Civil Rights Law Suit filed by Presidential Candidate Cody Robert Judy against Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro his campaign organization OFA (Organization for America), the DNC Officials, and high ranking D's in Congress including Rep. Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid.
Civil Rights Law Suit filed by Presidential Candidate Cody Robert Judy against Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro his campaign organization OFA (Organization for America), the DNC Officials, and high ranking D's in Congress including Rep. Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid.
Civil Rights Law Suit filed by Presidential Candidate Cody Robert Judy against Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro his campaign organization OFA (Organization for America), the DNC Officials, and high ranking D's in Congress including Rep. Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid.
Attorney Pro Se 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2 Ogden, Utah 84401 801-497-6655 ___________________________________________________________________________________ DISTRICT OF UTAH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ________________________________________________________________________
CODY ROBERT JUDY , CIVIL RIGHTS ANTI-TRUST LAW SUIT 42 U.S.C. - 1983 (Jury Trial Demand) & Violation of the Sherman Act v. Case No. 1:14cv00093 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JUDGE: Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins aka BARRY SOETORO , DNC , ORGANIZATION FOR ACTION et al., __________________________________________________________________________________ COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Cody Robert Judy pro se, and submits this NOTICE of ACTION on the listed Defendants for violation of his Civil Rights and violations of Anti-Trust law generally governed by statutes included but not limited to: 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21 (access to businesses)-The Sherman Act 1890; Clayton Act 1914 as is applicable in the Federal Court 351 So. West Temple, SLC, UT. PARTIES TO THE ACTION Defendant(s) Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro -Organization For Action : (hereafter OFA) is a tax-exempt organization operating as a 401(c) (4) aka BarackObama.com a primary fund raising organization for Barack Obama with 13 Million Members was formally a community organizing project of the DNC but reorganized as OFA after second inauguration organized for the purpose of Barack Obamas agenda and increased support for the DNC. Mitch Stewart Director, Jeremy Bird-Deputy Director Democratic National Committee hereafter DNC Nat. Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz -UT Chair Jim Dabaki- Matt Lyon UT Ex.Dir. U.S. House Min. Ldr. Nancy Pelosi acting in official position under color of state/fed law. U.S. Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid- acting in official position under color of state/fed law Barack Obama As Candidate Barack Obama also occupying the Office of the President illegally. Address in the State of Utah - 825 North 300 West, Suite C400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (801) 328-1212
Plaintiff: Cody Robert Judy 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2 Ogden, UT. 84401 (801)-497-6655 2
JURISDICTION STATEMENT Jurisdiction is proper for this Court under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P, under on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348, because the Court recognizes Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States and several prominent figures also in Office such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid ; under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress ie the Sherman Act; and 28 U.S.C. 1332 as some of the parties are from different states of the United States. NATURE OF THE SUIT The nature of the suit is brought to the Court as a matter of personal injury and liability of the Defendants to compensate for injuries caused in their illegal activities,( ie., fraud in representation of identification, operating under corporate status in the formation of illegal cartels prohibiting fair competition, under the standard rules of the U.S.C for the Office of the President) that have prejudiced and discriminated against the Plaintiff and his Civil Rights under the United States Constitution in running for President in 2008,2012, that have a continuous public and press libelous and defamation injury associated with the term Birther as a negative pejorative rather than a positive formulation of law born with the Courts confirming considerations of truth, for the 2016 Presidential Race. Recently the Defendant Barack Hussein Obama said, Ok, Sue me!, so Plaintiff is obliging. UNITED STATES STATUTES IN VIOLATION Plaintiff asserts that statutes of law in violation of his rights by the Defendant(s) include U.S.C. 42 1983, and The Sherman Act and defamatory and libelous laws of negative public and press related connotation. Count I. U.S.C. 42 1983- The Plaintiff is assured under the Constitution all the rights and privileges of running for the Office of the President if he meets the qualifications of said requirements in the U.S.C. Having met those, he then is prejudiced and discriminated against by the Defendant(s) who have in their political activity violated his rights by violating, mooting, or disregarding the qualifications for the Office of the President. This is not an action to remove the Defendant Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro from Office as Plaintiff believes that rest with Congress, but an action of liability based on the Candidate Barack Hussein Obamas violation that he knew or should have known in his Candidates Oath put forth to the various Secretaries of States in the Union, that stated should he be elected he could meet the qualifications for the Office for which he was putting himself up for election and Plaintiffs assertions that he has failed to do so, which has violated Plaintiffs rights and effectively 3
caused him injury and continues to do so justifying Compensatory and Punitive Damages of personal injury : $40,000,000.00 Count II. The Sherman Act - Plaintiff asserts what amounts to Defendant(s) formation and combinations of corporations in a tying affect termed exclusive dealing arrangements, that form in the clear definition an illegal cartel forming a monopoly violating anti-trust laws, based on the violations of identification fraud for the Office of the President and putting forth a candidate that they knew or should have known was not qualified for the Office. In meeting qualifications demanded for the Office of the President, a combination of separate corporations are involved in actions that constitute illegal activity, that defendants knew or should have known are in violation if lawful corporate activity injuring Plaintiff and the election process as a whole. Plaintiff asserts and will show Defendants did know, or should have known, that Barack Hussein Obama was not a qualified candidate under the U.S.C. demands for said office and though he did win the Election of