CODY ROBERT JUDY

3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2,

Ogden UT. 84401
801-xxx-xxxx www.codyjudy.us
3080 3814 3127 03 )
-

(UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TRACKING NUMBER 9114 9012

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SCOTT HARIS -Office of the Clerk
1 First Street N.E. Washington DC 20543-0001
- - - Re: Judy v. Obama et al., Writ of Certiorari
Dear Mr. Scott Harris Clerk of the Court
April 13, 2015
Dear Mr. Scott S. Harris, Clerk by: Mr. Andrew Downs:
Thank you for your April 7 th, 2015 letter. Please find the above entitled writ of certiorari as a
resubmission for the Court to docket.
1- Specifically understood as your letter of April 7th the MOTION AND AFFADAVIT FOR
PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS was not signed by the petitioner. It is signed
March 30th, 2015 BY THE PETITIONER and is headlined in THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT on page 2 on appeal from the 10th Circuit of Appeals, which was also the post mark you
recognized.
2- Also, on page 3 specifically noted The AFFADAVIT of the MOTION TO PROCEED INFORMA
PAUPERIS is signed and dated March 30, 2015 and is headlined in THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT on appeal from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to Rule 39 (1) a
party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis shall file a motion for leave to do so, together with
the partys notarized affidavit or declaration (in compliance with 28 U.S.C. 1746). The
Affidavit fulfills this obligation. Again, this was also the same date you recognized on the post
mark.
3- The Motion also states with the ORDER attached from the United States District Court that the
petitioner was granted permission by the lower Court to proceed in Informa pauperis dated
July 8th,2014.
Rule 39 (1)- Accordingly, the motion shall state whether leave to proceed in forma pauperis
was sought in any other court and, if so whether leave was granted.
The leave was granted by the lower the court and the 10TH Circuit Court of Appeals, upon which
the Order is a simple proof or verification for you on the cover page 1. This dated ORDER
signed July 8th,2014 does not comport to the dated Motion for leave to precede Informa
Pauperis in the Supreme Court of the United States signed March 30th, 2015 by the Petitioner.
The Supreme Court can look to the 10th Circuit for this affirmation also.
Of course I would not be appealing to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with the heading on the Motion
and Affidavit in The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; however it is recognized this APPEAL is coming
from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and that court also gave me leave to proceed in forma pauperis
as well as the lower U.S. District Court. Although I did cite the motion could be held in abeyance by the
Supreme Court according to Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); this Court has its own
Motion and Affidavit herein dated March 30th, 2015 and signed by the Petitioner .

Concluding: The Supreme Court has been furnished it own MOTION for leave to proceed INFORMA
PAUPERIS with an accompanying AFFADAVIT that is signed MARCH 30 TH, 2015. Thank you for
recognizing these signatures and the headings and the date for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Sincerely
Signature: /s/ Cody Robert Judy
Cody Robert Judy pro se
3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2, Ogden UT. 84401
801-xxx-xxxx www.codyjudy.us

Appellant Judy v. Obama et.al.,

CODY ROBERT JUDY

3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2,
Ogden UT. 84401
801-xxx-xxxx www.codyjudy.us

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TRACKING NUMBERS

1- U.S. Supreme Court- 9114 9012 3080 3814 2913 05
2-Solictor General- 9114 9012 3080 3814 2900 25
3-Barack Obama at the White House w signature confirmation- 2308 2180 0000 2953 9521

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr.

SCOTT HARIS -Office of the Clerk

First Street N.E. Washington DC 20543-0001

Re: Judy v. Obama et al., Writ of Certiorari
Dear Mr. Scott Harris Clerk of the Court

March 30 th, 2015

Please find the 11 copies of the following Writ of Certiorari for the Tenth Circuit and I certify
herein that the word Count, 8537, is well under those permitted by the rules. Also because this does
involve one or more ACTS of Congress the Solicitor General has been mailed a copy as is noted on the
Declaration of Mailing Certificate.
The case was heard at the 10th Circuit of Appeals and U.S. District Court (Utah Division) Informa
pauperis and Appellee prays the application to appeal in forma pauperis otherwise be held in
abeyance to both the lower Courts permission grant. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).

Sincerely,

Signature: /s/ Cody Robert Judy

Cody Robert Judy pro se

Appellant Judy v. Obama et.al.,

3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2,

Ogden UT. 84401
801-xxx-xxxx www.codyjudy.us

________
No. 15 -_____
________
IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

___________
Cody Robert Judy,
Petitioner,
v.
Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro et.al.,
Respondent(s)
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
For the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
________
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner Cody Robert Judy /Pro se/

Soetoro
3031 So. Ogden Ave Suite #2,
Ogden, Utah 84401
Phone: 801-xxx-xxxx
Email: Cody@codyjudy.us

Respondent(s)

Barack Obama aka Barry

825 North 300 West
Suite C400
Salt Lake City, UT. 84103

Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington DC 20530-0001

I.

QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED

1- Question CONFUSED QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE OF PRESIDENT- Does the

United States of America under the United States Constitutions leading Court
in the public interest of Presidential Contenders announced and unannounced
entering the Presidential race need a new definition of natural born Citizen
for the Office of the President as Citizen was determined to be the definitive
qualification term for those born at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, in assistance of the public trust when contributing donations to
Presidential Candidates for the coming 2016 election?

2- Question POLICING THE JUDICIAL BENCH-When a law enforcement

investigation report is submitted to the Court under the authority of the
Sherman/Clayton Acts of Congress directive to rein in illegal activity by two or
more Corporations forming an illegal cartel in the political arena whereupon it
is stated the Courts obliged duty is to direct an investigation with an
appropriate prosecutor, is it a misprision offense if the Court refuses that
Congressional Directive that could lead to a dissolution of the entire Supreme
Court suggested by Obama recently in Cleveland, Ohio to only take a matter
of time?

3- Question DISCRIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL CIVIL RIGHTS STANDARD REVIEWDoes refusing to recognize two witnesses of service of process, a return of
service, a Court refusal to issue a earned and due Certificate of Default,
when standing has been recognized, statute and compensatory damages
noticed by the Court of the amount of $140,000,000.00, on the determination
that success is unlikely due to some of the Defendants being elected to
Government Office, meriting a review of frivolousness or malicious intent,
conflict the determination of Justice for all under a standard of review in tort
or acting under color of law reform?

ii
II.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Mr. Cody Robert Judy, contender in 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections
as well the 2016 Presidential Election being alarmed that the introduction of foreign
influences into the Office of the President through U.S. first generation foreign
nationals also termed Citizens could ultimately in Obamas words, altar the entire
U.S. Supreme Court Justices lifetime tenure dissolving the Courts under the
definition of the United States Constitutions terms Article III, Sect. 1. . If the
qualifications of the Office of the President are not reaffirmed as Born in the U.S. to
Citizen Parents, as was affirmed left no doubt in defining natural born Citizen, by
the precedent case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , now ignored by lower
Courts and being overrun by candidates taking contributions like Sen. Cruz, there is
little stopping the dissolution of the entire U.S. Constitution defining all Courts and
Elected Offices claiming authority and jurisdiction under said Constitution. If Time
and Place of vital national importance has no significance or boundary as being
born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents consist of two generations, then of course a
domestic jurisdiction is lost to foreign jurisdiction, as well the authority to act under
the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Judy brought these concerns to the Courts attention with
a law enforcement investigation, citing his 1983 Civil Rights as a Candidate for
President under the terms traditionally upheld are in violation, as well delivering an
indictment afforded his person under the Sherman and subsequent Clayton Acts of
6

