Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 13      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Longknife 21

Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #1 
Kagan and Sotomajor must be recused from this case. They have a very strong vested interest in this case, their JOBS!

They must be recused!

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

First two Obama state ballot challenges with undeniable standing set for Supreme Court conference today

Pamela Branett says the Supreme Court will hold conferences on the first two Obama state ballot eligibility cases that have undeniable standing today, September 24th. 

If the Supreme Court does not do the right thing and hear the cases on the merits then we pretty much will get a feel if the Supreme Court will continue with their tyranny to allow an ineligible fraudster to continue to destroy the country.  The two cases are Judy v. Obama and Weldon v. Obama and they both originated from Georgia.  Georgia by the way received permission to build two nuke plants a few days after the decision to allow Obama on the ballot despite proof of birth certificate forgery.  See the SCOTUS docket here.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

No Obama in court, no "Birther" ruling

Bill Rankin is reporting that a hearing on whether Barack Obama should be removed from the November ballot in Georgia ended Thursday without a ruling -- and also without Obama.

Obama's lawyer boycotted the proceeding -- triggered by citizenship challenges brought by a group of so-called "Birthers" -- calling it "baseless, costly and unproductive." Lawyers for the challengers said the president should be held in contempt for not complying with a subpoena.

"This court has authority to take appropriate steps to punish him in contempt," said state Rep. Mark Hatfield, a Waycross Republican who represents two men from Duluth and Morrow who filed challenges.

Judge Michael Malihi, who recently refused to quash the subpoena summoning Obama, never addressed the request. He cut off another lawyer when he began to complain that Obama's no-show amounted to "contempt for the judicial branch."

"I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly interjected during the hearing, which drew about 80 spectators and members of the media.

Obama's name is on the November ballot, put there by the Democratic Party under standard practice. The challenges were filed last year with the Secretary of State's office, which referred them to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Malihi will now make a recommendation to Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Kemp's decision can be appealed to a Fulton County judge.

On Thursday, lawyers raised two arguments for why Obama should not be on the ballot. One contended an 1875 Supreme Court opinion says only a "natural born citizen" -- someone born in the U.S. and whose parents were U.S. citizens -- can be president. (Obama's father, who was from Kenya, was not a U.S. citizen.) The other alleged Obama's birth, social security and passport records are forgeries.

California lawyer Orly Taitz, a leading proponent of challenges to Obama's candidacy, made the latter argument. She turned and faced the gallery -- and the TV cameras -- during her opening statement, prompting Malihi to tell her: "Counsel, please address the court."

During closing arguments, as Taitz began referring to documents that were not in evidence, Malihi pointedly asked, "Counsel, are you testifying?"

Taitz abruptly halted her arguments, took the witness stand and began testifying. Malihi soon cut her off.

The claims raised Thursday have been brought in courts across the country in dozens of cases, all of them dismissed. Obama released his long-form Hawaii birth certificate last year, quieting but not extinguishing the challenges. Malihi's ruling earlier this month that Obama should appear gave renewed hope to undeterred "birthers" and made Georgia the latest battleground.

Marietta lawyer Melvin Goldstein, who has practiced extensively before the court, called Malihi a "very fair and very reasonable" judge. "But this issue has been adjudicated and then dismissed so many times, I can't imagine his decision would be contrary to decisions in the other cases."

On Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, told Kemp he could end the case by withdrawing his referral of the matter to Malihi, adding he would not participate in the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here," he wrote.

Kemp, a Republican, said law required him to refer the challenges. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation ... please understand that you do so at your own peril," the secretary wrote.

During the hearing, Obama was in Las Vegas giving a speech to UPS employees. Inside the courtroom in Atlanta, almost every available seat was taken -- except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge.

How can someone just decide they aren't going to participate in a court hearing?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #4 
Credit given where credit due.  Dozens of lawsuits and years later, I'm amazed that a case actually made it to Conference.  It can still be denied, but it's encouraging nonetheless.
Birther Deluxe

Posts: 93
Reply with quote  #5 
Supreme Court of Fulton County, Georgia is the LOWER court this came from

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #6 
One thing, I gotta give CREDIT where Credit is due, Van Irion just keeps on slugging at the establishment.......  I certainly do hope that this one sticks, as there are lots of questions that many others who would NOT have opened their mouths even last year, are starting to ask repeatedly, in the light of Obama and Reid snidely pressing Romney for things that Obama would NOT in a thousand years give up willingly......

Maybe all the DIRTY CAMPAIGNING will come out and pay off against Obama, NOW......  hopefully the SCOTUS will have some Balls and stand up and declare him NOT ELIGIBLE..... per Art. 2, Sec. 1, Clause 5 of OUR CONSTITUTION (you know, that little piece of paper that is the LAW OF THE LAND.....)!!!