said office, has done so in violation of Plaintiffs Rights which now affords and demands accountability and liability under tacit collusion, restraint of fair trade or competition formulating a substantial exclusionary effect, demanding compensation and injury afforded under statutes of The Sherman Act. As Candidates have sought protections in forming Corporations for their election races, the corporations are then subject to the Sherman Act encapsulating various corporate laws that condemn monopolies and that said Defendant(s) violate in anti-trust laws in competition by predatory action. Statute violation $100,000,000.00 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE WITH QUESTIONS OF LAW Plaintiff asserts Defendant(s) have conspired together in an illegal collusion as a cartel that has acted as a monopoly in the political arena contrary to the public good, in the illegal action of restraining competition under fair election practices considered a service in a form of bid-rigging to which one party of a group of bidders will be designated to win the bid or nomination irrespective of fair practices which action that is negligible and while not requiring anyone to be removed from an elected office , does require a compensatory damage award as well as a Statutory and Punitive Damages Award simply to deter the same kind of behavior that has caused the damages actually helping the greater public at large from the same kind of malicious or mal- treatment and serve as warnings to big and small companies alike not to engage in like behavior with an award due to the Plaintiff as subject of violations. Q1- The U.S. Supreme Court Case in Minor v. Happersett is the precedent case outlining both conditions of the natural born citizen ship/criteria also demanded for the Office of the President as Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents to which it is referred there was no doubt of those being natural born citizens. 4
Plaintiffs assertions are Defendant Obama is not a natural born citizen having declared from various documents he was born in Kenya and his father was a Kenyan at the time of his birth. The truth of this case involves fraud, deception, and a cover up of the true identification of Barack Hussein Obama also as Barry Soetoro an Indonesian citizen that exist, and in evidence of two forms of certifications of nomination from the DNC to Hawaii and the other states signed by Rep. Nancy Pelosi; Defendant Obama passing out a long form fabrication as a long form birth certificate of his identification in 2011 which actually showed his father not a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, and a law enforcement agencies actions of discovery that document, Obamas long form birth certificate, and Obamas draft registration are indeed fraudulent or forgeries, and a pact corrupt agreement known as non-binding U.S. Senate Resolution 511 passed in 2008 in regards for candidates for President Sen. John McCain and co- sponsors then Sen. Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama combining Rs and Ds into one monopoly excluding Plaintiff of the change to the requirements for the Office of the President that begs the question: Do these actions constitute a continued violation of liability to the Plaintiffs rights to run for President, past, present, and future, in a fair and equal competition for the office of the presidents seat in an election under the U.S.C.s directives for the race and the qualifications set as rules of the race and demanded thereof constituting a liability and accountability of compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages against the Defendants for ill-gotten-gains in the form of contributions and of course the Office of the President?
Q2- Can a political party such as the DNC and a non-profit organization like OFA in action for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 elections be held in violation of their exemptions of trust shrouded in and for the public good and or law if they in a combination or collusion as a cartel knowingly violate the rules of the race by their candidate/occupier of the Office of the President not meeting the qualifications for the Office set forth in the United States Constitution to another individual party in the same field or race who does meet the qualifications for the political reward of the Office as a Durable Good and the contributions understood to be a political war chest deceitfully collected and awarded to unqualified candidates when the contributors gave those contributions under the auspices the Candidate was actually qualified: and if understood the candidate was not qualified might those contributions more readily have been mined and made available to the Plaintiff?
5
Q3- As acting corporations collecting contributions that are assigned to a particular candidate or person in an elected Office, what is the responsibility towards the laws of the U.S.C that are required for said corporations responsible in the alleged violating of businesses practices said to be good for the public but acting against the public good in violations of the U.S.C.s demands for the Office of the President, if by their actions in having collected contributions representing support for a legal candidate but actually knowingly collected to support an illegal candidate in what would be summed up as a bait-and-switch illegal business practice when the action will come at the expense to another candidate in the race for the same office and the liability formed by perpetuating the fraud, with fraudulent and forged documents corrupting the public trust in the all encompassing election process? The following questions of law need to be answered by the Court in the presumptions of articulating for the Plaintiff whether the Constitution has been changed in the Office of the Presidents qualifications because its not fair to the Plaintiff to run under one set of rules as an Independent while members of the Republicans and Democrats run under a different set of rules in fact wasting all of Plaintiffs time, money, and in fact destroying his platform of upholding the United States Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATED TO THE ACTION 1- As a candidate for President with standing in 2008 Mr. Judy herein also as Plaintiff, took action against both Sen. John McCain and then Sen. Barack Obama on the same qualification issue of not being natural born citizen(s) qualified as is demanded by the United States Constitution in Judy v. McCain 2:2008cv01162 litigated in the Federal District Court of Las Vegas, Nevada filed Sept 3,2008. Plaintiff assets these were then more questions than actual accrued damages at the time based on time and monetary damages to his Campaign. a. The action was dismissed as moot after the November 2008 election because Obama had won the election, and McCain was the primary defendant; the action against Obama in the same case being brought to that Courts attention as a Emergency 6
