by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 27, 2015) — The Post & Email spoke on Monday with presidential candidate Cody Robert Judy, who has filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition to allow Amicus Curiae filings in his case, Judy v. Obama, 14-9396.

Judy filed his most recent lawsuit last year, claiming that under anti-trust law, the Sherman Act, and federal civil rights law, his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns had suffered financial harm resulting from Barack Hussein Obama; his political organization, Organizing for America; the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and numerous DNC officers having participated in “illegal activities” to include “fraud in representation of identification.”

In his suit, Judy asserted that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president by virtue of having a father who was never a U.S. citizen and thereby failing to qualify as a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

“‘Amicus Curiae'” means “Friend of the Court,” Judy told us.  “It can be very helpful for the court if there’s any legal aspect or principle that is not covered in the brief.  For instance, one that is notable is on the issue of gay marriage; both the petitioner and the respondent filed a letter of consent.”

Only attorneys admitted to argue in front of the Supreme Court can file briefs.  Judy has issued a public appeal to anyone who has written about the “natural born Citizen” issue to submit a brief to the court, including briefs containing viewpoints which differ from his own relative to the definition of the term.  Judy believes that the Founders included the term “natural born Citizen” to indicate that a person must be born in the country to two U.S.-citizen parents.

“The entire political landscape has changed; the ground has shifted.  We’ve had a 8.0 earthquake.  In 2008, we had McCain.  I was one of the few litigators who filed against him, because he was not born in the country.  Over the weekend, I read an article on Arnold Schwarzenegger wherein he stated that he was very grateful for the opportunities he was given by this country.  I thought that was so nice, and it seemed he didn’t want to go against the requirement that you have to have been born an American citizen to be president.  That’s what Ted Cruz has encroached upon, and the requirement is being diluted.  I think it’s good that all of these people have had respect for the criterion that you have to be born in the country, which is citizenship by soil, but the Republican, supposedly conservative guard which is known for supporting national security does not,” Judy said.

In an article published on Saturday, The Post & Email pointed out that the definition of “natural born Citizen” has been stretched to mean that a person inherited U.S. citizenship from one U.S.-citizen parent, regardless of his birthplace, even though for Obama, a birth on U.S. soil was said to be sufficient to meet the eligibility criterion.

“The primary concern is the Constitution.  If there’s any line to be drawn, it’s in the executive office of the president.  A president has a great power of the pen, and with what Obama has done with health care and amnesty, among other things, the eligibility question needs to be answered.”

Judy pointed to the Harvard Law Review article published a week before Sen. Ted Cruz declared his candidacy for the presidency.  Cruz was born in Canada to a father who was a citizen of Cuba, then Canada, until he became a U.S. citizen in 2005, 35 years after his son was born.  Cruz’s mother was reportedly a U.S. citizen.

A video recently reposted at BirtherReport.com produced by Pixel Patriot cited the College of William and Mary, which three U.S. presidents attended, as having declared the writings of Emmerich de Vattel as the standard for teaching legal principles .  Another recent publication by Regent University authored by John Jones discusses the “natural born Citizen” question in depth, including referencing “birthers” who claimed Obama was ineligible to serve.  In his essay, Jones asserted:

“The tension at the heart of the historical public meaning of ″natural born citizen,″ while much lower profile than the sensationalism of the low points of the birther movement, is much more durable. Popular coverage of and reaction to the birther movement misrepresented the natural born citizen clause, and it became easy for observers to dismiss all such challenges out of hand.

“But lurking between the sensational coverage of the more ineptly handled birther suits and the ambiguities in the text of the provision is a real controversy. It is unlikely to fade with time because it is based not on individual men and their voting preferences, but on a historical understanding of a carefully contemplated and duly ratified provision of the Constitution.

“It is not aimed at excluding any individual candidate or party, but on protecting the nation and its most powerful executive office from foreign influence by excluding a class of candidates who carry a higher risk of split national loyalties.”

Judy also cited Professor Sarah Duggin, who in an interview with NPR the day Cruz declared his candidacy said that his eligibility was not an “open-and-shut” case.  On October 28, 2013, Duggin had written on the subject:

The Constitution does not define the term natural born citizen. Even so, Governor Schwarzenegger is clearly out of the running. Given that he was born in Austria to Austrian parents, there is no basis for arguing that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

For Senator Cruz—who was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father—the question is more complicated. There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born. The Supreme Court, however, has never ruled on the meaning of the natural-born citizenship requirement. In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling—or a constitutional amendment—the parameters of the clause remain uncertain.

