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


by Sharon Rondeau

The return date in Judy v. Obama, which names Barack Hussein Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and the DNC as defendants, is August 5, 2014

(Aug. 5, 2014) — In our last installment of our interview with presidential candidate with Cody Robert Judy, he explained how his recently-filed lawsuit, Judy v. Obama, is based on alleged violations of the Sherman Act, which he said permit him to take a criminal complaint directly to a judge, bypassing a federal grand jury and a prosecutor.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen.”  Judy claims that Obama is ineligible to serve as president because his father was never a U.S. citizen.  Obama’s birth in Hawaii is in question because his long-form birth certificate has been declared a forgery by a law enforcement investigation.

In 2008, Judy sued both Sen. John McCain and then-Sen. Barack Obama in separate actions on the grounds that neither was eligible to the office of the president.  McCain was born in Panama to two U.S.-citizen parents and “declared” a natural born Citizen by the U.S. Senate via Sen. Res. 511, which was not highly publicized.

Both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Obama were co-sponsors of the resolution, but no one ever questioned Obama’s presidential eligibility.  Various articles and his own biography dating back to 2004 and before stated that Obama was born in the nation of Kenya, but in 2007, those sources were “changed” to say that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews said in December 2007 that Obama was “born in Indonesia,” with which then-Honolulu Advertiser reporter Will Hoover agreed.  It is believed that the “natural born Citizen” clause was included in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers to preclude anyone with foreign allegiances from the highest office in the land.

The Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse undertook a criminal investigation of Obama’s proffered long-form birth certificate beginning in September 2011 and six months later, declared it a “computer-generated forgery,” along with his Selective Service registration form.  On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order allowing for “executive privilege” to be invoked prior to the release of former or current presidential records.

Sources often relied upon by the public in regard to information on the government contain opinion and innuendo about “right-wing nut jobs.”

On July 1, various internet sources reported that all FOIA requests involving “White House equities” were sent to executive branch members for their review prior to the issuance of a response, if one was generated at all.

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica describes the Sherman Antitrust Act as:

[the] first legislation enacted by the United States Congress (1890) to curb concentrations of power that interfere with trade and reduce economic competition.

The law provides for prosecutions, fines and imprisonment of anyone found guilty of attempting to engage in activity which excludes competition, e.g., price-fixing, monopolization of a particular trade or market, or the prevention of trade between states.  The Brittanica reports that “private parties injured by violations are permitted to sue for triple the amount of damages done them.”

The Sherman Act designates the federal courts as the arbiters of any complaints arising under it.  Section “D” of the law reads:

The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

Judy said that his new lawsuit “allows a single person who has been hurt by a monopoly” to seek compensation for alleged damages.   “I have been able to take evidence of a crime to a judge, which has never been done before,” Judy said.  “You have to have two separate corporations acting together that form an illegal cartel in a collusive agreement that prevents free trade or services.  What I’m saying is that my presidential candidacy is a service to the public and is being prevented because of the illegal cartel.”

Why did Rep. Nancy Pelosi sign two different Certificates of Nomination for Obama and Biden in 2008?

Judy included Rep. Nancy Pelosi in the lawsuit for her signing of two different versions of the 2008 Certificates of Nomination for Obama:  one for the state of Hawaii, which included wording stating that he and Biden were constitutionally eligible for the positions they sought; and the other for the other 49 states, which do not require the wording.  Judy also alleges civil rights violations against his candidacy.

“The beautiful thing is that the United States Constitution is also the standard for the federal courts.  So it’s really proper for the courts now to be able to say, ‘You have two criminal actions here:  you have a civil rights violation; you have a violation of the Sherman Act; there is also the standard that we’re supposed to be upholding called the “natural born Citizen” clause brought to us by a candidate whose campaign was smashed.’  This thing is just making more and more sense to me,” Judy said.

In part 1 of our interview, Judy compared his presidential candidacy to a motor vehicle accident in which the victim suffers physical injury.

Judy said that while he has “great respect” for attorneys such as Larry Klayman and Gary Kreep who brought lawsuits against Secretaries of State over questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, he believes they “were not brought properly to the courts.”  “The violation of the Sherman Act brings in the criminality of the case,” Judy told The Post & Email.  “I can see a judge having the ability to rule on the statute.”