Congress directing the U.S. District Court to open an immediate investigation into
the alleged Cartel formed by two or more Corporations herein stated to be the DNC
and Mr. Obamas OFA. Mr. Judy witnesses that illegal actions commiserating
Obamas candidacy in two different forms signed by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, not in the
duty of her elected office as Representative, but in a position of Speaker of the
House, attesting to Obamas qualification for office. This constituted the formation
of an illegal cartel by definition that conspired to knock out of competition Mr. Judys
campaign for the same Office in a discrimination of his Civil Rights. Mr. Judys
campaigns have been recognized nationally and he meets the high criteria of
standing suffering direct harm by these illegal actions in the face of reporting them
to proper authority of the Courts in the directives of Congressional Acts afforded to
him. Mr. Judy properly served the Defendants at the same place where
contributions are taken for both nationally recognized organizations forming the
cartel, in the State of Utah where he resides and holds residency and after the
appropriate time filed for the Certificate of Default which the Court then refused,
ultimately refusing to acknowledge service of process confirmed by two sworn
witnessed accounts, and ultimately after that refused to issue service of process
from an Informa pauperis litigant.
pg

iii
III.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Pursuant to Rule 14. 1 (b), the parties here and in the proceeding in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are listed.
Petitioners here and Appellant below are:
Cody Robert Judy
Respondent here and Appellee below are:

Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro representing Organization for Action hereafter
(OFA) and herein considered acting under color of state law as President albeit a
usurpation or illegal occupation.

Mitch Stewart-Director
Jeremy Bird- Deputy Director Democratic National Committee hereafter (DNC)
Debbie Wasserman Shultz- National Chair
Jim Dabaki Utah Chair
Mat Lyon UT. Executive Director
D-CA. Rep. Nancy Pelosi U.S. House Majority Leader 08-10 Acting under color
of state law but also noticed as not acting in her official duties in an illegality of
attesting by two witnesses Obama as eligible for the DNC.
D-NV U.S. Sen. Harry Reid U.S. Senate Majority Leader 08- Acting under color
of state law.

iv

IV.

TABLES OF CONTENTS
PREAMBLES
CAPTION OF THE CASE

I.
Pg.ii

Pg.i

QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED

II.
INTRODUCTION
Pg.iii
III.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Pg.iv
IV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pg.v-vii
V.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Pg. vi
8

VI.
STATUTES
Pg. vii-viii

BODY
VII.

IV.CITIATIONS OF OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL ORDERS AND OPINION

VIII.
Pg.2

V JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Pg.1

VIV.
VI STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Pg. Appendix
X.
Pg.2

VII STATEMENT OF THE CASE

VIII. 1 BRIEF IN SUPPORT FOR THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIOARI
TO BE GRANTED
Pg.3
2PROVING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BORN IN THE U.S.
TO CITIZEN PARENTS IS THE ONLY CONSTRUCT NOT COVERED
IN NATURALIZATION
Pg. 6
3U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

Pg.7-9
4 FAILED ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
IN CONGRESS
Pg 9
XI.
VIV A STANDARD OF DISCRIMINATION
Pg.11
XII.

X PETITIONERS CASE HISTORY

Pg.12
XIIII.

XI ADDITIONAL MOTIVES FOR DISCRIMINATION

Pg.13
XIV.

XII ENUMERATIONS OF SCHOLASTIC PROFESSIONALS TO ABSORB

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN INTO CITIZEN

Pg.15

XV.
XIII SUMMARY TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL
FOR CERIOARI TO BE GRANTED
Pg.17-19
APPENDAGES

XVI.

DECLARATION OF MAILING CERTIFICATE AFFADAVIT

XVII.
Pg.

COVER APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENT

XIII.
Pg.

APPENDIX

v.
10

Pg.

V.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page
Judy v. Hickley et alUtahs Division 95cv952

12

Tenth Circuit Court- 96-4045

12

U.S. Supreme Court 96-7655

12

Holmes v. Jennison (1840)

19

Judy v. McCain et. al., 2:2008cv01162 NV District Crt

12

Judy v. Obama U.S.S.C 12-5276

2,12

Judy v. Obama et. al., U.S. District Court case No. 1:14cv00093

1,2,12

Judy v. Obama et.al., U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 14-4136

1,3,12

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 [p175

17

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

iii,

Phil Berg v Obama et. al No. 08A391

STATUTES
Page
U.S.C. Art. I, Section 8, Clause 10

U.S.C. Article II. Sect.I , Clause 5

iii,2,4,10,11,15,17
U.S.C. Article III. Sect. I

iii

U.S.C. Amendment XIV

17

U.S.C. Amendment XV

11

U.S.C. Amendment XX

Amendment XIX

11

Amendment XXIV

11

U.S. Supreme Court Rules cited

11

Rule 14. 1 (b)

ii
vi

ACTS OF CONGRESS cited

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Pub. L. No. 107-155,116, Stat 81,113-14
403 (a) (3)
1
8 U.S. Code 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth (a-h)
9,17

5, 6, 7,

28 U.S.C. 1251
ii
28 U.S.C.A 1331

28 U.S.C.A 1343 (3)

28 U.S.C. 42 1983
iii,2,12
The Clayton Act 1914

ii,2

Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 9

The Sherman Act 1890

ii,2

U.S. Sen. Non-binding Resolution 511

12

12

vii
IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

___________
Cody Robert Judy,
Petitioner,
v.
Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro et.al.,
Respondent(s)
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
For the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
________
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IV.
IV CITATIONS OF THE OFFICIAL AND UNOFFIICAL REPORTS OF THE
OPINIONS AND ORDERS

1- Judy v. Obama et. al., U.S. District Court case No. 1:14cv00093 Honorable
Stewart from July 7th filing date: Judgments and Rulings on Aug. 26 th, Sep.
16th, Oct. 7th,2014.
2- Judy v. Obama et.al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 14-4136
Three Judge Court Honorable Justices Lucero, Tymkovich, and Phillips
Judgments and Rulings Feb. 3rd, 2015 Feb. 27 th , 2015

13

V.

V JURISDICTION STATEMENT

on

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Cody Robert Judy, petitioner pro se herein does respectfully submit this
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1251, 403 (a) (3)
of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Pub. L. No. 107-155,116, Stat
81,113-14; The Clayton Act 1914 29(b); and 42 U.S.C. Title 42 1983 28
U.S.C.A 1343 (3) and 28 U.S.C.A 1331 -(providing for direct appeal to the
Supreme Court.)

VI.

VI STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Because of the statutory provisions being lengthy they are set forth in the
Appendix.

VII.

