Main Menu

News: Supreme Court rejects Judy plea

In a tersely-worded decision earlier today, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision to deny a a request by appellant Cody Robert Judy to file case of Judy v. Obama, in forma pauperis (without paying the normal fees). The case is an appeal from the  Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In order to continue the appeal, Mr. Judy will have to pay the filing fee and comply with court rules.

Previously the Utah District Court wrote:

After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s suit is frivolous. Plaintiff’s claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact and Plaintiff’s factual allegations border on the irrational and wholly incredible.

The Tenth Circuit concurred:

For substantially the same reasons stated by the district court, we also conclude that the complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim for relief under § 1915(e)(2).

I found a copy of Judy’s Supreme Court appeal but it is too tangled to understand, so I cannot in all good conscience say that it is frivolous. Here’s a more or less randomly-selected sentence:

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.

Once the filing fee is paid, I guess somebody has to read the whole thing for a court to rule. Seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

Mr. Judy and I had a bet on the result (terms follow). Technically I won the bet due to the way it was worded, but I don’t think the outcome today was what either of us intended. So, unless Mr. Judy objects, we will postpone judging the bet until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to accept the case.

Here’s the bet: I will contribute $100 to your 2016 presidential campaign (must accept PayPal) if the Supreme Court grants you cert this month. And if you don’t get cert, you must agree to come on this blog and say; “I lost the bet.” OK?

Mr. Judy is trying to raise the money to pursue the appeal:

, ,

130 Responses to News: Supreme Court rejects Judy plea

  1. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 22, 2015 at 5:12 am #

    seeking to altar the constitution by attrition

    Nothing says “idiot” like a guy using lots of impressive words while failing to properly spell them. And nothing says “RWNJ” like the constant inability to master homonyms.

    Couldn’t he just have said “Congress has refused no less than 8 times to make naturalized citizens ineligible for the Presidency”?
    Or even better, just assumed that SCOTUS, of everyone in the world, knows obvious stuff like that and cut out the whole thing?

  2. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 22, 2015 at 5:24 am #

    Oh what a hoot, I can’t force myself to read the entire thing, just this gem from the initial three “questions of law” was enough for me:

    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

    I thought “what the heck is he referring to?”, and it was Obama saying that Citizens United could, as one option, “be overturned by a new court”, obviously referencing a decision by a future SCOTUS. But it seems Judy believes Obama meant dissolving SCOTUS and replacing it with something else? Amazing.

  3. avatar
    john June 22, 2015 at 6:29 am #

    Yes, the questions CRJ presented are just to convoluted and confusing to consider. One has to consider if his petition was even “read” by a live person. Is every petition that is sent the SCOTUS actually read by a live person. I would assume that CRJ’s petition was probably rejected instantly with the words Barry Soetoro and Frivolous. Perhaps a computer may even being doing the rejecting. Who knows. I do know that in todays’ world, job applicants are rejected by a computer and most applications are never read or reviewed by a live person.

  4. avatar
    Northland10 June 22, 2015 at 7:26 am #

    I guess somebody has to read the whole thing for a court to rule. Seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

    Maybe it would be help if he included a light balsamic vinaigrette with his pleadings.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 7:53 am #

    What blows the irony meter is that Judy has a section on deductive and inductive reasoning in the brief (something one really does NOT have to explain to a Supreme Court justice!).

    The Magic M (not logged in): Oh what a hoot, I can’t force myself to read the entire thing, just this gem from the initial three “questions of law” was enough for me:

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 7:54 am #

    Perhaps some HEAVY ranch would be better.

    Northland10: Maybe it would be help if he included a light balsamic vinaigrette with his pleadings.

  7. avatar
    Lupin June 22, 2015 at 8:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Perhaps some HEAVY ranch would be better.

    Make that Grappa 120 proof. No less will do.

  8. avatar
    alg June 22, 2015 at 8:32 am #

    Lupin: Make that Grappa 120 proof. No less will do.

    Now you’re talking! 🙂

  9. avatar
    HistorianDude June 22, 2015 at 9:36 am #

    Orders are out.

    I am unclear as to what they mean:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062215zor_2bo2.pdf

  10. avatar
    Reality Check June 22, 2015 at 9:55 am #

    It means his request for IFP was denied. He has to pony up the filing fee and refile or forget it. He must have PO’ed the clerk with his nonsense motions for default. The same order applies to Macak v McDonald

    HistorianDude:
    Orders are out.

    I am unclear as to what they mean:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062215zor_2bo2.pdf

  11. avatar
    Reality Check June 22, 2015 at 10:32 am #

    It’s not only paying the filing fee he would also have to comply with Rule 33.1 and that means a few grand in printing costs.

    Also no default for Cody.

  12. avatar
    gorefan June 22, 2015 at 10:33 am #

    Reality Check:
    It means his request for IFP was denied. He has to pony up the filing fee and refile or forget it. He must have PO’ed the clerk with his nonsense motions for default. The same order applies to Macak v McDonald

    Justice Roberts has been reading his comments here and decided to teach him a lesson.

  13. avatar
    HistorianDude June 22, 2015 at 10:43 am #

    So… cert is not denined here… that decision is deferred.

    Judy wins!

  14. avatar
    bob June 22, 2015 at 10:51 am #

    And when Judy fails to pay and comply with the rules (at considerable expense), it’ll be dismissed (rather than denied).

    This is the court signaling it is tired of his nonsense. If wants Judy wants his day in court, it won’t be on the taxpayers’ dime.

  15. avatar
    donna June 22, 2015 at 10:51 am #

    Jun 22 2015 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Petitioner is allowed until July 13, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-9396.htm

  16. avatar
    Rickey June 22, 2015 at 10:55 am #

    Yes, technically his cert petition is still on life support because the first thing that SCOTUS had to do was rule on his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since that motion was denied, as RC points out Judy now has to pony up the filing fees, plus he has to pay to have 40 copies of his petition printed in booklets which comply with Rule 33. And he has 21 days in which to get this done.

    And of course the last day of the current SCOTUS term is June 29, which means that even if Judy pays the fees and properly files his petition, the next conference date will be in October.

  17. avatar
    Reality Check June 22, 2015 at 11:17 am #

    Correct. I found one web site that said the average printing costs are $2k and up. I think Judy in a comment claimed he did this for his earlier case and it cost him more than that.

    Too bad for CRJ that Justice Stevens retired. Stevens always dissented on the IFP denials. The Birthers always took that as a sign that Stevens would vote to grant cert. It meant nothing other than Stevens was against denying anyone the right to file on principles.

    Rickey: Yes, technically his cert petition is still on life support because the first thing that SCOTUS had to do was rule on his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

  18. avatar
    Pete June 22, 2015 at 11:22 am #

    So, $2000 or so for printing, plus $300 for a docketing fee.

    Maybe $2500.

    I think I’m going to contact Mr. Judy. I can offer him a denial for much less than that. Say, $1500. A $1000 savings!

    That’s what I call a win-win.

  19. avatar
    bob June 22, 2015 at 11:29 am #

    Tracy Fair crowdsouced her SCOTUS filing fees and costs. And cert. was denied.

    Open those wallets once again, birthers! Ain’t no sanction like a self-sanction!

  20. avatar
    Rickey June 22, 2015 at 11:37 am #

    Reality Check:
    Correct. I found one web site that said the average printing costs are $2k and up. I think Judy in a comment claimed he did this for his earlier case and it cost him more than that.

    I can believe it. Rule 33 is very detailed and specific about what is required, including the size and weight of the paper which can be used, the size of the margins and footnotes, the color of the booklet’s cover, etc.

    I suspect that Judy’s motion was denied because it has been determined that his petition is frivolous. I found this, Rule 33.8:

    If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 12:06 pm #

    OK, I didn’t quite cal this one right. I think I technically won the bet, but I think it better to postpone. The article will have to be rewritten.

