In

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Case No.14-4136
Cody Robert Judy
Plaintiff- Appellant
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA aka BARRY SOETORO , DNC ,
ORGANIZATION FOR ACTION et al.,
Defendant(s), Appellee.
_______________________________
U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Order and
Judgment 2-3-15
(Petition for Rehearing En Blanc)
Appeal from the FINAL JUDGEMENT of the United States District
Court
Utah Division, Honorable Ted Stewart
Originating as Case No. 1:14cv00093

Cody Robert Judy

Attorney Pro Se
3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah 84401
PH: 801-4xx-xxxx
Email: codyjudy@hotmail.com

Petition for Rehearing En

Blanc

COMES NOW the Petitioner and respectfully submits this Rehearing Request En
Blanc pursuant to F.R.C.P Rule 35 1. (B) This proceeding involves one or more
questions of exceptional importance hereafter stated as questions 1-3:
Question #1- Does Justice Gregory A. Phillips having ENTERED FOR THE COURT
the ORDER AND JUDGEMENT on this case February 3 rd,2015 having been
considered to the U.S. Senate for Confirmation with the favor of the
Appellee/Defendant in this case, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro in the
nomination process and thus his very employment as a Justice in the 10 th Circuit
Court of Appeals constitute an prejudiced dismissal summarily instigated upon the
Plaintiff that would seem at best a compromise of judicial discipline in recusal
decorum and at worst an impeachable offense?
Question#2- June 25th, 2014 this Court handed down a decision favorable to
individual rights, considered standing and upheld marriage in Kitchen v. Herbert
No. 13-4178 and considered the rights of an individual who is unpopular more
important per the conflicting referendum of all the people in the entire State of Utah
and its Constitutional Amendment in the State, which does not come on political
easy street; isnt the ORDER AND JUDGEMENT of this case dismissing it as frivolous
a conflict of the Courts own interest and judgment in that case in the interest of
Individual Rights?
Question#3- The conflicting statements in the ORDER and JUDGEMENT asserted by
the Court leave criminal mischief, fraud, forgery, and a declaration of the precedent
case in Minor v. Happersett regarding a natural born Citizen being Born in the U.S.
to Citizen Parents by the U.S. Supreme Court undefended and a wreck; and fair
elections on equal terms for all the Candidates, per race, per qualifications within
the U.S. Constitution in total disarray and the Appellant/Plaintiff without recourse in
the infringements of his Civil Rights to a fair race; Does this not deserve the
attention of the full Court and the political corrections that might be made for the
next general election where the entire U.S. population has a stake and claim for
fairness, equal treatment under the law in the considerations of our Republic?
2

Brief in Support for Rehearing En Blanc

Appellant/Petitioner appearing pro se would now extend his gratitude to the Court
for their considerations because the action is filed pro se, and the Courts
considerations to liberally construe his pleadings is appreciated. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 52021 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991). Pg.2 Order & Judgment.
ARGUMENT IN CONSIDERATIONS OF QUESTION #1
Perhaps a dissenting Judge in a three judge panel is necessary to warrant a
Rehearing En Blanc, however a necessary recusal that was not acted upon, that
Appellant now calls the Courts attention to also warrants at the least another
hearing by a more impartial panel and with the implications and ramifications of this
case, Appellant would proceed in favor of the entire Courts Hearing it.
The language in the ORDER and JUDGEMENT are so harsh and disparaging
towards the Appellant, it is almost an impossibility not to comment about the
disrespect and dishonor the Court has exhibited in it, as if the Court held in favor
higher than the United States Constitution the person in the Office of the President,
with no regard to the fraudulent, the forged, and fabricated identity reported to the
Court by the Appellant from reliable law enforcement personal also in authority and
elected positions. Indeed, the Federal Election Commission considered Appellant a
Candidate for President, historical records of the United States and highest Courts
do, as well contributing and supporting public.
The reason for such harsh language can only be construed to be a weakness
in defending the truth. The truth obviously that Justice Gregory A. Phillips would not
have a job in the Court if the Appellee Barrack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro
had not recommended him for the U.S. Senate. If the Court considered Barack
Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro ineligible would that not necessitate a long and
perhaps arborous process such as the Court has set up for the State of Utah by
demanding a relatively new circumstances has developed within our Nation calling
for a complete reorganization in every aspect of relationships, and Court
proceedings and records heretofor called public norms in marriage?

Indeed, Justice Phillips might have to be re-nominated and confirmed by the U.S.
Senate because his own nomination was made by an ineligible and unqualified
person in the Office of the White House on whom the powers of the Presidency
could not legally rest. That is motivation for a Justice in the Panel with literally his
pay-check, credibility, and reputation on the line to get the case out of the Court ,
no oral argument ORDER and JUDEMENT page 1:
[After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist this appeal, so the case
is ordered submitted without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.
R.34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1., little regard to Appellants Civil Rights
and of course in defiance of the interest of Justice.]
Along these same lines, the panel of Justices consisted of two Democrat and one
Republican nominated Justice, which ordinarily might not be something to bring up,
but under the circumstances cannot help but be noticed, in an unethical complaint,
by the Appellant seeking justice and fair equity under the law with his civil rights in
the balances. The other Democrat Justice was nominated by President Bill Clinton
and his wife Hillary Clinton has an interest in defending the Appellee as she worked
for him as Secretary of State and refused to challenge his qualifications as a natural
born Citizen. This then is a case that would necessarily show her as a weak
candidate and is not in the interest of the Democratic Party and DNC who are and
have been named as defendant(s).
For these reasons and more that could be mentioned in Oral argument, Appellant
seeks to recuse Justice Phillips and Justice Lucero in this matter and that the Court
find a fair panel for the Appellant with equal numbers and the current and potential
political field of Presidential Candidates in mind as Appellant has enumerated upon.
ARGUMENT IN CONSIDERATIONS OF QUESTION #2 & #3

