Obama, DNC, & OFA Have “No Response” in Defense of Legal Evidence Implicating FORGERY


by Sharon Rondeau

(May 17, 2017) — On Monday, Obama eligibility/forgery plaintiff Cody Robert Judy contacted the clerk’s office at the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to discover why his application for a Petition for Mandamus has not been docketed after more than a month since its receipt.

Judy filed an appeal to the high court in April, having received proof of its arrival there on April 13.  He also filed a “courtesy copy” with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which promptly reflected it on its docket.

His opening brief was docketed by the Tenth Circuit on May 8.

On Saturday, Judy reported an 8+-hour inability to access his case on PACER, the federal courts’ official website, although he said other cases were visible and accessible.  The problem finally resolved itself at approximately 3:30 PM MDT.

In an unusual circumstance, Judy has received no communication from the Supreme Court requesting more information or indicating that the clerks have any questions about his filing, while the Tenth Circuit docketed its courtesy copy promptly weeks ago.

Judy’s lawsuit alleges violations of the Clayton Act and Sherman Anti-Trust Act by Barack Hussein Obama, Organizing for Action, and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) stemming from what Judy believes is Obama’s constitutional ineligibility to seek or hold the office of president, which Obama did for two terms.

After Judy’s case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and the Tenth Circuit two years ago, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where several months later, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied him in forma pauperis status.

Judy told The Post & Email that he found it odd that the Supreme Court would deny him that status when the two lower courts had approved it.  He was then unable to proceed with the case.

Judy alleges that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen,” as the U.S. Constitution requires for the president and commander-in-chief.  An additional component to his lawsuit is the allegation that by knowingly running for and holding the office of president as an ineligible candidate, Obama the DNC and Organizing for Action, Obama’s political action committee, engaged in criminal activity as outlined in the two anti-trust laws cited above.

Obama claims a birth on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI to a British-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother.  Judy’s interpretation of the “natural born Citizen” clause found in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution is that a birth outside of the United States to U.S.-citizen parents or within the U.S. to a non-citizen parent or parents is disqualifying.

Constitutional scholars and attorneys both agree and disagree with Judy’s view.

In 2012, a “long-form” birth certificate image posted by the Obama regime at whitehouse.gov as well as his purported Selective Service registration form were declared fraudulent by former detective Mike Zullo.

In December 2016, Zullo gave a third and final press conference capping his five-year investigation with the revelation that two highly-reputable forensic analysts conducted their own respective probes of the birth certificate image and agreed with his conclusions.

Zullo and the former sheriff who commissioned the investigation, Joseph Arpaio, have both been vilified by the mainstream media for being the messengers of the findings of forgery and fraud in Obama’s only publicly-proffered documentation.

In July 2012 following a second presser on the probe, Arpaio remarked that the forgery of the image said to represent Obama’s original birth record from Hawaii is a matter of “national security.”

The media failed to investigate, with Congress and the FBI following suit.

The new information Zullo released in December provided the impetus for Judy to refile his case, beginning with the U.S. District Court in Utah.  On April 10, Judge Ted Stewart dismissed the case for a second time, claiming that the defendants were not obligated to provide a response to Judy’s contentions.

Judy then appealed to the Tenth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court.

The Tenth Circuit assigned the case a new number, 17-4055.

On Tuesday afternoon, Judy informed The Post & Email that he received no answer from Supreme Court clerk Daniel Bickel, with whom he spoke directly on Monday, as to where his application is or why it has not been posted. Judy said he related to Bickel the tracking number of the certified receipt which was returned to him as well as the fact that the courtesy copy had been filed with the Tenth Circuit.

SCOTUS is responsible, having received it by witness of Clerk Bennett,” Judy said, referring to the signature on the certified mail receipt.

Judy said that the Tenth Circuit’s docketing of the application “gives SCOTUS a direct link to the brief I sent to the Tenth Circuit.”

“SCOTUS can’t bury this. They signed for it and have been notified of its existence in the 10th Circuit,” Judy said.  “That was the whole reason I sent the Courtesy Copy. There is NO REASON SCOTUS has in saying they don’t have it. Hopefully, this puts any rogue clerk in the SCOTUS in the crosshairs of obstruction of justice, and the SCOTUS without excuse!”

Similarly, an email sent by this writer on Monday to the Supreme Court’s public information officer asking about the status of the filing has gone unanswered.

Judy said that in regard to the Tenth Circuit, he has no doubt the defendants have been served with all of the documents in the case.  “The Tenth Circuit wouldn’t have docketed the Courtesy Copy without proof Defendants were served,” he said.

The Defendants’ response brief is not due there until June 7, Judy said.

In regard to the Supreme Court timeline, Judy said that “the 30-day period to respond is a now lost opportunity, as the day the SCOTUS received the documents is indeed the timer.” 

Regarding the unexplained delay, Judy said, “It places judges in a difficult position, as it then comes down to dismissing law enforcement investigations without opposing experts.  If I were being sued for a fraudulent ID connected to law enforcement investigations, I’d say not responding is tantamount to acknowledging.”

When The Post & Email asked if it were possible that the Supreme Court clerks were attempting to “bury” his application, Judy responded, “They can’t! They are on record as receiving it, and the Courtesy Copy I filed in the 10th Circuit is admissible against their losing it… because they can get it on Pacer. SCOTUS can get any document filed in any court within minutes.”

Embarrassment is a BIG MOTIVATOR,” Judy continued, adding, “The whole FORGERY is an embarrassment to the Nation!”

Changing the subject slightly, he observed, “The question on my mind, after reading Judge Napolitano’s statement about SCOTUS surveillances and Scalia’s statement, is WHY Obama felt the need to keep such a close eye on the Court? Could it be his office depended on them not hearing a case on ELIGIBILITY?”

Both before Obama took office in January 2009 and afterward, dozens of cases were filed challenging his eligibility to serve; all were rebuffed by the courts, most frequently on the issue of legal “standing.”

As a 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential candidate himself, Judy’s standing to bring an eligibility case has not been challenged by the courts.

However, no court has yet granted him a hearing on the merits.


9 Responses to "Obama, DNC, & OFA Have “No Response” in Defense of Legal Evidence Implicating FORGERY"

  1. GARY   Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 1:39 PM

    Nothing that you have said negates the fact that Obama has never said that the image on the Website was a Certified Copy of a Hawaiian BC. He consistently said that it was a pdf.

    In addition to this, Birthers have already admitted that they were fully aware that it was a pdf, in fact they even had Birther so-called experts point out anomalies in the pdf so to now claim that they were fooled into thinking that it was a Certified Copy and therefore cry forgery is laughable at best.

    Look my friend, the bottom line is that unlike you, all US Courts can plainly see that it is a pdf and not a forgery of a Hawaiian BC and no US Court would ever allow the pdf to be used to determine anything about Obama’s birth because unlike you people they can plainly see that it is NOT a BC issued by the State of Hawaii and that it is a pdf or in other words a picture of a Hawaiian BC and not in any way shape or form a forgery of a Hawaiian BC.

  2. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Friday, May 19, 2017 at 10:35 PM


    “I presented my 8 FACTS herein…can your disprove any of them [100% verifiably irrefutably], GARY?

    GARY, have you ever seen original “Obama II” ID-documents of Item 207, A thru Q, mentioned above?”

    GARY, did you vote for “Obama II” and, like most all “Obama II” voters in 2008 and 2012, HAVE NO IDEA OF HIS FULL IDENTITY? Who knew?

    GARY, why did Fantasy “President Obama II” spend so much money avoiding your “In order for you to prove forgery of a Hawaiian BC you must produce a paper document created by Obama…”?


  3. GARY   Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:50 PM

    @ Johnathon David,

    First of all Hawaii issues it’s BCs on paper and not pdfs on Websites as you have suggested.

    In order for you to prove forgery of a Hawaiian BC you must produce a paper document created by Obama or at his bequest that is claimed by Obama to be a Certified copy of a Hawaiian BC and which in reality is not.

    It is and has always been the position of Obama and his attorneys that the image of the BC on the White House site is NOT a Certified Copy of a Hawaiian BC but is instead a pdf created by Obama or his staff and IS NOT a work product or public ACT of the state of Hawaii and therefore CANNOT be used to prove or to disprove the time or place of Obama’s birth and is hence inadmissible. So far all courts where this argument has been made have agreed with Obama on this point and it is highly unlikely, in fact I will say impossible, that you will ever find a court that will think any differently on the subject.

  4. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Friday, May 19, 2017 at 7:55 AM

    Just so you know, I called Supreme Court’s Public Information Office yesterday (202-479-3211) and the courteous lady there said she would pass the GOTCHA glitch on to IT folks.

    So, right now, I could not send e-mail mentioned herein to SCOTUS, using its Public Information Office e-mail, via Explorer, Google Chrome or Firefox, because the pre-send GOTCHA requires upper-case letters but, for some reason, immediately converts necessary upper case letters to erroneous lower case letters, so e-mail herein can not be forwarded.

    What kind of justice is that?

    Finally, GARY, herein, seems to think that we Knowledge Patriots have no legal basis to claim that a photocopy can be a forgery. Really?


    I presented my 8 FACTS herein…can your disprove any of them, GARY?

    GARY, have you ever seen original “Obama II” ID-documents of Item 207, A thru Q, mentioned above?

    GARY, are you a FACT FINDER or a FACT STABBER?