  22. avatar
    john June 22, 2015 at 12:53 pm #

    That’s why a petitioning to SCOTUS is a careful consideration. It’s something that can be closely and has to be done correctly to the letter as well as having a case that is ripe for SCOTUS. That’s why every lawyer doesn’t always appeal to SCOTUS. In CRJ’s case, he has no chance. His case was found to be frivolous. The odds that SCOTUS would ever consider his case is astronomical.

  23. avatar
    john June 22, 2015 at 1:03 pm #

    john:
    That’s why a petitioning to SCOTUS is a careful consideration.It’s something that can be closely and has to be done correctly to the letter as well as having a case that is ripe for SCOTUS.That’s why every lawyer doesn’t always appeal to SCOTUS.In CRJ’s case, he has no chance.His case was found to be frivolous.The odds that SCOTUS would ever consider his case is astronomical.

    You do your battle in the trial court. Don’t think you can win on appeal. SCOTUS is merely there is address a true present and current legal issue that can effects every US Citizen. SCOTUS is not a court to fix a legal problem. That’s done at the appeals court. Battle of the facts is done at the trial court level. If you got some bow breasting to do, your do at the trial level. That’s where the battle is.

  24. avatar
    roadburner June 22, 2015 at 1:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    OK, I didn’t quite cal this one right. I think I technically won the bet, but I think it better to postpone. The article will have to be rewritten.

    much as it galls me to have to say it, i must disagree.

    if you said it would be denied today, you’d be wrong as it wasn’t

    not being pedantic here, just giving my POV

  25. avatar
    bob June 22, 2015 at 1:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    OK, I didn’t quite cal this one right. I think I technically won the bet, but I think it better to postpone. The article will have to be rewritten.

    SCOTUS most likely applied Rule 33.8, which (IMO) would make your prediction correct.

    But SCOTUS could have denied IFP status to Judy because of what he wrote on his IFP application. To be sure, though, Judy would have to share with us the IFP application that he filed with SCOTUS.

  26. avatar
    Rickey June 22, 2015 at 2:37 pm #

    bob: SCOTUS most likely applied Rule 33.8, which (IMO) would make your prediction correct.

    But SCOTUS could have denied IFP status to Judy because of what he wrote on his IFP application.To be sure, though, Judy would have to share with us the IFP application that he filed with SCOTUS.

    And I can almost see the quizzical look on the clerk’s face when he tried to make sense of this:

    “…Appellee prays the ‘application to appeal in forma pauperis otherwise be held in abeyance to both the lower court’s permission grant.'”

    Does Judy know what “abeyance” means?

  27. avatar
    Rickey June 22, 2015 at 2:43 pm #

    Not a peep out of Judy so far on either his blog or his Facebook page.

  28. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 22, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

    Rickey:
    Not a peep out of Judy so far on either his blog or his Facebook page.

    His warped brain is currently processing how to re-fabricate what actually happened, into this fantasy narrative. Expect long load times!

  29. avatar
    alg June 22, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

    Cody Robert Judy declares victory:

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/06/breaking-news-supreme-court-orders-judy.html

  30. avatar
    CRJ June 22, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

    Gosh.. Can you believe this? I’m not Dead yet?
    BREAKING NEWS: Judy v. Obama NOT DEAD! U.S. SUPREME COURT “Orders” this AM breathing oxygen into the Case! Cont., http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/06/breaking-news-supreme-court-orders-judy.html?m=1

  31. avatar
    roadburner June 22, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

    CRJ:
    Gosh.. Can you believe this? I’m not Dead yet?
    BREAKING NEWS: Judy v. Obama NOT DEAD! U.S. SUPREME COURT “Orders” this AMbreathing oxygen into the Case! Cont.,http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/06/breaking-news-supreme-court-orders-judy.html?m=1

    actually, no.

    they have basically said ” best you get your hand in your pocket skippy, because we’re not going to fund this crap”

    think you’d better get used to the idea of shelling out some funds and then losing them directly.

  32. avatar
    CRJ June 22, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

    October Surprises.. Always good for the Coming Iowa Caucus?

  33. avatar
    bob June 22, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

    CRJ:
    October Surprises.. Always good for the Coming Iowa Caucus?

    Whatever that means.

    Now we have got to CELEBRATE this very big news! We have not been dismissed! That has NEVER happened before in any birther Case! Never has a BIRTHER CASE that I am aware of survived past the CONFERENCE date and Orders of the Court thereafter. We are making HISTORY here!

    Judy’s options:
    1. Pay the filing fee; the case will again go to conference, and cert. petition will be denied.
    2. Not pay the filing fee by the deadline, and the court will dismiss the petition.

  34. avatar
    Jim June 22, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

    CRJ: October Surprises.. Always good for the Coming Iowa Caucus?

    Oh yeah…birthers being surprised that nobody else believes their BS is always good. 😀

  35. avatar
    bovril June 22, 2015 at 5:37 pm #

    Boy named Sue

    You do grasp that what has happened is the SC has basically stated that you should be sanctioned for your nonsense but since in real terms they can’t do that they are asking you to self sanction yourself…?

    One of to things will happen

    A. A Boy named Sue follows the minima requirements of the SC, spends about 3K then get his sad little case dropped like a bad joke

    B. A Boy named Sue doesn’t follow the minimal requirements and gets his nonsense bounced like a bad joke

    End result, no happy ending for A Boy named Sue

  36. avatar
    bob June 22, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

    New question: Will Judy pay the required fees and costs before the court’s deadline?

    I predict: No. Judy himself lacks the funds to pay the fees and costs, and he lacks the skills required to raise the money from others.

    By mid-July, the petition will have been dismissed.

  37. avatar
    Jim June 22, 2015 at 5:43 pm #

    CRJ, shouldn’t you be out getting signatures to get on the ballot in 50 states? If you’re wasting your precious time/money on this, how do you ever expected to be elected President?

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

    I think that the only Christian thing to do would be for Birther Report to give Mr. Judy some of the money donated to them for the migration to a new server (that never happened). I would give him some of my donations, but there never were any (nor should there be).

    bob: I predict: No. Judy himself lacks the funds to pay the fees and costs, and he lacks the skills required to raise the money from others.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

    Something I would discourage.

    bob: To be sure, though, Judy would have to share with us the IFP application that he filed with SCOTUS.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 5:50 pm #

    That’s not the bet I offered. What I said was:

    Here’s the bet: I will contribute $100 to your 2016 presidential campaign (must accept PayPal) if the Supreme Court grants you cert this month. And if you don’t get cert, you must agree to come on this blog and say; “I lost the bet.” OK?

    Of course the month is not over for a few days.

    roadburner: if you said it would be denied today, you’d be wrong as it wasn’t

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 5:53 pm #

    As Ms. Conspiracy is fond of saying, “They are.”

    john: . His case was found to be frivolous. The odds that SCOTUS would ever consider his case is astronomical.

  42. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 22, 2015 at 6:40 pm #

    John:

    “In CRJ’s case, he has no chance. His case was found to be frivolous.The odds that SCOTUS would ever consider his case is astronomical.

    I reviewed the opinion written by 10th Circuit Judge Phillips, appointed by Obama, and saw where the Circuit Court and the District Court agreed Judy was not seeking the removal of the ineligible Obama, but compensation for injury endured by Judy after the US federal government refused to recognized an ineligible President withdraws the sovereignty delegated to the federal government by the People and the States. Judge Phillips has a conflict of interest. If Obama admits to being ineligible during discovery, then Judge Phillips will immediately become unemployed, his decisions will be annulled, and his reputation has a supporter of the Constitution will be destroyed.

    I didn’t see where Judy made a specific Appointments Clause challenge, but as a non-attorney, pro se litigant he should have to. All the elements are described in his complaint. The President is ineligible. He is not seeking to overturn the will of the majority to install an ineligible President and he seeks compensation from the federal officers who have ignored the fact the majority of people have withdrawn the sovereignty delegated to the federal government.

    In Nguyen v. United States. an appointments clause challenge was not made until the case was appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS reversed and remanded on the late appointments clause challenge.

