Most read Articles this Week
Top Articles of the Year
All Time Top Articles
Articles by John W. Wallace
Become an Author
Advertise with us
    Home   Image Gallery   Archive   Register New   Our Authors   About Us   Advertise   T&C   Contact Us   
Overview (10762) :: USA (7397)

5 Images in category USA

USA :: Constitutional Issues   ::   Print this Article
04-14-2017 11:03 am - Sharon Rondeau -
On Tuesday, April 11th, 201, The Post & Email provided an update on an Obama eligibility lawsuit filed by former presidential candidate Cody Robert Judy to which he recently added new information of a criminal nature, requesting that the judge reconsider his previous dismissal of the case.

Initially filed in July 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Judge Ted Stewart dismissed Judy’s claim of having sustained financial injury as a result of the presidential candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama based on Judy’s belief that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

The case is based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Clayton Act and federal civil rights laws and names Obama, the DNC and Organizing for Action (OFA) as defendants.

Judy’s eligibility challenges stem from Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the president and commander-in-chief must be 35 years of age, have been 14 years a resident in the United States, and a “natural born Citizen.”

While issues of citizenship have become arguably murky since the Constitution was ratified and as Congress has passed legislation in that arena, Judy and a number of constitutional scholars believe that the “natural born Citizen” requirement was meant to restrict the chief executive to only those bearing sole allegiance to the country through a two-generational citizenship test.

Since he first challenged Obama and Sen. John McCain in 2008 on the issue of presidential eligibility, Judy has said that a candidate must have been born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents. To support the contention, Judy has pointed to the different requirement in the Constitution for U.S. representatives and senators, who need be only “a Citizen.”

Both prior to and following Obama’s ascension to the national political stage, credible sources reported him as born in Kenya or Indonesia. Obama has himself claimed a father who was never a U.S. citizen.

Judy believes that as an ineligible candidate, Obama harmed Judy’s presidential campaigns of 2008, 2012 and 2016.

By June 2015, the case had made its way from federal district court to the Tenth District Appellate Court to the U.S. Supreme Court. In late September of that year, the high court denied Judy’s request for in forma pauperis status without comment despite the lower two courts having approved it.

On December 15, 2016, an investigator who conducted a lengthy probe into Obama’s proffered identity documentation gave a third and final press update revealing that two forensic analysts, both considered experts in their respective disciplines, had conducted their own examination of the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website by the Obama regime on April 27, 2011. Amplifying upon a video presentation featuring nine points of forgery on the Obama image apparently taken from the birth certificate of a person born in Hawaii the same month and year, Mike Zullo explained that neither analyst was aware of the other’s work, but both reached very similar conclusions to his own, announced in two press conferences in 2012.

Zullo’s investigation was commissioned by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) in August 2011, then headed by Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, at the request of 250 of his constituents. Zullo found that both Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are fraudulent.

Judy perceived the revelations from the December presser to be worthy of submission in his case based upon a provision in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act encompassing criminal violations. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC):

The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.

In a previous interview, Judy told The Post & Email that the law allows him “to take a criminal complaint directly to a judge, bypassing a federal grand jury and a prosecutor.”

On Monday, April 10, Stewart denied Judy’s Motion for Reconsideration of the case on the basis that he “dismissed all claims against Defendants” previously and they were not required to submit a response to the allegations.

On Tuesday, Judy told The Post & Email that under 28 U.S. Code § 2101, he can petition the U.S. Supreme Court on the matter within a specified time frame. On his blog on Thursday, he announced that he will send an application for hearing to newly-seated U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Judy explained how he arrived at Gorsuch:

“In my case, Justice Sotomayor is in charge of the Tenth Circuit. However, in my last case at the U.S. Supreme Court, 14-9396, I made the motion to have Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves. Sotomayor is the one who denied my application for in forma pauperis. I think that was inexcusable and a great disservice to poor people throughout the United States. They’re basically saying, ‘You have no right to justice because you’re poor.’ I think everyone in America, except maybe the very rich, should be appalled at that. It needs to be a way to galvanize people throughout the United States.

“In the Supreme Court rules, it says that if a justice is unavailable for any reason – and the reason that I would cite for Sotomayor not being available is her lack of impartiality on my in forma pauperis application – it goes to ‘the next available justice.’

I think I would be prejudiced to have to go to Sotomayor after she blatantly discriminated against me and after I’ve already filed a motion for Kagan and her to recuse themselves. The motion is still open, and it is not docketed on 14-9396. It’s a secret within the Supreme Court; the public does not see it. I have it on my Scribd account where you can verify it.

The law says that the next available justice would be the junior justice. In Kagan’s case, she was the solicitor general for Obama. A lot of people said she was involved in eligibility lawsuits, but I didn’t find that. However, she was definitely involved as a senior adviser and counselor in defending Obamacare.

The next junior justice is Gorsuch. So this is a big story on Gorsuch’s first test. He can make a ruling or refer it to the whole court if he chooses.

The inroad to the Supreme Court is really important, and I can do it without filing a Writ of Certiorari, which requires making 11 copies and a lot more money. I can make it about a five-page thing and send three copies.

What I’m going to do is ask Gorsuch to overrule the denial of the in forma pauperis decision. The justices can do that; Gorsuch can grant a stay or issue an order that a federal court judge has to file and sign the Order to Show Cause.

This will explain to the Supreme Court that new evidence has come to light describing a crime involving election fraud and fraud upon the public which requires the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congress’s job is to make laws, not serve as a court.


To write a comment you need to be registered
Register New