1

Cody Robert Judy
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 Obama’s 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 Obama’s 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
Plaintiff’s assertions that he has failed to do so, which has violated Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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

Plaintiff’s 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, Obama’s long form birth certificate, and Obama’s 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 R’s and D’s 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 Plaintiff’s rights to run for
President, past, present, and future, in a fair and equal competition for the office of the president’s 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 President’s qualifications
because it’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Court’s 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. Judy’s declaration for President in 2016 by suppressing
contributions to his campaign based on the history of Mr. Judy’s actions against Barack Obama
which they vilify as “Birther Action” stated so even on Court Record as the action entitled
“Motion to Dismiss” in Georgia’s 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 Obama’s 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
Constitution’s 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 Constitution’s directive simply in losing
contest based on “other” criteria, such a McCain’s 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)
didn’t thus in negligence damaging his Campaign Vehicle for the Office of the President.
It’s 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)
definition’s 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
Constitution’s 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
Plaintiff’s 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 Obama’s 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 mother’s heritage as well as the place of birth in a combination of nature and nurture
as well as Obama’s 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 he’s 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 father’s 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
father’s 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 Obama’s 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 Constitution’s 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 Obama’s 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 public’s peril” collide in OFA’s
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 Court’s 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 doesn’t give them an
allowance to:
a. Violate the United States Constitution without responsibility towards fair practices
b. Violate a person’s rights ( In this case Plaintiff’s) 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 Plaintiff’s 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 wasn’t 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 statism—where 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 principle—that 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 ‘candidate’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Constitution’s 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 weren’t two forms signed in prior
DNC nominations unless there is a culpability happening?
4- If the Constitution’s 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 can’t 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 what’s 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
don’t 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 Obama’s 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 individual’s 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 what’s 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 what’s 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 public’s 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 DNC’s cover-up by issuing two forms to
get the candidate Obama on the ballot signed by DNC’s Chairmen Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
and the co-operation of R’s and D’s 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 R’s and D’s 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
Branch’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Court’s 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 Plaintiff’s
Campaigns as well and by the Constitution of the United States of America’s 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. Obama’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 wasn’t
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 Plaintiff’s 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 Court’s 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 Constitution’s 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 doesn’t 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.C’s 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 haven’t 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 people’s 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 Branch’s 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 Branch’s Mandates rather than opposes. It upholds the Republic’s 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 hasn’t 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 Obama’s 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful