FILING FEE PAID ON FRIDAY
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 23, 2017) — On Saturday evening, The Post & Email reported that Cody Robert Judy, the plaintiff in an Obama eligibility/forgery lawsuit, was able to raise the required $505 fee payable to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in order to proceed with his case.
On July 14, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order indicating that it deemed the case “frivolous” but that if Judy paid the fee, it could be pursued to a next step.
Judy had previously been granted by both the U.S. District Court and the Tenth Circuit “in forma pauperis” (IFP) status, which allows a plaintiff to proceed with a case without paying customary fees and copying costs after providing proof of “poverty.”
Although the appellate court’s most recent order was uploaded to the federal online docketing system, PACER, late on the afternoon of July 14, Judy was told by the U.S. District Court clerk’s office that the order was not in their possession as of last Tuesday. “With the Tenth Circuit Court immediately putting it on PACER, there was no way that what the district court was telling me was true,” Judy told us.
On Wednesday, in response to our question about how court orders are docketed and disseminated, a spokesman for the Tenth Circuit said, “We operate in real time here, so whenever we issue and post an order to our docket, notice is sent immediately to counsel/parties of record (and lower court clerks) and the order appears simultaneously on PACER.”
Judy did not receive his hard copy of the order until retrieving his mail on Thursday. He told The Post & Email that although an email address is required of plaintiffs utilizing the federal courts and that he has provided one, he has never received notifications regarding his case via that method.
After paying the fee on Friday, he received an official acknowledgement in Saturday’s mail.
Judy’s current case was brought under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, “Civil action for deprivation of rights,” and the Clayton Act and Sherman Anti-Trust Act alleging that in 2012, Obama, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and political action committee Organizing for Action conspired to support a candidate for president who was constitutionally ineligible because he was not a “natural born Citizen.”
In 2008, Judy filed documents to run for president himself as a Democrat and launched respective lawsuits challenging the eligibility of both Obama and Sen. John McCain. Both were ultimately dismissed without a hearing on the merits.
McCain was born in Panama to U.S.-citizen parents. Obama claims a birth in Honolulu, HI to a U.S.-citizen mother and British-citizen father at the time. Obama’s father never became a U.S. citizen, but rather, returned to his home country of Kenya in 1964 following that country’s declared independence from the British Crown.
The younger Obama’s life narrative differs from a number of credible, mainstream news reports which previously claimed that he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, not Hawaii. A biographical sketch in pamphlet form published in 1991 and discovered by Breitbart News in May 2012 stated that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
Judy additionally sought the presidency in 2012 and 2016 and believes that his former circumstance as a presidential candidate enabled him to proceed with his cases without his legal “standing” having been challenged. Average citizens, after filing lawsuits questioning Obama’s eligibility beginning in 2008, were told they lacked the “standing” to proceed as well as a particularized injury.
Under the federal anti-trust laws, Judy claims he has suffered irreparable harm by Obama’s candidacy and election as an allegedly illegitimate chief executive.
Judy believes that the term “natural born Citizen” contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution means that a person is not only born in the United States, but also has parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Judy has often expounded on the “time” requirement necessary for someone to claim “natural born” status. “It takes more than one generation for a person to develop complete loyalty to the United States,” Judy told The Post & Email. “Being born here isn’t enough; your parents must have been full participants in the society by being citizens themselves.”
Like many other Americans, Judy became particularly concerned with the Obama eligibility question after an image purported to represent Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate from Hawaii was posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 and very quickly declared a forgery by several industry experts.
In August of that year, at the request of approximately 250 constituents, then-Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio agreed to assign one of his volunteer posses whose members possessed experience in detective work and law enforcement to analyze the image, with Arpaio fully expecting that the matter would be quickly put to rest.
However, after a period of analysis, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo informed Arpaio that the image could not have originated with a real, paper document. Over the next five years and encompassing three press conferences, Zullo and Arpaio released evidence pointing to probable cause in the forgery of not only the birth certificate image, but also Obama’s Selective Service registration form. That document, along with accompanying printouts, was mailed to an undetermined number of FOIA requesters beginning in late 2008 by the Selective Service System (SSS).
At the third and final presser on December 15, 2016, Zullo divulged that after agreeing to examine the image themselves, two forensic analysts working in two different disciplines reached conclusions very similar to his own, which were first made public on March 1, 2012.
The media either ignored the outcome of the press conference or stressed that the investigation was coming to a close as Arpaio prepared to leave office after six consecutive terms and a defeat in the polls on November 8.