Motion after the United States Supreme Court Case Berg v. Obama was dismissed only on a standing issue. Plaintiff offered Amicus Curiae to that proceeding. 2- Mr. Judy was forced for litigation purposes to make a decision which demanded he either secede his standing as a candidate for President in 2008 or continue his standing as a candidate in 2012 which he opted to do in the Democratic Party for the Office of the President. Mr. Judy continued his standing represented in N.H. State Supreme Court then on to Georgia State Supreme Court culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama 12-5276, however Mr. Judy has never before taken action against the DNC or OFA in their capacity of support and responsibility and connection with and for Barack Obama and their culpability which extends to this day again harmful of Mr. Judys declaration for President in 2016 by suppressing contributions to his campaign based on the history of Mr. Judys actions against Barack Obama which they vilify as Birther Action stated so even on Court Record as the action entitled Motion to Dismiss in Georgias Superior Court case (http://www.scribd.com/doc/83607708/Georgia-Superior-Court-Order-Granting-Obama-s- Motion-to-Dismiss-Farrar-Judy-v-Obama-Kemp ) collectively referencing Judy v. McCain as an example of the Courts dismissing cases on the issue and Obamas labels of Plaintiff as a Carnival Barker and Circus Act. 3- Mr. Judy is thusly continually discriminated against and hurt in competition in an action that has been both long winded and ferociously contested, acting as a discrimination or stigmatism negatively perceived by the public for simply asserting Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen which to date no court has really considered in an action that actually was brought to the Court with a candidate who represented the principle/requirement/demand of the Constitutions qualifications for the Office of the President in the U.S.C. with a non-partisanship record towards either Republicans or Democrats, but grounded more in a foundational principle 7
of what all Americans stand under in the umbrella of the U.S.C. regardless of race, color, gender, religion, or political affiliation. Indeed, Mr. Judy is humbly the only such candidate in the entire United States of America with such a distinguished record over the period of time in question as well in the history of the United States of America, but because of Court record is not celebrated as positively upholding the Constitution. This has created a kind of unmerited Court censor of the Plaintiff actions and assertions contrary to the Constitutions directive simply in losing contest based on other criteria, such a McCains losing the election and it being moot. 4- Mr. Judy has on Court record admitted $40,000,000.00 (U.S. Dollars) in damages in a combination of 2008 and 2012 Campaigns in the U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama 12-5276 as received and stamped as recently as May 29 th ,2014 by the Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court U.S. in a Motion for Waiver of Rule 44 on his Writ of Certiorari that was denied without hearing, which is really seen as chump change in comparison to the $300,000,000.00 raised in contributions by 501(c)(4)s in the 2012 election that has leaped from 5,200,000.00 from 2006. a. The assessment is that 501(c)(4)s over the election periods of the 2008 and 2012 major campaigns of Barack Obama for the Office of the President were heavily influenced and in fact victorious in the Award of the Office of the President thus hold a significant responsibility which can be held to a standard by the Court of responsibility and thus a culpability of usurpation by the illegal cartel formed in the propulsions of Barack Obama to the Office. Of course this action would not remove a President Elect but simply would be an award to the Plaintiff for a standard he stood for but that Defendant(s) didnt thus in negligence damaging his Campaign Vehicle for the Office of the President. Its a simply repair job for damages which they are undoubtedly insured for. 5- Because Congress is regulated at this time by a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate and Republicans in the U.S. House, Plaintiff as an independent has no voice, which has in their 8
political arena objected continually in fact on Court Record their nominees in 2008 and 2012 essentially as illegal according to the Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1875) definitions of natural born citizen expressing as, those born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents there was never any doubt, as to the others there have been doubts. Plaintiff asserts he is politically defective in Congress that despite their oaths to the U.S.C are over-running the U.S.C. principle for political ambition and a partisanship that was actually culminated in an Act of Congress in non-binding U.S. Sen. Resolution 511 involving all the major presidential candidates Sen. McCain and co-sponsor Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. This is proof of the exclusionary ramifications towards the Plaintiff in what amounts to a construction act on the Constitution which was not passed by both houses or signed by a President. a. While U.S. non-binding Sen. Res. 511 combined the force of Republican and Democratic Presidential Candidates at the time, it in no way represented a legal change to the Constitutions qualification principles for the Office of the President representative of the U.S.C, the U.S.S.C precedent, and in essence We The People because it was not passed by the House of Representatives and was not signed by an authorized President. What it did do was officially recognize a suppression of the Constitutional Requirement among those agreeing to usurp it for political power. This violates the basic good for the public in the trust of the Constitution and the plaintiff as an independent voice that essentially is locked out of the Legislative Branch as a small minority; yet it must be held representing a majority of Americans in defending against U.S.C. constructionism prohibitions also held in many precedent cases by the Judicial Branch. 6- The DNC Chair Rep. Nancy Pelosi actually signed two different nomination forms. One got Obama on the Ballot in Hawaii and another one the rest of the 49 States. Hawaii held that the language must consent to the candidate being qualified under the standard of the Constitution 9
