If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Cody Robert Judy, ©2013, blogging at codyjudy

Cody Robert Judy ran for President in 2008 and plans to run again in 2016. He has challenged both John McCain and Barack Obama on the grounds that they are constitutionally ineligible to hold the office by failing to meet the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution

(Oct. 21, 2013) — The frustration that Obama has had the ‘race card’ to play has been kept alive by Conservatives unwilling to recognize the inequality of say, giving (1* & 2*)McCain a pass to run for President when he was not born in the United States, but throwing a fit about Obama not being born in the U.S. to Citizen parents. There is only one man in the United States of America that actually stood on the principle, ran for President in 2008 and 2012, and socked the principle to both McCain and Obama.

Some may say it’s hard to do anything in America regarding politics that hasn’t been done or is unique to the political arena. However, in the case above in the years stated, the distinction of suing Obama and McCain as an official candidate for President belongs to me alone.

That doesn’t make my case something Judges can flip off like a light switch in hopes they never saw the criteria they themselves created as a match to indeed challenge Obama’s qualification in a game of fulfill-the-criteria-and-we’ll -create-a-new-one like rules of a game changing when someone you don’t want to win starts to win. Confiscating my individual rights is akin to suspending your own. Who wants to be the first to give up your rights?

That’s what the Constitution’s for as the Supreme Law of the Land. Remember, “one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all”? I was included in the “all” part of that.

This blog entry contains much of the information related to the following article link below. So if you’re lost to my blog entry comments, please refer to this in order of catching the comments in regard to it.


Comment on the above linked article:

I’m not sure why Mr. Thomson referred to the Georgia case’s and Judge Malihi changing his tune while stating in the same article regarding the Alabama Supreme Court, “.. it will be the first and only civil case in which Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse is personally involved.”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s case results and all involved was inserted with their reputation on the line, into Judy v. Obama 12-5276 at the Georgia Civil Superior Court level March 2nd, 2012 and thus appealed to Georgia’s Supreme Court and traveled clear to the U.S. Supreme Court from Malihi’s Administrative Court decision.


The importance of this may be a small detail; however, small details that are missed can be excruciatingly painful in a Court, especially in light of the way it may be introduced or re-introduced to the United States Supreme Court if a hearing is indeed desired.

I certainly applaud The Western Center for Journalism for carrying Mr. Thomson’s article.

World Net Daily, a known media advocate for the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, however, did not cover:

1) A single story of Judy v. Obama 12-5276 (2012) and (2013) in spite of it coming from a Presidential Candidate with standing in the Presidential Race within the Democratic Party so it was more politically neutral.

2) It being the only case that actually did insert Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse results from Georgia as evidence supporting the claim of ineligibility.

3) It based on the ‘race neutrality’ of Judy v. Obama 12-5276 also having roots in Judy v. McCain in 2008 which no other Presidential Candidate in the nation had claim to.

However, they did a small mention in stories of the case when it was a Georgia Supreme Court case here and here but again, without any of the three strengths of the case mentioned above.

While respecting Mr. Thomson’s enthusiasm, we need to keep the facts well understood: “What’s been the biggest obstacle in challenging Obama’s eligibility in court? It’s been finding a judge who isn’t afraid to allow the merits of the case against Obama to be argued in court,” is not quite legally right with the majority of cases dismissed for the lack of standing, which according to Obama’s own lawyers represented is a claim made by someone in the presidential race or contest.

The tough sell in Alabama could be the exact same problem as we saw with Berg v. Obama in 2008 in the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed on a lack of standing that I also wrote an Amicus Curiae in support of.


Read the rest here.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. What does “race” have to do with it? Someone please explain this to me. Being black only qualifies you to be black, being yellow only qualifies you to be yellow, being brown only qualifies you to be brown, being white only qualifies you to be white.

  2. Look at what Alabama did in the recent past with one of their top judges that refused to take down his “Ten Commandments” stone in the entrance of his courthouse. A fork lift was brought in and the stone was disposed of and so was the judge who lost his position for standing up for “Law Under God”. “Corporate Trust Law” since 1946 was set up to protect trial attorneys and make money for the “system”. We were rewarded with becoming straw men and straw women as “trustees” in a corrupted system when we actually are “Administrators” under the original system “Under God”. Woopsie!