FILING FEE PAID ON FRIDAY
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 23, 2017) — On Saturday evening, The Post & Email reported that Cody Robert Judy, the plaintiff in an Obama eligibility/forgery lawsuit, was able to raise the required $505 fee payable to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in order to proceed with his case.
On July 14, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order indicating that it deemed the case “frivolous” but that if Judy paid the fee, it could be pursued to a next step.
Judy had previously been granted by both the U.S. District Court and the Tenth Circuit “in forma pauperis” (IFP) status, which allows a plaintiff to proceed with a case without paying customary fees and copying costs after providing proof of “poverty.”
Although the appellate court’s most recent order was uploaded to the federal online docketing system, PACER, late on the afternoon of July 14, Judy was told by the U.S. District Court clerk’s office that the order was not in their possession as of last Tuesday. “With the Tenth Circuit Court immediately putting it on PACER, there was no way that what the district court was telling me was true,” Judy told us.
On Wednesday, in response to our question about how court orders are docketed and disseminated, a spokesman for the Tenth Circuit said, “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.”
Judy did not receive his hard copy of the order until retrieving his mail on Thursday. He told The Post & Email that although an email address is required of plaintiffs utilizing the federal courts and that he has provided one, he has never received notifications regarding his case via that method.
After paying the fee on Friday, he received an official acknowledgement in Saturday’s mail.
Judy’s current case was brought under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, “Civil action for deprivation of rights,” and the Clayton Act and Sherman Anti-Trust Act alleging that in 2012, Obama, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and political action committee Organizing for Action conspired to support a candidate for president who was constitutionally ineligible because he was not a “natural born Citizen.”
In 2008, Judy filed documents to run for president himself as a Democrat and launched respective lawsuits challenging the eligibility of both Obama and Sen. John McCain. Both were ultimately dismissed without a hearing on the merits.
McCain was born in Panama to U.S.-citizen parents. Obama claims a birth in Honolulu, HI to a U.S.-citizen mother and British-citizen father at the time. Obama’s father never became a U.S. citizen, but rather, returned to his home country of Kenya in 1964 following that country’s declared independence from the British Crown.
The younger Obama’s life narrative differs from a number of credible, mainstream news reports which previously claimed that he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, not Hawaii. A biographical sketch in pamphlet form published in 1991 and discovered by Breitbart News in May 2012 stated that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
Judy additionally sought the presidency in 2012 and 2016 and believes that his former circumstance as a presidential candidate enabled him to proceed with his cases without his legal “standing” having been challenged. Average citizens, after filing lawsuits questioning Obama’s eligibility beginning in 2008, were told they lacked the “standing” to proceed as well as a particularized injury.
Under the federal anti-trust laws, Judy claims he has suffered irreparable harm by Obama’s candidacy and election as an allegedly illegitimate chief executive.
Judy believes that the term “natural born Citizen” contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution means that a person is not only born in the United States, but also has parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Judy has often expounded on the “time” requirement necessary for someone to claim “natural born” status. “It takes more than one generation for a person to develop complete loyalty to the United States,” Judy told The Post & Email. “Being born here isn’t enough; your parents must have been full participants in the society by being citizens themselves.”
Like many other Americans, Judy became particularly concerned with the Obama eligibility question after an image purported to represent Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from Hawaii was posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 and very quickly declared a forgery by several industry experts.
In August of that year, at the request of approximately 250 constituents, then-Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio agreed to assign one of his volunteer posses whose members possessed experience in detective work and law enforcement to analyze the image, with Arpaio fully expecting that the matter would be quickly put to rest.
However, after a period of analysis, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo informed Arpaio that the image could not have originated with a real, paper document. Over the next five years and encompassing three press conferences, Zullo and Arpaio released evidence pointing to probable cause in the forgery of not only the birth certificate image, but also Obama’s Selective Service registration form. That document, along with accompanying printouts, was mailed to an undetermined number of FOIA requesters beginning in late 2008 by the Selective Service System (SSS).
At the third and final presser on December 15, 2016, Zullo divulged that after agreeing to examine the image themselves, two forensic analysts working in two different disciplines reached conclusions very similar to his own, which were first made public on March 1, 2012.
The media either ignored the outcome of the press conference or stressed that the investigation was coming to a close as Arpaio prepared to leave office after six consecutive terms and a defeat in the polls on November 8.
After witnessing the release of the new information in December, Judy felt it his responsibility to resubmit his case, first filed in July 2014, to provide the newly-released evidence to a federal judge with the allegation that his complaint now encompassed criminal activity as well as civil injury.
As before, Judy began with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, which allowed him IFP status but dismissed the case in April. Judy then appealed to the Tenth Circuit and the newly-seated U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. While the Supreme Court has issued no response despite Judy’s proof of mailing, the Tenth Circuit labeled the appeal “frivolous” on July 14 with the caveat that it could proceed if Judy paid the filing fee.
In an interview on Saturday, The Post & Email asked Judy, “Now that the fee is paid, could the court simply reiterate its decision that the appeal is frivolous?” to which he responded:
Yes, they totally could. If they did that, I think it would be a very cruel standard. They could consider payment of the fee a self-imposed fine. But in the first paragraph in their ruling, they said, (paraphrased), “Because the district court ruled this is frivolous, we denied the IFP status.”
He continued:
I don’t think the judge is right or that the Tenth Circuit even paid attention to it. They included in their order “culpable” things such as “Mr. Judy has alleged…” mentioning Nancy Pelosi’s and Sen. Reid’s name, indicating that they’ve reviewed the case. But we don’t really know if they ever reviewed the case. We’ll never really know, but the clerks probably reviewed it and wrote the order, then the judges signed it.
We can assume now, because I have complied, that the justices no longer have a monetary excuse.
I really like the fact that in the last paragraph, they said, “If you don’t pay the fees, the case will be dismissed for a lack of prosecution.” That really stirred the pot for me, because there has been no time in nine years that I have failed to pursue my cases. They’re not saying that the evidence or the facts are frivolous; they’re saying it’s my fault for failing to prosecute.
I totally disagree with where they said I had not made a serious effort to present the facts. What we’re going to see now is that the justices will have to look more seriously at the facts of the case, which completely show that Nancy Pelosi disenfranchised the state of Hawaii by writing her own certificate of nomination for Obama. I think that’s really important to notice because without that happening, Obama would not have been elected. He would have started to fail in the state of Hawaii where he claims to be have been born.
It’s really important to the Democratic Party, of which I am a member, which supposedly elected him to be their nominee, that Pelosi disenfranchised the Democratic Party of Hawaii, which would not certify him as a qualified candidate.
The Post & Email then commented, “Yes, Hawaii has a law mandating that political candidates must be declared by their party to be ‘legally qualified’ to occupy the office they seek.”
Yes, that’s why Nancy Pelosi wrote her own; she disenfranchised the whole state of Hawaii. It comes down to whether a political party is able to disenfranchise whole states of the union. That’s an infringement on my rights to be able to run a fair and equal race.
When you’re in the Democratic Party, you have to function within their rules. That’s what this is; the Democratic Party is not the United States of America. The same thing happens with any corporation; when that corporation violates the rules or someone’s civil rights, that corporation is responsible in a court of law.
That’s why it is so important that I was a Democratic candidate in the race objecting to Obama’s constitutional qualifications for the office. I’ve never had a hearing on this, and the courts aren’t able to sweep it under the rug. We get into this question: Is the Democratic Party too big to fail? There was a story the other day that the party is $3.3 million in the hole. Since May, it’s gone downhill.
If the courts refuse to discipline the Democratic Party in its shenanigans against the Constitution of the United States, the party is the one that’s suffering and all the people in it. The Republicans are just pleased as punch to see that happen. I am the one trying to work from within the Democratic Party to at least try to get it back on a constitutional track.
Justices are all supposed to be neutral. If a presidential candidate does not have the right to challenge another presidential candidate’s qualifications, then absolutely nobody does. And that is basically trashing the Constitution and saying, “It doesn’t matter,” and if that doesn’t apply, then their own judicial appointments don’t matter because it all collapses. They’re not really judges; they don’t really have courts under the constitutional umbrella.
So we’re asking the justices to uphold what Congress has upheld: that nine times since 2000 there have been motions, resolutions, and suggestions in Congress to change the “natural born Citizen” clause, and they’ve all failed. That should send a message to the courts that it’s not open to interpretation, because the interpretations have been given to Congress, and they have been rejected.
That shows the courts that it’s not up to their interpretation. Congress, the will of the people, has said no, and if the courts say, “Yes, somebody is able to run or occupy the office without the constitutional requirements being met,” then they’re in violation of their judgeships, the Constitution, and the will of the people.
[Editor’s Note: Please watch for the next installment of The Post & Email’s interview with Cody Robert Judy.]
