No. 17- 4055

Cody Robert Judy Plaintiff-


DNC – Democratic National Committee,
Defendant(s), Respondent - Appellees

Appeal from the JUDGEMENT of the United States District
Court Utah Division, Honorable Ted Stewart Originating as
Case No. 1:14cv00093

Cody Robert Judy
Attorney Pro Se
3037 So. Ogden Ave.
Suite #1
Ogden, Utah 84401
PH: 801-497-6655
Email: cody@codyjudy.us

1-Appellant/Petitioner’s Opening Brief
Statement of the Case

January 27th ,2016 Petitioner filed a MOTION for Relief of Judgment in

Civil Rights Anti-Trust Law Suit citing New Evidence had been

discovered by an ongoing Sheriff’s Law Enforcement investigation that

was referenced in the original filing which he brought for a relief of

judgement asking the Court to sign an Order to Show Cause serving

the Defendants. Also, a MOTION for Reconsideration on February 28th

which constituted a claim of Fraud, and a cruelty of Crimes perpetrated

upon the Petitioner Civil Rights as a Candidate for President in the

Democratic Party. Additionally, by law objections must be heard by the

Court, in the Democratic Party, if an objection is made to eligibility of a

Candidate in the Party. The District Court denied the Motions and the

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE or in short serving the Defendant’s its own

Order to Show Cause; warranting a claim of complicity of crime in theft

and fraud amounting to a misprision of felony charge which constitutes

the Appeal and relief sought.

2-Statement of Facts Relevant to the Issues Presented for


1- This case began July 7th, 2014 and was appealed to both the Tenth

Circuit in Case No. 14-4136 and appealed to the Supreme Court of the

United States in 14-9396 where it was denied forma pauperis standing.

a. The Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio conducted a final

Public Briefing Conference on March 1, 2012; July 17, 2012; and

December 15, 2016, respectively, to divulge their findings.
b. The Motion for Relief of Judgement was filed January 27th, 2017

and a Motion for Reconsideration on February 28th, 2017.
c. Mr. Judy was a Candidate for President in the Presidential

Elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016. Mr. Judy is a Democratic Party

Member and has standing to bring this issue to Court.

3-Statement of Issues
a. First Issue
This case was brought to the Court under the authority of both Civil

Rights Violations upon the Petitioner as a Candidate for President

but also under the authority of the Sherman and Clayton Acts of

Congress which gives the Petitioner claim upon the Court as to

reporting crimes without an Attorney General, but places the burden

upon the Judge to report the action to the Prosecutor for relief.
United States v. Borden Co., 347 U.S. 514 (1954)
Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, charges the United

States district attorneys, under supervision of the Attorney General,

with the duty of instituting equity proceedings to prevent and

restrain violation of certain of the antitrust laws, including price

discrimination. Under § 16 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26, a private

plaintiff may obtain injunctive relief against such violations only on

a showing of "threatened loss or damage," and this must be of a

sort personal to the plaintiff, Beegle v. Thomson, 138 F.2d 875, 881

(1943). The private injunction action, like the treble damage action

under § 4 of the Act, supplements Government enforcement of the

antitrust laws; but it is the Attorney General and the United States

district attorneys who are primarily charged by Congress with the

duty of protecting the public interest under these laws. The

Government seeks its injunctive remedies on behalf of the general

public; the private plaintiff, though his remedy is made available

pursuant to public policy as determined by Congress, may be

expected to exercise it only when his personal interest will be

served. These private and public actions were designed to be

cumulative, not mutually exclusive. S.Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d

Sess. 42; cf. Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 333 U.

S. 683, 333 U. S. 694-695 (1948).
Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 61:
"Harmless Error. No error in either the admission or the exclusion of

evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything

done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for

granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating,

modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless

refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with

substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must

disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not

affect the substantial rights of the parties."

In this Case the two corporations of the Democratic National

Committee (hereafter DNC) and Organization for Action (hereafter

OFA) conspired or joined in illegal actions in conspiracy to elect a

Constitutional Ineligible Candidate to the Office of President. In

short, to conduct a usurpation of the highest office of the land with

the acts of identification theft and fraud in representing

identification, and presenting it to the public in the form of a long

form birth certificate and Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s signature on two forms

the same day, one to Hawaii and one to the other 49 states that

Obama was indeed eligible and qualified under the U.S.

Constitution’s demands for a natural born Citizen. Art. II, Section 1,

Clause 5 in the competition of the Presidential Race of which

Appellant Cody Robert Judy was a Candidate.
The Anti-Trust Acts of Congress were carved out to stop crime by

corporations especially joined to derail or put out of business

competitors in a race for a common goal or sale as Mr. Judy

represents against Mr. Obama. Illegal actions or crimes committed

to the ends of the goal or sale are exactly what constitutes a cabal

or cartel’s violations of a fair or equal chance in the goal, sale, or

race. Under the rules of the Presidential Race is a very specific

criteria that all must adhere to and understood as a qualification for

President paramount in Mr. Judy’s objections to Mr. Obama as not a

[natural born Citizen].

The U.S. Supreme Court in a precedent case including discussion of

[natural born Citizen] in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

regarded there was no doubt those born in the Country to its Citizens

were the [natural born Citizens] bearing no other allegiance and

inserted doubts to those who were not [born in the U.S. to Citizen

Parents] owing allegiances with foreign countries by soil or parent.

Barack Obama was never qualified for the Office of the President

because his father was a voting Kenyan Citizen: No disrespect to

Kenya, but no credit or allegiance to the USA. By not acting favorably

on the Motions and signing the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE so the issue

could be tried for Petitioner the Court became a party to the criminal

activity alleged in a cover-up, understood by Mr. Judy to be misprision

of felony. The Court acted as an expert itself in refuting forensics

document experts in evidence the Mr. Judy had brought to it with

standing as a competitor in the race.

The court is acting as an agent of Public Corruption in this regard,

especially in the qualifications of the Office of the President

enumerated in the U.S. Constitutions qualification requirement for the

Office of President found in Article II, Section I, C-5.

The offense of fraud is wholly incompatible with the directives of the

Judicial Branch as it administers in its District Court ruling,

‘Defendants/Appellees are excused from any wrong doing”, in the face

of law enforcement investigation and experts for the Court, conflicting

the directive of Justice and Trial of Facts excusing Defendants of crime.

The Legislative Branches directives are blunted with the administration

of the Judicial Branches dereliction as a guard of the U.S. Constitution’s

requirements for the office of the President.

Some Democrats site in Valerie Jarett and many others including Hillary

Clinton in 2016 Presidential debates, which President Trump’s political

foothold began in the “Birther Movement”. Meaning Americans, who

wanted the qualifications and no other allegiances to foreign states,

were in the pejorative meaning “Birthers”. The Office of the President,

because it controls a whole Branch of Government of the three so is

much more important and concentrated in singularity of body unlike

the Legislature of Congress or the Judicial Bench, is indeed a highly

concentrated topic of National Security. While “Birthers” are ridiculed

by many the office of the Presidency is now a Birthers by accounts of

the New York Times, Wallstreet Journal, and Washington Post and most

Main Stream Media outlets. Justice Thomas in a testimony to Congress

related the Court is “avoiding that question” with a laugh, when it

involves in the office of the President the nations National Security in

the president’s qualifications in the U.S. Constitution. This is no joke,

and the Court by law has a duty to hear objections and evidence, and

try those between the Parties.

Mr. Judy should be allowed to bring the issue to Trial, one in which the

Judge is not acting as expert witness on “all man-kinds understanding”

and in representing Defendant’s as Counsel, in the face of evidence.

Mr. Judy is the only Candidate who has never conceded the race on

principle: all others Candidates did or have. While President Trump

acting in the Public Arena as a Candidate against those who were not

qualified in his own Republican Party, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (born in a

foreign state to a foreign father and perhaps a mother who

relinquished her U.S. Citizenship for allegiance with a foreign state)

and Sen. Marco Rubio (born of foreign parents States side), and won,

the Courts have continually denied Mr. Judy the positive rewards or

fruits of justice by handling it in the Judicial Branch, according to law

binding the Democratic Party he is a part of. This has given rewards to

the Bully or mob, whilst discouraging Justices’ reward.

The Courts in some 15 Cases across the Country ignoring legislation,

(since 2000 at least nine (9) attempts were made to remove or change

the [natural born Citizen] clause in to what effectively would be

[Citizen] removing the [natural born Citizen] criteria. They have

failed.], have been the arbitrator of the Election of President Trump

with its silence. Thus the presumption of innocence of the Courts non-

involvement has still affected the Election. If the Court is going to

affect the Election it ought to be on the side of Justice and not the side

of Fraud. In a Constitutional Republic the Law should have a foundation

greater than the Mob. Civil Rights afforded to a Presidential Candidate

in the race for President include the ability to run a fair and equal race

under the law and according to the rules. That is to say the

Constitution protects individual rights against an individual in the face

of the Mob who commences to beating him up.

That means that Mr. Judy as a Presidential Candidate has the Civil

Rights regardless of the wishes of the Democratic Party in the

commission of Fraud. Nancy Pelosi’s ability to sign off to the whole of

50 States in 2 directives Obama is qualified under the Constitution that

imposes by her will the cover-up of Fraud and violation of Mr. Judy’s

rights, even if it is sold to the General Public, is a violation the Court

should stop recompensing damages.

Mr. Judy has a right to stop under the umbrella of the USC, “liberty, and

justice for all” as a legally qualified candidate of no foreign allegiance

by soil or parent, the Mob, in its exertions for a particular candidate,

especially when alleged crimes, facts, and evidence support Mr. Judy. Is

it Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s position or wealth that the Court admires over

the U.S. Constitution and Justice? How does her excuse for Fraud give

her the right to write a-new the qualifications for the Office of the

President? Shall she write a new constitution next? Is the Court ruled

by Currency or the U.S. Constitution?

Short of a new Constitutional Amendment which has not been written,

“Citizen” at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” Article II,

Section 1, C-5 has all but been removed by the conspiracy to illegally

altar the qualifications for President for those so [naturalized] without a

distinct and absolute allegiance by a Standard of ‘natural born Citizen’

equaling Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents. Absent a Constitutional

Amendment, such as the XIX Amendment (19) which specifically gave

females of age the right to vote, the Standard of [natural born Citizen]

must be strictly and narrowly upheld in the allegiance by soil and

Parents, the only three criteria considered, in soil, mother, and father

with specific allegiance to the United States of America.

b. Second Issue

The issue of whether by both Democratic Party Rules as well as Judicial

Court Rules afford Mr. Judy has a right to object to Mr. Obama’s

nomination and certification nationally by a misrepresentation of

qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

The "Certificate of Nomination" is required by each "State" as well as

the "National Nomination" of the particular party once the Party has

decided who will represent them in the General Election. Now to get an

idea of this let's look at Hawaii's State Certificate of Nomination in

2008 and compare that with the Elections of 2004 and 2000. What did

Hawaii's Democratic Party know about Obama before the 2008

Election? In the following comparisons' we see that Hawaii indeed

changed their language and refused to certify Obama as

Constitutionally Qualified under the Constitution with the missing

language as follows:

In the United States, to become a party’s (e.g., the Democratic Party)

presidential candidate, one must go through the following:

Step 1: Receive the votes of the majority of party delegates from the

50 states.

Step 2: The delegates’ votes are tallied and certified at the party’s

national convention.

