(42 U.S.C.ss1983 or ss1985
   U.S. Constitution Art.II Sect.1 )

    Civil No. 2:08-cv-01162-KJD-RJJ

            Docket of Filings

1-Filed in the U.S. Court District of Nevada Sept 3, 2008
Served upon John McCain Sept3,2008
Served upon RNC Rep Sept3,2008
2-Return of Service Filed Sept 3,2008
3-Plaintiff -Motion to Re-Open Exhibits of Evidence Declaration of Candidacy from Utah & Court Receipt of improper address mailed to Plaintiff. filed Sept 23,2008.
4-Plaintiff Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Summary Judgement)Sept 24th,2008.
5-Defendant -Reply to Re-Open filed Oct 2nd,2008-no objection- strategy 12th and 20th Amendment Reno Esq. Rew R. Goodenow.
6-Plaintiff-Notice to Submit on Motion for Declaratory Judgement summary judgment. Oct 3rd,2008.
7-Notice to submit for a Decision on Motion to Re-Open filed by Plaintiff Oct. 6th,2008
8-Motion of Defendant Default on Motion for Declaratory (summary)Judgement. filed Oct.20th,2008
9-Order of Civil Judgement of Defendant Default. filed by Plaintiff Oct.20th,2008.
10-Oct 27th Notice to Submit for a Decision on the Motion of Defendant Default filed by Plaintiff
11-Nov 3rd,2008 EMERGENCY Exhibit of Evidence & Notice to Submit for a Decision (ex-parte sua sponte) on all 3 pending Motions for Civil Order Judgement
Back To News

           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- 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,
   (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.
a- This 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.

        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 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:
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

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 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


 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.
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.
  1. )
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.
a- As 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.
b- In 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.”

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

 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.


H.J.Res. 88
JULY 24, 2000
Serial No. 108
 Excerpt 1
''. . . 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 native-born 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
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 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
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 :
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 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
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."
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." 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.
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 high-stakes confrontations, especially against Republican conservatives who regard his occasionally moderate stances as proof that he has sold them out.
"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 up-close."
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 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."
Episodes such as the Johnson and Leiby incidents, along with McCain's oft-chronicled 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-on-message 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 "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
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
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.

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.

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.

 The defendant(s) actions have injured the Plaintiff, Cody Robert Judy, in two ways
1- As 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.

2- As 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.

1- No 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
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
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.
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-to-state" 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:

 Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

     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.

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.

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.
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.

 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)

See Here: