IS THE ISSUE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY “FRIVOLOUS?”
by Cody Robert Judy, ©2015, blogging at CodyJudy
(Feb. 4, 2015) — The U.S. 10th Circuit delivered a punishing blow to Judy v. Obama et.al., 14-4136 dismissing it and upholding the lower U.S. District Court’s decision calling it frivolous, malicious, and wholly incredible. The 5 page decision was rendered today out of the Denver Appellate Court after being reported in chambers for more than a month.
My initial reaction was one of being pretty disappointed and hurt. I’m not sure being dismissed as frivolous and malicious was as insulting as if I’d been dismissed for a lack of standing, but the result is all the same. It was flabbergasting to read the Court’s Order and Judgement to say the least, understanding firsthand how very harmful allowing Obama to run roughshod over my legitimate qualified and Constitutionally adherent Campaign was and how deceitful and fabricated his was.
As I begin delving into the decision after my initial shock thinking this was just incredibly awful came the question on who were these Justices? That’s when I looked them up and found one of the three had in fact been nominated by the Defendant/Appellee of the case, Barack Obama, and the other Democrat was nominated by President Bill Clinton. I could not have imagined a more ridiculous scenario than to think that the Judge entering this decision was receiving his paycheck based on a defendant I was making a claim against?
All the thousands of hours and hard work just goes up in smoke to something far less deserving and destructive of the U.S. Constitution in Obama’s forged and fraudulent identifications known as the fabricated long-form birth certificate and draft registration. Yes, he is in the Office of the President but under what horror and fraudulent circumstances?
Yes, receiving more votes but for who in the consideration of the fabricated long-form birth certificate and certainly Obama’s own admission his father Obama Sr. was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth. Indeed, the founders and framers had expressed interest firmly that the Office of the President was not to devolve upon foreign or alien persons. That was the reason they expressly formulated a higher criteria of demands for qualifications in the Office of the President from that of U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators.
A two-generation protection was laid out for the Office of the President cited as a natural born Citizen, rather than a Citizen cited for the lower Congressional House and Senate. No foreign influence was discerned as meaning “born in the U.S. to Citizen parents.”
The eight attempts since 2003 to legally change the qualifications for the Office of the President bear the greatest testament to that definition as they all wanted to change the meaning mentioned to something alongside the qualifications of U.S. Reps and U.S. Senators’ requirement of “Citizen.” These attempts failed but do broadcast to all that Congress knows exactly what I’m saying to be true. If it wasn’t so, why would it have been necessary to change at all?
I think the American people know that something is afoul, and the trust has been spoiled but still without a champion to lead the Court cases being in the presidential race, everyone shrugs their shoulders in hopelessness and despair. Not even the strongest politicians have any hope of moving it into the Courts without being called racist by the media because they cite McCain as not being questioned about his foreign birth. I did take McCain to Court but the Court ruled after the election that it was moot because he had lost.
So Obama won and is ineligible and now what does the Court say? It’s highly unlikely that it’s going to be successful. Well, it sure as heck isn’t if the Court won’t even hear it; that’s for sure.
You can read the ORDER and JUDGEMENT here and… you can read my RESPONSE or request for a REHEARING En Banc here.
To decipher that a little, the Order and Judgement released today was authorized by a panel of three judges. The whole or full Court is considered to be a panel of five or more. So the decision released today was by a panel of three justices and my asking for a rehearing en banc is a request for a bigger panel of Justices to make a decision on whether to hear it.
I’ve basically asked the Court to recuse both the two Democrat Judges nominated by Obama and President Clinton because, as I stated in the Petition for Rehearing, Clinton’s appointment conflicts with Hillary’s potentially being a Candidate for the Office of the President in 2016 and there is an interest to protect that.
So that’s the news; we’ll submit this and see what happens. I could sure use your help and thank you for passing it on and considering this essential to our national security.
Yours Truly
Cody Robert Judy
We need your help. Will you help us or are the outrageous lies you’re being told by your elected leaders okay for you and your children? If you won’t defend your children and their future, who will you defend?
The 2016 Campaign begins now. Please send your contributions and help with the ABC (American Birther Campaign) today and my election for President in 2016 and Join the 257 of us now on my Facebook Cody Robert Judy for U.S. President 2016 site.
Cody Robert Judy for President 2016
3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah 84401
Thank you
Cody Robert Judy
Candidate for United States President 2016
www.codyjudy.us
The ‘language and vernacular” of which I allude is the language and vernacular of of Statutory Construction and Interpretation. Words not only mean things but they also require things and cause things to happen when put into a statutory provision with the force of law behind them.
Read and ask what the qualifying words of “considered as” means and requires in the 1790 Act, but as you do also try to answer Aristotle’s observation that being born a citizen from citizen parents does not answer where the 1st citizens came from.
There is a Genesis of U.S. Citizenship and then there are Generations of U.S. Citizens that began with the Act made in pursuance of the mandate at A1S8C4.
Then the argument turns to the question, is an ineligible POTUS a POTUS at all in light of the proscriptions found in A2S1C5.
Pleased to be considered a “spoke” along with as long as it is attached to a cart that hitches the horse at the front…….
Appreciate your comment slcraig and it is surely noted. In consideration of speaking the language of the Court there is no doubt interest and many a fabulous attorney has attempted that language including Klayman, Appuzio,Blaire and evan Taitz many others I’m sure.
And, I only say this as you bring up a very interesting subject that I find fascinating.
Here’s the thing about Judges. They know when an attorney is speaking their language, they hear it everyday. In this instance d what impressed me anyway was reading the U.S. Tenth Circuit Courts opinions on the June 25, 2014 case.
It revolved around the marriage for all individuals. Although there was plenty of legal garb to back up every position, the language and simplicity impressed me.
I really felt it was the plea… That won that case. I saw that in the Judges languages, That was a BIG CASE to win!
Our case actually would be bigger. Considering that. I’ve not used such language really before in both supplication, and raw form.
If you compared my U.S.S.C Petition, it was completely different. I already made the statement that this might have been just a glaring reminder for the Justices to check their balances in recusal. It doesn’t happen often but when it does They should recognise it.
I might have angered the whole Court too. ,and its very hard to find mercy from someone you just poked an eye out of. , and his friends.
Speaking from my heart I hope the Justices consider the pain that has been caused and the damages done.
Legal training for me hasn’t come from a law school, but a home school. (Smile) Another wonderful thing about America our system and education opportunities.
Lots of wonderful soaking and writing lawyers with prestigious degrees have lost this issue and most know very well and are familiar with my cases.
No one has won anything yet .. No matter what language was written , or who had standing so we are all in the same boat, saying different is just a denial of facts.
But.. Wonderfully..we are all a marvelous spoke in the wheel! Hoping together, praying together, trying to get it right together.
My honor to be a spoke in the wheel with you and ask the rest.
Cody Robert Judy
Being somewhat jealous of the Standing you established as a bona fide candidate I remain dismayed at the ‘frivolous’ nature of the Briefs you submit for judicial review.
I have a right to say such things because I was thrown out of the 10th Circuit on the same grounds. But you know what, I looked up what “’frivolous’ means in the judicial sense, then undertook to learn the actual laws on the subject at hand.
I now agree that my previous Briefs were frivolous and devoid of legal basis.
The Courts are NOT interested in what WE think, they are, to the degree their biases allow, bound to the law.
The circumstances requisite for a person to be born as a U.S. natural born Citizen can be construed under the Federal Laws as suggested by Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]
“Construed under federal law” being THE requisite condition in order to be Constitutional, legal and enforceable and to fight the “ineligibility issue” in the language and vernacular that the Courts are familiar with..