Step 3: Each state’s party must certify that the candidate is

constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States of America.

Step 4: After the parties of all 50 states produced their Certificates of

Nomination, the Chair of the National Party Convention also signs off

certifying that the nominee indeed is constitutionally eligible.

Needless to say, fraud can be committed at each step of the process.

In 2000 and 2004, the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s official

Certifications of Nomination for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman (2000) and

John Kerry and John Edwards (2004) both had the following identical


This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice

President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the

provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen

candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by

balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held _____ in

the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic

Convention held ______ in _______.

In 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s official Certification of

Nomination for Barack Obama and Joe Biden carried this language:

This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice

President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the

provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the

Presidential Preferences Poll and Caucus held on February 19, 2008 in

the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic

Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado. What the

Democratic Party of Hawaii’s 2008 Certification of Nomination left out

are these words:

“of the United States Constitution and are the duly

chosen candidates of both the state and”

In the change, we see a Mob has formed to illegally usurp the

qualifications of the Office of the president held within the directives of

the United States Constitution and this unmistakably acts as a direct

change from the norm and a cooperating allegiance under the U.S

Constitution and its provisions. Now, with the state of Hawaii unwilling

to qualify Mr. Obama as a [natural born Citizen] qualified under the U.S.

Constitution, Mrs. Pelosi has a couple of problems for what in layman’s

terms is a usurpation and institutionalizing a defacto president who is

unqualified. The first problem is Hawaii State Law requires the

language of being able to serve under the provisions as a qualified

Candidate under the U.S. Constitution. The second problem is there is

no such certification by Hawaii. This is where Nancy Pelosi basically

disenfranchises an entire State of the Union by her signature Nationally

for Hawaii as if she is Queen.

Please see the next four provided exhibits supporting this claim.

Hawaii 2008 Certification of Obama/Biden

Hawaii 2004 Certification of Kerry/Edwards

Hawaii Certification of Gore/Lieberman

And finally the National Certifications of Nancy Pelosi for Hawaii and the 49

other States

Now if nationally recognized Parties have no duty towards qualifying a

presidential Candidate who can serve under the provisions of the U.S.

Constitution, what more can be said then they, or their parties’

representatives have usurped the Constitution? This holds particular gravity

for those who are actually elected and should know better from past

experience. It also serves as evidence of a controlled and deliberate

usurpation and not an accidental one made out of naiveté.


[According to the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, vol. 15 (NY: American

Law Book Company, 1905), pp. 338-339:

When the authority to make a nomination is legally challenged by objections

filed to the certificate of nomination, and violation or disregard of the party

rules is alleged, the court must hear the facts and determine the question.

From p. 339 of the same Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure concerning who

can object and the time period for making an objection:

One who is not a member of the party making nominations cannot object to

the regularity of the proceedings resulting in the nomination.

It is usually provided by statute that objections to nomination papers shall be

made within a designated time after such papers are filed, or within a certain

number of days before election. Mr. Judy took part in Ballot Challenges in

2012 in New Hampshire and Georgia which would it way up to the U.S.

Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama 12-5276. And, after the time for filing

objections has passed, in the absence of fraud a certificate of nomination to

which no objections were filed and which is regular in form cannot be

attacked. At all events such objection should be made before the election, for

if not so made the legal authority of a convention will in the absence of fraud

be conclusively presumed.] The jurisdiction for fraud is not limited to eight

years, especially in the presence of personal damages, and such egregious

acts that can constitute a usurpation of the American National Elections of

2008 and 2012 which undoubtedly carried forth into the 2016 Elections with

a loss for Secretary Hillary Clinton. If it had been known that there was a

business Obama-Trump-Alliance which secured Donald Trump a Hotel in the

Old Post Office and spared Obama further legal hostility after he produced a

fraudulent long form birth certificate, would Mr. Trump have had the support

of the Birther Movement reported by Democrats to be his base? We can

speculate, but we must acknowledge facts: Rewarding Forgery Awarding

Fraud "Obama-Trump" Birth Certificate Connection -


Mr. Trump is the President. The outcry of America in understanding a fraud

however could be so great that Mr. Trump could face a loss in 2020 if he

decides to run for re-election just as easily as Hillary Clinton was handed a

loss in 2016. Mr. Judy in 2020 could be elected in bring the Fraud to Justice.

These would also be rewards or the fruits of justice. The Court can decide

what is going to happen politically in the arena, however it can decide to try

evidence and hear facts on Fraud.

What this means is FRAUD is a great qualifier for the action to be heard in

Court, and for the Sherman/and/Clayton Acts, as well as Civil Rights

considerations by someone who is a member of the Democratic Party, and a

Candidate for President in the eyes of the Court, who would/or/could/ and

did/does have "standing" to challenge in Judicial Branch's Courts of Law the

considerations of FRAUD upon his person, upon in general the elections, and

of course upon all voting citizens in the United States of America as they are

inexplicably linked under the United States Constitution.

This is also the way in which the Democratic Party's Democratic National

Committee - DNC, became a partner in the conspiracy to defraud the

American People's U.S. Constitution in the qualifications for the Office of the

President in a cartelish criminal action with and in league with OFA, in the

fraudulent certification and nomination process of Barack Obama who never

was qualified, and why so few people had the ability to challenge this. Cody

Robert Judy's Action in Court took on not only a Civil Rights Claim but also a

claim that forbids Cartel Monopolies in the actions of fraud of two or more

Corporations known as the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The Fraud statutes of

limitations range from 3-4 years, however this is based upon when the

evidence was conceived and with new evidence which was not known the

statute of limitations is extended.

Minus these Congressional Acts on some legal grounds they have never been

applied in the standard of the race and voters as a commodity two parties

are in the race for based upon the Courts inability to grab a precedent case

where a Presidential Candidate has challenged another Presidential

Candidate for nine years in the fraud of his identification and the fraud upon

the election, that caused in unfair and unequal trading of votes according to

the price per vote, the Civil Rights Claims for a qualified candidate for

President still apply and are not devastated nor is the identity and

qualification of someone receiving the equivalent salary or pension of a

qualified president in the range of a Cabinet member to the president now.

c-Third Issue

c. The cover-up of originality has its authors dealing in fraud, both upon

the American Voters as well as Mr. Judy as a Candidate. Mr. Obama was

never a [natural born Citizen] and Kenya, not the United States is

accredited with allegiance with Obama’s claim of who is father is. If it

matters in naturalization proceedings and policy as we see in the

Naturalization Act of 8 U.S. Code § 1401 (a-h) - Nationals and citizens

of United States at birth, why would it not matter who the father was or

mother in the [natural born Citizen] criteria?

Minor v. Happersett related many other things to us besides no

doubts that [Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] was a [natural born

Citizen]. Why would it be defined in [naturalization Acts or Laws]?

This is why it is miraculously silent while all forms of [naturalization

qualifications] scream aloud by definitions of Congress of some soil

or of one parent qualifying as [Citizen] by the naturalization powers

of Congress Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. In deed Congress has no

power over [natural born Citizen] because it requires none of its

power to naturalize. It is in short the “chow hall” not mentioned in

the marine policy and procedure manual in the movie A Few Good

Men. Everyone knows that someone who is born in the U.S. to a

mother and father who are U.S. Citizens is a [natural born Citizen].

There is no doubt.
Minor v. Happersett incited the Legislative Branches duty for the

19th Amendment because the Court held the Constitution up with

Courage. Refusing to legislate from the bench, they called it as the

Constitution held. That while a citizen who could not vote, the 14th

Amendment was not infringed. That there are degrees of citizenship

and privileges which are granted to some but not to all. She had no

right to vote while repugnant in the modern day, we uphold the

policy to minors under eighteen. While the court held ostentatious

judgement it withheld what perhaps they felt and interpreted the

Constitution and this certainly spotlighted with a recognizing a gap

that was later recognized as the 19th Amendment to the flexible

Constitution. Are women a fan of the Constitution or a fan of the

Court Members and which has lasted longer?

The 19th Amendment thusly ratified in 1920 laid an equal burden

upon mother’s previously only held by fathers. In the respect of the

qualifications for the Office of the President the standard of

allegiance to both parents value of allegiance at the time of Birth for

a child’s parental inheritance cannot be underestimated in a parent

who can’t vote, can’t run for the office of the President of the United

States because of a foreign allegiance which is appreciated and

fond to them. Obama’s father certainly had the chance to become a

Citizen especially considering he had a son presumed born with a

mother who was a U.S. Citizen, but he still never did with his

allegiances to his country of Kenya and Britain prior to Kenya’s

independence as a Sovereignty. Review of BRITISH NATIONAL

ARCHIVES: Included Hillary Clinton's visit and the British National

Archives show a son born to Obama Sr. in 1961 which could only be

Obama as his brothers do not qualify by the year of their birth.

Never before 1920 was a women able to run for President in a

nationally recognized Presidential Race for the United States, else

she clearly would not have been able to even vote for herself. The

pool of “Citizen Parents” also in the interest of National Security for

the nation was effectively doubled in the interest of “natural born

Citizen” in and with the witness of “Nature” provided by jurisdiction

of soil and allegiance of both Parents at the time of birth.

If a child’s father was not qualified under the allegiance as a Citizen

preventing [natural born Citizen] status, then equal in weight after

the 19th Amendment was the mothers. The right of Americans in the

adoption of a new jurisdiction of soil, as the U.S. Constitution, was to

decide who was qualified and conversely who was not, after the

original [Citizens] who could not have possibly been [natural born

Citizens] to a new Jurisdiction before it was a jurisdiction at all.

4- Do you think the district court applied the wrong law? If so, what

law do you want applied.

The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous after the

defendants were in default and had been served by 2 witnesses to the Court.

The Court then refused a Motion to serve again and based that decision on

what in its opinion was frivolous. Mr. Judy brought new evidence forward by

lawful investigations and their multiple independent experts showing his

claims were not frivolous. The Court should have then been willing to admit

its own fault.

Rule 60 provides the requirements of new evidence and these were ignored.

9- Judy has brought to the Court evidence that is indeed new and was not

available but asserted to in an ongoing Criminal Investigation. To warrant a

motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the defendant

must show: "(1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) the failure to

learn of the evidence was not caused by lack of diligence; (3) the new

evidence is not merely impeaching or cumulative; (4) the new evidence is

material to the principal issues involved; and (5) the new evidence would

probably produce an acquittal [ or presumed conviction] if a new trial were

granted." Hill, _ F.3d at _ (quoting United States v. Orr, 692 F.3d 1079, 1099

(10th Cir. 2012)) United States v. MacDonald, 779 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir.

1985) [or presumed conviction] added in relation to this Case. (“To obtain a

new trial on the basis of after discovered evidence, that evidence must be

admissible in a new trial”) .

A Motion for Relief of Judgement is precisely that which is sought. A relief

from the judgement of the Court that this is frivolous and wholly incredible

by at least demanding an answer for finding the Defendants/Appellees short

of an answer in Default awarding Mr. Judy.

5. Did the district court incorrectly decide the facts? If so, what


Yes. The defendants were indeed served the Complaint and Summons mailed

to the Plaintiff Mr. Judy. The Court keeps track of everything mailed and

received even taking pictures of the envelopes received from the Plaintiff. It’s

ridiculous to think it has “no record” of its own mailings.

Yes. Mr. Judy brought “New Evidence” to the Court providing for a relief of

judgement and that evidence has the hard evidence and expert witness of

law enforcement as well as experts in the field of forensic identity document


Yes. Mr. Judy has rights to run a fair and equal race under the standard of the

U.S. Constitutions’ qualifications for the Office of the President and these

amount to his Civil Rights.

Yes. Mr. Obama was never qualified as a [natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the

U.S. to Citizen Parents: and OFA and the DNC collaborated as a cartel in

illegal actions to conspire against the qualifications for the Office of the

President and should pay damages and penalties afforded by law.

6. Did the court fail to consider important grounds for relief? If so,

what grounds?

Yes. The court basically denied any grounds Mr. Judy has with standing as a

Presidential Candidate and a member of the Democratic Party in the face of

Law. The Court denied the evidence submitted constituting Fraud from a

Legal or Law Enforcement Agency which substantiated Mr. Judy’s as the

Plaintiff’s Claims for relief.

7. Do you feel that there are any other reasons why the district

court’s judgement was wrong? If so, what?

I feel like the District Court has discriminated against me because I had a

public felony 25 years ago and that the denial of Constitutional Principles

have been sacrificed at the expense of the Courts own feelings, that nothing

“good” can come from a felon- even one who they claim by law was

rehabilitated. If a witness cannot be had by anyone who has ever committed

a crime, the court has eliminated all witnesses by the standard “none are

perfect”. If credibility of a witness is so important, and serving is so

important, why are the witnesses to both discriminated by the Court only

after the default was recognized? Why did the Court wait until after the 20

Day summons expired to make a decision after Defendants refused to

answer? It’s an underlying theme repeated again and again that to me does

not represent justice.

8. What action do you want this court to take in your case?

I’d like the Court administer Relief from Judgment that was incorrect. I would

like this Court to recognize evidence put forth in my Brief and do what it

needs to do to either Default the Defendants or Serve them to its satisfaction

demanding an answer, or else suffer the Court’s Judgement against them,

reversing the lower courts stand against justice. By law in the Clayton Act the

Court can also provide me with legal counsel and assign that duty with which

I also could work with them.

9. Do you think the court should hear oral argument in this case? If

so, Why?

Oh Yes! I think it should hear oral arguments so the Defendants can be

embarrassed with their usurpation across the whole Nation and Barack

Obama’s Presidential Library becomes the go-to in Anti-Constitution &

Usurpation Instruction, perhaps an Institution for foreigners who cross

illegally with the intent or desire to commit crime upon Americans. It’s an

embarrassment to the United States of America to have the Office of the

President so willfully and intentionally usurped not to mention not having

History corrected.

Date: May 4th, 2016 Signature- ____________________________


I hereby certify that on May 4th, 2017, I sent a copy of the


Belmont Road, Kalorama, Washington DC 20008,

2) DNC - Democratic National Committee 430 South Capital St. SE,

Washington DC 20003 ph- 202-863-8000, and 3)OFA - Organizing for Action is

a nonprofit 5014 organization and community organizing project that

advocates for the agenda of former U.S. President Barack Obama. Executive

Director: Katie Hogan Chairperson: Jim Messina Affiliation: Barack Obama

Founded: January 18, 2013 Headquarters: P.O. Box 618120, Chicago, IL

60661 Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL Founders: Michelle Obama, Jim Messina

Date: May 4th, 2017 Signature: ____________________

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit- Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street,

Denver, Colorado 80257


I certify that the total number of pages I am submitting as my

Appellant/Petitioner’s Opening Brief is 30 pages or less or alternatively, if

the total number of pages exceeds 30, I certify that I have counted the

number of words and the total is _________, which is less than 13,000. I

understand that if my Appellant/Petitioner Opening Brief exceeds 13,000

words, my brief may be stricken and the appeal dismissed.

Date: May 4th, 2017 Signature: _____________________

A-12 Appellant/Petitioner’s Opening Brief 12/16