by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 29, 2017) — On Tuesday, former Democrat presidential candidate Cody Robert Judy filed a Notice for Decision/Judgement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah noting that the 30-day period in which a response to his Motion for Reconsideration from the defendants was due.

Judy’s case, Judy v. Obama 1:14-cv-00093, challenges the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, naming him, the Democrat National Committee (DNC), and the political action group Organizing for Action (OFA) as defendants.

“The Motion for Reconsideration was filed February 27, 2017 and had a 30-day time frame as a dispositive motion for the defendants to respond to. So the Court isn’t late; I just filed the Notice for a Decision on time, as today is the 28th of March,” Judy told The Post & Email on Tuesday.

In addition to 2016, Judy was a presidential candidate in 2008 and 2012 and therefore has presumed “standing” to challenge the qualifications of anyone seeking the same office.  In 2008, he challenged the eligibility of both Obama and Sen. John McCain on the basis that neither was a “natural born Citizen,” as Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires.

Judy was not alone in challenging the 2008 major-party presidential nominees on the “eligibility” question.  McCain, born in Panama to two U.S. citizens in 1936, had faced questions in 2000, and a column published in The New York Times quoting citizenship experts declared him ineligible to run.  The article began:

Wikipedia’s list of eligibility challenges and lawsuits against Obama omits Judy’s 2008 position as a presidential candidate.

However, credible reports that Obama, too, was born in a foreign country dating back several years prior to his presidential run were ignored by the media and dismissed en masse by the courts.

Obama claims a father who was never a U.S. citizen, which some constitutional scholars and attorneys believe is sufficient to disqualify him as a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of where he was born.

During the 2016 presidential campaign cycle, Republican primary contender Sen. Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban- and later Canadian-citizen father, insisted that he is a “natural born Citizen” based on his claim that his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born.

Cruz provided no documentation of U.S. citizenship, whether through dual citizenship at birth or naturalization.

Although questions about Obama’s eligibility went unaddressed during the 2007-2008 campaign cycle, he was inaugurated on January 20, 2009 as the nation’s 44th president.

When in 2011 then-businessman Donald Trump gave a public voice to the concerns of Americans who questioned Obama’s “natural born” status, the White House responded approximately three months later by releasing what it said was a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.

Within hours, experts declared the image a poorly-created forgery.  In August 2011, then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio asked former detective and then-Maricopa County Cold Case Posse leader Michael Zullo to spearhead an investigation of the image in order to assure Arpaio’s constituents that their votes would not be disenfranchised in the 2012 election.

Three days after meeting with other subject-matter experts, Zullo informed Arpaio that he could not declare the image authentic.  From there, a 5+-year investigation ensued, with Zullo and Arpaio holding three press conferences to inform the media, Congress, federal law enforcement, and the public that they determined the long-form birth certificate image to be a “computer-generated forgery.”

At the third and final presser on December 15, 2016, Zullo revealed that two forensic experts from different disciplines contracted to study the image had reached very similar conclusions as Zullo’s based on nine identified points of forgery achieved through electronic manipulation.

Judy’s case began in July 2014 in the same district and was assigned to Judge Bruce S. Jenkins, who voluntarily recused himself.  At that point, Judge Ted Stewart received the case, which claimed financial damages against the defendants for personal liability and injury under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

At the time, Judy told The Post & Email that the nature of the alleged violations allowed him “to take a criminal complaint directly to a judge, bypassing a federal grand jury and a prosecutor.”

Judy appealed the subsequent rulings against him to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to grant him in forma pauperis status in order to pursue the case in the fall of 2015.

Page 1 of the Notice for Decision/Judgement reads:

The second page is a “Certificate of Mailing Affidavit.”

In an interview on Tuesday evening, Judy told The Post & Email:

I filed a motion to reopen the case after it was closed and after it had actually made a long-distance trip to the U.S. Supreme Court in case #14-9396.  Now I’ve come back around into the federal district court, which is where they all start.  I always feel that the best-case scenario is to deal with the federal judge assigned to the case rather than go on appeal.  “U.S. Supreme Court” all sounds good and everything, but you sure want the federal court to be on your side on appeal.

One of the stipulations for a Motion to Reopen a case is if there’s evidence that comes forth that was not available at the time you filed it.  That’s where Sheriff Joe’s December 15, 2016 press conference came in — the nine points of forgery — and the judge has that now.  That was the major reason I did it because it shows us what a legal, professional organization such as Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse determined.  It’s not me bringing the evidence; it’s their discovery.  Sheriff Joe’s posse was actually just taking the reports from the two contracted forensic examiners.  All of their work I just brought to a judge, and I was able to do that through the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act.  Normally, you need an attorney general or a grand jury to bring a trust violation claim to a judge, but the two federal laws allow me to do that.

So I filed that, and the Motion to Reopen was denied, but it was denied about four days prior to the time limit of 30 days having expired.  So the court hopped on that denial before the time had expired for the defendants to respond.

Why would the court have done that?

It could have been a clerical error.  It could be that the judge just did not feel that there was any reason to allow the 30-day period to expire.  But I have used that as a legal point in the technical issue of why he should reconsider.

Is the same judge reviewing it?

Yes, Judge Ted Stewart.

This is really important:  if you ask me the difference between the Motion to Reopen and the Motion to Reconsider, what else have I brought to the judge?

When they denied the Motion to Reopen, the only thing I could think of that was missing was that I didn’t specifically mention the particular crime that was involved in the forgery of the long-form birth certificate as far as the criminal code.  So in my perception of really being “sticky” with the law, the judge could say that he’s not the one who enforces the criminal codes – that’s usually a prosecutor — but in this case, I am the prosecutor.  I have been very detailed in the Motion for Reconsideration in showing the judge that I knew the exact criminal code that was in violation and that it mentioned “birth certificate.” You can read that in the Motion for Reconsideration in my last blog post.  You can see the detailed federal criminal code which cites a fabricated birth certificate, driver’s license, or state ID (p. 7).

I showed the judge that I knew the law had been violated, that the criminal code would apply, and that I think I deserve relief because this code is violated.  Failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted is a big mistake.

What relief are you seeking?

The thing that I could compare this to is the O.J. Simpson case.  He was prosecuted criminally, and the jury did not find him guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.  Then the family went in and prosecuted civilly, and the standard for guilt under a civil penalty is a little more lenient:  “reasonable doubt.”  They still mention the criminal code in that civil action; there still has to be a particular violation to the family.

Is there a clear line where “civil” ends and “criminal” begins?  Is that what’s happened with the Obama “eligibility” issue?

You have to have somebody with standing, and that gets into what most people believe:  that you had to be a candidate in the race, and that candidate has to stand up and say, “That other candidate is in violation of the rules of the race.”

If I were going to be faulted in the Motion to Reopen, it would be that I failed to exactly cite a criminal code on which the judge could base his decision.  What I had hoped for under the Sherman and Clayton Acts was that the judge would know the law and the criminal code and that he would say, “OK, because Cody doesn’t know that, we will assign a prosecutor or attorney general to look at the case and the prosecutor or attorney general would come up with the exact code.”

That’s what a judge is supposed to do when he sees a case where the Sherman and Clayton Acts are invoked.  A plaintiff can go to the judge, and the judge is responsible for sending it to the prosecutor.  What I have done in naming this specific crime is that I have the judge right in the square of the balance.  Basically, he becomes an accomplice to the crime if he refuses to name a prosecutor or grant the Order to Show Cause.

In the Order to Show Cause, I relayed to the judge that it’s not just about a big lump sum of money to bankrupt the Democrat Party.  I was willing to take a penalty over a period of time, so much a month, until it was paid off.  “Justice” is the part that I think all the people are missing.  My last blog piece detailed that in the title where ignoring justice is a path to failure.

Please look for the second half of our interview with Cody Robert Judy in the near future.


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. The Supreme Court review of the14th amendment in 1898, 169 US 649 USA v WKA, made it clear that citizenship thus created by provisions of the 14th was by naturalization, only. Since then, there has been no pathway to natural born citizenship through it. Birth in the US without regard to the nationality of parents results only in naturalization, by birthright.
    There is no natural born citizenship deriving from the14th Amendment.

  2. Hey Howard, when I was young I had a mental meltdown. Further, I had other troubles too,
    that I am not proud of. By the grace of God I made come backs. I had assistance from
    loved ones and help from caring people.

    After some of these difficulties, I served several years in the Marines. I reached the rank of
    Sergeant and received “very high” evaluations and numerous personal awards. The Navy
    Achievement Medal is by far my most prized award.

    I had good fortune and huge brakes in my life that led me to be successful.

    While Cody may have had troubles, he seems to be stepping up to the plate in challenging a
    former President. Seems to me he had paid a price for his previous actions. Yet, from his
    writings he seems to be very bright. Who knows, his efforts in trying to hold Obama accountable may just pay off. This underdog just might pull it off and be successful
    against Obama when lots of others failed.

    He who is without sin, cast the first stone…

  3. Why, when you report on Mr. Judy, do you never mention his criminal history? Specifically the hostage taking incident in 1993 which resulted in his conviction, prison term and treatment for mental illness? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/274471/SUSPECT-IN-FIRESIDE-BOMB-THREAT-SAYS-HE-WAS-FULFILLING-PROPHECIES.html

    It seems disingenuous at best for a media outlet of your stature to give credence to a convicted felon with mental issues simply because he agrees with your editorial stance on the previous occupant of the White House.

  4. The case relating to Judy vs Soetoro is still viable, and should once again be presented to the SCOTUS………if for no other reason that to see exactly WHO acts to keep it from being adjudicated. There is more than enough reason ……it is called HISTORY which needs to be accurate. I pray that this will be put before the SCOTUS……….and at the same time they will DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN once and for all so that sick, twisted political minds can no longer PERVERT the meaning.

  5. This is not just a dead horse that is being beat.

    What is being beat at this point it is the decomposed dust of what use to be a dead horse.

  6. McCain can never be a “Natural Born Citizen”. Neither can Obama,Cruz,Jindal,Swarzenegger or Rubio. A “Natural Born citizen is one born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH US Citizens themselves”- Minor v Happersett, USSCt. McCain was not born in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain was born in Colon, Panama which was never part of the PCZ. By treaty. The PCZ was never an incorporated territory of the United States in any event. Chin is wrong. One can NOT be made a “Natural Born Citizen” merely by legislation. One is either an NBC or he/she is not an NBC. The circumstances of one’s birth cannot be changed by legislation. An amendment could do away with the requirement that a POTUS be an NBC but attempts to do that have failed at least (8) times just in the last (20) years. Obama has never been President. http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama/

  7. @JefferyHarrison Thank You – Twitter has an advantage of diminishing deniability , even with an opposition MSM


    #Birther FedCrt #Justice Facts&Evidence @AGJeffSessions @POTUS @realdonaldtrump #MAGA @CNN #Utpol @BarackObama #DNC http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/03/29/obama-eligibility-lawsuit-takes-new-turn/


    @DeborahJones Nice Research! It’s true, Judge Ted Stewart does have Senior Status now, but did not have Senior Status when the Case was filed Feb 7, 2014.

    Appreciate everyone making this Case a Social Media Phenomena because reducing Public Deniability is essentially a stand for Justice which we all need and hope for.

  8. Why is Judge Ted Stewart a senior Judge assigned to this case? The establishment appointed party judges are mocking Cody Judy’s case by appointing a “retirement in senior” judge. This case is not too important to the District court? The United States Code does not refer to senior status in its body text, although the title of 28 U.S.C. § 371 is “Retirement on salary; retirement in senior status.”

    The term senior judge is defined by 28 U.S.C. § 294 to mean an inferior court judge who is in senior status
    In a 2007 article in the Cornell Law Review, David Stras and Ryan Scott suggested that senior status may be unconstitutional.[1]

  9. Cody, thanks for your continued efforts. Indeed, keep up the fight. You and many of us
    have had setbacks in fighting Mr. Obama. I have been to your web site and I have read a number of your written articles. As always, I got a lot of excellent insight and info.

    While we have had a number of setbacks, as we recall in history numerous individuals failed
    many times before becoming successful.

    Therefore, let’s all of us continue to do our best and hold Obama and those (others) involved in one of the biggest hoaxes in history accountable. Bare in mind, Obama is just a puppet. Behind the curtain is the Wizard of Oz and his misguided cohorts followers pulling Obama’s

    I expect when the House of Cards implodes they turn evidence on each other to save their own
    hide. What a show we’ll have then. Sin has a season, then the bill is due…

    Cody, keep running the race. Godspeed

  10. A Motion for Reconsideration is Standard Operation before Appeals are made to Appeals Court’s.

    The Motion for Reconsideration detailed in name the specific Crime Associated with Obama’s alleged Criminal Offense.

    Reading both very closely reveals this as does Ms. Rondeau’s Article.

  11. How is this new? Judy filed his suit in the district court; it was dismissed as frivolous; the appellate court affirmed the dismissal; SCOTUS closed Judy’s appeal; Judy filed a motion to reopen in the district court; and the district court denied that motion.