I just noticed that it is the Supreme Court of Fulton County, Georgia, does anyone know if the actual SCOTUS of Washington will be or could be, possibly, presiding over this case??  Because it states clearly on the Docket head that it is the Supreme Court of the United States....... but since it also says Lower Court Case Nos. I understand all the cases that came before have to be listed, but am not sure if it will be heard by the John Roberts bunch or the Fulton County bunch.........  I am not so sure, and if someone has the answer, please let those of us (me) who are dummies on this little item, know....

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

Georgia ballot challenge case has been distributed for SCOTUS Conference on September 24, 2012

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

Supremes asked:  Who is "natural born citizen?"

Bob Unruh is reporting that an announcement is expected sometime in the fall on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will decide just exactly who is a "natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for all those who would be president.
Officials with the Liberty Legal Foundation confirmed they have filed an appeal of the ruling from the state Supreme Court in Georgia, and a decision by the nation’s highest court on whether it will accept the case is expected over the coming months.

It raises two questions, including whether states can be forced to accept any candidate from a political party for presentation on state ballots even when the candidates do not meet the required qualifications.
The other is the key question -- "Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II 'natural born citizens,' regardless of the citizenship of their parents?”
According to a statement from Van Irion, chief of Liberty Legal, the case that stems from a Georgia dispute "is the first to present the U.S. Supreme Court with a substantive ruling on the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution.”
"All other cases to reach the Supreme Court on this issue had been dismissed on purely procedural grounds. Liberty Legal Foundation’s case is an appeal from the Georgia courts’ substantive ruling,” he explained. "The Georgia courts refused to dismiss our case based upon procedural grounds. The Georgia courts reached the substantive issue, what is a natural born citizen.
"They ruled incorrectly, but that ruling does allow us to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to address the definition of natural born citizen, instead of simply addressing a procedural issue,” the explanation said.
"Now the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to address the definition of natural born citizen, our substantive issue.”
"The petitioners’ challenge in Georgia state court was based upon an uncontested fact: that the respondent’s father was not a U.S. citizen; and upon the legal conclusion that a person must have two U.S. citizen parents to be a natural born citizen under Article II of the U.S. Constitution,” the brief to the high court explains. "The Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings and Secretary of State ruled that any person born on U.S. soil is a ‘natural born citizen’ as that term is use[d] in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents.”
But the brief argues that conclusion turns states’ rights on their head, because it would allow a political party to demand anyone be on a state election ballot, regardless of what the election code might require.
In Georgia, the law requires, "Every candidate for federal and state office … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
But the state’s ability to require candidates be qualified is separate from the right of political parties to choose their own candidates, the case argues.
"The right to associate easily coexists with the state’s right to determine the manner of choosing its presidential electors,” the brief argues. "Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of any political party’s internal decision making because it does not prohibit the parties from submitting any name…
"The political parties are free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse… However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.”

Continue reading here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #9 
That Press Release was about BOTH cases before the Courts, one in Georgia and the other one in California, which is posted on the California thread.....  sorry I should have separated them, but didnt.  They were both on the same  email I got and I split the cases, but didn't put the Press Release on the other page.........

Posts: 133
Reply with quote  #10 
"Motion Hearing in Taitz v Sebelius challenging Obama Tax as violating Establishment clause, Free Exercise of Religion Clause, Equal Protection Clause and Due Process clause of Christian and Jewish citizens due to exemptions given to religious sects and due to expected mass exemptions of Muslim citizens" Wait... What? " and due to expected mass exemptions of Muslim citizens"  What does that mean? - Edited, i reread my statement and felt it sounded harsh

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #11 
Orly and Farrar are still fighting hard and strong........

1) From Supreme Court website: Application for stay of awarding of Barak Obama's Georgia votes in the upcoming general election related to Georgia case "Farrar v Obama" was docketed on July 9th, 2012 and is currently before United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Details below.

2) "Taitz vs Sebelius" was filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California on July 5th, 2012, subsequently moved to the western Division in Los Angeles, alleging PPACA (Obamacare) unconstitutional under the 14th amendment consideration of equal protection rights of Christian and Jewish citizens, as PPACA (Obamacare) exempts Muslims; and other constitutional grounds. Details below.


Farrar v Obama case prosecutor is requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court to order a stay (hold) of the awarding of Barack Obama's Georgia votes in the upcoming general election for President of the United States, pending proof of Obama's eligibility to hold office in light of evidence of fraud presented to a Georgia court last January.