which the other states did not need, thus providing yet another signed document confirming Plaintiffs assertions by witness that the form in which the candidates qualifications were acted upon was a deceptive practice and action by the DNC in collusion with Barack Obama, his campaign Corporation and Candidacy. 7- Plaintiff has long asserted Obamas declarations of his father as a Kenyan at the time of his birth supported his argument that Obama was not a natural born citizen, holding as a natural and national defense two generations between any foreign alien citizenship either by soil or by parental heritage from and the Office of the President as a consideration of honoring both the father and mothers heritage as well as the place of birth in a combination of nature and nurture as well as Obamas formal adoption by Lolo Soetoro in which a civil Indonesian Citizenship is introduced as adopted by Obama legally, also in honor of his parental guardians as parents. This action is not seen as a prohibition of Obama running for Office because hes not a natural born citizen but as an action honoring his birth father rather than excluding him/or them as the case of legal adoption is formulated with Barry Soetoro son of Lolo Soetoro. However, American Citizenship granted by his mother in no way supersedes the foreign citizenships of his fathers in the term natural born citizen as it is applied to the qualifications for the Office of the President. If his mother was old enough to grant the 14 th Amendment American Citizenship at the time she does not grant a natural born American citizenship by completely wiping out place of birth or a fathers conferred foreign alien ship prohibited in the Office of the President. 8- In 2008 Obama had provided only a short form birth certificate, but since then much more evidence has come forward in discovery of expert facts that the court must honor in legal or expert opinion. As the Courts have held new evidence found in a DNA witness as fact over a witnesses testimony that was false, releasing criminally charged persons from prison in many cases held for decades under false evidence, Plaintiff asserts that new evidence forms expert 10
testimony dissolving false narratives that Obama has actually produced an authentic long form birth certificate that is not fabricated in the web of deception of his identification. Regardless of the truth or false of the information provided within the distributed identification evidence, the Plaintiff is only vindicated as to his assertion he has been marginalized in the political race represented in illegal activity and a false narrative of the competition as Barack Obama, defendant(s) have all collaborated in a collusive cartel and monopoly violating anti-trust laws of fair and competitive competition earned on the merits of each individual business or person. a. This evidence is the combined effort of the investigation of law enforcement professionals within the Maricopa Country Arizona Sheriff Department under Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse findings which copulatively state the document Obama has distributed as his long form birth certificate is a fabrication as well as his draft registration. Other investigations also collaborate as individuals not having an authentic birth certificate must find and search for a social security number that Obamas social security number was indeed also used by a now deceased man. This though impressive is symptomatic in a secondary relativity of the subject at hand held in the first relativity that Obama is not a natural born citizen simply by his own word that his father was Kenyan at the time of his birth. Plaintiff has really done nothing else but holds Obama, as a Candidate, to his own word. Obama stated his father introduces a foreign citizenship that even mixed with his mother as an American citizen at that time of his birth formulating a dual citizenship, or first generation American, not allowed in the Office of the President by the Constitutions demands. Obama has stated he was born in Kenya as is witnessed as late as 2007 from his own bio in a literary profile also witnessing in his own literary biography he was not born on U.S. soil. 11
b. Thus in the political arena also represented in the public square there is an unfair, illegal, and egregious political ramification Plaintiff has had to bear in the lie Defendant has perpetuated and is responsible and accountable for using the standards of law applicable that Plaintiff makes a claim upon in damages. While the damages are made, the Office is held by Obama, Plaintiff only seeks the damages and a stop to the continued harassment and harangue most deservingly unwarranted by the standard of the Constitution. 9- Under the transformation agenda perpetuated upon the America People, a false narrative must have been propagated about Obamas identification. If the transformation was indeed in the interest of the public good as is understood by the rights, freedoms, and liberties protected by the United States Constitution, then why would a false narrative for identification be needed? This is indeed where the, for the public good and for the publics peril collide in OFAs 401(c)(4)s parting of the ways supported by the near entirety of the DNC and most certainly the leaderships cover up and illegal collusion come into play. Plaintiff asserts this is also where he has the right under the Civil Rights Act and the Sherman Act to bring the action to the Court as an individual, not as a Court Officer, and in the Courts own discretion a jurisprudence of the criminality of the violations can be considered in the context of anti-trust laws. While a tax exempt status is granted by a 401(c)(4) permit for a corporation, that doesnt give them an allowance to: a. Violate the United States Constitution without responsibility towards fair practices b. Violate a persons rights ( In this case Plaintiffs) under the standard of the Constitution c. Act in a way that is contrary to the public good in a standard held by all under the U.S.C. d. Use bait-and-switch tactics to collect contributions and donations that do not represent a standard many decided to contribute or donate to them under that condition or the 12
auspices of at the very least a legally qualified candidate(s) under the standard of the U.S.C. e. Act in Collusion as an Illegal Cartel or as a monopoly based in the support of an ineligible candidate whose credentials have been proven faulty, forged, or fabricated lacking authenticity in merit and credential to a standard qualification held by law held by the U.S.C. and the Plaintiff. f. Act in such a way as to not be held liable for their actions when harming an individual(s). 10- The action before the Court is totally separate from the duty of Congress to remove a disability from office, or take into considerations under the disability impeachment process a President or President Elect, according to the Constitution but the Constitution in form actually expresses to the letter that a Candidate can actually be elected but fail to qualify, and Plaintiffs Claims here do not touch on such matters for Congress but only asserts this action as it is related to: 1)unfairly rewarded contributions by the DNC to Barack Obama who wasnt qualified compared to one that was running in the Democratic Party in 2012, and the collections of OFA and any other entity associated with the collection of contributions for Barack Obama. 2) Collaborations of Corporations creating a monopoly and bullying against Plaintiff as an individual and independent candidate representing a choice for the people in violations of fair competition 3) In fact the violations of the qualifications of the Office of the President demanded in the U.S.C as a standard by which a fair race can be run in an election of the future for all Candidates concerned as a protection for consumers who contribute under the auspices of a qualified candidate and holding those candidates who lie accountable for fraud and deceptive practices.