Judy believes McCain is ineligible for the presidency because he was born in Panama, although to two U.S.-citizen parents.  McCain might have been awarded Panamanian citizenship upon his birth, and Obama claims that he was born with dual Kenyan-U.S. citizenship.

On August 19, 2013, The Dallas Morning News reported that Cruz was a dual Canadian-U.S. citizen, something of which Cruz claimed to have been unaware.  He renounced his Canadian citizenship last May.

Judy maintains that Vattel stressed the citizenship of the father as determining that of his child because at the time Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” was written and referenced by the Framers, women did not have voting or property ownership rights.  Since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, two naturalization acts were passed by Congress; the 14th Amendment was passed which made slaves born in the U.S. citizens; 14th Amendment author Rep. John Bingham stated that a person born in the country to citizen parents was a “natural born Citizen;” and the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 was that there was “no doubt” that a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents was a “natural born Citizen.”

“I raised the issue in my Writ of Certiorari of the controversy to the Supreme Court specifically to show the court the degree of non-consensus and the fact that all of these scholars have told us that the Supreme Court does need to make a ruling on this.  Duggin’s reports have been cited almost as much as the Harvard Law Review article,” Judy asserted.

In her earlier article, Duggin acknowledges that a person challenging a candidate’s presidential eligibility must have “standing,” which is not an easy hurdle to overcome.

“The Republicans have always had a reputation for being strong on national security, but there is such hypocrisy now,” Judy said, referring to Cruz’s and Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential campaigns.  Rubio was born in the U.S. to two Cuban-citizen parents.

The Post & Email asked Judy if the court can reject his petition, to which he responded, “It has to go to conference. We have a short 30-day time period. I’ve opened up my case to Amicus Curiaes, before or against, from either party, to get all of these ‘birther’ attorneys and the universities who are publishing opinions, to file an Amicus Curiae to support what they are saying in public.  Let them put their money where their mouth is, and let all these universities supporting these professors go to the Supreme Court if they really believe what they’re saying.”

Judy also welcomed a hypothetical brief from Atty. Larry Klayman, who has represented the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse and Sheriff Joe Arpaio in certain matters. Arpaio and his posse have conducted two criminal investigations over the last several years, the first of which declared Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form “computer-generated forgeries” more than three years ago.

Klayman has independently challenged Obama’s eligibility by convening a citizens’ grand jury which found Obama guilty of “involuntary manslaughter” and other offenses.  Klayman additionally represented a Democrat plaintiff who claimed Obama should have been vetted while a presidential candidate given the posse’s published conclusions about Obama’s proffered documentation.

“When this is opened up in front of the court, they will have to docket it.  Usually there are two or three briefs that get filed before a case goes to conference, and that can weigh heavily on whether or not they think it’s a public issue. Sometimes they live in a closed box; they’re not out there in the mainstream the way we are.  So what comes in is very, very important.  My idea is to get all the birthers to weigh in on this issue; it may be the very last time we get the chance.  It’s now a bipartisan issue, because Republicans are involved in this politically.

“The reason I’m so fixed on this is that I looked up the gay marriage case, and there have been 20-25 Amicus Curiaes filed by different organizations.  Do you know how many Amicus Curiaes have been filed on birther cases with a presidential candidate involved?  None against Obama.  That’s ridiculous, because this affects every citizen in America, not just the gay people.  There ought to be a hundred organizations that are screaming about this because of how the president affects policy on immigration, health care, everything that’s happened that Obama has done.  All of these organizations that have been for or against it should be up in arms about this fundamental issue.

“If we get the birthers to coalesce on this and file Amicus Curiaes, including those who oppose my views, that’s a sign for the court to hear the case.  Where’s there’s controversy, that’s where they like to weigh in.  I’m hoping we can get some of these well-known attorneys to file a brief; they don’t have to support me for president.”

Speaking of the office of president, Judy said a definition of “natural born Citizen” is important because “It’s an open door to the inside of our country in the most powerful position and the nuclear button.”

