Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Judy v. Obama SCOTUS Motion & Order - Why did Mitt Romney become a Birther?

Judy v. Obama SCOTUS Motion & Order - Why did Mitt Romney become a Birther?

Ratings: (0)|Views: 528|Likes:
Published by Freedom&Liberty
Why did Mitt Romney become a Birther? Find out how a Mound-of-Mitt could effect the election in the logic before the U.S. Supreme Court submitted in the United States Supreme Court by Cody Robert Judy in Judy v. Obama
Why did Mitt Romney become a Birther? Find out how a Mound-of-Mitt could effect the election in the logic before the U.S. Supreme Court submitted in the United States Supreme Court by Cody Robert Judy in Judy v. Obama

More info:

Published by: Freedom&Liberty on Jul 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





CODY ROBERT JUDY3031 So. Ogden Ave.Suite #2Ogden UT. 84401801-497-6655____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________EXPARTE SUA SPONTE MOTION FORCODY ROBERT JUDY, WAIVER OF TIME RESTRAINT BYPetitioner, PETITIONER, AND SCHEDULE ORDERv. OF PROCEEDING BY THE COURTBARACK OBAMA et.al., Case No. ________________Respondent. Judge: ________________________________________________________________________________________________COMES NOW the Petitioner, CODY ROBERT JUDY, pro se, and respectfully submits thisEXPARTE SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR WAIVER OF TIME RESTRAINT BYPETITIONER, AND SCHEDULE ORDER OF PROCEEDING BY THE COURT and says:I, Cody Robert Judy, do hereby waive any time restraint assumed by the Court for immediate andaffective adjudication of this proceeding and state the following extraordinary circumstances dueto the Democratic National Convention being held Sept. 5
, 2012 the following facts andargument, and have proposed with accompanying and attached ORDER, that a fairrepresentation of both sides can be assumed with the remaining time.
Petitioner has made every effort possible to obtain the judgment of the Court with the submissionof a Petition for
Writ of Certiorari that was presented to the Clerk’s Office around April 4
,2012 with an appeal from the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, ( also included as part of this current Petition for Writ of Certiorari), and even attempted an Original Jurisdiction pleadingbut was denied a case number by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.Petitioner was denied access to the Court and denied a case number upon his submission andsome six other re-submissions. (See the Court record of expenses for mailings to the petitionerfor the record.) Petitioner also argued with the Clerk that due to the timing of the elections alower Court might constitute the Court of last resort before entering the U.S. Supreme Court dueto election timing as is also included now in the Jurisdiction Statement on the Writ of Certiorari.See:
Cox Broadcasting Corp v. Cohn,420
U.S. 469 (1975)
State court decisions that do not end acase but nonetheless are effectively definitive with respect to the federal issue may qualify as final.
Petitioner argues that his case should have been heard, and could have been heard in thelast session of the Supreme Court and that due to a Court caused deflection of his submission haseffectively been extremely burdened with the necessity of timing because of the Court Clerksassertion that the New Hampshire Supreme Court was not a qualifying court for review, Rule 11
didn’t apply and should not be included as part of a jurisdiction statement, and original
 jurisdiction was reserved for States.Petition was further burdened finally exhausted to attempt, with lighting speed, getting aGeorgia Supreme Court decision which he did and resubmitted a Writ of Certiorari received by
the Court Clerk’s office June 28
,2012. Again, it was returned to Petitioner with the same
excuses used to return the April 4
,2012 Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Petitioner re-submittedand with big BLACK MARKERS AND HIGHLIGHTERS pointed out the Georgia SupremeCourt Case number. It was again sent back to Petitioner stating that the lower court decisionsneeded to be included in the Appendix, which petitioner had typed out in the Appendix already
 just the same way as other Petitions for Writ of Certiorari’s are printed out , but went ahead and
resubmitted inserting after the typed version the stamped copies and also re-served the revisedPetition to respondents again.
The point is Petitioner is not negligent in the pursuit of the Court’s Jurisdiction and for all
the reasons the Clerks sent back the petition, has either been severely discriminated against as a
 pro se litigant, or, the Clerk’s office has been effectively used as a stalling tactic, working as an
aid to the Respondent, in the understanding the delay Petitioner just outlined contributes to thedenial of justice in a timely proceeding before the Democratic National Convention Sept.5
,2012.With the Democratic National Convention scheduled for Sept 5
2012, of whichPetitioner and Respondent are scheduled to compete for the nomination of said parties delegatesfor the Office of President, the following is herein proposed and so ordered that a decision fromthe Court can be managed by the date of August 22
,2012, or in the event that the Supreme
Court cannot convene that an appropriate delegation of the Court’s choice i
n the Court of Appeals can convene to hear the case.The extraordinary circumstances or reason(s) for this are in consideration of attendingdelegates to the Convention can , so at the very least they can manage selection of a qualified

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->