13
ARGUMENT OF LAW FOR THE CASE 1- It is only under statismwhere the status quo for instance, a combination of Republicans and Democrats in a private leadership agreement like non-binding U.S. Sen. Res 511 is subsidized and pariahly enforced as legislation destructive towards independent competition, seen by the standards of the Judicial Branch in interpretation of the U.S.C or one representing that in any relative principlethat inefficient industries (parties) remain stagnant or on a path of severe decline for decades ( In 2013- at least 25 scandals and counting). But, as the fall of communism has demonstrated, even a system supported by government force cannot survive when its victims begin to realize how much better off they would be under freedom or in kind if the Constitution of the Republic is simply upheld. In anti-trust suits and civil rights complaints as is applicable individuals are able and may bring actions in the Courts. 2- The question asked is when does a major political party(s) and a candidates campaign constitute an illegal cartel forming a Cohersive Monopoly restricting competitive forces in a violation of U.S. Anti-Trust Laws? The answer is of course in the Plaintiffs case, when two different entities or more join in the promotion of an ineligible candidate who siphons off a billion dollars in contributions in the bait as a qualified candidate only to institute in the switch an unqualified candidate, all in the order of smashing Plaintiffs campaign vehicle election after election after election in what is surmised as an anti-Republic agenda. a. In this case votes and dollars spent to get votes are seen as a commodity- an emergent property- even a continually renewable resource expected just like a vehicle to last for a long time constituting to the politician a durable good(s), which could be seen as the vehicle to get elected. 14
b. Truly in a fair competitive race, Barack Obama would have been discovered to be ineligible by the standards of the Constitutions qualification and would never have received the benefits or awards of the vote. Although he was elected you can argue that the competent argument insists in rule of reason that he would never have been elected if it was commonly known he was not qualified. So he is elected under fraud, let Congress worry about that and reimburse with an award the Plaintiff who also would not have run a campaign if the standards of the Constitution were not understood to be the rules of the race in fair competition. Yes, Obama won the election but my constitutional vehicle was smashed by his in a hit-and-run, to which negligence is understood to be formed by the illegal cartel and Cohersive monopoly responsible. 3- A Cohersive Monopoly is persistent, exclusive control of a vitally needed resource, good, or service such that the community is at the mercy of the controller, and where there are no suppliers of the same or substitute goods to which the consumer can turn monopolist are able to a. Make pricing b. Production decisions without an eye on competitive market forces c. Curtail production to price gouge consumers When the Constitution is not upheld and the monopoly of political parties is not checked, a gross dis-service happens, in a bait-and-switch representation of the contributions received for the expectation of the contribution is that the Constitution is going to be upheld but in fact the opposite is happening basically in broad daylight. The modern day highlight of that is the contribution to an ineligible candidate. Indeed what rule-of-reason possesses a contributor to donate to a candidate who is not authorized 15
or qualified to even fill the Office he is running for if he is elected? Indeed a lie is needed for the unqualified Candidate who contradicts an oath he can qualify, and this usually possess language that if elected he is able to fulfill the qualifications of the office thus it does necessarily fall upon the candidate but equally the organizations who understand this bait and switch and are acting nefariously against the public interest. Criminal actions usually make mistakes, and this is what is seen in the two separate DNC nomination forms signed by Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Why werent two forms signed in prior DNC nominations unless there is a culpability happening? 4- If the Constitutions requirement for the Office of the President are in fact collected as votes away from the Plaintiff in Congress and without the contingent of 2/3rds of all of Congress actually making an Amendment, agreed upon by the People, because Congress cant agree on going that far, the incentive to block Plaintiff is made in a silent agreement or in a good- ole-boys illegal cartel. This is whats happened in the agreement of non-binding U.S. Senate Resolution 511. You have all the major candidates collectively gathered together in the Legislative Body of the U.S. Senate for two major parties that actually control Congress but dont necessarily control the U.S.C.s demands. The only remaining relief for the Constitution (or Plaintiff as the case may be) is in fact a respect for the rights under the Constitution to be upheld in the Judicial Branch in at the very least curtailing such action by assigning liability and responsibility to the Defense to appeal the decision. Indeed if this is not the case, defendants actually gets away with constructing the Constitution with half of Congress and without the signature of the President agreed to by the terms of power given by the people. The appeal time it would take Plaintiff to move through the Judicial Branch as a loser would exceed more than likely the time left in the Office of the President for Obama in the 2012-2016 cycle and would also act discriminatorily in a continuous form as a 16
violation of the civil rights of the Plaintiff to run a fair race in 2016 as an Independent for President. This is of course barring an extraordinary war where elections are canceled, Obama remains in the Office of the President and where most the population is knocked out of the election cycle anyway. Plaintiff asserts the real danger to national security this employs. This is about the ultimate in blackmail, and essentially wiping out the Republic and all the Offices so stipulated within the bounds of the Constitution. If there is no Republic there is no U.S.S.C., all executive offices and enforcements are null and void, and the citizenship of every American is in fact lost. 5- The DNC and Obamas current Campaign OFA actually have taken a lead role in forming an illegal cartel in violation of anti-trust law generally allowing fair competition for the benefit of consumers. Statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, Clayton Act 1914 and Federal Trade Commission Act 1914 that in this instance prohibit a. Cartels and prohibit other collusive practices b. Prohibit the creation of a monopoly and abuse of power c. Anti-trust laws were developed to control economic power in the public interest presumably with big corporations in businesses of free trade and their actions in restraint of fair trade more than political power. However politicians sought the protections morphing their campaigns into a big corporation for the protections of their individual fortunes. It has become in the modern era common practice for Candidates to form corporations to shield their private liability in a campaign. While taking advantage of laws afforded a Corporation in protecting an individual candidate(s) the same laws then that are governing corporations in an anti-trust conspiracy are now seen applicable in the formations of illegal cartels and Cohersive monopolies being held accountable and responsible in those anti-trust acts such as 17
