecting herself to those regulations of Top Security Clearances. The totality of the investigation is a vast right wing conspiracy to her. So what would Hillary Clinton or her Campaign call the assault upon the qualifications of the Office of the President in the U.S. Constitution- a vast right wing conspiracy? With Ted Cruz involved, probably.

Indeed, the link that really should exist or concern American's between Hillary Clinton's allegedly targeting women who were victims of affairs with her husband Bill, that one women described as writing the book on terrorizing women on terrorism, and the Emailgate of national security being compromised on her Private Server, is the motive of both of them: Tyrannical Control.

Galvanizing support in discrediting testimony of course is a tactic used by lawyers in defense of those assaulting women in an effort to amass control of a runaway demonizing prosecution. The same motive exist for Hillary Clinton in choosing to use a Private Email Server where she gains the totality of control on what Emails will and won't be released in Freedom of Information Act or FOIA Request. The control of the information and then the framing of that information is critical in presenting the picture to the Media and by the Media to the General Public. The motive between the two is then the "Control Factor". Control the testimony's to Bill's infidelities, and control the FOIA request with the use of her private server, to hell with national security?


Throughout our entire lives we have always hoped that somehow the Politics of our Law was immune to the Standard of our Law. In this rested the wisdom of giving the U.S. Supreme Court Justices life tenure. They would never have to endure an Election Process which might subject them to the bending and shifting Politicians go through to attract the votes necessary to win an Elected Office with promises often unfulfilled and broken- aka. "You can keep your Doctor".

This allowed and afforded SCOTUS Justices great latitude in the assignment of simply Standing for the Standard of the U.S. Constitution. What has happened to that Assignment in regards to the Qualifications of [natural born Citizen ] distinct to the Office of the President and Vice President? Have the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court politicized or made political their own assignments by refusing to hear Judy v. Obama 14-9396 based on a refusal to grant Forma Pauperis where it should have been granted by all accounts? It is a 12 month Form for God's sake, come on, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude an arbitrary denial has taken place.

But has the U.S. Constitution even become Politicized? The interest of course is there with so many different States coming into agreement with varying laws that the 10th Amendment was witnesses as necessary to allow and afford States Rights independent and in a defense of the Claim of Federal Dictatorship. This emphasized the difference of English Common Law and the Laws of Nations or principles of natural law. 

Of course great differences existed in the Colony States, but probably the most understated, mutually agreed upon, edict of all with no disagreement was the [natural born Citizen] Clause of the Qualifications of the Office of President. They all agreed it was a really good idea. Yes, they were from many different perspectives and opinions in total agreement.

 Now instead of a simple refusal to look at the [natural born Citizen] clause of the Constitution disagreed upon by two Candidates for President, one holding damages by the other's crippling regard to rules and regulations in Judy v. Obama 14-9396,   you have the stark addition to the introduction of cruelty for economic conditions seen in a denial of access to Justice by the highest Court.

To label it mildly egregious is as misleading as seeing the Flint, Michigan Government Officials cover-up lead poisoning findings and assert everything is fine while the residence of Flint complaints steadily stream that the water looks, smells, and taste bad. Understanding the Office of the President should be protected as rigorously by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices as the Mayor and Governors should protect water.

 Interestingly it was the ACLU who leaked the Internal EPA contamination of the water. The American Civil Liberties Union whose stated mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

So does the ACLU figure water is more important in value than the Office of the President's qualification denied by the egregious denial of a Forma Pauperis Motion? Apparently so. American's know that shoplifting is a crime and is prosecuted heavily and they also know and see that stealing the White House is aloud in a polluted, ill-hearted, and poisoned defense of the most important Office in the U.S. Constitution. This cannot stand.

It's not a prank, or a joke, or a thrill. It's a Crime!


My Writ before the Court has not been denied. Please read these post for a detail of why my Forma Pauperis Motion has been denied.

Cody Robert Judy
D-Candidate for President 2016

BIRTHER Pie-In-The-Sky U.S. Supreme Court 

The Challenge was issued on Cody Robert Judy's Twitter Account and sent to several Major Media Outlets.

Thank You!

Cody Robert Judy Campaign

Cody Robert Judy

Cody Robert Judy

Cody Robert Judy
Campaign Committee to elect Cody Robert Judy U.S. President in 2016.
Web Site

We want to thank you for the 330,000 views on this Blog!

Keep coming back!

Cody's Record is one you can Trust as one in the public service, and one that has served our Nation and will serve our Nation well in the Office of the President. The nucleus of our Constitution that may just be the collaboration or difference between the Truth and the Lie you will have a choice in voting for.

Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!

Help Support Cody Robert Judy's Campaign for President Cody is doing what not even Mr Trump or any other Republican Candidate for President can do. Remember - Principle over Party!

Cody Robert Judy's book :

Every dollar counts towards a Campaign willing to take a stand for your individual Civil Rights and having a President like Cody Robert Judy, you can be sure that your Rights are going to be stood up for because he's the one with a Record in Court to prove that actions speak louder than words. Helping him out today is going to help you out Tomorrow.

1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396

Other Courts
12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial
13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008
14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case
15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin

The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.

Cody Robert Judy - U.S. President 2016
The 2016 Cody Robert Judy Campaign for U.S. President

CAMPAIGN NEWS FLASH - Please visit a couple more of our Campaign Web Pages that are up, remodeled, and going. First the "Bio of Cody" page is up and also the "NEWS FLASH" page is up which details a news flash about Judy v. Obama 14-9396 in the United States Supreme Court.

No comments:

Post a Comment