A prosecuting attorney last January presented to a Georgia court evidence of fraud and forgery including sworn expert testimony related to Barack Obama's electronic on-line birth certificate. Obama and his attorneys declined appear in court, in violation of a court issued subpoena, and declined to offer any counter evidence such as a certified copy of his birth records, or an opportunity to examine the original document. Evidence of Social Security fraud and selective service registration fraud was also presented to the Georgia court.

The application for stay of Obama's Georgia votes in the upcoming general election was docketed on July 9th, 2012, and is now in front of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. If Thomas does not either grant the stay, or refer the issue to the full court, the case will be put in front of Chief Justice John Roberts. Thomas' decision is expected within two weeks.

there is a screenshot of the complaint with all the pertinent Court info, but it didn't show up when I transferred it over from the email

Posted on | July 10, 2012

Press release

Law Offices of Dr. Orly Taitz

Farrar v Obama in front of the Supreme Court

Farrar order denying motion to quash subpoenas

Farrar corrected proposed summary of law and fact


Farrar v Obama Application for Stay of primary election votes for Barack Obama in the state of Georgia was filed and docketed in the Supreme Court of the United States and referred to Justice Clarence Thomas, a justice in charge of the 11th Circuit from which the case originated. If Justice Thomas does not grant the stay or referral to the full court, the case will be in front of the Chief Justice John Roberts.

This case was heard on January 26, 2012 in Atlanta Georgia. Attorney Orly Taitz brought 7 witnesses, among them Senior Deportation office of the Department of Homeland Security, all of whom testified that Obama’s Social Security card and Birth certificate are forged and fraudulently obtained documents. Taitz subpoenaed Obama to appear in court and produce valid identification papers. Obama filed a motion to quash the subpoenas filed by Taitz. Presiding judge Malihi ruled in favor of Taitz and ordered Obama to appear in court and produce the identification papers. Obama and his attorney Michael Jablonski were in contempt of court ordered subpoena and boycotted the hearing, claiming that Obama is being harassed. GA law requires the candidate to prove his eligibility, Obama did not provide any proof. Based on yet unknown consideration judge Malihi allowed Obama on the ballot.

DVD of the actual court argument in the case and witness sworn testimony is available through this site by paying $20 (see Donate above and indicating that this is for the DVD of GA trial). Decision by Justice Thomas is expected within 2 weeks. If no stay is granted by Thomas, decision by Roberts will be 2 weeks later.

Farrar v Obama is one of several cases prosecuted by attorney Taitz, challenging Obama Tax. Other cases are in front of the Federal District judge Wingate in Mississippi, Judge Reid in Indiana, Court of Appeals in Washington DC, Federal District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles.

Motion Hearing in Taitz v Sebelius challenging Obama Tax as violating Establishment clause, Free Exercise of Religion Clause, Equal Protection Clause and Due Process clause of Christian and Jewish citizens due to exemptions given to religious sects and due to expected mass exemptions of Muslim citizens, will be on August 10, 9:30 am in the U.S. District court in Los Angeles.

End of Press release


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #12 

Powell-Swensson-Welden v Obama, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US Supreme Court 6-28-2012

Questions presented for review

Question #1:

Does the right to associate force states to accept any candidate from political parties for presentation on state primary ballots when such a candidate does not meet the minimum legal qualifications for the office sought, thereby negating state election laws and state control of elections?

Question #2:

Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II "natural born citizens," regardless of the citizenship of their parents?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #13 

So, the final outcome is to be by the date of July 1, not the actual hearing, which means that the hearing is probably going on late next week or the early part of the June 25th week, so that they can deliberate a bit and come up with a judgement BY THE FIRST OF JULY......  INTERSTING to say the least, I sure do hope he has a chance......


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 
The Post & Email interviews Cody Robert JUdy
Hi, Cody, could you
answer a few questions and I’ll feature your announcement as our blog of the day tomorrow:

1. You are representing yourself, correct? Is any attorney assisting you (or would you rather not say)?

2. Where will the case be argued on July 1?

3. Where can your latest pleadings in the case be found?

Thanks, Sharon

Dear Sharon;

Nice to hear from you.. and hope you are doing well. Direct to your questions okay ;)

1- Am I Representing myself?

Sharon this is a very important question because it addresses an issue which desperately needs to be aired out within the Birther or Eligibility Movement. I know some people take offense to having it called the Birther Movement. I don’t, because a Birth symbolizes a “a new beginning” and in some ways that’s what our Constitution represented when it dawned upon the world.