  43. avatar
    roadburner June 22, 2015 at 7:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That’s not the bet I offered. What I said was:

    Of course the month is not over for a few days.

    ok doc, I misread.

    my apologies

  44. avatar
    CRJ June 22, 2015 at 7:46 pm #

    “The President is ineligible. He is not seeking to overturn the will of the majority to install an ineligible President and he seeks compensation from the federal officers who have ignored the fact the majority of people have withdrawn the sovereignty delegated to the federal government.”

    You actually believe the Majority of the People understood that by voting for Obama, they gave up the sovereignty of the United States Union under the Umbrella of the U.S. Constitution?

    If that’s what you think “John” , where are the lines located defining any Officer of the U.S.? Where are the lines of a State? Who are the U.S. Supreme Court Justices?

    My thought in the question that the Supreme Court Justices very tenure are threatened and the Court itself effected as “moot” is spot on with your analysis in tact.

    You think you can have some if it, but not all of the Constitution and the People effectively gave it up under the auspices of voting for an Identification Fraud?

    I don’t quite think the American People are going to buy that argument. I think it’s much more likely that if they had understood that, and known, Obama wouldn’t have got any votes.

    If he’d run the Campaign : VOTE for an Obama Nation and give up America I’m thinking he doesn’t win. Which makes his own oath for Pres a witness to his compliance of said U.S. Constitution relevant to his failure and the U.S. Sovereignty and Constitution back in business!

    See how that works? Good thing he took it TWICE!

  45. avatar
    Rickey June 22, 2015 at 8:10 pm #

    CRJ:
    Gosh.. Can you believe this? I’m not Dead yet?
    BREAKING NEWS: Judy v. Obama NOT DEAD! U.S. SUPREME COURT “Orders” this AM breathing oxygen into the Case!

    Sorry, no oxygen. What they did was deny your motion to file in forma pauperis, most likely because your petition is frivolous (see SCOTUS rule 39.8).At the very least, it is incomprehensible.

    Of course, if you now cough up the filing fees and produce 40 booklets in the required format on your own dime, doesn’t it prove that you weren’t indigent in the first place? Quite the conundrum.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 8:13 pm #

    No problem.

    I was driving all day today. Around 10:30 I pulled into a rest stop to check the Supreme Court orders and saw that cert had not been denied. I had a quick jolt of anxiety that I might have lost the bet, but thinking it back through I remembered that I had defined Judy’s “win” condition (got cert), not my win condition. So I was OK.

    roadburner: my apologies

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

    I daresay that none of the people, not a single one, voting for Obama thought that (unless you voted for Obama, which I doubt). I think that pretty much everybody who voted for Obama believed that he was eligible to be President under the Constitution, and that he had no intention of undermining the Constitution. I continue to believe that.

    Your lawsuit is nonsense.

    CRJ: You actually believe the Majority of the People understood that by voting for Obama, they gave up the sovereignty of the United States Union under the Umbrella of the U.S. Constitution?

  48. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2015 at 8:32 pm #

    CRJ: Gosh.. Can you believe this? I’m not Dead yet?

    Well, if you want to stay alive, you need to get cracking on getting those documents set up and hunting down the money to file (and even then, there is no guarantee they will accept your case). You don’t have any time to waste.

  49. avatar
    Reality Check June 22, 2015 at 8:36 pm #

    My mistake was not reading the lawsuit and seeing what extra special nonsense it was. I assumed the court would just grant the IFP motion and deny cert. Instead they cut Judy no break and followed their rules for a change. I suspect all the frivolous motions for default judgement played a part. I think they just screamed “I am an idiot” to the court. I very much hope Judy refiles according to the rules and spends several grand in the process. He could then surely afford to take up my wager that it never wins cert.

  50. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2015 at 8:44 pm #

    CRJ: I don’t quite think the American People are going to buy that argument. I think it’s much more likely that if they had understood that, and known, Obama wouldn’t have got any votes.

    It’s a little late to be worrying about that. Obama has been president for six and a half years, he will be president for another year and a half and then he will leave office. In the meantime, if you don’t get started on figuring out how to satisfy SCOTUS to grant you cert, you are going to be dead (legally speaking) after all. The time for celebrating is after you are granted cert, not before. You have three weeks. Good luck! 😛

  51. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2015 at 8:55 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: If Obama admits to being ineligible during discovery, then Judge Phillips will immediately become unemployed, his decisions will be annulled, and his reputation has a supporter of the Constitution will be destroyed.

    Dream on! The president was born in Hawaii, has Prima Facie evidence to prove it, also has state officials willing to back that up and has no reason to admit to something that never happened anyway.

    On the morning of January 20, 2017, I’m going to laugh my derriere off and cackle about how much boasting you Birthers spend so much time on, dreaming up crazy scenarios as if you were producing a hit movie and ended up bringing about your own failures by acting like children.

  52. avatar
    Northland10 June 22, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

    CRJ: If that’s what you think “John” ,

    Actually, you quoted Sven. Sven goofed up the formatting on the quote which makes it look like all John. Only the first paragraph were John.

    If you have not noticed, Sven makes stuff up with no actual evidence at all. When he is on a roll he will even claim something as evidence when it actually says the complete opposite of what he claimed.

    Oh, and regarding your case it’s dead now, it was dead before, and it will be dead in the future. It never lived. It is not a has been, it is a never was, is not now and never shall be.

    It has no basis in law, fact or reality. It is a fantasy. If you want to play at fantasy, might I suggest some fantasy sport. it is much cheaper and you may even have more success.

  53. avatar
    Georgetown JD June 22, 2015 at 10:23 pm #

    CRJ:
    Gosh.. Can you believe this? I’m not Dead yet?

    No, Cody, your case is decidedly dead. The Utah court dismissed it and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. What you are trying to do with your petition for writ of certiorari is resurrect a dead case.

    Lazarus faced better odds.

  54. avatar
    HistorianDude June 23, 2015 at 12:05 am #

    CRJ: Gosh.. Can you believe this? I’m not Dead yet?

    Oh, but you most certainly are dead. The court has merely ordered you to pay for the privilege of an obituary.

  55. avatar
    HistorianDude June 23, 2015 at 12:29 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If Obama admits to being ineligible during discovery, then Judge Phillips will immediately become unemployed, his decisions will be annulled, and his reputation has a supporter of the Constitution will be destroyed.

    How long have you been at this, Sven, and you still have no comprehension of the De Facto Officer Doctrine.

    There is no conflict of interests, and Judge Phillips would keep his job even were it found that Barack Obama was a martian.

  56. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 23, 2015 at 5:10 am #

    Historian Dude:

    The De Facto Officer doctrine cannot be used to validate violations of the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution. Once the US Constitution is violated, it remains violated forever because it is the Supreme Law of the Land. An amendment to the Constitution cannot be used to retroactively validate a previous violation. Congress, the courts and the President are not authorized to abolish the US Constitution, but the American people are. The American people delegate authority to the federal government and can withdraw that delegated authority by voting for and installing an ineligible President. The Electoral College serves has a check on the vote of the majority. If members of the Electoral College choose not to vote faithlessly to prevent an ineligible President from assuming office, then an ineligible President is installed and the US Constitution is voided.

    In Nguyen v. U.S., SCOTUS reversed and remanded after Nguyen made of an Appointments Clause challenge in its writ of certiorari. I didn’t see where Judy made a specific Appointments Clause challenge, but the elements are there. Judy complains the President is ineligible and that Judy has been injured by the federal government through actions taken by federal officers after the installation of an ineligible President. That is commonly referred to as an Appointments Clause challenge or a sovereign immunity challenge.

    Obama a unitary executive with delegated authority to lead a nation of sovereign people. Obama is not authorized to delegate authority to inferior officers after the people chose to elect Obama to become President with disregard to numerous lawsuits filed in various district courts and state courts alleging Obama was ineligible. Proof of ineligibility is not submitted with a complaint. Proof of the allegations is discovered in a process referred to as discovery.

    All federal and state judge are restrained by the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. Judges have a vested interest in the outcome of an eligibility challenge because their jobs are terminated once proof of Obama’s ineligibility is discovered. Proof of ineligibility may be discovered through deposition or an examination of Obama’s federal records. Obama’s birth certificate is proof of time and place of birth and not current citizenship status.

