__________________________________________________

UNITED STATES COURT - DISTRICT OF NEVADA
__________________________________________________
DATE FILED
September 3, 2008
CODY ROBERT JUDY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:2008cv01162

JOHN MCCAIN &

JUDGE:
Kent J. Dawson

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE,
Defendant,
CIVIL RIGHTS /
FEDERAL ELECTIONS
COMPLAINT
(42 U.S.C.ss1983 or ss1985
U.S. Constitution Art.II Sect.1 )

_________________________________________________________
The Plaintiff, appearing Pro Se, submits and petitions this civil action for the
court, considering John McCain as Constitutionally ineligible to run for president,
under the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution mandating the qualifications in Art.II
Sect. 1, “ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President…”; And as a candidate in the Presidential election the Defendant poses a
legitimate direct injury cause to the Plaintiff, which he claims in campaign expenses,
election fairness, constitutional law, direct to his rights as a citizen, upholding the
U.S. Constitution, in liberty and independence .
____________________________________

1

JURISDICTION PROPER
FEDERAL CIVIL ACTION
______________________________
1- Civil Rights Act 1871, 42 U.S.C. ss 1983, Civil Rights Act 1861, 42 U.S.C ss 1985
(3)
Jurisdiction 42 U.S.C ss 83,85, by authority of 28 U.S.C ss1332 (2) (1) U.S.
Constitution Venue is proper
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ss 2201 and 28 U.S.C ss 2202 also invokes 18 U.S.C ss 241
and 18 U.S.C ss 242,
and Election Statutes pertaining to U.S. Federal Law overseen in U.S. District Court.

2-Plaintiff: Cody Robert Judy- Resident of Nevada- P.O. Box 2342 Mesquite, NV 89024
3-Defendant: John McCain- Resident and U.S. Senator of Arizona
a-

Second Defendant- Republican National Committee et.al.,

(1-5 named as they are in respective residences and as citizens)
Mailing Address: Republican Headquarters , LasVegas, NV. (Offices

West Regional Headquarters & Nevada State Office
8935 S. Pecos Road
Suite 22A
Henderson, NV 89074
Office number is 702-425-8845
Office fax is 702-982-8662
Email Nevada staff at nevada@johnmccain.cominsert address)
4-Defendant(s) was/were not acting under color of state law in action.
aThis action constitutes a national election of which the State of Nevada is a
part, and in and as such has authority in the Federal Court Division of Nevada, to
consider and interpret the U.S. Constitution, as a Judicial Function of the U.S.
Government.

2

NATURE OF CASE
The Republican Party is holding a National Convention this week (Sept.1-4) in
St.Paul, Minnesota pending major schedule changes imminent as Hurricane Gustav
threatened New Orleans. The presumptive nominee for Republicans, John McCain,
precipitates an objection by the Plaintiff, also a candidate for President, seeking to
defend and uphold the United States Constitution publically with honor, before
McCain’s nomination, as a consideration to the Republican Party, as a party of major
contribution to the United States, to the Judicial Branch, qualified to interpret U.S.
Constitution, in deference to Senator John McCain’s qualification being acceptable
and in harmony with U.S. Constitutional honor, respecting Article II Section I,
elaborating upon the qualifications of any persons seeking the office of President of
the United States as a “natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the
time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President”.
Indeed, if the question is skirted by this court at this late hour, the very nomination
of the Republican Party, might be overturned at a later date, by a higher court, in
another state, until the U.S. Supreme Court lays it to rest, and a Constitutional
Amendment is ratified by Congress properly to include the eligibility of “naturalized
citizens” to hold the highest office of the Presidency. Until that time, due diligence of
the fibers of the U.S. Constitution is honorable duty.
The circumstance which led to the case rising to the courts attention is truly
brought on by defendants dishonorable discernment of the U.S. Constitution. There
are cases where a candidate for president has withdrawn candidacy for president
based on being a naturalized citizen, and this truly did honor the standard of the
U.S. Constitution.
The Senate Judiciary Committee did pass a “non-binding resolution” to allow John
McCain’s run, but the U.S. Constitution deserves more honor as the standard by
which our nation has literally survived in a much older world then to be soused
about with “non-binding resolution”, by many who either, didn’t have respect for the
fiber of the U.S. Constitution, or perhaps even more nefariously, planned a legal
assault on the issue if Sen. McCain won, to shatter the confidence of Americans, or
open the window of “naturalization” for foreign assault in direct opposition to our
forefathers warnings, albeit the wisdom and understanding they agonized over in
protecting the Independence and Liberty of our United States. To wit I submit here,
the decry of our own beloved constitution by Democratic leaders of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, one of which just happens to be the Democratic Nominee
Barrack Obama:
?
With the arcane Constitutional issue about Mr. McCain’s status popping up in
a couple of courtrooms, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected next week to

3

approve and send to the Senate floor a non-binding resolution that seeks to put to
rest any question about Mr. McCain and that murky “natural born Citizen” clause.
?
“Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’ under
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States,” declares the resolution
co-authored by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, and Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri.
?
The sponsors include both Democrats vying to be Mr. McCain’s opponent,
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, as well
as Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.
?
Of course, the authors acknowledge the resolution would have little real
influence were the matter of Mr. McCain’s eligibility hanging by a legal thread.

The nature of this complaint is not to disregard the service of any one
citizen of the United States that is naturalized, but to cherish, honor, and respect
that standard by which we stand all amazed at the experiment of democracy
cornerstoned with the U.S. Constitution which serves all and one. The plaintiff
further provides the following in contextual argument:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621
Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards
Short of Citizenship

Gabriel J. Chin
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona - School
of Public Administration and Policy

July 9, 2008

Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14

Abstract:
Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The
Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated
into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, distinguished
constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and
4

issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural
born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests
that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered
by the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the
United States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that
"unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for constitutional
purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated
territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also
suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only
statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937,
Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting
Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at
birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural
born Citizen" and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the
Constitution.