VII STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On July 7th, 2014 Petitioner Cody Robert Judy a Presidential Candidate
in 2008, 2012, and 2016 having standing, has been denied the Ballot
Challenges in U.S.S.C 12-5276 and a Rehearing Jan 7 th 2013, but continually
being caused damages sought remedy by compensation and statutory relief
under 1983 Civil Rights and an Anti-Trust Law Suit under provisions of the
Sherman and subsequent Clayton Act citing the commission of illegal acts to
usurp the Office of the President with an unqualified person, and reported to
the Court the illegal Cartel formed in two corporations in the DNC and OFA,
conspiring in collusion of commission of crime(s). (Appendix P.4 #11) The
case involved breaching the Constitutional Qualifications cited in the U.S.C.
Art. II, Sect. I, Clause 5 noting Barack Obama was not a natural born Citizen
and brought to the attention of the Court fabricated identification(s) of Barack
14

Obama aka Barry Soetoro and other actions in the offenses involving all the
defendants listed to cover up the usurpation in an illegal coup d etat of the
executive branch which is exactly the condition of our state with an
unqualified and thusly unauthorized person in the Office of the President.
Judy v. Obama et. al., U.S. originated as U.S. District Court case No.
1:14cv00093 Honorable Stewart from July 7th Judgments and Rulings on Aug.
26th, Sep. 16th, Oct. 7th,2014.
1- Plaintiffs motion to precede Informa pauperis was reviewed and granted.
2- Plaintiff served the Defendants properly Witnessed Return of Service by
Ali Judy
3- After appropriate time expired Plaintiff asked for and was Denied
Certificate of Default
4- Judge then Dismissed case as Unlikely to succeed-wholly incredible, and
malicious.
Judy v. Obama et.al., was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit 14-4136 Three Judge Court Honorable Justices Lucero, Tymkovich, and
Phillips Judgments and Rulings Feb. 3rd, 2015 Feb. 27 th , 2015
1- The Tenth Circuit Three Panel upheld lower Court Ruling hearing the case
de novo.
2- The Rehearing Request for a full panel poll was similarly dismissed
3- The case is remanded with a Notice of Appeal March 16 th, 2015 to the U.S.
Supreme Court. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is now submitted to the
Court seeking the following:
1- Either this Court hear the case de novo, granting the Writ Certiorari with
the witnesses and lawful investigation allowed in Court , or over turning
the lower Courts decision not to grant Appellant the Certificate of Default.

VIII.

VIII BRIEF IN SUPPORT FOR THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIOARI TO BE GRANTED
This case made clear, subsequent to Justice Thomass statement to Subcommittee
Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. Story Reported at WND here:
http://www.wnd.com/2010/04/142101/ Justice Clarence Thomas: Were evading
eligibility, that Petition did not seek as a remedy for the Court to remove Barack
Obama from the Office of the President attributing that to Congresss Duty under
U.S.C. Amendment XX stating, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify..
15

meaning a person could be elected but still fail to qualify. The report quoting Justice
Thomas and Rep. Jose Serrano:
And you dont have to be born in the United States, said Thomas, referring to the
Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such clause
for a Supreme Court justice, so you never have to answer that question.
Oh really? asked Serrano. So you havent answered the one about whether I can serve as
president, but you answer this one?
Were evading that one, answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility
and prompting laughter in the chamber. Were giving you another option.

Clearly the intent was that the U.S. Supreme Court did not want to be the burdened
bench of removing a president elect in the seated assignment for Congress, and
Mr. Judy was not asking for that. He was simply filing for the damaged assessed by
the criteria of his legal standing and asking the Court to assess the damages to his
campaign run over and damaged with the fair and equal standard of rules applied to
all Candidates for the Office of President.
Indeed, how many cases have been dismissed because of a lack of standing across
the Nation as citizens were denied standing in the Presidential Race beginning with
Phil Berg v Obama et. al No. 08A391? Probably well over 95% of cases were
dismissed for a lack of standing and the rest on a lack of jurisdiction or other
technical aspects. These are things that have sensationalized disrespect and disdain
for the standards of the Constitution and in such the Supreme Court itself as the
leading Court. If the qualifications of the Office of the President were so simple
including in reverse of U.S.C. Art. II, Sect. 1.,Clause 5:
1234-

Being
Being
Being
Being

a resident of at least 14 years,

35 years of age or older,
a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, and lastly,
a natural born Citizen after the original signers generation had

passed away.
And we couldnt get those upheld, how in the world would the Constitution last or as
Obama pondered aloud in Cleveland, Ohio, the whole Constitution and the Supreme
Court be removed as fun in a matter of time? [
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/18/ready-obama-says-it-would-be-fun-toamend-the-constitution-to-fix-campaign-finance/ ]

16

Under the provisions of standing Mr. Judys Campaign for President in 2008 and
2012 wherein constitutionally unqualified candidate Barack Obama illegally
usurped the Office of the President caused horrific damages of time, talent,
property, money, and even reputation. If that is funny to the Court, the premise is
the Courts own demise is also funny to the Justices? Mr. Judy doesnt think that is
funny and he doesnt think it would be fun to dissolve the Supreme Court and the
Constitution.
In order to prevail Mr. Judy need only prove a natural born Citizen is Born in the
U.S. to Citizen Parents which he can easily do because that is the only prohibited
definition from naturalization classes listed on multiple Government Agencys
directing and in charge of such. That Mr. Judy has standing and has suffering the
discrimination of the standard equally applied as the law by the Campaign of the
Cartel formed by the DNC and OFA in illegal actions meant to harm him and carnage
the qualifications for the Office of the President in the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Judy has
done all of that with proficiency in the Court standards of evidence with proper
venue, jurisdiction, and authority but the lower courts have denied even a hearing
to Mr. Judy with the witnesses he has furnished. The Court and has denied him a
jury trial on the facts provided meeting the standards of evidences and have
refused to give a Certificate of Default when the Defendants defaulted after the
Court signed 20 Day Summons were served and ignored by the Defendants. In a
Review of Standing as a Presidential Candidate in the race for President what
possible damages would the Court assess to a Candidate for President when the
Office of the President is not on the table? Well it would be Campaign
Contributions, and the Loss of all the time and talent within the Campaign. The
sweat equity of a Campaign has a price tag just like the sweat equity of a house or
property would. It would fall under statute of any violations of Congressional Act
that prohibited illegal activity by Candidates or the Corporations they run
Campaigns within to keep their personal fortunes beyond reproach and liability.
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to
the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that
party's participation in the case especially noticed in this particular case:

17

1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and
the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a
finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be
nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing
because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the
court for relief.
2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court
for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their
situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be
able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law
to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not
be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know
what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law
the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.
In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging
the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will
"imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks
standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the
claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be
a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to
sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

Mr. Judy hasnt just run for President for himself. Hes run on behalf of those who
couldnt run, were not qualified by place or time, or just hoped someone would go
to Court who had standing and could take a stand for the Constitution. He is a last
hope of civility of the law to many. Mr. Judy has seen it as a duty as a Candidate to
object to anyone who was breaking the rules out of the gate standing for the
principle against anyone who was not Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents including
Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama and other candidates now entering like Sen. Ted Cruz.
This is costing a great deal of time and money to his Campaigns and he just cant
fight this battle alone without Justice.
While everyone has pointed fingers at whose responsibility it was to vet a Candidate
our whole Country and 320 million Americans have had their national security
compromised.
2PROVING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BORN IN THE U.S. TO CITIZEN
PARENTS IS THE ONLY CONSTRUCT NOT COVERED IN NATURALIZATION.
18

Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the

concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true; sometimes
referred to as top-down logic. Its counterpart, inductive reasoning, is sometimes
referred to as bottom-up logic. The Court in the process of argumentum ad
hominem denied Mr. Judy personally, however the Court has not disproven the truth
of the facts Mr. Judy has brought to its attention, that are literally effecting millions
of people adversely. Most certainly the Courts thus far have refused all logical
reasoning and facts, understood as truth, in an abstinence of rationality, which is
why the U.S. Supreme Court needs to reverse the lower Courts decisions in this
case, and hear the case de novo.
Perhaps the Courts legal relationship with truth, terms of traditional normalcy has
already been vacated and the relationship has ended with the U.S. Constitutions
rationality that aliens and nationality in citizens has infiltrated the distinction
unique for the Office of the President as a natural born Citizen from Citizen
required for U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives? However if motive for the
irrationality is proven, as well it is understood that natural born Citizen is not a
term used in any construction of Citizen in U.S. Code Title 8, 1 and Constitution
itself, as well as details of Congressional attempts to change it unsuccessfully, the
Court must concede to reasoning the truth of the facts deductively presented or be
found totally irrational, a traitor to truth and justice, and representing invalidity for
all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing 2.
A natural born Citizen can also be considered a Citizen, but Citizen is not always a natural born

Citizen, in much the same manner that a juvenile girl is not a mature woman, but a woman can be
seen as a girl
2

Edmund Burke Quote

3 U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY 8 U.S. Code 1401 - Nationals and
citizens of United States at birth (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United
States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically
present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one
year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

19

Now let's look at the following where the person is born outside the USA which
requires both parents to be US citizens at the time of birth in a foreign nation:
U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY 8 U.S. Code 1401 - Nationals and
citizens of United States at birth (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has
had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of
such person;

This person, above, is also a naturalized at birth (legally granted) citizen, not a
natural born citizen.
U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY 8 U.S. Code 1401 - Nationals and
citizens of United States at birth (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen
of the United States

Sen. Ted Cruz born in Canada to one parent who was a Citizen is described above.
This is his naturalization statement afforded as an adoption, but these definitions do
not afford natural born Citizen which is the requirement for the Commander-InChief and President.
U.S. Code: Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY 8 U.S. Code 1401 - Nationals and
citizens of United States at birth (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May
24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a
mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided
in the United States.

Indeed, U.S. Citizen Adoption is upon an 81 year old mother who tripped out of the
U.S. all but thirty days of her life but left with a foreign prince for his off spring also
can be a Citizen as long as the person was born before high noon. If it was 11:59 am
it surely is not afforded. These all identify factors of time and place and are
considered law but they are not considered staples to break the law of qualification
for the President to be a natural born Citizen.
The only category missing (see for yourself 8 U.S. Code 1401 sections a-h) is a
person born within the United States of America to parents both of whom are US
citizens. Why is that? Because you cannot grant natural condition given all laws
passed by Congress establish an artificial effect. In regards to aliens and nationals
we have identified laws made by Congress to assist us in identifying qualifications
for Citizens leaving deductive reasoning alone to the understanding that those
born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents are prohibited in qualifying for a naturalization
affect. These are those who qualify as natural born Citizens and represent a time
period qualifier. Just as the 34 years, 11 months, and 28 days old in the age factor is
discretionary to the requirement standard of 35 years of age for the Office of the
20

President, those who are not natural born Citizens fail this time and place honored
and lawfully reserved requirement for the Office of the President.
The Court should not look at substantiated evidence in a case as a luxury item to
afford or not to afford like getting a massage. Far from being just a qualification for
President, the Supreme Law stated as a natural born Citizen for the Office of the
President is indeed a standard law. Though undefined in a glossary for the
Constitution neither is the word Pirate or Court although it should be noted that
Congress is in the instance given powers U.S.C. Art. I, Section 8, Clause 10 to
define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas; and Offences
against the Law of Nations; How does one know what a pirate is- and, if the Seas
were low that day does it count?, are nonsensical as are the assertions that
deductive reasoning cannot assist in the matter of determination of what a natural
born Citizen is in the requirements of time and place for jurisdictional authority.
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the
Convention:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a
strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our
national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of
the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural
born Citizen.
Deductive reasoning would suggest and assume natural born Citizen was
completely absent any foreign alien loyalty in jurisdiction of time and place.
Referenced and understood well by the Founders was Emer de Vattells Law of
Nations
Vattels international treatise on Natural Law, The Law of Nations, book 1
Chapter XIX.
The understood true definition of the natural born Citizen requirement for the
Oval Office as described throughout the entirety of Chapter XIX is summed up in
this section from 212:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are
citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the
citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their
rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own
preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into

21

society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the
fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit
consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in
order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for,
if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Common Law is often seen as the legal British practice of openly subverting
Constitutional Law. Our Founders chose the term natural born Citizen to prevent a
civil coup d etat. People like Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Vladimir Putin
and North Korea Kim Jong-uns son could for instance gain access to the Oval Office
and once there could use the Executive Fiat Powers to transform the Republic under
the U.S. Constitution by circumvention and even obliteration of powers given the
Judicial and Legislative Branches within the Constitution. Without the check and
balances the entire Republic falters into a democratic or mobbed ruled tyranny
headed by an empirical despot and the individual rights are thrown out to a self
serving dictator. Congress has well understood this and many debates on are public
record. The debate to keep natural born Citizen as the qualifier for President, has
and is the prevailing wish of Congress, and through them and given the long
standing record, the will of the People.
The wiki definition of natural born Citizen cites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalborn-citizen_clause : Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one
of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for
election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended
to protect the nation from foreign influence.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 and
specifically repealed was the detailed term natural born Citizen as a term
synonymous with Citizen.
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various
opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A
2011 Congressional Research Service report stated in a rather deceptive convoluted
way to members of Congress:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would
mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born
"in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being
born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal

22

requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person
who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go
through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.

The reason it is convoluted is it fails to acknowledge that the specific terms listed by
its advice are listed under 8 U.S. Code 1401 (a-h) as naturalization qualifiers of
aliens and nationals previously discussed cloaking it with the words legal and
historical armor which couldnt be further from the truth.
4 FAILED ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IN CONGRESS
Just since 2003 eight attempts to change the qualifications for President centered
on abandoning the natural born Citizen unique qualifier. Deductive reasoning
would ask, Why go to the extent of proposing that natural born Citizen be
changed to Citizen if indeed Congress even believes the terms are synonymous?
This would be illogical and irrational. More importantly however wouldnt this be
indication where all of Congress was ruling against Obamas eligibility and stating
he was ineligible?

