Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 25, 2017) — On Tuesday, The Post & Email published Part 2 of its interview with Cody Robert Judy, who has a case pending in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama and alleging that Judy’s civil rights were violated as a Democratic candidate for president when the DNC proffered an ineligible candidate as its nominee.

Part 1 of the interview is here.

On July 14, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit dismissed Judy’s appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah as “frivolous” based on the lower court’s ruling, but stated that if he paid the customary filing fee, the court would proceed with a review.

To that time, Judy had been given permission to file his case in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning that he does not have the financial means to pay customary court fees. IFP status is granted in certain instances after a plaintiff demonstrates, by submitting a financial affidavit, to the court where the action is filed.

Judy had challenged Obama’s eligibility before, in 2008, when he also ran for president as a Democrat, and again in 2012 under the same circumstances. Also in 2008, he filed a lawsuit challenging Sen. John McCain’s eligibility on the basis that McCain was born outside of the United States and is not a “natural born Citizen,” as the Constitution requires of the nation’s chief executive.

Judy repeated his quest for the presidency in 2016.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that the president and commander-in-chief of the military be a “natural born Citizen.”  The term of art is one of three presidential qualifications included by the Framers during the Constitutional Convention of 1789, the other two being that the person must have resided in the United States for 14 years and be 35 years of age or older at the time of inauguration.

The “grandfather clause” included in Article II allowed any of the Framers to become president while acknowledging that they were not “natural born Citizens.”  It is that exception to which many scholars and constitutional experts point when making the case that the Founders intended a difference between the term “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.”

As Judy has stated in previous interviews and his own articles, U.S. representatives and senators are required to be “citizens” in order to qualify for federal office, but the president must be a “natural born Citizen.”

There exists a debate over whether a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens of another country can be considered “natural born.” Similarly, questions have arisen over children born in foreign countries to U.S.-citizen parents, including those serving overseas in the military.

One such child, now an adult in his 60s, last year provided The Post & Email with documentation showing that although born to a U.S. military father serving in Germany, he is considered a “naturalized” citizen and not “natural born.”

The Framers vested Congress with the authority to make law regarding the process of foreigners becoming U.S. citizens, or “naturalizing.”

Judy believes that a “natural born Citizen” is a person born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents and nothing less.

Obama claims a birth in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Both before and during the course of his presidency, several differing life narratives emerged which have not been reconciled, including that Obama is “an immigrant” to the U.S.

Even the most liberal interpretations of the “natural born Citizen” clause do not include naturalized citizens as eligible for the presidency.

On March 1, 2012, a former detective investigating the validity of a “long-form” birth certificate image posted at whitehouse.gov the previous year bearing Obama’s name declared it a “computer-generated forgery.”  Also found fraudulent was Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form, which has been mailed to an unknown number of FOIA requesters beginning in late 2008.

The FBI declined to investigate the findings despite admitting knowledge of the reported forgeries.

Over the course of his five-year investigation, the former detective, Mike Zullo, working under the auspices of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), held three press conferences to inform the public of his findings: March 1, 2012; July 17, 2012; and December 15, 2016.

Judy took particular note of the final presser in which Zullo divulged that two independent forensic analysts who perform their own examinations of the long-form birth certificate image reached conclusions very similar to Zullo’s own.

The media virtually ignored those revelations and appeared relieved that the investigation would close with Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s on December 31 following his November 8 election loss to Paul Penzone.

No media outlet nationally or internationally has investigated Zullo’s findings nor asked the former Obama administration for comment. Instead, most major U.S. media have ridiculed and attempted to discredit Arpaio and Zullo for undertaking the task at considerable personal and professional risk.

Because Judy viewed the new information Zullo released in December as directly pertinent to his Obama eligibility challenge, he reopened a previous lawsuit, Judy v. Obama, 14-9396, at its point of origin, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, in January of this year.  In the new filing, Judy included the “new evidence” Zullo conveyed as alleged criminal activity which could be presented directly to a federal judge under the Clayton Act and Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

On April 10, Judge Ted Stewart dismissed the case without requiring the defendants to supply a response, after which Judy appealed to the Tenth Circuit and newly-sworn U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Neither Gorsuch nor the Supreme Court clerk’s office has responded to the filing other than to return proof of delivery to the sender.

Last week, after a public appeal, Judy was able to raise the $505 which the Tenth Circuit required him to pay to the U.S. District Court in order for the Tenth Circuit to move forward.  He paid the fee on Friday afternoon and promptly received a receipt in his mail on Saturday from the District Court.

Out of dozens, and perhaps more than 100, eligibility challenges to Obama’s election and occupation of the White House over the last nine years, Judy’s is the only remaining case and the sole one to be filed after Obama left office.

While no eligibility challenge has yet been heard by the courts on its merits, certain individuals who have ridiculed for years the idea that the Obama long-form birth certificate image is not genuine are nevertheless watching Judy’s case very closely.

“It’s very, very significant when you think you have rights and are able to walk into a court and have your constitutional rights upheld,” Judy said. “You hear the Democratic Party and Republican Party say that the Constitution is so important whenever somebody else is in violation, but when they’re in violation, holy cow!”

He continued:

I made that argument from the beginning: just because the two parties are the majority parties doesn’t mean that they both can’t be in the tank as far as being destructive of the Constitution, especially when it’s spelled out pretty clearly to we who recognize that if you were a “citizen” at the time of adoption of the Constitution, it was OK; thereafter, you have to be a “natural born Citizen.”  It doesn’t mean “anchor babies.”  It doesn’t mean Kim Jong-Un can come over here and have a wife have a baby over here on American soil and get him into the presidency.

That’s why people who think that just being born here is sufficient are wrong. The House Judiciary Committee recognized in their hearings on the issue that it takes time for acclimation to our American principles when you come from a dictatorship or a tyranny-led country.  People’s psyche has to completely change, and that takes at least two generations.  That’s why I’ve fought for “born in the United States to U.S.-citizen parents.”