Keywords: John McCain, Canal Zone, citizenship, naturalization, natural born citizen,
president, presidential eligibility
JEL Classifications: K33
Working Paper Series

CAUSE OF ACTION

Plaintiff alleges that his/my constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities have
been violated and that the following facts form the basis for my allegations:
1.)
John McCain being a “naturalized citizen” and being able to run for president,
is election competitive unfairness to Cody Robert Judy, herein the Plaintiff, who is a
“natural citizen” and meets the U.S. Constitutional qualifications as a “natural
citizen” to run for the office of president according to U.S. Constitutional law, born in
Idaho Falls,Idaho.
a.

Mr. McCain has spent money to run for the Presidential race.

b.

Mr. Judy has also spent money to run for the Presidential race.

i.)
Mr. McCain is prohibited from competition similar to allegations that China’s
gold medalist gymnastic team members may have been to young to compete in the
Olympics compared to qualifications of other world teams like Americans. The age is
set at 16 and older for a reason. Younger gymnast may have an advantage on
flexibility and be smaller in stature to perform movements easier. The election is
similar to a contest between parties and the qualification of said parties applies to
“square” the race.
5

ii.)
There have been no U.S. Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing a
“naturalized citizens” ability to run for U.S. President.
iii.)
The “non-binding” resolution of the United States Senate declaring John
McCain eligible smacks in the face of Constitutional Law and is deplorable by U.S.
Senators charged in defending Constitutional merits in a longer 6 year term then
counterpart U.S. Congress, and is certainly half hearted to the steps of a
Constitutional Amendment that must necessitate such an incredible departure from
the current U.S. Constitutional provisional principle.
)
The Congress was not consulted- this left out half of the legislative branch of
government, and certainly represents no plea to the Judicial Branch for
interpretation.

2.)
As a citizen, the Plaintiff is affectively guaranteed all the rights and privileges
enamored in the U.S. Constitution. The potential of Senator John McCain’s
Presidency, seen as a disruption of said rights, threatens the plaintiff’s liberty and
independency as a citizen, as the United States’ standard of the U.S. Constitution
preserves individual rights identifying a boundary of just social interactions, in the
presence or absence of government.
aAs Senator McCain runs for President, the U.S. Constitutional law of “natural
born” citizen is defected upon plaintiff, and in fact all. This is not about “second
class citizenship”, but rather honoring the law until such time as the law is revoked
and or amended. As Plaintiff assumes natural nationality of America, depends on
protection, rights secured, for his independence and liberty, through the standard of
the U.S. Constitution, the threat of violence by aversion to the standard of
constitutional principles, is reprehensible, as is actual violence though the penalty
for such “threats” may be lighter than “actual” violence. Senator John McCain’s run
for the Presidency constitutes a “threat” of violence to the U.S. Constitution, if he
were to be elected it would constitute “actual” violence to the U.S. Constitution and
so has harmed the Plaintiff accordingly.
bIn the Declaration of Independence which constituted an action of Second
Continental Congress, July 4th,1776 it is related “That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent
of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
the Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new
Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in
such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn
that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.”

6

FURTHER DILIBERATIONS TO CONSIDER
This is some excerpts from an attempt to actually amend the constitution in the
year 2000 to allow foreign born citizens to be president. It is worth noting that the
spirit of the law is as it is interpreted by individuals. The spirit of man is given
natural to the place of his birth and to that, we as human beings only mortal, are
given the lot by our Creator. This we cannot change, nor would it be possible to add
a cubic to our height and all the rancor of grace and humility is lost to the demons
of hell raging they are not in heaven, and heaven does not let them in. Thus it was
reserved by the founding fathers, that though no second class citizen existed and all
citizens could indeed vote, discrimination of the office of the Presidency, was to be
kept by a select spirit, natural born to the United States.
The violation of that discrimination, or qualification, as seen in the eye of the
beholder, has a consequence the United States has never before in independent
history tampered with and our history is one so blessed as to raise serious question
to the penalty of alteration. So the Plaintiff has before this proceeding embarked to
encouraged the honor of Senator McCain’s withdraw from his presidential race on
his web page, and even made a commercial to the affect seen on
http://www.codyjudy.us/crj4president_007.htm

Senator John McCain would actually violate the very oath of the President of the
United States pledging to secure the U.S. Constitution, as he took the oath, on his
first day, because he is not a natural born citizen.
67–306

2000
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE
PRESIDENT

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.J.Res. 88
JULY 24, 2000
Serial No. 108
Excerpt 1

7

''. . . it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the
esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as
would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office
of president of the United States''—thus writes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist
No.68. Indeed, the ''chief magistrate'' who is also Commander-in-Chief has to grow
from the soil.
Excerpt 2
I came to this Country in 1959, and became a citizen in 1964. During my formative
years in Hungary, I read as much American literature as American students might
have in the high schools of yore. In my second year of residence, I married a nativeborn American, and henceforth spoke English exclusively in my home. Before and
after taking the oath of citizenship, I have made continuous and extensive efforts to
become American, not only in the administrative sense of the word. In the course of
my life, spent mostly as a performing artist and academic, I had the opportunity to
start a small corporation and run for elective office—both of which are indispensable
for the comprehension of America.

My interest in, and commitment to, the principles upon which this Nation was
founded prompted me to establish a small Think Tank—called Center for the
American Founding—that connects today's issues with those principles. I write a
regular column, and have published a book about American political philosophy. My
fellow Americans honor me frequently in word and deed very much as one of their
own.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, I wish to state unequivocally that, despite all of the above, I
would not consider myself eligible to the office of president of the United States.

