Exclusive: Presidential Candidate Files Lawsuit for Damages Against Obama, DNC, Part 1

CLAIMS MONETARY DAMAGES FROM OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 25, 2014) — A candidate for president for 2008 and 2012 and who has announced his candidacy for 2016 has filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama, Organizing for America, and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) with the U.S. District Court in the District of Utah for “personal liability and injury” under a federal civil rights law and the Sherman Act.

Judy announced the development on his blog, and the filing is posted on Scribd.  The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Bruce S. Jenkins.

Cody Robert Judy is representing himself in the case and is not seeking the removal of Obama from the office of the president.  In 2008, in two separate actions, Judy sued both Sen. John McCain and Obama, who were opposing candidates for the presidency, claiming that both should have been disqualified because they failed to meet the constitutional requirement of “natural born Citizen” as stated in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

In the filing, Judy refers to Obama as “Obama aka Barry Soetoro,” as Obama was reportedly known by the name “Barry Soetoro” after his mother married Lolo Soetoro following her reported divorce from Barack Hussein Obama Sr.

Judy asserts that his civil rights were violated on two counts by the defendants and is claiming $140,000,000 in damages.  He reasserts that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of the fact that Obama “declared from various documents he was born in Kenya and his father was a Kenyan at the time of his birth.”

In an exclusive interview, Judy told The Post & Email that he filed the lawsuit because he “believes it’s applicable now” and because of the “exhaustion of other remedies.”  He said that his previous lawsuits against Obama were different in that they “originated from ballot challenges,” not claims of injury.

He explained that ballot challenges originated in various states and were directed either at Obama or Secretaries of State.  He believes that some of the cases filed in federal courts should have been filed in the state and were correctly dismissed.  “Many of those lawsuits were brought by people who did not have standing,” Judy said.

Judy has sued Obama over his eligibility on three previous occasions.  “The first time I included Barack Obama was in Judy v. McCain.  That action is an example of a civil rights action vs. a ballot challenge,” he said. “People need to understand the difference between a ballot challenge and a civil rights action; they are completely different.  In the McCain example, if you remember, Obama and Clinton were battling it out long into the summer to determine who was going to be the Democrat nominee.  So I prepared an action and filed it against McCain.  It was right after [Phil] Berg’s lawsuit; he was the very first one who got a case into the U.S. Supreme Court, and they dismissed it because of ‘standing.’  I actually filed an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) in the case hoping that the court might see me as a presidential candidate.  I included in my Judy v. McCain lawsuit in Las Vegas Phil Berg’s entire argument to the U.S. Supreme Court in an emergency motion to the judge also about Barack Obama, stating that it was very important for him to rule on that case.  So Obama was brought into that 2008 lawsuit at the very end of it.

“In 2008, I was a presidential candidate, and the judge ruled that my case was moot because Obama won and it was ‘no longer an issue.’

“I ran again in 2012, and the legal point was that if I hadn’t run, I would have lost my legal standing.  There is the Iowa caucus first, then you go right into New Hampshire for the presidential contest.  I challenged Obama with a ballot challenge in an administrative court, which is below the Judicial Branch.  We took that into the New Hampshire Superior Court and then the New Hampshire Supreme Court with Atty. Orly Taitz representing us.

“The third challenge was filed in Georgia, which was the same thing as New Hampshire; we took it from a ballot challenge.  When Orly asked for permission to get into the Judicial Branch from the ballot challenge, she was denied the ability to do that pro hac vice.  We had David Farrar. a Georgia resident, there, and I was certainly on the case legitimately as a national candidate, so Orly was really upset that she was not able to jump into that court.  That’s where that case broke up.  David Farrar and I went to the first level of the Judicial Branch, the Circuit Court, and then we separated.  David went with Orly, and I pursued my own case into the Georgia Supreme Court and then to the United States Supreme Court.  So those are the three cases summarized.

“The two cases in New Hampshire and Georgia originated from ballot challenges.  Even going into the Judicial Branch, we had to say that they were ballot challenges, and right there, it singularizes the petition into a ballot challenge, and whether or not someone is on the ballot, it doesn’t have anything to do with civil rights.  That’s why this new case is so different.  The original proceeding or action does not originate from any kind of ballot challenge.  I’ve alleged two different kinds of violations.”