“Yes”, I have not had any of the “Eligibility Attorneys” offer any help. I don’t mean to imply that they are necessarily obligated to help or anything, its just that I have had to struggle so hard by myself to get this action in the Supreme Court and its totally different then ‘just’ a ballot challenge simply because it does feature all of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation as credible evidence in the case as I submitted it to the Superior Court March 2nd,2012 one day after its release and I do have standing. The BIGGEST lesson learned from 2008-2011 was what?

Once you get out of a Administrative Law Court and into a Judicial Court Proceeding you had better have a Presidential Candidate as a Plaintiff, preferably one who is challenging in the same party and has some viability to address the political doctrine concern, because for instance, Republican Candidates who have no chance of getting the parties nomination are not “viable” contenders to challenge; and your Presidential Candidate must be contending in the 2012 election and preferably also did so in 2008 (ie., Allen Keyes, Leah Lax,Lori Roth- Orly Taitz and John Dummet – Van Irion ) That’s it folks, and then you have to ask yourself how viable is that campaign? That’s what the Justices are going to ask so why shouldn’t you?

Now I am not apposed to receiving legal counsel, as I showed myself willing with Orly Taitz when this action began in the administrative court in Georgia, but she was unable to continue the case in the Superior Court based on a Judges ruling, and is not viable in the Supreme Court due to her being sanctioned by the Georgia Judicial Branch in the case where she was sanctioned twenty thousand dollars in Rhodes v. McDonald for trying to get court ‘standing’ on the eligibility case of Obama from a military person after the 9th Circuit ruled the military personnel don’t have standing in Barnett v. Obama, she also conducted.
The 9th Circuit Federal Appellant Court taught us those lessons, so how does anyone expect to be successful outside that parameter with a “Citizen” Ballot complaint if it is not successful in the executive court level? You might as well throw your hands up in the air as soon as you enter a Judicial Court who has a ton of more requirements and law to continue to uphold.Why be concerned with that?

Well, if your concerned about the Constitution and Obama running around the Constitution’s eligibility requirements why wouldn’t you be addressing the Courts in a way that was harmonious with prior rulings? Many resources are being wasted in a movement that is trying to get its feet on the ground. If the “principles” are the most important thing to us, then these problems must be addressed and acknowledged by everyone within the movement, so that a more cohesive effort can be made in the right direction.

Now I don’t mean to belittle anyone’s efforts or zeal in this movement. I simply don’t want people banging their head on the same brick when its a fruitless effort according to law that has been ruled upon by very high Courts already.

My case Sharon represents a very unique charge to justice simply because I have standing as a Presidential Candidate in the same party, with a viable campaign that is competitive and you could call me “Grandpa” in the Birther Movement. I think it is important to understand that this is not a racial movement and that is indeed about our Constitution.

You recall I sued Sen. John McCain 3 days before he was made the nominee at the GOP National Convention in 2008 because he is a Panama son and could run for President in Panama very easily as a native. He probably could have given Panama President Ricardo Martinelli a run for his money in 2009. In the Judy v. McCain case filed in Federal Court in Las Vegas, the Judge literally stalled in defiance of procedure until McCain had lost or until he could rule the case was “moot” because McCain lost.

Of course that ruling wasn’t very considerate of Republican voters, but I’m really glad McCain lost. I was thinking we would really be in more of slight progress down hill if he had won and his birth, known to be outside any military complex, and Congress’s “naturalization” act that gave him “Citizenship” compiled upon the Obama co-sponsored U.S. Senate’s Act of non-binding Senate Resolution 511 that confirmed McCain’s ‘natural born citizen’ status, would I think be a bigger peril then Obama’s eligibility now. Sometimes its the slight progress down hill that is easier nudged further then a dramatic drop off a cliff as we currently face with Obama’s eligibility.

I think that is important to address because some polls have shown a little over half of the Republican Party and Independents according to 2012 polls are Birthers, and near 25% of Democrats, according to the definition and if they don’t come to terms with that the Republicans will face just as much collateral damage as Democrats when Obama’s usurpation ends.

The Birther Movement is a very prevalent factor for the Courts to consider in that the general population in a near 50% margin consider the eligibility of the Office of the President is very important to our National Security and Economy, and there is no question that the Birther movement will candidly affect a bottom line of 25% of active voters,or 1 in 4 voters across the board, which we know has the power to sway the election.

Now for CNN and several other main stream media (MSM) companies, that would represent success and a real increase of their audience but they still aren’t giving us the time of day, but I think that is going to change very quickly over the next couple of months as we begin to send or make the news to MSM instead of having them spoon feed it. The respect that they are giving 25% of the Country is atrocious and is an example of pre-conceived notions Birthers are knuckle-draggers according to an elite class of media personnel and corporate interest controlling them.