On July 25, Judy learned through the U.S. mail that the original judge assigned to the case recused himself, transferring the lawsuit to the chief justice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

A question Judy anticipates is “Why aren’t you trying to get Obama out of the office of the president?  Is it [your lawsuit] going to do any good?” to which his answer is:

You have a two-step process here.  If the judge rules in my favor and says, “You know what, Cody, I see your point; you have an accident here,” or “Obama should pay for all this damage here, every cent.  You’re going to be able to restore your vehicle, and you’re also going to have something big for the mainstream media:  “This is what the judge said about the eligibility and these are the standards for which I was awarded money.”  What would happen is if the judge awarded me the damages, Congress would be forced to take up the eligibility issue itself with hearings.

Regarding Obamacare, at the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that businesses do not have to provide contraceptives.  We call that “personhood.”  The court established that they have the same rights as people, so they can refuse to provide certain elements of Obamacare.  I think that’s a little bit more of a testimony that my argument alleging the violation of the Sherman Act makes sense.

As I was writing up the lawsuit, I asked, “What gives all of the individuals and entities I named – the DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid – the power to completely destroy our United States Constitution?” The office of the president is over the Executive branch, and the Executive branch’s responsibility is to enforce the law. There are two lawsuits now:  the one [Speaker of the House John] Boehner recently filed, and mine.

Born in Panama to two U.S.-citizen parents, is Sen. John McCain a “natural born Citizen?”

Judy believes that with the November elections only three months away, Republicans should consider telling the American people that they “made a mistake” with Sen. Res. 511 concerning McCain’s eligibility. “When it comes to matters of the president’s eligibility, that’s nothing to mess around with,” he said.  “People need to equate the fact that having somebody who’s not authorized heading the Executive branch neuters the entire government because the Executive branch can’t enforce the law. The legislative branch can make the law, but it won’t be enforced.  The powers of the presidency are HUGE, and people need to understand that.  It’s not just ‘natural born citizen.’  No government agency has authority to act because Obama’s ineligible,” Judy told us.

Judy said that he has read the transcripts of hearings held by the House of Representatives in 2000 and including portions in his lawsuit (page 39). “The assaults on the ‘natural born citizen’ clause are coming fast and furious.  Those Judicial Committee hearings – the testimony that was given – were fascinating.  They all testified that it should not happen.  The ‘natural born Citizen’ clause needed to remain in place.  That was in 2000.  Reading those testimonies from that hearing made me file suit against McCain,” Judy said.

Regarding the 2016 presidential election, Judy observed that the Republicans have “five or six” potential presidential candidates who he believes do not meet the eligibility requirements, including Sen. Marco Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Ted Cruz, and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.

The Post & Email asked Judy what the next significant date is for the new lawsuit, to which he responded that July 17 was the first day of a 20-day period in which the defendants have to respond to the summons, making Tuesday, August 5, the return date.  “If they respond before that date, I’m sure we will get a Motion to Dismiss the action, just as we got in Georgia.  If we see a Motion to Dismiss, I would have to respond to it,” Judy said.  “It’s the beginning of a long process.”

Unlike his Georgia ballot challenge, Judy believes that the standard is higher in federal court, placing the burden on the defendant to appeal.  “I told the judge in this new lawsuit that this is such an important case by putting the burden on the defendant to appeal.  The burden has always been put on the plaintiff so that a higher court would take it.

A federal district court has two options:  he can write a request for a certified question to the higher court; he can basically appeal the decision himself if he feels it’s more proper.  He can also adjudicate the case himself.  If he does so and rules in my favor, I know it’s going to be appealed; in fact, I know it will be appealed either way.”

Our last question to Judy concerned his claim that hearings on Obama’s eligibility were to have occurred in January of this year based on information he gleaned from congressional sources.  “Were you incorrect about that?” we asked, to which he responded:

No, I wasn’t incorrect about it.  It was basically a congressional decision that was made behind the scenes that “We can weather the storm through the next election in 2014 without it.  I was sitting there saying, “Look at all the scandals that have happened since then.”  Congress made the wrong decision.  The decision was on the table.

