Wednesday, August 31, 2016



THE CRAZY KOOKn Anti-Birthers 


As the only Official United States Presidential Candidate in America with a bi-partisan Federal Court Record in defending the qualifications of the Office of the President, meaning I challenged McCain and Obama, I am uniquely the recipient of a lot of information that Main Stream Media is covering up or at least feels the American People don't need to know in the general fever of coming Election. 

In the spirit of sharing information I have researched and cited enough information here that both Congress and the Democratic and Republican Candidates for President should indeed get off their high horses in dis-avowing "Birthers" and realize it is indeed a tenant of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or Americanism.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to theAge of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident ...


Cody Robert Judy August 31, 2016 at 10:00 am (Quote) #
Anti-Birthers are the biggest conspiracy kooks I’ve ever seen.
The premise begins with Law for Birthers with a real case consideration where the SCOTUS acknowledged in Minor v. Happersett ( no conspiracy exist for those born in the Country to its Citizens for the others Conspiracy exist)
The conspiracy begins with non transparency. No conspiracy exist where there is proof positive or transparency.
Doubt is where conspiracy gains traction, and that is provided by non transparency.
@Bob maintains a conspiracy about my not filling out a forma pauperis Motion correctly rather then presume corruption in the SCOTUS despite evidence I filled out and passed the Motion by two lower Courts on the same case, and 3 other Court’s in the SCOTUS 12-5276 Case of Judy v. Obama.
Obama has a host of Records he’s not been transparent with and his own non transparency served up your own complaints about conspiracy. Duh?
College Records, Marital Records, Divorce Records these are things Obama himself “used’ to get elected.
Making those applications relevant for others but exempting ones self from them is why Obama is the Birther King.

Scientist August 31, 2016 at 10:39 am
RE:(Quote) #
(Cody Robert Judy: College Records, Marital Records, Divorce Records these are things Obama himself “used’ to get elected.
Making those applications relevant for others but exempting ones self from them is why Obama is the Birther King.)
[Who the hell ever asked for any of those from any other candidate? All anyone has ever asked for are tax returns from Drumpf, something every candidate in the last 50 years has provided.]

Cody Robert Judy August 31, 2016 at 10:55 am Re:(Quote) #
(Scientist: Who the hell ever asked for any of those from any other candidate?)
Maybe you could point out to all of us the last POTUS that had a foreign father who was not a [Citizen] at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution?
Maybe you could point out to us why 8 attempts to change the Qualification for Pres failed since 2003 and what exactly they were proposing be changed in the first instance?
Maybe you could point out that in any investigation more than one fact is desired to support a conclusion…? It’s called Calloborating Evidence and wanting it does not make a conspiracy it actually points to exactly the opposite ‘no reasonable doubt”.
Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X’s car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. There can also be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.
This is exactly what Minor v. Happersett pointed out no doubt exist with those born in the Country to its Citizens to the others there are doubts.
You must ask Obama about the divorce records opened up on his opponent Jack Ryan
His 2004 campaign for the Senate, against Barack Obama, received widespread media attention for the disclosure of sealed custody documents stemming from his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan. The unsealing of those documents, detailing allegations that Ryan had pressured his wife to perform sexual acts in public, led to Ryan’s withdrawal from the campaign.
So the short answer to your question is “Obama”

Comment CRJ

Scientist: Barack Obama is not a naturalized citizen so they are not relevant to him.

Obama’s ‘naturalization’ is covered by the powers of ‘naturalization’ given to Congress to define ‘adoption’ rather than ‘natural born Citizen’ which Congress was not given powers to define as it is defined by nature and natures God. That is why you will not see ‘born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents’ in the NATIONALS and CITIZENS at BIRTH TITLE (which is a ACT of Naturalization given Congress by and under the powers of the Constitution)

8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents [one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person];

This is where Hillary Clinton, in my opinion, knew as a ‘Birther’ being a co-sponsor of U.S. Sen. Res. 511 that if the matter actually went to Trial, McCain would lose, and by that same admission Obama as (inherited parental citizenship) as well as (Place-soil) was understood to be necessary.


[The sponsors include both Democrats vying to be Mr. McCain’s opponent, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, as well as Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.

Of course, the authors acknowledge the resolution would have little real influence were the matter of Mr. McCain’s eligibility hanging by a legal thread. ]

You can call it a paraphrase if you’d like, but in general she knew it was non-binding and did not hold legal weight. This might be the most notorious accomplishment of Hillary Clinton as a senator abrogating to ‘change’ what had been intensely debated.

AND as I’ve referred to many times CONGRESS Conducted Hearings in 2000 hearing witnesses and testimony on the matter and flatly rejected changing it. Here are excerpts regarding the Hearings held before the House Judiciary Committee:


H.J.Res. 88
JULY 24, 2000
Serial No. 108
Excerpt 1
”. . . it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States”—thus writes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No.68. Indeed, the ”chief magistrate” who is also Commander-in-Chief has to grow from the soil.
Excerpt 2
I came to this Country in 1959, and became a citizen in 1964. During my formative years in Hungary, I read as much American literature as American students might have in the high schools of yore. In my second year of residence, I married a native-born American, and henceforth spoke English exclusively in my home. Before and after taking the oath of citizenship, I have made continuous and extensive efforts to become American, not only in the administrative sense of the word. In the course of my life, spent mostly as a performing artist and academic, I had the opportunity to start a small corporation and run for elective office—both of which are indispensable for the comprehension of America.