the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act for political candidates and organizations, especially when bent on what amounts to a usurpation of the Constitution with the protections of a corporation. To absolve a candidate both privately or independently as well as his corporation is to give license to a runaway abuse of power forbidden by both business practices and constitutional restraints protecting free trade, and in this case a fair political race allowing fair competition seen as life supporting blood that is essential to the Republic. Indeed trade practices are an essential part of the Constitution, thus business and political power have of historical record an overlap in property, trade, weights and measures as well taxes and essentially fair practice in election races by a standard held within the Constitution. The application though rare in this instance is not an aberration. 6- Anti-trust laws were developed to control economic power in the public interest, not excluding the economic power in the political fields of public interest of the Republic. Sherman Act 1890 1 Every contract combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce amongst the Several States or with foreign nations, is illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000. If a corporation, or, if any other person, 1,000,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the direction of the Court. 7- The consistencies between the DNC and the OFA and Barack Obama all make, or combine, and substantiate a reflection on companies policy rather than an individuals mistake or bad day, which reflects in application a violation of law in a detriment to the Plaintiff. 18
a. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) held evidence needed to show unlawful collusion, contrary to the Sherman Act, must be enough to exclude the possibility of individual behavior. b. Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount Distributing 346 U.S. 573 (1954), Held that there needed to be evidence of conspiracy to injure. 8- Prevention Collusion and cartels that act in restraint of trade or service to the public is an essential task of anti-trust laws. It reflects the view that each business has the duty to act independently on the market, and so earn its profits solely by providing better priced and quality products than its competitors. a. In the Sherman Act *e+very contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce. This targets two distinct enterprises, (or more), acting together in a way that harms third parties. It does not capture the decisions of a single enterprise, or a single economic entity, even though the form of an entity may be two or more separate legal persons or companies. In Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp it was held an agreement between a parent company and a wholly owned subsidiary could not be subject to anti-trust law because the decision took place within a single economic entity. In Texaco Inc. v. Dagher the Supreme Court held unanimously that a price set by a joint venture between Texaco and Shell Oil did not count as making an unlawful agreement. The law draws a basic distinction between concerted and independent action. 9- Multiple-firm conduct tends to be seen as more likely than single firm conduct to have an unambiguously negative effect and is judged more sternly in the application of negative 19
action upon the consumers, public, or in this particular case the Plaintiff. Categories of Agreement between the firms that are applicable to this case include but are not limited to: a. Price Fixing/ or sharing markets are automatically unlawful or illegal b. Rule of Reason i. Practice might restrict trade (refuse outside bids in this case) in a way that is seen as positive or beneficial for consumers or society, but indeed may act in the opposite way, which is exactly whats happening with a 3 rd party Independent choice when the Constitution is violated by the other two parties in a collusive practice or act undermining the U.S.C. c. Proof & Identification of wrong doing arise where businesses make no overt contract, or simply share information (about Plaintiff) to appear to act in a concerted manner in their best interest, but in an illegal way that provides a deprivation of rights to the Plaintiff. d. Vertical Agreements between businesses and supplier or purchaser Up or Down stream raise concerns about the exercise of market power, however generally subject to a more relaxed standard under rule of reason. In this case Defendants work upstream to the voter and contributor, but disallow fair or competitive trade or race benefitting both Plaintiff from a Quality of standard or qualification , and a reflection of Restraint of free trade through a form of bid-rigging against the Plaintiff as well as the public in a dis-service in both primaries and general elections. 10- There are detrimental practices that are so obvious they are considered automatically unlawful. a. Collusion as a Cartel reached by an agreement by businesses to set the price or consideration of a good or service, (applicable in this case as a qualification 20
other than whats demanded in the Constitution) which they buy or sell from others at a specific level. If the agreement is durable the general term for these businesses is Cartel. A car is a durable good, while gasoline is a non-durable good; a political campaign is expected to last and serve a politician through many elections like a car while contributions are really like the gasoline needed to propel it through the publics awareness. 11- It is very important to remember that according to law it is irrelevant whether or not the business succeeds in increasing their profits or reach a level of market power as might a monopoly a. U.S. v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U.S. 392 (1927) b. U.S. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., 310 U.S. 150 (1940) 12- Bid-Rigging is a form of price fixing and market allocation that involves an agreement in which one party of a group of bidders will be designated to win the bid. a. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California conspiring to make U.S. insurance companies abandon policies beneficial to consumers, but costly to reinsure. California sued successfully the reinsurance companies acting in London. Which gave a international claim upon the Sherman Act. 13- The duty of the Plaintiff in his claim should an automatic unlawful detrimental practice be unissued by the Court is to show within the Rule of Reason that the actions causes harm in a restraint of trade or service as a choice for the public: a. A loss in otherwise predictable contributions b. Plaintiff as an independent candidate upholding the Constitution would be seen as protecting the public interest or acting for such in the public good while the Defendants acting in opposition to the public trust violating their 501(C)(4) status in 21
illegal activity harming the public with their bait and switch in collecting contributions. c. Proof of an anti-competitive effect arises in DNCs cover-up by issuing two forms to get the candidate Obama on the ballot signed by DNCs Chairmen Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and the co-operation of Rs and Ds against the Plaintiff in an Act in Congress formulated that excluded the Plaintiff and constituted an illegal run-around the qualifications of the Office of the President. This affectively blinded the Plaintiff from a non-binding standard of qualification that Rs and Ds decided to authorize for themselves exclusively compared to a binding one held in the Constitution that Plaintiff was aware of that actually they should be held to because its accepted as the will of the people in the majority under the U.S.C. in the Republic. i. If the U.S.C. and the offices described therein are no longer binding this court, its officers, judges, and employees are indeed non-existent to any prescribed authority and have been relegated to a field of actual chaos we find ourselves in at this time. ii. The Constitution actually prescribes circumstances wherein the president elect shall fail to qualify, which means that an election has taken place and the person has failed to qualify, but this is under the said U.S.C. that must continually be upheld. If all three branches shall abhor the very law upon which their existence is predicated certainly chaos rules supreme. iii. The Court certainly needs no reminder that our system of Government rest upon a three legged stool in a series of checks and balances between the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch, and in that 22