The people of this land are possessed of a unique brand of tolerance, a balanced
temperament, and a natural goodwill toward the world. While such persons may be
found everywhere, they constitute an overwhelming majority among Americans.
One of the inexplicable miracles of America is the transformation that occurs within
one generation, no matter how different the customs and mores of the new arrivals.

Excerpt 3
In addition, liberty is not simply a blessing guaranteed by the Constitution, but an
inner state of being, again separating Americans from most others. An
overwhelming majority of immigrants arrive on these shores looking, as they had
always done, to government as a source of benefits, and an authority to obey.
Excerpt 4
8

Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional
persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all
expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet
the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind.
Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by
writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be
applicable to all circumstances at all times
Excerpt 5
The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak presidency, but the office
has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are
therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of presidential authority that
is virtually unchecked and uncheckable (despite the War Powers Act and similar
efforts) is the president's power as commander in chief. Can that power be safely
entrusted to a foreign-born citizen? John Jay didn't think so; nor do I; nor I suspect
do the vast majority of Americans.

Let us consider a few scenarios. Start with an extreme example. The espionage
agencies of a number of countries, doubtless including the United States, have
sometimes employed what in the spy novel is called an agent under deep cover. A
young person is thoroughly trained and indoctrinated before being sent to an
enemy country, where he or she becomes a citizen and an exemplar of respectable
behavior. This goes on for years, even decades, until the parent agency determines
that it is time to activate the agent. It is not difficult to imagine such a person
obtaining an office of great trust. But a Senator is one of 100, and a Representative
is one of 435. What check is there on the president who is one of one, except for the
constitutional restriction?

Should that seem too remote a possibility, consider a more likely case. A person
comes to America from country ''X'' as a young man, takes out citizenship, become
thoroughly Americanized, and is as loyal to his adopted country as can be.
Nonetheless, in dealing with his original country he is bound to be influenced by his
nativity, whether in the form of hostility or favoritism. Even should he prove able to
rise above his prejudices and deal with the old country objectively, he would still be
widely regarded as prejudiced, and the media would fan such suspicions. As
commander in chief, it is not enough to be above reproach, one must be above the
suspicion of reproach.

Let me cite a more tangible example, one closer to recent experience. We all
know a number of Cuban-Americans. They are loyal to our country, now their
country too. They are pillars of their communities and are more fiercely patriotic
9

than most natural born Americans. And yet, as the recent to-do over Elian Gonzalez
demonstrated, few of them are able to regard Cuba dispassionately or treat
relations with Castro's Cuba with equanimity. Suppose we had had a Cuban-born
president in the White House at the time of the Gonzalez controversy. Would that
president have been able to retain objectivity and, as importantly, any shred of
credibility under the circumstances?

In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are
best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment
process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering
purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and
continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom
Excerpt 6
Mr. VAZSONYI. I would not only agree in general, I would also cite a letter written by
Thomas Jefferson, I believe, in 1820, in which he says very clearly that all
confidence must be in the American people, who are the only repositories of a safe
future.

But I also believe that political events can be influenced, and it is not unthinkable
for a foreign power, especially for a foreign power, perhaps I am going to cite China,
a country with an extremely long-term view of history, to arrange things perhaps on
a 50-year plan to install someone on American soil and really hope to be able to run
for that office and put the necessary strength behind it.
(Senator John McCain was shot down when he was 31 years old, he now is 72. He
was held for over 5 years, not just held, but tortured by communisit. How could
anyone know for certain, he was not brainwashed during his torture in an extended
plan for power by foreign powers and the directives of foreign intelligence were
supplanted in his brain to harbor there for a time, or until such a time as he was
made President, what might we be in for?
If you were going to select someone in that effort, a naturalized citizen adds the
flavor of cementing the abandonment charge to the physic, emboldened with a
military family, decorated as a hero, John McCain would be the biggest ticking time
bomb in United States history!

Statement Of Senator John McCain: "We are all Georgians," McCain said in response
to the Russian invasion.
This is statement that could be construed to intentionally mis-place all
Americans and with that, the rights as Americans. Americans are never Georgians,
we are Americans and the honor of Americans has been betrayed in this statement.
Evidence of this in John McCain’s legislation history includes
10

1)
McCain/Kennedy which granted 11 million illegal’s amnesty but was rejected
by the American People.
2)
McCain/Feingold which has been construed an assault free speech and the
1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
3)
McCain/Lieberman which could well be considered a step in dissolving
sovereignty of U.S. Independence
Could we consider his unstable irrational behavior in dealing with many colleagues’
evidence of the “pride over principle” affect attributing Senator John McCain’s
unwillingness to suspend his campaign due to his being a naturalized citizen? :
Reported May 20th 2007 Inside story – found :
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017697.php
The eruption of Senator John McCain at fellow Republican Sen. John Cornyn (TX) is
an incident that reverberates on several levels. It renews lingering doubts about
whether Senator McCain possesses the proper temperament to be president. It also
raises serious questions about the substance of the "grand bargain" immigration bill
that Senators Kennedy, Specter, McCain and others are attempting to rush through
the Senate. (The written bill language was finally distributed to Senate offices early
Saturday morning, 326 pages, still marked as a draft.)
When word of the McCain incident began to leak late Friday, we found Senate
offices circling the wagons, trying to avoid talking about it. We believe that accounts
published to date fail to provide the context necessary to understand the incident
properly. We have pieced together the following account that we believe more
accurately relates the incident and provides the necessary context.
Senator McCain has been largely missing from the Senate since late March, when it
became apparent his fundraising operation was seriously lagging. Senator McCain
hasn’t made a Senate vote in the past five weeks. But he wanted to be front and
center when the immigration bargain was announced, and Kennedy and Specter did
everything they could to accommodate him. They reserved the Senate press gallery
room for 1:30 p.m. Thursday, just in time for Senator McCain to attend before
heading out to New York for more fundraising.
A minor problem arose. Bush administration negotiators and a bipartisan Senate
group had been meeting several days a week since February, often with glacial
progress. (McCain rarely attended, though his staff was there.) As of Thursday
morning, however, agreement hadn’t been reached. A final meeting started at 10
a.m. in hopes of finishing the deal. With a dozen Senators, two Cabinet members
(Chertoff and Gutierrez) and perhaps 15 staffers in the room discussing an
unpublished documents exceeding 300 pages in length, it was slow going. Senator
Cornyn, tacitly supported by Sen. Jon Kyl, pushed hard to streamline legal
procedures to allow prompt deportation of illegals. Senator Kennedy resisted.
As the clock moved closer to 1:30 p.m., Senator McCain suddenly lost it. "This is
chickenshit," he told Senator Cornyn. "I think it would expedite things if you would
11

just leave the room, Senator, so we can get along with finishing this up." Senator
Cornyn responded: "Wait a minute. We’ve been meeting for three months on this in
good faith, and now you parachute in here this morning and tell me to leave? I think
you’re out of line."
Senator McCain responded: "F*** you! I know what is going on here. I know more
about immigration than anybody in this room!” Other Senators moved in to calm
things down, and the talks went on. Senator Cornyn’s provision was not included. At
1:30 p.m. sharp, the conferees (not including Senators Cornyn or Menendez and a
few other negotiators) were in the press gallery, congratulating each other. Senator
Kennedy recognized Senator McCain early to make his televised comments, then
Senator McCain departed before the press conference was over for a flight to New
York City. Later that afternoon, he missed yet another Senate vote -– this one on the
Democrats' $2.9 trillion budget plan, an outline for the largest tax increase in U.S.
history.
Two weeks ago, Senator McCain defended his reputation as a hothead on Fox News
Sunday, saying he loses his temper only when he sees corruption and wasteful
spending. This incident involved neither. It was instead a simple policy dispute,
where he didn’t want to debate how his legislation would actually work.
McCain: A Question of Temperament
By Michael Leahy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 20, 2008; A01
Found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224_pf.html
John McCain cupped a fist and began pumping it, up and down, along the side of his
body. It was a gesture familiar to a participant in the closed-door meeting of the
Senate committee who hoped that it merely signaled, as it sometimes had in the
past, McCain's mounting frustration with one of his colleagues.
But when McCain leaned toward Charles E. Grassley and slowly said, "My friend . . ."
it seemed clear that ugliness was looming: While the plural "my friends" was usually
a warm salutation from McCain, "my friend" was often a prelude to his most caustic
attacks. Grassley, an Iowa Republican with a reputation as an unwavering legislator,
calmly held his ground. McCain became angrier, his fist pumping even faster.
It was early 1992, and the occasion was an informal gathering of a select committee
investigating lingering issues about Vietnam War prisoners and those missing in
action, most notably whether any American servicemen were still being held by the
Vietnamese. It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some
point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him.
Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I
don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."
12

McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving
between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska
Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.
Grassley said recently that "it was a very long period of time" before he and McCain
spoke to each other again, though he declined, through a spokesman, to discuss the
specifics of the incident.
Since the beginning of McCain's public life, the many witnesses to his temper have
had strikingly different reactions to it. Some depict McCain, now the presumptive
Republican nominee for president, as an erratic hothead incapable of staying cool in
the face of what he views as either disloyalty to him or irrational opposition to his
ideas. Others praise a firebrand who is resolute against the forces of greed and
gutlessness.
"Does he get angry? Yes," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent
who supports McCain's presidential bid. "But it's never been enough to blur his
judgment. . . . If anything, his passion and occasional bursts of anger have made
him more effective."
Former senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about
McCain: "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the
world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him."
A spokesman for McCain's campaign said he would be unavailable for an interview
on the subject of his temper. But over the years, no one has written more intimately
about McCain's outbursts than McCain himself. "My temper has often been both a
matter of public speculation and personal concern," he wrote in a 2002 memoir. "I
have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying
degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public's."
That temper has followed him throughout his life, McCain acknowledges. He recalls
in his writings how, as a toddler, he sometimes held his breath and fainted during
moments of fury. As the son of a naval officer who was on his way to becoming a
four-star admiral, McCain found himself frequently uprooted and enrolled in new
schools, where, as an underappreciated outsider, he developed "a little bit of a chip
on my shoulder," as he recalled this month.
During a campaign stop at Episcopal High School in Alexandria, the most famous
graduate of the Class of 1954 opened a window on what swirled inside him during
his school years. "I was always the new kid and was accustomed to proving myself
quickly at each new school as someone not to be challenged lightly," he told
students.
"As a young man, I would respond aggressively and sometimes irresponsibly to
anyone who I perceived to have questioned my sense of honor and self-respect.
Those responses often got me in a fair amount of trouble earlier in life."
He defied authority, ridiculed other students, sometimes fought. The nicknames
hung on him at Episcopal mocked his hair-trigger feistiness: "Punk" and "McNasty."
13

Hoping to emulate his father and grandfather, also an admiral, he went on to the
Naval Academy, where his pattern of unruliness and defiance continued, landing
him near the bottom of his class. "I acted like a jerk," McCain wrote of the period
before he righted himself to become a naval aviator, a Vietnam POW and eventually
a career politician.
The trajectory of his temper, studied ever more intently as his White House
ambitions took shape, includes incidents from his years in the House and in the
Senate, leading up to the early days of his current presidential campaign. In 2007,
during a heated closed-door discussion with Senate colleagues about the
contentious immigration issue, he angrily shouted a profanity at a fellow
Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, an incident that quickly found its way into
headlines.
Reports recently surfaced of Rep. Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican, taking offense
when McCain called him "boy" once too often during a 2006 meeting, a story that
McCain aides confirm while playing down its importance. "Renzi flared and he was
prickly," McCain strategist Mark Salter said. "But there were no punches thrown or
anything."
'Everyone Has a Temper'
According to aides, McCain's frequent comments about his temperament reflect a
recognition that the issue persists for some voters and the media. At times he
expresses regret about his temper, often tracing it to the same resentments that
ignited him as a boy: "In all candor, as an adult I've been known to forget
occasionally the discretion expected of a person of my many years and station
when I believe I've been accorded a lack of respect I did not deserve," he said at
Episcopal.
On other occasions, he has contended that his blowups have served a purpose. In a
recent interview with CNN, while referring to his temper as "a very minor thing,"
McCain declared that voters occasionally want him to vent: "When I see corruption, .
. . when I see people misbehaving badly, they expect me to" be angry.
Salter, who has co-written five books with McCain that, among other things, explore
the origins of his feistiness, said he thinks McCain's temper first became an issue
after an incident in 1989, during McCain's first term in the Senate.
The nomination of a beleaguered John Tower to become defense secretary was
already in trouble when Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, a conservative
Democrat who later became a Republican, helped doom it by voting against Tower.
A furious McCain, believing that Shelby had reneged on a commitment of support,
accosted him, got within an inch of his nose and screamed at him. News of the
incident swiftly spread around the Capitol.
"I think it started there," Salter said, though by 1989, many of McCain's colleagues
had already heard stories about other eruptions during his two terms in the House.

14

Part of the paradox of McCain is that many of the old targets of his volcanic temper
are now his campaign contributors. Former Phoenix mayor Paul Johnson is one
example. In 1992, during a private meeting of Arizona officials over a federal land
issue that affected the state, a furious McCain openly questioned Johnson's honesty.
"Start a tape recorder -- it's best when you get a liar on tape," McCain said to others
in the meeting, according to an account of their "nose-to-nose, testosterone-filled"
argument that Johnson later provided to reporters.
But Johnson, who once was quoted as saying that he thought McCain was "in the
area of being unstable," today says that he has mellowed, citing a 2006 face-to-face
apology that he said he received from his old adversary. "He's not the same guy, as
far as I'm concerned," Johnson said. "And nothing has happened during the course
of this year's campaign."
Cornyn is now a McCain supporter, as is Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of
Mississippi, himself a past target of McCain's sharp tongue, especially over what
McCain regarded as Cochran's hunger for pork-barrel projects in his state. Cochran
landed in newspapers early during the campaign after declaring that the thought of
McCain in the Oval Office "sends a cold chill down my spine."
Indeed, aside from a single testy exchange in March with New York Times reporter
Elisabeth Bumiller over whether he had had a conversation in 2004 with Democratic
Sen. John F. Kerry about being his running mate -- a tape of which appeared
immediately on YouTube -- McCain has been noticeably unflappable throughout the
primaries. Advisers posit that his temperament ought to be a dead issue.
"Everyone has a temper . . . but there has been no evidence of a temper problem
here," said Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager. "In our campaign, he has done
give-and-take with people everywhere, regardless if someone agrees or disagrees
with him. There is no more probing process than a presidential campaign. He has
performed well under the most intense kind of pressure."
Friends and Enemies
McCain has been down this road before. During his 2000 presidential run,
responding in part to questions about his temper and what effect, if any, his 5 1/2
years as a POW had on his psyche, he released about 1,500 pages of his medical
and psychiatric records, which presented a clean bill of mental health.
"I'm not saying he doesn't have a temper, but it's governable," Salter said. "When
he has a heated argument, it's usually with one of his peers, who are unaccustomed
to being addressed that way by anyone, really. Sometimes he can't govern his
tongue. He's just blunt -- he's a straightforward person."
McCain has built much of his appeal, especially with independents, as the fiery
maverick willing to defy both parties. His tempestuousness has girded him in highstakes confrontations, especially against Republican conservatives who regard his
occasionally moderate stances as proof that he has sold them out.

15

"You will damn well do this. You will make this a holiday. You're making us look like
fools," he privately exploded two decades ago at a stunned group of Arizona
Republicans who opposed creating a state holiday in remembrance of the Rev.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Early during their days together in the Senate, Smith came to believe that McCain
often used his temper as a strategic weapon, that if he "couldn't persuade you, he
was going at least to needle you or [sometimes] belittle you or blow up into trying
to have you believe you were beneath him, so that you'd be less likely to challenge
him. He needed to be the top guy."
Smith admits to not liking McCain, a point he has often made over the years to
reporters. "I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts," Smith said. "For me,
some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability. . . . It's more than
just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you -- a sneering,
condescending attitude. It's hurt his relationships in Congress. . . . I've seen it upclose."
Smith, whose service in the Navy included a tour on the waters in and around
Vietnam, said he stood stunned one day when McCain declared around several of
their colleagues that Smith wasn't a real Vietnam War veteran. "I was in the combat
zone, off the Mekong River, for 10 months," Smith said. "He went on to insult me
several times. I wasn't on the land; I guess that was his reasoning. . . . He suggested
I was masquerading about my Vietnam service. It was very hurtful. He's gotten to a
lot of people [that way]."
While in the course of a policy disagreement at a luncheon meeting of Republican
senators, McCain reportedly insulted Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico with an earthy
expletive. Domenici demanded an apology. "Okay, I'll apologize," McCain said,
before referring to an infuriated Domenici with the same expletive.
Salter insists that many of McCain's run-ins with colleagues and activists have
resulted from McCain's conviction that his honor in some way has been questioned.
"If he feels a challenge to his integrity, then he'll say something," Salter said. "If he
thinks you betrayed him . . . he'll tell you, he'll be angry. . . . But he's also
exceedingly forgiving."
During the early 1990s, McCain telephoned the office of Tom Freestone, a
governmental official little known outside Arizona's Maricopa County. McCain had an
unusual request. He wanted Freestone, then chairman of the Maricopa County Board
of Supervisors, to reject a job applicant named Karen S. Johnson, whose last
governmental position had been in the office of a former Arizona governor and who
had just interviewed for a position as an aide in Freestone's office.
According to two employees in the office, McCain told Freestone that the applicant's
past political associations left her carrying unflattering baggage.
The pair of Freestone staffers thought it odd that a U.S. senator would even know
that Johnson had applied for a job in their office, let alone that he had taken time
out of his workday to pick up a phone and weigh in on a staffing matter so removed
16