June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended to permit persons
who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35
years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.
Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., brought HJR67, which would have done the same
as Snyders, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.
Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to try to counter the growing
Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement. But it defined NBC as someone who
was born in and is subject to the United States, which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, to make eligible for the
office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen
for at least 20 years.
Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabachers.
Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the
office of president.
April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years citizenship.
Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military
Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what natural-born citizen includes. Obama and thenSen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.
Gallups reports that finally, on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the requirement, the Senate changed the
focus of the issue, with Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCains qualifications as a natural-born
citizen.
Obamas qualifications never were reviewed. http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/#swdZcDI1CYKsQLI1.99

Within the U.S. Supreme Courts Constitutional powers is the ability to rule that a
congressionally approved ACT is in fact a violation of the Constitution. So the
23

Judicial Branch does have the power to check and balance both the Legislative and
Executive Branch with rulings that they then must alter or amend in harmony of the
U.S. Constitution. It is also within the U.S. Supreme Courts power to assign
damages by statutes of Congress upon violations of an ACT of Congress.
This is where the illegal monopoly or cartel was formed by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) a corporation and another corporation Obamas Campaign
Organization for Action (OFA). A cartel is formed in the process of illegal actions
contrived to unfairly eliminate competition. Normally, yes the death knell in
breaking up corporations is a monopoly on a product or service, but in the political
arena the Office for the President is a service job for the American People and to get
that job votes are needed which is the product and the price paid to gain the
service.
The underhanded step taken into the out-of-bounds-zone or illegal formation of the
cartel was when ACTS of Congress failed to change the Constitutions natural born
Citizen president qualifier clause, Rep. Nancy Pelosi representing the DNC
authorized an illegal candidate as qualified under the Constitution acknowledged in
2008 by two forms of certification: One for Hawaii and one for the other 49 States.
Deductive reasoning would ask, If everything was above board, why as had been
the tradition of this generation, didnt she representing the DNC and Democratic
Party submit just one nomination form to all 50 States in 2008? The two different
forms were signed the same day and stamped by the same Notary of Public. Hawaii
was the only State in the Union requiring the Political Party representative certify
under oath that their candidate was qualified under the United States Constitution
and not just certify that this was the Candidate for the Democratic Party. Rather
than lie fifty times she chose to lie once to Hawaii, and certify tacit consent in the
cover up of fraud. (Appendix P.4 #10)
This is powerful motivation for the entire network of the national Democratic Party
representing at least a good half of the population. But the half of the population
was not considered guilty of the offence it was a small group of people deciding as
head of a larger organization to subvert the United States Constitution and trivialize
time and place as unimportant. Yes, its a very big deal when you consider the
place to be the United States of America and the time to be the formation of the
24

Nation and the implications to dissolve Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court in the
United States Constitution. To trivialize this as simply Mr. Judy as a Presidential
Candidates aspirations is wholly incredible and malicious.
VIV.

VIV A STANDARD OF DISCRIMINATION

While the qualifications for the Office of the President in the United States
Constitution are set as a Standard of Law it is a logical error or fallacy of
presumption that qualification amounts to discrimination in the intent and purposes
of the Law. While in U.S.C. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 Citizen was the
qualification at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, No person accept a
natural born Citizen is the requirement of law, as a standard, for which
discrimination can apply and does apply requisite of damages, understanding laws,
advocating in favor of Mr. Judy and his Campaign for the Office of the President.
Therefore as pundits in the media might trivialize a discrimination flippantly against
Obama in the form of a racist clich for simply demanding the law that is the
standard for all apply, the real unlawful discrimination has occurred by the hand of
the Cartels actions against Mr. Judy, a colleague candidate in the race for President.
In Constitutional Law, any practice or law that has the effect of seriously dissuading
the exercise of a constitutional right, such as in this case, the right to run for the
Office of President as long as one meets the standard qualifications in a fair race
has been inflicted upon an entire population. Discrimination based on contempt of
the LAW or withholding the law from one as a Civil Right for an individual, is equal to
the discrimination based on race, color, or gender, religion, prior servitude, or
economic conditions formed in U.S.C. Amendment XV, Amendment XIX, and
Amendment XXIV and this is the violation of 28 U.S.C. 42 1983 against Mr. Judy as
a Candidate for President in the elections of 2008, 2012, and continual damages
occurring and suffered for in the coming election of 2016.
The case in the lower Court was not given a Certificate of Default which Mr. Judy
had won by time and service of process, and subsequently the Judge suddenly
dismissed the whole case as unlikely to prevail and thus rooted in frivolousness in
the face of a report from the Cold Case Posse of Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Appendix P.4
#11) , a law enforcements investigation showing identity fraud handed out by
Obama on record to the White House Press Core in a phony or fabricated long form
25

birth certificate, and also elaborating on an invalid draft registration that had been
fabricated. The Report constituting new and additional information found in March
2011 substantiating the element of criminal actions from the Appellee Cartel.
VIV.

X PETITIONERS CASE HISTORY

Indeed if a record of principle has been upheld since 2008 Mr. Judys law suits
against both Sen. McCain that included Sen. Obama noticed in Judy v. McCain et.
al., 2:2008cv01162 NV District Crt and Judy v. Obama et. al., 12-5276 U.S.S.C ,as
well this case :
1- Judy v. Obama et. al., U.S. District Court case No. 1:14cv00093 Honorable
Stewart from July 7th filing date: Judgments and Rulings on Aug. 26 th, Sep.
16th, Oct. 7th,2014.
2- Judy v. Obama et.al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 14-4136
Three Judge Court Honorable Justices Lucero, Tymkovich, and Phillips
Judgments and Rulings Feb. 3rd, 2015 Feb. 27 th , 2015
recognize a stand for the principle or standard of law the affects of which constitute
a civil rights abuse.
In an assessment of discrimination of Civil Rights in consideration of this case we
must ask first: Was a Civil Right that is protected violated? Does Mr. Judy have the
right to run a fair race according to the rules? The position of the Office of the
President is an employment opportunity and Mr. Judy has a record of prior servitude
of 3018 days in an unlawful prosecution. The circumstances in U.S. District Court,
Judy v. Hickley et alUtahs Division 95cv952 as well as the Tenth Circuit Court- 964045 and U.S. Supreme Court 96-7655 are understood, and Mr. Judys legal actions
to gain the evidence used against him in a criminal prosecution spear headed by
the LDS Church Presidency are well known and publicized coming up instantly at the
click of a button. Has this come back as motivation to dismiss the case and the
truth discriminatingly in violation of Mr. Judys Civil Rights? This is a prime example
of shooting the massager to destroy the truth in the message again employing
argumentum ad hominem.
XI ADDITIONAL MOTIVES FOR DISCRIMINATION

26

Additional motives that may be employed to effect such warrantless dismissals in

this case in the lower Courts also consist of the majority of the Tenth Circuit Court
being employed because of Mr. Obamas or Hillary Clintons husband former
President Bill Clinton nomination. Indeed Mr. Judy brought this up as a concern in a
Poll taken for the whole Court to hear the case but the Clerk of the Court stated
these were the only Justices that would be taken part in the poll or asking for one.
Mr. Judy objected to these Justices involved in the Poll but the objection was of no
affect. The Four of the eight Justice nominated by the Defendant/Appellee in the
Tenth Circuit were:
Judge Gregory B. Phillip - Nominated by Defendant. Obama
Judge Nancy L. Moritz - Nominated by Defendant. Obama
Judge Carolyn B. McHugh - Nominated by Defendant. Obama
Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. - Nominated by Defendant. Obama
Hillary Clinton undeclared and favored in the Democratic Party which is also a party to this action, is expected
to run for President against Mr. Judy also a wife to former President Bill Clinton had nominated two.
Chief Justice Mary Beck Briscoe - Nominated by Pres. Clinton / Pres. 2016 Candidates' Hillary Clinton
Judge Carlos F. Lucero - Nominated by Pres. Clinton / Pres. 2016 Candidates' Hillary Clinton