    Obama will admit his ineligibility because he knows he stays in office and it the rest of the federal government that is terminated. If the district court allowed discovery, rather than dismissing the case because they don’t want to lose their jobs, then proof of Obama’s ineligibility could be discovered and entered into the record.

  57. avatar
    roadburner June 23, 2015 at 5:33 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    If the district court allowed discovery, rather than dismissing the case because they don’t want to lose their jobs, then proof of Obama’s ineligibility could be discovered and entered into the record.

    i can see you’re hopeful that your prayers wil be answered, but in reality you’d have more chance of praying for a rainbow unicorn that farts glitter to appear in your kitchen this morning and having it actually appear.

  58. avatar
    dr. kenneth noisewater June 23, 2015 at 5:57 am #

    roadburner: i can see you’re hopeful that your prayers wil be answered, but in reality you’d have more chance of praying for a rainbow unicorn that farts glitter to appear in your kitchen this morning and having it actually appear.

    Sven also doesn’t understand what discovery even means. It’s not an open invitation to dig through all records and won’t give him the desired outcome.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2015 at 6:55 am #

    Federal judges are appointed for life.

    SvenMagnussen: If the district court allowed discovery, rather than dismissing the case because they don’t want to lose their jobs

  60. avatar
    roadburner June 23, 2015 at 7:20 am #

    dr. kenneth noisewater: Sven also doesn’t understand what discovery even means. It’s not an open invitation to dig through all records and won’t give him the desired outcome.

    he’s also labouring under the misconception that there is some kind of sekrit evidence that proves the president ineligable.

    if there was, we’d have seen it at some point since 2008.

  61. avatar
    HistorianDude June 23, 2015 at 8:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The De Facto Officer doctrine cannot be used to validate violations of the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

    Gong!!!

    The De Facto Officer Doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the law that ultimately disqualifies the officer is statute, rule, regulation or Constitutional provision. The appointments, actions and orders of that officer are not violations of any law at all. They remain fully valid, legal and binding.

    This is not a controversial issue.

  62. avatar
    HistorianDude June 23, 2015 at 8:55 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Obama is not authorized to delegate authority to inferior officers after the people chose to elect Obama to become President with disregard to numerous lawsuits filed in various district courts and state courts alleging Obama was ineligible. Proof of ineligibility is not submitted with a complaint. Proof of the allegations is discovered in a process referred to as discovery.

    Wrong at least three different ways.

    Presidential appontments of Federal judges do not constitute delegations of authority “to inferior officers.” The authority of those judges does not flow through the executive branch, but is derived directly from the Constitution via Article III. The authority of the President (which derives from Article II) can be delegated only to inferior officers of the Executive branch. You need to brush up on that Constitution you pretend to care so much about, since you seem woefully unclear on even the most basic aspects, such as separation of powers.

    The “disregard” of the American people to unproven allegations in failed lawsuits is an example of the system functioning exactly as it was designed. You seem to carry a schizophrenic attitude towards what you previously asserted was the sovereignty of the American people to govern themselves by implying here that they should somehow be bound to accepting in the ballot box slanders and falsehoods that have already failed in the court room. It is at the very least a very bizarre suggestion.

    In point of fact, every voting citizen has the sovereign power to decisively exercise their judgment over issues such as Presidential eligibility, and every birther has been provided with a powerful Constitutional remedy for their dissatisfaction with the evidence any candidate provides; they can withhold their vote.

    Finally, no. Discovery is not and never has been a legally sanctioned fishing expedition within which an accuser is allowed to freely rummage around whatever they want. It carries with it a significant set of limitations and protections that the requesting party must overcome before production can be compelled. So while “proof” may not be completely necessary when merely submitting a complaint, a certain amount of evidence (or at least a reasonable argument) must be provided before discovery can be compelled.

    And no birther in any case has ever provided even the most miniscule scintilla of evidence (let alone a reasonable argument) that could compel discovery.

  63. avatar
    alg June 23, 2015 at 9:17 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    If the district court allowed discovery, rather than dismissing the case because they don’t want to lose their jobs, then proof of Obama’s ineligibility could be discovered and entered into the record.

    In this statement, Sven admits he has no proof that Mr. Obama is ineligible. His “case” that Obama is ineligible is based upon his belief that there is “proof” which he has never seen, nor possessed.

  64. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 23, 2015 at 9:36 am #

    HistorianDude: they can withhold their vote

    And that cannot harm them because, as RWNJ’s never tire to point out when it suits them, “there is no right to vote in the Constitution”.

    bob (quoting Crazy Racist Judy): Now we have got to CELEBRATE this very big news

    I was just about to predict the loon brigade would somehow spin this into a “victory”, as with every fail. Poor Cooky Rascal Judy, believing his “informa pauperis” (sic!) has opened the floodgates for the BIG WIN this time. Another “October surprise” in the making.

    Well, I would cheer for that because it would probably mean the GOP primaries could see a revival of Obama birtherism.
    Mr Cruzrombee, will you pardon Barium Soebubba O’Barnyard when you become Pressingdent or will you make sure he’s jailed in Fort Knox forever? What do you mean, ‘crazy’? Traitor!

  65. avatar
    CRJ June 23, 2015 at 10:14 am #

    Really nice comments.. Thoughtful considerations. Enjoyed them all.

    Ok.. Doc and I had a bet.

    Now given the general sentiments relayed here, I’m dead, dead, dead. But I’m still alive.

    It’s confusing. Doc said I’d be dead. But I’m still alive. But Doc didn’t lose the bet? And, I’m still alive. Hummm. 👌ok. Do you feel I lost Doc?

    Now, among the counsel here the soul purpose of “delaying” the Ruling on my informa Pauperis Motion much farther out then all the other Cases was?

    To extend the life of a “frivolous Case” ?

    That like saying “shake and bake” ryme and are both nouns. Presented action upon the poor defying the Lower Courts agreement upon Informs Pauperis that should have been, and was GRANTED in two Courts with what about a 60 day difference of time?

    That’s high-class Justice?

    Or.. Is it something else?

    This is what is worrisome to many of you. Rightly should be.

    If it’s a Clerk, the Motion would have been adjudicated within a week. No.. This was an intentional delay by the Justices. That also means discussion between them needing more time. And the likelihood of more than one Justice involved. That spells trouble for ya.

    Most of those other cases you saw “Reality Check” , had there motions dealt with much much earlier. Delaying mine how many weeks is almost an “intentional delay of game” deserving a 5 yard penalty?

    I just can’t buy it on the merits; Delay if Game; Penalizing me 30 days from the start; Giving Respondents an extra 20 days to Respond all the while we sit on this Motion, or… Two, so we can send him back 100 yards?

    Well., while the tactic works I don’t want to hear another “peep” out of you about “wasting our tax dollars”. Do suppose all of the time necessary to regroup a new conference is worth $300 to the Court?

    I think it’s much more expensive to carry it on than not to kill it; especiall IF it is frivolous from the get-go? What rabbit time-hole did ya go down gang?

    The other odds for the bet also goes up in making it a paid case. The odds of a paid case being heard are quadrupled from informa Pauperis cases. That fact can’t sit well on the gas track here?

    So., it’s all intellectually stimulating to see what we are dealing with: And Defying the Lower Courts agreement on Informs Pauperis bodes well for who?

    Well call me a positive romantic looking at the glass half full but that’s just one decision away from defying the lower Court(s) other decision(s) isn’t it? Sure is.

    And you guys Chuck it all up to $300? That simple mindedness put to good use might have sparred us 6 years of the past, but I’ll reckon it an improvement, positive as I am .

    Cheers Guys🍷

  66. avatar
    bob June 23, 2015 at 10:50 am #

    I wouldn’t call Judy a romantic, as there’s more to being a romantic than stubborn idiocy.

    The point in denying Judy IFP status was to tell Judy (and those like him) that the privilege of wasting the court’s time is no longer free — that his cert. petition isn’t even worthy of a free vote by the justices. If he wants to ride the ride, he needs to buy a ticket.