“Especially when ‘standing’ is fulfilled, the political doctrine question is neutralized across major parties, so we want to eliminate the ability for the Supreme Court to worm out of this…I’m trying to corral them into at least hearing the case,” Judy said. “I know if they hear the case, they have to come out one way or the other.  The fact that there are legal investigations on Obama’s fabrications has to be blown up into the public in such a way that Congress can’t avoid it.

“In my case, I’ve never asked the Supreme Court to come down on whether or not Obama ought to be in the office or not.  What I’m asking them to do is rule on the principle.  Congress is the next step. If the Supreme Court rules on the issue of what is or what isn’t and also on the issue of the fabrication of forgery and criminal intent, then they can award these damages, and Obama can still be in the White House.  That’s not an exit door for him. Then their opinion would actually push Congress to act, and that’s what we need.  We have Republicans and Democrats in the federal legislature acting politically where the money’s at.  That’s the corruption right there.”

Judy has sent the 11 required copies of his petition and an additional copy to the Solicitor General.  “Obama doesn’t have a private attorney on this.  If the Solicitor General sees a criminal complaint in front of his face, he’s going to have a conflict of interest in supporting Obama in clear identification fraud.  He has a moral obligation here.  Is he going to side with identification fraud and forgery?  You’re putting the Justice Department of America, where right and wrong are decided, on notice of crime.  If they do side with the criminal aspect, they are making a mockery of their duty.”


Update, April 30, 2015, 9:32 a.m. EDT:  Plaintiff Cody Robert Judy has made the following clarification regarding Amicus Curiae briefs:

There were about 3 Amicus Curiaes filed in the same-sex marriage case before it went to Conference. Then, the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear it. Now after it is decided to be heard from the Conference, then everyone gets excited about it and wants to weigh in. After it was cited to be heard, no fewer than 140 Amicus Curiaes have been filed in the case!

The important cases get what are called Amici notations on the docket.

The point for us is, of course, the THREE that were filed before it went to Conference “may” have been the most important ones!

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. @Thinkwell Thank you for your consideration and comment. Great tip. In answer to your question “How can non attorneys best provide support?

    Organizing Rallies at the Court for the Cause. Just make sure all permits are properly asked for and need media is informed.

    Contributions are huge in what I am able to do. Most Birthers haven’t grasped the concept if contributing to a Pres. Candidate for this Cause. .because addvertisement and commercial TV Spots are about half the price so your contributions go much farther!

    Spreading the word on Social Medias and social Media Groups and to your local press of this Case and giving them a reason to cover it in a Human Interest story. .such as a local rally.
    Thank you for asking.

    @OPVV RE: Been there done that. Oh Really? When was your last EDITORIAL written in support of my case?

    When was your last rally held in requards to my SCOTUS Case?

    Recognising the ACTION is helpful. Appreciate this consideration. Discouragement really would stop your caring altogether. Take heart, and take a stand.


  2. @ Robert Thank you.. But it must be submitted by an attorney licenced to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. If you know of one willing to do that feel free to ask them to.
    Thanks for your comment and concern

  3. Been there; done that.
    Presented every argument in the, on top of, underneath and to the side of the book, books, depository.
    Flowing flowering discourse that would bring tears to the most callous judge but to not avail. They were (the judge(s)) ALL deaf, blind and for surely dumb.
    In the end it WASN’T about the Constitution (how could we — everybody — have been so wrong?).
    In the end the Mob got to the racetrack and shot the horse up with enough drugs to make him win every race in the forum that day, but, after the last race, the horse died.
    No matter, he provided pay-offs along the way (judges took the money by keeping their jobs and ruling in favor of Obama, but we lost our country).
    And so . . . in the end, the judge(s) rule: and as a broken record, say the same thing over and over and over again: Sorry about this. I know you’re a presidential candidate born in America from both parents who were also born in America but, guess what? You have NO STANDING, so I don’t have to rule and I keep my paychecks AND pension.
    This court is hereby closed for the rest of the day.

  4. 6th paragraph ‘have to have been born in America with citizen parents’
    to be President.

    Sharon – That’s an excellent article. Thank you for your consideration and dedication on this national security defense for our Country.
    Cody Robert Judy
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thanks!