  5. GARY   Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 11:59 AM

    The big problem with the forgery theory is that in the US it is legally impossible for an image on a Website to be a forgery of a paper document.

    Even if the image of the BC on the White House site did not exactly match Hawaiian records, it could no more be legally deemed a forgery of a BC than an image of a ten dollar bill on the same site could be deemed a forgery of a ten dollar bill.

    The law just doesn’t work that way my friends.

  6. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:30 PM

    I went to the Supreme Court website, and found (1) no case 17-4055 and (2) e-mail attempt did not go thru because a glitch in the pre-send GOTCHA entry would not accept upper case letters (only lower case letters were possible when upper case letters were attempted).

    I’ll call them tomorrow and get past the GOTCHA glitch, I hope.

    Anyway, here is the message I entered before the pre-send GOTCHA glitch, under the subject heading, FANTASY: “President Obama II” 08-28-08- TODAY


    When SCOTUS hears Cody Robert Judy’s case No. 17-4055, the following observations of reality reveal that Barry Soetoro-Obama II never was, never is and never will be America’s 44th President unless Constitution Prostitution prevails via SCOTUS’ politically corrupt assistance.

    FACT 1: 1789 http://constitutionus.com/

    FACT 2: 08-28-08 http://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

    FACT 3: http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf

    FACT 4: http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/officer-imprisoned-for-challenging-obama-tells-his-story/

    FACT 5: 4-27-11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM2GJn6hpJE

    FACT 6: http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/trump-obama-rejected-50-million-for-birth-records/

    FACT 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuhF-Ok3djI

    FACT 8: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

    Being 68 years of age and having worked with the non-negotiable forever laws of Nature as a licensed professional engineer (PE) in several states since 1978, I have no faith whatsoever that 8 mortal human beings in serious-appearing black robes will do this case justice, nor ensure originalist interpretation of “natural born citizen” of 1789, nor ensure equal justice under the law while, instead, you all sort through the changeable laws of man in order to evade this case altogether or to manipulate a pre-agreed nothing-changes-and-no-one-is-held-accountable decision on this case.

    I am fully confident as a natural born citizen since Easter Sunday 1949 of citizen-parents who remained married from 1945 until their deaths at age 80, that our 8 tax-paid-for SCOTUS Justices will never defend, herein, the following associated national security requirement:

    “All American citizens have an inalienable RIGHT-TO-KNOW, a voter-practical NEED-TO-KNOW, and a veteran-patriotic DUTY-TO-KNOW the full identity and full life history of any presidential candidate and any incumbent president and any ex-president at any time”…and yet, since 08-28-08, most all of America’s 320,000,000 citizen-minds have been robbed anew each day by the U.S. Government of intellectual citizen-property that is always rightfully theirs to internalize and act upon, specifically, Soetoro-Obama II’s identifying documents listed in Item 207, A through Q herein: http://www.carlgallups.com/zullo-affidavit.pdf


    Jonathan David Mooers, PE (MA, ME, NH, NY), MBA, Fellow and Life Member-American Society of Engineers, LT (Ret.)- US Army Corps of Engineers, 100% MADE IN USA, Grandparent jmooers49@gmail.com CEL 978-771-8338

  7. Cody Judy   Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:29 PM

    I always take the District Court’s decision on something this BIG to be a deferral to a Larger Court’s Panel of Justices for safety.

  8. Cody Judy   Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:25 PM


    That is a keen observation. SCOTUS really has the right to come in on something like this any time, ( especially with the invite i gave them with (The Application to Justice Gorsuch who could or has the power to refer it to the FULL SCOTUS COURT)or could even behind the Bench make recommends for the 10th Circuit who will rule on it for sure.

    The APPLICATION TO SCOTUS necessarly does represent a [Legal Doc] that Obama has failed to Respond to.

    Of course he has made the Choice not to Response and both Courts see that now, so it is significant.

    SCOTUS does have the power to Rule now at any Time if they should choose, and the 10th sees a Red Flag of no Response, even with the Defendant’s being served every Doc.

    While this is the LAST ACTION most see on Obama’s Eligibility, it is also the FIRST ACTION with Obama out of the Oval Office which indeed only makes Action by the Court on Principle of the Qualifications in the Constitution easier to Rule on without a Big upheaval in that Office.

    A Stake in History is definitively on the Table.

    Where SCOTUS was “avoiding it” , the change in the Oval Office does carry weight with the Court in effecting the Nation and the Future. Let’s hope it’s for the Constitution and not against it.


  9. ELmo   Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM

    Cody Robert Judy,
    This might turn out to be a huge break – maybe an “insider” trying to “pry open the can of worms”
    that a previous administration has put SCOTUS in (or something similiar to the DNC debacle – where the Court was being controlled)??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.