    It would be more efficient in this specific case to just deny cert. and kill the case. But courts sometimes take a slightly longer route if it affects the bigger picture — preventing and deterring repeat frivolous filings.

    No matter: Judy will not pay the fees and costs, the court will dismiss his petition, and Judy nonetheless will still proclaim losing at every level was some big court victory.

  67. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile June 23, 2015 at 10:50 am #

    That was a whole lot of nothing.

  68. avatar
    John Reilly June 23, 2015 at 11:21 am #

    So, Mr. Judy, if I have got it right, before you came here with your comments you (a) paid the fee, and (b) made arrangements to have your brief printed the way the rules require. You don’t want to miss the opportunity since, in your view, the Supreme Court wants to review your case on the merits once you cross your t’s and dot your i’s. Right?

    You are also, of course, free to post funds on the bet on the ultimate outcome of your case. My sense is Doc is still betting on a denial of cert, but others suggest that you wont pay the fee so that your application will simply be dismissed. Either way, are you placing a bet?

  69. avatar
    Reality Check June 23, 2015 at 11:22 am #

    Other than he hates President Obama and thinks he isn’t eligible I can’t make heads or tails of anything CRJ has written here or said on the radio. It’s just a bunch of gibberish.

    On his radio interview when he was giving his bio he went into much detail about building his own house, running companies, and how his parents trained Arabian horses and participated in competitions but there wasn’t one word about his felony convictions. I guess a felony conviction for threatening to bomb people isn’t relevant to his presidential campaign?

    The other thing that is ridiculous is that CRJ, Volin and the others went on an on about how Obama has destroyed the country but they never give any example of anything to support that claim. They kept talking about restoring the Constitution when it is they who wish to pervert the Constitution by taking away the votes of over 60 million Americans.

    Punchmaster via Mobile:
    That was a whole lot of nothing.

  70. avatar
    John Reilly June 23, 2015 at 11:31 am #

    Sven’s entire approach depends upon Pres. Obama taking the witness stand and admitting to ineligibility. What happens when Pres. Obama says, “I was born in Hawaii” appears to be outside the realm of Sven’s alternative universe.

    Oh, that’s not the entire approach. Sven also posits that once some crank says that the President is ineligible the entire government must come to a halt until that crank is satisfied. Because that rule is in the Constitution At least in the version which Sven carries, which has all sorts of rules for what happens when the American people elect someone who Sven does not think should be President. It’s right there in Article 88 of the Constitution.

    When last we left Sven, we kept challenging him to produce the proof he says he has in the form of naturalization papers, pictures of Pres. Obama in Los Angeles being naturalized, and the revocation of that naturalization. How’s It going Sven in producing those documents? You have them, right? Or if not, you’ve submitted FOIA requests to the government for them? Right? You’ve given them to Doc to post, right? They are not secret, right? After all, in your little world Pres. Obama knows about them because he was there at each step of the way. You’ve got him cornered.

  71. avatar
    Daniel June 23, 2015 at 1:33 pm #

    So Cody… even though you rebuffed my offer to bet the farm, probably realizing even as we did what the outcome would be, the offer is still open.

  72. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 23, 2015 at 2:16 pm #

    alg

    “In this statement, Sven admits he has no proof that Mr. Obama is ineligible. His “case” that Obama is ineligible is based upon his belief that there is “proof” which he has never seen, nor possessed.”

    My comments are relevant to CRJ’s case. My whistleblowers have not mentioned CRJ to me, so I assumed CRJ will have to discover the facts of Obama’s ineligibility without them. One way for CRJ to do that would be to depose Obama during discovery.

    My whistleblowers have told me many things, but not everything. For all I know, CRJ is working with my whistleblowers and they have decided not to include me in the discussions.

  73. avatar
    Joey June 23, 2015 at 2:29 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    alg

    My comments are relevant to CRJ’s case. My whistleblowers have not mentioned CRJ to me, so I assumed CRJ will have to discover the facts of Obama’s ineligibility without them. One way for CRJ to do that would be to depose Obama during discovery.

    My whistleblowers have told me many things, but not everything. For all I know, CRJ is working with my whistleblowers and they have decided not to include me in the discussions.

    How do you propose to have discovery in a lawsuit that has been dismissed? Furthermore, the state of Hawaii would need to be a plaintff since it controls Barack Obama’s original birth records. The state of Hawaii is not a plaintiff in Cody Robert Judy’s lawsuit.
    Finally, discovery works both ways. Judy would have to turn over HIS evidence of ineligibility to the defense.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 23, 2015 at 2:43 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: My whistleblowers have not mentioned CRJ to me, so I assumed CRJ will have to discover the facts of Obama’s ineligibility without them. One way for CRJ to do that would be to depose Obama during discovery.

    Oh back to your made up whistleblowers again? I thought you grew out of this after trying this same tactic months ago. Since there are no facts of Obama being eligible there’s nothing for CRJ to discovery.

    Lol depose Obama during discovery? hahaha “Where were you born” “Obama: Hawaii” “CRJ: Aha!”

    For all you know CRJ already blew up your whistleblowers.

  75. avatar
    Voice of Reason June 23, 2015 at 3:11 pm #

    john:
    Yes, the questions CRJ presented are just to convoluted and confusing to consider.One has to consider if his petition was even “read” by a live person.Is every petition that is sent the SCOTUS actually read by a live person.I would assume that CRJ’s petition was probably rejected instantly with the words Barry Soetoro and Frivolous.Perhaps a computer may even being doing the rejecting.Who knows.I do know that in todays’ world, job applicants are rejected by a computer and most applications are never read or reviewed by a live person.

    Yes, every petition sent to the United States Supreme Court is read by a live person. I know this for a fact.

  76. avatar
    Voice of Reason June 23, 2015 at 3:28 pm #

    CRJ:
    Really nice comments.. Thoughtful considerations. Enjoyed them all.

    Ok.. Doc and I had a bet.

    Now given the general sentiments relayed here, I’m dead, dead, dead. But I’m still alive.

    It’s confusing. Doc said I’d be dead. But I’m still alive. But Doc didn’t lose the bet? And, I’m still alive. Hummm. ok. Do you feel I lost Doc?

    Now, among the counsel here the soul purpose of “delaying” the Ruling on my informa Pauperis Motion much farther out then all the other Cases was?

    To extend the life of a “frivolous Case” ?

    That like saying “shake and bake” ryme and are both nouns.Presented action upon the poor defying the Lower Courts agreement upon Informs Pauperis that should have been,and was GRANTED in two Courts with what about a 60 day difference of time?

    That’s high-class Justice?

    Or.. Is it something else?

    This is what is worrisome to many of you. Rightly should be.

    If it’s a Clerk, the Motion would have been adjudicated within a week. No.. This was an intentional delay by the Justices. That also means discussion between them needing more time. And the likelihood of more than one Justice involved. That spells trouble for ya.

    Most of those other cases you saw “Reality Check” , had there motions dealt with much much earlier. Delaying mine how many weeks is almost an “intentional delay of game” deserving a 5 yard penalty?

    I just can’t buy it on the merits; Delay if Game; Penalizing me 30 days from the start; Giving Respondents an extra 20 days to Respond all the while we sit on this Motion, or… Two, so we can send him back 100 yards?

    Well., while the tactic works I don’t want to hear another “peep” out of you about “wasting our tax dollars”. Do suppose all of the time necessary to regroup a new conference is worth $300 to the Court?

    I think it’s much more expensive to carry it on than not to kill it; especiall IF it is frivolous from the get-go?What rabbit time-hole did ya go down gang?

    The other odds for the bet also goes up in making it a paid case. The odds of a paid case being heard are quadrupled from informa Pauperis cases. That fact can’t sit well on the gas track here?

    So., it’s all intellectually stimulating to see what we are dealing with: And Defying the Lower Courts agreement on Informs Pauperis bodes well for who?

    Well call me a positive romantic looking at the glass half full but that’s just one decision away from defying the lower Court(s) other decision(s) isn’t it? Sure is.

