“I’M DOING THIS FOR THE REPUBLIC”
by Sharon Rondeau
(May 1, 2017) — On Sunday, the plaintiff in a lawsuit claiming that former White House occupant Barack Hussein Obama violated the Clayton and Sherman Anti-Trust Acts shared with The Post & Email his Motion for in forma pauperis status filed with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Cody Robert Judy was an early challenger of Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility to seek and hold the office of President of the United States. In 2008, he filed lawsuits challenging not only Obama’s eligibility, but also that of Sen. John McCain.
Constitutional scholars had questioned McCain’s eligibility when he sought the Republican primary nomination in 2000 because of his birth in Panama, albeit to U.S. citizens, one of whom was a Navy admiral at the time.
Judy’s eligibility challenges were made from his position as a Democrat presidential candidate in 2008, 2012 and 2016. In each, he made clear that he interprets the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II of the Constitution to mean “born in the United States to U.S.-citizen parents.”
Judy, who has always acted as his own attorney, was not alone in challenging Obama’s eligibility in 2008 and beyond. Obama claims a birth in Hawaii, but credible news reports stated prior to his first presidential run that he was born in Indonesia and Kenya. Other details about Obama’s life story have been told differently at various times.
The discrepancies have never been explained.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen.”
Obama’s claimed father was a British, and later Kenyan, citizen after the nation obtained its independence from the Crown in December 1963. In Europe and in the American colonies, the citizenship of the father was the determining factor in a child’s citizenship, not the child’s birthplace.
Federal statutes on naturalization and different interpretations of the meaning of the 14th Amendment as it relates to U.S. citizenship have further clouded and conflated not only who is and is not a U.S. citizen, but also the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” Some in the news media have conflated the two terms or injected the term “native-born citizen,” causing greater confusion.
In 1916, attorney and future ambassador to Italy Breckinridge Long questioned whether or not Charles Evans Hughes should have been a presidential candidate given his birth in the U.S. to British-citizen parents. “…is there not a distinction between ‘native born’ and ‘natural born’? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government,” Long wrote in an essay published in the Chicago Legal News that year.
Long further amplified:
If the father becomes naturalized before the birth of the child and is at the time of the birth of the child a citizen of the United States, then the child is a “natural born” citizen. But in the case of Mr. Hughes the father was not naturalized at the time the son was born, and was at that time a subject of England. How could the son be a “natural born” citizen of the United States?
Woodrow Wilson went on to win a second term in 1916, in effect making Long’s arguments moot. However, over the years, presidential eligibility questions again arose relative to former Michigan Gov. George Romney, who was born in Mexico; former Connecticut Gov. Lowell P. Weicker, born in France; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, born in Canada; former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, born in the U.S. to non-citizens; and Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, whose situation mirrored Jindal’s.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution delegates immigration and naturalization matters to the U.S. Congress, but amending the “natural born Citizen” clause would require a constitutional amendment. A number of attempts over several decades to do so have been introduced in Congress to allow naturalized U.S. citizens to serve as president but thus far have not gained traction.
It is apparent, then, that Congress’s understanding of the “natural born Citizen” clause involves the person’s birthplace, as “naturalized” citizens come to the U.S. from other countries. In order to naturalize, an individual must reside in the U.S. legally for five years, commit no crime, pass civics and English language tests, take an oath of allegiance to defend the United States if necessary, and forswear allegiance to all other nations.
In 2008, the State of New Hampshire disqualified an individual, Sal Mohamed, from seeking a place on the presidential primary ballot because he was a naturalized citizen. Mohamed had been permitted to run for Iowa governor in 2006 and for Congress in 2004.
The U.S. Supreme Court has remained silent on the presidential-eligibility controversy and even admitted to “evading” it, an issue on which a New York Times editorial called for resolution early last year.
In 2014, he filed Judy v. Obama, 14-9396, a case based on two federal anti-trust laws which allow the incorporation of alleged criminal activity into a civil suit. His applications at the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for in forma pauperis status were approved although his arguments later rejected.
At the U.S. Supreme Court in July and October 2015, Judy was inexplicably denied in forma pauperis status by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Without the thousands of dollars needed for printing and copying for a Supreme Court filing, Judy was unable to proceed with the case.
In an interview published on April 23, Judy reminded the American public that even though Obama is no longer in the White House, he “is still on the payroll.”
In cases predating the current one at the Tenth Circuit, Judy referred to the work of the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse, which determined in March 2012 that probable cause existed that an image purported to represent Obama’s original birth certificate from Hawaii posted at whitehouse.gov is a “computer-generated forgery.”
In addition to the birth certificate image, Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form was found to be a “hard-copy” forgery. The investigation, led by Mike Zullo, later concluded that the standard of probable cause in the forgery of the birth certificate image had been overcome.
At a final press conference in December 2016, Zullo revealed that two forensic analysts consulted about the birth certificate image agreed that “nine points of forgery” belied its purported authenticity.
In late January of this year, Judy refiled the 2014 case with Zullo’s newly-revealed evidence to the U.S. District Court in Utah, which again rejected it. He then appealed to the Tenth Circuit as well as to Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch in the hope that one of the justices will consider the enormity of the crimes alleged to have occurred given the new information.
Of his Motion for “pauper” status, Judy told us:
I’ve never made it public, and the court sealed those records, so the information is confidential. There are those who have tried to discredit me and exonerate the U.S. Supreme Court for denying me in forma pauperis. There’s a lot of contentiousness about this as well as with the Democrats regarding Donald Trump refusing to release his tax returns, so it’s a big deal. Also in the news is that Obama garnered about a half a million dollars every year while he was in the office of the president.
So I thought the Good Lord has asked me to release this, and I thought I would do it with your paper if you think it’s newsworthy.
It’s always a little bit embarrassing, because there’s a lot of pressure for guys to make money. I don’t really think that people understand the how and the why for what I’ve done as far as the sacrifices I’ve made over the last eight or nine years now.
There’s a lot of ridicule that has been used against “Birthers” with no appreciation for the sacrifices they have made.
As far as the form, it’s a pretty detailed report of property you own, what you make and what you spend. I don’t know if a lot of people are educated about that. They want your earnings from the the previous month. I claimed $1,350, and $150 of that was for donating plasma. Another $100 was the one donation I received. My expenses total $1,350, so there’s absolutely no extra money.
The valuable resource has been time in doing this and addressing it. The “why” of it for the last eight years I probably don’t have to explain to you. I think it’s probably the biggest issue concerning fraud in the highest office. If you contrast my earnings, about $15,000 a year, to Obama, who is getting $400,000 a speech now, it really underscores the fact that the reason I’ve done this is that I actually believe in the Pledge of Allegiance.
“…with liberty and justice for all…” I don’t think a lot of people understand the freedom that our Constitution allows. In publishing this, I want to contrast people like Obama, who has made a fortune, but also people such as Donald Trump, who made $10 billion and attracted supporters through the “Birther” issue. If I had it, I would spend a million dollars easily.
I’m doing this for the Republic, and poverty shouldn’t prevent me from obtaining justice.
I think the problem is not only the rich failing to support the constitutional republic, but middle-income people are not, either. I think they should be. I think there is a responsibility. What I’ve done over the last nine years in sacrificing my time and living so meagerly has been a great sacrifice for the Republic for which we stand.
I’ve never applied for any kind of federal aid or federal housing. I’ve never applied for food stamps…I’ve been independent. I didn’t want people to say that I was financing my presidential campaigns with federal money.
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day, and he was saying that he felt the Democrats are out-of-touch with the reality of Americans’ lives. I think it’s been spawned by the elitists who are Democrats. We always call the Republicans the “fat cats,” but it’s the Democrats who have become the elitists and have forgotten about the poor. The owners of Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter have been pushing and pushing and pushing…they’re the globalists now. And when you become a globalist, you’re forgetting about the poor in your country because all you’re doing is pushing for another market that will increase your capital. And you start thinking, “What are they going to do with that money? Have they used it to support our republic against fraud?”
There’s a big question as to why you’ve seen me make these kinds of sacrifices, giving up what I do, vs. their lack of interest and lack of support. If 40,000 people sent me $5.00…
Judy is author of Taking a Stand: The Conservative Independent Voice; has a YouTube channel with 263 videos issued to date; and is an active singer/songwriter. His blog, www.codyjudy.blogspot.com, has garnered nearly a half-million views worldwide.
On February 7, 1993, at the age of 27, Judy pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony of aggravated burglary on the basis that he would serve a six-month jail sentence. However, the plea deal was reportedly not honored by the State of Utah, causing Judy’s time of incarceration to morph into eight years in state prison. “I only found out after the plea bargain that the Bishop Judge was not by Utah Law able to make the Parole Department adhere to an agreement,” Judy said, adding that videotaped evidence of the alleged event on which the charges were based was denied him and that he was “beaten unconscious” during it.
Judy’s blog post about the incident states that the referenced videotape “is held under copyright by The LDS Church Presidency (current). It was given by the LDS Church to the prosecuting attorney in my criminal case, shown to the Judge of my case but I was denied a copy of it, because as the 4th District Court Judge Guy Burningham, criminal case of State of Utah v. Judy, (who also simultaneously was set apart in the LDS Church acting in the office of the Church as a Bishop) told me, ‘They didn’t want it to end up with Barbara Walters on 20/20.'”
“After three days I tried to withdraw my plea because they were not going to honor the 6 months. The Bishop/Judge refused to allow me to withdraw it,” Judy told The Post & Email. “I had no prior record as an adult or juvenile and learned first hand how corrupt the system was. The LDS Church has so much sway they protected those who beat and assaulted me.. I went to the hospital with broken ribs, black eyes and scrapes all over my body half naked for my suit had been ripped to shreds… I had only a Book of Mormon B.O.M and Bible.“
“I knew I had been trapped. My book also details the ‘other side’ of the story on my criminal case in detail if people are interested,” Judy told us.
Judy strongly refutes the assertions of a February 9, 1993 article in The Deseret News bearing the headline, “SUSPECT IN FIRESIDE BOMB THREAT SAYS HE WAS FULFILLING PROPHECIES.” “These are fabricated and false headlines meant to do me much more harm in a nefarious intent over a life time! Because I only have one, I have to protect it and there clearly is a much more sinister and libelous account coming from The Desert News that for some reason is much longer lasting. The connection of ownership with the LDS Church Leadership is the obvious connection, and accounts, perhaps on a broader scale the exaggeration and fabrications of falsehood in reporting with the connection of the cover-up of the video tape that has protected those of its members who participated in the mob like violences against my person,” Judy wrote on his blog on February 13, 2015.
The in forma pauperis petition can be read here: https://www.scribd.com/document/346854037/CRJ-MOTION-FOR-INFORMA-PAUPERIS-TENTH-CIRCUIT#from_embed
Donations to Judy’s cause can be made here.
More of our interview with Cody Robert Judy will be published in a subsequent article.