“SHOWING GRIT”
by Cody Robert Judy, ©2015, blogging at CodyJudy
(Apr. 1, 2015) — This week we are going to be Celebrating a heartfelt and appreciative 200,000 views on this Blog and we want to do it sharing a couple of stories with you and of course the news that we are going to appeal the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal of Judy v. Obama et.al, 14-4136 and are hoping to submit that this week.
Yesterday we sent out an appeal of ourselves for help that was very much needed in the printing and mailing expenses of over 7,000 pages and the Mailing Expenses of them, of this important work to the U.S. Supreme Court. The response is so inspiring we wanted to share just a little bit of it with you from differing points of view. So many feel alone and overwhelmed with the prospects of success in the endeavor of standing up for our U.S. Constitution because of so many losses.
Truly, our efforts have thus far fallen on deaf ears in the Court, and truly if President George Washington after losing thirteen battles had just sent the army home the new Nation “under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all”, would not have been born. Let me say we have a very good knock out Writ of Certiorari for the U.S. Supreme Court consideration that includes things that the U.S. Supreme Court has not even seen like the updated collections of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse and these are brought to the Court under authority afforded just as an attorney general would bring it to the Court under the laws so designated by Congressional ACTs that legally govern Corporations.
Many people are focused on the past and all the losses, but there are cases that lower Courts decide themselves this really is a U.S. Supreme Court matter. Sometimes focusing on the past and all the losses perpetuates a losing process or a losing cycle in what is called a self full filling prophesy affect. Last week fellow candidate for President’s U.S. Supreme Court case was dismissed from the U.S. Supreme Court against a secretary of state. John Albert Dummett, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, et al. Docketed: January 13, 2015 was dismissed March 20, 2015. Another case by Tracy A. Fair, Petitioner v.Robert Walker, et al. hoping to get a definition out of the Court of natural born Citizen is scheduled for conference April 3rd, 2015 that is set to be most likely denied because of the waiver to file a response which is typical for petitions that are on the chopping block the moment they enter door.
Many of the cases filed against Obama in theory are filed under other people’s names as if the responsibility rested upon their shoulders that Obama ran as an ineligible candidate. Petitions also hope to swerve around the Candidate hoping to bank a shot in on the issue that will affect him. All of the petitions like this have failed thus far and so have the ones directly citing Obama’s name. Mine was among those in my ballot challenges in New Hampshire taken to the State Supreme Court, Georgia taken to the Georgia State Supreme Court and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as Judy v. Obama 12-5276.
These were exhausting processes taken up a lot of resources and time, but they were also processes that just had to done as they were the ‘best course’ to follow at that given time. I was in fact challenging Obama within the Democratic Party as a Presidential Candidate myself for that party. Certainly proof not all Democratic Party Candidates supported Obama’s ineligibility or alleged crime spree in identification and many other types of fraud in our election.
This case now being appealed from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals known under Judy v. Obama et.al., 14-4136 has taken Obama, his Campaign Corporations and the Democratic National Committee Corporations as well as several key elected persons like Representative Nancy Pelosi the majority leader in the House at the time in 2008, and and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid majority leader in the U.S. Senate not particularly acting in their elected offices positions, but acting in different colleague elected offices in their respective Houses of Congress, and brought all of these actions together showing the illegality of those in the direction of usurping the Office of the President with an unqualified Candidate. This action has shown the illegal actions that took place during this effort. Obama certainly didn’t act alone. He had a lot of help and there were illegal actions taking place collaborating under an umbrella of what we would term a illegal active monopoly or Cartel. The point is this action is completely different then the U.S. Supreme Court case in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 in so many ways they are very different.
One originated out of ballot challenges or appeals from State Courts the other originated out of U.S Federal Courts under Civil Rights and Acts of Congress having to do with Corporations and their collusion in the formulation of Cartels. I mention this to explain briefly the reasons that hope can be assumed for this case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Even though it is still a long shot as are all U.S. Supreme Court cases by the simple fact so few are chosen to be heard by the Court with the burden of showing a HUGE IMPACT on our society to gain any merit at all and still requiring all the legal aspects and technical hoops of standing and the requirements set by standards of the Court. The process is like facing a jump off a skyscraper with a couple of gunny-sacks sown together as a parachute-daunting to say the least. So was the prospect of militia fighting the most well-trained and disciplined British army on Earth in our American Revolution, but the American experiment has certainly shown a grit that has faced many superior forces down.
Read the rest here.
Cody;
You might consider an amended brief that names each of the 50 States, (Gov, State A.G, Sec)State & Pres. State Legislature) and both Political Parties as Respondents with a Motion for a Show Cause Order based on the FACT that there is no uniformly acknowledged legal “definition” of a U.S. natural born Citizen as noted 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]
If the controversy exists over the status of any given individual then the controversy exists over every given individual and therefore must be resolved in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied without controversy as required by the A2S1C5 exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision regarding citizenship status, age and residency.
Naming the States and Political Parties as Respondents nationalizes the case immediately and the Show Cause Motion evokes a response even if the response is “no response” and provides for the “airing out” of ALL the various interpretations, whether misconceived or correct, which lays the groundwork for common-sense to prevail.
However, speaking specifically of Citizenship Laws under the COTUS, there are Acts & statutes in place as to what has been done;
1st it must be accepted that the Preamble to the COTUS serves as sufficient Oath of Naturalization so that those persons eligible as State Citizens were collectively naturalized by the Ratification of the COTUS. This solves the problem that Aristotle observed at Part II Bk III Politics.
2nd, it must be accepted that the mandate of A1S8C4 gave plenary power to the Congress of the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization under an UNIFORM RULE.
3rd, it must be acknowledged that A2S1C5 makes an exclusionary distinction between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizens for a purpose that resides within the Executive Articles defining the Executive Branch.
4th, it must be accepted that the Congress DID establish an uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship naturalization that conforms an alien into the nature of a U.S. Citizen. The characterized uniform Rule construed form the words of the provisions and what those words and provisions then require can be said to be expressed as:
” … Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise…”
5th, regarding children born “considered as” U.S. natural born Citizens the qualifier of :considered as” serves two (2) purposes; (1) so as to provide cause to scrutinize any such person who may aspire to the Office of POTUS when they become of age; (2) more pertinent is the proof of their counter parts existence, i.e., U.S. natural born Citizens that were / are being born within the limits of the U.S. under the same circumstance except PLACE.
6th, t must be acknowledged that the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act ended the use of the doctrine of Coverture to determine a woman’s / wife’s/ mother’s citizenship and provides legal acknowledgement of a hyphenated form of citizenship that had no legal standing theretofore, i.e., “dual-citizenship at birth”.
7th, it must be acknowledged that there has been NO Amendment that has affected of had effect upon the “term of words” that resides in the Executive Articles at A2S1C5, ergo, the circumstances that produced a U.S. natural born Citizen post the collective naturalization of the Founding Generation are the same circumstances that produce a U.S. natural born Citizen today, except for the reconciliations for the repeal of the short-lived foreign born U,S. natural born Citizen provision limiting place to within the limits of the U.S. to parents who are BOTH independently U.S. Citizens at the time of birth.
(Genesis and Generations of U.S. Citizenship)
The LAWS are clear when correctly interpreting their statutory effects upon the dynamic subject of U.S. Citizenship.