Again, the district court initially dismissed Judy’s complaint as frivolous, and the 10th Circuit affirmed that dismissal, including the frivolous finding. Judy then filed in the district court a motion for relief from judgment, which was denied; the district court also denied Judy’s motion for reconsideration.
The 10th Circuit then reviewed Judy’s IFP application and — based on its own independent review of Judy’s appeal — concluded it was frivolous and therefore denied his IFP application. Because Judy has not and cannot explain why 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act applies to the 2012 election.
Judy was banned from the Obama Conspiracy Theories site because Judy posted (on his own blog) personal identifying information about OCT’s proprietor. Judy is not banned from The Fogbow. (Judy, on the other hand, has banned numerous people on Facebook and Twitter because they have pointed out his inaccuracies.)
@TF BOW The only Fact agreeable to the current Appellant Court regarding my Cases, as you’ve agreed, is my “forma pauperis ” status provided reasons for Courts to write a Denial based on a procedural status quo if the District Court “labeled” it as if you sued The Fogbow or Obama Conspiracies for blocking my Comments.
Again, the courts have shown themselves to be very capable of determining on their own that there is no legal or factual basis for Judy’s claims. There is no benefit in anyone wasting their own time or the courts’ time (or delaying justice for litigants in other cases); it is more efficient to just stay out of the courts’ way.
This publication and Judy’s own blog have numerous articles in which Judy has “explained” his legal proceedings, but his explanations have been uniformly wrong. It is easy to conclude that Judy’s current explanations are also wrong, and that the 10th Circuit is going to affirm the district court’s latest denials. (But if the Jeffrey Harrisons of the world nonetheless want to give their money to Judy, they are free to do so.)
And a political party in 2008 not including certain eligibility language is not the same as it expressly saying its candidate is ineligible, nor is it relevant as to how 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act applied to the 2012 election.
Any interpretation of a statute that renders a portion of the statute meaningless is an incorrect interpretation.
This portion of the Hawaii election law, “the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates,” becomes meaningless under the interpretation that only the state party is qualified to place the names of candidates on the election ballot.
And since “the appropriate official” is singular not plural, only one official (state or national) is required to certify a candidate’s eligibility.
@JanesCarter re: [the state’s chief election official makes the final determination. ]
The representation of D-Rep. Nancy Pelosi is not the question on Obama, but rather it is the “Circumstances” that she opposed compared to the State of Hawaii’s Chairman’s [not representing Obama as Constitutionally Qualified] as a Presidential Candidate to act in official capacity under US Supreme Law of the Land.
Both Hawaii and Rep. Nancy Pelosi were in agreement on the Candidate.
Hawaii simply recognized officially Obama was never qualified and Mrs. Chairman Pelosi at the Time recognized it also according to Hawaii’s State Law, which is why she dis-enfranchised Hawaii’s “circumstance” of nomination.
She usurped the Circumstance of Constitutional Qualification leaving Hawaii’s in the dust bin. For clarity, like Hillary Clinton usurped the Secretary-Of-States office with her Private Server, she didn’t care about the State of Hawaii.
@TF Bow re: [It takes literally seconds to explain to P&E readers why Judy’s efforts have failed,]
In other words, your Lazy(?) And Cheap(?),When it comes to actually defending Fraud/Forgery/ and promoting your anti-gay, anti-Civil Rights and anti! American message(?)
But you still haven’t explained to the P&E Readers (Why?)
Re: [why they will continue to fail], and also to note that [Judy has been consistently wrong in predicting the outcome of his own cases.]
So, if I understand this correctly, you’re trying to be a Prophet, or some kind of Fortune Teller? Your desire is to Foretell the Future? Who is Rewarding you for that? Whose glory are you doing it for? Is it your own? Or some Deity you worship?
I’m trying to recall a Prediction I made about past cases, but I can’t recall any? Can you help us all out and find a quote of mine that’s “wrong” on a Prediction of my Cases?
Re: [ More importantly, comments here — unlike Judy — don’t waste the courts’ time.]
So, let’s see, you are doing the Court a “Favor” by not representing your “opinion” officially on Record, but you want to be famous for your opinion unofficially? You kinda wanna stay under-the-radar accept to the P&E Readers who you regularly disparage?
The only thing I could really find I’ve written was this Dream. But, this Case has not been decided yet.
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2017/06/biggest-party-planned-celebrating.html?m=1
Do you have a Blog or Internet Site where you are really advocating American? Or are you a Foreigner just trying to wreck us?