    And you guys Chuck it all up to $300? That simple mindedness put to good use might have sparred us 6 years of the past, but I’ll reckon it an improvement, positive as I am .

    Cheers Guys

    Every single word of this is a hilarious fantasy.

    Good luck to you Mr. Judy. I wish you no ill, but the fact that your forma pauperis application was denied does not mean that the Justices are interested in your petition.

  77. avatar
    Voice of Reason June 23, 2015 at 3:30 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    alg

    My comments are relevant to CRJ’s case. My whistleblowers have not mentioned CRJ to me, so I assumed CRJ will have to discover the facts of Obama’s ineligibility without them. One way for CRJ to do that would be to depose Obama during discovery.

    My whistleblowers have told me many things, but not everything. For all I know, CRJ is working with my whistleblowers and they have decided not to include me in the discussions.

    He has investigators out there in Hawaii. And “they can’t believe what they are finding.”

  78. avatar
    alg June 23, 2015 at 3:39 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    alg

    My comments are relevant to CRJ’s case. My whistleblowers have not mentioned CRJ to me, so I assumed CRJ will have to discover the facts of Obama’s ineligibility without them. One way for CRJ to do that would be to depose Obama during discovery.

    My whistleblowers have told me many things, but not everything. For all I know, CRJ is working with my whistleblowers and they have decided not to include me in the discussions.

    Uh, Sven, Judy’s case is an appeal where the lower courts already denied discovery and summarily dismissed his suit as frivolous. That’s not going to change.

    As for your “whistleblowers,” the only thing you’re blowing is a lot of hot air, and most of that out of your posterior. If your whistleblowers have the “proof” you seem to think exists, why haven’t they offered their assistance to even one of the more than 200 other eligibility cases that have also been summarily dismissed as frivolous? Who are these “whistleblowers” are where is their ephemeral “proof” you claim they posses.

    Fact is, you just admitted here that there is no “proof.” You are relying entirely on some mythical discovery to take place in order for your ephemeral “proof” to suddenly appear.

  79. avatar
    alg June 23, 2015 at 3:48 pm #

    CRJ:
    Now given the general sentiments relayed here, I’m dead, dead, dead. But I’m still alive.

    Frankly, I think it needs a little more cowbell….

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/536145

  80. avatar
    James M June 23, 2015 at 4:03 pm #

    john: I do know that in todays’ world, job applicants are rejected by a computer and most applications are never read or reviewed by a live person.

    I’ve heard that theory before.
    But then, I’ve had two open req’s for over a year, seriously well compensated positions with really good benefits, very desirable location, and I have given up on recruiting for a while. According to you and others, I should be dealing with thousands of resumes, needing some kind of automated OCR to thin the pile into something manageable. As it happens, I get an applicant once in a blue moon.

    Perhaps the situation is different with job openings for low-skill positions where huge numbers of people are being hired, but I don’t see this phenomenon when I have a truly desirable position on offer. I get *excited* if someone applies, and I do indeed read every word of their resumes.

  81. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 23, 2015 at 4:16 pm #

    Voice of Reason: whistleblowers

    —-

    If your sources are too chicken to blow a whistle, then they are not whistle blowers.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm #

    The bet I made was that you would not be granted cert by the end of the month. So at the end of the month, if you have not been granted cert, you technically lose the bet; however, I’m willing to extend the bet’s time limit. Read my offer again:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/06/the-occasional-open-thread-like-a-bridge-over-troubled-birthers/#comment-357330

    CRJ: It’s confusing. Doc said I’d be dead. But I’m still alive. But Doc didn’t lose the bet? And, I’m still alive. Hummm. ok. Do you feel I lost Doc?

  83. avatar
    Rickey June 23, 2015 at 5:08 pm #

    CRJ:
    Presented action upon the poor defying the Lower Courts agreement upon Informs Pauperis that should have been,and was GRANTED in two Courts with what about a 60 day difference of time?

    That’s high-class Justice?

    Or.. Is it something else?

    This is what is worrisome to many of you. Rightly should be.

    If it’s a Clerk, the Motion would have been adjudicated within a week. No.. This was an intentional delay by the Justices. That also means discussion between them needing more time. And the likelihood of more than one Justice involved. That spells trouble for ya.

    If you would bother to read the SCOTUS rules, you would see that it is under no obligation to grant in forma pauperis status because the lower courts did. In particular, read Rule 39.8:

    If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    If your motion to file in forma pauperis had been defective, or if it showed that you weren’t financially eligible, it probably would have been ruled on immediately. But in order to make a determination that your petition is frivolous, it actually had to be reviewed – although once it was reviewed, it would be immediately apparent that it is both frivolous and indecipherable.

    Also, the respondents had a right to object to a motion to file in forma pauperis, which you would know if you took the time to read Rule 39:

    The respondent or appellee may challenge the grounds for the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate document or in the response itself.

    In this case the respondents did not object to your motion, so SCOTUS ruled on its own after seeing that your petition is frivolous.

    The only question which remains is this: are you going to pony up the filing fees and get your 40 booklets printed?

  84. avatar
    Arthur B. June 23, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

    Rickey: The only question which remains is this: are you going to pony up the filing fees and get your 40 booklets printed?

    Yeah, the booklets are the killer.

  85. avatar
    Rickey June 23, 2015 at 5:31 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:

    For all you know CRJ already blew up your whistleblowers.

    If a whistleblower blows his whistle in a vacuum, where nobody can hear it, is he still a whistleblower?

    And I think that we all know where the vacuum is located.

  86. avatar
    Jim June 23, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: “My whistleblowers have told me many things, but not everything.”

    When they get around to telling you where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, give us a ring.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 24, 2015 at 7:19 am #

    See fundraising update at the end of the article.

  88. avatar
    alg June 24, 2015 at 8:42 am #

    Jim:
    SvenMagnussen: “My whistleblowers have told me many things, but not everything.”

    When they get around to telling you where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, give us a ring.

    Perhaps Sven’s “whistleblowers” can tell us something about the Apollo moon landing as well.

    Of course, I won’t tell you what my whistleblowers have to say about Sven. It isn’t pretty.

  89. avatar
    donna June 24, 2015 at 9:11 am #

    6/23 BREAKING REPORT: JUSTICE AND THE PRESIDENT-The JUNE 18TH CONFERENCE THAT WE WON! JUDY v. OBAMA 14-9396 – SUPPORT GROWS 250,000!

    it was a “tactic” CRJ says

    “They are interested!”, he says

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/06/breaking-report-justice-and-president.html

  90. avatar
    Northland10 June 24, 2015 at 9:15 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    alg
    My whistleblowers have told me many things, but not everything.

    Snap, Crackle, but not Pop. If you want to hear everything, you have to pour milk into the bowl instead of NyQuil.

  91. avatar
    Reality Check June 24, 2015 at 9:40 am #

    The court did one and exactly one thing. It denied is motion to file IFP.

    donna: it was a “tactic” CRJ says

    “They are interested!”, he says

  92. avatar
    Rickey June 24, 2015 at 10:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    See fundraising update at the end of the article.

    People might as well burn their money.

    What bothers me is that he is lying to whatever supporters he has.

  93. avatar
    john June 24, 2015 at 10:31 am #

    Reality Check:
    The court did one and exactly one thing. It denied his motion to file IFP.

    Yep it was. All Cody has to do is to pony up $2,000 and 40 Booklets to receive his official award – Denied Cert.

  94. avatar
    Reality Check June 24, 2015 at 10:42 am #

    Typo “his”

  95. avatar
    Reality Check June 24, 2015 at 10:43 am #

    You assume that he has supporters. I very much doubt that.

    Rickey: What bothers me is that he is lying to whatever supporters he has.