from the locus of Washington power. But McCain's disenchantment with Johnson was
personal: A few years earlier, he had an angry exchange with her while she was the
secretary for Republican Arizona Gov. Evan Meacham, who was impeached and
forced out of office for campaign finance violations.
Around the time of Meacham's ouster, Johnson said, McCain paid a visit to him.
Johnson recalled that McCain swiftly used the opportunity to lecture Meacham: "You
should never have been elected. You're an embarrassment to the [Republican]
Party."
A stupefied Meacham just stared at the senator. An indignant Johnson, as she tells
the story, snapped at McCain: "How dare you? You're the embarrassment to the
party."
As Johnson and another person working in Freestone's office remember, the
surprised supervisor told Johnson about McCain's objections to her. "But I'm hiring
you anyway," Freestone told her.
For Johnson, McCain's call raised questions as to whether he bore a lasting
animosity against anyone who ever challenged him. "Everyone in [Freestone's]
office thought it was all ridiculous . . . and petty," remembers Johnson, a devout
Republican conservative who today is an Arizona state senator.
"Senator McCain says he has no recollection of ever making a phone call to block a
job for Karen Johnson," Salter said.
During roughly the same period, McCain requested the firing of an aide to Arizona's
senior U.S. senator, Dennis DeConcini, according to two top figures in DeConcini's
office.
The aide, a veterans affairs expert named Judy Leiby, first ran into problems with
McCain in the late '80s, when she sought to correct what she regarded as a McCain
misstatement about DeConcini's record on a veterans issue. She was attending a
Phoenix meeting between McCain and some veterans when she rebutted a McCain
assertion that DeConcini, a Democrat, favored a bill that included a cut of some
veterans benefits. "That is incorrect," Leiby said, detailing the specifics of
DeConcini's position as McCain listened stonily.
Sometime afterward, McCain called DeConcini and asked that he dismiss Leiby,
insisting to the senator that his aide had become a toxic, partisan figure. According
to the two people in the office, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, DeConcini
defended Leiby and, praising what he characterized as her bipartisan fairness and
expertise, urged McCain to give her a second look. McCain refused, repeating his
demand that Leiby be fired.
DeConcini "politely told McCain to go to hell," according to a source close to the
conversation, adding: "Not once in [DeConcini's 18-year Senate tenure] did another
senator ask for an aide to be dismissed. Not once did anyone speak about an aide
like that."

17

Episodes such as the Johnson and Leiby incidents, along with McCain's oftchronicled blowups on Capitol Hill, have led critics to say he has a vindictive streak,
that he sees an enemy in anyone who challenges him.
"I heard about his temper more from others," said Grant Woods, McCain's first
congressional chief of staff, who is generally regarded as McCain's closest confidant
in his early political years. "According to them, he really unleashed on some of
them, and they couldn't figure out why. . . . It happened enough that it was affecting
his credibility with some people. If you wanted a programmed, subdued, always-onmessage politician, he wasn't and will never be your guy."
Woods helped orchestrate McCain's first House campaign in 1982 and worked to get
him elected to the Senate in 1986. That year the Arizona Republican Party held its
Election Night celebration for all its candidates at a Phoenix hotel, where the
triumphant basked in the cheers of their supporters and delivered victory
statements on television.
After McCain finished his speech, he returned to a suite in the hotel, sat down in
front of a TV and viewed a replay of his remarks, angry to discover that the
speaking platform had not been erected high enough for television cameras to
capture all of his face -- he seemed to have been cut off somewhere between his
nose and mouth.
A platform that had been adequate for taller candidates had not taken into account
the needs of the 5-foot-9 McCain, who left the suite and went looking for a man in
his early 20s named Robert Wexler, the head of Arizona's Young Republicans, which
had helped make arrangements for the evening's celebration. Confronting Wexler in
a hotel ballroom, McCain exploded, according to witnesses who included Jon Hinz,
then executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. McCain jabbed an index
finger in Wexler's chest.
"I told you we needed a stage," he screamed, according to Hinz. "You incompetent
little [expletive]. When I tell you to do something, you do it."
Hinz recalls intervening, placing his 6-foot-6 frame between the senator-elect and
the young volunteer. "John, this is not the time or place for this," Hinz remembers
saying to McCain, who fumed that he hadn't been seen clearly by television viewers.
Hinz recollects finally telling McCain: "John, look, I'll follow you out on stage myself
next time. I'll make sure everywhere you go there is a milk crate for you to stand on.
But this is enough."
McCain spun around on his heels and left. He did not talk to Hinz again for several
years. In 2000, as Hinz recalls, he appeared briefly on the Christian Broadcasting
Network to voice his worries about McCain's temperament on televangelist Pat
Robertson's show, "The 700 Club." Hinz's concerns have since grown with reports of
incidents in and out of Arizona.
In 1994, McCain tried to stop a primary challenge to the state's Republican
governor, J. Fife Symington III, by telephoning his opponent, Barbara Barrett, the
well-heeled spouse of a telecommunications executive, and warning of unspecified
18

