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.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/01/03/2345384/judge-rejects-birther-challenge.html

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:
Standing requirements
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDRTVakr7NI




Doritos- Has Justice been Jacked Women? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbwN8wzEhg





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fNjSTFI7_I




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
www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113046270/Judy-v-Obama-12-5276-Petition-for-Rehearing


Writ of Cert under consideration Judy v. Obama 12-5276
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100156244/Judy-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Revision-per-U-S-Clerk-Case-Analyst-Appendix-Stamped-Orders-Included

Election Challenge w SCOTUS invokes Electoral College Count HJ 122?

Election Challenge w SCOTUS invokes Electoral College Count HJ 122 Change?

Have you ever wondered just how fast our Government can work when it puts its mind to it?

HJ 122 was impressively introduced to the House on Dec 18th and passed, and then introduced to the Senate on Dec. 20th where it passed, and has now been signed by Obama. WOW!

Of course what makes this so interesting is that the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing Judy v. Obama on Jan. 4th,2013 in conference and the Electoral College vote was Jan. 6th, whereupon the Supreme Court might have conference d prior to the Electoral College Vote counted.

Now with this resolution that has changed and the Electoral College vote will be counted Jan 4th,2013 instead of Jan. 6th 2013.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres122/text

H.J.Res.122
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and twelve
Joint Resolution
Establishing the date for the counting of the electoral votes for President and Vice President cast by the electors in December 2012.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DATE FOR COUNTING 2012 ELECTORAL VOTES IN CONGRESS.
The meeting of the Senate and House of Representatives to be held in January 2013 pursuant to section 15 of title 3, United States Code, to count the electoral votes for President and Vice President cast by the electors in December 2012 shall be held on January 4, 2013 (rather than on the date specified in the first sentence of that section).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Text of the Resolution: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres122/text

There are no co-sponsors for this bill, so we are led to believe what? Earlier was better then later? Of course January 6th,2013 is a Sunday however, whenever a Holiday or Sunday affects the Government don't we all know that the next or following available day is usually the best option for relief rather then the preceding day?

Actually, it might not make a difference because any electoral college vote made for Obama is subject to being dismissed according to the Electoral College Act or (ECA)
as one of my prior post elaborated upon.

Electors WARNED of vote being dimissed : http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/12/scotus-election-challenge-update_15.html

Grounds for Rejecting Electoral Votes Submitted by an Elector Who Has Section 2 Status - B- Post Appointment Grounds - 1. The elector cast his or her vote in violation of constitutional and federal statutory requirements; for example, the elector did not vote d. for candidates who are constitutionally qualified to hold the President’s and Vice-President’s office.

All the Electors were warned prior to their votes being cast Dec 17th,2012 through all of the Secretary of States who passed the message on to them dutifully, therefore the United States Supreme Court can most assuredly account for Electors being for-warned and informed that a vote for an ineligible candidate can and will be dismissed. This information was also passed on and recorded in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 being heard January 4th, 2013.

Thanks for Passing it on, supporting or contributing in any way you feel you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBRTsoWeEO8&list=PL42539C3948B285D1&index=2




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
www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
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:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113046270/Judy-v-Obama-12-5276-Petition-for-Rehearing


Writ of Cert under consideration Judy v. Obama 12-5276
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100156244/Judy-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Revision-per-U-S-Clerk-Case-Analyst-Appendix-Stamped-Orders-Included

SCOTUS Election Challenge Update: Electors Warned of Dismissed Electoral College Vote

SCOTUS Election Challenge Update: Electors Warned of Dismissed Electoral College Vote

One of the problems with the Republican Candidates Romney and Ryan is they continually deny the fact that the Constitutional requirements for the Office of the President are entirely different than the Constitutional requirements for office's such as U.S. Senator or U.S.Congressmen. We see that in Paul Ryan's answer dealing with Birthers, even this year.
Quote:
“We make it a priority to respond to all our constituents, so we had a staffer — a junior level staffer — doing some independent research to ensure that we were able to properly communicate to our constituents that he [Obama] was in fact a citizen of the United States,” Anderson said. “We respond to our constituents the best we can. If we hear something from constituents, we’re going to address the question, even if it’s outdated, it will be addressed.”

"..was in fact a citizen of the United States", HELLO! HELLO! HELLO! The demand for the office as set forth by the Constitution for the Office of the President is a 'natural born citizen', not a "citizen". So in Ryan's own words, in other words, Obama is not qualified.

Do you think there is a difference between 800 Billion and 1.6 Trillion? Well, there's a difference alright in "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen"! Maybe Bill Clinton was right in R's not being good at Math and now we can add English to the topics they're getting an 'F' in.

Congressmen Ryan took pride in actually sending his constituents the fabricated long form birth certificate that showed Obama's father from Kenya as a British subject, full well knowing that duel allegiance is not allowed in the Office of the President.

Mitt Romney's loss may not mean a loss for Conservatives, how could his loss translate into a conservative win? If Republican leadership players had an ounce of courage they could make the play that Electoral College Votes for an ineligible candidate should be dismissed; that's exactly what needs to happen!

Could Republican leaders like Mitt Romney hold the keys to unhinging Obama's Electoral Votes and joining the chorus that electoral college votes for an ineligible candidate will be dismissed, sending his the electoral college vote and Obama's to Cody Robert Judy for a conservative win? Its possible, especially given the United States Supreme Court is reviewing Judy v. Obama 12-5276 this Jan 4th as an extension of it's previous denial.

That hardest part of this is basically America is witnessing that these so called leaders would rather elevate the debt and sell America's future generations down stream than make a stand on the Constitution, which is the law of our land, and through the Constitution demand Obama pack up and leave as he's not a "natural born citizen".

Thanks for Passing it on, supporting or contributing in any way you feel you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBRTsoWeEO8&list=PL42539C3948B285D1&index=2



Dear Respective Electors, Secretary of States, and Applicable State Executive Authority & Governors:

The following notice is hereby given to each State as official notification that any Elector voting for an ineligible candidate for the office of President of the United States will not be counted! It is imperative that Electors understand through this notice that a Natural Born Citizen is a person born in the United States to Citizen Parents.


Understanding the SUMMARY OF GROUNDS UNDER THE Electoral College Act (ECA) FOR DENYING ELECTORS SECTION 2 STATUS AND FOR NOT COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES pursuant US Code 3 S. 5., when it comes to an ineligible candidate for President.

One of the primary reasons for demanding the Judicial Rulings on the eligibility requirements of the Office of the President be upheld by the Judicial Branch, such as I have undertaken in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 now in the U.S. Supreme Court and set for a Jan 4th Conference which is before the January 6th Electoral College Vote is indeed to necessitate action in the Legislative Branch when it comes to the Electoral College vote.

Understanding the connection really helps and the following is a concentrated example of this:

Grounds for Rejecting Electoral Votes Submitted by an Elector Who Has Section 2 Status - B- Post Appointment Grounds - 1. The elector cast his or her vote in violation of constitutional and federal statutory requirements; for example, the elector did not vote d. for candidates who are constitutionally qualified to hold the President’s and Vice-President’s office.

Electors case doubt on O's Eligibility and ability to be Pres. based on U.S.C. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zScRdhXwf1o#!



Mr. Barack Hussein Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen according to the demands for the Office of the President pursuant the United States Constitution Article II, Section 1., Clause 5; and Barack Hussein Obama has not met the criteria of being a "Citizen" prior to the Adoption of the Constitution which would exempt him from either being born in the U.S. or except him from having a duel citizenship through one or both parents, according to the same demand of the Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court having received these, and warranting the facts of Barack Obama not being a "Natural Born Citizen" qualified for the Office of the President pursuant U.S.C.

1- http://www.scribd.com/doc/100156244/Judy-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Revision-per-U-S-Clerk-Case-Analyst-Appendix-Stamped-Orders-Included

2- http://www.scribd.com/doc/111856979/Judy-v-Obama-Motion-for-Reconsideration-12-5276


Electors are now formally notified that any Electoral College Votes made for Barack Hussein Obama will be dismissed, and thus each Elector is given a choice to vote for a second Democratic Party Candidate, who is qualified as a "Natural Born Citizen", according to the Constitution, and has met all the other Constitutional qualifications for the Office of President - Cody Robert Judy, rather than having their vote dismissed on an ineligible candidate.

Republican Candidate Mitt Romney has officially conceded his electoral votes in the concession of the election, however the concession to an ineligible candidate negates them. Thus, both Red and Blue States have the select opportunity to vote for a candidate whom is qualified in the 2012 presidential race, and who has not conceded any electoral vote.

This Official Electronic Notice is also recorded in The Supreme Court of the United States of America.


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

www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
YouTube: CODY JUDY

FEC REGISTERED http://fec-candidates.findthedata.org/l/4426/Judy-Cody-Robert
Candidate ID P20003372
Committee ID C00501593

ALABAMA 800-274-8683 or 334-242-7210 julie.sinclair@sos.alabama.gov Electors: At-Large: Senate Majority Leader Jabo Waggoner Montgomery Attorney Will Sellers Congressional District 1 Terry Lathan Congressional District 2 Sue Neuwien Congressional District 3 Bob Fincher Congressional District 4 Lynn Robinson Congressional District 5 Elbert Peters Congressional District 6 Ed Allen Congressional District 7 Bob Cusanelli

ARIZONA 877-THE-VOTE or (602) 542-8683 Use Email Form

Electors: ASCOLI, DON M. BARRETT, MALCOLM, JR. GILBERT, PAUL HANEY, ROBERT JOHNSTON, LEONA MENDOZA, GREGORY MONTENEGRO, STEVE MORRISSEY, KRISTINE MORRISSEY, THOMAS RHODES, JOHN D. WRIGHT, C.T.

