“IT COULD BE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 22, 2017) — Last Monday, The Post & Email received notification that on Friday, July 14, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, CO issued an order in the case of Judy v. Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro; Democratic National Committee; and Organizing for Action, 17-4055.
The case, filed by Cody Robert Judy, alleged wrongdoing on the part of the named defendants under the Clayton Act and Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
A presidential candidate in 2008, 2012 and 2016, Judy challenged not only Obama’s eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” clause, but also alleged that the defendants’ bad-faith actions negatively impacted his campaigns financially.
The three-page order begins:
Cody Robert Judy appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment and a later motion for reconsideration. Because Mr. Judy’s appeal is frivolous, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and decline to consider the issue further unless and until Mr. Judy pays the required fees.
“In forma pauperis” refers to the status of poverty which U.S. courts recognize through a federal statute after proof of poverty is provided by a petitioner. If approved by the court, the petitioner may then file briefs and motions without paying customary court fees.
The case originated three years ago as Judy v. Obama, 14-9396. Having appealed it under in forma pauperis (IFP) status to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justice assigned to review appeals from the Tenth Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, in June 2015 denied Judy the ability to proceed without paying customary filing fees.
As a man of very modest means and having been unable to raise approximately $5,000 to pay for the copying and postage required by the high court, Judy abandoned his effort.
In January of this year, Judy refiled the case as a result of new information released from a five-year investigation into the image posted at the White House website on April 27, 2011 purported to represent the “long-form” birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama.
While the chief investigator, Mike Zullo, had reached the conclusion that the image is a “computer-generated forgery” in early 2012, on December 15, 2016 he announced to the public that after examining the image from two respectively different approaches, two well-known forensic analysts reached very similar conclusions to his own.
Judy therefore felt compelled to inform the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah of the new evidence Zullo released which he viewed as pertaining to his Obama eligibility challenge. Under the Clayton and Anti-Sherman Acts, a petitioner is permitted to take alleged criminal evidence directly to a judge rather than to law enforcement or a prosecutor.
Judy shared his initial reaction to the court’s opinion Monday on his Facebook page:
On Tuesday, Judy spoke with Tracy at the U.S. District Court, who told him that her office had not yet received the order from the Tenth Circuit. “Even though it’s electrically transferred, Tracy said they didn’t have a copy yet and would call me back to confirm that,” Judy told The Post & Email early Wednesday morning. “I’ve never felt like I’ve been given the run-around quite so bad. Two of the Tenth Circuit clerks for Team 2 I spoke with gave conflicting statements.”
Judy questioned why the clerks claimed they had not received the order when it already was posted on PACER on Friday, July 14. “I know once a ruling is made and electronically uplinked on Pacer, any clerk can get it,” Judy told us. “So, why the confusion from the District Court Clerk stating they didn’t have a copy yet? It made no sense at all.”
Referring to Obama supporters who purport to believe that there is no issue with the long-form birth certificate image posted at whitehouse.gov, Judy said, “The public and Obots had one, but the Clerk of the District Court could not get it? What’s up with that?”
Of his experience with the clerks of both courts, Judy said:
“The conflicting statements from the district court were that they had not received the order from the Tenth Circuit Court. With the Tenth Circuit Court immediately putting it on PACER, there was no way that what the district court was telling me was true.
“There are two conflicts from what they wrote. I’ve had problems with the district court. When I’ve talked to them on the phone, they’re always very nice, but I feel that there are shenanigans that go on. Even with the amount of the filing fee, I was being told two different things.”
On Wednesday afternoon, The Post & Email contacted the Tenth Circuit clerk’s office through the court’s website to ask:
From: “Sharon Rondeau” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/19/2017 12:58 PM
Subject: Form submission from: Email the Clerk of Court
Sent by: email@example.com
Your Name: Sharon Rondeau
Your Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: ISSUANCE OF COURT ORDERS
Good afternoon, I am making a general media inquiry regarding how opinions and orders of the court are issued and processed.
Who receives a published order of the court first: PACER, the court clerks, or the parties involved in the case?
Thank you very much.
to which we received the following response:
Good morning Sharon:
We operate in real time here, so whenever we issue and post an order to our docket, notice is sent immediately to counsel/parties of record (and lower court clerks) and the order appears simultaneously on PACER.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Case Management Supervisor
10th Circuit Court of Appeals
On Tuesday, Judy decided, with encouragement from a supporter, to attempt to raise the filing fee. “One thing I do know, it’s easier to come up with $505 than it was when the SCOTUS ruled the same way in 14-9396, giving me a deadline to pay fees and printing that can equal 5K.”
After The Post & Email asked Judy if he believed paying the court fee would advance the case beyond the panel’s ruling of “frivolous,” Judy responded, “It will ‘moot’ the ruling with compliance to the wishes of the Court. As for getting a different ruling…I’m not sure about that. We do not know how in-depth the Circuit Court got into the review before they used the excuse of ‘friviolous’ laid on by the District Court. If they stopped their review shortly after assuming the denial of IFP, it could be a different outcome.”
On Friday, Judy told The Post & Email that he was able to raise the filing fee, which he paid to the court that afternoon. The photo of the receipt from the court delivered on Saturday is pictured above.
[Editor’s Note: Please watch for Part 2 of our interview with Cody Robert Judy within the next 24 hours.]