"consequences" should she reject his advice to drop out of the race. Barrett stayed
in. At that year's state Republican convention, McCain confronted Sandra Dowling,
the Maricopa County school superintendent and, according to witnesses, angrily
accused her of helping to persuade Barrett to enter the race.
"You better get [Barrett] out or I'll destroy you," a witness claims that McCain
shouted at her. Dowling responded that if McCain couldn't respect her right to
support whomever she chose, that he "should get the hell out of the Senate."
McCain shouted an obscenity at her, and Dowling howled one back.
Examples of Distrust with, naturalized president , Among Voting Americans
Found:
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=295836
John McCain Born in Panama, can he even be President?
The Constitution clearly states only those born in the United States may be
President

by Robert Werden
(Libertarian)
Thursday, January 31, 2008

This is not open to interpretation or overturned by the 14th Amendment as it is very
clear in the Constitution that the founders were being very specific on who could be
the President.

The 14th Amendment was not written to change the rules of who could be the
President, it was to determine citizenship. Citizenship does not allow just anyone to
be the President. Only those born in the United States have that privilege.

Although John McCain was born in Panama many would argue that he was born in a
US territory and is considered a US citizen. Being a citizen is not the litmus test the
founders directed when they wrote the requirements to become the President.

A territory is not the United States. The United States is one of the 50 states. If
Panama was a state things would be different. However Panama is a sovereign
Country.

19

If this were the case, then we would have to allow all children born on US territories
to be naturalized citizens. For example, if an Iraqi woman has an American service
mans baby in a hospital in Iraq that happens to be a US Military base, then the baby
would be born in US territory. This is not what the founders would have
contemplated as a US naturalized citizen.

While this is probably an issue the courts would most likely rule that McCain is fully
eligible to be the President, I my self would not vote for a person who is
questionably walking a fine line on the founding fathers rule of Presidential
eligibility.

4)
If these were tactical legislative clues (actions speaking louder than words) to a
socialist-communist in the experimental stage of advanced brainwashing tactics
under the camouflage as foreign operative set to unravel at the head of the U.S.
Government, as Commander-in-Chief in 40-50 years, possibly tied to “naturalized”
citizens, brought up in the arguments and presentations in the Judicial Committee of
the U.S. Senate, and we ignored them, it would be to our biggest regret in defense
of our Liberty and Independence.

INJURY
The defendant(s) actions have injured the Plaintiff, Cody Robert Judy, in two ways
1As a fellow candidate for President of the United States, I have spent a little
over $5,000 dollars on my campaign for U.S. President and if Senator McCain won
the race, but was indeed not qualified to run, my campaign would have suffered
both the money spent on the campaign, and the publicity that might be factored in
media coverage of Senator John McCain’s’ campaign, which may have been
portioned apart of that, and would be calculable in the divisions of interest.

2As a citizen of the United States I have been injured in the fell of the standard
the U.S. Constitution employs and pray for its sustained equivalence in liberty and
independence for my Nation and my home.

20

PREVIOUS LAW SUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
1No other lawsuits in state or federal court that deal with the same facts that
are involved in this

action or otherwise relate to the condition of this case have been filed by the
plaintiff.

Prior Court Decisions brought in Federal Court
ELECTION LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE: Standing
3/27/08 Fred Hollander v. John McCain and the Republican National Committee
Civil No. 08-cv-099-JNL, Opinion No. 2008 DNH 129*
Based on the United States Constitution’s provision that only a "natural-born
citizen" is eligible to be
President of the United States, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that
Senator John McCain, the
presumptive Republican nominee for the Presidency, is ineligible for that office due
to his birth in the
Panama Canal Zone. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case,
ruling that the
plaintiff lacked standing under his theories that (1) he had a legally cognizable
interest in the
constitutional eligibility of an elected official, (2) McCain’s participation in the New
Hampshire Republican
primary had made it more difficult for the plaintiff’s chosen candidate to win, and
(3) if McCain were
21

elected but were subsequently not allowed to hold the office due to his alleged
ineligibility, the plaintiff
would be "disenfranchised." 19 pages. Judge Joseph N. Laplante.

Lawsuit over McCain citizenship should be tossed, GOP lawyers say
By Josh Richman
Oakland Tribune
08/28/2008 06:19:23 PM PDT
Lawyers for John McCain and the state and national Republican Party on Thursday
asked a federal judge in San Francisco to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the
candidate's place on California's Nov. 4 ballot.
Markham Robinson of Vacaville, chairman-elect of California's American
Independent Party, sued McCain, the GOP and California Secretary of State Debra
Bowen on Aug. 11, arguing the presidential candidate's birth 72 years ago today in
the Panama Canal Zone means he's not a "natural-born citizen" — a Constitutional
requirement to be president.
But lawyers for the GOP and McCain wrote Thursday that Robinson lacks standing to
sue and is asking the courts to tread where the Constitution forbids.
Robinson hasn't shown McCain's candidacy causes him any harm, they said: He's
neither a presidential candidate himself nor authorized to sue on behalf of his party
or party nominee Alan Keyes, and stripping McCain from the ballot won't much
improve the party's or Keyes' chances of winning.
If McCain were tossed, the GOP presumably would put up someone else in his place,
they wrote. And even without a Republican in the race, they added, "Ambassador
Keyes still would have to defeat Senator Obama in the state's general election."
Keyes ran against Obama for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004 after Republicans
drafted Keyes as a last-minute replacement for their initial nominee, Jack Ryan, who
withdrew amid a sex scandal. Obama won the election with 70 percent of the vote
to Keyes' 27 percent. If that race is any guide, the GOP's lawyers dryly noted
Thursday, Keyes' probability of beating Obama for president in California "seems, at
best, speculative."
Anyhow, they argued, the Constitution says issues of presidential eligibility are to be
decided by voters and the Electoral College and not the courts — a matter of
separation of powers among the government's branches. And federal courts lack
jurisdiction and cause to direct Bowen to exceed her statutory powers by
questioning a party nominee's eligibility.
Robinson must file an opposing brief by Sept. 4, and U.S. District Judge William
Alsup will consider the case Sept. 11.
22

