Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Judy v. Obama

Judy v. Obama

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,017 |Likes:
Published by Freedom&Liberty
Motion of Joinder and Amendment to Civil Action of Presidential Candidate in 2008 Election for Reconsideration
Motion of Joinder and Amendment to Civil Action of Presidential Candidate in 2008 Election for Reconsideration

More info:

Published by: Freedom&Liberty on Nov 09, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Cody Robert JudyPro Se1318 North 1500 WestFarr West, Utah 84404(801) 497-6655codyjudy@hotmail.comwww.codyjudy.us  _____________________________________________________________________________________ 
411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053, Santa Anna, California 92701-4516PAMELA BARNETT )Et.al., (CODY ROBERT JUDY) ))Plaintiff, ) MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER ) AND AMENDMENT TO THE) CIVIL RIGHTS / FEDERALV. ) ELECTIONS COMPLAINT) (42 U.S.C.19
83 or 
. 8:09-cv-82
Defendant ) Judge: HONORABLE DAVID O.CARTER  ____________________________________________________________________________________ 
The Plaintiff, appearing Pro Se, humbly submits this Motion for Permissive Joiner andAmendment To This Civil Action By Additional Candidate In Presidential Election 2008 for consideration with Motion to Reconsider from Orly Taitz.
Finding first Defendant(s) Barrack Hussein Obama as constitutionally ineligible to run for president, or Officiate as President of the UnitedStates. Finding second, Co-Defendants as party to that knowledge collaborating under the umbrella of election fraud in knowingly placing an unqualified candidate on the ballot that infringed upon Plaintiff the Natural Born Citizen requirement (NBC) clause of the Constitution. While it may rest in the Congress to pass a bill of vetting under process of the 25
Amendment as a forum by which if the Presidentis found to be incapacitated for some reason he could be removed, and a judgment against himon the NBC qualification might establish the need for a such a procedure, this case remainssimply a test of constitutional qualification between contestants in the election of 2008, as torights of equality set by a standard qualification of Constitutional mandate. While removing asitting President may be a province of Congress, the election is a province of the people, andCongress in fact originates as electorate of the people. It follows a complaint might originatefrom The People (herein as Plaintiff) for Congress to act upon. Nixon was addressed by areporter and then by Congress. As declared Winners of the race, they are found responsiblyowing the Plaintiff, contracted by the presumed alteration or presumed altercation if you will, of the substantive standard framed under Guideline of the U.S. Constitution: Mandating thequalification U.S.C Art.II Sect. 1:“No person except a
Natural Born Citizen
, or a Citizen of theUnited States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”; that Barack Hussein Obama as a candidate, and now the de
if not
de jure
President since January 21st, 2009, in portrait of winning the election, meets the criteria for theinjurious claim of the Plaintiff that he has suffered from the Defendant posing a legitimate directinjury calculable to the Plaintiff, which he claims now in Campaign expenses, election racecontestant qualification fairness, constitutional law inalienable to his Rights as a natural born
citizen of the United States and candidate of the 2008 Presidential Elections, upholding theConstitution of the Republic for which the Plaintiff is Taking a Stand.
 ____________________________________ PARTIESJURISDICTION PROPER FEDERAL CIVIL ACTION ______________________________ 1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C.§1343 (civil rights), 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) § 241 § 242, and Civil Rights Act 1861,42 U.S.C.§§1983,1985 (3) ,1988 (civil rights action Plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief).Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202 as well as 1988(a) §1332 (2) (1)U.S. Constitution Venue is proper and Election Statutes pertaining to U.S. Federal Law overseenin U.S. District Court, FRCP Rule 20
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (
 No. 20 addresses permissive joinder. Permissive joinder allows multiple plaintiffs to join in an action if each of their claims arise from the sametransaction or occurrence, and if there is a common question of law or fact relating to all plaintiffs' claims.Permissive joinder is also appropriate to join multiple defendants, as long as the same considerations as for joiningmultiple plaintiffs are met):(
FRCP 15a. There is a discretionary period during which original pleadings may beamended, that is as a matter of course at the beginning of trial, and later with the discretion of the opposing party or  judge. Rules 18 and 20 delineate who can be joined. However, if not pleaded originally, parties can be brought inonly by way of amendment. Rule 15 describes the process for amending a claim. Under the concept of compulsory joinder, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 mandates that some parties be joined. Parties that must be joined arethose necessary and indispensable to the litigation
2-Plaintiff: Cody Robert Judy- Resident of Utah 1318 North 1500 West, Farr West, Utah 844043-Defendant: Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro - Resident 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.Washington DCa-
Second Defendant- Democrat National Committee et.al.,(1-5 named as they are in respective residences and as citizens)Mailing Address: Democrat Headquarters(Offices insert 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 UTAH is a part, and inand as such has authority in the Federal Court Division of UTAH, to consider andinterpret the U.S. Constitution, as a Judicial Function of the U.S. Government.

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Freedom&Liberty liked this
Freedom&Liberty liked this
Freedom&Liberty liked this
Freedom&Liberty liked this
Freedom&Liberty liked this
Freedom&Liberty liked this
7Sistx liked this

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)//-->