“Do you see the part that says “the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates,” the state’s chief election official makes the final determination. Under your interpretation of the law this could never occur because according to you only the state party can put a candidates name on the general election ballot.”
What I see is that you conspicuously omitted the very first word of the Hawaii law you quoted, “If”.
It takes literally seconds to explain to P&E readers why Judy’s efforts have failed, why they will continue to fail, and also to note that Judy has been consistently wrong in predicting the outcome of his own cases.
More importantly, comments here — unlike Judy — don’t waste the courts’ time.
@TF Bow – You’re time in Responding seems well worth it to ” you”. (?)
It’s very well explained in the Brief and the Original Pleadings.
Don’t mistake Judicial Improprieties with Facts and the Claims… of Merit. No one will take you seriously if they can read.
When something is said “not to make sense”, by people in positions because of the Defendant’s Nomination, it’s usually right on Target.
Why would anyone waste their time, and the court’s time, by filing an amicus briefing saying, for example, that Cody Judy has failed to explain how 42 sec. 1983, the Clayton Act, or Sherman Act apply to the 2012 election?
The courts seem able to reach that conclusion on their own.
@Suranis Why didn’t your audacious madcap file a Amicus Curaie in a single Obama Ineligibility / Forgery/Fraud suit?
When a Moral compass is set ON Corruption , turning a Republic out with a 180 using our US National Elections, you can expect Justice will catch up to the crash.
PLEASE say with me, 1,2,3…” T-R-U-M-P WON” . (?)
Denial isn’t getting Democrats anywhere… neither is digging a hole to bury Justice under Civil Rights Pretenders.
“Since only the state political parties are qualified to place their candidate on their state’s primary and general election ballot”
This is not true per Hawaii law.
“§11-113 Presidential ballots.”
“(b) A “national party” as used in this section shall mean a party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a national party. If there is no national party or the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates’ names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates’ names off the ballot completely.”
Do you see the part that says “the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates,” the state’s chief election official makes the final determination. Under your interpretation of the law this could never occur because according to you only the state party can put a candidates name on the general election ballot.
Gosh. Why didn’t your intrepid and herioc band of Litigants go to Hawaii and sue there about the law, since it is so clear that they broke it?
Especially since the Full Faith and Credit Clause of that pesky US Constitution says that every other state must accept Hawaiis certification, meaning the only place you could sue to prove your case was the state of Hawaii.
Instead, you sued everywhere else other than where it mattered, and where you might have gotten a result. The only case in Hawaii involved Taitz trying to get documentation for discovery in a court case in another state which she had already lost.
“Yet, Obama was. Was does a random commenter, nine years after the fact, know about Hawaii’s election laws that the State of Hawaii, as well as the national and state political parties, doesn’t?”
Indeed he was, despite the fact that, as I pointed out in my previous comment, the Democrat Party of Hawaii did not abide Hawaii election law in effect at the time.
Intellectually dishonest much?
“Obama should not have been on Hawaii’s general election ballot.”
Yet, Obama was. Was does a random commenter, nine years after the fact, know about Hawaii’s election laws that the State of Hawaii, as well as the national and state political parties, doesn’t?
“Your interpretation is what you want the law to say not what it actually says.”
Look in a mirror and repeat that.
“(1) In the case of candidates of political parties that have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution; and
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection;”
Since only the state political parties are qualified to place their candidate on their state’s primary and general election ballot “the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:” MUST at least mean the appropriate official of the political parties of each state. In 2008, the appropriate official of the Democrat Party of Hawaii did not do (B), therefore Obama should not have been on Hawaii’s general election ballot.
“Clearly, the “appropriate official” to certify in the case of Hawaii was Chair of Hawaii DNC who certified the DNC Candidates in 2000 and 2004”
Your interpretation is what you want the law to say not what it actually says.
There are four options that the legislature could have used:
1) State party only certification:
“the appropriate official of the state parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer”
2) National party certification:
“the appropriate official of the national parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer”
3) State and national party certification:
“the appropriate officials of both the national and state parties shall file sworn applications with the chief election officer”
4) Either state or national certification:
“the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer”
That is a plain text interpretation of §11-113.
BTW I should have included this section of the law which immediately precedes the previous section I quoted.
“(c) All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:”
The certification process only applies to the general election ballot not the primary election. It takes place after the nomination process has occurred. One could argue that the state party runs the primary elections and the national party runs the general election.
If only there was one intrepid reporter who could just call the Hawaii Department of Elections. Or the Hawaiian Democratic Party.
