“I’M BENEFITED EITHER WAY”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 27, 2017) —On Wednesday evening, The Post & Email spoke with Obama eligibility/forgery lawsuit plaintiff and former presidential candidate Cody Robert Judy, who has challenged the constitutional eligibility, more recently with the reported forgery of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, in a case now pending in both the U.S. Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
During the interview, Judy explained that while the Supreme Court has not docketed his petition for a Writ of Mandamus directed to Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Tenth Circuit has done so with a courtesy copy he deemed it appropriate to send.
The case contends that Barack Hussein Obama violated the Sherman Anti-Trust and Clayton Acts by running for president as an ineligible candidate and thereby harming Judy’s own candidacy. In January, Judy refiled the case to contain evidence gleaned from a December 15, 2016 press conference during which the investigator of a five-year probe into Obama’s long-form birth certificate, Mike Zullo, declared that two outside forensic analysts agreed with him that the image could not have originated with a real, paper document.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen.” Exactly six years ago today, the long-form birth certificate image was posted at whitehouse.gov “with the intent to deceive,” according to Zullo after he declared the image a “computer-generated forgery” in 2012.
Judy’s case first reached the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2015, where Associated Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied him permission to proceed “in forma pauperis,” meaning that as a citizen of very modest income, he cannot afford the customary filing fees and other expenses associated with a case filed at the high court. He therefore petitioned Gorsuch as the next junior Supreme Court justice.
Of the new development, Judy told us:
I filed motions to recuse Kagan and Sotomayor at the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike the federal district court, the clerk at the Supreme Court does not document every motion that comes in. When you look up my case, 14-9396, there are three or four documents that you don’t even see. That’s a big deal, because most people won’t go in to the Supreme Court to look at the whole case; the public relies on the docket report.
It’s always been disconcerting to me that the Supreme Court is so secretive.
I haven’t gotten anything back from the U.S. Supreme Court yet. Thursday is two weeks since I filed the latest document. In other cases I’ve filed there, such as 12-5276, the Georgia case, if I made a mistake or didn’t do something right, it didn’t take two weeks for the Supreme Court to get that back to me and let me know. The court clerk and I went back and forth 8-10 times. It was a big box of 11 copies, and every time I had to send it, it was about $20. It was an awful experience I had trying to get a case number.
The point is that if there’s a mistake made, it usually doesn’t take two weeks for a court clerk to act on it. We know the court has had those papers for at least two weeks. They have a reputation for not filing things, such as my motion to recuse Sotomayor and Kagan. It should be given an application number, but I don’t know where it stands.
The point that’s newsworthy is that I sent a courtesy copy to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals of the 9-10 page document that I sent to the U.S. Supreme Court and they filed it on their record. What you’ll see is “Courtesy copy of petition for a writ of mandamus received from Mr. Cody Robert Judy (to the U.S. Supreme Court) but not filed,” meaning it doesn’t have a case number there yet. It doesn’t mean that I haven’t sent it; it just means that they haven’t given it a case number.
I told the court clerk of the Tenth Circuit that I filed a petition for mandamus to an individual justice, and I think it is fair to the Tenth Circuit judges that this has also been filed at the U.S. Supreme Court. So I’m checking the courts with each other. Because if the Supreme Court doesn’t file the application, the record that it was filed to them is going to be at the Tenth Circuit, and it’s on their docket.
The important thing about that is with the Supreme Court’s prior behavior toward me as far as docketing something that comes in, they can’t say, “Well, we didn’t get it.” I also have a proof of service which they signed.
I also suspect that Neil Gorsuch’s clerks have run my case number, 14-9396, and researched the in forma pauperis fiasco. I think that’s the first thing they did, because I mentioned that this case has a case number. So the justices could also be deciding whether to open the 14-9396 case and put the application inside that or just file it under another case number. The district court had to decide to do the same thing by reopening the case, so they started filing the documents under the number 14-00093. The Tenth Circuit has given it a new number.
The Supreme Court clerks and the justices now have less of an excuse not to deal with it because the justices in the Tenth Circuit have it. So they’ll be looking at the Supreme Court, which, if it decides to wash its hands and not give it an application number, would be looking rather foolish. So I’m benefited either way.
What it represents is a check in the Tenth Circuit on the U.S. Supreme Court. I think that is a great benefit, including to the public because the public can see that the justices have the paper.
I think the clerks of the Tenth Circuit are fantastic. Elizabeth is one of them, and she has always been so kind in her responses and letters to me. I just happened to check the docket report under PACER and saw that they docketed the U.S. Supreme Court courtesy copy that I sent. This is going to be of benefit for the justices there because if the U.S. Supreme Court decides they’re going to handle it themselves, I’m not imposing on the Tenth Circuit.
So they know what’s going on. It kind-of works in both directions as a courtesy to both courts, but I think it does check the Supreme Court, because all the judges in the Tenth Circuit – and that’s where Neil Gorsuch came from, too; there might be a little peer pressure – know about it.