by Cody Robert Judy, Presidential Candidate, ©2016

(Jan. 22, 2016) — Shoplifting is a crime most people would recognize as wrong. Taking someone’s property that isn’t yours is not right. As I was at the throne in Walmart brainstorming a political post, my head cocked to the right as I read the sign staring me in the face. “Shoplifting is Stealing. It’s a crime. Even if it’s your first offense, you could be punished with a lengthy prison term and a substantial monetary fine, plus a record that will haunt you for the rest of your life. “What,” I thought, “made the Office of the President any less valuable to the U.S. Supreme Court than anything sold at Walmart?”

Most Constitutional Scholars do recognize the importance of ‘Standing‘ in legal doctrine. It is the doctrine that prohibits those who witness an accident from suing for shock from those actually suffering the accident who are in shock or critically injured. Sarah Helene Duggin of the Constitution Center opined “in the absence of an Amendment the clause should be narrowly interpreted.” Recognizing attempts to change the definition Legislatively have failed through the Elected Leaders of the People, the Court’s definite Challenge in waiting for Presidential Candidates to bring a case to them, and the difficulty in navigating the case through the political minefields of particular party nominees that bring the ship so close to elections.

Obama’s first big challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court came in 2008 from a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Democratic Party chairmen of Montgomery County, and author of recently released ObamaScare,  Phil J. Berg. The lawsuit  was dismissed due to a lack of standing. (Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)  Phil Berg was not a Presidential Candidate and his assertion of standing due to an infringement of his voting capacity to vote for an eligible candidate did not convince the U.S. Supreme Court.

That technicality of “Standing” however has never been used in any of the Cases brought by ’08, ’12, and 2016 Presidential Candidate Cody Robert Judy (CRJ) – the only Candidate in America with a bi-partisan Federal Court Record in the defense of the [natural born Citizen] ie. [born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] , qualification for the Office of President in the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. See: Judy v. McCain and Judy v. Obama.

In CRJ’s latest U.S. Supreme Court case considered closed only 2 months ago due to the SCOTUS refusing his forma pauperis Motion, that had been granted by his two lower Court in the Federal District Utah Division and the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and which was coincidentally granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 12-5276, he stated, “It’s just a real shame that the Office of the President is valued less in the U.S. Supreme Court Justice’s minds, than stolen property from Walmart or the value of a dog. “

Like small businesses struggling to survive the Campaigns of Presidential Candidates often also incorporated, demand huge amounts of time, talent, attention, products and services. “In the malfeasance of Justice represented by the Justices Review, in light of their decisions and the evidence had in the Motion for forma pauperis with the balance of the Writ of Certiorari hanging, small businesses that are subject to the same rules can fail and the big ones are aloud to survive. It’s basically Open Season to Steal all of the hard work that has gone into my Campaigns for President over the last seven years,” Judy said. “I’m sure any business owner would agree with me, it really hurts when shoplifting is rampant. “

The assertions in Judy’s complaint actually do address the illegal formations present in Presidential Political Campaigns as businesses or Corporations, that can form illegal cartels with each other apposing the U.S. Constitution. These are indeed Standards subject to rules and regulations of big businesses like the Sherman Act and Clayton Act afford in the formations of giant monopolies meant to curb the illegal actions of wiping out small businesses or in CRJ’s case smaller campaigns, who are still beholden to rules. This begs the question- are Big Campaigns too big to Fail based on violations of the Constitution as a Standard or the money that is collected in contributions?

Read the rest here.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

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.