the three are dependent upon each other which raises the standard necessity for each to serve the other in its check in order for balance. iv. With a unqualified person in the Office of the President the entire Executive Branchs authority given to it by We The People fails making enforcement of the Federal laws legally impossible. The Judicial Branch can interpret the law, but has no power to enforce it. The Legislative Branch can write law, but has no power to enforce it. This is very well understood by the Legislative Branch in the recent passage of the 2014 Enforce the Law Act in a flare-up of anger at the person occupying the Office of the President. The frustration is certainly occupied with a conundrum that it is a moot action to ask an unqualified person in the Office of the President to actually fulfill the duty of the Office lawfully. Obama is a usurper and he is bound to act in such a way according to the dictated conspiracy that formulated the necessity of his cover-up in the first place. It is transient at best to say a noble deed was done along the destabilized highway to hell as awaits those after the money and free phones are gone in the shambles of our economy and the wreck of the Constitution as well the Branches of Government contained therein. 14- In U.S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association the Supreme Court held/found that railroad companies had acted unlawfully by setting up an organization to fix transport prices. The railroads had protested that their intention was to keep prices low, not high. The Court found that this was not true, but stated that not every restraint of trade in a literal sense could be harmful. The restraint of trade had to be unreasonable. In Plaintiffs case the nature of the restraint is actual not probable in the restraint unlawful towards the 23
qualifications of the Office of the President held by Defendants as a restraint against Plaintiff acting in a fair race the liability of which is held by the Courts decision. 15- Prohibited Conduct is the measure that makes a monopoly illegal. Alleged Monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. a. That power is seen deplorably in an occupation of the award of the Office of the President in an actual detest of the qualifications held in the Constitution prohibiting foreign or alien-ship in the Office of the President as a result of an election held uplifting fraud, forgery, and deception as a new standard for the Republic in a defiant and illegal transformation mirroring more treason than patriotism. b. Plaintiff has no choice but to say this meets the standards of an Illegal Cartel, and a Cohersive Monopoly in prohibited conduct with Defendant(s) actions combining to form what could only be called a secret combination that meets the standards of Prohibited Conduct. 16- Thus Plaintiff has in affect multiple expert actions acting as witnesses in these reasonable assertions, tying the corporations and individuals, that have been dismissed by Defendant(s) as action of restraint of free trade and bid-rigging affectively displacing Plaintiffs Campaigns as well and by the Constitution of the United States of Americas Standard, in the qualifications of the Office of the President having the effect of demoralization and its neighbor destabilization upon the entire population taken by the deceit, fraud and forgery. a. U.S. Senate non-binding resolution 511 that effectively excluded Plaintiff from the binding contractual presidential race qualifications found in the U.S.C.s qualification for the Office of the President Article II, Sect. I, Clause 5. b. The two nomination forms signed by Rep. Nancy Pelosi 24
c. A legal law enforcement investigation- Sheriff Joe Arpaio & Cold Case Posse d. Obamas own witness in a literary bio and his own distribution of an identification that if false constitutes a crime, but if true also constitutes disbarment from the Office of the President for various alien citizenships he actually witnesses for in a deserving respect for Kenya and Indonesian. 17- Regardless of any of these Obama occupies the Office of the President. It certainly is not this Court or Plaintiffs place to remove a President as that job belongs to Congress or the Legislative Branch. This Court as an acting agent of the Judicial Branch does have the ability to interpret the law and award the Plaintiff by a Court Order an award for the accident of negligence upon him as a Candidate in the race using the standards of the U.S.C. as parameters. The Defendant(s) are principles in causing this accident with their reckless driving, and one might even say their inebriated state of mind actually opposed to the U.S.C which as a Republic the majority support, and through which thus far has made America a pretty cool place to live with a lot of opportunity. 18- Therefore, Plaintiff simply asks for a compensatory award for his time, campaign that is generally recognition that indeed the Constitution was usurped in the election and it wasnt his fault so in fairness in the standard of the Republic the damages should be awarded, for Plaintiff could have been doing a lot more things for his own dependence and independent welfare if he had known that the Constitution was not going to be applicable in the qualification standards of the Office of the President and thus the standards of the race he was made unequally a subject to are constituted in affectively a hit-and-run to his campaigns. This makes the Defendant(s) liable for damages strictly in the monetary department. Congress still has every right to support Obama in the Office of the President. 25
19- The nefarious attacks upon Plaintiffs character have involved and caused him great consternation and duress and surround and include: a. Isolating him on a list of Birthers nationwide b. A lost trust in his personal business dealings c. Loss of his personal credit d. Causing even members of his family and friends to berate him as a trouble maker e. Lending support to two divorces and loss of two homes f. Losing his estates g. Alienation of affection from spouse and children h. Led to his state as a pauper i. Destroyed and derailed his campaigns by manipulating the media and in that public trust in an assault upon fair competition according to the standards of the race. 20- Indeed it is within the rule of reason to assume such damages are indeed the causes by simply pondering the Courts decision to award Plaintiff damages indeed much of that which was lost could be repaired. In a contemplation of the doctrine of absurdity v. the doctrine of strict constructionism there are few leniencies with an alien ship in the Office of the President. a. Can it be said that it is right and correct that Plaintiff should suffer all these things because he stood up for the Constitutions demand for the Office of the President to be filled with a natural born citizen? Why should defending the Republic under the U.S.C. be something that is unpopular, unpatriotic or even seen as an atrocity that is treasonous when the opposite is in fact true? That doesnt make sense. b. Can it be said as a truth that the Republic under the current U.S.C. no longer demands a natural born citizen in the Office of the President but has opened up or 26
