“WE ARE SO CLOSE”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 24, 2015) — On Tuesday, 2008, 2012 and hopeful 2016 presidential candidate Cody Robert Judy announced on his blog that his civil lawsuit, Judy v. Obama 14-9396, was not dismissed following a June 18 conference of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s website reported the same day:
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 13, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
“In forma pauperis” is Latin for “indigent,” the determination of which often prompts a court to waive its customary filing fees. Judy’s case, which he has advanced without an attorney, claims financial injury from the 2012 presidential campaign of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party for proffering an alleged ineligible presidential candidate against whom Judy was forced to compete.
The author of “Taking A Stand,” Judy first challenged the constitutional eligibility of Sen. John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, when he also sought the presidency. Since then, Judy has filed Amicus Curiae briefs in other cases challenging Obama’s presidential qualifications.
Judy’s view of the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to mean “born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents.” He therefore contends that neither McCain nor Obama qualified because of the circumstances of their respective births: McCain because of his birth in Panama while his father, a U.S. Navy admiral, was stationed there; and Obama purportedly to a U.S.-citizen mother in Hawaii and Kenyan father who never applied for U.S. citizenship.
In early 2012, Judy filed a ballot challenge in the state of Georgia as a presidential candidate against Obama. His case at that time challenged Obama’s eligibility directly to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Georgia Supreme Court refused to take up the matter. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed it following a conference on September 24, 2012. On October 6, 2012, Judy filed a petition for rehearing which was ultimately denied following a second conference on January 4, 2013.
As Judy has chronicled on his blog with frequent updates, his most recent case began last summer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. He appealed the court’s unfavorable decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and from there, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judy v. Obama claims “personal injury and liability” damages from the Obama campaign’s alleged violations of the Sherman Act. Passed in 1890, the law was intended to prohibit “concentrations of power” which might chill free trade or result in price-fixing, thereby shutting out competition.
Judy explained last July just after filing the case that he believes that an “illegal cartel” consisting of Democrat and Republican members of Congress conspired to allow two ineligible candidates to seek the presidency in 2008, “damaging” other candidates’ campaigns. Judy is the only plaintiff in his current case, whose name was curiously changed, presumably by a U.S. Supreme Court clerk, from Judy v. Obama, et al to Judy v. Obama. Originally, Judy named Obama; the DNC; Barry Soetoro; Obama’s political organization, Organizing for America (OFA); Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid as defendants, but it now solely appears as “Judy v. Obama.”
Earlier this year, Reid announced that he would not seek re-election in 2016.
In April, Judy called for Amicus Curiae briefs to be filed with his case at the Supreme Court by attorneys interested in the constitutional eligibility question and who are licensed to argue in front of the Supreme Court.
On June 13, he announced that Obama’s attorneys had failed to submit a response by a deadline for the third time.
Mentioned in Judy’s suit is the criminal investigation conducted by the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse launched in September 2011 which determined early in 2012 that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries.” He informed us on Wednesday that he cited the work of The Post & Email in the lawsuit.
During our interview, Judy told The Post & Email that because he was permitted to proceed through the lower federal courts in forma pauperis, he was surprised that the Supreme Court rendered him ineligible for that status. “I really don’t think that the reason they denied me (in forma pauperis) is that I didn’t qualify,” he told us. “The government has made no argument that I shouldn’t have received it.” Rather, he believes that the court’s decision is a “delay tactic.”
The filing fee which the court is requesting Judy to pay in order for his case to proceed is $300, but the actual costs going forward, which include copying, collating, and the mailing of 45-48 copies of all documents will be exponentially higher, Judy told us. “It has to be in booklet form. They have to print it like a book. The amount I’ve been quoted is $1,500, and it could go up to $4,000.”
“I think they [the court] wanted more time,” he speculated as to why the court ruled as it did. “I don’t think they’re worried about the $300. That philosophy is one that the anti-birthers do not want to admit because that bodes favorably that the justices want discussion on this matter.”
“We are so close,” he added, referring to a hearing at the Supreme Court which could result in a ruling as to whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to occupy the White House, a question millions of Americans have been asking since late 2007, when commentator Chris Matthews first said on air that Obama was born in a foreign country.
A Breitbart report dated May 17, 2012 revealed a biographical pamphlet published by Obama’s then-literary agent which claimed that he was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” Early in Obama’s ascension to the Oval Office, there were two differing news reports issued by the same source, UPI, as to the Hawaii hospital in which Obama allegedly was born.
Judy equated the filing fee and accompanying costs which the Supreme Court has asked him to pay to that of $1 billion hypothetically asked of business mogul Donald Trump. “What they are asking is that I pay one-tenth of my income to proceed,” Judy said. “Just as $1 billion is one-tenth of Trump’s net worth, $1,500 is one-tenth of my income.”
Judy said he has submitted proof of his income to all of the courts in which his case has been filed. On Wednesday, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the court sent by overnight mail on its in forma pauperis decision. “I said in the Motion for Reconsideration that in making me pay the filing fee, the costs are one-tenth of my income for the whole year. So what they’re saying is that I don’t qualify. I want that to resonate to all the poor people…I want that to resonate to all the United States of America. If that’s the case, then justice is truly gone. ‘There’s no justice if you’re poor, because you can’t get into court.’ That’s the message that they’re sending to us. This is a huge embarrassment to the Democratic Party, because they’re not supposed to be that kind of party. I want that to resonate like Paul Bunyan hitting the ground. Somebody needs to be fired at the U.S. Supreme Court; it’s not even in the realm of competency,” Judy told us.
If the case should go forward following payment, Judy said that he would eventually have to travel to Washington, DC for oral argument from his home in Utah, another considerable expense.
“Because people have seen that I was denied in forma pauperis and the case will not be heard if I don’t pay the fee, they are finally starting to contribute,” Judy stated, affirming that he is encouraged by increased contributions made through his campaign website over the last several days. “Why would you want to have justice buried over injustice and corruption? It doesn’t make any sense,” he said.
Donations to Judy’s cause can be made here.
More of Judy’s exclusive interview with The Post & Email will be published in a subsequent article.