  96. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 24, 2015 at 7:25 pm #

    Judy would seem to live in a land of perpetual self delusion, at least as nearly as I can determine, clues, he is short of them. I doubt that he has $3k to throw around to get his garbage published to go to court, he has filed IFP every time so far as near as I remember, and he is continually making poverty pleas, but then what can you expect from an out of work former jail bird failed domestic terrorist. I mean, seriously, would you hire him even to clean up after your dogs?? My sense has always been that he is pretty much a contingent of 1, I don’t think he really has any followers, since even in briferdum, he is nearly totally incoherent. It’s really hard to get behind something you can’t even pretend to understand, and that pretty well covers everything he has ever written or said. While I have no problems with him self sanctioning himself for his inevitable denined, I do have a bit of a problem with him begging money from people, who are admittedly stupider than he is, and more likely need the money for things like buying groceries and medicine. Only a complete and utter fool would take being denied IFP, almost certainly for frivolousness, was some kind of victory. One of two things will happen now, he will do nothing and it will be dismissed the middle of July, or he’ll scrape the money together and they’ll list it for review and ultimate denial in Oct. Hardly a wind one way or another. But then Judy is a birfer, dumbern’ a rock, and totally unclear on how the real world works.

  97. avatar
    RanTalbott June 24, 2015 at 9:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: See fundraising update at the end of the article.

    At his current rate of about $50/month, he should be able to afford to file in about February of 2019. Just in time for the 2020 presidential election cycle…

  98. avatar
    Rickey June 24, 2015 at 11:18 pm #

    Judy claims that he filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was sent to SCOTUS via overnight mail today.

  99. avatar
    Reality Check June 25, 2015 at 12:07 am #

    Where is that head bang smiley when you need it?

    Rickey:
    Judy claims that he filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was sent to SCOTUS via overnight mail today.

  100. avatar
    Reality Check June 25, 2015 at 12:18 am #

    If you are Birther anything other than instant defeat is a win.

    HistorianDude:
    So… cert is not denined here… that decision is deferred.

    Judy wins!

  101. avatar
    gorefan June 25, 2015 at 2:25 am #

    CRJ:

    Now, among the counsel here the soul purpose of “delaying” the Ruling on my informa Pauperis Motion much farther out then all the other Cases was?

    You moron, your case was not the only one to be given a 21 day extension. MACAK, ROBERT V. McDONALD, SEC. OF VA was given the exact same order.

    No. 14-9747
    Title:
    Robert J. Macak, Petitioner
    v.
    Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
    Docketed: May 13, 2015
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    Case Nos.: (2015-7011)
    Decision Date: February 10, 2015

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    May 11 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 12, 2015)

    May 29 2015 Waiver of right of respondent Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs to respond filed.

    Jun 3 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2015.

    Jun 22 2015 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 13, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

    Does that sound familiar?

    BTW, 21 days appears to be the standard amount of time they give a petitioner who is denied in forma pauperis.

    In case you scrape up the cash here is someone that can help you,

    http://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/in-forma-pauperis-filings-and-denial-of-in-forma-pauperis-status-a-pro-se-guide-to-the-submission-of-an-acceptable-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-2/

    “This is what is worrisome to many of you. Rightly should be.”

    Trust me, no one here is worried about this.

  102. avatar
    Keith June 25, 2015 at 3:43 am #

    Jim:
    SvenMagnussen: “My whistleblowers have told me many things, but not everything.”

    When they get around to telling you where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, give us a ring.

    They found one of his fingers in the Tucson City Dump sometime back around 1980 or so. Didn’t find anything else though. Is that good enough?

  103. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 25, 2015 at 3:57 am #

    Rickey: Judy claims that he filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was sent to SCOTUS via overnight mail today.

    But why? He claims he had a BIG WIN, why on Earth would he want SCOTUS to reconsider that? Unless he’s sending his fellow birthers the message he wants to lose.

    So Cocky Ruckus Judy, not such a big win as you pretend, eh?

  104. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 25, 2015 at 3:59 am #

    RanTalbott: At his current rate of about $50/month, he should be able to afford to file in about February of 2019. Just in time for the 2020 presidential election cycle…

    I wouldn’t be surprised if CRJ is also a sexer, i.e. someone who claims wimmin can’t be President.

  105. avatar
    Northland10 June 25, 2015 at 9:04 am #

    Reality Check:
    Where is that head bang smiley when you need it?

    Aisle 39, at the end of the aisle.

  106. avatar
    Northland10 June 25, 2015 at 9:10 am #

    Rickey:
    Judy claims that he filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was sent to SCOTUS via overnight mail today.

    I find it amusing that a previous SCOTUS opinion on their denial of IFP was for a case brought by Orly’s perfect standing plaintiff, Keith Judd.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5260.ZPC.html

  107. avatar
    Rickey June 25, 2015 at 11:29 am #

    gorefan:

    You moron, your case was not the only one to be given a 21 day extension.MACAK, ROBERT V. McDONALD, SEC. OF VA was given the exact same order.

    No. 14-9747
    Title:
    Robert J. Macak, Petitioner
    v.
    Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    I read Macak v. McDonald. Macak isn’t happy about a disability rating which he has been given by the V.A. He lost his case because the Federal courts can’t review a factual determination by the V.A. They can only rule on whether the V.A. misapplied the law.

    Macak didn’t cite any violations of law, so I have no doubt that his IFP motion was denied because his petition is frivolous.

  108. avatar
    Rickey June 26, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

    Judy’s Motion for Reconsideration is on Scribd. His motion says that he has asked Donald Trump (via Twitter) for financial assistance, but Trump has refused. Judy also claims that he has $281.77 in his campaign’s war chest.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/269622543/IFP-Reconsideration-Review-Judy-v-Obama-14-9396

  109. avatar
    RanTalbott June 26, 2015 at 11:27 pm #

    Rickey: Judy also claims that he has $281.77 in his campaign’s war chest.

    When Doc did the screen capture a few days ago, it said he had $298. Did Trump also charge him money for the privilege of being denied?

  110. avatar
    John Reilly June 27, 2015 at 1:35 am #

    Mr. Judy is actually good at something. Given the recent divisiveness at the Court, what with sniping over the Obamacare and gay marriage decisions, Mr. Judy actually brings all 9 justices together to speak as one. Pretty neat.

  111. avatar
    Reality Check June 27, 2015 at 7:03 am #

    I would bet CRJ went to the Jedi Pauly school of writing in Gibberish.

    Rickey: Judy’s Motion for Reconsideration is on Scribd.

  112. avatar
    Reality Check June 27, 2015 at 7:11 am #

    Well CRJ and Walter Fitzpatrick have something in common. They were both wrongfully prosecuted by a corrupt system. From his bio:

    As a member of the LDS Church at one time Cody took a stand for differences and in protesting became the subject of an unlawful prosecution where evidence used against him was covered up in a Union of Church and State. Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in ’96 Cody came up short and had to serve 3018 days in prison as a religiously persecuted individual in America as the court related not enough people suffered not getting evidence used against them to warrant the SCOTUS’s intervention. Cody’s case is a clandestine case of the existence of justice slipping through the cracks in America and while suffering in prison his devotion to studying the law was the preface of his running for office when he was released.

  113. avatar
    Rickey June 27, 2015 at 5:11 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Well CRJ and Walter Fitzpatrick have something in common. They were both wrongfully prosecuted by a corrupt system. From his bio:

    He would have been better served by spending his time in prison learning how to write coherently. A typical CRJ sentence:

    “That does not translate into dollars but simply the fact the public and Media consisting of 5 reporters from 2 major different newspapers in every State of the Union see.”

    Huh?

  114. avatar
    Northland10 July 1, 2015 at 7:39 pm #

    I expect that CRJ will now declare victory since SCOTUS scheduled his motion for reconsideration for their 28 Sept conference. Winning.

    Unlike others, he may have a chance at 2 outcomes.

    1. Motion denied, file correclty in 3 weeks and pay the fee.

    2. Motion granted, Distributed for conference in about a month or so (where they will deny cert).

    CRJ, where are you holding your victory parade?

  115. avatar
    Rickey July 1, 2015 at 11:08 pm #

    Northland10:
    I expect that CRJ will now declare victory since SCOTUS scheduled his motion for reconsideration for their 28 Sept conference.Winning.

    Unlike others, he may have a chance at 2 outcomes.