Other than me, there is no one over the last nine years who has kept up the prosecution.  Others, if they try to jump into court right now, will get a dismissal for failing to prosecute.  The legal status just dies.  There are a few people who recognize that and know that if my case fails, it’s over.  I am very grateful to those who donated to raise the filing fee.

My Motion for Reconsideration specifically named the criminal code and laid it out as plainly and simply as possible.  If the courts don’t think when crimes are committed that there are any victims, then they’re not upholding a standard of law.  You cannot forge a federal document or make a fake document; it should be obvious to everyone that you can’t usurp the office of the presidency that way.  If they don’t bring this out, they’re basically asking for total anarchy.

Trump is reportedly considering Ted Cruz for attorney general, who he said he had standing to sue for not being eligible for the presidency.  For all the Republicans, I think it’s important that they be reminded that Trump said he had standing to sue Ted Cruz.  That should tell us that presidential candidates have standing.  If Trump didn’t sue, it could be because he’s a nice guy, but we could look at the other side of the coin and say, “He realized what’s happening in the judicial branch and didn’t want to take the chance of losing.”  But Trump has nothing to worry about as to whether or not he’s a natural born Citizen.

In John Jay’s letter to George Washington, he referred to people inside the government with foreign influence.  If Ted Cruz gets in there as AG, do you think there are going to be any prosecutions of foreigners running for president?  That’s the risk of letting in someone who has violated the law; they’re going to take it over.

For people to say Obama’s circumstance of qualification is not at odds with every other President in U.S. history is just not dealing with reality. What’s important about that is each president represents a “Case-In-Law” with a precedent.

Just because we haven’t had a successful hearing of a presidential candidate against a presidential candidate doesn’t mean that I’m not right or correct in my facts.  For some to keep assuming that I haven’t stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, if I can’t challenge someone with the claim of the Constitution of not being a natural born Citizen, as I said, then nobody can.  That just opens the executive branch of our government open to foreigners.

Somebody who isn’t a natural born citizen is a foreigner.  A “citizen” is a foreigner if he’s in the office of the president.

When The Post & Email asked Judy what he expects the Tenth Circuit to do next, he responded:

What we’re looking to see from the Tenth Circuit is if the District Court ruled unlawfully that my case is frivolous.  What they said was, “If the money is paid, then we’ll undertake and look at the evidence to see if the District Court ruling was in error.”  So they haven’t ruled that my case is frivolous.  The law dictates that they have to rule that the case is frivolous if it’s IFP and the District Court has ruled that it’s frivolous. If the fee is paid, they will look at all of the facts and the evidence and undertake the decision as to whether the District Court ruled unlawfully that it was frivolous.

The appellate court has not said it’s frivolous; they said, “If you pay the fee, we’ll take a look and see if it’s frivolous.”  We’re asking, “Was one single judge wrong?” and it’s been proven over and over that often, a judge is wrong.  In my case, it’s pretty clear that he was.

At 9:30 a.m. EDT, The Post & Email sent a message to the White House through its contact form:

Good morning, this is a media inquiry regarding an active lawsuit challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility as well as alleging criminal activity given that his long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form were declared fraudulent by a criminal investigator working under former Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.

In December, the investigator, Mike Zullo, announced in a final press conference that two forensic analysts who are well-respected in their industries each conducted its own examination of the birth certificate image and agreed with Zullo’s findings that it cannot represent a genuine, paper document.

Is the White House following this case? Does the U.S. Justice Department have any intention of investigating Zullo’s conclusions?

Thank you very much.

Update, July 26, 2017, 5:18 p.m. EDT:  In a message to The Post & Email, Cody Robert Judy reported:

A little bit of info. Called the Tenth Circuit Court Clerk Team 2. The Clerk said it’s been set for Review. Said he just couldn’t say how long, but noticed a couple of cases ahead of it. I asked if the Tenth Circuit had sessions or went on Summer Break like the SCOTUS. He said , “No, they don’t”. After a Case is set for Review it’s usually 2 to 3 weeks.

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. As this applies to anti – Birthers we see Obama not being a [natural born Citizen] has de-moralized the US Constitution the single biggest objective for Civil Rights.

    SHOCKED! A Professor actually Recognises the Folly of Libs. [ The more the differences between us are emphasized, the less likely I will be to feel outrage at his mistreatment] [Now is the time for liberals to do an immediate about-face and return to articulating their core principles of solidarity and equal protection for all. Never has the country needed it more.] [Black Lives Matter is a textbook example of how not to build solidarity. By publicizing and protesting police mistreatment of African-Americans, the movement delivered a wake-up call to every American with a conscience. But its decision to use this mistreatment to build a general indictment of American society and demand a confession of white sins and public penitence only played into the hands of the Republican right.]

    #Democrats lost sites on Civil Rights Liberal CrackUp #TenthCircuit #Utpol #Dems #SCOTUS Trouble #Reporters #Press



  2. @TF Bow the ‘live FB video discussion’ covered many of the areas the Appeal/ and Original Complaint Covers , and was not meant to suggest it was submitted to the Court itself. Although it clarifies the extent SCOTUS was informed and provides many incites for educational and informative purposes.

    As a Follow-up on China/ NK allied- Tying Trumps Hands from the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes.

    China sides with NK if a preemptive strike comes from US.

    [“If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”]


  3. A Facebook video from 2016 about Judy’s beliefs is not new evidence, was not submitted to the courts, and does not explain how 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act applied to the 2012 election.

  4. 1Yr REVIEW of NEW EVIDENCE in Case under Review by Tenth Circuit.

    The following Review was made 1 Year ago. After the SCOTUS refused to consider the new evidence of Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse, I submitted it to the District Court, and now it’s under Review by the 10th Circuit.

    The video made on FB details the disrespect the Courts are giving to Foreign Parents and the Respect honoring “Born in the US to Citizen Parents” gives to [ natural born Citizen].

    #SCOTUS #SCOTUS #TENTHCIRCUIT #BIRTHER #JusticeAlito #Justice #LawReview #Courts @realDonaldTrump #impeach



  5. SANCTIONS AGAINST NORTH KOREA have already Failed to “Deter” miniaturization of nuclear warheads and ICBM Missiles. WHY WE SHOULD PULL BACK 3RD CARRIER GROUP?

    They have them ( nuke-miniturization & ICBM Capability) Deteriants are meant to employ a tactic, but when the tactic has failed to employ the results, the continuation only serves as a negative. This leaves the Question of “deterrent” open and unsatisfied for recent /or current UN Sanctions , accept to unifie animosity against the USA.

    The Question now is Why anger NK with a Sanction equivalent to 1/3rd of their Economy and in such their Sovereignty?

    The U.N. unified Sanctions seems more a Ploy to draw out the US, which is why Russia and China agreed and the U.N. agreed so readily to push America in that direction.

    If Trump pulled back the 3rd Carrier Group I think the Plot would be undercut. It would be the most unexpected and unpredictable move for our Military, especially if it was redeployed towards the South America’s West Coast suring up a defense from the more vulnerable State of Texas strategically in The Humboldt Current and coastal transition zone (CTZ).

    It would show as a matter of Diplomacy the NK People that any further provocations ultimately comes unwarranted and at the head of their own Tyrannical Regime and wedge the populous against it own regime if an “offense” were undertaken by Kim Jong Un.

    It also would curtail any ultimatums under consideration by Russia or China’s ruminations . If we simply backed away showing respect for what ultimately could not have happened without their unofficial enabling of and for NK; it would save President Donald Trump what could be a real embarrassment of unwarranted provocation.

    That “respect” in “wisdom” would also prove a foil to the moral highground the foreign Countries may seek against the USA.

    Since when has the U.N. really sought the USA’s INTEREST? Their underhandedness is well documented in the Obama Administration’s 8 yr. usurpation of the Office of President.

    The de-escalation would REWARD Trump where sanctions and a build up of now 3 Carrier Groups plays into the enemies hands and serves very little in real function as a deterient from something already accomplished.

    But.. who listens to me?


    (?) So many have forgotten Obama Deferred Big Companies [and] Small Company 50+ Mandates to OBAMA CARE from early 2010 until after 2016 Election BOOM! Lay it on Trump for Obama-Care-Crash?
    [The company will need to offer coverage to at least 450 hourly employees (and their dependents) to meet the 95% requirement to be treated as offering coverage. … As of January 1, 2016, the employer mandate is effective for all employers with 50 or more full- time and/or FTE employees.] Whose been paying harshly? Who DID NOT get Deferrals and Subsidized? The Working Class and Common-Man Tax-Payer.



  7. WOW! UNEXPECTED REALIZATION FROM NY TIMES. The Results in on Obama’s Paranoia of being unseated because of his Lack of Constitutional Qualification that led to Obama’s War On First Amendment ie. Free Press !
    HIGHLIGHTS [Obama’s attorney general repeatedly allowed the F.B.I. to use intrusive measures against reporters more often than any time in recent memory.] [ Obama handed him (TRUMP)a road map.”] [Mr. Obama’s record of going after both journalists and their sources has set a dangerous precedent ] [ Obama administration won a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in my case that determined that there was no such thing as a “reporter’s privilege”]


  8. @Robert Laity

    “A “Natural born citizen is one born in the United States to parents who are both US Citizens themselves”-Minor v Happersett, USSCt., (1874).”

    No one, not even the most staunch Obama supporter, is saying that people born in the United States to parents who are both US Citizens are not Natural Born Citizens.

    The question is, are US citizen parents required for a person born in the US to be a Natural Born Citizen. Minor v. Happersett does not address this issue.

  9. There is no indication that anyone from North Korea celebrated Ankeny, which actually says, “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” As Obama was born in Hawaii, the court had no problem affirming the dismissal of the lawsuit challenging his eligibility. No court has criticized Ankeny’s analysis, and several have adopted it.

    SR 511, which was non-binding, addressed McCain only, and not natural-born citizenship generally.

    None of which, of course, is relevant as to why Judy’s case will fail.

  10. @T. F. BOW

    ” some of those courts have even expressly rejected the argument that Minor compels two U.S. citizen parents at the time of birth.”

    The truth is, ALL courts expressly reject the argument that Minor compels two U.S. Citizen parents at the time of birth.

    The reason that ALL courts expressly reject the argument that Minor compels two citizen parents at the time of birth is because the Minor Court expressly states that it will not address the issue of whether citizen parents are required for Natural Born Citizenship.

    As far as whether citizen parents are required for Natural Born Citizenship, the Minor Court states –

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    SEE Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

  11. @Gary Wilmot

    Yes my friend, If Anwar Al-Awaki was born on US soil and the people elect, there is no US law in existence that would stop him from being President of the United States.

  12. People Celebrating Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana included
    Ri Sol-ju or Lee Seol-ju is the First Lady of North Korea and the wife of Korean leader Kim Jong-un


    (Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana.) In December 2008, Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse filed a “Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition” against the Governor of Indiana to block “any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors [sic]

    Of course they couldn’t say Obama was a natural born Citizen and didn’t. But they managed to destroy [natural born Citizen] as included in the 14th Amendment which it is not.

    One of the Founding Principles and Doctrines to prevent Judges from destructive construction
    upon the Constitution is when two or more Principles collide they [can not] give one doctrine favor while the other is murdered.

    The Cracker-Jack toy found in Ankeny was the “State Court’ found itself representing ( naturalization) in the 14th Amendment, and diabelically usurping [ natural born Citizen ] or the Office of President Art. II. Sect 1. C-5 , in their tinker-box into Federal Jurisdiction.

    The Legislative Branch was given power by the Constitution to Naturalize Citizens ( naturalization) [not adopt natural born Citizens].

    The remote thought of John McCain being resoluted in a naturalization action of and by the Senate a [natural born Citizen] was galactically stupid. I think more and more people realize today the McCain Institute and Clinton Foundation are the sticky [foreign] sugar and carmel in crackerjack.

