cody (46)

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:
 
As seen on Cody's blog here:

http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/06/breaking-news-us-supreme-court-calls.html

 

Breaking News- US SUPREME COURT CALLS SPECIAL SESSION ON OBAMA ELIGIBILITY?
More and more Americans are seeing the value of the work I have been doing over the past 4 years. With the “Green Light” on Obamacare that the 5-4  U.S. Supreme Court  held this past Thursday along with a ‘contempt’ vote that was shielded by Obama’s executive order on Fast & Furious, one could surmise we have had some very destructive blows to ‘freedom and liberty’ dealt to us.
 
I wish I had good news to report about the U.S. Supreme Court receiving my case on appeal from the Georgia Supreme Court but in the horse world I’m familiar with let me parlay, “We were headed in to the class for a show and 10 yards before entering our champion stallion threw a shoe by stepping into a deliberately dug hole meant to sabotage our entry, and we had no choice but to scratch the class, and head off to the blacksmiths shop for a new shoe.
The good news would be we didn’t break a leg stepping in the hole and when I relate to you what happened I think it will be quite obvious that the U.S. Supreme court clerk responsible for this has got a major grudge against my action and dug the hole.
 
The bad news is the Supreme Court in Washington DC is in recess till the first Monday in October and I’m beginning to wonder about the door to the U.S. Supremes being definitively closed to me because of the unprecedented action it represents to the establishment in maintenance of the status quo, which everyone knows I’m not representing really well but rather exposing.
Now I have never been one to take adversity placed upon me as some grand conspiracy and I believe my record will do for that fact. While I have been tested and perhaps pestered with deficiencies I represented I have attempted more to accommodate those and to understand them, and correct them, where they accumulated into facts.
 
I just don’t think losing a game legally is worthy of poor sportsmanship and so when I have lost legally I generally shake my opponents hand, congratulate him, lick my wounds, and move on. However, when I am wronged blatantly, deliberately and intentionally I have no problem relating the facts of that to others which I am about to do, especially in light of Obama’s ineligibility as it certainly affects many, many, many more than me.
 
I relate the facts you certainly can make your own calculations and do the math.
1-Wednesday- June 27th 2012 approximately 10:30am, I reported and show the service of the ‘Petition for Writ of Certiorari’ appealing the Georgia Supreme Court decision case no. S12D1584 JUDY v. OBAMA et.al, I received June 21st,2012, with a ‘received by signature’ United Postal Service Record, to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Clerks office which had been sent Monday morning.
 
2-Thursday-June 28th,2012 – Owing to security maintained at the U.S. Supreme Court and my own prior experience with them I know my document isn’t going to get a case number the day it gets there but I figure 24 hours later is a good time to check on it because you know it’s not like the DMV where they’re receiving thousands of entries every day and reasonably your document after its signed for, ought to make the Clerk’s office 24 hours after it’s received.
 
So I speak with Gail Johnson about Noon- EST time, who is my assigned case analyst and ask her point blank if she has received my case. She says “No” and refers me to the argument that you know it takes time from service to get through security and to them, and says, “ call back tomorrow”.  I was actually encouraged by her request to ‘call back tomorrow’. This as you recall was the same day the U.S. Supreme Court was set, and did release their decision on the Health Care with a 5-4 vote upholding it in its entirety absent the confirmation that it was ‘Constitutional’, with Sotomayor and Kagan, both Obama appointees, in on the decision.
 
Of course without those two there, we are left with a pretty strong message from the dissenting Justices that the Act fails quite easily the Constitution, and we are also reminded quite clearly that without an eligible President signing their appointments, their confirmation is not legitimate.  Now how important is Obama’s Eligibility? How important and imperative is my case?
 
3- Friday-June 29th –Noon -Approximately same time I call back and get Gail Johnson’s voice message that she’s out of the office until Monday July 1st,2012 and that if something urgent is needed please contact another analyst by the name of Redman, who also is ‘out of the office until July 1st. I make another call to the Supreme Court Clerk’s office and a nice operator tells me as I relate my predicament that he did see “Higgins” come in and will direct my call to his office. I get a voice mail and relate to him my name which they identify your case with, and ask for a call back. I call again at approximately 3pm EST and relate my desire for a call back upon the matter.  Predictably I don’t receive a call back.
Of course I’m not all that discouraged because Gail Johnson related to me she had not received my package Thursday. The damnedest thing happens Saturday morning.
 
4- Saturday-June 30th,2012 I receive in my mail box the entire box containing 11 copies of my Petition for Writ of Certiorari back with a letter from Gail Johnson dated Thursday June 28th,2012. Of course you recall I had called her and spoke directly to her and she confirmed she hadn’t received it.
Very interesting letter received that was taped to the top of the package that states the package is returned for the very same reason it was returned May 17th,2012 because the U.S. Supreme Court only reviews cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest State Court available.
Pictures of the letters here:
4063532220?profile=original
May 17th,2012 Letter from U.S. Supreme Court to Cody Robert Judy
4063532145?profile=original
Order from Georgia Supreme Court dated June 21st, 2012
4063532268?profile=original
Wow! On the very first page of my document it says in the first paragraph, Georgia Supreme Court Case No. S12D1584 Judy v. Obama is being appealed, and that the Supreme Court of Georgia had granted my ‘indigency’ status. How did she miss that on the very first page, first paragraph signed with a notary seal June 24th,2012?
Incredibly two things available here for us to discern because we know she can read- Either Gail Johnson didn’t read the document as an analyst assigned to that duty is supposed to, and ordered it packaged up unread and sent back the exact same moment it was opened, or Gail Johnson doesn’t know the Georgia Supreme Court is the highest court in the State of Georgia presumed by her own letter to be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
When I opened the box up, about 10 minutes after it cleared my security department, another letter was inside, which was indeed Gail Johnson’s letter to me May 17th,2012 that related to the April 4th 2012 version of my Petition for Writ of Certiorari which indeed hadn’t been reviewed by the Georgia Supreme Court, but had been reviewed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court which I argued should suffice.
So, now I have returned to me by the U.S. Supreme Court clerk Gail Johnson not one but two State Supreme Court decisions, one from New Hampshire and one from Georgia, that are legally reviewable by the U.S. Supreme court. I really think this should call for her termination in the employment to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Can you imagine just for an instance if perchance the U.S. Supreme court Justices had been notified Wednesday afternoon that my case had come into the Courts authority and was docketed, that could alter their decision on Obamacare, based on the eligibility requirement that an eligible president must first sign an Act of Congress before its legal?
 