You may also recall in 2010 I testified, under oath, as a Presidential Candidate with standing in theCIA COLOMBIA OBAMA SEDITION AND TREASON TRIAL that was a key factor in legally getting a “guilty verdict” in front of a 10th Amendment Jury of Citizens. Without that testimony its very conceivable that the 12 person jury would not have felt compelled to the verdict and while it was a 10th Amendment trial and not a Judicial Branch Trial, it is worth bearing in mind that these citizens that served on that Jury were indeed very conscientious law abiding citizens taking that responsibility very seriously and doing so with no compensation whatsoever. (My Trip back to NY to testify)

Americans have a real loyalty to Justice when it comes down to it, and at the same time we are a very forgiving people, but that in no way means that we don’t respect our law and the fact our United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and that it is a cohesive document glued together like a beam resisting flippant construction.

Your Second Question. Where will the case be argued on July 1st?

The case will be argued within the Georgia Supreme Court and their decision I should have by July 1st,2012 and then we will proceed according to that decision. The case was Docketed May 31st and a decision will be rendered within 30 days that will allow us to proceed according to the verdict. The good news about that is its happening before the September 2012 National Democratic Convention.

Of course you are aware of the case in Weldon v. Obama - Counsel Van Irions,and combined Swenson v. Obama - Powell v. Obama Counsel J. Mark Hatfield that was combined once again show us when a plaintiff lacks “standing” the Court lacks jurisdiction and thus the Supreme Court denied both Weldon and Powell without opinion.






5-… Swenson/

My case will be historic in nature because it differed in two distinct ways as I’ve said. I do have “standing” and I submitted as evidence a law enforcement cold case posse investigation in the Superior Court that now is on the Supreme Court’s plate. That doesn’t mean I am going to win, it simply means the Court has many more questions answered in the affirmative in my case as to justifying or affirming my Application where the others were denied.

Your Third Question. Where can the pleadings be found.

Here is the link where anyone can read 67 page Application for Review the Supreme Court will also be reviewing. Barring the complications that arise from sua sponte filings that arise from complications and time restraints, I will try to post any other filings here for public inspection and review. The Court Number for my case is found under Cody Robert Judy v. Barack Obama Case No. S12D1584 and of course certified copies can be obtained from the Court at a cost per page.…

Here is the latest Campaign Commercial featuring the stand being taken in the Supreme Court of Georgia, AND as always I must cordially invite all who do care about this issue to please do what they can to help this campaign. You can share it on your social networks and tell your friends about it, but you probably will not hear about this from the MSM or main stream media, so if you can please consider a contribution to help me get the commercials on the networks to inform more people about what’s going on. You can visit my contribution page here:

and while many do not want to contribute until someone wins, it still takes money to win and riding the coat tails of a fancy that doesn’t fight for the Constitution and defend the integrity of the highest office of the land is about the same as contributing to Obama’s campaign.

Seriously folks, I need your help yesterday, so please consider helping any way you can. Enjoy the Commercials posted below.


Cody Robert Judy


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #15 
I don't know anything other than what was in the page posting, and since that was the date posted, but it is close to the 4th of July and that holiday, the Court may - possibly - be working???  who knows, not me, but someone here may be able to clear it up....

just went to his webpage and the date there is the same, so, I don't know NOTHINGGG
Longknife 21

Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #16 

OUCH!  Good catch!

But since SCOTUS refused to hear the Alan Keyes case, I think that gave the Georgia Supreme Court "permission" to rule for Obama, even if they have to spin it:
a) The voters elected him.
b) Congress "approved" his eligibility by not challenging the Electoral College
c) Some other lame excuse that they won't rule on the evidence.

Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #17 

Hi Claudia,

"I talked to the Georgia Supreme Court Clerk today and she informed me that a HISTORIC DECISION will be made on July 1st,2012! Is America ready to ride this horse to the finish line? "
- Cody Robert Judy -"
My concern about the post is "July 1st" which is a Sunday.  ?????

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #18 
hat tip to Bill, (I am just a pass-through poster for him)  but here is the latest from:   I certainly hope that Cody Robert Judy is right on this assessment and goes to the finish line.....
Breaking News on Georgia Supreme Court case Judy v. Obama

"I talked to the Georgia Supreme Court Clerk today and she informed me that a HISTORIC DECISION will be made on July 1st,2012! Is America ready to ride this horse to the finish line? "
- Cody Robert Judy -

Could this be the Sea-biscuit America has been waiting for?

If you recall the Seabiscuit story- he was puny, walked with a limp, and had been trained to lose to better horses to boost their confidence. He didn't look like any kind of a race horse , for they were large.. yet somehow this little horse inspired people with his heart and willingness never to give up.

