You are on page 1of 10


No. 14-9396


SUPREME COURT of the United

Cody Robert Judy,
Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro,

Motion to Reopen Case and Reconsider Motion of Forma Pauperis to Grant Writ of





Comes Now the Petitioner before the Court, pro se, and respectfully submits this
Facts, New Evidence, and Compelling Motive for the Court to grant the Writ of

1- Oct 8th, 2015

Case Received a Considered Closed on the Docket of 14-

2- Oct 5th, 2015

Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to

proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.

3- Jun 22nd, 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.

4- Petitioner showed Gross Income $2,200.00/m with Total Household Expenses

of $2,168.00/m
5- According to Government Health 200% Federal Poverty Level [FPL] for an
individual is Net $23,540.00 subtracting essential Product Cost $625.00,
Vehicle Operation Cost $200.00, Insurance $73.00, Business Utilities $200.00
places Petitioners Cost at $1,098.00. Deducting this from Gross of $2,200.00
is $1,102.00 which is $13,224.00 per year which is well below Federal Poverty
Level. [ ]
6- Petitioner in MOTION FOR A IFP (forma pauperis) RECONSIDERATION REVIEW
provided this Court with Bank Statements that showed his personal/business
and political campaign bank accounts wholly unequipped [at the time of the
Denial] to mount the requirement of the June 22, 2015 Court Order. [ ]
7- The Federal Form to proceed with a Forma Pauperis Motion is a 12 month
Form. The Lower District Court (Utah Division) and the TENTH COURT OF
APPEALS granted petitioners Motion to proceed in Forma Pauperis in the same
year the SCOTUS denied it.
8- This Court did [not] DENY Petitioners Motion due to Rule 39.8 abusive or
excessive Filings.
In this Courts SCOTUS BLOG a hypothetical Case is shown that explicitly states: [ ]
[Once all of the cert. stage briefs " the cert. petition, the BIO, the reply brief (if
any), and the amicus briefs (if any) " are filed, they are distributed to the Justices'
chambers. Eight of the nine current Justices participate in the cert. pool, which is a laborsaving device in which a case is first reviewed by one law clerk in one of the seven
chambers. That clerk prepares a memorandum about the case that includes an initial
recommendation whether the Court should review the case; the memorandum is circulated
to all seven chambers, where it is reviewed by the clerks and possibly the Justices there.

Only one Justice, Justice Alito, does not participate in the cert. pool. Instead, his law clerks
review the cases on their own and make recommendations directly to him. Emphasis added
with underlined script- ]

A Motion to REOPEN and RECONSIDER a Case or a Motion to the Court is not

prohibited by any of this Court Rules, and most often request a review by the
authority that issued the latest decision in the proceeding. A MOTION TO REOPEN is
based on documentary evidence of new facts and alternatively a MOTION TO
RECONSIDER is based on a claim of incorrect application of law or policy to the prior
With the facts shown, the DENIAL of the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
appears arbitrary and that certainly demonstrates a malfeasance by the Court to
the General Public for which it serves in the capacity of the U.S. Constitution.
To let the Denial of the MOTION FOR FORMA PAUPERIS stand uncorrected as to
the facts that may have been mis-understood by a [Clerk of the Court] in writing a
recommendations, is to set an unprecedented accord of denial of [access to justice
or to the Court] by those well below the poverty line recognized by the Government
of the United States of America. That standard of which affords no equity to the
poor is wholly corrupt and contemptable to the proceeds of Justice for All.
Under a standard of Strict Scrutiny, the most stringent standard of review that
courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or
principle the Court with the Standard of Federal Standards of the FPL cannot require
the poor to come up with money it does not have, nor has the government a
compelling interest to discriminate against the poor prohibiting Justice by reason of
a poverty. Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the
exclusion of Japanese Americans from designated areas during World War II.
Therefore based upon the Facts of income, the Standards of Review and approval on
Health Standards of FPL; the Lower Courts Granting the Motion in the same year; a
12 month Federal Form; the Motion for Forma Pauperis should be RECONSIDERED,
and the Denial reversed, and the Motion Granted that the Writ of Certiorari might be