The lawyers' brief doesn't discuss McCain's citizenship status. Federal law says
anyone born in the Panama Canal Zone after Feb. 26, 1904, as a child of U.S.
citizens is declared ( insert CRJ “naturalized rather then natural citizen”) to be a U.S.
citizen himself or herself. Some have questioned, however, whether this makes
McCain a "natural-born citizen," a term the Constitution doesn't define any further;
the federal law took effect about one year after McCain's birth, and doesn't say the
person's citizenship was considered to have been acquired at birth.
McCain supporters have pointed to a 1790 law that provided that children of U.S.
citizens born abroad "shall be considered as natural born citizens." Though no
longer in effect, that law indicates what the founding fathers were thinking when
the Constitution was drafted, those supporters contend.
The American Independents, a conservative party recently plagued by factional
infighting, had 331,619 members as of May 19, comprising just over 2 percent of
the state's registered voters. But there's anecdotal evidence that some voters join
the party by mistake, believing they're registering as nonpartisan or "decline-tostate" voters.
Now, at the same time, there is a similar lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania about the
Democratic nominee! Here's the story on that from the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/28/lawsuit-questions-obamaseligibility-for-office/

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=20080830&articleId=10006

23

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff concludes:
1.)
The Defendant is a naturalized citizen afforded all rights and privileges of
United States citizenery, however is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution as being
“qualified” to be President of the United States. The law of Congress inacted John
McCain’s citizenship 11 months after his birth at the Panama Canal 100 yards short
of U.S. Soil, thus he was in fact “naturalized” and ineligiable to be President of the
U.S. of America.

2.)
The Supreme Court has ruled that unincorporated territories did not meet
standards of Union States when interpetating the U.S. Constitution.

3.)
The 14th Amendment was not written to change the rules of who could be
the President, it was to determine citizenship.

4.)
There has been attempts to Amend the U.S. Constitution regarding
“naturalized” citizens becoming president, as recently as the year 2000, but they
have failed in the legislative branch.

5.)
No U.S. Government Branch of legal binding authority has to date ruled upon
the issue of John McCain’s elegibility question. John McCain’s oath of declaration
that he signed stateing he believes he met requirements to the State Elections
Clerk, in which his declartion was made, is a mistake of his honor and good
conscience of defense of the U.S.Constitution, and is defunct as “non-binding”, even
in the United States Senate.

24

6.)
That John McCain’s run for Presidency poses a constitutionally illegal direct
threat, a monetary direct inequity , and civil injustice threat to the Plaintiff, Cody
Robert Judy’s bid for the Presidency and citizens rights, specified, and open to
expounding specifity as the case unfurls.

7.)
Though millions of dollars have been poured into John McCain’s campaign
from donations of American Citizens across the United States, they have done so, in
the “belief”, of only John McCain’s word, as he signed his declaration of candidacy,
stating he was elegible according to the U.S. Constitutional Requirements.
A deceptive declaration that only courage for the U.S. Constitution will over-see in
true light. Though millions of dollars, two years of campaigning, and all the efforts of
John McCain’s campaign might seem more wieght then the Plaintiff’s humble
$5,000, a web site, 8 commercials, and a staff smaller then the size of a classroom,
that is not the comparison to assert. Rather how could millions of dollars, two years
of campaigning, and all the efforts of John McCains’ staffers compare and possibly
carry any weight in a document known as the U.S. Constitution, so valuable as to
carry the weight of our whole economy, every citizens rights of freedom and
independence since the birth of our nation, the character of every sacrifice for our
nation in the bloody battlegrounds of U.S. history, and the defense that Plaintiff
makes for Liberty and Independence of the United States? John McCain’s campaign
is small issue to Plaintiff in the charge which undoubtedly will explode with the heat
of all hell’s rage, I the plaintiff, Cody Robert Judy, am one man, who is in this legal
challenge ,TAKING A STAND!

Presidential Information for Plaintiff running as a write-in in some states, and
pending petition admissions in other states to be submitted to be on ballot.
www.codyjudy.us

REQUEST FOR RELIEF
1-

I believe I am entitled to the following relief:

a)
$5000 U.S. dollars for the expenses of my campaign/ or as it may incur until
the election.
b)

Any expense so related in Lawyer fees and court fees.

25

c)

Any other relief the court may deem so appropriate to the plaintiff.

d)
A declaratory judgment Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican
nominee for the Presidency, is ineligible for that office due to his birth in the
Panama Canal Zone.

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that he is the plaintiff in the
above action, that he has read the above complaint, and that the information
contained therein is true and correct. 28 U.S.C ss1746; 18 U.S.C ss 1621.
Executed at ________________________________0n _________________ ,2008.
(Location) (Date)

____________________________
Signature

26