How big is this case?  How many people does it represent and or affect?
Can you imagine one Court Clerk having the power to keep something like this from the dissenting Justices on the eve of their Summer recess until after the Sept 5th National Democrat Convention in which a decision on my case could have moved Obama from even being included as a Democratic Party candidate at that convention verses being the nominee, and the Justices return scheduled for October after the convention?
 
I don’t think anyone upset with Obamacare passing even has a clue what it means to have another Presidential Candidate in the Democrat Party qualified for a U.S. Supreme Court hearing with two State Supreme Court referrals to them means.
 
If anyone did I really suspect people would be going through the roof, and contributing to my campaign and calling their Senators and Congressmen and faxing the U.S. Supreme Court of this outrage, and burning down the phone lines to the U.S. Supreme Court. WND would have feature stories about the outrageousness of it, and small business magazines across the United States would be saying “contribute” the individual maxim to this guy which is $2,400 per individual small businesses or pay the estimated annual increase of $54,000 on healthcare for your small business.
 
Of course I need your help and I hope to have somehow inspired you of the importance and urgency of this case. You know the Voeltz v. Obama case getting so much publicity is stated by Esq. Larry Klaymen to be appealed by either side upon a decision suffered a big set-back with the Judge granting the motion to strike the Amended Declarative relief. http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/this-july-4-a-new-revolution-begins/ Here :  and http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/unexpected-turn-in-eligibility-case-put-it-on-record/ - “Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted,..” How long do you think it would take Klaymen to reach the Florida Supreme Court and hence the U.S. Supreme Court?
 
Now, put into that equation he does not have a Democratic Party Candidate for President on the complaint, but a Democratic party member who is a voter and who by the standards thus far used by the Judicial Branch won’t have or satisfy the 3 levels of ‘standing’ upon the appeals into the Judicial Branch?
 
Also factor in Obama will by Sept 5th,2012 have the nomination of the National Democratic Party Convention locked up and how many Supreme Court Justices are going to see that one clear against Obama? Ask Mr. Klayman about the Political Doctrine Question and he will tell you the chances after Obama becomes the Democratic Party nominee are slim to none after Sept. 5th, 2012.
 
I’m calling for the only thing I believe will help and that is an all points bulletin to every Conservative across the board in the political arena to rally for my case. I will send it back to the U.S. Supreme Court this Monday and by Wednesday I would like to see about 10 national stories about this outrage and calls numbering in the thousands to the U.S. Supreme Court, your representatives in Congress and the Senate and if you hold any value to reaching across the aisle I even challenge Mitt Romney to come out and make a statement on the Justice happening with my case being locked out of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
I believe that is possible if you will do your part in sharing this very real possibility that you cannot let slip by. If you’re a business owner or interested in employment Obama care is a major blow to small businesses and the capital they have to work with that would necessarily be opening new jobs.
Please act now… just DO IT! What can America do from Sunday to Wednesday, for the sake of our Country I’m asking you contribute your time, talent, energy, contributions to ‘Vision to Believe in’ represented by our Constitution and my campaign, The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign.
 
I believe this case is so important and has been biased so fraudulently by the Clerk’s Office that when and if the U.S. Supreme Court Justices hear about it, that it will merit the call for a ‘Special Session’ to be called by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices in the Order to adjudicate the case without bias towards me before the National Democratic Party Convention Sept 5, 2012 in the interest of voting delegates at that Convention who have been chosen by the interest of State Tax Payers money to vote for Constitutionally eligible candidates.
 
Tell the U.S. Supreme Court Justices - Tax money has been used by the Democratic Party in the primaries and in such is responsibly connected to the Constitution and Obama’s eligibility. RESPONSIBILITY in taxes was the message of Obama care, let them hear about the responsibility to our Constitution that ‘taxes’ demands in representation.
 
Sincerely,
Cody Robert Judy

The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign

www.codyjudy.us

www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

www.youtube/user/CODE4PRES

www.facebook.com/CODE4PRES

Read more…

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'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqeiH2dX8pY" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqeiH2dX8pY"> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqeiH2dX8pY

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

www.codyjudy.us

www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

YouTube: CODE4PRES

www.facebook.com/CODE4PRES

Read more…

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E6R1u1LZlU

Read more…

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

www.codyjudy.us

www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

YouTube: CODE4PRES

Read more…

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

www.codyjudy.us

www.codyjudy.blogspot.com

YouTube: CODE4PRES

Read more…

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

Read more…