In consideration to the Courts DENIAL of the Motion for Forma Pauperis a Campaign
is on-going that reflects in a bad light the Courts denial based on an injustice that is
being spot-lighted nationally in a Presidential Campaign as it relates to Justice in
America and income inequality, as well as the most prominently articulated
qualification for President featured in near complete overcast of the Main Stream as
well as alternative Media available to the General Public.
In light of the weight of application to the Questions #1 Purposed in the Writ of
Certiorari- #1 Does the United States of America under the United States
Constitutions leading Court in the Public interest of Presidential Contenders
announced and unannounced entering the Presidential race need a new definition of
[natural born Citizen] for the Office of the President as [Citizen] was determined to
be the definitive qualification term for those born at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, in assistance of the public trust when contributing donations to
Presidential Candidates for the coming 2016 Election? , the Court must be
concerned about the Publics perception of the administration of Justice.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
1-It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have
never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept
generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely
preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple
individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
2- The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the
government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential
aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
3-The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling
government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is
equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive

means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally
evaluates it separately.
Constitutional Scholars are in disagreement among the population with popular
Candidates approaching them for their personal interest and aggressively using
those standards as Official Review. The Standard for [Standing] is generally agreed
that it takes a Presidential Candidate claiming damages in the race against another
Presidential Candidate in the direct line of competition of political parties. That is
until one party decides on a nominee, an opposing party Candidate cannot
challenge qualifications on eligibility required by the Constitution. The dichotomy
encourages the risk of an Entire General Election coming to the Court with a 49%
loss to a 51% win, with the loser requiring a Qualification Test by the Court. This
could easily threaten the entire Union.
Judy v. Obama 14-9396 does not rest upon an Election, and it allows the Court to
give an Opinion on the Standard of [natural born Citizen] as to the variable
particulars important by Parents as well as jurisdiction of Place. Presidential
Candidate Ted Cruz for instance wishes his 40+ Million Dollar campaign along with
his supporters on a Standard of a single parental conferred [citizenship], not
necessarily at the time of his birth, but at the time of his mothers birth, that
eliminates her own decision to acquire a dual voting citizenship from Canada. While
Sen. Cruz is not cited as a Respondent, he was given invitation to respond to Amici
Curiae as well as Sen. Marco Rubio, also mentioned in a unique distinction of being
born in the U.S. under Jurisdiction as a Citizen, but having no conferred Parental
Citizenship as they were foreigners. The 14 th Amendment was not a supercision over
Art. II, Section 1, Clause 5 qualification of [natural born Citizen] noticed by even the
author Bingham. Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the
jurisdiction of the United States and therefore eligible for [citizenship]. Jurisdiction
understood as allegiance was not automatic and was not the function of replacing
[natural born Citizenship] for the Office of President that cannot be naturalized by
There is no danger of the Country burning down based on the outrage of supporters
of a Candidate who has no more Presidential Election to run. The concern of Barack
Obama is different after 7 years then it was immediately after his election, and thus

this Case may be the one ripe case that leaves the Country in the best possible
shape to gaining an understanding of the Precedent Case Petitioner has used
throughout the Case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) where the court had to
make a finding of establishment before considering the Case requirement. That
finding depicted [natural born Citizen] without a doubt naturally oriented to those
without statute as:
Those born in the Country to the Parents who are its Citizens are natural born
Citizens or natives.
The positive incentive to propagate American of the new Nation was reserved for
one office only and that was the Office of the President. The Vice President was
assured the same qualifications as good measure. The distinct and unique
qualification of [natural born Citizen] was not divested upon U.S. Representatives or
U.S. Senators whose time period was lesser to achieve qualification. The time period
is the only determination requirement unique to the Office of the President and is
not based unfairly on any particular race, color, ethnicity, or gender. It is simply a
[requirement of time] in an assimilation of American Culture and serves as a
national security measure for the entire population in the duties of the controlling
Executive Branch Officer, not divided by authority, as the Judicial Branch or
Legislative Branches are, and thusly is advisable and wise as per every review by
the Legislature which has failed to change the requirement eight times since 2003.
The Main Stream News media of the entire American Public have been focused
upon the definition of [natural born Citizen] with Mr. Donald Trump entering the race
as a Republican opposed to Sen. Cruz, Sen. Rubio, and Gov. Jindals qualifications
and eligibility as the Petitioner here as a Democratic Party Candidate for President
is; thus making the Case Judy v. Obama 14-9396 a [mutually shared concern] across
Party Lines, and in this sense mooting the political doctrine question.
Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is
construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like
abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held
that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the
sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore,
the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive
branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions.

Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits
challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v.
United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). (Underlined emphasis added. )

This case in fact does not fall under the prohibitions of the political question
doctrine and is a case of damages and the assessment of damages based on a
violation of the rules of the Presidential Qualifications found in the Constitution.
Without an agreement of qualifying terms the race has no meaning. The Legislature
has set out its qualification terms as [Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] ie. 2008
U.S. Sen. Res. 511 the most recent ruling of 50 U.S. Senators.
Silence by the Court, or evasion, is also conceived or contrived as favoring a
particular Candidate as perhaps an unintended but perceived consequence. This
represents a Standard that is discriminatory of an aggrieved Candidate. A
Legislative Body is equipped in passing Laws, not settling a matter between two
individuals running in the same competitive race with a disqualification dispute of
terms the Legislature has been clear about. To evade the civil disagreement is by
the Courts Silence to legally allow or give license for violence over rather than a
civil remedy. If the Court has nothing to do with a dispute, a Legislature cannot
settle the matter, only violence remains regrettably the suggestion in the silence.
Dual citizenship is prohibited in the Office of President as foreign, as are duels to
settle matters in the U.S.A.
As this is applied in a popular election, the recipe is for chaos and anarchy of which
the whole of the Courts responsibility to the Constitution is rendered obsolete and
the entire Court is dissolved anyway. By appealing for Justice, Petitioner is only
appealing for civility.
The Questions of this Case can serve the public in a great interest, it is a Main
Stream concern in the Media and in the general public right now, its implications are
of a legal and profound professional question, really needing the experience, and
professional opinion of the Court.
The Public is continually gaining an understanding of the legal Precedent of this
Case through many Outlets of the Media which should factor into and be considered
as [new evidence] in the concern of the Court representing Justice for All:

The Petitioner as a 2016 Democratic Candidate for President has an Active

Campaign in public.
Web: ,
Twitter: @codyrobertjudy2016

Mr. Judy is conducting interview, and doing radio interviews that are also
Podcast and available to everyone at their convenience of listening to any
Feb 2, 2016 Worcester, Massachusetts: The Meat & Potatoes Show
Jan 6, 2016 Flint Michigan The Tom Sumner Program :
Aug 10th,2015 : Seadrift Texas Clayton Douglas Show

Mr. Judy and his Campaign are being written about, noticed and published
JAN 29TH, 2016 The POST & EMAIL Mike Zullo to Appear on Freedom Friday this
Evening [ ]
DEC 18, 2015 BUSTLE: Has A Candidate Sued The DNC Before? Bernie
Sanders Isn't The First, Technically
[ ]
The leading Republican Polling Candidate Mr. Donald Trump has nationally declared
that this issue is unresolved: TED CRUZ IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT
The Petitioner request that in the INTEREST OF JUSTICE to not only himself, but to
the General Public at large, that the Motion to Reopen and Reconsider the Motion for
Forma Pauperis be GRANTED and that his Writ of Certiorari be Granted.
Signed and submitted this 4th Day of February, 2016
Petitioner: /s/ Cody Robert Judy _____________________________



In compliance with 28 U.S.C 1746, reciting the facts and circumstances of service
in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29 (c) I do hereby declare under
penalty of law that I mailed, via 1st class U.S. Mail and Email, a true and correct copy
of the forgoing:
Postage pre-paid, to the RESPONDENT(s), by and through Counsel(s) of Record at:
And Also:

Solicitor General of the United States

Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro et all , Case No. 14-9396,
The White House
1600 Pennsylavania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

U.S. Supreme Court

1 First Street N.E.
Washington DC 20543

On this _4__ Day of February, 2016

Signature of Mailer/s/ Cody Robert Judy _______________________


You might also like