Presidential Candidate’s Eligibility Challenge Moves Forward at U.S. Supreme Court pb


by Sharon Rondeau

What was the Framers’ intent when they mandated that no person could serve as president unless he was a “natural born Citizen?”

(Nov. 18, 2012) — The Post & Email recently spoke with Cody Robert Judy, 2012 presidential candidate and newly-declared 2016 presidential candidate, about a new development in his case at the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Judy claims that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S Constitution because he was not born to two U.S.-citizen parents and may not have been born in the United States.  Numerous overseas newspapers, Obama’s own literary agent, and some U.S. journalists have reported that Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya.  In 2007, without explanation, his literary agent changed Obama’s biography to say that he was born in Hawaii.

Judy had begun his eligibility challenge as a plaintiff represented by Atty. Orly Taitz in her case filed in a Georgia administrative court heard in late January.  Soon thereafter, Judge Michael Malihi ruled that Obama was a natural born Citizen based on a birth certificate image which was later declared a forgery.

Judy’s case was one of the three cases filed in Georgia grouped together and asked to respond in one day to respond to Obama’s attorney’s Motion to Dismiss because of the imminent primary.  Judy’s was the only case, however, to include the findings of Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  “I felt it was divinely-inspired that Sheriff Joe Arpaio had his first press conference on March 1 to announce his findings, and on March 2, I had to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.  So the night of March 1, I filed my motion to go into the Judicial Branch, including the information from Sheriff Arpaio.  And it’s in the Supreme Court now.  No one has reported that.  It wasn’t me saying that the birth certificate was a forgery; it was someone with years and years of criminal justice experience,” Judy said.

Obama’s name was placed on the Georgia ballot and on every other state ballot for the November 6, 2012 election despite numerous ballot challenges across the country.  He was declared the winner over Mitt Romney that night, much sooner than had been predicted, as the polls in the days leading up to the election had been extremely close.  The Electoral vote was reported as 332-206 despite the earlier polling.

On November 10, Judy received a letter from the U.S. Supreme Court asking for more information in regard to a Petition for Rehearing which he had filed that had been received by the court on November 6, Election Day, at 11:00 a.m.  Judy said that he interprets the response as a “hopeful” sign.  His reply to the court, sent on November 13, was received on November 15.

Judy said that receiving the letter was “very significant” to him, as he began his Petition for Rehearing with the Supreme Court by writing a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts on October 6, after which he received no reply.  “I’ve done it lower courts, but I had no idea…I haven’t filed that many cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.,” Judy said. He is acting as his own attorney but has no formal legal training.

Following the Georgia hearing on January 26, Judy’s case and that of several other plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility were combined and then separated.  Judy stated that he felt that his case had been “thrown together” with Welden v. Obama but that it was “completely different.”  As Taitz was prevented from filing an appeal in Georgia because she was not licensed to practice there, Judy and another plaintiff from the original case filed an appeal together.  The case eventually was appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Eleventh Circuit, where it was scheduled for conference on September 24.  However, the case was not heard.  Judy then wrote his letter to Roberts, stating that he believed the question of “standing” had mistakenly been applied to him out of confusion with Welden, which had also been appealed to the Supreme Court after the Georgia Supreme Court refused to hear it.  “The U.S. Supreme Court denied me seven times, but finally, when Welden v. Obama got a case number, they gave me one,” Judy explained.

Judy mailed a Motion for Reconsideration to the court on November 1, 2012.  “They then sent a letter to me which explained the court clerk’s perspective, which I was thrilled about,” he said.  “Any time you get a letter from the Supreme Court clerk, it’s important, and I felt they were showing me what I needed to do.”

When The Post & Email asked Judy if he believed the court would review the Petition for Rehearing, he said, “They’ll have to.  I know that they are going to see my response, and I followed the directions exactly.”  He also sent copies to Obama’s attorneys and Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, as he has with previous documents in his challenge.  “The thing that’s going to make it unique is that there are three different grounds that are separate and distinct from the Writ of Certiorari, and that’s one of the qualifications for putting this forward.  They stand by themselves; all three of them have legs.  It’s a totally fascinating legal development,” Judy said.