    1.Motion denied, file correclty in 3 weeks and pay the fee.

    2.Motion granted, Distributed for conference in about a month or so (where they will deny cert).

    CRJ, where are you holding your victory parade?

    He probably doesn’t realize that the reason SCOTUS hasn’t already denied his motion is that the Court is in adjournment until the fall. The justices are on vacation now.

    His docketing fee and 40 bound copies of his petition have to be at SCOTUS by July 13, so he has only 12 days to get it done. And since July 13 is a Monday, he actually has only 9 or 10 days. Instead of asking Trump for money, perhaps he should contact Paul Irey,

  116. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 2, 2015 at 3:17 am #

    Reality Check: As a member of the LDS Church

    Is that the Lucas Daniel Smith “Church of the Kenyan Birth Certificate” or did he mis-spell “LSD Church”?

  117. avatar
    Northland10 July 2, 2015 at 9:00 am #

    Rickey: He probably doesn’t realize that the reason SCOTUS hasn’t already denied his motion is that the Court is in adjournment until the fall. The justices are on vacation now.

    His docketing fee and 40 bound copies of his petition have to be at SCOTUS by July 13, so he has only 12 days to get it done. And since July 13 is a Monday, he actually has only 9 or 10 days. Instead of asking Trump for money, perhaps he should contact Paul Irey,

    I was not sure if they would reschedule the due date after rejecting his motion at September conference (his motion is scheduled for the long conference), so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. What he has yet to understand is that his entire case is frivolous and DOA.

  118. avatar
    Benji Franklin July 2, 2015 at 10:38 am #

    Northland10: CRJ, where are you holding your victory parade?

    I think several years and hundreds of failed Birther courtroom outcomes and two Presidential elections ago, Birthers tacitly agreed to delay their victory celebration until they were experiencing their triumphant Obama-ejecting Billion Birther March on Washington, which will follow hard on the heels of their September 2013 Universe-shattering Cold-case Posse Investigation press conference. Oh, wait a minute….. neither of those things happened. Rumor-mongering Constitutional expert Pat Boone was wrong again. No significant Birther victory has ever happened.

    That’s why Birthers grasp at IMAGINARY straws of victory. It’s a chance to clap their pathetic hands together, a chance that reality will forever deny them.
    They have to enjoy talking about and celebrating hoped-for, even misconstrued and inconsequential ‘wins’, because Obama-ruining victories will never come about in reality. For approaching eight years, outside the shatterable Birther Universe, such victories never quite escape the bounds of prospectivity.

    After Obama has escaped their frivolous legal artillery barrage for so many years, no Obama-dooming prediction is too wild, no prediction or reporting of impending Obama ruin too unlikely, to deny Birthers another lunatic vision of his undoing.

    An oak leaf falls from a tree in rural Alabama. There’s your damn smoking gun.

  119. avatar
    Rickey July 2, 2015 at 11:06 am #

    Northland10: I was not sure if they would reschedule the due date after rejecting his motion at September conference (his motion is scheduled for the long conference), so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.What he has yet to understand is that his entire case is frivolous and DOA.

    I thought about that, but the docket still shows that his fees and bound petitions are due on the 13th. And CRJ posted on his blog yesterday that a SCOTUS clerk told him that his petition is still due to be dismissed on the 13th unless he pays the docketing fee and gets his bound petitions filed. So CRJ has filed an application for an extension of time with Justice Solamayor (he misspelled her name on the application, which won’t help his chances).

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/07/breaking-news-mountain-man-in-obamas.html

  120. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 3, 2015 at 4:06 am #

    Benji Franklin: their triumphant Obama-ejecting Billion Birther March on Washington

    That did happen, though a birther billion is just about 100 people.
    We also all remember how Obama put the Koran down and his hands up. (Still my favourite birther quote courtesy of Larry Klansman.)
    Or how the millions of truckers and bikers shut down DC until Congress agreed to dissolve. It’s just that Congress is still acting like it didn’t dissolve. Or something.

    The other day BR quoted the last A/Z press conference, citing the month and year. Somehow birthers didn’t even make a sound when they read “March 2013”. No little wheels clicking “gosh that’s almost 2.5 years ago”. I guess the A/Z hope ended without even a whimper. Birthers know that if Arpaio doesn’t even use his “universe shlobbering” stuff now that his rear end is in deep doo-doo, it’s clear he doesn’t have any.

  121. avatar
    Notorial Dissent July 3, 2015 at 6:24 am #

    Benji, I’m still trying to remember if the birfers ever had even a minor victory throughout their long travail.

  122. avatar
    Krosis July 3, 2015 at 6:34 am #

    When some proposed state measure requiring candidates to show their birth certificates failed, a couple of judges wrote a dissent in favor of the measure. This is the closest, IIRC, the birthers had ever came to a minor win.

  123. avatar
    roadburner July 3, 2015 at 10:53 am #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Benji, I’m still trying to remember if the birfers ever had even a minor victory throughout their long travail.

    i think the closest was when oily was offered a default jugement in georgia, but she preferred to grandstand and plucked defeat from the jaws of victory

  124. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 3, 2015 at 11:17 am #

    In Orly’s defense, Van Irion and Mark Hatfield didn’t take the default either.

    roadburner: i think the closest was when oily was offered a default jugement in georgia, but she preferred to grandstand and plucked defeat from the jaws of victory

  125. avatar
    Arthur B. July 3, 2015 at 11:19 am #

    roadburner: i think the closest was when oily was offered a default jugement in georgia, but she preferred to grandstand and plucked defeat from the jaws of victory

    We’ve been through this several times.

    There is no reason to believe that ALJ Malihi ever offered a default judgement. What was on the table was a possible default order, which is a very different animal. He would have skipped the hearing and issued a decision on the parties’ submissions. His ruling would most likely have been essentially identical to the one we saw after the hearing.

  126. avatar
    roadburner July 3, 2015 at 12:23 pm #

    Arthur B.: We’ve been through this several times.

    There is no reason to believe that ALJ Malihi ever offered a default judgement. What was on the table was a possible default order, which is a very different animal. He would have skipped the hearing and issued a decision on the parties’ submissions. His ruling would most likely have been essentially identical to the one we saw after the hearing.

    still the closest they’ve ever had though 😉

  127. avatar
    Northland10 July 4, 2015 at 3:26 pm #

    Rickey: And CRJ posted on his blog yesterday that a SCOTUS clerk told him that his petition is still due to be dismissed on the 13th unless he pays the docketing fee and gets his bound petitions filed. So CRJ has filed an application for an extension of time with Justice Solamayor (he misspelled her name on the application, which won’t help his chances).

    Which they have docketed as an application.

    No. 15A25
    Title:
    Cody Robert Judy, Applicant
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
    Docketed:
    Linked with 14-9396
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (14-4136)

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Jun 29 2015 Application (15A25) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of June 22, 2015, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.

  128. avatar
    Lupin July 5, 2015 at 2:54 am #

    Northland10: Which they have docketed as an application.

    There is a kafkaesque sense of unreality (or Terry Gilliam’s BRAZIL-like) as this error-riddled paperwork utterly devoid of purpose goes through the bureaucratic motions, when we all know the results will be nil.

  129. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 5, 2015 at 12:57 pm #

    Northland10: Which they have docketed as an application.

    Since they corrected his spelling of Judge Sotomayor’s name, will the next BR headline be “SCOTUS falsifies eligibility complaint”?
    At least I’d expect that from Orly (who once claimed a court transcript was “falsified” because there were two versions of it, the difference being an additional line break).q

  130. avatar
    Rickey July 5, 2015 at 3:49 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Since they corrected his spelling of Judge Sotomayor’s name, will the next BR headline be “SCOTUS falsifies eligibility complaint”?

    It wouldn’t surprise me.

    It appears that Judy is now asking SCOTUS to rule that Cruz, Rubio and Jindal can’t accept campaign contributions because they aren’t eligible to be president. Of course, none of them are parties to the lawsuit. Judy also appears to be astonished that nobody has a filed an Amicus Curiae brief in his case.