After witnessing the release of the new information in December, Judy felt it his responsibility to resubmit his case, first filed in July 2014, to provide the newly-released evidence to a federal judge with the allegation that his complaint now encompassed criminal activity as well as civil injury.
As before, Judy began with the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, which allowed him IFP status but dismissed the case in April. Judy then appealed to the Tenth Circuit and the newly-seated U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. While the Supreme Court has issued no response despite Judy’s proof of mailing, the Tenth Circuit labeled the appeal “frivolous” on July 14 with the caveat that it could proceed if Judy paid the filing fee.
In an interview on Saturday, The Post & Email asked Judy, “Now that the fee is paid, could the court simply reiterate its decision that the appeal is frivolous?” to which he responded:
Yes, they totally could. If they did that, I think it would be a very cruel standard. They could consider payment of the fee a self-imposed fine. But in the first paragraph in their ruling, they said, (paraphrased), “Because the district court ruled this is frivolous, we denied the IFP status.”
I don’t think the judge is right or that the Tenth Circuit even paid attention to it. They included in their order “culpable” things such as “Mr. Judy has alleged…” mentioning Nancy Pelosi’s and Sen. Reid’s name, indicating that they’ve reviewed the case. But we don’t really know if they ever reviewed the case. We’ll never really know, but the clerks probably reviewed it and wrote the order, then the judges signed it.
We can assume now, because I have complied, that the justices no longer have a monetary excuse.
I really like the fact that in the last paragraph, they said, “If you don’t pay the fees, the case will be dismissed for a lack of prosecution.” That really stirred the pot for me, because there has been no time in nine years that I have failed to pursue my cases. They’re not saying that the evidence or the facts are frivolous; they’re saying it’s my fault for failing to prosecute.
I totally disagree with where they said I had not made a serious effort to present the facts. What we’re going to see now is that the justices will have to look more seriously at the facts of the case, which completely show that Nancy Pelosi disenfranchised the state of Hawaii by writing her own certificate of nomination for Obama. I think that’s really important to notice because without that happening, Obama would not have been elected. He would have started to fail in the state of Hawaii where he claims to be have been born.
It’s really important to the Democratic Party, of which I am a member, which supposedly elected him to be their nominee, that Pelosi disenfranchised the Democratic Party of Hawaii, which would not certify him as a qualified candidate.
The Post & Email then commented, “Yes, Hawaii has a law mandating that political candidates must be declared by their party to be ‘legally qualified’ to occupy the office they seek.”
Yes, that’s why Nancy Pelosi wrote her own; she disenfranchised the whole state of Hawaii. It comes down to whether a political party is able to disenfranchise whole states of the union. That’s an infringement on my rights to be able to run a fair and equal race.
When you’re in the Democratic Party, you have to function within their rules. That’s what this is; the Democratic Party is not the United States of America. The same thing happens with any corporation; when that corporation violates the rules or someone’s civil rights, that corporation is responsible in a court of law.
That’s why it is so important that I was a Democratic candidate in the race objecting to Obama’s constitutional qualifications for the office. I’ve never had a hearing on this, and the courts aren’t able to sweep it under the rug. We get into this question: Is the Democratic Party too big to fail? There was a story the other day that the party is $3.3 million in the hole. Since May, it’s gone downhill.
If the courts refuse to discipline the Democratic Party in its shenanigans against the Constitution of the United States, the party is the one that’s suffering and all the people in it. The Republicans are just pleased as punch to see that happen. I am the one trying to work from within the Democratic Party to at least try to get it back on a constitutional track.
Justices are all supposed to be neutral. If a presidential candidate does not have the right to challenge another presidential candidate’s qualifications, then absolutely nobody does. And that is basically trashing the Constitution and saying, “It doesn’t matter,” and if that doesn’t apply, then their own judicial appointments don’t matter because it all collapses. They’re not really judges; they don’t really have courts under the constitutional umbrella.
So we’re asking the justices to uphold what Congress has upheld: that nine times since 2000 there have been motions, resolutions, and suggestions in Congress to change the “natural born Citizen” clause, and they’ve all failed. That should send a message to the courts that it’s not open to interpretation, because the interpretations have been given to Congress, and they have been rejected.
That shows the courts that it’s not up to their interpretation. Congress, the will of the people, has said no, and if the courts say, “Yes, somebody is able to run or occupy the office without the constitutional requirements being met,” then they’re in violation of their judgeships, the Constitution, and the will of the people.
[Editor’s Note: Please watch for the next installment of The Post & Email’s interview with Cody Robert Judy.]