The Post & Email asked Judy why he believes “timeliness” is significant in his new case, to which he responded, “That is such a good question.  The answer is that I have already started my 2016 campaign for president.  The ongoing action and the timeliness are affected by a few different factors.  One of them is that as a 2016 presidential candidate, it’s very important for me, in order to be successful, that the negative connotation of ‘birther’ be switched from negative in the general public and mainstream media to a ‘positive.’  As long as it remains a negative, I’m sunk.  So what I’m doing in this case is alleging libel, defamation, and propaganda, which is important to me as a 2016 presidential candidate, and it’s affecting my campaign.”

“Where is the defamation coming from?” The Post & Email asked.

“The mainstream media has labeled ‘birthers’ nuts, crazy and loons.  They’ve essentially labeled standing up for the Constitution a crime, almost a racist crime.  As long as it’s a pejorative, I feel as if I’m being defamed for standing up,” Judy said.  “It takes only one court ruling to change that.  The ‘natural born Citizen’ question has never really been hammered out; it’s been ignored and ridiculed.”

Judy continued:

The mainstream media is taking its cue because Obama is sitting in the White House as the authority.  As long as that’s the case, then he’s dictating what’s wrong and what’s right, what’s criminal and illegal.  I’m coming from a legal position, but I’m being told that I’m somehow a criminal because of that.  I think it’s very important that as a candidate – and I think one of the reasons the mainstream media has ignored my candidacy – is that I actually sued McCain and Obama.  That is so important, because candidates who did not sue McCain suffer the retaliation of being called a “racist.” I don’t believe it’s a worthy tag, but there is a slight reason for that.  Some people get caught for speeding; some people don’t, but we don’t call the police “racist;” at least we try not to, anyway.  But the candidates who didn’t file against McCain have that baggage, and they can’t overcome it.  The media will never, ever let them overcome that.

Every single Republican U.S. senator voted for the non-binding U.S. Senate Resolution 511, which sunk the Republicans’ ship to ever say a single word about Obama’s eligibility. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were co-sponsors of that, and they knew it. So none of the candidates have been able to bring up that issue.  There was a bipartisan agreement right there with Republicans and Democrats.  There is no other party to oppose that combination.  I believe it’s a secret combination, what you would call an illegal cartel.

The timing of this action is important because pretty-much all of the other lawsuits – Alan Keyes and Wayne Allyn Root, for example – filed their actions against the Secretaries of State, not Obama directly. So that makes all the difference.  Also, theirs were state ballot challenges; they filed them in state courts because the federal court said it did not have jurisdiction.  At that particular time, that issue, as it pertained then, did belong in state courts.  They were challenging to be elected, and not after the election.

My action is completely different because it’s like bringing an action to the court after the accident instead of before.  I could compare it to a car accident.  My car is smashed, and we’re talking to insurance companies after the accident:  “This is the damage that has been done, and we need to assign fault to this damage because of this illegal activity.”

“And a value to the damage.”

Exactly.  That’s in a nutshell the argument of “standing,” whether you have received damage directly.  Has your vehicle been damaged?  As it relates to my presidential candidacy, I’m alleging that yes, in 2008 my vehicle was damaged; in 2012 my vehicle was totally wiped out, and in 2016, I’m suffering still.  So it’s a longstanding issue that has never been resolved by a court.

When I say “civil rights,” a lot of people think about different kinds of civil rights actions:  religious discrimination, for example.  But within the balance of this race, what is very important to think about is that Cody Robert Judy’s civil rights as a candidate for president vs. Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, are impaired.  So we’re looking at the civil rights of presidential candidates.

“Obama can no longer be a presidential candidate.  Would that have a bearing on it?”

It takes the issue back to an original action.  Yes, I am saying that Obama is in the office of the White House.  I am not asking the courts to remove Barack Obama from the office of the president.

“So you are saying that you’ve been injured because you are constitutionally eligible and he is not?”

Exactly.

“And you have standing because you are running for president and have already done so in 2008 and 2012.”

Right. The reason that is so very important is that no single judge wants the responsibility of his decision removing somebody in the office of the president.  What a judge is much more likely to do is say, “Cody, I can see, looking at this standard of civil rights for presidential candidates – those are the qualifications of the Constitution.  So the standard for president in the Constitution applies to everyone who runs for president; all of them have those civil rights.  Most of them are called “rules of the race.”  If the rules have been violated, then some candidate has been hurt illegally by the standard of the Constitution.  Any violation of the rules would apply.  If someone does not meet the constitutional requirements – living in the United States for 14 years, etc., then he is infringing on the civil rights of the other presidential candidates.

The Post & Email’s interview with Cody Robert Judy will continue in a future installment.  In a late-breaking update on Thursday evening announced Friday on Judy’s blog, Judge Jenkins recused himself from hearing the case, leaving it to the chief justice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Ted Stewart.