    Resolutions on toys in cracker jack boxes might be what the Senate considers it’s prerogative ie. US SEN. Res. 511 Co-Sponsor H. Clinton and Obama- but that doesn’t mean it is not subject to the Dumb Toy and Joke Box.

    We may enjoy Cracker-Jack and the toy inside, but when the Constitution and our Branches of Government start acting like them , it’s ridiculous.

  13. The relevant portion of Minor actually says, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    Every court that has considered the meaning of natural-born citizenship has ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient; some of those courts have even expressly rejected the argument that Minor compels two U.S. citizen parents at the time of birth.

    And Justin Trudeau is a natural-born citizen … of Canada. As he was born in Canada (and neither of his parents were U.S. citizens), absolutely no one is making the argument that he is a U.S. citizen (or natural-born citizen of the United States).

    None of which, of course, is relevant as to why Judy’s case will fail in the 10th Circuit.

  14. A “Natural born citizen is one born in the United States to parents who are both US Citizens themselves”-Minor v Happersett, USSCt., (1874).

  15. It has reached such a point as to have Justin Trudeau investigating whether or not HE can run for POTUS. That’s unconscionable. The answer is NO!!!!!

  16. Since every court that has considered the matter ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship, then Al-Awlaki was eligible. Fortunately, his death later rendered him ineligible.

    None of which, of course, is relevant to why Judy’s suit was dismissed as frivolous.

  17. The U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of Judy’s IFP application was referenced only to show that he unsuccessfully attempted to further appeal his case. Whether Judy believes he correctly filled out that IFP application is not relevant to the current proceedings in the 10th Circuit. And Judy continues to not understand that that the 10th Circuit denied his latest IFP application based on its independent review of the district court’s rulings.

    Judy’s quibbles regarding Sherman Act’s and Clayton Act’s “stipulations” in no way explain how those acts apply to the 2012 election. Or excuse Judy’s failure to adequately explain to the courts how they could possibly be applied to an election.

    What Mike Zullo might have said at a press conference is hearsay, and no court can entertain such hearsay. Nor does such hearsay possibly explain why Judy failed to adequately explain the applicability 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act, which is the only issue that the courts are concerned with in this case. Because Zullo’s press conference in no way explained how these laws might apply to an election, it is irrelevant to the courts’ inquiry.

    The prejudice Zullo has brought upon himself and the agency he used to represent is based on his repeated falsehoods and his repeated refusal to share what he claims is relevant information. None of which, however, is relevant to Judy’s case.

    Judy is free to ignore any comment he pleases. (“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time. And it annoys the pig.”) But when the denial in his case is affirmed by the 10th Circuit, will Judy have the courage of character to acknowledge those who correctly predicted the outcome? Because if the 10th Circuit reverses the district court and remands for further proceedings, I will freely admit I was wrong.

  18. “There exists a debate over whether a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens of another country can be considered “natural born.”

    Actually, between 2008, and today, when the subject of whether citizen parents are required for a child to be natural born all US Courts who have addressed the issue have cited Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana which states.

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    So although it is true that a debate among the public about this still exists, the courts are well settled on this issue.

  19. @TF Bow ‘s comment is based without Facts on the Principles of Truth.

    1- TF Bow has presumed the SCOTUS IFP application was filled out incorrectly without proof.

    We have actually now publicly seen an IFP Application filled out correctly and on record at Scripd and reported by The Post & Email, and seen the Tenth Circuit [deny the Motion to proceed] based on a single judge at the District Court’s label of [friviolous], which was mirrored at SCOTUS 14-9396.

    Why has TF Bow done this?

    2-TF Bow has not reported it is Congresses Act known as the Sherman Act & Clayton Act that stipulates the beginning of Fines against Corporations that form Cartels is 100M and or more as the grossness of the violation is comprehended.

    Why has TF Bow done this?

    3- TF Bow said “Judy did not present to the court any of Zullo’s findings ” , but I presented evidence in Video Form/Link for the Court of a Lawful Sheriff’s Posse Presentation showing the Facts and Evidence.

    What is a Trial and Hearing for if it is not to establish the Expertise to the Courts satisfaction? A Grand Jury of Citizens could be authorized to witness this.

    WHY would TF Bow represent such a prejudice towards the evidence of a Lawful Law Enforcement Agency?

    With just these three inaccuracies in one comment we can see TF Bow is not a serious person to take advice or consideration from. His comment is thus wholly incredible and frivolous and certainly cannot be taken seriously.

    In the following video just one year ago today, we see at the DNC National Convention a blatantly bias damage occurring with the active Candidates The result was corruption found displayed publically of the DNC’s Chair and the nomi ation of a corrupt nominee at the price born of my Campaigns marginalization.

    This also happened in the 2008, and 2012 Elections at the behest of criminal acts perpetrated to marginalize my Campaign articulated very well in some 17 other Judicial Cases bearing similar facts and Evidence in several States of the Union.


    It seems as a victim of this corruption and resultn crimes articulated plainly, civility has left the building in Civil Rights.

  20. Judy’s case it not difficult to understand. Judy wants $100 million from Obama, the DNC, and OFA. The district originally dismissed Judy’s case because he failed to adequately explain how 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act applied to the 2012 election. Judy’s explanation was so lacking that the district court labeled his attempt as frivolous. The 10th Circuit reviewed Judy’s case and agreed with the district court’s ruling, including the frivolous part. (Judy went to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he was denied IFP status because he didn’t properly complete its IFP application, so his case was closed.)

    Judy then went back to the district court and filed a motion for relief from judgment, citing Hawaii’s 2008 certification and the fact that Zullo held a press conference (Judy did not present to the court any of Zullo’s findings because Zullo has not released those findings to anyone). The district court again ruled Judy failed to adequately explain how 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act applied to the 2012 election; it also denied Judy’s motion for reconsideration.