Mr. Judy, to be fair in his objection of a relative to Hillary Clinton in Pres. Clinton,
considered Jeb Bush a relative to two former presidents Bush Sr, and Bush W. also
included the nominations of those Justices:
Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. - Nominated by President George Bush Senior son of 2016 Candidate Jeb Bush
Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich - Nominated by President George W. Bush brother of 2016 Candidate Jeb Bush
Judge Harris L. Hartz - Nominated by President George W. Bush brother of 2016 Candidate Jeb Bush
Judge Neil M. Gorsuch - Nominated by President George W. Bush brother of 2016 Candidate Jeb Bush
Judge Jerome A. Holms - Nominated by President George W. Bush brother of 2016 Candidate Jeb Bush

The Court was left with Senior Judges but one shy of a full panel.
Senior Judge David M. Ebel - Nominated by President Ronald Reagan
Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock - Nominated by President Ronald Reagan
Senior Judge Stephen H. Anderson - Nominated by President Ronald Reagan
Senior Judge John C. Porfilio - Nominated by President Ronald Reagan

27

Senior Judge Stephanie K. Seymour - Nominated by President Jimmy Carter

Senior Judge Monroe G. McKay - Nominated by President Jimmy Carter

If discrimination was not taking place its difficult to assert Mr. Judys concerns
based on the truth of his arguments and facts being passed over in the face of law
and his simple request that those who have run against him in past races would
have a motive to influence the Court in a silence rather than issue a Amicus Curiae
in defense of the principles of natural born Citizen. Mr. Judy has asked Hillary
Clinton on her Twitter Account if she would consider writing amicus curiae to the
Court based on witnesses of Mr. Judy that Chelsea Clinton was threatened after the
assassination of President Clintons former friend and head of Arkansas Democrat
Party Bill Gwatney and that President Bill Clinton had relayed to this witness that he
knew Obama was not eligible and that they would release the information at the
appropriate time.3
The biggest motive or reason that the Courts have not seen either Republican or
Democratic Candidates for President show the duty and integrity Mr. Judy has with
his standing was a little U.S. Sen. Resolution that was non-binding that has three of
the top major Candidates over the last three presidential election cycles involved in
a quid pro quo to compromise the U.S. Constitution. The co-sponsors of U.S. Sen.
Non-binding Resolution 511 were both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
The recipient of the proceeds of the resolution was Sen. John McCain, his second
ACT of Congress in regards to his Citizenship and natural born Citizenship, that
every other Republican U.S. Senator voted for. This is real political motivation away
from the Constitutions qualification demands, and every major Candidate winning
the nomination of the major parties of the Republican and Democrats in 2008 were
in on it. That just trickled down hill to the 2012 elections as a snow job upon the
public.
Now, with Sen. John McCain corralling the Republicans, and Sen. Obama and Sen.
Clinton in on the deal that their Democratic nominee for 2008 and 2012, who has
usurped the Office of the President, was not going to be objected to by a major
party presidential Candidate. Americas only hope for saving the Constitution by
and through someone who the Courts recognize has standing and the MEDIA

28

recognizes has not represented this principle as a discrimination against just

Obama, with his action against McCain, on record first, was Mr. Judy.
3

Reported at Godfatherpolitics, [During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became

aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she
interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by
people working with the Obama campaign. She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was
not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge
around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the
time was right. Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill
Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about
Obamas eligibility. In the video {linked here} below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone
associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth.
From that point on, the Clintons remained silent about Obamas birth certificate or lack thereof.]
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/02/i-cpac-2015-ignites-patriot-fires.html

While it may be a little sad the America only has one who has stood the test through
hell and back of these two criteria, it is better than not having one. These are facts;
not aggrandized statements that have been exaggerated.
XII ENUMERATIONS OF SCHOLASTIC PROFESSIONALS TO ABSORB
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN INTO CITIZEN
There is a growing consensus that should be addressed by the Court among
many respected scholastic and political professionals now underway of the frame of
mind that natural born Citizen as it relates to Article II section 1, clause 5 has not
been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court, and minus that and noting
the extremely difficult pursuit of such an Appellee with standing to gain access to
the U.S. Supreme Court, that there is a freeway to liquidate the unique articulation
unheard of in the qualifications for U.S. Representatives and the U.S. Senators and
reserved for the Office of the President.
In fact just 13 days ago USA TODAY printed an article entitled Top Lawers:
No Question Canadian-born Cruz eligible for presidency citing a new Commentary
March 11,2015 by two former Solicitor Generals Neal Katyal & Paul Clement
published in the Harvard Law Review entitled On the Meaning of Natural Born
Citizen. 128 Harv. L.Rev F. 161. They do not address equally however in their
review, no one does, the difference between Citizen and Subject or a time swap
29

that merges the differing ages and time in the United States qualifications differing
also with the three offices of U.S. Rep, U.S. Sen., and U.S. Pres. They only want the
first generation national disqualifier removed from the office of the President similar
to failed Congressional attempts.
Report at Politifact.com entitled Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run
for president? March 26th, 2015 subsection- The Supreme Courts silence And that
means a note of uncertainty remains. Also quotes Professor Sarah Duggin
reporting: No, I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. I think the better argument
is that Senator Cruz is eligible to run for president and to serve as president of the
United States. But absent a Supreme Court ruling or a constitutional amendment, it
is not open-and-shut.

http://www.law.edu/2015-Spring/Professor-Sarah-Duggin-

Discusses-US-Constitutions-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Requirement-on-NPR.cfm
Finally, the natural born citizenship clause is both an anomaly and an anachronism.
The way in which the clause differentiates among United States citizens is contrary
to the overall spirit of the Constitution; the risk that foreign nobility will infiltrate our
government is long past; and place of birth is a poor surrogate for loyalty to ones
homeland in our increasingly mobile society and our ever more interconnected
world. The best solution would be to amend the Constitution, as many legislators on
both sides of the aisle have proposed over the years. In the absence of an
amendment, the clause should be narrowly interpreted.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/10/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen-eligibleto-serve-as-president/
The effort is essentially a bully movement having no grounds in Congress or
the Elected Leaders of the People and conceded by an astonishing dereliction of
assumptions that no foreign nation or prince in the world would ever dream of
actually wanting the United States of America. That in a one world economic
majesty, the United States Supreme Court along with the U.S. Constitution and the
U.S. Sovereignty is dissolved as far as boundaries, jurisdiction, and authority
ostensibly seeding any distinction as contrary to the collaborative spirit of the
Constitution, as a means to seed a racy discrimination to qualification, of time and
place.

30

The vacuum of power is left to nave fools for anyone left to pick up the pieces and
in the cringing hypothesis there are no dictators, or Princes, in the world wanting to
take on such a calamity in spite of the worth of the United States of America being
pennies on dollar of the national debt. Who would want the vast wealth discovered
and yet to be discovered in the United States of America? The consensus hinges on
a real dereliction of enemies of the United States being vanquished and everybody
loving everybody. The only problem with that is it is just not true, and the massive
efforts to round up nuclear weapons, amass military assaults in the world against
America and her population is a witness to it every day, from old as well as new
enemies, in the business of amassing wealth and power of any population willing to
give up its sovereignty. The question reversed would ask, Why hasnt every other
nation conceded their sovereignty up, to be one of the United States under the U.S.
Constitution?
The dereliction of the scholastic effort also concedes in a polarized political
arena that the Court will only honor or acknowledge the two major parties of the
Republicans and Democrats. The problem with that is all of the Independents in
America are disenfranchised from justice in the Court. According to a Gallup Poll in
2014 42% of Americans now recognize themselves as Independents. 4
4

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-

independents.aspx

In the absence of enforcement of the law of course a precedent is shaped and

formed but this one seeking to altar the constitution by attrition uses a scholastic
bully format irrespective of the People who elect Leaders to Congress, and have
already denied eight times the mixing of terms in a dilution of the national security
interest of natural born Citizen into Citizen. This is a very dangerous concession
under handing the will of the People to scholastic academia to encourage by
ignoring this Petition for Writ of Certiorari. U.S.C. Amendment XIV was never
intended to replace U.S.C. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and where two terms cannot
both serve a purpose called into question without excusing one or the other, both
must be given their own weight. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the

31

Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is

inadmissible unless the words require it . Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 [p175]
The simple fact is natural born Citizen is the term used now as a
qualification for President and Citizen was the term used for those at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution. Mr. Judy has a right or claim to that delineation
now as the law stands. Scholastic winds constantly blow to and fro and the weight
in this Republic should consistently be for the People, and what Congress has or has
not passed, that is indeed judicially qualified as Constitutional, in the checks and
balances of Justice.