Sometimes all anyone needs is a second chance and America is just the place to do it. Can America show Washington DC that all the little people make up what has made America Great by supporting a Candidate who isn't wealthy, hasn't held office, but understands the Constitution and has a vision for America to make her solvent. Just because politicians in Washington DC keep dolling out of a bankrupt checkbook doesn't mean we have to keep letting them do it?

They want America to be down ... to think that we aren't great. To think that we must be told what to say, what not to say, how to think and how to pray. They want to make it so you can't plant a seed in the ground and watch it grow because they want to take your independence away.

It seems that most politicians in Washington DC pander an atmosphere to America that we cant do... we can't say.. and we can't think. Well I say they are wrong.

We know what the Constitution says. We know our forefathers didn't want foreign influence living in the White House in charge of our military might. We know we have been given a chance to reap what we sow. To work and prosper and keep what we make.

Increasingly apparent is Washington DC's desire to place America on crutches.. so we don't use our muscles. So we think we are lame.

Well to hell with that! I say we are strong. I say we can think for ourselves. I say it is time to make sure Washington DC knows who is strong in this Country and that every Citizen in America is stronger with his Constitutional protected rights then most Citizens of any other Country.

That starts with "">TAKING A STAND. Thats why I entitled my book "">Taking A Stand. Because there comes a point and time when you just can't take any more. When you realize that what you hired politicians to do isn't being done.

Now some people have said they don't think that the qualifications of the highest office of the land matter that much, that are demanded by our Constitution. How is it that I can say I am more constitutionally qualified to be president then Obama is?

I can say that because I am without a shadow of a doubt a "natural born citizen"

Now we all know that means born in the United States to 2 Citizen Parents and it just goes to show people that if Politicians in Washington DC are willing to bend the Constitution on a point that is so elementary, just what do you think they are willing to do on points of your personal Bill of Rights?

That's right! They are willing to trash them. All of a sudden the danger becomes one person .. individually.. doesn't matter. Well how about 10, or 100 or 1000 or 100,000... what number matters if each person doesn't matter?

That is why by God I have been inspired to draw the line in the sand on the eligibility issue. I know and I understand that.. but hey Washington DC just doesn't get it?

Of course they get it. They are not stupid...but they think you and I are. Well, that mentality is like the hired man all of a sudden thinking that the people paying his wage doesn't have any sense in knowing what color of paint they want and painting the house the way he thinks it should be painted.

Can you imagine the outrage of walking into your house painted something totally different then what you wanted it painted?

Holy cow, all hell would break lose. Then on top of that can you imagine the painter you hired really telling you that you were crazy or fringe for telling him to paint it the color you wanted?

Well that is exactly what these elites in Washington DC are doing and it has got to stop now! Please take a stand with me, spread the word. Share this with all you know..information is a key and we have got to inform and educate more people to exactly what is going on.

My case in the Supreme Court in Georgia represents much more then myself. It represents America's history... every man or women or child who has died for our Constitution. Think about placing all that blood up on the scale and betting against it. That's what Obama has done! He has defiled the U.S. and it has got to stop now.

Please log on to ""> and help Cody with a contribution today and Share the images that are catching American's eye right now made by one "">Patriotic American B"">ruce Goldwell! Imagine what you can do if you take action right now and share this with your friends?

Check out all the commercials that are ready and waiting for your dollars to tell Washington DC they are on notice, and to share with your friends "".

Just a final thought I was thinking today at about 6am while I was jogging my 4k. The thought went through me like a ton of weight as I was... continue at the blog to find out what Cody was thinking.


Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #19 
Just in from Van Irion

Supreme Court Should Review Our Georgia Eligibility Case

Later this month Liberty Legal Foundation will be filing its petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling that Obama is a natural born citizen. As you know, Liberty Legal Foundation represented David Welden, one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia ballot challenges, earlier this year. Our efforts resulted in the first court ruling to reach the merits of an Article II challenge against Obama. All previous courts had dismissed such challenges on procedural grounds.

The Georgia Administrative Court and the Georgia Secretary of State both erroneously ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen because any person born on U.S. soil is, according to them, a natural born citizen. The Georgia Administrative Court was the first court to make such a ruling and have the authority to do so. Of course the ruling was wrong, but that is what we will be arguing to the Supreme Court.

In order to get there, we must show the Supreme Court that we have a case that allows the Court to reach the substantive issue. Please understand what I’m saying here because it is historic and critical to this entire eligibility fight. So, let me say it again: Never before had any court, anywhere in America, had authority to rule on whether Obama is an Article II natural born citizen, and actually made a ruling on the substance of that issue. Every other court had either dismissed on procedural grounds or ruled without authority to do so. This is why this issue has not previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court on the substance of the issue.