    The 10th Circuit, when reviewing Judy’s IFP application for his second appeal, concluded Judy’s appeal was frivolous, so it denied IFP on that basis.

    42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, and the Clayton Act have never been used to seek money after an election; it was Judy’s burden to explain why they could be so used; and the courts have repeatedly said Judy’s attempt to do so was so lacking as to be frivolous. Given this track record, it is not difficult to conclude how the 10th Circuit will rule on Judy’s latest appeal.

  21. If I were the 10th Circuit ruling on @Rick or Rich Damon’s comments ( he “seriously” forgets how or which name is correct) , the underlining factors he represents are:

    1- No Presidential Candidate has a civil right or judicial remedy to challenge another’s Constitutional Civil Right protected ability to run a Fair Race under Constitutional Standards.

    2- That responsibility to the Law is unaccountable and wholly incredible if it hasn’t happened before.

    3- That because I ,as the 10th Circuit, didn’t first place (District Court) in front of the word (Friviolous) [every single time] in the Order that is how I feel about it, as well the Facts in the Case.

    4- That when I do refer it as a District Court Ruling it is ignorable., and reflects wholly on my Ruling as the 10th Circuit.

    5- That bringing Facts to a Case of implication and circumstances and motive against Law to the Bar of Justice do not necessarily represent a violation or punishable violation.

    6- That Obama representing proof of his identification that is ascertained by lawful witness false/Forged/Fraudulent is not really a witness one can seriously bring to the Bar of Justice.

    7- That Hawaii’s State Political Certification of a Candidate can be ignored and usurped by a Single Representative of the Political Party ie. Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

    8- That Corporations forming to abett the illegal activity as a Cartel, if they are Elected Officials have no accountability to the Law, or Will of the People, because they are the Law over the People in a tyranny of pretended accountability to the Voter as a commodity.

    9- That if your name is Cody Robert Judy and he brings all of this to the Bar of Justice, it’s so wholly incredible because the Reputations of all others supersedes his, and reputation of others, especially Elected Officials, is above the Law.

    10- That if serious Review unmasked accountability the resulting implication far surpasses the ability of Justice to prevail, so it’s just better to hold tight to “injustice” and hope the people keep financing it.

    These are serious implications represented by Rich, or Rick Daman, and his constant reflections in comments. I find them as the 10th Circuit friviolous and wholly incredible.

    To have a mirror and have those reflected back at you is no laughing matter. Of course the Tenth Circuit could represent these diabolical standards if it chooses. The clarity of representation is brought to them to choose by Cody Robert Judy.

    We The People will watch and see what they choose to represent.

    When the Law becomes corrupt and criminal actions affecting many others is ignored by argument and belief in reputations and money, the integrity of law is lost and so the support of it will wonder.

    Truth will stand and will be supported by those who haven’t lost their souls to the support of the Lie.

  22. Why would anyone consider Phil Berg reputable? He lost all his cases, and then lost his law license.

    There is no evidence that the o42- Social Security Number was issued to someone born in 1890. The only indication is a stray data point in a commercial database that expressly acknowledges its own inaccuracies. And the 1890 birth associated with the 042- number is contradicted by other data in the very same database. Even Mike Zullo acknowledges the unreliability of these databases.

    No expert has examined the paper copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate. Zullo’s experts examined a digital image, which, by definition, is not the birth certificate. Zullo has never released his experts’ opinions, and there is no indication that he will ever do so.

    With respect to the Selective Service registration, the opinion of people with neither personal knowledge nor particular expertise does not compare to the Selective Service System’s express statements that Obama duly registered.

    It is unsurprising that no one has “witnessed” items “A through Q” for Obama because no president — including the current president — has ever released those items.

    None of which — yet again — addresses why Judy failed to adequately explain the applicability 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act.

  23. This discussion has gone off the track by reviving old arguments about Obama’s eligibility.

    The real issue at hand is whether Cody Robert Judy’s appeal has any chance of succeeding. I stand by my prior statements that he has no chance of winning his appeal. Both the District Court and the Tenth Circuit have ruled that his lawsuit is frivolous.

    What everyone seems to have lost sight of is that Judy’s lawsuit was ruled to be frivolous based upon legal issues, not factual issues. His Complaint argues that he is entitled to damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Clayton Act, but both the District Court and the Tenth Circuit ruled that those statutes do not entitle him to damages. The Tenth Circuit ruled in 2015 “We see no scenario where he [Judy] would be entitled to relief under § 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act.”

    In that regard nothing has changed. Two weeks ago the Tenth Circuit ruled “We have reviewed Mr. Judy’s ifp motion, his appellate briefs, and the district court record. Mr. Judy has made no serious attempt at showing how the district court erred.”

    Furthermore, even allowing for the extremely remote possibility that Judy wins his appeal, the best he can hope for is to have his case sent back to the District Court. The defendants haven’t even made an appearance in the case because the District Court ruled that Judy never filed proper proof of service. In addition, because the alleged actions occurred in 2012, he is barred from filing a new lawsuit because the Federal statute of limitations is four years (28 U.S. Code § 1658).

    These are facts, folks. You can argue all you want about birth certificates and Social Security Numbers and Selective Service registrations, but none of that is going to get Judy’s lawsuit reinstated.

  24. @ Gary Wilmott

    1. I wrote “Obama’s SSN was never issued to a man born in 1890.” I did NOT write “Obama’s SSN was never issued to a man in 1890.” It should be obvious to everyone that nobody was issued a SSN in 1890 because Social Security didn’t exist then. Don’t blame me for your reading comprehension deficits.

    Why would someone, anyone, wait until the age of 86 to apply for a Social Security Number?

    2. Arpaio’s “experts” never examined the birth certificate that is in the Hawaii Department of Health vault. Again, carefully read what I write.

    3. You know for a fact that there isn’t a single other Selective Service registration with a two-digit year stamp? You have examined all of them? How many Selective Service registrations have you actually seen, and how many of those were processed at the Post Office where Obama registered?