My interest in, and commitment to, the principles upon which this Nation was founded prompted me to establish a small Think Tank—called Center for the American Founding—that connects today’s issues with those principles. I write a regular column, and have published a book about American political philosophy. My fellow Americans honor me frequently in word and deed very much as one of their own.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, I wish to state unequivocally that, despite all of the above, I would not consider myself eligible to the office of president of the United States.

The people of this land are possessed of a unique brand of tolerance, a balanced temperament, and a natural goodwill toward the world. While such persons may be found everywhere, they constitute an overwhelming majority among Americans. One of the inexplicable miracles of America is the transformation that occurs within one generation, no matter how different the customs and mores of the new arrivals.

Excerpt 3
In addition, liberty is not simply a blessing guaranteed by the Constitution, but an inner state of being, again separating Americans from most others. An overwhelming majority of immigrants arrive on these shores looking, as they had always done, to government as a source of benefits, and an authority to obey.
Excerpt 4
Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times
Excerpt 5
The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable (despite the War Powers Act and similar efforts) is the president’s power as commander in chief. Can that power be safely entrusted to a foreign-born citizen? John Jay didn’t think so; nor do I; nor I suspect do the vast majority of Americans.

Let us consider a few scenarios. Start with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of a number of countries, doubtless including the United States, have sometimes employed what in the spy novel is called an agent under deep cover. A young person is thoroughly trained and indoctrinated before being sent to an enemy country, where he or she becomes a citizen and an exemplar of respectable behavior. This goes on for years, even decades, until the parent agency determines that it is time to activate the agent. It is not difficult to imagine such a person obtaining an office of great trust. But a Senator is one of 100, and a Representative is one of 435. What check is there on the president who is one of one, except for the constitutional restriction?

Should that seem too remote a possibility, consider a more likely case. A person comes to America from country ”X” as a young man, takes out citizenship, become thoroughly Americanized, and is as loyal to his adopted country as can be. Nonetheless, in dealing with his original country he is bound to be influenced by his nativity, whether in the form of hostility or favoritism. Even should he prove able to rise above his prejudices and deal with the old country objectively, he would still be widely regarded as prejudiced, and the media would fan such suspicions. As commander in chief, it is not enough to be above reproach, one must be above the suspicion of reproach.

Let me cite a more tangible example, one closer to recent experience. We all know a number of Cuban-Americans. They are loyal to our country, now their country too. They are pillars of their communities and are more fiercely patriotic than most natural born Americans. And yet, as the recent to-do over Elian Gonzalez demonstrated, few of them are able to regard Cuba dispassionately or treat relations with Castro’s Cuba with equanimity. Suppose we had had a Cuban-born president in the White House at the time of the Gonzalez controversy. Would that president have been able to retain objectivity and, as importantly, any shred of credibility under the circumstances?

In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom
Excerpt 6
Mr. VAZSONYI. I would not only agree in general, I would also cite a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, I believe, in 1820, in which he says very clearly that all confidence must be in the American people, who are the only repositories of a safe future.

But I also believe that political events can be influenced, and it is not unthinkable for a foreign power, especially for a foreign power, perhaps I am going to cite China, a country with an extremely long-term view of history, to arrange things perhaps on a 50-year plan to install someone on American soil and really hope to be able to run for that office and put the necessary strength behind it.


I mean you can call Birthers whatever you want, but ultimately as far as the Legislature goes, there’s been no change to the qualification being ‘born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents’ as a definitive of [natural born Citizen]

July 9, 2008

Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14

Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain’s campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born . . . in the United States.” However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that “unincorporated territories” were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President” under the Constitution.

Keywords: John McCain, Canal Zone, citizenship, naturalization, natural born citizen, president, presidential eligibility
JEL Classifications: K33
Working Paper Series

You know I had forgotten that Obama had assisted Tribe as a Clerk at Harvard, but that is true. Of course Tribe’s Paper was an assist for Obama and Tribe was the Democratic Part of the supposed bi-partisan paper McCain got to stump for him.

The “Congressional” Natural Born Citizen Part I : A ‘Tribe’-ute to DC Liberal Activism … Laurence Tribe is the co-founder of the liberal activist “American Constitution Society”, … While studying at Harvard, Obama became a research assistant to Tribe on his … Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

While studying at Harvard, Obama became a research assistant to Tribe on his book – “Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes” (1990) and in turn, during Obama’s candidacy, Tribe did a political commercial congratulating Obama and publicly supporting the Obama campaign.

Post Note: Another source  of Hillary Clinton's Birther Campaign stand was recently featured in the Washington Post and Brietbart I will cite here with the interest that if Mr. Trump is responsible for his supporters then Hillary Clinton must be responsible for hers too, that means now and in 2008.


WE STILL NEED YOUR HELP! Exposing corruption is not easy and as someone  who has standing to stand up in this type of Government Corruption Cody Robert Judy still needs your help.

Help Us Now  Contribute to the Campaign!

Thank You!

Cody Robert Judy Campaign
Cody Robert Judy

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

Web Site
Keep coming back!

INSPIRING - I believe in You

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!