Will SCOTUS Associate Justice Gorsuch See the Obama Eligibility Case Differently?


by Sharon Rondeau

Graphic by Cody Robert Judy including entry from the 1866 Congressional Globe as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” to at least one congressman

(May 11, 2017) — In addition to appealing his case to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals last month, Obama eligibility/forgery lawsuit plaintiff Cody Robert Judy filed an application for a Petition of Mandamus with U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newest member of the high court nominated by President Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, The Post & Email reported that Judy’s opening brief filed with the Tenth Circuit was posted, with the defendants having 30 days in which to respond.

The Supreme Court has not yet acted upon Judy’s petition, although a courtesy copy filed with the Tenth Circuit was publicly acknowledged on April 26.

A 2008, 2012 and 2016 presidential candidate, Judy believes he has unquestioned “standing” to challenge Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility and the methods by which he became a candidate who ultimately won two terms in the White House.

A 2012 ruling by a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a candidate for federal public office could challenge a fellow candidate’s eligibility prior to the election.

The root case of the matter, Judy v. Obama, 14-9396, was first filed in July 2014 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, making its way through the Tenth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court by early October 2015.  At that point, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied Judy in forma pauperis status, and he was forced to abandon the case for lack of funds.

Unlike other “eligibility” lawsuits, Judy’s latest claims that Obama, his political action organization OFA, and the DNC violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Clayton Act and that a criminal component now exists in the marginalization of his own presidential campaigns.

In January, Judy refiled the case with new information gleaned from a December 15, 2016 press conference focusing on anomalies found in an image purported to represent Obama’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii released to the public on April 27, 2011.

During the presser, investigator Mike Zullo revealed that the conclusions of two outside forensic analysts matched his own which had deemed the image a “computer-generated forgery” early in 2012.

Long before Zullo’s investigation was launched in August 2011, Judy contended that neither Barack Hussein Obama nor Sen. John McCain met the definition of “natural born Citizen,” one of three requirements for presidential eligibility found in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution.  In 2008, Judy therefore filed suit against both presidential candidates.

McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizens, while Obama claims a birth in Hawaii to a U.S.-citizen mother and British-citizen father.  Judy believes that the Framers intended “natural born Citizen” to encompass only those born in the United States to citizen parents so as to preclude any issue of foreign allegiance in the nation’s chief executive.

The cases never received a hearing in any court.  Since 2008, Judy participated in or initiated 15 actions in an attempt to gain a judicial ruling as to whether or not Obama is eligible for the presidency as a “natural born Citizen.”

Judy’s current case and a previous one, 12-5276, reached the Supreme Court at different times.

In an interview earlier this week, Judy informed The Post & Email that unlike most of his new colleagues, Gorsuch has decided not to participate in a system wherein law clerks review submissions and render recommendations to the nine justices as to whether or not the cases merit a hearing.

The vast majority of requests are declined.

The system utilized by seven current justices of the Supreme Court, instituted in 1973, is known as the “cert pool” or “labor pool,” from which Associate Justice Samuel Alito also opted not to take part after receiving his appointment in 2008.

On May 1, Adam Liptak of The New York Times reported that approximately 7,000 cases arrive at the Supreme Court each year, while The Daily Caller reported the number to be closer to 8,000.

Liptak reported that the number of cases actually heard by the high court has been reduced from approximately 150 each year 30 years ago to “about half that many” today.

A blog post at FindLaw.com agreed with those figures.

In 2008, Liptak reported that in addition to then-Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, Alito, confirmed to the court in 2006, decided not to participate in the pool.

Each Supreme Court justice has four law clerks who are outstanding law school graduates.   Gorsuch was himself a Supreme Court law clerk from 1993-94.

Blogging at FindLaw.com, Atty. William Peacock wrote of the pool system, in part:

The concept isn’t without criticism. Delegating the cert. power to a team of inexperienced 25-year-old law clerks carries its dangers, as does putting the power of grant or deny in the hands of a single clerk. Though they obviously don’t make the final decision, their “grant” or “deny” recommendations do carry significant weight, especially considering the sheer quantity of cases that try to make their way onto the docket.