  25. Gary,Ms Daniels admits the databases she uses have error in them (the 1990 DOB for example). She also said that Harrison Bounel is an example of an error in the database. And for all of her searching she has yet to put a name to the 1890 DOB. so how do we know the 1890 date is not just another error – like the 1990 date?

    As to the birth certificate Mr. Damon is merely state the same thing Reed Hayes wrote on his website,

    “In short, there are indications that the Obama Certificate of Live Birth released by the White House in April 2011 may be a manufactured document or perhaps even an outright forgery. But without examining the original document housed at the Hawaii Department of Health, there can be no absolute certainty.”

    At this date all we have is a claim that two document experts said something about something. That is not proof of anything. I would remind you that at the first two press conferences a number of claims of proof of forgery were made and many of those claims were later shown to be false. How do we know the same thing won’t happen again?

    How do you know Obama’s is the “only one in existence” with the missing 2-digit year stamp? How many have been examined? If I recall correctly Sheriff Arpaio said they review 17 cards. Two cards (besides Obama’s) from the Makiki Station Post Office are available for review. Here is their information.

    Barack Obama – JUL 29 1980 DLN – 0897 080 632, SS 61-1125539-1 DOB 8/4/61
    Darrel Oniwa – JUL 31 1980 DLN – 0897 080 653, SS 61-1125556-5 DOB 12/3/61
    Bruce Henderson – AUG 2 1980 DLN – 0897 080 613, SS 61-1125522-7 DOB 08/25/61

    The DLN stamped on Obama’s card had to have been issued in 1980. Same with his Selective Service number.

    You would need to find cards, stamped with the exact same stamp (how many did Makiki Station have?) and on the same day to make any claims about other stamps.

  26. End the circular arguments with FACTS inside Comment 65 herein:



    First up, have you three ever witnessed the 17 original ID documents in Item 207 A thru Q
    herein: http://www.carlgallups.com/zullo-affidavit.pdf

    Am I correct that you three and 323,000,000 American citizens have never witnessed those 17 original ID documents? (And when will we witness them, President Trump?)

    REMEMBER 08-28-08- TODAY, a shameful period of syndicated CONSTITUTION PROSTITUTION wherein America remains a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IN NAME ONLY (CRINO)!

  27. Philo…I am well aware of Rick Damon’s response. However IMO he IMPLIED that I believed the SSN was issued in 1890 by stating that it was actually issued in 1976 or 1977. That was my point. I simply stated that it was issued to a man born in 1890. However I will defer to the investigation of Susan Daniels who has all the details about Obama’s incontrovertible Social Security FRAUD.

    As for Rick Damon’s contention that the “Obama birth certificate” would need to be examined by document experts to determine whether it was fraudulent…that has been done. In fact in December of 2016 the Sheriff Arpaio investigation provided PROOF as to what source document was used to create the laughable forgery.

    Ditto as to the selective service registration.Phony as can be. Amazingly the Obama selective service card is the only one with an inverted two digit postal stamp in existence! LOL How odd that those registrations preceding Obama’s registration and immediately after do not have such an anomaly.

    I am done addressing obots whose anti-American agenda is based on lies.

  28. James and others, if yous have doubts about the evidence check out life long Dem.
    Philip Berg from PA and his book Obama Scare. This issue of Obama is not a party
    issue but an American and Constitutional crisis. I know lots of Dems fighting for this
    issue. Since 1976 I had been a Dem too, but changed a few years ago.

    I am not for sale, but the truth and evidence from many sources and experts (national and international sources) reveals Obama and his team were frauds. Many criminals have gone to jail for a long term based on much less evidence and a short court hearing.

    Should this dam ever burst, don’t be down stream.

  29. Deleting superfluous verbiage in 2008 does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Hawaii Democratic Party thought Obama was ineligible, especially in light of it never mentioning this concern in all these years, and its enthusiastic support for Obama in 2012. Removing unnecessary language could have done for myriad mundane reasons, like bureaucratic ease or an abundance of caution.

    If there are any doubts as to Brian Schatz’s beliefs regarding Obama’s eligibility, he made be contacted through the U.S. Senate’s web site.

    None of which, again, addresses why Judy failed to adequately explain the applicability 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act.

  30. Mr. Carter, here is the section of Hawaiian law you mentioned,

    (1) In the case of candidates of political parties that have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

    (A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
    (B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution; and
    (C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection; and

    The law does not say that the state party must certify the candidates are “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution”. It says that the appropriate official of the party must sign the certificate. Pelosi would certainly be an appropriate official.

    Note that only section (C) mentions both the state and national parties making statements.

    In 2000 the DNC certified that Al Gore met the Constitution’s eligibility clause but in 2004 the DNC did not certify that John Kerry met the Constitution’s eligibility clause.

    And in all three elections the Hawaiian election officials ruled that the Democratic Party met Hawaiian law.

  31. T.F. Bow: “And at no point did any Hawaiian Democrat say Obama was ineligible.”

    That may well be. However, in 2008 two Hawaiian Democrats, the Chairman and the Secretary of the Democratic Party of Hawaii (“DPH”), signed the DPH’s “Official Certification Of Nomination” (OCON”) which did not contain the verbiage “under the provisions of the United States Constitution” in its certification statement as required under Hawaii election law. Since the DPH’s OCONs for Kerry (in 2004) and Gore (in 2000) did contain said verbiage, and that’s the only verbiage difference between the three, it’s reasonable to deduce that that qualifying verbiage was intentionally deleted from the 2008 OCON — the two Democrat signers of that OCON effectively saying Obama was not eligible “under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

  32. Recycling unsuccessful arguments do not make them any more convincing. They have been repeatedly debunked elsewhere, but, briefly:

    * Notwithstanding the opinion those with no personal knowledge or particular expertise, the Selective Service System has expressly said that Obama was duly registered.

    * Multiple iterations of digital images do not necessarily indicate forgery, as differences in digital iterations can also be attributed to replication and transferring processes, or there being multiple paper copies of the birth certificate. In any event, the State of Hawaii has repeatedly and expressly said Obama was born there.

    * Mike Zullo claims he has reports from two experts, but he has never released those reports. There is no indication that Zullo will ever publicly release the fruits of his efforts.

    * “African American” does not appear on Obama’s birth certificate; Obama’s father’s race is listed as “African.” Regardless, there are numerous examples of other Hawaiian birth certificates with non-standard races, as the parents’ races were self-reported; Miki Booth can (and has) explained this.

    * Tim Adams relied on hearsay from some unnamed source (also in the Elections Department); neither Adams nor his unnamed source worked in the Health Department, the actual agency that maintains birth certificates.

    * Being “associated” with multiple Social Security Numbers is not the same as using multiple numbers. No investigator determined that the 042- number was not Obama’s, as no investigator has determined that the 042- number was assigned to someone else; they all rely on commercial databases that expressly state their databases contain inaccuracies.

    * That e-Verify did not verify the 042- number in 2011 is unsurprising since that number was likely subject to heightened security, and was breached in 2009. There is no evidence that it has been used since 2009.

    And, again, none of which addresses why Judy failed to adequately explain the applicability 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act.

  33. @ Gary Wilmott

    You said that he was born in 1890. My point is that the SSN was issued in 1976 or 1977, when your mythical person would have been 86 or 87 years old.

    Who waits until the age of 86 to apply for a Social Security Number?

    Where is your evidence that this person ever existed? Have you requested his SS-5? Can you find him in any census between 1890 and 1940? Do you have his name and date of birth?

  34. Judy’s belief that Pelosi somehow disenfranchised Hawaiian Democrats makes no sense because in 2008 and 2012 a majority of voters in the primaries, and a majority of delegates of the conventions, voted for Obama to be the nominee. And at no point did any Hawaiian Democrat say Obama was ineligible.

    None of which is relevant as to why Judy failed to adequately explain the applicability 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act.

  35. In answer to the question about the document photographed by Savannah Guthrie.

    Both the LFBC PDF and the Guthrie document have round seals in the exact same location. The seal on the LFBC PDF is barely visible normally but as Pixel Patriot pointed out is more evident when a color filter is applied to the PDF.

    It seems unlikely that two different documents would have round seals in the exact same location. That makes it more likely that the document photographed by Guthrie was the same one used to create the PDF.

  36. @Cody Judy

    Now you are going off the rails with non-sequiturs. Your last two posts directed at me have nothing to do with what I have said.

    The District Court and the Tenth Circuit ruled that you have no legal basis for a claim of damages under the statues you cited in your Complaint. Whining about Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton doesn’t change that.

    And the last thing that I need is theological advice from you. Who are you to presume who needs to be saved?

  37. Rick Damon’s answers to my three questions above PROVE that he is not to be taken seriously. He is simply being a contrarian (same as TF Bow). BTW Rick, I did not say that a person received his SSN in 1890. Go back and read my question.

  38. @RickDamon I don’t often quote Rep Nancy Pelosi, but after dis enfranchising Hawaii’s DNC non-endorsement of Obama as a qualified under the Constitution, the rigged Democratic Party Primary, resulting in the usurpation of the Office of President, this may be a good Time for her to eat her own words?

    [but I think one of the most important things we can do electorally is to have more fairness in our system,” said Pelosi.]


  39. @Rick Damon OH? And Hillary Clinton was suppose to win the Election to right…by a landslide?

    You’re point is while Obama was in Office. That’s your point. Who are you trying to save now? The Filing Fee is paid.

    Maybe you should go back to Law School and study “Natural Law” and take some Theology Classes to. It might save you.

  40. @Cody Judy

    Your response to me is a non-sequitur. The point is that both the District Court and the Tenth Circuit have ruled that your lawsuit is frivolous.

    As for pointing to cases, the Tenth Circuit was referring to legal cases and your inability to state a legal claim for relief. As usual, instead of addressing the LEGAL ISSUES you try to re-litigate your argument about the definition of natural born citizen. What you don’t seem to understand is that the District Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court don’t care what you believe about the definition of natural born citizen. The rules of jurisprudence require that you first establish that you have a viable claim. Then and only then can your assertions of fact be considered.

  41. @Gary Wilmott

    1. It is impossible to establish that the birth certificate in Hawaii’s vault is a forgery without a documents expert examining it. Unless, of course, someone can produce evidence that Obama was born somewhere else.

    2. There is no evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration – which was released by the Bush Administration – is a forgery.

    3. Obama’s SSN was never issued to a man born in 1890. In fact, you can enter the SSN at the following link and you will see that it was issued in 1976 or 1977, when Obama was 15 or 16. http://www.ssnvalidator.com

    And please don’t bring up Harrison Bounel, a non-existent person. That name came from a stray error in a database which is rife with errors. No U.S. census up to and including the 1940 census contains the name “Harrison Bounel” or “Harry Bounel.” Orly Taitz thought that “Harry Bounel” was found in the 1940 census, but further investigation revealed that “Harry Bounel” actually was Harry Boymel, who was born in 1886 (not 1890), and whose Social Security Number was 080-18-6078. I have a copy of his application for a Social Security Number.

  42. To TF Bow,

    There is concrete evidence starting in 2008 that Obama fabricated his entire narrative and the fraudulent documents to go with them. Steven Coffman from Texas inquired about the Obama draft card in Feb. 2008. The SSS had no record of that document but a very bad forgery showed up later and verified as a forgery by a retired Coast Guard officer that very quickly said it was a forgery before the Arpaio cold case posse got involved.

    There were about 3 iterations of the fake Obama cert. of live birth floating around in 08 and one was actually manufactured by some liberal of at the Daily Kos whatever that is.

    Obama’s displayed cert on the White House website is fraudulent and will stand in a criminal case backed up by two forensic document experts that came to the same conclusion and I might add, the same conclusion hundreds of thousands of regular folks that can read the document manual of the 1961 era that states “race of a black person in official documents shall be black or negro”. That is what was used. The term African American was a term meant to diss this country and was proffered by Al Sharpton types. African American is NOT a race of people so we know the document was forged on its face. No need really for anything else but in this country stupid reins supreme and cowardice is is a food eaten by ravenous republicans to keep from doing the right thing which is to prosecute Obama for voter fraud as a start.

    The Hawaii secretary of Elections Tim Adams said in an affidavit there wasn’t a birth certificate in Hawaii. https://youtu.be/5nKVpD5v4Hk

    Obama has been associated with over 20 fraudulent social security numbers. The Connecticut 042 number was tracked down by Susan Daniels as not being his. Linda Jordan ran it through the Federal E’Verify system and Obama failed as it was determined belonged to a deceased person. Obama used that social on a tax return that was open for public display but they forgot to flatten the document and the social was visible.

    Everything you have said was not verified, was suspected and discovered in 2008 then verified in the cold case posse investigation that also includes more that will not be released until prosecution.

  43. TF…no evidence??? Really? If there wasn’t compelling evidence of identity fraud we constitutionalists would have packed our bags long ago. Ignorance is bliss or is it actually something else?

  44. The round postal stamp used to stamp Obama’s card has the designation USPO which stands for United States Post Office. In 1975 the USPO was renamed the United States Postal Service (USPS). New stamps have that designation on them. However, postal employees continued to use the old USPO stamps for some time. Eventually they were all replaced.

    So the theory has to be that the forgers were able to find a rare Makiki Station USPO stamp but not a common 19xx stamp. They were also able to obtain a1980 registration card.

    BTW, the Makiki Station post office is not far from Obama’s grandparents’ house making it equally improbable that the forgers were able to locate such a stamp.

    And we haven’t even addressed the issues of Obama’s DLN or Selective Service number.

  45. With regards Chester Arthur.

    Some claim he burned all his papers to hide the fact his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.

    It is true he unfortunately burned a number of document before his death, but the one document that proved his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, he did not burn.

    His father’s naturalization certificate is available for viewing at the National Archives.

    So if he truly wanted to hide his father’s status at the time of his birth, why didn’t he burn the one document that proved it?

    BTW, it was Leo Donofrio who first posted the image of Arthur’s father’s naturalization papers to the internet

  46. 1. There is no evidence that Obama’s birth certificate (long or short form, in any medium) is unauthentic. Mike Zullo claims he has reports (concerning a digital image of the long form) that conclude otherwise, but he has never shared the contents of those reports. The State of Hawaii verified to two Secretaries of State the accuracy of information on the long form, and those Secretaries accepted those verifications.

    2. There is no evidence that Obama’s selective service card is a forgery, and there is no evidence that an inverted stamp was used on it. The Selective Service System has said that Obama duly registered.

    3. There is no evidence that, since 2009 Obama has used a Social Security Number starting with 042. There is also no evidence that the 042- number previously used by Obama was ever assigned to anyone else, including an unspecified “man born in 1890.”

    Moreover, none of these questions are relevant as to why Judy failed to adequately explain the applicability 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act.

  47. Philo…the forgers used a 2008 postal date stamp…cut off the first two digits, inverted it and placed the inverted rubber insert back into the date stamp.

  48. 3 questions for the gaggle:

    1) was the paper document photographed by Savanah Guthrie – the same paper document used to create the paper Xerox copy handout (AP copy) and the LFBC PDF?

    2) how did the forgers of the SS registration obtain a 1980 registration card and obsolete, round Makiki Station postal stamp?

    3) what is the name of the person born in 1890 and why does the same database used by Susan Daniels have both a 1890 dob and a 1990 dob for the same address for Obama?

  49. The 12th Amendment states, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

    It was ratified in 1804; Chester Arthur became the president in 1881. Although Arthur did burn some personal papers near the end of his life, it was known during Arthur’s presidency that Arthur’s parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of Arthur’s birth.

  50. Cody, Thanks for all your efforts. You have been “out standing”. You are doing what others
    can’t. Keep up the excellent work. You represent many other Americans. You, ( and / or )
    any person can’t be successful without effort. You have paid the price. Thanks for bring the
    point man. I assure you, many of us got your back.

    Gary, you are right. No. # 1 is a fabricated pdf. Not from a “hard paper certificate”. No. #2
    that Sel. Ser. Reg. Form is “fabricated” backdated, and wrong form (too recent). No.# 3
    use of prior issued SSN , these not reissued or recycled. Obama is a fabrication: 1, 2, 3…

  51. @RickDamon

    Not exactly True, u can point to 44 Cases. Each Presidential Candidate represents a Case for the Executive Branch and is very specific to the Office of President.

    Each President represents a very essential and constitutionally essential Case-of-Law for their Time Period in the Office.

    All 43, accept for Obama, were qualified under the Standard I’ve represented. Art. II. Sect I. C-5 [ Citizen at the Time of this Constitution]

    OR- [natural Born Citizen ie. Born in rhe US to Citizen Parents. ]

    1 Case aquired the Office after an assassination as VP, however, I believe that case was before the 20tg Amendment was passed requiring both VP & Pres to be equally eligible for office. He also “Burned” his ID up.

    Obama is an easy case representing a usurpation.

  52. 3 questions for Rick Damon:

    1. Is the birth certificate (actually a digital file) proffered by Obama as proof of his purported Hawaiian birth a forgery?
    2. Is Obama’s selective service registration card with inverted two-digit postal stamp a forgery?
    3. Is Obama using a 042 prefix Connecticut SSN issued to a man born in 1890?

  53. Mr. Judy apparently has forgotten it isn’t just the District Court which ruled that his lawsuit is frivolous. The Tenth Circuit made the same determination in 2015:

    “Judy cannot point to a single case that construes any of these statutes in a way supporting his claims for relief. Next, because we see no scenario where he would be entitled to relief under § 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act, we also agree with the district court that his complaint was frivolous.”