X.
XIII SUMMARY TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL FOR
CERIOARI TO BE GRANTED
Mr. Judy has shown in this petition the reasons why he has filed this action being
unfairly treated and discriminated against by the very Justice holders all the
citizenry of America turn to for relief from this kind of treatment. He has shown that
using deductive reasoning, the Governments own Record, those of Congress, and
the precedent case of the U.S. Supreme Court, that in fact natural born Citizen is
well defined as Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. He has shown the formation of
an illegal Cartel of corporations nefariously involved in illegal activity that
conspired, and ultimately threw Americas elections and compromised the office of
the President in a breach of national security threatening every American
economically and militarily. He has also shown in much respected circles of
academics the call for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in and interpret what has
not been defined in 8 U.S. Code 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at
birth.
If one mans individual rights are not enough to stand up for than no mans rights
are safe in America. No greater protection of this Court can be assumed but to keep
Americas elections fair according to a standard of law, justice for all Americans
including those at the bottom like Mr. Judy. Indeed he suffered incredibly harsh
punishments at the hands of those who are Justices of the courts when the evidence
32

used against him was denied to him protecting those who framed him; an incredible
abuse of the Constitutions provisions.
However he was told not enough people suffer not having the evidence used
against them given to them for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up his case in 1996.
So he suffered and suffered and suffered. Indeed near four years of his 3018 days
were in a 23 hour lock down 7 days a week in a single cell. Not because of any
outrageous act hed done but because of his taking a stand against the unfair
treatment of Native Americans to grow their hair out on their religious beliefs. Mr.
Judy didnt share the same belief but he didnt waste his time either. He saw a
discrimination against male and female inmates and made the choice to take a
stand suffering the penalty until the Court saw and heard the case acknowledging
their persecution. It was in this suffering that Mr. Judy gained such an appreciation
for our U.S. Constitution as he learned the pains of life without the rights
enumerated within it.
While he has never been elected to Congress he has run in Utahs first District
Congressional race that was nationally recognized on Jon Stewarts The Daily Show
(Appendix p.4 #18); while he has never been elected to the U.S. Senate he has run
in 2004 and 2010 for it and became Americas first Presidential Candidate to
witness under oath against another for ineligibility in the CIA Columbia Obama
Sedition and Treason Trail held in New York under the Tenth Amendment whose
verdict from a panel of citizens across the United States was reached in Guilty, that
was delivered to all of Congress (Appendix P.4 #19) ; and while he has never been
elected to U.S. President he has run in 2008 and 2012 for it and consistently taken a
stand for the principles of the Constitutions qualifications for the Office of the
President clear to the U.S. Supreme Court (Appendix P2 USSC). Indeed Mr. Judy
celebrates America in ways few comprehend as he relates, It is the losers in the
election races all across our great land that differentiate Americas Republic under
the U.S. Constitution. For without the losers in our Republic only a dictator remains.
At times America needs civil heroes, warriors willing to fight for the Individuals
Rights because there is a battle that the army, navy, air force, and marines cannot
fight or gun down. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court have that
chance to be those kinds of heroes in a simple duty to hear this case and grant this
33

Writ of Certiorari. Of course the Justices have had every conceivable argument
presented to them about how every single word of the U.S. Constitution is important
and was drafted with the upmost care and concern but when all those arguments
have been made and both sides have weighed in the scale of balance, or ignored
their opportunity as is the case here by the Appellee, it still comes down to Justice
and the preservation of our Republic for which we all take a stand in the Order of
the Court. As Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison (1840) as to
the importance of every word of the U.S. Constitution:

"In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due
force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no
word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have
taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of
this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the
illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the
utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood."

Please, for our Constitution, and for our Countrys sake, hear this case and Grant
this Writ of Certiorari.

Submitted and Signed this 30th Day of March, 2015.

_/s/ Cody Robert Judy

Witnessed: Kylie Allen Notary Public State of Utah Commission #678225

Commission Expires July 20th,2018
NOTOARY OF PUBLIC: In the county of Weber, State of Utah this 30 th Day of March,
2015, a notary public personally appeared, Cody Robert Judy, proved on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) (is/are) subscribed to this
instrument and acknowledged (he/she/they) executed the same. /s/ Kylie Allen.

VIV.

DECLARATION of MAILING CERTIFICATE AFFADAVIT

34

Notarized affidavit or declaration in compliance with 28 U.S. C. 1746,

reciting the facts and circumstances of service in accordance with U.S. Supreme Cr.
Rule 29 (c) I do hereby declare under penalty of law that I mailed, via 1 st class U.S.
Mail and Email, a true and correct copy of the forgoing:
1- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Postage pre-paid, to the RESPONDENT(s), by and through Counsel(s) of
Record at:
Respondent(s)
Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro
825 North 300 West
Suite C400
Salt Lake City, UT. 84103
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

And also: The Court & Solicitor General of the United States at:
Solicitor General of the United States
Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. ,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
U.S. Supreme Court
1 First Street N. E.
Washington DC 20543 meritsbriefs@supremecourt.gov

On this 30th Day of March, 2015.

Signature of Mailer /s/Cody Robert Judy

Notary Seal

Signature

Witnessed: Kylie Allen Notary Public State of Utah Commission #678225

Commission Expires July 20th,2018
NOTOARY OF PUBLIC: In the county of Weber, State of Utah this 30 th Day of March,
2015, a notary public personally appeared, Cody Robert Judy, proved on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) (is/are) subscribed to this
instrument and acknowledged (he/she/they) executed the same. /s/ Kylie Allen.

IN THE
35

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Cody Robert Judy,

Petitioner,
v.
Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro et. al.,
Respondent(s)

APPENDIX COVER
PART

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX PAGE

1- OPINIONS ORDERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH JUDGEMENTS SOUGHT A-Z

ORDERS PRECEED BY DATE
2- U.S. CONSTITUTION REFERENCE NUMERICAL ORDER
pg.2
3- U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES REFERENCES A-Z
pg. 2
4- FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES RULES A-Z
pg. 2
5- OTHER COURT CASE REFERENCES A-Z
pg.3
6- OTHER MATERIAL NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE CASE
pg.3-5
7- CRIMINAL INVESTIFATION REPORT
pg.4 #10,#11
8- NOTICE OF APPEAL
pg.6

36

pg.1

APPENDIX
Part 1. OPINIONS, ORDERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH JUDGEMENT
SOUGHT A-Z

INCLUDING:
3-

Judy v. Obama et. al., U.S. District Court case No. 1:14cv00093
Honorable Stewart from July 7th filing date: Judgments and Rulings on Aug.
26th, Sep. 16th, Oct. 7th,2014.

4- Judy v. Obama et.al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 14-4136
Three Judge Court Honorable Justices Lucero, Tymkovich, and Phillips
Judgments and Rulings Feb. 3rd, 2015 Feb. 27 th , 2015

FOLLOWING
ORDER OF BY DATE

37

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCES NUMBERICAL ORDER

1.
8

U.S.C. Art. I, Section 8, Clause 10

2.
U.S.C. Article II. Sect.I , Clause 5
iii,2,4,10,11,15,17
3
iii

U.S.C. Article III. Sect. I

4.
17

U.S.C. Amendment XIV

5.
11

U.S.C. Amendment XV

6.
3

U.S.C. Amendment XX

7.
11

Amendment XIX

8.
11

Amendment XXIV

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE REFERENCES A-Z

1.

Phil Berg v Obama et. al No. 08A391 P. 4

2.

Judy v. Hinckley et al., U.S. Supreme Court 96-7655 P. 12

3.

Judy v. Obama U.S.S.C 12-5276

P. 2, 12

FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTE REFERENCES A-Z

Page

1. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Pub. L. No. 107-155,116, Stat

81,113-14 403 (a) (3)
1
2. 8 U.S. Code 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth (a-h)
6, 7, 9,17
38

5,

3. 28 U.S.C. 1251
ii
4. 28 U.S.C.A 1331
1
5. 28 U.S.C.A 1343 (3)
1
6. 28 U.S.C. 42 1983
iii,2,12
7. The Clayton Act 1914
ii,2
8. Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 9
9. The Sherman Act 1890
ii,2
10.U.S. Sen. Non-binding Resolution 511
12

OTHER COURT CASE REFERENCES A-Z

1

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) Informa pauperis held in
abeyance Cover Letter to Clerk

Judy v. Hickley et alUtahs Division 95cv952 P.12

Tenth Circuit Court- 96-4045 P.12

4 Judy v. Hickley et alUtahs Division 95cv952

5
Tenth Circuit Court- 96-4045
6 Holmes v. Jennison (1840)
7 Judy v. McCain et. al., 2:2008cv01162 NV District Crt
8 Judy v. Obama et. al., U.S. District Court case No. 1:14cv00093
9 Judy v. Obama et.al., U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 14-4136
10 Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 [p175
11 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

12
12
19
12
1,2,12
1,3,12
17
iii,

OTHER MATERIAL NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE CASE

39

1 WND http://www.wnd.com/2010/04/142101/ Justice Clarence Thomas: Were

evading eligibility pg. 3
2 Obama quoted Cleveland Ohio The Blaze: [
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/18/ready-obama-says-it-would-befun-to-amend-the-constitution-to-fix-campaign-finance/ ]
3
Standing Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29 : In

law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient
connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case
especially noticed in this particular case:
3. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm
suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either
does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose"
doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which
they are asking the court for relief.
4. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks
for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued
existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United
States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment,
because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that
one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the
law the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.
In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging
the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be
harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and
will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court
declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have
something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law. P.

4 Quote Edmund Burke - all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing2 P.6
5 July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington P.8
6 Emer de Vattells international treatise on Natural Law, The Law of Nations,
book 1 Chapter XIX. section from 212 P.8
7 Wiki definition of natural born Citizen cites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause P.8
8 2011 Congressional Research Service report P.9
9 WND http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/#swdZcDI1CYKsQLI1.99 features eight attempts to change
natural born Citizen clause of U.S.C. Art. II, Section 1, Clause 5 P.10

10 Nancy Pelosi signs two different forms to Certify Obama in 2008 P.11
a. http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/109363/
b. http://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

40

11 Cold Case Posse of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a law enforcements investigation

showing identity fraud handed out by Obama on record to the White House
Press Core in a phony or fabricated long form birth certificate, and also
elaborating on an invalid draft registration that had been fabricated. March
2011 P. 2,12
a. Link: http://www.thelastgreatstand.com/lgs/2014/04/13/breaking-thelatest-update-from-arpaio%E2%80%99s-cold-case-posse/
b. http://www.mcsoccp.org/joomla/
c. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA
d. Alabama Supreme Court Affidavit of Mike Zullo
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLXGMmzWDSxZBCLNaFpo8Zge
YFcXUvEuFRcS8IGf1GE/edit?pli=1

12 Reported at Godfatherpolitics, [During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly

became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the
Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had
been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign. She also heard former President Bill
Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact,
she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he
would go public with the information when the time was right. Before that could happen, his close
friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then
someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obamas eligibility. In the video {linked
here} below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama
campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point
on, the Clintons remained silent about Obamas birth certificate or lack thereof.]
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/02/i-cpac-2015-ignites-patriot-fires.html P. 14
13 USA TODAY USA TODAY printed an article entitled Top Lawers: No Question

Canadian-born Cruz eligible for presidency

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/26/ted-cruz-2016president-republican-nomination/2064395/
14 Neal Katyal & Paul Clement published in the Harvard Law Review entitled On
the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen. 128 Harv. L.Rev F. 161.
15 Politifact.com entitled Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for
president? March 26th, 2015 subsection- The Supreme Courts silence And
that means a note of uncertainty remains http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-presidentupdate/ P.15
16 Sarah Duggin Quote: No, I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. I think the
better argument is that Senator Cruz is eligible to run for president and to
serve as president of the United States. But absent a Supreme Court ruling or
a constitutional amendment, it is not open-and-shut.
http://www.law.edu/2015-Spring/Professor-Sarah-Duggin-Discusses-USConstitutions-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Requirement-on-NPR.cfm P. 15
17 Sarah Duggin Quote:Finally, the natural born citizenship clause is both an
anomaly and an anachronism. The way in which the clause differentiates
among United States citizens is contrary to the overall spirit of the
Constitution; the risk that foreign nobility will infiltrate our government is long
past; and place of birth is a poor surrogate for loyalty to ones homeland in
41

our increasingly mobile society and our ever more interconnected world. The
best solution would be to amend the Constitution, as many legislators on
both sides of the aisle have proposed over the years. In the absence of an
amendment, the clause should be narrowly interpreted.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/10/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizeneligible-to-serve-as-president/ P.15
18 Gallup Poll in 2014 42% of Americans now recognize themselves as
Independents. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americansidentify-independents.aspx P.16
19 The Daily Show w Jon Stewart Putting the Con back in Congress
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ybem0d/putting-the-con-back-in-congress
20 The official CIA COLUMBIA Obama sedition and treason trial transcripts
Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/collections/2682941/The-Official-C-I-AColumbia-Obama-Sedition-and-Treason-Trial-Transcripts
21 Cody Robert Judy Quote: Mr. Judy celebrates America in ways few
comprehend as he relates, It is the losers in the election races all across our
great land that differentiate Americas Republic under the U.S. Constitution.
For without the losers in our Republic only a dictator remains. P.18
22 As Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison (1840) as to the
importance of every word of the U.S. Constitution:
"In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have
its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole
instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The
many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the
constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the
high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed
it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation,
and its force and effect to have been fully understood." P. 19

42

NOTICE OF APPEAL

43