changed the demand to reflect the same qualifications as a U.S. Rep., or U.S. Senator seen as Citizen? Does the 14 th Amendment say the qualifications for the President have changed? If that were the case why in the year 2000 did the Legislative Branch in hearings as a mandate from the Legislative Branch to be upheld by the Judicial Branch insist that alien-ship or foreign citizenship was to be kept out of the Office of the President and how has that legislative directive failed to find respect in the Judicial Branch from a single Judge? Most cases on the issue have been dismissed on Standing but Plaintiff meets the standards in all three respects. The Political Question Doctrine does not apply to excusing monopolies, restricting fair competition, or setting aside the Republic form of Government for a mob ruled Democracy. The people have spoken on the demands of the qualifications of the Office of the President in upholding the U.S.C. , not amending it through the Legislative Branch, nor has the Legislative Branch as a whole changed the qualifications. Shall the Judicial Branch defy the U.S.Cs demands as well as the legislative mandate, as well the will of the People all in a whole? Please forbid that. c. If 435 U.S. Legislatures and 100 U.S. Senators are to be respected by one Judge and they havent changed the qualifications for the Office of the President ,in a legal analysis, how can the decision to dismiss the Legislative Mandate of those recent 2000 hearings even remotely be found as advocating the peoples will? Yes, they may have voted for Barack Obama but it was under a blind-fold of his identity which is grounds for liability to the Plaintiff in the least by the Judicial Court. Elections can find their own direction in the Legislative Branchs considerations. d. Can it be said in a truth that Citizen and natural born Citizen has not be defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the differences between Citizen and natural 27
born Citizen are not understood in Minor v. Happersett when the two different status qualifications are stated in the same sentence in the qualification outlines of the Office of the President in the Constitution? Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents is void of any foreign or alien ship and is a natural national defense of two generations. Citizen is certainly understood to be first generation, which can be attained by a soil birth, or a single American Citizen parent able to confer that to a child, or a naturalization process. Without a consideration of the purpose of the law in the qualification effect of a second generation citizen being a natural born citizen ,how can it be said the law is of no value while withstanding many recent challenges in Legislative Actions? e. Can it be said in a true reflection of the rule of reason and purposes of making the qualifications for the Office of the President born in the U.S. to Citizen parents considering that the qualification of the U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators are different, that wisdom was included in opening the Office of the President up for foreign citizenship by birth or soil? What wisdom usurps the U.S.C. unlawfully? f. Can it be said that we as a Nation would like to have doubts opened up within the Office of the President when it includes our nuclear weapons, our armed forces, and the executive authority to carry out orders or not to carry out orders from the Judicial and Legislative Branches? Indeed would doubts and alien rule be voted for in the Office of the President by the majority of the American people, with the understanding that their own rights listed as protected under the U.S.C that have made America a beacon o f hope, are now probably unprotected with reasonable doubts and unlawful constructions by a few Defendants forming a corrupt monopoly? 28
21- Awarding Plaintiff this contest only stabilizes rather than destabilizes. It confers with the Legislative Branchs Mandates rather than opposes. It upholds the Republics standard and encourages lawful diligence rather than rewarding fraud or what may even be considered treason. If the mandate from the populous really involves change, then why is subversive and conspiratorial action necessary by defendant(s) in violations prohibiting construction, accordingly in numerous case law decisions, on the United States Constitution? The Constitution announces plainly its openness for change, but that hasnt happened with the qualifications for the Office of the President, nor has the 14 th Amendment changed the qualification of natural born citizen for the Office of the President with the 14 th s standard of Citizen. Why must the Plaintiff suffer ill effects for taking a stand for the law without compensation and award in damages from those responsible who knowingly, or at the least caught in covering up that they should have known, for violating the rights of the Plaintiff in a fair race as a candidate for President? SUMMARY & PLEA OF CONTEST 1- In a Court of law there are several kinds of damage the greatest is the Public Trust to a company when a record is made public. a. Punitive Damages deter the same kind of behavior that has caused the damages actually helping protect the greater public at large from the same kind of malicious or mal- treatment and serve as warnings to big and small companies alike not to engage in that behavior. As this involves a staggering affect in the general trust of the public to indeed make contributions to the politicians the damages are staggering to the public trust and a stiff example needs to be set to curb that. As the 2008 & 2012 Election cycle for the President involved about $1,400,000,000 on the 29
Democratic Party ticket just for the Office of the President, a modest $100,000,000 would represent less than 10% and serves the good and general public interest for the Republic assigned or split amongst the Defendants as the Court, or jury if this must come to trial, would direct. b. Compensatory Damages actually award the Plaintiff actual cost of loss, time, vehicle, expenses etc. $40,000,000 occurred over the last 7 years. Plaintiff intends to award each contributor to his 08 and 12 campaigns one hundred fold for patriotism against all odds as a condolence for their trouble and consternation in living in the deceitful and sorrowful state of Barack Obamas identification fraud and forgery that has defaced the Office of the President with horror in usurpation. Without their support this defense for our U.S.C., and Plaintiff holding standing, would not be possible. c. Statutory Damage in a civil law case is where the damage is stipulated within the statute rather than being calculated based on the degree of harm to the plaintiff. This is the subject of this Court with ranges of $100,000,000 to corporations and prosecutions of a felony upon various individuals responsible as the Court finds and $1,000,000 upon those individuals as well prosecutions of a felony as the Court shall direct. Signed and submitted this __ day of ____, 2014 Cody Robert Judy /pro se ____________________________________.
30
Defendants Mailing address: Democratic National Committee 430 South Capitol St. SE Washington, DC 20003 Main phone number: 202-863-8000 For questions about contributions, please call 877-336-7200. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to move forward the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012. OFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse backgrounds to speak out for passage and effective implementation of these policies, including gun violence prevention, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform among others. In addition, OFA will encourage the formation of chapters that will be dedicated at the grassroots level to this program, but also committed to identifying and working progressive change on a range of issues at the state and local level. In carrying out its work, OFA will operate as a "social welfare" organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
CONTACT: Utah Democratic Party Headquarters 825 North 300 West, Suite C400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (801) 328-1212