If my case gets put into court, the two letters I faxed to you, to Harry Reid and to Eric Cantor will be extremely important to solidify a tie in the Democrats and Republicans in this illegal cartel.  In violation of the Sherman Act, you can have two, three or four corporations and a collusion that’s illegal.  Being able to prove that those other parties knew about this is very important.  Those two letters that I faxed to you on that issue will absolutely devastate the Republicans in Congress.

“To your knowledge, were hearings actually scheduled on Obama’s eligibility?” we asked.

They were talked about and they were being mulled over; a hearing never appeared on the schedule, so I can’t say it was “scheduled.”  I can say that Congress was in complete discussion behind the scenes at that particular time about holding an eligibility hearing and the decision was made not to do that.  It kind-of blew my assertion out of the water; however, I am so glad that I faxed those letters as documentation.  Those people will stand as witnesses.

I told the judge that I have done everything I can to go to my congressman and Senators, peacefully.  In filing a civil rights lawsuit, a lot of the burden can be repelled by the defendant if the plaintiff hasn’t made every single effort he could to handle the situation without going to court.  I’m glad you brought that up, because it ties in to this lawsuit.

If that topic had hit the congressional schedule, Obama would have been gone by now.  It’s like a teeter-totter, and it can go either way.  The fact that it didn’t go our way in December doesn’t mean the issue is not teeter-tottering now.  It may just need a little push in this federal court.  If Obama doesn’t respond, I can get a default [judgment] out of this.  The court could make a ruling.

As far as the public being concerned, I’m seeing so much more support from the “presidential candidate” standpoint.  In 2008 and 2012 I had a Facebook page, and over the 2012 election, I think I had 65 people on the page.  I have 220 already, and I’m not even advertising.  It’s just from people hearing by word of mouth.  There were 220 people after Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s first press conference, and you know how big that blew up throughout the country.  So I’m proud of everybody for coming forward.  I put a map for every supporter, and I’m almost represented by someone in every state.  It’s amazing.  When you start looking at the demographics of that, you start asking, “How did that happen?”  This is a national argument, because it’s about the national defense of our country.

If you want to use a picture, there’s a picture of me that says “Truth is Real.” People understand it now in such a better way.  The truth has been so elusive in the Obama administration from deception after deception and scandals and more scandals.  People are craving the truth now, so that’s why the truth is real.  What’s really happening now, standing up for the Constitution – that’s real.  I feel bad that sometimes we have to go through these kinds of things to give us the understanding of how valuable it is, but I think people are catching on.

You always have decisions in Congress tied to strategy over the long haul.  Republicans have made the decision as far as strategy goes to let all of these scandals coming out on Obama be the voting factor for the public.  The problem is that it doesn’t take Obama out of office.  That’s a huge problem; basically using corruption to prop up an illegal usurper is not progress.  We need to start with the foundation, remove the top and clean house from the top down.  I think it’s a flawed strategy Republicans have made, but I think they have done that because they can also get away with this.  Not only could they get away with it, but they were probably implicated in the argument a lot more than people give them credit for.

When it comes down to it, Americans need to find their United States Constitution.  Our sovereignty is very important, and it has to do with protecting the U.S. Constitution.  We’re supposed to be protecting our borders, which is part of my three-point platform.

Judy said that he has proceeded with the lawsuit with a considerable amount of prayer.

On Tuesday, he told us that with the return date being today, three days must be allowed for mailing, after which he can telephone the court clerk to request the filing of a Notice of Default.  The clerk can file it as a matter of record, after which Judy said the judge will read the complaint and normally issue a decision within 30 days.  “He could dismiss it, call a hearing, or issue a judgment,” Judy told us.  “I will probably ask for a hearing.”

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. Well, the whole point is Congress doesn’t have to. We are asking and petitioning the U.S. Court. Now, if we received a favorable decision Congress still doesn’t have to act, but they would suffer a little more embarrassment about their
    “deal in res.511”

    We are taking it one step at a time.

    Just for kicks, how do suppose Congress would feel about a favorable decision by the Court recognizing the damages but still leaving Obama in Office?

  2. To get Congress to act on this would be akin to getting these career politicians to enforce term limits … it ain’t gonna happen Kemo Sabe.