In the one hundred and eight page decision handed out of the Court June 25 th
2014 a great care was extended to individual rights when it comes to marriage in
Kitchen v. Herbert No. 13-4178. The dissenting opinion stated page 20 We should
resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the
guise of constitutional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The courts opinion went to great lengths to interpret standing and the
responsibility the Court had to the Constitution in defending the rights of an
individual, over and above the popular norm of marriage held in esteem by the
majority of the population in the state of Utah in what the court called a recent
phenomenon per historical norms in the U.S. that same gender marriage
represented.
If the Civil Rights or principles for the individual are to be denied to the Appellant
here, the Court manifest a separate set of laws to itself in an arena that includes
more Americans demanding equality, and fair treatment under the law then that
case represented on either spectrum of the isle. That encompasses the entire
electorate and the elections of the voting populace of our Republic in total.
It is false in the opinion rendered in the Court that Appellant failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff asserted he has a Civil Right to a fair
election race under the qualifications of the Constitution per office. Those he asserts
are violated by Barack Obama/aka Barry Soetoro et. al,. in a diabolical massive
cover-up of his identity complete with fabrications, forgery, and fraud in identity
documents he has released. To assert that is incredible is definitely not an
exaggeration and its backed up by law enforcement personal. To state as the Court
did in the ORDER and JUDGEMENT that President Obama won the elections in 2008
and 2012 is not only to pay homage to deception, fraud, and forgery, but actually
condones the criminal circumstances and identity upon which he got more votes.
Winning an election would actually constitute a fair election took place among the
Candidates at least equally qualified under the circumstances the Constitution infers
and that must be adhered to. Minus the qualifications demanded we are left to state
the elections were usurped by a usurper with help from the cartel formed Appellant
has informed the Court of.

The relief demanded by the Claim is also very well articulated not only by
direct and personal harm to Appellants Campaign in the depravation of his Civil
Rights, but by Congresss articulation of statute requiring the Courts attention.
Thus, Appellants claims are merited and not frivolous or malicious because by
precedent case law Obama is not a natural born Citizen and could not possibly win
two presidential elections and at the same time be a usurper. To state Obama is a
natural born Citizen is a court conflict with the precedent case law Minor v.
Happersett as well as the Constitution Article II, Sect 1, Clause 5.
Appellants case is not frivolous as it addresses a violation of precedent this
Court is bound to uphold in the natural born Citizen qualification demand for the
Office of the President. Appellants claims for relief can further at least cover
damages asserted intentionally by the conspiring covert actions on
Defendants/Appellees combined in what youd have to call at least sneaky and
devious instead of compliant and it certainly offers no respect from the eight open
attempts to change the qualifications for the Office of the President in Congress that
failed as frivolous since 2003.
Defendants cannot enjoy immunity as Barack Hussein Obama is a usurper under
these circumstances and has no right to hold the office. The court should find itself
conflicted in addressing him as President Obama while Candidate Obamas
identification requires the Court to uphold fraud, and forgery in Barack Obamas
identity documentation, and two certifications signed by Nancy Pelosi the same day
to satisfy the law disingenuously, and assuming whatsoever that these things
happened before the usurper took the office. How could immunity possibly be
considered a reasonable assertion when the Office of the President was crooked or
usurped by someone ineligible and unqualified by the U.S.C. demands?
The Court cannot assume some kind of statute of limitations has withered
away the Claims by the Appellant. Although Appellant knows exactly what the
Courts steps into hearing this, it is no less and has been no less painful for him as
the only Presidential Candidate in the United States to stick to the qualifications of
the Office of the President regardless of political party. Should the court be ashamed
or worse yet frightened of upholding the Constitution? Appellant is not ashamed to

uphold it for the Justices and the rest of the American populace and he has risked
his life in doing such.
For these reasons and more which Appellant is willing to discuss if the Court shall
precede the Court should hear and find a conflict within itself in regard to
Individual Civil Rights of the Plaintiff and rulings recently made by the Court for
individuals estranged from the popular heterosexual norm.
Appellant has provided to the Court service upon the Appellees, however the Court
Panel has ruled that because the case is wholly incredible or as the District Court
put it, has little hope of success that it should be dismissed. How can justice prevail
if its not even given ear? How encouraging for crime to riddle the election process
of the United States because no one in the Judicial Branch wants to tangle with a
candidates identity fraud and forged long form birth certificate or listen to a
Candidate who has standing and was harmed?
How incredibly disheartening to the population! The Judicial Branch is afraid to
investigate crime in the elections as a check and balance, but sends its population
minorities to prison with no fear? How wonderful that the Judicial Branch as a check
and balance to the Legislative and Executive Branch has failed the Citizens of the
United States of America because it was such a BIG COVER-UP? I PRAY the Court will
hear this in Rehearing en blanc that the questions might be answered with courage.
Signed and Submitted this 4th Day of February, 2016
Cody Robert Judy/ Appellant pro se __________________________________.

Certificate of Service
I, Cody Robert Judy, do hereby affirm and certify that a true and correct copy
of the BRIEF IN SUPPORT and the NOTICE OF APPEAL has been mailed first
class postage prepaid to Defendants at the address upon which the
Defendants were served at :
7

[Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro et. al. Case No. 1:14-cv-93 TS @ 825 North
300 West Suite C400, Salt Lake City, Utah 84103]
This _3rd__ Day of February, 2015.
Judy_____________

__/s/Cody Robert
Cody Robert Judy /

Appellant/pro se