Many reading this will point to an Indiana Appellate Court decision from 2009, claiming that the Indiana Court had decided this issue. It is true that the Indiana state court ruled in Arkeny v. Governor that Obama was an Article II natural born citizen. In fact the Georgia Administrative Court relied on Arkeny, claiming that the Indiana Court had decided this issue. However, the Indiana Court’s own opinion admits that it didn’t have jurisdiction. Therefore the Arkeny Court had no authority to decide the Article II issue. The fact that it ruled on the issue, after admitting that it had no authority, simply proves that that court was yet another activist court full of judges willing to reach beyond the authority that we’ve given them.

You see, the Arkeny Court ruled that the plaintiff challenging Obama in Indiana didn’t have standing. When a plaintiff lacks standing, the court lacks jurisdiction. Which means that the court has no authority to decide the substantive issue of the case, even if it wants to do so. The Arkeny Court admitted that it lacked standing, and then it ruled on the substantive issue anyway. The judges in that case should be ashamed of themselves. Their ruling reflects either judicial activism at its worst, or inexcusable incompetence.

The reason the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to address the Obama Article II eligibility issue is because every case that has come to them so far reflected a lower court dismissing on procedural grounds, or a court ruling on the Article II issue when it had no authority to do so. In either case, the Supreme Court would not have been able to address the Article II issue, it would be forced to rule on the procedural issues or the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court. That is why Liberty Legal Foundation’s appeal from the Georgia courts is different.

David Welden, our plaintiff in the Georgia eligibility case, had clear standing because Georgia state law granted him standing. In fact, no defendant or court ever questioned our plaintiff’s standing to bring his case. So, the Georgia courts had jurisdiction to rule on the Article II issue. Because of that, Liberty Legal Foundation’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court represents the first real opportunity for the Supreme Court to address the substance of whether Obama is an Article II natural born citizen. All previous cases were mired in procedural muck. Our Georgia case is a clean ruling on the substantive legal issue. If the Supreme Court is going to accept any case on Obama’s eligibility before the general election, it should be ours.

We need your help. Preparing our petition is labor intensive and expensive. If you are able, please donate $5, $10 or more today. Please also spread the word about Liberty Legal Foundation to your social networks, letters to editors, and community groups.

Thank you for standing with us for Liberty,

Van Irion, Founder



Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #20 
here is another item about the Georgia Ballot Challenge, sent to me by Longknife, (thanks, and I thought that I would put it up)..... at least Judy is still in there trying to get Georgia set straight....  do you suppose that this new hearing might have some grit behind it as a splatter from Wissconsin keeping Walker????  Possibly??
As seen on: 
Three Bullet Points:
1) Cody Robert Judy v. Barack Hussein Obama has been docketed in the Georgia Supreme Court.
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, May 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.
Links to Application for Review



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


Interviews with Cody Robert Judy

Reporters may call 801-497-6655 to schedule an interview time.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

Judy v. Obama discretionary application for review Georgia Supreme Court

GeorgeM says there are some interesting developments occurring here. Find the 2 attachments also linked here at SCRIBD:
Judy v. Obama Discretionary Application for Review in the Georgia Supreme Court
An extension has been offered here that has amounted to an “Amended Notice of Appeal”
For the sake of interest I have had a few people ask me already “So, What does this mean? I mean, How is it different from what has been going on?”
That is a good question as with all of the cases not a single one has had any reasonable action and this has led even Obama’s camp to gloat that there’s been hundreds of challenges filed and they all are garbage. In fact that has become a mantra of Obama supporters and Obama himself in some of the latest campaign commercials that have showed John McCain taking the higher ground then say Mitt Romney because John McCain chastised his supporters harder and Obama would like Mitt Romney to tell Donald Trump to quit blowing his nose on Obama.
Here’s their Campaign Commercial:

For the sake of calling Obama a “good person” McCain is really saying here and now the guy who has blatantly lied, misled, deceived, and fraudulently represented himself to the American People with his long form birth certificate, his draft registration, his social security card, hid every document he could from the general public like his college records his traveling identity visa’s, and any authentically genuine form of identification used daily by the general public, is a “good person”. Further, Obama want’s Romney to take up the mantra and drink the Jim Jones farce.
Of course the Media has had a field day with Wolf Blitzer-  and Greta Van Susteren  both taking swipes with Donald Trump about the issue they called him on. I guess they think if Trump says’ he’s voting for Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney ought to be able to shut the Donald’s mouth?
Well, in a nut shell here’s what is different. #1 – Obama has won most of the cases because of what’s called “standing”. Most of the people bringing the challenges to Obama through the Court were not running for President and didn’t have campaigns hurt by Obama’s malfeasance against the Constitution’s demands for a natural born citizen. Well I’m running as a Democratic Party candidate, I have standing and have been hurt by Obama’s willingness to cheat the rules 50 states have agreed is the Supreme Law of the Land.
#2- Its just not be waving my magic wand saying Obama’s not a natural born citizen because he’s got foreign allegiances to his father, but I have submitted in my complaint 2200 hours of investigations by a cold case posse designated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Now whatever you think of Sheriff Joe, the main idea in this was to clear Obama. That didn’t happen and in fact the opposite happened.
These two working facets are penetrating the Obama Forgery Gate, and unless Supreme Court Justices want to throw the book out of what they are suppose to be about, sooner or later the Obama house of cards is going to come down in a hurry. You know the most dis-concerting thing about this is its a guy like me, whose really poor, actually fighting for the Constitution while Mitt Romney’s got millions and hasn’t bothered to look under the carpet, but continues to sweep Obama’s fraud under the carpet. That’s not the kind of President we need right now.
Leaders find ways to lead, and believe it or not, our Constitution created our Economy and made America great. I think most politicians and probably most of the people only care about the economy. Well, if they cared about the economy they’d see its the Constitution of America that made our Economy great. Let’s keep it, and get our economy back on track!
Keep you posted on what’s’s the latest commercial if you missed it!

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

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #22 
maybe, just maybe, now that the Judges have had their eyes opened wide by Obama's attacks and intimidation innuendos towards the Supreme Court and by and through that entity, all courts; compounded and magnified by his insolence and ignorance, they (someone in a Judicial Position) just might get it through their head(s) that Obama is alll but decreeing the total destruction of them, their positions, and the importance of the Constitution and thereby, the whole reason for there to be an America or United States of America......

And on the up side, you gotta love all those that are NOT GIVING UP on the saving of our Nations Laws and importance.  Keep on swinging, maybe something will be taken seriously and good may take a hold on those that have the capability to make right - honest decisions that reflect the Bill of Rights and the Constitution....

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

And back atcha'


Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama filed Fulton County Superior Court, State of Georgia, April 4th, 2012 for the Eleventh Circuit.


CRJ Petition for Writ of Certiorari U.S.Supreme Crt Judy v. Obama




A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

Georgia Supremes dodge eligibility question


WorldNetDaily is reporting that the court dismissed the complaint without a word of explanation.


The Supreme Court in Georgia has dismissed a case questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility without comment, dodging a sticky question that continues to be raised four years after the issue first was brought to the attention of American courts -- and before Obama was elected to his term as president.


Officials with the Article 2 SuperPAC said today they were told that the state court denied an appeal from a decision by Michael Malihi, an administrative judge who decided without evidence from Obama or his lawyer that he was eligible for the office and his name could appear on the Georgia ballot in 2012. 


One of the Georgia residents who had raised the issue under a state law allowing voters to challenge candidates’ eligibility, Kevin Richard Powell, said the state court result, which could be advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, was a “total travesty.”

“The state of Georgia has a law on the books giving electors the right to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate,” he said in a statement posted on the Article 2 organization website. “However, that would be in theory only because in reality the judicial process is prohibitive and the sanctity of the ballot cannot be assured. Therefore, my ballot challenge in which Barack Obama entered nothing into the record and ignored a court order to appear despite Georgia Secretary of State’s warning to do so would be at ‘his own peril,’ heads to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking not only redress for a judicial process that has failed its responsibilities, but ultimately seeking constitutional compliance.”

Another plaintiff in the case, Carl Swensson, said: “Georgia Supreme Court makes it a perfect trifecta! They join with the administrative law judge and the Georgia Superior Court in refusing to give an honest hearing to an honest challenge.”

He continued, “This really does drive the point home that our courts no longer exist. It is now THEIR courts, not meant for lowly citizens to find or expect actual redress of grievances or justice. Yes, it makes me sad to know there isn’t one judge in this state with … any observable civic conscience, and absolutely no guiding moral fiber. What it does show me is that we are now one step away from completing the journey. The journey through local, state and now federal, in the form of the Supreme Court of the U.S., where I personally expect them to ignore our plea for justice. ”

“God help us all.”


Continue reading here . . .

They all know -- but it's interesting watching them twist themselves into pretzels rather than face the truth.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #25 

Ga Supreme Court denies appeal, read it here........

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved