“AMERICAN NATIONALISM GIVES EQUAL RIGHTS”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Aug. 22, 2017) — During the solar eclipse on Monday, an appellant motion for review “en banc,” or by a full panel of judges, was delivered to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, CO by priority mail from Obama eligibility/forgery case plaintiff Cody Robert Judy.
Last week, a three-judge panel of the appellate court had upheld a lower court’s opinion that Judy’s case is “frivolous.”
In its August 15 order, the three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals argued that the “new evidence’ Judy presented, which stemmed from a December 15, 2016 press conference expounding on the reported forgery of Barack Hussein Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate, had been filed with the District Court outside of the one-year statute of limitations as “new evidence” to his previous case, Judy v. Obama 14-9396.
Since 2008, Judy has alleged that Obama is unqualified to serve as president because he is not a “natural born Citizen,” as Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires. That same year, Judy filed a mirror eligibility challenge against Republican Sen. John McCain.
Obama claims a birth in Hawaii to a U.S.-citizen mother and British-citizen father. McCain was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents, one of whom was serving as an officer in the U.S. Navy at the time.
In 2008, then-Democrat National Committee (DNC) chairman Nancy Pelosi, one of Judy’s current defendants, alleged in a Certificate of Nomination form submitted to the state of Hawaii that Obama was constitutionally-eligible to serve as president, although the Hawaii Democrat Party did not itself certify Obama as “legally-qualified,” as required by law.
Beginning in 2007, a number of credible news reports emerged stating that Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya, depending on the source. Some writers later changed their articles to say that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, without explanation as to how an error in his birthplace had been made.
A fervent Obama supporter, MSNBC host Chris Matthews had said on his December 18, 2007 show that Obama was “born in Indonesia.” Years later, however, he became combative with anyone who he perceived to be questioning Obama’s claimed birth in Honolulu. Matthews never explained the discrepancy in his two very different statements.
Obama’s life story appears in several places inconsistent to this day, including the hospital where he was born and where his father attended university. Such sources as The Washington Post, UPI and the Associated Press have reported details about Obama’s background as differing from those the former White House occupant himself has claimed.
The Post and the AP provided no response to this writer as to the discrepancies they reported.
After six months of investigation, on March 1, 2012, former detective Mike Zullo declared the image uploaded to the White House website said to represent Obama’s original birth record a “computer-generated forgery.” Also found fraudulent was Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form.
Neither the Congress, FBI, nor a federal grand jury has investigated the claims, and the Selective Service System suggested that Obama’s records had been uncharacteristically destroyed.
Zullo’s investigation continued over five years through the end of last year, culminating in the December 15 presser from which Judy gleaned the new information submitted to the District Court on January 27, 2017 associated with the birth certificate and, Judy said, Obama’s eligibility.
During the hour-long presser, Zullo revealed that two well-respected forensic analysts had reached very similar conclusions to his own based on “nine points of forgery” found to have been lifted and duplicated onto the Obama “birth certificate” image.
Judy disagreed with the appellate court’s recent finding of his lack of timeliness in submitting the new evidence because of a pending motion he had filed with the U.S. Supreme Court which Judy signed and dated on February 4, 2016.
In early May, after the April dismissal by the District Court, Judy appealed not only to the Tenth Circuit, but also for a second time to the U.S. Supreme Court through Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. Judy said he directed it to Gorsuch because the Justice responsible for the Tenth Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, acted on the original case in October 2015 and would therefore not be neutral. The case would therefore fall to the next newest member of the court, Judy said, according to Supreme Court rules.
Judy is requesting the en banc hearing because he believes the court has failed to uphold the constitutional rights of all Americans. He has previously said that the judges have “acted as counsel” for the defendants in his cases rather than as unbiased arbiters of the Constitution.
Referring to the Priority Mail envelope in which he placed the Motion for Review, Judy told The Post & Email on Tuesday, “This was delivered to the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court at 10:45AM the exact time the picture was taken of the eclipse in Ogden, Utah. The document, a Motion for Review En Banc, will rely on getting at least seven of the nine remaining judges, excluding those who already ruled, to reach a majority of 12.
Judy said of his reasoning for pursuing the case:
“We understand that American Nationalism gives equal rights regardless of race, color, sex, or religion. It does not give superiority to Black or White Nationalism. They both exist.
“With the TENS-OF-Thousands of references to Obama as the first black President, the mainstream media seems to have forgotten Obama, like McCain, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and Justices defending them as Counsel, are using superiority over the U.S. Constitution’s qualification for the Office of President, and Americans are hurt and now getting angry. A race war over not being represented and excluded by factors prohibited by the Constitution will ultimately hurt most the minorities.
“I feel as if I’ve been using my voice as a presidential candidate to avoid race wars and nasty racism rooted in “Superiority in Color.” I support our U.S. Constitution in defending minorities and individual rights so enumerated therein. The panel of three justices in the Tenth Circuit have in their decision done more against race relations than for, acting with superiority for Black Nationalism than for American Nationalism under the Supreme Law of the Land in our U.S. Constitution.
“My suit against McCain gives equality to Obama under the standard of the U.S. Constitution. And a federal judge in Judy v. McCain said as much. The burden is not to the loser of the election but to the winner who occupies the office.”
As of the time of this writing, Judy has not published the motion, which is presented here as an exclusive:
Judy then provided an electronic proof of delivery with an “eclipse” theme.