Judy described the law clerks in the pool as “all top of their class.  It’s really a big honor to work for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Judy is hopeful that given Gorsuch’s choice to opt out of the pool, his clerks would look at his petition with greater care than might normally occur with the pool clerks.  “I was impressed with his being independent,” Judy said of Gorsuch.  “Also, in his Wikipedia biography, it says that he is really big on natural law.  That should be huge as far as his opinion on ‘natural born Citizen,’ because natural law is governed by nature’s law.  That’s where we get ‘born in the U.S. and the parents’ citizenship,” Judy said.

Judy said he has contacted reporters from all major news outlets about his case, but to his knowledge none has reported it.  He believes that mainstream outlets’ editors are likely responsible for quashing any story which might be of interest to the reporter.  “One of the hardest things for me to have done was to have been a presidential candidate and had to rely on myself as a reporter because these reporters could not be relied on,” he observed.  “You know,” he ended with a laugh.

“That’s where bloggers have come through, and that’s why I thought my letter to Drudge was so important asking him to feature a headline to the nation because editors or reporters, whoever’s at fault, are not covering the story,” Judy said.

Comparing the media’s choice to cover some issues and not others, he told us:

The media reported about the Fourth Circuit’s hearing on Trump’s travel ban which affects six countries, but this case covers more people than the entire populations of those tiny countries.  So which affects more people?  Six countries is pretty big, but this [case] is fraud upon the whole election process and a huge problem that we have to clear up.

Judy believes that Rep. Nancy Pelosi has played a large role in allegedly fraudulently certifying Obama as “legally qualified” to the State of Hawaii, whose law requires the wording to appear in its election certification documents but by signing another form lacking that wording for the remaining 49 states.


Editor’s Note:  For more information on Cody Robert Judy’s legal actions, please see:

11 Responses to "Will SCOTUS Associate Justice Gorsuch See the Obama Eligibility Case Differently?"

  1. jacksonp   Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 4:32 PM

    Robert Laity, J.D. [h.c.]

    I think you misunderstood my critique of Mr. Judy’s lawsuit. In spite of whether or not Obama is an NBC, Mr. Judy’s lawsuit is a dead horse. I would suggest you read his lawsuit and the decisions by the District Court and the Appeals Court.

    Mr. Judy’s claim is that his own campaigns for president in 2008 and 2012 were unsuccessful because of the actions of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the DNC, and a host of others. He accuses the defendants of engaging in activities which are prohibited by the Sherman and Clayton Acts. He asks for $100 million in damages. He does not ask the court to remove Obama from office. He is simply seeking money damages.

    The District Court dismissed his lawsuit because neither the Sherman Act nor the Clayton Act apply. As a result, Mr. Judy committed the most basic of mistakes. He failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Even if Obama was born of non-citizen parents in a foreign country, Mr. Judy’s lawsuit would still be dismissed because he has failed to state a valid claim upon which relief can be granted.

    If you doubt what I say, I invite you to read the wikipedia entry on the Clayton Act at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act.

    I have read Mr. Judy’s lawsuit and the two decisions that dismissed them. The courts were correct in their decision to dismiss the lawsuit.

    Please understand that the court did not even get to the point of looking at the evidence. They looked at Mr. Judy’s legal basis for filing the lawsuit in the light most favorable to him. In making their decision, they assumed that everything he stated was true. The courts correctly determined that Mr. Judy’s lawsuit had no valid legal basis.

  2. Stanford West   Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 12:43 PM

    Professor Herb Titus believes that a natural born citizen means born in the country to two citizen parents. But even he recognizes that the Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark has to be overturned for that definition to become law.

    In his amicus brief, filed in Rudy v. Lee, he told the Court the definition comes down to either Justice Grays opinion or Chief Justice Fuller’s dissenting opinion. He barely mentions Minor v. Happersett.

  3. T.F. B0W   Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 10:58 AM


    What does “J.D. [h.c.]” mean?

