DEEMS APPEAL FRIVOLOUS; CHANGES STANCE ON “IN FORMA PAUPERIS” STATUS
by Sharon Rondeau
Judy had previously been granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status in the case, meaning that his income is insufficient for him to pay customary court fees and other associated costs.
Judy’s case, Judy v. Obama, 14-9396, began in July 2014 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and was appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals after the District Court’s dismissal. Having obtained the same result from the Tenth Circuit, Judy appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015.
As a Democrat presidential candidate in 2008 and 2012, Judy is seeking restitution from the defendants for damages he allegedly suffered based on the Clayton Act and Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Underlying that was Judy’s assertion that Obama did not meet the definition of “natural born Citizen,” a requirement in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution for the nation’s chief executive.
Obama claims a birth on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI, but no hospital in the Aloha State has claimed the event despite its well-known historical significance. Obama’s reported father was a British citizen when his son was born, another factor which some constitutional scholars say precludes Obama from possessing “natural born” status.
Judy alleges that the DNC and Obama’s political organization, Organizing for Action (OFA), knowingly put forth an ineligible presidential candidate who was elected by an uninformed electorate, serving as a usurper president and commander-in-chief for two terms.
Despite dozens of lawsuits beginning in August 2008 challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, no court in the nation presented with the question has ordered discovery of Obama’s original identification documents in order to determine whether or not he is, in fact, a natural born citizen. As a former Democrat presidential candidate himself, Judy claims “standing” in the matter, a claim that has not been challenged by the courts.
Judy was granted IFP status by the District and Appellate courts in 14-9396. However, after appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied him that status just before the high court embarked on its three-month summer recess.
Judy filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied after the Supreme Court returned from its break. The denial and Judy’s lack of funds were the determining factors in his abandoning the effort at the time.
In January of this year, Judy refiled his case at the District Court level to include newly-released information from a five-year criminal investigation into the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website in April 2011 purported to represent Obama’s original birth record. In a December press conference, lead investigator Mike Zullo revealed that two forensic analysts on different continents and working in different disciplines agreed with his conclusion that the image is a “computer-generated forgery.”
As the appellate court noted, the District Court denied Judy’s motions, after which Judy appealed to the Tenth Circuit and to the Supreme Court’s newest member, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The new case was assigned #17-4055 by the Tenth Circuit. As of this writing, Judy has received no response from the Supreme Court as to the case’s status despite having received proof of delivery and making numerous inquiries to the clerk’s office.
Over the five years of the investigation, the mainstream media maintained a virtual blackout on Zullo’s findings, first announced on March 1, 2012. The initial revelations were augmented through two successive press conferences and a number of radio appearances, concluding with the December 15, 2016 presser.
In response to the court’s order, Judy told The Post & Email:
“In some ways it means Justice is only for sale. Proving my income was below the Federal Poverty level and the court’s continuing to order fees paid in the face of so much lawful evidence suggest this. Further, the District Court ruled in the affirmative for my Motion for IFP. The suggestion by the Court reflects justice might be ‘For Sale’ and certainly amplifies that the poor are discriminated against in the Court.
“I don’t think the ruling made a lick of sense because the District Court granted IFP status. It seems like an ‘excuse’ rather than a ‘reason.’ Would Justice take place if the ‘fees’ were paid by the ‘poor’? It seems quite a contradiction.
“The ‘Facts’ place the Court in a ‘cover-up’ because of the crimes against the US Elections. I think the ruling is a complete heist of Justice for the poor. It’s actually quite telling of the disrespect the Court has for US Elections. They have placed crimes against the US Elections in the ‘It’s OK’ category.
Judy also provided an invoice from the court for the filing fee: