http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/06/breaking-news-us-supreme-court-calls.html
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/06/breaking-news-us-supreme-court-calls.html
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
Cody's Taken A Stand for the Constitution and needs your help for his Georgia Supreme Court Case. He's asking that you send him the 'hope and change' Obama gave you represented by the "Change" in your pocket America. Cody says, 'Help Me Help You" in this funny but true plea for 'change'.
http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/06/cody-robert-judy-fundraiser-your-change.html
Also, take a look at Cody Robert Judy's 3 Point Platform in 3 minutes!
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
YouTube: CODE4PRES
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
Three Bullet Points:
1) Cody Rrt Judy v. Barack Hussein Obama has been docketed in the Georgia Supreme Court Case No. S12D1584
2) Within the Application for Review is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse which concluded there is probable cause that Obama’s long form birth certificate released by Obama is a forged document as well as Obama’s selective service draft registration.
3) With the three questions asked in the Supreme Court Application the Justices will have a candidate with standing, asking about the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court on ‘natural born citizen’ and the ground work that a denial basically sets starts precedent for a release of anyone who has committed fraud or forgery.
The questions asked a Supreme Court are not to be taken lightly. They involve deep rooted issues that often affect each and every person and touch families in the living room.
Our United States Constitution is a document that is considered whole. In other words, deconstruction of any one part of it is a violation of precedent and the rules of construction. In laymen’s terms you can’t start withdrawing bricks from any wall and expect not to have sirens go off.
De-construction of the Constitution is exactly what Obama subscribes to though and has done so since swearing by oath that he was a “natural born citizen” qualified for the office of the President.
While Court clerks and Secretaries of States’ are the gate keepers, they don’t profess to be able to stand up to someone out right lying to them under oath. That is essentially how Obama has managed his way into the White House since his late summer win over Hillary Clinton in 2008 and subsequent win over Republican Sen. John McCain.
Drawn into the summer, gave Obama a big strategic advantage. Why sue a candidate if he’s not going to be the nominee? Who knows if a challenge should be mounted? I’m sure you get the point. By the time Obama was declared the Democratic Nominee his snowball chance was rolling with loads of cash to protect him from Ballot Challenges in every state, and any Presidential Candidate chances of getting to a Supreme Court that had not already received Obama favors, ie Sen. John McCain’s Sen. Res. 511 declaring the Panama son an American ‘natural born citizen’, co-chaired by Obama, was left to write-in candidates or third party candidates.
In 2011 the 9th Circuit Court of appeals ruled that Presidential candidates have standing, but those challenging in 2008 didn’t seem to be running in 2012, so couldn’t claim continued damages. Retrospective damage was dismissed by the Court in the ruling of Barnett v. Obama.
2012 dawns a new light. While the Birther movement has continually been scalded by the media and stung as fringe, the true sting is an assault upon the qualification of the President to hold office demanded by the Constitution which is as was said not a document that invites further construction without a 2/3rd majority of Congress.
The 8-12 challenges to the clause even from the onslaught of Obama’s political career in Illinois outlining the qualifications of the Office of the President in the legislature have all been soundly defeated.
Why main stream media doesn’t champion those defeats in the legislature and accredit the Birther movement to the sound principle championed by the Legislative Branch to Main Street is pretty good writing on the wall that spots a corporate agenda.
Today, June 7th,2012 Cody Robert Judy ( a presidential candidate in the Democratic Party) v. Barack Hussein Obama has been docketed in the Georgia Supreme Court in a application for review. What makes this case so unique is it is brought by a Candidate for President that started at the lowest level – A Ballot Challenge, for the court that means it has roots, and now that is in the highest court of the State of Georgia that ultimately is charged to protect the United States Constitution, things could be different.
You can’t find an Obama eligibility challenge anywhere in 2012 that has a Candidate for President in the same party, coming to the highest Court of the State, with time for their decision to make a difference before the Democrat National Convention in September. Supreme Courts have a reputation of making sure if they do rule on a case that their decision is not moot.
If the prospective of the Occupant of the White House being a total fraud offering forged documents as accrediting his qualification isn’t enough to unhinge your gate and you think Cody’s just spouting his mouth, wait just a minute there’s more. You probably have heard of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse that consisted of 2200 hours of law enforcement investigation on Obama’s long form birth certificate?
Cody Robert Judy was the first qualified Candidate for the Office of the President to grab hold of that law enforcement investigation with the integrity of upholding the law and on March 2nd,2012 placed that whole investigation into the Superior Court of Georgia’s consideration which now the Supreme Court has as a staggering dismissal on their plate.
A good read of the questions presented to the Supreme Court shows the corner Obama has placed upon Justice in the United States. If the Court hears the case and agrees with precedent, Obama could be placed as a ‘disability’ to the Constitution and Congress could be placed on Notice to act on his removal as a ‘disability’.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t act, legal construction exist to free anyone in the Georgia penal system or for that matter the United States, to be set free sentenced by the law on crimes of fraud or forgery, because what’s good for Obama ought to be good for any prisoner convicted or sentenced by the law, if allowed, Obama skirts. That quandary exists in Cody Robert Judy’s 3rd question to the Justices in Georgia.
Obama’s probability to have it both ways is the sort of non-transparency that has existed from Obama’s first executive order sealing all his documents. Only problem with those executive orders is they are no good unless they are signed by an eligible President under the Constitution.
Stay tuned for more action and please help Cody and his courageous campaign by logging on to www.codyjudy.us and making a contribution.
Links to Application Reviews Questions:
1) http://www.scribd.com/doc/95503922/Judy-v-Obama-Discretionary-Application-for-Review-Georgia-Supreme
2-http://www.scribd.com/doc/95205094/Notice-of-Appeal
The Cody Robert Judy for President U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
YouTube:CODE4PRES
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
Commemorating Memorial Day in honoring our Military personnel, those who have died, been injured, and those who are fighting for the United States Constitution I am excited to release this new song and video, 'The Lion's Share". In creating this song, and feeling myself to be kind of an instrument from which this music and creation came, I was moved to depict two things:
An honor for military's service and and honor for America's good deeds. So many times the chain reaction of good deeds is unnoticed and I wanted to depict that chain reaction which is amplified clear up to the Constitution of the United States and the honor we as Americans have living under it as The Supreme Law of the Land.
This song is not fiction but a story that is true much of it happening in one day. The song is a celebration of gratitude. Happy Memorial Day - Enjoy! The LION'S SHARE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Go5aQm8kBE
Cody Robert Judy
YouTube: CODE4PRES
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
Commemorating Memorial Day in honoring our Military personnel, those who have died, been injured, and those who are fighting for the United States Constitution I am excited to release this new song and video, 'The Lion's Share". In creating this song, and feeling myself to be kind of an instrument from which this music and creation came, I was moved to depict two things:
An honor for military's service and and honor for America's good deeds. So many times the chain reaction of good deeds is unnoticed and I wanted to depict that chain reaction which is amplified clear up to the Constitution of the United States and the honor we as Americans have living under it as The Supreme Law of the Land.
This song is not fiction but a story that is true much of it happening in one day. The song is a celebration of gratitude. Happy Memorial Day - Enjoy! The LION'S SHARE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Go5aQm8kBE
Cody Robert Judy
YouTube: CODE4PRES
May 20th 2012 Ltr. to U.S. Supreme Court Clerk Judy v. Obama
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94233641/Judy-v-Obama-U-S-Supreme-Crt-Clerk-Ltr-May-20-2012
CODY ROBERT JUDY 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2, Ogden UT. 84401 801-497-6655 www.codyjudy.us
- - - -
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. WILLIAM D. SUTER -Office of the Clerk 1 First Street N.E. Washington DC 20543-0001
RE: Your May 17th, 2012 letter in re: Judy v. Obama
Dear Mr. Suter: May 20,2012
Thank you for your letter and attention May 17th, 2012 in which you stated : “ Dear Mr. Judy: The enclosed papers were received again on May 17th, 2012 , and are herewith returned for the reasons stated in my letter dated April 10th,2012. Until and unless you receive a decision from a United States Court of Appeals or highest state court within which a decision could be had this Court does not have jurisdiction of your case. Sincerely, William K. Suter, Clerk by: Gail Johnson (202) 479-3038.
Sir, I understand what you’re alluding to, however your statement is just not true and please, follow me as I explain because I do feel, while it is unusual, that the Court has Original Jurisdiction in my case. Now keep reading.. don’t stop there. Please Sir, Let me explain this as I understand it.
While it is true that the Court may only review "final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had" if those judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law, the Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party, as well as when a Act of Congress is called into question: See #1 in Jurisdiction Statement. i.e. the Court is hearing the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)- Action by Congress considered in Joint Session is an Action of Congress the Court has jurisdiction to hear in a Direct or Original Appeal as underlined in my Writ.
I do understand that in most all cases, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction and that it considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; while almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal and in practice the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states, or when an Act of Congress is called into question- my case involves both- two states with two Secretaries of States official capacity in a Federal Election question in which I as a party INDEED CAN RECEIVE RELIEF FROM INJURY with a favorable decision in future primaries of western States, and also in the Democratic Party National Convention where I am free to court delegates who are un- bound in the Primaries of New Hampshire and Georgia by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that Barack Obama is not eligible under the U.S. Constitution Art. II, Sect.1, clause 5 referring to us only a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is eligible for the Office of the President. Arizona’s Secretary State is now in contention of not placing Obama’s name on the Ballot because he’s not eligible. How is this not an Original Jurisdiction moment in our history Sir?
The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are several devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases, in my jurisdiction statement I include the act of Congress that also invites original jurisdiction as Joint Session of Congress Action failed to ask for dissention or hear those hands raised in the electorate count of Jan. 8th, 2008.
Since Article Three of the United States Constitution stipulates that federal courts may only entertain "cases" or "controversies", the Supreme Court avoids deciding cases that are moot and does not render advisory opinions, as the supreme courts of some states may do. For example, in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), the Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law school affirmative action policy because the plaintiff student had graduated since he began the lawsuit, and a decision from the Court on his claim would not be able to redress any injury he had suffered, however, the mootness exception is not absolute.
If an issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review", the Court will address it even though the party before the Court would not himself be made whole by a favorable result. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and other abortion cases, the Court addresses the merits of claims pressed by pregnant women seeking abortions even if they are no longer pregnant because it takes longer than the typical human gestation period to appeal a case through the lower courts to the Supreme Court, and it is the same with the contention of one Presidential
Candidate against another in the eligibility of a candidate in regards to this very case.
You Sir, are prohibiting the U.S. Supreme Court from acting on a case while the Court still can without desecrating the ‘political doctrine question’ in the 2012 election. As a candidate I have provided the case precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court and the violations of that precedent the NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT, and Georgia lower Courts that with all due diligent conscience could be heard by the 1st Circuit, the 11th Circuit, or the Chief Justice himself in Original Jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction seems the logical action in my case so I didn’t place “for the 1st Circuit” or “for the 11th Circuit” in the caption of the case.
Regarding your insinuation that action is denied based on a case in which “a decision could be had’, while the Primary is over and a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court cannot undo the results of New Hampshire’s Supreme Court decision, remedy is available by the delegates in the electorate who CAN be unbound with the exclusion of an unqualified candidate especially before the Sep. 2012 Democratic Party National Convention. I remind you Sir, that candidate Obama is NOT elected President 2013, and I am not contending against him as President as your letter blatantly and prejudicially states in the following statement from your letter “RE: Cody Robert Judy v. Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States.”
Do you see any such mention of my listing him as President of the United States in my action against him? Why have you inserted that if it is not perilously discriminatory to my action? That to me Sir is a blatant representation that you have taken sides actually prohibited by your position and I do note that insertion as insult to my action- Constitutional Authorization of eligibility trumps Declaration by your office.
Yes Sir, this is an unusual case, it’s not normal as far as your regular Appeals from State courts or for that matter U.S. Courts,.. but let me ask you a question Sir:
Where in the law does it state that the U.S. Supreme Court shall be bound, or have their hands tied up as hostages, by the Court Clerk from hearing a case by a Presidential Candidate by reason of avoiding, extending, and stalling until the National Democratic Convention is over regarding the eligibility of a candidate directly in opposition to the Constitution?
That’s the law I need you to please point out for me or I need you to file my case and get me a case number Sir.
If a women by law has a right of choice in an abortion, and she does right now, then I as a Candidate also have a right to be heard before the Democratic Party- a major party in the United States, in which I am running, chooses an ineligible and constitutionally unqualified candidate by those who protect precedent- The United States Supreme Court.
Thank you for your attention to my original jurisdiction argument. Its just amazing to me that I’m having this argument with you in the first place but the American people will see eventually how transparent this has been if you send me my Writ back without a case number and the embarrassment of this argument will undoubtedly last longer than Obama will in any illegal capacity.
Sincerely,
Cody Robert Judy
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 Eligibility Campaign
cc: Scribd link – Media of U.S., all Social Media of United States Citizens