Regarding the time frame for a response, Judy said that 30 days is standard. “I’m not quite sure if they handle a petition for rehearing differently from a Writ of Certiorari, which is 30 days, or if the case is ripe, the court clerk takes it to one of the judges for a hearing as soon as possible.  Just like a Writ of Certiorari, it will give us a big clue if the court clerk asks Obama’s attorney to respond to it,” he said.

Judy’s challenge is based strictly on the contention that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve and that Judy has therefore been injured as a presidential candidate.  “This is not a recount on the election, and I outlined that in my case.  Through this election contest, my candidacy has been hurt because Obama is running on a different set of rules.  Everyone who voted for Obama has had his vote disenfranchised by voting for an ineligible candidate,” he said.  “It has never been ruled on the merits.  There are also two points of view, which I brought out in the Petition for Rehearing.  On the third point, I mentioned a naturalized citizen who had applied to the Federal Election Commission for funds and the district court in Washington, DC denied his application because of the Fourteenth Amendment.” [Editor’s Note:  Sal Mohamed was born in Egypt.]

During the 2012 campaign, Judy ran numerous television commercials to demonstrate that he could compete with Obama, particularly if Obama were to be declared ineligible.  Judy stated that because Mitt Romney conceded, he could not be declared a president-elect if Obama were to be disqualified.  Judy has released his first 2016 commercial and said that much is therefore at stake in regard to his challenge to Obama’s qualifications.  “Obviously, there is money that has gone in, and that is a factor,” he said.  He stated that his 2012 campaign did not finish with any debt.

The Post & Email asked Judy what his goal is in petitioning the Supreme Court for a rehearing, to which he replied, “I would like them to recognize the injustice of running a race with an ineligible candidate.  There are rules provided by the Constitution for the presidential the race, and Obama violated those rules.  Even though the court might not think they can do anything about whether or not Obama is in the White House because that might be up to the Congress, they could say, ‘We can judge the issue of whether or not Cody was treated fairly,’ and they could give me an award for my campaign.  If that happens, the burden would be upon the media to report it.  If that comes to fruition, it would be an even heavier burden for Congress.  That is where Obama would be removed as being under a disability, which is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

We then asked Judy, “Do you think they will define the term ‘natural born Citizen?'”

Cody Robert Judy has run for several public offices and is a candidate for president for 2016

“They know that they have precedent with Minor v. Happersett and that it was manipulated for Congress by Jack Maskell with the Congressional Research Service memos.  I made three videos on that.  Congress will find out that it’s been snookered by the CRS, and the CRS is going to have to be hung out to dry.  Ultimately, I think that they will reconfirm the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ and they will have to conclude that you cannot ignore or deconstruct the Constitution.  The natural born Citizen clause has never been removed by legislation or constitutional amendment.  There have been 20 attempts to change the requirement, and every single one of them has failed.  This is a legislative mandate that has lasted hundreds of years.”

[Editor’s Note:  Many writers, scholars and members of Congress equate “native born” to “natural born.”]

Judy continued, “The Judicial branch has a constitutional duty to uphold legislation, so instead of the judges feeling as if they’re interfering with elections, when it comes to the Supreme Court, they have a duty to interpret the language of the Constitution and uphold legislative mandates.  The Congress is elected by the people, and this legislative mandate is very, very important.”

The Cody Robert Judy campaign is accepting contributions.  Judy expressed a desire to “inspire Republicans and conservatives” to support his candidacy.  “Mitt Romney is not in the race anymore.  There’s a choice:  Get behind me, or suffer Obama for four more years.  This is a legal, very constitutional way to heal after Obama.  I’m praying that rather than Republicans being bitter, they can give to me.  I got a donation yesterday for $1.00 and I love that.”

Judy believes that the public needs to be educated on the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause. “One of the biggest things that we can do is to put the campaign on the air and educate more and more people.  I can advertise on this particular issue and champion it.  I want to thank everyone for their support and encourage them not to give up on the election.  I just had a comment on my blog: ‘God bless you for doing every single thing that you can do, because if you do every single thing you can do, you will have no regrets.’  So I’d like everyone not to have any regrets and to get behind the ‘Birther’ issue.”