ARKANSAS 800-482-1127 or 501-682-5070 electionsemail@sos.arkansas.gov

GEORGIA 404-656-2871 Use Email Form

IDAHO (208) 334-2852 elections@sos.idaho.gov or sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov

INDIANA 800-457-8283 or 317.232.3939 elections@iec.in.gov

KANSAS (785) 296-4561 election@sos.ks.gov

KENTUCKY (502) 564-3490 Use Email Form

LOUISIANA 800.722.5305 or 225.922.0900 elections@sos.la.gov orangie.rogers@sos.la.gov

MONTANA 888-884-VOTE or (406) 444-5376 soselections@mt.gov

MISSISSIPPI 800-829-6786 or 601-576-2550 Use Email Form

MISSOURI (800) NOW-VOTE (669-8683) or (573) 751-2301 elections@sos.mo.gov

NEBRASKA (402) 471-2555 sos.elect@nebraska.gov

NORTH CAROLINA (919) 733-7173 elections.sboe@ncsbe.gov

NORTH DAKOTA 701-328-2900 sos@nd.gov

OKLAHOMA (405) 521-2391 info@elections.ok.gov

SOUTH CAROLINA 803-734-2170 cwhitmire@elections.sc.gov

SOUTH DAKOTA 605-773-3537 sdsos@state.sd.us

TENNESSEE (615) 741-7956 tennessee.elections@tn.gov

TEXAS 1.800.252.VOTE (8683) or 512.463.5650 elections@sos.state.tx.us Electors: District Electors 1 – Keith Rothra 2 – Butch Davis 3 – Tim McCord 4 – Clinton Evetts 5 – Benny Gordon 6 – Steven L. Jessup 7 – Paul Bettencourt 8 – Wally Wilkerson 9 – Bonnie Lugo 10 – Terri Flow 11 – Georgia Scott 12 – Kaye Moreno 13 – Jane Juett 14 – David Stone 15 – Sandra Cararas 16 – Mary Holmsley 17 – Matthew Johnson 18 – Nelda Eppes 19 – Ruth Schiermeyer 20 – Dr. Johnny E. Lovejoy 21 – Patti Johnson 22 – Tim Turner 23 – Jennifer Weaver 24 – Royal Smith 25 – Linda Rogers 26 – Jean McIver 27 – Betty Stiles 28 – Texas Moore 29 – Richard Bernhard 30 – Thom Wilkins 31 – Bill Fairbrother 32 – Mary Ann Collins 33 – Loren Myers 34 – Samual Owens 35 – Billie Zimmerman 36 – Daniel Whitton AT LARGE – Steve Munisteri AT LARGE – Carolyn Hodges

UTAH 801.533.9777 info@utgop.org

WEST VIRGINIA (304) 558-6000 elections@wvsos.com

WYOMING (307) 777-7378 elections@wyo.gov

Electors: Ron Micheli, Fort Bridger Susan Thomas, Casper Margaret Parry, Rock Springs

BLUE STATES:

CALIFORNIA (916) 657-2166 Use Email Form

COLORADO 303-894-2200 ext. 6307 elections@sos.state.co.us

CONNECTICUT 800-540-3764 or 860-509-6100 lead@ct.gov

DELAWARE 302-739-4277 coe_vote@state.de.us

FLORIDA (850) 245-6200 DivElections@dos.state.fl.us

ILLINOIS 217-782-4141 (Springfield) or 312-814-6440 (Chicago)webmaster@elections.il.gov

IOWA 888-SOS-VOTE (888-767-8683) or 515-281-0145 sos@sos.iowa.gov

MAINE 207-624-7736 cec.elections@maine.gov

MARYLAND 800-222-8683 or 410-269-2840 info@elections.state.md.us

MASSACHUSETTS 800-462-VOTE (8683) or 617-727-2828 elections@sec.state.ma.us

MICHIGAN (888) SOS-MICH (888) 767-6424 Use Email Form

MINNESOTA 877-600-VOTE (8683) or 651-215-1440 elections.dept@state.mn.us

NEVADA 775-684-5705 nvelect@sos.nv.gov

NEW HAMPSHIRE 603-271-3242 elections@sos.state.nh.us

NEW JERSEY (609) 292-3760 Feedback@sos.state.nj.us

NEW MEXICO 505.827.8403 bobbi.shearer@state.nm.us NEW YORK 800-367-8683or (518) 473-5086 info@elections.ny.gov

OHIO (877) TTY-OHIO (889-6446) or (614) 466-2585 Use Email Form

OREGON 866.ORE.VOTE or 503.986.1518 elections.sos@state.or.us

PENNSYLVANIA (717) 787-5280 RA-elections@pa.gov

RHODE ISLAND (401) 222-2340 elections@sos.ri.gov

VERMONT 802-828-0175 Will.Senning@sec.state.vt.us

VIRGINIA 804 864-8901 info@sbe.virginia.gov

WASHINGTON (800) 448-4881 or (360) 902-4180 elections@sos.wa.gov

WISCONSIN (608) 266-8005 gab@wi.gov