RacerTim
Clearly, the “appropriate official” to certify in the case of Hawaii was Chair of Hawaii DNC who certified the DNC Candidates in 2000 and 2004 – The Candidates are then Certified by the National Party – in 2008 Hawaii refused to certify O’Bama – It shall be further noted that the only National Certification that carried the “Constitutionally Qualified” language in 2008 was the one for Hawaiii. he other states did not have that language on their National Certifications. Chief Election Officer’s opinion notwithstanding, that stinks to high heaven – IMO
ELmo
Elmo
That is not how Hawaii’s law reads:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties that have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution; and
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection;
“[T]he appropriate official of those parties” it does not say if that is the national party or the state party official. Later in (C) it delineates that both the national party and the state party must make a statement about where the candidates were chosen.
Also in 2008 and 2012 the hawaii the chief election officer ruled that the statements met hawaii law.
RacerTim,
In our system, Presidential candidates are nominated by each state (the states being sovereign entities joined in union to elect a Federal Government). The National Party has no authority over the state nomination. If the state refuses to nominate a candidate or refuses to certify the nominee as eligible, that is their decision to make; the National Party cannot simply “over rule” the states decision and declare the candidate the “the state’s nominee”.
The National Party leadership is supposed to remain “neutral” in these matters and take direction from the voters of the individual states. Of course the DNC has decided (as in the case of Clinton/Sanders) that they can do whatever they want as long as no one challenges them. Hawaii refused to certify Obama (that is their decision to make) – so Pelosi and the DNC (in their superior wisdom) decided to over-rule the State’s decision and certify him anyway.
Skullduggery at it’s best (or worst).
Concerning probability of Cody’s challenge succeeding? I agree with you re: Gorsuch in addition
Count the votes –
Ginsburg – No (Solid)
Kagan – No (Solid)
Sotomayor – No (Solid)
Breyer – No (Solid)
Gorsuch – ? (No probably)
Roberts – No (Most likely)
Thomas -? (NO most likely)
Alito – Yes (Maybe)
The 4 “NO” votes are solid – To win Cody needs ALL THE REST of the remaining votes to win.
IMO (sorry to say) No chance.
I think 1 yes vote is likely (if any) because these justices are not going to want to dredge this case out of the muck and add it to the presently existing political quagmire.
I applaud Cody’s Patriotism,devotion, and dedication BUT:
Losing on the SCOTUS level will be worse than not having brought the case at all because it will be precedent setting and that would not be the desirable outcome that any of us are looking for.
This case will Never be won on appeal – No appeals court is going to rule in Cody’s favor (IMO)
TOO big a deal – they will all kick the can to SCOTUS – This is the way I see it playing out..
ELmo.
RacerTim,
In our system, Presidential candidates are nominated by each state (the states being sovereign entities joined in union to elect a Federal Government). The National Party has no authority over the state nomination. If the state refuses to nominate a candidate or refuses to certify the nominee as eligible, that is their decision to make; the National Party cannot simply “over rule” the states decision and declare the candidate the “the state’s nominee”.
The National Party leadership is supposed to remain “neutral” in these matters and take direction from the voters of the individual states. Of course the DNC has decided (as in the case of Clinton/Sanders) that they can do whatever they want as long as no one challenges them. Hawaii refused to certify Obama (that is their decision to make) – so Pelosi and the DNC (in their superior wisdom) decided to over-rule the State’s decision and certify him anyway.
Skullduggery at it’s best (or worst).
ELmo.
@William F Horan O’ Pinion,
US law differs with Vatel’s theory of Natural Born Citizenship specifically with regard to the need to be born on US soil and the need to have two US Citizen parents in order to be a NBC. Pursuant to US law a person does not have to have either parent be a US Citizens to be a NBC as long as the child is born on US soil and if a child is not born on US soil, as long as the child has one US Citizen parent the child is a NBC.
Although the Minor v. Happersett court chose not to address the issue of whether citizen parents are required for NBC, several other courts have especially during the many lawsuits filed by Birthers between 2008 – 2014, and have unanimously held that if a person is born on US soil they are NBCs regardless of parentage. Also note that US Codes hold the same.
It is highly unlikely that US Courts will ever agree with Vatel’s book The Law of Nations on this issue.
All of this is so frustrating. As with the Clintons, there are deaths linked to Obama such as the clerk who released the “long form birth certificate” in Hawaii. Only God knows the truth and I doubt we ever will.