3 Responses to "Presidential Candidate’s Eligibility Challenge Moves Forward at U.S. Supreme Court pb"

  1. unbontir   Sunday, November 18, 2012 at 10:23 PM

    The two liberal justices appointed by Obama will not recuse themselves from any case regarding the eligibility issue.
    Their very appointments to the court would necessarily have to be retro-actively abrogated if those appointments were made while in the commission of a crime: the crime of the criminal usurpation of the presidency by a knowingly ineligible candidate who had fraudulently represented himself as constitutionally eligible to be president.
    This has gone too far. The forgery’s been proven by a law enforcement investigation. The literary agent publicized the ‘Manchurian’ Muslim from Mombasa as having been born in what is now known as Kenya for over 16 years. Our representatives will not honor their oaths to defend the Constitution. It’s up to us, ‘We the People.’

  2. meyerlm   Sunday, November 18, 2012 at 12:02 PM

    Unfortunately, the Fate of this is among the “Foregone Conclusions”, reached by EVERY CORRUPT Judge in regards to the hundreds of Lawsuits brought and immediately “DISMISSED because of You Have NO Standing!”~Question if a “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN”-(which we ALL were when the Founders created “ONE Nation, Under GOD, with Liberty and Justice for All”~then WHO, might I ask, has “STANDING??
    The Illegal, DeFacto U.S. Corp. CABAL that is RUINING and RULING America stripped “WE the People” of that status and made U.S. ALL, “Corporate Strawmen!”

  3. Jedi Pauly   Sunday, November 18, 2012 at 11:44 AM

    Will the eligibility question finally be answered? I seriously doubt it.

    In this article, it is admitted that he is asking the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the meaning of natural born Citizen, and that the courts cannot remove a sitting President and therefore lack jurisdiction to hear these cases. The courts are bound by the rules of procedure to NOT give advisory opinions or take cases that seek advisory opinions, or take cases where no remedy can be provided by the court. It is not within the courts jurisdiction or authority to define natural born citizen as it is already defined by the laws of nature, and the courts are not God, so they cannot re-define what nature already defines. The Minor court did not define anything. They simply stated a preexisting fact of law and nature that showed Mrs. Minor that she was already a member of the society due to Natural Law and therefore she did not need to appeal to Positive Law legal rights (14th Amendment) for her citizenship or political rights, thereby dismissing her case.

    There might be a chance that the Supreme Court will take his case if he forwards it as a monetary damage case, as I think he is indicating. I think Mr. Judy is hoping that if he is awarded damages due to a fraudulent election, that will be as good as an admission that Mr. Obama is not eligible, without them defining nbc which they cannot define, but only recognize and accept.

    So far, the courts cannot take these cases, as you all are slowly learning, because the courts lack jurisdiction to hear these cases. That is why the judge in Indiana threw out Orly’s case, and evidence, and testimony, and vacated the trial, because the judge belatedly realized that she had made a mistake and granted the trial to move forward when there was never any jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. A judge does not have the authority to order a secretary of state to put or remove someone from a ballot unless that authority has been granted to the judiciary and taken away from the executive branch by law or Constitution. In most cases, the secretary of state is protected by his governmental immunity and only a future election to remove the secretary of state or the State legislature can remedy the situation of a secretary of state who is out of control who does not follow the rules.

    The only way to have a legitimate case is if you have an actual specific injury that the court is capable of providing a remedy for. In the case of Mr. Judy, he might get a hearing if what I am reading here is saying that he is seeking monetary damages due to being forced to participate in a sham election based upon police evidence of forged credentials. That might get his foot in the door provided the Supreme Court is ready to create a constitutional crisis and social upheaval and riots. Highly doubtful though.

    People need to understand that there is no rule of law in America and we are not under any Constitution. One need only examine the gold and silver coin mandates in the Constitution that are ignored to understand that the government you have is not the government of the Constitution. Obama’s illegal selection by mob vote, and illegitimate confirmation by the so called Congress, proves conclusively that the government we have is illegitimate across the board, and not the government that was created by the Constitution.

    The proper venue to expose and nullify Obama and Congress is via TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION which is slavery banned by the 13th Amendment and most state constitutions. Taxation without representation is a violation of your natural rights of consent (liberty a political right) that are meant to be secured and protected by Article II nbc. This is the only legitimate avenue that the courts have jurisdiction to hear and remedy. It is the only injury that those of us who are not candidates in the election have due to Obama occupying the office and Congress betraying the American People. In closing, keep in mind that it is Congress ultimately who has betrayed you, not Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.