  4. Robert Laity, J.D. [h.c.]   Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 8:04 AM

    jacksonp, Obama usurped the Presidency by fraud during time of war. That makes Obama a spy under 10USC and a traitor under 18USC. The “Horse” is alive and well. I have large dossier about Obama. I have bee investigating the matter for (9) years and I have been to SCOTUS on the issue. The SCOTUS has left undisturbed Minor v Happersett, (1874) which UNANIMOUSLY agreed that a “Natural Born Citizen” is “One born IN the United States to parents who are US Citizens themselves”. That is still “good law” as we say in the legal profession.

  5. Rick A Hyatt   Friday, May 12, 2017 at 12:16 PM

    Oh, Justice Gorsuch undoubtedly has THIS, too. A true copy of Barry Soetoro’s – And mine – Birth Certificates. A LOT of planning went into this by the GHWB CIA. http://rickahyatt.blogspot.com/2017/03/open-letter-sen-enzi-now-i-remember.html

  6. jacksonp   Friday, May 12, 2017 at 2:17 AM

    I have followed Mr. Judy for a few years. This is not just “beating a dead horse.” This is driving a dead horse that has already been beaten beyond recognition further into the ground for no apparent purpose.|

    The courts have already ruled that Mr. Judy’s lawsuit does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In effect, neither the Sherman Act nor the Clayton Act apply to this case. Nothing about that issue has changed.

    The final press release by Zullo and Arpaio revealed no new information.

    Judy’s new lawsuit will be dismissed for the same reason as the first.

    Please note that Judy has never requested that Obama be removed from office or impeached. His demand is for $100 million in damages. Nothing more.

  7. T.F. B0W   Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:39 PM

    @Cody Judy

    If the application hasn’t been filed, how can SCOTUS consider it?

    Did SCOTUS explain why the application has been neither filed nor returned?

  8. Jeffrey Harrison   Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 8:33 PM

    Cody, thanks for your homework. To bad that the Congressional Research Service seems to knows nothing about the 1866 Congressional Globe definition of our founding fathers phrase of Natural Born Citizen. That said, neither does the current media and nor our current Congress or for that matter average citizens know what our founding fathers meant by the term Natural Born Citizens.

    Also, many citizens have no idea why the requirement for NBC was established by our founding fathers. Therefore, since the Constitution can’t defend itself, it is up to us in the know to speak up and to continue to defend it.

  9. GARY   Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 6:58 PM


    No, the new Justice will not see it any differently, in fact like all the other Supreme Court Justices and all other US Courts, he will not see it at all.

    Like all other jurists, the new Supreme Court Justice will operate under the theory that the Legislative Branch is presently and has in the past acted in good faith when they twice confirmed that Obama was eligible to serve as President and was the legitimate lawful President of the United States and unless Congress asks the Supreme Court or any other court to intervene, the judicial branch, (The Supreme Court and all other US Courts), will never get involved in this issue regardless of how many suits are filed and regardless of who files them.

  10. Cody Robert Judy   Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 3:14 PM

    @T.F. Bow

    The “Application” was received by SCOTUS Clerk Bennett by Express Overnight Mail, but has not been given a Application Number by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor was it sent back to me.

    This is highly irregular as Rule 22 Governs “Applications to Individual Justices”

    [ https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_22 ]

    and Petitions for Mandamus [ Generally, such a petition for a mandamus order is made to compel a judicial or government officer to perform a duty owed to the petitioner.]


    I believe this is a good example of Conspiracy within the U.S. Supreme Court that basically falls under Congress’s jurisdiction with “impeachment”. If the Justices are not following rules and guidelines, we have essentially a rogue court or ‘no-man’s land’

    Incidentally the links to McCain’s Action I filed

    1) Civil Rights Federal Elections Complaint


    2) Emergency Exhibit of Evidence re: (Obama) in the McCain case included Phil Berg’s Writ of Cert before the U.S. Supreme Court. I also filed a Amicus Curiae in Berg v. Obama because I did have ‘standing’, and the Court ruled he did not. If the Court had allowed my enjoining the Case his problem may have been made ‘moot’. That Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) was never filed on the Docket of the SCOTUS either.



  11. T.F. B0W   Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 1:29 PM

    What is the docket number for Cody Judy’s SCOTUS case?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.